Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Doesn't fly wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

So your argument is that California doesn't count?

Are you nine years old or something?

It is impossible for 3 million illegals to have voted, all for Clinton, in 2016. Trump won about one-half of the districts in CA. There would have to be zero illegal votes in those districts, many which are homes for many seasonal illegals who work on farms owned by republican voters.

Trumper have to cram all the 3 million illegal votes into the big cities. Taking away 3 million votes would turn many of those big blue cities voting districts, for a very long time voting heavily democratic, into Trump country. That does not fly.

The only people who actually believe Trump on the 3m votes are 80+ year olds living only close enough to civilization for their radio antennas to catch some doomsday conservative radio

He is not known for telling any truths

Trollminator wrote:

Doesn't fly wrote:

It is impossible for 3 million illegals to have voted, all for Clinton, in 2016. Trump won about one-half of the districts in CA. There would have to be zero illegal votes in those districts, many which are homes for many seasonal illegals who work on farms owned by republican voters.

Trumper have to cram all the 3 million illegal votes into the big cities. Taking away 3 million votes would turn many of those big blue cities voting districts, for a very long time voting heavily democratic, into Trump country. That does not fly.

The only people who actually believe Trump on the 3m votes are 80+ year olds living only close enough to civilization for their radio antennas to catch some doomsday conservative radio

He is not known for telling any truths

Those radio antennas are rabbits ears made out of metal coat hangers.

And Texas is the only reason Trump won the electoral vote.

With voter suppression.

Texas has a much greater chance of being won by a Democrat than California has of being won by a Republican.

Republicans can never count on Florida.

The future is Florida and Texas being reliably Democrat.

Look at the current Trump state senate races:

Dems are favored to win FL, PA, MI, WI, IN, MT, MO, OH, AZ

They could win ND, TN, TX

In states won by Hillary, the only shot of a Republican winning is in NV.

non flagpolian wrote:

California and her 4.2 million more votes is the only reason she won the popular vote...

California, one lousy liberal state does not give her the popular vote victory...

Um...actually it does and did. It did exactly that. The Orange One was elected President of the United States by a minority of the people who voted, and to be crystal clear, by fewer people than voted for Hillary Clinton.

Question for all:

Assuming you support a “side”, be it GOP or DEM....

1. Should your side “win” by whatever means necessary? “Winning” being equated with winning more House or Senate seats.

2. Do you care if fear mongering or racist tactics are used?

3. Do you care if flat out lies are used?

Immigration Policy:

1. What is your position?

2. What good does sending military troops to the border do? Why send them now when the caravan is months away?

Alan

The president does not get elected by the majority of voters. Your statement means nothing. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. In 1996 get got reelected with 49% of the popular vote. The Democratic party uses superdelegates in order to ***suppress*** the popular vote in the democratic primaries. Please stop bringing plastic forks to the table.

Flagpole wrote:

non flagpolian wrote:

California and her 4.2 million more votes is the only reason she won the popular vote...

California, one lousy liberal state does not give her the popular vote victory...

Um...actually it does and did. It did exactly that. The Orange One was elected President of the United States by a minority of the people who voted, and to be crystal clear, by fewer people than voted for Hillary Clinton.

_its_baddude wrote:

The president does not get elected by the majority of voters. Your statement means nothing. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. In 1996 get got reelected with 49% of the popular vote.

The Democratic party uses superdelegates in order to ***suppress*** the popular vote in the democratic primaries.

Please stop bringing plastic forks to the table.

For once, I agree with you. The electoral college is antiquated and it suppresses the popular vote.

And yes, the super-delegate concept is just as bad.

Tiny's rise to power is a shining example of why the electoral college should be abolished. Now we are stuck with a fascist in the White House. This never would have happened if everyone's vote counted the same.

We must END the electoral college.

Fat hurts wrote:

_its_baddude wrote:

The president does not get elected by the majority of voters. Your statement means nothing. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. In 1996 get got reelected with 49% of the popular vote.

The Democratic party uses superdelegates in order to ***suppress*** the popular vote in the democratic primaries.

Please stop bringing plastic forks to the table.

For once, I agree with you. The electoral college is antiquated and it suppresses the popular vote.

And yes, the super-delegate concept is just as bad.

Tiny's rise to power is a shining example of why the electoral college should be abolished. Now we are stuck with a fascist in the White House. This never would have happened if everyone's vote counted the same.

We must END the electoral college.

Anyone that supports ending the electoral college is acting out of pure emotion and/or simply a fool. Your choice, but be honest about it.

Just like the several all-Liberal led states that want to usurp the electoral college by giving their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Fools. Unbelievably short-sighted.

One of many examples of how idiotic this decision is-

What if politics begins to get more regional in nature? What if in a future election, it becomes clear that your smaller state on the East Coast would be harmed by the policies of a very popular West Coast candidate? And the bulk of your state's residents (lets say 70%), rightly vote for the other candidate, that they feel better supports their state's interest. Would you be willing to look them in the eye and say "Sorry, because the folks on the West Coast support the other guy, we're going to essentially give all of your votes to the guy that we all know would result in negative consequences for our state."

This is not hard to understand. From USElectionAtlas.org:

"...Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones."

the problem is that two very recent presidential elections have gone against the will of the people and they have each turned out to be catastrophic presidencies.

If Republicans were responsible people and nominated normal people, then ok sure whatever. But they put forward disasters Bush2 and Trump.

I'd suggest the GOP revamp its primary system, if it loves the country. Clearly when the core of the GOP votes, they vote for completely wrong presidential candidates.

..and to complete the thought...the GOP nominates disasters, the nation votes against them, but the electoral college puts the losers into office. It's a perversion of democracy. Democracy worked, but human design failed, twice.

Getting rid of the electoral college would let democracy do its magic and would prevent the trumps and bush2s.

See- it's actually *not* a problem. Just because YOU believe it sucked, doesn't mean it's an actual problem.

Maybe look at the candidates that the Dems put up that couldn't win the EC, and narrowly won the popular vote, and ask "Why in the hell are they only getting half the vote when we think they're so great?"

Just because your side is unhappy doesn't mean there's a problem with the system. If there was such a disaster, then the subsequent presidency should swing wildly the other way to correct it (Obama's election, in your eyes). Then after that flops as well, it swings back again (Trump wins, flipping over 300 counties that voted for Obama at least once).

This is the system WORKING. You guys just have to deal with it, and stop being manipulated by the FOR PROFIT 24 hour a day media industry.

the system that elected terrible presidents Bush2 and Trump, going against the will of people while doing so, is not working.

Not sure how old you are, but many are forgetting how awful Bush2 was. He took us from peace and surplus to 9/11, two unending wars and the worse financial crisis in 70 years. He left in shame, people thinking the GOP would be dead for a generation.

Bush2 caused virtually every major geopolitical problem we are facing now. Iraq started the arab spring, which set off refugee crisis, which has sparked the populism in Europe.

And Trump is even less popular than Bush2 at this point.

I would say that the real problem is the GOP primaries. The hardcore deplorables vote in that, and not the normal GOPers. If the good Republicans would vote in guys like Kasich or Rubio then there wouldn't be a problem.

We think it's very telling that you lost and can't accept that California and 4.2 million votes is the only thing that got her the popular vote. Poor little trollminator, what a small tiny person you are, in brain and body.

Upset Liberals (smile at them) wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I think it’s very telling that some trumpers feel the need to defend his narrow victory across a number of states.

We think it's very telling that you lost and can't accept that California and 4.2 million votes is the only thing that got her the popular vote. Poor little trollminator, what a small tiny person you are, in brain and body.

yeah, and if it wasn't for Usain Bolt's feet, Richard Thompson would have won gold in Beijing.

agip wrote:

Upset Liberals (smile at them) wrote:

We think it's very telling that you lost and can't accept that California and 4.2 million votes is the only thing that got her the popular vote. Poor little trollminator, what a small tiny person you are, in brain and body.

yeah, and if it wasn't for Usain Bolt's feet, Richard Thompson would have won gold in Beijing.

Very stupid post agip. That's as a dumb as it gets. Obama won many states by slim margins, look it up.

Your post is like comparing apples to dirt. You must be the guy people avoid at parties. No wife and kids, eh? Sad little life you lead.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Question for all:

Assuming you support a “side”, be it GOP or DEM....

1. Should your side “win” by whatever means necessary? “Winning” being equated with winning more House or Senate seats.

2. Do you care if fear mongering or racist tactics are used?

3. Do you care if flat out lies are used?

Immigration Policy:

1. What is your position?

2. What good does sending military troops to the border do? Why send them now when the caravan is months away?

Alan

1) No, my "side" should not win by any means necessary. My current primary "side" is anti-Trump. He is amoral and should not be the leader of our country.

2) Fear mongering and racist tactics should not be used.

3) Lies should not be used, (really, all of these questions could just have been handled with question #1.

Immigration policy

1) Our country should continue to allow legal entry to this country through a legal and established process. Those in the caravan, if they decide to reach our border, will be seeking asylum. That is legal entry. The more people we have in our country, the more goods and services are sold, and more tax revenue is collected. Also, brand new immigrants typically will work jobs that Americans do not want to work, but we want someone to do. They aren't coming in here and taking good-paying skilled jobs from Americans. BUT, besides it being a benefit to us to have immigrants come here, if they are truly running away from threats to their safety, it is part of who we are and should continue to be as Americans to take them in.

2) It does no good at all to send in the military for any reason, but especially at this juncture. The only reason for Trump to do this is to rile up his base in hopes that they will go vote for Republicans next week. Trump has said he is concerned that terrorists from the middle east could be part of the caravan. Well, we don't have a border wall with Canada. Why can't they come in from there? Many Muslims (see Boston Marathon bombers) are white, so couldn't they easily enter Canada and sneak in over an unsecured border there? His crap is just all about brown people...racist pure and simple and fear mongering to get people to vote for Republicans. Unfortunately he HAS made at least two crazy people afraid to the point they sent bombs and killed 11 Jewish people.

agip wrote:

more likely wrote:

In order: more likely is 51R-49D.; next 50R-50D; then 52R-48D. And last 51D-49R.

if we think 2018 feels like a horrorshow campaign, just wait til 2020, when the repubs are facing losing the senate and the WH. Two years after losing the House.

They will be working 24/7 to terrify every white baby boomer. I mean they're going to start at 11 and take it to 15.

I'm seriously not looking forward to the right wing terror machine going to work. Going to be ugly. Shrill. Violent.

Hmmmm. I wonder if the Dems will do the same???

The system is rigged against big cities and those who live in them. A vote in Pukwana, South Dakota is far more valuable than a vote in New York City or Los Angeles.

This bad for Dems because their base is more urban. It's also bad for Dems vis-a-vis the Senate's roll in Supreme Court because Wyoming's 700,000 people have an equal say to California's 40+ million people, which means it really isn't equal at all. The country is center-left on many issues, at least socially, but we keep getting right wing nutbags that are popular in less populated red states..

I'm hopeful the Dems win a bunch of govenorships this time around, and that redistricting after the 2020 elections might come out a wee bit more fairly than some of the current Republican gerrymandered districts.

agip wrote:

..and to complete the thought...the GOP nominates disasters, the nation votes against them, but the electoral college puts the losers into office. It's a perversion of democracy. Democracy worked, but human design failed, twice.

Getting rid of the electoral college would let democracy do its magic and would prevent the trumps and bush2s.

In other words, my candidate lost and now I want to change the rules.

Your diatribe neglected to mention that the electoral college also gave us Obama. Just as bad, if not worse, POTUS as Trump and GWB.