Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Flybang masher wrote:

You sure? I had never heard of either the Justice for Black Farmers proposal by Booker/Warren or the South Africa tweet (which you, by the way, never mentioned in your original post). Unlike you, I checked around on the Josh Marshall Twitter link you posted, clicked a few links, and quite a few people - I'd say more than half of the links I followed - were saying Trump was referencing the Justice for Black Farmers Act. They all seemed otherwise liked-minded with you, so when you say "absolutely nothing to do with the Justice for Black Farmers Act" and "no reasonable way to deny it," you seem to be wrong on both counts.

And it makes sense he was referencing the Justice for Black Farmers proposal - closer temporally and geographically to the people he was speaking too. It's way more immediate than a tweet about South Africa from two years ago. So it's quite reasonable to deny Trump was playing the race card and quite reasonable to believe he was referencing a pretty significant and controversial piece of farm legislation proposed by Booker and Warren, who are not well liked by Trump supporters.

Are you sure you even know what's reasonable when it comes to issues of race and Trump any more? I don't think you do.

ok man, trump was making a subtle reference to an obscure piece of legislation maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of. Because Trump is super knowledgeable about proposed legislation and his fans are careful readers of the news.

And you are also correct to ignore that Trump has specifically ordered his admin to investigate how white farmers have suffered land confiscation and has been talking about that for years.

Kudos man, you see the world as it is.

Flybang masher wrote:

agip wrote:

ok man, trump was making a subtle reference to an obscure piece of legislation maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of. Because Trump is super knowledgeable about proposed legislation and his fans are careful readers of the news.

And you are also correct to ignore that Trump has specifically ordered his admin to investigate how white farmers have suffered land confiscation and has been talking about that for years.

Kudos man, you see the world as it is.

Now you are exaggerating and contradicting your own exaggerations within the same post (which is referred to as being "internally inconsistent").

Since when does Trump or any other politician have to be "super knowledgeable" about proposed legislation they comment on? They comment on and exaggerate about proposed legislation that they have clearly never read and know little about, all the time. All Trump would have to know is two or three highlights of the Justice for Black Farmers proposal to understand his base will be enraged about it.

Where do you get "maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of"? Again, if you had even bothered to research the very Josh Marshall Twitter link that you posted, you would have quickly learned that Tucker Carlson - the guy that everyone in Trump's audience gets their world view from - was talking about the Justice for Black Farmers proposal on November 24, 2020. It's reported on NewsMax too, where Trump supporters get their talking points. And you can find articles on ABC and CNN, as well.

So, Trump doesn't have to have read a single word of the Justice for Black Farmers act to have referenced it - he just has to have watched Tucker Carlson two weeks ago. And his fans don't have to be "careful readers of the news" as you say - they just have to hit their go-to sources. Your whole first paragraph is a loaded exaggeration.

And it's internally inconsistent because you don't apply the same standards and loaded language ("subtle reference" "obscure" "maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of" "super knowledgeable" "fans are careful readers of the news") to the South Africa tweet. Why can Trump have been "subtly referencing" South African white farmers yesterday, but not subtly referencing farm legislation that is actually in America? Isn't whatever is going on with white farmers in South Africa in 2018 more "obscure" to Trump fans in the US than farm legislation in the US from 3 weeks ago? Did Trump have to be "super knowledgeable" about white farmers in South Africa before Tweeting about them? (Hint: he was not). Did his fans have to "careful readers of the news" to get excited about white South African farmers, or is a single 140 word reference enough to get them jacked up?

Again, it was your fellow anti-Trumpers on Twitter who were suggesting it was the Justice for Black Farmers legislation that Trump was referencing. And that makes more sense - both temporally (2020) and geographically (actually in the US). You are out of tune with your own cult's messaging on this.

By the way, when you made that original post, I'm betting you didn't even know about the 2018 South Africa post, or you would have mentioned it. You appear to grab facts after you form opinions, which is why you make idiotic, unequivocal statements like "absolutely nothing to do with the Justice for Black Farmers Act" and "no reasonable way to deny it," and then have to deflect from them with further exaggerations (see the list above).

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Trump and the GOP has become the equivalent of a once popular 70s or 80s rock band reduced to playing the county fair circuit. A bunch of grey hairs and a few curious youngsters come out to hear their decades old hits. Some tired looking old guys saunter onto the stage along with a new guitar player you have never seen before and the lead man with diminished vocal skills starts in...

"Hello Valdosta!!! Are you ready to rock? I said...ARE YOU READY TO ROCK?!!! Let's get this party started! I'm sure you remember this one. Here's "Communist Boogeyman"! 1-2-3..."

They play for an hour clearly demonstrating that they are not the band they used to be 40 years ago. The singer forgets half the lyrics and implores the crowd to join in when he does. They need to take a crowd interaction/lame story break every third song because the original members need to catch their breath, sip some water, and towel off. They try some new arrangements of classic hits that seem to disappoint all but the most rabid fans. New guitar guy's solos don't quite sound like the originals. They play a few songs from the upcoming new album and no one really digs them. People start walking out halfway through the set.

At the end of the show, a visibly tired former rock star half heartedly shouts, "Goodnight Valdosta! We love you and we love Georgia? Keep on rockin'." No encores. Straight to the waiting tour bus (AF 1) to get out of town as quickly as possible.

Flybang masher wrote:

agip wrote:

ok man, trump was making a subtle reference to an obscure piece of legislation maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of. Because Trump is super knowledgeable about proposed legislation and his fans are careful readers of the news.

And you are also correct to ignore that Trump has specifically ordered his admin to investigate how white farmers have suffered land confiscation and has been talking about that for years.

Kudos man, you see the world as it is.

Now you are exaggerating and contradicting your own exaggerations within the same post (which is referred to as being "internally inconsistent").

Since when does Trump or any other politician have to be "super knowledgeable" about proposed legislation they comment on? They comment on and exaggerate about proposed legislation that they have clearly never read and know little about, all the time. All Trump would have to know is two or three highlights of the Justice for Black Farmers proposal to understand his base will be enraged about it.

Where do you get "maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of"? Again, if you had even bothered to research the very Josh Marshall Twitter link that you posted, you would have quickly learned that Tucker Carlson - the guy that everyone in Trump's audience gets their world view from - was talking about the Justice for Black Farmers proposal on November 24, 2020. It's reported on NewsMax too, where Trump supporters get their talking points. And you can find articles on ABC and CNN, as well.

So, Trump doesn't have to have read a single word of the Justice for Black Farmers act to have referenced it - he just has to have watched Tucker Carlson two weeks ago. And his fans don't have to be "careful readers of the news" as you say - they just have to hit their go-to sources. Your whole first paragraph is a loaded exaggeration.

And it's internally inconsistent because you don't apply the same standards and loaded language ("subtle reference" "obscure" "maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of" "super knowledgeable" "fans are careful readers of the news") to the South Africa tweet. Why can Trump have been "subtly referencing" South African white farmers yesterday, but not subtly referencing farm legislation that is actually in America? Isn't whatever is going on with white farmers in South Africa in 2018 more "obscure" to Trump fans in the US than farm legislation in the US from 3 weeks ago? Did Trump have to be "super knowledgeable" about white farmers in South Africa before Tweeting about them? (Hint: he was not). Did his fans have to "careful readers of the news" to get excited about white South African farmers, or is a single 140 word reference enough to get them jacked up?

Again, it was your fellow anti-Trumpers on Twitter who were suggesting it was the Justice for Black Farmers legislation that Trump was referencing. And that makes more sense - both temporally (2020) and geographically (actually in the US). You are out of tune with your own cult's messaging on this.

By the way, when you made that original post, I'm betting you didn't even know about the 2018 South Africa post, or you would have mentioned it. You appear to grab facts after you form opinions, which is why you make idiotic, unequivocal statements like "absolutely nothing to do with the Justice for Black Farmers Act" and "no reasonable way to deny it," and then have to deflect from them with further exaggerations (see the list above).

Trollminator wrote:

Flybang masher wrote:

Now you are exaggerating and contradicting your own exaggerations within the same post (which is referred to as being "internally inconsistent").

Since when does Trump or any other politician have to be "super knowledgeable" about proposed legislation they comment on? They comment on and exaggerate about proposed legislation that they have clearly never read and know little about, all the time. All Trump would have to know is two or three highlights of the Justice for Black Farmers proposal to understand his base will be enraged about it.

Where do you get "maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of"? Again, if you had even bothered to research the very Josh Marshall Twitter link that you posted, you would have quickly learned that Tucker Carlson - the guy that everyone in Trump's audience gets their world view from - was talking about the Justice for Black Farmers proposal on November 24, 2020. It's reported on NewsMax too, where Trump supporters get their talking points. And you can find articles on ABC and CNN, as well.

So, Trump doesn't have to have read a single word of the Justice for Black Farmers act to have referenced it - he just has to have watched Tucker Carlson two weeks ago. And his fans don't have to be "careful readers of the news" as you say - they just have to hit their go-to sources. Your whole first paragraph is a loaded exaggeration.

And it's internally inconsistent because you don't apply the same standards and loaded language ("subtle reference" "obscure" "maybe 1% of the people in the nation has heard of" "super knowledgeable" "fans are careful readers of the news") to the South Africa tweet. Why can Trump have been "subtly referencing" South African white farmers yesterday, but not subtly referencing farm legislation that is actually in America? Isn't whatever is going on with white farmers in South Africa in 2018 more "obscure" to Trump fans in the US than farm legislation in the US from 3 weeks ago? Did Trump have to be "super knowledgeable" about white farmers in South Africa before Tweeting about them? (Hint: he was not). Did his fans have to "careful readers of the news" to get excited about white South African farmers, or is a single 140 word reference enough to get them jacked up?

Again, it was your fellow anti-Trumpers on Twitter who were suggesting it was the Justice for Black Farmers legislation that Trump was referencing. And that makes more sense - both temporally (2020) and geographically (actually in the US). You are out of tune with your own cult's messaging on this.

By the way, when you made that original post, I'm betting you didn't even know about the 2018 South Africa post, or you would have mentioned it. You appear to grab facts after you form opinions, which is why you make idiotic, unequivocal statements like "absolutely nothing to do with the Justice for Black Farmers Act" and "no reasonable way to deny it," and then have to deflect from them with further exaggerations (see the list above).

^ sally self trolling LOLz