Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

I'm not saying that Republicans don't care about pollution.

I'm saying they care first about having Republicans in office.

If a Republican enacted regulations to curb pollution, they would support it.

If a Republican wrote and passed the ACA with the same words, they would support it.

Trump's main "accomplishments" so far are repealing Obama's executive orders and they love it.

If Trump signed a single payer health solution passed by a Republican congress, Republican voters would love it.

The Freedom Caucus would hate it, but most Republican voters would go along with it.

We can list tons of failures in Trump's first 3 months but the 96% support of his voters speaks volumes to me.

It says conversations like the ones in this thread do not influence anyone.

We all might as well be talking to ourselves.

We're just talking past each other here.

we're sort of talking across each other...

my point is to dispute what a couple people have said here - that all conservatives want it is to win or get rich - that they have no morals or concern for the nation as a whole.

I think that is wrong thinking and undemocratic. There are good ideas in conservative thought - Bill Clinton and BHO saw that and one reason they were successful presidents is that they incorporated conservative thought into their actions.

Same for Reagan - he was appreciated for having core principles but bringing in some left of center things too.

He is completely wrong. Any attempt to use a color-blind algorithm to perform redistricting will be shot down in court as having a negative impact on minority representation. So yes, gerrymandering IS mandated by Federal law.

I was part of the effort to do away with gerrymandering. Why don't you guys go ahead and try yourself? Let us know how it works out. Or is that too much work for you?

DiscoGary wrote:

TroLLminator wrote:

You are right, but the problem is your post is too long for the likes of DiscoGary to consume. Trumpkins can only handle headline/twitter length info, otherwise does not compute. Think about trying to explain a legal process to a toothless redneck. This is also why they love Trump, every communication is short and sweet. No gimmicks just "real" and macho straight talk. Idiocracy at its best.

He is completely wrong. Any attempt to use a color-blind algorithm to perform redistricting will be shot down in court as having a negative impact on minority representation. So yes, gerrymandering IS mandated by Federal law.

I was part of the effort to do away with gerrymandering. Why don't you guys go ahead and try yourself? Let us know how it works out. Or is that too much work for you?

You have to be kidding us with this gerrymandering crap. Republicans have had much more House/governorship legislative control over the last 10 years and undoubtedly have been in position to control the redistricting process, obviously to their favor. That imbalance of power goes both ways, but as I mentioned Republicans have had more control so you have nothing to cry about.

I'll take it further, if you look at the popular vote results in each state and then calculate what their House representation would be if their Reps were proportionally elected, we'd expect to see more Democrats elected, maybe even a majority. But we don't see that do we? And yet here you are crying foul!

Try to use "fairness" rather than "race" as a determining factor in redistricting, and it will get shot down in Federal court. Our Federal government explicitly upholds race based policies in direct contradiction with the Civil Rights Act and Equal Protection under the law clauses. Our Federal government is guilty of institutional racism.

Spin and rant all you want, but that's the truth.

the gerrymandering q is very difficult. Gary is not completely wrong - basically whatever you do will hurt some ethnic group. And therefore will be held unconstitutional.

So the courts have basically thrown up their hands and said 'F it - gerrymander by political party - there's nothing unconstitutional about that'

(except of course the Repubs are becoming a white nationalist party - that makes things really complicated.

So the Repubs (dems too but mostly repubs) have done awful things to secure their hold on statehouses - completely unethical and unamerican. reprehensible.

but gary is right that gerrymandering by race is a minefield.

Maybe SCOTUS can figure something out.

Arthur Laffer's annual report is a good proxy for the success of very conservative government budget/low tax environments.

http://www.richstatespoorstates.org/publication/rich-states-poor-states-10th-edition/

As history has repeatedly shown, it doesn't grow an economy faster than strict government spending. It penalizes everyone but the rich really well, though.

eric a blair wrote:

the gerrymandering q is very difficult. Gary is not completely wrong - basically whatever you do will hurt some ethnic group. And therefore will be held unconstitutional.

So the courts have basically thrown up their hands and said 'F it - gerrymander by political party - there's nothing unconstitutional about that'

(except of course the Repubs are becoming a white nationalist party - that makes things really complicated.

So the Repubs (dems too but mostly repubs) have done awful things to secure their hold on statehouses - completely unethical and unamerican. reprehensible.

but gary is right that gerrymandering by race is a minefield.

Maybe SCOTUS can figure something out.

How about "Gary is completely right."? SCOTUS could shoot down ALL race based Federal programs, which is exactly what they should do. Why don't we obey the law of the land? Of course our Dem friends would riot in the street, burning down buildings and looting stores .... again.... which makes things really complicated.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Arthur Laffer's annual report is a good proxy for the success of very conservative government budget/low tax environments.

http://www.richstatespoorstates.org/publication/rich-states-poor-states-10th-edition/

As history has repeatedly shown, it doesn't grow an economy faster than strict government spending. It penalizes everyone but the rich really well, though.

If government spending grew the economy, then the economy should have grown at historic levels under Obama. It did. It was historically high spending with historically slow growth. Obama proved that the Kenyanesian economics of government stimulus don't work.

DiscoGary wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Arthur Laffer's annual report is a good proxy for the success of very conservative government budget/low tax environments.

http://www.richstatespoorstates.org/publication/rich-states-poor-states-10th-edition/

As history has repeatedly shown, it doesn't grow an economy faster than strict government spending. It penalizes everyone but the rich really well, though.

If government spending grew the economy, then the economy should have grown at historic levels under Obama. It did. It was historically high spending with historically slow growth. Obama proved that the Kenyanesian economics of government stimulus don't work.

right, and so when kansas cut taxes and government spending, the state should have skyrocketed! Wait, it didn't? It cratered and the governor who pushed the same right wing theories Gary pushes is shockingly unpopular? And the state is running out of money? What? How is that possible?

And high tax NY and CA MUST be majorly in recession, right? No? They are soaring? Subsidizing the red states? WHAT? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?????/

eric a blair wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

If government spending grew the economy, then the economy should have grown at historic levels under Obama. It did. It was historically high spending with historically slow growth. Obama proved that the Kenyanesian economics of government stimulus don't work.

right, and so when kansas cut taxes and government spending, the state should have skyrocketed! Wait, it didn't? It cratered and the governor who pushed the same right wing theories Gary pushes is shockingly unpopular? And the state is running out of money? What? How is that possible?

And high tax NY and CA MUST be majorly in recession, right? No? They are soaring? Subsidizing the red states? WHAT? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?????/

Obama spent at historically high levels and growth was historically low.

Spin and rant all you want. It doesn't change the truth.

There is no spinning and ranting, just a hard fact. You are ranting. You are arguing that the courts are racially biased. I can sit here and argue that the carried interest tax rules are racially biased, favoring white men. Racial bias would be a very poor argument, white men happen to benefit more from the tax code because most ultra-wealthy Americans happen to be white men. So we live in an unfair world, deal with it. But again, you are crying about an area in which the balance of power is overwhelmingly tilted toward Republicans, cry me a river.

DiscoGary wrote:

eric a blair wrote:

right, and so when kansas cut taxes and government spending, the state should have skyrocketed! Wait, it didn't? It cratered and the governor who pushed the same right wing theories Gary pushes is shockingly unpopular? And the state is running out of money? What? How is that possible?

And high tax NY and CA MUST be majorly in recession, right? No? They are soaring? Subsidizing the red states? WHAT? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?????/

Obama spent at historically high levels and growth was historically low.

Spin and rant all you want. It doesn't change the truth.

you're the one spinning and you know it. You don't even address my points. that is the definition of spinning.

Yes, growth was lowish under obama, but as you knwo there are many reasons for that - no one says that all you have to do is spend government money and you get big growth. We have a labor shortage, a non-growing population, a massive problem of wasted brainpower, we limit motivated immigrants....increased gov't spending won't overcome all that.

now you address why kansas is a disaster and CA and NY are doing great.

He is cherry picking. I can point to a number of areas and say there is evidence of racial/political bias. We live in a diverse country, someone will always be unhappy. Grow up

Well let me check. Nope, the truth still hasn't changed.

DiscoGary wrote:

eric a blair wrote:

right, and so when kansas cut taxes and government spending, the state should have skyrocketed! Wait, it didn't? It cratered and the governor who pushed the same right wing theories Gary pushes is shockingly unpopular? And the state is running out of money? What? How is that possible?

And high tax NY and CA MUST be majorly in recession, right? No? They are soaring? Subsidizing the red states? WHAT? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?????/

Obama spent at historically high levels and growth was historically low.

Spin and rant all you want. It doesn't change the truth.

Your point is mute. Do you think Trump is not going to go on a spending frenzy? Our economy can support much more spending, pretty much until we see signs of insolvency, which will not happen for a very long time.

I agree wholeheartedly. If he is over 45 then he is essentially a poo-flinging, special needs adult. I hope his parents support him or he inherited a ton of cash, otherwise, God help him.

real alpha male wrote:

Although I may seem mean and bullying to Emoji Girl, what he is doing is not good for his own emotional health.

He needs to stop because he is being harmful to himself. In a tough love way I may be helping him.

Black runner wrote:

He is ill-equipped for the responsibilities of life ahead of him and despite the fact he's a detestable lout, I still find myself pitying him from a humanistic standpoint.

Spent my adult life protecting wetlands. I recognize that you genuinely believe that devolution of power works. Respectfully, I have yet to find that to be true. When it comes to environmental protection state and regional power in most states will always find ways to undercut the teeth in environmental law. It is an area of enforcement that requires the imprimatur of Federal authority to mean anything. I realize there are many conservatives who care deeply about environmental issues. I have worked with many. But we always end up disagree on this issue--initially--until they get disappointed that *their* county or *their* state either refuses or is incapable of protecting a wetland in their area. Just how I see it, based on 30 years experience.

You are considered to be an intellectual republican on these boards, gotta love LRC. So far I've only seen ranting from you. Maybe you're already lining up the excuses for Trump's growing failures. It's all Obama's fault!