Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

First I don't think anyone here hates anyone else. I do hate agent orange though. Do you hate Dems? If we come off as self-righteous then argue away with something tangible, cause you're hanging on nothing backing your criminal pick. All you did in this post was call us out and try to rub in your "truth". I wholeheartedly agree both sides have not done much to address real issues, but if you're telling me trump has not done the most damage further polarizing and injecting hate in the population you are just plain nuts (and yes, you can call me self-righteous for making that statement).

The immediate risk and threat to our ability down the road to fix a broad range of issues is the one man sitting in the WH. We can't have a criminal leading the charge. If we can't at least look like a country that respects it's constitution and laws then we have no shot at progress. Lets address his criminality first and then talk about progress.

That's you problem. You see both sides of the coin. You need to be blindly partisan like the rest of us.

Party over country, brother.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Romney is a candidate the Dems would want lol... Tzees don't care about him or any other RINOs with half a brain.

If Romney is the nominee, many of the Trump supporters will stay home. Maybe enough to tip many of the down ballot elections to Dems.

Lets put i more bluntly, if Romney is the nominee it's a 100% sure win for Dems. The only shot they have is Trump and GOP sticking together throughout this impeachment and keeping the blinders on the base.

Racket wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Could you elaborate on the part in bold please?

Thanks.

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/red-economy-blue-economy/?mod=article_inline

Share of real GDP by congressional district in the US is 63.6% Democrat and 36.4% Republican. Since 2008, the share of real GDP per district has increased dramatically for Democratic districts (2008 : 35.7 billion; 2018 : 49.0 billion) and actually decreased for slightly Republican districts (2008 : 33.3 billion; 2018 : 32.6).

A decade ago, median household income was about the same for each party. Since then, it has jumped nearly 17% in Democratic districts while falling 3% in Republican ones.

You know how everyone likes to sh!t on those dirt poor Red states that eat up all the federal welfare budget and call all the people there racist or stupid?

Turns out they got mad about that and resented college educated Democrats who were able to get ahead.

y'all can go on thinking the d vs r thing is economic but this is them saying nah

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/red-economy-blue-economy/?mod=article_inline

Share of real GDP by congressional district in the US is 63.6% Democrat and 36.4% Republican. Since 2008, the share of real GDP per district has increased dramatically for Democratic districts (2008 : 35.7 billion; 2018 : 49.0 billion) and actually decreased for slightly Republican districts (2008 : 33.3 billion; 2018 : 32.6).

A decade ago, median household income was about the same for each party. Since then, it has jumped nearly 17% in Democratic districts while falling 3% in Republican ones.

You know how everyone likes to sh!t on those dirt poor Red states that eat up all the federal welfare budget and call all the people there racist or stupid?

Turns out they got mad about that and resented college educated Democrats who were able to get ahead.

y'all can go on thinking the d vs r thing is economic but this is them saying nah

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1189594711004069888?s=20

Nothing in your post refutes Racket's position.

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/red-economy-blue-economy/?mod=article_inline

Share of real GDP by congressional district in the US is 63.6% Democrat and 36.4% Republican. Since 2008, the share of real GDP per district has increased dramatically for Democratic districts (2008 : 35.7 billion; 2018 : 49.0 billion) and actually decreased for slightly Republican districts (2008 : 33.3 billion; 2018 : 32.6).

A decade ago, median household income was about the same for each party. Since then, it has jumped nearly 17% in Democratic districts while falling 3% in Republican ones.

You know how everyone likes to sh!t on those dirt poor Red states that eat up all the federal welfare budget and call all the people there racist or stupid?

Turns out they got mad about that and resented college educated Democrats who were able to get ahead.

y'all can go on thinking the d vs r thing is economic but this is them saying nah

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1189594711004069888?s=20

I said it was several factors. "Ciro" asked for more info as it pertained to wealth divisions between the two groups.

I didn't click on the link because Twitter is literally cancer so you'll have to post it here and convince me that this one guy speaks for all Republicans

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/red-economy-blue-economy/?mod=article_inline

Share of real GDP by congressional district in the US is 63.6% Democrat and 36.4% Republican. Since 2008, the share of real GDP per district has increased dramatically for Democratic districts (2008 : 35.7 billion; 2018 : 49.0 billion) and actually decreased for slightly Republican districts (2008 : 33.3 billion; 2018 : 32.6).

A decade ago, median household income was about the same for each party. Since then, it has jumped nearly 17% in Democratic districts while falling 3% in Republican ones.

You know how everyone likes to sh!t on those dirt poor Red states that eat up all the federal welfare budget and call all the people there racist or stupid?

Turns out they got mad about that and resented college educated Democrats who were able to get ahead.

y'all can go on thinking the d vs r thing is economic but this is them saying nah

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1189594711004069888?s=20

I don't get it. It's more like them saying "buy my hat."

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/red-economy-blue-economy/?mod=article_inline

Share of real GDP by congressional district in the US is 63.6% Democrat and 36.4% Republican. Since 2008, the share of real GDP per district has increased dramatically for Democratic districts (2008 : 35.7 billion; 2018 : 49.0 billion) and actually decreased for slightly Republican districts (2008 : 33.3 billion; 2018 : 32.6).

A decade ago, median household income was about the same for each party. Since then, it has jumped nearly 17% in Democratic districts while falling 3% in Republican ones.

You know how everyone likes to sh!t on those dirt poor Red states that eat up all the federal welfare budget and call all the people there racist or stupid?

Turns out they got mad about that and resented college educated Democrats who were able to get ahead.

y'all can go on thinking the d vs r thing is economic but this is them saying nah

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1189594711004069888?s=20

err...welp

Counter Attack wrote:

agip wrote:

y'all can go on thinking the d vs r thing is economic but this is them saying nah

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/1189594711004069888?s=20

err...welp

https://stoptrump.store/

Racket wrote:

I said it was several factors. "Ciro" asked for more info as it pertained to wealth divisions between the two groups.

I didn't click on the link because Twitter is literally cancer so you'll have to post it here and convince me that this one guy speaks for all Republicans

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

///

Just getting on your case. I appreciate your posts. Clearly one of the brighter and more balanced individuals on this thread. But still, I do not think it means what you think it means. :-)

P wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I said it was several factors. "Ciro" asked for more info as it pertained to wealth divisions between the two groups.

I didn't click on the link because Twitter is literally cancer so you'll have to post it here and convince me that this one guy speaks for all Republicans

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

///

Just getting on your case. I appreciate your posts. Clearly one of the brighter and more balanced individuals on this thread. But still, I do not think it means what you think it means. :-)

My main point: If the Dems continue to take the Warren and Bernie election route of proposing policies...and believe that will solve the divide between D and R, between urban and rural, etc....that will not work.

Because trump won on a wave of rage and resentment powered not by economics but by humiliation.

The Biden path is better. Don't lead on pc, revolutionary economics that is the fed gov't knocking on your door saying 'i'm here from washington and i'm here to help.' That will not work.

What will work is finding common ground culturally with suburban and rural america and convince them you are not looking down on them and trying to change them.

And for God's sake stop talking about transgender bathrooms.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Fortunately the Constitution created an Electoral College just so the majority could not control the states where their population had a different view.

Explain yourself.

It looks like the electoral college was initially created so that electors could choose the president they want regardless of what the people voted for.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Each state shall appoint its electors as it wishes.

No requirement for citizens to vote or how states choose their electors.

And initially states would divide up their electoral votes between and among candidates.

It wasn't winner take all for each state.

The use of the electoral college to determine the president has vastly evolved since the writing of the Constitution, so you cannot credit the Constitution's genius for the results we get today.

jesseriley wrote:

CNN has been live since just after 6am Eastern. Sally hadn’t even quit drinking yet after Astros loss! She didn’t have to lip-read in Ukrainian to see why Martinez got tossed! It’s YouTubed with helpful voiceovers!

Familiar stuff! The ‘Net was divided over whether the umpires were stupid, corrupt, blind, or lying! Nats won anyway...

That was a tough loss. But the opera ain't over til you-know-who sings. Though, I am pretty nervous with Greinke on the mound.

agip wrote:

My main point: If the Dems continue to take the Warren and Bernie election route of proposing policies...and believe that will solve the divide between D and R, between urban and rural, etc....that will not work.

Because trump won on a wave of rage and resentment powered not by economics but by humiliation.

The Biden path is better. Don't lead on pc, revolutionary economics that is the fed gov't knocking on your door saying 'i'm here from washington and i'm here to help.' That will not work.

What will work is finding common ground culturally with suburban and rural america and convince them you are not looking down on them and trying to change them.

And for God's sake stop talking about transgender bathrooms.

Yes, I agree. But the for the part that I bolded, those aren't mutually exclusive.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

My main point: If the Dems continue to take the Warren and Bernie election route of proposing policies...and believe that will solve the divide between D and R, between urban and rural, etc....that will not work.

Because trump won on a wave of rage and resentment powered not by economics but by humiliation.

The Biden path is better. Don't lead on pc, revolutionary economics that is the fed gov't knocking on your door saying 'i'm here from washington and i'm here to help.' That will not work.

What will work is finding common ground culturally with suburban and rural america and convince them you are not looking down on them and trying to change them.

And for God's sake stop talking about transgender bathrooms.

Yes, I agree. But the for the part that I bolded, those aren't mutually exclusive.

10-4

Trollminator wrote:

Racket wrote:

Anyone else feel like even if Trump gets impeached that he'll still have at least a mild chance of winning re-election in 2020?

Yes, and that's because he continues to fill the void of stupidity and hate in the GOP. He won't get even the 46% he achieved in 2016 though, so as long as there is a strong enough showing by Dems it should be game over for agent orange.

You guys and ladies (like we have any ladies here) have to remember that Trump, even if he was to be impeached, convicted and removed from office, CAN still run for re-election UNLESS the Senate disqualifies him from re-election, which has rarely happened.

X-Runner wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Fortunately the Constitution created an Electoral College just so the majority could not control the states where their population had a different view.

Explain yourself.

It looks like the electoral college was initially created so that electors could choose the president they want regardless of what the people voted for.

Allowing a minority to have control over a majority, as Ghost claims, is pure ignorance.

Menendez of course should be in prison now. What are the voters in New Jersey thinking? He belongs with Epstein rotting in hell. Two of the worst pedophiles ever.