Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
knowledge dropper

TRUMP 2020 HQ - The Great Place

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, lod001 said:

Ok with this one after reading about it. The wrong person got the stiff sentence. 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

True, obviously Trump is perfectly happy to pardon Democratic Party machine types who are among the most corrupt in the land. And you’re embracing that.

Here’s another one:

Owner of Miami-Area Mental Health Care Corporation Convicted on All Counts for Orchestrating $205 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

- This person was pardoned. What is the TrumpGuy view on this?

Looked her up on google.  Apparently she had a change.org petition.  I am not going to argue every case with you as you will say anything Trump does is bad.  If restitution was made, I can see the case for her. 

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-clemency-for-judy-a-mom-serving-35-years-for-first-time-non-violent-white-collar-offense

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Looked her up on google.  Apparently she had a change.org petition.  I am not going to argue every case with you as you will say anything Trump does is bad.  If restitution was made, I can see the case for her. 

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-clemency-for-judy-a-mom-serving-35-years-for-first-time-non-violent-white-collar-offense

First of all, this is different from the corruption cases. And at least this is a rational defense, and I like what LOD posted further up.

However:

>>Most of the government's witnesses were my co-defendants, and because of their cooperation against me, they received lower sentences and I received one of the highest…35 years imprisonment with an additional three years of supervised release. <<

- I guess I don’t get it. She’s involved in a massive fraud scheme and she didn’t cooperate? Why not? Yes I think people who cooperate should get the benefit of that, and I agree that people who did the crime and who put the legal system and courts through the time and cost of prosecution unnecessarily ought to be faced with the consequences of that.

I’m really surprised to hear people who think of themselves as Republicans and conservatives arguing for something else, but even so that kind of POV does not disgust me like the excusing and justification of corruption does.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty confident that Trump would win reelection fairly comfortably if he would delete Twitter and just avoid doing anything obviously stupid.  Instead he gets in name-calling contests with other candidates, and he pardons well-known white collar criminals and political sleazebags.  It's like he wants to lose.

Share this post


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

I'm pretty confident that Trump would win reelection fairly comfortably if he would delete Twitter and just avoid doing anything obviously stupid.  Instead he gets in name-calling contests with other candidates, and he pardons well-known white collar criminals and political sleazebags.  It's like he wants to lose.

If you think pardoning someone is going to derail Trump you’re mistaken. If the economy tanks he’s through. Until then enjoy your 401k. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm pretty confident that Trump would win reelection fairly comfortably if he would delete Twitter and just avoid doing anything obviously stupid.  Instead he gets in name-calling contests with other candidates, and he pardons well-known white collar criminals and political sleazebags.  It's like he wants to lose.

He’s 70 whatever and won the WH with this stuff. No way he’s changing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

First of all, this is different from the corruption cases. And at least this is a rational defense, and I like what LOD posted further up.

However:

>>Most of the government's witnesses were my co-defendants, and because of their cooperation against me, they received lower sentences and I received one of the highest…35 years imprisonment with an additional three years of supervised release. <<

- I guess I don’t get it. She’s involved in a massive fraud scheme and she didn’t cooperate? Why not? Yes I think people who cooperate should get the benefit of that, and I agree that people who did the crime and who put the legal system and courts through the time and cost of prosecution unnecessarily ought to be faced with the consequences of that.

I’m really surprised to hear people who think of themselves as Republicans and conservatives arguing for something else, but even so that kind of POV does not disgust me like the excusing and justification of corruption does.

Obama granted clemency to 1927 criminals. How many of those did you analyze?  If not, why the interest I what Trump has done?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Obama granted clemency to 1927 criminals. How many of those did you analyze?  If not, why the interest I what Trump has done?

I see that as being the same policy as Trump’s Kanye/Kim West First Step program. I’m not in favor of it and I wasn’t then.

Share this post


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

Obama granted clemency to 1927 criminals. How many of those did you analyze?  If not, why the interest I what Trump has done?

How many were before he ran for reelection? 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Must not be anything with the ongoing hunt for a Democratic nominee worth talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

If you think pardoning someone is going to derail Trump you’re mistaken. If the economy tanks he’s through. Until then enjoy your 401k. 

Thanks. Have been since around 2012-2013.  It's been great run since then.  :thumbup: 

I'm glad it's kept going.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Wow. Must not be anything with the ongoing hunt for a Democratic nominee worth talking about. 

Buzzfeed just released a video of Bloomberg calling transgendered people "Its".

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Buzzfeed just released a video of Bloomberg calling transgendered people "Its".

This is going to be great TV now that the tables our turned and we get a turn to be faux rage drama chasers. Get your popcorn ready. :lmao::popcorn:

Share this post


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

This is going to be great TV now that the tables our turned and we get a turn to be faux rage drama chasers. Get your popcorn ready. :lmao::popcorn:

Blows my mind some are still championing this guy.  And they still try to call out Trump supporters in that thread.  

Share this post


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

Blows my mind some are still championing this guy.  And they still try to call out Trump supporters in that thread.  

Trump haters defending Bloomberg is going to be priceless when he’s the nominee. The mental gymnastics they will have to go through to justify it will be well worth the price of admission to watch. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

I'm pretty confident that Trump would win reelection fairly comfortably if he would delete Twitter and just avoid doing anything obviously stupid.  Instead he gets in name-calling contests with other candidates, and he pardons well-known white collar criminals and political sleazebags.  It's like he wants to lose.

But it's how he sees himself winning, and how many others see him as winning too.  If he were to stop "winning" in this way, many of his base would be less excited by him because he wouldn't be riling up the lefties and causing hysteria.

Share this post


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

I'm pretty confident that Trump would win reelection fairly comfortably if he would delete Twitter 

I disagree wholeheartedly. I trust Donald’s instincts on this and accept the good and the bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I can tell you know what the issue is with this post. You’re blotting our the core corruption issue here.

The only issue is President Trump needs to get that pardoning pen busy if he wants to get anywhere close to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Bloomberg ad with Obama footage all over it and find it funny there is no pushback from Obama. Secret deal in place? 

Share this post


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

Um, that part isn't possible. 

Please take this act to another thread where it’s welcomed. All you want is a bad response 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg - :tfp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work 

Remember when Trump called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess". The media went nuts. Where's the Bloomberg outrage on CNN and MSNBC?

Edited by lod001
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lod001 said:

Bloomberg - :tfp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work 

But Trump!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Bloomberg - :tfp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work 

Remember when Trump called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess". The media went nuts. Where's the Bloomberg outrage on CNN and MSNBC?

I could be wrong but I don't see him getting this done.  Bloomberg just has so many past comments and actions that are at odds with the PC folks.  Bernie is going to have such a huge lead in delegates that if he can't get to a majority, he could be in the 40-45% range.  Then they have to decide if they are gonna run with Bernie or deny him the nomination.  

Share this post


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

I see the Bloomberg ad with Obama footage all over it and find it funny there is no pushback from Obama. Secret deal in place? 

According to something I heard today Obama thinks that it may be necessary for him to reconcile the liberal and moderate elements in the Democratic Party after a candidate has been chosen. So for now he’s very cautious and won’t say a thing because he doesn’t want to alienate anyone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

According to something I heard today Obama thinks that it may be necessary for him to reconcile the liberal and moderate elements in the Democratic Party after a candidate has been chosen. So for now he’s very cautious and won’t say a thing because he doesn’t want to alienate anyone. 

Tim is back!  :tebow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I could be wrong but I don't see him getting this done.  Bloomberg just has so many past comments and actions that are at odds with the PC folks.  Bernie is going to have such a huge lead in delegates that if he can't get to a majority, he could be in the 40-45% range.  Then they have to decide if they are gonna run with Bernie or deny him the nomination.  

Your point about Bernie is a good one, but if Bloomberg can’t get it done i don’t think it will be because of this old comments- it will be because the centrists can’t unite behind one candidate. 

That being said there’s still a lot of time left to do so. 

Share this post


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

Um, that part isn't possible. 

Troll less. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Your point about Bernie is a good one, but if Bloomberg can’t get it done i don’t think it will be because of this old comments- it will be because the centrists can’t unite behind one candidate. 

That being said there’s still a lot of time left to do so. 

Bloomberg is toast. All his money cant buy his way out of these recordings of him going full blown stupid.

Edited by lod001
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your point about Bernie is a good one, but if Bloomberg can’t get it done i don’t think it will be because of this old comments- it will be because the centrists can’t unite behind one candidate. 

That being said there’s still a lot of time left to do so. 

That's true as well about uniting behind one candidate.  It reminds me of Rubio/Kasich/Cruz in 2016.  I voted for John Kasich so I remember it well.  I think the mistake people made in 2016 is the Rubio voter or Kasich voter automatically would vote for anyone but Trump.  I see this with Bernie in 2020.  Just because someone may be supporting Pete today, there's a statistically significant piece of his voters that would go to Bernie.  It's not zero like some want to say anymore than it was true in the Republican race in 2016.

I disagree on the time.  If they don't find a way to consolidate prior to Super Tuesday they will never catch Bernie in delegates.  They could potentially deny him a majority due to the proportionality of the delegates in each primary but he's going to have the lead come convention time unless it happens prior to Super Tuesday.

Edited by Shula-holic

Share this post


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

Troll less. 

I was responding to this post by Ivan K: 

Quote

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm pretty confident that Trump would win reelection fairly comfortably if he would delete Twitter and just avoid doing anything obviously stupid.  Instead he gets in name-calling contests with other candidates, and he pardons well-known white collar criminals and political sleazebags.  It's like he wants to lose.

Perhaps you should give him the same advice rather than to those who respond to him. 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Bloomberg - :tfp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work 

Remember when Trump called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess". The media went nuts. Where's the Bloomberg outrage on CNN and MSNBC?

Bloomberg has been a tire fire this entire time, anybody who watched him over the years as Mayor knew this. The only reason Democrats liked him was because of his anti-Trump ads. He was tough guy! It's hilarious Democrats fell for another Michael Avenatti thirst trap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

That's true as well about uniting behind one candidate.  It reminds me of Rubio/Kasich/Cruz in 2016.  I voted for John Kasich so I remember it well.  I think the mistake people made in 2016 is the Rubio voter or Kasich voter automatically would vote for anyone but Trump.  I see this with Bernie in 2020.  Just because someone may be supporting Pete today, there's a statistically significant piece of his voters that would go to Bernie.  It's not zero like some want to say anymore than it was true in the Republican race in 2016.

I disagree on the time.  If they don't find a way to consolidate prior to Super Tuesday they will never catch Bernie in delegates.  They could potentially deny him a majority due to the proportionality of the delegates in each primary but he's going to have the lead come convention time unless it happens prior to Super Tuesday.

There’s a significant difference between this race and 2016: the Republican primaries are mostly winner take all while the Democrats are proportional. That means that Bernie can’t get the huge, overwhelming lead that Trump got after Super Tuesday. That’s why there’s still plenty of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

Bloomberg has been a tire fire this entire time, anybody who watched him over the years as Mayor knew this. The only reason Democrats liked him was because of his anti-Trump ads. He was tough guy! It's hilarious Democrats fell for another Michael Avenatti thirst trap. 

I think these assumptions are very premature. I should know: I made them in 2016 about Trump several times. I thought he would be done after he made racist and sexist comments over and over. And with the exception of the kitty tape, they were being made in real time. I was wrong. Republicans didn’t care. 

I don’t think Democrats will either. If they think he can beat Trump he will be the nominee and none of this will matter. But a lot depends on how he handles himself tomorrow night. If he struggles he’s probably doomed. But we will see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Bloomberg - :tfp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work 

Remember when Trump called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess". The media went nuts. Where's the Bloomberg outrage on CNN and MSNBC?

Those two aren't in the same ballpark in terms of insults to people.

Share this post


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

There’s a significant difference between this race and 2016: the Republican primaries are mostly winner take all while the Democrats are proportional. That means that Bernie can’t get the huge, overwhelming lead that Trump got after Super Tuesday. That’s why there’s still plenty of time. 

It works both ways.  Once you have someone out to a lead it's also harder to catch up.  Below is 538's delegate estimates based on projected averages after Super Tuesday.  If this is remotely true, even if Sanders is at 35%, he's going to be almost statistically impossible to catch.  Bernie is always going to qualify to get some delegates in every primary.  He's not going to be sub 15% anywhere.  Now, maybe Nate Silver is wrong here, but if he's even in the ballpark, they have to kneecap Bernie's support prior to Super Tuesday.

Nate Silver

@NateSilver538

·

3h

Average projected delegates through Super Tuesday:

Sanders 608 (41% of delegates thru March 3)

Bloomberg 273 (18%)

Biden 270 (18%)

Buttigieg 157 (10%)

Warren 127 (8%)

Klobuchar 55 (4%)

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are well taken. 

Well, if the Democrats go down this road, we’re most likely looking at another 4 years of Donald Trump. So I hope they figure that out. 

Share this post


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

This is going to be great TV now that the tables our turned and we get a turn to be faux rage drama chasers. Get your popcorn ready. :lmao::popcorn:

LGBT(IT)Q

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I think these assumptions are very premature. I should know: I made them in 2016 about Trump several times. I thought he would be done after he made racist and sexist comments over and over. And with the exception of the kitty tape, they were being made in real time. I was wrong. Republicans didn’t care. 

I don’t think Democrats will either. If they think he can beat Trump he will be the nominee and none of this will matter. But a lot depends on how he handles himself tomorrow night. If he struggles he’s probably doomed. But we will see. 

You mean the same Democrats and their supporters that have acted holier-than-thou for the past 3-1/2 years?

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I think these assumptions are very premature. I should know: I made them in 2016 about Trump several times. I thought he would be done after he made racist and sexist comments over and over. And with the exception of the kitty tape, they were being made in real time. I was wrong. Republicans didn’t care. 

I don’t think Democrats will either. If they think he can beat Trump he will be the nominee and none of this will matter. But a lot depends on how he handles himself tomorrow night. If he struggles he’s probably doomed. But we will see. 

You also repeatedly locked horns with me for 2 years when I predicted Biden would be a total stinker. Don’t doubt me, Bloomberg sucks at this almost as bad as Biden and no self respecting Bernie supporter (that I know at least) would vote for him anyway.

Share this post


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

Your points are well taken. 

Well, if the Democrats go down this road, we’re most likely looking at another 4 years of Donald Trump. So I hope they figure that out. 

Now, by the same token it's a plurality, not a majority.  Therefore, at the convention they could choose to stop Bernie.  But that would be a nasty situation I think you'd agree.  Especially if Bernie had a lead of say 5-plus points over the next closest candidate and he didn't get the nomination.  I don't think they (meaning the party, super delegates on the second ballot) would do that, but so many people feel that is likely that I have to doubt my own thoughts on that.  I also wouldn't discount him getting over 50% if enough people drop out soon after Super Tuesday.  I say all that not to be gleeful or pulling for Bernie, I'm actually on the opposite end of that.  But the numbers just appear to be in his favor.  Having a declared Socialist as a major party nominee with a non-zero chance of winning is honestly something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

Share this post


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

You mean the same Democrats and their supporters that have acted holier-than-thou for the past 3-1/2 years?

Or the Republicans in office who have acted like spawns of Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

You also repeatedly locked horns with me for 2 years when I predicted Biden would be a total stinker. Don’t doubt me, Bloomberg sucks at this almost as bad as Biden and no self respecting Bernie supporter (that I know at least) would vote for him anyway.

Quite a few left of center folks, myself included, have predicted the same for Biden all along.  My mantra has been that he was bad in 2007/8, and he hasn't aged like fine wine...odds are he's worse than he was and no reason to think he's improved.

Bloomberg is nowhere near as bad a candidate as Biden.  He's a competent business leader, seems to surround himself with good people and makes good strategic decisions.  We'll see how he does on the debate stage...but he's no Biden.  He may be a Trump-lite figure...someone who actually delivers on the business acumen Trump promised, but who has less of the red-meat-fling appeal Trump has.  While problematic, he has morals.  While he has a history of saying bad things, he hasn't said anything nearly as bad or voluminous as Trump.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Trump haters defending Bloomberg is going to be priceless when he’s the nominee. The mental gymnastics they will have to go through to justify it will be well worth the price of admission to watch. 

Likely going to be the Bern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Bloomberg - :tfp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work 

Remember when Trump called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess". The media went nuts. Where's the Bloomberg outrage on CNN and MSNBC?

Here is the full context of the comments with the full quote:

“Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work as he promoted a multimillion-dollar initiative to help minorities gain employment during his tenure as NYC mayor, according to recently resurfaced video.

“There’s this enormous cohort of black and Latino males aged, let’s say, 16 to 25 that don’t have jobs, don’t have any prospects, don’t know how to find jobs, don’t know that the — what their skill sets are, don’t know how to behave in the workplace, where they have to work collaboratively and collectively,”

NY Post Story

Edited by The General
Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Now, by the same token it's a plurality, not a majority.  Therefore, at the convention they could choose to stop Bernie.  But that would be a nasty situation I think you'd agree.  Especially if Bernie had a lead of say 5-plus points over the next closest candidate and he didn't get the nomination.  I don't think they (meaning the party, super delegates on the second ballot) would do that, but so many people feel that is likely that I have to doubt my own thoughts on that.  I also wouldn't discount him getting over 50% if enough people drop out soon after Super Tuesday.  I say all that not to be gleeful or pulling for Bernie, I'm actually on the opposite end of that.  But the numbers just appear to be in his favor.  Having a declared Socialist as a major party nominee with a non-zero chance of winning is honestly something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

To be quite honest with you: as much as I don’t want Bernie to be the nominee, I could never support him being cheated by Superdelegates or some establishment group that didn’t represent the will of the voters. If such a thing happened I would find myself compelled to support Bernie against that sort of coalition. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Max Power said:

Buzzfeed just released a video of Bloomberg calling transgendered people "Its".

I am starting to understand Trump's appeal just a bit.

I completely endorse understanding, accepting, and granting full legal equality to transgendered people. I support the transgendered community wholeheartedly.

But I also find that it's a little gratifying, on some level, to own the libs and watch their heads explode.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here is the full context of the comments with the full quote:

“Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg once claimed that black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave” at work as he promoted a multimillion-dollar initiative to help minorities gain employment during his tenure as NYC mayor, according to recently resurfaced video.

“There’s this enormous cohort of black and Latino males aged, let’s say, 16 to 25 that don’t have jobs, don’t have any prospects, don’t know how to find jobs, don’t know that the — what their skill sets are, don’t know how to behave in the workplace, where they have to work collaboratively and collectively,”

NY Post Story

Full text doesn't make that any less damaging. It's pretty bad, even if it's done with an aura of benevolence. And the context is given by the staff writer, not Bloomberg himself.

  • Thanks 1

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.