Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

"He also suggested that the federal government will not be giving the state funding to help battle these wildfires adding, “Every year, as the fire’s rage & California burns, it is the same thing-and then he comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No more.”

Trump is just simply an evil man. After everything California has been through he chooses this time to make a public post threatening to cut off federal funding to California from FEMA given to help the California people. People who have lost their homes, fire fighters who have risked their lives 24/7 fighting these fires, residents who have lived through the scare of losing everything and this is what their president chooses to post to them.

How sick is this guy!?!?!?

And those enablers on this board who post things to support him should do some soul searching.

Is this really the guy you want to fight for?

Also by the way, the federal government owns and manages 57% of the forests in California, but in Trump's mind it doesn't matter because California will vote blue. So who gives a damn about those people.

San Francisco pays about 100K for Poop scoopers. Maybe California should get their sh$t in order before requesting to help out that sh(thold. I would even reckon to say that San Francisco is a bigger shi%thole than the ones Trump referred to previously. You have mounds of sh%t on the ground. Is that really what you liberals want for the country? Here in texas, it A'int happening.

Trollminator wrote:

Iggy - I appreciated your initial posts over the weekend because of their substance, you did well to highlight the grievances with both parties. A couple of main differences were in your choice for voting for Trump and how you feel about impeachment now.

1. On voting in 2016 - how did you come to the conclusion that Trump was a better pick? Was it more on basis of Clinton dynasty or were you more encouraged by his promises?

2. On impeachment - you say it's all part of the grand distraction. Given Pelosi was openly hesitant on this topic until now, and the substance of the issue (it's not hearsay that he used those words on the phone call), I don't agree at all. I think Democrats seemed well aware this could embolden the right even more so I don't buy that. I do think there is naturally pressure from the left to investigate him, but it's very warranted. Questions for you - do you think there should be no impeachment investigation at all? If not, what do you think should be the bar for starting one? Also, with the current one, what would you have to see for you to get behind it?

In general, I keep seeing some of the same arguments from people that are against impeachment - the biggest one being that Biden engaged in something similar. But there are obvious glaring differences which you all don't bring up.

1) Biden was not the President, he was a VP, but Trump is.

2) Biden acted openly with the full support of the POTUS, Congress and the EU on dealing with Ukraine in general and specifically. That means it's a big stretch to claim his actions were directly targeted toward bailing out his son. Meanwhile, Trump acted in secrecy and specifically asked for Biden to be looked into, he didn't ask in general for corruption in the country to be investigated. He sent Rudy and gang to engage in black ops diplomacy on his behalf. That is pretty telling of his intentions.

3) Biden's intent is very hypothetical at best - supposedly he just happened to have the chance to fire a prosecutor who supposedly might have been looking into the company that his worked in and supposed there would have been some improper dealings by Hunter??? Those are some very vague dots to try to connect.

4) That Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired does not in any way make him guilty, it actually proves there was no covert action to do so. Also that the left-leaning networks have not been focusing on Biden's bragging has no bearing on what trump did.

5) A total of ZERO republicans complained about Biden's action back then, even though they were fully aware of what he did and his son's position on a board would have been well known. Rs have only now started to open their mouths. Yeah, I don't think so.

6) While it was improper for Biden's son to work in a Ukrainian energy company at the time, it was not illegal. If you want to scream on this point then you can't because Trump's nepotism is much more clear.

In the end, this comparison is not only a nonsensical one, what would Biden's actions back then have to do with Trump's now?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Iggy - I appreciated your initial posts over the weekend because of their substance, you did well to highlight the grievances with both parties. A couple of main differences were in your choice for voting for Trump and how you feel about impeachment now.

1. On voting in 2016 - how did you come to the conclusion that Trump was a better pick? Was it more on basis of Clinton dynasty or were you more encouraged by his promises?

2. On impeachment - you say it's all part of the grand distraction. Given Pelosi was openly hesitant on this topic until now, and the substance of the issue (it's not hearsay that he used those words on the phone call), I don't agree at all. I think Democrats seemed well aware this could embolden the right even more so I don't buy that. I do think there is naturally pressure from the left to investigate him, but it's very warranted. Questions for you - do you think there should be no impeachment investigation at all? If not, what do you think should be the bar for starting one? Also, with the current one, what would you have to see for you to get behind it?

In general, I keep seeing some of the same arguments from people that are against impeachment - the biggest one being that Biden engaged in something similar. But there are obvious glaring differences which you all don't bring up.

1) Biden was not the President, he was a VP, but Trump is.

2) Biden acted openly with the full support of the POTUS, Congress and the EU on dealing with Ukraine in general and specifically. That means it's a big stretch to claim his actions were directly targeted toward bailing out his son. Meanwhile, Trump acted in secrecy and specifically asked for Biden to be looked into, he didn't ask in general for corruption in the country to be investigated. He sent Rudy and gang to engage in black ops diplomacy on his behalf. That is pretty telling of his intentions.

3) Biden's intent is very hypothetical at best - supposedly he just happened to have the chance to fire a prosecutor who supposedly might have been looking into the company that his worked in and supposed there would have been some improper dealings by Hunter??? Those are some very vague dots to try to connect.

4) That Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired does not in any way make him guilty, it actually proves there was no covert action to do so. Also that the left-leaning networks have not been focusing on Biden's bragging has no bearing on what trump did.

5) A total of ZERO republicans complained about Biden's action back then, even though they were fully aware of what he did and his son's position on a board would have been well known. Rs have only now started to open their mouths. Yeah, I don't think so.

6) While it was improper for Biden's son to work in a Ukrainian energy company at the time, it was not illegal. If you want to scream on this point then you can't because Trump's nepotism is much more clear.

In the end, this comparison is not only a nonsensical one, what would Biden's actions back then have to do with Trump's now?

Hunter did not work "in" a Ukrainian company; he was a board member. Regardless of whether the payments to him were justified, they were legal and he was in no danger of being prosecuted.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Iggy - I appreciated your initial posts over the weekend because of their substance, you did well to highlight the grievances with both parties. A couple of main differences were in your choice for voting for Trump and how you feel about impeachment now.

1. On voting in 2016 - how did you come to the conclusion that Trump was a better pick? Was it more on basis of Clinton dynasty or were you more encouraged by his promises?

2. On impeachment - you say it's all part of the grand distraction. Given Pelosi was openly hesitant on this topic until now, and the substance of the issue (it's not hearsay that he used those words on the phone call), I don't agree at all. I think Democrats seemed well aware this could embolden the right even more so I don't buy that. I do think there is naturally pressure from the left to investigate him, but it's very warranted. Questions for you - do you think there should be no impeachment investigation at all? If not, what do you think should be the bar for starting one? Also, with the current one, what would you have to see for you to get behind it?

In general, I keep seeing some of the same arguments from people that are against impeachment - the biggest one being that Biden engaged in something similar. But there are obvious glaring differences which you all don't bring up.

1) Biden was not the President, he was a VP, but Trump is.

2) Biden acted openly with the full support of the POTUS, Congress and the EU on dealing with Ukraine in general and specifically. That means it's a big stretch to claim his actions were directly targeted toward bailing out his son. Meanwhile, Trump acted in secrecy and specifically asked for Biden to be looked into, he didn't ask in general for corruption in the country to be investigated. He sent Rudy and gang to engage in black ops diplomacy on his behalf. That is pretty telling of his intentions.

3) Biden's intent is very hypothetical at best - supposedly he just happened to have the chance to fire a prosecutor who supposedly might have been looking into the company that his worked in and supposed there would have been some improper dealings by Hunter??? Those are some very vague dots to try to connect.

4) That Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired does not in any way make him guilty, it actually proves there was no covert action to do so. Also that the left-leaning networks have not been focusing on Biden's bragging has no bearing on what trump did.

5) A total of ZERO republicans complained about Biden's action back then, even though they were fully aware of what he did and his son's position on a board would have been well known. Rs have only now started to open their mouths. Yeah, I don't think so.

6) While it was improper for Biden's son to work in a Ukrainian energy company at the time, it was not illegal. If you want to scream on this point then you can't because Trump's nepotism is much more clear.

In the end, this comparison is not only a nonsensical one, what would Biden's actions back then have to do with Trump's now?

Hunter did not work "in" a Ukrainian company; he was a board member. Regardless of whether the payments to him were justified, they were legal and he was in no danger of being prosecuted.