Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

The trial won't change anything, unless something very dramatic happens.

The Rs are the Trumpist party now - they by defiinition cannot change, and any voter who is not disgusted by trump already won't care about the trial.

Same for the Ds.

What could change that is something dramatic - if four Trumpist senators voted for witnesses or the Ds are too sanctimonious.

But really...what hte last year or two has shown is that the battle lines are drawn and nothing changes them.

I've been reading a lot about Nixon and this cloak of invincibility he seemed to have. It was so potent that no Republican thought he could go down as long as they remaining united. Even as people like John Dean were giving damming testimony they could not conceive that he would be removed. They were all in on defending him much like now. It took time to grind their defense down.

Dems decided not to push for the additional witnesses through court, and in doing so gave the GOP some ammunition in limiting any other witnesses and in being able to claim Dems went about it too hastily. I think this was a massive mistake and continue to wonder if a bigger plan was behind it. It could turn out that if Rs engage the Dems in any substance, it's the construction of Congress that could really bring him down. It remains without question that he denied Congress its constitutional right to hear relevant and willing witnesses, some which we know have a lot to say about the allegations.

I think there is an actual chance to get 67 votes for conviction.

It is very slim, but crazy things happen sometimes.

No witnesses are really needed.

The evidence is out there. People have testified.

And news reports keep coming in.

The GAO recently announced that Trump's withholding of funds is illegal.

This not a sequestered jury. They all have full knowledge of what Trump has done and are following the news as it breaks.

Reading that Trump berated the generals in a Pentagon meeting in 2017 was pretty bad. He said we should be making money off the countries where we place our soldiers.

He thinks the military is a business.

The Senate is run differently than the House. They are not as much Trump lackeys as House members. Most are not up for election this year.

And their vote will go down in history. If they acquit a man that appears to be criminal, that goes in the history books.

This whole thing could turn on a dime if a leader like Romney speaks out. They have been tight-lipped so far.

It's not likely to happen, but there could be a moment where everything gets turned on its head and the senate moves swiftly to convict and remove him.

I believe there are some Patriotic Republicans who may be willing to make a dramatic scene and become historical figures.

Even Lindsey Graham could turn about to be Brutus if the votes are there.

His Trump loyalty is obviously fake.

New York Times endorses Pocahontas and buck teeth.

“Men” voting women is hilarious!!!!

Democrats are “funny”

L L wrote:

There are people quite literally interested in starting a Civil War today in Richmond in the battle over gun rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/01/20/virginia-gun-rally-updates/

Trump is fanning the flames:

Donald J. Trump

✔

@realDonaldTrump

Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!

177K

5:22 PM - Jan 17, 2020

I don't even like guns but Beto O'Rourke admitted he wanted to take away guns from Americans.

Sally Vix wrote:

First looking at the national debt which you said he increased "tremendously." The president merely proposes a budget. The House makes the budget. Second, under Obama the debt went from $10 billion to $20 billion, an increase of $10 billion with a "b." Under Trump it has only gone from $20 billion to $23 billion, quite an improvement than under Obama. Still not great but I would not say "tremendously."

This is one your dumbest arguments, and that's saying a lot. The president has the power to kill any bill. Trump was more than happy to blow up the deficit regardless.

1) Trump is not presiding over the fallout of the second largest recession ever. There is NO REASON for him to allow this drastic increase in the debt ceiling, especially as a so called republican. He has manipulated mkts, pressured the fed to keep rates low, borrowed much more against our children's futures, and reduced tax revenue - all this to just barely keep the solid economy going.. imagine what it will be like when things are going well.

2) At the current rate, trump is outpacing the debt ceiling increase under Obama on an annual basis. If you can do basic math, you can easily see where we are headed with 5 more years of that. We've already gone over this - comparing 3 years to 8 years is beyond idiotic.

3) Flagpole is right. You should only be asking questions.

It's a shame that the House Dems are partisan hacks and even Dem Senators are as well. Chuck Schumer said in 1999 that no witnesses were needed since the Senate was never going to get the 67 votes to remove Clinton. Yet, now he is insisting on witness testimony. Why has he changed his view? Oh, because Clinton was a Dem and Trump is a republican. Why don't any Dems ever go with what is right?

I really hope I'm wrong and we see the trial hurt the Trumpist Party.

As many have pointed out though - Fox News has let the Trumpists survive - it's an entire alternate eco-system that shields voters from the truth. The Nixon r party didn't have that to defend them.

And Trump is a far better politician than Nixon...The passion Trump inspires in his people is remarkable, as is Trump's happiness to divide the nation. Nixon drew a line somewhere to teh point where Nixon cared about the nation...Trump will not draw a line there.

Only some deal that saves his own skin would change trump.

That's why I really hoped the emoluments case went faster. Being forced to fire-sale all his businesses to stay in the WH would have forced him to resign. But the courts are just so slow on this that there won't be a decision for years and years .

Sally Vix wrote:

I don't even like guns but Beto O'Rourke admitted he wanted to take away guns from Americans.

Should one have access to fire arms if they are psychologically unfit?

there is no way 20 Trumpist senators would vote to end their careers. No possible way.

Well it's possible but come on.

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I don't even like guns but Beto O'Rourke admitted he wanted to take away guns from Americans.

Should one have access to fire arms if they are psychologically unfit?

Of course not. I too think automatic guns are not necessary for all but the military. But then the slippery slope comes into the equation.

This is wishful thinking. The GOP has watched public opinion very carefully since impeachment started, and know that the needle has not moved. Trump was already a disliked potus but they know impeachment is not desirable and that it turns people away from politics. A lot of Rs would quickly flip on him to save themselves, esp the likes of Graham.. but expecting them to just do the right thing is insane. Take note of how turkey neck decided to not allow Congress Rs to participate in the trial. He wants to give the illusion that it will be impartial, but since their whole argument will be that impeachment is invalid then likely they will want to just shut the case down completely. A cover up? Sure. But better to take a few body shots then to do the right thing and experience the end of your career and party. The GOP will not budge unless forced to.

Sally Vix wrote:

I don't even like guns but Beto O'Rourke admitted he wanted to take away guns from Americans.

What does a former Congressman from Texas have to do with Virginia legislation?

In Virginia they are discussing background checks and the president says they want to take their guns away.

There have been dangerous men arrested recently on their way to Richmond with tons of ammunition.

Their fears are being stoked by dark message boards and what the president is tweeting.

This an opportunity for Trump to be a leader and to unify Americans and calm down the situation.

Instead he is using it to divide people for potential political gain.

This is a dog whistle for more people to go to Richmond with their guns and ammo.

Do you want this because of Beto's comments and you don't like his political party?

agip wrote:

there is no way 20 Trumpist senators would vote to end their careers. No possible way.

Well it's possible but come on.

In the Senate they are not all Trumpist.

Plenty of them are old and would have no problem retiring now. End their careers on a high note.

Most are not up for re-election, so this vote would not end their careers this year.

And some will lose precisely if they do vote to acquit.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Should one have access to fire arms if they are psychologically unfit?

Of course not.

So then you know exactly where Beto statement came from.

This is a very simple issue that became over politicized and muddy. Without any question at all the super high gun violence rates in this country (mass shootings and the Chicago gang murders included) is directly correlated with proliferation of arms. We are at one extreme with mostly unrestricted ownership and at the same time not one inch is being given to pass some common sense legislation. Dems are to be blamed for this too. IMO it's largely a problem of disproportionate lobbying, with NRA creating a feedback loop between itself, gun owners, the GOP and big donors. The pro gun activism is very high and strong, while most of the nation believes there should be more restrictions. There is a way to make society much safer without removing people's right to own guns. Like many things, it's a problem of leadership and lack of willpower to stand up to greed.

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

there is no way 20 Trumpist senators would vote to end their careers. No possible way.

Well it's possible but come on.

In the Senate they are not all Trumpist.

Strongly disagree here. They are all trumpist now. They all know that if they splinter, the GOP will die very quickly. Hang together or hang separately has never been as true as now, for them.

They may no longer be Trumpist in February 2021 and when they will no doubt try to deny it all, but they are all trumpists now. There is zero opposition and there are zero factions in the GOP. I can't even think of who you believe might not be a full-blown trumpist. Collins maybe? Murkowski? They sigh and wimper but they are on board 99.99%.

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

there is no way 20 Trumpist senators would vote to end their careers. No possible way.

Well it's possible but come on.

In the Senate they are not all Trumpist.

Plenty of them are old and would have no problem retiring now. End their careers on a high note.

Most are not up for re-election, so this vote would not end their careers this year.

And some will lose precisely if they do vote to acquit.

They are still thinking about making big $/cashing out... there is plenty of money to be made lobbying. if they flip they can kiss that goodbye. That's why Ryan left earlier so he wouldn't find himself having to choose between defending trump and blowing his future.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Should one have access to fire arms if they are psychologically unfit?

Of course not. I too think automatic guns are not necessary for all but the military. But then the slippery slope comes into the equation.

The problem now is an issue of ownership. The number of AR or AK platforms now in civilian hands is mind boggling. All other platforms have also increased at an alarming rate. So, you can't just ban a certain weapon style or platform and assume they will all be turned in. We are well beyond that point.

You can, however, ban certain magazine sizes or even certain types of rounds or even the number of rounds that can be purchased.

Alan

agip wrote:

L L wrote:

In the Senate they are not all Trumpist.

Strongly disagree here. They are all trumpist now. They all know that if they splinter, the GOP will die very quickly. Hang together or hang separately has never been as true as now, for them.

They may no longer be Trumpist in February 2021 and when they will no doubt try to deny it all, but they are all trumpists now. There is zero opposition and there are zero factions in the GOP. I can't even think of who you believe might not be a full-blown trumpist. Collins maybe? Murkowski? They sigh and wimper but they are on board 99.99%.

I agree 100%. There would need to be huge nation-wide protests to put some cracks in the GOP armor.

Murkowski voted against Kavanuagh. She's voting to convict.

Collins may lose in the general if she votes to acquit.

I think Romney will vote to convict.

Corey Gardner will lose in Colorodo if he votes to acquit.

Rubio and Scott are not up for re-election on Florida. They could absorb and anti Trump vote if others come along.

Don't know much about David Perdue in Georgia other than he's 70 and his state is getting purpler. He may be a sheep vote either way.

The two Indiana senators are not up for re-election so they wouldn't face primary heat.

Rand Paul is a wildcard. Defending Trump on some things and pointing out his flaws on others.

Pat Toomey of PA crosses the isle on some issues like gun control

Lamar Alexander of TN is retiring

Ted Cruz is a weasel. Wouldn't endorse Trump at the convention. Would vote to convict if enough others did.

Mike Lee of UT went off on Trump about his briefing on Iran and is not of for re-election.

There are several Republicans I haven't listed that do not have an election this year.

It's highly unlikely.

But I think it's more like 10% than 1%, for whatever that's worth.

I think 4 voting to convict, making it a majority would at least send a message that the impeachment was legit and not straight partisan.

I know. I know. I keep having faith that some Republicans have morals.