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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maurile Tremblay said:
Let me make a more general point that may or may not be part of what's going on here.

Even though this is a Trump thread, it seems to be dominated right now by people who dislike Trump and don't plan to vote for him. (As someone who dislikes Trump and doesn't plan to vote for him myself, I can relate.)

Something like the following thought process would be completely natural for anyone who dislikes Trump:

I dislike Trump. All these articles say that he's a sexist. Sexism is terrible, so this confirms that I'm correct in disliking Trump. It would be convenient for me to believe that Trump is sexist because it would show that, in my dislike of Trump, I was right all along! This new piece of information aligns with the views I already held, so everything fits together nicely and causes no cognitive dissonance. I can now go about the rest of my day.

This would be a standard case of confirmation bias.

When you hear a new piece of information that is convenient because it aligns with the views you already hold, a good practice would be to listen to the little trigger somewhere in the back of your mind that says: Believing this would be convenient. It lines up nicely with my other views, and therefore causes no cognitive dissonance. I should therefore be especially skeptical of it rather than facilely accepting it. Let me suspiciously double-check it against reality as best I can; and before I accept it as true, I shall require that it overcome an elevated burden of proof.

Almost nobody thinks that way, but it would be good epistemological practice if we could pull it off. (The author of the article I quoted is especially good at it, IMO.)
Click to expand...
good post.

 
krista4 said:
Let's slow our roll on this.  I find it hard to call a guy who said women who get abortions should be criminally charged "liberal" on women's issues.  Perhaps overall, compared to most Republicans, he is farther to the left on some issues, but he's hardly what most of us would call a champion on these matters.
Click to expand...
Yup, my bad.  The bolded is what I meant, although I'd say father to the left on most issues. Although I guess when you take a bunch of contradictory positions on the issues it's inevitable that some of them will be more left-leaning than the GOP.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yup, my bad.  The bolded is what I meant, although I'd say father to the left on most issues. Although I guess when you take a bunch of contradictory positions on the issues it's inevitable that some of them will be more left-leaning than the GOP.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think your last sentence is what makes it so hard to know one way or another.  

 
Also this is amazing.  A "thank you!" message from Trump about a poll conducted by a right-wing news organization that's a month old with the date photoshopped ... that still shows him losing to Clinton.

Favorite response so far:

@realDonaldTrump Did you go to a different, similarly-spelled Wharton, like "Warton" or "Whartin?"
Click to expand...
 
MT:

I think a lot of you are mistaking being a tremendous jerk for being sexist.

Trump uses whatever he can about people -- if they got captured, if they have arthrogryposis, if they are short, if they are overweight, etc.

That is being a tremendous jerk, but it is being an equal-opportunity tremendous jerk.
Click to expand...
Is it really "equal opportunity" when women are targeted for being overweight, and men -- for the most part -- are not? "Fat guys are funny", but fat women are not.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
He Likes to Keep “a Fat Guy” Around

“There was a fat contestant who was a buffoon and a ####up,” recalls the midlevel producer. “And he would #### up week after week, and the producers would figure that he’d screwed up so badly that Trump would have to fire him. But Trump kept deciding to fire someone else. The producers had to scramble because of course Trump can never be seen to make a bad call on the show, so we had to re-engineer the footage to make a different contestant look bad. Later, I heard a producer talk to him, and Trump said, ‘Everybody loves a fat guy. People will watch if you have a funny fat guy around. Trust me, it’s good for ratings.’ I look at Chris Christie now and I swear that’s what’s happening.”
Click to expand...
In fairness to Trump, I'd keep around anybody willing to make a run to McDonald's for me on command.

 
msommer said:
He may have been speaking Pashto, for all we know he was saying:

"Hey, dad, almost done with my errands, what was it you wanted from the supermarket, OJ and what now?"
Click to expand...
That's excatly what happened before he and his wife... and probably his father murdered 49 people.

When the truth is in front of you you still make up a lie.

 
igbomb said:
Two things:

1) The polling wasn't wrong. The prognosticators dismissing the polling were wrong. But the polling was largely correct and it's not during your guy any favors these days.

2) Accumulating the most votes ever in the primary means nothing for the general election. There is no correlation for turnout in the primary vs. turnout in the general. Plus, Trump scored somewhere over 13M votes. That is barely more than 10% of the voter turnout in the 2012 general, which had over 126M voters. I wouldn't hang your hat on his primary support meaning much of anything in November.
Click to expand...
1. The polling was WAY wrong for both Trump and Bernie

2. Of course it does.

 
Trump is such a jerk he said something you think is mean. He must hate women.

Mean while Hillary gets a rapist she knew was guilty off the hook than laughed about it. 

 
Trump is such a racist he said mean things about illegal immigrants.

Mean while Hilary is hugging and kissing a former grand wizard of the kkk. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Trump, merely boorish and offensive to women or openly sexist and misogynist? Yesterday must have been a slow day for him offending new groups of people to allow for this insightful distinction to be drawn. 
Click to expand...
And he is not a gigantic racist...since Muslim and Mexican are not a race.  Just extremely bigoted.

Woohoo.

 
Dexter said:
1. The polling was WAY wrong for both Trump and Bernie

2. Of course it does.
Click to expand...
1.  How was the polling wrong about Trump

2.  Not really...especially if that number of primary voters are all he really has supporting him anymore (given his favorability numbers...that is very possible.

 
sho nuff said:
1.  How was the polling wrong about Trump

2.  Not really...especially if that number of primary voters are all he really has supporting him anymore (given his favorability numbers...that is very possible.
Click to expand...
1. Read this thread I argued with people week after week that trump would keep winning. They kept throwing worthless poll after poll at me and every week they where wrong.

2. Yes really.

 
Dexter said:
1. Read this thread I argued with people week after week that trump would keep winning. They kept throwing worthless poll after poll at me and every week they where wrong.

2. Yes really.
Click to expand...
1.  We are talking about polling.  You claimed it was bad, point out actual polls that were wrong about him.  .

2.  Again, you bring nothing but your bogus claims.  Maybe try namecalling or all caps this time.  Or try something like linking to something.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

or

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/06/david-brooks/david-brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

 
3C's said:
Not sure but when he loses in November he's going to completely go off the rails.
Click to expand...
He will be butthurt and he handles that not too well.

On the other hand he will make a ton of cash off these idiots that think he's fantastic which is all that he is really concerned with.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
Is it really "equal opportunity" when women are targeted for being overweight, and men -- for the most part -- are not? "Fat guys are funny", but fat women are not.




 




 





 
Click to expand...
I got on the NYT's case a while back because they referred to Hillary Clinton as "Mrs. Clinton" instead of "Secretary Clinton." (The WSJ did the same thing.) As a matter of English style, I was under the impression that Presidents, Senators, Cabinet Members, Governors and the like kept their most recent or highest titles for life. People still refer to Bill Clinton as "President Clinton," right? It seemed weird, therefore, to refer to Hillary Clinton as "Mrs. Clinton." Not just weird, but downright sexist if they were dropping past titles only from females.

So I looked at other articles in the NYT and WSJ to see how they were referring to former male officeholders. You know what I found? They were treating women differently from men! They were referring to females as "Mrs." while referring to similarly situated males as "Mr." A ha: sexism!

No, not really. Referring to women as "Mrs." and men as "Mr." isn't really sexist because "Mrs." and "Mr." are similar in status. (And I retract my criticism of the NYT and WSJ, because using Mrs. and Mr. for former officeholders has become standard.) Only if they'd referred to Clinton as "Mrs." and Powell as "Secretary," for example, would it have been sexist, since those honorifics are different in status.

In the same way, I'd argue that targeting women for being overweight while targeting men for being short, though not exactly similar, is a bit more like "Mrs." and "Mr." than it is like "Mrs." and "Secretary."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
3C's said:
Not sure but when he loses in November he's going to completely go off the rails.
Click to expand...
Disagree completely. 

He doesn't even want the job.

He'll make speeches,  making up vague bogeyman that conspired to steal the election.  He'll pile lies on top of those lies, and give interviews constantly.  He'll threaten to run again in four years,  and crank out a book or two. 

His crowd will eat it up. 

 
Yep, if he doesn't have a meltdown of epic proportions he will definitely be able to monetize this - and his supporters will flood his coffers as they gobble up the wise words from on high.

 
This is just another season in the reality show that his life is now.  

His candidacy will just be the biggest chapter in the book of Trump's media assault to keep himself in the headlines.  It'll be some new stunt/show next year. 

This one sucks because we are really showing our @$$ to the rest of the world: Hey, look, world, check out how many stupid people we have over here.  Had no idea,  did you?  Well,  we making a lot more of them every day. 

 
Dexter:

1. Read this thread I argued with people week after week that trump would keep winning. They kept throwing worthless poll after poll at me and every week they where wrong.
Click to expand...
No one disputes your claim that you said Trump would keep winning. In fact many people agreed that Trump would continue to win the Republican primaries.

But that has nothing to do with what the polls showed. The polls showed from day one -- and continue to show now -- that Trump has a very low ceiling and a very limited appeal to the masses.

Trump was able to overcome that limitation when he had 2+ opponents. Now Trump has just one realistic opponent. And his poll numbers have barely budged from where they were a year ago.

How is Trump going to overcome the fact that he no longer has Cruz and Kascich splitting the opposition vote?

 
This business with Trump having 30 full-time field staff in the whole country is seriously just nuts.

Honestly wondering if he didn't look at the gravy train Palin and Carson created by running and figured he could do the same thing bigger and better, and milk his supporters for a couple orders of magnitude more money.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MT:

No, not really. Referring to women as "Mrs." and men as "Mr." isn't really sexist because "Mrs." and "Mr." are similar in status. (And I retract my criticism of the NYT and WSJ, because using Mrs. and Mr. for former officeholders has become standard.) Only if they'd referred to Clinton as "Mrs." and Powell as "Secretary," for example, would it have been sexist, since those honorifics are different in status.

In the same way, I'd argue that targeting women for being overweight while targeting men for being short, though not exactly similar, is a bit more like "Mrs." and "Mr." than it is like "Mrs." and "Secretary."
Click to expand...
But your own analogy is sexist, Mr. Tremblay. A woman's weight is a far more sensitive issue than a man's height. No one ever criticizes a man for being short.

 
Based on what we've seen since he locked up the Republican nomination, it's tough to argue that he is trying to win.  He's in full-blown "I don't give a #### what anyone thinks" mode.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Disagree completely. 

He doesn't even want the job.

He'll make speeches,  making up vague bogeyman that conspired to steal the election.  He'll pile lies on top of those lies, and give interviews constantly.  He'll threaten to run again in four years,  and crank out a book or two. 

His crowd will eat it up. 
Click to expand...
That's what really sucks...it will be a relief and definitely amusing to watch him get his ### handed to him, but he's not going away. And then Hillary will be president. While a lot of this is fun to watch, the end result isn't good for anyone.  

 
McGarnicle said:
That's what really sucks...it will be a relief and definitely amusing to watch him get his ### handed to him, but he's not going away. And then Hillary will be president. While a lot of this is fun to watch, the end result isn't good for anyone.  
Click to expand...
Yep.  No one is gonna be happy. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
He's obviously incompetent, but it might be worth raising the 'is he really trying to win' question again.
Click to expand...
What else are we supposed to think other than he wants the GOP to give the nomination to someone else?  It's win-win for him - he won the nomination and would win by not having to lose the general. 

 
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
13K
Eephus
Eephus
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
226
Views
6K
Dennis Castro
Dennis Castro

Users who are viewing this thread

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