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.
timschochet said:
Apologies. Thought you were referring to Adonis. 

Putting aside the fact that you apparently believe that Beavers herself generalizes (and is therefore hypocritical), do you agree with her that Dr.Oadi's statement about liberals was in fact a gross generalization? 
Click to expand...
It's more a gross mischaracterization. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Yeah, I didn't not think physical threats are going to do anything. It the threat of being primaried that matters. 

My impression, and admittedly I don't hang out on these sites much, is that Breitbart is one of the main info hubs for the Tea Party types.
Click to expand...
It was, until he died. Whatever Bannon did with the place is a lot different.  

 
rockaction said:
Republican politicians are hardly shrinking violets; they can handle the alt-right. 

This is so much hysteria on your guys' part. 

Breitbart and Hannity don't command armies of the night, they appeal to college undergrads and weird neckbeards everywhere. 

Of all the things to be worried about with Trump, this isn't one of them. Who's going to kill a politician. Milo Yianopolous?
Click to expand...
So to be clear ... you regularly express concern about the threat to free speech presented by whiny college kids who shout down differing opinions, but you are unconcerned about major media outlets, one of which was run by a senior member of the president-elect's administration until a few months ago, shouting down differing opinions from US congressmen with unfair portrayals of things they say.  Is that accurate?

You say they're not shrinking violets and can handle the alt-right challenge.  The article says otherwise.  The concern here isn't that a neckbeard will actually follow through on a death threat.  The concern is that Trump and what appears to basically be state-run media outlets have a zero tolerance policy towards even the most deferential dissent and has no problem telling lies in their efforts to punish that dissent.  That really doesn't bother you?  Doesn't strike you as maybe a tad bit authoritarian?

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Yeah, I didn't not think physical threats are going to do anything. It the threat of being primaried that matters. 

My impression, and admittedly I don't hang out on these sites much, is that Breitbart is one of the main info hubs for the Tea Party types.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying and your concern. That's more legitimate than that article's concern about violence or illegal intimidation or bullying of Republican members of Congress. The former is the political process, the latter veers closer to tyranny.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
So to be clear ... you regularly express concern about the threat to free speech presented by whiny college kids who shout down differing opinions, but you are unconcerned about major media outlets, one of which was run by a senior member of the president-elect's administration until a few months ago, shouting down differing opinions from US congressmen with unfair portrayals of things they say.  Is that accurate?

You say they're not shrinking violets and can handle the alt-right challenge.  The article says otherwise.  The concern here isn't that a neckbeard will actually follow through on a death threat.  The concern is that Trump and what appears to basically be state-run media outlets have a zero tolerance policy towards even the most deferential dissent and has no problem telling lies in their efforts to punish that dissent.  That really doesn't bother you?  Doesn't strike you as maybe a tad bit authoritarian?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they're down with comrade Putin, so why wouldn't they be with daddy Trump?

 
TobiasFunke said:
So to be clear ... you regularly express concern about the threat to free speech presented by whiny college kids who shout down differing opinions, but you are unconcerned about major media outlets, one of which was run by a senior member of the president-elect's administration until a few months ago, shouting down differing opinions from US congressmen with unfair portrayals of things they say.  Is that accurate?

You say they're not shrinking violets and can handle the alt-right challenge.  The article says otherwise.  The concern here isn't that a neckbeard will actually follow through on a death threat.  The concern is that Trump and what appears to basically be state-run media outlets have a zero tolerance policy towards even the most deferential dissent and has no problem telling lies in their efforts to punish that dissent.  That really doesn't bother you?  Doesn't strike you as maybe a tad bit authoritarian?
Click to expand...
How would anything be state-run? That would strike me as authoritarian. And before we get into the press, don't forget that the person just in office was considered to have been the least accessible president in recent memory who bypassed the traditional media with his own federally-funded social media campaigns. 

That's a fact.  

eta* But anything veering toward state-run media or censorship in any way, and yes, that bothers me a ton. 

eta2* Are we really saying this is what Bannon is or will do, though, because I don't have enough information to debate that particular contention, which seems awfully far afield from threats and intimidation that you say the article alleges.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arsenal of Doom said:
Yeah, I didn't not think physical threats are going to do anything. It the threat of being primaried that matters. 

My impression, and admittedly I don't hang out on these sites much, is that Breitbart is one of the main info hubs for the Tea Party types.
Click to expand...
It looks as if, early on, the primary opposition to Donald Trump among Republicans may be John McCain. 

There have been two attempts in the last 8 years by Tea Party forces to primary him. Both failed badly. Now he has just been re-elected and at his age, he really has nothing to lose. Since McCain is a devout reader of 20th century history, I suspect he might see himself in somewhat the role of Winston Churchill in the mid 1930s when Churchill alone in Parliament tried to stand up to Baldwin and Chamberlain who were attempting to be friends with Nazi Germany. 

 
I can't stand the rollie smiles or the Trump stuff on the board, though @TobiasFunke, so you can shoot me a PM or give me more time to more fully read the article and its concerns before I wade too deeply into this in this thread. 

 
rockaction said:
I see what you're saying and your concern. That's more legitimate than that article's concern about violence or illegal intimidation or bullying of Republican members of Congress. The former is the political process, the latter veers closer to tyranny.  
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean threats and intimidation are wrong regardless if they have the desired effect. The real leverage Trump/Bannon/Hannity have is political though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens though if Trump's popularity drops at all. He's taking office in the low 40s so he's already in striking distance of late second term Bush. Republicans vs. Trump is probably as much a story as Democrats vs. Trump. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Are you going to continue insulting me and reporting me if I respond?  
Click to expand...
She's asking you, literally she's almost begging you, to engage in a real and thoughtful discussion. No back and forth insults. No one liner dismissals. No bringing up Hillary or other Democrats in response to specific concerns about Donald Trump. No laughter similes in lieu of a detailed response. Can you do this? 

 
rockaction said:
How would be state-run? That would strike me as authoritarian. And before we get into the press, don't forget that the person just in office was considered to have been the least accessible president in recent memory who bypassed the traditional media with his own federally-funded social media campaigns. 

That's a fact.  
Click to expand...
They have ridiculously close ties to Trump, including the obvious Bannon connection.  And the quote makes it fairly obvious that their purpose is to do Trump's bidding rather than report truthfully.  Here's the quote again:

"If any politician in either party veers from what the voters clearly voted for in a landslide election ... we stand at the ready to call them on it and hold them accountable."

A site that presents itself as a legitimate new outlet- and is considered by literally millions of Americans to be one- saying something like that would be eyebrow-raising on its own.  The Bannon connection makes it even more troubling, IMO.

 
timschochet said:
She's asking you, literally she's almost begging you, to engage in a real and thoughtful discussion. No back and forth insults. No one liner dismissals. No bringing up Hillary or other Democrats in response to specific concerns about Donald Trump. No laughter similes in lieu of a detailed response. Can you do this? 
Click to expand...
beavers and I disagree on a ton here. I've even gone so far as to question her "safe space" for LGBT rights, claiming them unnecessary. I'm no wallflower. But you guys are going to get all these threads shut down. This isn't debate; this is just meanness at this point. Peace. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If the rest of us concede that some Trump opponents are idiots who do bad stuff, will you agree to move on and discuss the concerns that Tobias is raising about Tea Party types attempting to intimidate Republican opposition to the new President? 
Click to expand...
So you want to dismiss the idiots on your side but discuss the idiots on the other side?

 
rockaction said:
beavers and I disagree on a ton here. I've even gone so far as to question her "safe space" for LGBT rights, claiming them unnecessary. I'm no wallflower. But you guys are going to get all these threads shut down. This isn't debate; this is just meanness at this point. Peace. 
Click to expand...
Wait- I'm asking Rambling Wreck to engage in a real discussion and that's mean, and it's going to get the thread shut down? Do I understand you correctly? 

 
timschochet said:
She's asking you, literally she's almost begging you, to engage in a real and thoughtful discussion. No back and forth insults. No one liner dismissals. No bringing up Hillary or other Democrats in response to specific concerns about Donald Trump. No laughter similes in lieu of a detailed response. Can you do this? 
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in engaging her. Every response of hers is condescending and angry. She's as close minded as anyone on this board so she can literally beg someone else for an argument. All I did was point out someone who generalizes all the time is asking to stop generalizations. Hell Tim you've responded three times to me with your normal wrong post, followed by ridiculous question and now begging for an argument. 

If i want to comment on something I will. I might be willing to engage one of you in a real discussion if I thought there was a point, you guys weren't so condescending, and it was an actual discussion not a pissing match where you're looking to claim you won. There's plenty of people that will give you that. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
I'm not interested in engaging her. Every response of hers is condescending and angry. She's as close minded as anyone on this board so she can literally beg someone else for an argument. All I did was point out someone who generalizes all the time is asking to stop generalizations. Hell Tim you've responded three times to me with your normal wrong post, followed by ridiculous question and now begging for an argument. 

If i want to comment on something I will. I might be willing to engage one of you in a real discussion if I thought there was a point, you guys weren't so condescending, and it was an actual discussion not a pissing match where you're looking to claim you won. There's plenty of people that will give you that. 
Click to expand...
I'll engage you.

 
rockaction said:
I think Henry is trying to say that there's no historical precedent for a president to not divest himself of his holdings before office and it's come down to barley.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, I've never said this.  But there is no historical precedent for a president to be engaged in international commerce directly with foreign officials and foreign governments.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
I'm not interested in engaging her. Every response of hers is condescending and angry. She's as close minded as anyone on this board so she can literally beg someone else for an argument. All I did was point out someone who generalizes all the time is asking to stop generalizations. Hell Tim you've responded three times to me with your normal wrong post, followed by ridiculous question and now begging for an argument. 

If i want to comment on something I will. I might be willing to engage one of you in a real discussion if I thought there was a point, you guys weren't so condescending, and it was an actual discussion not a pissing match where you're looking to claim you won. There's plenty of people that will give you that. 
Click to expand...
Have I generalized?

 
Henry Ford said:
Incidentally, I've never said this.  But there is no historical precedent for a president to be engaged in international commerce directly with foreign officials and foreign governments.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was light-hearted.  I should let you speak for you, but you'd gone.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
I'm not interested in engaging her. Every response of hers is condescending and angry. She's as close minded as anyone on this board so she can literally beg someone else for an argument. All I did was point out someone who generalizes all the time is asking to stop generalizations. Hell Tim you've responded three times to me with your normal wrong post, followed by ridiculous question and now begging for an argument. 

If i want to comment on something I will. I might be willing to engage one of you in a real discussion if I thought there was a point, you guys weren't so condescending, and it was an actual discussion not a pissing match where you're looking to claim you won. There's plenty of people that will give you that. 
Click to expand...
There is no point engaging these people. Close minded , very intolerant. 

 
rockaction said:
beavers and I disagree on a ton here. I've even gone so far as to question her "safe space" for LGBT rights, claiming them unnecessary. I'm no wallflower. But you guys are going to get all these threads shut down. This isn't debate; this is just meanness at this point. Peace. 
Click to expand...
The safe space comment is so redic.

 
timschochet said:
If the rest of us concede that some Trump opponents are idiots who do bad stuff, will you agree to move on and discuss the concerns that Tobias is raising about Tea Party types attempting to intimidate Republican opposition to the new President? 
Click to expand...
I think both sides have their extremes...always have...the internet/social media just gives them more of a voice...I do think after years of the left controlling the mainstream media two things have happened...the left absolutely despises the fact that the opposition now has more outlets to challenge their former monopoly on the news and some on the far right are able to show just how whacked they are now that they have a vehicle to make their thoughts known...at the end of the day there is a ton of hypocrisy going on and it is pretty laughable as to when people think something is right or wrong...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Incidentally, I've never said this.  But there is no historical precedent for a president to be engaged in international commerce directly with foreign officials and foreign governments.
Click to expand...
It's almost like the Founding Fathers thought this would be a bad idea.  Oh wait...they did.

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Yeah, I mean threats and intimidation are wrong regardless if they have the desired effect. The real leverage Trump/Bannon/Hannity have is political though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens though if Trump's popularity drops at all. He's taking office in the low 40s so he's already in striking distance of late second term Bush. Republicans vs. Trump is probably as much a story as Democrats vs. Trump. 
Click to expand...
I think the bolded item is what everyone is waiting to see.

He ran as an outsider, anti-everything, everything sucks, but I'm going to fix it all.

Now he's got the job and the old shtick won't be as effective as it once was in terms of garnering support.  If he gets in office, and he loses some of his magic (which is inevitable really), what do the opponents do then?  Do they use their rising power to moderate him?  Or can he work his political savvy and continue to hold his base, bigly?

It'll be interesting.  With someone who got elected in part due to feeding people misinformation and half-truths (at best), will he have to shift to another speed as president, or can he continue as he's done all along, blaming others, talking down America, and somehow still maintain his level of support?

My main fear, and many others it seems, is that he will bluster us into an international conflict, and then insist, for the sake of country, that we unite behind him - somewhat similar to what happened after 9-11 (although obviously we weren't directly responsible for that).  If that happens, God help us all.

 
Sammy3469 said:
It's almost like the Founding Fathers thought this would be a bad idea.  Oh wait...they did.
Click to expand...
The Founding Fathers are like the Bible.  Each side takes what it thinks is worthwhile and ditches the rest.  We all ditched slavery, the left is weak on the second amendment, the right is weak on the first amendment, and so on, and so on, and so on.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
I'm not interested in engaging her. Every response of hers is condescending and angry. She's as close minded as anyone on this board so she can literally beg someone else for an argument. All I did was point out someone who generalizes all the time is asking to stop generalizations. Hell Tim you've responded three times to me with your normal wrong post, followed by ridiculous question and now begging for an argument. 

If i want to comment on something I will. I might be willing to engage one of you in a real discussion if I thought there was a point, you guys weren't so condescending, and it was an actual discussion not a pissing match where you're looking to claim you won. There's plenty of people that will give you that. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I strongly disagree with you about Beavers and about your overall premise. While she is no doubt very concerned about Donald Trump (as many people are) she doesn't come off as angry to me. And from what I've read the only time she has made cutting remarks is in direct response to cutting remarks made to her. 

To your larger point, it's my impression that the vast majority of those in this thread and the previous thread who seem to want to engage in pissing matches in order to claim they've "won" are Trump supporters. Most of the attempts since November 8 to engage Trump supporters in real discussions about policy concerns, appointments, the possible Russian involvement, and conflicts of interest have been met with laughter similes, accusations of whining, and comparisons to Hillary and previous Democrats which are now for the most part irrelevant. And yet you now accuse the other side of condescension. It's like pulling teeth to try to engage in real discussion and debate with most of you, but I suspect many of us will keep on trying. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Yeah, I mean threats and intimidation are wrong regardless if they have the desired effect. The real leverage Trump/Bannon/Hannity have is political though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens though if Trump's popularity drops at all. He's taking office in the low 40s so he's already in striking distance of late second term Bush. Republicans vs. Trump is probably as much a story as Democrats vs. Trump. 
Click to expand...
I'm not worried about his popularity.  It will grow.  He ran for President because he wanted to give back to this country.  He did not need this hassle. He loves the U.S. and was concerned about the direction it was heading. That's a true patriot.

 
butcher boy said:
I'm not worried about his popularity.  It will grow.  He ran for President because he wanted to give back to this country.  He did not need this hassle. He loves the U.S. and was concerned about the direction it was heading. That's a true patriot.
Click to expand...
Now THIS is how you do Trump shtick. I know I appreciate the laugh, and I suspect many of the people who visit this thread could also use one.

 
Update on the Trump son's hunting trip/fundraiser:

The Trump family is distancing itself from a January 21 fundraising event after press reports that attendees could get a meeting with President Donald Trump for $1 million.

Gentry Beach, a co-chairman of the event and a director of the foundation, said to his knowledge, the sons are not involved in the foundation. He said the event as described by the earlier brochure "wasn't something that we were contemplating."
Click to expand...



Wasn't something they were contemplating but they had a brochure made? The sons aren't involved in a charity they are listed as co-founding? 

 
butcher boy said:
I'm not worried about his popularity.  It will grow.  He ran for President because he wanted to give back to this country.  He did not need this hassle. He loves the U.S. and was concerned about the direction it was heading. That's a true patriot.
Click to expand...
By this definition pretty much everyone who runs for office is a true patriot. 

 
beavers said:
I'm trying to speak to them in a way they understand. I've tried for at least a year, to present facts and logical arguments. Nothing works. 

Have you had any success getting a Trumpette to accept a fact, that DJT stated otherwise ? 
Click to expand...
This seems to be a generalization and not a good one.

 
beavers said:
Here's an example of generalization for those who don't understand:

"A Trump voter"

https://www.facebook.com/renee.buckner.3/videos/vb.1296145037/10208149860726355/?type=3
Click to expand...
There are a lot of bad Trump voters out there, just like there are a lot of bad Hillary voters out there.  No need to throw all the babies out with the bathwater here.

I didn't listen to the video, don't really care to hear stupid people make racist tirades if that's what happened, but if it is what happened, it's disgusting and should be condemned by everyone, regardless of political affiliation and race.  Bad behavior is bad behavior...it doesn't always have to get assigned to your religion, race, or political party as representative of the whole.

 
Boston said:
I think both sides have their extremes...always have...the internet/social media just gives them more of a voice...I do think after years of the left controlling the mainstream media two things have happened...the left absolutely despises the fact that the opposition now has more outlets to challenge their former monopoly on the news and some on the far right are able to show just how whacked they are now that they have a vehicle to make their thoughts known...at the end of the day there is a ton of hypocrisy going on and it is pretty laughable as to when people think something is right or wrong...
Click to expand...
I disagree with nearly everything you wrote here, and at the root of our disagreement is your line about the left's "former monopoly of the news". 

I regard this as a false assumption. I recognize that it is believed, rather firmly at this point, by a vast majority of conservatives. And it's the source for many of our major differences. 

 
Boston said:
So it appears the concern is that the GOPers will start harassing people like the Dems have been doing?

http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/electors-are-being-harassed-threatened-in-bid-to-stop-trump/
Click to expand...
Any action harassing or intimidating voters is reprehensible.  In this case you linked to here, IMO it's yet another reason why the Electoral College is an outmoded form and should be abolished.  

I also firmly believe the actions there, no matter how deplorable, do not justify or excuse the actions taken against a standing Republican Congressman who criticized Trump.  Especially since the process is so easily repeatable.  

 
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