Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I question the "speaking to more people" part. Warren did a lot better in the primaries so she obviously spoke to more people.

The reason is that Warren is just a better politician. She's more convincing on the stump.

People like Harris. And she had a really good message. But she inspires nobody. She couldn't deliver.

Honestly, if you just need a black woman on the ticket, Stacy Abrams is a better pick. She is more likeable and she puts Georgia in play where you could pick up 16 electoral votes and two senate seats.

abrams is completely unqualified and obviously so...there is next to zero chance an 80 year old biden would put the fate of the world into her hands.

Sending a message that an 80 year old president would entrust the nation to an unqualified person just to win one state...would be a very costly signal. I'd be terrified.

Warren has excellent command of policy, which would suit the role. Based on popularity and appeal, perhaps she will be left out completely. I'm not sure Amy is well liked within the party, but yeah Chuck hasn't seemed effective. Maybe he is behind the scenes.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

not completely accurate.

The Mass governor does have to appoint a replacement for Warren.

But that interim senator would serve only until a special election was held.

So warren leaving the senate could very well allow Mitch to keep the senate for some time and do very bad things to hamstring a new president biden.

My point stands.

It's only 160 days at most. Realistically, the Republican replacement would only serve about 3-4 months. Not a deal breaker by any means.

that's a long long time and could take a way 1/8 of biden's presidency and his first 100 days.

it's a huge deal.

and there's no guarantee Mass would elect a D replamcent....they have an R governor and have had R senators recently.

Warren would be a huge risk for the D party.

Not going to happen.

agip wrote:

abrams is completely unqualified and obviously so...there is next to zero chance an 80 year old biden would put the fate of the world into her hands.

Sending a message that an 80 year old president would entrust the nation to an unqualified person just to win one state...would be a very costly signal. I'd be terrified.

Yeah Abrams needs to win something and get battle-hardened before she can take on something big. Same with Pete - become a Senator first, take some scalps, have something tangible next to your name first.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.

I question the "speaking to more people" part. Warren did a lot better in the primaries so she obviously spoke to more people.

The reason is that Warren is just a better politician. She's more convincing on the stump.

People like Harris. And she had a really good message. But she inspires nobody. She couldn't deliver.

I disagree that Harris inspires nobody. Running for President is different than being the VP. Harris brings people into the fold that Warren wouldn't necessarily (people of color). Warren started out hot and then fell like a rock the more we learned about her positions. She's got baggage too, and we will have to hear the "Pocahontas" thing until November if she's the VP pick. Biden has been very cognizant of his age, and so while I won't be surprised if Warren is the pick, I think he's going to pick someone else...someone who is younger...unless the vetting process prohibits it.

CountChocula wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

At the beginning of the month Sweden had recorded 5000 deaths. It now has more than 3x that number, with over 15,000.

Compare that to NZ, which at half the population of Sweden (5million) has recorded 13 deaths (with only 5 new cases today) after a lockdown.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to say "cases" and not "deaths" in Sweden

Sorry - slip of the keypad. An extra zero. The figures were 500 deaths at the beginning of the month and over 1700 deaths today, and exponentially increasing.

New Zealand, at 13 deaths and moving close to zero new infections, is in stark contrast. Sweden has a population of 10m and New Zealand 5m. The differences in their covid stats are strikingly disproportionate. Their policies have been very different.

Trollminator wrote:

agip wrote:

abrams is completely unqualified and obviously so...there is next to zero chance an 80 year old biden would put the fate of the world into her hands.

Sending a message that an 80 year old president would entrust the nation to an unqualified person just to win one state...would be a very costly signal. I'd be terrified.

Yeah Abrams needs to win something and get battle-hardened before she can take on something big. Same with Pete - become a Senator first, take some scalps, have something tangible next to your name first.

I agree with all of this. Pete could easily be my favorite Presidential candidate of all time if he gets some experience on the federal level and is successful there. Abrams has even more to prove at this point.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Honestly, if you just need a black woman on the ticket, Stacy Abrams is a better pick. She is more likeable and she puts Georgia in play where you could pick up 16 electoral votes and two senate seats.

abrams is completely unqualified and obviously so...there is next to zero chance an 80 year old biden would put the fate of the world into her hands.

Sending a message that an 80 year old president would entrust the nation to an unqualified person just to win one state...would be a very costly signal. I'd be terrified.

She is not "obviously unqualified". Abrams has a good resume. Except for two years as a junior senator, her resume is just as strong as Obama's was.

+1, but I don’t bother them on this point.

Bearing in mind, that most commentators are saying that the election will be a referendum on Trump.

Flagpole wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Yeah Abrams needs to win something and get battle-hardened before she can take on something big. Same with Pete - become a Senator first, take some scalps, have something tangible next to your name first.

I agree with all of this. Pete could easily be my favorite Presidential candidate of all time if he gets some experience on the federal level and is successful there. Abrams has even more to prove at this point.

I agree that Abrams is not the best qualified candidate. I'm just saying that politically she helps more than Harris.

Abrams is a LOT more qualified than Pete. Compare the two. Stacy has over 20 years in state government and public service. Pete has 7 months of military duty and 8 years as mayor of South Bend (population 100,000).

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

abrams is completely unqualified and obviously so...there is next to zero chance an 80 year old biden would put the fate of the world into her hands.

Sending a message that an 80 year old president would entrust the nation to an unqualified person just to win one state...would be a very costly signal. I'd be terrified.

She is not "obviously unqualified". Abrams has a good resume. Except for two years as a junior senator, her resume is just as strong as Obama's was.

Realistically I think anyone in the US Senate has an auto-qualifier.

Abrams' ten years in the minority party of a mid-sized state's lower chamber is...not...qualifying.

Esp since she has no important private sector work.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I agree with all of this. Pete could easily be my favorite Presidential candidate of all time if he gets some experience on the federal level and is successful there. Abrams has even more to prove at this point.

I agree that Abrams is not the best qualified candidate. I'm just saying that politically she helps more than Harris.

Abrams is a LOT more qualified than Pete. Compare the two. Stacy has over 20 years in state government and public service. Pete has 7 months of military duty and 8 years as mayor of South Bend (population 100,000).

Neither is qualified, but Pete has chief executive and military experience.

Being a legislator in state government, esp if you are in the minority party...is just not much. No buck stops with you.

Mayors have to make decisions and manage bureacracies. That is meaningful.

But pete's not qualified either.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I agree with all of this. Pete could easily be my favorite Presidential candidate of all time if he gets some experience on the federal level and is successful there. Abrams has even more to prove at this point.

I agree that Abrams is not the best qualified candidate. I'm just saying that politically she helps more than Harris.

Abrams is a LOT more qualified than Pete. Compare the two. Stacy has over 20 years in state government and public service. Pete has 7 months of military duty and 8 years as mayor of South Bend (population 100,000).

Abrams has more to prove at this point than Pete. Pete's military service goes from 2009-2017. I realize some of that was in the reserves, but that's still a big deal, and it still counts. Abrams has none of that. Being a Mayor of a big city for 8 years is easily comparable to being in the State Senate in Georgia for 10 years. Pete did a very good job on the campaign trail too, so to me, he has proven himself capable and worthy on the national scene. Abrams has not yet done that.

I do not see her anywhere close to as qualified today. You have to count more than years in office. Her ideas have not been tested on a national scale yet.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

She is not "obviously unqualified". Abrams has a good resume. Except for two years as a junior senator, her resume is just as strong as Obama's was.

Realistically I think anyone in the US Senate has an auto-qualifier.

Abrams' ten years in the minority party of a mid-sized state's lower chamber is...not...qualifying.

Esp since she has no important private sector work.

Time in the senate is not an auto-qualifier. Do you think Dan Quayle was qualified?

Georgia is #9 in population with almost 10 million people. Not mid-sized by any means.

Abrams wasn't just "in the minority party". She was minority leader. Obama never rose that high in state government.

Other than Obama's two years in the senate, Stacy is just as qualified as he was.

There are reasons her name makes all the short lists:

- Resume is good (but not great)

- She's huge in Georgia, a purple state with two senate elections

- She's a great politician

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I agree that Abrams is not the best qualified candidate. I'm just saying that politically she helps more than Harris.

Abrams is a LOT more qualified than Pete. Compare the two. Stacy has over 20 years in state government and public service. Pete has 7 months of military duty and 8 years as mayor of South Bend (population 100,000).

Neither is qualified, but Pete has chief executive and military experience.

Being a legislator in state government, esp if you are in the minority party...is just not much. No buck stops with you.

Mayors have to make decisions and manage bureacracies. That is meaningful.

But pete's not qualified either.

Neither is qualified TODAY as I have said about Pete for a long time. He gets a successful senate term under his belt though or a couple of successful terms in the House under his belt...then I think he's ready. Abrams needs to enter the national stage too in some way to be considered. Pete is a step ahead of her due to executive experience and military experience.

I believe all of Pete's duty was in the reserves. And only 7 months was active duty.

Pete lost his only statewide race (treasurer), and he lost badly.

Stacy barely lost when running for GOVERNOR. And this was black woman in a very conservative state. And her opponent was in charge of (rigging?) the election.

Pete's run for president was impressive. But I can't remember a single idea that he put forward. What was his signature issue? What ideas of Pete's were tested? He lost by a lot in the primaries, so whatever ideas he had failed the test.

Flagpole wrote:

Abrams has more to prove at this point than Pete. Pete's military service goes from 2009-2017. I realize some of that was in the reserves, but that's still a big deal, and it still counts. Abrams has none of that. Being a Mayor of a big city for 8 years is easily comparable to being in the State Senate in Georgia for 10 years.

What big city was he mayor of?

A thread for Fats.

Talks about how greens are being too hard on Biden,

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1252694860169007104?s=20