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 Donald Trump for President thread (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
squistion said:
Not if Warren was recounting what her family told her when she growing up and she believed it. IIRC her other siblings verified they were also told they had some Native American ancestry. If she knew it was a falsehood, then, yes, it was a lie, but that hasn't been established.
Click to expand...
"Your pah-paw had high cheekbones, just like them Injuns".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loan Sharks said:
Yes, Hillary going after Trump is playing his game. By all means sink to his level Hillary. She instantly becomes little Marco. 
Click to expand...
I think I agree with you on this.

On the other hand she can't just stand there and take it either. She has to respond daily and almost to the minute, but not engage in an insult war she can't win.

 
Higgs said:
A temporary ban until we figure out what's going on.  Like most, I would have preferred he made the ban based on certain countries of origin rather than a religion.  And if elected I'm certain that's the way it would look.
Click to expand...
Love the "temporary", like that makes it ok.   

And in respect to the bolded, why exactly are you certain that's how this would be implemented, when Trump called for a blanket ban?    

 
The Future Champs said:
Love the "temporary", like that makes it ok.   

And in respect to the bolded, why exactly are you certain that's how this would be implemented, when Trump called for a blanket ban?    
Click to expand...
Number one, because a religious test is unconstitutional, and Trump knows it.  How do I think he knows it?  Because he has been talking with Rudi Guiliani about heading up a task force to look into Radical Islam, and it is Rudi who has said several times that it's unconstitutional.  Trump made that ridiculous statement to rile up the base during the throws of a heated primary.  If we went back through history and judged candidates by every promise they made during primaries that was later broken, everyone would come out a liar.  Nothing to see here.

 
Higgs:

A temporary ban until we figure out what's going on.
Click to expand...
And how do we define "what's going on". It's been 14 years since 9/11. Have we figured out what's going on yet? If not, do you think maybe we should launch an investigation into why it has taken so long to figure out what's going on?

When we do figure out what's going on, do we let all the Muslims back into the country all at once? Or do we wait another 20-years for the government to figure out the best way to let the Muslims back in?

And why are Trump supporters suddenly showing so much trust in the federal government? You want to empower the government to control the movements on one religious group, but you don't think it's ever going to happen to anyone else? Really, you think that's a power that the government should be given?

 
The Future Champs said:
Love the "temporary", like that makes it ok.   

And in respect to the bolded, why exactly are you certain that's how this would be implemented, when Trump called for a blanket ban?    
Click to expand...
Anything that stops religious fanatics from coming in here and killing innocent Americans is OK. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions.

 
Higgs said:
Nope.  My preferred change is a guy who treats everyone the same.  No favorable treatment for anyone - white males included.  A guy who learned this lesson in the real world of business, where a person's true value is based on their performance.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
Joe Summer said:
Higgs:
 

And how do we define "what's going on". It's been 14 years since 9/11. Have we figured out what's going on yet? If not, do you think maybe we should launch an investigation into why it has taken so long to figure out what's going on?

When we do figure out what's going on, do we let all the Muslims back into the country all at once? Or do we wait another 20-years for the government to figure out the best way to let the Muslims back in?

And why are Trump supporters suddenly showing so much trust in the federal government? You want to empower the government to control the movements on one religious group, but you don't think it's ever going to happen to anyone else? Really, you think that's a power that the government should be given?
Click to expand...
I think it would consist of a task force being created to look into Radical Islam, assessing the risks to our country with an eye towards evaluating their ability and willingness to infiltrate the country by using our immigration policy.  The task force should also look at our current vetting process, which most acknowledge is insufficient to mitigate the risk.  The person responsible for San Bernardino wasn't vetted correctly.  If she was, that tragedy could have been averted.  The ban would apply to countries where we have determined the risk is highest - most likely Middle Eastern and African countries where we know terrorists are harbored and trained.

 
Higgs said:
Number one, because a religious test is unconstitutional, and Trump knows it.  How do I think he knows it?  Because he has been talking with Rudi Guiliani about heading up a task force to look into Radical Islam, and it is Rudi who has said several times that it's unconstitutional.  Trump made that ridiculous statement to rile up the base during the throws of a heated primary.  If we went back through history and judged candidates by every promise they made during primaries that was later broken, everyone would come out a liar.  Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
There is something to see here, and it's sad that you don't see it.   I agree (obviously) that promises are made and broken all the time during campaigns.   Cutting taxes while increasing military spending and balancing the budget simultaneously is a fine example of a promise that only a stupid person would believe was meant sincerely.    What you should see is that Trump goes far beyond simple rhetoric, and in doing so makes riduculous statements that severely offends and alarms people.   

 
Eminence said:
Anything that stops religious fanatics from coming in here and killing innocent Americans is OK. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions.
Click to expand...
Anything?

eta: Like, for example, taking away yer guns so they can't be used in San Bernadino type massacres?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Future Champs said:
Anything?

eta: Like, for example, taking away yer guns so they can't be used in San Bernadino type massacres?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: This Christian and his CWP may be your only hope when a Muslim comes here and tries to kill you and other freedom loving people. I'd watch your mouth. You'd only be so lucky to have me by your side defending your sorry ###.

 
Eminence said:
Let Hilary pander to women and minorities, I don't care. Let me accept the candidate who is pandering to me, if I know who my opposition is trying to help...  why would I vote for minorities and women? That's stupid.
Click to expand...
What's really sweet about this post is that you think you can divide the electorate into two separate groups - white men vs women and minorities, and still win.  Keep fighting the good fight.

 
Higgs said:
I think it would consist of a task force being created to look into Radical Islam, assessing the risks to our country with an eye towards evaluating their ability and willingness to infiltrate the country by using our immigration policy.  The task force should also look at our current vetting process, which most acknowledge is insufficient to mitigate the risk.  The person responsible for San Bernardino wasn't vetted correctly.  If she was, that tragedy could have been averted.  The ban would apply to countries where we have determined the risk is highest - most likely Middle Eastern and African countries where we know terrorists are harbored and trained.
Click to expand...
So you've decided to ignore the US citizen who took part in the attack?

 
Higgs said:
I think it would consist of a task force being created to look into Radical Islam, assessing the risks to our country with an eye towards evaluating their ability and willingness to infiltrate the country by using our immigration policy.  The task force should also look at our current vetting process, which most acknowledge is insufficient to mitigate the risk.  The person responsible for San Bernardino wasn't vetted correctly.  If she was, that tragedy could have been averted.  The ban would apply to countries where we have determined the risk is highest - most likely Middle Eastern and African countries where we know terrorists are harbored and trained.
Click to expand...
Hey this is a good idea.

We should get some people to look into Radical Islam. 

 
apalmer said:
That would be awesome.  Imagine having a presidential candidate publicly confess to a federal crime.  If anyone would be stupid enough to do that, it would be Trump.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure Hillary Clinton has already confessed to a federal crime. 

 
Joe Summer said:
Higgs:
 

And how do we define "what's going on". It's been 14 years since 9/11. Have we figured out what's going on yet? If not, do you think maybe we should launch an investigation into why it has taken so long to figure out what's going on?

When we do figure out what's going on, do we let all the Muslims back into the country all at once? Or do we wait another 20-years for the government to figure out the best way to let the Muslims back in?

And why are Trump supporters suddenly showing so much trust in the federal government? You want to empower the government to control the movements on one religious group, but you don't think it's ever going to happen to anyone else? Really, you think that's a power that the government should be given?
Click to expand...
Back in?

I thought Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.

Are you saying that Trump proposed deporting Muslims?

 
Loan Sharks said:
It must be very sad for you when your streak of incorrect predictions about Trump breaks the triple digit barrier as "Establishment Republicans will never support Trump" bites the dust. Good news is you are still compiling your never to be broken record.
Click to expand...
If we got a brick for every time timschochet was wrong about Trump he could build a wall on the Mexican and Canadian boarders. 

 
Higgs said:
The one who was radicalized by the Saudi woman?
Click to expand...


Per Wikipedia:

[FBI Director] Comey said that the FBI's investigation had revealed that Farook and Malik were "consuming poison on the Internet"[106] and both had become radicalized "before they started courting or dating each other online"[108] and "before the emergence of ISIL."

 
TobiasFunke said:
Well yeah, of course.  The more fun question is what is he hiding? 

Obvious answer is what General says, he's not nearly as rich as he says. But he could just counter that by saying that his wealth is in real property assets, which I don't think would necessarily show up on income tax returns.

My bet is that he gives very little money, if any, to charity, which would expose his claims to to be a great philanthropist as lies. Lies are nothing new for Trump and his supporters have no problem ignoring them, but if the lie also doubles as exposing his populism and concern for the less well off as horse#### opportunism that might play differently.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's the charity thing. I bet it will show he's given less to charity than any other presidential nominee since they've been showing their returns. Plus, I'm sure he's worth much less than he claims.

 
The spokesman who knows Trump best: Himself


In a 1991 recording obtained by The Washington Post’s Marc Fisher, a man who claims to be a spokesman for Donald Trump named John Miller tells a People magazine reporter about Trump’s first divorce, his romance with France’s future first lady and his messy breakup with Marla Maples

The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian. The man on the phone vigorously defending Donald Trump says he’s a media spokesman named John Miller, but then he says, “I’m sort of new here,” and “I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes” and even “I’m going to do this a little, part-time, and then, yeah, go on with my life.”

A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.

In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.

Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”

Miller turned out to be a remarkably forthcoming source — a spokesman with rare insight into the private thoughts and feelings of his client. “Have you met him?” Miller asked the reporter. “He’s a good guy, and he’s not going to hurt anybody. . . . He treated his wife well and . . . he will treat Marla well.”

Some reporters found the calls from Miller or Barron disturbing or even creepy; others thought they were just examples of Trump being playful. Today, as the presumptive Republican nominee for president faces questions about his attitudes toward women, what stands out to some who received those calls is Trump’s characterization of women who he portrayed as drawn to him sexually.

“Actresses,” Miller said in the call to Carswell, “just call to see if they can go out with him and things.” Madonna “wanted to go out with him.” And Trump’s alter ego boasted that in addition to living with Maples, Trump had “three other girlfriends.”

Miller was consistent about referring to Trump as “he,” but at one point, when asked how important Bruni was in Trump’s busy love life, the spokesman said, “I think it’s somebody that — you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once, quickly, and beautiful . . . ” and then he quickly pivoted back into talking about Trump — then a 44-year-old father of three — in the third person.

In 1990, Trump testified in a court case that “I believe on occasion I used that name.” He did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

In a phone call to NBC’s “Today” program Friday morning, Trump denied that he was John Miller. “No, I don’t think it — I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time and it doesn’t sound like my voice at all,” he said. “I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice and then you can imagine that, and this sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams — doesn’t sound like me.” Later, he was more definitive: “It was not me on the phone. And it doesn’t sound like me on the phone, I will tell you that, and it was not me on the phone. And when was this? Twenty-five years ago?”

Trump has never been terribly adamant about denying that he often made calls to reporters posing as someone else. From his earliest years in business, he occasionally called reporters using the name “John Barron.”

A “John Baron,” described as a “vice-president of the Trump organization,” appeared in a front-page New York Times article as early as 1980, defending Trump’s decision to destroy sculptures on the facade of the Bonwit Teller department store building, the Fifth Avenue landmark he was demolishing to make way for his Trump Tower. Barron was quoted variously as a “Trump spokesman,” “Trump executive,” or “Trump representative” in New York magazine, The Washington Post and other publications.

 
Trump’s fascination with the name “Barron” persisted for decades. When he was seeing Maples while still married to Ivana, he sometimes used the code name “the Baron” when he left messages for her. In 2004, when Trump commissioned a dramatic TV series based on the life of a New York real estate mogul like him, his only request to the writer was to name the main character “Barron.” And when Trump and his third wife, Melania, had a son, they named him Barron.

In the 1991 recording, Miller sounded quite at ease regaling the reporter with tales of Trump hanging out with Madonna at a ball at the Plaza Hotel, which he owned at the time. Asked about the rumored Madonna-Trump friendship, Miller, unlike every other PR man on the planet, neither batted the question away nor gave it short shrift. Rather, he said, “Do you have a second?”

Carswell, the reporter, sounded a bit startled: “Yeah, obviously,” she replie

Whereupon Miller offered a detailed account of the Trump encounter with Madonna, who “came in a beautiful evening gown and combat boots.” The PR man assured the reporter that nothing untoward occurred: “He’s got zero interest that night.”

Miller also revealed to Carswell why Trump seemed to relish any and all media coverage, even the most critical. “I can tell you that he didn’t care if he got bad PR until he got his divorce finished,” Miller said. The more the press wrote about Trump’s money troubles, the greater advantage he would have in negotiations toward a financial settlement with his then-estranged wife, Ivana. Then, “once his divorce is finished,” Miller said, you would see stories about how Trump was “doing well financially and he’s doing well in every other way.”

Carswell this week recalled that she immediately recognized something familiar in the Queens accent of Trump’s new publicist. She thought, “It’s so weird that Donald hired someone who sounds just like him.” After the 20-minute interview, she walked down the hall to play the tape to co-workers, who identified Trump’s voice. Carswell then called Cindy Adams, the longtime New York Post gossip columnist who had been close to Trump since the early 1970s. Adams immediately identified the voice as Trump’s.

“Oh, that’s Donald,” Carswell recalled Adams saying. “What is he doing?”

Then Carswell played the tape for Maples, who confirmed it was Trump and burst into tears as she heard Miller deny that a ring Trump gave her implied any intent to marry her.

Carswell, now a reporter-researcher at Vanity Fair, said the tape cuts off mid-interview, leaving out the part in which Miller said that actress Kim Basinger had been trying to date Trump. Hearing the tape for the first time in decades, Carswell said, “This was so farcical, that he pretended to be his own publicist. Here was this so-called billion-dollar real estate mogul, and he can’t hire his own publicist. It also said something about the control he wanted to keep of the news cycle flowing with this story, and I can’t believe he thought he’d get away with it.”

The Post obtained the recording from a source who asked to be identified only as a person with whom Carswell shared the microcassette of the call shortly after the interview.

From the start of his career as a builder in New York, Trump worked the press. He believed in carrots and sticks, showering reporters with praise, then pivoting to a threat to sue them if they wrote something he considered inaccurate. He often said that all publicity, good or bad, was good for his business.

He made himself available to reporters at nearly any time, for hours on end. And he called them, too, to promote his own projects, but also with juicy bits of gossip.

“One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better,” Trump wrote in his bestseller “The Art of the Deal.” “The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”

Trump did not describe using false identities to promote his brand, but he did write about why he strays from the strict truth: “I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.”

Carswell was far from the only reporter who received calls from suspiciously Trumpian characters. Longtime New York Daily News gossip columnist Linda Stasi said Trump once left her a voice mail from an “anonymous tipster” who wanted it known that Trump had been spotted going out with models. And editors at New York tabloids said calls from Barron were at points so common that they became a recurring joke on the city desk.

After Carswell’s story appeared — headlined “Trump Says Goodbye Marla, Hello Carla . . . And a Mysterious PR Man Who Sounds Just Like Donald Calls to Spread the Story” — Trump invited the reporter out for a night on the town with him and Maples. Carswell says Maples persuaded Trump to issue the invitation as an apology for tricking her. A few weeks later, when People ran a story about Trump and Maples getting engaged, Trump was quoted saying that the John Miller call was a “joke gone awry.”

Carswell had been skeptical all along. On the recording, she challenged Miller: “Where did you come from?”

“I basically worked for different firms,” he replied cryptically. And then he marveled at his boss’s ability to withstand critical news coverage: “I’ve never seen somebody so immune to . . . bad press.”

Miller was also impressed by his client’s social life: “I mean, he’s living with Marla and he’s got three other girlfriends . . . ” But the PR man wanted the reporter to know that Trump believed in “the marriage concept” and planned to settle down, on his own terms: “He does things for himself. When he makes a decision, that will be a very lucky woman.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?asdfk

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Saints, I was reading that article you posted, and regarding Trump's fascination with the name  Baron, it may be a coincidence but in Jeffrey Archer's 1977 bestseller Kane and Abel, Baron is the name of all the hotels owned by the main character, Abel, a real estate developer, and his nickname. Probably no connection but...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DA RAIDERS
Pick a fantasy team for the Tour de France. There will be prizes!
Replies
35
Views
3K
DA RAIDERS
DA RAIDERS
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange - OCT 12 SHIPPING DEADLINE (extended 2 weeks)***
2 3
Replies
141
Views
3K
kutta
kutta
scorchy
Any banking guys that can offer solutions to a vexing issue?
Replies
31
Views
490
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top