|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 25, 2017 3:17:05 GMT
It matters a lot. It's inappropriate, and it's unethical. Like just about everything else Trump does. It also embarrases the Patriots and their fans, knowing Kraft is giving special treatment to a racist bigoted asshole, at a time when most sane people are fleeing from any association with him. Talk about tone deaf. As long as he properly reports it at the end of the fiscal year, then there is nothing unethical about it at all. Like everything involved with Trump, you are blowing it way out of proportion. Was it strange for the Patriots to give this? Sure, but there is nothing wrong with it and Trump definitely did not do anything wrong. Whether or not it's unethical, it's definitely inappropriate. 1 billionaire giving another billionaire who happens to be a publicly-elected official a gift worth over $36,000.
So billionaire Kraft rather give his billionaire buddy a $36,000 gift than donating the money to a needy charity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 8:05:14 GMT
Just the violent demonstrations that were soley about Trump's election. Well ... you can start with the hundreds arrested, police assaulted and property burned in DC during the inauguration. Google should be able to direct you to additional instances in other parts of the country. After you get your fill of masked lefties clashing with police, beating up bystanders and threatening journalists, you can take a look at how maniacal liberals are turning our colleges into anti-Trump enclaves where anyone who doesn't pledge their hatred for Trump are threatened, harassed and driven from campus. That should keep you busy for a while. It looks like there may have been a large spike in hate crimes in the 3 months after Trump's election. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40969589So Trump's election may be bad all round, as a spectator from afar I can't say his campaign really helped. But at least when you get your arse kicked by a lefty, it is normally for a good reason.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 25, 2017 11:58:00 GMT
Just the violent demonstrations that were soley about Trump's election. Well ... you can start with the hundreds arrested, police assaulted and property burned in DC during the inauguration. Google should be able to direct you to additional instances in other parts of the country. After you get your fill of masked lefties clashing with police, beating up bystanders and threatening journalists, you can take a look at how maniacal liberals are turning our colleges into anti-Trump enclaves where anyone who doesn't pledge their hatred for Trump are threatened, harassed and driven from campus. That should keep you busy for a while. Well it's a good thing Trump won. Because his supporters were literally threatening Civil War if the 'rigged' election didn't go his way. Or have you forgotten? The people who are rioting are idiots, but since Trump won we'll never know how bad it would've gotten with the delusional fools who supported him. You're another one who talks about the media brainwashing people when it was the media who spoonfed you Trump's train wreck campaign. It's their fault he got elected. And since the other guy never answered, maybe you can tell me why the GOP is distancing themselves from Trump? Are they sitting around watching too much CNN?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 25, 2017 12:09:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 25, 2017 14:42:51 GMT
You can't exactly criticize someone for something they didn't do. I don't recall any riots or national meltdowns when Obama won two terms.
Are you suggesting that they glamorized his campaign? ... buried the dirt and only showed the bright side? What alternate universe did that occur in?
The GOP never wanted Trump. It is certainly an indictment of out political system when neither party was able to field a candidate that could beat Donald Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2017 12:11:01 GMT
You can't exactly criticize someone for something they didn't do. I don't recall any riots or national meltdowns when Obama won two terms. Are you suggesting that they glamorized his campaign? ... buried the dirt and only showed the bright side? What alternate universe did that occur in? The GOP never wanted Trump. It is certainly an indictment of out political system when neither party was able to field a candidate that could beat Donald Trump. I guess you conveniently forgot. I don't want to post just one article about people rioting when Obama won, I'll let you choose: www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=riots+obama+won&oq=riots+obama+won&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1013.7106.0.7353.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.iDeGgpWh4mMNo they didn't glamorize Trump's campaign. They spread his message of hate and ignorance and you ate it up. You're defending Trump when both parties are at odds with him. He's a clueless idiot that both sides of the aisle think is doing a terrible job, how often does that happen? But you can bring up the fact that they threatened 'civil war' unless they won. Your entire argument is disingenuous at best. You can't criticize supporters of one side for rioting when they lost if supporters of the other side threatened worse if they didn't win. Particularly when they have a recent history of rioting! Look, I'm an independent voter so if you want to make this a party battle you're talking to the wrong guy. I'll say it again, riots are for idiots-- in this country at least. I'm not defending them at all. I'm just here to point out Trump's incompetence and your hypocrisy in attacking the left in defense of this boob.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 29, 2017 13:55:47 GMT
You should probably read your own link. Not much rioting ... just a few random reports. The lack of riots is the most notable thing about the Obama elections. I was expecting more turmoil. It was mostly crickets.
So they didn't "spoonfed" his campaign in an effort to "brainwash" people. They reported what he said in as critical a manner as possible.
I am? I'm not jumping on the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trump bandwagon. Is this one of those if you're not with us, you're against us situations?
Of course you can. Real acts of violence is not equivalent to hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2017 14:30:43 GMT
What? The first link on that page: thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discreditThis story itself contains links to other specific examples. Hell one of the links on that google page is a youtube video of guys discussing a riot on the campus of Ole Miss when Obama was re-elected. Mostly crickets? That's Trump's mentality, not mine. I'm just pointing out the facts while you deny them. I work closely with Trump supporters. I also have some in my family. I'm not drawing a line in the sand over this stuff. Agreed, and both sides have been guilty of violence, whether you want to admit it or not. This is all with a single google search. If I really wanted to get into specifics I could point out destructive or distasteful (burning effigies of Obama, Kathy Griffin's severed Trump head stunt) behavior from either side all day. Stop pretending one group has the moral high ground when it comes to protesting. One side threatened civil war if they lost, another rioted when they actually did lose. Nobody looks good here. Your stance on this subject is proof of two things: 1. Your selective memory when you're trying to convince yourself of something 2. The media that convinced you to vote for Trump did so by bombarding you with his rhetoric 24/7. I'm not talking about Fox News vs CNN. The media at large. Right leaning media outlets applauded his nonsense (at least, once they realized he was going to be their guy) while left leaning media outlets pushed it because they knew what he was saying was outrageous, and thus will bring in ratings. They gave him more face time than any candidate I can recall, and the divisiveness that came with his campaign only fed the downward media spiral. The media got Trump elected, so you should probably stop bitching about their crusade against him. They're the best thing that ever happened to him. So if you aren't defending Trump, what are you doing? Denying established facts just be contrarian? Your reasons are your own, and I wouldn't try to change your opinion on Trump. I'm only expressing my opinion on Trump, and showing the reality of the situation when it comes to political fervor that goes too far in either direction.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 29, 2017 15:14:34 GMT
Doesn't refer to a single riot.
Give me a break. A non-riot riot. Look at some other accounts of your tiny little "riot". Is that they best you could come up with?
Seems like you're more into making up "facts".
The media didn't convince me to vote from Trump. Hillary did.
Splashing some cold water on your angry anti-Trump hysteria.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2017 17:56:07 GMT
Doesn't refer to a single riot. Give me a break. A non-riot riot. Look at some other accounts of your tiny little "riot". Is that they best you could come up with? Seems like you're more into making up "facts". The media didn't convince me to vote from Trump. Hillary did. Splashing some cold water on your angry anti-Trump hysteria. Is this better than rioting? www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/racist-backlash-greets-president-barack-obamaHow are you going to defend these examples? They weren't rioting, so they weren't really that bad? Good one. It's only a riot when it's 'lefties.' Otherwise it's a 'non-riot riot.' Brilliant stuff. This is the bubble you have to put yourself in to continue supporting Trump. The old 'fake news' defense. Anytime anyone says something you disagree with, it must be made up. You could accuse me of 'anti-Trump hysteria' if I had started this thread (or any political thread for that matter). You're going to have to try harder to define people who disagree with you. Non-riot riot. You're hilarious, man.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 29, 2017 18:55:25 GMT
No, it's you moving the goalposts after you failed to find any riots. Now you're making up a definition and attributing it to me. A non-riot riot is a handful of drunk college students as described in this link. No burning buildings, no burning cars, no assaulting police or journalists or bystanders, no mass arrests, no urine bombs, no tear gas. See the difference yet? Not much of a riotOnly when it is false. Like this statement you just made. You sure are swinging away ... but you're not hitting much.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2017 19:17:35 GMT
No, it's you moving the goalposts after you failed to find any riots. Now you're making up a definition and attributing it to me. A non-riot riot is a handful of drunk college students as described in this link. No burning buildings, no burning cars, no assaulting police or journalists or bystanders, no mass arrests, no urine bombs, no tear gas. See the difference yet? Not much of a riotOnly when it is false. Like this statement you just made. You sure are swinging away ... but you're not hitting much. Well I suppose that's one way you can avoid the issue. Care to comment on those violent hate crimes? Or are you going to avoid the issue forever? I gave you an example of a riot and you called it a 'non-riot riot.' Are those also 'non-violent hate crimes?' You single out a bunch of individual comments from my post but failed to comment on the most important part, how convenient. You can hide from it all you want, it doesn't make you right.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 29, 2017 20:20:18 GMT
Reports of random criminal acts are not comparable to a large-scale coordinated effort to violently silence political opponents. That is what we're seeing in this country now. When these "anti-fascist" rioters label you a Nazis for calling them idiots, don't come crying to me.
If you think a handful of drunk college students is a "riot" ... comparable to the anti-Trump election riots, then you're exhibiting a significant disconnect from reality, I'm afraid.
Consider it commented on (see above). You just introduced a new "most important part" ... play whack-a-mole much?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2017 20:26:30 GMT
Reports of random criminal acts are not comparable to a large-scale coordinated effort to violently silence political opponents. That is what we're seeing in this country now. When these "anti-fascist" rioters label you a Nazis for calling them idiots, don't come crying to me. If you think a handful of drunk college students is a "riot" ... comparable to the anti-Trump election riots, then you're exhibiting a significant disconnect from reality, I'm afraid. Consider it commented on (see above). You just introduced a new "most important part" ... play whack-a-mole much? You act like I'm defending left wing extremists. I'm not, I think they're idiots, too. Rioting and violence just gives the other side ammunition to use against your cause, ditto for the lunatics in the links I provided. I'm just pointing out there are maniacs on both sides. It took you long enough to see my point but you finally got there.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 29, 2017 20:54:00 GMT
Unfortunately, you missed mine. Completely.
These days, the "maniacs" on the left are organized and looking for a fight. If there is a gathering of political opponents, you can be sure they will try to disrupt it through intimidation and violence. There was no right-wing equivalent to this during the Obama years.
If you had a point, you've failed to make it. Completely.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 30, 2017 12:23:53 GMT
Unfortunately, you missed mine. Completely. These days, the "maniacs" on the left are organized and looking for a fight. If there is a gathering of political opponents, you can be sure they will try to disrupt it through intimidation and violence. There was no right-wing equivalent to this during the Obama years. If you had a point, you've failed to make it. Completely. Now that's comical. The Tea Party has always been about intimidation. www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/opinion/voter-harassment-circa-2012.html?mcubz=0www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-ann-west/fear-intimidation-tea-par_b_513787.htmlI suppose your argument will be, "Doesn't sound very violent to me," completely ignoring that this is absolutely an attempt to intimidate people and disrupt the political system. The violence was saved for the individuals in the links I provided earlier. And again this is minimal effort on my part, I could provide you with endless examples of this stuff. So I've proven there was violence. I've proven there were (and still are) attempts by the right to intimidate people to influence the outcome of an election and disrupt the system. But since there was no tear gas or eggs thrown I it doesn't count in your world? The rioting and violence against Trump supporters is equally unacceptable, I'm not arguing that. But you need to realize it goes both ways. You keep saying I haven't made a point; it took you how many posts to admit conservatives were guilty of violence? And you downplayed it when you finally did. You walk into a conversation using labels like 'lefties' and give away your bias immediately. I made a perfectly valid point, you just don't want to accept the truth. I could really broaden the spectrum of this conversation and talk about how minorities are victims of systematic violence and intimidation every day of their lives in this country, but that would be waaay too 'leftie' for you and this conversation is a waste of time either way. Congratulations in advance on your delusion, I'm sure all of this bounced off your bubble and you remain convinced it's only left leaning people trying to subvert the democratic process.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Aug 30, 2017 14:01:07 GMT
If you can't see that your entire argument is an exercise in false equivalency and goalpost moving, then we are at an impasse.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 14, 2020 15:17:42 GMT
Although much of the North East is predominantly Liberal, not all Patriots fans are caught up in this media-fueled wave of anti-Trump hysteria. Remember when the left was trying to paint Mitt Romney as a bigoted Nazis? Yeah ... we're not falling for that again. If you're upset that not enough people are paying attention to your most recent cry of wolf, you've got only yourselves to blame. If the election of President Trump fills you with a maniacal fervor to burn, loot, vandalize, censor and assault anyone who disagrees with you, that's a problem entirely of your own doing. Not Trump's. Don't be this person.![](http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/7568345c42268f904bb253672e0993a3) Indeed - don't be this person...
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 14, 2020 16:05:10 GMT
Although much of the North East is predominantly Liberal, not all Patriots fans are caught up in this media-fueled wave of anti-Trump hysteria. Remember when the left was trying to paint Mitt Romney as a bigoted Nazis? Yeah ... we're not falling for that again. If you're upset that not enough people are paying attention to your most recent cry of wolf, you've got only yourselves to blame. If the election of President Trump fills you with a maniacal fervor to burn, loot, vandalize, censor and assault anyone who disagrees with you, that's a problem entirely of your own doing. Not Trump's. Don't be this person.![](http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/7568345c42268f904bb253672e0993a3) Indeed - don't be this person... Nice pull!
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Nov 14, 2020 16:53:54 GMT
Although much of the North East is predominantly Liberal, not all Patriots fans are caught up in this media-fueled wave of anti-Trump hysteria. Remember when the left was trying to paint Mitt Romney as a bigoted Nazis? Yeah ... we're not falling for that again. If you're upset that not enough people are paying attention to your most recent cry of wolf, you've got only yourselves to blame. If the election of President Trump fills you with a maniacal fervor to burn, loot, vandalize, censor and assault anyone who disagrees with you, that's a problem entirely of your own doing. Not Trump's. Don't be this person. Indeed - don't be this person... damngumby damn disappeared in April
|
|