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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The mistake that everyone seems to be making, understandably of course, is that the GOP is worthy of the designation as a primary political party in this country at this point.  They've lost the right to be called that.  They might hold a ton of elected seats and still have significant political power, but they aren't part of the two-party system anymore and they don't deserve to be.  It's certainly possible that they will clean themselves up and get behind this but at this point they are the Federalists of 1815ish and the Monroe lead Democratic Republicans are about to destroy them and they deserve it.

 
NREC34 said:
Don't know what they'd be called but the sane, moderate republicans need to break off and do something. The people in the NYT video at the Trump rallies need to be totally banished to irrelevancy. They could become democrats maybe? We could also kick out the far left crazies. 

The way this is going right now we are heading into becoming a banana republic. 
Click to expand...
i do not get that a banana republic is a country that is dependent on one product you know like bananas help me out bromigo take that to the bank

 
sho nuff said:
Strategies for getting out of an election...by Donald Trump

  • Say Mexicans are rapists (well, just some that are illegal, that will be our spin)...didn't work...move on
  • Say we will build a big Wall on the southern border and that Mexico will pay for it...damn, people actually like that one...move on
  • Make crude comments about women and where they may bleed from...nope, still nothing...move on
  • Say we will ban Muslim immigration...crap, people like that too...move on
  • Take picture with Taco Bowl...ok, this was funny...move on.
  • Have zero clue about any policy issue...I mean no clue at all.  And take zero time to learn about it.  Some people still don't care?  What is wrong with you people?...move on
  • Have ties to NAMBLA (relax HT..Im kidding)
  • Don't rule out using nukes in the ME...nope, still nothing...move on
  • Say Im open to giving Nukes to Saudi Arabia...no defections from my supporters yet?
  • Say I will pay the bills if someone punches a protester...holy crap, someone actually punched a guy...so I really have to pay for that?
  • Get sued for Fraud for Trump University...people still don't care.
  • Say I could shoot someone on 5th avenue...oh, they cheer that too?  I may actually have to shoot someone (come back to this one)
  • Be buddy buddy with Putin and Russia...no, people like him now?
  • Ask russians to hack my opponent...still people follow me?
  • Say that I admire how China handled Tiananmen square...holy crap, how am I still around?  Ok, I got it...
  • Infer that gun owners could take care of Hillary if she is elected so she doesn't nominate liberal judges...this will do it, right?








I may have missed quite a few
Click to expand...
- Tell the pope to #### off

- Claim that Mexican judges are biased against you because of your racism

- Call the parents of a war hero terrorists

 
jamny said:
I was just thinking about it, but with his comment yesterday isn't Trump basically saying gun owners (2nd Amendment people) are dangerous?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Yes, he did that. So he basically insulted "those 2nd Amendment people" to their face.

Not only that, Trump had one legitimate, rational argument - the USSC.

Now he's put out the message that the 2nd Amendment is defended by assassins and anarchists and he has extra highlighted a reason why his opponents and especially gun control advocates need to get behind Hillary.

Look almost every time 2nd Amendment supporters bring up 'defense against oppressive government' as an argument, I guarantee you this will be brought up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soootch said:
Yeah I guess I overestimated Ryan, he casually dismissed the comment as a joke gone awry. Soulless piece of #### politician like almost all of them.
Click to expand...
I am in this boat also. I guess I fell for the Ryan ####. While I didn't agree with everything, I thought he was a principled, upstanding guy. 

Apparently I was wrong.

 
I don't know if this is exactly true, but this was an interesting comment following that article:

Narcissists both despise the people who admire them and crave their attention. So he loathes his supporters but can't live without them.
Click to expand...

 
Bayhawks said:
Just about everyone but you?

I can't think of many people who expected Ryan to lose, but you said he would.  That reflects on either your political intellect, or your bias, I think.
Click to expand...
Ryan is also not a Senator. So that says something about the guys political acumen. 

 
Paul Ryan would replace Medicare with insurance vouchers, would not let people on it until they're 67, and abolish Social Security for anyone under 55. But yes, he makes them look sane nowadays in comparison. He's dangerous too, just not with the crazy man disposition.  

 
whoknew said:
I am in this boat also. I guess I fell for the Ryan ####. While I didn't agree with everything, I thought he was a principled, upstanding guy. 

Apparently I was wrong.
Click to expand...
He could've pulled a Cruz and just not endorsed Trump.  Had he done that with Cruz he'd be setting himself up for a probable Presidential Bid in 2020.

 
Daywalker said:
Fiscally conservative is code for tax cuts for the wealthy.  That line won't play again any time soon.

Republicans have a future if they embrace progressive fiscal plans and are socially conservative.  They will get a lot of the minority vote.  That won't happen though because cash is king for those in charge.
Click to expand...
Fiscally conservative doesn't have to mean that. It could mean actually being fiscally responsible, something neither major party is right now.

And someday somebody is going to have the nerve and ability to truly explain to American voters where we are headed and what it will take to get off that course. It will be a bitter pill, but a true leader will be able to rally people behind what actually needs to be done.

 
Had surgery on Monday and have been out of it. Looks like the big story since then is an Em cryfest. Sound about right?

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Fiscally conservative doesn't have to mean that. It could mean actually being fiscally responsible, something neither major party is right now.

And someday somebody is going to have the nerve and ability to truly explain to American voters where we are headed and what it will take to get off that course. It will be a bitter pill, but a true leader will be able to rally people behind what actually needs to be done.
Click to expand...
It's a problem. The biggest issue is military spending, with Social Security and Medicare not far behind. Saying that we need to cut back those three and raise taxes isn't exactly a recipe for winning an election, "true leader" or not.

 
SWC said:
yep i mean yard signs i honestly think i have seen maybe 1 or 2 and i am not joking i will look around tonight for instance when walker was up last time se wisco had barrett and walker signs literally all over the place but i do not see any trump signs maybe it is just to early take that to the bank
Click to expand...
I went to the Republican office in my area to get some signs last week. They were not printed up yet. They have a booth at State Fair but not sure if the signs are there to sell. On the other hand, I went by the Democratic office the same day and they didn't have Clinton/Kaine signs either. They are also at State Fair but not sure if they have signs yet either. I think you can order both but the local places don't have any signs yet to my knowledge.

 
at state fair you could probably get a trump sign deep fried and on a stick tho so that would be cool and possibly tasty but ultimately bad for you take that to the bank brohan 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Many of us on the left actually do wish that this would happen, guy. The country is most healthy when there is an active and reasonable dialogue between BOTH parties. Fiscal policy is a far more reasonable sphere for good debate and compromise than who is ####### who and where people are taking a leak. The devolution of the Republican Party into extreme right wing loons hasn't been good for anyone -- this cycle should prove that beyond any doubt. It's bigger than either side winning or losing. Trumpism is a symptom of the disease that has infected half of our government -- it needs to be cut out for good.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Nothing would make me happier than if those Religious Right #######s became so discouraged by politics that they just withdrew from the political sphere, like Quakers or the Amish or something. Of course, that will never happen.

Instead, reasonable people on both sides are just going to have to wait out their eventual (and demographically inevitable) marginalization, while hopefully minimizing the damage that they can do before that happens. 

As for "Trumpism", I don't think saying it "is a symptom of the disease that has infected half our government" is really acccurate. The embrace of both left wing (Sanders) and right wing populism that we have seen in this cycle is a sign that a meaningful proportion of American voters are absolutely fed up with establishment politics on both sides of the aisle. And they are right to feel that way. The appeal of Sanders and Trump can both be explained that way, even if the candidates and their positions are quite different in many very important respects. 

The real message here is that there are many things that need fixing and neither the current crop of mainstream Republicans or Democrats can be trusted to actually do that. That is factual.

Either real, responsible, dedicated people with reasonable solutions will emerge from the herd of the Establishment parties or insurgent populists are going to continue to gain traction. And economic populism is not the solution to our biggest issues. 

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Fair enough.

Nothing would make me happier than if those Religious Right #######s became so discouraged by politics that they just withdrew from the political sphere, like Quakers or the Amish or something. Of course, that will never happen.

Instead, reasonable people on both sides are just going to have to wait out their eventual (and demographically inevitable) marginalization, while hopefully minimizing the damage that they can do before that happens. 

As for "Trumpism", I don't think saying it "is a symptom of the disease that has infected half our government" is really acccurate. The embrace of both left wing (Sanders) and right wing populism that we have seen in this cycle is a sign that a meaningful proportion of American voters are absolutely fed up with establishment politics on both sides of the aisle. And they are right to feel that way. The appeal of Sanders and Trump can both be explained that way, even if the candidates and their positions are quite different in many very important respects. 

The real message here is that there are many things that need fixing and neither the current crop of mainstream Republicans or Democrats can be trusted to actually do that. That is factual.

Either real, responsible, dedicated people with reasonable solutions will emerge from the herd of the Establishment parties or insurgent populists are going to continue to gain traction. And economic populism is not the solution to our biggest issues. 
Click to expand...
I broadly agree with much of this, but I have a few nits to pick (of course) with the bolded. There is a place at the table for Bernie Sanders and his supporters -- Democratic Socialism is obviously never going to gain serious traction here, within our lifetime anyway, but it does fall within the realm of reasonable political ideas and discussion. A big chunk of what the Republican party has embraced (medieval religious social conservatism) and subtlety courted (white nationalism) has no place in a serious political discussion at all. We can talk about tax policy, environmental issues, national security, social safety nets, etc and reasonably disagree and compromise. With the discrimination stuff, not so much.

 
http://nyti.ms/2aKmEMh

New York Times editorial on Trump, and pointing out that we've seen this before, in Israel.  

Incite hatred, speak ambiguously, then say, ah no, I didn't mean that.

I don't believe Trump wants anyone to kill Hillary.  I believe he is so dumb, he didn't realize how terrible what he said actually was.

And I believe there's plenty of people dumber than Trump that actually think Hillary wants to take all the guns away. 

Sometimes, that's all it takes.

I agree with the author, his kids should be ashamed.

 
massraider said:
http://nyti.ms/2aKmEMh

New York Times editorial on Trump, and pointing out that we've seen this before, in Israel.  

Incite hatred, speak ambiguously, then say, ah no, I didn't mean that.

I don't believe Trump wants anyone to kill Hillary.  I believe he is so dumb, he didn't realize how terrible what he said actually was.

And I believe there's plenty of people dumber than Trump that actually think Hillary wants to take all the guns away. 

Sometimes, that's all it takes.

I agree with the author, his kids should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
I also would not discount the possibility that some nut might think that Trump is so dangerous that he needs to be 'stopped' too. Paranoia breeds paranoia. Like the song says.

eta - Hell there are lunatics out there who think killing Trump could spark the long prophecies race war. Can't predict Crazy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump said that "no one" in the audience took his comment to mean what the press is saying but if you watch the old guy in the red shirt on the right, he clearly knows what he heard.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I broadly agree with much of this, but I have a few nits to pick (of course) with the bolded. There is a place at the table for Bernie Sanders and his supporters -- Democratic Socialism is obviously never going to gain serious traction here, within our lifetime anyway, but it does fall within the realm of reasonable political ideas and discussion. A big chunk of what the Republican party has embraced (medieval religious social conservatism) and subtlety courted (white nationalism) has no place in a serious political discussion at all. We can talk about tax policy, environmental issues, national security, social safety nets, etc and reasonably disagree and compromise. With the discrimination stuff, not so much.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply that Trump and Sanders, nor their supporters, are intellectually or morally equivalent. Sanders always seemed to me to be a genuine guy who was acting on his beliefs. He just happens to have absolutely terrible economic ideas. And most of his supporters aren't bad people, they just have bit hard on bait that has a big, nasty hook in it.

Trump and his hardcore supporters are another matter entirely, for the reasons that you point out.

Sadly, the thing Trump and Sanders agree on most, that free trade is somehow to blame for the current state of US economy, is one of the worst single economic ideas possible.

 
wdcrob said:
https://twitter.com/5thCircAppeals/status/763105256615981056

This chain of Tweets is really good.  Covers the role of humor and why "only joking" isn't really meaningful.

Also gets into the difference between a racist joke and a joke about racism at the end.  i.e. why people in a minority can make jokes that people outside it can't make.
Click to expand...
Full disclosure, I never really "got" Twitter and haven't ever really used it, but surely there's a better forum for something like this, rather than 23 sequential tweets?  Why do this when you could write the whole thing out literally anywhere else on the web and just link to it in a single tweet?

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Couldn't the rigged comments just as easily be construed as laying the ground work for dropping out.  "I'm a busy and important man, why waste my time if the system is rigged against me?  Now get me Gary Busey on the phone."
Click to expand...
He could be planning to drop out. Or he could be planning to call for his supporters to boycott the election. That's generally what candidates do, when they believe it will be rigged against them.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Paul Ryan would replace Medicare with insurance vouchers, would not let people on it until they're 67, and abolish Social Security for anyone under 55. But yes, he makes them look sane nowadays in comparison. He's dangerous too, just not with the crazy man disposition.  
Click to expand...
This, to me, is one of the benefits of this election cycle. Ryan is capable of convincing people that his supply-side bullsh#t would actually be good for them when it's just a continuation of the last 40 years. The shine is going to be off the guy now and that's good for all of us.

 
CBusAlex said:
He could be planning to drop out. Or he could be planning to call for his supporters to boycott the election. That's generally what candidates do, when they believe it will be rigged against them.
Click to expand...
Actually was privy to just this sort of thing.  My wife is from Liberia and in their last Presidential election the main opposition party determined beforehand that they were not playing on a level playing field and so encouraged their supporters to stay home on election day to make a point.  It was a silly tactic and was roundly guffawed and criticized and it allowed the sitting party to win in a complete rout.  Guess they didn't like their nose anyway.

http://www.voanews.com/content/liberia-presidential-campaign-ends-opposition-boycotting-vote-133324253/147769.html

 
dutch said:
Actually was privy to just this sort of thing.  My wife is from Liberia and in their last Presidential election the main opposition party determined beforehand that they were not playing on a level playing field and so encouraged their supporters to stay home on election day to make a point.  It was a silly tactic and was roundly guffawed and criticized and it allowed the sitting party to win in a complete rout.  Guess they didn't like their nose anyway.

http://www.voanews.com/content/liberia-presidential-campaign-ends-opposition-boycotting-vote-133324253/147769.html
Click to expand...
So third world stuff.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Full disclosure, I never really "got" Twitter and haven't ever really used it, but surely there's a better forum for something like this, rather than 23 sequential tweets?  Why do this when you could write the whole thing out literally anywhere else on the web and just link to it in a single tweet?
Click to expand...
I actually enjoy the 'charm' of the long-form chain tweet, but your point is valid.  I've seen many people employ this technique, it's gaining some traction.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So third world stuff.
Click to expand...
yep, and don't think my wife's family isn't enjoying the sheet out of the mess that is this current US election.  The US is perceived as a powerful ally but also is thought of as arrogant and supposedly above the nonsense of third world politics, like our system and performance are somehow better cuz we're more civilized or some such.  HA! we suck just as bad now!

 
I think fatguy's thesis is closer to the "he was joking" thesis.  Trump literally says whatever pops into his head.  I think he literally in that moment, just thought "hey, I guess there really isn't NOTHING they could do."  Whether you believe he was thinking about nuts going after Hillary (I don't) or about armed resistance if people came to take guns (my guess as that's kind of a common NRA canard), I think he was genuinely expressing a thought that had just occurred to him. 

I don't think this is much more of a charitable explanation.  I generally don't want my political leaders surprising themselves with such musings.  But I think it fits what we see and hear much better than the suggestion that this was some kind of knowing wink to violent kooks or that he was telling a dumb joke. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I think fatguy's thesis is closer to the "he was joking" thesis.  Trump literally says whatever pops into his head.  I think he literally in that moment, just thought "hey, I guess there really isn't NOTHING they could do."  Whether you believe he was thinking about nuts going after Hillary (I don't) or about armed resistance if people came to take guns (my guess as that's kind of a common NRA canard), I think he was genuinely expressing a thought that had just occurred to him. 

I don't think this is much more of a charitable explanation.  I generally don't want my political leaders surprising themselves with such musings.  But I think it fits what we see and hear much better than the suggestion that this was some kind of knowing wink to violent kooks or that he was telling a dumb joke. 
Click to expand...
what do the violent kooks think? That's what is important.

 
If it was indeed a stupid off-the-cuff joke, and I tend to agree with those who think it was, it was so, so dumb. It wasn't clever, it wasn't witty, it was something your Fox News-lovin' father-in-law would say after a few beers at the family cookout. I don't expect that guy to walk back, or even realize how stupid a thing it was to say, but I kinda do expect people running for the nation's highest office to have the self awareness to do so after having an inevitable brainfart.

 
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