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***President Donald Trump (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The General said:
Let's just say your Obama and Clinton points are pretty suspect. 

Agree Trump will do something stupid.
Click to expand...
Of course.  Your people do nothing wrong.  The other side does nothing right.  Post about it 250 times a day.  Rinse and repeat.  And you guys wonder why you get  :lmao:  so often.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Slick Willie created a housing crisis.
Click to expand...
Neither political party wanted to admit that there was a massive housing bubble in the mid-2000s.

If you want to blame 2008 on something Bill Clinton did in the '90s, then all I can say is: where were the Republicans in 2005-2008? I'll tell you where they were: they were cashing big fat campaign contribution checks from mortgage companies, just like the Democrats were. EVERYONE had their heads in the sand. (except tommyGunZ).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quez said:
More intelligence officials disputing Russian influence in elections.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/12/more-intelligence-officials-are-disputing-cias-claims-about-russian-hacking/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

The main thing to take from this is that our intelligence communities have been completely politicized.  We have heard everything from Putin personally is responsible for the hacks, to multiple countries hacking, which apparently happens all the time.

And throughout all of this, there hasn't been any solid evidence.
Click to expand...
Do you even read the text of the articles you link to, or is the headline enough for you?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Of course.  Your people do nothing wrong.  The other side does nothing right.  Post about it 250 times a day.  Rinse and repeat.  And you guys wonder why you get  :lmao:  so often.
Click to expand...
Dems make plenty of mistakes. Putting the housing crisis solely on Clinton and calling ACA the worst piece of legislation in our lifetime is wrong and an opinion. W and his guys created Iraq. 

Anyways I was talking to downplaying who is in the White House and how important it is.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Of course.  You're so open minded politically too.
Click to expand...
Dems make plenty of mistakes. Putting the housing crisis solely on Clinton and calling ACA the worst piece of legislation in our lifetime is wrong and an opinion. W and his guys created Iraq. 

Anyways I was talking to downplaying who is in the White House and how important it is.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Of course.  Your people do nothing wrong.  The other side does nothing right.  Post about it 250 times a day.  Rinse and repeat.  And you guys wonder why you get  :lmao:  so often.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't ride them too hard. The more time they waste posting on a message board thinking they are effecting change rather than going out and doing something about their wacko ideas the better. We don't need folk like Sho and Squis threatening to stalk electors or creating more hate crime hoaxes. You know they would just take it too far as usual. 

 
Loan Sharks said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
Of course.  Your people do nothing wrong.  The other side does nothing right.  Post about it 250 times a day.  Rinse and repeat.  And you guys wonder why you get  :lmao:  so often.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't ride them too hard. The more time they waste posting on a message board thinking they are effecting change rather than going out and doing something about their wacko ideas the better. We don't need folk like Sho and Squis threatening to stalk electors or creating more hate crime hoaxes. You know they would just take it too far as usual. 
Click to expand...
The next time you say something negative about little donald will be the first time I think.  :lol:

 
Loan Sharks said:
I wouldn't ride them too hard. The more time they waste posting on a message board thinking they are effecting change rather than going out and doing something about their wacko ideas the better. We don't need folk like Sho and Squis threatening to stalk electors or creating more hate crime hoaxes. You know they would just take it too far as usual. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, lets all chill and order some wacko pizza. I know this great place.

 
You know what would be nice? If the President Trump thread could be used to talk  about things that have to do with the incoming president.  His appointments,  his policies,  things he says or does,  that kind of stuff. 

Let's just leave Hillary out of it.  No "she won the popular vote"  bull. Also, for the other side  no "but Hillary!" when Trump's decisions are questioned.  

It's over.  She lost,  he won.  Now,  it's on him to produce.  Trump fans -  using "but Hillary"  is no longer a valid defense.  Defend your guy based on what he does and says. 

We're all in this together. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The General said:
Dems make plenty of mistakes. Putting the housing crisis solely on Clinton and calling ACA the worst piece of legislation in our lifetime is wrong and an opinion. W and his guys created Iraq. 

Anyways I was talking to downplaying who is in the White House and how important it is.
Click to expand...
If you really want to be fair you would note that a Democrat controlled Senate passed the Iraq resolution with a majority of Democrat Senators supporting it.  So it wasn't just a W thing.  

 
I wrote earlier how much I enjoyed Joy Reid's article, even though I disagreed with her ultimate conclusion. Here's part of it that I really found compelling:

That part of America rewarded its Republican representatives handsomely at the ballot box over the last six years—especially in midterms—for battling Obama at every turn. When they rebelled against the GOP, it wasn’t for fighting Obama; it was for losing to him. Many of these voters admire Vladimir Putin for being everything Obama is not: a bold enthnonationalist unafraid to use military muscle to fight Islam and stop the spread of its belief system and believers to the European continent. Many on the American right see the Russian strongman as the only world leader standing up to “the gays” and standing up for white Christians. They literally don’t care if he enriches himself and a handful of fellow oligarchs in the process, kills a few unhelpful journalists, or even uses cyber warfare to help pick our president—as long as it’s a president they like.
In Donald Trump, these voters demanded, and have gotten, a Putin of their own, albeit a lesser one.

Not sure about "the gays" part, but I think she's right on the rest of it. Anyone agree with this?
 
Not too much to disagree with except a couple of the points on Putin.   A lot of Americans did not want the change that Obama brought.  Just like a lot of America Don't want Trump's change.   The Dems will become exactly what they criticized the GOP for....obstructionists. 

 
jon_mx said:
If you really want to be fair you would note that a Democrat controlled Senate passed the Iraq resolution with a majority of Democrat Senators supporting it.  So it wasn't just a W thing.  
Click to expand...
Democrats caved in for sure. Political weakness. W and the neocons did the whole if you aren't with us you are against us thing.

This war was W's though. Tom Daschle wasn't drawing up plans to invade Baghdad.

 
jon_mx said:
Not too much to disagree with except a couple of the points on Putin.   A lot of Americans did not want the change that Obama brought.  Just like a lot of America Don't want Trump's change.   The Dems will become exactly what they criticized the GOP for....obstructionists. 
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I've already made the point that they can't be effective obstructionists, because they simply don't have the power that the GOP did during most of Obama's presidency.

But also Chuck Schumer has indicated that he's willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. That's more than Mitch McConnell ever offered Obama.

 
GROOT said:
If hacked in this country, who accepts the responsibilty....?
Click to expand...
If hacked in this country then that means the CIA and the rest of the IC is absolutely untrustworthy. Which of course, many conservatives seem to already believe but I do not. In any case, if that is true then the most important thing would be to have a full investigation of the CIA, find out who suggested Russia was involved and why, and how far up is the corruption.

Either way, it seems to me that we have to have an investigation.

 
timschochet said:
Maybe, maybe not. I've already made the point that they can't be effective obstructionists, because they simply don't have the power that the GOP did during most of Obama's presidency.

But also Chuck Schumer has indicated that he's willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. That's more than Mitch McConnell ever offered Obama.
Click to expand...
McConnel's mistake, if you want to call it that, was letting the cat out of the bag.  Coming right out and saying it's total war and they weren't going to cooperate on anything -- including Republican initiatives -- normally isn't how it's done.  But it worked, so maybe there's a new blueprint in town.

Usually the trick is to sound reasonable and helpful, but then oppose everything you can within the limits of your political power.

 
The General said:
Democrats caved in for sure. Political weakness. W and the neocons did the whole if you aren't with us you are against us thing.

This war was W's though. Tom Daschle wasn't drawing up plans to invade Baghdad.
Click to expand...
 Yep.  The whole thing stunk from the start, and one of the reasons I really do not care for Hillary was how easily she went along with supporting the Iraq war.

Easily the biggest disaster of my lifetime and surprised nobody has gone to prison over it.

 
timschochet said:
Maybe, maybe not. I've already made the point that they can't be effective obstructionists, because they simply don't have the power that the GOP did during most of Obama's presidency.

But also Chuck Schumer has indicated that he's willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. That's more than Mitch McConnell ever offered Obama.
Click to expand...
Obama was an arrogant ### when he had control of the house and senate his first two years.  With both the stimulus and Obamacare, he flipped the GOP the bird at any input they tried to make.  You give Obama way to much of a pass for the lack of cooperation.   Not surprising because of the crap news you listen to.  

 
The General said:
Democrats caved in for sure. Political weakness. W and the neocons did the whole if you aren't with us you are against us thing.

This war was W's though. Tom Daschle wasn't drawing up plans to invade Baghdad.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton was beating the Iraq war Drum and the WMD angle long before W.  It was not something W dreamed up:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Democrats had their fingerprints all over the Iraq war despite all the excuses and spin. 

 
jon_mx said:
Obama was an arrogant ### when he had control of the house and senate his first two years.  With both the stimulus and Obamacare, he flipped the GOP the bird at any input they tried to make.  You give Obama way to much of a pass for the lack of cooperation.   Not surprising because of the crap news you listen to.  
Click to expand...
That is either a lie or just completely wrong. O went to great lengths to compromise on both items. 

 
timschochet said:
I wrote earlier how much I enjoyed Joy Reid's article, even though I disagreed with her ultimate conclusion. Here's part of it that I really found compelling:

That part of America rewarded its Republican representatives handsomely at the ballot box over the last six years—especially in midterms—for battling Obama at every turn. When they rebelled against the GOP, it wasn’t for fighting Obama; it was for losing to him. Many of these voters admire Vladimir Putin for being everything Obama is not: a bold enthnonationalist unafraid to use military muscle to fight Islam and stop the spread of its belief system and believers to the European continent. Many on the American right see the Russian strongman as the only world leader standing up to “the gays” and standing up for white Christians. They literally don’t care if he enriches himself and a handful of fellow oligarchs in the process, kills a few unhelpful journalists, or even uses cyber warfare to help pick our president—as long as it’s a president they like.
In Donald Trump, these voters demanded, and have gotten, a Putin of their own, albeit a lesser one.

Not sure about "the gays" part, but I think she's right on the rest of it. Anyone agree with this?
Click to expand...
Trump's cabinet is about as anti-gay as you can get.

 
Dickies said:
The vast majority have accepted the results and there will be nothing other than a peaceful transfer of power.  However, if the electors use the power bestowed upon them to vote for someone other than Trump then we would at least all be in agreement that the EC needs to be scrapped.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the opposite of what I would say.  If the EC were to deny Trump the presidency, those guys would be heroes, and it would show once and for all why the EC was a good idea as one, final fail-safe against direct democracy.  

On the other hand, if electors are going to just blindly vote for the candidate who won their state, then there's really no good reason for having electors in the first place.  Just award electoral votes directly on election night and dispense with actually having electors or getting the EC together for a formal vote.  

 
timschochet said:
I wrote earlier how much I enjoyed Joy Reid's article, even though I disagreed with her ultimate conclusion. Here's part of it that I really found compelling:

That part of America rewarded its Republican representatives handsomely at the ballot box over the last six years—especially in midterms—for battling Obama at every turn. When they rebelled against the GOP, it wasn’t for fighting Obama; it was for losing to him. Many of these voters admire Vladimir Putin for being everything Obama is not: a bold enthnonationalist unafraid to use military muscle to fight Islam and stop the spread of its belief system and believers to the European continent. Many on the American right see the Russian strongman as the only world leader standing up to “the gays” and standing up for white Christians. They literally don’t care if he enriches himself and a handful of fellow oligarchs in the process, kills a few unhelpful journalists, or even uses cyber warfare to help pick our president—as long as it’s a president they like.
In Donald Trump, these voters demanded, and have gotten, a Putin of their own, albeit a lesser one.

Not sure about "the gays" part, but I think she's right on the rest of it. Anyone agree with this?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with standing up the the gays. I do agree that voting for the Tea Party, which I think she's referring to when she says "they rebelled against the GOP...for losing to him", was definitely in response to losing to Obama. They hated Obama with a passion I had never seen, and Hillary too. So I don't think they wanted Trump as much as they hated Obama and Hillary, and Trump is who they ended up with.

When the ACA passed, Obama signed the healthcare bill Republicans would have written, replete with private insurers. It was Romneycare. They didn't care, zero votes. And you still have clowns saying "Obama pushed it through, he didn't care". If he did that, it would have been single payer. I think people intentionally re-visit their own version of history in order to spin the facts to fit their narrative. Same with the Iraq war, I'm starting to see the posts now where that was also on the Democrats? Freakin' laughable.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is pretty much the opposite of what I would say.  If the EC were to deny Trump the presidency, those guys would be heroes, and it would show once and for all why the EC was a good idea as one, final fail-safe against direct democracy.  

On the other hand, if electors are going to just blindly vote for the candidate who won their state, then there's really no good reason for having electors in the first place.  Just award electoral votes directly on election night and dispense with actually having electors or getting the EC together for a formal vote.  
Click to expand...
I don't see them as mutually exclusive.  The reason the EC electors are in this position is because the EC isn't working.  They can vote their conscious, but its a sign its time to do something different moving forward.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
McConnel's mistake, if you want to call it that, was letting the cat out of the bag.  Coming right out and saying it's total war and they weren't going to cooperate on anything -- including Republican initiatives -- normally isn't how it's done.  But it worked, so maybe there's a new blueprint in town.

Usually the trick is to sound reasonable and helpful, but then oppose everything you can within the limits of your political power.
Click to expand...
Yeah.  Hard to call it much of mistake when it worked and people on the right won't even agree with the basic facts that he did this. 

 
Any chance I can get a summary of weekend developments in the Dodds crackdown?  I assume the existence of this thread means he relented somewhat?

 
TobiasFunke said:
Any chance I can get a summary of weekend developments in the Dodds crackdown?  I assume the existence of this thread means he relented somewhat?
Click to expand...
Politics threads may continue, but they need to be about issues and not just people railing on each other.  He made a plea asking we seek to understand each other, and that people with different world views can see the same information radically different.

Dodds said he would stay out of political threads in the future.  Said he was "quasi-fishing" in them.  Did not get specific about that term or his actions beyond that.

I told him I hope he changes his mind and returns to political threads because he's a creative and unconventional thinker and his sincere participation would have a lot to offer. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kiddnets
How did you become a fan of your favorite team(s)?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
2K
ConstruxBoy
ConstruxBoy
Caveman33
No One's Making Fun of Scooter Kids Anymore
Replies
2
Views
128
Major
Major
fatness
FBI finds largest cache of "finished explosive devices" in FBI history
Replies
18
Views
1K
Snoopy
Snoopy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top