Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

The Fokus wrote:

Elizabeth Warren has no chance to be elected. She just presents really poorly even if one was to agree with her message. She's a best fit as a behind the scenes policy creator.

As a conservative, I just don't know who would support her. Blacks are not going to support her. Hispanics are no going to support her. Conservatives are not. She has some very liberal ideas and she looks frenetic when presenting her ideas. I thought Biden would be the most serious contender to Trump but Biden is toast. No way he survives the latest bunches of women maligning him. Mayor B might be the best candidate. Cory Booker. No. Kamala. No. Bernie. No. Not sure if you Dems have a viable candidate. Not sure about Beto.

agip wrote:

Most R strategists feel that Warren would be the only Dem trump could beat pretty easily. An annoying, naggy super-left Harvard professor is just not who people want to have a beer with on Friday night. Or listen to for eight years.

Maybe dems want that. I sure don't. The Obama style is so much better, by a million light years.

It's hard to predict what kind of a mood the voters are going to be in.

Personally, I don't yet have a favorite.

The Fokus wrote:

Elizabeth Warren has no chance to be elected. She just presents really poorly even if one was to agree with her message. She's a best fit as a behind the scenes policy creator.

I think she's an outstanding pick for VP if the nominee is someone who is a little light on policy. Beto, for instance.

Fat hurts wrote:

The Fokus wrote:

Elizabeth Warren has no chance to be elected. She just presents really poorly even if one was to agree with her message. She's a best fit as a behind the scenes policy creator.

I think she's an outstanding pick for VP if the nominee is someone who is a little light on policy. Beto, for instance.

Would agree with this. Warren would be a good VP who is out of the limelight. Like Pence. She has a long career but she is not the type to be the A performer. She needs to be the backup.

Would America ever elect a two-lady candidacy?

I'm a bit in between you and agip on Warren, but I am closer to your view. I agree that she is very smart, and while I do agree that the game is rigged in favor of large corporations (which is one of the many reasons I say people should invest as much as they can), she's a bit too aggressive against companies there for me. I would be able to live with a corporate environment she might create, however.

As a candidate though, unfortunately I think the Native American thing is too big for her to overcome. Personally I am not bothered by it...she was told all her life that she had Native American ancestry, and while her DNA test did prove that, she didn't do her due diligence to see if her level of ancestry lived up to what was accepted by the Cherokees. I don't blame her for mentioning it and perhaps misunderstanding the significance, but perception is reality, and she would be skewered by the GOP nominee and the right-wing media if she is the Democrat nominee.

If we're talking just intelligence and readiness, she's at the top of the list. Unfortunately she is not the best CANDIDATE.

Sally Vix wrote:

Would America ever elect a two-lady candidacy?

Yes. Maybe 2020. Men vs. Women.

It would be easy to say, "Look at the mess that the men have made. It's time to give the women a shot."

Democrats are “funny” wrote:

Democrats are Buttigieg lovers!!!!

That’s hilarious!!!

Democrats are “funny”

Agree. Democrats are nasty (aka gays).

Sally Vix wrote:

Would America ever elect a two-lady candidacy?

EVER? Yes. Ever is a long time.

In 2020? Doubtful. I don't think it would be a wise move for a female presidential candidate to pick a female running mate in 2020. There is still a LOT of discrimination against women in this country, and there are some (including women) who would be turned off by an all-female ticket. Ms. Clinton was not a good candidate and there were legitimate reasons to not like her based on her behavior, but she DID get some extra hate because she is a woman. There are still a lot of people in this country who believe a woman should not be the President, including a lot of women.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

do you think her view of a miserable, beat-up, victimized american public will gather enough votes to get the nomination?

Warren draws well from all over the political spectrum. Once people hear her message, they tend to like it. She is able to channel the anger that people have over the villains of the great recession who never got punished.

The other thing about her is that she's an exceptional debater. So if she can stay in the race long enough she will begin to get more air time in each debate and she will be able to stand out among the remaining contestants.

I'd absolutely love to see her in a debate against Tiny. I think she would relentlessly rip him to shreds.

Normally I would agree with you, as her skill is immense and her intelligence well beyond The Orange One, but Individual-1 just has to call her "Pocahontas" and the right will have an orgasm. If it comes down to her vs. Tiny, I hope I'm wrong. I see her better as a Vice Presidential candidate...but only because of this whole Native American thing. Otherwise, she would be a great choice as President.

Sally Vix wrote:

Would America ever elect a two-lady candidacy?

"The history of single gender ticket has been very successful." -- Amy Klobuchar 2016.

Will she pick a woman if she is nominated?

Runningart2004 wrote:

agip wrote:

Beto is an odd bird...not sure I'd call him a moderate anymore. he is off on his own. Massively left on race/cultural issues - as left as campus nuts in many ways.

but he's not anti-business like warren and Bernie.

So he's the sort of 'liberal on social issues, moderate on money issues' that many people say they are. Sort of a yankee 'I don't care what you do in your spare time but don't f around with town finances' sort of thing.

will it sell in this time? I hope so.

Beto’s voting record is more conservative than like 75% of Dems. Klobuchar is similar.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders are all far left according to their records.

Ultimately I believe it all depends on how we define the terms.

Alan

Yep...Alan is right about Beto. He is not far left...very moderate, at least historically. Would he become more liberal as time goes on? Perhaps. Obama did. HRC did. That is the way things are headed which is part of the reason (in addition to cheating and some other things) Trump won in 2016...was a last-ditch effort by mouth breathers to try to keep things from changing...fear that they would lose what little bit of privilege they have. Futile in the long run.

Flagpole wrote:

Normally I would agree with you, as her skill is immense and her intelligence well beyond The Orange One, but Individual-1 just has to call her "Pocahontas" and the right will have an orgasm. If it comes down to her vs. Tiny, I hope I'm wrong. I see her better as a Vice Presidential candidate...but only because of this whole Native American thing. Otherwise, she would be a great choice as President.

I don't think people really cared. The only problem is that she mishandled it.

All she had to do was say, "Pocahontas was a great American. I've been called a lot worse."

Democrats lose again!!!!

The Fokus wrote:

Elizabeth Warren has no chance to be elected. She just presents really poorly even if one was to agree with her message. She's a best fit as a behind the scenes policy creator.

Do you mean she has no chance of being elected as the Democrat nominee?

Because she would be favored to win over Trump.

That's far from "no chance".

Not saying she's a shoe-in, but I would argue your no chance comment.

Flagpole wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Beto’s voting record is more conservative than like 75% of Dems. Klobuchar is similar.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders are all far left according to their records.

Ultimately I believe it all depends on how we define the terms.

Alan

Yep...Alan is right about Beto. He is not far left...very moderate, at least historically. Would he become more liberal as time goes on? Perhaps. Obama did. HRC did. That is the way things are headed which is part of the reason (in addition to cheating and some other things) Trump won in 2016...was a last-ditch effort by mouth breathers to try to keep things from changing...fear that they would lose what little bit of privilege they have. Futile in the long run.

well yeah on voting record. But he seems to be for far left ideas like reparations, tearing down border walls, drug legalization, etc. it's a weird mix of stuff. Hard to classify, But I don't think it's moderate.

L L wrote:

The Fokus wrote:

Elizabeth Warren has no chance to be elected. She just presents really poorly even if one was to agree with her message. She's a best fit as a behind the scenes policy creator.

Do you mean she has no chance of being elected as the Democrat nominee?

Because she would be favored to win over Trump.

That's far from "no chance".

Not saying she's a shoe-in, but I would argue your no chance comment.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html

not disagreeing with you, but Bernie is +10 vs trump, per RCP. Shows warren's weakness.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Normally I would agree with you, as her skill is immense and her intelligence well beyond The Orange One, but Individual-1 just has to call her "Pocahontas" and the right will have an orgasm. If it comes down to her vs. Tiny, I hope I'm wrong. I see her better as a Vice Presidential candidate...but only because of this whole Native American thing. Otherwise, she would be a great choice as President.

I don't think people really cared. The only problem is that she mishandled it.

All she had to do was say, "Pocahontas was a great American. I've been called a lot worse."

We will see if it gets that far. I would HOPE that you would be right there, but I have no confidence in the electorate. They will make a case that she used her Native American ancestry to get ahead in the world of academia, and unfortunately there really isn't a way to defend that too well.

I still like her a lot though.

Trump is creating a real opening for a far left candidate to become president.

Trump had the gift of running against Hillary.

The Dem nominee gets the gift of running against Trump. (unless he resigns in the window that I guessed)