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.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (9 Viewers)

flapgreen said:
Please spare us with this disingenuous explanation.  Not only did the same people taking up for Vindman not defend General Flynn, who served for much longer than Vindman and has an actual Bronze Star in the 82nd Airborne fighting for his country, they cheered for him to be thrown in jail. You guys live in a world of hypocrisy where everything is justified to take down the side you disagree with. At all costs. Collateral damage doesn't matter. 
Click to expand...
Yeah what’s with these people? It’s like they think committing a crime is somehow different from witnessing one!

 
Anyone even remotely surprised by any of this has not paid 1mins of attention to Trump over the past decade plus. Why do you think the GOP has fallen in line so completely and quickly.  

 
BladeRunner said:
Uhm...okay?  That doesn't make my point any less valid.

I would suggest if there is anyone to blame, it's Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi and all the other Democrats who pushed for this sham in their zealous efforts to "Get Trump".

Where are they now in protecting Vindman?  Hmmm?  Could it be that Vindman has now outlived his usefulness for the Democrats?
Click to expand...
Protect him how?

 
zftcg said:
To all the people defending Vindman’s reassignment: let’s assume for the sake of argument that it was justified. Can you offer me one reason other than pure vindictiveness that they had to do his brother at the same time?
Click to expand...
Let's say for the sake of argument that that was also justified.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
It is kind of refreshing to have the traditional GOP lines of respect for religious faith and reverence for military service exposed as complete BS in less than a week.
Click to expand...
The traditional GOP line of fiscal responsibility was re-exposed a couple of years, after being exposed by Reagan a few decades ago. 

 
BladeRunner said:
But WERE they telling the truth?  How do you tell truth when you, yourself, heard it from 2nd, 3rd, 4th and X levels of hearsay?

"I suppose so", "I think so", "I assumed so", "I heard he said" are not phrases that inspire confidence that you're actually getting the truth.
Click to expand...
If only there was a way to find out....

 
zftcg said:
To all the people defending Vindman’s reassignment: let’s assume for the sake of argument that it was justified. Can you offer me one reason other than pure vindictiveness that they had to do his brother at the same time?
Click to expand...
If twin movies have taught me anything, and I think they have, it is that you cannot trust them to not switch identities and you can never be sure which twin did what.  Given that, the only way to be sure one has gotten pay back on a twin is to get it on both.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death said:
The shame of it is Trump had his chance to respond to Vindman. Raise your hand and testify under oath. Or release the documents that dispute his testimony. Or allow your people with first hand knowledge testify. But as he did when he suddenly developed bone spurs, Trump took the coward's way out. Shame Trump didn't have the spine to go under oath, as Vindman did, and tell your side.

Such a coward.
Click to expand...
Can't be said enough.

 
For the longest time I presumed most defenses of Trump were insincere, launched only to troll the other side, to get a reaction.  I was very slow coming to the realization that some or even many of his defenders really believe those defenses.  It just seemed so improbable to me to think that anyone could really believe those defenses.  Now I realize that some actually do believe them.  Even though I am aware that we can convince ourselves of nearly anything if we choose to do so this still surprises me and I am one who has built my own private realities more than once.

 
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, tin-pot dictators don't fire employees.  They kill them.  Or imprison them (and then kill them).  Or they just disappear (because they've been killed).

Seriously, this over the top rhetoric has to stop.  Has anyone ever actually lived in a country run by a dictator?  Or a lived under Fascism?  Trump is not even close to any of that.
Click to expand...
Really? Dictators don't fire employees and replace them with "loyals"?

On 30 January 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power).[1] In the following months, the Nazi Party used a process termed Gleichschaltung (co-ordination) to rapidly bring all aspects of life under control of the party.[2] All civilian organisations, including agricultural groups, volunteer organisations, and sports clubs, had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathisers or party members. By June 1933, virtually the only organisations not controlled by the NSDAP were the army and the churches.[3] By 1939, party membership was compulsory for all civil service officials.[4]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Nazi_Germany

The moral of the story is: Dictators consolidate their power by firing anyone who might be "disloyal". Only after that power is consolidated can they move on to killing without fear of opposition.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
For the longest time I presumed most defenses of Trump were insincere, launched only to troll the other side, to get a reaction.  I was very slow coming to the realization that some or even many of his defenders really believe those defenses.  It just seemed so improbable to me to think that anyone could really believe those defenses.  Now I realize that some actually do believe them.  Even though I am aware that we can convince ourselves of nearly anything if we choose to do so this still surprises me and I am one who has built my own private realities more than once.
Click to expand...
We, you and I, need to grab a nice aged scotch, good cigar and wax poetic about what we thought we knew.

Maybe invite @Henry Ford to see if can drink him under the table just for the fun of it.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
We, you and I, need to grab a nice aged scotch, good cigar and wax poetic about what we thought we knew.

Maybe invite @Henry Ford to see if can drink him under the table just for the fun of it.
Click to expand...
Sure, old man.  You bring your New Jersey liver down here to New Orleans for a good pickling and see what it gets you. 
 

*I very nearly left the autocorrect which said you should bring your New Jersey lover down here for a “good pickling.”  Probably should have. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I have a bottle of Michter’s Bourbon I think you’d enjoy. 
Click to expand...
Indeed. Though I tend towards scotch I celebrate the entire whiskey catalog.  I also occasionally go brandy or cognac.  The brandy thing is a Wisconsin thing and we never completely abandon our roots.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I have a bit of a thing for Armagnac. 
Click to expand...
My closest friend as a teen was a fella whose father owned one of the largest liquor retailers in Milwaukee, both bar and packaged good.  As such they had some great premiums in their house.  When we drank gin it was Boodles or Tanqueray. When Scotch nothing less than Glen Livet 18, Cognac, Remy Martin.  One time his folk were out and we were raiding the liquor cabinet.  He was changing albums or cleaning some bud and asked me to pour a couple of cognacs.  I went to the liquor cabinet and did as instructed.  Turns out I had used a bottle of Remy Armagnac that retailed for around $3000.  Big money in the 70's.  Hell big money now.  His pops was relatively cool about it.  It was pretty good.  With a palate polluted by cigs, bong hits, Doritos and coke who can say how good?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
My closest friend as a teen was a fella whose father owned one of the largest liquor retailers in Milwaukee, both bar and packaged good.  As such they had some great premiums in their hose.  When we drank gin it was Boodles or Tanqueray. When Scotch nothing less than Glen Livet 18, Cognac, Remy Martin.  On time his folk where out and we were raiding the liquor cabinet.  He was changing albums or cleaning some bud and asked me to pour a couple of cognacs.  I went to the liquor cabinet and did as instructed.  Turns out I had used a bottle of Remy Armagnac that retailed for around $3000.  Big money in the 70's.  Hell big money now.  His pops was relatively cool about it.  It was pretty good.  With a palate polluted by cigs, bong hits, Doritos and coke who can say how good?
Click to expand...
Louis is some tasty stuff at the high priced cognac level. But I’m not aware of a Remy Armagnac. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Yes, the Louis.  That was what I figured. Some of those bottles go up to $50k now.  Tasty stuff and over the top expensive. Cognac, though - not from the D’Artagnan lands.
Click to expand...
Ah,  learn something new every day.

I would not spend $50,000 on a car, more less a bottle.  Perhaps were I a person of more means, perhaps not. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Ah,  learn something new every day.

I would not spend $50,000 on a car, more less a bottle.  Perhaps were I a person of more means, perhaps not. 
Click to expand...
Armagnac is the region, I think Marquis de Montesquiou is the only brand that’s specifically from the lands owned by D’Artagnan the Musketeer. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Give him a couple days.  He’ll get to the other four. 
Click to expand...
Between the no indictment policy and the total ineffectiveness of the Constitutional impeachment process we now have a system where the POTUS is above the law. The problem isn't  the liklihood of Trump abusing his powers, everyone who comes after will have the same ability.

 
Insomniac said:
Between the no indictment policy and the total ineffectiveness of the Constitutional impeachment process we now have a system where the POTUS is above the law. The problem isn't  the liklihood of Trump abusing his powers, everyone who comes after will have the same ability.
Click to expand...
Yup. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top