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.
JerseyToughGuys said:
what do the violent kooks think? That's what is important.
Click to expand...
I disagree.  Without devolving too much into lawyer nerd stuff, nothing Trump said would cross the line into incitement that isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.  But putting all that aside, while I agree that candidates have a moral obligation to not make statements that could be interpreted as calls for violence, I think that obligation is more pressing when we're talking about carefully considered statements.  This seemed clearly off the cuff to me.

We can rightly criticize Donald for then attempting to b******t us with a phony explanation on Hannity, but politicians do that all the time.  So long as he's clear that he's no calling for violence I'm fine with keeping my criticism of this incident to the fact that it exposes him as a bit of a #######.

 
Gucci Fur said:
Has anyone disavowed Hillary for inviting a Taliban supporter and father of a radical Islamic terrorist to sit in the VIP section of her speech last night?

Didn't think so. How do you spell liberal? H y p o c r i t e.
Click to expand...
It really is amazing this isn't getting more press.  The media is so unbelievably biased.   Not much different in here, bunch of yahoos going off on the 2nd amendment but not one talking about the father of the Orlando shooter in the VIP section behind Hillary.  It really is sad.

 
Don't Noonan said:
It really is amazing this isn't getting more press.  The media is so unbelievably biased.   Not much different in here, bunch of yahoos going off on the 2nd amendment but not one talking about the father of the Orlando shooter in the VIP section behind Hillary.  It really is sad.
Click to expand...
For the umpteenth time, The campaign did not know he was there until after the rally. The campaign has since disavowed him for being there and said they do not want his support or endorsement.

 
Don't Noonan said:
not one talking about the father of the Orlando shooter in the VIP section behind Hillary
Click to expand...
Can you unpack this?  Are you arguing that she placed him there on purpose?  That him attending unannounced is somehow... what?  What is the danger/harm/symbolism that has you concerned?  I'm not really following why this has people hot and bothered.

I mean I get that it's bad for Clinton -- that she'd rather he hadn't been there.  But pretty sure that's not something you're too worried about.

 
badmojo1006 said:
For the umpteenth time, The campaign did not know he was there until after the rally. The campaign has since disavowed him for being there and said they do not want his support or endorsement.
Click to expand...
Sure, whatever you say :loco: . 

I think it's pretty clear what's ACTUALLY going on here: the Orlando shooting was a Clinton false flag operation designed to provoke Trump into making a dumb statement celebrating being "right" about terrorism and therefore dragging down his polling numbers while simultaneously distracting people from the Clinton's email troubles. Clinton worked with the shooter's family to make it happen. They then invited the father to the rally and gave him a seat on camera as part of his reward for successfully carrying out the false flag operation.  Admittedly I'm not entirely clear as to why they would do that and risk exposure, but most likely they were just being sloppy and they underestimated the internet sleuths who would find him in the crowd.

Did I get that right, @Gucci Fur and @Don't Noonan?

 
TobiasFunke said:
Sure, whatever you say :loco: . 

I think it's pretty clear what's ACTUALLY going on here: the Orlando shooting was a Clinton false flag operation designed to provoke Trump into making a dumb statement celebrating being "right" about terrorism and therefore dragging down his polling numbers while simultaneously distracting people from the Clinton's email troubles. Clinton worked with the shooter's family to make it happen. They then invited the father to the rally and gave him a seat on camera as part of his reward for successfully carrying out the false flag operation.  Admittedly I'm not entirely clear as to why they would do that and risk exposure, but most likely they were just being sloppy and they underestimated the internet sleuths who would find him in the crowd.

Did I get that right, @Gucci Fur and @Don't Noonan?
Click to expand...
You left out the part where Obama gave him the gun.

 
moleculo said:
Not at all.  when you say " that it's OK to meet with force any politician trying to legally infringe on the rights to bare arms, "  you display a " blatant misunderstanding of the US constitution and how democracies work. I pointed out that you are either grossly ignorant or so blinded by partisan hackery that you don't know what you are talking about.  Either way, it's not good."
Click to expand...
Why are you even bringing it up? You lost 500 credility points.

Someone misquotes my position, you correct them. I thank you for correcting me and then you turn it into an attack?

Forget those nice things I said, you're not unbiased you're as big of a goof as ever! I'm going to go back to not taking your views credibly after you couldn't muster a simple exchange with me.

I didn't want to argue my views with you. I simply was trying to thank you for clarifying my position while I wasn't on here. Don't understand why you turned that into an argument for my position again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo said:
Not at all.  when you say " that it's OK to meet with force any politician trying to legally infringe on the rights to bare arms, "  you display a " blatant misunderstanding of the US constitution and how democracies work.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true. Em never said that people have a constitutional right to revolt against their government. Such a right would never be found in anything like a constitution, ever -- which doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist. The right Em is referring to is not described in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm not saying that Em is correct about all of this; I just don't think he's making the mistake you think he's making.)

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think that's true. Em never said that people have a constitutional right to revolt against their government. Such a right would never be found in anything like a constitution, ever -- which doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist. The right Em is referring to is not described in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm not saying that Em is correct about all of this; I just don't think he's making the mistake you think he's making.)
Click to expand...
Hope you doing well, sir

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
When I first read the quote it felt like he was treating them as a fringe group ("The Second Amendment People" aka "The Gun Nuts").

It wasn't "we". Rather, it was "they".
Click to expand...
That's a first, Trump distancing himself from any nuts (albeit at the same time he was appealing for them to go nuts)

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think that's true. Em never said that people have a constitutional right to revolt against their government. Such a right would never be found in anything like a constitution, ever -- which doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist. The right Em is referring to is not described in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm not saying that Em is correct about all of this; I just don't think he's making the mistake you think he's making.)
Click to expand...
This is all well and good an interesting discussion, but it really has nothing to do with Trump's statement. There is no reason or intellectual argument behind it. None.

Do you think Trump knows about the whole individual right vs militia only debate? No way IMO.

 
SWC said:
how is it for you guys are you seeing any trump signs i see almost none here in southeast wisconsin and if he is going win scanny he needs s e wisco take that to the bank bromigos 
Click to expand...
I'm in NE "scanny" and I see 3 on my drive to work every day.  Of course they're all in one person's yard.  He started with 2, but apparently figured that wasn't enough to show how much he loves The Donald, so he later added a 3rd. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think that's true. Em never said that people have a constitutional right to revolt against their government. Such a right would never be found in anything like a constitution, ever -- which doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist. The right Em is referring to is not described in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm not saying that Em is correct about all of this; I just don't think he's making the mistake you think he's making.)
Click to expand...
I considered that.  That's why I said "legally infringe on the rights to bear arms."  If a legally elected president legally appoints judges, their rulings stand.  If legally elected representatives pass legislation restricting gun rights, the laws stand.  In these cases, I don't believe that a "god-given" right to revolt exists.

The D of I lists many redresses against the king for which the colonist felt separation was legally justified, a key item was lack of legal representation in the colonies (i.e. no taxation w/o representation).  That doesn't come to play here.  You don't get to revolt against your government because they passed legislation you don't agree with.  If I was a legal scholar, I'd find something from the civil war to back up my claim.

Also, I hope you are doing well.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think that's true. Em never said that people have a constitutional right to revolt against their government. Such a right would never be found in anything like a constitution, ever -- which doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist. The right Em is referring to is not described in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm not saying that Em is correct about all of this; I just don't think he's making the mistake you think he's making.)
Click to expand...
What a guy! Thanks Maurile, much like on the O'reilly Factor.

"The spin stops right here."

 
Soootch said:
The Walgreens in Florida won't count his years at the other store toward his vacation and pension benefits, and one of the cashiers is a gay black. Bad week for the lil' bigot.
Click to expand...
I don't scroll through each of his posts but is this true or did you just make it up? Did you hear it from many others or what?

If true... lofl.

 
Eminence said:
Why are you even bringing it up? You lost 500 credility points.

Someone misquotes my position, you correct them. I thank you for correcting me and then you turn it into an attack?

Forget those nice things I said, you're not unbiased you're as big of a goof as ever! I'm going to go back to not taking your views credibly after you couldn't muster a simple exchange with me.

I didn't want to argue my views with you. I simply was trying to thank you for clarifying my position while I wasn't on here. Don't understand why you turned that into an argument for my position again.
Click to expand...
because your position was terrible to start with.  @msommerwas giving you a benefit of the doubt that I don't believe was justified.

 
Trump in Fourth (!!!) Place Among Black Voters

I think the surprise here isn't that he is in 4th place, it is that polls estimate his support among black voters at 1-2%. That seems high to me and is probably within the margin of error such that it is probably just as accurate to say that he has support from black voters that isn't statistically distinguishable from zero (or zero plus one if you want to account for Ben Carson).  

 
man i just deleted a post i typed because some times even i am like what in hell was that about hey man it sucks gettin old take that to the bank bromigos 

 
Don't Noonan said:
It really is amazing this isn't getting more press.  The media is so unbelievably biased.   Not much different in here, bunch of yahoos going off on the 2nd amendment but not one talking about the father of the Orlando shooter in the VIP section behind Hillary.  It really is sad.
Click to expand...
Maybe you'll finally figure out the differences here when your guy gets absolutely crushed in November, handing over the Senate and the Supreme Court in the process. Unfortunately, you probably won't, though.

 
Donald Trump Says ‘I Want to Debate Very Badly.’


That's what I already assumed would happen. He's not good at debating.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think that's true. Em never said that people have a constitutional right to revolt against their government. Such a right would never be found in anything like a constitution, ever -- which doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist. The right Em is referring to is not described in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm not saying that Em is correct about all of this; I just don't think he's making the mistake you think he's making.)
Click to expand...
Except that when I asked him where such a right was expressed, he quoted the Second Amendment in response.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Maybe you'll finally figure out the differences here when your guy gets absolutely crushed in November, handing over the Senate and the Supreme Court in the process. Unfortunately, you probably won't, though.
Click to expand...
That is what I hope happens. Then out of the ashes rises a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative - that will actually debate policy and not just fling mud.  

Imagine an actual debate between in which there was an exchange of ideas and the goals is to find the best solution, not just shouting talking points.

Let's debate defense spending, corporate tax breaks, and trade with real numbers and decide what is best for this country and not what is best for your "Team".  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
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.
Click to expand...
A good example of this

 
perry147 said:
That is what I hope happens. Then out of the ashes rises a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative - that will actually debate policy and not just fling mud.  

Imagine an actual debate between in which there was an exchange of ideas and the goals is to find the best solution, not just shouting talking points.

Let's debate defense spending, corporate tax breaks, and trade with real numbers and decide what is best for this country and not what is best for your "Team".  
Click to expand...
I have that dream too. But like all dreams, it goes away when I wake up and am confronted by the reality of the world.

Our economic and fiscal problems are somewhat difficult to explain clearly and far more difficult to solve. But most politicians are actually economic illiterates. And the same goes for the vast majority of voters. So we are left with half-truths and talking points, with some downright lies thrown in.

 
perry147 said:
That is what I hope happens. Then out of the ashes rises a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative - that will actually debate policy and not just fling mud.  

Imagine an actual debate between in which there was an exchange of ideas and the goals is to find the best solution, not just shouting talking points.

Let's debate defense spending, corporate tax breaks, and trade with real numbers and decide what is best for this country and not what is best for your "Team".  
Click to expand...
I'm pretty confident that the party apparatus and the powers-that-be in Washington know that this needs to happen. I don't think that the voting base understands this yet, though, and the conservative media plays to the furthest whackadoodle outskirts of that base pretty much non-stop. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the 2020 Republican primary, because even putting aside Trump for a moment, based on this year's platform, they're still tacking ever further off into the extremist fringe. I guess we'll see, but the fact that they're still hanging on to their endorsements of Trump (for the most part) isn't encouraging that they're up to the task of bringing the national dialogue back into the realm of grownup discussion.

 
Have you guys noticed he hasn't spent any money on advertising? He's going to blow his load during the last month and a half (around the debates) and completely blow Hilary Clinton out through volume during the past few weeks. It's going to be glorious.

"We're going to build a wall."

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Maybe you'll finally figure out the differences here when your guy gets absolutely crushed in November, handing over the Senate and the Supreme Court in the process. Unfortunately, you probably won't, though.
Click to expand...
It will be a terrible day in this country if that happens.  Maybe you will finally see your errant ways when the US is riddled in debt, terrorists are attacking the homeland via refugees, and our kids will struggle getting jobs.  

 
Eminence said:
Have you guys noticed he hasn't spent any money on advertising? He's going to blow his load during the last month and a half (around the debates) and completely blow Hilary Clinton out through volume during the past few weeks. It's going to be glorious.

"We're going to build a wall."
Click to expand...
Shhhh... the grown ups are talking. You got plenty of attention yesterday.

 
Eminence said:
Have you guys noticed he hasn't spent any money on advertising? He's going to blow his load during the last month and a half (around the debates) and completely blow Hilary Clinton out through volume during the past few weeks. It's going to be glorious.

"We're going to build a wall."
Click to expand...
Staying under the radar for a while and then overloading the airwaves with an advertising blitz during a strategic window in the early fall?  DraftKings and FanDuel don't see any way that could possibly backfire!

 
Don't Noonan said:
It will be a terrible day in this country if that happens.  Maybe you will finally see your errant ways when the US is riddled in debt, terrorists are attacking the homeland via refugees, and our kids will struggle getting jobs.  
Click to expand...
Funny how we've had eight years of a Democratic President, and there hasn't been a single terrorist attack (no, the random nuts with guns don't count) and unemployment is at record low levels. And please explain to me how the national debt has any effect on us whatsoever.

 
Eminence said:
Have you guys noticed he hasn't spent any money on advertising? He's going to blow his load during the last month and a half (around the debates) and completely blow Hilary Clinton out through volume during the past few weeks. It's going to be glorious.

"We're going to build a wall."
Click to expand...
Nice to have Trump's campaign manager posting here in the FFA.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I'm pretty confident that the party apparatus and the powers-that-be in Washington know that this needs to happen. I don't think that the voting base understands this yet, though, and the conservative media plays to the furthest whackadoodle outskirts of that base pretty much non-stop. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the 2020 Republican primary, because even putting aside Trump for a moment, based on this year's platform, they're still tacking ever further off into the extremist fringe. I guess we'll see, but the fact that they're still hanging on to their endorsements of Trump (for the most part) isn't encouraging that they're up to the task of bringing the national dialogue back into the realm of grownup discussion.
Click to expand...
Republicans are perfectly capable of being the "grown-ups" in any fiscal debate. In fact, one of my concerns as a lefty is that they will develop sensible economic and social policies that will draw moderates away from the Dems while still leaving the whackos nowhere else to turn.

 
Murph said:
Stop oppressing his attempts to start a policy discussion.
Click to expand...
if ole emmy taught us anything yesterday it is that if you try to stop him from talking that violates his first amendment right which means the second amendment says he gets to shoot you with a gun take that to the bank bromigos 

 
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
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
226
Views
7K
Dennis Castro
Dennis Castro

Users who are viewing this thread

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