Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
shader

Trump and the 16 women

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I accept the election and I’m not looking to disenfranchise anyone. But if he’s done what these women say, he needs to go along with Weinstein and Charlie Rose and Franken and Lauer and Spacey and all the rest. If you disagree then it seems to me that you’re OK with what he’s done, or that you don’t find it disqualifying. I don’t see much wiggle room here. 

I think I have explained myself about as clearly as I can.  I will reiterate one more time to help.

Trump was elected despite people knowing about his past.  I do not support what he did, but there is nothing new here.  I am not prepared to disenfranchise those who supported him despite knowing his flaws.

 

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So what, in your opinion, should be "the big story"?

Fake News! 

Share this post


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

Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?

I honestly believe Trump would order attacks against US citizens by the Army before he'd resign.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?

I doubt it. 

But how Trump reacts is less important to me, right now, than how we react as a nation. It’s a disgrace that a man who mistreats women this way should be our President. We can’t do anything about the fact that he was elected, or that we’ve ignored this issue in the year since he’s been elected. But we don’t have to keep ignoring it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jonessed said:

I think I have explained myself about as clearly as I can.  I will reiterate one more time to help.

Trump was elected despite people knowing about his past.  I do not support what he did, but there is nothing new here.  I am not prepared to disenfranchise those who supported him despite knowing his flaws.

 

I understood you the first time. There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:
43 minutes ago, jonessed said:

I think I have explained myself about as clearly as I can.  I will reiterate one more time to help.

Trump was elected despite people knowing about his past.  I do not support what he did, but there is nothing new here.  I am not prepared to disenfranchise those who supported him despite knowing his flaws.

 

I understood you the first time. There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 

:confused:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?

I think he could be, but it's a huge hypothetical.

It would take the Republican party banding together in such a way that impeachment and removal from office was a done deal.  They'd go to him in advance and ask him to step down, or face the consequences.

That's about the only way I see it happening, short of a medical emergency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:confused:

This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 

Share this post


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

I understood you the first time. There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 

do what now?

 

Again you are really looking at this from totally the wrong angle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, timschochet said:
22 minutes ago, adonis said:

:confused:

This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 

I may have missed y'alls back and forth, but when you say:

Quote

There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 

It's confusing.  I'm not looking to take away the right to vote of those who support Trump, but that doesn't mean I support Trump.

I imagine I've either missed something or that wasn't what you intended to say?  Reading it again, I guess y'all are referring to removing Trump from office as "disenfranchising voters" who voted for Trump.  Makes more sense that way.

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 

Of all your crazy blanket statements this has to be the alpha of them all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 

I'm not sure what you are driving at but I think your argument is crazy.  To take a non-dramatic example, I don't think people should cheat on their wife but if we had found out that Obama cheated on Michelle I wouldn't call for him to be impeached and that doesn't mean I support people committing adultery.  This is a slippery slope you are trying to go down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tim, can you clarify what you mean by disqualifying?  To me, disqualifying is when you don't meet the specific criteria to run for the office - like not being a citizen or being 35.  I get the impression that's not what you mean by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

I honestly believe Trump would order attacks against US citizens by the Army before he'd resign.  

I'm surprised he's not jumped on the chance to politicize this morning's bombing in NYC to sow further division based on fear-mongering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Haley has taken advantage of the somewhat independent nature of her post to position herself for the inevitable Presidential run in 2024.  

People don't really understand her personal and family history.  If they did they would #### bricks.  By people I mean trump voters.

Edited by culdeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

And Tim, can you clarify what you mean by disqualifying?  To me, disqualifying is when you don't meet the specific criteria to run for the office - like not being a citizen or being 35.  I get the impression that's not what you mean by it.

 I use the same language to distinguish between a capable candidate who is running against a candidate I prefer (such as Romney in 2012) and a candidate who I could not vote for under any circumstances (such as Trump in 2016).  Certain positions or behavior are so offensive or abhorrent to me that they disqualify a candidate from my consideration.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting SHS briefing. Looked rattled. Kind of confirmed the allegations are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

 I use the same language to distinguish between a capable candidate who is running against a candidate I prefer (such as Romney in 2012) and a candidate who I could not vote for under any circumstances (such as Trump in 2016).  Certain positions or behavior are so offensive or abhorrent to me that they disqualify a candidate from my consideration.  

That's what I'm assumed he meant.  And it's valid for people to do that - I think we all do on some level.

I will say that don't think most of the people who will vote for Moore (for example) are saying that something like he did with the 14-year old is not disqualifying, I think they are lying to themselves about how true it is or truly believe it's a lie.

And FTR, I would consider what Moore has done and what Trump has done disqualifying - to use your and Tim's word - but I don't think that matters and isn't the same as thinking he should be removed from office for it.  Now, if they are investigated and charges are brought OR they impeach him after investigating then I'm all for that.  Maybe that's saying the same thing - I don't know enough about it and only skimmed your nerdy impeachment thread (mainly because I'm too dumb to follow it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

That's what I'm assumed he meant.  And it's valid for people to do that - I think we all do on some level.

I will say that don't think most of the people who will vote for Moore (for example) are saying that something like he did with the 14-year old is not disqualifying, I think they are lying to themselves about how true it is or truly believe it's a lie.

And FTR, I would consider what Moore has done and what Trump has done disqualifying - to use your and Tim's word - but I don't think that matters and isn't the same as thinking he should be removed from office for it.  Now, if they are investigated and charges are brought OR they impeach him after investigating then I'm all for that.  Maybe that's saying the same thing - I don't know enough about it and only skimmed your nerdy impeachment thread (mainly because I'm too dumb to follow it).

Starting to see and hear more and more from interviews in Alabama where people say groping was perfectly fine 40 years ago. 

Share this post


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

Starting to see and hear more and more from interviews in Alabama where people say groping was perfectly fine 40 years ago. 

Thats kindof my overall point on this.  Its disingenuous to take norms/standards of today (past couple of months) and retroactively apply them to peoples actions from 10,20,30 years ago.  Right or wrong I just dont think you can do that.  Note: I am not talking about anything illegal just behavior in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Interesting SHS briefing. Looked rattled. Kind of confirmed the allegations are true.

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

Question on accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump: “You said he has denied them. Can you say whether or not they are false?” Sarah Sanders: “I'm not going to respond.”

tweet with video

Share this post


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

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

Question on accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump: “You said he has denied them. Can you say whether or not they are false?” Sarah Sanders: “I'm not going to respond.”

tweet with video

She is a special kind of stupid

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, matuski said:

This is the stuff.

Quit chasing your Russian conspiracy theories and go here.  Go for the family business/taxes.

You realize the Mueller investigation will likely get to business/finances/taxes...right?

and that its not really a conspiracy theory at all.

Share this post


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

It’s so obvious.  But most people do what they are told to do and the media tells people that the big story is Russia, so the big story is Russia.

Oh BS...sorry...this is just completely incorrect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It’s so obvious.  But most people do what they are told to do and the media tells people that the big story is Russia, so the big story is Russia.

Compared to a little sexual harassment, interference in a national election is by far the bigger story.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, packersfan said:

Starting to see and hear more and more from interviews in Alabama where people say groping was perfectly fine 40 years ago. 

Really?  That's laughably bad.

"You know, we used to allow people to just shoot bad guys in the Wild West"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

You realize the Mueller investigation will likely get to business/finances/taxes...right?

and that its not really a conspiracy theory at all.

Yes.. a positive side bar result of the Russia conspiracy investigation that would of course have nothing to do with the Russia conspiracy.  

As I've said all along.

Share this post


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

Compared to a little sexual harassment, interference in a national election is by far the bigger story.

Sure he may have murdered 17 nurses but you have him right there on camera running a red light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Compared to a little sexual harassment, interference in a national election is by far the bigger story.

Russian interference in our election is more nationally relevant.  Definitely the bigger issue.  But you won't hang this on Trump.

We know Russia interfered (or tried to) in our election.  We don't have anything after all this time and effort trying (trying so hard) to link this to Trump. All the energy wasted using this to take down Trump will discredit other potentially legitimate strategies.  Trump will use the farce that is the media obsession with linking him to Russia against people making what could be effective arguments against him.

Just like all the time and effort spent from the Right the last several years making themselves look the fools over so many similar farces.  They lost so much chasing Benghazi and emails and birth certificates and and and.... convinced every time that THIS TIME it was the one.  Instead of making real and well thought out plans of attack and proposals to fix what they thought was wrong, they went with these.

Left = Right.  Same mistake.  Real issues that could actually hook the big fish you are after sit on the table while you chase your tails eating nothing burgers.  The mighty are falling left and right over sexual misconduct accusations.  This should be the issue chosen, focused on. Especially in this moment.

 

 

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully after that disgusting tweet this morning, women’s voices are louder than ever. 

Hey jonessed, the time has come to disenfranchise those voters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hopefully after that disgusting tweet this morning, women’s voices are louder than ever. 

I hadn't even seen these tweets before I wrote the above. :lmao: So predictable: 

Quote

"Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia - so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don't know and/or have never met. FAKE NEWS!" Trump wrote on Twitter at 7:10 a.m. ET.

The traps are laid in plain sight, the playbook open for all to see.  Trump's opposition keeps tripping over them.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jonessed said:

I’m not OK with, but I didn’t help elect him.  I’m not about to disenfranchise those who did.  Obviously they see things differently.  

He won.  It’s time to accept it.

Yes, they did. They saw an innocent man, because Trump denied all the stories and promised to provide exculpatory evidence and to sue his accusers.  This, plus his general undermining of mainstream media, gave them a path to denial and they took it. Polls have shown this time and time again.  Here's one showing that only 34% of Republicans think the accusations against Trump are credible.

We haven't gotten any of the promised exculpatory evidence or lawsuits. Instead we've gotten more Republican politicians who think they can get away with denying sexual misconduct on the face of overwhelming evidence and a base that's willing to believe it.  That means not only do the politicians get away scot-free, but it also silences women going forward (because they feel they won't be heard or believed) and gives sexual predators a path forward (just do it and then deny it and nothing bad will happen). To hell with that. It's time to hold a mirror up to Trump, the party that supported him, and the voters who buried their heads in the sand on this issue. 

And what's the downside, really? Trump probably spends more taxpayer money on a month's worth of trips to Mar-a-lago than the investigation would cost.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Compared to a little sexual harassment, interference in a national election is by far the bigger story.

Or even just obstruction of justice.  Let's leave Russia out of it.  Let's assume the whole story is that Flynn told Trump he lied to the FBI.  Trump tried to get Comey to drop the charges out of loyalty to Flynn.  And Trump eventually fired Comey, in part to protect Flynn.

With this Congress, if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing to protect, say, Barry McCaffrey, she would be impeached.  She'd probably survive the trial in the Senate on a strict party-line vote, but 100% the House would impeach her.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, matuski said:

The traps are laid in plain sight, the playbook open for all to see.  Trump's opposition keeps tripping over them.

You and Dodds do yourselves no favors by pretending to have some keen inside knowledge that you're never quite willing to spell out for everyone else. If you won't put it out there, why should any of us believe either of you?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy Dick, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy Dick, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 

Good luck.  Trump supporters on this board universally refuse to engage on this subject.

If we ever wanted to chase them off, all we'd have to do is change every thread title to reference the allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good luck.  Trump supporters on this board universally refuse to engage on this subject.

If we ever wanted to chase them off, all we'd have to do is change every thread title to reference the allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct.

It's not just on this board, it's everywhere. The response is to deflect and say something Bill, Hillary or Obama did or believe was done. 

Share this post


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

100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy Dick, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 

About 20 years ago Bill Clinton did something. So now it's hypocritical to speak out now because we didn't speak out then. Or something, something.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy Dick, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 

Don't forget Billy Bush lost his job over the tape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

Don't forget Billy Bush lost his job over the tape

We, as a nation, had to hold Billy Bush accountable for listening to Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy Dick, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 

Good luck.  Trump supporters on this board universally refuse to engage on this subject.

If we ever wanted to chase them off, all we'd have to do is change every thread title to reference the allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct.

:goodposting:  That is, if you can find someone who admits they voted for him in the first place :tumbleweed:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People‏ @people 53m53 minutes ago

.@realDonaldTrump claims he 'never met' accusers like PEOPLE's Natasha Stoynoff, but we have the photo

http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-natasha-stoynoff-photo-proof/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_peoplemag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, squistion said:

People‏ @people 53m53 minutes ago

.@realDonaldTrump claims he 'never met' accusers like PEOPLE's Natasha Stoynoff, but we have the photo

http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-natasha-stoynoff-photo-proof/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_peoplemag

Trump lied?  I'm shocked.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Dude he went after Luc Robitallies wife??? that is where I draw the line!!!

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/luc-robitailles-wife-stacia-alleges-trump-made-aggressive-advances-elevator-150356866.html

 

 

Whoah.

If anyone's still convinced that the accusers are lying about all of this, I know Stacia Robitaille personally. If it makes any difference, I don't believe for an instant she would lie about this.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


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

Whoah.

If anyone's still convinced that the accusers are lying about all of this, I know Stacia Robitaille personally. If it makes any difference, I don't believe for an instant she would lie about this.

I just hope these women keep coming forward....and they keep the pressure on him and other politicians....drain the swamp indeed

 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.