Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

STSBO wrote:

Duane wrote:

so tell me why is more than likely Kavanaugh is lying? If he is, he is hanging his whole life out to dry, his current job, his family, the whole but. As far as Trump being able to pick someone else, yes that is what this is all about, a tactic by the Ds to delay the confirmation vote until after the midterms, by when they hope to control the Senate and can then dictate to Trump who they want. Worst case, for them, is that they do not win the Senate and have to deal with someone else very similar to Kavanaugh. As far as winning the vote of women for the mid terms, the Ds also stand to gain there more than Trump - lets face it a lot of women will never vote in support of Trump. The whole farce of a hearing the Ds put on was for show for the midterms.

You're kidding, right? Is that supposed to be a real question?

He is being accused of something horrendous and disgusting. Perhaps he doesn't want people to believe the accusations. What do you think - does that seem plausible?

He may possibly be blocked from achieving what would be the apex of his career and becoming one of the most powerful people in the country for the rest of his life. Perhaps he does not want to be blocked. What do you think - does that seem plausible?

Seriously dude, did you even think at all before asking that "question"?

Runningart2004 wrote:

For one you’re taking me too literal. The point I’m making is about relationships and physical interactions and online interactions between 16-19 year olds that are technically illegal but no one makes a fuss about it. That these types of interactions and relationships have become much more common place since everyone now has a smart phone in high school. I’m just being realistic. Maybe most Of y’all were virgins into your 20s and couldn’t bear to talk to a female in high school much less anything else, I don’t know.

So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her, I see why Trump likes him now. It’s wrong but he was a kid, again I understand most here are barely old enough to shave so maybe that’s why y’all are so emotional. Again what he did was wrong but he was a flipping kid. Move on.

Alan

Flagpole wrote:

Yeltsin wrote:

So Woodward didn’t research the Trump Tower meeting?

Asks a hopeful Trumper.

I have answered this before...Woodward isn't a legal investigator, and he doesn't have the legal authority that Mueller does or the staff that Mueller does to investigate fully. So, whether he "researched" the Trump Tower meeting or not is immaterial.

You Trumpers want to have it both ways...to say that Woodward is a bad journalist so none of the horrible things attributed to Trump are correct, but amazingly he's the best investigator in the world, so if he says he didn't see any evidence of collusion then that means there wasn't any.

Now, if he is including the Trump Tower meeting information that we all know publicly in his statement about not seeing any collusion (again that's not the question he was answering), then he has a different definition of what that entails, because it is clearly that (conspiracy).

1) Russia announced its support and specifically the Kremlin's support for Trump in an e-mail that we can all read.

2) Russia said it had dirt to give on Hillary in order to help Trump win again in an e-mail we can all read.

3) Don Jr., representing the Trump Campaign not only said "I love it" but told them when it would be best to release that info "later in the summer".

4) After step 3, we already have conspiracy, and this is even before the meeting. Once we get to the meeting, as Don Jr. said, they wanted to talk about Russian adoptions. Um...that is wrapped up in the Magnitsky Act which is about SANCTIONS placed on Russia following the death of Russian tax accountant Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009. So the quid pro quo here was insinuated...dirt on Hillary to help Trump win and lessening of sanctions as pay.

So, why is it conspiracy after step 3? They are conspiring in an illegal way. Dirt offered, and acceptance of dirt tendered along with when to release said dirt. It doesn't all have to be enacted. If the police get wind of two guys conspiring to rob a bank, they can arrest them for conspiracy before they rob the bank.

Flagpole wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

For one you’re taking me too literal. The point I’m making is about relationships and physical interactions and online interactions between 16-19 year olds that are technically illegal but no one makes a fuss about it. That these types of interactions and relationships have become much more common place since everyone now has a smart phone in high school. I’m just being realistic. Maybe most Of y’all were virgins into your 20s and couldn’t bear to talk to a female in high school much less anything else, I don’t know.

So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her, I see why Trump likes him now. It’s wrong but he was a kid, again I understand most here are barely old enough to shave so maybe that’s why y’all are so emotional. Again what he did was wrong but he was a flipping kid. Move on.

Alan

Excusing away sexual assault. You are just flat wrong on this. You aren't going to make us think you are right, so you should take your medicine and stop posting on this subject. And, just in case you want to reply, I will make sure that the correct position on this (the opposite of yours) is the last word.

Flagpole wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?

So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.

Alan

WTF Alan? She was bothered by this more than 6 years ago enough to talk to a therapist and her husband about it, including telling her husband that this person could one day maybe be sitting on the Supreme Court. She was the one allegedly assaulted. She gets to decide when and why and even if she wants to come out with that information. Obviously it bothers her that someone who would do that might end up on the Supreme Court. Guess that was the last straw for her, and again, SHE gets to determine what the last straw is, not you.

What is WRONG with you?!? wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

For one you’re taking me too literal. The point I’m making is about relationships and physical interactions and online interactions between 16-19 year olds that are technically illegal but no one makes a fuss about it. That these types of interactions and relationships have become much more common place since everyone now has a smart phone in high school. I’m just being realistic. Maybe most Of y’all were virgins into your 20s and couldn’t bear to talk to a female in high school much less anything else, I don’t know.

So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her, I see why Trump likes him now. It’s wrong but he was a kid, again I understand most here are barely old enough to shave so maybe that’s why y’all are so emotional. Again what he did was wrong but he was a flipping kid. Move on.

Alan

There you go again - creating an alternate reality and trying to pass it off as the real thing. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED??? Nobody knows except for the 2 or 3 who were there. That is why they have scheduled hearings to try to get to the truth. And yet you repeatedly come on here and try to foist your completely uninformed opinion of what when on as fact. It is nothing of the sort.

So, what the fvck is wrong with you that you feel such a need to create this fiction? In all seriousness, what is in your own past that has turned you from being a reasonable poster into basically a liar? STOP MAKING SH!T UP AND TRYING TO HAVE THE NARRATIVE REVOLVE AROUND YOUR MADE UP SH!T!

Towering Trump wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Asks a hopeful Trumper.

I have answered this before...Woodward isn't a legal investigator, and he doesn't have the legal authority that Mueller does or the staff that Mueller does to investigate fully. So, whether he "researched" the Trump Tower meeting or not is immaterial.

You Trumpers want to have it both ways...to say that Woodward is a bad journalist so none of the horrible things attributed to Trump are correct, but amazingly he's the best investigator in the world, so if he says he didn't see any evidence of collusion then that means there wasn't any.

Now, if he is including the Trump Tower meeting information that we all know publicly in his statement about not seeing any collusion (again that's not the question he was answering), then he has a different definition of what that entails, because it is clearly that (conspiracy).

1) Russia announced its support and specifically the Kremlin's support for Trump in an e-mail that we can all read.

2) Russia said it had dirt to give on Hillary in order to help Trump win again in an e-mail we can all read.

3) Don Jr., representing the Trump Campaign not only said "I love it" but told them when it would be best to release that info "later in the summer".

4) After step 3, we already have conspiracy, and this is even before the meeting. Once we get to the meeting, as Don Jr. said, they wanted to talk about Russian adoptions. Um...that is wrapped up in the Magnitsky Act which is about SANCTIONS placed on Russia following the death of Russian tax accountant Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009. So the quid pro quo here was insinuated...dirt on Hillary to help Trump win and lessening of sanctions as pay.

So, why is it conspiracy after step 3? They are conspiring in an illegal way. Dirt offered, and acceptance of dirt tendered along with when to release said dirt. It doesn't all have to be enacted. If the police get wind of two guys conspiring to rob a bank, they can arrest them for conspiracy before they rob the bank.

So, Trump Tower meeting = Collusion?