Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

1) Let me ask you this, since noone wants to audit any software since software is never able to be fraudulent sheeesh.

2) Do the machines match the voter roles?

3) Do the people on the ballets match people who live there?

4) Do the signatures match the ballets?

1) Shouldn't "noone" be capitalized? And what part does s/he play in this, anyway?

2) Speaking of playing parts: Aren't the voter roles all just walk-ons?

3) Surely not everyone who votes is on ballets. Most don't even own a decent pair of toe shoes.

4) And, realistically, how often can signatures be expected to match ballets? How many people are named Giselle or Coppélia? And even if we allow nicknames and are deeply misogynistic, there really aren't *that* many Nutcrackers in the electorate. Stop dancing around the main point!--which is that Donald Trump lost by several million in the popular voting and by several dozen electoral votes.

Meanwhile, have we "turned the corner on the Virus, yet?". Webster's definition of Demagogue: "A leader who makes use of popular prejudices, false claims and promises, in order to gain power.". Sound familiar? History will refer to it as the "Trump Pandemic"

welp wrote:

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

The Trump team has shown many many times evidence of this.

First off, HA HA HA.

The one place where evidence actually matters, the courts, has yet to see any evidence of anything,

And to actually address what you are claiming:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/georgia-says-voting-machine-audit-found-no-evidence-of-fraud-tampering.html

You can pretend to act like you don't have a dog in this fight, but the only people who are claiming that the election wasn't "free and fair" are those on the far right. You don't have a leg to stand on until something, anything, IS PROVEN IN COURT.

Save yourself buddy. Climb out of that social media hole that you've fallen into.

These are not law and order people, period. Note how quickly they went from "the mountain of evidence will translate to an easy win in court" to "the judges are deep state corrupt individuals (even those appointed by trump)"

Concerned Senior wrote:

Meanwhile, have we "turned the corner on the Virus, yet?". Webster's definition of Demagogue: "A leader who makes use of popular prejudices, false claims and promises, in order to gain power.". Sound familiar? History will refer to it as the "Trump Pandemic"

It IS the trump pandemic b/c the mountain of bodies is due to trump's lack of response and leadership. Millions of americans didn't have to contract the virus and hundreds of thousands die from it. He decided to take that path since he first learned of the virus. It is his baby.

Ouch

https://t.co/R8nz9Og0mf?amp=1

If Congress actually came together and passed a bipartisan bill to give large economic relief that would help stabilize the economy going into 2021, would Trump sign it?

If you can stomach it...

https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-elections-unannounced-december-2-2020

L L wrote:

If Congress actually came together and passed a bipartisan bill to give large economic relief that would help stabilize the economy going into 2021, would Trump sign it?

It depends on what's in it for him. If it comes with promises of ongoing political protection and support by the GOP then probably yes. He will even say it's his bill and he's saving the country, even though he didn't really have.

At least Trump doesn't wear a diaper and doesn't sound crazy and incoherent when he talks.

December 2 was the highest daily death toll yet in the US: 2.833.

9/11: 2,977

Trollminator wrote:

If you can stomach it...

https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-elections-unannounced-december-2-2020

No, I can't.

Santa Klauz wrote:

At least Trump doesn't wear a diaper and doesn't sound crazy and incoherent when he talks.

Yikes...

Trollminator wrote:

welp wrote:

First off, HA HA HA.

The one place where evidence actually matters, the courts, has yet to see any evidence of anything,

And to actually address what you are claiming:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/georgia-says-voting-machine-audit-found-no-evidence-of-fraud-tampering.html

You can pretend to act like you don't have a dog in this fight, but the only people who are claiming that the election wasn't "free and fair" are those on the far right. You don't have a leg to stand on until something, anything, IS PROVEN IN COURT.

Save yourself buddy. Climb out of that social media hole that you've fallen into.

These are not law and order people, period. Note how quickly they went from "the mountain of evidence will translate to an easy win in court" to "the judges are deep state corrupt individuals (even those appointed by trump)"

Even Bill Barr is a RINO deep stater now.

I know Trump would like to take credit for saving the country, but I really think he is rooting for Americans to struggle under Biden and wants to knee cap him.

L L wrote:

I know Trump would like to take credit for saving the country, but I really think he is rooting for Americans to struggle under Biden and wants to knee cap him.

Ya think?

I'm trying to come up with something more obvious than that.

.

.

.

Coming up empty.

sykt wrote:

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

1) Let me ask you this, since noone wants to audit any software since software is never able to be fraudulent sheeesh.

2) Do the machines match the voter roles?

3) Do the people on the ballets match people who live there?

4) Do the signatures match the ballets?

1) Shouldn't "noone" be capitalized? And what part does s/he play in this, anyway?

2) Speaking of playing parts: Aren't the voter roles all just walk-ons?

3) Surely not everyone who votes is on ballets. Most don't even own a decent pair of toe shoes.

4) And, realistically, how often can signatures be expected to match ballets? How many people are named Giselle or Coppélia? And even if we allow nicknames and are deeply misogynistic, there really aren't *that* many Nutcrackers in the electorate. Stop dancing around the main point!

I don't know that m/any will get this, but thanks for a small chuckle.

The irony is that those spelling errors were made by someone who has twitted other posters for *their* misspellings.

Trollminator wrote:

Flybang mash wrote:

As you should know, you can't discuss two topics, when they are not relevant to each other.

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) Your lack of credibility

or

2) Whether, under American evidentiary law, the credibility of FACT and expert witnesses is determined by the jury in rendering decisions.

Neither is relevant to the other, so you are compelled to pick one or the other. If you pick (2), you are officially on record as having admitted that you have no credibility. Your choice.

Sally, why are you such a butthurt loser? ?

Nancy, aren't you late for your group therapy session?

Vicky, why do you buy Midol by the bucket?

Janet, why is your face in the mashed potatoes?

Karen, why are you socks too loose?

Flybang mash wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Sally, why are you such a butthurt loser? ?

Nancy, aren't you late for your group therapy session?

Vicky, why do you buy Midol by the bucket?

Janet, why is your face in the mashed potatoes?

Karen, why are you socks too loose?

This whole exchange is what I imagine Facebook to be like.

1101 wrote:

Flybang mash wrote:

As you should know, you can't discuss two topics, when they are not relevant to each other.

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) Your lack of credibility

or

2) Whether, under American evidentiary law, the credibility of FACT and expert witnesses is determined by the jury in rendering decisions.

Neither is relevant to the other, so you are compelled to pick one or the other. If you pick (2), you are officially on record as having admitted that you have no credibility. Your choice.

Ah, so I see you have nothing. I am done with you, sir.

Please feel free to carry on with your trolling . . . or lunacy. It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference with the Trumpettes.

Good day.

Delicate little thing, aren't you?

Before you return, you need to have read the following:

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 US 133 (U.S. Supreme Court) ("Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions . . .")

Lennear v. Wilson, 937 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2019) (" fact-finder is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves")