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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen any odds moving since yesterday. I'm seeing still:

5dimes: Hillary -250

Sportsbetting/Betonline: Hillary -240

Bovada: Hillary -260

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Per the FiveThirtyEight projection, Trump's probability of winning the election has basically doubled from the end of June, from ~20% to a hair over 40%. 

Four days ago, before the RNC, the projection was 35%.

Nate Silver has been great over the last several election cycles, but his projections for Trump during the primaries were consistently too negative. 

I don't know if that has changed. I worry that whatever he was missing during the primaries he is also missing now...
Click to expand...
During the primaries he was introducing a lot of subjectivity into his analysis, which he copped to.  His current projections are purely objective. In fact if you want to remove even the objective data that he has subjectively determined to be relevant (economic trends and whatnot) he offers a "polls only" option.

My guess would be that if anything, Silver is a little too high on Trump right now. Objective models can't account for variables like his projected skill at debating, or his apparent struggles with running a disciplined organization. I think that's why he's giving Trump slightly better odds than Vegas is right now.

Not that this would be at all reassuring, of course. Even if he only has a 30% chance to win, that still means he's got about as much chance of winning the presidency as Buster Posey does of getting a hit in a given AB. I'd feel a lot better if he were closer to Jon Lester territory.

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
I feel like I would sign up for a return of W if it meant Trump could never be President.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, without question.

Here's W on September 20, 2001:
 

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah

The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.
Click to expand...


Nine ####ing days after September 11.  Contrast that with the way Trump and the gutless Republicans who go along with his demagoguery speak about Muslims today.

 
HellToupee said:
He knows open borders doesn't work
Click to expand...
President Trump's first response to an act of Islamic terrorism will be to carry out his promise to stop all immigration from countries connected to terrorism. 

After the 2nd attack, he will shut down all Muslim immigration. 

After the 3rd attack he will shut down all immigration.

after the 4th attack he will put Muslim Americans in internment camps.

After the 5th attack he will order full scale carpet bombings of the ISIS controlled area in Iraq. 

After the 6th attack he will nuke parts of the Middle East. 

 
The lines probably moved because there were something like 10 polls released yesterday and in aggregate they showed Clinton with a slightly larger lead than she had in previous polling.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Absolutely, without question.

Here's W on September 20, 2001:
 

Nine ####ing days after September 11.  Contrast that with the way Trump and the gutless Republicans who go along with his demagoguery speak about Muslims today.
Click to expand...
Americas been kissing Muslim ### since the "We aren't a Christian Nation." Barbary wars. 

 
timschochet said:
President Trump's first response to an act of Islamic terrorism will be to carry out his promise to stop all immigration from countries connected to terrorism. 

After the 2nd attack, he will shut down all Muslim immigration. 

After the 3rd attack he will shut down all immigration.

after the 4th attack he will put Muslim Americans in internment camps.

After the 5th attack he will order full scale carpet bombings of the ISIS controlled area in Iraq. 

After the 6th attack he will nuke parts of the Middle East. 
Click to expand...
Tim I'm not sure of your beef here. Are you saying you don't like shutting down immigration in general, or that you don't like TEMPORARILY shutting down immigration in these situations until we can develop and implement a more thorough vetting process?

 
timschochet said:
He's willing to say radical Islam! 
Click to expand...
Look, I'm undecided as to whether I'm voting Trump or staying home but you can't deny the failure of the current administrations foreign policy. Sometimes it's a matter of, 'are we better off than we were 8 years ago?' and the answer to that is unquestionably 'no.' Sometimes that enough reason to vote for a 'hope & change' type candidate.

 
timschochet said:
President Trump's first response to an act of Islamic terrorism will be to carry out his promise to stop all immigration from countries connected to terrorism. 

After the 2nd attack, he will shut down all Muslim immigration. 

After the 3rd attack he will shut down all immigration.

after the 4th attack he will put Muslim Americans in internment camps.

After the 5th attack he will order full scale carpet bombings of the ISIS controlled area in Iraq. 

After the 6th attack he will nuke parts of the Middle East. 
Click to expand...
Im giving you a mulligan . I know from reading your postings over the years that you are intelligent . 

 
timschochet said:
President Trump's first response to an act of Islamic terrorism will be to carry out his promise to stop all immigration from countries connected to terrorism. 

After the 2nd attack, he will shut down all Muslim immigration. 

After the 3rd attack he will shut down all immigration.

after the 4th attack he will put Muslim Americans in internment camps.

After the 5th attack he will order full scale carpet bombings of the ISIS controlled area in Iraq. 

After the 6th attack he will nuke parts of the Middle East. 
Click to expand...
You are fear mongering again.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Absolutely, without question.

Here's W on September 20, 2001:
 

Nine ####ing days after September 11.  Contrast that with the way Trump and the gutless Republicans who go along with his demagoguery speak about Muslims today.
Click to expand...
I wonder why the reaction is different today. Hmmmmm. It's almost like the world has experienced 15 years of countless muslim-related terrorist attacks, and people are getting sick of it. How strange!

 
Rick James said:
I wonder why the reaction is different today. Hmmmmm. It's almost like the world has experienced 15 years of countless muslim-related terrorist attacks, and people are getting sick of it. How strange!
Click to expand...
I got news for you, friend.  There were Muslim-related terrorist attacks before 2001 too.  And Bush was speaking nine days after 3,000 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack by fundamentalist Islamic radicals. In the 15 years since I believe there have been fewer than 200 Americans killed by such attacks.

What's changed is that an obnoxious loudmouth realized he could achieve political success by playing to the irrational fears of gutless #######.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I got news for you, friend.  There were Muslim-related terrorist attacks before 2001 too.  And Bush was speaking nine days after 3,000 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack by fundamentalist Islamic radicals. In the 15 years since I believe there have been fewer than 200 Americans killed by such attacks.

What's changed is that an obnoxious loudmouth realized he could achieve political success by playing to the irrational fears of gutless #######.
Click to expand...
200 is 200 too many. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I got news for you, friend.  There were Muslim-related terrorist attacks before 2001 too.  And Bush was speaking nine days after 3,000 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack by fundamentalist Islamic radicals. In the 15 years since I believe there have been fewer than 200 Americans killed by such attacks.

What's changed is that an obnoxious loudmouth realized he could achieve political success by playing to the irrational fears of gutless #######.
Click to expand...
Difference is they mainly stuck to their area in the middle East/northern Africa...mainly is keyword. Now they're branching all throughout Europe and surely plotting to get over here.

https://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/list-islamic-terror-attacks-against-usa-before-911/

 
Rick James said:
200 is 200 too many. 
Click to expand...
Sure is.

Of course according to CDC data, an average of 62 children under the age of 14 were accidentally shot and killed annually from 2007-2011.  Assuming the rate is consistent that projects to just under a thousand dead children during that 2001-present time frame.

Since 200 dead Americans is 200 too many, I assume you also agree that 1000 dead American kids is 1000 too many? Maybe we should focus on some simple, non-discriminatory, non-repressive actions that might have saved the lives of those babies and toddlers and elementary school kids buried with accidental bullet holes in them (something that happens here far more often than everywhere else in the first world) before we move on to the more difficult and complicated question of how possibly prevent or reduce those 200 terrorism-related deaths (something that we already do better than the rest of the first world anyway).

Whaddya say?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Sure is.

Of course according to CDC data, an average of 62 children under the age of 14 were accidentally shot and killed annually from 2007-2011.  Assuming the rate is consistent that projects to just under a thousand dead children during that 2001-present time frame.

Since 200 dead Americans is 200 too many, I assume you also agree that 1000 dead American kids is 1000 too many? Maybe we should focus on some simple, non-discriminatory, non-repressive actions that might have saved the lives of those babies and toddlers and elementary school kids buried with accidental bullet holes in them (something that happens here far more often than everywhere else in the first world) before we move on to the more difficult and complicated question of how possibly prevent or reduce those 200 terrorism-related deaths (something that we already do better than the rest of the first world anyway).

Whaddya say?
Click to expand...
how simple?

 
Amused to Death said:
A lot of bombings of U.S. embassies in the '80s.  Even 2 cases of kidnap/torture/murders.  How many investigations were there?

(Seriously, I don't know - where there any?)
Click to expand...
The Inman Report, formally known as the Report of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, was a report released in 1985 in response to the Marine barracks bombing and the April 1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon.

I don't think it was a congressional hearing, but a bi-partisan report

 
Warrior said:
how simple?
Click to expand...
I'm not really a gun guy so I can't say for sure. What are the potential complications of mandated child safety locks and loading indicators, as recommended here?

Practical complications,I mean.  I'm aware of the political complications.

Feel free to PM so we don't take the Trump thread off track.

 
If this turns out to be some kind of white supremacist anti-immigrant shooting spree....how does Trump  try and spin it in his favor? 

 
Meet The Workers Who Sewed Donald Trump Clothing For A Few Dollars A Day. From 2004 until last year, Trump contracted with apparel giant Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, or PVH. PVH, in turn, subcontracted some production to Protexsa, a garment manufacturing company owned by one of Honduras’ wealthiest families.

BuzzFeed News spoke this month with more than a dozen current and former workers at that factory complex. Interviewed independently, they described harsh conditions including a dangerously hot factory floor where temperatures sometimes reached 105, verbally abusive supervisors, unsanitary cafeteria food, and an on-site doctor who some said did not acknowledge their work-related injuries.
Click to expand...

 
General Malaise said:
Oh, I think you should wade through the 2012 election thread and see some of the hubris of the republicans who continued to foolishly bet even money on that election with other posters here.  It was pretty tough to watch a guy like Tommyboy just get robbed.  Look, you can think only degenerates bet on elections and that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that Vegas - aka 'truth serum' - considers Hillary's chances to be much better than Donald's.  The odds reflect that.  Right?
Click to expand...
Tommyboy really got took in 2012. It was incredible how people kept flying in the face of the odds. 

 
Washington Post editorial board lays out the case against Trump pretty well here.

Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the candidates’ performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers. This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and the world.

Why are we so sure? Start with experience. It has been 64 years since a major party nominated anyone for president who did not have electoral experience. That experiment turned out pretty well — but Mr. Trump, to put it mildly, is no Dwight David Eisenhower. Leading the Allied campaign to liberate Europe from the Nazis required strategic and political skills of the first order, and Eisenhower — though he liked to emphasize his common touch as he faced the intellectual Democrat Adlai Stevenson — was shrewd, diligent, humble and thoughtful.

In contrast, there is nothing on Mr. Trump’s résumé to suggest he could function successfully in Washington. He was staked in the family business by a well-to-do father and has pursued a career marked by some real estate successes, some failures and repeated episodes of saving his own hide while harming people who trusted him. Given his continuing refusal to release his tax returns, breaking with a long bipartisan tradition, it is only reasonable to assume there are aspects of his record even more discreditable than what we know.

The lack of experience might be overcome if Mr. Trump saw it as a handicap worth overcoming. But he displays no curiosity, reads no books and appears to believe he needs no advice. In fact, what makes Mr. Trump so unusual is his combination of extreme neediness and unbridled arrogance. He is desperate for affirmation but contemptuous of other views. He also is contemptuous of fact. Throughout the campaign, he has unspooled one lie after another — that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated after 9/11, that his tax-cut plan would not worsen the deficit, that he opposed the Iraq War before it started — and when confronted with contrary evidence, he simply repeats the lie. It is impossible to know whether he convinces himself of his own untruths or knows that he is wrong and does not care. It is also difficult to know which trait would be more frightening in a commander in chief.

Given his ignorance, it is perhaps not surprising that Mr. Trump offers no coherence when it comes to policy. In years past, he supported immigration reform, gun control and legal abortion; as candidate, he became a hard-line opponent of all three. Even in the course of the campaign, he has flip-flopped on issues such as whether Muslims should be banned from entering the United States and whether women who have abortions should be punished . Worse than the flip-flops is the absence of any substance in his agenda. Existing trade deals are “stupid,” but Mr. Trump does not say how they could be improved. The Islamic State must be destroyed, but the candidate offers no strategy for doing so. Eleven million undocumented immigrants must be deported, but Mr. Trump does not tell us how he would accomplish this legally or practically.

What the candidate does offer is a series of prejudices and gut feelings, most of them erroneous. Allies are taking advantage of the United States. Immigrants are committing crimes andstealing jobs. Muslims hate America. In fact, Japan and South Korea are major contributors to an alliance that has preserved a peace of enormous benefit to Americans. Immigrants commitfewer crimes than native-born Americans and take jobs that no one else will. Muslims are theprimary victims of Islamist terrorism, and Muslim Americans, including thousands who have served in the military, are as patriotic as anyone else.

The Trump litany of victimization has resonated with many Americans whose economic prospects have stagnated. They deserve a serious champion, and the challenges of inequality and slow wage growth deserve a serious response. But Mr. Trump has nothing positive to offer, only scapegoats and dark conspiracy theories. He launched his campaign by accusing Mexico of sending rapists across the border, and similar hatefulness has surfaced numerous times in the year since.

In a dangerous world, Mr. Trump speaks blithely of abandoning NATO, encouraging more nations to obtain nuclear weapons and cozying up to dictators who in fact wish the United States nothing but harm. For eight years, Republicans have criticized President Obama for “apologizing” for America and for weakening alliances. Now they put forward a candidate who mimics the vilest propaganda of authoritarian adversaries about how terrible the United States is and how unfit it is to lecture others. He has made clear that he would drop allies without a second thought. The consequences to global security could be disastrous.

Most alarming is Mr. Trump’s contempt for the Constitution and the unwritten democratic norms upon which our system depends. He doesn’t know what is in the nation’s founding document. When asked by a member of Congress about Article I, which enumerates congressional powers, the candidate responded, “I am going to abide by the Constitution whether it’s number 1, number 2, number 12, number 9.” The charter has seven articles.

Worse, he doesn’t seem to care about its limitations on executive power. He has threatened that those who criticize him will suffer when he is president. He has vowed to torture suspected terrorists and bomb their innocent relatives, no matter the illegality of either act. He has vowed to constrict the independent press. He went after a judge whose rulings angered him, exacerbating his contempt for the independence of the judiciary by insisting that the judge should be disqualified because of his Mexican heritage. Mr. Trump has encouraged and celebrated violence at his rallies. The U.S. democratic system is strong and has proved resilient when it has been tested before. We have faith in it. But to elect Mr. Trump would be to knowingly subject it to threat.

Mr. Trump campaigns by insult and denigration, insinuation and wild accusation: Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; Hillary Clinton may beguilty of murder; Mr. Obama is a traitor who wants Muslims to attack. The Republican Party has moved the lunatic fringe onto center stage, with discourse that renders impossible the kind of substantive debate upon which any civil democracy depends.

Most responsible Republican leaders know all this to be true; that is why Mr. Trump had to rely so heavily on testimonials by relatives and employees during this week’s Republican convention. With one exception (Bob Dole), the living Republican presidents and presidential nominees of the past three decades all stayed away. But most current officeholders, even those who declared Mr. Trump to be an unthinkable choice only months ago, have lost the courage to speak out.

The party’s failure of judgment leaves the nation’s future where it belongs, in the hands of voters. Many Americans do not like either candidate this year . We have criticized the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the past and will do so again when warranted. But we do not believe that she (or the Libertarian and Green party candidates, for that matter) represents a threat to the Constitution. Mr. Trump is a unique and present danger.
Click to expand...

 
wdcrob said:
badmojo1006 said:
The Inman Report, formally known as the Report of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, was a report released in 1985 in response to the Marine barracks bombing and the April 1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon.

I don't think it was a congressional hearing, but a bi-partisan report
Click to expand...
Can you imagine if it happened under a Clinton Administration?  We'd still be having investigations.
Click to expand...
It did - in Africa - and there were reforms under the Bill Clinton administration re: SOS's being required to take measures to protect all embassies and diplomatic missions.

 
sublimeone said:
Look, I'm undecided as to whether I'm voting Trump or staying home but you can't deny the failure of the current administrations foreign policy. Sometimes it's a matter of, 'are we better off than we were 8 years ago?' and the answer to that is unquestionably 'no.' Sometimes that enough reason to vote for a 'hope & change' type candidate.
Click to expand...
8 years ago the entire financial system of this country was on the brink of collapse and we were in the process of shedding millions of jobs in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  So your answer is 100% full of ####.

 
# of references to "God," "Faith" or "Bible" in Trump's acceptance speech: 0
# of references to protecting LGBTQ Americans in Trump's acceptance speech: 1

 
Joe Summer said:
# of references to "God," "Faith" or "Bible" in Trump's acceptance speech: 0
# of references to protecting LGBTQ Americans in Trump's acceptance speech: 1
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  Another good reason to consider voting republican this time.  Not sure the rules of keeping track but he spelled out LGBTQ at least twice.

 
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
145
Views
4K
nirad3
nirad3
scorchy
Any banking guys that can offer solutions to a vexing issue?
Replies
31
Views
497
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top