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! (17 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Biden wins, then Republicans will just pull out the playbook that they used in 1994 and 2009. They'll exclaim "Socialism!" and pretend to be interested in fiscal responsibility and family values again, and they'll start winning elections again.

Sure, some people (like lazyike) won't be fooled. But most Republicans will return to the flock. People have short memories.

 
If Biden wins, then Republicans will just pull out the playbook that they used in 1994 and 2009. They'll exclaim "Socialism!" and pretend to be interested in fiscal responsibility and family values again, and they'll start winning elections again.

Sure, some people (like lazyike) won't be fooled. But most Republicans will return to the flock. People have short memories.
Yep. Expect that the deficit becomes an existential threat to the country starting in 2021

 
As a former Republican I will not be voting for any Republican who enabled Donald J Trump. Period. Not in 2024, 2028 and so on.
I'm voting for the first time this year and I feel the same way. I don't think I could ever vote for anyone who supported Trump through all of this. The guy is just so clearly unfit and has zero interest in uniting the country, I wouldn't want someone who views his behavior and actions as acceptable leading the country again.

 
Oh, wow. Someone said the quiet part out loud.

:tinfoilhat:

How Trump Could Lose the Election - And Still Remain President | Opinion

Happy 4th you filthy animals!

There’s not much dispute IMO about the systemic voter suppression; that is merely corruption in plain view, albeit at amped up levels the past few years.

But the invoking of emergency powers to dispute the election is way out there. That’s flat crazy, it’s not like we live in 1933 Germany.

recap of the opinion piece below:

Trump has a plan to stay in the White House if he loses election, former senator says

Tim Wirth shares theory on how Trump can stay in White House after election loss

Graig Graziosi 4 hours ago

President Donald Trump is scheming to retain power in the event of an electoral loss in November, according to a former Senator from Colorado. 

Tim Wirth published an op-ed in Newsweek where he lays out his theory, apparently inspired in-part by HBO's adaptation of the Philip Roth novel The Plot Against America.

The former Democratic senator begins with an allegation that Mr Trump will attempt to retain power through voter suppression. Mr Wirth alleges there is a strategy to suppress voter turnout by purging voters - especially inner-city voters - from registration rolls and to suppress mail-in voting. He also believes physical polling locations will be limited, especially in urban areas, in an effort to create long lines on Election Day and discourage voting.

Mr Wirth's allegations that there has been an effort in Republican-led states to remove people from the voter-roll is accurate. 

According to data compiled by Mother Jones, between 2016 and 2018, more than 17 million names have been removed from the voter rolls. While names are removed from voter rolls every year due to deaths or citizens leaving the state, the number of voters removed from the rolls since 2016 has significantly increased.

Between 2016 and 2018, states on average removed 7.6 per cent of their voters from the rolls. However, the purge in some states went much further.

Indiana purged the greatest number of voters, removing 22.3 per cent of the state's voters from its rolls. Both Virginia and Wisconsin removed 14 per cent, and Maine, Oklahoma and Massachusetts removed between 11 and 12.1 per cent. 

Mr Wirth's theory about Mr Trump trying to retain power following the 2020 US election doesn't end at the ballot box, however. He believes that - should the president lose - he will claim the vote was rigged and rely on a complicated gambit involving emergency powers and the compliance of Republican legislators to stay in the White House.

According to Mr Wirth, should Mr Trump lose in a scenario where challenger Joe Biden beats him by "decent but not overwhelming" margins in the swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Mr Trump will declare that the vote was rigged. 

He will supposedly blame mail-in ballots and Chinese election interference for the loss and invoke emergency powers to launch a Justice Department investigation into alleged "election hacking" in the swing states.

From there, Mr Wirth claims Mr Trump will stall until 14 December, which is the date when states must appoint their US Electoral Collegeelectors. Because the swing states are each controlled by Republicans, Mr Wirth believes the state legislatures will refuse to certify their electors until the election hacking investigation is finished.

He then claims the Democrats will challenge the investigation and the challenge to the election, which will eventually be taken to the US Supreme Court. Mr Wirth believes the Supreme Court will rule against the Republicans, but will concede that Mr Trump's emergency powers authorise him to continue his investigation. The Supreme Court will also maintain that should the swing states not be able to certify their selectors by 14 December - for any reason - then the Electoral College will have to meet and vote for the president without the swing states included. 

Under Mr Wirth's theory, the Electoral College will then meet without the swing states under investigation, and neither candidate will receive enough votes to secure the presidency. According to Mr Wirth, the contested election would then move to the House of Representatives, where each delegation gets to cast one vote towards the presidency. 

Since there are more Republican controlled House delegations than Democratic controlled delegations - 26 Republican to 23 Democrats - the Republicans will be the victors of the vote and Mr Trump will remain in office. 

Mr Wirth claims the plot is not far-fetched, and points to Mr Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Actof 1807 to use the US military against demonstrators at the George Floyd protests, but notes later on that the "recent resistance of our military establishment is an encouraging sign and necessary component of the 'people's firewall'".
 
Oh, wow. Someone said the quiet part out loud.

:tinfoilhat:

How Trump Could Lose the Election - And Still Remain President | Opinion

Happy 4th you filthy animals!

There’s not much dispute IMO about the systemic voter suppression; that is merely corruption in plain view, albeit at amped up levels the past few years.

But the invoking of emergency powers to dispute the election is way out there. That’s flat crazy, it’s not like we live in 1933 Germany.

recap of the opinion piece below:

Trump has a plan to stay in the White House if he loses election, former senator says

Tim Wirth shares theory on how Trump can stay in White House after election loss

Graig Graziosi 4 hours ago

President Donald Trump is scheming to retain power in the event of an electoral loss in November, according to a former Senator from Colorado. 

Tim Wirth published an op-ed in Newsweek where he lays out his theory, apparently inspired in-part by HBO's adaptation of the Philip Roth novel The Plot Against America.

The former Democratic senator begins with an allegation that Mr Trump will attempt to retain power through voter suppression. Mr Wirth alleges there is a strategy to suppress voter turnout by purging voters - especially inner-city voters - from registration rolls and to suppress mail-in voting. He also believes physical polling locations will be limited, especially in urban areas, in an effort to create long lines on Election Day and discourage voting.

Mr Wirth's allegations that there has been an effort in Republican-led states to remove people from the voter-roll is accurate. 

According to data compiled by Mother Jones, between 2016 and 2018, more than 17 million names have been removed from the voter rolls. While names are removed from voter rolls every year due to deaths or citizens leaving the state, the number of voters removed from the rolls since 2016 has significantly increased.

Between 2016 and 2018, states on average removed 7.6 per cent of their voters from the rolls. However, the purge in some states went much further.

Indiana purged the greatest number of voters, removing 22.3 per cent of the state's voters from its rolls. Both Virginia and Wisconsin removed 14 per cent, and Maine, Oklahoma and Massachusetts removed between 11 and 12.1 per cent. 

Mr Wirth's theory about Mr Trump trying to retain power following the 2020 US election doesn't end at the ballot box, however. He believes that - should the president lose - he will claim the vote was rigged and rely on a complicated gambit involving emergency powers and the compliance of Republican legislators to stay in the White House.

According to Mr Wirth, should Mr Trump lose in a scenario where challenger Joe Biden beats him by "decent but not overwhelming" margins in the swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Mr Trump will declare that the vote was rigged. 

He will supposedly blame mail-in ballots and Chinese election interference for the loss and invoke emergency powers to launch a Justice Department investigation into alleged "election hacking" in the swing states.

From there, Mr Wirth claims Mr Trump will stall until 14 December, which is the date when states must appoint their US Electoral Collegeelectors. Because the swing states are each controlled by Republicans, Mr Wirth believes the state legislatures will refuse to certify their electors until the election hacking investigation is finished.

He then claims the Democrats will challenge the investigation and the challenge to the election, which will eventually be taken to the US Supreme Court. Mr Wirth believes the Supreme Court will rule against the Republicans, but will concede that Mr Trump's emergency powers authorise him to continue his investigation. The Supreme Court will also maintain that should the swing states not be able to certify their selectors by 14 December - for any reason - then the Electoral College will have to meet and vote for the president without the swing states included. 

Under Mr Wirth's theory, the Electoral College will then meet without the swing states under investigation, and neither candidate will receive enough votes to secure the presidency. According to Mr Wirth, the contested election would then move to the House of Representatives, where each delegation gets to cast one vote towards the presidency. 

Since there are more Republican controlled House delegations than Democratic controlled delegations - 26 Republican to 23 Democrats - the Republicans will be the victors of the vote and Mr Trump will remain in office. 

Mr Wirth claims the plot is not far-fetched, and points to Mr Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Actof 1807 to use the US military against demonstrators at the George Floyd protests, but notes later on that the "recent resistance of our military establishment is an encouraging sign and necessary component of the 'people's firewall'".
This is terrifying.  

 
And will definitely happen if he loses.  No doubt about it. 
And lead to riots that will make what we just saw seem extremely calm.

And maybe I'm naive, but I don't it happening.  Nor do I see the GOP going completely along with it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

On Monday, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that international students will not be allowed to stay in the country if they attend institutions, like Harvard, that are holding courses online this fall. Their choices are either to transfer to another institution that provides in-person or hybrid (both in-person and online) instruction—or to depart the country and risk not being able to return. Those students who fail to comply with this guidance may face deportation.

The order came down without notice—its cruelty surpassed only by its recklessness. It appears that it was designed purposefully to place pressure on colleges and universities to open their on-campus classrooms for in-person instruction this fall, without regard to concerns for the health and safety of students, instructors, and others. This comes at a time when the United States has been setting daily records for the number of new infections, with more than 300,000 new cases reported since July 1. Moreover, if an institution pursues in-person or hybrid instruction this fall and a serious outbreak of COVID-19 occurs, the institution would face strong pressure not to switch to online instruction, as Harvard and others necessarily did this past March, because to do so would immediately place its international students in jeopardy.

In making plans for the fall, Harvard, like many other institutions, has sought to balance addressing concerns for public health with preserving our academic mission of teaching and scholarship, and we have undertaken careful planning to address the unique circumstances of our community and to enable students to make educational progress safely. We have done so recognizing that the nation is in the grip of a pandemic that poses risks to the health of millions and that threatens to overwhelm our capacity to manage it. We believe that the ICE order is bad public policy, and we believe that it is illegal.

Within the last hour, we filed pleadings together with MIT in the US District Court in Boston seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the order. We will pursue this case vigorously so that our international students—and international students at institutions across the country—can continue their studies without the threat of deportation.

For many of our international students, studying in the United States and studying at Harvard is the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. These students are our students, and they enrich the learning environment for all. We fervently hope that, before long, the circumstances that necessitate online learning will pass. As a university with a profound commitment to residential education, we hope and intend to resume full in-person instruction as soon as it is safe and responsible to do so. But, until that time comes, we will not stand by to see our international students’ dreams extinguished by a deeply misguided order. We owe it to them to stand up and to fight—and we will.

Sincerely,

Larry

____________________

Lawrence S. Bacow

President

Harvard University
Link

 
yeah, like I said, maybe I'm naive.  something like would cross a line that I think more than just mitt Romney would be against though.
yeah, maybe.

but also, that we are even thinking "well yeah, maybe, i can see that happening i guess".

 
Quietly stockpiling a secret supply of execution drugs?

SPECIAL REPORT: How the Trump administration secured a secret supply of execution drugs

Justice Department finding loopholes around existing federal laws, again. Using compounding pharmacies, "which operate differently from large pharmaceutical companies — and with less oversight," to trick testing labs into testing lethal drugs that are earmarked for human executions. 

Again, the cruelty is the point.

 
The rats are beginning to jump ship.

'Republicans are really fed up': GOP increasingly splits with Trump as his polls drag

"There’s a real disagreement between the president and his party in this election,” said Alex Conant, a GOP strategist and former aide to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. "I think a lot of Republicans are really fed up with the president's divisive strategy. People are just throwing up their hands with some of the rhetoric that's coming out of the president. It's really unhelpful not just to his own re-election, but also to keeping the Senate." 
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the oldest GOP senator at age 86, said Monday he would avoid the convention "because of the virus situation," while Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Mitt Romney, R-Utah,  also cited coronavirus concerns as the reason they won't attend. 
A virus that is nothing to worry about and we should pack our children into schools.

"For a lot of these elected officials, it's a chance to go there for fundraising and press attention," he said. "And if a lot of media folks are not planning to go and a lot of donors choose not to go because in-person fundraising is a bit less prevalent, then there's not much incentive to show up." 
Again, nothing to worry about and they need "the enemy of the people" to advance their campaigns.

The administration's mounting controversies have pushed even Republicans who previously refused to break ranks with Trump to begin speaking out – most notably as it relates to the dramatic uptick in coronavirus cases in the U.S.

They have been vocal in their opposition to his refusal to wear a mask, pressuring the administration for increased testing and, most recently, some have criticized Trump for pulling out of the World Health Organization as the pandemic continues to ravage the country. 

"I disagree with the president’s decision," Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said after the president pulled the U.S. from WHO, noting that while mistakes of the WHO should be examined, "the time to do that is after the crisis has been dealt with, not in the middle of it. Withdrawing U.S. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials that are essential to the development of vaccines." 
I thought Trump has handled this perfectly.

Most recently, after Trump criticized NASCAR for banning the Confederate flag and called for Bubba Wallace, one of the sport's only Black drivers, to apologize after the FBI said a noose found in his garage wasn't targeting the driver, Graham, a fierce defender of the president, pushed back. "I don't think Bubba Wallace has anything to apologize for," Graham told Fox News Radio. "I've lived in South Carolina all my life and if you're in business, the Confederate flag is not a good way to grow your business."
You helped create this monster Lindsey.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wy., has made a habit of marking her differences with the president over his term, especially when it comes to foreign policy, and has continued to speak up throughout the latest controversies. After the president refused to wear a face mask in public, Cheney tweeted a photo of her father **** Cheney in a mask with the hashtag #realmenwearmasks.
Everybody knows **** Cheney is a far left liberal commie.

 
This was taken from twitter but is a fitting reply to your post....

Jack Goldsmith

@jacklgoldsmith

· 15h

Stone is Trump's 36th pardon/commutation, a record low number, by far, for the modern presidency. An unusually high number of these (31/36 by my count), like Stone's, were based on a personal or political connection. Both are forms of abuse of an undoubted presidential power.
Quoting from the MAGA thread.

My takeaway from this isn’t just that he’ll try and protect people who cover for him or commit crimes for him - we all figured that.  But it’s also just another example about how he doesn’t give a #### about anyone but himself and what benefits him.  He can’t even find some good causes or injustices to overturn because he just doesn’t give a damn. 

 
Hard to imagine any scenario other than they told him he would not be allowed entry to the hospital without one.
Maybe but we have reached a point where anything helps to convince people to wear them.  There’s plenty of times and reasons to hammer him but he got one right even if he had little choice.

 
Trump defends golfing

President Trump defended his golfing in a Sunday morning tweet, calling the activity his “exercise.”

The president argued that he knows “many in business and politics that work out endlessly” and said “nobody complains.”

“My ‘exercise’ is playing, almost never during the week, a quick round of golf,” the president said. “Obama played more and much longer rounds, no problem.”

“When I play, Fake News CNN, and others, park themselves anywhere they can to get a picture, then scream ‘President Trump is playing golf,’” he added. “Actually, I play VERY fast, get a lot of work done on the golf course, and also get a ‘tiny’ bit of exercise. Not bad!”

His tweet comes a day after Golf News Net reported that his Saturday visit to Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia was the 275th time he visited a golf club as president and the 273rd time he traveled to one of his golf clubs as president.

Trump played golf in Virginia after postponing his scheduled rally in New Hampshire, citing storms expected in the area from Tropical Storm Fay.

Trump criticized former President Obama for playing golf during his time in office, vowing during a December 2015 campaign rally to operate differently. Trump had said he might not see his properties if he was elected, explaining, “Because I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” CNN noted. 

Obama played 333 rounds of golf during his two-term presidency, according to Golf News Net. 

CNN, citing veteran CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, noted in late May that Trump had spent all or part of 248 days at a golf course while president. Obama, by comparison, had played 98 rounds of golf through the same point in his presidency.

Trump on Sunday returned to his golf resort in Sterling, Va., his 86th visit to the club while president, according to a reporter traveling with him.

 
His exercise? He takes a cart.  :lmao:  He gets about the same exercise eating his Big Macs.
I've stated this before here but I take zero issue with any president golfing once or even twice per week as a way to clear his or her head (exercise or not - it can still be a healthy activity). This is what I do myself so I totally get it. No issue as well with tax dollars being used to facilitate the outings as well. 

Issue with Trump doing it is again the blatant hypocrisy of it. 

 
I've stated this before here but I take zero issue with any president golfing once or even twice per week as a way to clear his or her head (exercise or not - it can still be a healthy activity). This is what I do myself so I totally get it. No issue as well with tax dollars being used to facilitate the outings as well. 

Issue with Trump doing it is again the blatant hypocrisy of it. 
Correct. And the volume. He's golfed roughly 1/4 days in office. 

The other issue being that he's done it at his properties so that increased cost plus the revenue generated for his businesses. 

 
I've stated this before here but I take zero issue with any president golfing once or even twice per week as a way to clear his or her head (exercise or not - it can still be a healthy activity). This is what I do myself so I totally get it. No issue as well with tax dollars being used to facilitate the outings as well. 

Issue with Trump doing it is again the blatant hypocrisy of it. 
It’s not that healthy of a sport when you just swing the club 40 to 50 times while driving a cart from tee to green and have a fore-caddie do all the other work for you. Raking bunkers, etc.  Come on man.

 
It’s not that healthy of a sport when you just swing the club 40 to 50 times while driving a cart from tee to green and have a fore-caddie do all the other work for you. Raking bunkers, etc.  Come on man.
It's healthy for one's mental health is what I mean. Any president should need to find ways to engage in activities that can, even if just for a couple of hours, focus on one meaningless activity to temporarily zone out the stressors of the job. 

Does Trump play golf in the laziest and most high maintenance way possible? Of course (did you really expect him to be hoofing iit with his own bag and not acting like he owns the place?). But I still think it's a decent activity for him to engage in and, again, only take issue with it because it's so blatantly hypocritical. 

 
gianmarco said:
Correct. And the volume. He's golfed roughly 1/4 days in office. 

The other issue being that he's done it at his properties so that increased cost plus the revenue generated for his businesses. 
Really I see those issues as being somewhat minor. As for volume, my understanding is that he's not playing full rounds and that, again, this is his primary source of "exercise." If that's the case I don't see it as a huge deal. 

For the location, yeah ideally he'd play at Camp David to keep costs down - and I would like to see him do it more often - but I get the desire to play the "nicer" courses so the location doesn't bother me a ton (ideally, he'd do this at select times where he takes like a three day weekend or whatever). 

 
Zow said:
It's healthy for one's mental health is what I mean. Any president should need to find ways to engage in activities that can, even if just for a couple of hours, focus on one meaningless activity to temporarily zone out the stressors of the job. 

Does Trump play golf in the laziest and most high maintenance way possible? Of course (did you really expect him to be hoofing iit with his own bag and not acting like he owns the place?). But I still think it's a decent activity for him to engage in and, again, only take issue with it because it's so blatantly hypocritical. 
I take issue with a bit how he plays the game too...own the place or not, driving up on the green and tee boxes is a #### move.

 
gianmarco said:
Correct. And the volume. He's golfed roughly 1/4 days in office. 

The other issue being that he's done it at his properties so that increased cost plus the revenue generated for his businesses. 
This is the issue I have. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top