Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last!


gussy

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Yes I think it would be a good argument if someone was advocating the death penalty for gun sellers.

I wasn't commenting on the severity of the proposed penalties, just the emphases on supply-side versus demand-side solutions.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and "Prohibiting drugs won't address the underlying problems that make people susceptible to addiction" ... versus ... "Banning gun sales like in Europe is the best way to attack the problem" and "We need harsher penalties for drug dealers."

People who prefer the first approach on guns generally seem to prefer the second approach on drugs and vice versa.

That's not necessarily wrong depending on relative elasticities and whatnot, but the fact that people seem to have generally opposite instincts on those two issues is slightly interesting to me.

"Drugs don't kill people; people selling drugs kill people"

That's a closer comparison to the typical pro-gun argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 7:12 AM, RBM said:

ICE raids rule!

The ACLU disagrees:

ACLU‏ @ACLU Mar 16

We're suing ICE, with @humanrights1st and @CGRShastings, for illegally locking up hundreds of asylum seekers without due process. #LibertyLockedUp

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/15/us/politics/ap-us-aclu-immigration-lawsuit-.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should not surprise anyone.

Karen Tumulty‏ @ktumulty 11m11 minutes ago

BREAKING from @ruthmarcus:

Trump has required White House employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, with penalties of $10 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nondisclosure-agreements-came-with-him-to-the-white-house/2018/03/18/226f4522-29ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.016b21d619f1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, squistion said:

This should not surprise anyone.

Karen Tumulty‏ @ktumulty 11m11 minutes ago

BREAKING from @ruthmarcus:

Trump has required White House employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, with penalties of $10 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nondisclosure-agreements-came-with-him-to-the-white-house/2018/03/18/226f4522-29ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.016b21d619f1

 

Is this legal?  This came up back when he was being inaugurated and I thought I read somewhere that you can't legally enforce NDA's for Federal employees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Is this legal?  This came up back when he was being inaugurated and I thought I read somewhere that you can't legally enforce NDA's for Federal employees.

I thought I read something like that too, and don't think it would be enforceable but I don't know the legality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ned said:

I can’t pretend to know or understand how this all works. What were the actual steps/mechanics of his firing?

i don't know exactly but if the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) recommended his firing, why should we be outraged that he was fired?  That's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know.  As much as I don't trust the motives of Trump and his henchmen, I don't want to jump to the conclusion that it was merely a petty, vindictive act.  I know McCabe disagrees with all this but exactly who makes up this OPR and why shouldn't I trust their recomendiation?  I don't know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

i don't know exactly but if the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) recommended his firing, why should we be outraged that he was fired?  That's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know.  As much as I don't trust the motives of Trump and his henchmen, I don't want to jump to the conclusion that it was merely a petty, vindictive act.  I know McCabe disagrees with all this but exactly who makes up this OPR and why shouldn't I trust their recomendiation?  I don't know.

He was retiring in less then 48 hours of his firing. So why not just let him retire and disappear? This was a petty, vindictive act.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mile High said:

He was retiring in less then 48 hours of his firing. So why not just let him retire and disappear? This was a petty, vindictive act.

I don't see how it could have been any more petty and vindictive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mile High said:

He was retiring in less then 48 hours of his firing. So why not just let him retire and disappear? This was a petty, vindictive act.

Is the issue that he deserves to be fired but just not two days before retirement? That's so much different than he was fired two days before his retirement and didn't deserve to be fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Is the issue that he deserves to be fired but just not two days before retirement? That's so much different than he was fired two days before his retirement and didn't deserve to be fired.

IMO when you tweet this 

Quote

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump

More

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

12:30 PM - 23 Dec 2017

and then wait until the 90 days is almost up, that is petty and vindictive.

Quote

McCabe shouldn’t have been fired days before he was due to retire in an episode that risks demoralizing and “smearing” agents, said Republican SenatorMarco Rubio of Florida.

“He should have been allowed to finish through the weekend,” Rubio said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions’ move late Friday to fire the Federal Bureau of Investigations veteran before an inspector general’s report was issued, two days before he was set to retire at age 50 after more than two decades with the bureau. “I would’ve certainly done it differently.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republican-senators-push-back-against-151748225.html

Edited by Mile High
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

NDAs in the WH.

- I can’t even post this #### without cursing.

Nothing to worry about:

Judd Legum‏ @JuddLegum 1h1 hour ago

Trump thinks he can get away with anything if he makes the people around him sign ridiculous NDAs. He has bad lawyers.

The agreements are unenforceable. If he finds a judge to enforce them his reward is trying to collect $20M from Stormy Daniels that she doesn’t have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

NDAs in the WH.

- I can’t even post this #### without cursing.

How is this legal?

 

Maybe the legality of it is irrelevant.  Maybe he just wants to intimidate people into not taking his lawyers on.

Edited by Dedfin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

NDAs in the WH.

- I can’t even post this #### without cursing.

All it takes is one publisher willing to front the lawyer bills and the NDAs will be tossed in the rubbish. All of them. Hell, I'd bet the ACLU might be willing to take this on. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, timschochet said:

Trump’s “solution” to the opioid crisis, coming tommorow, is so ####### predictable: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/18/politics/trump-opioid-plan/index.html

Tougher penalties, including the death penalty. Give law enforcement more power. New commercials on TV: “Just say no!” Oh yeah, and maybe some funding to actually treat the problem itself, unspecified, down the road. 

I’ve written before that Trump is no conservative, but I stand corrected: in some ways, he is what I would call “reactionary stupid conservative”; the guy who thinks that the answer to every problem is “get tough”; who avoids complex solutions in favor of simple ones. 

Trumps thought hard about how to end the opioid crisis and he’s got THE BEST solution and a branding phrase as well ...”Just say NO!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, Donald Trump has been forcing white house employees to sign an NDA and this is only the 20th most disturbing thing we’ve found out about him.   First of all, I am not sure it’s legal and the $10Millions penalty not enforceable but you have to think that when you have to sign something like this, it’s for good reason.   

I doubt No Drama Obama made anybody do this mostly because he isn’t a narcissist but also because he doesn’t have any reason to do it.  

 

But this does sort of describe why everybody that leave Trump orbit has stayed mum on the craziness from inside.   Most even find their way back in his good graces, whether it is Spicer or Mooch or Lewandowski.  

 

You’d almost say he’s blackmailing them, where could he possibly come up with that concept 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I wasn't commenting on the severity of the proposed penalties, just the emphases on supply-side versus demand-side solutions.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and "Prohibiting drugs won't address the underlying problems that make people susceptible to addiction" ... versus ... "Banning gun sales like in Europe is the best way to attack the problem" and "We need harsher penalties for drug dealers."

People who prefer the first approach on guns generally seem to prefer the second approach on drugs and vice versa.

That's not necessarily wrong depending on relative elasticities and whatnot, but the fact that people seem to have generally opposite instincts on those two issues is slightly interesting to me.

There seems to be a lot of reaching here.  Show your work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I always thought Lewandowski was a scumbag. But if you need any more evidence:

For as long as he’d been in politics, Lewandowski had been defined by two qualities: his ruthless pursuit of an enemy’s destruction and always having an enemy. This was true even when it was small ball; in New Hampshire, he once f***ed over a local official by claiming that his fantasy-football league, with a grand prize of $200, was an illegal gambling ring. By the time Lewandowski was done, the official had lost his job and was the subject of a criminal probe.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mr fancypants said:

Not sure that it is "unflattering" I recognized her right away from the painting - pretty good likeness imo

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, [scooter] said:

I always thought Lewandowski was a scumbag. But if you need any more evidence:

 

 

These are just awful people, through and through. It's not an isolated bad apple, or people with faults. It's just bad folks. Immoral, ammoral, selfish, cruel, petty.

Trump on down to Bannon, to Lewandowsli, to Kushner. On down the line. 

If people think they won't be - or even shouldn't be judged - for their support of such awful human beings, stop whining about how you enter echo chambers and need a safe space.  Examine the very real underlying foundation to why people who are ok with backing and promoting literally one of the worst groups of people we've seen in US governance (and the absolute worst at the Administration leve possibly ever) have their judgement (and even their own morality) questioned. 

These are awful awful people that continue to do awful awful things (see: McCabe firing and how it's been handled. Not the substance which we don't really know, just the public spectacle and waiting until the weekend of his retirement - or go back to Trump literally making fun of the disabled at a speech, or the countless outfight or veiled racist/nationalist comments). If you associate yourself with those people and actively support them, why should we assume you are any better than they, or at the least, that your values don't show an alignment with who and what they are? And that's your choice... calling out what that represents, if it makes one feel uneasy, shouldn't be blamed on the messenger but rather the people who represent that message. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Koya said:

These are just awful people, through and through. It's not an isolated bad apple, or people with faults. It's just bad folks. Immoral, ammoral, selfish, cruel, petty.

Trump on down to Bannon, to Lewandowsli, to Kushner. On down the line. 

If people think they won't be - or even shouldn't be judged - for their support of such awful human beings, stop whining about how you enter echo chambers and need a safe space.  Examine the very real underlying foundation to why people who are ok with backing and promoting literally one of the worst groups of people we've seen in US governance (and the absolute worst at the Administration leve possibly ever) have their judgement (and even their own morality) questioned. 

These are awful awful people that continue to do awful awful things (see: McCabe firing and how it's been handled. Not the substance which we don't really know, just the public spectacle and waiting until the weekend of his retirement - or go back to Trump literally making fun of the disabled at a speech, or the countless outfight or veiled racist/nationalist comments). If you associate yourself with those people and actively support them, why should we assume you are any better than they, or at the least, that your values don't show an alignment with who and what they are? And that's your choice... calling out what that represents, if it makes one feel uneasy, shouldn't be blamed on the messenger but rather the people who represent that message. 

And the ones who have some class and ethics, soon get fired. He wants no differing opinions. He wants to be surrounded by equally immoral, racist and disgusting people. Truly frightening what his supporters have sunken to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...