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! (19 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you watch the speech, it's just not what was said.  If you just read the CNBC article...they leave it out.

There's a twitter video that's 1:23--at about 5 seconds in he mentions the virus.  He then talks about how the Dems are criticizing him for it and politicizing it.  He goes on to talk about Russia and other hoaxes.  He says "this is their new hoax."  Meaning how they're using the virus to take shots at him--not the virus itself.

But CNBC takes what's said at 5 seconds and what's said at 1:20 and leaves out everything in between.  But hey, no bias.  No "Fake news." 

 
If you watch the speech, it's just not what was said.  If you just read the CNBC article...they leave it out.

There's a twitter video that's 1:23--at about 5 seconds in he mentions the virus.  He then talks about how the Dems are criticizing him for it and politicizing it.  He goes on to talk about Russia and other hoaxes.  He says "this is their new hoax."  Meaning how they're using the virus to take shots at him--not the virus itself.

But CNBC takes what's said at 5 seconds and what's said at 1:20 and leaves out everything in between.  But hey, no bias.  No "Fake news." 
There are quotes in the articles. Are you suggesting they made up the quotes or edited them in some way?

 
There is video.  You can watch the entire speech for yourself.
I understand that. I intend to shortly here when I finish up something at work.  But you still didn't answer the question. Did they make the quotes up or alter them in some way?

 
I understand that. I intend to shortly here when I finish up something at work.  But you still didn't answer the question. Did they make the quotes up or alter them in some way?
At no point does Donald Trump say "The Coronavirus is a hoax." 

The headline of the CNBC article was "Trump calls Coronavirus a hoax."  I haven't read the article, but the headline itself is very misleading. 

 
At no point does Donald Trump say "The Coronavirus is a hoax." 

The headline of the CNBC article was "Trump calls Coronavirus a hoax."  I haven't read the article, but the headline itself is very misleading. 
The article says that Trump said, "this is their new hoax." Fixing the pronouns, it's "[the coronavirus] is [the democrats] new hoax." 

Are you saying they Trump did not say that line? 

 
The article says that Trump said, "this is their new hoax." Fixing the pronouns, it's "[the coronavirus] is [the democrats] new hoax." 

Are you saying they Trump did not say that line? 
Trump said "This is their new hoax."  After talking about the Russian "hoax."  He lays out a clear thought process of "they tried to get me this way.  They tried to get me that way.  "This is their new hoax."

"This" refers to their criticism of him NOT the Coronavirus. 

 
Trump said "This is their new hoax."  After talking about the Russian "hoax."  He lays out a clear thought process of "they tried to get me this way.  They tried to get me that way.  "This is their new hoax."

"This" refers to their criticism of him NOT the Coronavirus. 
Well, I agree that there is a slight difference in ways what he said can be reasonably interpreted. I'll watch the video. 

 
Zow said:

There are quotes in the articles. Are you suggesting they made up the quotes or edited them in some way?

When Trump says "this is their new hoax", it's pretty clear from the context he's not saying that the virus itself is a hoax; he's saying that the liberal talking point is a hoax. He is indoctrinating his supporters to disbelieve any narratives which claim that Trump's mismanagement contributed to the spread of the virus or the drop in the stock market.
 
If you watch the speech, it's just not what was said.  If you just read the CNBC article...they leave it out.

There's a twitter video that's 1:23--at about 5 seconds in he mentions the virus.  He then talks about how the Dems are criticizing him for it and politicizing it.  He goes on to talk about Russia and other hoaxes.  He says "this is their new hoax."  Meaning how they're using the virus to take shots at him--not the virus itself.

But CNBC takes what's said at 5 seconds and what's said at 1:20 and leaves out everything in between.  But hey, no bias.  No "Fake news." 
He's qualifying RussiaGate as an actual hoax that the Democrats used try to get him  Why wouldn't I think that he thinks the actual event(Coronavirus) in his line "this is their new hoax"  is on the same as RussiaGate, i.e. nothing more than a hoax.

 
Thunderlips said:

He's qualifying RussiaGate as an actual hoax that the Democrats used try to get him Why wouldn't I think that he thinks the actual event(Coronavirus) in his line "this is their new hoax" is on the same as RussiaGate, i.e. nothing more than a hoax.

When Trump says that the Mueller investigation was a hoax, he's not saying that the actual event didn't happen; he's saying that he did nothing wrong (and that Russia did nothing wrong).

When Trump says that the impeachment was a hoax, he's not saying that the phone call didn't happen; he's saying that he did nothing wrong.

Now he is attempting to create a similar narrative with the coronavirus. When he says "hoax!", he is essentially saying "The event may be real, but it's not my fault."

They're not the words of a lying conspiracy theorist, but rather the words of a cowardly buck-passer.
 
I think it’s likely Trump just likes to say “hoax” when something bad happens and all these nuanced arguments about what he REALLY meant are just folks hearing what they want to hear.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you watch the speech, it's just not what was said.  If you just read the CNBC article...they leave it out.

There's a twitter video that's 1:23--at about 5 seconds in he mentions the virus.  He then talks about how the Dems are criticizing him for it and politicizing it.  He goes on to talk about Russia and other hoaxes.  He says "this is their new hoax."  Meaning how they're using the virus to take shots at him--not the virus itself.

But CNBC takes what's said at 5 seconds and what's said at 1:20 and leaves out everything in between.  But hey, no bias.  No "Fake news." 
I watched the video.  The only way it changes anything is if you then give validity to the Russia & Ukraine investigations. 

I watch CNBC all the time and the VAST majority of anchors and guests are PRO TRUMP so it makes it sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

 
I watched the video.  The only way it changes anything is if you then give validity to the Russia & Ukraine investigations. 

I watch CNBC all the time and the VAST majority of anchors and guests are PRO TRUMP so it makes it sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't watch CNBC, couldn't tell you the first thing about their anchors.  Don't know if they're white, black, male, female, 25 or 95.  I sure as heck don't know if they're pro or anti Trump.  

I watched the video and it seemed most of his supportive points were about Dems "trying to get him."  If he was trying to minimize the virus, why were his talking points a bout the democrats and not...well...the virus?  

But we're not going to agree.  Moving on.

 
First off Your Father's America is languishing in many different ways.  

As left leaning poster - though probably not that respectable I'd be perfectly fine seeing Trump complete his four year term except (will get to).  With Trump in the White House I'd think that this opportunity to reshape the direction of the nation that the right saw on election day will be minimized.  You see that just about everyday with the comments from GOP leadership in the House and the Senate.   There may be some form of tax cuts but it seems like the ship has sailed on tax reform.  There will likely be some changes to the ACA but full blown repeal seems highly unlikely today.  The rest of the laundry list of policy goals all seem thwarted.  I don't mean they won't happen at all, but that the range and scope of changes are all scaled back with the distraction of the circus that is the administration.

If we need to suffer with full GOP control of the nation then Trump at the helm is about as best we can hope for when it comes to policy.   The government the institutions and bureaucracies the we love to hate would get us through these four years despite the best efforts of the political appointments to tear them down.  Obama left the nation in such "a mess" that we can cruise control the normal day to day.  While not ideal, it is far better than allowing the "wing nuts" actually implement too much change.

I could see how moderate, but right leaning guys might largely agree with this.  They would disagree with the characterization of these changes as being in the wrong direction, but I don't think they fall in the "blow it all up" camp either.  That their OK with using Trump. and  the Freedom Caucus and such to achieve their policy goals, but would never go so far as wanting Trump or the Freedom Caucus actually running things unconstrained.  They'd be fine with modest achievements that I wouldn't like over the next four years. I at least would hope that this would be true.  

Just one problem with all of this.  This is dependent that all of our adversaries around the globe along with Mother Nature wait these four years out.  That there is no crisis that would require a fully functional government response.  No coordinated terrorist attacks, no international crisis, no Wall Street shenanigans,  no major natural disasters.  On 9-11 as we sat around the TV with the jerry-rigged antenna there was this woman which for the couple of hours repeated "Where is my president?  Where is my president?" until Bush spoke early that afternoon.   

It is highly unlikely that we go through these four years without their being a time when we need "our president".  I certainly criticize Bush's handling of 9-11, of Katrina, of the economic meltdown but I wasn't wondering how Jared would fit these responses into his schedule.  I have to hope and pray that when the inevitable real crisis happens - whatever it might be that Trump and company will rise to the occasion (absent the tyrannical power grab) .  Hope and prayer is all we got though, as there nothing to give me the "warm and fuzzies" that Trump and "all the best" men he has surrounded himself with have it in them.  

Take away the threat that there would be such a crisis and four years of Trump is just an embarrassment we need to endure.  Not too much bad will be accomplished.  Just a necessary evil.  And since I fear that all of the impeachment/resigning talk is wishful thinking at this point - especially with this Congress it is likely the future we have.  Such a wonderful time and place we live in.
Just one little problem!  :(  

 
1. I heard Trump blame the market crash on reaction to democrat candidates.  He opened the door on politicizing this.  You don't get to blame democrats on Thursday and complain about politics on Friday.  I mean, i guess in normal times you don't.

2. We now live in a world where checks & balances, or even criticism, is now discarded as a 'hoax'.  SMH.

 
1. I heard Trump blame the market crash on reaction to democrat candidates.  He opened the door on politicizing this.  You don't get to blame democrats on Thursday and complain about politics on Friday.  I mean, i guess in normal times you don't.

2. We now live in a world where checks & balances, or even criticism, is now discarded as a 'hoax'.  SMH.
I heard multiple radio personalities doing this too.   Republicans are REALLY good about coordinating their message.

 
I heard multiple radio personalities doing this too.   Republicans are REALLY good about coordinating their message.
Democrats do the same and have been for much longer.  This predates the Clinton years with talking points being circulated via email groups among high-profile democrats and top MSM personalities.  One very notable instance was during the Bush-Gore election, dozens of politicians and commentators were all over the news  the very day when Cheney was announced as his running mate using the term gravitas suggesting that Bush had none.  It became a household word overnight.  The idea the it is a GOP thing is laughable.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure it is a good thing, but this ruling gives legitimacy to White House tactics of ignoring Congressional subpoenas.......I think the USSC will review the case.

....

President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena for his testimony.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s opinion overturned a lower court decision requiring McGahn’s testimony and told the judge presiding over the case to dismiss it outright. The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure it is a good thing, but this ruling gives legitimacy to White House tactics of ignoring Congressional subpoenas.......I think the USSC will review the case.

....

President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena for his testimony.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s opinion overturned a lower court decision requiring McGahn’s testimony and told the judge presiding over the case to dismiss it outright. The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses
Supreme Court should take it up. Will be interested to see how they come down on it. It’s the quintessential checks and balances argument, with the appellate court here arguing that it’s not the place of the judicial branch to get involved in disputes between the other two branches. 

Echoing arguments Justice Department attorneys had made in the case, Griffith warned that allowing the House to use the courts to enforce the subpoena against McGahn would lead to a flood of hard-to-resolve suits pitting congressional imperatives against executive branch interests.

“The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress’s lawyers to make the trip often,” wrote Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Griffith said opening the courts to that kind of litigation would also discourage lawmakers and the executive branch from the more traditional method of resolving such subpoena fights: negotiation. Congress has long used several tools — cutting off funding, holding up presidential nominees, even impeachment — to help persuade the executive branch.

“Adjudicating these disputes would displace this flexible system of negotiation, accommodation, and (sometimes) political retaliation with a zero-sum game decided by judicial diktat,” Griffith wrote.
 
Literally no one said that.
Sherrif Bart above:  "I heard multiple radio personalities doing this too.   Republicans are REALLY good about coordinating their message."

That clearly claims the Republicans really good at this which suggests the Democrats aren't.  There is very little difference.  Both sides distribute favorable talking points and repeats them.  

 
Supreme Court should take it up. Will be interested to see how they come down on it. It’s the quintessential checks and balances argument, with the appellate court here arguing that it’s not the place of the judicial branch to get involved in disputes between the other two branches. 
I agree they must.  This ruling although says they disagree with the absolute immunity does not set any guidelines which balances the rights of each branch.  If the White House wants to take the absolute immunity stance, this ruling does not prevent it. 

 
I agree they must.  This ruling although says they disagree with the absolute immunity does not set any guidelines which balances the rights of each branch.  If the White House wants to take the absolute immunity stance, this ruling does not prevent it. 
See that’s the tricky thing. By saying it’s not justiciable, Griffith especially gets to avoid slamming the WH on that claim. The WH has been slammed elsewhere on it and isn’t going to win on it, and if the DCC en banc or USSC gets past justiciability then it almost certainly will be at a higher level, which needs to happen.

 
Sherrif Bart above:  "I heard multiple radio personalities doing this too.   Republicans are REALLY good about coordinating their message."

That clearly claims the Republicans really good at this which suggests the Democrats aren't.  There is very little difference.  Both sides distribute favorable talking points and repeats them.  
You are making a different point with the bold.  The comment talks specifically to how good the Republicans are at doing this, and you seem to acknowledge it, but follow it up with the bold which seems irrelevant to the point.  

They aren't good at it....this should be obvious.  No one is saying the Dems don't attempt to do it, they absolutely do, but they aren't nearly as good at it as the GOP is.  This shouldn't even be a debate.

 
Sherrif Bart above:  "I heard multiple radio personalities doing this too.   Republicans are REALLY good about coordinating their message."

That clearly claims the Republicans really good at this which suggests the Democrats aren't.  There is very little difference.  Both sides distribute favorable talking points and repeats them.  
You are making a different point with the bold.  The comment talks specifically to how good the Republicans are at doing this, and you seem to acknowledge it, but follow it up with the bold which seems irrelevant to the point.  

They aren't good at it....this should be obvious.  No one is saying the Dems don't attempt to do it, they absolutely do, but they aren't nearly as good at it as the GOP is.  This shouldn't even be a debate.
Yes, thanks.  That's all I was trying  to say.  It's kind of like sex, everyone knows HOW to do it but everyone isn't good at it even though everyone thinks they are.

I'm not.

 
You are making a different point with the bold.  The comment talks specifically to how good the Republicans are at doing this, and you seem to acknowledge it, but follow it up with the bold which seems irrelevant to the point.  

They aren't good at it....this should be obvious.  No one is saying the Dems don't attempt to do it, they absolutely do, but they aren't nearly as good at it as the GOP is.  This shouldn't even be a debate.
But that is my point.  IMHO, the Democrats are as good or better.  Both sides effectively play to the confirmation biases of their audience.  The 24/7 beating of the anti-Trump drums has created an army of hatefilled leftists who repulse at just the sight of a MAGA hat. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
>>Trump also said Van Jones was on MSNBC when he made the comments in which he ungratefully failed to thank Trump for criminal justice reform. Jones, who is with CNN, thinks Trump might have confused him with John Legend, who did participate in an MSNBC town hall on justice reform.<<

Dale Cnn

 
But that is my point.  IMHO, the Democrats are as good or better.  Both sides effectively play to the confirmation biases of their audience.  The 24/7 beating of the anti-Trump drums has created an army of hatefilled leftists who repulse at just the sight of a MAGA hat. 
Eh fwiw Trump didn’t invent this, it’s a feature. His rhetoric not only radicalizes his own followers but the opposition's. Ultimately the populace is left with an impossible choice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena for his testimony.
I haven’t read the opinion, but I suspect the article quoted above misrepresents the holding. I suspect the court didn’t say that Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena. I suspect the court said something more like if Congress wants its subpoenas enforced, it should enforce them itself rather than relying on the courts to intervene.

If that’s what the court said, I’m not certain it’s wrong (although it’s a recipe for a constitutional crisis).

If, on the other hand, the court really said that McGahn and others in his position are free to defy congressional subpoenas, that seems kind of crazy.

 
Hoax, sham, witch hunt... they're all the same thing; simple buzzwords that folks can easily cling onto and repeat. Trump is a master at it. 

 
I haven’t read the opinion, but I suspect the article quoted above misrepresents the holding. I suspect the court didn’t say that Don McGahn can defy a congressional subpoena. I suspect the court said something more like if Congress wants its subpoenas enforced, it should enforce them itself rather than relying on the courts to intervene.

If that’s what the court said, I’m not certain it’s wrong (although it’s a recipe for a constitutional crisis).

If, on the other hand, the court really said that McGahn and others in his position are free to defy congressional subpoenas, that seems kind of crazy.
I haven't read the opinion, but it is pretty clearly the first of these. It is particularly interesting in light of the argument against impeachment that the House needs to go to the courts. 

 
But that is my point.  IMHO, the Democrats are as good or better.  Both sides effectively play to the confirmation biases of their audience.  The 24/7 beating of the anti-Trump drums has created an army of hatefilled leftists who repulse at just the sight of a MAGA hat. 
You're own confirmation bias is flapping in the breeze here. The dems aren't even good at TRYING to maintain a unified message. By nature, the party has more diverse priorities than the Republican party does. And you can rail all you want about the liberal MSM, but there is absolutely no equivalent to the dominance of right wing messaging via the talk radio medium.

Also aren't you consistently complaining about making broad generalizations,  yet here you are with a line like "army of hate filled leftists."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're own confirmation bias is flapping in the breeze here. The dems aren't even good at TRYING to maintain a unified message. By. Nature, the party has more diverse priorities than the Republican party does. And you can rail all you want about the liberal MSM, but there is absolutely no equivalent to the dominance of right wing messaging via the talk radio medium.

Also aren't you consistently complaining about making broad generalizations,  yet here you are with a line like "army of hate filled leftists."
This

Dems will literally sit this one whoever wins because they don't like this or that.  

They have no consistent messaging or consistent policies or consistent cohesive vision

 
This

Dems will literally sit this one whoever wins because they don't like this or that.  

They have no consistent messaging or consistent policies or consistent cohesive vision
Amen. One of many reasons I'm not a Democrat.  Their platform certainly fits me better than the Republicans, but the party itself is a ridiculous joke. If they had the unity and messaging the Reps do, the right would never hold a majority again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amen. One of many reasons I'm not a Democrat.  Their platform certainly fits me better than the Republicans, but the party itself is a ridiculous joke. If they had the unity and messaging the Reps do, the right would never hold a majority again.
the problem is they try to make everyone happy about every little issue instead of just picking three big issues like the republicans and coalescing around them

 
But that is my point.  IMHO, the Democrats are as good or better.  Both sides effectively play to the confirmation biases of their audience.  The 24/7 beating of the anti-Trump drums has created an army of hatefilled leftists who repulse at just the sight of a MAGA hat. 
I am watching a completely different Dem party than you then.  I understand that there are a lot of people who don't like Trump.  He's disgusting beyond reproach to a lot of us, but the Dems don't have to tell us.  He does daily.  What seems to be the irony here is the message you're providing here, the one about "hate filled leftists who are repulsed at just the sight of a MAGA hat" isn't a Dem message....it's a strong GOP message.  You're aware of that right?

If the Dems were good at this messaging stuff as you suggest, then this upcoming race would be a slam dunk for a flipping of the Senate and Presidency.  They can't get out of their own way.

 
You're own confirmation bias is flapping in the breeze here. The dems aren't even good at TRYING to maintain a unified message. By nature, the party has more diverse priorities than the Republican party does. And you can rail all you want about the liberal MSM, but there is absolutely no equivalent to the dominance of right wing messaging via the talk radio medium.

Also aren't you consistently complaining about making broad generalizations,  yet here you are with a line like "army of hate filled leftists."
First off, that is not a generalization.  I did not say the left is an army.  I said there is an army (ie. group) of hatefilled leftist.  

The right is not better at putting out their talking points, but you do have a point that the right has a less diverse coalition to focus on.  That would be an issue if political campaigns were positive.  But since campaigns are mostly negative, they can stay on a unified message by running on Trump sucks, Bush sucks, Reagan sucks.  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top