Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Clanzy wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Correct about Buttigieg.

2) I was RIGHT about the 2016 election. I said that Trump had ZERO chance to win unless he either cheated or space aliens came down here and made us vote for him (that's where that initiated. I have just said it many more times now so that no one can gloss over it or forget). Sorry, but I accounted for cheating. Vote tampering wasn't the criteria I gave. I said he could not CHEAT, and he did...FELONY CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW VIOLATION (two of them) FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF WINNING THE ELECTION. That is cheating, and he has done so again, so I am right again about the 2020 election if he indeed does manage to be able to run and wins.

2. Can you show me where you said this? No one in the 3 years since the election has backed you up.

Burden of proof is on you.

Clanzy wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Correct about Buttigieg.

2) I was RIGHT about the 2016 election. I said that Trump had ZERO chance to win unless he either cheated or space aliens came down here and made us vote for him (that's where that initiated. I have just said it many more times now so that no one can gloss over it or forget). Sorry, but I accounted for cheating. Vote tampering wasn't the criteria I gave. I said he could not CHEAT, and he did...FELONY CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW VIOLATION (two of them) FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF WINNING THE ELECTION. That is cheating, and he has done so again, so I am right again about the 2020 election if he indeed does manage to be able to run and wins.

2. Can you show me where you said this? No one in the 3 years since the election has backed you up.

Burden of proof is on you.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I said neither of those things. But we already know you aren't good at reading. Or math.

I did say that "without consensus there would be no science". That is absolutely true. This statement is in the realm of Philosophy of Science and not science itself. I studied both as an undergrad.

Fat Hurts - do you really want "Consensus" in Science? That is like the majority rules. Shouldn't science be about taking whatever is out there and trying to see if that is true or something else it true? You need to attack what is popular. If it is strong ? nough - then it should stand on its own. What the heck with consensus? Did Edison go with the consensus. Did Thomas Malthus go with the consensus? Did Alber Einstein go with the consensus? Of course not. We don't need no "consensus" in science or here.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat Hurts - do you really want "Consensus" in Science? That is like the majority rules. Shouldn't science be about taking whatever is out there and trying to see if that is true or something else it true? You need to attack what is popular. If it is strong ? nough - then it should stand on its own. What the heck with consensus? Did Edison go with the consensus. Did Thomas Malthus go with the consensus? Did Alber Einstein go with the consensus? Of course not. We don't need no "consensus" in science or here.

Malthus was an economist. Edison was an engineer. Neither would be described as a scientist per se.

Without consensus Einstein could never have come up with any of his theories. As revolutionary as they were, his work was still grounded in much of the physics that came before.

Your problem is that you were trained as an accountant. You don't know anything about science.

Add to that your general gullibility and you get someone who thinks all climate scientists are involved in a global conspiracy.

Flagpole wrote:

Clanzy wrote:

2. Can you show me where you said this? No one in the 3 years since the election has backed you up.

Burden of proof is on you.

Impossible for me to do because Letsrun deleted the thread. Consequently, you can't prove I said Trump had ZERO chance to win either (unless I also said it in another thread, but I don't THINK I did), because that was said in the deleted thread. I admit I said that though (with the caveat) because I have 100% integrity 100% of the time and I do not lie ever. I have said many things over the years that people have challenged me on, and when the thread exists, I show them that they were wrong, so there's a history of people not remembering everything I say. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember anything I say anyway.

So, doesn't matter to me where the burden is...I can not prove it because the thread was deleted, but I did say it, and since I do not lie, that's the truth.

I was right about the 2016 election. I accounted for his cheating, and then he cheated in a very big way.

Flagpole wrote:

Clanzy wrote:

2. Can you show me where you said this? No one in the 3 years since the election has backed you up.

Burden of proof is on you.

Impossible for me to do because Letsrun deleted the thread. Consequently, you can't prove I said Trump had ZERO chance to win either (unless I also said it in another thread, but I don't THINK I did), because that was said in the deleted thread. I admit I said that though (with the caveat) because I have 100% integrity 100% of the time and I do not lie ever. I have said many things over the years that people have challenged me on, and when the thread exists, I show them that they were wrong, so there's a history of people not remembering everything I say. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember anything I say anyway.

So, doesn't matter to me where the burden is...I can not prove it because the thread was deleted, but I did say it, and since I do not lie, that's the truth.

I was right about the 2016 election. I accounted for his cheating, and then he cheated in a very big way.