Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Trollminator wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I actually would like to see this again. With the erosion of the intermediaries between the public and government - a glue of liberal democracies, parties are becoming vehicles for populists. A more hierarchical system actually served as a buffer for these people until a couple of decades ago. I'm not at all comfortable with unscreened and untested types being able to grab full control of the ship while their party bends the knee.

To elaborate further, the current level of democratization means less checks and barriers for the trumps of the world. If I have money and ability to manipulate the media, I can make a run for president without any experience and without the approval of those who do have experience and are well suited to evaluate me. Populism is awful.

+1, sorta.

We can in the Steyers, the Yangs, the trumps, the bloombergs, lots of unqualified people who could get elected president. leaving out the qualified populists like bernie. It's a stupid system.

furthermore, relying on IA and NH is beyond stupid. We're leaving MI, PA, WI for Trump to campaign in for months and months while our people are in electorally (almost) meaningless IA and NH.

you really, in your heart, think the Rs don't fear Biden the most?

The political parties can tweak a few things to control who their candidates may be.

For example, if you want to be the candidate of a party, you should be a member of the party.

Bernie is not a Democrat (he is an Independent), maybe he should declare himself a Democrat is he wants to be the nominee.

Candidates should disclose their taxes and make full financial disclosures in order to get the nomination.

Would Trump have done that?

They could make a rule that you need job experience as an elected official.

Gets rid of Yang and Trump once again.

Let the voters choose qualifying nominees.

There is no guideline on who can run in the general election but political parties can have rules fo who represent them.

agip wrote:

To me, it's clear that in PA Biden will keep both the union white guys and the lefties. Whereas Sanders and Warren, who advocate for a complete banning of fracking, will completely lose the union vote, the energy vote,etc. They just won't vote to end their jobs. No matter how promising the view of green jobs down the road is.

While I think enviro Dems are going to hold their nose and vote for whoever runs against trump.

See the math there? This is totally legit.

And we have to win PA or we're dead. Biden wins PA and the election. Sanders loses PA and the election.

As for this argument on its own merits, it might be right and it might be wrong.

I don't think we can assume PA is the only state that matters. Biden might cause us to win PA because of the enviro issue you stated. But that same enviro issue might push Bernie over the top in Florida.

Again, this election will be all about turnout.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You may be right.

But that has nothing to do with the argument that we should vote for Biden because "Tiny fears Biden the most." That's the fallacy I'm pointing out.

you really, in your heart, think the Rs don't fear Biden the most?

I have no idea what they really think other than they think Biden is the most likely nominee.

And even if the do fear Biden, that doesn't mean their fear is justified. I don't think Tiny and his team are great at political strategy. So why would it matter what they think anyway?

agip wrote:

L L wrote:

Seems you'd like to go back to the days of political parties choosing their candidates by committee members without voter input..

to be honest, I'm not totally opposed to the old system. it prevents people like trump and sanders from getting to the front. It makes the likelihood of the nominee being competent greater.

I don't know if I agree with that, but the framers of the constitution did . They didn't trust the everyday man to have the judgement to make decisions directly. They thought they would be too influenced by a populist leader.

Back to selecting Bernie over Biden, I feel that it is risky and a huge mistake. If progressive ideas are the wave of the future, in 4 years they would have their shot when Biden finishes.

The jump from Biden to progressive ideas will be more likely than a jump from trump to progressive ideas. Significant progressive ( Bernie) ideas are a very hard sell now when people believe the economy is doing well.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

you really, in your heart, think the Rs don't fear Biden the most?

I have no idea what they really think other than they think Biden is the most likely nominee.

And even if the do fear Biden, that doesn't mean their fear is justified. I don't think Tiny and his team are great at political strategy. So why would it matter what they think anyway?

I'll disagree with you there - I think they are bloody brilliant at political strategy. Spanky might in fact be the world's greatest salesman - he found a need and a hunger and he met it with his product, incredibly effectively.

he focused on the upper midwest in 2016 and got it done perfectly.

he focused on uneducated whites and did it perfectly.

he focused on insulting his oponets and dragging them into the mud and he did it perfectly.

I think the Rs are a 90 on political strategy and the Ds are about a 45.

Ds right now have no idea how to win presidential elections. They are next to clueless.

From an anti-Trump conspiracy theory point of view, I'm concerned that the NYT report of what Bolton may have written in his book is a plant designed to have him come out publicly and say that he never said or wrote that.

There are rumors of an interview with Hannity which will never take place if Bolton were to confirm the attempted extortion. If it does take place we'll know it is a setup.

Correct!

#Trumplandslide

"Four more years!"

KAG2020

agip wrote:

Ds right now have no idea how to win presidential elections. They are next to clueless.

I believe the Democrats won the popular vote in 6 of the 7 last presidential elections.

They do have a great knack for losing razor thin statewide elections in Florida.

You're saying the NYT made it up?

Democrats are disgusting pieces of trash!!!!

Anyone who votes democrat is far from the Truth!!!!

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

Ds right now have no idea how to win presidential elections. They are next to clueless.

I believe the Democrats won the popular vote in 6 of the 7 last presidential elections.

They do have a great knack for losing razor thin statewide elections in Florida.

the proof of D incompetence is that they win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, and that there are simply millions and millions more dems than reps, yet Rs win presidential elections.

Part of that is the electoral college structure, but a lot more is about failure to have a message (what was HRC's message?) and to get people to vote.

I mean the Rs are so f'in brilliant at this that they literally have convinced middle class people to vote agaisnt their interests, year after after year after year. Think about that. It's brilliant. How did they do that?

Dems have no fiery spokesman who can deliver the Dem message.

Yeah, about that... wrote:

I don't quite understand all the noise at present. President Trump had a higher approval about a month ago than he does now.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Why do you guys keep referring to a site that said Trump had 2% to even win the Republican nomination, and then even on election morning only gave him a 27% chance of winning?

You guys really love just continuously getting kicked in the nuts. It's amazing.

Fat hurts wrote:

I don't think Tiny and his team are great at political strategy. So why would it matter what they think anyway?

I question his isolation of the majority left and sole focus on his 46%, but they are beating Dems in two critical factors: they are spending huge sums of cash and trump is laser focused on the swing states. He has been campaigning hard in those states. What have Dems been doing?

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I don't think Tiny and his team are great at political strategy. So why would it matter what they think anyway?

I question his isolation of the majority left and sole focus on his 46%, but they are beating Dems in two critical factors: they are spending huge sums of cash and trump is laser focused on the swing states. He has been campaigning hard in those states. What have Dems been doing?

Dems are spending all their time and money in IA and NH. It's a stupid, stupid system. Has to change in 2024.

To be fair, Bberg has said that he will give hundreds of millions or more to the D nominee. So money may not be a problem, eventually.

Although if sanders is the nominee I suspect Bberg will not be as generous.

agip wrote:

I'll disagree with you there - I think they are bloody brilliant at political strategy. Spanky might in fact be the world's greatest salesman - he found a need and a hunger and he met it with his product, incredibly effectively.

he focused on the upper midwest in 2016 and got it done perfectly.

he focused on uneducated whites and did it perfectly.

he focused on insulting his oponets and dragging them into the mud and he did it perfectly.

I think the Rs are a 90 on political strategy and the Ds are about a 45.

Ds right now have no idea how to win presidential elections. They are next to clueless.

His winning was completely dependent on Russia intervening and Hillary being a disliked candidate. I do give him some credit for further amplifying those advantages and wouldn't call him useless. I think tactically he is pretty good. However, I maintain that there is no way he could have pulled it off in 2012, 2008 or any other recent election. Perhaps that makes his win even more impressive, but lets be honest, besides his success as a reality tv personality, he's known for failed casinos and real estate deals. The stars aligned for him in 2016 and 2020 will determine if he was a one-hit wonder or not.

agip wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

To elaborate further, the current level of democratization means less checks and barriers for the trumps of the world. If I have money and ability to manipulate the media, I can make a run for president without any experience and without the approval of those who do have experience and are well suited to evaluate me. Populism is awful.

+1, sorta.

We can in the Steyers, the Yangs, the trumps, the bloombergs, lots of unqualified people who could get elected president. leaving out the qualified populists like bernie. It's a stupid system.

furthermore, relying on IA and NH is beyond stupid. We're leaving MI, PA, WI for Trump to campaign in for months and months while our people are in electorally (almost) meaningless IA and NH.

And speaking of Michigan, abracadabra. More jobs.

Trump wins again.

agip wrote:

L L wrote:

I believe the Democrats won the popular vote in 6 of the 7 last presidential elections.

They do have a great knack for losing razor thin statewide elections in Florida.

the proof of D incompetence is that they win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, and that there are simply millions and millions more dems than reps, yet Rs win presidential elections.

Part of that is the electoral college structure, but a lot more is about failure to have a message (what was HRC's message?) and to get people to vote.

I mean the Rs are so f'in brilliant at this that they literally have convinced middle class people to vote agaisnt their interests, year after after year after year. Think about that. It's brilliant. How did they do that?

Dems have no fiery spokesman who can deliver the Dem message.

It's really quite simple. It's rhetoric vs results.

The middle class and minorities listened to Democratic rhetoric for decades. They saw no results.

Then Trump hits the scene and starts speaking directly to them from the other side of the aisle, and promises to employ a hybrid approach (pro-business, while also trying to protect our industries). He uses tactics that infuriate both sides. But yet, it gets results. The economic numbers are the best we've ever had, the stock market breaks records seemingly every month, and wages are finally increasing at a significant rate. Every single person I know- from both sides of the political spectrum- is much better off today than they were in 2016. And yet, Dems still claim that the middle class is voting against their interests. That's called "rhetoric".