Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

trying to listen to the ACB hearings...it's unbearable.

leahy is 80, at around 3/4 mental capacity, taking up huge amounts of time asking absolutely inane questions that should take around 2 minutes. He loses his place, the questions are bad. ACB is struggling to understand what the question is, after leahy bloviates for 10 minutes.

I understand why the congress has an approval rating below anyone.

he's been in the senate for 45 years. FFS. Time to help the nation and retire, senator.

L L wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1315637036741656577?s=20

Once again Pete is eloquent in response to a difficult question.

Meanwhile, Sally (who is a man) wants the government to dictate the answer and control women.

CORRECT! That's because Sally is a misogynist, a paternalist of the worst kind. He would not agree, not because he doesn't want to accept that he is those things, but because he is so outrageously stupid that he doesn't understand how he is those things.

that's a lot of text, but bottom line is that Collins is a Maine institution. Nate has that race at 60/40 - basically a tossup.

NC has voted blue ONCE in senate races since 1966. Nate has that one at 66/34- more likely than Maine.

I'd be very, very surprised at a Dem win in IA, GA, AK, Montana. The best chance is IA, which nate has at 50/50.

I suppose what you are saying is that the Dems have multiple chances to get those 3rd an 4th chances. Ok, fine. But remember that these aren't coin flips...races move together, not independently. If there is a trump surge in the last 2 weeks, all senate races will move together toward the red.

agip wrote:

that's a lot of text, but bottom line is that Collins is a Maine institution. Nate has that race at 60/40 - basically a tossup.

NC has voted blue ONCE in senate races since 1966. Nate has that one at 66/34- more likely than Maine.

I'd be very, very surprised at a Dem win in IA, GA, AK, Montana. The best chance is IA, which nate has at 50/50.

I suppose what you are saying is that the Dems have multiple chances to get those 3rd an 4th chances. Ok, fine. But remember that these aren't coin flips...races move together, not independently. If there is a trump surge in the last 2 weeks, all senate races will move together toward the red.

Your issue is that you are very backward looking at not forward looking.

Virginia was red for decades . Even Bill Clinton or southerner Jimmy Carter had no chance at Virginia. And is now solid blue

North Carolina is fighting a trend to go that way. And Georgia is in that fight as well.

Times change. You can't simply look at the last election. Just like we thought Hillary had PA, MI and WI locked up based on history. It goes the other way, too.

For the possible Trump surge, if he flounders even more as election day approaches, he hurts those senators more.

But they do move independently. If one red state has an issue with their senator, they are not going to care what the other states are doing.

fair

agip wrote:

trying to listen to the ACB hearings...it's unbearable.

leahy is 80, at around 3/4 mental capacity, taking up huge amounts of time asking absolutely inane questions that should take around 2 minutes. He loses his place, the questions are bad. ACB is struggling to understand what the question is, after leahy bloviates for 10 minutes.

I understand why the congress has an approval rating below anyone.

he's been in the senate for 45 years. FFS. Time to help the nation and retire, senator.

Yeah, sorta.

But the current status quo (whether with regard to Leahy or Trump or McConnell or . . . ) is the responsibility/fault of the voters. The voters are the folks you should be blasting "FFS" at.

agip wrote:

But remember that these aren't coin flips...races move together, not independently. If there is a trump surge in the last 2 weeks, all senate races will move together toward the red.

Exactly correct:

1) These are not statistical "independent trials." The various races are linked.

2) There *will* be a Trump surge, and we're seeing it already. In late July his approval was hovering right around 40%; now it's working toward 44%. IMO that's not much because of anything Trump (or Biden) has done or is doing; it's because of the voters themselves.

A certain percentage of the electorate (very probably above 45%, as in 2016) will be voting for Trump. A couple months ago, a fraction of those may have found it impossible to justify that choice to themselves--or to a pollster, so when asked they may have indicated disapproval of DJT or no opinion.

They may *still* not be able to justify it--and in fact may not want to examine the reasons they're making the choice--but they're going to vote for Trump "just because." And so they'll change their opinion to "approve," because of course you approve of anyone you actually cast a vote for. That should push Trump toward or above 45%, and should narrow The Gap to probably something around six percentage points (from its current 9.5%). Pretty predictable, I think--and *not* necessarily an indication that people's opinions are actually changing much, just their willingness to express those opinions.

My one caveat: If there's really a *tremendous* early turnout for Dem candidates, AND it gets widely reported, it's possible a few of the GOP voters in some swing states may feel "ah, what's the use" and either not show up on Election Day, or bail when they see the long waits.

But given that most of "his" folks won't consume any news media that would speak of a tremendous Dem turnout--Fox is not likely to say a word about it! and neither is right-wing talk radio--I think we can count on a (near-)record turnout from the Republican voters. Their hate and (above all) fear will get them to the polls.

agip wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

People are going to show up the next day and stand again for hours if needed.. they want to send a message.

I think a lot of the urge to vote early is so you can psychically move on a little bit. After you vote, you can relax and maybe not freak out as much day to day. You did your part, you voted, now it's out of your hands. People want that feeling of being able to stop thinking so much about this election.

I voted early and in person for two reasons:

1) I didn't want to face a potential large crowd on the actual election day.

2) With all the attacking Trump has done about mail-in ballots, I just wanted to avoid doing it that way.

Flagpole wrote:

2) With all the attacking Trump has done about mail-in ballots, I just wanted to avoid doing it that way.

It may be too late for this advice/perspective, but I have a lot of confidence in my mail-in ballot for two reasons:

1. I was able to drop it off in person.

2. I was able to track it online.

I think most people don't know that most states have online tracking of mail-in ballots. So I was able to see when my ballot request was received, when my ballot was issued, and when my ballot was accepted. If there was a problem with any of those steps I could call my county election office and get it fixed.

Ciro wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-allows-texas-governor-111038775.html

I'm not sure if that's necessarily bad news for Democrats, but it's definitely bad news for democracy.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

2) With all the attacking Trump has done about mail-in ballots, I just wanted to avoid doing it that way.

It may be too late for this advice/perspective, but I have a lot of confidence in my mail-in ballot for two reasons:

1. I was able to drop it off in person.

2. I was able to track it online.

I think most people don't know that most states have online tracking of mail-in ballots. So I was able to see when my ballot request was received, when my ballot was issued, and when my ballot was accepted. If there was a problem with any of those steps I could call my county election office and get it fixed.

Yeah, that's all great. I'm very confident that your vote was counted. I just didn't want to be any part of that. I do also like the actual process of voting. In my county, there are 12 judges up for election, and half of them (the Democrat ones) were there in person as we filed by in line. Kind of cool. Got to see lots of anti-Trump signs too, which was enjoyable.

Debate

Election

... tMVORZJdts

Flagpole wrote:

L L wrote:

Once again Pete is eloquent in response to a difficult question.

Meanwhile, Sally (who is a man) wants the government to dictate the answer and control women.

CORRECT! That's because Sally is a misogynist, a paternalist of the worst kind. He would not agree, not because he doesn't want to accept that he is those things, but because he is so outrageously stupid that he doesn't understand how he is those things.

This is the rant from a very angry person who ...

Has serious anger issues

Lives in the worst city in America.

Is bald.

Is very short.

Was never anywhere as fast as Sally.

Said he was moving to calif. But still in Cleveland.

Guaranteed Hillary would win in 2016 - major fail.

Revels in calling women whores.

Angry that he still lives in Cleveland.

Was never tall enough to ride the roller coaster ride at Disney World.

Has a contractor job where his "resources" are underutilized.

Mad that LeBron left the dump city Cleveland to live in a non-cesspool city.

Just an all-around pathetic guy.

Beside that Flagpole is a swell guy!!!

Hmm...

Let's see:

1) Anger issues? Nope.

2) I do not live and never have lived in Cleveland or even the greater Cleveland area, so...Nope.

3) Moving to California? At some point after I retire, yes. Things could change, but as of today that is the plan. So, yep to moving there someday. Nope to your suggestion that I want to now and haven't.

4) I said Trump had ZERO chance to win unless he cheated, and he cheated, so I was right.

5) I do not revel in calling women whores, so...Nope.

6) I have always been tall enough to ride any ride at Disney World, even when I was 11 when I went there for the first and so far only time.

7) Very short? Depends on what metric you are using. I could accept either a yes or a no on that. Not sure what this has to do with anything though.

8) Bald? Depends on how you define bald. I definitely have lots of hair, but there are areas where I don't have as much. I need to cut it about every 6 weeks, so, eh. Not surprising that this would be an issue for you. Insecure men care about their hair.

9) I am not a contractor. I have no idea what you mean about my "resources" being unutilized.

10) I am not an NBA fan. I am not a LeBron James fan (nothing against him, but I don't follow the NBA). So, I couldn't care less what LeBron James does or doesn't do as long as it's all legal and he's not hurting anyone.

11) Pathetic? Nope. You can ask my wife. Now, if you are there with your wife, you can tell which one is my wife, because she's the one who isn't being berated and never has been by her husband.

Appropriately calling you outrageously stupid just makes me observant, not angry. Go get some marriage counseling.

History will not be kind to Abbott, DeSantis and Kemp ! The 3 Trumpets!

A little more on the math:

If there are 4 Republican held states each with a 30% chance of voting Democrat, then there is a 75% that at least one of them will vote Democrat.

1-(1-0.30)^4

where 0.30 is the 30% and the 4 is the number of states with that 30% chance.

If you have 10 states with those odds then the chances are 97% that one will come through.

(make that 4 a 10)

But wouldn't it be great if the one state that gave Dems the control was a loss by Lindsey Graham because of his broken promises and general hypocritical behavior ?