Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

In 2016, the Electoral College worked precisely as intended. It prevented Hillary Clinton’s 6-million-vote victory in California and New York from cancelling her 3-million-vote loss in the 48 other states.

Sally VxXXX wrote:

In 2016, the Electoral College worked precisely as intended. It prevented Hillary Clinton’s 6-million-vote victory in California and New York from cancelling her 3-million-vote loss in the 48 other states.

INCORRECT! This is a no spin zone Sally. What happened in 2016 was ~75,000 voters in ~ 5 states (WI, MI, OH, PA, FL) OVERRODE the will of the majority of Americans who chose to vote for the Dem candidate. 3 million >>>> 75,000...the EC has outlived its purpose. With modern technology, modern modes of transportation, and the amount of $$$$ spent on presidential campaigns these days it is very easy for every candidate to reach every voter in every state.

We need to decide POTUS based on the popular vote.

If you want to be class historian you might want to brush up on your history.

US Constitution came into effect in 1789. In 1790 the number of free white adult males (aka voters) in the states were as follows (in 000's):

Virginia: 111

Pennsylvania: 111

Massachusetts: 95

New York: 84

North Carolina: 70

Connecticut: 60

. . .

Total: 807

Virginia was not quite the behemoth that you represent it as being.

The electoral college was put in place for a number of reasons. Among them, enticing small states to sign up as well as protecting slavery as an institution were just as important as having the ability for a council of "wise men" to mitigate the worst instincts of the masses.

///////////////////

As a side note, your conclusion makes no sense at all. "Yes, ensuring each vote in each state is equal is important. For that reason the EC mattered early in our history when Virginia had like 25% of our population." The fact that you cite is wildly off but, that aside, each vote in each state is equally important using a popular vote, NOT using the EC.

Sally VxXXX wrote:

Gordon Frank wrote:

Of course you will ban yourself and that stupid username when Trump loses. You won't be able to show your face here then. I'm gonna go with my heart and say, "No Deal!"

That was wise of you not to include Flagpole on your list. We all know that even if Trump won, he would not ban himself. He has welched on every losing bet he has ever made.

No other lib or never Trumper has the guts to risk a self banning. Hmmm......

KAG2020

She is only protecting hubby from justice.

https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/19/hillary-clinton-allegedly-covered-up-elite-pedophile-ring-while-serving-as-secretary-of-state/

Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for LIFE when he discovered his involvement with underage girls. Trump also VOLUNTARILY went to the police to help in anyway during Epstein's first arrest.

What did the dirty rotten Clinton's do? They still gladly accepted Epstein's money AFTER his arrest.

My fault, my numbers were wrong. My statement is still true. The EC has two purposes. To empower smaller states. To ensure some pied piper doesn't pull the wool over people's eyes.

If the EC actually worked as intended I don't think Bill Clinton or Trump would have been elected simply on character issues alone.

Alan

Sally VxXXX wrote:

That was wise of you not to include Flagpole on your list. We all know that even if Trump won, he would not ban himself. He has welched on every losing bet he has ever made.

Well, that's not true. I do not bet, so how could I "welch" on a bet?

As always when someone declares with such certainty something about me that isn't true, I challenge you to go find a time when I did what you say. You will NOT be able to.

kibitzer wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

I will ban myself, if Trump loses.

Duly noted, and I'm sure your word is good.

Of course, there's nothing to keep one from posting under another handle, as you (and I) sometimes do now; but the RFH moniker itself would be gone. Sounds good to me.

I myself can't take either side of that "wager" because I'm an independent.

I take it that you are NOT voting for Trump next year, right? If that is the case, then you can still participate in the "wager" and go with either the Dem nominee, Green Party or Independent candidate of your choice to beat Trump.

Are you willing to self ban if your candidate loses?

Gordon Frank wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Ok, I want to expand the Runningart challenge to all the libs and and Never Trumpers.

With a Trump win in 2020: Runningart, agip, Fat hurts, Racket, Trollminator, Monkeys typing, SDSU Aztec, jesseriley and Gordon Frank all agree to ban themselves from letsrun. Do I have any takers? I will ban myself, if Trump loses. If you are so certain of a Trump loss, then you should have nothing to fear.

Do we have a deal?

Of course you will ban yourself and that stupid username when Trump loses. You won't be able to show your face here then. I'm gonna go with my heart and say, "No Deal!"

What heart? You have no heart, no guts, no cojones to put it on the line.

My personal message for Mr. Trump*:

1. You come clean on why you met with the Russians in 2016.

You admit this to the world. You then resign.

2. (or more likely?) An impeachment process begins. You go to prison.

In the event numbers 1 and 2 do not occur, you do the following:

1. You tell Putin he is to remain in Russia for the remainder of his life.

2. All Russian forces leave Crimea immediately. You recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory.

The world begins to see reports of this today. The BBC and CNN report today that forces are leaving Crimea.

3. The Canadians are sent home today. On a plane. Out of China. Reported today on Canadian media.

Trump fans are hilarious with their but Hillary reaction

Putin will be held responsible for war crimes.

Flagpole wrote:

Sally VxXXX wrote:

That was wise of you not to include Flagpole on your list. We all know that even if Trump won, he would not ban himself. He has welched on every losing bet he has ever made.

Well, that's not true. I do not bet, so how could I "welch" on a bet?

As always when someone declares with such certainty something about me that isn't true, I challenge you to go find a time when I did what you say. You will NOT be able to.

Welch on a promise then. Trump has highest approval numbers ever. You Libs are wise not to accept self-banning offer. I am happy too because this thread would be boring without you guys to spice it up.

Flagpole - when did you stop saying "Mueller is coming and the clown is done?". You finally came to your senses and know Trump will finish out term?

On July 17th, which brave democrat will ask Mueller, why he cut a deal with child rapist and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein?

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/07/07/child-sex-trafficking-arrest-of-bill-clintons-friend-jeffrey-epstein-calls-up-bob-mueller-connection-772311

Sallllly vvvv wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, that's not true. I do not bet, so how could I "welch" on a bet?

As always when someone declares with such certainty something about me that isn't true, I challenge you to go find a time when I did what you say. You will NOT be able to.

Welch on a promise then. Trump has highest approval numbers ever. You Libs are wise not to accept self-banning offer. I am happy too because this thread would be boring without you guys to spice it up.

Flagpole - when did you stop saying "Mueller is coming and the clown is done?". You finally came to your senses and know Trump will finish out term?

When Trump completes his first term, we will have another Flagpolian Flop to Clownpole's growing collection,

Uh oh. There are no hammers or bleach-bit to save the Clintons, this time.

https://newspunch.com/billionaire-paedophile-jeffrey-epstein-created-clinton-foundation/