Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Trollminator wrote:

Sally - let me try to dumb this down as much as possible. Consider the following scenarios:

A) I state on this thread that I am worth $100M. It's safe to say you won't believe me just by reading that. (there would be something wrong with you if you did btw)

B) I state on this thread that I am worth $100M. Then during a visit to Manhattan or in a news segment, you see me driving up 5th Ave in a Lambo. You might easily believe my statement then.

If you bother to do some research on his life, you will find that a similar technique as in B) has been used by him over and over. In fact, he is a walking advertisement of the supposed wealth he has. Now of course all I did in B) is spend a couple of thousand dollars to rent a Lambo over a weekend to show off and pretend to be rich. The difference is he has been doing this on a much bigger scale his whole life AND he got a head start with millions from daddy. He has his name posted on buildings, most of which are not owned by him. He can land somewhere in his trump branded helicopter and have paid security guards waiting his arrival to lead him to an expensive limo. He can pay people to show up to rallies and pump up the crowd. He has relatively cheap and effective weapons at his disposal to con to his heart's desire. All this has led to him making more money and thus in his mind validating his reckless and unethical strategies.

Now you might say well he's no different than other rich guys then but I don't question them. My response is 1) most people who have tremendous wealth do not feel the need to advertise it and 2) We have seen tangible evidence of what others are worth (e.g. Bill Gates' ownership stake in MS) and Mitt Romney's tax returns and audited financial records proving he has a couple hundred million), but has has done everything to keep his financial position hidden. You should be questioning why - that's a huge red flag.

So the question is how do you respond to scenario B)? I don't blame you for falling for it, most would, but if you've seen the trick enough times you would do well to be more cynical. He is a known chronic liar and con artist. I really don't understand why you would give him any benefit of the doubt. And to believe he means only to do well as the POTUS when he's legally above so many laws is kind of insane no?

Trollminator wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Sally - let me try to dumb this down as much as possible. Consider the following scenarios:

A) I state on this thread that I am worth $100M. It's safe to say you won't believe me just by reading that. (there would be something wrong with you if you did btw)

B) I state on this thread that I am worth $100M. Then during a visit to Manhattan or in a news segment, you see me driving up 5th Ave in a Lambo. You might easily believe my statement then.

If you bother to do some research on his life, you will find that a similar technique as in B) has been used by him over and over. In fact, he is a walking advertisement of the supposed wealth he has. Now of course all I did in B) is spend a couple of thousand dollars to rent a Lambo over a weekend to show off and pretend to be rich. The difference is he has been doing this on a much bigger scale his whole life AND he got a head start with millions from daddy. He has his name posted on buildings, most of which are not owned by him. He can land somewhere in his trump branded helicopter and have paid security guards waiting his arrival to lead him to an expensive limo. He can pay people to show up to rallies and pump up the crowd. He has relatively cheap and effective weapons at his disposal to con to his heart's desire. All this has led to him making more money and thus in his mind validating his reckless and unethical strategies.

Now you might say well he's no different than other rich guys then but I don't question them. My response is 1) most people who have tremendous wealth do not feel the need to advertise it and 2) We have seen tangible evidence of what others are worth (e.g. Bill Gates' ownership stake in MS) and Mitt Romney's tax returns and audited financial records proving he has a couple hundred million), but has has done everything to keep his financial position hidden. You should be questioning why - that's a huge red flag.

So the question is how do you respond to scenario B)? I don't blame you for falling for it, most would, but if you've seen the trick enough times you would do well to be more cynical. He is a known chronic liar and con artist. I really don't understand why you would give him any benefit of the doubt. And to believe he means only to do well as the POTUS when he's legally above so many laws is kind of insane no?

Sally, waiting for your thoughts on the above, but definitely more eager to get your opinion on the sharpie meltdown.

agip wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxins wrote:

Aztec - I am dumbfounded that he would attempt to pull something like that off. It is like someone in 2nd grade attempting to alter their school project at the last minute when they discovered they screwed up. I already said that Trump is a buffoon.

If you watch that fox news piece linked to above...someone drew on the map to demonstrate something to spanky - the map was then put in back of the room, facing away from the cameras while trump spoke. then trump asked for the map to be turned around to show the camera.

So to be fair someone else may have done the sharpie-ing.

But that makes little difference.

Fact is, trump gave dangerous fake news and the weather service had to correct him. Then trump went on a rampage that only proved he was very wrong and can't admit errors. While he should have been...you know...working or something.

agip wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxins wrote:

Aztec - I am dumbfounded that he would attempt to pull something like that off. It is like someone in 2nd grade attempting to alter their school project at the last minute when they discovered they screwed up. I already said that Trump is a buffoon.

If you watch that fox news piece linked to above...someone drew on the map to demonstrate something to spanky - the map was then put in back of the room, facing away from the cameras while trump spoke. then trump asked for the map to be turned around to show the camera.

So to be fair someone else may have done the sharpie-ing.

But that makes little difference.

Fact is, trump gave dangerous fake news and the weather service had to correct him. Then trump went on a rampage that only proved he was very wrong and can't admit errors. While he should have been...you know...working or something.

Fat hurts wrote:

I'm guessing that none of you watched the Climate Crisis Town Hall on CNN.

I've watched the replays for Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Here are my thoughts:

All three candidates were extremely well-versed on the issue and the town hall itself was very well done. The questioners tended to be well qualified and they asked good questions.

Biden has just gotten too old. I've always been a big fan, but I don't think he's a great candidate any more. While he clearly knows the issues, he is just not able to articulate his points as well as he used to. He still has a habit of cutting himself off. Plus, his proposed solutions for climate change were not detailed enough.

Bernie clearly knows what it will take to solve the problem. But for me, his approach is too socialist and his 10-year $16 Trillion plan will scare too many people. I'm thinking that the way he came up with that number was to throw everything he wants to spend money on and say it's part of his climate initiative. I think the reason he did that is the huge number makes it look like he's more serious about climate change than the rest of the primary field.

Warren showed me why she has been my favorite all along. My only hesitation about her was that I wasn't sure if she was truly committed to fixing climate change. Now I see she clearly is committed and she has the ability to sell her plan to a general election audience. Unlike Bernie, Warren's plans harness market forces to create rapid change.

For instance, Bernie wants the government to take over power generation and distribution. Warren was asked about that and she absolutely opposes that idea. Like I've been saying, there is a huge difference between Sanders and Warren. Most Americans agree with her "capitalism with guardrails" approach over Bernie's "European-style socialism".

Warren also emphasized research and development, which was exactly what I wanted to hear. We are really close to being ready for mass deployment of super-cheap renewable energy. But there are a few R&D projects that must be pushed over the goal line to make it really happen.

Elizabeth Warren is now officially my preferred candidate for president. Barring something drastic, I'll be supporting her all the way to the convention and to the White House.

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I'm guessing that none of you watched the Climate Crisis Town Hall on CNN.

I've watched the replays for Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Here are my thoughts:

All three candidates were extremely well-versed on the issue and the town hall itself was very well done. The questioners tended to be well qualified and they asked good questions.

Biden has just gotten too old. I've always been a big fan, but I don't think he's a great candidate any more. While he clearly knows the issues, he is just not able to articulate his points as well as he used to. He still has a habit of cutting himself off. Plus, his proposed solutions for climate change were not detailed enough.

Bernie clearly knows what it will take to solve the problem. But for me, his approach is too socialist and his 10-year $16 Trillion plan will scare too many people. I'm thinking that the way he came up with that number was to throw everything he wants to spend money on and say it's part of his climate initiative. I think the reason he did that is the huge number makes it look like he's more serious about climate change than the rest of the primary field.

Warren showed me why she has been my favorite all along. My only hesitation about her was that I wasn't sure if she was truly committed to fixing climate change. Now I see she clearly is committed and she has the ability to sell her plan to a general election audience. Unlike Bernie, Warren's plans harness market forces to create rapid change.

For instance, Bernie wants the government to take over power generation and distribution. Warren was asked about that and she absolutely opposes that idea. Like I've been saying, there is a huge difference between Sanders and Warren. Most Americans agree with her "capitalism with guardrails" approach over Bernie's "European-style socialism".

Warren also emphasized research and development, which was exactly what I wanted to hear. We are really close to being ready for mass deployment of super-cheap renewable energy. But there are a few R&D projects that must be pushed over the goal line to make it really happen.

Elizabeth Warren is now officially my preferred candidate for president. Barring something drastic, I'll be supporting her all the way to the convention and to the White House.

Look the substantive stuff is important but all that matters is who can beat trump. It has probably never been more important in US history to not re elect the sitting president.

Biden would do really well against Trump, especially in a live debate. He is likable and genuine and can be very crafty with words. I think he’s already been looking ahead to the general election. It’s more of a question of who will be his VP.

Warren would also do well in the debates and he would get himself in trouble with some sexist rant and offensiveness.

Remember, any functioning adult will do.

Sally Vixxxxxxxins wrote:

agip wrote:

If you watch that fox news piece linked to above...someone drew on the map to demonstrate something to spanky - the map was then put in back of the room, facing away from the cameras while trump spoke. then trump asked for the map to be turned around to show the camera.

So to be fair someone else may have done the sharpie-ing.

But that makes little difference.

Fact is, trump gave dangerous fake news and the weather service had to correct him. Then trump went on a rampage that only proved he was very wrong and can't admit errors. While he should have been...you know...working or something.

agip - you and I agree more on Trump than you realize. You think he is an idiot and a buffoon and everything else and I agree with you on that. Where you and I disagree is how his policies have been for the country (I think good and you think bad) and how the alternative (Hillary) would have affected the country (you think good and I think terribly bad).