Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Trollminator wrote:

Republicans will definitely lose on the gun issue as they “enjoy” much more support from the NRA and have to swallow this pill of scrutiny for as long as this is a hot topic. Their fearless leader talking about going in to confront the shooter with his bare hands will ensure the conversation continues.

Republicans may get Roy Moored out of office.

Moderate Republicans who don't swear their children's lives to support the NRA may get primaried out and replaced with extreme NRA funded gun nuts.

And many of those extremists may lose the general elections to moderate Democrats who may mention stricter background checks and bans on some assault rifles but have guns themselves.

Republicans used to win on the gay marriage ban issue ... until national sentiment flipped and they didn't.

Come to think of it, Republicans are always behind the times on all issues and eventually progress is made.

Flagpole wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Libs: can anyone actually defend the district court judge's ruling? If Obama had the power to create DACA, it seems self evident that Trump has the power to undo the exact same action whenever he wants (it seems people expect the Supreme Court to side with him). Sounds like a ridiculous usurpation of a judge's authority with bad implications, yet the media cheers only because it is a 'setback' to Drumpfcheetonazi.

I am no legal scholar, but I agree with you that it sure SEEMS like Trump out to be able to undo DACA if he wishes.

I'm not a legal scholar either, but it seems reasonable that if the government makes a personal promise to someone, a future president shouldn't be allowed to undo that promise.

For instance, if the president grants a pardon to someone, the next president can't come along and un-pardon that person.

It seems that the same principle would at least apply to DACA recipients who already registered.

EPlC Flagpole wrote:

WTF was that all about? You're like a child. A stupid, stupid child. More has been exposed about the Democrats and their collusion with Russia and conniving with the domestic MSM than a single piece of evidence about Trump. Mueller has done a fine job going after Manafort (a damn career lobbyist for Christ's sake! ...which is evident by his indictments being from well before helping Trump in the summer of 2016). His indictments mean nothing to the Trump presidency. No one outside of the Lib echo chamber cares. The Dem reactionary memo to the Nunes memo was a massive fail, and in fact contradicts statements that Comey made last year regarding the timing of the FISA warrants.

Before calling someone stupid try educating yourself. Even just a little. I know it's a stretch for a Trumper, but just a little effort goes a long way.

Nothing has been exposed about the Dems. Nothing. If you had bothered reading the latest indictments, you would have realized that it does include the time frame of the election when Manafort and Gates were on the Trump team. The Nunes memo was a complete fail to anyone other than Trumpers.

Mueller is proceeding exceedingly fast for an investigation of this magnitude. And there are plenty of Republicans and conservatives that recognize Mueller is closing in on Trump. Gates flipping is YUGE. He's delivering the goods. On Trump. And Trump knows it. Why was he endlessly tweeting about the investigation this morning if it's a nothing burger?

Rule of law will prevail. Country over party. Mueller time is here.

Make no mistake EPIC and other Trump supporters here, Donald Trump is going down, and he will be considered worse than Nixon by history. It is odd that you believe otherwise, and I do actually feel bad for you, because for some reason Donald Trump is your champion.

In my case, Hillary was not my champion...she was just a better alternative to Trump, and, as I have said many times now, I could see myself voting for John Kasich for governor. He is a smart reasonable person even though he has opinions I don't agree with.

So, my dog in this fight is ONLY to see justice served. If Hillary is caught up in it, then fine, but the clear and present danger is Donald Trump. Hell, since he can go run into a building to disarm an active shooter, I guess we don't need guns to do that. So, he's a danger even to his own party's stances...because he's not an idealist.

So, what will happen to Donald Trump?

1) Jail? While I think what is discovered will show that he SHOULD go to jail, I do not expect that. I am unsure of the reason why he won't go to jail...pardon, plea, something...but I don't envision him spending time in jail. If I am wrong about anything, it will be this and he WILL spend time in jail.

2) Loss in 2020? Unclear at this point as we don't know who his challengers will be or if he will still be around to run in 2020. I don't believe he can recapture the enthusiasm for him that he had in 2016.

3) Impeachment and ouster from office? Likely. Depends partly on the speed with which Mueller can finish, but I do believe (not hope) that the information Mueller uncovers will make it nearly impossible for ANY House and Senate not to remove him...he may resign if he sees the writing on the wall.

4) Charges? Obstruction of Justice. Money Laundering. Violation of Emoluments Clause. Perjury. Those are most likely. He could also end up with Conspiracy against the United States of America, and if he gets that one, he COULD end up in jail, but again, I am not predicting jail.

In any event...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I am no legal scholar, but I agree with you that it sure SEEMS like Trump out to be able to undo DACA if he wishes.

I'm not a legal scholar either, but it seems reasonable that if the government makes a personal promise to someone, a future president shouldn't be allowed to undo that promise.

For instance, if the president grants a pardon to someone, the next president can't come along and un-pardon that person.

It seems that the same principle would at least apply to DACA recipients who already registered.

That is a good and valid point, and I HOPE that is the way it turns out. I think this is part of the problem with executive orders. I wish that weren't a thing.

Hardloper wrote:

Libs: can anyone actually defend the district court judge's ruling? If Obama had the power to create DACA, it seems self evident that Trump has the power to undo the exact same action whenever he wants (it seems people expect the Supreme Court to side with him). Sounds like a ridiculous usurpation of a judge's authority with bad implications, yet the media cheers only because it is a 'setback' to Drumpfcheetonazi.

The gist is that the legal reasoning given for ending DACA (as being illegally instituted by Obama) is contrary to established precedent and evidence suggests that the program was terminated solely to influence the legislative branch which is constitutionally questionable.

Trump just announced that he's running in 2020!

Let the campaigning begin!

Flagpole wrote:

Donald Trump is going down,

100% chance?

present, esq. wrote:

Bottom line: Try to avoid having an opinion about a judicial decision until you have read the judicial decision.

0/10

Maybe you can present the court decision that allows you to decide who is allowed to comment on any topic they wish. Best.

DiscoGary wrote:

Trump just announced that he's running in 2020!

Let the campaigning begin!

Butt, butt, butt . . . Hillary

Butt, butt, butt . . . Obama

Butt, butt, butt . . . Bill Clinton

. . .

Trump never stopped campaigning.

L L wrote:

If Trump made the order to repeal DACA and stood by his words, then DACA would be done.

Do you even know if Trump wants DACA ended?

Let's see. Trump ends DACA and tries to force 3,ooo,ooo bad hombres and muchachas into Mexico. And he will continue trying to force Mexico to pay for a worthless wall. . . . Sounds like another failure for Trump, except this one would be a Double Failure.

esq, jd wrote:

present, esq. wrote:

Bottom line: Try to avoid having an opinion about a judicial decision until you have read the judicial decision.

Maybe you can present the court decision that allows you to decide who is allowed to comment on any topic they wish. Best.

Expressing a poorly informed opinion is protected by the first amendment. This doesn't make doing so any less stupid.

Monkeys typing wrote:

esq, jd wrote:

Maybe you can present the court decision that allows you to decide who is allowed to comment on any topic they wish. Best.

Expressing a poorly informed opinion is protected by the first amendment. This doesn't make doing so any less stupid.

Agreed that present, esq. has a very poor understanding of first amendment. He is allowed to make a fool of himself as much as he likes.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I am no legal scholar, but I agree with you that it sure SEEMS like Trump out to be able to undo DACA if he wishes.

I'm not a legal scholar either, but it seems reasonable that if the government makes a personal promise to someone, a future president shouldn't be allowed to undo that promise.

For instance, if the president grants a pardon to someone, the next president can't come along and un-pardon that person.

It seems that the same principle would at least apply to DACA recipients who already registered.

The Constitution explicitly gives them the power to pardon criminals. Executive orders on the other hand are more ambiguous and basically just directing federal departments to do their jobs a certain way, thus it seems Trump should also be able to direct them to do their jobs. BTW I would like to see a bill with DACA pass via Congress.

Monkeys typing wrote:

esq, jd wrote:

Maybe you can present the court decision that allows you to decide who is allowed to comment on any topic they wish. Best.

Expressing a poorly informed opinion is protected by the first amendment. This doesn't make doing so any less stupid.

It does, actually. Which would you say is more stupid:

1) Expressing a poorly informed opinion that is protected by the first amendment thereby exposing yourself to ridicule

OR

2) Expressing a poorly informed opinion that is NOT protected by the first amendment thereby exposing yourself to ridicule AND possibly to jail time or worse

???

Question for Flagpole and others old enough to remember : Did people aggressively insist Nixon was totally innocent and Watergate was a nothing burger in the same way conservatives are doing so with the current investigation?

Racket wrote:

Question for Flagpole and others old enough to remember : Did people aggressively insist Nixon was totally innocent and Watergate was a nothing burger in the same way conservatives are doing so with the current investigation?

Flagpole isn't old enough to remember that.

We need to check the 1972-1974 Letsrun message board archives to see what people outside of the media were saying then.

Horst Wessel wrote:

Sieg Heil !

S i e g H e i l !

S i e g H e i l !

S i e g H e i l !

S i e g H e i l !

S i e g H e i l !

Damn straight ! :) :) :)