Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

This is what I call a "Triple A (AAA)" question. Asked And Answered. You just don't like the answer Fat Hurts gave you. Move on to another topic, brother.

It HAS NOT been answered. If it has please tell me again what the answer was, Flagpole. You can repeat your caveats and everything else so just remind me what the answer was. It HAS NOT been answered because no one here has the BALLS to be honest and answer truthfully. Just a little bitty question. It is not going to bite you.

It has been answered. Fat Hurts says he will not discuss science with a crazy person, and I concur. You have no scientific background or expertise to be able to so confidently refute what climate scientists say, and you do so for political reasons only, so disingenuous at best. You are a troll as we all know, but even trolls have some real thoughts and opinions, and yours are based on ignorance, blind partisanship, and fear, but mostly ignorance. You show on a constant basis that you don't know much, if anything, about anything. Not trying to slam you there, brother, but you apparently want feedback, and this is the correct feedback about you.

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I don't trust the "experts." They are continually wrong and have been found manipulating data because that data didn't support the "narrative." Would you trust those "experts?" I think it is only logical NOT to trust them.

Actually I changed my mind. You do have a place here as the resident whipping boy, because no matter how hard you get sh!t on you just keep crawling back for more abuse. In frustrating times like this, it's nice to have a reliable punching bag.

It's okay, Racket. I didn't expect an answer. All anyone had to do was say "former" or "latter" and I would have dropped the subject. Instead everyone, especially you, got your panties and a bunch and were too cowardly to answer. So, you are officially in the Panty-wearing coward slot. I will drop now.

agip wrote:

sally is it your point that it's ok to melt the icecaps for 5000 years and lose virtually every current coastline in the world... because eventually there will probably be another ice age?

Is that what you are getting at?

His point is to pull people into engaging in long pointless interchanges for his own amusement. The topic and the validity of any points he makes are not relevant beyond their effectiveness to goad others into engaging.

Flagpole wrote:

Night Observer,

Is this Presidential? I say no.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/mitt-romney-pierre-delecto-twitter-account/index.html

You think a Republican should choose Trump over Romney for this?

Sally Vix wrote:

Racket wrote:

Actually I changed my mind. You do have a place here as the resident whipping boy, because no matter how hard you get sh!t on you just keep crawling back for more abuse. In frustrating times like this, it's nice to have a reliable punching bag.

It's okay, Racket. I didn't expect an answer. All anyone had to do was say "former" or "latter" and I would have dropped the subject. Instead everyone, especially you, got your panties and a bunch and were too cowardly to answer. So, you are officially in the Panty-wearing coward slot. I will drop now.

Wise people don't allow a crazy person to drive the narrative. Expect no one to answer your uneducated questions. If you want to ask a question where you are genuinely seeking knowledge (you really need to be ONLY doing that), then we shall answer. You ask questions to try to support your crazy and uneducated views, then no, don't expect a DIRECT answer. Again, your question has been answered...no one here will discuss science with a crazy person.

Star wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Night Observer,

Is this Presidential? I say no.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/mitt-romney-pierre-delecto-twitter-account/index.html

You think a Republican should choose Trump over Romney for this?

Hell no. Night Observer's point has been that we should all (even Democrats and Independents) with Romney over any of the Democrat candidates, and his reasoning is that Romney is "Presidential".

Romney has said he isn't running, so it's probably a moot point, but this action of his was NOT Presidential.

America needs a Democrat in the White House this next time. The GOP needs some punishment/push back for electing and then enabling the orange monster in the White House.

Star wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Night Observer,

Is this Presidential? I say no.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/mitt-romney-pierre-delecto-twitter-account/index.html

You think a Republican should choose Trump over Romney for this?

I will admit that the cynic in me wants trump to remain the leader until he, the party and voters walk off the plank together. A guy like Romney is such a waster on that side.

“no one here will discuss science with a crazy person”

Perhaps that observation should be applied to politics as well.

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I don't trust the "experts." They are continually wrong and have been found manipulating data because that data didn't support the "narrative." Would you trust those "experts?" I think it is only logical NOT to trust them.

Actually I changed my mind. You do have a place here as the resident whipping boy, because no matter how hard you get sh!t on you just keep crawling back for more abuse. In frustrating times like this, it's nice to have a reliable punching bag.

Very true - the real irony here is that he believes he is trolling well, but the frequency, stubbornness and size of his posts tells a different story... that he is trolling himself??? only conclusion.

Also, he does play role of thread filler well.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

“no one here will discuss science with a crazy person”

Perhaps that observation should be applied to politics as well.

This is so true.. one side lives in a world of laws and constitutionality and the other side lives on a super orange planet somewhere outside of the solar system where all everything on earth is inverted. Can't discuss politics in that context.

Trollminator wrote:

Racket wrote:

Actually I changed my mind. You do have a place here as the resident whipping boy, because no matter how hard you get sh!t on you just keep crawling back for more abuse. In frustrating times like this, it's nice to have a reliable punching bag.

Very true - the real irony here is that he believes he is trolling well, but the frequency, stubbornness and size of his posts tells a different story... that he is trolling himself??? only conclusion.

Also, he does play role of thread filler well.

Damn! I've been had!! By myself!!! I wasted all this time trolling myself! What a knucklehead I have been.

Trollminator wrote:

that he is trolling himself??? only conclusion.

We here at LetsRun are witnessing the dawn of meta-trolling.

Anyways, since the Democrats have such weak candidates, who is everyone's #1 plausible dream pick? As in, who would you like to see run for the office the most?

My pick would be Mark Warner. He's smart as hell, relatively moderate but still solidly Democrat, in the right age range, and he's pretty popular in his home state of Virginia.

Mark Warner is my all time favorite politician. But he has a crummy voice/personality for a national campaign - no chance of becoming president.

Racket wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

that he is trolling himself??? only conclusion.

We here at LetsRun are witnessing the dawn of meta-trolling.

Anyways, since the Democrats have such weak candidates, who is everyone's #1 plausible dream pick? As in, who would you like to see run for the office the most?

My pick would be Mark Warner. He's smart as hell, relatively moderate but still solidly Democrat, in the right age range, and he's pretty popular in his home state of Virginia.

Dems have such a weak bench...I am not aware of any dem politician who would really inspire me and think one of the best, most qualified people in the country could be president.

I mean really. The thing with Dems is that they can make so much more money NOT dealing with R fabrications and harball politics and trumpism and the nutso fundraising requirements of being in politics...so many of them refuse to get mixed up in politics. they get a job or start a business.

I'm sure some of htat goes for Rs except they revel in the garbage trumpist politics - they like the right wing model of crazy exaggeration and lies. Because they love theory more than facts.

Indeed! The is really, REALLY old. Therefore it is impossible that human activities are having a significant impact on the planet's climate.

In fact, the Earth's climate changes naturally. Therefore it is impossible that human activities are having a significant impact on the planet's climate.

Lets be honest. Dems have not offered anything interesting, innovative or exciting even. But that's partly because they could get away with it in light of the current WH and because it's a safe play. We don't have a trump equivalent, and I agree it is boring. He was effective as his goal of destroying the kitchen. Are we going to have an effective Dem in the WH? Probably it will just be back to the old way. Unfortunately, the lack of intellect and involvement of the voter base has gotten us to this - we have suffered a huge decline in political innovation and effectiveness of governance. We have a vulnerable system. Our immediate need is stability but that wont solve the long term issue that has been exploited by trump.

34sdjd wrote:

Mark Warner is my all time favorite politician. But he has a crummy voice/personality for a national campaign - no chance of becoming president.

Doesn't say much for the American electorate that someone is disqualified from being POTUS because they have a "crummy voice".

You folks deserve Donald Trump.

Hence my comment on the declining intellect of the voting base. The leaders become a reflection of their people. On the left we have had leaders that foster mediocrity and playing it safe, and on the right leaders that have pandered to the concerns of mouth breathers and in general draconian thinking. Unfortunately the bases now have too many competing interests because their leaders have failed to guide them productively. So instead of debating within smaller confines, such as if corporate taxes should be increased by only 1% instead of 3%, we are still debating whether guns are dangerous and abortion a right... not very progressive given we are supposed to be the global leader. Can't move ahead like this so I expect the US to continue drifting backward.

It must have been heartbreaking for the US military in Syria and their families who were told by their commander in chief that they were coming home, only to be relocated to Iraq.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HWCcCAZJG68