Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

foo wrote:

That's great. I guess this is retribution for Trump inviting some of Bill Clinton's floozies to the debates. However, I'm sure that Trump will be unfazed. When you've got no conscience nor compassion, things like this just don't bother you.

It's still funny.

As a Rule of Law person, what do you think should happen to this person who is in the country illegally?

Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/12/trump-speaks-after-nato-summit-stable-genius-newday-vpx.cnn

agip wrote:

McConnell: Don't tell the nation that Russia is meddling in the election

McConnell: Don't encourage more Americans to vote

The Republican Party is barely in favor of America or democracy.

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1090660773284757504

Yep.

This is in contrast to the champions of American democracy, the Democrats, who are imploring Schultz not to run for President.

I agree with you that these Democrats campaigning for Schultz not to campaign is not pro democracy.

Though, after hearing him talk, I think he may take more Trump votes than Democrat votes.

Democrats liked Perot running because it helped Bill Clinton get elected.

They did not like Jill Stein running because she took votes from Hillary and got Trump elected.

(Stein had more votes than the difference between Hillary and Trump in PA, MI and WI. IF they all voted for Hillary instead, she would be president right now. Or maybe they wouldn't have voted at all and it wouldn't have changed anything)

The campaign against Schultz is not good.

I will reiterate my idea that the general election should be between exactly two people to give voters a binary choice. And there should be prelims open to all parties to encourage a moderate strategy to make the final two.

Abolish the Democrat and Republican primaries and conventions all together.

(no chance this will happen)

Leafy feet wrote:

agip wrote:

McConnell: Don't tell the nation that Russia is meddling in the election

McConnell: Don't encourage more Americans to vote

The Republican Party is barely in favor of America or democracy.

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1090660773284757504

Yep.

This is in contrast to the champions of American democracy, the Democrats, who are imploring Schultz not to run for President.

apples to oranges

I don't think that's apples to oranges.

One is voter suppression.

The other is candidate suppression.

Together they are limiting voters and options and putting a cap on democracy.

Yeah. Less choice is always better.

agip wrote:

Leafy feet wrote:

Yep.

This is in contrast to the champions of American democracy, the Democrats, who are imploring Schultz not to run for President.

apples to oranges

Not really.

They both put party over country.

Something I'm against.

L L wrote:

I don't think that's apples to oranges.

One is voter suppression.

The other is candidate suppression.

Together they are limiting voters and options and putting a cap on democracy.

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

Rule of Law wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

It's still funny.

As a Rule of Law person, what do you think should happen to this person who is in the country illegally?

Excellent question!

Some here like to say I'm a know-it-all, meaning of course that I BELIEVE I know everything, not that I DO know everything.

I will prove yet again that that couldn't be further from the truth.

I DO NOT KNOW what the law says should be done with a newly-found illegal immigrant (what kind of process is available to them, how long it takes, etc.), but if immediate deportation is it, then I am not against that. Now, while I would be for that if the law says so, PERSONALLY I would also actually agree with such a law (a Rule of Law person can decide to obey laws and yet not agree with them...obey them while they are laws but then work to change them if they feel strongly about that). I do not support illegal immigration, and she put herself in this position by coming here illegally.

I ALSO believe though that any company found hiring illegal workers should be severely punished. This is the way to greatly curb illegal immigration.

For the record, I do not think it was heartless for Trump's golf club to fire those workers. For whatever reason, they decided it was time to clean house of illegal workers. It WAS criminal in my opinion if the reports about how those people were hired is true, and the golf club should be punished for it (unfortunately the punishments are weak).

Typically third-party candidates hurt the incumbent party, so in that sense, Schultz isn't good for Trump. On the other hand though, he is a lifelong Democrat, so that seems to me that many potential Democrat voters would vote for him.

I'm not for him running. We have seen the experiment of someone with NO political experience in the White House, and that clearly isn't working out (though most of that is just due to the fact that Trump is a criminal and there is no evidence that Schultz is).

I like your idea of getting down to a binary choice. I also agree no chance of this happening...at least not in the foreseeable future.

SPTSHanlon wrote:

agip wrote:

apples to oranges

Not really.

They both put party over country.

Something I'm against.

In normal times with a normal President at the helm, I would agree with you...but Trump is a clear and present danger, and Democrats have a reason to be perturbed at Schultz, and I believe in this case Democrats ARE putting country over Party in not wanting him to run.

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

I don't think that's apples to oranges.

One is voter suppression.

The other is candidate suppression.

Together they are limiting voters and options and putting a cap on democracy.

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

CORRECT!

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

I don't think that's apples to oranges.

One is voter suppression.

The other is candidate suppression.

Together they are limiting voters and options and putting a cap on democracy.

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

It's one thing to say, you shouldn't run. It's another to say you shouldn't run as an Independent because it will hurt my party's chances to win the general, that's a whole other.

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

CORRECT!

+1. How exactly do you think we are supposed to choose our leaders? It's a lot of talk, convo, etc. It's how this works.

and, when the leader of the US senate says something undemocratic, it carries a particular awful weight.

when the Democratic Party grass roots and media expresses an opinion, that's not so awful, is it?

Democrats are the party of late term abortions.

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

I don't think that's apples to oranges.

One is voter suppression.

The other is candidate suppression.

Together they are limiting voters and options and putting a cap on democracy.

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

True.

Let's not be naive though. That is NOT what is going on here.

After what the Dems did to Sanders in 2016, I would run as a Indie as well if I were him.

Flagpole wrote:

SPTSHanlon wrote:

Not really.

They both put party over country.

Something I'm against.

In normal times with a normal President at the helm, I would agree with you...but Trump is a clear and present danger, and Democrats have a reason to be perturbed at Schultz, and I believe in this case Democrats ARE putting country over Party in not wanting him to run.

Call me naive if you will, but I'm just an old redneck from the western Penn. Explain to me in terms that I can understand why the Democrats don't support Shultz running as an independent, but do support him running as a Democrat.

Grow up wrote:

Are there any adult politicians around any more? It was childish when Trump brought in Clinton's "bimbos" and this is childish as well.

Agreed

A small sign, sure - but still another sign that we are now a banana republic.