Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
gussy

The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last!

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, jamny said:

 My point is that people on social media and even here on this board are claiming the money never got to the vets when it appears that it did. Whether it was because of prodding by other people or not, there is no reason to be claiming that now based on the Justice's comments.

Yes. Agreed. If people are saying that the money never eventually went to the vets they are wrong. I've also seen some noise about stealing from a children's cancer charity, which I don't think is 100% correct either on its face. Also, I think the most recent settlement has not included the ban on the Trumps running charities in NY - that was an original request by the DA, but it doesn't look like it was part of the final settlement.

The truth is bad enough without exaggerating things. 

Here is a snopes page I found that goes through the allegations being passed around the last few days:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jamny said:

 My point is that people on social media and even here on this board are claiming the money never got to the vets when it appears that it did. Whether it was because of prodding by other people or not, there is no reason to be claiming that now based on the Justice's comments.

Frustrating when someone spreads information that isn't 100% factual, isn't it?  Makes you realize why people get frustrated with 98% of the tweets coming from the POTUS.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Yes. Agreed. If people are saying that the money never eventually went to the vets they are wrong. I've also seen some noise about stealing from a children's cancer charity, which I don't think is 100% correct either on its face. Also, I think the most recent settlement has not included the ban on the Trumps running charities in NY - that was an original request by the DA, but it doesn't look like it was part of the final settlement.

The truth is bad enough without exaggerating things. 

Here is a snopes page I found that goes through the allegations being passed around the last few days:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/

Here's a 2017 Forbes article about the kids cancer charity.

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamny said:

 My point is that people on social media and even here on this board are claiming the money never got to the vets when it appears that it did. Whether it was because of prodding by other people or not, there is no reason to be claiming that now based on the Justice's comments.

Yeah, I understand your point, I just don't think it's a point in Trump's favor. 

There are people on social media and even here on this board that claim that Trump did nothing wrong and if anything should be admired, which if you leave out the context might seem plausible, when in reality it's anything but. 

Trump wants you to think he's a generous, admirable guy, he just didn't expect to have to actually do anything to earn it, and there's a reason the judge's comments were included as part of an admonishment of him. Nothing he did was praiseworthy. 

That in decades of fake philanthropy and spending money donated for worthy causes on himself Trump was forced one time to keep one-third of his word (don't forget he said during the actual event that they'd raised $6M, one million of which was supposedly from him [actual amount he gave = $0]) just highlights how amoral he is. 

He also claimed to have donated hundreds of millions to 9/11 victims and other charities and made it part of his fake campaign persona, when in reality he donated nothing but free rounds of golf. And on the few rare occasions he actually did donate real money, he used money donated to his foundation rather than his own. I mean, we're talking like a few thousand dollars here and there that he was too cheap to give. I could go on for pages more it only gets worse. 

I cede your point that he finally coughed up other people's donations when caught stealing them red-handed, and people who state otherwise are factually incorrect.

My point is that he is one repulsive and despicable human being, and this instance with the veterans only adds more evidence to the already teetering mountain of garbage that is his legacy. 

If people here or on Twitter or whatever got the minutia wrong that's on them, sure. But I'd be willing to bet they got the gist of it right.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Here's a 2017 Forbes article about the kids cancer charity.

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

I remember the article and the accusations. There was definitely some misleading information about the funds and being able to use the Trump properties for free. But the narrative that "the Trump family is not allowed to run a charity in NY anymore because they stole money from a children's cancer charity" isn't accurate. And as bananafish notes above, the gist is kind of right, and there is plenty to criticize, but that claim in its entirety isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 7:43 AM, joffer said:

easily the most lasting damage he will do unless he starts a war

Even if he starts a war, it may still be. Those are lifetime appointments usually kept until 65 (actually when the judge is 65 and years of service plus age total 80) and the average age of his circuit appointees last I saw was 49.  It'll be decades before that can change.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the chances SCOTUS hears the tax return case? I assume if they agree to hear it they'll vote to overturn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mrip541 said:

So what are the chances SCOTUS hears the tax return case? I assume if they agree to hear it they'll vote to overturn.

My thoughts...  Because it was an 8-3 vote, I think they refuse to hear it and go along with the decision since it was such a large majority.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrip541 said:

So what are the chances SCOTUS hears the tax return case? I assume if they agree to hear it they'll vote to overturn.

I sure wish they would take it to provide some clarity on the DOJ's ever-expanding opinion about the criminal investigation/prosecution of a sitting President.  Given the current make-up of the Court however, I doubt they will want to take that on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations america....

Today the Senate confirmed Steven Menashi to a lifetime federal judgeship.

Menashi: -

  • Helped Stephen Miller craft the family separation policy 
  • Wrote offensive remarks about women, Muslims, & the LGBTQ community 
  • Has never even tried a case
  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

Congratulations america....

Today the Senate confirmed Steven Menashi to a lifetime federal judgeship.

Menashi: -

  • Helped Stephen Miller craft the family separation policy 
  • Wrote offensive remarks about women, Muslims, & the LGBTQ community 
  • Has never even tried a case

From Slate: "The 2nd Circuit will have a 7–6 Republican majority, including five Trump appointees. Whenever the court hears cases en banc—that is, with every judge sitting—conservatives will have the upper hand. This GOP advantage may prove especially helpful to Trump as Democrats ramp up their investigations of the president’s alleged misconduct. For instance, a three-judge panel for the 2nd Circuit is currently considering the legality of a subpoena that the House of Representatives issued to Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump’s financial records. If the panel goes against the president, Trump could request en banc review, leaning on the new majority to save his skin. On Nov. 4, meanwhile the court affirmed Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s ability to subpoena Trump’s financial documents, including tax returns, from the accounting firm Mazars. Depending on the outcome of a pending appeal to the Supreme Court, the case could come before the 2nd Circuit once again in the future."

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, beef said:

My thoughts...  Because it was an 8-3 vote, I think they refuse to hear it and go along with the decision since it was such a large majority.   

Its actually two cases they will consider - one from the DC Circuit, and one from the 2nd Circuit (New York).

DC case is whether Mazars has to turn over the tax returns to Congress.  Key issues will be "Legislative Purpose" and Separation of Powers, in addition to "absolute immunity".

New York case is about whether Mazars has to turn over the tax returns to a NY Grand Jury, and will delve into rights of States to investigate the president while he/she is in office.

 

Trump really should tread carefully here - this is an exceptionally bad fact pattern for him - given that neither the Grand Jury, nor Congress, are requiring that Trump do anything - and the tax returns are unrelated to his official duties as president.  Given that the SC would almost certainly rule against him - he is better off if the SC simply refuses to take either case.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JbizzleMan said:

I think that's satire. 

Yup - I fell for it as believable - but:

 

We are a St. Louis rust belt press with a penchant for halfway true headlines.

If a headline seems too outlandish to be true it’s probably because we made it up.

Cheers!

 

To be fair though - this did not seem too outlandish to be true...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course every good satire has a bit of the truth:

 

The New York Times' bestseller list is not exactly as it appears.

Yes, Donald Trump Jr., the president's son and self-proclaimed "general in the meme wars," saw his book Triggered debut at No. 1 on The New York Times' bestseller list on Wednesday evening. But that's likely in part because some bulk orders of the book helped him seal the deal.

The bestseller list through Nov. 24 debuted Wednesday, putting Trump Jr's book on "How the left thrives on hate and wants to silence us" at the top of the list. Yet next to that title, there's a little dagger mark. It indicates "institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases," which the list takes into account when formulating its rankings, the Times explains. Essentially, there's a strong chance Trump Jr.'s camp organized some big orders to get his book the best billing.

Regardless of the possibly rigged ranking, Trump Jr. got what he likely wanted out of the top spot: a congratulatory tweet from his father. After all, he was just copying the bulk-buying method President Trump has been perfecting for decades.Kathryn Krawczyk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

Of course every good satire has a bit of the truth:

 

The New York Times' bestseller list is not exactly as it appears.

Yes, Donald Trump Jr., the president's son and self-proclaimed "general in the meme wars," saw his book Triggered debut at No. 1 on The New York Times' bestseller list on Wednesday evening. But that's likely in part because some bulk orders of the book helped him seal the deal.

The bestseller list through Nov. 24 debuted Wednesday, putting Trump Jr's book on "How the left thrives on hate and wants to silence us" at the top of the list. Yet next to that title, there's a little dagger mark. It indicates "institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases," which the list takes into account when formulating its rankings, the Times explains. Essentially, there's a strong chance Trump Jr.'s camp organized some big orders to get his book the best billing.

Regardless of the possibly rigged ranking, Trump Jr. got what he likely wanted out of the top spot: a congratulatory tweet from his father. After all, he was just copying the bulk-buying method President Trump has been perfecting for decades.Kathryn Krawczyk

Yeah, I was just about to say I wouldn't be surprised if we find out the Trump campaign purchased a good amount of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JbizzleMan said:

I think that's satire. 

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enter the Republican National Committee, which offered donors a signed copy of Triggered for anyone who donated $50.00 or more, weeks before the book came out. Junior himself penned a fundraising appeal:

Friend,

Democrats are DESPERATELY rooting for my father to fail.

They are so blinded by their hatred of our president that they would rather see America FAIL than succeed under President Trump.

Sorry liberals, that ain’t happening!

In my new book Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us, I explore the Left’s obsession with President Trump and their plan to try to silence YOUR voice.

Since you’ve been one of President Trump’s supporters, I’ve HAND-SIGNED a copy just for you!

The email concludes by saying “This limited-time opportunity ends SOON, so be sure to claim your signed copy of my new book NOW.”

But as of this writing, the signed copies are still very much available.

 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never fear Trump, RNC will help you save Doral:

 

Kyle Griffin@kylegriffin1·53s

The Republican National Committee will hold its winter meetings at Trump's Doral golf course in Florida next year — awarding another of the party's most lucrative events to Trump's private business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump asking for a 500% increase in support from South Korea to keep US presence there:

Link

 

Better yet the number seems to be pulled from thin air. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

Trump asking for a 500% increase in support from South Korea to keep US presence there:

Link

 

Better yet the number seems to be pulled from thin air. 

He has to make Kim Jong Un happy, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Trump filed with the Supreme Court to block the release of his taxes. 

They're under audit.  Nothing he can do.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, parrot said:

They're under audit.  Nothing he can do.

It says a lot about a person if their first reaction to any adversity is to sue to try and get their way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Trump admin preparing to take over private land in Texas for border wall

Horrible.  Seizing private property for a wall that anyone with common sense knew wasn't even going to work. Stuff like this could turn Texas blue. 

So if you are pro wall you have no common sense. Takes like this will help keep Trump in office

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the ever loving hell is Steven Miller still in the White House? Pretty much lays the administrations racism bare doesn’t it? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

So if you are pro wall you have no common sense. Takes like this will help keep Trump in office

No. But those are are true to their stated ideologies could revolt against the  pro-hypocrisy "Conservatives" and "libertarians" who want the federal government to seize private land (worse yet for a strategy that is clearly flawed, won't stop the problem in any meaningful way, and costs a crap-ton in government spending to not accomplish those aims).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

How in the ever loving hell is Steven Miller still in the White House? Pretty much lays the administrations racism bare doesn’t it? 

We have literally decades of evidence demonstrating Trump's racism. Anyone who hasn't recognized it is either in denial, has no understanding of Trumps very public history of racist behavior, is ok with it, and/or shares those beliefs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

So if you are pro wall you have no common sense. Takes like this will help keep Trump in office

Another thing that will keep him in office is his supporters twisting words and making things up and having folks believe it.  And just to make sure I'm clear - your post is an example of that as that was not what he said.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:
2 hours ago, HellToupee said:

So if you are pro wall you have no common sense. Takes like this will help keep Trump in office

Another thing that will keep him in office is his supporters twisting words and making things up and having folks believe it

Thank you and yes I would say you lack common sense if you don't think a wall can be flown over, dug under, climbed or cut through.

Edited by Sheriff Bart
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HellToupee said:
4 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Trump admin preparing to take over private land in Texas for border wall

Horrible.  Seizing private property for a wall that anyone with common sense knew wasn't even going to work. Stuff like this could turn Texas blue. 

So if you are pro wall you have no common sense. Takes like this will help keep Trump in office

Don't think that's what he's saying....you can be "pro wall" and understand it won't work....I suspect most "pro wall" people fall under that characterization.  If you DO think it's going to work, that's where the lack of common sense comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Don't think that's what he's saying....you can be "pro wall" and understand it won't work....I suspect most "pro wall" people fall under that characterization.  If you DO think it's going to work, that's where the lack of common sense comes in.

how is it a sign of common sense if ylu support an enormous expenditure of tax money on a project you know will fail?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, msommer said:
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Don't think that's what he's saying....you can be "pro wall" and understand it won't work....I suspect most "pro wall" people fall under that characterization.  If you DO think it's going to work, that's where the lack of common sense comes in.

how is it a sign of common sense if ylu support an enormous expenditure of tax money on a project you know will fail?

Read what I said again.  I didn't say what you're asserting here.  Is this rhetorical?  

I was pushing back on HT's improper characterization of SB's words.  One can indeed be "pro wall" all the while understanding it won't work or understanding that it's financially stupid or understanding it doesn't live up to American ideals or.......

Holding those positions doesn't mean they have "no common sense".  It means, if they do have it, they are suspending it to promote a larger political goal in the most foolish way possible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The most transparent president in history." This guy. I guess in a sense he's right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Read what I said again.  I didn't say what you're asserting here.  Is this rhetorical?  

I was pushing back on HT's improper characterization of SB's words.  One can indeed be "pro wall" all the while understanding it won't work or understanding that it's financially stupid or understanding it doesn't live up to American ideals or.......

Holding those positions doesn't mean they have "no common sense".  It means, if they do have it, they are suspending it to promote a larger political goal in the most foolish way possible. 

 

IMHO suspending common sense would mean not having it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HellToupee said:
7 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Trump admin preparing to take over private land in Texas for border wall

Horrible.  Seizing private property for a wall that anyone with common sense knew wasn't even going to work. Stuff like this could turn Texas blue. 

So if you are pro wall you have no common sense. Takes like this will help keep Trump in office

Isn't the government seizing land from private owners something that conservatives would historically have been outraged over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dickies said:

Isn't the government seizing land from private owners something that conservatives would historically have been outraged over?

yes but please dont confuse the republican party with conservatives take that to the bank brohans 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dickies said:

Isn't the government seizing land from private owners something that conservatives would historically have been outraged over?

Actual conservatives? Still is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump cleared three members of the armed services on Friday who have been accused or convicted of war crimes, overruling military leaders who had sought to punish them. All three have been championed by conservative lawmakers and commentators, who have portrayed them as war heroes unfairly prosecuted for actions taken in the heat and confusion of battle.

Mr. Trump announced that he was ordering the release of Clint Lorance, a former Army lieutenant, from the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, where he is serving a 19-year sentence for the murder of two civilians. He ordered the dropping of murder charges against Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, an Army Special Forces officer whose trial was scheduled for December. And he reversed the demotion of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was acquitted of murder charges but convicted of a lesser offense in a high-profile war crimes case over the summer.

The moves signaled that as commander in chief, Mr. Trump intends to use his power as the ultimate arbiter of military justice in ways unlike any other president in modern times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=18844&user_id=22914c91d76bb7d69e5f54e72d0035b4&regi_id=92915377ing-news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

President Trump cleared three members of the armed services on Friday who have been accused or convicted of war crimes, overruling military leaders who had sought to punish them. All three have been championed by conservative lawmakers and commentators, who have portrayed them as war heroes unfairly prosecuted for actions taken in the heat and confusion of battle.

Mr. Trump announced that he was ordering the release of Clint Lorance, a former Army lieutenant, from the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, where he is serving a 19-year sentence for the murder of two civilians. He ordered the dropping of murder charges against Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, an Army Special Forces officer whose trial was scheduled for December. And he reversed the demotion of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was acquitted of murder charges but convicted of a lesser offense in a high-profile war crimes case over the summer.

The moves signaled that as commander in chief, Mr. Trump intends to use his power as the ultimate arbiter of military justice in ways unlike any other president in modern times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/trump-pardons.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=18844&user_id=22914c91d76bb7d69e5f54e72d0035b4&regi_id=92915377ing-news

He's king but you knew that already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Of Israel. 

 

5 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Of Israel. 

He tweeted it so it must be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.