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.

I wonder who will win the battle of silliness? (1 Viewer)

And this is why the founders did not want there to be political parties. They saw political parties as a huge issue. The only constituency you were supposed to have was your District if you are Congressman, your state if you were a senator or the country as a whole if you were the president. This is why the Electoral College needs to go it no longer operates in the fashion it was meant to because it's been completely bastardized by the parties.
How does the elimination of the electoral college eliminate political parties?  

 
But but but..its their DUTTYYYYYY to do this. And act like utter children apparently, all for the hope of finding something..

And the clock just keeps ticking.   
See this seems like a childish take to me. The GOP have abdicated their sworn constitutional duty so they can prop up Trump.  Based on the people I've seen they aren't interested in protecting the country as much as they are protecting Trump.  I doubt I'd listen to a whole lot they said. And to be  clear I would've voted yes on impeaching Clinton and I would've gone after Obama. For actual crimes not Benghazi.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't but it takes away power from them. The electoral college no longer functions as intended it's stuffed with partisans who put party first. 
Well, I can follow the logic that if you eliminate the electoral college it would no longer function as it was intended but the rest of what you said..yeah not so much.

 
See this seems like a childish take to me. The GOP have abdicated their sworn constitutional duty so they can prop up Trump.  Based on the people I've seen they aren't interested in protecting the country as much as they are protecting Trump.  I doubt I'd listen to a whole lot they said. And to be  clear I would've voted yes on impeaching Clinton and I would've gone after Obama. For actual crimes not Benghazi.
Well you got 1/2 of it right.  But don't leave out the other half. The democrats aren't concerned about ANYTHING except "getting" Trump.   

And the games go on and on and on...and it's silly and embarrassing.   

 
Right...But I am curious who this board thinks will come out ahead after these ridiculous political games are over.
Genuine question....to what end?  

Meaning, why does this matter enough to wonder?  I find it troubling that people are invested enough to figure out who "wins" but are somehow NOT invested enough to analyze the portions of our democratic republic that aren't functioning as they are supposed to be.  Why wouldn't we focus on the later?

 
But but but..its their DUTTYYYYYY to do this. And act like utter children apparently, all for the hope of finding something..

And the clock just keeps ticking.   
And this is the sort of thing that makes me question the motive of your question.  You don't seem to think, at all, that its Congress' job to keep the executive branch in check.  Otherwise you wouldn't be mocking the responsibility they have to keep him in check.  You might not like the way they are going about it and that's find, but that's not what comes across in these posts.  What comes across in these posts is that you don't think they should even be doing the work...even if it's in a manner you approve of.  My :2cents:  

 
And this is the sort of thing that makes me question the motive of your question.  You don't seem to think, at all, that its Congress' job to keep the executive branch in check.  Otherwise you wouldn't be mocking the responsibility they have to keep him in check.  You might not like the way they are going about it and that's find, but that's not what comes across in these posts.  What comes across in these posts is that you don't think they should even be doing the work...even if it's in a manner you approve of.  My :2cents:  
Oh it's the manner...Fried Chicken?  really?   Seriously?  That looks good?   Give me a break.

And I am a little fed up with the Mueller requests..why exactly do they need the fully unredacted report?  Why would they try to force Barr to turn it over KNOWING it is bad precedent to publish grand jury info?

It's a clown show...a total clown show and it's embarrassing.

And you know what else?  Get off the tax return thing.  He wasn't required to show them to be elected and he shouldn't be forced to now.  It's harassment.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And you know what else?  Get off the tax return thing.  He wasn't required to show them to be elected and he shouldn't be forced to now.  It's harassment.
I'll address the substance portion of the post.  Why is it "harassment" to see his tax returns?

 
Because he doesn't have to show them.  It's not a requirement to become President.  And being forced to is nothing more than harassment.  
The only requirements to becoming President in this country are to be 35, a US born citizen and reside in the country 14 years.  If your position above is to remain consistent ANY oversight of ANY President, not tied to those three things has to be harassment.  Does that seem reasonable?

 
The only requirements to becoming President in this country are to be 35, a US born citizen and reside in the country 14 years.  If your position above is to remain consistent ANY oversight of ANY President, not tied to those three things has to be harassment.  Does that seem reasonable?
Sure

 
Ok...have fun with that.  I look forward to all your rants of harassment against all Presidents that have ever lived and will ever be.  It's going to be exhausting, but I have faith in you :thumbup:  
Here we go again..so in order to validate how I feel about this I have to rant on here for every other harassment issue?

Weak argument...Extremely weak.   

 
I know what it is and I know there is precedent..

please spare me the education about how it's legal for congress to request it. I get that..i really really really really really really really really really really do.

I also get every President since Nixon has provided them..I get that too. really really really.

This is n't about congress having the power, this is about congress actually requesting them,.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here we go again..so in order to validate how I feel about this I have to rant on here for every other harassment issue?

Weak argument...Extremely weak.   
I didn't say that :shrug:

It would seem that if this is a genuine position of yours you'd just be doing it.  It would be part of your persona.  Like me railing against people who take sexual assault less serious than I do.  I don't care who it is or the situation, I stand against it.  I'd expect similar action from anyone on a topic that is a big concern of theirs.  If they aren't doing that, then I question their true belief.  The fact of this particular matter is, I haven't heard you ever rant about "harassment" in ANY other instance....only this one.  I could have missed it, but I don't think I have.  So when your standard for harassment is "x wasn't required to become President", I find it particularly weak and I don't honestly believe that's your standard.  But if you want to keep claiming such, I'd expect your actions to eventually follow suit in a more consistent manner.

It's not like this hasn't been done before.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80 said:
Here we go again..so in order to validate how I feel about this I have to rant on here for every other harassment issue?

Weak argument...Extremely weak.   
Stronger or weaker than your argument that it is harassment because it is harassment?

 
The Commish said:
I didn't say that :shrug:

It would seem that if this is a genuine position of yours you'd just be doing it.  It would be part of your persona.  Like me railing against people who take sexual assault less serious than I do.  I don't care who it is or the situation, I stand against it.  I'd expect similar action from anyone on a topic that is a big concern of theirs.  If they aren't doing that, then I question their true belief.  The fact of this particular matter is, I haven't heard you ever rant about "harassment" in ANY other instance....only this one.  I could have missed it, but I don't think I have.  So when your standard for harassment is "x wasn't required to become President", I find it particularly weak and I don't honestly believe that's your standard.  But if you want to keep claiming such, I'd expect your actions to eventually follow suit in a more consistent manner.

It's not like this hasn't been done before.
Ok how about this.  I think all presidential harassment is bad.

There.  I just laid a blanket over it and I don't have to post in every past or future thread where this may be happening.  Boom.  Does that work for you?

 
Ok how about this.  I think all presidential harassment is bad.

There.  I just laid a blanket over it and I don't have to post in every past or future thread where this may be happening.  Boom.  Does that work for you?
Do what you want :shrug:  

I doubt you get much pushback on "harassment is bad".  You'll probably get a ton of pushback on what you consider "harassment" given your definition above.

 
Do what you want :shrug:  

I doubt you get much pushback on "harassment is bad".  You'll probably get a ton of pushback on what you consider "harassment" given your definition above.
I think we have had this conversation more than once.  This boards opinion about my opinion means less to me than I can possibly say.  If your goal is to find acceptance for your thoughts on an internet bulletin board, then kudos..It isn't mine

 
supermike80 said:
Well, I can follow the logic that if you eliminate the electoral college it would no longer function as it was intended but the rest of what you said..yeah not so much.
It already doesn't function as intended. If it did you could have a Republican president and a Democratic vice president. But you can't. If you really aren't up on the history of the EC and how the founders felt about political parties then its going to kind of hard to have that conversation. 

 
supermike80 said:
Well you got 1/2 of it right.  But don't leave out the other half. The democrats aren't concerned about ANYTHING except "getting" Trump.   

And the games go on and on and on...and it's silly and embarrassing.   
No I got it all right. He refuses to remove himself from his personal businesses. This means he is probably daily in violation of a clause of the constitution. That's a crime that is worthy of impeachment.  The only way to know is to investigate. That is not trying to get him that is trying to do their constitutionally mandated job. Reading further in this thread I can see you either have no interest in the historical context of these things or you are not really educated in them. Maybe before you try to have the conversation you should be.

 
It already doesn't function as intended. If it did you could have a Republican president and a Democratic vice president. But you can't. If you really aren't up on the history of the EC and how the founders felt about political parties then its going to kind of hard to have that conversation. 
No it isn't.  You want the EC eliminated.  I said I don't see how that eliminates the political parties.  You said eliminating the electoral college would change how it functions, I agreed with you.  What else?

 
No I got it all right. He refuses to remove himself from his personal businesses. This means he is probably daily in violation of a clause of the constitution. That's a crime that is worthy of impeachment.  The only way to know is to investigate. That is not trying to get him that is trying to do their constitutionally mandated job. Reading further in this thread I can see you either have no interest in the historical context of these things or you are not really educated in them. Maybe before you try to have the conversation you should be.
You don't have to reinforce the 1/2 you got right.  I already told you, you got 1/2 right.  You must have missed that part.

The part you got wrong was that the democrats and congress are only interested in "getting Trump"  That's my opinion and I don't feel I am alone with it.   

 
You don't have to reinforce the 1/2 you got right.  I already told you, you got 1/2 right.  You must have missed that part.

The part you got wrong was that the democrats and congress are only interested in "getting Trump"  That's my opinion and I don't feel I am alone with it.   
Apparently more than one person thinks the world is flat rhey aren't right either.

Also you didn't specify what was right and all I can go by is what you've posted which doesn't seem in agreement with the half I chose. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently more than one person thinks the world is flat rhey aren't right either.

Also you didn't specify what was right and all I can go by is what you've posted which doesn't seem in agreement with the half I chose. 
Righttt......LOL...You guys crack me up sometimes.  

 
No it isn't.  You want the EC eliminated.  I said I don't see how that eliminates the political parties.  You said eliminating the electoral college would change how it functions, I agreed with you.  What else?
No I didn't. I said eliminating the EC would reduce party power not eliminate them. And I said it already doesn't function as intended. 

 
You've been dismissive at best of the investigation and you've said it is harrassment in this thread. Why would I then think you support it?
The tax return nonsense is harassment.  It is...There is absolutely no way anyone here will convince me otherwise.  

And I was responding to your desire to eliminate the electoral college.  I agreed with you that by eliminating the electoral college, it would no longer function as it was intended.  

 
The tax return nonsense is harassment.  It is...There is absolutely no way anyone here will convince me otherwise.  

And I was responding to your desire to eliminate the electoral college.  I agreed with you that by eliminating the electoral college, it would no longer function as it was intended.  
Well since you can't be convinced there is no conversation or discussion to be had so why bother?

And you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I said about the EC. So again no discussion to be had there. 

Have a nice day.

 
The tax return nonsense is harassment.  It is...There is absolutely no way anyone here will convince me otherwise.  

And I was responding to your desire to eliminate the electoral college.  I agreed with you that by eliminating the electoral college, it would no longer function as it was intended.  
Was Trump’s birth certificate stuff with Obama harassment?

 
I think we have had this conversation more than once.  This boards opinion about my opinion means less to me than I can possibly say.  If your goal is to find acceptance for your thoughts on an internet bulletin board, then kudos..It isn't mine
Clearly....I've told you to do whatever you want.  I'm not passing judgment yet you continue.  I have zero problem with people who hold a different opinion than mine.  That's why I am not trying to convince you of any particular position.  I was simply trying to reconcile your comments.  I had no way of knowing you had a genuine belief that "harassment" was asking/demanding one to do something that's not initially required in order to run for President.  If that's where you draw your line, good on you.  I'm glad you clarified so we know what you're talking about when you say it from here on.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top