Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

I hear you.

I'm thinking in terms of articles like this one - about red state gummints that are carrying the ball forward on environmental issues, without the help or orders from DC.

And maybe better, Texas - which is the national leader in green energy production. I'm not sure what role DC had in Texas' green industry - probbaly significant - but the point is that texas stands out, and it is red.

TroLLminator wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

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.

That's right. Trump will go on a spending frenzy and it won't help the economy. If he cuts taxes and regulations, then that will help the economy, and it should be enough to spur enough growth to overcome the burden of Federal spending. That model worked under Reagan.

Obama spent huge amounts, passed loads of regulations, and left our taxes relatively high, so he got slow growth. I predicted that. I was right.

By any reasonable measuring stick, Trump has not had a successful 100 days in office. Some would argue that getting his Supreme Court nominee in is more than enough, and if you hold that opinion, I could agree, but if we look at all the promises Trump made and said he would do or at least attempt to do in his first 100 days, he is woefully lacking.

He has flip flopped on his campaign promises at a record rate. He lies constantly. He gives unqualified and unvetted daughter and her husband important positions at the White House.

The man is a joke...only it's not funny...just dangerous.

You Trumpsters SAY you liked his idea of not intervening in the affairs of other countries, but then he bombs Syria (something I was actually ok with except that I don't like his reason for doing it -- an emotional response).

He has thumbed his nose at your vote the whole time, and if he ever does get Obamacare dismantled, working class people will suffer the most. Nice.

I don't say any of this to try to sway any of you Trumpsters. The fact that 96% of you are still standing by this buffoon is telling (though really, a loss of 4% of his voters in 100 days is pretty significant).

Those who are sticking with him are emotional voters. You can't change an emotional response with logic. Those voters will have to eventually come to that decision on their own.

noted that DiscoGary refuses to explain why Kansas is an economic disaster after cutting taxes and government spending.

Further noted that DiscoGary refuses to explain why high tax NY and CA are economic leaders, growing well and having budgets under control.

Real alpha man wrote:

Make America Great Again wrote:

He is a successful president, because he has made us proud of our country once again. His predecessor was always apologizing to other countries to make us feel ashamed. What a big difference!

So you are more proud of the things that Trump has said and done and you were ashamed by Obama?

Truthfully I'm having a hard time believing that.

You don't get it because you are an egghead living in a bubble.

Forgotten men and women of America understand what I mean.

Fat hurts wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

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?

Please cite the law you are talking about. I don't believe it exists. And I think you are lying about being involved in any meaningful way.

We've been talking about it already. The courts interpret the Civil Rights Act to assume that a "negative impact" will happen and rule against any redistricting which would undermine the gerrymandering which already exists. In the process they violate the very law they claim to be upholding.

The only way we could implement an algorithmic solution would be to keep the original gerrymandered districts with significant minority populations and then run the algorithm on what was left. It didn't make any sense, because the whole reason for the effort was to abolish gerrymandering by constitutional amendment, and there wasn't any good way to write an amendment which would do what I just described.

Attacking the messenger doesn't make the bad news any better, but it will ensure that fewer messengers will show up at your door trying to tell you what's happening. This is the problem with liberals. You shoot all the messengers and then wonder why you don't know what's going on.

DiscoGary wrote:

That's right. Trump will go on a spending frenzy and it won't help the economy. If he cuts taxes and regulations, then that will help the economy, and it should be enough to spur enough growth to overcome the burden of Federal spending. That model worked under Reagan.

No it didn't. The deficit skyrocketed under Reagan.

TroLLminator wrote:

You are considered to be an intellectual republican on these boards ...

Awe, shucks. That's nice of you to say. You should keep up this effort to bring a little sunshine into someone's day. It'll make the world a better place.

anyone looking for a nice explanation of why fixing gerrymandering is so difficult, here's a good piece.

Basically, it's not a constitutional issue in most cases. SCOTUS doesn't want to start telling states how to do things

and however you do it you are protecting someone and hurting someone else. Deciding what is fair is next to impossible.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/1/13800348/wisconsin-gerrymander-supreme-court-parties

That's not what the courts have said at all. In fact, Shaw v. Reno was a 5-4 decision with the conservative judges in the majority.

You are making stuff up again, just like you made up the idea that you were some kind of expert because you worked on gerrymandering in Illinois (which you apparently lied about).

Yes, I attack messengers who lie.

Make America Great Again wrote:

Real alpha man wrote:

So you are more proud of the things that Trump has said and done and you were ashamed by Obama?

Truthfully I'm having a hard time believing that.

You don't get it because you are an egghead living in a bubble.

Forgotten men and women of America understand what I mean.

again, for the millionth time, trump voters are on average wealthier than HRC's voters.

the better answer is that trump voters are on average more racist than HRC voters.

Fat hurts wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

That's right. Trump will go on a spending frenzy and it won't help the economy. If he cuts taxes and regulations, then that will help the economy, and it should be enough to spur enough growth to overcome the burden of Federal spending. That model worked under Reagan.

No it didn't. The deficit skyrocketed under Reagan.

Exactly, and the economy exploded.

Under Obama, the deficit skyrocketed, but growth was slow.

What was different?

Reagan slashed taxes and cut regulations.

Obama left taxes high compared to the end of Reagan's term, and passed record amounts of regulation.

Both spent huge amounts.

Therefore, the spending DID NOT cause the Reagan boom. Cutting taxes and regulations did. If this were not a political topic you guys would have no trouble understanding it.

Trump's spending will NOT boost the economy. It will be a net drag.

gary you are beyond help with your massive stupid overgeneralizations

Do you ever get tired of being a liberal idiot

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's hard to decide what is fair. But once that it settled, it's not that hard to use an algorithm to achieve a fair result.My hope is that the Supreme Court will grow a pair and wade into the matter. Any comprehensive ruling on the current case concerning political gerrymandering will have to set some much-needed boundaries. I am cautiously optimistic.The courts could rule that political gerrymandering is OK. But if they did then they would be declaring themselves to be completely corrupt as an institution. The problem would only get worse.

eric a blair wrote:

anyone looking for a nice explanation of why fixing gerrymandering is so difficult, here's a good piece.

Basically, it's not a constitutional issue in most cases. SCOTUS doesn't want to start telling states how to do things

and however you do it you are protecting someone and hurting someone else. Deciding what is fair is next to impossible.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/1/13800348/wisconsin-gerrymander-supreme-court-parties

Good points. Fair enough.

Fat hurts wrote:

...

That's not what the courts have said at all. In fact, Shaw v. Reno was a 5-4 decision with the conservative judges in the majority.

You are making stuff up again, just like you made up the idea that you were some kind of expert because you worked on gerrymandering in Illinois (which you apparently lied about).

Yes, I attack messengers who lie.

Shaw vs. Reno

"The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The redistricting that occurred after the 2000 census, as required to reflect population changes, was the first nationwide redistricting to apply the results of Shaw v. Reno."

This case supports exactly what I have been saying. It must have been the case our lawyers were referring to at the time (it was a while ago). Try to write a constitutional amendment which implements an algorithmic redistricting plan while being "conscious of race". It can't be done in any reasonable way. Imagine what the wording would look like!

You should be glad that this messenger continues to show up at your door.

eric a blair wrote:

gary you are beyond help with your massive stupid overgeneralizations

Pot, Kettle, Black.

See your comment on Trump supporters above.