Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

In a sense you may be right (correct). But if he did, it was in setting new standards for conducting diplomacy, rules of law, rules of decorum, executive priv., etc. And not raising the standards, mind you.

Sad.

Trump and his Christian soldiers still infecting people with Covid.

It’s amazing that these people are so gullible that they’ll believe anything (other than science, of course).

https://www.11alive.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/jentezen-franklin-free-chapel-covid-19/85-7278a271-664e-4d2c-bda0-431d15863c14

seattle prattle wrote:

agip wrote:

I completely disagree. Trump will go down in history as perhaps the most consequential, effective president since Reagan. He changed everything.

In a sense you may be right (correct). But if he did, it was in setting new standards for conducting diplomacy, rules of law, rules of decorum, executive priv., etc. And not raising the standards, mind you.

Sad.

sad and catastrophic

Yes - like Hitler changed Germany. You confuse change with progress; it can just as easily be destruction.

Armstronglivs wrote:

agip wrote:

I completely disagree. Trump will go down in history as perhaps the most consequential, effective president since Reagan. He changed everything.

Yes - like Hitler changed Germany. You confuse change with progress; it can just as easily be destruction.

Scanning agip's post - not spotting the word, "progress".

1101 wrote:

I take it from your post that you think there is some kind of problem with people believing in their "American ancestry". Perhaps I am misinterpreting.

Is there some reason that I should not believe in my "American ancestry"?

As a first generation American, I am troubled by the notion that being an "American" is a matter of ancestry. That sounds like a tacit indictment that I cannot be a real American because I cannot trace any ancestry in the United States. I thought what made the United States such a great country was that anyone could become an "American" regardless of their heritage by simply embracing the "idea" of the United States. But maybe I was seriously misguided.

If you have any Native American heritage, then I think it makes sense to believe in your "American ancestry."

agip wrote:

GoTuck wrote:

Can't you read? Do the math. A few million scattered around the U.S. Trump can activate them but their batteries will give out in short order. An army without a secure supply chain is a dead duck.

guerrilla warfare doesn't have supply chains with trucks and depots.

it's militias made up of regular working people who fight at night and by surprise.

I think it's very odd that just a few hours ago you were vehemently insisting that a civil war is inevitable and now you are on the Dow thread discussing music.

If you think civil war is upon us perhaps you should focus on something other than the Stones... like how you are going to survive this civil war?? ... or maybe not...lol

Sidney Powell spearheading a coup is like the Hamburgler spearheading a Vegas casino heist. Sure, she’s dead serious about it, but the only person she’s fooling is Mayor McCheese (and perhaps a few on this thread).

-from twitter

15_50 wrote:

agip wrote:

guerrilla warfare doesn't have supply chains with trucks and depots.

it's militias made up of regular working people who fight at night and by surprise.

I think it's very odd that just a few hours ago you were vehemently insisting that a civil war is inevitable and now you are on the Dow thread discussing music.

If you think civil war is upon us perhaps you should focus on something other than the Stones... like how you are going to survive this civil war?? ... or maybe not...lol

heh

I've said multiple times the last couple pages on this thread that I *don't* believe we will have a civil war or sustained political violence. But I do think that if Trump asks for it, we'll get it.

As for the Stones, they were banned because one of their songs, Street Fighting Man, seemed to encourage political violence:

The song was released within a week of the violent confrontations between the police and anti-Vietnam War protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.[12] Worried about the possibility of the song inciting further violence, Chicago radio stations refused to play the song. This was much to the delight of Mick Jagger, who stated: "I'm rather pleased to hear they have banned (the song). The last time they banned one of our records in America, it sold a million."[15] Jagger said he was told they thought the record was subversive, to which he snapped: "Of course it's subversive! It's stupid to think you can start a revolution with a record. I wish you could."[15]

That's insane. Jagger wanted to kill the Queen's husband, not Hubert Humphrey.

seattle prattle wrote:

agip wrote:

I completely disagree. Trump will go down in history as perhaps the most consequential, effective president since Reagan. He changed everything.

In a sense you may be right (correct). But if he did, it was in setting new standards for conducting diplomacy, rules of law, rules of decorum, executive priv., etc. And not raising the standards, mind you.

Sad.

I can agree with consequential (certainly consequences can be very bad, but the term is usually not used in that context) but I don't agree with effective. If it assumed the basic goal of any president is to strengthen and protect our country, he certainly was not effective in that. If his goal was to weaken NATO and strengthen Russia, then yes effective, but that's a weird criterion for effectiveness.

As far as the judges, the names of the judges to nominate were provided to him by a conservative group, after that a monkey could have gotten the Republican senate to approve them. So no credit there, just luck.

He was effective in taking over the Republican party but he ruined any semblance of ethics in that party. Hard to use the word effective when you are destroying something. I guess you can be effective in ruining something, but then again effective is not usually used in that context.

the late 60s/early 70s were far worse than now in terms of political violence and societal ripping so the nerves were raw and censors active.

And rock was young - it was leading the world so a song was scary. Now rock is a dim memory, a side show.

Jagger was pretty revolutionary, supposedly. In an intellectual way, not a 'give me a gun' way.

[Verse 4]

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

seems to me trump was sent to DC to shake things up, and that he did by god.

that's one reason his fans love him so much - they were sick of eastern technocrats talking in phony ways...they wanted the 'tell it like it is' style of trump to redo DC. And he did.

So while you and I don't think that is progress so we'd pull back from the word 'effective,' the trumpists think his upsetting the apple cart was exactly what they wanted so very effective.

Nicely said and very much what i was trying to express.

So let me get this straight... you don't think it's gonna happen unless trump asks for it but if he does ask for it ,we'll get it? you actually think that?

in that case, if i were you i'd be seriously looking for a place to hide out because in my mind there is a much greater chance that trump will ask for it than there is of an actual civil war.

he's not all there and it's not like he thinks about the ramifications of his tweets prior to hitting send.

i expect there will be some violence but not an all out civil war...

btw, i enjoyed to stones/jager story! thanks for the music history lesson

agip wrote:

Flybang mosh wrote:

That's insane. Jagger wanted to kill the Queen's husband, not Hubert Humphrey.

the late 60s/early 70s were far worse than now in terms of political violence and societal ripping so the nerves were raw and censors active.

And rock was young - it was leading the world so a song was scary. Now rock is a dim memory, a side show.

Jagger was pretty revolutionary, supposedly. In an intellectual way, not a 'give me a gun' way.

[Verse 4]

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

True about the sinners, maybe. The Queen was bravely shouting "What the hell is going on?" As I recall.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

1101 wrote:

I take it from your post that you think there is some kind of problem with people believing in their "American ancestry". Perhaps I am misinterpreting.

Is there some reason that I should not believe in my "American ancestry"?

As a first generation American, I am troubled by the notion that being an "American" is a matter of ancestry. That sounds like a tacit indictment that I cannot be a real American because I cannot trace any ancestry in the United States. I thought what made the United States such a great country was that anyone could become an "American" regardless of their heritage by simply embracing the "idea" of the United States. But maybe I was seriously misguided.

If you have any Native American heritage, then I think it makes sense to believe in your "American ancestry."

I see what you are saying. And I am not saying that you are wrong. But that is definitely not how I see it.

(1) I actually don't think about my ancestry at all (within epsilon). It is completely irrelevant to me. Not something I would ever take pride in or be ashamed of or . . . pretty much anything. Just irrelevant.

(2) If someone were to ask me about my ancestry my first thought would be that it is a dumb question. If I chose to answer the question at all, it seems like the three most reasonable answers are (in no particular order):

(a) American (since I was born here, as were my parents)

(b) African (since all of us have all of our ancestors coming out of Africa at some point)

(c) Descended from something that arose in some nondescript puddle of primordial "soup"

Anything else seems fairly arbitrary to me. But again, I don't really think about my ancestry at all.

The notion that saying that my ancestry is "American" is somehow "a tacit indictment that (you) cannot be a real American because (you) cannot trace any ancestry in the United States" strikes me as bizarre. Sounds as if you are trying to take offense.

I do completely agree with: "what made the United States such a great country was that anyone could become an "American" regardless of their heritage by simply embracing the "idea" of the United States."

And finally, the whole "Native American" thing seems way overused IMHO. "Native Americans" should say that their ancestry is Asian of some sort if non-Natives are supposed to claim European or African or Asian ancestry. "Native Americans" have ancestors that came here a bit earlier but still they came from somewhere else, just like all of us.

Really sad the way Trump is acting.

He lost the election and now the nay saers are being taken to the cleaners in court unless they prove the election was rigged.

S

So sad people are sending money tp defend Trump's case. If he is the multi- billoinare he clames, he should put up his own money.

This is the last act of a man who would be king. And americans will sink to the borrom of the barrel for Trump. Trumpers... grow up!

ENJOY YOUR LOSS ??