Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

I'm scared of another president who walks into the oval office with an attitude of 'you know what? American stinks. I'm going to try to change everything because I am so smart.'

Call her whatever you want - she is always the most liberal senator or the second. She has plans to change healthcare, tech, finance, etc. She really really really believes that government has a prime task to manage the economy and change it often and radically.

Ciro wrote:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/inside-a-1992-party-with-trump-jeffrey-epstein-64003653964

People do need to view this.

There were a lot of connections between Trump and Epstein regarding women.

This happened to be recorded.

but the other point is that she would be a bad matchup against trump. I think she would read to MI PA WI as a person who really doesn't like america and middle american values. She would come across as a lecturer and a look down the noser. She polls very badly in her own state (which has a blue collar population too) and would just be classified by the key electorate as another liberal from taxachussets who wants to impose her values on them.

Biden doesn't do that, pete doesn't do that. Harris does it some.

poo poo wrote:

Ciro wrote:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/inside-a-1992-party-with-trump-jeffrey-epstein-64003653964

People do need to view this.

There were a lot of connections between Trump and Epstein regarding women.

This happened to be recorded.

no one cares

trump having a good time at a party with cheerleaders and other billionaires? pure catnip to the spankists. That's the trump they like. They want the movie star, bigger than life, entertainment industry Spanky.

if they cared about him hanging out with criminals and prostitutes they would have made that clear already.

agip wrote:

poo poo wrote:

People do need to view this.

There were a lot of connections between Trump and Epstein regarding women.

This happened to be recorded.

no one cares

trump having a good time at a party with cheerleaders and other billionaires? pure catnip to the spankists. That's the trump they like. They want the movie star, bigger than life, entertainment industry Spanky.

if they cared about him hanging out with criminals and prostitutes they would have made that clear already.

I agree, but IF Trump was involved with trafficked underage girls or willingly turned a blind eye to Epstein's illegal activities would his base care?

Warren matches up fine against Trump.

She can win any state Obama won and maybe more if matched against Trump.

Trump has not done particularly well in polling or results in MI, PA and WI since taking office.

And Arizona doesn't like him at all.

Ciro wrote:

agip wrote:

no one cares

trump having a good time at a party with cheerleaders and other billionaires? pure catnip to the spankists. That's the trump they like. They want the movie star, bigger than life, entertainment industry Spanky.

if they cared about him hanging out with criminals and prostitutes they would have made that clear already.

I agree, but IF Trump was involved with trafficked underage girls or willingly turned a blind eye to Epstein's illegal activities would his base care?

honestly, no, they wouldn't care.

They've chosen to overlook all his personal foibles as long as he continues to own the libs.

agip wrote:

Ciro wrote:

I agree, but IF Trump was involved with trafficked underage girls or willingly turned a blind eye to Epstein's illegal activities would his base care?

honestly, no, they wouldn't care.

They've chosen to overlook all his personal foibles as long as he continues to own the libs.

Up to and including involvement with a child trafficking?

I’d like to think that’s not the case.

She believes that government is there to benefit all people, not just the rich. Government should make sure that everyone has a fair shot. That's not a radical idea. It's a very popular idea.

If you are looking for a president who will be humble, your search will never end. Humble people don't run for president.

Another Fox News appointment.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-fox-news-contributor-monica-133612989.html

Monica has a history of plagiarism.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/monica-crowley-plagiarism-phd-dissertation-columbia-214612

Ciro wrote:

IF Trump was involved with trafficked underage girls or willingly turned a blind eye to Epstein's illegal activities would his base care?

First, thanks for emphasizing the "if"--so far as I've seen, there's been no convincing evidence that President Trump did either of those things. [And I think the Dems would be well advised not to go down that rabbit hole, but instead to focus on the *known*--particularly the election-finance FELONIES for which DJT's co-conspirator is in prison.]

-

Second, and speaking as a close relative of, a friend to, and a co-worker with multiple members of Trump's base: THEY WOULD NOT CARE IN THE SLIGHTEST. They would deflect; they would "interpret"; they would engage in whataboutism; mostly, they would completely ignore it.

After about 2 1/2 years of the Trump Administration, many a person still just doesn't seem to understand that to Trump's base he LITERALLY can do no wrong--because he is they . . . and they, of course can't think of *themselves* as doing wrong.

agip wrote:

but the other point is that she would be a bad matchup against trump. I think she would read to MI PA WI as a person who really doesn't like america and middle american values. She would come across as a lecturer and a look down the noser.

That depends if she gets painted as the professor from Harvard or as the schoolteacher from Oklahoma. Most people don't know her origin story. But they will if she gets the nomination. She has a compelling biography that relates to middle America very well. She was fighting for the middle class long before she thought of getting into politics. And it shows.

Now the candidate who matches up best with Tiny on the debate stage is Harris. She is a brilliant prosecutor. But debates don't win elections.

Elections are won with stump speeches. Right now, Warren is showing that she's the best at that.

Of course the Trump base and for some reason the religious right won't care about his association with a sex trafficker.

But what about swing voters?

Thanks for the reply, you are probably correct.

To the second part I agree that many, if not most, supporters of Trump see him as an extension of themselves and thus there is no line to cross with him. Everything is in play. The question is always going to be whether what he says turns off enough middle of the roaders or undecideds enough to simply get someone else in the WH or galvanize the Dems enough to get them to the polls. If the latter happens, Trump is toast.

To the first part, it doesn't appear that the Democrats are going down the road of pursuing the Epstein angle in a political sense at this point. That's a story I think too many on both sides are probably running some loose poops over at this point to come out and take a stand against anyone for a reason of being involved with Epstein. Way too many unknowns.

stump speeches? Who listens to a stump speech? I've never listened to a stump speech and I'm hyper politically aware.

presidential elections are won by personality, the election pendulum, get out the vote, political ads, etc.

Ciro wrote:

agip wrote:

no one cares

trump having a good time at a party with cheerleaders and other billionaires? pure catnip to the spankists. That's the trump they like. They want the movie star, bigger than life, entertainment industry Spanky.

if they cared about him hanging out with criminals and prostitutes they would have made that clear already.

I agree, but IF Trump was involved with trafficked underage girls or willingly turned a blind eye to Epstein's illegal activities would his base care?

The question of "would his base care" is always a question that can't be answered unless we define what "his base" is.

Trump's "base" is those who support him at any given snapshot in time. He has lost many from his "base" since the 2016 election and not gained very many new supporters. If he loses supporters for any reason, he still has his "base", because those are all the ones that are left.

So, the question should be, "IF Trump was involved with trafficked underage girls or willingly turned a blind eye to Epstein's illegal activities would he lose any supporters?" The answer to that is YES. Would it be a significant amount? Yet to be determined.

Democrats lose again wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll/republican-support-for-trump-rises-after-racially-charged-tweets-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1UB2UD

Thanks for the link. Setting aside my questions about the Reuters/Ipsos methodology (online poll? Doesn't that mean a lot of self-selection?), I found it interesting to read the bottom line:

.

Trump’s overall approval remained unchanged over the past week. According to the poll, 41% of the U.S. public said they approved of his performance in office, while 55% disapproved.

.

What's not clear to me is how the poll identifies "Republicans." From what I read from this and other articles about Reuters polls, I suspect that the GOPers were self-identified . . . in which case, it makes perfect sense to me that "Republicans support[ed] Trump": It seems that quite a few who cannot support Trump and used to call themselves Republicans . . . no longer do so. The GOP is becoming more and more homogeneous; increasingly, to say you're a Republican automatically means you're a Trumper.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

That depends if she gets painted as the professor from Harvard or as the schoolteacher from Oklahoma. Most people don't know her origin story. But they will if she gets the nomination. She has a compelling biography that relates to middle America very well. She was fighting for the middle class long before she thought of getting into politics. And it shows.

Now the candidate who matches up best with Tiny on the debate stage is Harris. She is a brilliant prosecutor. But debates don't win elections.

Elections are won with stump speeches. Right now, Warren is showing that she's the best at that.

stump speeches? Who listens to a stump speech? I've never listened to a stump speech and I'm hyper politically aware.

presidential elections are won by personality, the election pendulum, get out the vote, political ads, etc.

Yes you have. Maybe you didn't sit through the whole thing, but you see bits and pieces on the news every night. Frankly, I don't believe that you've never watched at least 10 or 20 minutes of a political speech.

Tiny won by giving stump speeches. He got people to watch him. He inspired them.

Same with Obama, Clinton, and Regan. People want to be inspired and this happens when they watch the candidate speak.

The Bushes were the exception. Both were terrible speakers.

It all starts with the good old-fashioned stump speech. People want to be inspired.