Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Herewegoagain! wrote:

agip wrote:

Gary's argument seems to be that only Republicans can win by insult politics.

Is he right?

His arguments are pretty weak and are based on intentional delusion. He only wants to win and be right. He doesn't care about governing, human lives, or making things better.

I can't even have a rational discussion with him because he's too far gone. He can't see past the cons/lib divide. He's infantile in his observations and juvenile in his rebuttals.

he might be right on this. Trump is so good at insult politics that trying to beat him at it just makes you look lame. And dems wouldn't get excited about an amoral con man. Only repubs do that.

I'm with Gary on this one - Dems probably can't win a battle of insults and mockery - Dems are too good as people and Trump is too mean and nasty and talented an insult comic for that to work.

You nailed it gary. Repubs are nasty, awful people who respond to insults and threats of violence. Dems are better than that. good call.

DEEP STATE wrote:

foo wrote:

Liberals are draining the swamp that Trump filled:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html

It's about time he resigned...

Pruitt was a plant by the DEEP STATE liberals meant to embarrass Mr Trump. They failed! M. A. G. A!

Ah, yes. the omnipotent DEEP STATE that undermines Trump even when Republicans have control of all 3 branches of government as well as a majority of the state governors in the country.

DiscoGary wrote:

That aint a tenth of if. You should get out more.

Lol, how do you live, buddy? I'm a loud, opinionated American and still can't find someone to harass me. What do you do that you get all this heat brought on you? I'm VERY vocal about how I feel we should live. Still, no one has ever threatened to do harm to me.

What do they say? "If you run into an azzhole in the morning, you ran into an azzhole. If you run into azzholes all day, you're the azzhole."

Herewegoagain! wrote:

agip wrote:

Gary's argument seems to be that only Republicans can win by insult politics.

Is he right?

His arguments are pretty weak and are based on intentional delusion. He only wants to win and be right. He doesn't care about governing, human lives, or making things better.

I can't even have a rational discussion with him because he's too far gone. He can't see past the cons/lib divide. He's infantile in his observations and juvenile in his rebuttals.

Oh, so name calling is your way to have a "productive conversation". Sneering condescension passes for "intellect" on the Left but it doesn't win any debates.

just remember boys, many millions more Americans wanted HRC to be president than Spanky.

never forget that on days like this, when the swamp is deep and tedious and guys like Gary talk about the real america and whatnot.

agip wrote:

just remember boys, many millions more Americans wanted HRC to be president than Spanky.

never forget that on days like this, when the swamp is deep and tedious and guys like Gary talk about the real america and whatnot.

"but if you take away California..." in 3, 2, 1...

Herewegoagain! wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

That aint a tenth of if. You should get out more.

Lol, how do you live, buddy? I'm a loud, opinionated American and still can't find someone to harass me. What do you do that you get all this heat brought on you? I'm VERY vocal about how I feel we should live. Still, no one has ever threatened to do harm to me.

What do they say? "If you run into an azzhole in the morning, you ran into an azzhole. If you run into azzholes all day, you're the azzhole."

Well you think I'm an azzhole, and you just ran into me, what does that say about you? You must be an azzhole right? You made the rules.

No has ever threatened you? Put on a M.A.G.A. hat and walk around for a while.

Anyway, we just saw another light weight Leftist who tried to pretend they were better than me and above the political fray, only to descend to the lowest level of name calling immediately after having their bluff called. The most arrogant usually fall the fastest.

foo wrote:

agip wrote:

just remember boys, many millions more Americans wanted HRC to be president than Spanky.

never forget that on days like this, when the swamp is deep and tedious and guys like Gary talk about the real america and whatnot.

"but if you take away California..." in 3, 2, 1...

On the contrary. Don't take away CA. Make it so that Trump needs CA or at least part of it to win, and he would have campaigned there and gotten whatever votes he needed to win. How do I know this? Because that's exactly what he did in the states he needed. He just didn't need CA. Change the rules and Trump's campaign changes and the vote totals change.

Again. A simple concept that Liberals can't seem to grasp.

DiscoGary wrote:

actual facts wrote:

Maxine Waters cancelled two recent appearances after receiving death threats.

Boo hoo. I got death threats too, made directly to my face. I still showed up. Death threats are cheap and easy and for the most part completely meaningless ... and everyone in DC knows it. If you let them determine your course of action then you'll never leave your house. Actions count waaay more than words. So far, it's Libs who show up in person to shoot Republicans or beat people into submission.

Meh. Maxine Waters is a public political figure. Someone might want to make a statement by harming her. You need to check your ego at the door to compare yourself to her and her situation.

Holy Lord Almighty, brother, you don't acknowledge all of the murder and maiming that has been done in the name of conservatism in this country? From abortion clinic bombings and doctor killings to homosexual killings to killings of people because of their race, to conservative gun nuts Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. After 911, some racist conservative killed a Sikh in California because he was dark and had a turban and thought he must be a Muslim terrorist...so racist AND stupid. Do you claim all that for conservatives? Now, I don't blame conservatives as a whole for those crazy people, but you should not be blaming liberals either for the actions of a few crazy people. Get real here. You have long been off your rocker, but you can't even see it after this one.

Gary, why do you keep referring to people as Leftist when you have no idea their political affiliation? You're sad.

Sounds like you live in a shitty neighborhood.

DiscoGary wrote:

Herewegoagain! wrote:

His arguments are pretty weak and are based on intentional delusion. He only wants to win and be right. He doesn't care about governing, human lives, or making things better.

I can't even have a rational discussion with him because he's too far gone. He can't see past the cons/lib divide. He's infantile in his observations and juvenile in his rebuttals.

Oh, so name calling is your way to have a "productive conversation". Sneering condescension passes for "intellect" on the Left but it doesn't win any debates.

Again, Gary, all who disagree with you are not "Leftists" or "the Left" Quit labeling everyone as your boogeyman!

DiscoGary wrote:

No has ever threatened you? Put on a M.A.G.A. hat and walk around for a while.

Anyway, we just saw another light weight Leftist who tried to pretend they were better than me and above the political fray, only to descend to the lowest level of name calling immediately after having their bluff called. The most arrogant usually fall the fastest.

Now, why would I wear a M.A.G.A. hat in 2018? Why? Wearing a bright red M.A.G.A. hat is simply virtue signalling on the right. It screams that you want the attention.

You'd have to be completely obtuse to know that.

Herewegoagain! wrote:

You'd have to be completely obtuse to not know that.

Naw. It's pretty good. I have no problem with stupid 20-somethings having fun as long as they don't harm anyone or anything. I can coexist with Trump bros. I can't expect everyone close to me to be as smart as me, as good looking as me, as enlightened as me, so I accept them as they are.

agip wrote:

just remember boys, many millions more Americans wanted HRC to be president than Spanky.

never forget that on days like this, when the swamp is deep and tedious and guys like Gary talk about the real america and whatnot.

Simplistic thought process.

That’s not how campaign strategies are developed. Trump was not going to win California so he didn’t campaign much there. It was a better strategy to concentrate on swing states instead.

If he had campaigned hard in CA, he likely would have closed the popular vote gap significantly. Also, If he had done that, he would likely have lost the general election.

A smart strategy won him the election.

For students of political science this post is a great example of what I call "historical guilt" that the Left uses when it becomes clear that their side has done something really bad and it can't be spun or hidden. Here's how it works:

Historical Guilt:

1. Something horrible is done in the name of Liberalism.

2. It can't be ignored.

3. It can't be spun into "nothing to see here".

4. Go back in time as far as necessary to find a crime committed by a conservative that is as bad or worse than the current scandal.

5. Declare conservatives to be hypocrites for trying to stand up to whatever crime was committed by the Lib.

The most egregious example of this was just after Muslims had cut off the heads of 20 Christians in the Middle East as part of an ongoing Christian genocide. Obama could not ignore this, and he couldn't spin it as a good thing so went back in time to find a crime committed by Christians against Muslims that would be comparable ... and he had to go back all the way to the Crusades! So Christians living today carry the "historical guilt" of the Crusades and if they get their heads cut off by Muslims, well they had it coming. This is what Flagpole just did. It happens all the time. Take note next time. It's an intellectual surrender.

DiscoGary wrote:

foo wrote:

"but if you take away California..." in 3, 2, 1...

On the contrary. Don't take away CA. Make it so that Trump needs CA or at least part of it to win, and he would have campaigned there and gotten whatever votes he needed to win. How do I know this? Because that's exactly what he did in the states he needed. He just didn't need CA. Change the rules and Trump's campaign changes and the vote totals change.

Again. A simple concept that Liberals can't seem to grasp.

If CA was in play, both candidates would have aggressively campaigned here and the turnout would have been huge in a highly Democratic state. HRC would have won the popular vote by even a greater margin.

Herewegoagain! wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Well you think I'm an azzhole, and you just ran into me, what does that say about you? You must be an azzhole right? You made the rules.

No has ever threatened you? Put on a M.A.G.A. hat and walk around for a while.

Anyway, we just saw another light weight Leftist who tried to pretend they were better than me and above the political fray, only to descend to the lowest level of name calling immediately after having their bluff called. The most arrogant usually fall the fastest.

Gary, why do you keep referring to people as Leftist when you have no idea their political affiliation? You're sad.

Riiiiight! Because you're in the middle and you're going to show me how to have a productive discussion, which appears to consist of nothing but name calling. I'm not sad, but I am disappointed that you didn't even try.