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.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (18 Viewers)

JAA said:
As someone who wasn’t anti Trump in 2016 and voted for neither he nor Clinton, I can chime in.  My 2016 vote was more about being angry at our current political climate and less about the candidates. I was angry and the political machines (Clinton’s) and the moral high ground of the D’s and then the gerrymandering and IMO unethical conduct of the R’s.  That’s why I voted for neither.

I was wrong 

I had no idea how bad Trump could be. If I could go back in time I would change my vote to Hilary. Not because she would have been a good president, I don’t think she would be. I think she would have been the second most pompous president next to Trump. She also would continue to build the Clinton foundation which leaves a lot to be desired. However, she would not have set back out democracy 20-30 years. Yes, Rs would be angry and yes there would be a pendulum swing, but nothing as bad as Trump.  I think that would have been the better play for our country  

Here is my commitment going forward to the RNC - give me any reasonable candidate. Anyone who isn’t a narcissistic sociopath and I will vote for them. I’m fine with a R president for the rest of my lifetime* if it isn’t Trump or his ilk and then senate and the house are D controlled.
 

* - what the R’s did with SCOTUS was not cool and needs to be fixed  
Click to expand...
I don't agree with all of this post, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind it. You and I aren't that far apart, actually. I, too, was angry at our political climate in 2016. But that's exactly why I voted for Trump. I wanted someone to come in and shake up the establishment, and I actually feel like President Trump did a pretty good job of doing exactly that. And I'm happy with the 3 Supreme Court justices.

(But I still wouldn't vote for Hillary, though!)

 
supermike80 said:
I know this will get shot down but I swear it "feels" like CNN is celebrating.
Click to expand...
I don't think CNN is celebrating. Certainly lots of people laughing on Twitter and other places. Lots of the Seinfeld sarcastic "That's a shame" meme eyeroll stuff. It is what it is. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Say we had a very popular cult leader (not Trump) calling governors and holding rallies ginning up followers based in claims God has elected him as President. Say that was gaining some momentum and rhetoric was turning violent, and sorry I have to write this, but in this hypothetical God did not elect him (there was an actual election,) what’s the remedy?

  • Would leaders start to speak out?
  • Would police and national guard be called?
  • At what point would the dangers of this be recognized and acted upon?
  • What would or should be done?
Click to expand...




If the person considered a "cult leader" ( The distinction being by whom? The MSM? The general public at large?), by federal law from the JDOLC Nixon/1973 precedent, no sitting POTUS can be prosecuted for a crime nor indicted while in office. You have to wait until they are out of office unless you go through the process to impeach and remove the POTUS via Congress and then pursue criminal action.  So the only practical discussion is if this person is not sitting POTUS.

The scale, scope and political nature of which you discuss, including themes of violence,  leads to the question of a the group being officially labeled under the Patriot Act's expanded definition of a "domestic terrorist organization."  Where the resulting government response will include asset seizure, single jurisdiction federal warrant capability and immediate response from federal law enforcement agencies, including and specifically their designated para military tactical wings.

The Patriot Act Section 802 limits the definition of "domestic terrorism"  to conduct that 1) violates federal or state criminal law and 2) is dangerous to human life. ."Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse  and their parent organizations engaging in political advocacy are not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism.

Does the "rhetoric turning violent" actually violate a federal or state criminal law? You need to meet each legal element exhaustively. This "cult leader" would need to be proven to have directed/incited specific acts of violence against specific targets that would, based on a reasonable person's standard and "beyond a reasonable doubt", create an immediate physical threat to any as discussed citizen of the Republic.

If you speak of inciting violence against others, you have no rallies. Any rally of any scale requires a venue. No venue is required to allow you to rent their facilities/land if you violate their guidelines, which includes criminal acts or the incitement of criminal acts. You also have no MSM coverage, as this violates FCC guidelines. You may or may not receive social media coverage, as it's clearly the decision making there is arbitrary and Congressional hearings have shown that behavior is collusive across all the major players involved.  How do you "gin up followers" if you have no public platform?

So, for example, "Make America Great Again" is a political slogan. It's not a formal organization. ( This is not a discussion of the merchandising, which clearly falls out of the scope of Section 802) There is no charter, there is no application to membership nor dues, there is no legal body built within it, it has no formal chain of command nor pathway towards a a collective bank account, tax bearing responsibility, financial behavior, etc that indicates a formal monolithic group. Section 802 can't even label Antifa, which has publicly listed cells of operation and have been caught using incendiary devices and standard recruitment techniques that align with typical asymmetrical warfare strategies.

This doesn't even begin to raise the question of "peaceful political discourse"  So, for example, how often are rallies with a MAGA presence turned into violence or a call for direct violence?  Legally, you have to look at the scope of the behavior of rallies as trends and established patterns, not just some one off incident, of which, legally speaking, there are currently none.

Would the National Guard be called in and/or the Insurrection Act of 1807 be activated, even if you could manage to show legally everything I've discussed before? Tactically speaking, a credible threat to America's national security would need to have any insurrection show anti-aircraft capability greater than the sum of the entire military capability of every formal Non-US armed forces on the face of the entire planet. FBI HRT trains and has a resource base equal to Tier 1 military special forces operators, including drone capability that can deploy ordinance. "Mutual Aid" as defined under the Patriot Act means city law enforcement like the elite LAPD SWAT and NYPD ESU can be deployed outside their cities and state.  Secret Service, US Marshals SOG, US Customs, USPS, DIA, DSS, CIA Field Operations Division, it's pretty much an endless list of agencies with para military tactical units that train and are equipped on par with specialized military operators. Any insurrection would need to chew through all of this first and wipe out the National Guard's collective air power before anyone at DHS would even begin to take someone seriously as a practical threat against America in a pure shoot out.

Here is where your narrative gets interesting -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXTkNWgNEzE

This video shows an undercover investigation showing field director Scott Foval and founder Bob Creamer ( husband of a Democratic Congresswoman and convicted of bank fraud) , using established political firms FUNDED by the DNC, discussing tactics/citing previous experience on how to hire mentally ill people to start physical violence/attack random citizens at specific RNC political rallies to create negative MSM optics. The DNC fired them, of course, and cited there is no actual physical evidence that this ever happened.

Given that the Democratic National Committee is a formal organization, established with a charter, funding, bank accounts, tax implications and a clear political motive that no court in the land would deny,  there would actually be more evidence, as of today, to show the DNC as a "domestic terrorist organization" under Section 802, than you could for Donald Trump's entire administration, campaign and rallies combined.

Do I consider the Democratic National Committee to be a "domestic terrorist organization?"  No, I don't.  I could push political tribalism here, but I'm not a political tribalist.  I'll actually look at established law and practical logistics. If no one is rushing to imprison Scott Foval, Bob Creamer and his wife and Antifa, then you'll have a difficult time going after what is supposed, by hearsay, a single phone call to Georgia in the middle of the night.

When Donald Trump, for all his flaws, is caught on video hiring people, with RNC campaign dollars, to physically attack American citizens who only wanted to exercise their First Amendment Right to peaceful assembly, then come talk to me about "violent rhetoric"  that threatens the Republic.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Gaslighting is one of those trendy popular terms often used incorrectly. 

I'd rather us just stick to:

  • Facts.
  • Links to stories.
  • Not making broad generalizations. "All Democrats are _______" etc.
"Defund the Police" has been an explosive comment. Many have been clear to make sure they mean way more than "reform". Words like "Abolish" or "Dismantle". 

Leaders like Bernie Sanders downplayed it was being said which Republicans loved to show him the politicians saying it. 

President Elect Biden hasn't said defund the police. President Obama came out saying not to say it. 

On the Republican side, I don't know nationally, but the people I know in real life that are Republicans are very much in favor of reforming the police. They may be white, but they have teenage kids that do dumb stuff and can possibly put themselves in potentially dangerous situations with police. They are not fans of a powerful police union that covers for bad cops. 

That's the more full picture in my opinion. 
Click to expand...
Yup.  Defund The Police might be the dumbest marketing slogan I’ve heard in decades.  No idea why the Dems keep using that term.  Obama was right to call out AOC and others for their tone deaf approach to conversations on police reform.  The minute you say “defund the police” any rational discussion becomes almost impossible.  It’s a losing approach.

 
timschochet said:
The amazing thing about this is that she really wants us to disregard ALL mail in votes. Throw them all out; they’re all unconstitutional. That’s actually her argument: don’t look for fraudulent ones, just throw out everyone of them. 
And people like the guy who posted this apparently believe the Supreme Court is going to go along with this. 
Click to expand...
That’s just insane.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
timschochet said:
The amazing thing about this is that she really wants us to disregard ALL mail in votes. Throw them all out; they’re all unconstitutional. That’s actually her argument: don’t look for fraudulent ones, just throw out everyone of them. 
And people like the guy who posted this apparently believe the Supreme Court is going to go along with this. 
Click to expand...
I don't think the SC can make a country wide ruling on voting in the first place. Elections are run by the states. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
whoknew said:
Sneegor said:
Election going to Supreme Court which likely keeps Trump in White House
Click to expand...
This is funny.

How is it going to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has ordered the State Of Pennsylvania to respond to Representative Mike Kelly's lawsuit by 9 a.m. on December 8th.

In theory, the Court could make a last-minute decision to intervene before the Electoral College meets on December 14th.

But that won't happen. The State will basically say "Mike Kelly is full of crap" and the SCOTUS will say "We see no evidence to justify geting involved."

Like someone said above, it's fan fiction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High said:
I don't think the SC can make a country wide ruling on voting in the first place. Elections are run by the states. 
Click to expand...
They also can't interpret the PA Constitution. That's a state law issue and the PA Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on that issue. In the state court action, Kelly and his merry band of anti-democracy sycophants only claimed that Act 77 violated the PA Constitution. They never claimed or tried to prove that it violated the US Constitution. They are literally basing their entire case on the hope that the majority of SCOTUS will somehow ignore the law and bow down to Donald Trump.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Mr. Ham said:
Very good article on what to call whatever it is Trump is doing post election.

Gist is that regions that experience coups commonly have nuanced terms for them like Intuits do for snow. It’s important it’s defined, because even if it implodes through incompetence, the attempt and complicity of the party make it meaningful precedent and it’s recognizable through coup attempts that happen in other nations.

Cannot believe after only four years of an American leader in any party we have to seriously discuss why that party has refused peaceful transition after election defeat. But we do.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing Ham.  Our Founding Fathers would be sickened by this behavior.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Why was this a hoax?  Plenty of other journalists corroborated the story.
Click to expand...
Yea...I didn't see that this either.

And it's crazy how "anonymous sources" have become taboo just during the trump years, but they've been completely fine in the political reporting/journalism circles for decades.

 
Sea Duck said:
Rich Conway said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Just a reminder the Atlantic authored the Suckers and Losers Hoax.  Read with caution.
Click to expand...
Why was this a hoax?  Plenty of other journalists corroborated the story.
Click to expand...
The author of the story was slightly wrong about one minor aspect of it, therefore the entire story is a hoax.
Click to expand...
You've got it backwards. The story was BS and it was impossible to get it right. Just curious - did you read it? And more importantly, did you consider good journalism?

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
You've got it backwards. The story was BS and it was impossible to get it right. Just curious - did you read it? And more importantly, did you consider good journalism?
Click to expand...
I agree - it’s total BS when stories continue to be put out there as fact when in reality they are made up works of fiction. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Sea Duck said:
Rich Conway said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Just a reminder the Atlantic authored the Suckers and Losers Hoax.  Read with caution.
Click to expand...
Why was this a hoax?  Plenty of other journalists corroborated the story.
Click to expand...
The author of the story was slightly wrong about one minor aspect of it, therefore the entire story is a hoax.
Click to expand...
You've got it backwards. The story was BS and it was impossible to get it right. Just curious - did you read it? And more importantly, did you consider good journalism?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've read the Atlantic piece as well as several follow-up articles in addition to other associated pieces. Whether I personally consider it to be "good journalism" is mostly irrelevant, and something of a message board "gotcha!" trope. The article is not flawless, nor does any article need to be. But, unfortunately, in the Trump era, any criticism of the President which is not 100% flawless and airtight will be forever attacked and dismissed as "fake news." The author would have benefited from a familiarization with sociopathic behaviors, as one of the common tactics is to highlight a minor flaw in your critic, and relentlessly attack it while dismissing and/or justifying every other legitimate critique.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
Sea Duck said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Sea Duck said:
Rich Conway said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Just a reminder the Atlantic authored the Suckers and Losers Hoax.  Read with caution.
Click to expand...
Why was this a hoax?  Plenty of other journalists corroborated the story.
Click to expand...
The author of the story was slightly wrong about one minor aspect of it, therefore the entire story is a hoax.
Click to expand...
You've got it backwards. The story was BS and it was impossible to get it right. Just curious - did you read it? And more importantly, did you consider good journalism?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've read the Atlantic piece as well as several follow-up articles in addition to other associated pieces. Whether I personally consider it to be "good journalism" is mostly irrelevant, and something of a message board "gotcha!" trope. The article is not flawless, nor does any article need to be. But, unfortunately, in the Trump era, any criticism of the President which is not 100% flawless and airtight will be forever attacked and dismissed as "fake news." The author would have benefited from a familiarization with sociopathic behaviors, as one of the common tactics is to highlight a minor flaw in your critic, and relentlessly attack it while dismissing and/or justifying every other legitimate critique.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it was good journalism isn't irrelevant - it's the entire point of the exchange - and telling that you don't want to answer it. Either way, if you did think that article was legit, you're probably going to love the coup-fear-mongering one Ham just posted. Enjoy.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Whether or not it was good journalism isn't irrelevant - it's the entire point of the exchange - and telling that you don't want to answer it. Either way, if you did think that article was legit, you're probably going to love the coup-fear-mongering one Ham just posted. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's not that I didn't want to answer. I wanted to see if you were only interested in derailing the thread by playing the "gotcha" game.

Seems like I got my answer.

But, yes, the article is good journalism. It's not perfect, but it's good. Shall we discuss it?

 
Witz said:
I agree - it’s total BS when stories continue to be put out there as fact when in reality they are made up works of fiction. 
Click to expand...
Agreed.  I should tell you this story about Russian hookers and pee tapes when I get a chance.  You'll never believe it in a million years!  ;)

 
Are the Trump supporters in here upset that he hasn’t revealed his beautiful healthcare plan yet?  I was under the impression he was going to reveal it after the election, but he is running out of time to get it passed. 

 
Max Power said:
"You'll See a Lot of Big Things Happening Over the Next Couple of Days" - President Trump 
Click to expand...
Gotta keep the hope hook in (today was a very bad day for him) so his supporters keep making those donations. I’m sure about double the fundraising emails and texts went out today. I know someone on the list and he says he gets about 3-5 per day still since the election on average. That should tell you everything what his quote is really about. A fool and their money and all that. 💸💸💸💸

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies said:
Are the Trump supporters in here upset that he hasn’t revealed his beautiful healthcare plan yet?  I was under the impression he was going to reveal it after the election, but he is running out of time to get it passed. 
Click to expand...
He’s been busy focusing on Covid.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Mr. Ham said:
I’ll leave it to further historians, but I do find it surprising that more people didn’t jump off the Trump bus at various points, whether it was impeachment, or kids in cages, or “stand by” to proud boys, or what he’s doing now. The all-in mentality is just so strange and disconcerting. It’s pretty clear that those still with him would stay on for a lot more.

It doesn’t seem to be a freeway that was designed with any off-ramps. 
Click to expand...
The conservative base believes that Donald Trump, more than any other political leader in recent times, is on their side. Of course they’re sticking with him. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
461
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 19 (members: 0, guests: 19)
Top