Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

Potty2Kettly wrote:

No, please don't wait, it was Monica Lewinsky! and a few others. So you wanted the wife of this guy to be the President. Gosh you're a smart fella.

When the choice is Hillary vs. Donald, then yes I wanted her to win.

She would have had a scandal or two without question, but it would have paled in comparison to what we are seeing with Trump. She is also WAAAAAY smarter than Trump and she understands how government works.

Basically, we had a job opening for a doctor, and we hired a plumber.

Please do not insult the intelligence of plumbers - most have oretty good spacial reasoning and sound logic.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

The deepest state wrote:

ALL of this is a circus to keep the media busy, and mislead the Deep State. It's all a cover for the real investigation into Uranium 1, Clintons, Obama, Podesta, etc. Trump has always been a master at manipulating the media. He stepped it up another level since becoming President. He knows they cannot resist these salacious headline worthy occurrences. I still believe Mueller was flipped and has immunity waiting after the swamp is drained. Nothing else explains the leash these people are given in 'investigating' Trump (it's all amounted to nothing, and actually further proves how clean he is). Deep State !!

I doubt it. While he is in fact a master at manipulating the media he can also be his own worst enemy. Will be interesting to watch as the final chapters unfold.

He was joking.

Trollminator wrote:

...

In 3, 2, 1 Gary will provide a response ignoring your question and instead trying to establish equivalence of evilness and criminality with Bill, Hillary and Barrack. He doesn’t care if Trump is guilty of anything, he simply thinks it’s unfair to go after him because the Republicans were way too stupid and incompetent to find any dirt at all on Hillary and Obama. Just trust Gary!

Here's an example of the double standard I'm talking about. Selective enforcement of the law is one of the most common abuses of the law.

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

Under federal law, such campaign-finance violations, if they aggregate to just $25,000 in a calendar year, may be treated as felonies punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment — with offenses involving smaller dollar amounts punishable by incarceration for a year or more. (See Section 30109(d) of Title 52, U.S. Code, pp. 51–52 of the Federal Election Commission’s compilation of campaign laws.)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely re-elected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Yet, as that lawyer, Michael Cohen, has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now.

L L wrote:Trump is leading the way to enlisting young Democrats.

It's actually worse than that according to polling research because it's not as much Trump as the party's appeal among young voters.

Where Republicans have been making headway are with the uneducated and old. As long as the Right keeps making education more and more difficult to attain and discourage non-whites from voting, they will do well in general elections.

Dude, you miss the point. This was not disparaging plumbers. The point is that we hired someone without the proper knowledge.

For perhaps the millionth time, those of us who are against Trump are so because of his actions. It has NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton. We are anti-Trump, NOT pro-Hillary Clinton.

You are on an island and you have to eat something. The only sources of food on the island are things that cause you trouble.

1st item - causes headaches

2nd item - causes headaches and vomiting

1st item is Hillary Clinton

2nd item is Donald J. Trump

We HAD to pick the lesser of two evils, and that was back in November 2016. Trump has shown since then that he also causes dry mouth, itchy red rashes, and anal bleeding.

Bigfoot is a Russian operative to keep the media busy and he lives in an underground bunker under the Denver International Airport. In that big horse sculpture lies a nuke the size of which we have never seen!

The deepest state wrote:after the swamp is drained.

When is that? Any kind of estimate would be great. One year? Two years?

Because, Trump's cabinet is loving the swamp!!!

Nothing else explains the leash these people are given in 'investigating' Trump

One of the institutions required to support this idea that no Man is above the law are law enforcement investigators. There's your explanation.

The Dear Leader would love to do away with any pretense of an independent law enforcement to meet his personal goals. But, it seems like Congress does not want to give it up so easily.

(it's all amounted to nothing, and actually further proves how clean he is). Deep State !!

Felony pleas already delivered and charges pending are nothing?

It seems like you should be okay with an investigation because the Dear Leader is so chaste. Right? What am I missing?

And in the real world, China caved on the trade war. Trump won again.

U.S. stocks surged Tuesday following a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping in which he said he would open the country's economy and lower import tariffs on products, including cars.

DiscoGary wrote:

And in the real world, China caved on the trade war. Trump won again.

U.S. stocks surged Tuesday following a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping in which he said he would open the country's economy and lower import tariffs on products, including cars.

Would you sit down to dinner with a man who just murdered a puppy?

Trollminator wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

When the choice is Hillary vs. Donald, then yes I wanted her to win.

She would have had a scandal or two without question, but it would have paled in comparison to what we are seeing with Trump. She is also WAAAAAY smarter than Trump and she understands how government works.

Basically, we had a job opening for a doctor, and we hired a plumber.

Please do not insult the intelligence of plumbers - most have oretty good spacial reasoning and sound logic.

Flagpole wasn't trying to insult plumbers. He was just making the point that Hillary understands how the government works and Trump doesn't.

I wouldn't hire a plumber to do surgery and I wouldn't hire a surgeon to do plumbing. I also wouldn't hire a corrupt real estate developer to run the country. But that's what we got.

DiscoGary wrote:

Here's an example of the double standard I'm talking about. Selective enforcement of the law is one of the most common abuses of the law.

. . . Stuff about Federal Election Commission fining Obama campaign for accounting irregularities . . .

The Federal Election Commission is currently backlogged and largely rendered ineffective because Trump has "neglected" to fill commissioner vacancies.

One more time, because there is no good response that Democrats can give to this. Where was the non-stop news cycle on this? Where was the talk of impeachment? Where was the Special Council?

Here's an example of the double standard I'm talking about. Selective enforcement of the law is one of the most common abuses of the law.

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

Under federal law, such campaign-finance violations, if they aggregate to just $25,000 in a calendar year, may be treated as felonies punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment — with offenses involving smaller dollar amounts punishable by incarceration for a year or more. (See Section 30109(d) of Title 52, U.S. Code, pp. 51–52 of the Federal Election Commission’s compilation of campaign laws.)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely re-elected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Yet, as that lawyer, Michael Cohen, has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/the-cohen-searches-and-trumps-de-mini-mess/[/quote

]

DiscoGary wrote:

One more time, because there is no good response that Democrats can give to this. Where was the non-stop news cycle on this? Where was the talk of impeachment? Where was the Special Council?

Here's an example of the double standard I'm talking about. Selective enforcement of the law is one of the most common abuses of the law.

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

You answered your own question. I am not okay with the outcome of the Obama settlement. If it ends up Trump committed a similar infraction, then the norm is a minor penalty. End of story. Not the best resolution of the issue regardless of who committed it.

At this point, there is no public knowledge of what Trump did or didn't do despite the Trumpbots claiming otherwise. We'll see what comes of it.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

...

If it ends up Trump committed a similar infraction, then the norm is a minor penalty. End of story.

...

Do you believe that would be the end of the story?

DiscoGary wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

...

If it ends up Trump committed a similar infraction, then the norm is a minor penalty. End of story.

...

Do you believe that would be the end of the story?

Yes it would. If that's all there is to it then, yes.

If larger crimes are uncovered, then no.

Flagpole wrote:

Potty2Kettly wrote:

No, please don't wait, it was Monica Lewinsky! and a few others. So you wanted the wife of this guy to be the President. Gosh you're a smart fella.

When the choice is Hillary vs. Donald, then yes I wanted her to win.

She would have had a scandal or two without question, but it would have paled in comparison to what we are seeing with Trump. She is also WAAAAAY smarter than Trump and she understands how government works.

Basically, we had a job opening for a doctor, and we hired a plumber.

No, she's way more corrupt. You look up everything to fit your agenda. When it's Hillary, you look the other way. It only shows your ignorance on politics, nothing more.

DiscoGary wrote:

And in the real world, China caved on the trade war. Trump won again.

U.S. stocks surged Tuesday following a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping in which he said he would open the country's economy and lower import tariffs on products, including cars.

Is there going to be tariff action by the Americans? Or, is this more talk and no action? Which is it?

You apparently have forgotten that every leader of China has made the same statement. And then done everything they can to force intellectual property turnover.

Fat hurts wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Do you believe that would be the end of the story?

Yes it would. If that's all there is to it then, yes.

If larger crimes are uncovered, then no.

Right answer.

At this time, we don't know what Trump's campaign did or did not do. Until there's more published, it's all guesswork.

220 posts in the 24 hours since the news of the raid broke.