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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
moleculo said:
You know, China has other possible responses that don't include invading Taiwan.

What happens if they place sanctions on the US?  Suppose they impose a huge tax (tariff?) on goods leaving China, bound for the US?  

What if they go bigly and outlaw the export of goods bound for the US?  They could easily tell all of the contract manufacturers that they would be free to sell their American-designed wares on the Chinese market to make up for lost revenue coming from US.

I'm in the middle of a project being designed and manufactured outside of Hong Kong.  We are about to spend several hundred thousand dollars in tooling for this.  In this scenario, they could easily keep their doors open by selling my product in China.  Hell, they could sell it for a fraction of what we could - the tooling is already paid for, no freight costs, and no pricy American margins.  These guys would come out ahead, I'm sure most others would as well.  It's some dirty pool, no doubt and illegal per international laws I'm sure, but haven't we already established that the UN is worthless?

I mentioned before that shutting down the flow of goods from China would have a catastrophic effect on our economy - great depression level stuff.  Even a stiff export tax would really kill consumer spending, which is what our whole economy is based on.
Click to expand...
Going to be a few interesting years for China.  The yuan has been depreciating against the dollar steadily, as it should because it is overvalued.  However, that depreciation will only increase rhetoric from fools like Trump.

 
David Dodds said:
show me where the Directors of the FBI and National Intelligence agree with the CIA statement.  Show me the CIA's "proof" this happened the way they said it did.
Click to expand...
Nobody has publicly issued any report yet. They have not even formally, publicly spoken on it. It makes sense to at least say say, 'well it's possible, it should concern us but hey let's wait for the official report when it comes out.' That at least makes sense and relies on the process. But to trust on a report that is patently absurd on the face of it and even if true likely comes from a Trump camp that accused Michelle Fields of being an assassin with a pen bomb is ridiculous.

If you don't trust the politics of it, at least take the time to look at reports from technical sites - Motherboard, that kind of thing - with technical reporting on the issue. I posted one above.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loan Sharks said:
Don't you think comparing America to a cult is just a tad drama queen.
Click to expand...
Not at all.  I didn't compare America (which is a place) to a cult.  But the way I've seen many people go from saying he was a nut before the primaries, to full on Trumpette after he beat out guys like Kasich is very much cult-like.  Let's put it another way.  Can you (and I don't really follow you but I'm assuming you drank the Trump Kool Aid) come up with something that you disapprove of that Trump has done?  

What don't you like about Trump?  

 
David Dodds said:
show me where the Directors of the FBI and National Intelligence agree with the CIA statement.  Show me the CIA's "proof" this happened the way they said it did.

On one side we have the Clinton apologists:  Obama, CIA, and the media.  All were exposed in the WikiLeaks scandals.  This whole "Russian" interference is another "hail mary" trying to not elect Donald Trump.  And everyone on the Clinton apologists side has a LOT to lose when Trump is the President.

Where is the NSA confirming. They track everything on every computer yet have remained silent as well?

I will wait for the FBI. NSA and Director of National Intelligence to tell me what definitely happened.  Why should we trust the CIA's version of events with no proof and no backing from the real people in charge of making this determination? Is the CIA's role to determine this?  Can someone point me to where they have confirmed other hacking efforts by state parties?  
Click to expand...
Sorry.  You don't get to throw #### against the wall for months and then tell others to prove it isn't chocolate

 
Sabertooth said:
I agree.  The left is actually to blame here to be honest.  Just absolutely disgusting what they did to Bernie.  And we are all going to pay because of it.  Wasserman Schulz should be on trial.  
Click to expand...
No.

About a month ago, just after the election, I stated my concern that this false story would grow and grow until it was accepted as truth by most people, and now I see it happening, unfortunately. 

So let's go over it again. Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC were on Hillary's side against Bernie Sanders, the outsider. They helped Hillary win the nomination over Bernie in many small ways. NONE of these ways were decisive. Hillary won the nomination over the surprising Bernie for two reasons: first because she won the black vote, especially in the south, and this gave her a commanding lead that Bernie could not catch up to (the same reason Obama beat Hillary in 2008), and second because Bernie's most energized supporters were young people who didn't show up in large enough numbers to vote. Those were the two decisive reasons. The DNC's effect was minimal, and did not change the outcome.

 
Dodds, I actually think of you as some algorithm guru. Am I wrong on that? I mean hell I bank on that, I think you are (my championships thank you, seriously). Aren't there technical experts you trust on this?

eta - I respect you, that's the point. I think if you approached this from a computer science/engineering POV (and not political one) it would be fascinating.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds said:
show me where the Directors of the FBI and National Intelligence agree with the CIA statement.  Show me the CIA's "proof" this happened the way they said it did.

On one side we have the Clinton apologists:  Obama, CIA, and the media.  All were exposed in the WikiLeaks scandals.  This whole "Russian" interference is another "hail mary" trying to not elect Donald Trump.  And everyone on the Clinton apologists side has a LOT to lose when Trump is the President.

Where is the NSA confirming. They track everything on every computer yet have remained silent as well?

I will wait for the FBI. NSA and Director of National Intelligence to tell me what definitely happened.  Why should we trust the CIA's version of events with no proof and no backing from the real people in charge of making this determination? Is the CIA's role to determine this?  Can someone point me to where they have confirmed other hacking efforts by state parties?  
Click to expand...


NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers spoke candidly this week about the role of nation-states in affecting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election with cyber attacks.

“There shouldn’t be any doubts in anybody’s mind: This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” Rogers said at a Wall Street Journal election forum on Tuesday. “This was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
Click to expand...
link

Also, neither ODNI or the FBI has disagreed with the CIA's conclusion that it was Russia- they diverge only on whether the intent was to elect Trump or simply to disrupt the elections (they don't think it's the latter, they just don't think the intel is 100% there to support the former).

While we're here, can you show me all the CIA, FBI, ODNI and NSA intelligence you took into account before you decided to accuse a pizza restaurant of harboring a massive pedophilia ring?

 
timschochet said:
No.

About a month ago, just after the election, I stated my concern that this false story would grow and grow until it was accepted as truth by most people, and now I see it happening, unfortunately. 

So let's go over it again. Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC were on Hillary's side against Bernie Sanders, the outsider. They helped Hillary win the nomination over Bernie in many small ways. NONE of these ways were decisive. Hillary won the nomination over the surprising Bernie for two reasons: first because she won the black vote, especially in the south, and this gave her a commanding lead that Bernie could not catch up to (the same reason Obama beat Hillary in 2008), and second because Bernie's most energized supporters were young people who didn't show up in large enough numbers to vote. Those were the two decisive reasons. The DNC's effect was minimal, and did not change the outcome.
Click to expand...
Thanks for re-iterating. It's remarkable what passes for revisionist history. I also don't understand the "therefore, Trump" aspect, and probably never will.

They chanted lock her up, CNN sucks, and build a wall. None of which matter, or are going to happen. 

I didn't like her that much either, but Trump? Crazy times.

 
timschochet said:
No.

About a month ago, just after the election, I stated my concern that this false story would grow and grow until it was accepted as truth by most people, and now I see it happening, unfortunately. 

So let's go over it again. Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC were on Hillary's side against Bernie Sanders, the outsider. They helped Hillary win the nomination over Bernie in many small ways. NONE of these ways were decisive. Hillary won the nomination over the surprising Bernie for two reasons: first because she won the black vote, especially in the south, and this gave her a commanding lead that Bernie could not catch up to (the same reason Obama beat Hillary in 2008), and second because Bernie's most energized supporters were young people who didn't show up in large enough numbers to vote. Those were the two decisive reasons. The DNC's effect was minimal, and did not change the outcome.
Click to expand...
No she won because of Super Delegates.  Come on.  

 
David Dodds said:
show me where the Directors of the FBI and National Intelligence agree with the CIA statement.  Show me the CIA's "proof" this happened the way they said it did.

On one side we have the Clinton apologists:  Obama, CIA, and the media.  All were exposed in the WikiLeaks scandals.  This whole "Russian" interference is another "hail mary" trying to not elect Donald Trump.  And everyone on the Clinton apologists side has a LOT to lose when Trump is the President.

Where is the NSA confirming. They track everything on every computer yet have remained silent as well?

I will wait for the FBI. NSA and Director of National Intelligence to tell me what definitely happened.  Why should we trust the CIA's version of events with no proof and no backing from the real people in charge of making this determination? Is the CIA's role to determine this?  Can someone point me to where they have confirmed other hacking efforts by state parties?  
Click to expand...
You ask me to show you stuff. But the problem with you and others using Newsmax as a source, while at the same time discounting the mainstream media, is how can I possibly show you anything you'll believe? When NBC and CNN and the Washington Post report that Putin had direct involvement, I believe it, because I find those sources to be credible. I don't find Newsmax or Assange to be credible. That's all I can offer you.

 
timschochet said:
No.

About a month ago, just after the election, I stated my concern that this false story would grow and grow until it was accepted as truth by most people, and now I see it happening, unfortunately. 

So let's go over it again. Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC were on Hillary's side against Bernie Sanders, the outsider. They helped Hillary win the nomination over Bernie in many small ways. NONE of these ways were decisive. Hillary won the nomination over the surprising Bernie for two reasons: first because she won the black vote, especially in the south, and this gave her a commanding lead that Bernie could not catch up to (the same reason Obama beat Hillary in 2008), and second because Bernie's most energized supporters were young people who didn't show up in large enough numbers to vote. Those were the two decisive reasons. The DNC's effect was minimal, and did not change the outcome.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
The evolution of the plan:

- Paid protestors bussed in to create the appearance of riots

- Threaten the electoral college

- Claim Russia hacked the counting machines and get a recount

and now we are here: 

- Trump's win isn't legitimate because Russia interfered with the election.

Democrat Summary: 

Electors should overturn the results of a legitimately won election, because the "Russians" exposed the lies, deceit, corruption, and collusion of the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the media.  

 
timschochet said:
No.

About a month ago, just after the election, I stated my concern that this false story would grow and grow until it was accepted as truth by most people, and now I see it happening, unfortunately. 

So let's go over it again. Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC were on Hillary's side against Bernie Sanders, the outsider. They helped Hillary win the nomination over Bernie in many small ways. NONE of these ways were decisive. Hillary won the nomination over the surprising Bernie for two reasons: first because she won the black vote, especially in the south, and this gave her a commanding lead that Bernie could not catch up to (the same reason Obama beat Hillary in 2008), and second because Bernie's most energized supporters were young people who didn't show up in large enough numbers to vote. Those were the two decisive reasons. The DNC's effect was minimal, and did not change the outcome.
Click to expand...
Small ways?  The head of the DNC was feeding her debate questions.  That is not a small thing.

 
timschochet said:
You ask me to show you stuff. But the problem with you and others using Newsmax as a source, while at the same time discounting the mainstream media, is how can I possibly show you anything you'll believe? When NBC and CNN and the Washington Post report that Putin had direct involvement, I believe it, because I find those sources to be credible. I don't find Newsmax or Assange to be credible. That's all I can offer you.




 
Click to expand...
NBC, CNN, and Washington Post.... :lmao:   There you have it.  Proof positive.

 
David Dodds said:
show me where the Directors of the FBI and National Intelligence agree with the CIA statement.  Show me the CIA's "proof" this happened the way they said it did.

On one side we have the Clinton apologists:  Obama, CIA, and the media.  All were exposed in the WikiLeaks scandals.  This whole "Russian" interference is another "hail mary" trying to not elect Donald Trump.  And everyone on the Clinton apologists side has a LOT to lose when Trump is the President.

Where is the NSA confirming. They track everything on every computer yet have remained silent as well?

I will wait for the FBI. NSA and Director of National Intelligence to tell me what definitely happened.  Why should we trust the CIA's version of events with no proof and no backing from the real people in charge of making this determination? Is the CIA's role to determine this?  Can someone point me to where they have confirmed other hacking efforts by state parties?  
Click to expand...
Does the CIA and media become Trump apologists once he takes office?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fake news..the Russians are coming, Jill Steins recount uncovered huge democratic voter fraud in Wayne County..Michigan's biggest county at 1.8 million people. Dead people voting from the grave...Trump meeting with rappers and Ray Lewis, Obamas birth certificate fake reappears,  Harry Reid says Trump not that bad, Hillary getting drunk, Rosie still in the USA.    Billy Joel should do a new "We didn`t start the fire"

WTH is going on??

 
David Dodds said:
NBC, CNN, and Washington Post.... :lmao:   There you have it.  Proof positive.
Click to expand...
exactly.  There is no proof you would believe because trump has convinced you the lamestream media is crooked.  Therefore, you go to fringe news sites with terrible reputations and believe that as the truth because it's what you want to hear.

 
The other false connection here is that the news about Russia and Putin somehow make the result of the election illegitimate. They don't. Trump won fair and square and deserves to be President. I believe the Russians had a minimal effect, just like the DNC in the primaries. The Russian story is important and deserves to be investigated in light of what it could mean for us in the future. But I don't think it changed the outcome. 

 
Da Guru said:
Fake news..the Russians are coming, Jill Steins recount uncovered huge democratic voter fraud in Wayne County..Michigan's biggest county at 1.8 million people. Dead people voting from the grave...Trump meeting with rappers and Ray Lewis, Obamas birth certificate fake reappears,  Harry Reid says Trump not that bad, Hillary getting drunk, Rosie still in the USA.    Billy Joel should do a new "We didn`t start the fire"

WTH is going on??
Click to expand...
Sounds like you need to upgrade your news sources too

 
David Dodds said:
The evolution of the plan:

- Paid protestors bussed in to create the appearance of riots

- Threaten the electoral college

- Claim Russia hacked the counting machines and get a recount

and now we are here: 

- Trump's win isn't legitimate because Russia interfered with the election.

Democrat Summary: 

Electors should overturn the results of a legitimately won election, because the "Russians" exposed the lies, deceit, corruption, and collusion of the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the media.  
Click to expand...
Sums it up quite bigly 

 
timschochet said:
The other false connection here is that the news about Russia and Putin somehow make the result of the election illegitimate. They don't. Trump won fair and square and deserves to be President. I believe the Russians had a minimal effect, just like the DNC in the primaries. The Russian story is important and deserves to be investigated in light of what it could mean for us in the future. But I don't think it changed the outcome. 
Click to expand...
I think it likely did change the outcome in that their propaganda clearly swayed a non-trivial number of voters.  

Still, it's the voters that pulled the lever.  You can't call for a re-do of an election because there was some one-sided "journalism" perpetrated by foreign influences.  Trump won, the election was legit, and we move on.

 
moleculo said:
exactly.  There is no proof you would believe because trump has convinced you the lamestream media is crooked.  Therefore, you go to fringe news sites with terrible reputations and believe that as the truth because it's what you want to hear.




 
Click to expand...
It's simple.  Show me where the FBI director and the Director of National Intelligence agrees with the made up story that the CIA is promoting.  This is not the CIAs call to make.  It's like Obama's brother making statements.  

 
David Dodds said:
The evolution of the plan:

- Paid protestors bussed in to create the appearance of riots

- Threaten the electoral college

- Claim Russia hacked the counting machines and get a recount

and now we are here: 

- Trump's win isn't legitimate because Russia interfered with the election.

Democrat Summary: 

Electors should overturn the results of a legitimately won election, because the "Russians" exposed the lies, deceit, corruption, and collusion of the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the media.  
Click to expand...
You give the Dem leadership way way too much credit.  They couldn't see beyond their own noses and beat the horrible Trump.  There's absolutely no way they're as well planned out as you've insinuated.  They're a bunch of incompetent jackasses. 

 
Lots of focus on Hillary and the election still by the Trump supporters. Why? More examples of being distracted. Lock her up, build the wall, CNN sucks, Hamilton should be ashamed. Is this what you guys really care about? No wonder he got elected. Here I was thinking people cared about things like unemployment, the housing market, the stock market, reasonable government mostly staying out of citizens way. Good gosh it really is the crazy bin nowadays.

 
David Dodds said:
It's simple.  Show me where the FBI director and the Director of National Intelligence agrees with the made up story that the CIA is promoting.  This is not the CIAs call to make.  It's like Obama's brother making statements.  
Click to expand...
You've really got to get out of the rabbit hole.  Your guy won, Hillary lost, acting like certain segments of the government are actively trying to un-elect Trump is just absurd.  It's as absurd as saying that every single media outlet, save the few you like, are shills for Hillary.  It's simply ridiculous. 

 
jonessed said:
Because debates aren't important to voters?
Click to expand...
62 million people voted for Trump, so apparently not.

Seriously- as far as I know Clinton got advance notice on one question for one of those Town Hall things. It only aired on cable on  a Sunday night.  It wasn't an official debate.  And it wasn't an issue of any significance at all during the debate.  Maybe there's some question-sharing incident I don't know about.  But if that's it, and you really think it made any difference at all in the primary race that Clinton won easily, I've got a degree from Trump university I'd like to sell you.

 
moleculo said:
I think it likely did change the outcome in that their propaganda clearly swayed a non-trivial number of voters.  

Still, it's the voters that pulled the lever.  You can't call for a re-do of an election because there was some one-sided "journalism" perpetrated by foreign influences.  Trump won, the election was legit, and we move on.




 
Click to expand...
Definitely no slanted pro-media coverage for HRC at all this election.

- Feed her the EXACT questions in advance to the debates.  

- Never question her campaign to what was exposed via the WikiLeaks (pay-to-play, debate questions, Saudi/QATAR donations, DNC bird-doggers creating fights at Trump rallies... the list is endless).  

 
James Daulton said:
You give the Dem leadership way way too much credit.  They couldn't see beyond their own noses and beat the horrible Trump.  There's absolutely no way they're as well planned out as you've insinuated.  They're a bunch of incompetent jackasses. 
Click to expand...
Largely true and by the way, this almost always ends up being the major flaw in every conspiracy theory I can think of: the parties that are supposedly behind it are simply too incompetent to do that much planning and execution and keep it secret as well.

 
David Dodds said:
It's simple.  Show me where the FBI director and the Director of National Intelligence agrees with the made up story that the CIA is promoting.  This is not the CIAs call to make.  It's like Obama's brother making statements.  
Click to expand...
What do you want to see?  

As near as I can tell, the CIA claims the Russians got involved to explicitly elect Trump.  The FBI etc claim the Russians got involved to mess with Hillary and sow discord.  It's a distinction without a difference.  

 
David Dodds said:
It's simple.  Show me where the FBI director and the Director of National Intelligence agrees with the made up story that the CIA is promoting.  This is not the CIAs call to make.  It's like Obama's brother making statements.  
Click to expand...
I noticed before you asked about the NSA but now you've dropped that.  Why did you do that?  Their opinion mattered thirty minutes ago, but now it doesn't?

 
TobiasFunke said:
Ha ha ha!

While we're on the subject of all these crazy fake stories about Trump-inspired attacks, let's share a laugh over two more of Boston's finest together, shall we?


 


I am glad to see that your fine hometown continues to do its part to Make America Great Again!
Click to expand...
No surprise...Southie is a dem stronghold that has had BS like this in the past...not much tolerance there by anyone R or D...and what exactly does this have to do with what I posted?  Are you implying that it is OK to fabricate stories?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds said:
The evolution of the plan:

- Paid protestors bussed in to create the appearance of riots

- Threaten the electoral college

- Claim Russia hacked the counting machines and get a recount

and now we are here: 

- Trump's win isn't legitimate because Russia interfered with the election.

Democrat Summary: 

Electors should overturn the results of a legitimately won election, because the "Russians" exposed the lies, deceit, corruption, and collusion of the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the media.  
Click to expand...
All right, now do Putin.

 
David Dodds said:
Definitely no slanted pro-media coverage for HRC at all this election.

- Feed her the EXACT questions in advance to the debates.  

- Never question her campaign to what was exposed via the WikiLeaks (pay-to-play, debate questions, Saudi/QATAR donations, DNC bird-doggers creating fights at Trump rallies... the list is endless).  
Click to expand...
I watch CNN and the stupid wikileaks and emails were brought up constantly.  As was the donations to her fund.  What kind of world are you living in?  You sound like a conspiracy whacko tbh.

 
moleculo said:
What do you want to see?  

As near as I can tell, the CIA claims the Russians got involved to explicitly elect Trump.  The FBI etc claim the Russians got involved to mess with Hillary and sow discord.  It's a distinction without a difference.  
Click to expand...
Apparently he wants to see a cheap blog entry with instagram photos taken out of context and restaurant signs marked up with MS Paint.  That's how you know a story is real.

 
moleculo said:
What do you want to see?  

As near as I can tell, the CIA claims the Russians got involved to explicitly elect Trump.  The FBI etc claim the Russians got involved to mess with Hillary and sow discord.  It's a distinction without a difference.  
Click to expand...
I'd also point out that just maybe the CIA has better intelligence within Russia...just maybe.  

 
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
124
Views
3K
Kanil
Kanil
scorchy
Any banking guys that can offer solutions to a vexing issue?
Replies
31
Views
446
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top