Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Make America Great Again wrote:

How do you know whether this "senior administration official" actually exists or not? It could be a fictional character created by the failing NYT. Or it could be one of the angry Democrats impersonator. You will never know as long as this author remains anonymous.

You are brainwashed if you think this. There is no doubt that several people at the Times were involved in this and for sure know who this person is.

The author will eventually become known, probably by his or her own decision. This person wanted to be on the right side of history when Trump's administration comes crashing down, so no way they will want to be anonymous forever. This person wants to either work again or be thought of favorably.

You know the NYT person is real by the way Trump and the staff have reacted to this news.

They’re going nuts.

If it was fabricated, Trump wouldn’t be grilling everyone to find out who it was.

L L wrote:

You know the NYT person is real by the way Trump and the staff have reacted to this news.

They’re going nuts.

If it was fabricated, Trump wouldn’t be grilling everyone to find out who it was.

I can't say I've read much on the op-ed piece including the op-ed piece itself but has anyone in the administration stated that it was fabricated? If not, that's the biggest clue that it's not fabricated.

Trump questioned if the person existed or it was a phony source.

But at the same time demanded that the NYT turn in their source.

L L wrote:

You know the NYT person is real by the way Trump and the staff have reacted to this news.

They’re going nuts.

If it was fabricated, Trump wouldn’t be grilling everyone to find out who it was.

There is absolutely zero chance that it was fabricated. You don't need to try to read the reactions of Trump and his staff to know this.

Do you really think the Times would print something like this without being 100% sure that it was legit? No chance.

I don’t think the Times would print a fake story with a phony source but Trump’s followers would.

If he says it’s fake, they think it’s fake.

But he’s flustered and knows it’s real and is searching for the culprit.

NYT Lies wrote:

NYT is for hillary loving fairies.

Nothing better than reading NYT reader comments - filled with butt hurt hillary lovers.

Agree! Their staff continue to rage against Christians.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

The entire NY Times piece was just a way to put the 25th Amendment on the table. They realize that Mueller has nothing, Stormy Daniels was a bust (pun intended), Omarosa, Fire and fury and Bernstein all have nothing. Their last hope is to just say that he is unfit for office.

Mueller never

Clownpole forever

You don't care that the President of the United States lacks the brain power to do his job effectively and has to be manipulated by his staff to keep him from causing disasters.

538 wrote:

XY wrote:

Trump RCP approval average is 41.1%

Ooooooof!

The 538 poll went up from 39.7% to 40% overnight. The reason it ticked up is the Rasmussen poll, which is now doing polls twice and week. The latest Rasmussen poll says:

48% approve of Trump

53% disapprove

The sum total is 101%. There are no undecided people in the Rasmussen poll. It currently gets a C+ rating. It should be getting an F for putting out such garbage results.

After sending out their results, it looks like Rasmussen "fixed" their results to 46% approve of Trump; 53% disapprove. . . . LOL . . . a simple (actually) major error when reporting, or an attempt to skew public opinion.

Yeah, I get annoyed at the frequency of YouGov and Rasmussen polls. Often they are half the recent sample on 538's compilation. Closer to election day we'll have more input from the better pollsters, like SurveyUSA and Ipsos and all of the news organizations like ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.

Yes, Fox. Their coordinated polls are very high caliber. All of the network news organizations join with other groups but the network is listed first in the title...like ABC News/Washington Post poll.

My favorite pollsters for statewide races is Mason-Dixon. I noticed Nate Silver has them listed as B+ pollster, not A. I disagree. When I lived in Las Vegas and bet on politics frequently by far my most treasured source was Mason-Dixon. Whenever one of their polls on a statewide race differed sharply from conventional wisdom, I learned to go with Mason-Dixon. Of course, that was mostly 10-25 years ago. Maybe they have dropped off and I haven't followed as closely.

The dynamic right now is that the polling doesn't always represent the state of the race. Posters on liberal sites hate me when I emphasize that, but it is valid. For example, Bredesen has been leading every poll in the senate race against Blackburn in Tennessee, yet Blackburn remains the betting favorite. And that is legitimate. This far away from election day the terrain and the ideology are more important than polling. Bredesen may have a 61/21 favorable versus unfavorable rating, but he is in a state where Trump enjoys a 58% approval rating. Bredesen leads the polling only narrowly despite his opponent Blackburn having a slightly unfavorable net statewide. That means many voters who approve of Bredesen and disapprove of Blackburn are still planning to vote for Blackburn. It sounds illogical but it happens all the time in senate races, which have taken on more and more of a stubborn ideological slant, almost like a mini presidential race.

It is going to be extremely difficult for Democrats to win races in those red states where Trump owns high approval rating. I always care exponentially more about long term indications, and not today. The logic for years has been that Republicans would pick up senate seats in 2018, due to the map and which party is defending more seats in troubled areas. I believe in the big picture perspective so I expect the GOP to net at least 1-2 seats.

Obviously I hope I am wrong.

The closer to election day the more the polling for individual races becomes relevant, but it never fully erases the impact of the terrain and fundamentals of the state. For example, I have won several bets on Alaska races even when the polling was completely the other way. Lisa Murkowski never led a single poll against Tony Knowles for Alaska senate over an entire year. Her average deficit was 4 points. Yet I wagered on Murkowski and it was an immediate rout in her favor. Not only is Alasla very conservative but I knew that Alaska polling tends to over sample Anchorage and therefore is invariably too favorable to the Democrat.

IMO, Alaska is the worst polled state in the country and Georgia is second. Georia polling also overstates the Democrat. The model is simply flawed although is is getting slightly better. For more than a decade New Jersey polling was among the worst in the nation, always overstating the Republican. But now that New Jersey has become more Democratic those races are seldom competitive and the state is not polled very often.

Flagpole wrote:

Make America Great Again wrote:

How do you know whether this "senior administration official" actually exists or not? It could be a fictional character created by the failing NYT. Or it could be one of the angry Democrats impersonator. You will never know as long as this author remains anonymous.

You are brainwashed if you think this. There is no doubt that several people at the Times were involved in this and for sure know who this person is.

The author will eventually become known, probably by his or her own decision. This person wanted to be on the right side of history when Trump's administration comes crashing down, so no way they will want to be anonymous forever. This person wants to either work again or be thought of favorably.

Rigged is totally brainwashed, he’s hanging on to conspiracies in Trump’s defense. Even Trump hasn’t claimed it’s fake news this time, instead he’s obsessed with the source. Do any trumpers still think we are dealing with a genius here??? Trump should fire everyone in his cabinet and hire Dennis Rodman to fill all roles - Trumpers would love it.

L L wrote:

. . .

Look at Kavanugh struggling under questioning about who he talked to about the Mueller investigation.

Looks like a liar if I've ever seen one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsm1GPnlqmU

What seems to be obvious to you is not obvious to me. Naturally Kavanugh will be guarded and basically answer only softball questions given to him as gifts by the Republicans. This has been true of every SCOTUS nominee for a long time.

On the specific question and non-answer that you refer to it seems to me like there are two possibilities:

1) He has consulted with the Trump team on the issue of the Mueller investigation and is being very disingenuous in avoiding answering the senator's question.

2) He does not believe that he has talked with a member of the law firm mentioned on this particular topic but is being guarded in his answer because it is difficult to be 100% certain without knowing who exactly works for this law firm.

Which of these is the case is not completely obvious to me.

PIO! wrote:

L L wrote:

You know the NYT person is real by the way Trump and the staff have reacted to this news.

They’re going nuts.

If it was fabricated, Trump wouldn’t be grilling everyone to find out who it was.

There is absolutely zero chance that it was fabricated. You don't need to try to read the reactions of Trump and his staff to know this.

Do you really think the Times would print something like this without being 100% sure that it was legit? No chance.

CORRECT!

Truth is Here wrote:

Kavanaugh refers to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs." This is an important reminder that it's not just abortion that the religious right cultists are after; it's access to birth control in general. The idea of people having enjoyable sex lives makes them extremely insecure.

Sure. You might think that anti-abortion folks would be hugely in favor of birth control, which of course reduces the number of abortions.

But they're not, because they are not pro-life but pro-BIRTH. They want those "dirty sluts" who have sex to face at least the possibility of being saddled with a new human being for eighteen years or more, as punishment.

Which is why they don't want programs to help those hapless women and their unwanted children: Helping those people would reduce the punishment aspect, and we can't have that!

That’s actually some very interesting shite right there.

But is the polling model flawed or is it that the model can’t adapt to political demographic changes?

Who is going to win the game tonight?

And BTW, your leaders’ rally today was so incredibly divisive, it really shows how sick he is. It’s just downright scary. I mean he has no ability to unite. It’s like if he tries to unite he loses all his power. He’s a classic narcissist. And people just eat his bs up, like a Simpsons episode. Pathetic

XY wrote:

And BTW, your leaders’ rally today was so incredibly divisive, it really shows how sick he is. It’s just downright scary. I mean he has no ability to unite. It’s like if he tries to unite he loses all his power. He’s a classic narcissist. And people just eat his bs up, like a Simpsons episode. Pathetic

To added to the madness: Sarah Sanders directed Trumpers to flood call the NY Times phones and demand that the bilgiest, treasonest, traiorest, and meanliest person in the history of all-time be exposed and turned over to Trump for . . . ? (maybe a public spanking).

Well, that backfired in spectacular fashion. The NY Times did get more calls than normal BUT the calls were in support of the much hated Op-Ed. Oops.

For those of you asking for the identity of the anonymous coward:

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) September 6, 2018

After @PressSec directed people to call the @nytimes and ask the opinion section to out the Op-Ed writer, many have called instead to voice their support for the Op-Ed and the NYT news coverage of the Trump administration. “Print the news, honey!” one told @Emily_Baum

— Amy Fiscus (@amyfiscus) September 6, 2018

She also emphasized during the debates that Donald Trump would be Putin's puppet

https://twitter.com/HillaryWarnedUs/status/1037686253322465290

L L wrote:

And Merrick Garland had the pre-approval of many Republicans until Obama appointed him.

Then they wouldn't call a vote.

Look at Kavanugh struggling under questioning about who he talked to about the Mueller investigation.

Ha, you are living in an alternative reality.

The chances of Garland getting 60 votes was zeeeeeerrrrrrrroooooo

Actually the chances of Garland getting 51 votes was nearly zeeeeeerrrrrrrroooooo

Kavanaugh is killing them and they know it, the psychopath from New Jersey has shot any chance of higher office.

I can't comprehend how dopey you are wrote:

L L wrote:

And Merrick Garland had the pre-approval of many Republicans until Obama appointed him.

Then they wouldn't call a vote.

Look at Kavanugh struggling under questioning about who he talked to about the Mueller investigation.

Ha, you are living in an alternative reality.

The chances of Garland getting 60 votes was zeeeeeerrrrrrrroooooo

Actually the chances of Garland getting 51 votes was nearly zeeeeeerrrrrrrroooooo

Kavanaugh is killing them and they know it, the psychopath from New Jersey has shot any chance of higher office.

Are you saying McConnell blocked him in order to prevent anyone's time being wasted?