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 TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter knowledge dropper
- Start date
yak651
Footballguy
And then some people said they did a very beautiful job of raking the forestTrump deployed very powerful, strong robotic loggers like you have never seen before
June 12th Jenny, June 12th. The violence started on June 13th and resulted in two dead teenagers and more seriously wounded.
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Trump’s indomitable will is pretty much saving this country in spite of everything thrown at him How could anyone even think about voting for Biden?
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/07/01/private-payrolls-estimated-to-rise-by-2-37-million-in-june-may-revised-up-by-5-2-million/
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/07/01/private-payrolls-estimated-to-rise-by-2-37-million-in-june-may-revised-up-by-5-2-million/
quick-hands
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Why? Aren't we able to make our own decisions? Why this deep desire to be led? I don't understand that.
Said it before...that seems to be a more liberal stance. The desire for leaders. And the feeling that somehow our elected folks are those leaders. Which I soundly reject.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Agreed. Lockdowns were by far the most important steps we took to save lives. This was the potential 2 million deaths that @knowledge dropper referenced that were avoided. I believe this is from the task force worst case projections if we did nothing.
Those were the difficult decisions being made by governors.
Trump was critical of them, for them, for them but not as much. He was all over the place.
Didn’t see a lot of leadership there in that regard.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
So a vote for Biden is pretty much a vote to start winding down the good old USA
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to?amp
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to?amp
supermike80
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I don’t remember the thread we talked in, but that bar in East Lansing you linked pics of the line outside when MSU classes closed is now closed because of a covid outbreak linked to there (since reopen, 100+ cases).
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Honestly do you think we survive the Civil War without Abraham Lincoln? Do the British survive World War II without Churchill?
In times of crisis we need good leadership. That’s not a “liberal stance” it’s a “common sense” stance.
supermike80
Footballguy
In BOTH of those situations I absolutely positively do think we survive. It's utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, all I can say is that most of my favorite historians (in particular William Manchester and Martin Gilbert on Churchill, Shelby Foote, James McPherson and Doris Kearnes Goodwin on Lincoln) fall on the “utterly ludicrous” side of things.
supermike80
Footballguy
And what's your point?
You want to be led, it's OK..It's not a negative thing. Some people need that in their lives. Heck MANY do. But politicians doing that? Um no.Just because the idiocy that is the american population elected some dunderhead to office(trump anyone? AOC?) Doesn't automaticaly make them a leader.
And looking to political folks to lead is silly and yes ludicrous.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
That individual leaders have a profound effect on history. That in times of crisis a Churchill can win you a war and a Chamberlain can lose you a war (or for American purposes an Abraham Lincoln can save your nation and a James Buchanan or George McClellan can lose it.) That Donald Trump has refused to take leadership and the result has been disastrous for our country, and we will suffer for years because of it.
supermike80
Footballguy
And sorry Tim, but I have seen your postings here long enough to be able to confidently say I'm not sure your favorite authors or your opinion on things come from a strong position. You are wrong more than you're right.
supermike80
Footballguy
Thats 100% NOT what I said.
But if you want to change the narrative I will agree with you. Individuals have had a strong influence on history.
timschochet
Footballguy
“You’ve been wrong on other things before so you must be wrong this time too” is not a very compelling argument.
supermike80
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
You questioned why, in times of crisis, strong leadership was necessary and suggested it was a liberal stance. I take issue with that and tried to offer historical examples. I’m glad you agree with me. My overall point is that we need strong leadership now and we’re not getting it.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t think I’ve been wrong very often, but either way it’s really not relevant to this issue.
supermike80
Footballguy
No no no...I did not. i questioned why liberals seem to NEED leadership. And I don't understand this.
I do NOT, have not and will not ever elect someone to lead me. I vote for people so they act as my representative. They enact or repeal laws that I want them to. That's their job.
supermike80
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Presidents have a bigger job. In times of crisis they need to take charge and protect the nation as best they can.
supermike80
Footballguy
In your opinion. You are a liberal..And liberals need to be led.
If the President does the job he was elected to do, then I'm satisfied with that. I do not vote for a President to be my "leader"
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Well it’s an interesting perspective.
But I’m curious: why do you think that, after Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis, so many Americans were relieved at the strong leadership of Ronald Reagan? Was it because Carter was a conservative and Reagan a liberal?
supermike80
Footballguy
I just get this feeling..WAY TOO OFTEN from my liberal friends and family, that they are sitting around, waiting for Trump to tell them what to do, how to think etc. And it's funny to me because of their hate for Trump.
I
supermike80
Footballguy
Ugh..It wasn't leadership. See what I mean? This is exactly what I mean.
It was because Republicans voted out a weak President that didn't reflect their feeling that the nation needed to be tougher(not the only reason of course, but one for sure) So folks(not me because I was still not able to vote yet) elected a representative that shared that vision ane expected him to implement that vision when in office. Again doing what he was elected to do.
Once you stop looking to elected representatives as leaders you might be able to self determine better.
There is absolutely NOTHING that makes an elected person any smarter or a better leader than anyone on this board..They just won an election.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Yeah, like back when Kobe was news...
My boss told me last week that he thought I was crazy when I was insisting on different protocols and telling him we would be shut down back in late February, but is happy our name isn’t in the news right now.
The General
Footballguy
Can I get an explanation here?
What does this mean:
”I support it, but it has to be done properly,” Trump said when asked whether he wanted more direct payments to individuals. “I support actually larger numbers than the Democrats, but it’s got to be done properly. We had something where it gave you a disincentive to work last time.”
What does this mean:
”I support it, but it has to be done properly,” Trump said when asked whether he wanted more direct payments to individuals. “I support actually larger numbers than the Democrats, but it’s got to be done properly. We had something where it gave you a disincentive to work last time.”
T J
Footballguy
I get what he’s saying. You seriously don’t?
Whether or not you agree or think it’s BS, Trump is saying he wants to give more money to people than the democrats do but there needs to be a better way to actually do that because it was working out that it was better not to work and take the government’s money and he doesn’t want a repeat of that.
The General
Footballguy
Herb
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Per usual no real answers. Just talk, no details.
I’d figure a Trump person would know the details of their guy.
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This would literally mean someone wants to give less money.
For example: "I want to give less money to people than the democrats do because it was working out that it was better not to work and take the government’s money and I doesn’t want a repeat of that." That makes sense.
The way Trump has it framed he contradicts himself within the same statement. It's like saying "I'd like more of this wine because it tastes horrible."
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
This thread has people arguing for no leadership needed for the POTUS position, just to come to the defense of Trump.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
The goalposts that were previously removed have had their function redefined: now, missing a field goal is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the outcome of the game.This thread has people arguing for no leadership needed for the POTUS position, just to come to the defense of Trump.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
But the polls say nobody supports Trump. The silent majority speaks with cash and votes not bricks and tik tok
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/01/trump-campaign-rnc-raise-record-266-million-in-second-quarter/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/01/trump-campaign-rnc-raise-record-266-million-in-second-quarter/
T J
Footballguy
The talk makes sense, at least to me. Putting it into play is admittedly another issue, but just giving money to give it does disincentivize people from trying to earn their own money.The General said:
And it’s not a “Trump person” thing. It’s a “conservative” thing. Very different. Just because a person agrees with a thought or policy he pursues does not make them a “Trump person”. It means you agree with that specific thing. I agree with a good bit of his policies but don’t care for him at all. He’s a very unlikeable president but ya, he does represent my mindset certainly moreso than anyone on the democratic side - especially with how far left democrats are going right now.
T J
Footballguy
No, it literally doesn’t mean that. I haven’t even heard what he said but in just reading the responses to what was quoted in this thread, it seems obvious that some folks want to find issue with anything he says.SaintsInDome2006 said:
Again, you can think he’s full of it or completely disagree, but the semantics of what he said reason out with me. It reads to me that he wants to give more money but differently than before where it was just a check that was sent. I suppose that could mean some sort of pay for community service or whatever. Basically, we’ll give you more money, but at least do something productive for it. That’s how I read it. I don’t see the harm in that. Didn’t Roosevelt do something similar coming out of the Great Depression?
They are NOT silent.
They certainly vote much better. As a %.
They certainly do give more money to politics and politicians.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
They go to work
They don’t protest and riot
They don’t whine incessantly about perceived injustice
They don’t sit on social media all day
They do buy guns and they do vote.
Similar threads
