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.
Maybe not the right thread for this, but I'm curious due to your background,  How closely do your opinions on economic policy align with the Libertarians?
Pretty closely.  I'm generally in favor of free markets.  There are circumstances in which government intervention into a market is justified (e.g. carbon taxes), but as a general principle I'd usually prefer less government intervention than more.

 
But it's always a photo op . Bill Clinton w/Katrina was a dem photo op against Bush . 
Was Bill trying to get elected to something?

Because if not, then it's not exactly relevant, is it?

ETA: I see Mojo is taking you to school on this already, so I'll just :popcorn:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you're in denial, his poll numbers have been getting better and better the past few weeks.

He's turned a 10+ deficit into a 4 point deficit.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls
 

Economist poll: Clinton was +7 on August 9, she's +6 now
Reuters poll: Clinton was +4 on August 3, she was +6 on August 10, and she's +5 now
NBC poll: Clinton was +10 on August 7, she was +9 on August 14

And these are just the national polls. In the state polls, Clinton flipped at least 10 states after the convention. Trump hasn't been able to reverse any of those flips. He needs to win almost every one of those states to win the election, and his recent ~1% national bump won't be enough to do it.

I think you're in denial
 
So, are we to believe polls now or are we to still denounce them? What position, about polls, do the Trumpettes want us to believe? Polls good? Polls bad?

 
You're too biased to really see what's going on. Stop calling us Trumpettes, treat us with respect, treat Donald with respect, and maybe you'll start seeing this race with a little more clarity.

There's redeeming qualities to both candidates.
Trump, and all the Trump supporters, don't deserve anything that even hints at respect. They're disgusting people worthy of shame and ridicule.

 
Trump, and all the Trump supporters, don't deserve anything that even hints at respect. They're disgusting people worthy of shame and ridicule.
You're the one generalizing millions of people, sounds like you're the disgusting one worthy of shame and ridicule.

Bigot, our political views don't define our person.

 
You're the one generalizing millions of people, sounds like you're the disgusting one worthy of shame and ridicule.

Bigot, our political views don't define our person.
People who support trump are not necessarily all racists or bigots, but they are all people ok with racism or bigotry in their president. 

(They're also most likely racists and bigots)

 
I don't know if it will happen during the debates, but CNN has started fact-checking Trump in real time as he speaks. He'll say something false, and the caption underneath will say: "Trump says so-and-so (which is FALSE)." I don't remember where I read that, but I remember the article kept using the word "chyron," which I had to look up.
As much as Trump extemporizes, I hope CNN is doing this for both candidates. You know a politician is lying because their lips are moving....

 
But when someone is being a bigot and you call them a bigot, that makes you a bigot?
Not at all, if that group was the Ku Klux Klan it would be valid. But calling millions of fellow Americans bigots because of who they support for President is invalid.

I don't think you or anyone else who supports Clinton is crooked just because she is. I'm not silly enough to project traits onto people based on their political opinions.

 
When someone supports a bigot, you call them a bigot.
So if the choice was between Donald Trump and Hitler and you thought Trump was a bigot, I would be a bigot?

You realize that Trump being a bigot is purely your opinion, right? You realize that many of his supporters see him as the lesser of two evils?

If you want to generalize swaths of people as this or that, more power to you. But you're doing exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing, stereotyping people.

 
So if the choice was between Donald Trump and Hitler and you thought Trump was a bigot, I would be a bigot?

You realize that Trump being a bigot is purely your opinion, right? You realize that many of his supporters see him as the lesser of two evils?

If you want to generalize swaths of people as this or that, more power to you. But you're doing exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing, stereotyping people.
The best comparison to the guy you support is Hitler? Ouch!

 
Not at all, if that group was the Ku Klux Klan it would be valid. But calling millions of fellow Americans bigots because of who they support for President is invalid.

I don't think you or anyone else who supports Clinton is crooked just because she is. I'm not silly enough to project traits onto people based on their political opinions.
Your average Trump supporter and average KKK member converge on many issues. It's hard to distinguish between the two ideologies.

 
I don't know about hate bigotry and fear but when it comes to the question the value of government intervention I think its a safe bet to assume the nation will move further right in the coming years.  Unless we completely open the floodgates and let 3x as many immigrants in then we currently do.
That is the Democrat strategy.

 
So if the choice was between Donald Trump and Hitler and you thought Trump was a bigot, I would be a bigot?

You realize that Trump being a bigot is purely your opinion, right? You realize that many of his supporters see him as the lesser of two evils?

If you want to generalize swaths of people as this or that, more power to you. But you're doing exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing, stereotyping people.
listen i am not a political strategerist but vote trump cause hes not quite hitler is not a good campaign slogan  that is all i am saying take that to the bank brohans 

 
"You're living in poverty!" 

Do you think that's slightly patronizing and offensive? 
Is he incorrect?
Yes, he is incorrect. Trump says "you're living in poverty" as if it applies to the majority of African Americans, when it doesn't.

You are doing the same thing.

The fact is, the vast majority of African Americans (73.8%) don't live in poverty. True, that number is higher than other ethnic groups. But when a person says "you're" as a representation of 26.2% of blacks -- but not the 23.6% of Hispanics or the 12.7% of whites who are also in poverty -- then it is at best patronizing, and at worst racist.

The fact is, the black poverty rate peaked under Reagan and bottomed-out under Clinton. Black lives got a lot better when a Clinton was in office.

If Trump was running against Obama, then he might score some points by pointing out that the black poverty rate increased slightly under Obama. But all it's really doing is reminding blacks of how bad things can get when a Republican is in charge.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not at all, if that group was the Ku Klux Klan it would be valid. But calling millions of fellow Americans bigots because of who they support for President is invalid.

I don't think you or anyone else who supports Clinton is crooked just because she is. I'm not silly enough to project traits onto people based on their political opinions.
But saying you agree with all of the things that makes him a bigot does make you a bigot.  That's not projection.  I don't see people in here saying "I'm voting for Hillary because you can't trust her."  I do see people saying "We're going to build a wall.  We're going to keep Muslims from coming into the country and we're going to kick the ones here out."  There's a difference between acknowledging a candidate has flaws and deciding to vote for her anyhow and embracing a candidate's flaws as being exactly what you want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not quite true. The South was solidly Democrat until the Reagan revolution.
The southern Strategy had its roots in the 64 election, but Nixon in 68 was the one who really exploited it. Helped him 72. 

76 was a glitch since Carter was from the south, but from then on, it has been Republican territory.

 
The southern Strategy had its roots in the 64 election, but Nixon in 68 was the one who really exploited it. Helped him 72. 

76 was a glitch since Carter was from the south, but from then on, it has been Republican territory.
:goodposting:

Republicans won the South in 1964, 1968 (Wallace), and 1972 before Georgian Jimmy Carter won the South as a Democrat in 1976. 

Since then only Clinton was able to win Southern states, namely his home state of Arkansas, LA, Tenn., Georgia (1992), and Florida (1996).  Obama won Florida in 2008 and 2012 if we are counting it as part of the South.

 
Here is the electoral maps since 1952. For the most part the south has been solid Republican 1964 with the exception of Carter and Clinton both from the south
1968 doesn't count because George Wallace was a former Democrat! DEMOCRAT I TELL YOU!!!!! [/bueno]

Code:
Nixon still got half a million more votes than Kennedy in the southern states
 
When the official Republican platform includes language to ban gay marriage, I don't know how you can NOT be a bigot if you vote Republican at this point.

 
Republicans won the South in 1964, 1968 (Wallace), and 1972 before Georgian Jimmy Carter won the South as a Democrat in 1976.
Wallace was a Democrat.

ETA: I guess for one year, in 1968, he was technically a third-party Independent. But for the rest of his career he was a Democrat.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're too biased to really see what's going on. Stop calling us Trumpettes, treat us with respect, treat Donald with respect, and maybe you'll start seeing this race with a little more clarity.

There's redeeming qualities to both candidates.
Trump does not deserve respect.  And no there is nothing redeeming about him.

 
When the official Republican platform includes language to ban gay marriage, I don't know how you can NOT be a bigot if you vote Republican at this point.
The official platform doesn't mean anything. Even if it did mean something, candidates hold positions on more than one issue. When  you vote for the candidate you agree with 38% of the time over the candidate you agree with 31% of the time, it doesn't mean that 38% is suddenly equal to 100%. (Although as apalmer implied a few posts back, if you vote for a candidate because he is anti-gay, that's another matter.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It also puts him one vote closer to Hillary.  None of his supporters is going to look at how many votes Johnson got.  They're going to say "look how close he came to beating Hillary.  If we work a little harder next time, we can get one of our kind elected."
IMO, a vote for Johnson is a repudiation of both candidates. They both suck voting for one because she sucks less than the other is not in the cards. I'm done holding my nose in the voting booth. It's time to send a message to both Parties.

 
Is your mortgage more or less than your net worth?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but under normal circumstances, a person's mortgage will generally be for less than the value of the property securing that mortgage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not at all, if that group was the Ku Klux Klan it would be valid. But calling millions of fellow Americans bigots because of who they support for President is invalid.

I don't think you or anyone else who supports Clinton is crooked just because she is. I'm not silly enough to project traits onto people based on their political opinions.
Em makes a good point. If all who support Trump are bigots, then all who support HRC are corrupt.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top