Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The inspectors were kicked out by Bush, not Saddam. If you remember at the time, the weapons inspectors were begging to be allowed to finish their job.

The inspectors were among the most vocal anti-war critics. They were saying that they had found no evidence of WMD's. Bush and Cheney didn't want them to finish their inspections and be able to declare that the Iraq was free of WMD's. So they had to invade and force the inspectors to leave in order to preserve their pretense for war.

I agree with that. Saddam was still thumbing his nose at inspectors...moving "material" just before inspectors would arrive, not allowing them the kind of access they required, was not cooperative with inspectors at all, etc. This was likely a ploy by Saddam to keep other countries believing he had WMDs so as to appear strong. Well, he put himself in that situation by governing as he did.

I was no fan of Bush, but Saddam invaded Kuwait and then surrendered. In that case, he had to toe the line, and he did not. Again, I didn't agree with the WMD aspect of going into Iraq, but because he was not cooperating with the terms of the surrender, I was all for it. You can't invade a country and then agree to terms of surrender and then not follow those terms. Rule of Law person I am.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

This is true. Saddam was also thumbing his nose at UN investigators and not allowing them to do their job. Sorry, but he started a war that he then lost (surrendered), and he has to abide by the rules of the surrender or be considered still at war. I was for the US going in, but NOT to seek for WMDs...ONLY because Saddam did not adhere to the terms of the surrender.

Trump is horrible and not comparable to ANY other president.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

The inspectors were kicked out by Bush, not Saddam. If you remember at the time, the weapons inspectors were begging to be allowed to finish their job.

The inspectors were among the most vocal anti-war critics. They were saying that they had found no evidence of WMD's. Bush and Cheney didn't want them to finish their inspections and be able to declare that the Iraq was free of WMD's. So they had to invade and force the inspectors to leave in order to preserve their pretense for war.

Flagpole wrote:

Bruno Runner wrote:

Flagpole has no answer.

Oh...I have an answer. I have THE answer...investigation(s) are still ongoing. Ridiculous to say I have been wrong all that time when we don't know the result of the investigations. No bigger response from me on that is warranted.

For your edification:

Here's a list of KNOWN investigations surrounding Trump, some more tangential than others (shout out to Axios):

Investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller:

• Russian government’s election attack (the Internet Research Agency and GRU indictments)

• WikiLeaks

• Middle Eastern influence: Potentially the biggest unseen aspect of Mueller’s investigation is his year-long pursuit of Middle Eastern influence targeting the Trump campaign.

• Paul Manafort’s activity

• Trump Tower Moscow project

• Other campaign and transition contacts with Russia

• Obstruction of justice

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York:

• Campaign conspiracy and Trump Organization finances

• Inauguration funding

• Trump super PAC funding

• Foreign lobbying

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia:

• Maria Butina and the NRA

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia:

• Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, the alleged chief accountant of the Internet Research Agency who was indicted separately earlier this fall, charged with activity that went above and beyond the 2016 campaign. Why she was prosecuted separately remains a mystery.

• Turkish influence: Michael Flynn’s plea agreement includes some details of the case, and he is cooperating with investigators.

Investigations by New York City, New York State and other state attorneys general:

• Tax case: In the wake of an N.Y. Times investigation that found Trump had benefited from more than $400 million in tax schemes, city officials said they were investigating Trump’s tax payments, as did the New York State Tax Department.

• The Trump Foundation

• Emoluments lawsuit: The attorneys general for Maryland and D.C. sent out subpoenas earlier this month for Trump Organization and hotel financial records relating to their lawsuit that the president is in breach of the "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution, which appears to prohibit the president from accepting payments from foreign powers while in office.

And there's a mystery investigation from an unknown office:

• Redacted Case #2: A second, redacted Flynn investigation could be one of the other investigations mentioned here. It could also represent another as-yet-unknown unfolding criminal case or could be a counterintelligence investigation that will never become public.

BUT, nothing to see here. It's not like big investigations like this typically go after the small fish first and then finally land the big fish...oh wait.

Mueller is coming. The SDNY is coming. Many others are coming.

The clown is done.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I agree with that. Saddam was still thumbing his nose at inspectors...moving "material" just before inspectors would arrive, not allowing them the kind of access they required, was not cooperative with inspectors at all, etc. This was likely a ploy by Saddam to keep other countries believing he had WMDs so as to appear strong. Well, he put himself in that situation by governing as he did.

I was no fan of Bush, but Saddam invaded Kuwait and then surrendered. In that case, he had to toe the line, and he did not. Again, I didn't agree with the WMD aspect of going into Iraq, but because he was not cooperating with the terms of the surrender, I was all for it. You can't invade a country and then agree to terms of surrender and then not follow those terms. Rule of Law person I am.

Saddam was contained and not a threat prior to 9/11. Many other countries (Russia, NK, Syria, Iran...) have similarity skirted the edge of sanctions or inspectors or broken promises.

The ONLY reason we invaded Iraq was to overthrow Saddam because Cheney and Rumsfield viewed it as unfinished business from the daddy Bush era. The end result is that we made the Middle East worse and we were the kindling that started the Sunni fire across the region which also led to the existence of ISIS.

Had we left Iraq alone there would be no ISIS, no Syrian civil war, no Sunni uprising across the region.

Alan

Silliest of Willies wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Oh...I have an answer. I have THE answer...investigation(s) are still ongoing. Ridiculous to say I have been wrong all that time when we don't know the result of the investigations. No bigger response from me on that is warranted.

For your edification:

Here's a list of KNOWN investigations surrounding Trump, some more tangential than others (shout out to Axios):

Investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller:

• Russian government’s election attack (the Internet Research Agency and GRU indictments)

• WikiLeaks

• Middle Eastern influence: Potentially the biggest unseen aspect of Mueller’s investigation is his year-long pursuit of Middle Eastern influence targeting the Trump campaign.

• Paul Manafort’s activity

• Trump Tower Moscow project

• Other campaign and transition contacts with Russia

• Obstruction of justice

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York:

• Campaign conspiracy and Trump Organization finances

• Inauguration funding

• Trump super PAC funding

• Foreign lobbying

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia:

• Maria Butina and the NRA

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia:

• Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, the alleged chief accountant of the Internet Research Agency who was indicted separately earlier this fall, charged with activity that went above and beyond the 2016 campaign. Why she was prosecuted separately remains a mystery.

• Turkish influence: Michael Flynn’s plea agreement includes some details of the case, and he is cooperating with investigators.

Investigations by New York City, New York State and other state attorneys general:

• Tax case: In the wake of an N.Y. Times investigation that found Trump had benefited from more than $400 million in tax schemes, city officials said they were investigating Trump’s tax payments, as did the New York State Tax Department.

• The Trump Foundation

• Emoluments lawsuit: The attorneys general for Maryland and D.C. sent out subpoenas earlier this month for Trump Organization and hotel financial records relating to their lawsuit that the president is in breach of the "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution, which appears to prohibit the president from accepting payments from foreign powers while in office.

And there's a mystery investigation from an unknown office:

• Redacted Case #2: A second, redacted Flynn investigation could be one of the other investigations mentioned here. It could also represent another as-yet-unknown unfolding criminal case or could be a counterintelligence investigation that will never become public.

BUT, nothing to see here. It's not like big investigations like this typically go after the small fish first and then finally land the big fish...oh wait.

Mueller is coming. The SDNY is coming. Many others are coming.

The clown is done.

"Never mistake activity for achievement" (John Wooden). I've used it for years to try to keep my runners focused on the objective, not the training it takes to get there.

I like how almost that entire list contains very few specific accusations. So funny. How about you determine what it is you think were criminal acts before you start an investigation?

Meanwhile, 2.5 years later:

Zero indictments for Collusion. Zero for obstruction. Comey, Lisa Page, and Strzok have testified that there was ZERO evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time of the Special Counsel appointment. There wasn't even reasonable suspicion.

Appointing the Special Counsel as a "counterintelligence" investigation (it is NOT technically a criminal investigation) was the biggest factor to continue the hoax as a sprawling investigation of PEOPLE, instead of CRIMES. It's a complete joke.

The fact remains that nothing that has resulted from the Special Counsel's efforts shouldn't have already been found from the IRS or FBI itself doing their normal, everyday work.

Open your eyes, folks. It has all been political theatre to hamper Trump's support and agenda.

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The inspectors were kicked out by Bush, not Saddam. If you remember at the time, the weapons inspectors were begging to be allowed to finish their job.

The inspectors were among the most vocal anti-war critics. They were saying that they had found no evidence of WMD's. Bush and Cheney didn't want them to finish their inspections and be able to declare that the Iraq was free of WMD's. So they had to invade and force the inspectors to leave in order to preserve their pretense for war.

I agree with that. Saddam was still thumbing his nose at inspectors...moving "material" just before inspectors would arrive, not allowing them the kind of access they required, was not cooperative with inspectors at all, etc. This was likely a ploy by Saddam to keep other countries believing he had WMDs so as to appear strong. Well, he put himself in that situation by governing as he did.

I was no fan of Bush, but Saddam invaded Kuwait and then surrendered. In that case, he had to toe the line, and he did not. Again, I didn't agree with the WMD aspect of going into Iraq, but because he was not cooperating with the terms of the surrender, I was all for it. You can't invade a country and then agree to terms of surrender and then not follow those terms. Rule of Law person I am.

WTF^n wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I agree with that. Saddam was still thumbing his nose at inspectors...moving "material" just before inspectors would arrive, not allowing them the kind of access they required, was not cooperative with inspectors at all, etc. This was likely a ploy by Saddam to keep other countries believing he had WMDs so as to appear strong. Well, he put himself in that situation by governing as he did.

I was no fan of Bush, but Saddam invaded Kuwait and then surrendered. In that case, he had to toe the line, and he did not. Again, I didn't agree with the WMD aspect of going into Iraq, but because he was not cooperating with the terms of the surrender, I was all for it. You can't invade a country and then agree to terms of surrender and then not follow those terms. Rule of Law person I am.

That's great. So hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in the war and its immediate aftermath, many thousands more were viciously tortured and killed by the savages who exploited the resulting power vacuum. Such a small price to pay for making sure that Saddam could no longer "thumb his nose" (and also so that you could proudly pat yourself on the back while you repeat to yourself, "Rule of Law person I am"), right?.

JFC!

Flagpole wrote:

Racket wrote:

What an ignorant false dichotomy this is.

How many Trump supporters have you talked to face to face? Many are not "flat out racist" or "stupid as can be," although I know you consider anyone beneath the great, honorable, and extremely good looking Flagpole to be utterly lacking in intellectual abilities.

There are many people who are not educated but work hard for an honest living. Lately, they've been hearing about things like "white privilege,""black lives matter," and toxic masculinity. And they may stop to think "well hey now, I've worked hard all my life and now someone with a blog in NYC is saying it's just cause I'm a white male? " or they might think "well shouldn't all lives matter?" The problem is that these issues are incredibly subtle and require intellectual conversation and thought. It's difficult for the everyday person to differentiate some of these issues that, in all honesty, comprise of larger parts of extremely complex socio-economic issues that high level academics have been debating for years. Combine that economic pressures left over from 2008, advances in technology that are marginalized non-skilled labor, and a shift in American demographic make up (in which white people will be less than 50% of Americans by 2050 I believe) it's really not hard to understand why someone would want to vote for Trump.

Obama himself said at his last farewell address that if Democrats want to change this mess then you've got to go out there and talk to people and understand them, and level with them, and empathize with them. You can't just lob around these accusations of "flat out racist." But we instead what we have is an internet Civil War led by General Flagpole McClellan.

1) None of what you say there matters. We have too much information on Trump at this point to have ANY logical reason left to back him. You don't have to get into "extremely complex socio-economic issues" to understand that Trump lies pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He can not be trusted about ANYTHING he says. How can a smart person support someone who lies to your face all the time? If you are not racist, then the ONLY reason to support him (if you aren't an elected official as I have said before) is because you are flat stupid.

2) When Obama said that at his farewell address, I agreed with it. I have no issue with people who voted for him as there were legitimate reasons to give him a shot. BUT, at this point, with all we have seen Trump do in his first two years in office and all the criminals he has surrounded himself with, all those reasons are out the window, UNLESS again, you are racist OR flat stupid. I didn't say these thing about Trumpers early on because it wasn't true. It IS true now. To be clear, you can still be a conservative, still be a Republican, still want a wall and border security...but you can't support Trump unless you are racist or flat stupid.

How many more criminals does he have to surround himself with? How many more lies does he have to tell? How many more racist things does he have to say? How many more dictators does he have to cozy up to? How many more freedoms does he have to attack? How many more illegals does he have to hire? How many more p*ssies does he have to grab? What does he need to do in order to show that anyone who follows him is flat stupid? I say we have crossed that line...because we have.

Racket wrote:

I'm truly amazed at how you can have such conviction despite that very same determination ultimately blinding you in 2016 to any possibility other than a Hillary Clinton win, yet here we are today and you're just so sure these people supporting Trump are just blatant racists or the stupidest people on earth, with no other possible explanation, no in between. If you really fail to see any alternative among your broken dichotomy then you go ahead and count yourself among the intellectually inferior.

The only reason I bother even responding to this (of which you will most certainly dismiss with a simple "whatever bother, I'm right and you're wrong, and YOU'RE the one who is intellectually inferior" (admit it, you already ran that line through your head and smirked about how awesome you are)) is because I really struggle to see how the Democrats are going to form a cohesive platform for 2020 that is more than just "not Trump."

2020 wrote:

Racket wrote:

I'm truly amazed at how you can have such conviction despite that very same determination ultimately blinding you in 2016 to any possibility other than a Hillary Clinton win, yet here we are today and you're just so sure these people supporting Trump are just blatant racists or the stupidest people on earth, with no other possible explanation, no in between. If you really fail to see any alternative among your broken dichotomy then you go ahead and count yourself among the intellectually inferior.

The only reason I bother even responding to this (of which you will most certainly dismiss with a simple "whatever bother, I'm right and you're wrong, and YOU'RE the one who is intellectually inferior" (admit it, you already ran that line through your head and smirked about how awesome you are)) is because I really struggle to see how the Democrats are going to form a cohesive platform for 2020 that is more than just "not Trump."

What is much more shocking is YOUR utter conviction that Trump will win in 2020.

Flagpole wrote:

Bruno Runner wrote:

Flagpole has no answer.

Oh...I have an answer. I have THE answer...investigation(s) are still ongoing. Ridiculous to say I have been wrong all that time when we don't know the result of the investigations. No bigger response from me on that is warranted.

For your edification:

Here's a list of KNOWN investigations surrounding Trump, some more tangential than others (shout out to Axios):

Investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller:

• Russian government’s election attack (the Internet Research Agency and GRU indictments)

• WikiLeaks

• Middle Eastern influence: Potentially the biggest unseen aspect of Mueller’s investigation is his year-long pursuit of Middle Eastern influence targeting the Trump campaign.

• Paul Manafort’s activity

• Trump Tower Moscow project

• Other campaign and transition contacts with Russia

• Obstruction of justice

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York:

• Campaign conspiracy and Trump Organization finances

• Inauguration funding

• Trump super PAC funding

• Foreign lobbying

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia:

• Maria Butina and the NRA

Investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia:

• Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, the alleged chief accountant of the Internet Research Agency who was indicted separately earlier this fall, charged with activity that went above and beyond the 2016 campaign. Why she was prosecuted separately remains a mystery.

• Turkish influence: Michael Flynn’s plea agreement includes some details of the case, and he is cooperating with investigators.

Investigations by New York City, New York State and other state attorneys general:

• Tax case: In the wake of an N.Y. Times investigation that found Trump had benefited from more than $400 million in tax schemes, city officials said they were investigating Trump’s tax payments, as did the New York State Tax Department.

• The Trump Foundation

• Emoluments lawsuit: The attorneys general for Maryland and D.C. sent out subpoenas earlier this month for Trump Organization and hotel financial records relating to their lawsuit that the president is in breach of the "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution, which appears to prohibit the president from accepting payments from foreign powers while in office.

And there's a mystery investigation from an unknown office:

• Redacted Case #2: A second, redacted Flynn investigation could be one of the other investigations mentioned here. It could also represent another as-yet-unknown unfolding criminal case or could be a counterintelligence investigation that will never become public.

BUT, nothing to see here. It's not like big investigations like this typically go after the small fish first and then finally land the big fish...oh wait.

Mueller is coming. The SDNY is coming. Many others are coming.

The clown is done.

Racket wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) None of what you say there matters. We have too much information on Trump at this point to have ANY logical reason left to back him. You don't have to get into "extremely complex socio-economic issues" to understand that Trump lies pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He can not be trusted about ANYTHING he says. How can a smart person support someone who lies to your face all the time? If you are not racist, then the ONLY reason to support him (if you aren't an elected official as I have said before) is because you are flat stupid.

2) When Obama said that at his farewell address, I agreed with it. I have no issue with people who voted for him as there were legitimate reasons to give him a shot. BUT, at this point, with all we have seen Trump do in his first two years in office and all the criminals he has surrounded himself with, all those reasons are out the window, UNLESS again, you are racist OR flat stupid. I didn't say these thing about Trumpers early on because it wasn't true. It IS true now. To be clear, you can still be a conservative, still be a Republican, still want a wall and border security...but you can't support Trump unless you are racist or flat stupid.

How many more criminals does he have to surround himself with? How many more lies does he have to tell? How many more racist things does he have to say? How many more dictators does he have to cozy up to? How many more freedoms does he have to attack? How many more illegals does he have to hire? How many more p*ssies does he have to grab? What does he need to do in order to show that anyone who follows him is flat stupid? I say we have crossed that line...because we have.

I'm truly amazed at how you can have such conviction despite that very same determination ultimately blinding you in 2016 to any possibility other than a Hillary Clinton win, yet here we are today and you're just so sure these people supporting Trump are just blatant racists or the stupidest people on earth, with no other possible explanation, no in between. If you really fail to see any alternative among your broken dichotomy then you go ahead and count yourself among the intellectually inferior.

The only reason I bother even responding to this (of which you will most certainly dismiss with a simple "whatever bother, I'm right and you're wrong, and YOU'RE the one who is intellectually inferior" (admit it, you already ran that line through your head and smirked about how awesome you are)) is because I really struggle to see how the Democrats are going to form a cohesive platform for 2020 that is more than just "not Trump."

Flagpole wrote:

Among those:

George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair

Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide

Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser

Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney and fixer

Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend and adviser

Cooperation from most of those. Cooperation likely coming from Stone also as he is facing up to 20 years in prison. Cooperation AND immunity also from David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg. Those two are HUGE and a BIG problem for Trump.

There really are only three big fish left...Kushner, Don Jr. and Trump himself. Ivanka is a semi-big fish who may or may not feel the sting of justice.

Yeah, I know, you say the actions of those people had nothing to do with Trump. George was a coffee boy, Manafort was hardly with the campaign, Cohen did next to nothing for Trump, and all that other BS.

Mueller and just about everybody else (except probably not Melania) is coming.

The clown is done.