Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

An establishment Democrat who cannot seem believable and cannot present some revolutionary ideas in a simple way will not be able to win. I can’t see Warren appealing to the masses yet but she may have it in her. The reality is although she is well known, people do not enough about her and have not heard enough from her yet to make up their minds.

Right. She's recognizable, but few have really seen her out campaigning. Warren is truly amazing on the stump.

In focus groups, she has shown vast appeal all across the spectrum. Nobody talks about the problems and solutions for the middle class better than Elizabeth Warren. There is a reason that Tiny seems to be more afraid of her than any of the other potential candidates. She speaks to his base even better than he does.

maybe so, but she comes off to me, a pro-business democrat, as really being disgusted by free enterprise, capitalism and corporations. Not a good look for a healer or a national level politician.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Right. She's recognizable, but few have really seen her out campaigning. Warren is truly amazing on the stump.

In focus groups, she has shown vast appeal all across the spectrum. Nobody talks about the problems and solutions for the middle class better than Elizabeth Warren. There is a reason that Tiny seems to be more afraid of her than any of the other potential candidates. She speaks to his base even better than he does.

maybe so, but she comes off to me, a pro-business democrat, as really being disgusted by free enterprise, capitalism and corporations. Not a good look for a healer or a national level politician.

There aren't that many pro-business democrats left. I think the feeling of most people on both sides of the aisle is that business has too much power. They may not say it in those words, but that's how they feel.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Right. She's recognizable, but few have really seen her out campaigning. Warren is truly amazing on the stump.

In focus groups, she has shown vast appeal all across the spectrum. Nobody talks about the problems and solutions for the middle class better than Elizabeth Warren. There is a reason that Tiny seems to be more afraid of her than any of the other potential candidates. She speaks to his base even better than he does.

maybe so, but she comes off to me, a pro-business democrat, as really being disgusted by free enterprise, capitalism and corporations. Not a good look for a healer or a national level politician.

So did Bernie, but he would have had an excellent chance of being POTUS. I think if a candidate can be convincing in their argument they win people over. Of course, specially after Trump, no Democrat is going to seem pro-business, impossible... but as long as they convince the masses that what Trump has done with regards to taxes and regulation is directly either hurting them or at the very least no benefiting them it should be fine. Obama did that very well. Here’s a conversation starter, now that we had this ridiculous tax reform, how about closing a few loopholes for the ultra rich and rebalancing the tax brackets to give extra benefit to the middle class.. that without a net cut in taxes. A lot of people would bite and see that as a compromise. It will be VERY easy to show just how enormous the wealth gap has become under Trump. Actual dollars in people’s pocket, something Trump has not done for anyone who is not a millionaire.

Trollminator wrote:

agip wrote:

maybe so, but she comes off to me, a pro-business democrat, as really being disgusted by free enterprise, capitalism and corporations. Not a good look for a healer or a national level politician.

So did Bernie, but he would have had an excellent chance of being POTUS.

Let's set ideological differences aside real quick. He will be almost 80 by the time he would take office in 2021 and with the notable stress the presidency takes on a person it would basically be a vote for the VP.

when the repubs throw around the word 'socialist' they mean people like warren - people who really seem to feel that government is better at things than the private sector. Who see a government role for solving every problem. I think Americans instinctively push back against that approach.

If the Repubs are using 'socialist' now, they know it works in campaigning. It pushes indies to the repubs. And warren will push the indies toward repubs, which is how the repubs win these things.

Racket wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

So did Bernie, but he would have had an excellent chance of being POTUS.

Let's set ideological differences aside real quick. He will be almost 80 by the time he would take office in 2021 and with the notable stress the presidency takes on a person it would basically be a vote for the VP.

You misunderstood, I said he “would have had”. He is too old to start a first term now. On that note, Trump has the health and mind of an 80 year old, but I guess he can handle it since he’s on a flex working schedule anyway. He has a good gig - golfs 1/3 of his working time, watches TV for another half, and when he does work it’s all easy decision-making without any deep study or thought. Bernie could definitely handle that!

Trollminator wrote:

Racket wrote:

Let's set ideological differences aside real quick. He will be almost 80 by the time he would take office in 2021 and with the notable stress the presidency takes on a person it would basically be a vote for the VP.

You misunderstood, I said he “would have had”. He is too old to start a first term now. On that note, Trump has the health and mind of an 80 year old, but I guess he can handle it since he’s on a flex working schedule anyway. He has a good gig - golfs 1/3 of his working time, watches TV for another half, and when he does work it’s all easy decision-making without any deep study or thought. Bernie could definitely handle that!

1950 called. It wants your opinion back.

The hits just keep coming

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says.amp

Apparently Manafort has spent over 50 hours with Mueller over the last 4 weeks.

What ever do you suppose they are talking about? I say they are comparing recipes.

HRC 4 prez wrote:

The hits just keep coming

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says.amp

Do let us know when all those promised indictments of Hillary start to play out ?

try to be honest now....

so we've established that both H. & B Clinton were evil bad actors who you couldn't support for the reasons you listed...

how is it that here we have D Trump doing the same thing that H&B were doing that made them so bad but you are cool with DT doing it??? Be honest now...

Be honest now?!? A Trumpette??!!??? Now that's funny!

this is just stupid

the clintons were investigated for decades by republicans and what did they get? an email scandal, infidelity, possible perjury and possible obstruction.

The trumps have been investigated for just two years and there have been what - five guilty pleas from their circle and what can only be described as a torrent of financial crimes, from every trump. And we haven't even heard yet from the special counsel. I don't think that has been going on for years without some serious crime.

So no, trump and the clintons didn't do the same thing. That is right wing radio moran talk.

“What kind of an amoral ideologue still supports a politician who has had FIVE campaign officials plead guilty to federal charges?”

Well, there is always this wrote:

“What kind of an amoral ideologue still supports a politician who has had FIVE campaign officials plead guilty to federal charges?”

Hey, I just posted an article on the Clintons. Not clean either and far from it.

Well, there is always this wrote:

“What kind of an amoral ideologue still supports a politician who has had FIVE campaign officials plead guilty to federal charges?”

To set the record straight, were these five officials charged for crimes which occurred BEFORE Trump became a candidate for President?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Well, there is always this wrote:

“What kind of an amoral ideologue still supports a politician who has had FIVE campaign officials plead guilty to federal charges?”

Hey, I just posted an article on the Clintons. Not clean either and far from it.

^ Standard Trumptard 'look squirrel' defensive posture.

Askerer of question wrote:

Well, there is always this wrote:

“What kind of an amoral ideologue still supports a politician who has had FIVE campaign officials plead guilty to federal charges?”

To set the record straight, were these five officials charged for crimes which occurred BEFORE Trump became a candidate for President?

BEFORE makes no difference. Learn you something.