Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Trump none payment wrote:

If Trump was not running for president he would NOT have made the payoffs to Stormy or Karen. He would have gone his usual route—sue them if they talked about and get his lawyers to impose gag orders on them. But that process takes to long so the payments were necessary.

The only way a campaign finance charge sticks to trump is if cohen can provide some kind of proof spanks made the payments to help his campaign and that trump knew that was illegal. It's possible, but no better than 50/50.

Otherwise Trump says the payments were to save his marriage or business, and he's good to go.

I don't see the campaign finance charge a carrying much weight, unless there are tapes.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Cohen has pleaded guilty to those charges, said Trump directed him to do it, we have him on tape talking to Trump about paying McDougal, including the formation of a "company". The timing of it all makes it pretty clear that it was done because of the election and then Giuliani said later in a taped interview, "Can you imagine if this came out two weeks before the election [paraphrased]?" I say 90/10.

Runningart2004 wrote:

A challenge could be made to the DOJs internal policy to not indict sitting presidents but that would make both sides sweat.

Alan

The Trump position is that a sitting president CANNOT be indicted for anything. But that is not the intent. The intent is that a president cannot be indicted for acts related to the job of president--such as war crimes, budget approvals, and such. But there is nothing that gives the president a free-pass for any acts he commits that are not part of the job. If Trump committed murder, took bribes, cheated an election, conspired with a foreign country to line his pockets, and similar, he is not covered.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Be careful, Iggy will accuse you of trying to be superior for having coherent thoughts and arguments!

It is more circuitous thought than coherent. It is a nation of laws, yet in your rationale the end justifies the means. Your political views color your conclusions rather than facts just as they did during the Kavanaugh hearings. That is the only point I find disturbing. I have no emotional attachment to either party and see both playing a game to stay in power rather than serve the people.

Well, you are flat wrong then. No games being played by Democrats. We have a criminal in the White House, and that should not be allowed. He is compromised by Russia. Can't have that. He needs to be removed. You are part of the problem.

L L wrote:

It would be mice if all votes were equal, though.

The solution is simple. Kill the Electoral College.

Local representation = House elected by local popular vote.

State representation = Senate elected by statewide popular vote.

National representation = President elected by national popular vote.

The reason for dirt having a vote has long passed. The electoral college was a tool that encouraged sparsely populated non-states to join the USA. There are few US territories that might be added as a new state these days - maybe only Puerto Rico.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Be careful, Iggy will accuse you of trying to be superior for having coherent thoughts and arguments!

It is more circuitous thought than coherent. It is a nation of laws, yet in your rationale the end justifies the means. Your political views color your conclusions rather than facts just as they did during the Kavanaugh hearings. That is the only point I find disturbing. I have no emotional attachment to either party and see both playing a game to stay in power rather than serve the people.

Which conclusion did I reach regarding Kavanaugh? If you mean my opinion that he wasn’t fit to serve then yes I own that. He gave that one away clearly when he invoked HRC globalist conspiracies when speaking to the Senate.

Now if you mean whether I thought he would get the nomination then revisit the tape and see my position, I clearly stated he would be nominated no matter what.

I highly doubt you have no emotional attachment here - almost no who follows politics can say honestly say that. You lean one way and have your own opinions just like the rest of us, so if you are trying to say you are the one guy who is objective you won’t find many believers. And if you really believe that you are just lying to yourself. Btw - I don’t recall anyone denying that both parties play the power game, so not sure what point you are trying to make there. If you think any of us believe the Dems are moral and flawless you’ve been attending the Gary school of policial science.

Wow! Even Fox is covering Trump’s pending indictment...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-c-mccarthy-why-trump-is-likely-to-be-indicted-by-manhattan-us-attorney

Typically on a day like today their top story would be something about Hillary, Bill, the migrant “invasion”, the “war on Christmas”, or something else to scare their overly fearful / hateful viewers.

Runningart2004 wrote:

ErwinS wrote:

Had I not seen the IranContra investigation go nowhere I would have agreed with you. But because I lived through that time, seeing crimes much worse than Watergate go unpunished (except for a few stooges at near the bottom) I do not expect any Trumps to go down for this. I admire you confidence in the American system. Enjoy it while you still have it because you are going to be vert dissatisfied this time next year.

This. History has shown us people are fine with a felon as president so long that he is either popular or the economy is doing great. It’s not right, and impeachment is not the right way to ensure accountability. A challenge could be made to the DOJs internal policy to not indict sitting presidents but that would make both sides sweat.

Alan

huh? What does this even mean? What examples do we have of presidents committing felonies, provable?

agip wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

And you were most likely a moron that supported HRC throughout the 2016 campaign. So what does that mean? Come on move on. It is just your political view. Admit it.

anyone who tries to make a parallel between a normal politician like HRC and the criminal, liar, incompetent Spanky McBonespurs is not making a real argument.

DJT is a failure and criminal like we have never seen in the white house. We literally elected the worst candidate in the field. HRC would have been obama2, which even if you are a R wouldn't be too bad.

Correct - and if you are a loyal trumper you just need to take a tiny step back and look at how he is defended these days - only by whataboutisms and deep state conspiracy theories - there have been no attempts to defend him based on his own actions and arguments. That is a stretch never seen before.

Andrew Jackson killed a guy in a dual if that counts

Racket wrote:

Andrew Jackson killed a guy in a dual if that counts

Also, does anyone actually think Regan didn't know Oliver North and Casper Weinberger were gun running in the basement of the White House?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Almost anyone would be better wrote:

You two are delusional. There are reasonable people in both parties that would be WAY better than Trump. I agree Pence is not one of those people but there are many Republicans out there that would do a better job and who are not outright criminals.

As stated many times previously in this thread, not all people who voted for Trump are morons but only moron says continue to support Trump now.

And you were most likely a moron that supported HRC throughout the 2016 campaign. So what does that mean? Come on move on. It is just your political view. Admit it.

Dude, Hillary is not the criminal that Trump is. Whether you support Trump now has nothing to do with Hillary. We have all found out a ton of information about Trump since he was elected, and none of it is good. You have no integrity by saying it's just your political view. It's an insane view. Hillary would have been judged more harshly had she been elected AND it was shown that she was a criminal. She wasn't elected, and it HASN'T been shown that she's a criminal. Your view on Trump is traitorous. Shame on you.

Runningart2004 wrote:

ErwinS wrote:

Had I not seen the IranContra investigation go nowhere I would have agreed with you. But because I lived through that time, seeing crimes much worse than Watergate go unpunished (except for a few stooges at near the bottom) I do not expect any Trumps to go down for this. I admire you confidence in the American system. Enjoy it while you still have it because you are going to be vert dissatisfied this time next year.

This. History has shown us people are fine with a felon as president so long that he is either popular or the economy is doing great. It’s not right, and impeachment is not the right way to ensure accountability. A challenge could be made to the DOJs internal policy to not indict sitting presidents but that would make both sides sweat.

Alan

That all definitely is a factor, but there is also just the idea that things can be proven or not. Reagan was not likely to be found guilty, but Trump will be.

Flagpole wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

And you were most likely a moron that supported HRC throughout the 2016 campaign. So what does that mean? Come on move on. It is just your political view. Admit it.

Dude, Hillary is not the criminal that Trump is. Whether you support Trump now has nothing to do with Hillary. We have all found out a ton of information about Trump since he was elected, and none of it is good. You have no integrity by saying it's just your political view. It's an insane view. Hillary would have been judged more harshly had she been elected AND it was shown that she was a criminal. She wasn't elected, and it HASN'T been shown that she's a criminal. Your view on Trump is traitorous. Shame on you.

Well, after all, Trumpettes are NOT Americans!

(and Lying Gary Lite IS a Trumpette, his protests notwithstanding)

L L wrote:

But that isn't true in the presidential election.

If I lived in Florida and you lived in California, then my vote would be more important because it could get one candidate closer to a swing of a number of electoral votes.

Regardless of which party you prefer, a vote from a single Californian will have no affect on a presidential outcome.

Same as if you lived in Texas (for now).

It would be mice if all votes were equal, though.

Mmmmmmm . . . where do I sign up?!?

43,500

So, the GOP decided that it was really important to drag Comey back in to discuss . . . Hillary Clinton's emails!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-rips-panels-grilling-him-025304251.html

Seriously, WTF is wrong with the GOP?

But Clinton's emails wrote:

So, the GOP decided that it was really important to drag Comey back in to discuss . . . Hillary Clinton's emails!

Seriously, WTF is wrong with the GOP?

hey, foreigner is still selling out theaters on 'Juke Box Hero'

Wow! Even Fox News is covering this... wrote:

Wow! Even Fox is covering Trump’s pending indictment...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-c-mccarthy-why-trump-is-likely-to-be-indicted-by-manhattan-us-attorney

Typically on a day like today their top story would be something about Hillary, Bill, the migrant “invasion”, the “war on Christmas”, or something else to scare their overly fearful / hateful viewers.

That is the best most-indepth piece of reporting I have ever read from Fox. Kudos to them.

Good point about David Pecker...Pecker has been given immunity, and he easily could have provided info that Trump did indeed make these payments due to the election.

Mueller is coming. Everyone and their brother is coming.

The clown is done.