Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

hsHst wrote:

I say that I find it really interesting that so much attention has been devoted to figuring out the writer's identity, and so little effort has been made to dispute her/his assertions.

You might almost think that just about everybody essentially agrees with those assertions.

Exactly my thoughts.

Flagpole wrote:

Trump slams Hannity wrote:

From Trump at his unhinged Montana tirade on Thursday night: He complain that Fox News’ Sean Hannity was far too critical of him.

If that's true, that's amazing. I guess Hannity spit and didn't swallow.

Here is the actual quote:

"Do we love Sean Hannity, by the way?" Trump began on a positive note. "I love him. … But here's the only part. He puts up all these losers that say horrible things – I've got to talk to him– one after another. 'Donald Trump, he's lost it up here.' You know, it is pretty tough. I stand up here giving speeches for an hour and a half – many times without notes – and then they say, 'he's lost it.'"

L L wrote:

I love Bernie. And I think he would have beaten Trump because he had authentic charisma that Hillary did not have. It would have been a battle of extremes.

But although I like most of his policies, he’s too far ahead of where the average American is in progressive politics.

He would not accomplish anything as president. His policies would never get 60 senate votes to become law.

Bernie’s best role is as an activist.

I feel the same way about Elizabeth Warren.

I don’t think Kamala Harris would win.

Biden missed his chance last time.

Booker can talk a good talk and get crowds going, which is good for getting votes.

While his policies would be more moderate and stand a better chance of getting passed.

This is excellent analysis, and I agree 100%.

I actually like Bernie a lot also even though I don't agree with him on everything. I think Elizabeth Warren may be the smartest among them all and while I think she could be an effective president, I think she would be an even more terrific Vice President...an active and supportive one of the administration's agenda.

Booker/Warren would be an interesting ticket.

I am concerned though about the bias against women that we saw so clearly in 2016, but that election has seemed to empower women both as candidates and voters.

Yep.

Public Knowledge wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

This is a good bet as of today. Will have to see how his civil disobedience will be viewed going forward.

There was no civil disobedience. The only civil disobedience I saw was on the side of Republicans who want to keep personal views that support their agenda hidden from the American public.

What Booker released was something the American Public has a right to know. The personal views someone being considered for a SCOTUS seat need to be know. If they are anti-gay, pro-racism, anti-aboration, anti-sex before marriage, OR open-borders, citizenship for illegals, anti-gun ownership . . . the public should know. IF a nominee demands their personal views treated as classified information then they need to decline the nomination.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for what Booker did. He himself later in interviews called it civil disobedience. There can be argument about if it was really that, but I was just going with what he called it.

Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC predicts Dan Coats is the op-ed author.

I hope it is him because at age 75 he isn't likely angling for another job, so hopefully this is just his integrity coming out and nothing else if it is indeed him.

Trumpettes are NOT Americans!

L L wrote:

It’s my bet that Cory Booker is the Democrat nominee and gets elected president in 2020.

If anyone disagrees, say who you think will be the Democrat nominee that would have a better chance.

His politics are moderate but he can fire up the base of the left and minorities.

And he has real charisma compared to Hillary who never seemed genuine when she tried to get people fired up.

It will be Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run. Focus groups have shown that Warren has huge crossover appeal to working class Republicans. Once they get to know her, the only group who doesn't like Warren is wealthy Republicans.

And Warren has a very sharp tongue. She's great at taking down Trump.

Work at Home wrote:

You IDIOT.

YOUR BS: Don't forget that even Harvard research proved that a whopping 94% of Obama's jobs were part-time minimum wage, and the rest were fake government created jobs, designed to hide the weak market.

YOUR LINK STATES: A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.

Alternative work arrangements – defined as temporary help agency workers, on - call workers, contract company workers, and independent contractors or freelancer.

In other words: If you work for yourself, as I do, you are considered an "alternative" worker. Nevermind that I make over $200k per year, doing consulting work for major corporations.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Wrong. You lose. Try again.

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

Rigged is a Trumper. Trumpers only read headlines and tweets.

Flagpole wrote:

Trump slams Hannity wrote:

From Trump at his unhinged Montana tirade on Thursday night: He complain that Fox News’ Sean Hannity was far too critical of him.

If that's true, that's amazing. I guess Hannity spit and didn't swallow.

I guess Hannity didn’t swallow last time they met.

Good mourning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/12/trump-speaks-after-nato-summit-stable-genius-newday-vpx.cnn

Fat hurts wrote:

It will be Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run. Focus groups have shown that Warren has huge crossover appeal to working class Republicans. Once they get to know her, the only group who doesn't like Warren is wealthy Republicans.

And Warren has a very sharp tongue. She's great at taking down Trump.

Nope. In liberal MA she had to fight very hard to win her senate seat, it was a very close race up until the final weeks, and even then she won only 53-46. (good, but not dominant). If she had such a crossover appeal to "working class Republicans" why couldn't she dominate Brown in liberal MA ? (there are plenty of working class people in MA, by the way).

And I truly think America is tired of the cliched "MA liberal." Ted Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry...Warren?

And of course there is the Native American issue. She was slow to really give a solid answer on that. Trump will HAMMER her on that.

And there is Obama's paraphrasing of her words, in which he said (but attributing the thoughts to her) "-If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

And she'd be 72 when/if sworn in? Others are old too, but other than Biden, I think no one over 70 has a good chance (Trump, Bernie, etc).

I am not a big Warren fan ( I like most of her policy ideas, but not her personality, or leadership qualities). I certainly disagree with you that "It will be Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run."

Work at Home wrote:

You IDIOT.

YOUR BS: Don't forget that even Harvard research proved that a whopping 94% of Obama's jobs were part-time minimum wage, and the rest were fake government created jobs, designed to hide the weak market.

YOUR LINK STATES: A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.

Alternative work arrangements – defined as temporary help agency workers, on - call workers, contract company workers, and independent contractors or freelancer.

In other words: If you work for yourself, as I do, you are considered an "alternative" worker. Nevermind that I make over $200k per year, doing consulting work for major corporations.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Wrong. You lose. Try again.

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

Ah yes, you resort to name calling after I have posted facts that don't fit the liberal narrative. Congrats, in your situation, you have a full-time job with benefits. However, the majority of those Obama era jobs were part-time and/or temporary gigs.

Alternative, or "gig" work is defined as "temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract company workers, independent contractors or freelancers", and is generally unsteady, without a fixed paycheck and with virtually no benefits.

“Liberal” Massachusetts voted for a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy and had Mitt Romney as their governor.

Can Elizabeth Warren win Ohio, though?

That would be tough.

I agree with the age thing. 2016 was her best chance and she declined to run then.

I hate to be against, but I am not for the over 70 candidates for president with the energy that is needed.

Other issues aside, I am however amazed at Trump’s energy and pace to cause havoc every single day.

You are an IDIOT^2.

Your blind ignorance is stunning.

Trollminator wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If that's true, that's amazing. I guess Hannity spit and didn't swallow.

I guess Hannity didn’t swallow last time they met.

Yep...just the last time.

You all really underestimate the power of racism and misogyny in this country.

Neither Booker or Warren or Harris would be a good choice because of that.

The largest voting block in the country is old white people. Old white people are still racist and misogynist.

Don’t mention Obama. Obama was whiter than Bill Clinton, and he had the gift of gab even better than Bill.

An old white man will run and win. Because he will be running against another old white man the question of age doesn’t matter.

Grandpa Joe for 2020!

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

You all really underestimate the power of racism and misogyny in this country.

Neither Booker or Warren or Harris would be a good choice because of that.

The largest voting block in the country is old white people. Old white people are still racist and misogynist.

Don’t mention Obama. Obama was whiter than Bill Clinton, and he had the gift of gab even better than Bill.

An old white man will run and win. Because he will be running against another old white man the question of age doesn’t matter.

Grandpa Joe for 2020!

Alan

look, I agree with some of your sentiments.

However, you can't write off the Obama phenomenon with "he was whiter than Bill Clinton." Obama looks (which is most important) completely black. He is married to a black woman. He went to his "black church." His name is Barack **Hussein** Obama. His Dad was from Kenya, and he was born in HI (or Kenya. Did that ever get settled?). You can't get more "other" or "different" than that, and can't get much more black than that.

He might actually be 1/2 white, and raised by whites, but in people's eyes, he is black. He is foreign. He might secretly be a muslim (in some people's minds). (not long after 9/11).

But he got elected. Twice. It is still a truly incredible to think that it happened.

So.....yes, this is hard to comprehend in light of Trump's election and popularity. But, it happened. We did elect a black man with a muslim name, from "some island in the pacific"/Africa, who attended a controversial black church. Twice. Really.

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

It’s my bet that Cory Booker is the Democrat nominee and gets elected president in 2020.

If anyone disagrees, say who you think will be the Democrat nominee that would have a better chance.

His politics are moderate but he can fire up the base of the left and minorities.

And he has real charisma compared to Hillary who never seemed genuine when she tried to get people fired up.

It will be Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run. Focus groups have shown that Warren has huge crossover appeal to working class Republicans. Once they get to know her, the only group who doesn't like Warren is wealthy Republicans.

And Warren has a very sharp tongue. She's great at taking down Trump.

Trump's campaign message will change from "She's a crook-vote for me!" to "She thinks she is an Indian-vote for me!".

BTW, Sanders is way too old. He would be 79 were he to take office in 2021. I thought Reagen was about 10 years too old and Trump is a year older than Reagen was. If you compare the current Trump to interviews from years ago he has clearly lost coherency.