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 Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last! (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, the same people who called for him to disavow a different group.  Its inescapably true. 
I’m not clear what you mean by “disavow.” I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the President to state that he does not agree with the beliefs of a particular group, or does not support their actions.  This applies to both radical Democrats and radical Republicans (or anyone else for that matter). But I don’t think the President should call them horrible people, as he has done with certain Democrats, or human scum, as he has done with certain Republicans. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not clear what you mean by “disavow.” I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the President to state that he does not agree with the beliefs of a particular group, or does not support their actions.  This applies to both radical Democrats and radical Republicans. But I don’t think the President should call them horrible, as he has done with certain Democrats, or human scum, as he has done with certain Republicans. 
:lmao: . That's not the definition of disavow. 

 
Disavow does not mean insult or name call. 
 

dis·a·vow

/ˌdisəˈvou/

verb

deny any responsibility or support for.


to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate.  >  name calling

Strange, strange world when someone wants to argue that calling someone names is worse than disavowing them.

I've called family members many names at different tough points, but, I'd never disavow them. See how that works?  

 
to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate.  >  name calling

Strange, strange world when someone wants to argue that calling someone names is worse than disavowing them.

I've called family members many names at different tough points, but, I'd never disavow them. See how that works?  
Yes. I have no problem with the President disclaiming knowledge of, connection with or responsibility for the actions or beliefs of certain Americans (be they Democrats or Republicans).  I do not believe he should call them horrible people or human scum. 

Similarly, I have no problem with the President repudiating or disowning (see below definitions) certain Americans because of their actions or beliefs (be they Democrats or Republicans).  I do not believe he should call them horrible people or human scum. 

re·pu·di·ate

/rəˈpyo͞odēˌāt/

verb

refuse to accept or be associated with.

dis·own

/disˈōn/

verb

refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with.

In any event, I’m merely expressing my thoughts on appropriate Presidential behavior. It appears you disagree and that’s totally cool.

 
Yes. I have no problem with the President disclaiming knowledge of, connection with or responsibility for the actions or beliefs of certain Americans (be they Democrats or Republicans).  I do not believe he should call them horrible people or human scum. 

Similarly, I have no problem with the President repudiating or disowning (see below definitions) certain Americans because of their actions or beliefs (be they Democrats or Republicans).  I do not believe he should call them horrible people or human scum. 

re·pu·di·ate

/rəˈpyo͞odēˌāt/

verb

refuse to accept or be associated with.

dis·own

/disˈōn/

verb

refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with.

In any event, I’m merely expressing my thoughts on appropriate Presidential behavior. It appears you disagree and that’s totally cool.
Yeah I got it. You're ok with the President disowning certain groups of American citizens as long as he doesnt call them any names. Sticks and stones. What a strange world.  

 
Yeah I got it. You're ok with the President disowning certain groups of American citizens as long as he doesnt call them any names. Sticks and stones. What a strange world.  
Yes, as I said above, it depends on what you mean by “disavow.”  If you mean disavow as in “deny any responsibility or support for” (or refuse to accept or be associated with or to maintain a connection with), I would indeed prefer that our President do that instead of calling them horrible people or human scum. It’s not strange at all. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Simply pointing out hypocrisy.  
Doesn’t it bore you though? 

I’m not going to argue whether this is a good example of hypocrisy or not. Let’s assume it is. My first and last thought is: who cares? 

So much political discussion here and elsewhere is devoted to exposing hypocrisy, and it’s so boring. Both sides do it, both sides accuse each other of it all the time, and they’re usually right. How about we stipulate right now that when I criticize a conservative for bad behavior I am unlikely to criticize a liberal for similar bad behavior? And vice versa. Let’s just admit to all being hypocrites with double standards and move on to discussing issues. How about it? 

 
Doesn’t it bore you though? 

I’m not going to argue whether this is a good example of hypocrisy or not. Let’s assume it is. My first and last thought is: who cares? 

So much political discussion here and elsewhere is devoted to exposing hypocrisy, and it’s so boring. Both sides do it, both sides accuse each other of it all the time, and they’re usually right. How about we stipulate right now that when I criticize a conservative for bad behavior I am unlikely to criticize a liberal for similar bad behavior? And vice versa. Let’s just admit to all being hypocrites with double standards and move on to discussing issues. How about it? 


I’m not offended by anything. Simply pointing out hypocrisy.  If the other side posted something like that they would have been suspended already. :shrug: It is what it is. 

My first post said everything I wanted to say about it, you guys keep trying to make it something different. Thats the clutter you’re referring to. 

 
Yes, as I said above, it depends on what you mean by “disavow.”  If you mean disavow as in “deny any responsibility or support for” (or refuse to accept or be associated with or to maintain a connection with), I would indeed prefer that our President do that instead of calling them horrible people or human scum. It’s not strange at all. 
You're picking pieces of the definition to fit your narrative because your original statement doesnt hold water when you turn it the other direction. It's a red herring really.  

 
You're picking pieces of the definition to fit your narrative because your original statement doesnt hold water when you turn it the other direction. It's a red herring really.  
Again, that’s precisely why I stated initially that I wasn’t clear on what you mean by disavow.

In any event, I’m not picking pieces of the definition to fit my narrative (whatever you think my narrative is).  I used the exact words of the definition that you yourself posted: “to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate”.  That was the definition you used. Here was my response:

I have no problem with the President disclaiming knowledge of, connection with or responsibility for the actions or beliefs of certain Americans (be they Democrats or Republicans).  I do not believe he should call them horrible people or human scum. 

Similarly, I have no problem with the President repudiating or disowning (see below definitions) certain Americans because of their actions or beliefs (be they Democrats or Republicans).  I do not believe he should call them horrible people or human scum. 

 

re·pu·di·ate

/rəˈpyo͞odēˌāt/

verb

refuse to accept or be associated with.

 

 

dis·own

/disˈōn/

verb

refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We interrupt this discussion to bring you a metaphor. 
 

A kettle of vultures has apparently taken over a customs and border patrol communication tower. Roughly 300 birds, who are... well, being rather difficult. Vultures are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

https://thehill.com/latino/477806-trump-border-patrol-radio-tower-taken-over-by-hundreds-of-vultures

”They will often defecate and vomit from their roost onto buildings below that house employees and equipment," the official said. "There are anecdotes about birds dropping prey from a height of three-hundred feet, creating a terrifying and dangerous situation for those concerned.”

 
Oh, and Karyn Turk (conservative pro-Trump and pro-Roger Stone commentator) was sentenced today or yesterday for stealing her mother’s Social Security checks instead of using them to pay for her mother’s end of life Alzheimer’s care at her nursing home. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and Karyn Turk (conservative pro-Trump and pro-Roger Stone commentator) was sentenced today for stealing her mother’s Social Security checks instead of using them to pay for her mother’s end of life Alzheimer’s care at her nursing home. 
One whole month.

Thanks lawyer culture.

 
We interrupt this discussion to bring you a metaphor. 
 

A kettle of vultures has apparently taken over a customs and border patrol communication tower. Roughly 300 birds, who are... well, being rather difficult. Vultures are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

https://thehill.com/latino/477806-trump-border-patrol-radio-tower-taken-over-by-hundreds-of-vultures

”They will often defecate and vomit from their roost onto buildings below that house employees and equipment," the official said. "There are anecdotes about birds dropping prey from a height of three-hundred feet, creating a terrifying and dangerous situation for those concerned.”
CBP should build some windmills

 
Oh, and Karyn Turk (conservative pro-Trump and pro-Roger Stone commentator) was sentenced today or yesterday for stealing her mother’s Social Security checks instead of using them to pay for her mother’s end of life Alzheimer’s care at her nursing home. 
I’m sure she’s a really good person despite that though. Likely friendly and nice when out in public.

 
One whole month.

Thanks lawyer culture.
Wow, she’s a piece of work. 

https://abc13.com/5838371/

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge in Florida ordered Mrs. Florida 2016 to spend a month in jail for stealing her mother's Social Security checks rather than using the money to pay for nursing home care.

U.S. Magistrate Bruce Reinhart also sentenced Karyn Turk on Thursday to five months of house arrest when she gets out of prison and to perform 100 hours of community service in a nursing home, the Palm Beach Post reported.

Turk, who lives in Highland Beach, must report to prison March 2.

She and her lawyers sought to convince the judge that she's suffered enough and didn't deserve prison or house arrest. Attorney David Tarras said that since Turk pleaded guilty in September to a misdemeanor charge of Social Security fraud, she's been harassed on social media.

In addition, Turk, who was named champion of the year by teen mentoring group Best Buddies in 2019, has lost her position on various philanthropic groups.

Turk is a conservative media commentator and her attorney told the judge her career is dead without the ability to hob-nob in the community, travel to interview celebrities for YouTube broadcasts and to host fundraisers.

"Her livelihood is based on networking and being a social media commentator," Tarras said.

She brought a check for $46,000 to court to reimburse the government, the attorney told the judge, adding that should be enough.

But Reinhart disagreed. He said that even though Turk had apparently led an otherwise law-abiding life, her crime was a serious one, and she couldn't "buy her way out of jail" by writing a check.

"Choices in life have consequences, I'm sorry to tell you," the judge said. "If you steal from the government, you're not going to have a reputation as an honest person."

The judge said that as a social media commentator with a large following, Turk is well-placed to send an important message to others.

"The message I'm sending is: You can't steal from the government and not go to jail."

The decision was welcomed by about six employees at the Finnish American Rest Home who cared for Turk's 83-year-old mother. She suffered from Alzheimer's and died in July.

"Resident exploitation is a serious crime and I'm glad he recognized that," Daniel Benson, executive director of the 45-bed home, told the newspaper.

Palm Beach County Sheriff's detective Vaughn Mitchell said Turk used the money from her mother's Social Security, Veteran's Administration and pension checks on shopping sprees, dinners and a nanny to watch her children rather than covering $219,000 in nursing home bills.

Some of the expenses could have been covered by Medicare if Turk had filled out the necessary paperwork. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrienne Rabinowitz said Turk refused despite constant requests.

The nursing home went to court to force her to pay. A Palm Beach County circuit court judge ordered Turk in August 2018 to pay $250 a month to defray the costs, but she didn't do it, Rabinowitz said.

Attorney Guy Fronstin, who also represents Turk, said they plan to appeal the decision and ask that Turk not be required to report to prison until the appeal is decided.

 
 
I bet the same people that defended the Deplorables comment are defending this too, right?
IIRC the main "defense" (which, to be fair, appeared to be espoused by a minority) was that Hillary was basically speaking the truth and that, yes, a significant portion of Trump's base is comprised of deplorable human beings. Personally, if we are analogizing the two situations, I find Hillary's to be a bit less offensive because, IIRC, it was arguably unintended for public eyes whereas Trump is just speaking it loudly. 

The latter sentence above notwithstanding, do you believe Trump's comments can be defended in a similar fashion? In other words, do you believe he's just simply speaking the truth?

 
Will we hear applause? A few laughing reactions, perhaps?

ETA: Some "he was only joking"s?
Trump’s just a counter puncher guys. If these radical democrats would just leave him alone he’d be able to act much more Presidential. So really it’s the Democrats fault. It’s the abusive husband defense... “look what you Made me do”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meanwhile at the White House, while honoring the LSU national championship team, Trump somehow manages to raise the issue of impeachment.

Daniel Dale‏ @ddale8 21m21 minutes ago

Honoring the LSU national championship football team, Trump falsely claims the USMCA and his preliminary China deal are the two biggest trade deals in history. Ignoring GATT/WTO rounds: the Trans-Pacific Partnership included all three USMCA countries and also nine others.

Trump describes LSU coach Ed Orgeron as follows: "He's all man. He's a big strong looking guy." He adds, "If I was casting a movie...that's my football coach. There's nobody in Hollywood that could play the role better than this guy."

Trump reads how Burrow "fought back tears" as he got the Heisman, then ad-libs, "I don't know, I don't think he's ever cried in his life, I don't believe -- did you actually fight back tears?" He looks at Burrow, who says he did. Trump says he also doesn't believe Orgeron cries.

Trump invites the LSU team into the Oval Office for photos. He says some good and some bad presidents have worked in there. He says the current president is good. "Even though they're trying to impeach the sonofa#####, can you believe it?" he says.

Trump, complaining about impeachment to the LSU football team, touts the economy and says, "We took out those terrorists like, like -- like your football team would've taken out those terrorists, right?"

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1218204558037540864

 
Meanwhile at the White House, while honoring the LSU national championship team, Trump somehow manages to raise the issue of impeachment.

Daniel Dale‏ @ddale8 21m21 minutes ago

Honoring the LSU national championship football team, Trump falsely claims the USMCA and his preliminary China deal are the two biggest trade deals in history. Ignoring GATT/WTO rounds: the Trans-Pacific Partnership included all three USMCA countries and also nine others.

Trump describes LSU coach Ed Orgeron as follows: "He's all man. He's a big strong looking guy." He adds, "If I was casting a movie...that's my football coach. There's nobody in Hollywood that could play the role better than this guy."

Trump reads how Burrow "fought back tears" as he got the Heisman, then ad-libs, "I don't know, I don't think he's ever cried in his life, I don't believe -- did you actually fight back tears?" He looks at Burrow, who says he did. Trump says he also doesn't believe Orgeron cries.

Trump invites the LSU team into the Oval Office for photos. He says some good and some bad presidents have worked in there. He says the current president is good. "Even though they're trying to impeach the sonofa#####, can you believe it?" he says.

Trump, complaining about impeachment to the LSU football team, touts the economy and says, "We took out those terrorists like, like -- like your football team would've taken out those terrorists, right?"

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1218204558037540864
Lordy what an embarrassment.  I kind of wish there weren't tapes of him to remind us years from now.  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top