Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Another DA. Please tell me which major university allows smoking on campus on any building. Then, tell me which truly brilliant men smoke.

PIO! wrote:

You are kidding, right? Roam the halls of any major university physics department, math department, biochemistry department . . . and you will find many truly brilliant men who smoke. You will also find many who are fat (also not such a great thing).

Of course, you being a Trumpette, I don't suppose you have ever set foot on a university campus - let alone got to know the faculty. Not that I am calling you stupid or anything.

its_baddude wrote:

You are kidding right? Einstein died in the 50s. Smoking was used to keep women slim and beautiful in the 60s. Why would a man of such intelligence and believer of science do this?

Just to be clear here (and I swear people can't seriously call me partisan)...I already agreed with you on this. Many said the economy would tank with him as president. I knew it wouldn't, but not because he's great (because he isn't..he sucks hard). But because the sitting US president has very little to do with the economy for much more than very short term changes. Overtime things even out as they would as the economy is so global now. We should judge a president on more than if he can help ramrod policy through (and Trump has only been successful with one major thing so far). Obeying the law should be the number one criteria, and the worse the law breakage, the more harshly we should judge. Obstruction of justice is pretty bad, especially when it involves a possible conspiracy case against yourself (if you are Trump). Conspiracy also really bad, especially if it involves conspiring with a foreign enemy power to interfere in our elections. Money laundering is also bad. Anyone against Trump should focus on what he has said and done, not some prediction about the economy that almost never is accurate for anyone at any time.

The Queen Lost, Give it Up wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yep. Just because people are more impatient today than ever before doesn't mean there isn't progress with the investigation and that we won't eventually find out what that investigation uncovered.

I want to see ANYONE who gets caught up in illegal behavior no matter who it is.

There is no way Trump is an innocent law-abiding person. He just isn't.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

There is no way Clinton is an innocent law-abiding person, but you sure didn't care if she had gotten elected as you voted for her.

No, that's not the same thing because it's my side and they investigated her and found nothing...yeah right, only Nutpole would believe that.

Well, they did investigate her. I had to pick the lesser of two evils (well, I could have not voted or voted for a third party, but my vote was more a vote against Trump than one for Hillary), and while I have long said both Bill and Hillary are slimy, they don't rise to the level of Donald Trump; not even close. The chaos we have seen in the White House for almost a year now (amazing that it has not been a year yet) shows that he does not belong in that position and that he can't thrive in that position. He won't be booted for that though, unless he really does have Alzheimer's or other dementia and is incapable because of that. Obstruction of justice and money laundering will bring him down. A decent chance of conspiracy too, but that's harder to prove. If he is interviewed, he will perjure himself.

Stop deflecting with bringing up Hillary. Hillary is not the President.

It's the tired old Russian tactic of whataboutism. They don't deal with addressing Trump's flaws, instead they bring up the same disproved trash about Hillary. They're modern day Nazis. This quote puts their mindset into perspective. Unfortunately they are too stupid to realize they are being played by Putin. It's a Siren's song...

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Sartre

The point is that smoking and intelligence are not correlated. But I'm guessing you don't understand that last sentence. Maybe you should take up smoking.

its_baddude wrote:

You are kidding right? Einstein died in the 50s. Smoking was used to keep women slim and beautiful in the 60s. Why would a man of such intelligence and believer of science do this?

Fat hurts wrote:

Einstein was also a smoker. Checkmate.

PIO! wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Also we are due a major economic contraction. There’s no way the bull keeps this up until 2020.

Alan

We are NEVER due a major economic contraction. They are randomly spaced events.

I was just looking at averages. This is the longest bull since 1990-2000.

Alan

Hardloper wrote:

obvious problem wrote:

When was it 3 years?

Genuine question.

1980-1982

1958-1961

1910-1913

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Thanks.

Nice to have some genuine data for a change.

this is it wrote:

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/white-house-staff-forced-to-act-out-michael-wolff-book-for-non-reading-president

This thread has gotten boring but that was funny.

It's like your asking for it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7548002/Smokers-have-lower-IQs.html

Fat hurts wrote:

The point is that smoking and intelligence are not correlated.

But I'm guessing you don't understand that last sentence. Maybe you should take up smoking.

its_baddude wrote:

You are kidding right? Einstein died in the 50s. Smoking was used to keep women slim and beautiful in the 60s. Why would a man of such intelligence and believer of science do this?

A person can't be a smoker and smart? Why would you even pursue such an unsustainable argument?

its_baddude wrote:

It's like your asking for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7548002/Smokers-have-lower-IQs.html

Fat hurts wrote:

The point is that smoking and intelligence are not correlated.

But I'm guessing you don't understand that last sentence. Maybe you should take up smoking.

its_baddude is saying that every single non-smoker is smarter than every single smoker - obviously. No exceptions.

It's not about what Democrats do for minorities, it's what they don't do:

1) equate white Nationalists to the patriots that oppose them (Charlotesville)

2) make the NFL protests into something other than a rejection of police brutality

3) attempt to build a wall between US and Mexico.

4) disband DACA

5) expel 50,000 Haitians here legally

6) expel 250,000 Salvadorans here legally

you're

its_baddude wrote:

It's like your asking for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7548002/Smokers-have-lower-IQs.html

[/quote]

foo wrote:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/950371619247153154

It's not about what Democrats do for minorities, it's what they don't do:

1) equate white Nationalists to the patriots that oppose them (Charlotesville)

2) make the NFL protests into something other than a rejection of police brutality

3) attempt to build a wall between US and Mexico.

4) disband DACA

5) expel 50,000 Haitians here legally

6) expel 250,000 Salvadorans here legally

While I do think there is a better solution, from a legal standpoint there is really no argument against ending the TPS for Salvadorans. Unless you think that earthquakes from 17 years ago are still stopping people from returning home.

So, Trumpers, here is an unintended consequence of you voting for Trump...

Oprah Winfrey is now seriously considering a run in 2020. Why? Because everyone and their brother knows they can do a better job than Trump, so now we have another famous person wanting to give it a try since fame and fortune are obviously the only qualities needed.

Holy crap! At least Reagan was governor of California first!

Oprah is not a bad person, but ego-wise she is the female equivalent of Donald Trump. She frequently had the nerve to talk about raising children when she has never been a parent.

Mark Cuban too is considering it.

That's all we need is people running for President from now on who have no experience with governing.

Thanks a lot Trump voters!

Flagpole wrote:

So, Trumpers, here is an unintended consequence of you voting for Trump...

Oprah Winfrey is now seriously considering a run in 2020. Why? Because everyone and their brother knows they can do a better job than Trump, so now we have another famous person wanting to give it a try since fame and fortune are obviously the only qualities needed.

Holy crap! At least Reagan was governor of California first!

Oprah is not a bad person, but ego-wise she is the female equivalent of Donald Trump. She frequently had the nerve to talk about raising children when she has never been a parent.

Mark Cuban too is considering it.

That's all we need is people running for President from now on who have no experience with governing.

Thanks a lot Trump voters!

All of the above have more leadership experience than Barack Obama had. Trump has shown people that a non politician who didn't spend years in the Swamp gets things done and the Democrats are catching on.

I predict that the fake Indian, Pocahontas, will be the dem nominee over Oprah or Cuban.

Flagpole wrote:

Oprah is not a bad person, but ego-wise she is the female equivalent of Donald Trump. She frequently had the nerve to talk about raising children when she has never been a parent.

Mark Cuban too is considering it.

That's all we need is people running for President from now on who have no experience with governing.

Thanks a lot Trump voters!

I don't believe it could possibly happen (which is, of course, what I said about Trump becoming president), but if it's Oprah v. Trump in 2020, I'm casting an extremely sad vote for Oprah and then I'm heading into the Canadian wilderness to either be eaten by bears or live out the rest of my days as a grumpy hermit.

I think the response to her speech (which was quite good) just goes to show how god awful Democratic leadership has been in standing up to Trump and the GOP and cultivating new and exciting talent to take the reins of the Party. I hope Oprah will continue to stump loudly for Democratic causes and direct her piles of money towards Democratic candidates across the country rather than some mindbogglingly silly and vainglorious presidential run of her own. That's probably too much to ask...