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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
sho nuff said:
He didn't call you a child...just implied you were not a grown up in this discussion.  And given your posts in this thread, he has a point.
Click to expand...
You can leave here too, pal. I don't understand this topic? Are you people nuts?

I've been rooting for Trump since day 1 while all you said he had no chance. But clearly, it's you people who continue to be wrong that are qualified to talk about the topic.

Not the guy who's had it right the whole time. Delusional.

 
Eminence said:
You can leave here too, pal. I don't understand this topic? Are you people nuts?

I've been rooting for Trump since day 1 while all you said he had no chance. But clearly, it's you people who continue to be wrong that are qualified to talk about the topic.

Not the guy who's had it right the whole time. Delusional.
Click to expand...
Can I stay?  I clean up after myself and don't eat that much. 

 
Eminence said:
You can leave here too, pal. I don't understand this topic? Are you people nuts?

I've been rooting for Trump since day 1 while all you said he had no chance. But clearly, it's you people who continue to be wrong that are qualified to talk about the topic.

Not the guy who's had it right the whole time. Delusional.
Click to expand...
Was this supposed to be a coherent thought?

 
Bigboy10182000 said:
6 months ago did you have Trump where he is right now?  Seriously asking
Click to expand...
Of course not; no one did. But angry old white guys, while great in a Republican primary, don't cut it in a general election. The electoral map and changing ethnic demographics in this country mean even a strong Republican candidate has an uphill battle. Someone as toxic as Trump with women and minorities is completely effed.

 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eminence said:
I'm almost certain we're getting Hilary vs Trump and Trump wins the whole damn thing. He's going to do a lot of good for our country.

He's going to bring us back to where we were and where we still should have been.
Click to expand...
This is back in August of last year. But I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, right?

 
Eminence said:
Eminence said:
I'm almost certain we're getting Hilary vs Trump and Trump wins the whole damn thing. He's going to do a lot of good for our country.

He's going to bring us back to where we were and where we still should have been.
Click to expand...
This is back in August of last year. But I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, right?
Click to expand...
The bolded sort of defeats your "I know what i'm talking about" argument.

 
tone1oc said:
Another one bites the dust.. 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Senator-Kirk-Wont-Support-Trumps-Candidacy-382137381.html
Click to expand...
This is one of the major flaws with what some people refer to as 'the Establishment'. Like any elected official in the House or Senate, from national down to local government, Senator Kirk has a constituency he is required, in theory, to be beholden to. Technically, in theory, everything he says and does, every decision he makes should be based on the will of his constituency, and his constituency, again, technically and theoretically, should be based off of voters (with each voter counting for one vote), and have nothing to do with money/campaign contributions, and the currying of favor by either representative or consituents. Simply exercise 'the will of the people he represents'...if Senator Kirk, or any other elected representative feels compelled to make a statement like this, it should be in response to him receiving a massive amount of feedback from his constituency that he exercise their will.

I'm pretty darn certain Mark Kirk's office has not received some overwhelming flood of calls from a gross majority of people who voted for him in his last campaign, calling for him to rescind his support of Trump. He's simply making an impactful public statement that he has no business making, unless what I wrote in my previous statement actually occurred.

If it actually did, I'll willingly stand corrected, but to prove me wrong, you will have to show me a verifiable figure of how many people voted for Kirk in his last sucessful campaign (that will establish the constituency) and then provide a verifiable source that shows that he received feedback from over 50% of those voters (establishing that a simple majority of his constituents compelled him to do so).

This post isn't about for or against Trump. It's about the perversion our process has gone through, and why I'm currently inclined to vote for anyone that I feel can deliver on upsetting the entire Establishment apple cart. Both parties, both houses, and all 3 branches are all to blame, and all need a shake up...

...and no, I'm not a Sanders guy either.

 
ProTip: One correct long shot dart <<< years of utter public idiocy and childishness. When you broadcast your personal train wreck for years on a public forum, it's kind of silly to cry about not being taken too seriously.

 
What's so fascinating about this latest fiasco is that it was so self inflicted. Trump University had nothing to do with his campaign; he could have simply said, as he has done with his taxes, that his lawyers advised him not to talk about the court case. Nobody else was talking about it. It had nothing to do with the issues that Trump has been talking to people about: trade, jobs, etc. 

 
nittanylion said:
This is one of the major flaws with what some people refer to as 'the Establishment'. Like any elected official in the House or Senate, from national down to local government, Senator Kirk has a constituency he is required, in theory, to be beholden to. Technically, in theory, everything he says and does, every decision he makes should be based on the will of his constituency, and his constituency, again, technically and theoretically, should be based off of voters (with each voter counting for one vote), and have nothing to do with money/campaign contributions, and the currying of favor by either representative or consituents. Simply exercise 'the will of the people he represents'...if Senator Kirk, or any other elected representative feels compelled to make a statement like this, it should be in response to him receiving a massive amount of feedback from his constituency that he exercise their will.

I'm pretty darn certain Mark Kirk's office has not received some overwhelming flood of calls from a gross majority of people who voted for him in his last campaign, calling for him to rescind his support of Trump. He's simply making an impactful public statement that he has no business making, unless what I wrote in my previous statement actually occurred.

If it actually did, I'll willingly stand corrected, but to prove me wrong, you will have to show me a verifiable figure of how many people voted for Kirk in his last sucessful campaign (that will establish the constituency) and then provide a verifiable source that shows that he received feedback from over 50% of those voters (establishing that a simple majority of his constituents compelled him to do so).

This post isn't about for or against Trump. It's about the perversion our process has gone through, and why I'm currently inclined to vote for anyone that I feel can deliver on upsetting the entire Establishment apple cart. Both parties, both houses, and all 3 branches are all to blame, and all need a shake up...

...and no, I'm not a Sanders guy either.
Click to expand...
Please cut it out with the anti-establishment shtick.

Donald has been chasing the establishment's money and endorsements for 2 months now, he was born into the establishment, he is the establishment, he wants to rule for the establishment, if the boyars of the oligarchy had a vote to pick a stalking horse who the Angry would fall for he would be it. The problem isn't that he's anti-establishment it's that he's an :censored: le.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
nittanylion said:
This is one of the major flaws with what some people refer to as 'the Establishment'. Like any elected official in the House or Senate, from national down to local government, Senator Kirk has a constituency he is required, in theory, to be beholden to. Technically, in theory, everything he says and does, every decision he makes should be based on the will of his constituency, and his constituency, again, technically and theoretically, should be based off of voters (with each voter counting for one vote), and have nothing to do with money/campaign contributions, and the currying of favor by either representative or consituents. Simply exercise 'the will of the people he represents'...if Senator Kirk, or any other elected representative feels compelled to make a statement like this, it should be in response to him receiving a massive amount of feedback from his constituency that he exercise their will.
Click to expand...
No, he's not elected to do "the will of his constituency".  That's what results in pork barrel legislation--"i'm doing what my constituents want".  He's elected to do the right thing for the country. If the majority of his constituents want to support something that he believes is bad for the country, he should side against it.

It's the exact opposite that's the "flaw"--politicians pandering to groups like the Tea Party and voting contrary to their conscience in order to make their "constituents" happy so they can be re-elected.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
nittanylion said:
This is one of the major flaws with what some people refer to as 'the Establishment'. Like any elected official in the House or Senate, from national down to local government, Senator Kirk has a constituency he is required, in theory, to be beholden to. Technically, in theory, everything he says and does, every decision he makes should be based on the will of his constituency, and his constituency, again, technically and theoretically, should be based off of voters (with each voter counting for one vote), and have nothing to do with money/campaign contributions, and the currying of favor by either representative or consituents. Simply exercise 'the will of the people he represents'...if Senator Kirk, or any other elected representative feels compelled to make a statement like this, it should be in response to him receiving a massive amount of feedback from his constituency that he exercise their will.

I'm pretty darn certain Mark Kirk's office has not received some overwhelming flood of calls from a gross majority of people who voted for him in his last campaign, calling for him to rescind his support of Trump. He's simply making an impactful public statement that he has no business making, unless what I wrote in my previous statement actually occurred.

If it actually did, I'll willingly stand corrected, but to prove me wrong, you will have to show me a verifiable figure of how many people voted for Kirk in his last sucessful campaign (that will establish the constituency) and then provide a verifiable source that shows that he received feedback from over 50% of those voters (establishing that a simple majority of his constituents compelled him to do so).

This post isn't about for or against Trump. It's about the perversion our process has gone through, and why I'm currently inclined to vote for anyone that I feel can deliver on upsetting the entire Establishment apple cart. Both parties, both houses, and all 3 branches are all to blame, and all need a shake up...

...and no, I'm not a Sanders guy either.
Click to expand...
More than half of the voters in the Illinois Republican primary voted for "other than Trump." And I'm damn sure that waaaaaaay fewer than half of Illinois residents as a whole want nothing to do with Trump in the White House.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

1. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.

2. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximately three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.

3. Students of color face harsher punishments in school than their white peers, leading to a higher number of youth of color incarcerated. Black and Hispanic students represent more than 70 percent of those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement. Currently, African Americans make up two-fifths and Hispanics one-fifth of confined youth today.

4. According to recent data by the Department of Education, African American students are arrested far more often than their white classmates. The data showed that 96,000students were arrested and 242,000 referred to law enforcement by schools during the 2009-10 school year. Of those students, black and Hispanic students made up more than70 percent of arrested or referred students. Harsh school punishments, from suspensions to arrests, have led to high numbers of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile-justice system and at an earlier age.

5. African American youth have higher rates of juvenile incarceration and are more likely to be sentenced to adult prison. According to the Sentencing Project, even though African American juvenile youth are about 16 percent of the youth population, 37 percent of their cases are moved to criminal court and 58 percent of African American youth are sent to adult prisons.

6. As the number of women incarcerated has increased by 800 percent over the last three decades, women of color have been disproportionately represented. While the number of women incarcerated is relatively low, the racial and ethnic disparities are startling. African American women are three times more likely than white women to be incarcerated, while Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely than white women to be incarcerated.

7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses. According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in threeof the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.

8. Once convicted, black offenders receive longer sentences compared to white offenders. The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes. The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more like to be sentenced to prison.

9. Voter laws that prohibit people with felony convictions to vote disproportionately impact men of color. An estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote based on a past felony conviction. Felony disenfranchisement is exaggerated by racial disparities in the criminal-justice system, ultimately denying 13 percent of African American men the right to vote. Felony-disenfranchisement policies have led to 11 states denying the right to vote to more than 10 percent of their African American population.

10. Studies have shown that people of color face disparities in wage trajectoryfollowing release from prison. Evidence shows that spending time in prison affects wage trajectories with a disproportionate impact on black men and women. The results show no evidence of racial divergence in wages prior to incarceration; however, following release from prison, wages grow at a 21 percent slower rate for black former inmates compared to white ex-convicts. A number of states have bans on people with certain convictions working in domestic health-service industries such as nursing, child care, and home health care—areas in which many poor women and women of color are disproportionately concentrated.
Click to expand...
Wrong ratios.  For all we know blacks commit more crimes and those numbers are entirely legitimate.

 
If you're not voting for trump, is the only reason to be in this thread to argue? Same with anti-Hillary people in her thread. There isn't one person on FBGs whose mind is going to be changed, especially with the nature of discussions that we've had the past 100+ pages. 

Multiple people have asked the past couple of days "where are all of the Trump supporters?", like anyone would want to post and defend themselves against an accusatory mob. Maybe after dinner, I'll head over to the trump rally and discuss my views with the protesters. Should make for a wonderful evening. Anyhow, that's why I think you see Higgs going at this semi-alone recently. Much more patience than I have. Have a good night. 

 
timschochet said:
What's so fascinating about this latest fiasco is that it was so self inflicted. Trump University had nothing to do with his campaign; he could have simply said, as he has done with his taxes, that his lawyers advised him not to talk about the court case. Nobody else was talking about it. It had nothing to do with the issues that Trump has been talking to people about: trade, jobs, etc. 
Click to expand...
I think he knows exactly what he's doing.  He's a master manipulator.  This is deflecting from the real issues of the lawsuit.  He has everyone talking about a judge now and not Trump U or any of the underlying issues.  The details of the case will be exposed in time, but for now the narrative is not about fraud or even Hillary securing the nomination - its a national debate over a judge.

Just like Donald wants it.

 
Higgs said:
Wrong ratios.  For all we know blacks commit more crimes and those numbers are entirely legitimate.
Click to expand...
7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses. According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in threeof the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.

8. Once convicted, black offenders receive longer sentences compared to white offenders. The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes. The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more like to be sentenced to prison.

 
Amused to Death said:
I think he knows exactly what he's doing.  He's a master manipulator.  This is deflecting from the real issues of the lawsuit.  He has everyone talking about a judge now and not Trump U or any of the underlying issues.  The details of the case will be exposed in time, but for now the narrative is not about fraud or even Hillary securing the nomination - its a national debate over a judge.

Just like Donald wants it.
Click to expand...
You're giving him way too much credit IMO. Even sources inside his campaign are saying he shoots completely from the hip with no coherent plan. And the whole Mexican judge angle is probably more damaging than the specifics of any one of many slimy business deals that he's been involved in. Republican senators, members of congress, and members of the right-wing media are openly calling him a racist now. His campaign in totally unraveling.

 
3C's said:
Looks like Trump is building a wall after all, between what he said then and what he's saying now. My words were misconstrued
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Can you imagine what's going on behind closed doors with this buffoon and the senior Republican leadership? He's going to say more dumb and outrageous garbage every time he's questioned or pressed on an issue for the next five months, and then double down, then get slapped back down by Priebus, etc and back off; lather, rinse, repeat. It's going to be awesome.

 
avoiding injuries said:
If you're not voting for trump, is the only reason to be in this thread to argue? Same with anti-Hillary people in her thread. There isn't one person on FBGs whose mind is going to be changed, especially with the nature of discussions that we've had the past 100+ pages. 

Multiple people have asked the past couple of days "where are all of the Trump supporters?", like anyone would want to post and defend themselves against an accusatory mob. Maybe after dinner, I'll head over to the trump rally and discuss my views with the protesters. Should make for a wonderful evening. Anyhow, that's why I think you see Higgs going at this semi-alone recently. Much more patience than I have. Have a good night. 
Click to expand...
And that's only because I took two weeks off and regrouped.

 
avoiding injuries said:
If you're not voting for trump, is the only reason to be in this thread to argue? Same with anti-Hillary people in her thread. There isn't one person on FBGs whose mind is going to be changed, especially with the nature of discussions that we've had the past 100+ pages. 

Multiple people have asked the past couple of days "where are all of the Trump supporters?", like anyone would want to post and defend themselves against an accusatory mob. Maybe after dinner, I'll head over to the trump rally and discuss my views with the protesters. Should make for a wonderful evening. Anyhow, that's why I think you see Higgs going at this semi-alone recently. Much more patience than I have. Have a good night. 
Click to expand...


So all political threads should just be happy loving support for the candidate...no opposition allowed?

BS.

 
bananafish said:
If Higgs hasn't changed his mind, he certainly is vacillating. Eventually you give up boogie-boarding and run from the tsunami.
Click to expand...
He has claimed to have been on the fence before...even declared himself a free agent.  Within hours he was back arguing for Trump.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Huh? Size of the group in question isn't relevant -- the numbers are incarcerations / 100K population. The United States incarcerates its citizens at vastly higher rates as compared to the rest of the world, and incarcerates minorities at hugely disproportionate rates as compared to white people. Those are facts. The discussion about why this happens might be worth having -- a discussion about whether or not it actually is happening is about as worthwhile as discussing whether or not the sky is actually indeed blue.
Click to expand...
Yes you gave two links. One with #1 higher incarceration numbers and a link #2 with higher sentencing numbers. You are combining them to make your argument. I'm merely pointing out #1 is unaffected by #2. And the #2 study doesn't consider factors such as repeat offenders/past criminl history.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
So all political threads should just be happy loving support for the candidate...no opposition allowed?

BS.
Click to expand...
Of course not. What would you do with your days without arguing non-stop on two different fantasy football message boards in dozens of threads. You're by far the worst offender of this and have single handily brought the board down a notch or two. 

 
GROOT said:
Yes you gave two links. One with #1 higher incarceration numbers and a link #2 with higher sentencing numbers. You are combining them to make your argument. I'm merely pointing out #1 is unaffected by #2. And the #2 study doesn't consider factors such as repeat offenders/past criminl history.
Click to expand...
So is your position that the criminal justice system in the United States is unbiased?

 
avoiding injuries said:
Of course not. What would you do with your days without arguing non-stop on two different fantasy football message boards in dozens of threads. You're by far the worst offender of this and have single handily brought the board down a notch or two. 
Click to expand...
Hmm...a message board, made for discussion.  And I discuss things on it and that brings it down a notch or two?  Always makes me laugh when people do that...oh no, you talk on a message board...:lmao:

Also...its funny that I was recently called a stalker after replying to a poster who was talking about me...yet, here we have someone watching me on other boards...quite interesting.

Psst...I also do quite a bit of discussion without arguing...and there are quite a few stops each and every day.

 
sho nuff said:
Hmm...a message board, made for discussion.  And I discuss things on it and that brings it down a notch or two?  Always makes me laugh when people do that...oh no, you talk on a message board...:lmao:

Also...its funny that I was recently called a stalker after replying to a poster who was talking about me...yet, here we have someone watching me on other boards...quite interesting.

Psst...I also do quite a bit of discussion without arguing...and there are quite a few stops each and every day.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
avoiding injuries said:
If you're not voting for trump, is the only reason to be in this thread to argue? Same with anti-Hillary people in her thread. There isn't one person on FBGs whose mind is going to be changed, especially with the nature of discussions that we've had the past 100+ pages. 

Multiple people have asked the past couple of days "where are all of the Trump supporters?", like anyone would want to post and defend themselves against an accusatory mob. Maybe after dinner, I'll head over to the trump rally and discuss my views with the protesters. Should make for a wonderful evening. Anyhow, that's why I think you see Higgs going at this semi-alone recently. Much more patience than I have. Have a good night. 
Click to expand...
These threads wouldn't get past two pages if everyone in them agreed.

Think about it in football terms. If I create a thread titled "Brady is the best QB ever", and everyone agrees with me, it's gonna be a pretty short and boring thread.

 
bananafish said:
You mean the black guy who got sentenced to six years for a rape he didn't commit doesn't like that a white Stanford swimmer got six months for the same crime, only this time there were two eyewitnesses who caught him red-handed?

Cut and dried case of reverse racism if you ask me. This is the curse that will tear this nation apart, and I should know I have a half-black half-sister and I've read a book.
Click to expand...
:lol:  I deleted this because I thought I was posting in the other thread. Then I realized Wacky Higgs had been going on about this subject.

 
An update from the Governator Ahhhnald:  

"Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

 
Coeur de Lion said:
:lmao:  Can you imagine what's going on behind closed doors with this buffoon and the senior Republican leadership? He's going to say more dumb and outrageous garbage every time he's questioned or pressed on an issue for the next five months, and then double down, then get slapped back down by Priebus, etc and back off; lather, rinse, repeat. It's going to be awesome.
Click to expand...
And we thought they had their hands full with Palin 8 years ago.  Child's play compared to Trump.  They should just go full crazy and make her the running mate.  

 
On MSNBC Carville is speculating that the GOP will find a way to prevent Trump from being the nominee. I can't figure how this happens...

 
Trump wins New Jersey easily. It's pretty clear that the voters still want him. Trump has an 85% approval rating among the Republican voters. 

 
timschochet said:
Trump wins New Jersey easily. It's pretty clear that the voters still want him. Trump has an 85% approval rating among the Republican voters. 
Click to expand...
He's the only one left, dude. The only people coming out are coming out specifically to vote for him even though he's already locked in. Of course these people approve of him.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yo Mama
**** OFFICIAL FFA 2025-2026 Fake NBA Draft **** - Happy Ranks-Giving!!
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
14K
Master of Subservience
Master of Subservience
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)***
3 4 5
Replies
230
Views
7K
Kanil
Kanil

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top