What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

SIDA! said:
I saw an article a couple days after the event where it said he made the first payment to some groups. Don't recall where it was. Don't care to look for it. Doesn't matter to me. Speaking for myself...Trump is a vessel...a conduit. In fact...the more ####ed up and flawed he is...the better. The more incompetent, the more shysterish, the more whatever negative adjective or descriptor you want to use...the better.

I don't give two ####s and absolutely zero ####s about any of this stuff that people are trying to slam on him.

Eminent domain? I have worked on local grassroots anti-eminent domain issues. I am a big believer in private property rights. Trump's support of domain to take private property for private enterprise I disagree with. But I don't give a #### about it.

There is a laundry list of items that Trump supports or says that I disagree with. Doesn't matter to me. He very well might appoint a moderate to the Supreme Court if he wins...and the Supreme Court means an awful lot to me. I was beyond bummed when Scalia died. If he appoints a moderate...oh well.

IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ME!

We are in a GOP 2016 thread.

I am looking for someone who will destroy and turn everything on its head. I have said we are in the midst of an intraparty civil war. It should be clear what side I am on. 
 
Click to expand...
As of February 15th Trump hadn't paid a dime to the groups he took in money for, or rather in their name.

Ok I agree with Roboto, this is an anarchist position. Just own it then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok I agree with Roboto, this is an anarchist position. Just own it then.
Click to expand...
JFC...what the #### haven't I owned? I have been an open book on this.

I am not pretending or shilling for Donald like a sycophant  I have repeatedly said that I don't think he is a conservative. I have said that I don't even know if he will do anything he says or any of the stuff I support. 

Do I need to get a ####### tattoo of something somewhere to own it?

 
mr roboto said:
So in reality you're a disillusioned former true believer. Got it. Makes sense honestly. 

I believe the GOP needs a giant middle finger. I believe it needs to soften on social issues and soften slightly on its blind allegiance to all things military, and be the party of freedom. 

But I also believe that this country shouldn't elect a moron. And that a presidential election isn't the place to say '#### it!!!!'  
Click to expand...
Yeah. That is fair to say. I have said as much several times over the last several months on these boards (but I don't expect you to remember my posting history. Suffice to say, I am beyond disillusioned.

I personally don't believe Trump is a moron. Do I think he is the smartest guy in the world, no. But I think people who call him a moron are being disingenuous and silly. If you think he might launch a nuclear bomb because a world leader mocked his hair..then you probably shouldn't vote for him. I don't share those concerns.
 

 
SIDA! said:
JFC...what the #### haven't I owned? I have been an open book on this.

I am not pretending or shilling for Donald like a sycophant  I have repeatedly said that I don't think he is a conservative. I have said that I don't even know if he will do anything he says or any of the stuff I support. 

Do I need to get a ####### tattoo of something somewhere to own it?
Click to expand...
Ok it's not conservative, who cares, you can be what you want, but anarchism is an ideology. That's the own part. It could also be Peronism. Either way.

 
mr roboto said:
So in reality you're a disillusioned former true believer. Got it. Makes sense honestly. 

I believe the GOP needs a giant middle finger. I believe it needs to soften on social issues and soften slightly on its blind allegiance to all things military, and be the party of freedom. 
Click to expand...
Both parties need a giant middle finger

 
SIDA! said:
I understand that you have seen my writings on the subject. But you aren't a Republican and you haven't invested nearly as much as I have into the party and the cause. So, you can read what I have written and understand superficially what I am referring to...but you have no means of truly comprehending or internalizing the significance to me.

You just don't. I don't say that to be dismissive or curt. But you really just don't have the investment I have.

I have walked thousands of doors...literally thousands, made phone calls, volunteered on campaigns in other capacities, been elected to the county central committee, served on endorsement committees and even other stuff that I won't go into here. 

When you say I am getting used or played or acting like a 15 year old or whatever...it just rolls off my back. Your opinion on my vote means less than nothing to me. Now...don't take that to mean that I don't care about your opinions in general or that because I said that I don't value your contributions or think that you aren't intelligent, etc. Just on this issue...it is in one ear and out the other. 

If you want to comment on other aspects of the GOP race...I won't be nearly as dismissive. 
Click to expand...
Are you going to campaign for trump?

 
bolzano said:
You might not like it, but Cruz isn't exiting the race any time soon.
Click to expand...
I don't like Ted, never hidden it.  I don't think he's getting out at any time and honestly I don't really care whether he does.  He should stay in however long he wants to.  I also think he's the one Republican who would lose to Bernie.  He's a creep and a jerk, he isn't likable to any standard.  If somehow he managed to win, he'd get ravaged in the general like a 120 pound man in the state pen.

 
sho nuff said:
Theproblem is Trump woukd very well destroy more than the GOP
Click to expand...
Maybe.

Not sure what you mean by "more than the GOP" exactly. I might be in support of whatever that is or I might not.

But, I am not an anarchist. I think some are confusing anarchy with chaos and also brief bouts of chaos with permanent chaos, etc. 

I am not an anti-statist...at least not in the sense of seeking an end to government. Kind of hard to wrap my head around being a nationalist and an anarchist at the same time.

 
SIDA! said:
If you think wanting to destroy a political party = anarchy...then I guess I am an anarchist to you. That isn't my definition of what an anarchist is though.
Click to expand...
An anarchist seeks to destroy institutions, doesn't have to be the whole government, though without the GOP the US government becomes de facto a one party state.

You have a campaign built on the personality of one man - no matter what he does, no matter what he believes, what he says and does is all that matters - and its' end result is one party rule.

That brings you back to the Pinochet/Peron South American strongman model, that's Peronism, maybe something else.

 
sho nuff said:
Theproblem is Trump woukd very well destroy more than the GOP
Click to expand...


HellToupee said:
I think that hyperbole is so overblown . 
Click to expand...


If the underlying principle is it does not matter what Trump believes, says or does then necessarily you don't exclude the possibility he could harm the nation.

Or does what he says and does and believes in really matter after all?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
An anarchist seeks to destroy institutions, doesn't have to be the whole government, though without the GOP the US government becomes de facto a one party state.
Click to expand...
That is a pretty vague definition of anarchist that essentially implies that any person can be an anarchist. If a Republican seeks to do away with the IRS...is that the work of a conservative or an anarchist.

Were Civil Rights activists seeking to do away with segregation anarchists?

 
SIDA! said:
That is a pretty vague definition of anarchist that essentially implies that any person can be an anarchist. If a Republican seeks to do away with the IRS...is that the work of a conservative or an anarchist.

Were Civil Rights activists seeking to do away with segregation anarchists?
Click to expand...
We're talking structure of society here.

Someone who would seek to destroy the IRS might very well be anarchist, what would the US government do without funding, without revenue? It's fictional but look at Tyler Durden. Hell in real life look at OBL who went after the WTC. In destroying the financial system, they would destroy everything.

Civil rights activists sought to change laws, they were not trying to destroy institutions. Nat Turner was an anarchist. John Brown was an anarchist and he helped set off a civil war and he would have loved that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
We're talking structure of society here.

Someone who would seek to destroy the IRS might very well be anarchist, what would the US government do without funding, without revenue? It's fictional but look at Tyler Durden. Hell in real life look at OBL who went after the WTC.

Civil rights activists sought to change laws, they were not trying to destroy institutions. Nat Turner was an anarchist. John Brown was an anarchist and he helped set off a civil war and he would have loved that.
Click to expand...
I think the United States can survive without the GOP. Are we seriously arguing that the country needs a political party to survive?

And the government doesn't need the IRS in its current form to collect revenue. 

So those who opposed slavery and sought to abolish the institution of slavery were anarchists?

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't really have much more to say other than by your definition I am an anarchist...and I can also be a conservative and a nationalist at the same time.

 
Watching the town hall right now. As a Dem, Kasich seems like a human being, something that has evaded all the other GOP candidates.

 
bolzano said:
According to the recent Q poll, all of the GOP candidates are losing to Sanders, with Kasich being the closest at -4. However, Clinton is still likely to be the nominee, IMO, and Cruz is beating her in the two most recent polls.
Click to expand...
Cruz in the general would be an unmitigated disaster IMO.  Goldwater all over again.  Most Americans aren't even paying attention yet so I don't think the general election polls at this point matter a lot.  The few that are paying attention are primary voters, which includes Cruz's favorable subset of the far right.  

Beyond that I don't see him expanding his base.  For instance, in what way is he remotely someone who can be liked?  I think that it's pretty well agreed Obama, Bush, Clinton, all had that in common.  They came across as someone you like, could have a beer with.  It helped them relate to general election voters.  Hillary has serious issues in that regard, but nothing like Cruz. He comes across as slimy and dishonest.  The dirty tricks he has pulled with Ben Carson and Marco Rubio only make that perception worse.  Cruz has the far right fans, that's where it ends for him.  

 
SIDA! said:
I think the United States can survive without the GOP. Are we seriously arguing that the country needs a political party to survive?

And the government doesn't need the IRS in its current form to collect revenue. 

So those who opposed slavery and sought to abolish the institution of slavery were anarchists?

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't really have much more to say other than by your definition I am an anarchist...and I can also be a conservative and a nationalist at the same time.
Click to expand...


Are you seriously arguing for a one party state? We have two major parties, you're arguing for the destruction of one of them. What does that leave you?

Nationalist? Did you just say nationalist? Ok then yes you are basically South American banana republic, a Peronist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sida I happen to be part Spanish, I have family from Spain. I can tell you that what you speak of smacks of Francoism. You're for that, here in the US. To hell with that, I oppose it, I've seen what it does to a country. The argument was it saved people from communism, it basically destroyed Spain though. See Argentina for another example of how this could work.

But hey at least you have given it a name.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Are you seriously arguing for a one party state? We have two major parties, you're arguing for the destruction of one of them. What does that leave you?

Nationalist? Did you just say nationalist? Ok then yes you are basically South American banana republic, a Peronist.
Click to expand...
Last post from me tonight as I have to move on to some other stuff.

I asked a specific question. Does the country need a political party to survive? No, it doesn't

Arguing for the destruction of a political party hopefully leaves us with the destruction of that party. Why does having two parties benefit this country? Why not three parties? Why not zero? The membership of each party is shrinking. You mean to tell me that 20 years from now that if 10% of the nation is GOP and 15% is Dem but 75% is independent that we should thank God for those two parties otherwise this country would be in ruins?

You keep putting out some rather absurd definitions and then when I show the logical fallacy of these definitions the discussion migrates to some other moving target.

Arguing for the destruction of a political party is simply arguing for the destruction of another political party. Do we live in some static world where another party can't evolve or take shape? I am pretty sure the GOP and the Democrat party didn't exist in 1776. In fact, I am not sure if there were any political parties for the first decade or so of our existence. 

Our constitution doesn't even address political parties and I believe the founding fathers were on the nonpartisan train at our founding. So...let's just end it by me agreeing that under your definition I am an anarchist so long as you stipulate that based on your definition I can also be a conservative and a nationalist.

 
What I think of when I think of Trump supporters, only wall instead of squirrel.

bAol8J_lfZVdRMQCJXiCWSme3S_y3z82HC-HwBcBURHD2qiQ39Iskb90M9Kf9hFhYP55_cnpHsaU9ctQiaNnRg=s240


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
6K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top