What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trump and the 16 women (1 Viewer)

Sabertooth

Footballguy
Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?
I honestly believe Trump would order attacks against US citizens by the Army before he'd resign.  

 

timschochet

Footballguy
Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?
I doubt it. 

But how Trump reacts is less important to me, right now, than how we react as a nation. It’s a disgrace that a man who mistreats women this way should be our President. We can’t do anything about the fact that he was elected, or that we’ve ignored this issue in the year since he’s been elected. But we don’t have to keep ignoring it. 

 

timschochet

Footballguy
I think I have explained myself about as clearly as I can.  I will reiterate one more time to help.

Trump was elected despite people knowing about his past.  I do not support what he did, but there is nothing new here.  I am not prepared to disenfranchise those who supported him despite knowing his flaws.
I understood you the first time. There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 

 

adonis

Footballguy
I think I have explained myself about as clearly as I can.  I will reiterate one more time to help.

Trump was elected despite people knowing about his past.  I do not support what he did, but there is nothing new here.  I am not prepared to disenfranchise those who supported him despite knowing his flaws.
I understood you the first time. There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 
:confused:

 

adonis

Footballguy
Tim, do you actually think Trump could be forced to resign? By whom? His family and closest advisors can't even get him to stop posting asinine crap on the internet that makes him look like he has dementia. You honestly think it is realistic that a bunch of women re-surface these allegations again and he says, "Oops. My bad," and walks away?
I think he could be, but it's a huge hypothetical.

It would take the Republican party banding together in such a way that impeachment and removal from office was a done deal.  They'd go to him in advance and ask him to step down, or face the consequences.

That's about the only way I see it happening, short of a medical emergency.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 

 

adonis

Footballguy
This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 
I may have missed y'alls back and forth, but when you say:

There is no moral difference between “not prepared to disenfranchise those who support him” and “I support him.” 
It's confusing.  I'm not looking to take away the right to vote of those who support Trump, but that doesn't mean I support Trump.

I imagine I've either missed something or that wasn't what you intended to say?  Reading it again, I guess y'all are referring to removing Trump from office as "disenfranchising voters" who voted for Trump.  Makes more sense that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pantherclub

Footballguy
This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 
Of all your crazy blanket statements this has to be the alpha of them all

 

AAABatteries

Footballguy
This isn’t confusing. If you don’t support removing Trump for his actions against women, then you don’t find those actions to be disqualifying. Jonessed can try to hide behind “I don’t want to disenfranchise voters” but that is an irrelevant argument. 
I'm not sure what you are driving at but I think your argument is crazy.  To take a non-dramatic example, I don't think people should cheat on their wife but if we had found out that Obama cheated on Michelle I wouldn't call for him to be impeached and that doesn't mean I support people committing adultery.  This is a slippery slope you are trying to go down.

 

AAABatteries

Footballguy
And Tim, can you clarify what you mean by disqualifying?  To me, disqualifying is when you don't meet the specific criteria to run for the office - like not being a citizen or being 35.  I get the impression that's not what you mean by it.

 

Koya

Footballguy
I honestly believe Trump would order attacks against US citizens by the Army before he'd resign.  
I'm surprised he's not jumped on the chance to politicize this morning's bombing in NYC to sow further division based on fear-mongering. 

 

culdeus

Have good
Haley has taken advantage of the somewhat independent nature of her post to position herself for the inevitable Presidential run in 2024.  
People don't really understand her personal and family history.  If they did they would #### bricks.  By people I mean trump voters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Tim, can you clarify what you mean by disqualifying?  To me, disqualifying is when you don't meet the specific criteria to run for the office - like not being a citizen or being 35.  I get the impression that's not what you mean by it.
 I use the same language to distinguish between a capable candidate who is running against a candidate I prefer (such as Romney in 2012) and a candidate who I could not vote for under any circumstances (such as Trump in 2016).  Certain positions or behavior are so offensive or abhorrent to me that they disqualify a candidate from my consideration.  

 

AAABatteries

Footballguy
 I use the same language to distinguish between a capable candidate who is running against a candidate I prefer (such as Romney in 2012) and a candidate who I could not vote for under any circumstances (such as Trump in 2016).  Certain positions or behavior are so offensive or abhorrent to me that they disqualify a candidate from my consideration.  
That's what I'm assumed he meant.  And it's valid for people to do that - I think we all do on some level.

I will say that don't think most of the people who will vote for Moore (for example) are saying that something like he did with the 14-year old is not disqualifying, I think they are lying to themselves about how true it is or truly believe it's a lie.

And FTR, I would consider what Moore has done and what Trump has done disqualifying - to use your and Tim's word - but I don't think that matters and isn't the same as thinking he should be removed from office for it.  Now, if they are investigated and charges are brought OR they impeach him after investigating then I'm all for that.  Maybe that's saying the same thing - I don't know enough about it and only skimmed your nerdy impeachment thread (mainly because I'm too dumb to follow it).

 

packersfan

Footballguy
That's what I'm assumed he meant.  And it's valid for people to do that - I think we all do on some level.

I will say that don't think most of the people who will vote for Moore (for example) are saying that something like he did with the 14-year old is not disqualifying, I think they are lying to themselves about how true it is or truly believe it's a lie.

And FTR, I would consider what Moore has done and what Trump has done disqualifying - to use your and Tim's word - but I don't think that matters and isn't the same as thinking he should be removed from office for it.  Now, if they are investigated and charges are brought OR they impeach him after investigating then I'm all for that.  Maybe that's saying the same thing - I don't know enough about it and only skimmed your nerdy impeachment thread (mainly because I'm too dumb to follow it).
Starting to see and hear more and more from interviews in Alabama where people say groping was perfectly fine 40 years ago. 

 

pantherclub

Footballguy
Starting to see and hear more and more from interviews in Alabama where people say groping was perfectly fine 40 years ago. 
Thats kindof my overall point on this.  Its disingenuous to take norms/standards of today (past couple of months) and retroactively apply them to peoples actions from 10,20,30 years ago.  Right or wrong I just dont think you can do that.  Note: I am not talking about anything illegal just behavior in general. 

 

sho nuff

Footballguy
This is the stuff.

Quit chasing your Russian conspiracy theories and go here.  Go for the family business/taxes.
You realize the Mueller investigation will likely get to business/finances/taxes...right?

and that its not really a conspiracy theory at all.

 

matuski

Footballguy
You realize the Mueller investigation will likely get to business/finances/taxes...right?

and that its not really a conspiracy theory at all.
Yes.. a positive side bar result of the Russia conspiracy investigation that would of course have nothing to do with the Russia conspiracy.  

As I've said all along.

 

matuski

Footballguy
Compared to a little sexual harassment, interference in a national election is by far the bigger story.
Russian interference in our election is more nationally relevant.  Definitely the bigger issue.  But you won't hang this on Trump.

We know Russia interfered (or tried to) in our election.  We don't have anything after all this time and effort trying (trying so hard) to link this to Trump. All the energy wasted using this to take down Trump will discredit other potentially legitimate strategies.  Trump will use the farce that is the media obsession with linking him to Russia against people making what could be effective arguments against him.

Just like all the time and effort spent from the Right the last several years making themselves look the fools over so many similar farces.  They lost so much chasing Benghazi and emails and birth certificates and and and.... convinced every time that THIS TIME it was the one.  Instead of making real and well thought out plans of attack and proposals to fix what they thought was wrong, they went with these.

Left = Right.  Same mistake.  Real issues that could actually hook the big fish you are after sit on the table while you chase your tails eating nothing burgers.  The mighty are falling left and right over sexual misconduct accusations.  This should be the issue chosen, focused on. Especially in this moment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

timschochet

Footballguy
Hopefully after that disgusting tweet this morning, women’s voices are louder than ever. 

Hey jonessed, the time has come to disenfranchise those voters.

 

matuski

Footballguy
Hopefully after that disgusting tweet this morning, women’s voices are louder than ever. 
I hadn't even seen these tweets before I wrote the above. :lmao: So predictable: 

"Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia - so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don't know and/or have never met. FAKE NEWS!" Trump wrote on Twitter at 7:10 a.m. ET.
The traps are laid in plain sight, the playbook open for all to see.  Trump's opposition keeps tripping over them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
I’m not OK with, but I didn’t help elect him.  I’m not about to disenfranchise those who did.  Obviously they see things differently.  

He won.  It’s time to accept it.
Yes, they did. They saw an innocent man, because Trump denied all the stories and promised to provide exculpatory evidence and to sue his accusers.  This, plus his general undermining of mainstream media, gave them a path to denial and they took it. Polls have shown this time and time again.  Here's one showing that only 34% of Republicans think the accusations against Trump are credible.

We haven't gotten any of the promised exculpatory evidence or lawsuits. Instead we've gotten more Republican politicians who think they can get away with denying sexual misconduct on the face of overwhelming evidence and a base that's willing to believe it.  That means not only do the politicians get away scot-free, but it also silences women going forward (because they feel they won't be heard or believed) and gives sexual predators a path forward (just do it and then deny it and nothing bad will happen). To hell with that. It's time to hold a mirror up to Trump, the party that supported him, and the voters who buried their heads in the sand on this issue. 

And what's the downside, really? Trump probably spends more taxpayer money on a month's worth of trips to Mar-a-lago than the investigation would cost.

 
Compared to a little sexual harassment, interference in a national election is by far the bigger story.
Or even just obstruction of justice.  Let's leave Russia out of it.  Let's assume the whole story is that Flynn told Trump he lied to the FBI.  Trump tried to get Comey to drop the charges out of loyalty to Flynn.  And Trump eventually fired Comey, in part to protect Flynn.

With this Congress, if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing to protect, say, Barry McCaffrey, she would be impeached.  She'd probably survive the trial in the Senate on a strict party-line vote, but 100% the House would impeach her.  

 

Bayhawks

Footballguy
100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy ****, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy ****, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 
Good luck.  Trump supporters on this board universally refuse to engage on this subject.

If we ever wanted to chase them off, all we'd have to do is change every thread title to reference the allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct.

 

packersfan

Footballguy
Good luck.  Trump supporters on this board universally refuse to engage on this subject.

If we ever wanted to chase them off, all we'd have to do is change every thread title to reference the allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct.
It's not just on this board, it's everywhere. The response is to deflect and say something Bill, Hillary or Obama did or believe was done. 

 

Mile High

Footballguy
100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy ****, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 
About 20 years ago Bill Clinton did something. So now it's hypocritical to speak out now because we didn't speak out then. Or something, something.

 

badmojo1006

Footballguy
100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy ****, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 
Don't forget Billy Bush lost his job over the tape

 

The Commish

Footballguy
TobiasFunke said:
Bayhawks said:
100% serious question for any/all Trump supporters.

We've seen media execs (Weinstein) lose their jobs, actors (Spacey, Andy ****, Masterson, etc) lose their jobs, TV hosts (Lauer, Charlie Rose), and elected officials fired/resigned (Franks, Rosen, Conyers).  Not all of these men have admitted any wrongdoing, and Trump has openly called for investigation into some of them, called for/applauded their firing, etc. 

What logical rationale is there for Trump to be excluded from investigation and/or not expected to resign?  He believes it is warranted in these other cases, he has admitted to some of the wrongdoing (the Billy Bush tape, his own comments on Howard Stern confirming the allegations about going backstage at his beauty pageants, as some of his accusers have claimed). 

Can any Trump followers give a rational justification for him to not only not resign, but also not be subject to an investigation? 
Good luck.  Trump supporters on this board universally refuse to engage on this subject.

If we ever wanted to chase them off, all we'd have to do is change every thread title to reference the allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct.
:goodposting:   That is, if you can find someone who admits they voted for him in the first place  :tumbleweed:

 

Henry Ford

Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:

bicycle_seat_sniffer

Smells like chicken
Whoah.

If anyone's still convinced that the accusers are lying about all of this, I know Stacia Robitaille personally. If it makes any difference, I don't believe for an instant she would lie about this.
I just hope these women keep coming forward....and they keep the pressure on him and other politicians....drain the swamp indeed

 

timschochet

Footballguy
Whoah.

If anyone's still convinced that the accusers are lying about all of this, I know Stacia Robitaille personally. If it makes any difference, I don't believe for an instant she would lie about this.
I have serious doubts that anyone is convinced of this. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top