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*** Broken Promises to the Trumpettes (1 Viewer)

OK. Poked my head in... too much of the usual aimless, nasty partisan squabbling for me. 

Is there a nutshell? Did it happen? Or are we still waiting? 
Not sure what you're referring to other than him being skeptical of anything that would tarnish his win in his eyes.  All those sorts of things, regardless of how real they are, are to be mocked and not trusted.

 
I honestly just wanted an answer about whether the info he said he had on the russian hacking that he said he was going to divulge on tuesday or wednesday actually got divulged. and if so, what was the content.

I'm taking it, given the comments, that nothing was divulged?... yet? or are we just on to the next bit of twitter?
My bad, I was talking about the thread overall, that's what I thought you meant with your question.

 
GB El Floppo, I think he's releasing that when he releases his plan to remove concerns around his perceived conflicts of interest with foreign governments....any day now

 
The president of Mexico Tweeted his response. It's pretty great.

I'm not a big fan of the plan to use taxpayer money for a structure (that cannot hope to stop any illegal immigrant with access to a rope) without securing the future financing. 

Trump says it's for sake of speed. OK. We can do both tho, right? We can arrange the deal with Mexico for the payment, while using taxpayer money in the meantime, right?

Reminds me of Wimpy from Popeye: Buy me a $20 billion wall today, and I'll gladly get Mexico to pay you back on Tuesday.

 
Answer a question for me, are the House Senate and Presidency now Republican or Democrat? What were they in 2009?

not looking for any polls or ratings or what if scenario under different laws. 
Answer this question?  How many of those seats were won due to gerrymandering and voter suppression?

 
El Floppo said:
I honestly just wanted an answer about whether the info he said he had on the russian hacking that he said he was going to divulge on tuesday or wednesday actually got divulged. and if so, what was the content.

I'm taking it, given the comments, that nothing was divulged?... yet? or are we just on to the next bit of twitter?
As usual it was just typical Trump BS. He didn't know anything extra.

 
As long as he puts more money in my pocket, so I don't have to support all the lazy folks, he can break any other promise he wants.  

 
As long as he puts more money in my pocket, so I don't have to support all the lazy folks, he can break any other promise he wants.  
Ahhh the half of america is living off of my hard work myth. Is there anything so self serving. Thank you for single handedly propping up america sir. The rest of us can take it easy now.  

 
Ahhh the half of america is living off of my hard work myth. Is there anything so self serving. Thank you for single handedly propping up america sir. The rest of us can take it easy now.  
You betcha.  I don't go to work everyday to serve others, unless it's for my family and friends.  

 
As long as he puts more money in my pocket, so I don't have to support all the lazy folks, he can break any other promise he wants.  
Have you even bothered to look at what percentage of your tax dollars go toward social safety net programs? Because this is just a HUGELY ignorant statement.

 
As long as he puts more money in my pocket, so I don't have to support all the lazy folks, he can break any other promise he wants.  
Listen amigo, if it were up to Trump your rear end would still be in Mexico working as a poorly compensated chemist for Don Eladio and the other men who murdered your lover and then made you stare his lifeless corpse in the eyes.

 
Have you even bothered to look at what percentage of your tax dollars go toward social safety net programs? Because this is just a YUGELY ignorant statement.
FYP

Meh - it was intended to be ignorant/sarcastic, however you want to look at it.  I couldn't really care less what the percentage is, as long as I'm paying less in taxes over the next four years.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as he puts more money in my pocket, so I don't have to support all the lazy folks, he can break any other promise he wants.  
This is a common refrain and an understandable one.  

The question is How will you measure it?  Do you have a baseline number for how much you were paying in taxes over the last eight years? Broken down by income, consumption, Federal, state & local taxes and how much of each went to what program?

 
This is a common refrain and an understandable one.  

The question is How will you measure it?  Do you have a baseline number for how much you were paying in taxes over the last eight years? Broken down by income, consumption, Federal, state & local taxes and how much of each went to what program?
Until his cabinet convinces him to start another war that we will pay for.  And that wall won't be cheap.  

 
I have a lot more money in my pocket ... and this happened under Obamas tenure. It's called networking, experience, education, targeting the right career, elimination of all debt while living within means.

It had nothing to do with Obama. Trump on the other hand, will increase my federal tax rate by 5%.

 
For me the greater concern than Trump himself is how many people are willing to simply ignore his most questionable actions (and those questionable actions surrounding him that some will argue he was not a party to).

Violations of the Logan act doesn't bother anyone. 

The potential conflicts regarding his financial holdings and the Emoluments Clause don't seem to be a concern for anyone who voted for him but I am pretty sure they were big deals when Trump was suggesting that his opponents were guilty of the same.  The Emoluments Clause should be particularly concerning because we have a situation where national policy will very likely be set for the maximum profit for Trump and his cabinet rather than the best interest of our nation.  If those two ends always intersected then I wouldn't have a problem with it either but that seems like a tenuous position to hang your hat upon.

The Russian intervention into the election seems to bother none of his supporters.

Filling his cabinet with nothing but billionaires and Washington insiders seems to bother none of his supporters either despite the fact that a huge part of his campaign was based on exactly the opposite.

The blind loyalty and complete unwillingness of his base to question any of his questionable acts or positions is very concerning.  This is how dictators come to hold power.  We all laugh at the suggestion that it could happen in America but that fact actually adds to my concern because it will allow us to be blindsided when Trump (or the next Trump) manages to push through the elimination Presidential term limits.  Because I don't think his base will care.

It's gonna be an interesting ride.

 
This is a common refrain and an understandable one.  

The question is How will you measure it?  Do you have a baseline number for how much you were paying in taxes over the last eight years? Broken down by income, consumption, Federal, state & local taxes and how much of each went to what program?
It's not the actual spend of these social programs that I'm concerned about, that sparked my comment.  It's the sense of entitlement that our society seems to be trending towards.  People think they are above a minimum paying job or decent paying trade work, when in fact, a decent portion of our society just is not due to education, work ethic, etc.  So, instead of taking a job, these types of people take government funding to get by as an easy way out.  

When I see these same types of people destroying businesses (supposedly protesting) of pepole who work hard every day to make an honest buck, it makes my blood boil, as no decent human being with a job would destroy another person's place of business, as they would realize the hard work that goes into running a company or holding down a job.  

 
It's not the actual spend of these social programs that I'm concerned about, that sparked my comment.  It's the sense of entitlement that our society seems to be trending towards.  People think they are above a minimum paying job or decent paying trade work, when in fact, a decent portion of our society just is not due to education, work ethic, etc.  So, instead of taking a job, these types of people take government funding to get by as an easy way out.  

When I see these same types of people destroying businesses (supposedly protesting) of pepole who work hard every day to make an honest buck, it makes my blood boil, as no decent human being with a job would destroy another person's place of business, as they would realize the hard work that goes into running a company or holding down a job.  
This group crosses political lines.  For every "welfare mom" daring to buy a birthday cake or "homeless guy" daring to eat lobster there are just as many decrying the "illegals" for taking our jobs but would never even consider picking artichokes in the fields all day or cleaning an office building.  Both groups are taking government money.  So why is the group that supports Trump better than the group that supported Hillary?

The conservative party used to be about morality and taking care of those in need through volunteering, church organizations and private programs.  Now it seems they just say "#### 'em!".  That conservative party used to also be suspicious of the Russians and want a leader with a moral compass.  Now they seem to welcome Putin and say things like "We're not electing the Pope, we're electing the President!".  The truth is it's all about voting personal pocket book and they don't care if the benefit comes from the Government, private sector, Russians or Lord Xenu.

 
This group crosses political lines.  For every "welfare mom" daring to buy a birthday cake or "homeless guy" daring to eat lobster there are just as many decrying the "illegals" for taking our jobs but would never even consider picking artichokes in the fields all day or cleaning an office building.  Both groups are taking government money.  So why is the group that supports Trump better than the group that supported Hillary?

The conservative party used to be about morality and taking care of those in need through volunteering, church organizations and private programs.  Now it seems they just say "#### 'em!".  That conservative party used to also be suspicious of the Russians and want a leader with a moral compass.  Now they seem to welcome Putin and say things like "We're not electing the Pope, we're electing the President!".  The truth is it's all about voting personal pocket book and they don't care if the benefit comes from the Government, private sector, Russians or Lord Xenu.
I don't argue this - my point is, IF people (no matter what side of the fence you sit) have the mental capacity to work or are not disabled in some way that prevents them from making an honest paycheck, then they should be working in some form.  If they simply choose not to work, then yes, #### 'em.  

I'd love to see stats on the amount of people taking government funding, over say the last 10-15 years.  I'd guess that is a trend that is on the upward tick which likely correlates to the second bolded part eroding over the years, as they realize people are just gaming the system.  

 
Gustavo Fring said:
As long as he puts more money in my pocket, so I don't have to support all the lazy folks, he can break any other promise he wants.  
the best thing I love about post like these is that they are made during a typical work day. Now I don't know, maybe you work a 3rd shift, but are you are really working so hard and everything when you are posting on footballguys in the middle of the day

* FYI I started my day at 7:30 today so I am in the clear throwing my stone at the glass house

 
Gustavo Fring said:
I don't argue this - my point is, IF people (no matter what side of the fence you sit) have the mental capacity to work or are not disabled in some way that prevents them from making an honest paycheck, then they should be working in some form.  If they simply choose not to work, then yes, #### 'em.  

I'd love to see stats on the amount of people taking government funding, over say the last 10-15 years.  I'd guess that is a trend that is on the upward tick which likely correlates to the second bolded part eroding over the years, as they realize people are just gaming the system.  
First, I don't think this issue is nearly as big as you seem to imply it is. Maybe I'm wrong.

Second, having said that, I think its quite possible this this class of people will get larger as time goes on. As computers can do more jobs that humans once did, more people will be displaced from the workforce. I reckon that's why a guaranteed basic income will eventually become a reality.

Just a guess but I reckon there will be a fair number of people who just subsist on the guaranteed income - whether they want to or need to. And that will be fine because there will be fewer jobs for low skilled workers. So its probably something you should learn to accept.

 
Chaka said:
For me the greater concern than Trump himself is how many people are willing to simply ignore his most questionable actions (and those questionable actions surrounding him that some will argue he was not a party to).

Violations of the Logan act doesn't bother anyone. 

The potential conflicts regarding his financial holdings and the Emoluments Clause don't seem to be a concern for anyone who voted for him but I am pretty sure they were big deals when Trump was suggesting that his opponents were guilty of the same.  The Emoluments Clause should be particularly concerning because we have a situation where national policy will very likely be set for the maximum profit for Trump and his cabinet rather than the best interest of our nation.  If those two ends always intersected then I wouldn't have a problem with it either but that seems like a tenuous position to hang your hat upon.

The Russian intervention into the election seems to bother none of his supporters.

Filling his cabinet with nothing but billionaires and Washington insiders seems to bother none of his supporters either despite the fact that a huge part of his campaign was based on exactly the opposite.

The blind loyalty and complete unwillingness of his base to question any of his questionable acts or positions is very concerning.  This is how dictators come to hold power.  We all laugh at the suggestion that it could happen in America but that fact actually adds to my concern because it will allow us to be blindsided when Trump (or the next Trump) manages to push through the elimination Presidential term limits.  Because I don't think his base will care.

It's gonna be an interesting ride.
Presidential term limits eliminated? :lmao:

 
The NAR is not happy about Trump reversing Obama's rate cut for insurance premiums on FHA loans.  I think Trump is just postponing the cut so he gets credit.

 
Presidential term limits eliminated? :lmao:
And there it is (just as I said).

I agree that it sounds absurd but we are already ignoring so many other issues (and it is the alleged Constitutionalists who are leading that movement). Why do you think that it could never happen here?

 
And there it is (just as I said).

I agree that it sounds absurd but we are already ignoring so many other issues (and it is the alleged Constitutionalists who are leading that movement). Why do you think that it could never happen here?
Why won't it happen? 

Basically, to repeal an existing amendment, you need to ratify a new amendment. It's all the same process, and you have to proceed in one of two ways. The first route is to get the amendment passed through both the Senate and House of Representatives by a two-thirds vote ― a steeper threshold than the simple majority required for normal legislation, and even more than the 60-vote super-majority needed to thwart a filibuster in the Senate. Then the amendment has to be ratified by a staggering three-fourths of all state legislatures throughout the country.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/158725-can-the-22nd-amendment-be-repealed-dont-hold-your-breath-for-a-third-obama-term

 
Why won't it happen? 

Basically, to repeal an existing amendment, you need to ratify a new amendment. It's all the same process, and you have to proceed in one of two ways. The first route is to get the amendment passed through both the Senate and House of Representatives by a two-thirds vote ― a steeper threshold than the simple majority required for normal legislation, and even more than the 60-vote super-majority needed to thwart a filibuster in the Senate. Then the amendment has to be ratified by a staggering three-fourths of all state legislatures throughout the country.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/158725-can-the-22nd-amendment-be-repealed-dont-hold-your-breath-for-a-third-obama-term
Again I agree that it seems absurd but 2016 was a pretty absurd year.

And don't focus on the term limit notion, the larger point is that no one seems to care that there are some highly questionable, very possibly illegal, issues surrounding this guy and none of his followers, the people who allege to be constitutionalists, seem to mind.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top