What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (11 Viewers)

Clayton Gray said:
I'm serious. 
Click to expand...
Serious response: does that mean attention will be paid to folks on their 12th alias who's primary or only goal is to agitate?

While we "should" look the other way, at times we are human and after someone continually tries to troll and get a reaction above all else, as if getting someone riled up and banned is their goal, admittedly some of us get weak and lash out.

Granted, I've been better at this than I've been in the past, but won't pretend to be an angel, either.  That said, if folks are held to engaging in legitimate discussion, and not allowed to inflame as their sole purpose, it would go a long way to making this an even better board, and having you all not be constantly bombarded with crap from stupid i-squabbles that upset some folks sensibilities. 

 
Koya said:
Serious response: does that mean attention will be paid to folks on their 12th alias who's primary or only goal is to agitate?

While we "should" look the other way, at times we are human and after someone continually tries to troll and get a reaction above all else, as if getting someone riled up and banned is their goal, admittedly some of us get weak and lash out.

Granted, I've been better at this than I've been in the past, but won't pretend to be an angel, either.  That said, if folks are held to engaging in legitimate discussion, and not allowed to inflame as their sole purpose, it would go a long way to making this an even better board, and having you all not be constantly bombarded with crap from stupid i-squabbles that upset some folks sensibilities. 
Click to expand...
We are going to do our best to get rid of trolls. 

 
jamny said:
Hopefully derogatory names given to the President will also be frowned upon in this new world order.
Click to expand...
Don't think this should be the case.  If we are making fun of national figures, that's way different than calling someone out one on one here. 

i.e. The President is an idiot - and he is, but regardless, that should not be language that is eliminated from our use, it's too restrictive and overbearing.

Saying YOU are an idiot (you aren't, some are - but even so I can see why it's not exactly excellent to point that out so bluntly) is another story. 

 
Koya said:
Don't think this should be the case.  If we are making fun of national figures, that's way different than calling someone out one on one here. 

i.e. The President is an idiot - and he is, but regardless, that should not be language that is eliminated from our use, it's too restrictive and overbearing.

Saying YOU are an idiot (you aren't, some are - but even so I can see why it's not exactly excellent to point that out so bluntly) is another story. 
Click to expand...
Insulting terms should not be used in any capacity.

:reported:

 
National Review has had a series of articles just destroying the Trump Administration, Don Jr, and any conservative so foolish as to defend him. Here is the latest:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449406/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-campaign-explanation-naive-dangerous

As an initial matter, it’s amazing that anyone on the right or left is taking any talking points from the Trump administration at face value. After months of deception and misdirection, why should anyone believe the Trump administration’s account of the meeting? Why should anyone believe that this is the last shoe to drop or the only shoe to drop demonstrating an effort to collude with Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election? And yet conservatives are rallying across the Internet, ignoring all previous false statements, and essentially saying, “Now we know the truth, and the truth is that nothing happened.” This isn’t analysis; it’s wishful thinking.
 

 
More:

Don Jr. was wrong to take that meeting, full stop. It is a real scandal that he did so, period. No amount of comparison to other misconduct by anybody else mitigates that, no amount of amateurism on his part excuses it (if anything, this illustrates the problem with having a presidential campaign full of people of low character and no political experience). Conservatives defending Don Jr., or Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner (both of whom were told about the meeting and forwarded the email chain at the time) should be embarrassed.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449408/donald-trump-jr-didnt-commit-treason

 
timschochet said:
More:

Don Jr. was wrong to take that meeting, full stop. It is a real scandal that he did so, period. No amount of comparison to other misconduct by anybody else mitigates that, no amount of amateurism on his part excuses it (if anything, this illustrates the problem with having a presidential campaign full of people of low character and no political experience). Conservatives defending Don Jr., or Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner (both of whom were told about the meeting and forwarded the email chain at the time) should be embarrassed.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449408/donald-trump-jr-didnt-commit-treason
Click to expand...
As we've seen, American Conservatism has evolved to a place where it appears to be neither.

 
timschochet said:
More:

Don Jr. was wrong to take that meeting, full stop. It is a real scandal that he did so, period. No amount of comparison to other misconduct by anybody else mitigates that, no amount of amateurism on his part excuses it (if anything, this illustrates the problem with having a presidential campaign full of people of low character and no political experience). Conservatives defending Don Jr., or Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner (both of whom were told about the meeting and forwarded the email chain at the time) should be embarrassed.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449408/donald-trump-jr-didnt-commit-treason
Click to expand...
Very good comments.

 
So is it treason to exchange information and assistance from a foreign adversary to win an election, for easing of sanctions imposed on said foreign adversary?

Real question to the lawyerly folks in here, or anyone who stayed at a holiday inn.

 
Ren Ho3k said:
I think there's much bigger fish to fry than to persecute Trump Jr (and Kushner/Manafort if applicable) for "being willing" to receive political dirt from a foreign government.  Jr should have disclosed it to the FBI.  The Trumps have been presented with a legal minefield and they are stepping all over it.  But I don't view it much differently from any other political operative going to a source to raise political scandal on their opponents.  

It's like when the FBI entraps people in terrorism stings.  Sure, they may have committed a crime by definition, but I don't like the idea of crimes being manufactured by entrapment.

This is a total aside here, but I want to bring it up.  I'm not someone that defers to something technically being a crime in the legal framework as an automatic indication of guilt.  Jaywalking is a crime.  Speeding is a crime.  Smoking marijuana is a crime here, but legal elsewhere.  In the 1850's it was a crime not to return fugitive slaves to their owners.  Clearly whether or not something is a crime is not a very good barometer for morality.  

As far as meeting foreign states to gain political capital on an opponent, ehh I can definitely see how it looks bad but that's the nature of politics.  
Click to expand...
This appears to be an attempt at normalizing something that is categorically illegal and for a good reason. The people of this nation have a right to know that their candidates are not personally beholden to a foreign state and will act in the nation's interest instead of their own. Junior has already crossed the line by indicating that he was willing to accept Russian help with the campaign. If it's discovered that the Trump team has also promised consideration to the Russians in return for their help, it's pretty much lights out for this administration. We're not going to normalize this.

 
I'd like to believe that National Review represents a sea change in conservative thinking since yesterday, but sadly I know it does not. They are a lone voice on an island, in a sea filled with Rush, Hannity, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, and so many others.

The comments to the articles I posted are filled with angry disagreements from conservative readers, accusations of betrayal, etc.

 
timschochet said:
I'd like to believe that National Review represents a sea change in conservative thinking since yesterday, but sadly I know it does not. They are a lone voice on an island, in a sea filled with Rush, Hannity, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, and so many others.

The comments to the articles I posted are filled with angry disagreements from conservative readers, accusations of betrayal, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't read National Review often. But my brother does. He also self-identifies as a small-l libertarian, though he is far more conservative and more Republican than I am. He is and was a never-Trumper. 

From the stuff he has been forwarding me from National Review Online over the past 18 months, I don't think this represents a sea change at all. There has been a lot of anti-Trump stuff coming out of NR over that span.

I don't see what he doesn't send me though, so perhaps the balance has shifted some. But again, not a sea change.

 
So who is releasing all these Trump Russia 2013 tapes today?  

BTW interesting theory floating around Twitter is one of Agalrov's are Source D in the Steele dossier...Source D is the one that alleges there is a pee tape.

 
timschochet said:
I'd like to believe that National Review represents a sea change in conservative thinking since yesterday, but sadly I know it does not. They are a lone voice on an island, in a sea filled with Rush, Hannity, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, and so many others.

The comments to the articles I posted are filled with angry disagreements from conservative readers, accusations of betrayal, etc.
Click to expand...
If the tide of the revelations keep going in the same direction, folks will be able to look back on what national review has said and done and actually understand that they were right.

Not all of them, as many are irredeemable (some would say deplorable).  But many are just deep drinkers of the Trump koolaid, parched after years of Obama.  As they get rehabilitated, hopefully, they'll see that there are conservative voices out there that while still wrong about stuff, they're not criminally/morally wrong.

 
adonis said:
So is it treason to exchange information and assistance from a foreign adversary to win an election, for easing of sanctions imposed on said foreign adversary?

Real question to the lawyerly folks in here, or anyone who stayed at a holiday inn.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer, but I suspect there are two problems with this charge, if it ever was attempted at anything other than rhetorical:

1. We're not at war with Russia. We've never been formally at war with Russia, though during the Cold War we did execute the Rosenbergs for treason (and some scholars still argue that this was wrong since the Soviet Union was never a formal enemy of the United States.) But it's even more confusing today.

2. I think it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that the woman that Don Jr. met with was a member of the Russian government. If she denies it, how would you go about proving such a thing without the cooperation of Russia?

 
Bucky86 said:
Are we allowed to call the Cheeto face names?
Click to expand...
No.

Speaking/writing shouldn't be overly difficult. If you're referring to a person, use that person's name the first time you refer to them. In subsequent mentions, it's acceptable to use the pronoun he or she. 

 
timschochet said:
Not a lawyer, but I suspect there are two problems with this charge, if it ever was attempted at anything other than rhetorical:

1. We're not at war with Russia. We've never been formally at war with Russia, though during the Cold War we did execute the Rosenbergs for treason (and some scholars still argue that this was wrong since the Soviet Union was never a formal enemy of the United States.) But it's even more confusing today.

2. I think it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that the woman that Don Jr. met with was a member of the Russian government. If she denies it, how would you go about proving such a thing without the cooperation of Russia?
Click to expand...
I'm less referring to the specific email that Trump Jr. posted yesterday (has it only been 24 hours?) and more for a yardstick to measure what's sure to be future disclosures of bad action.

 
Clayton Gray said:
No.

Speaking/writing shouldn't be overly difficult. If you're referring to a person, use that person's name the first time you refer to them. In subsequent mentions, it's acceptable to use the pronoun he or she. 
Click to expand...
Should we need to refer to human genitalia, should we also use the proper names for those anatomical features, or will terms like penis, ###### and ###### continue to be blocked?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
RedmondLonghorn said:
Should we need to refer to human genitalia, should we also use the proper names for those anatomical features, or will terms like penis, ###### and ###### continue to be blocked?
Click to expand...
Dude, we finally got a politics forum.  Let's enjoy it for a day or so before harassing the mods. 
Click to expand...
Worthwhile to ask about the rules of the road IMO

 
We can call Huckabee-Sanders names though right?  I feel like if she can call a reporter asking a serious question, dummy, she's fair game. 

Reporter: How can Trump say for sure that there was no Russian collusion with anyone in his campaign
SHS: Mr Trump is aware of everything that goes on in his campaign and knows nothing happened.
Reporter: So he was aware of this meeting Trump Jr/Manafort/Kushner had?
SHS: No he was not.
Reporter: So then he's not aware of everything that goes on with members of his campaign?
SHS: Ugh I already covered this, of course he is aware of everything that goes on.
Reporter: So then he knew about this meeting?
SHS: No dummy how many times do I have to say it!

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top