Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote: multiple posts ending 10/8/2019 2:43AM EST

Sally Vix wrote: multiple posts starting 10/8/2019 6:08AM EST

The situation must be getting serious. Does the troll farm pay overtime?

Democrats are wimps/fairies!!!

the tide is moving swiftly against Trump and toward impeachment. Voters have moved quickly to favoring an inquiry,

Expect more wild moves by trump to move this off the front page, ;like he is trying with Syria.

Most likely some kind of mass anti-immigrant sweeps in a coordinated move across the nation.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1181542760739934208?s=20

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

This is correct:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/opinions/donald-trump-should-resign-ghitis/index.html

I wrote that almost verbatim a year ago based on the facts of the time.

He will never resign.

Maybe some of the second amendment people can take care of him.

the betting markets are nuts. unless they are not.

predictit has the #3 most likely Dem nominee for president to be....HRC.

#4 is Andrew Yang.

weird, weird numbers. Not good for the dems that such chaos is out there.

Although betting odds are set by lonely men at home, a group not representative of the electorate.

And some think the odds are manipulated by pump and dumps.

Still. HRC. 3rd place despite not running.

Someone with courage could make a lot of money betting against HRC and Yang.

Sounds like you can do a combo bet of saying neither HRC nor Yang will be the nominee and make some good money.

I don't see how that's bad for Dems.

This time four years ago the Republicans were in chaos and the Democrats really had one person running and an Independent providing just a little competition.

By next summer, the Dem nominee will be set and there will be a trial or maybe new investigations going on for Trump.

agip wrote:

the betting markets are nuts. unless they are not.

predictit has the #3 most likely Dem nominee for president to be....HRC.

#4 is Andrew Yang.

weird, weird numbers. Not good for the dems that such chaos is out there . . .

I fail to see how any of this is in any way relevant to the Democrats' strategy, tactics or chances of success for the upcoming election.

Sally Vix wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Simple Question for Fat Hurts. Very simple question. Do you acknowledge that the Earth will go through a cooling phase likely in the not-too-distant future? Will you acknowledge that? If not, you are a Science doofus.

Just a quick follow-up. If you are unwilling to acknowledge that, you have no business ever talking about Global Warming here ever again. You are a science fraud.

Translation: Please come back and play with me, Fat Hurts!

///

Come on Sally. Don't be so pathetic (or obvious). Remember, you used to be considered our "quality" troll. What ever happened to you?

I Don't C It wrote:

agip wrote:

the betting markets are nuts. unless they are not.

predictit has the #3 most likely Dem nominee for president to be....HRC.

#4 is Andrew Yang.

weird, weird numbers. Not good for the dems that such chaos is out there . . .

I fail to see how any of this is in any way relevant to the Democrats' strategy, tactics or chances of success for the upcoming election.

yeah I probably overstated the case that this means anything to the dems.

just seems that a party with a clear message and a clear leader would be better than what we have now with the dems. A two person race with one mainstream experienced guy and one hard left person. That kind of binary difference can be hard on a party - we all have to unite behind either Biden or Warren eventually.

The lack of a single vision for the dems is what I'm getting at - it is allowing thoughts like 'HRC will come back and try to take the nomination from these weak candidates' that sort of thing.

But yeah I made too much of the betting site meaning much.

Sally Trolling 101 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Just a quick follow-up. If you are unwilling to acknowledge that, you have no business ever talking about Global Warming here ever again. You are a science fraud.

Translation: Please come back and play with me, Fat Hurts!

///

Come on Sally. Don't be so pathetic (or obvious). Remember, you used to be considered our "quality" troll. What ever happened to you?

I have had it with this Global Warming hoax. When Global Warming Alarmists are unwilling to acknowledge that the Earth is going to cool again and that referring to the "warmest days on record" when that only takes in the last 139 years of 4.6 BILLION then they are not serious people to the Global Warming discussion. They are not after the truth. To bring up this "warmest years on record" is ludicrous. And yet none will acknowledge that the Earth will be cooling again fairly soon the the "warmest years on record" is a meaningless term.

agip wrote:

the tide is moving swiftly against Trump and toward impeachment. Voters have moved quickly to favoring an inquiry,

Expect more wild moves by trump to move this off the front page, ;like he is trying with Syria.

Most likely some kind of mass anti-immigrant sweeps in a coordinated move across the nation.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1181542760739934208?s=20

Already running a victory lap, again.

How did that "Mueller is coming" work out for ya?

Sally Vix wrote:

Sally Trolling 101 wrote:

Translation: Please come back and play with me, Fat Hurts!

///

Come on Sally. Don't be so pathetic (or obvious). Remember, you used to be considered our "quality" troll. What ever happened to you?

I have had it with this Global Warming hoax. When Global Warming Alarmists are unwilling to acknowledge that the Earth is going to cool again and that referring to the "warmest days on record" when that only takes in the last 139 years of 4.6 BILLION then they are not serious people to the Global Warming discussion. They are not after the truth. To bring up this "warmest years on record" is ludicrous. And yet none will acknowledge that the Earth will be cooling again fairly soon the the "warmest years on record" is a meaningless term.

Indeed! The Earth is really, REALLY old. Therefore there is no way that human activities are having a significant impact on the climate.

Oh wait, almost forgot - The Earth goes through hotter and colder periods and will almost certainly go through a colder period in the future. Therefore there is no way that human activities are having a significant impact on the climate.

///

And lest we forget . . . LOOK!

Lessons in Stupid (Trump U. curriculum)

1 + 1 = 2, EXCEPT: when donny says otherwise; or you may have to go with your gut; or whatever the press says is wrong.

Special case: two wrongs DO make a right when trump does it.

Calyope wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

So what's your solution, warlord? We're talking about 100 troops and they were nothing more than human shields.

Sheila, why should we listen to anything you have to say, you wanker? You posted a fake quote from Mrs. Clinton, presenting it as true, and then when you were called out on it, you weren't man enough to admit you were fooled like the gullible sh!thead that you are. Be a man and admit your mistake. You can't do it because you have no self esteem and you are no man. Quit posting your crap here, mate. No one believes a thing you say. Prove that you are a man and admit your very foolish mistake.

Yet, you still follow & believe the Clownpole's hilariously incorrect predictions and refuse to call him out on them.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Science? The science of Global Warming? How many decades have we been hearing of this hoax?

You believe in a global scientific conspiracy.

The sane people don't.

There is nothing more for you and me to discuss.

You believe in bad science followed by worse politics.

Eat the babies.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You believe in a global scientific conspiracy.

The sane people don't.

There is nothing more for you and me to discuss.

You believe in bad science followed by worse politics.

Eat the babies.

and you believe in personality cults

"Fifty-seven percent of independents polled said they support the inquiry, with just under half saying the House should vote to impeach the president."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-inquiry-majority-poll

Interesting analysis of the Trump tariffs by a conservative economist, the Mercatus Center's Veronique de Rugy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opinion/trump-trade.html

She shows how the facts have contradicted five of the Trump administration's major claims re trade:

1. "Other countries won't retaliate against our tariffs." Wrong: Every country has retaliated.

2. "Tariffs will bring companies back to the United States." Wrong: That's not the reality of (among others) manufacturing today.

3. "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." Other countries are just making trade deals with each other, and shutting the U.S. out.

4. "Farmers will benefit from tariffs." U.S. farmers have been devastated by the tariffs. Makes sense, when you consider the $28 billion in welfare aid that's gone to stricken farmers.

5. "The Trump administration will wipe away the trade deficit." Regardless of whether this is actually a useful goal: During BHO's second term the monthly trade deficits averaged ~$41 billion; under DJT, that figure has averaged ~$50 billion.

agip wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

You believe in bad science followed by worse politics.

Eat the babies.

and you believe in personality cults

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/larouche-pac-ocasio-cortez-baby-eating_n_5d9753c8e4b0f5bf79739966?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGyq85M7yveiLrvH-e_fW8GTpa58XRBhFe192reWhzMdMgCrJaynra-s22csmX1eZq6Z28AIBSKOT-_W85_V0XHv9vU6pmQHiRjBrwXVuvtb4S8rMhTK-cBkAac6dL31VqnWAbVHQiAoNURpTiVsIMSaJTL-28-U3BJcGtsFn1HH

wtf is this, Modest Proposal or something?