Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Obama ran on a platform of Black Nationalism2008Obama won blacks, over 95%Obama won illegals, 100%Obama won 43% of white votes in 08', McCain had 55%Who's racist? White people can't win. If you voted for Obama or not. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 2012Obama won blacks, 93%Obama won illegals, 100%Obama won 39% of white votes, Romney had 59%Obama won hispanics, asians, and other by LARGE margins.Who's racist? You guys want your cake and eat it too. Sad, but true. You don't vote for Obama, you're a racist, not because you're against his policies. You vote for him, then you're okay. Talk about racist!You'll debunk this as well, no democrat will admit to anything.

eric a blair wrote:

trump won whites 57-37

trump ran on a platform steeped in white nationalism

Conundrum wrote:

Trump may have included race identification politics but according to a Forbes article I just read he did not obtain more white votes than Romney but Trump won in some borderline States because of a lower minority turnout. I can link the article when I'm at my computer. I have read other articles saying Trump voters were more motivated by race versus economic worries but that might have been true for Romney voters too.

According to the Forbes article that real determining factor in Trump's victory was the lack of minority turnout. Your previous post indicates that you know this.

But point is really that you shouldn't make the sweeping generalization that whites are happy Trump won.

Who's really racist? wrote:

Obama ran on a platform of Black Nationalism

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You conservatives spend eight years calling Obama a globalist and now you decide he's a nationalist.

eric a blair wrote:

I see no way that junior is not indicted on this. If my understanding of the law is correct. He seems to have broken two serious laws.

Now the question is if Senior will pardon Junior.

the other question is if Kushner is guilty of breaking the same two laws.

TroLLminator wrote:

Reminds me of an annoying work colleague I once had. He would come into management meetings wholly uninformed yet would speak with so much authority and conviction, clearly taking others' patience for his rumblings as confirmation that he knew what he was saying. That guy never got promoted, but hey he didn't mind as long as he thought he was always right.

Gary's convolutions wrote:

You got it pegged DiscoGary is genius at convoluted reasoning--it makes not sense but he sure sound like he's the authority on everything. Comical, yet extremely annoying because he never backs down and you could waste days, weeks, months going around and around with and not getting anywhere.

Didn't this whole story start out as "the Russians hacked the election"? A big percentage of Democrats actually think the Russians changed vote totals.

Then it changed to the Russians hacked the Dems computers to undermine Hillary, but Podesta got caught by a common phishing email.

Then it changed to Trump people were talking to Russians to help defeat Hillary.

Now it's changed to Trump people would have colluded with Russia if they had the chance.

Which side is changing the story on a daily basis?

Gathering opposition research from anywhere you can get it is not a crime and not even unethical. You guys are unhinged, but keep hoping.

Who's really racist? wrote:

Obama ran on a platform of Black Nationalism . . .

Well yeah . . . except that he didn't.

Minor detail, I know.

... but if you can use this to get rid of McCain, please do.

silly Gary.

two laws were broken:

when a campaign solicits a thing of value from a foreign national, that is a crime.

when an American conspires to distort the results of an election with a foreign national, that is conspiracy and a clear crime.

as for ethics, if a foreign power came to you and says they have damaging information on a former US senator and sec of state, you have the ethical responsibility to tell the FBI about it. You don't go and deal with it yourself. That is national security stuff - way beyond an election.

Plus it is clear that the Russian gov't was trying to make assets in the Trump campaign. When that happens you have the ethical responsibility to tell the CIA or whoever should know about spies in the US.

DiscoGary wrote:

Didn't this whole story start out as "the Russians hacked the election"? A big percentage of Democrats actually think the Russians changed vote totals.

Then it changed to the Russians hacked the Dems computers to undermine Hillary, but Podesta got caught by a common phishing email.

Then it changed to Trump people were talking to Russians to help defeat Hillary.

Now it's changed to Trump people would have colluded with Russia if they had the chance.

Which side is changing the story on a daily basis?

Gathering opposition research from anywhere you can get it is not a crime and not even unethical. You guys are unhinged, but keep hoping.

You are just plain wrong on the facts. The story changed as more information came out, but the story was never about Russia hacking voting machines. It doesn't matter if some people are mistaken about that.

It doesn't matter how Podesta was tricked. The stolen emails were still stolen and it's still illegal.

You can not legally accept opposition research from anywhere. Research accepted from a foreign national or foreign government is considered an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.

you don't even have to receive it - soliciting such information is a crime all by its lonesome.

Fat hurts wrote:

...

Research accepted from a foreign national or foreign government is considered an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.

Really? I would like to see that law. If someone from England tells Trump that Hillary was involved in some pay-for-play scam, then Trump gets hammered for taking an in-kind campaign contribution? That doesn't sound right.

And if that IS true then I hope we can open up a case on all the donations Hillary took for from foreign governments for her various foundations. Those could be easily understood to be campaign contributions, or more directly pay-for-play advance payments.

Again, if this is true, then I look forward to seeing this law applied vigorously to everyone in government, and not just Trump. I'm sure we're all on board with that. Right?

Can anyone doubt that Trump is being held to a higher standard than Obama? If you want accountability in government, you can't vote for Democrats.

lord I hate the 'everyone does it' defense. What does that say about your soul? Rump campaign actively and illegaly solicits info on a former sec state and senator and your response is some lie about charitable contributions. Good luck man.

Anyway, here's the law. And it's not 'accepted' - it's 'solicited'.

and this is from the guy who swore he would hold trump 'accountable'

now gary is all 'aw let him break the law - it's not really a good law and everyone does it'

geez

Nope. Nothing there. That law is referring to campaign contributions and things of value, like the money poured into Hillary's foundations from foreign governments, not political dirt, rumors, or hearsay.

Swing and a miss, again. I wonder what the next conspiracy theory will be?

Too bad. I thought we had McCain on the ropes there for a second.

I would like to see this law applied vigorously to everyone in government. Let's start with the White House and work our way downwards. Time permitting, we may be able to get to former politicians who are not in government, such as HRC.

DiscoGary wrote:

eric a blair wrote:

lord I hate the 'everyone does it' defense. What does that say about your soul? Rump campaign actively and illegaly solicits info on a former sec state and senator and your response is some lie about charitable contributions. Good luck man.

Anyway, here's the law. And it's not 'accepted' - it's 'solicited'.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

Nope. Nothing there. That law is referring to campaign contributions and things of value, like the money poured into Hillary's foundations from foreign governments, not political dirt, rumors, or hearsay.

Swing and a miss, again. I wonder what the next conspiracy theory will be?

campaigns pay millions of dollars for oppo research. Millions. Clearly oppo has great value.

Gary,

I'm a republican. Like you. I believe in global warming but think Hillary was a criminal and that Obama and Loretta Lynch subverted justice every chance they could get.

Let's make something clear.

Hillary isn't president. She lost.

Obama isn't president. He's done.

Trump IS president. We won.

We spent years talking about how the law is not fairly applied to elites like Hillary and Obama.

We won. Now it's time for our party -- the party of person responsibility -- to clean up government and apply the law evenly.

We can make excuses. Or we can hold ourselves to the standard we spent years wishing for.

We don't get to say "everything is OK until people in the past are held accountable."

We don't get to say "Well, the people we don't like did id this way, and we hated it, so let's do it their way now when it benefits us."

No. We are men. We are the party of responsible adults who are willing to be held to account for our actions regardless of whether other people are held account to theirs.

No excuses. No exceptions.

It doesn't matter. The law doesn't apply here at all. It's just another anti-Trump rant from the left.

The law can't possibly work the way the Dems are going to spin it. What if the Dems had gone down to Panama to find out if McCain was really born there and asked for help from the government to find records, etc. According to today's spin, that would be illegal.

It can't work that way. This is just crazy talk from people who can't accept the election results. I feel sorry for them.

Right. Very inspirational. I agree. But no laws were broken here. The Dems are making up crap. Move on.