Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trump's belief that a picture ID is required to buy groceries illustrates one of things that is so odd about him. For a period of time, in the 70's, between college and becoming Trump, he lived in an apartment and probably went to grocery stores. At that time, people often paid with checks which required an ID. But it's been over 40 years since he was in a grocery store so he should have realized things might have changed. On the flight in, why didn't he tell someone about what he wanted to say about groceries and voting? Anybody on the plane would told him that all you have to do is swipe a card. It's not a big deal, but it made look out of touch.

If he has no interest in vetting his talking points what would he say in a private meeting with Putin.

Trump has absolutely no sense. There is no telling what he said to Putin in that private meeting, or more importantly and more probable, how Putin told Trump things are going to be. Putin has stuff on Trump for sure...at a minimum, proof that he conspired with Russia, but likely also the reasons why Trump conspired with Russia.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trump's belief that a picture ID is required to buy groceries illustrates one of things that is so odd about him. For a period of time, in the 70's, between college and becoming Trump, he lived in an apartment and probably went to grocery stores. At that time, people often paid with checks which required an ID. But it's been over 40 years since he was in a grocery store so he should have realized things might have changed. On the flight in, why didn't he tell someone about what he wanted to say about groceries and voting? Anybody on the plane would told him that all you have to do is swipe a card. It's not a big deal, but it made look out of touch.

If he has no interest in vetting his talking points what would he say in a private meeting with Putin.

The most important takeaway from your post is that Trump is clearly not trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with him. His supporters are certified suckers who aren’t going to leave his rectum no matter what happens. This is ok, because when you take into account a significant chunk voted for him because either a) they hated HRC, b) they always vote GOP, or c) they thought he would get serious when in office... then you realize he’s likely going to bet lose votes. It’s only a matter of strong turnout from the left.

DiscoGary wrote:

agip wrote:

...

there are two main trumper groups

...

2) deplorables. These guys are desperately trying to hang on to their status - they are the same people racist dems used to court - the ones who feel down but at least they aren't black people. At least they aren't mexicans! At least they aren't women! Trump feeds that need for status - Trump is one of them, and they know it. That's why they roar at his call to violence - they want to keep people below them and drag down the elites who remind the deplorables how low down they are. Eat the rich, basically. Except 'rich' in this case means 'libs, mexicans and blacks'

There is one main reason why Trump won, and this is it.

so we agree. The deplorables vote for trump for awful reasons and that is why he won. Good.

Here are those people, in full flower.

this is what the deplorables want: to be told thousands of lies about how they are better than the blacks, mexicans and women:

https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/1024588672426029056

now we know why president spanky, the one who has women spank him with rolled up magazines with his picture, has been flipping out on twitter the last day or two!

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-mueller-president-obstruction-justice-sources/story?id=56973384

agip wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

There is one main reason why Trump won, and this is it.

so we agree. The deplorables vote for trump for awful reasons and that is why he won. Good.

Here are those people, in full flower.

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1024467940257738752

Wait, those people aren't about to go to a book club?

If a Trump supporter calls himself or herself a "deplorable", then they are saying they are what Hillary Clinton said they are, because she defined what a deplorable was, and she did say that only half of Trump supporters were that.

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it."

agip wrote:

now we know why president spanky, the one who has women spank him with rolled up magazines with his picture, has been flipping out on twitter the last day or two!

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-mueller-president-obstruction-justice-sources/story?id=56973384

If Mueller has agreed to limit the questions really in any way, Trump should jump at the chance. The fact that his team has asked them to limit the questions and the scope shows how guilty they know he is. Yes Bill Clinton did the same thing...well, he was GUILTY!

They've got so much on Trump at this point though that it doesn't even matter if Trump is interviewed at all...just keeps him from a perjury charge and a strengthened obstruction of justice charge. Big deal. He's going down no matter if he is interviewed or not and no matter what he says.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Fat hurts wrote:

Guy who says wrote:

If you mean that he will have to be impeached and found guilty by the Senate then you may be correct.

If you mean that he might be impeached and found guilty by the Senate and would STILL refuse to vacate the office and the WH then you are certainly incorrect.

No, I mean the latter.

First I don't think he will ever resign. A resignation would be humiliating. To Trump, there is nothing more terrifying than public humiliation. So resignation is a non-starter.

Second, Trump would never accept the decision of congress to leave office. Again, the humiliation would be too much for him. He would think it better to stand and fight than to be told what to do by those losers in congress.

I would bet every last dollar that having to forcibly remove Trump from office will not happen. If you want to talk about humiliation, there isn't much that is more humiliating than being removed in handcuffs (as opposed to flying off in Air Force One, Tricky Dick style).

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

The point of strict voter ID regulations is to discourage moderate voters. Discouraging voters is part of a minority party strategy to remain in power.

This is something that I have never understood. To me it seems like having voters identify themselves is commonsensical. Without having to provide ID, what keeps someone from voting many times in many places or non-citizens from voting? Also, what is so onerous about showing a driver's license or state ID card?

I'm sure that there must be some "obvious" answer to these questions. So I am prepared to learn a bit here.

Flagpole wrote:

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Charming scene at Trump rally tonight in Tampa

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1024467940257738752

That was a Trump rally? Hmm...easily mistakable for a Mensa convention.

No, Bill Clinton and Obama weren't there so it couldn't be easily mistaken for a Mensa convention.

This is 2018. Do try to stay up. Oh wait, it's okay now to talk about Hillary and her brutal lies, or it's not okay? Only liberals get to go back to Hitler? You sad un-American losers.

Goobers for Gary wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

There is one main reason why Trump won, and this is it.

Gary should run for Congress. His slogan would be Goobers for Gary!

Except Gary isn't Gary. He's George.

And somehow "Goobers for George" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I don't know if it's been discussed on this thread, but Truman's constant tweets about 13 or 17 angry democrats, Mueller having conflicts of interest and the agent and his mistress being out to get him are, even if true, irrelevant. Even if they hate him as much as Trump says they do they are still limited by the evidence. Kenneth Starr clearly wanted Clinton's scalp, but he had to give up on Whitewater, Vince Foster and the rape allegation as there wasn't enough, or any, evidence. Miller's final report will be looked at by millions and if it is based on bulls*it he will be ripped to shreds.

Trump's constant tweets about bias insults one's intelligence.

I think that there is a very significant third group. The down-on-their-luck, simple country and small town folk who, both individually and collectively, have been left behind by modern society.

In my book, these are fundamentally good folks. But they are very simple and easy to manipulate . They don't trust government insiders (and HRC really, REALLY was a government insider). And they wanted to try something else - anything else. They really believe this whole "drain the swamp" nonsense. And unfortunately they tend to believe Trump over "what they are seeing and what they are reading."

It is this third group that the Dems should really be trying to figure out how to reach out to. Unfortunately I do not see the Dems being successful in this at all. And lumping these simple folks with a-holes like Lying Gary doesn't help.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I don't know if it's been discussed on this thread, but Trump'sconstant tweets about 13 or 17 angry democrats, Mueller having conflicts of interest and the agent and his mistress being out to get him are, even if true, irrelevant. Even if they hate him as much as Trump says they do they are still limited by the evidence. Kenneth Starr clearly wanted Clinton's scalp, but he had to give up on Whitewater, Vince Foster and the rape allegation as there wasn't enough, or any, evidence. Miller's final report will be looked at by millions and if it is based on bulls*it he will be ripped to shreds.

Trump's constant tweets about bias insults one's intelligence.

My spell check thinks Truman was a better president.

PIO! wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

The point of strict voter ID regulations is to discourage moderate voters. Discouraging voters is part of a minority party strategy to remain in power.

This is something that I have never understood. To me it seems like having voters identify themselves is commonsensical. Without having to provide ID, what keeps someone from voting many times in many places or non-citizens from voting? Also, what is so onerous about showing a driver's license or state ID card?

I'm sure that there must be some "obvious" answer to these questions. So I am prepared to learn a bit here.

You are right. There are some obvious answers.

First, the thing that keeps people from voting illegally is the fact that it's a felony. It takes a special kind of moran to risk a felony conviction just to cast one vote. That's why in-person voter fraud is as rare as rocking horse poop.

But what is so onerous about showing an ID card? It's onerous if you don't have one. Lots of people don't drive and don't have an easy way to get to somewhere they can obtain the ID. Some older people don't even have birth certificates. Some younger ones have lost them. Some can't afford to gather the needed documentation, which in some states has become an onerous task for everyone.

If you are a US Citizen of voting age then you should be allowed to vote. Full stop. The ID does not prevent fraud. It only keeps legal citizens from voting. In other words, it harms our democracy.

Guy who says wrote:

I would bet every last dollar that having to forcibly remove Trump from office will not happen. If you want to talk about humiliation, there isn't much that is more humiliating than being removed in handcuffs (as opposed to flying off in Air Force One, Tricky Dick style).

Oh I think you are right about that part. We wouldn't actually see a perp walk. Once they are ready to forcibly remove him, they would let him walk out to the plane on his own. But he wouldn't be leaving of his own free will.

Fat hurts wrote:

Guy who says wrote:

I would bet every last dollar that having to forcibly remove Trump from office will not happen. If you want to talk about humiliation, there isn't much that is more humiliating than being removed in handcuffs (as opposed to flying off in Air Force One, Tricky Dick style).

Oh I think you are right about that part. We wouldn't actually see a perp walk. Once they are ready to forcibly remove him, they would let him walk out to the plane on his own. But he wouldn't be leaving of his own free will.

You guys should have learned on election night in 2016 that it's mentally unhealthy to believe Liberal propaganda.

PIO! wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

The point of strict voter ID regulations is to discourage moderate voters. Discouraging voters is part of a minority party strategy to remain in power.

This is something that I have never understood. To me it seems like having voters identify themselves is commonsensical. Without having to provide ID, what keeps someone from voting many times in many places or non-citizens from voting? Also, what is so onerous about showing a driver's license or state ID card?

I'm sure that there must be some "obvious" answer to these questions. So I am prepared to learn a bit here.

What keeps people from voting many times in many places (as differerent people) is that they need to know exactly who has or hasn't voted and beat all of them to the polls. And there is only so much time in the day to cast more than a handful of votes. It would take a massive conspiracy to coordinate enough people willing to do this to have any effect on an outcome. It's just not worth it.

And it's a crime. Certainly not worth deportation for a non-citizen to cast a single vote as someone else and know who is registered where and beat them to the polls.

So voter fraud through impersonation without an ID simply doesn't happen at any material level.

However, there is a much higher and possibly material amount of voters that do not have up to date ID's who would be denied their constitutional right to vote.

So the strict voter ID laws trade denying a number of people their rights in order to guard for an unlikely occurance.

Free lesson for you.