Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

This actually happened wrote:

Quality posters only wrote:

Hardcore, rightwing, conspiracy website 4Chan somehow announced Epstein's death 38 minutes before the authorities released the information to all media. . . . . Smells like a Trump staffer got that news to a Trump favorite site a bit too far out in front. Oops.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/fdny-investigating-jeffrey-epstein-4chan-post

On a semi-related note- Did anyone else notice how the Lefty news outlets simply didn't cover the unsealed names story last Friday? The news came out around 2:00 that former Clinton admin official Bill Richardson, former Maine Senator George Mitchell, and a few others, including Prince Andrew were named in this first dump of unsealed names that one of the girls said she was forced to have sex with.

Fox and several right-leaning internet outlets covered it right away. Nothing from CNN. Then even outlets like Vanity Fair covered it around 4:30. Still nothing from CNN. Then even NBC/CBS posted the story around 7:00. CNN didn't mention it on their website until, get this- 4:57am the next morning... just prior to the news of Epstein's death coming out. And even then, the CNN article didn't mention Richardson and Mitchell's names until almost the end of the article.

MSNBC, of course, still hasn't mentioned it. You know what all their primetime shows were about last Friday? The "possible" illegal aliens working at Trump resorts. Unreal times we're living in.

Buyer of Businesses wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, that wouldn't be me. I have had all of my current clients for more than 10 years. For the one I am managing their 7-year Project (this is a Project as is used in the manufacturing world, not a 'project' as non-manufacturing people think of it), this is the second multi-year Project I have managed for them. The client I just shed was because the owner wanted to retire, and he sold his business. He gave me the contact name for the new owner, but I'm in client shedding mode these days, not client getting mode. Many more clients out there to get if I wanted to. Don't want to.

If the former owner thought you were valuable to his business, he would have introduced the new owner to you. And if the new owner found your services valuable, he/she would have retained or re-negotiated your contract to keep you on after the sale. Sounds like your existing consulting contract with the previous owner was not part of the negotiation and therefore voided by the sale.

You didn't shed this client, your former client and the new owner both shed YOU.

Buyer of Businesses wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, that wouldn't be me. I have had all of my current clients for more than 10 years. For the one I am managing their 7-year Project (this is a Project as is used in the manufacturing world, not a 'project' as non-manufacturing people think of it), this is the second multi-year Project I have managed for them. The client I just shed was because the owner wanted to retire, and he sold his business. He gave me the contact name for the new owner, but I'm in client shedding mode these days, not client getting mode. Many more clients out there to get if I wanted to. Don't want to.

If the former owner thought you were valuable to his business, he would have introduced the new owner to you. And if the new owner found your services valuable, he/she would have retained or re-negotiated your contract to keep you on after the sale. Sounds like your existing consulting contract with the previous owner was not part of the negotiation and therefore voided by the sale.

You didn't shed this client, your former client and the new owner both shed YOU.

Buyer of Businesses wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, that wouldn't be me. I have had all of my current clients for more than 10 years. For the one I am managing their 7-year Project (this is a Project as is used in the manufacturing world, not a 'project' as non-manufacturing people think of it), this is the second multi-year Project I have managed for them. The client I just shed was because the owner wanted to retire, and he sold his business. He gave me the contact name for the new owner, but I'm in client shedding mode these days, not client getting mode. Many more clients out there to get if I wanted to. Don't want to.

If the former owner thought you were valuable to his business, he would have introduced the new owner to you. And if the new owner found your services valuable, he/she would have retained or re-negotiated your contract to keep you on after the sale. Sounds like your existing consulting contract with the previous owner was not part of the negotiation and therefore voided by the sale.

You didn't shed this client, your former client and the new owner both shed YOU.

Flagpole wrote:

Hiring manager wrote:

Yeah. You’re definitely a contract worker.

Well, say that if you like...for some reason to try to minimize what I do, but that's not how my business is set up and not how companies pay me or treat my business. I provide business strategy consulting services to manufacturing companies. No different than what any large business strategy consulting service company would do except that I typically cost a little less (but make more individually than those in a bigger company) and I can and do provide extra services that those bigger ones typically don't do...like managing a Project (this is a manufacturing Project which is not what most of you think of when you think of a Project) like I cam currently doing for my biggest client.

I would tell you if I were a contract worker if that were so. Not sure why some of you think that's a bad stigma anyway. Anyone who makes their living as an independent contractor still works for themselves. Better than what most of you mooks do.

Calyope wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Yes, nice catch. Imagine if those names unsealed included Mitch McConnell or William Barr. You think CNN and MSNBC might have covered that?!! Instead, not a peep as to Richardson and Mitchell. The Liberal media is walking a fine line because they want to implicate Trump in the Epstein matter but they have to tread carefully because there are some very big, and I mean VERY big Democrat names entangled in this mess. Trump so far is very tangential, he never was on Epstein planes to this "island" but other Dems are noted passengers and their alleged crimes are much more real. MSNBC keeps showing pics of Trump and Epstein 30 years ago just mingling. That is all they have on Trump. But Bill Clinton, Mitchell and Richardson have much more at stake.

Here are two news stories easily found including both Richardson and Mitchell from what you would say are liberal media you ignorant racist f*ck.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeffrey-epstein-ordered-teen-girl-have-sex-powerful-men-accuser-n1040996https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/10/us/epstein-court-documents-allegations/index.html

Why would Trump be mentioned more often? Because he is the current President you racist ignorant sh|thead. You are so f*cking dumb.

HAMM wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, say that if you like...for some reason to try to minimize what I do, but that's not how my business is set up and not how companies pay me or treat my business. I provide business strategy consulting services to manufacturing companies. No different than what any large business strategy consulting service company would do except that I typically cost a little less (but make more individually than those in a bigger company) and I can and do provide extra services that those bigger ones typically don't do...like managing a Project (this is a manufacturing Project which is not what most of you think of when you think of a Project) like I cam currently doing for my biggest client.

I would tell you if I were a contract worker if that were so. Not sure why some of you think that's a bad stigma anyway. Anyone who makes their living as an independent contractor still works for themselves. Better than what most of you mooks do.

Congrats on making essentially the same as a 25 yo consultant at a big firm who is fresh out of b-school or someone with 2-3 years consulting experience.

I don’t think the ones who consider you a contract worker (which you are by your own admission) are minimizing what you do. But you are VERY defensive about it for some reason.

Fat hurts wrote:

Just sayin'... wrote:

Do you think his evangelical voters (EVs) will find that offensive or reprehensible? Those are BROWN babies (not "real" ones) being taken from their parents--an EV *loves* that, because "that's what they get."

I don't think it. I know it. Yes, they find it offensive and reprehensible. As long as they are confronted with it and believe it, they will react.

I have worshiped among evangelicals my whole life. In the true, historical sense of the word, I am an evangelical myself. (The definition of "evangelical" in the article is the modern, political one.)

Those of you who pretend to understand us need to pay more attention to who we are and how we really think. All you know is the caricature you have built up in your minds.

Evangelicals who are truly faithful already have misgivings about our president. You just have to get them thinking about his sins more than they think about the excuses for those sins. You can make a strong case that a lame-duck Trump can not be trusted. And if you frame it correctly, they will understand.

The whole argument can really be summed up in a familiar Bible verse: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)" A vote to reach a political end like stopping abortion is not worth the support of such an unGodly man.

Like I said before, you don't have to convince them all. You just have to raise doubts and many will fall away from Trumpism.

(As a side note, the WaPo article relies heavily on Ralph Reed. Reed has been thoroughly discredited in the Christian community. Just look what happened when he tried to run for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia. This is further proof that evangelicals do turn against their leaders when they can no longer be trusted.)

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I don't think it. I know it. Yes, they find it offensive and reprehensible. As long as they are confronted with it and believe it, they will react.

I have worshiped among evangelicals my whole life. In the true, historical sense of the word, I am an evangelical myself. (The definition of "evangelical" in the article is the modern, political one.)

Those of you who pretend to understand us need to pay more attention to who we are and how we really think. All you know is the caricature you have built up in your minds.

Evangelicals who are truly faithful already have misgivings about our president. You just have to get them thinking about his sins more than they think about the excuses for those sins. You can make a strong case that a lame-duck Trump can not be trusted. And if you frame it correctly, they will understand.

The whole argument can really be summed up in a familiar Bible verse: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)" A vote to reach a political end like stopping abortion is not worth the support of such an unGodly man.

Like I said before, you don't have to convince them all. You just have to raise doubts and many will fall away from Trumpism.

(As a side note, the WaPo article relies heavily on Ralph Reed. Reed has been thoroughly discredited in the Christian community. Just look what happened when he tried to run for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia. This is further proof that evangelicals do turn against their leaders when they can no longer be trusted.)

Fats, have you been following the Jesuits? They are categorically against Trump and not shy about it. Official documents, etc.

I can't pretend to know why that branch of Christianity (and precious few others) has/have decided to take on Trump but might be interesting to you to look into it.

Or just explain it to me if you know the reasons already.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

Fats, have you been following the Jesuits? They are categorically against Trump and not shy about it. Official documents, etc.

I can't pretend to know why that branch of Christianity (and precious few others) has/have decided to take on Trump but might be interesting to you to look into it.

Or just explain it to me if you know the reasons already.

I don't know a lot about the Jesuits but I seem to recall that they are a Catholic order that, historically, has been extremely concerned about the plight of the poor. So from that perspective it is not surprising that they would oppose the president.

Also, the current pope is the first one to come from the order of Jesuits. So Tiny's criticism of Pope Francis makes for natural opposition.

Also, you may find it interesting that Albert Mohler, president of Southern Theological Seminary has always opposed Tiny. And somehow he has kept his job as head of the premier Seminary for Southern Baptists.