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 Presidential Race Thread*** Debate #3 TONIGHT! (2 Viewers)

It's only natural for there to be a lull before the conventions.  Things will pick up when running mates are selected and the delegates head to Cleveland and Philadelphia.

 
So I just learned something about votes....they aren't what you think people!!!!!!!!  Use Caution!!!!!!

Apparently if you are not happy with either choice and you're a "progressive" not voting for Clinton or Trump you're voting for Trump.  If you're a "conservative" not voting for Clinton or Trump you are voting for Clinton.

The next logical question is about those of us who are moderate (having some conservative positions and some liberal positions) who are we voting for when we don't vote for them??? :loco:   

 
The Commish said:
So I just learned something about votes....they aren't what you think people!!!!!!!!  Use Caution!!!!!!

Apparently if you are not happy with either choice and you're a "progressive" not voting for Clinton or Trump you're voting for Trump.  If you're a "conservative" not voting for Clinton or Trump you are voting for Clinton.

The next logical question is about those of us who are moderate (having some conservative positions and some liberal positions) who are we voting for when we don't vote for them??? :loco:   
Click to expand...
You just learned this? Everybody else already knew it. It's only new information for YOU. 

There are two candidates in every Presidential election. Only two. The rest has no chance of winning. You can only vote for one or the other. If you refuse to vote, you're still helping one or the other. If you vote 3rd party, you're still helping one or the other. 

That is the reality. You can pretend it isn't so in order to satisfy your personal whim, but your fantasy world won't affect what really happens. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
So I just learned something about votes....they aren't what you think people!!!!!!!!  Use Caution!!!!!!

Apparently if you are not happy with either choice and you're a "progressive" not voting for Clinton or Trump you're voting for Trump.  If you're a "conservative" not voting for Clinton or Trump you are voting for Clinton.

The next logical question is about those of us who are moderate (having some conservative positions and some liberal positions) who are we voting for when we don't vote for them??? :loco:   
Click to expand...
You just learned this? Everybody else already knew it. It's only new information for YOU. 

There are two candidates in every Presidential election. Only two. The rest has no chance of winning. You can only vote for one or the other. If you refuse to vote, you're still helping one or the other. If you vote 3rd party, you're still helping one or the other. 

That is the reality. You can pretend it isn't so in order to satisfy your personal whim, but your fantasy world won't affect what really happens. 
Click to expand...
I find both options from the main parties :X

So voting for 3rd party isn't helping one or the other, it allows me to vote without walking away with a :bag:

 
timschochet said:
You just learned this? Everybody else already knew it. It's only new information for YOU. 

There are two candidates in every Presidential election. Only two. The rest has no chance of winning. You can only vote for one or the other. If you refuse to vote, you're still helping one or the other. If you vote 3rd party, you're still helping one or the other. 

That is the reality. You can pretend it isn't so in order to satisfy your personal whim, but your fantasy world won't affect what really happens. 
Click to expand...
What do you mean the rest?  There's only two, no?

To show you how completely stupid this echo chamber is, tell me who the moderate I outlined above is voting for when they don't vote for the Dem or the Repub....tia.

 
snogger said:
I find both options from the main parties :X

So voting for 3rd party isn't helping one or the other, it allows me to vote without walking away with a :bag:
Click to expand...
And that is fine. If that is your choice, it's perfectly legitimate. 

But you can't pretend, as the Commish does, that you have no effect on the actual outcome. (You may have no effect for other reasons, such as if you vote in a primary red or blue state.) 

 
The Commish said:
What do you mean the rest?  There's only two, no?

To show you how completely stupid this echo chamber is, tell me who the moderate I outlined above is voting for when they don't vote for the Dem or the Repub....tia.
Click to expand...
in this particular election, any moderate that is true to his or her principles should vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the moderate candidate, while Trump represents extremism. 

 
timschochet said:
in this particular election, any moderate that is true to his or her principles should vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the moderate candidate, while Trump represents extremism. 
Click to expand...
You and your buddies just spent pages and pages in your thread telling us Hillary is a liberal :loco:   

Tim

 
The Commish said:
You and your buddies just spent pages and pages in your thread telling us Hillary is a liberal :loco:   

Tim
Click to expand...
These days there isn't much difference.  :P

It's all good, Commish. I'm leaving on a 3 day vacation to Lake Arrowhead. Sun, swimming and good food. Vote for whoever you'd like.  :thumbup:

 
I want to give a shoutout to the Secret Service during this fiasco.  I can't help but wonder how many of them are thinking "I didn't sign up for this crap" as they have to protect these yahoos.  Normally, I wouldn't give this group a second thought, but I have a good friend who was on Daddy Bush's detail for a long time after he was out of office and got a "promotion" to be on the active service for Trump.  I've seen him on TV and in pictures a good bit lately and would be utterly pissed if he died protecting this idiot.

Much respect to the Secret Service and all they do.

 
Today's question is derived from recent events of prominent GOPers leaving the party and the rumors of active GOPers not participating in the convention next month.  For the sensible GOPers here in the FFA, does it piss you off that sitting reps aren't going to participate or are you ok with it?  For me personally, I get it from those who aren't in office but still carry a good bit of clout with the party.  For those sitting reps who are in an active term, I have a problem with it.  They are leaders right?  Shouldn't they be there leading and fighting the fight if their constituents are asking them to?

 
I keep coming back to the re-election debate episode of The West Wing. President Bartlet is running against a smarmy blowhard idiot. Everyone keeps talking about how he's just a smarmy blowhard idiot. CJ is smart enough to be worried, and no one understands why. Finally, she explains, it's the expectations game. There's almost no way they can win:

C.J.

Toby, I'm absolutely terrified we're going to lose the expectations game. I can't believe

how many times I get asked what would be a win in the debates. At this point I feel like

if -- and only if -- Ritchie accidentally lights his podium on fire does the President have

a fighting chance.

TOBY

I disagree.

C.J.

Disagree all you want, but I'm right.

TOBY

These two men are going to be side by side on the stage, answering questions. That's

the ball game.

C.J.

If the whole thing is, he can't tie his shoelaces and it turns out he can, then that

is the ball game.

TOBY

And I believe he'll have to do more than tie his shoelaces.

C.J.

Not much more.
Click to expand...


Of course, in the episode, Ritchie (the smarmy blowhard idiot) comes across as rather nice and charming. It's only when the superior intellect of Bartlet shines through do the American People realize that Bartlet is the better choice.

Anyway, all this "Trump is evil" "Trump is Hitler" "Trump sucks" talk is really just bouncing around in an echo chamber, but there's no way the media will be able to spin some major events coming up: the Convention and the 3 debates. There people will get an un-censored and un-tainted view of Trump, live. Sure, there's spin after these events, but if people tune in and see the man live, opinions will be formed instantly.

What they see is what will determine this election. If they've been spoonfed for months that "Trump is Hitler", and he gets up on that stage and he isn't, people are going to think "Wait, he's not as bad as everyone's been saying. He's not the punchline they've made him out to be."

And, since no one is really talking about policy and philosophy, they're just saying "he's stupid and crazy", then, if it turns out he doesn't come across that way, then there's a real risk here for the democrats. They're not saying "Don't vote for Trump because his ideas are bad", they're saying "Don't vote for Trump because he's not right for the job". If people stop buying the latter, the race will get very tight and very interesting very quickly and people might start buying into Trump's ideas.

Right now the whole thing seems to be "Trump can't tie his shoelaces". He might walk out there on the stage and prove he can. That'll really shake things up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Philo said:
I keep coming back to the re-election debate episode of The West Wing. President Bartlet is running against a smarmy blowhard idiot. Everyone keeps talking about how he's just a smarmy blowhard idiot. CJ is smart enough to be worried, and no one understands why. Finally, she explains, it's the expectations game. There's almost no way they can win:

Of course, in the episode, Ritchie (the smarmy blowhard idiot) comes across as rather nice and charming. It's only when the superior intellect of Bartlet shines through do the American People realize that Bartlet is the better choice.

Anyway, all this "Trump is evil" "Trump is Hitler" "Trump sucks" talk is really just bouncing around in an echo chamber, but there's no way the media will be able to spin some major events coming up: the Convention and the 3 debates. There people will get an un-censored and un-tainted view of Trump, live. Sure, there's spin after these events, but if people tune in and see the man live, opinions will be formed instantly.

What they see is what will determine this election. If they've been spoonfed for months that "Trump is Hitler", and he gets up on that stage and he isn't, people are going to think "Wait, he's not as bad as everyone's been saying. He's not the punchline they've made him out to be."

And, since no one is really talking about policy and philosophy, they're just saying "he's stupid and crazy", then, if it turns out he doesn't come across that way, then there's a real risk here for the democrats. They're not saying "Don't vote for Trump because his ideas are bad", they're saying "Don't vote for Trump because he's not right for the job". If people stop buying the latter, the race will get very tight and very interesting very quickly and people might start buying into Trump's ideas.

Right now the whole thing seems to be "Trump can't tie his shoelaces". He might walk out there on the stage and prove he can. That'll really shake things up.
Click to expand...
You may be onto something. The bar is set so low for Trump, that all he has to do is not go on some crazy tirade during one of his speeches and people think that he did a great job. Basically, all Trump has to do is not look like a complete idiot. Seems pretty simple, but he hasn't shown he can do that yet.

 
So, I've been away from the FFA for several days and haven't had time to throw my thoughts into the thread.  I caught very little of the Repub convention this week, but the parts I did catch were really outside status quo of your typical convention.  It was Trump supporters and "traditional" Republicans all in one room and they didn't seem to like sharing the same air.  I did catch "the speech" last night along with some a few speeches just prior to Ivanka and I also caught some banter about the booing of Cruz at the convention.  I don't get the :hophead:  thought process on why this is something that will be used against Trump.  Why would it matter that Trump supporters were booing the other outsider that was in this race a few months ago?  Now, no one likes Cruz.  I don't really get what Cruz thought he'd gain, but I don't really care all that much.  I was sorta shocked when I turned on NPR this AM to hear Trump talking about Cruz.

I was absolutely shocked to have a GOP convention where people were actively cheering for LGBT topics/individuals.  I was shocked to see a GOP convention that was so opposite what is in their official platform.  The question is, who do you believe?  Is this a turning point for the GOP?  My facebook/twitter are FULL of people ("conservatives") that are upset with Trump's comments last night.  Apparently, they believed what he was saying and they didn't like it.  These would be lunatics in my family mixed in with some distant friends and friends of friends.  I have yet talked to anyone willing to admit they will actively vote for him.

I made a comment several weeks ago in one of these threads that I could easily see Trump ending up left of Clinton when this whole thing is said and done.  I don't see how she ends up left of him on the economy and trade at this point.  We know she'll be right of him on foreign policy, wars and all that good stuff.  I'm interested to see how next week plays out.  We are being bombarded with strange commercials in my area.  I don't get the "your kids are watching" shtick.  They aren't and the 4-5 year olds as depicted especially aren't.  Maybe would have been more impactful to use teenagers?

We've been told that no one pays attention to the candidates until the primaries are done and the conventions happen.  I'm not sure I agree with that, but let's say that's true.  The problem Trump placed before Hillary last night was that he didn't sound or look like his typical unhinged lunatic self last night.  By Trump standards he pulled it off.  If that's the first that MOST people saw him (again, I'm not sure this is true) this could be closer than the experts predicted.

 
Ok....time to kick this goat rodeo into full gear guys...let's do this!! :thumbup:

It's not fair to compare the two conventions.  One really was the JV.  The other was your typical "shining of the turd the best we can" variety.  That said, the Dem convention had some wonderful moments.  Michelle and Somoza were the highlights for me along with Joe.  Hillary did a good job (by her standards) in her speech last night.  Plenty of nuggets for the base.  The question is, can one speech alter preconceived notions based on her actions in a meaningful enough way for the speech to matter to those who don't want to vote for Trump?  Time will tell.  It was particularly interesting to what she listed as the items in her "first 100 days" portion of the speech.  It was nice to have this portion from her as Donald didn't provide such.  

It will be interesting to see if the decided upon platform is adhered to in any sort of meaningful way outside the low hanging fruit.  There were platitudes and promises abound.  We are left to guess which ones were genuine and which ones were rhetoric.  

As I type this out, I believe both candidates are near the 40% favorable mark give or take a few points.  But I'm not sure if I should go there....I get mixed messages on whether I should look at polls or I shouldn't or what poll I need to look at during one time period and others etc.  I'm comfortable with simply pointing out that their numbers are the worst in our country's history.  That's quite astonishing.  Is it because we have access to more information today (meaning our choices have always been crappy and we just didn't know it) or is it a real indictment on the two individuals?

Anyway, first debate is 9/26....let the games begin!!!

 
Too bad we can't "fire" the two candidates and let their VP's take their place..
I don't know a heck of a lot about either one, but both would be better then the two "main" candidates.

Not a huge libertarian fan, but since nolabels.org hasn't become a party yet, it looks like Gary Johnson is my only play this time around :kicksrock:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger said:
Too bad we can't "fire" the two candidates and let their VP's take their place..
I don't know a heck of a lot about either one, but both would be better then the two "main" candidates.

Not a huge libertarian fan, but since nolabels.org hasn't become a party yet, it looks like Gary Johnson is my only play this time around :kicksrock:
Click to expand...
As an Indiana guy, trust me, Mike Pence isn't someone anyone other than religious social conservatives would want in the White House.

 
It's going to be a long 100 days with the establishment types creating these caricature type strawmen and attacking them as if they think there is any sort of merit to it.  They DO get to ignore the reality that the two parties in this country decided Hillary and Trump were our best options this time around.  So maybe that works for them, but it doesn't work for the national electorate as a whole....just shines an ever growing light on this epic race to the bottom.  The state of this country is somewhere between Trump's doom and gloom and Hillary's rainbows and unicorns.  Somehow admitting that has become problematic and caused some mental gymnastics, the likes of which I have never seen before.  It's a special time.

 
The debates will be quite fascinating to watch.  :trainwreck:

Hillary is at her best, it seems, when she can wax eloquent about 'Murica and 'Murican people.  But the debate won't be up at that lofty plateau ...it'll be a slugfest down in the muck (or if not, Trump will certainly pull it down there).  Can she handle the constant body blows?  Can she turn it around and put Trump on the defensive?  These debates will not be our country's finest hour, but they will be entertaining.

 
I don't even know where to look for polling information.  Are we allowed to look at polls now?  If so, what are they looking like?  If all is right in the world, Trump's buffoonery is down double digits already.  I've already started counting down the days to 2020 being prepared to happily admit my wrongness should something out of the ordinary happen before then.  One can hope.

 
The Commish said:
I don't even know where to look for polling information.  Are we allowed to look at polls now?  If so, what are they looking like?  If all is right in the world, Trump's buffoonery is down double digits already.  I've already started counting down the days to 2020 being prepared to happily admit my wrongness should something out of the ordinary happen before then.  One can hope.
Click to expand...
Just finished reading a story from Wired Magazine about how the "Old" way of polling is failing..

Basically, thanks to more and more people using Mobile phones only, and the amount of people that refuse to answer Phone Polls, they are getting around 1% success rate getting people to answer ..

The "average" polling from realclearpolitics is probably the best of the so called polling.  :mellow:

 
The Commish said:
I don't even know where to look for polling information.  Are we allowed to look at polls now?  If so, what are they looking like?  If all is right in the world, Trump's buffoonery is down double digits already.  I've already started counting down the days to 2020 being prepared to happily admit my wrongness should something out of the ordinary happen before then.  One can hope.
Click to expand...
I would take anything coming out right now with a grain of salt. Give it another couple of weeks after the conventions. Also, you can really just look at PA, OH, and FL as opposed to national numbers, which mean nothing.

 
Or I can just stay away from the polling...which is probably best. ;)  

Do I really care what an electorate producing Hillary and Trump is doing knowing it felt Hillary and Trump were our best options?

 
Hopefully, for the sake of the nation, Gary Johnson will NOT rise to 15%. 

We don't need the distraction. The public needs to see that this is a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that there are NO other viable options. That's the best way that Hillary will be assured of victory. Beyond that, Trump would love nothing more than having Johnson in the debate since the less he (Trump) has to say, the better. 

 
The fear mongering is strong in this election cycle.  Both sides have gone all in trying to play that card over and over and over.  It's almost as if both sides have said "####, did we just do that?  Now what?"  I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.  

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully, for the sake of the nation, Gary Johnson will NOT rise to 15%. 

We don't need the distraction. The public needs to see that this is a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that there are NO other viable options. That's the best way that Hillary will be assured of victory. Beyond that, Trump would love nothing more than having Johnson in the debate since the less he (Trump) has to say, the better. 
Click to expand...
When one of the most partisan people on this board is that concerned about their flawed candidate that they don't want anyone else involved in the debates.. well...  :mellow:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hopefully, for the sake of the nation, Gary Johnson will NOT rise to 15%. 

We don't need the distraction. The public needs to see that this is a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that there are NO other viable options. That's the best way that Hillary will be assured of victory. Beyond that, Trump would love nothing more than having Johnson in the debate since the less he (Trump) has to say, the better. 
Click to expand...
Sorry your candidate is so weak that you have to fear a guy with no money or organization in comparison to her. We need more voices on that stage not less.

 
NCCommish said:
timschochet said:
Hopefully, for the sake of the nation, Gary Johnson will NOT rise to 15%. 

We don't need the distraction. The public needs to see that this is a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that there are NO other viable options. That's the best way that Hillary will be assured of victory. Beyond that, Trump would love nothing more than having Johnson in the debate since the less he (Trump) has to say, the better. 
Click to expand...
Sorry your candidate is so weak that you have to fear a guy with no money or organization in comparison to her. We need more voices on that stage not less.
Click to expand...
Establishment donkeys will do whatever necessary to avoid this reality.  

 
So Trump has just fallen right into the DNCs trap with this Khan fiasco.

A smart Trump acknowledges their loss, praises their sons heroism, and says they misunderstand his policy or something and everyone moves on.

A narcissist who likes to play domination games Trump literally couldn't respond that way. He isn't wired for it. He had to attack. And of course the attacks get stupider and stupider dragging in his surrogates destroying any credibility they had.

DNC played him. And while I am sorry the Khan's have been attacked and their sons service denigrated you kind of had to expect it. You made a very political soeech at a very political venue attacking that parties political opponents. Going to be some blowback.

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully, for the sake of the nation, Gary Johnson will NOT rise to 15%. 

We don't need the distraction. The public needs to see that this is a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that there are NO other viable options. That's the best way that Hillary will be assured of victory. Beyond that, Trump would love nothing more than having Johnson in the debate since the less he (Trump) has to say, the better. 
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you fear a close race could leave Hillary short of 270 if Gary can muster enough public support to nab a few states, e.g. the people having a voice outside of the Sophie's Choice they've been given by the traditional parties. Which of course would leave it to a potential vote in the House with 21 states lacking laws against faithless votes in that scenario. Maybe see what Bernie Sanders is up to, oh wait, your party already railroaded the candidate with a better chance of winning outright.

 
The Commish said:
So, I feel like I need to ask this question.

Is Trump even trying to win at this point? :oldunsure:  
Click to expand...
Well, it is well known he didn't join the race to win, he did it to stroke his little ego to say "Look, without even trying I came in 2nd"..
Then the inexplicable happened and he won the primaries..

Now he is looking at having to give up Full Control of all his operations/companies and is wondering how he can get out and "save face".
He has already started to plant the seeds to blame it on the Media, the debates, the fixed elections, etc... for his loss.

That's what I'm going with :mellow:

 
I don't thinking he's trying to win.  The bigger question becomes, then, what do the Republicans do about it?  It's a real Catch-22 for them.

 
tri-man 47 said:
I don't thinking he's trying to win.  The bigger question becomes, then, what do the Republicans do about it?  It's a real Catch-22 for them.
Click to expand...
Not sure there's anything they CAN do at this point outside of blowing #### up and starting over, which might not be a bad idea.  Perhaps they could grab back some of their positions from Hillary and company.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Doctor Detroit
2016-17 CFB Bowl Games thread: Bama vs ClemPson for all the marbles
31 32 33
Replies
2K
Views
32K
bigmarc27
bigmarc27
squistion
***Official Trump 2/28/17 Congressional Address Thread***
3 4 5
Replies
221
Views
6K
Riversco
Riversco
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

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