Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

foo wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Nixon never faced an impeachment "inquiry." LOL.

Ok, I'll explain it to you..

You can justify the illegal/corrupt/unethical actions of any POTUS by saying that he was elected and therefor the other arms of government have no business in performing oversight because they would be overturning the prior election.

Since you didn't understand the Nixon analogy, let's use Clinton. I'm assuming you thought he should have been impeached. Using your own logic, why then were the Republicans trying to overturn the 1996 election?

I am not sure Clinton should have been impeached. He was a serial (insert your bad crimes here) but not sure he should have been impeached.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Agreed.

I don't think I've ever actually debated the science with either of them. But lately, it has become more clear that you just can't waste your time with the deniers who think it's a conspiracy.

Belief in a global scientific conspiracy really does show a paranoid departure from reality.

So debating climate change with Sally or Rigged would be like visiting the mental ward and trying to convince a patient he really is not Napoleon.

I have never said it is a conspiracy. BUT, if you are unwilling to say that the Earth WILL cool in the future and that the "warmest days on record" is meaningless, then you are not a serious person in this discussion. If you admit that the Earth WILL cool in the not-to-distant future, then I will consider engaging in discourse with you. Otherwise, forgetaboutit!

So you don't believe climate science is a hoax or a conspiracy? Is that your story now?

Sally Vix wrote:

foo wrote:

Ok, I'll explain it to you..

You can justify the illegal/corrupt/unethical actions of any POTUS by saying that he was elected and therefor the other arms of government have no business in performing oversight because they would be overturning the prior election.

Since you didn't understand the Nixon analogy, let's use Clinton. I'm assuming you thought he should have been impeached. Using your own logic, why then were the Republicans trying to overturn the 1996 election?

I am not sure Clinton should have been impeached. He was a serial (insert your bad crimes here) but not sure he should have been impeached.

Ok, recent examples don't seem to be working for you. Let's try a hypothetical example instead. Suppose a future POTUS were to walk down 5th Avenue in Manhattan and shoot someone unprovoked. Using your logic, Congress should not impeach the felonious POTUS because they would be overturning the previous election and the will of the electorate.

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Sally, you have been told several times about how you are not right in your assessment of this. You look more and more foolish every time you bring it up. There is no debate on this. You are just flat wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

Step 3)

Way to go, Sally! String them along 'til the end of time.

Good job!

1) Make ridiculous claim

2) Have claim proven wrong unequivocally

3) Repeat ridiculous claim

4) Have folks point out that claim was clearly proven to be incorrect

5) Repeat ridiculous claim - now daring anyone to prove them wrong

6) Have folks point out that they are tired of proving this claim wrong

7) Repeat ridiculous claim. Compound it by claiming that no "lib" is able to even address it

8) Have someone shout out, "LOOK AT THE F'ING PROOF THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU EIGHT TIMES, YOU MORON!!!"

9) Reply that poster is being rude and that only "libs" are rude

10) Have some "saint" on here very politely point out that the claim is pure BS, completely made up by Breitbart & Co.

11) Thank saint for "finally" providing the answer. Give kudos (saint now reverts back to "Maybe Sally isn't a troll. Maybe she is just a lost soul.")

12) Make new ridiculous claim

13) Have new claim proven wrong unequivocally

14) Repeat new ridiculous claim

. . .

And so on, ad infinitum

foo wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am not sure Clinton should have been impeached. He was a serial (insert your bad crimes here) but not sure he should have been impeached.

Ok, recent examples don't seem to be working for you. Let's try a hypothetical example instead. Suppose a future POTUS were to walk down 5th Avenue in Manhattan and shoot someone unprovoked. Using your logic, Congress should not impeach the felonious POTUS because they would be overturning the previous election and the will of the electorate.

That person would be indicted for attempted murder. No impeachment needed.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I have never said it is a conspiracy. BUT, if you are unwilling to say that the Earth WILL cool in the future and that the "warmest days on record" is meaningless, then you are not a serious person in this discussion. If you admit that the Earth WILL cool in the not-to-distant future, then I will consider engaging in discourse with you. Otherwise, forgetaboutit!

So you don't believe climate science is a hoax or a conspiracy? Is that your story now?

I will answer but first you must acknowledge that the Earth WILL cool in the not-too-distant future and that the "warmest years on record" is meaningless.

Exactly, ignore Sally, he’s a troll.

That's it, Sally! Reel him back in. Don't let him get away - you are losing people willing to respond to you at an alarming rate. Don't let this one get away!

But you won't do that because you Global Warming Alarmists have NOTHING if the truth that the Earth will cool in the future comes out. The Earth WILL cool in the future but what happens to your hoax when the Earth quits continually warming? Where do you go from there? The Earth WILL begin cooling again and that will expose your hoax for what it is - an effing HOAX!

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

And that changes what Trump said on the phone call how, exactly?

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I have never said it is a conspiracy. BUT, if you are unwilling to say that the Earth WILL cool in the future and that the "warmest days on record" is meaningless, then you are not a serious person in this discussion. If you admit that the Earth WILL cool in the not-to-distant future, then I will consider engaging in discourse with you. Otherwise, forgetaboutit!

So you don't believe climate science is a hoax or a conspiracy? Is that your story now?

Oh, good DOG! You still don't get it?

Here, let me make it simple for you. Sally is pure, 100%, unadulterated troll. And YOU are being trolled hard by Sally who is laughing his ass off.

Sally Trolling 101 wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

So you don't believe climate science is a hoax or a conspiracy? Is that your story now?

Oh, good DOG! You still don't get it?

Here, let me make it simple for you. Sally is pure, 100%, unadulterated troll. And YOU are being trolled hard by Sally who is laughing his ass off.

You are partially right on the latter part. But, I have said this multiple times ... I come here to have an honest discourse. Most of the people here are liberal and have sincere beliefs, though often misguided. I respect their opinions for the most part and enjoy hearing what you have to say. We could certainly have a beer. Again, I am sincere on my posts but occasionally (less than 2%), I will "embellish" my response just to maybe get a response. Not a troll.

P wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

And that changes what Trump said on the phone call how, exactly?

Shows what it really is, a total sham. Like the entire Mueller probe. Concocted crimes. But even if you disagree, why would you support a Kangaroo Court?

Battle on:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-investigation-trump-campaign-surveillance-expanded-scope

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

P wrote:

And that changes what Trump said on the phone call how, exactly?

Shows what it really is, a total sham. Like the entire Mueller probe. Concocted crimes. But even if you disagree, why would you support a Kangaroo Court?

Further evidence of the Deep State. John Brennan CIA crony inserted in the administration. The second whistleblower also likely a CIA plant. The FBI with McCAbe, Comey and their brethren and the corrupt NSC just riddled with Deep State operatives should concern everyone. Including YOU.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

So you don't believe climate science is a hoax or a conspiracy? Is that your story now?

I will answer but first you must acknowledge that the Earth WILL cool in the not-too-distant future and that the "warmest years on record" is meaningless.

I won't discuss science with a crazy person who thinks climate science is a hoax. You have said this many times.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I will answer but first you must acknowledge that the Earth WILL cool in the not-too-distant future and that the "warmest years on record" is meaningless.

I won't discuss science with a crazy person who thinks climate science is a hoax. You have said this many times.

Is it because if you admit that the Earth will cool (and it will!) you Global Warmists have NOTHING. You have NOTHING if you can't say that the Earth has had the warmest 5 years on record (139 years out of 4.6 billion) and it will continue to warm until it is boiling. The Earth WILL cool and the Earth will go through a cooling phase. If you can't even admit that - then you should not be involved in the adult discussion of Global Warming. Eye-coverers are not welcome. We want only those who are honest.

Uh Oh! Mueller lied under oath.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/confirmed-mueller-committed-perjury-lied-under-oath-about-pursuing-fbi-directorship-in-meeting-with-trump/

You are still most certainly welcome at the LetsRun Thanksgiving dinner but you will be seated next to Flagpole at the little boy's table.