Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Ciro wrote:

No offense but you’re not paying attention. The election will be decided in six battleground states, most of which are predominantly white working class rust belt.

A poll today shows Warren wining only one of those six states against Trump. The same poll shows Biden winning four of those six states against Trump.

Biden is by far the most likely to beat Trump in a head to head, in fact he’s likely the only candidate with a legitimate chance.

No offense but you are referencing a poll from this week about what will happen a year from now.

There will be several polls between now and then with changing results.

All of the candidates have a legitimate chance of beating Trump.

As the primaries progress, opinions will be swayed and name recognition will be gained.

Here is a Gallup review October 2007 about the 2008 election.

It's mostly a review of how Hillary is likely to win the whole thing and Obama doesn't really have a chance.

"Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year."

Anyone remember what happened after that?

Did something unusual or unexpected happen, or did Obama simply gain momentum over time?

According to RCP, Warren:

1) Is up 15 points up on Trump nationally.

2) Is leading Trump in Michigan.

3) Is leading Trump in Pennsylvania.

4) Is a tossup with Trump in North Carolina.

5) Is a tossup with Trump in Florida.

6) Is leading Trump in Ohio.

7) Is leading Trump in Wisconsin.

8) Is leading Trump in Minnesota.

9) Is behind Trump by 0.7% in Arizona.

10) Is leading Trump in Maine.

Biden is still up more in most of those states than Warren is, but Warren is in a good spot right now.

Ciro wrote:

agip wrote:

well ok...you'd have to buy into this whole thing as being 'bribery'

but it isn't what you generally think of when you think of bribery. This is more like hardball diplomacy. You'd have to prove that trump really knew bidens were innocent, that ukraine had nothing to do with 2016. I seriously doubt trump thought either of those things.

But sure, ok, some legal scholars might see 'bribery' here. seems weak to me tho.

I can’t tell if you’re serious or trolling right now.

Either way, I expect the legal scholars know more than you or I.

Well, I see clear bribery here, and while I will ALWAYS go with what those legal experts involved in the case decide, there are a lot of legal experts who have already said this is clear bribery. I'll side with them for now.

agip wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Here you go.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean

well ok...you'd have to buy into this whole thing as being 'bribery'

but it isn't what you generally think of when you think of bribery. This is more like hardball diplomacy. You'd have to prove that trump really knew bidens were innocent, that ukraine had nothing to do with 2016. I seriously doubt trump thought either of those things.

But sure, ok, some legal scholars might see 'bribery' here. seems weak to me tho.

I don't know where you get your info, but bribery doesn't depend on what Trump really thought of the Bidens' innocence or that Ukraine had nothing to do with 2016 election.

Definition of Bribery: "Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. ... Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged."

You've got this one wrong agip.

Another line from that 2007 article:

"Clinton’s lead over Obama has expanded to nearly 30 points in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Oct. 12-14: 50% vs. 21%."

Yikes. Hillary really blew that lead.

Does everyone really want to keep touting today's poll numbers?

I think the key is the battleground states and their demographics. I think (a gut feeling) that Biden will come out stronger in those states than Warren or Sanders.

X-Runner wrote:

Another line from that 2007 article:

"Clinton’s lead over Obama has expanded to nearly 30 points in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Oct. 12-14: 50% vs. 21%."

Yikes. Hillary really blew that lead.

Does everyone really want to keep touting today's poll numbers?

You keep referencing national polls. I am talking specifically about key battleground states, that is where the election will be won and lost.

I haven’t seen any polls that show any Democratic candidate stronger than Biden in those battleground states. Maybe those polls exist but I haven’t seen them.

For all that polls are flawed they are the best indicator we have and at this time Biden looks stronger than Warren in the battleground states.

Thanks, Flag, some of these guys are trump fanboys or they can’t read the news or the Constitution.

Pookie Washington wrote:

Sondland, Trump's appointee, changes testimony to say there was clear quid pro quo

http://va.topbuzz.com/s/hNbSvr

Ghost will simply ignore it, it doesn’t fit his fixed narrative.

Ciro wrote:

X-Runner wrote:

Another line from that 2007 article:

"Clinton’s lead over Obama has expanded to nearly 30 points in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Oct. 12-14: 50% vs. 21%."

Yikes. Hillary really blew that lead.

Does everyone really want to keep touting today's poll numbers?

You keep referencing national polls. I am talking specifically about key battleground states, that is where the election will be won and lost.

I haven’t seen any polls that show any Democratic candidate stronger than Biden in those battleground states. Maybe those polls exist but I haven’t seen them.

For all that polls are flawed they are the best indicator we have and at this time Biden looks stronger than Warren in the battleground states.

I will also add that the demographics of those states are pretty much fixed and it’s a demographic that seems to be more receptive to Biden then Warren or Sanders. I wouldn’t ignore that.

jesseriley wrote:

Thanks, Flag, some of these guys are trump fanboys or they can’t read the news or the Constitution.

Wait, aren't you and I the same poster? Better be careful there, brother...I mean me! :)

For those who don't get sarcasm, obviously you and I are different people.

Ciro wrote:

comedyrelief wrote:

For what it's worth, Obama solicited help from Russia for his re-election campaign a number of years ago, so he is far from the only president to seek assistance from a foreign power in getting elected / re-elected. Here is his quid pro quo moment:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/26/obama-medvedev-space-nuclear

Notice how he dangled a missile treaty in front of the Russians in exchange for help from Putin in his reelection campaign?

Good love you.

It's clear Obama was speaking in code, which is the basis of Trump's impeachment hearings.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/001-toon-bengarrison-biden-hunter-ukraine-e1572932095888.jpg?itok=o7ebYeHm

So, I read this thread for the entertainment value only. So much nonsense is posted. There are obvious trolls here and I think some of them are the same person playing both sides (Sally & Flag perhaps)... I say this because they annoyingly post the same BS over and over while acting like it's new material or something.

You on the other hand are hard to figure out. And it is quite possible you are a troll (paid by this site) to get folks to react. But, assuming for a moment that you aren't, I find your posts the most annoying because you claim to be level headed and fair. You say you are not a fan of trump. You say you just don't like how the Dems are just making things up about him because they hate him... that none of what they post is true and most of it is just false narrative to get a reaction. You say you don't like that and yet you, continually, and without fail, do the exact same thing on the other side of the fence. You continually post junk like the above cartoon just to get a reaction and/or to annoy people. You are doing exactly the same thing you say you hate that the Dems do.... If you are truly against people doing that and you aren't a paid poster here why don't you stop posting that crap? The only explanation I can come up with is that you are either paid or you actually like Trump.

Ciro wrote:

I think the key is the battleground states and their demographics. I think (a gut feeling) that Biden will come out stronger in those states than Warren or Sanders.

But that's unprovable.

You can say Biden polls better than them now or maybe in 4 months.

But you can't say for sure who would do better a year from now.

There are a lot of Trump states up for grabs.

PA

MI

WI

AZ

NC

IA

OH

FL

GA

TX

MT

The Dem only needs to turn 2 or 3.

I'm not laying out any gut feeling here, I'm saying we don't know what will happen but there's a good enough chance that today's trends and polls will change.

but...every day we tell other nations/orgs to do this or that if they want US aid or expertise.

Are we bribing NATO when we demand they increase their defense spending at the risk of our dropping out of NATO?

thought experiment:

Say if trump were right that 1) ukraine corrupted our elections, and 2) Biden forced the firing of a prosecutor to save hunter biden. What if all that were true. Then trump went to the ukrainians and asked them to sort out that corruption. Is that bribery?

Pookie Washington wrote:

Sondland, Trump's appointee, changes testimony to say there was clear quid pro quo

http://va.topbuzz.com/s/hNbSvr

???I think he saw the writing on the wall. His a$$ was going to be charged with perjury. Well what I meant to say was................ What a joke. Now watch these unbelievably dishonest, corrupt RepubliKKKKans move the goalpost.

The Democrats are not winning Texas.

There are six states up for grabs, Bidens numbers in this is superior than Warrens. You are right it could change in a year but I don’t expect it will change all that much. The more left leaning policies of Warren will still I think be unpopular in 12 months in those six states.

Lindsey graham, if there is justice, will end his career in shame and indignity.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1177053930339127297?s=20