Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Centennial wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am calling YOU out for saying it was the Women's Suffrage Act. It was the 19th Amendment! You want us to call out Trump when it is YOU who needs to go back and read about the women's suffrage movement and eventually the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment!

Centennial: An anniversary that occurs 100 years after an event.

If the even occurred in 1920 when is the centennial? Trump says the centennial should have been celebrated BEFORE he became president.

Yes, you are correct. He should be called out for that. But you were wrong to call it the Women's Suffrage Act when instead the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. Trump may be a brilliant businessman but he is also a buffoon and not a student of history.

Sally Vix wrote:

Centennial wrote:

"I'm curious why wasn't it done a long time ago? And also, I guess the answer to that is because now I'm president, we get things done."

Trump asking why the 100th anniversary of the passing 1920 Women's Suffrage Act did not happen before he became president.

Trump Maths.

Not a single Trumpette will callout the Orange one for his failure to know what a centennial is.

I am calling YOU out for saying it was the Women's Suffrage Act. It was the 19th Amendment! You want us to call out Trump when it is YOU who needs to go back and read about the women's suffrage movement and eventually the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment!

It was an act (a proposed amendment) until passed in 1920. It was introduced in 1878.

Sally Vix wrote:

Centennial wrote:

Centennial: An anniversary that occurs 100 years after an event.

If the even occurred in 1920 when is the centennial? Trump says the centennial should have been celebrated BEFORE he became president.

Yes, you are correct. He should be called out for that.

Sally agrees, Trump is mentally unfit to be president.

Dotard Donnie wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Yes, you are correct. He should be called out for that.

Sally agrees, Trump is mentally unfit to be president.

I wouldn't go that far. He has some very troubling tendencies. Troubling might be too strong of a word. I think he is in full control of his faculties but some of his behaviors are peculiar at best.

1920 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am calling YOU out for saying it was the Women's Suffrage Act. It was the 19th Amendment! You want us to call out Trump when it is YOU who needs to go back and read about the women's suffrage movement and eventually the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment!

It was an act (a proposed amendment) until passed in 1920. It was introduced in 1878.

Correct, but the act didn't grant women the right to vote. Not until the states ratified the 19th Amendment were women finally allowed the right to vote.

Sally Vix wrote:

1920 wrote:

It was an act (a proposed amendment) until passed in 1920. It was introduced in 1878.

Correct, but the act didn't grant women the right to vote. Not until the states ratified the 19th Amendment were women finally allowed the right to vote.

Are you trying to make some kind of point? It took 42 years of voting by the states to convert the act into an amendment in 1920. That means all of the states did all ratify it in 1920. It was ratified state by state over a period of years.

Fat hurts wrote:

Drain the Swamp! wrote:

Who should be making the foreign policy? Unelected bureaucrats? Or the elected president?

The answer is that foreign policy is shared between the president and the congress. That's how the constitution lays it out.

Who should be implementing foreign policy? That's for the unelected bureaucrats. That's for the professionals like Fiona Hill who understand the details and know how to get things done.

Who should NOT be implementing foreign policy? That's clowns like Rudy Guliani who is a private citizen being paid by corrupt foreigners like Lev Parnas. That's clowns like Gordan Sondland who purchased his ambassadorship.

CORRECT!

And, it goes beyond Trump and Giuliani and the two Ukrainian-American goons. There are processes. The DOJ needs to be involved (to keep it all above board) if an investigation is to happen. What the US policy IS needs to be clearly rolled out to all people who help implement/enforce it.

Why didn't Trump go about it that way? Because he knew he wasn't supposed to, and he just wanted some announced investigation into the Bidens to help him politically. As Sondland said, Trump didn't even really care if the investigations were being done or not...he just wanted an announcement...an announcement that kept changing and eventually was to be during an interview on CNN.

What Trump has done here is ridiculous. Criminal without question. Mafia-style bribery.

I am not sure how much foreign policy Fiona Hill should be implementing. MIKE POMPEO should be implementing foreign policy.

Straightforward ??? wrote:

Straightoward Man wrote:

Straighttorward ??? Gibberish.

Straightforward

Sally Vix wrote:

I am not sure how much foreign policy Fiona Hill should be implementing. MIKE POMPEO should be implementing foreign policy.

So, Trump should NOT be directing others to do his bidding. He should do his own bidding. . . . . A boss should NOT delegate. The boss would do the work themselves.

Did you claim you have an undergraduate degree in business? Yikes.

Straightoward Man wrote:

Straightforward ??? wrote:

Straightoward Man wrote:

Straighttorward ??? Gibberish.

undetermined wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. I've given you reasons why you are wrong including the fact that you didn't know how pardons work.

So, are you saying they are just going to allow him to break the law and do nothing about it? Why should I believe what you say when all the legal experts say he has this authority?

You are not right about this. Typing in all caps doesn't make you right.

My reason: There is no law.

Your reason: Talking heads think it might be able to do it.

1) Trump is the Commander-in-Chief. He gets to tell the military and its leaders when to jump and how high...short of breaking a law.

2) In the past, there has been a standing agreement with Presidents that they would let the military brass manage their own. Trump has broken that.

3) There is no law that says you are allowed to wear that shirt you are wearing today, and yet, you are doing so.

4) Many Federal laws come from something in the Constitution being challenged. Right now the Constitution says Trump is the Commander-in-Chief, and legal scholars have long debated what exactly that means. No one in the military is even pushing back on the fact that he has the authority to do this. The one guy said he couldn't "in good conscious" do so, but that was his own personal feeling about it. You might not like it, but as things are today, he has the authority to do so...again, so says every legal expert I have read comments from or heard from on a news show (and they didn't say they THINK he can...they have said flat out that he has this authority). Why should I believe you over them? If you don't like the ambiguity here, launch a challenge. The Constitution is filled with ambiguity...with guns, with impeachment, with many things.

Finally, you are wrong...INFINITY! There, now I don't need to respond to you again.

For Flagpole

https://www.localjobster.com/company5?company=pigglywiggly&ls2=1&m_type=bb&msclkid=a66363d520e91b603f2c3e087ecd57d5&path=202&reset=1&s_ad=75797585815403&s_kw=kwd-34873815521%3Aloc-190&s_network=Search&s_qs=piggly+wiggly+job+application+pdf&split_id=1140&utm_campaign=110041130&utm_content=2459916389&utm_source=Microsoft&utm_term=34873815521

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

1) Trump is the Commander-in-Chief. He gets to tell the military and its leaders when to jump and how high...short of breaking a law.

-- So, he can use a war criminal as a campaign prop. And he can order the military to kill Americans if he feels threatened. Protect the president at all costs; even the cost of American lives.

2) In the past, there has been a standing agreement with Presidents that they would let the military brass manage their own. Trump has broken that.

-- Not an agreement. A following of the law. Military law in this case. Meaning Trump has broken the law.

3) There is no law that says you are allowed to wear that shirt you are wearing today, and yet, you are doing so.

-- This makes no sense at all. Shirts have nothing to do with military law.

4) Many Federal laws come from something in the Constitution being challenged. Right now the Constitution says Trump is the Commander-in-Chief, and legal scholars have long debated what exactly that means. No one in the military is even pushing back on the fact that he has the authority to do this. The one guy said he couldn't "in good conscious" do so, but that was his own personal feeling about it. You might not like it, but as things are today, he has the authority to do so...again, so says every legal expert I have read comments from or heard from on a news show (and they didn't say they THINK he can...they have said flat out that he has this authority). Why should I believe you over them? If you don't like the ambiguity here, launch a challenge. The Constitution is filled with ambiguity...with guns, with impeachment, with many things.

-- There is no Federal law allowing Trump to override military laws. They are separate.

Finally, you are wrong...INFINITY! There, now I don't need to respond to you again.

-- So childish of you. You are the one who is INFINITY WRONG!

Director Trump wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am not sure how much foreign policy Fiona Hill should be implementing. MIKE POMPEO should be implementing foreign policy.

So, Trump should NOT be directing others to do his bidding. He should do his own bidding. . . . . A boss should NOT delegate. The boss would do the work themselves.

Did you claim you have an undergraduate degree in business? Yikes.

I was talking about "implementing." "Implementing" is above Fiona Hill's pay grade. She does what Mike Pompeo directs her to do. She does not "implement." She carries out orders.

Sally Vix wrote:

I was talking about "implementing." "Implementing" is above Fiona Hill's pay grade. She does what Mike Pompeo directs her to do. She does not "implement." She carries out orders.

Implement = Do the bidding of.

The business degree of yours was a waste of time.

Director Trump wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I was talking about "implementing." "Implementing" is above Fiona Hill's pay grade. She does what Mike Pompeo directs her to do. She does not "implement." She carries out orders.

Implement = Do the bidding of.

The business degree of yours was a waste of time.

You have no idea what implement means. It means to put some plan or agreement into effect. "Doing the bidding of?" Are you nuts?

Have you never worked somewhere where there was a chain of command? Mike Pompeo's office is to communicate the policy to all of those in the field. They ALL then implement established US policy. They all have to know what the US policy is in order to do their jobs. What Pompeo and Giuliani and Trump did here was dirty. I would say, "and you know it," but you don't know it because you are stupid beyond comprehension. Your ridiculous grammar police fails and other attempts to try to show you know anything about anything are a train wreck. You need to be asking questions ONLY.