Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

LL=Fat Hurts wrote:

Communist College wrote:

You yourself went to a Communist College. An easy choice for a Trumpette like you.

Hi Fat Hurts! Nice handle change!

Nope, I went to a school called Vanderbilt. Ever hear of it? I thought not.

You yourself went to a Socialist College majoring in racism, a liberals favorite warm spot. Racism at it's highest level.

I never change my handle. Since I registered this handle I have never posted under any other name.

Yes, I've heard of Vandy. I have two first cousins who graduated from there.

I've never revealed where I went to school except to say that it is one of the most prestigious Science and Engineering schools in the world.

Fat hurts wrote:

LL=Fat Hurts wrote:

Hi Fat Hurts! Nice handle change!

Nope, I went to a school called Vanderbilt. Ever hear of it? I thought not.

You yourself went to a Socialist College majoring in racism, a liberals favorite warm spot. Racism at it's highest level.

I never change my handle. Since I registered this handle I have never posted under any other name.

Yes, I've heard of Vandy. I have two first cousins who graduated from there.

I've never revealed where I went to school except to say that it is one of the most prestigious Science and Engineering schools in the world.

Prestigious doesn't make MIT the best.

Impeachment is not a waste of time.

If the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress has to due their duty and start the Constitutional process that was designed for check sand balances.

If the trials shows the American public that he is criminal and Republican senators vote not guilty, then they should face political ramifications.

Michael Cohen has been sentenced to prison for committing crimes for the benefit and at the direction of the president.

And of course there is the Clinton precedent for an impeachment of a president of lower level accusations than the list of things that the public knows about Trump, let alone what Mueller has not disclosed.

L L wrote:

Impeachment is not a waste of time.

If the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress has to due their duty and start the Constitutional process that was designed for check sand balances.

If the trials shows the American public that he is criminal and Republican senators vote not guilty, then they should face political ramifications.

Michael Cohen has been sentenced to prison for committing crimes for the benefit and at the direction of the president.

And of course there is the Clinton precedent for an impeachment of a president of lower level accusations than the list of things that the public knows about Trump, let alone what Mueller has not disclosed.

LOL!!!!! Get a life Loser Loser!!!! You have absolutely no clue as to what is going to happen...but I do (wink wink wink).

He's not being impeached, you're delusional old man!

L L wrote:

Impeachment is not a waste of time.

If the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress has to due their duty and start the Constitutional process that was designed for check sand balances.

If the trials shows the American public that he is criminal and Republican senators vote not guilty, then they should face political ramifications.

Michael Cohen has been sentenced to prison for committing crimes for the benefit and at the direction of the president.

And of course there is the Clinton precedent for an impeachment of a president of lower level accusations than the list of things that the public knows about Trump, let alone what Mueller has not disclosed.

what are sand balances? is that a middle eastern thing?

Smells like Flagpole wrote:

gov. coffers wrote:

But, the money … Trump bills the government at above market rates for the privilege of using his 'properties'. $130,000 per month to rent 3500 square feet in Trump Tower, which Trump doesn't not visit, but where his boys live and work.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190101035312/https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/news/secret-service-mar-a-lago/index.htmlhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-militarys-space-in-trump-tower-costs-130-000-a-month-1500428508

Hi Flagpole!

Nope. Not me.

WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I LIE, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sand balances is a description of where Trump hides his money with Saudi Arabia.

TTH? wrote:

TTH wrote:

Throw in that Trump would undoubtedly name said wall after himself and it's a clear winner from his point of view. It is not about border security.

Like Obama with Healthcare, calling it Obamacare, kinda like that?

The ACA being coined as Obamacare came from the right.

So not "like".

U Dew No Nothing wrote:

U Dew No wrote:

[quote]TTH? wrote:

You do know that the term "Obamacare" was coined and endlessly pushed by the Republicans in order to try to rile up the base to hate enhanced access to health insurance, right?

You do know that, right?

False.

Obama called it Obamacare as did your girl Hillary. You do know that, right?

Negative.

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

I know you were replying to someone else but my question is whether it would be preferable to have the government fully open and funded before casting an impeachment vote.

A shutdown/impeachment trial combo would be a rough situation.

Trump likes to make distractions from him being investigated and I think he likes the shutdown for that reason.

Even so, I don't think the shutdown has anything to do with impeachment.

Impeachment is a waste of time if it's not going to result in Tiny's removal from office.

It's better to spend that time doing investigation and oversight to prepare the public for Tiny's indictment.

I agree with what Pelosi said yesterday on Impeachment..."we shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason."

I think you have to look at this as fulfilling a duty or not. If the President of the United States has committed "impeachable offenses" (I am fine with waiting until more evidence is available -- Mueller report, etc.), then it is the DUTY of the House to draw up articles of impeachment, regardless of what may or may not happen in the Senate. It is ok to WISH it weren't that way, but there really should be NO OPTION to avoid the impeachment process if it is shown Trump committed impeachable offenses, even if the Senate comes to the House and says they won't get the votes to remove him.

While I say impeachment should happen just based on evidence, I also say that a Senate who SAYS they won't vote to convict before the House impeaches is different then from being on the line after said impeachment and after they see what voters have to say.

No one thought Bucky Dent would be remembered for hitting a big home run either.

This has probably been the funniest week of Trump TV. He should go in front of the camera more often.

You can't impeach someone doing a great job

Just sayin' too wrote:

[quote]Just sayin'... wrote:

Two full weeks of the Trump Shutdown . . . hang in there, everybody!

We all hung in there when Barack did it, so what's the difference? Oh, it must have been his race that gave him a free ticket to do what he wanted.

Well, if you're really interested Wiki actually has a decent summary on the 2013 shutdown. Certainly a couple of "differences" immediately stand out:

1) When the 2013 shutdown was initiated, the President's party did not have a majority of both houses of Congress.

2) The President did not actively welcome a shutdown in 2013, nor explicitly (on live television) take ownership of it.

There are actually a bunch more differences. I recommend the Wiki article.

Racket wrote:

You can't impeach someone doing a great job

Sure you can. Impeachment is a political, not legal, act, and if a majority of Representatives wanted to impeach a sitting president--for any reason, or for none--they could.

Now, it might be very foolish of them to do so--and I certainly feel that way about any current move to impeach Mr. Trump--but they could if they wanted.

present, esq. wrote:

Racket wrote:

You can't impeach someone doing a great job

Sure you can. Impeachment is a political, not legal, act, and if a majority of Representatives wanted to impeach a sitting president--for any reason, or for none--they could.

Now, it might be very foolish of them to do so--and I certainly feel that way about any current move to impeach Mr. Trump--but they could if they wanted.

I disagree that is foolish to not impeach. Just moments ago Trump cried out that he is ready to keep the government [partially] shut down for years, unless he gets his border wall. McConnell has backed himself into a corner; allowing a vot

present, esq. wrote:

Racket wrote:

You can't impeach someone doing a great job

Sure you can. Impeachment is a political, not legal, act, and if a majority of Representatives wanted to impeach a sitting president--for any reason, or for none--they could.

Now, it might be very foolish of them to do so--and I certainly feel that way about any current move to impeach Mr. Trump--but they could if they wanted.

Those were actually words that Trump himself just spoke.

I was making fun of him because he is legitimately retarded, as evidenced by this hilarious news conference

The 2013 shutdown happened because Republicans wanted to defund portions of The Affordable Care Act that were already set into law.

In the end, it was funded.

This shutdown is totally caused by Trump wanting funding for a wall that Congress has not passed.

L L wrote:

Impeachment is not a waste of time.

If the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress has to due their duty and start the Constitutional process that was designed for check sand balances.

If the trials shows the American public that he is criminal and Republican senators vote not guilty, then they should face political ramifications.

Michael Cohen has been sentenced to prison for committing crimes for the benefit and at the direction of the president.

And of course there is the Clinton precedent for an impeachment of a president of lower level accusations than the list of things that the public knows about Trump, let alone what Mueller has not disclosed.

I don't think the founders meant for impeachment to be a means to make a political statement.

It should be used judiciously and only if you are truly prepared to remove the president.

Raises for Obama's aides wrote:

Yep, just like Obama and his aides during HIS government shutdown. How soon we forget.

His aides, maybe; not Obama. The presidential salary hasn't increased since 2001.

L L wrote:

Sand balances is a description of where Trump hides his money with Saudi Arabia.

Oh, you mean like the Clinton's hid their money? You're too easy dude. I can beat you with my eyes closed and half asleep.

Hillary and Bill were no different than Trump, but now EVERY DAY is looked at like never before. Yes, the internet was around, but not like it is now. Bill got away with a lot and Hillary did more damage as the ARROGANT First Lady than he did!!!!!

___________________________

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

*****Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton****

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

_______________________________