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!
The Inauguration (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Higgs
- Start date
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Trump isn't exactly a hard guy to figure out. If he were a book, it would be about 3rd grade level. Which actually explains why he did so well with the demographics that he won, too.
William Munny
Footballguy
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
Do you think Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause? Or do you think Emoluments is some sort of made-up propaganda put out by the Liberal Agenda, like the Trump University fraud case or climate change?
bagger
Footballguy
I firmly believe this. The GOP would love nothing more to put Pence in over trump.Coeur de Lion said:
The only thing holding them back would be the damage to the brand from impeaching a republican president but would argue the damage keeping him in could be worse (or at least they could convince themselves of this).
Dont tell me that McCain or Cruz wouldn't love to enact some retribution on trump if they got the chance.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
It is early to have this kind of inside-the-room stuff leaking out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Uh oh. If true, I am contemplating the magnitude of increase in rage over this obvious leak vs. the potential leak of the IC.
Where is this from? I'm smart- phoning it tonight & can't see a link if there is one.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
After reading this, if true, it would seem to me that the left should root for Trump to be a supra-genius & foil this plot.Coeur de Lion said:
No? If not, what am I missing?
Also, where did you find this, I'd like to learn more.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Need to add:
Should the left not only root, but also actively work with Trump?
Or, is the whole point of the blurb to inspire fear great enough to create cooperation?
Sure, it could be ugly for the right, but look at what they could gain.
Does the left accept these losses to watch the ugliness, or...cooperate?
Games within games.. within...
EDIT: Or is the left currently too weak to make a significant play?
Edit 2: Or could DJT be the source of the blurb himself...thus, no real ugliness threat to GOP?
yeah, I'm wearing tin foil at this point!
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'll wish for a billion dollars to fall out of the sky and land in my car, too. Let's see which comes true first.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Ha! Open your mind Henry!
Mine didn't fall completely out of my head until about 40 years later! So, you can close up quickly again with no risk to long term damage.
Unfortunately, I'm past the deadline. Seriously though, I agreed with your reply 100% only a year ago.
Today, I have some doubts. Some...
Reg Lllama of Brixton
Footballguy
saintfool
Dead sexy
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Oh, one other thing, I hope your not in your car when that happens; it could be painful...unless denominations have risen since I had any money.
...it's been awhile, so you may be safer than I expect.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
It was from an article that popped up in my FB feed and I'm really not sure of the source a day later. Chances are good it was from Daily Kos, or Mother Jones, or some other obvious biased liberal source though.
William Munny
Footballguy
You do realize the Emoluments Clause is associated with gifts and employment and historically has not been tied to elected officials? It is a stretch at best.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Depends on what the actual goals of the people involved are, doesn't it? There are some pretty sharp legal minds associated with this, and I'm pretty sure that they know damn well that he's not going anywhere over this. From what I've read, a big thrust is going after his tax returns again, which could open up multiple other cans-of-worms.
shader
Footballguy
Of course it's a stretch. Anything having to do with impeachment at this point can be filed under "conspiracy theory". Not that there isn't possibly merit to it, but nothing is coming of it. It's just people that don't like Trump grasping at straws to figure out how to get him out of there.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Historically it hasn't been tied to anyone, because the other people it would apply to are bound by our more restrictive ethics laws so it was never an issue, and past presidents and VPs who are exempt from those ethics laws have had the decency and good sense to fully divest their private holdings before assuming office.
We're in uncharted territory, because we've never had some a shameless piece of garbage as president. A decade ago the public shamed Cheney into giving Halliburton option proceeds to charity after his full divestiture. Now we barely bat an eye when a man with vast private holdings holds a press conference with a bunch of folders he claims are divestiture paperwork- that would only transfer those holdings to his immediate family anyway- and he doesn't even let us see those papers. As far as I know he just started filing the paperwork yesterday, and it's still not clear if he's transferred ownership to his sons or simply management duties.
In the immortal words of Bunk Moreland- it makes me sick, ############, how far we done fell.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think it is part of a concerted effort to disrupt and delay what the administration can do. Nobody expects this lawsuit to singlehandedly bring down President Trump. But there's still value in making things difficult for him.
ETA: Keep in mind that a civil lawsuit against President Clinton for behavior prior to his ever taking office is what ended up uncovering the Lewinsky story, catching the President lying under oath, and resulting in impeachment proceedings. It was highly disruptive to his ability to achieve anything in his second term.
Last edited by a moderator:
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Politics as usual. Both sides play this game. Nothing to see here, move along.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah, I think publicly highlighting how absurd it is that he's not being transparent about his and his family's business holdings is the goal for now. I don't see how the current plaintiffs can possibly get past the standing issue. Maybe if they find a willing hotel operator or something
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
Ironically, the media is at fault here. The media cares more about what sells. What sells is what's happening RIGHT NOW, the mistakes Trump makes, the dumb tweets, the immediate lies, etc. The general public doesn't seem to really care about his tax returns, the paperwork, etc. So the media doesn't harp on it like they would have a decade ago.
At least that's how I see it.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Even if the suit gets thrown out tomorrow, it still succeeded in getting a lot of media coverage.Yeah, I think publicly highlighting how absurd it is that he's not being transparent about his and his family's business holdings is the goal for now. I don't see how the current plaintiffs can possibly get past the standing issue. Maybe if they find a willing hotel operator or something
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
That's absolute nonsense. The public let this happen. This is on us- more specifically, the people who voted for Trump despite his refusal to release his taxes or commit to full divestiture. Those people should at least have the integrity to own what they did. The media tried to point it out. People like me tried to point it out. They chose not to listen.
shader
Footballguy
Did it really? I mean, everywhere you look on CNN, it's anti-Trump stuff. When you go to their website at any point in the day, there are 7-10 articles with pretty negative titles. Whenever I turn on CNN, I see a tirade of negative stuff.
I'm not saying it's not fair, I'm just saying that is what's happening.
So if there's a barrage of negative stuff, some of the more important negative things are going to possibly get missed.
Like right now, I go to CNN and there is one link on the bottom right (small) on emoluments. If that's going to have traction, it's got to be the number 1 story.
But I guarantee CNN knows what links generate clicks and what links don't. Which is why I predict this story goes nowhere. We'll see.
whoknew
Footballguy
I'm not sure how you can say that. I don't think anyone knows if it applies. There is no caselaw on it. (Or at least very little, if any.)
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, a barrage of negative Trump stuff is the objective. I think it's fine if some negative Trump stories get more play than other negative Trump stories.
With that said, I did see a lot of coverage of the lawsuit yesterday online, on TV, and in print.
shader
Footballguy
The public doesn't care. So the media doesn't harp on it. That's basically what I said. Look, you can probably find 20+ articles where the media have talked about it. But that still doesn't mean anything. It's not the BIG STORY. It's a reality TV country. This story doesn't sell because the public doesn't care about it, and the media that matters and generates public opinion, doesn't focus on it.
Yeah, Newsweek ran an article on it. Yeah, i'm sure a bunch of people read it. But I don't know man, that just doesn't seem to matter anymore. This society has a very short attention span and moves on quickly. It's hard for one article to generate staying power if it's not picked up by CNN, or talked about incessantly in the areas where people get their news.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Right, it's the public's fault- or more specifically, Trump voters' fault- for not caring. Don't try to pass the blame on to the media just because they also had to cover the dozens of other alarming reasons Trump should never have been elected while also pretending that Hillary's emails were a super important big deal to stem accusations of bias.
If you voted for the man, have some accountability and integrity. You should have known from his refusal to release his taxes- which everyone knows about- that this is a person who doesn't feel that public service obliges him to be transparent regarding his business dealings. Don't blame someone else for not highlighting the issue enough for other people to fully grasp it.
bagger
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
I didn't vote for the man, I'd never vote for the man, just to be clear.
Second, yes, the media has fault if this is a really important issue and they aren't focusing on it.
The majority of people have no idea what the word emoluments means, so that's where the media would, you'd imagine, educate them if this is a really big story.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
This is an inaccurate statement. Before the Constitution was ratified, it was specifically sold to the people considering ratification as a clause that could bring about impeachment of the President.
The clause does not specify diplomats or appointments (although the President is the highest ranking diplomat) but rather offices of Profit or Trust. Elected officials have offices of Profit or Trust.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
ok I'm bowing out of the conversation. Obviously you guys aren't getting my point. I don't think we're far off, but anyway I'll move on.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
Regardless and impeachment process would likely stifle the conservative agenda for 6-12 months and get us a little farther towards 2020 and another chance.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I kinda moved on from the emoluments thing, I was speaking more to the general fact that he's got a massive web of privately held businesses with actual and potential conflicts of interest all over the place, and that there was no reason to believe he'd take adequate steps to address it. I can't say whether that's a constitutional violation or not, I don't think anyone can until a court gets a plaintiff with standing. But it's unacceptable regardless of constitutionality.
It's hard to blame the media, because while this is a big deal, there was so much awfulness about Trump that they really couldn't give adequate attention to one or two of the things that should have been immediately disqualifying. If they'd colluded and said "let's hit Trump on this over and over" that would have been unethical and irresponsible.
Anyway, glad to hear you didn't and would never vote for him. Hope you'll consider joining the large, loud and growing opposition to him.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think we could revisit old language and etymology like we did with 'high crimes and misdemeanors' under Clinton.
Latin:
- The 'molui' from this is arguably is the fine grindings from any act or operation, so when sawing wood, the little wood shavings, or when milling corn there are these fine grains and shell dust left over.
Apply this to finances metaphorically, it is the financial outflow that comes from any official act.
French:
- It is any remuneration for anything flowing from any transaction.
the word's definition is extremely broad, intended to capture even the smallest, finest financial gain.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I personally think that framing this as a typical political "left vs. right" situation is a problem. This isn't that at all. We have a President using the power of his office to throw public tantrums and spread clumsy and obvious lies about something as trivial as crowd size at his inauguration. The same guy, as far as we know, is continuing to run his private businesses, which we really don't know all that much about, while in office. This isn't a typical shift in policy that follows an election result -- it's completely throwing aside all behavioral norms of the office. Everyone should be concerned about it.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Right, I think the dream outcome for the left is:
1) Gum up the works over the next two years in every possible way. Force meaningless debates in the Senate. Distract Trump with stupid controversies and personal slights. Filibuster the Supreme Court nominee and any meaningful bills that come up. Feed and encourage the Republican party's internal war. It's a huge stretch but impeachment proceedings would be the icing on the cake -- it would cause delay, distraction, Republican conflict, distrust, etc.
2) Flip the House and/or Senate in 2018. This is a really tall order. I think the Senate is out of reach just because of the seats in play. The House is a huge longshot but maybe it can happen if progressives get energized and conservatives/Trump fans are demoralized from a steady stream of negative news.
3) Win back White House in 2020, and ideally a whole lot of additional offices in federal and state government. Start undoing whatever crap Trump managed to accomplish.
massraider
Footballguy
I have a decent amount of sympathy for Melania. And no ill will either.
I have no problem with a hot babe from some communist high school clearly trying to cash in while she can with a rich Western businessman. People marry for the wrong reasons every single day. Unexpected baby, fear of being alone, etc. When someone says Melania knew what she was getting into, and I think of her onstage at the RNC, I think: No Way.
She was a model, but not a major one. In New York modeling, she was not a name, there was no celebrity to parlay into post-model career. Eastern European models are a dime a dozen here. They're scattered around the clubs like cocaine baggies. She got here when she was 24, I have no doubt that marrying well was the plan early on. At that age, she knew the score, and knew the end was in sight.
When I think she knew what she was getting into, I think she expected to be thought of as a trophy wife, the beautiful idiot the rich guy marries (she speaks 6 languages, I would guess she is smarter than the average person). She probably knew she'd never be accepted in society culture, and who gives a flying fig (Well, Donald, but whatever)? I think she figured she'd have to keep the man happy, go along with his wishes, if she wanted to keep the gravy train moving. I have no doubt that their prenup includes a lovely parting gift--if you aren't set for life, why marry the orange tub of goo?
But putting her in a position to be the First Lady, I am pretty sure she didn't think that was even a remote possibility. And really, the only reason she is a sympatheic character, is because her husband is so dang vile. She is following Michelle Obama, a total bad@$$, is an attractive woman who married for money, and has an unfortunate accent. She is ripe for scorn, and there will be some, no doubt. But it's been pretty light, as far as I can tell.
4 years of public appearances, speeches she's gonna have to give and sit through, and not really having much of a private lie, I don't think she signed up for that at all.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Oh, I definitely don't harbor any ill will toward her whatsoever. If anything, the fact that she's evidently trying to stay put in NY so as to disrupt her son's life as little as possible makes her admirable IMO -- she clearly doesn't seem to want the spotlight on her. I'd also agree that the whole First Lady thing isn't something that anyone could have remotely seen coming even a few years ago.
That said, I am sure that she knew that she was marrying a complete and utter POS of a human being, and if she didn't then she should have, because it's been out there and obvious for a long time, long before he ever met her. It's not a knock on her -- I just don't feel sorry for her.
