Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TobiasFunke

Members
  • Content Count

    43,543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

TobiasFunke last won the day on December 17 2019

TobiasFunke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

29,547 Excellent

About TobiasFunke

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

18,760 profile views
  1. Just for the sake of clarity- that's not at all how it works. Generally what happens is there's an investigation by law enforcement, and then if the investigation turns up sufficient evidence in the eyes of the prosecutor, they seek an indictment from a grand jury. If the grand jury returns an indictment there's a trial (unless the defendant reaches a plea agreement) where the prosecution and the defendant are both permitted to call witnesses, with the judge evaluating the relevance of witnesses and the conduct and a jury ultimately returning a verdict. In the case of a president the inve
  2. They're maiming and murdering civilians. They're maiming and murdering children. They're maiming and murdering an American aid organization. Donald Trump stood aside and enabled this. And now he's making jokes about it at his rallies. Everyone told you this kind of stuff would happen if you elected this man, and you either didn't believe us or didn't care. This is who you are and what you've done, and no cheap jokes about me can change that.
  3. You asked a question, I answered. I'd bet that most anti-Trump people agree with me. You can ask them if you want. Or you can actually address the substance of why people think that. But we all know nobody here will do that, because your support for the man is indefensible. That's why you all magically disappeared yesterday when he was supporting ethnic cleansing, committing the most brazen act of corrupt self-dealing in American political history, and having his chief of staff admit a massive and blatantly corrupt abuse of power within the span of a couple hours. So you'll make jokes about me
  4. In addition to the fact that this is completely wrong and that there obviously was an explicit quid pro quo, it's irrelevant and laughably silly. The president doesn't need to explicitly demand a quid pro quo in order to make it improper for him to demand a politically motivated investigation abroad. The mere fact that the person on the other side of the call knows he's dealing with the president of the United States is more than enough to make it improper. But whatever. You'll tell yourself you still have a line as you watch the presidency of the United States being used as nothing mor
  5. I was one of the people who used to say we should leave this thread to the Trump supporters. And I did, for a long time. But #### that. The stuff going on this week has crossed the line, and no person who continues to support this disgrace deserves shelter from constant reminders of just what they've done. Frankly they deserve a lot worse than some angry anonymous liberals on the internet posting in their message board thread.
  6. To be fair I don't think Trump himself is homophobic. He just has no problem empowering and amplifying wildly homophobic people and giving them jobs like Vice President and Attorney General for political gain. He's definitely a racist, sexist, narcissistic, corrupt idiot though.
  7. Honestly, I do kind of get it. I do the same thing when one of my favorite teams is getting blown out or having a rough week. I'll ignore them, walk away from social media and the news coverage, maybe lie to myself and say I don't really care about them that much, or try to blame fate or seek out some weak excuse for their performance. The only difference is that the Nats are just getting swept by the Mets, not inviting the mass slaughter of our allies or shredding the Constitution for personal gain. If they were doing those things I like to think I'd stop rooting for them.
  8. If you want to understand how they live with themselves, take a look through this thread- or the entire forum- and count the number of posts from Trump supporters since 3-4 hours ago, when the Mulvaney quid pro quo admission, the G-7 scam and the Turkey capitulation all came out seemingly at the same time. Or look at the number of public comments offered up by Trump allies in politics and the media since then. They live with themselves by refusing to acknowledge, let alone address, what they've empowered and enabled. Whenever they finally get their marching orders and venture back out, I
  9. I kind of understand what Joe and the rest of the mods are trying to do around here. But at some point if we aren't allowed to describe these people and their movement using accurate and easily supportable terms and descriptions, doesn't that censorship become part of the problem rather than part of the solution because it normalizes it? We should not be normalizing this degree of rampant, obvious hypocrisy and betrayal of fundamental values by rejecting accurate descriptions of it. These people are hypocritical and cult-like in their support of a cruel, corrupt bigot. And I can verify ev
  10. If it wasn't obvious, this wasn't just about the donor thing. Like for example, if anyone here would like to explain how hosting the G-7 at Doral is somehow acceptable to the same people who made "drain the swamp" a rallying cry, and talked so much about fighting corruption and self-dealing, and made a huge deal out of the mere possibility that foreign interests might gain preferential treatment by donating to a Clinton-family charity, have at it.
  11. I'm old enough to remember when you guys said you liked Trump because he was self-financing his campaign and therefore wouldn't beholden to wealthy donors and special interests. I know I'm not supposed to call you all a cult because of the forum rules and all, so can someone please give me an alternate word or phrase that I can use to describe a movement that is demonstrably based entirely on support for a person rather than principles, as evidenced by frequent position reversals and contradictions on issues in service of empowering that person? I don't want to offend anyone. TIA.
  12. Since you can't take a hint- I wasn't trying to convince you. I know you don't have an answer to my questions. I was trying to illustrate to others how baseless your "everyone does it" defense of the administration was by picking it apart.
  13. I wouldn't say that we know of everything that goes on, of course. But I would say that because of these safeguards I would be absolutely stunned if any President in our lifetimes had ever offered a preemptive pardon to a member of his administration to entice them to commit unlawful acts prior to the Trump administration. I'd bet a lot of money on reasonably big odds that it's never happened. So the idea that this sort of thing is actually business as usual strikes me as totally absurd.
  14. Third time: If you think this happens all the time, why is this the first time something like this ("this" being trying to entice officials to commit crimes by offering them pardons) has been reported, especially considering that there would be less harm in leaking it once a president is out of office? Do you think this is the only time in recent American political history that reporters have had high-up sources in the White House?
  15. I'm trying to explain that you do. Journalists, administrative processes, political norms- all of them have provided a safeguard against these sort of things until Trumpism started to chip away at them.
×
×
  • Create New...