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.
massraider said:
I wonder why Trumpallos are so proud of Trump for gaming the system, but don't have the same respect for welfare cheats.

Any rightys got the answer here?  

Are they not stealing enough?  That's it, right?  
Click to expand...
I've been saying this for over a year now. Trump gets celebrated for being a great businessman because he works the system to his advantage. Yet, if someone buys a freaking steak on welfare, the righties are up in arms about people abusing the system.

 
massraider said:
I wonder why Trumpallos are so proud of Trump for gaming the system, but don't have the same respect for welfare cheats.

Any rightys got the answer here?  

Are they not stealing enough?  That's it, right?  
Click to expand...
Give us a hard question next time. Welfare cheats are simply lazy losers. They deserve no respect and everyone despises the lazy. Go back to the drawing board and come up with some tough questions.

 
Statorama said:
Garland is a confirmed anti-gun judge.  As much as President Obama would like to take away the right to have guns, he can't do it without a complicit Supreme Court.  With Garland, he would have had that.

If Obama had actually nominated a Center-Left judge without any anti-gun baggage, they would probably have been nominated and this would be a non-issue in the general election.  I wish he would have nominated someone reasonable so this would be off the table.
Click to expand...
You think Garland is unreasonable...and that the Republicans would have actually even discussed another person he put forth?

I think you are as incorrect as you can possibly be on that.

 
And that's why you can't engage them in serious discussions.  Durr durr durr they are losers durr

Best just to focus on the man, at least there's a roadside accident entertainment value.  

 
Riversco said:
Tim and trump actually share several personality traits. Both are blowhards that are quick to denounce people that disagree with them. They are also just as quick to turn on a dime and pretend to be  a martyr if someone attacks them and will say the attacks are unfair. 
Click to expand...
:lmao: Where did this come from? Who have I denounced? 

 
sho nuff said:
You think Garland is unreasonable...and that the Republicans would have actually even discussed another person he put forth?

I think you are as incorrect as you can possibly be on that.
Click to expand...
It would have been nice to find out.  Given Garland's previous positions, he was a non-starter.

That's why this was an incredible missed opportunity.  Nominate some middle of the road judge and the panicked Republicans would have probably caved.  Nominating a judge that antagonizes one of the Republicans biggest money donators was just crazy.

 
Statorama said:
It would have been nice to find out.  Given Garland's previous positions, he was a non-starter.

That's why this was an incredible missed opportunity.  Nominate some middle of the road judge and the panicked Republicans would have probably caved.  Nominating a judge that antagonizes one of the Republicans biggest money donators was just crazy.
Click to expand...
Obama didn't want Republicans to cave...he wanted to embarrass them.  Mission accomplished.

 
Helpful reminder of something I briefly forgot about a couple days ago:  When Stat visits a politics thread he's trolling. Always.

Need proof?  Consider: while there certainly are people who honestly think Obama and Clinton want to take people's guns away, I've never come across one who could write in full sentences without making spelling and punctuation errors.  And I've certainly never come across one who could correctly use the word "complicit" or the expression "oy vey."  Have you?  Didn't think so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
Obama didn't want Republicans to cave...he wanted to embarrass them.  Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...
And that's why I'm glad he's a petty petulant child instead of a grown-up.  He could have done an unbelievable amount of damage in his last months if he had a complicit Supreme Court handing out left-wing decisions like tic-tacs.

 
Statorama said:
It would have been nice to find out.  Given Garland's previous positions, he was a non-starter.

That's why this was an incredible missed opportunity.  Nominate some middle of the road judge and the panicked Republicans would have probably caved.  Nominating a judge that antagonizes one of the Republicans biggest money donators was just crazy.
Click to expand...
Wow...just wow.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Helpful reminder of something I briefly forgot about a couple days ago:  When Stat visits a politics thread he's trolling. Always.

Need proof?  Consider: while there certainly are people who honestly think Obama and Clinton want to take people's guns away, I've never come across one who could write in full sentences without making spelling and punctuation errors.  And I've certainly never come across one who could correctly use the word "complicit" or the expression "oy vey."  Have you?  Didn't think so.
Click to expand...
That almost kinda sounds like a compliment.  On the flip side, you're a pretty cool guy yourself. Always one of the toughest guys on the board to spar with.  Always appreciate your thoughts, even if I don't agree with them.  I have actually learned quite a bit from your postings, so keep them coming :thumbup:

 
squistion said:
I would deeply concerned too, if I were you, Marco.

ABC News ‏@ABC 1h1 hour ago

Rubio "deeply concerned" about reports a Trump-owned company allegedly violated U.S. trade embargo with Cuba in 90's http://abcn.ws/2d8BGJI
Click to expand...
“The article makes some very serious and troubling allegations. I will reserve judgment until we know all the facts and Donald has been given the opportunity to respond,” Rubio said, according to The Miami Herald.

 
Statorama said:
And that's why I'm glad he's a petty petulant child instead of a grown-up.  He could have done an unbelievable amount of damage in his last months if he had a complicit Supreme Court handing out left-wing decisions like tic-tacs.
Click to expand...
He took a look at the Republican field and gambled that the Democrats were going to win.  Now Hillary has a chance to put possibly 4 young liberal Justices on the court by the time she is done.

 
cstu said:
“The article makes some very serious and troubling allegations. I will reserve judgment until we know all the facts and Donald has been given the opportunity to respond,” Rubio said, according to The Miami Herald.
Click to expand...
'Let me tell you something Little Marco, while you were in your crib siting around in your poopy pants I was out there making Big Deals, the kind of deals that'll make your head spin.  When I walked up to Fidel I told him straight to his face "listen you commie pig, you'll fork over that real estate for my casino or I'll send my boys, Thing 1 and Thing 2, down here to bust some skulls!"  After that, I had that pinko slob eating out of my hands.  And for good measure I effed his wife while I was down there too.  She was a little chunky and kind of dumb but she was alright for a broad.'

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Never change, Donald:

“I’ve been out since June 16th, it’s been full time, all the time. You see all the days off that Hillary takes,” Trump said at a rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “All those day offs and then she can’t even make it to her car. Isn’t it tough? All those day offs.”
Click to expand...

 
Statorama said:
Garland is a confirmed anti-gun judge.  As much as President Obama would like to take away the right to have guns, he can't do it without a complicit Supreme Court.  With Garland, he would have had that.

If Obama had actually nominated a Center-Left judge without any anti-gun baggage, they would probably have been nominated and this would be a non-issue in the general election.  I wish he would have nominated someone reasonable so this would be off the table.
Click to expand...
What is the definition of anti-gun?

And we still hate the epa when companies have proven time and time again that poisoning people and the environment is not their concern?

 
Statorama said:
The majority of the people voting for him in the general will be people that don't want Hillary nominating another know-nothing liberal rubber-stamp justice to the Supreme Court.

If SC Justices were elected, I would likely vote for Hillary.  There is an unending number of issues that the left has just been sitting on, waiting for a rubber-stamp left wing SC to happen. Four years (minimum) of that would just be unfathomable.  Job crippling EPA regulations and pro-union cases, gun-grabs and other anti personal freedom decisions...oy vey!  Granted, Trump's pick will likely be center-left, but at least there's a chance they might turn into an Anthony Kennedy.

I can't be party to having the court shape this nation to reflect the Obama/Clinton radical left wing vision.  If the best I can do is a Center-Left Supreme Court, I guess I'll vote Trump.
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

This is too much.

 
Leeroy Jenkins said:
And we still hate the epa when companies have proven time and time again that poisoning people and the environment is not their concern?
Click to expand...
Trump would argue that it is good business to poison people and the environment if it was allowed.  that would make him smart

 
jomar said:
Trump would argue that it is good business to poison people and the environment if it was allowed.  that would make him smart
Click to expand...
Being "allowed" isn't even the issue, he would argue it is smart to find loopholes in the existing law that would let your corporation save money by poisoning people.

 
MattFancy said:
I've been saying this for over a year now. Trump gets celebrated for being a great businessman because he works the system to his advantage. Yet, if someone buys a freaking steak on welfare, the righties are up in arms about people abusing the system.
Click to expand...
If someone on welfare buys a steak it's their right. 

Dont confuse welfare theft and legit people on welfare

 
massraider said:
Really has nothing to do with his point tho right?
Click to expand...
I guess I am missing your point here, Mass, and I think you are letting your TrumpHate create a false equivalency here.

People who game the welfare system are stealing from tax payers--bottom line. It is illegal as they are taking services and benefits they are not entitled to take.

People who use deductions to reduce/negate their tax bill are legally using provisions that the tax code allows. You don't like it, then change the tax code. 

Unless you are telling me that when you fill out your 1040--you don't take any deductions (including the standard) then you really have no leg to stand on here. I know I personally itemize and use a Schedule A for everything I legally can (charitable contributions, personal taxes paid, my wife's education expenses, mortgage insurance premiums, etc). That's not criminal--that's smart money management.

Now the whole side bar argument about people on welfare buying steak, who cares what they spend their food stamps on. Meat is a good protein--go for it. You can't expect them to eat bologna all the time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtjester said:
I guess I am missing your point here, Mass, and I think you are letting your TrumpHate create a false equivalency here.

People who game the welfare system are stealing from tax payers--bottom line. It is illegal as they are taking services and benefits they are not entitled to take.

People who use deductions to reduce/negate their tax bill are legally using provisions that the tax code allows. You don't like it, then change the tax code. 

Unless you are telling me that when you fill out your 1040--you don't take any deductions (including the standard) then you really have no leg to stand on here. I know I personally itemize and use a Schedule A for everything I legally can (charitable contributions, personal taxes paid, my wife's education expenses, mortgage insurance premiums, etc). That's not criminal--that's smart money management.

Now the whole side bar argument about people on welfare buying steak, who cares what they spend their food stamps on. Meat is a good protein--go for it. You can't expect them to eat bologna all the time.
Click to expand...


It may not be a false equivalency.  I think Trump not paying his taxes in all likelyhood could be illegal.  For instance, if he directs someone to "donate" to his Trump Foundation instead of paying him (thereby avoiding taxes because there is no income to declare), and then uses money from his Trump foundation as part of a deal to settle a lawsuit (thereby treating the money as his income), then we have fraud, right?

 
Sweet J said:
It may not be a false equivalency.  I think Trump not paying his taxes in all likelyhood could be illegal.  For instance, if he directs someone to "donate" to his Trump Foundation instead of paying him (thereby avoiding taxes because there is no income to declare), and then uses money from his Trump foundation as part of a deal to settle a lawsuit (thereby treating the money as his income), then we have fraud, right?
Click to expand...
If it can be proven that he did things outside of what the tax code and/or law provides, then yes, you are correct.

it could explain why he is being audited as  well. 

:shrug:

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
People, Trump is conning you, and good. Wake up. Be mad at the messenger all you want, but ya done been hoodwinked. Bamboozled.
Click to expand...
The thing about getting conned - and this is the one thing that still scares me about the Trump campaign - is that once you've been conned you'll do everything in your power to avoid having to admit or confront that fact.  I remember a story about people getting catfished who refuse to admit it or find some sort of excuse or way to praise the "relationship" even after being presented with definitive evidence of the scam and the fact that the person they were in touch with was some old man instead of an attractive woman. That's how our brains work.  I think that's basically how he won the GOP primary, and that means that it's going to be very hard for Trump to lose support. Clinton has to focus on winning over truly undecided and third party voters- anyone who is even leaning Trump at this point is probably too far gone to get back.

 
Sweet J said:
It may not be a false equivalency.  I think Trump not paying his taxes in all likelyhood could be illegal.  For instance, if he directs someone to "donate" to his Trump Foundation instead of paying him (thereby avoiding taxes because there is no income to declare), and then uses money from his Trump foundation as part of a deal to settle a lawsuit (thereby treating the money as his income), then we have fraud, right?
Click to expand...
But you are speculating.  Paying the least amount of federal taxes under current laws is "smart".  There are many things to not like Trump for but this is not one of them.  

 
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
14K
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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top