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.
I guess I should also note that the president-elect campaigned expicitly on the notion that my beloved hometown and/or the work I've done in various public and private sector capacities for the last two decades is a "swamp" that needs to be "drained." And this is hardly new rhetoric.  Meanwhile Im just a regular guy who devotes 99% of his income to feeding, clothing and housing his family and the other 1% to watching to the local sports teams reliably disappoint me.  

And I don't even get representation in Congress. I get to be a scapegoat instead.  So that probably influences how I feel about all the thinkpieces about other groups not getting enough political attention.  I would LOVE to be ignored a little more.
And that's reasonable.  But honestly, it's two sides of the same coin.  The conspiracy/insanity/blaming workers in D.C./smugness/dismissal/etc stuff is all the same issue.  If people saw what you do every day - what 90% of D.C. does every day - it would have the same reaction that the uber-liberal-militant-anti-police people have when they do a ride-along or a training session with an officer.  They'd be with you if they realized you're with them.

 
I'm just not seeing your point.  After they serve their term,  they (a)  retire (b)  go on speaking tours (c) get back into private business (d) stay in politics in a different fashion. 

If they get rich after serving,  that's hardly the same as getting rich WHILE they're serving. 
Very few do (c) most do (d)

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
The issue isn't him running his businesses or not. It's that his businesses are a direct conduit for foreign and domestic individuals and entities to provide financial gain/incentive to Trump while he's in office.   
That is a valid point. It is like Gore taking donations from China routed through Buddhist monks.

 
Just checking in to catch up.   The above comment is par for the course.   Angry much?   Your gal loses so the voters are stupid & racist?   figured you might try a different angle but, but, well, whatever.   Bet your a real fun guy at parties too.     have fun. 
Ok youre right   that wasn't a helpful post.  What about my posts earlier? I'm  not whining. I'm not saying Hillary should have won. 

I'm a democratic voter who has accepted that Hillary lost and the Republicans have power now. How do you respond to the fact that Trump has financial interests that cause any international agreement he makes come under question?

We're holding a criminal that Turkey wants released,  and Turkey is holding a businessman with direct ties to Trump's finances. Turkey wants us to release him in exchange for releasing Trump's business partner.  Trump has obvious financial reasons to release him,  but is that the best thing for the country? How can we,  as citizens,  know that what the president decides is in the best interest of the country and not him personally? It's the absolute definition of conflict of interest. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your feeling is directly contradicted by the fact that rural states have higher per capita welfare spending. 
That in no way contradicts my point. We are more spread out, therefore more dependent on ourselves for our safety (which is why we all have guns and know how to use them). Most rural poor, at least where I am, rely on their own sources of heat (firewood) water (wells), snow removal from their driveways, many grow much of their own food and hunt and most of us know our neighbors.  They are more independent than you can be in the city. But city folk don't get all that.

 
I suppose this is true, but I would imagine the impact this would have on the overall economy would be extremely limited and the same guidelines are still relevant.  If I have extra money in my pocket I am not going to just go expand my business if it makes no economic sense to do so.
But you may take it out of your business and spend it.

 
Ok youre right   that wasn't a helpful post.  What about my posts earlier? I'm  not whining. I'm not saying Hillary should have won. 

I'm a democratic voter who has accepted that Hillary lost and the Republicans have power now. How do you respond to the fact that Trump has financial interests that cause any international agreement he makes come under question?

We're holding a criminal that Turkey wants released,  and Turkey is holding a businessman with direct ties to Trump's finances. Turkey wants us to release him in exchange for releasing Trump's business partner.  Trump has obvious financial reasons to release him,  but is that the best thing for the country? How can we,  as citizens,  know that what the president decides is in the best interest of the country and not him personally? 
Trump has international ties.   So let's see how he handles it.    Comments on here are so disparaging against him before he has actually done anything except pick a cabinet.  think about that.   The venomous & hatred comments spewed against him & his voters when he basically hasn't done anything in office is an eye opener.  Adios for me.    

 
It's so weird that's happened, when Obama told Republicans that elections have consequences and they can come along but have to ride in the back you would think it would have united the country. Clearly all on the Republicans.....just like everything else. 
Obama says something that offends republicans, to supporters like you it justifies any level of opposition from republicans.

Hillary is loose with the truth a few times and it justifies any amount of bald faced lies by Trump.

You and folks like you have lost any sense of perspective when you go this far to justify outrageous behavior.

 
That's because it doesn't make sense,  and it doesn't work. "Give the richest people more money and they'll spend it,  eventually flowing down to everyone!" 

No,  it doesn't work that way in real life.  Give the richest more money and they'll use it to further enrich themselves.  The only one who see any trickle down are their financial advisors. 

ETA : along the same lines,  giving POOR people more money actually does boost the economy because they go out and spend it on goods and services.  They don't save it or put it into their portfolios. 
And by investing, businesses take that investment capital and do what with it exactly? Expand to create more jobs perhaps? Or maybe they automate and eliminate unskilled jobs but automation increases the demand for skilled positions. Doesn't help the older, laid off factory worker though.  But the money does flow through the economy. It does work. OTOH, poor people spend all their money and it goes into corporate coffers and the profits are often paid to shareholders. 

 
It sure seems like the past 8 years has seen a rise in Party over Country, at least from the republican side.  Full on obstruction in congress, blocking progress on supreme court appointee, and now you have Trump's election with Russian fingerprints all over it and events in NC from the republicans there.

Sure seems like the party should be subservient to the country, and not the other way around.  Republicans willing to stay mum about all of this because it benefits their ideology, yet it's pretty clearly bad for America.  

When folks are unwilling to be able to make a distinction between what's good for their party, and what's good for America, there are problems...and I fear that Trump is the latest, and biggest, example of this disfunction mainly manifested in one political party.
Try the last 16 years.

 
Ok youre right   that wasn't a helpful post.  What about my posts earlier? I'm  not whining. I'm not saying Hillary should have won. 

I'm a democratic voter who has accepted that Hillary lost and the Republicans have power now. How do you respond to the fact that Trump has financial interests that cause any international agreement he makes come under question?

We're holding a criminal that Turkey wants released,  and Turkey is holding a businessman with direct ties to Trump's finances. Turkey wants us to release him in exchange for releasing Trump's business partner.  Trump has obvious financial reasons to release him,  but is that the best thing for the country? How can we,  as citizens,  know that what the president decides is in the best interest of the country and not him personally? It's the absolute definition of conflict of interest. 
What would you do?

 
Trump has international ties.   So let's see how he handles it.    Comments on here are so disparaging against him before he has actually done anything except pick a cabinet.  think about that.   The venomous & hatred comments spewed against him & his voters when he basically hasn't done anything in office is an eye opener.  Adios for me.    
It's not as if he has disappeared since the election.  He has been doing things, and not doing other things.

in the camp of things he has been doing have been his tweets attacking folks senselessly, inviting his daughter to sit in on high level international meetings, and more...and in the category of things he hasn't done is release tax returns, have the press conference he promised us to describe how he will divest himself from business, among many other things.

Plus he has at least a couple years in the public eye letting us know the kind of person he is and where his interests lay...a little judgment is not out of order.

 
Trump has international ties.   So let's see how he handles it.    Comments on here are so disparaging against him before he has actually done anything except pick a cabinet.  think about that.   The venomous & hatred comments spewed against him & his voters when he basically hasn't done anything in office is an eye opener.  Adios for me.    
Questioning some of his actions is now spewing hatred and venom?  Seems harsh.  

Ultimately we have to see how it all plays out, but wouldn't you agree that it's at least a little concerning that his picks to lead various agencies are people who have in the past wanted to do away with those agencies?

 
Trump has international ties.   So let's see how he handles it.    Comments on here are so disparaging against him before he has actually done anything except pick a cabinet.  think about that.   The venomous & hatred comments spewed against him & his voters when he basically hasn't done anything in office is an eye opener.  Adios for me.    
Kind of reminiscent of the comments around Obama before he took office (and every day since)....

Both sides lack the objectivity to make rational observations.

 
Increasing the minimum wage passed in Washington and now people are crying about how much more they have to pay for day care while their income remains the same.
Could you find me some support for day care costs rising post election and upset parents that mentions a day care other than Advent Lutheran Child Center?

The minimum wage increases are incremental and the first rate hike won't happen until January 2017 and the last will be January 2022.

ETA this google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=Advent+Lutheran+Child+Center&oq=Advent+Lutheran+Child+Center&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q="advent+lutheran+child+center"+minimum+wage&start=10

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Questioning some of his actions is now spewing hatred and venom?  Seems harsh.  

Ultimately we have to see how it all plays out, but wouldn't you agree that it's at least a little concerning that his picks to lead various agencies are people who have in the past wanted to do away with those agencies?
Pretty healthy to question any government agency.   Worthwhile or complete worthless?  Agencies in question have been questioned before, but the way government works----once it's there,  no way to quash it.   Federal employees pretty much can't be fired, not in the usual way anyway.   so you have some jerkoff government employee actually jerking off in the office, you can't fire him on the spot.  Just the way it works & why we have an inefficient government with inefficient employees.   Any scale back of some bloated agency is okay with me as is to question the validity of it.

 
Pretty healthy to question any government agency.   Worthwhile or complete worthless?  Agencies in question have been questioned before, but the way government works----once it's there,  no way to quash it.   Federal employees pretty much can't be fired, not in the usual way anyway.   so you have some jerkoff government employee actually jerking off in the office, you can't fire him on the spot.  Just the way it works & why we have an inefficient government with inefficient employees.   Any scale back of some bloated agency is okay with me as is to question the validity of it.
The jerkoff guy will get counseled, but will realize its now a safe place to grab #######.

 
Kind of reminiscent of the comments around Obama before he took office (and every day since)....

Both sides lack the objectivity to make rational observations.
I wasn't enthused about him to begin with, but I gave him 4 years to see.   I think you could check the posts back then & don't think you will find this sort of backlash against the people who voted for Barack.   The liberal tolerance is on full display right now.   Your opinion is highly valued unless it's different than theirs.  disappointing but very predictable.  some here just never fail to deliver.  Keep it up so Dodds can come in again.  The hatred & venomous statement stands.   it's in black & white until Dodds deletes it.   Again.  Keep on keeping on. 

 
Trump has international ties.   So let's see how he handles it.    Comments on here are so disparaging against him before he has actually done anything except pick a cabinet.  think about that.   The venomous & hatred comments spewed against him & his voters when he basically hasn't done anything in office is an eye opener.  Adios for me.    
So everything he said and did while campaigning doesn't count?   Are you happy with every single cabinet selection so far?

 
I wasn't enthused about him to begin with, but I gave him 4 years to see.   I think you could check the posts back then & don't think you will find this sort of backlash against the people who voted for Barack.  
If Obama had said or did only 10% of what Trump did while campaigning he would have been out of it and would not be president right now.

 
I wasn't enthused about him to begin with, but I gave him 4 years to see.   I think you could check the posts back then & don't think you will find this sort of backlash against the people who voted for Barack.   The liberal tolerance is on full display right now.   Your opinion is highly valued unless it's different than theirs.  disappointing but very predictable.  some here just never fail to deliver.  Keep it up so Dodds can come in again.  The hatred & venomous statement stands.   it's in black & white until Dodds deletes it.   Again.  Keep on keeping on. 
I thought the threads getting shut down last week was because of pizzagate nonsense. 

 
I wasn't enthused about him to begin with, but I gave him 4 years to see.   I think you could check the posts back then & don't think you will find this sort of backlash against the people who voted for Barack.   The liberal tolerance is on full display right now.   Your opinion is highly valued unless it's different than theirs.  disappointing but very predictable.  some here just never fail to deliver.  Keep it up so Dodds can come in again.  The hatred & venomous statement stands.   it's in black & white until Dodds deletes it.   Again.  Keep on keeping on. 
Look, I am personally of a mind set that we shouldn't criticize Trump at this point unless and until he does something we disagree with (and as it happens, he has made some appointments which I very much disagree with.)

But let's not pretend that there's some equivalency between Obama after winning in 2008 and Trump now. Obama did not run a campaign in 2008 in which he spewed hateful, bigoted, divisive rhetoric. Trump has done all those things. So if there's to be anger and some intolerance toward those who supported this man becoming President, I can't say it isn't well deserved.

 
And by investing, businesses take that investment capital and do what with it exactly? Expand to create more jobs perhaps? Or maybe they automate and eliminate unskilled jobs but automation increases the demand for skilled positions. Doesn't help the older, laid off factory worker though.  But the money does flow through the economy. It does work.

OTOH, poor people spend all their money and it goes into corporate coffers and the profits are often paid to shareholders. 
Yes,  that is the argument to back up trickle down economics.  But that's not how it works in real life.  In real life,  the extra money goes to the investors,  AKA the rich.  They get richer. 

The company continues giving its employees the standard 2% cost of living increase.  The rich get rich,  the middle class stagnates.  

Trickle down benefits no one except those at the top.  

Regarding your second paragraph (which I separated for ease of reading) when the poor spend their money,  theyre spending it at local stores,  groceries,  contractors, workers,  people that contribute to the economy.  When poor people get money they spend it,  contributing to the economy overall. There can be no argument about this. It's a fact 

 
Look, I am personally of a mind set that we shouldn't criticize Trump at this point unless and until he does something we disagree with (and as it happens, he has made some appointments which I very much disagree with.)

But let's not pretend that there's some equivalency between Obama after winning in 2008 and Trump now. Obama did not run a campaign in 2008 in which he spewed hateful, bigoted, divisive rhetoric. Trump has done all those things. So if there's to be anger and some intolerance toward those who supported this man becoming President, I can't say it isn't well deserved.
A note to clarify. I disagree with this post but duty bound to give out likes tonight. It is what it is

 
I think the biggest problem I have with Trump supporters is that they want the rest of us, who didn't vote for Donald Trump, to treat him like a normal President, and they get mad when we don't regard him with the same respect we would Hillary, or Obama, or Bush or Reagan. And I reject this. I can't do it.

Based on the way Trump campaigned, he doesn't deserve my respect. He may yet earn it. I hope he does. But for now I won't treat him like I would almost any other President or major candidate for that office that I can think of. The bigotry, the xenophobia, the divisiveness, is all too fresh.

 
bueno said:
I don't think he would have time to run any business while President, nor are they the kind of businesses that can be put into some kind of a blind trust. His kids will run the businesses and they will probably consult with Daddy from time to time. It is a unique situation so far in our history.
Electing a wannabe authoritarian indebted to foreign interests is unique, but not positive

 
bueno said:
I don't think he would have time to run any business while President, nor are they the kind of businesses that can be put into some kind of a blind trust. His kids will run the businesses and they will probably consult with Daddy from time to time. It is a unique situation so far in our history.
The reason it's unique is that it runs counter to every possible conflict of interest rule, law, and Constitutional provision on the subject.

 
Obama says something that offends republicans, to supporters like you it justifies any level of opposition from republicans.

Hillary is loose with the truth a few times and it justifies any amount of bald faced lies by Trump.

You and folks like you have lost any sense of perspective when you go this far to justify outrageous behavior.
Yep keep believing that. :loco:

 
Look, I am personally of a mind set that we shouldn't criticize Trump at this point unless and until he does something we disagree with (and as it happens, he has made some appointments which I very much disagree with.)

But let's not pretend that there's some equivalency between Obama after winning in 2008 and Trump now. Obama did not run a campaign in 2008 in which he spewed hateful, bigoted, divisive rhetoric. Trump has done all those things. So if there's to be anger and some intolerance toward those who supported this man becoming President, I can't say it isn't well deserved.
And such anger and intolerance would do nothing but generate more in return. Way to be divisive Tim.

 
And such anger and intolerance would do nothing but generate more in return. Way to be divisive Tim.
Oh I agree, which is why I'm not trying to be that way myself. It does much more harm than good, IMO.

All I am saying is that if you think it's unfair or undeserved, I disagree. I don't think we should do it, but make no mistake: it IS fair and it IS deserved. Absolutely.

 
Yes,  that is the argument to back up trickle down economics.  But that's not how it works in real life.  In real life,  the extra money goes to the investors,  AKA the rich.  They get richer. 

The company continues giving its employees the standard 2% cost of living increase.  The rich get rich,  the middle class stagnates.  

Trickle down benefits no one except those at the top.  

Regarding your second paragraph (which I separated for ease of reading) when the poor spend their money,  theyre spending it at local stores,  groceries,  contractors, workers,  people that contribute to the economy.  When poor people get money they spend it,  contributing to the economy overall. There can be no argument about this. It's a fact 
As to tax cuts going to the rich, please provide documentation that dividend yields go up aftetr tax cuts. I don't think you'll find that is the case.

When poor people get money they spend it at WalMart. 

 
What would I do what,  if I were Trump? I would have released my tax returns a year ago and when elected,  I would sell all my business interests and concentrate on making America great again. 
I was talking specifically about the hostage in Turkey.

 
Bill Clinton said: "She fought through everything and she prevailed against it all but, you know, then in the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal. She couldn't prevail against that. She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes."

Seriously.  Hillary supporters, how many of you really believe Hillary won?

 
Bill Clinton said: "She fought through everything and she prevailed against it all but, you know, then in the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal. She couldn't prevail against that. She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes."

Seriously.  Hillary supporters, how many of you really believe Hillary won?
I voted for Hillary but she lost. Yes, she won the popular vote. That doesn't matter when it comes to who will be inaugurated on January 20th. She lost the election.

 
The reason it's unique is that it runs counter to every possible conflict of interest rule, law, and Constitutional provision on the subject.
I don't think Washington or Jefferson gave up their plantations or other business interests when they were President.

 
Oh I agree, which is why I'm not trying to be that way myself. It does much more harm than good, IMO.

All I am saying is that if you think it's unfair or undeserved, I disagree. I don't think we should do it, but make no mistake: it IS fair and it IS deserved. Absolutely.
This i skind of a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of not being that way yourself, Tim.

 
As to tax cuts going to the rich, please provide documentation that dividend yields go up aftetr tax cuts. I don't think you'll find that is the case.

When poor people get money they spend it at WalMart. 
When poor people spend money at Wal Mart, they are injecting cash into the local economy.  Some of their money goes to the employees of the store they shopped at. Some of it goes to the company that the store bought its hoods from.   Some of it goes to the gas station they used to fill up their tank so they could get to the store. A bit if it goes to the millionaire store owners. 

The store owner SHOULD use the extra money to pay the employees more.  But,  that's not how our society works. Instead,  the store owner uses that extra money to enrich himself and (if applicable)  his share owners 

A tax cut to the store owner (the Waltons,  in this case) goes nowhere except to the Waltons.  They aren't going to spend extra money because they got a tax cut.  They're going to use that tax cut to invest and turn their $100 billion fortune into $101 billion.  That benefits no one but the Waltons. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top