Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Riversco said:

If i wer to sum up the Trump years, id say if the nation was healthy, a guy the Trump cannot win.  His election is a symtom of a deeper illness afflicting the nation.  The nation is sick. Removing trump is treating the symptom but not the underlying disease.  If the disease is not cured, it will kill the patient.   

AND........NAZIS!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 141.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • SaintsInDome2006

    5714

  • Henry Ford

    5617

  • packersfan

    4478

  • timschochet

    4285

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I won't know for a while, but my final chemo treatment was a week and a half ago, the side effects are subsiding, and I feel better than I have in a long time. Thanks for asking.

So that whole, "I bet you wimps would never challenge big, bad Donald physically" stuff got me thinking last night. I sincerely believe that I could defeat an entire gauntlet of all living Presid

You kidding?  For those on the right, the past 8 years the supporters have been focused almost totally on how much the democrats were the enemy.  It was on fox news, on talk radio, on the breitbart an

Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the GOP will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html

Edited by squistion
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the Gop will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html

Should have kept the kitty in the bag, GOP

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Riversco said:

If i wer to sum up the Trump years, id say if the nation was healthy, a guy the Trump cannot win.  His election is a symtom of a deeper illness afflicting the nation.  The nation is sick. Removing trump is treating the symptom but not the underlying disease.  If the disease is not cured, it will kill the patient.   

So we are seeing the symptoms, but we can nazi the underlying disease itself

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

if trump can be sued for defemation does that mean that basically anyone he has lied about on twitter can come after him i mean i do not read all of his crap but isnt there literally just piles of that type of stuff that hes put out there i mean can he just basically be sued out of the office due to his big mouth take that to the bank brohans 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, randall146 said:

So we are seeing the symptoms, but we can nazi the underlying disease itself

Let me save Riversco the trouble of replying: The harder you try to fight the disease, the stronger it gets.  The only way to defeat it is to surrender to it.  Do you nazi that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lazyike said:

Please share a link when leaders from the UK, Germany, France, etc call to congratulate Putin in the next day or two

I believe Merkel called and congratulated yday

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, squistion said:

Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the Gop will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html

And, of course, Stormy's NDA includes an exception for testimony required by a court.  So, if Zervos subpoenas her to testify....

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, squistion said:

Great news and the Republicans only have themselves to blame for this. Prior to Clinton, it had been held that a civil suit against a sitting President would be postponed until after he left office. The Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to proceed and set a precedent Trump and the Gop will now have to live with:

Ed Krassenstein  ?‏ @EdKrassen 50m

BREAKING: A Judge ruled that Trump is not immune from a defamation suit filed against him by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, even though he is President.

This is HUGE. This ruling opens the door for others to sue Trump for Defamation and pursue discovery of evidence

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-zervos-trump-lawsuit-20180320-story.html

Nice. Maybe that will keep him distracted from doing too much more stupidity

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

This case will be thrown out... Just because you can find one judge who disagrees with established law, doesn’t mean that they are right... They are wrong and this will thrown out.

What established law would that be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, apalmer said:

Let me save Riversco the trouble of replying: The harder you try to fight the disease, the stronger it gets.  The only way to defeat it is to surrender to it.  Do you nazi that?

Ive never said that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, apalmer said:

Let me save Riversco the trouble of replying: The harder you try to fight the disease, the stronger it gets.  The only way to defeat it is to surrender to it.  Do you nazi that?

I do see it - it's just such a swa-sticky situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

This case will be thrown out... Just because you can find one judge who disagrees with established law, doesn’t mean that they are right... They are wrong and this will thrown out.

Which case is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, apalmer said:

What established law would that be?

No one is above the law, unless your name is Obama, Lerner, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Holder, Reno, Steele, Strzok, Powers, Lynch, Podesta, Abedin, Page, Blumenthal, Brennan, etc. etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

No one is above the law, unless your name is Obama, Lerner, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Holder, Reno, Steele, Strzok, Powers, Lynch, Podesta, Abedin, Page, Blumenthal, Brennan, etc. etc

Since I don't see "Trump" on that list, I don't see how the established law you quote helps him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

This case will be thrown out... Just because you can find one judge who disagrees with established law, doesn’t mean that they are right... They are wrong and this will thrown out.

Were they wrong when the ruling applied to Clinton?

Link to post
Share on other sites

butcher boy said:


No one is above the law, unless your name is Obama, Lerner, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Holder, Reno, Steele, Strzok, Powers, Lynch, Podesta, Abedin, Page, Blumenthal, Brennan, etc. etc


Trump would charge them all with crimes if he had the slightest bit of evidence against them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the only difference between this lawsuit and the Paula Jones one is that the latter was a federal lawsuit while this is a state one, and in the Paula Jones lawsuit the Supreme Court was careful not to include state law suits in their ruling. Though I don't see how it makes any difference.

Personally, I was opposed to the Paula Jones ruling, and still am. I don't believe the President should be above the law in criminal matters, but he should be temporarily above the law for civil lawsuits; such lawsuits should IMO be tabled until his Presidential term is over. However, since the Supreme Court chose to rule otherwise, of course it should apply to Trump as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Riversco said:

This thread is funny.  Youve got people want to go after trump for defamation of character, and on the same page youve got people trying to claim i said things i did not say.  

Kind of hard to claim defamation of character when you post anonymously, Woodstein.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, McJose said:

Kind of hard to claim defamation of character when you post anonymously, Woodstein.

Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. If youre against it, it would bother you to see people try to ruin the reputation of posters on a message board you hang out on all day. 

Edited by Riversco
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

This is nothing about this that is shocking.  Nothing.  

It's still bananas to me that people care so strongly about others having sex. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riversco said:

Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. 

wat

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

My understanding is that the only difference between this lawsuit and the Paula Jones one is that the latter was a federal lawsuit while this is a state one, and in the Paula Jones lawsuit the Supreme Court was careful not to include state law suits in their ruling. Though I don't see how it makes any difference.

Personally, I was opposed to the Paula Jones ruling, and still am. I don't believe the President should be above the law in criminal matters, but he should be temporarily above the law for civil lawsuits; such lawsuits should IMO be tabled until his Presidential term is over. However, since the Supreme Court chose to rule otherwise, of course it should apply to Trump as well.

You're wrong here Tim. A scumbag like Trump should absolutely never be able to skate these lawsuits simply because he's President. It's becoming quite clear that he's lived his entire life using his wealth to bang chicks who would never even give him a look if he wasn't a billionaire. Then paying them off to keep quiet about it. His mistake here was telling his yahoo rally crowds that these women were all liars. And one of them was smart enough to sue him for defamation of character. Expect many more to follow. Especially knowing that Trump's lawyers and the womens' lawyers were in cahoots. His walls are caving in on him and it's simply glorious to watch.  Still amazes me how a BJ from an intern had Fox News and the entire GOP's heads exploding (and still exploding 20 years later!) and they couldn't care less about their messiah's perverted/shady antics with prostitutes and porn stars. Just a disgusting immoral party. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Riversco said:

Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. If youre against it, it would bother you to see people try to ruin the reputation of posters on a message board you hang out on all day. 

How about you start your own thread on it and not hijack this one? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Riversco said:

Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. 

Well you got me there.  

Would you like to see a photoshopped pic of Trump being really nice to Putin?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Riversco said:

Either you are for defamation of character or youre not. If youre against it, it would bother you to see people try to ruin the reputation of posters on a message board you hang out on all day. 

Yes, exactly. It would be like using the name of a well known NFL quarterback as your alias, taking a stolen private image of two people having sexy time, photoshopping said quarterback's head on one of the people in the image and then using that as your avatar on a message board. How can people do such things!

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don't believe the President should be above the law in criminal matters, but he should be temporarily above the law for civil lawsuits; such lawsuits should IMO be tabled until his Presidential term is over. H

Amigo just this morning IIRC you were lamenting creeping dictatorship. Think of ways that the presidency can be held publicly accountable not limiting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Riversco said:

 

1 hour ago, apalmer said:

Let me save Riversco the trouble of replying: The harder you try to fight the disease, the stronger it gets.  The only way to defeat it is to surrender to it.  Do you nazi that?

Ive never said that. 

 

I never said you did.  I may have to file a defamation action against you for claiming I did.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Riversco said:

Ive never said that. 

Mein impression is that he didn't say that jew literally said that.  Fuhrer, nordic he make any remarx that weren't in jest. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Amigo just this morning IIRC you were lamenting creeping dictatorship. Think of ways that the presidency can be held publicly accountable not limiting them.

Remember I'm only referring to civil lawsuits here. And these specific civil lawsuits (in both the case of Paula Jones and this current one) were for actions that took place prior to the Presidency. If a President commits a crime, then of course there should be accountability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Amigo just this morning IIRC you were lamenting creeping dictatorship. Think of ways that the presidency can be held publicly accountable not limiting them.

There have to be some boundaries, otherwise you could do a denial of service on the administrative branch by deluging it with civil suits. I mean, sure, no politically motivated group of people would ever think to do something like that, but, just in case...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Remember I'm only referring to civil lawsuits here. And these specific civil lawsuits (in both the case of Paula Jones and this current one) were for actions that took place prior to the Presidency. If a President commits a crime, then of course there should be accountability.

I don’t think it matters, or at least not to me, as the people have a right to know first and foremost. And civil matters can lead to criminal matters, and civil matters can relate to qualifications for office. And like I said don’t carve out special areas of immunity where you’re genuinely worried about a lack of truth and limitations in executive power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

There have to be some boundaries, otherwise you could do a denial of service on the administrative branch by deluging it with civil suits. I mean, sure, no politically motivated group of people would ever think to do something like that, but, just in case...

Oh I agree that presidents shouldn’t be hit with anything regarding policy or frivolous things concerning their personal behavior. They can’t get bogged down, but let’s face it genuine fraudulent behavior and self-dealing by the president shouldn’t be set aside either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Remember I'm only referring to civil lawsuits here. And these specific civil lawsuits (in both the case of Paula Jones and this current one) were for actions that took place prior to the Presidency. If a President commits a crime, then of course there should be accountability.

What would be the rationale for protecting the president that wouldn't equally apply to other famous and powerful public figures?  Is the VP exempt?  The Speaker?  The governor of California?  The CEO of Facebook?  The quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys?

The legal system is well-equipped to handle frivolous litigation.  If we don't want a president who might be named as a defendant in a bunch of lawsuits during his presidency, we shouldn't elect people like Donald Trump president.  Also we shouldn't elect people like Donald Trump president, just as a general rule.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Oh I agree that presidents shouldn’t be hit with anything regarding policy or frivolous things concerning their personal behavior. They can’t get bogged down, but let’s face it genuine fraudulent behavior and self-dealing by the president shouldn’t be set aside either.

Agreed. I think it'd be tough to define the criteria and process for determining which cases should be prosecuted immediately though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Riversco said:

I wonder how the jefferson vs adams campaign plays out with all the dirty campaigning going on if it happened with modern law.  

Good point, it semite have turned out differently. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its kind of amusing to me that Trump must have thought he could prevent all his dirty laundry from being exposed when he's President. Like he'd order it not to happen and it wouldn't happen or something. So stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...