Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Cheeto Benito wrote:

Cheeto Benito wrote:

Has Trump been firing a lot of generals and putting loyalists in their place? Do you think if he did that he might have a lower approval rating amongst the military? Basically he's not likely to be in a position to leverage his popularity with the military to stage a coup!

Also, Trump has already been dissuaded from firing Mueller and Nixon did try to fire people to get out trouble. So maybe they are not quite so different.

Trump has tried to find ways to discredit Mueller. He knows firing isn't the best way to get rid of him. But he will fire Mueller if that's the only option he is left with.

Cheeto Benito wrote:

Has Trump been firing a lot of generals and putting loyalists in their place? Do you think if he did that he might have a lower approval rating amongst the military? Basically he's not likely to be in a position to leverage his popularity with the military to stage a coup!

I hope you are right.

But I also know that this sort of thing happens. It happened in Russia under Putin. It just recently happened in China under Xi. It may happen here under Trump.

You are gambling that everyone in government will suddenly come to their senses and stand up to Trump. So far, there is no movement on that front.

Can you do that? wrote:

EPIC Hardloper wrote:

Sure enough.

Wait- You modify someone's post, and then also respond to that modification.

Know what that smells like to me?

Yep- T. D. S.

:-)

^ A very weak deflection attempt by Jamin/Hardloper

Long Time Trump Hater Here wrote:

I am pretty much on flagpole's side, but this thread was much improved when he took his very short, much too short, break. He feels the need to attempt to dominate any thread he gets on and repeats himself constantly. It's really hard to bear.

Flagpole do yourself and everyone else on this thread a big favor and take another break. You know, because as you always tell us, you have such a fulfilling life without letsrun. please prove it.

1) You are a liar claiming to be "pretty much on flagpole's side."

2) This thread was pretty much dead when Flagpole took his break.

3) Since you and/or others will claim that I am Flagpole (I am not) I feel obligated to shout:

WEJO, CHECK MY IP. IF I AM FLAGPOLE THEN BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!! Or something like that.

Fat hurts wrote:

Under what circumstance would resignation be a better deal?

Resignation and continuing his life as it was would be a better deal than an impeachment conviction to be ousted followed by indictments and convictions on felony charges.

Even if he survives senate conviction because 67 votes could not be attained, he could still face felony charges when his term is up.

And political capital will be lost.

It would be a pretty miserable life in that situation.

He may want to be an autocrat but there are still checks and balances and democracy.

The guy wanted to actually testify, so he may be dumb enough to think he can beat all of this.

In that case, he would not resign.

This Bob Woodward book is going to be good.

When you have time, play the audio of the telephone conversation between Trump and Woodward.

As soon as Trump determines it will be bad for him, he calls it inacurate.

But Woodward has done tones of research and documentation and and recorded conversations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodwards-new-book-reveals-a-nervous-breakdown-of-trumps-presidency/2018/09/04/b27a389e-ac60-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.f7742f6431a1

He ordered the assassination of Assad but Mattis wouldn't do it.

"According to Woodward, Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Cohn later told an associate that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump did not notice that it was missing."

Trump wanted to withdraw from NAFTA but his staff wouldn't do it.

The book vividly recounts the ongoing debate between Trump and his lawyers about whether the president would sit for an interview with Mueller. On March 5, Dowd and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow met in Mueller’s office with the special counsel and his deputy, James Quarles, where Dowd and Sekulow reenacted Trump’s January practice session.

Woodward’s book recounts the debate between Trump and his lawyers, including John Dowd, regarding whether the president will sit for an interview with special counsel Robert. S. Mueller III. (Richard Drew/AP)

Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.

Later that month, Dowd told Trump: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”

But Trump, concerned about the optics of a president refusing to testify and convinced that he could handle Mueller’s questions, had by then decided otherwise.

“I’ll be a real good witness,” Trump told Dowd, according to Woodward.

“You are not a good witness,” Dowd replied. “Mr. President, I’m afraid I just can’t help you.”

The next morning, Dowd resigned.

Is this book gonna take him down more, or less, than the last 5 books that were said to be "the end of Trump"?

LOL

PIO! wrote:

1) You are a liar claiming to be "pretty much on flagpole's side."

2) This thread was pretty much dead when Flagpole took his break.

3) Since you and/or others will claim that I am Flagpole (I am not) I feel obligated to shout:

WEJO, CHECK MY IP. IF I AM FLAGPOLE THEN BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!! Or something like that.

1) wrong. As soon as I typed it, I thought that's what someone pretending to be on flagpole's side, but not actually on his side would type, other wise known as a troll. but i am indeed mostly on flagpole's side in this debate about trump. I do hate Trump

2) the thread definitely slowed down without him i believe you are correct there, but that's not a bad thing necessarily. when he types 10 posts a day and his enemies also start in on him obsessively, the whole discussion bogs way down. He occasionally has some good content

3) nice fpw imitation.

in this instance you are wrong. just because one agrees with someone's overall opinion on a topic doesn't mean they can't find that person's personality or thread presences objectionable on many levels.

btw- despite the nature of your posts, you are not always right. u seem to think it, but no, you are not, and this is on e of those times

Laughing out loud wrote:

Is this book gonna take him down more, or less, than the last 5 books that were said to be "the end of Trump"?

LOL

The book wasn't written to take him down.

It was written for research and documentation.

Woodward has written books on all of the recent presidents.

Though his reporting has taken down a president before.

L L wrote:

This Bob Woodward book is going to be good.

When you have time, play the audio of the telephone conversation between Trump and Woodward.

As soon as Trump determines it will be bad for him, he calls it inacurate.

But Woodward has done tones of research and documentation and and recorded conversations.

Here is a transcript of that call.Takeaways.

Trump says never speaks with Raj Shah (White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary and Deputy Assistant to the President). Trump: "Raj, I hardly have . . . I don’t speak to Raj."

Kellyanne Conway claims she does not have the authority to bring requests directly to Trump, but Trump claims she is always in his office. Bob Woodward put in a request to Raj and Kellyanne, amongst others, to speak with Trump prior while finishing up his book. Kellyanne claims she took the request to the right people (Raj?) who rejected the request to speak. While Woodward and Trump are chatting about Trump not getting a chance to speak before the book was released it comes out that Kellyanne had been sitting next to Trump the entire time.

Hmmm . . . The rejection to not speak with Woodward came directly from Trump. Kellyanne never got back to Woodward to tell him that. Now Trump is not happy he did not speak with Woodward to get to true story out. The end result is according to Trump: Woodward's book is another bad book. Never mind that Trump knows nothing about what is in the book. It does not praise him; therefore the book is bad and filled with lies.

They were "awful" in your opinion because they're all true. ZERO Russian collusion. ZERO obstruction of justice.

What you TDSers seem to miss is that no one thinks Trump has never bent or broken a law. He probably has, as have most other extremely powerful businessmen.

What we found amusing was the Russia collllluuuuuusion narrative from day one. It was funny then. It's funny now. Not a single piece of evidence has been found. If you think Mueller's the only guy that can stop leaks in that city, you're just being silly. If they actually had something on him, it would've come out by now.

Meanwhile, the DOJ/FBI setup has been exposed, and 15 people in leadership roles have been first demoted, then fired or forced to resign for actions related to the Hillary Clinton AND Russia collusion investigations. And yet, Mueller hasn't interviewed Bruce Ohr yet. HAHAHA!

"Spy?... no spy... ok, spy... I mean informant... ok, spy... but only on one guy... no spy... but he should be thanking us for spying... I mean, no spy... we spied for good reason... no spy..."

If Hillary would have won the election as some election experts predicted, we wouldn't know any of this.

Long Time Trump Hater Here wrote:

...the thread definitely slowed down without [Flagpole] i believe you are correct there, but that's not a bad thing necessarily. when he types 10 posts a day and his enemies also start in on him obsessively, the whole discussion bogs way down.

Hear, hear!

L L wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Under what circumstance would resignation be a better deal?

Resignation and continuing his life as it was would be a better deal than an impeachment conviction to be ousted followed by indictments and convictions on felony charges.

Even if he survives senate conviction because 67 votes could not be attained, he could still face felony charges when his term is up.

And political capital will be lost.

It would be a pretty miserable life in that situation.

He may want to be an autocrat but there are still checks and balances and democracy.

The guy wanted to actually testify, so he may be dumb enough to think he can beat all of this.

In that case, he would not resign.

I think you made my point in that last sentence.

We have to stop judging Trump by what a normal person would do. We have to judge him by how he has behaved in the past.

That is indeed quite scary. We had actual collusion between one campaign and foreign officials, paid for through a commercial research company (GPS Fusion), funneled through a law firm (Perkins Coie). The unverified allegations were then used to start spying on the other campaign. If the preferred candidate wins, then nothing comes out. If the preferred candidate loses, then the unverified allegations would then be used to start a collusion hoax that puts a cloud over the undesired candidate's image and could possibly result in impeachment proceedings.

The preferred candidate lost. But the execution was terrible, and now the jig is up.

Well taken.

1). I will admit to apparently being mistaken on this one. Perhaps you are indeed mostly on Flagpole's side.

2). I personally find Flagpole's style somewhere in the mildly annoying range.

3). Nonetheless, I stand by my statement that this thread is much more interesting with Flagpole engaged.

4). I do not think that I am always right although it is true, as with all non-insane people, that I always think I am right. :-)

EPlC Flagpole wrote:Meanwhile, no collusion has been proven.

No obstruction has been proven.

No indictments against anyone in the Trump campaign regarding anything in the 2015-Nov 8, 2016 timeframe have occurred.

Who cares if they never prove collusion? At the very least Trump has been money laundering for decades.

Fox News' Brit Hume reprimanded Trump after Trump's nasty stab at Jeff Sessions for bringing criminal charges against two Republican congressmen up for re-election in November.

Will DJT never learn that an attorney general’s job is not to play goalie for a president or his party, or any party for that matter?

— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 3, 2018

https://mobile.twitter.com/brithume/status/1036725135032627200

No, Trump will never learn that any of the branches are not supposed to protect him and his lies. That's why it would be so awesome to return 100 years from now and see how all of this is being viewed by future generations. No one will believe it. It's like every day of Trump's presidency is so bizarre it is worthy of a separate book.

538 today is now above 80% in terms of likelihood of Democratic takeover of the House. Second consecutive 3% bump since yesterday. It is caused by a flurry of polls that agree on an exploding margin in the generic House preference, with many now in the 11 to 13 point range for Democrats.

Likewise Trump's poll numbers have plummeted to 37% range in some new polls, like Ipsos. Trump is down to 40.1% on 538, his lowest standing since April 6th.

These poll moves will be short term. There will be a rebound shortly. The generic edge certainly isn't 11 to 13 points. That's like 2016 when some knucklehead polls had Hillary with a double digit lead. I mocked those polls on the liberal sites at the time.

But it is interesting that all the polls detected the same thing last week. For all of Trump's outrageous acts and comments, it was possibly something in the contrast to McCain, or how he handled the McCain death, that caused this poll shift.

Fat hurts wrote:

Cheeto Benito wrote:

Has Trump been firing a lot of generals and putting loyalists in their place? Do you think if he did that he might have a lower approval rating amongst the military? Basically he's not likely to be in a position to leverage his popularity with the military to stage a coup!

I hope you are right.

But I also know that this sort of thing happens. It happened in Russia under Putin. It just recently happened in China under Xi. It may happen here under Trump.

You are gambling that everyone in government will suddenly come to their senses and stand up to Trump. So far, there is no movement on that front.

I think it's a lot easier to do in a country which lacks democratic or liberal traditions or institutions. It's also a lot easier if it's been planned for a long time and people are scheming to be dictator, or how they will serve him and give and receive favors.

It wouldn't take everyone to stand up to Trump. It might not even need to be someone in government. If Trump made clear his intention to become dictator, isn't it at least feasible that a security guard might or someone else close to Trump might do his duty?

Also there may be enough guns owned by people who do not have the liberal freedoms on which America is based with the same intensity as Trump. These people could not conceivably be controlled unless the entire American law enforcement agrees simultaneously to go along with a Trump dictatorship. I don't think they had that to contend with in Russia or China.