Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sure, Jan wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

Trump is quoted as saying during the call “All we need is to have some judge listen to it properly, without having a political opinion or having another kind of a problem."

I wonder what kind of problem that would be.

LOL.

As is well known, reality has a considerable liberal bias.

One wonders what makes Trump think that a judge that listens "properly" will rule in his favor regarding an allegation of fraud when he fails to introduce evidence of fraud.

Fat hurts wrote:

TTH wrote:

What is it amongst your truths above which would keep some of the rubes from writing Trump's name on the ticket, as idiotic as it would ?

Ernest is right, but yeah, you can write anything you want on an absentee ballot.

This is what that Parler movement in GA is all about, encouraging people to simply write in trump’s name. They know it means nothing but it’s a protest thing. Needless to say I’m fully encouraging it there. It’s my kind of activism.

15_50 wrote:

Ernest wrote:

As much as the "Do Nothing" Dems would love to split the Republican vote, there's this...

"...under Georgia election rules, you can’t actually write in a candidate in a runoff.

Even if you could, a write-in candidate has to be qualified by the secretary of state’s office for the votes to count.

And Donald Trump is a legal resident of Florida, and would not be eligible regardless."

Yet, if people did write trump's name on the ballot they wouldn't be voting for the republican so the result would be the same regardless of trump being eligible or not.... so there's that.

The trumpers in GA know this but they want to throw the GOP under the bus for not fighting for trump. I agree with them 100%. I’m even helping organize a trumper event locally!

I am Sam wrote:

Can someone please tell Rigged what actually happened while he was in a coma. Apparently he thought Trump was winning and went into early celebrations, drinking himself into a stupor and spending three weeks in a coma.

Hey Rigged, Biden is the President elect.

He went into basement isolation with his idiot siblings, in fear of the Dems commies coming after them. Since it never happened, biff took that to mean Trump must have been winning. Biff is the biggest dumbfvck I’ve ever encountered online. ??????

TTH wrote:

Just Wundrin wrote:

I guess I just have not seen this quote from Trump.

Depending on context, (and assuming it is a new and actual quote), this could mean nothing beyond more of the same or it could represent a new level of craziness.

Well....incredibly...the boob said it. His entire "call" is on youtube if you want to search.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/25/trump-rants-about-overturning-election-as-administration-begins-biden-transition.html

“we have to turn the election over.” - loser Republican president

SeattleSilver wrote:

Sure, Jan wrote:

As is well known, reality has a considerable liberal bias.

One wonders what makes Trump think that a judge that listens "properly" will rule in his favor regarding an allegation of fraud when he fails to introduce evidence of fraud.

It’s the code word for 1) we have a ton of money to pay out said judge, and 2) look my fans, the judges are al corrupt deep state operatives

The great state of FL

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/florida-state-senate-election-republican-shill-candidate-miami-b1721956.html

Trollminator wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

One wonders what makes Trump think that a judge that listens "properly" will rule in his favor regarding an allegation of fraud when he fails to introduce evidence of fraud.

It’s the code word for 1) we have a ton of money to pay out said judge, and 2) look my fans, the judges are al corrupt deep state operatives

i interpreted it to mean that 'anyone who doesn't rule the way i see fit must have a problem because my way is the only right way'. Same as he said on August 20th: "Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election,"

FFS.

Well that's novel. Presume only one possible legitimate outcome. and interpret the means only in so far as it would yield that presumed outcome.

And any judge who doesn't understand that must have a problem of some sort.

Give The Libs More Power To Own The Libs!

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Ernest is right, but yeah, you can write anything you want on an absentee ballot.

This is what that Parler movement in GA is all about, encouraging people to simply write in trump’s name. They know it means nothing but it’s a protest thing. Needless to say I’m fully encouraging it there. It’s my kind of activism.

But you do realize that this only applies to absentee ballots, right?

Anyone who goes to vote in person thinking they will write in "Trump" at the voting machine will be disappointed because it won't let them do that. So when they realize that write-ins are not allowed they will just vote for the Republican.

Trollminator wrote:

15_50 wrote:

Yet, if people did write trump's name on the ballot they wouldn't be voting for the republican so the result would be the same regardless of trump being eligible or not.... so there's that.

The trumpers in GA know this but they want to throw the GOP under the bus for not fighting for trump. I agree with them 100%. I’m even helping organize a trumper event locally!

That's awesome dude. Nice work.

In court, the past few weeks have seen zero consequential rulings in Trump's favor. This tells me one of three things:

1. All these judges are honest.

2. The Trump team is too honest to offer a bribe.

3. The Trump team is too incompetent to figure out how to bribe a judge and get away with it.

Fat hurts wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

This is what that Parler movement in GA is all about, encouraging people to simply write in trump’s name. They know it means nothing but it’s a protest thing. Needless to say I’m fully encouraging it there. It’s my kind of activism.

But you do realize that this only applies to absentee ballots, right?

Anyone who goes to vote in person thinking they will write in "Trump" at the voting machine will be disappointed because it won't let them do that. So when they realize that write-ins are not allowed they will just vote for the Republican.

In that case I have to break the news to them and just go the fraudulent dominion machine route. Maybe “we” can just hold pro-trump protests on Election Day and encourage other trumpers to abandon their vote.

SeattleSilver wrote:

Sure, Jan wrote:

As is well known, reality has a considerable liberal bias.

One wonders what makes Trump think that a judge that listens "properly" will rule in his favor regarding an allegation of fraud when he fails to introduce evidence of fraud.

Evidence? Evidence?!? We don't need no stinking evidence!

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/farah_world514/status/1331923081049366528?s=21

What the SCOTUS should have ruled is with the opinion of "you can't fix stupid".

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/farah_world514/status/1331923081049366528?s=21

While I don't agree with this ruling, it's not as egregious as some might make it out to be. This is a case of public health versus the freedom to worship as you please. The constitution contains strong language to make sure that the government can not impede religion in any way. And there is good reason for that.

In colonial times, Baptists were harassed and even executed by governments both here and in Europe. The reason given for the executions was very much akin to today's concerns for public safety. Baptists do not baptize young children. But in those days, it was believed that the failure to baptize infants would put their souls in mortal danger. It was considered tantamount to child abuse.

The plight of the Baptists was a huge influence on Thomas Jefferson. The establishment clause of the constitution was put there to address this governmental overreach.

Whether or not the government should impede religious liberty to slow down the spread of covid is a difficult decision. While I think in this case public health should prevail, it does open up a constitutional can of worms.