Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

If you don't present real evidence then Trump comes off as a sympathetic character who is being scapegoated for the riots. You won't get many Republicans on board if you can't present real evidence.

What are you talking about? There is a mountain of evidence. The countless tweets and speeches falsely claiming the election was rigged, promoting the 1/6 protest, giving the impression that Congress could be forced to hand him the election, targeting Pence because he refused to do something that was impossible and being visibly elated while watching the attack on T.V. Just Trump not accepting the election result is enough evidence.

What is it going take for you to acknowledge that Trump is responsible for an attack on the U.S. Capitol?

I understand Fat Hurts to be speculating from the perspective of a die-hard Trumper (which is is not) when he says it will take more incontrovertible evidence to convict Trump in the minds of those supporters.

I question whether this is really an "information deficit" problem in that there is no amount of evidence that will convince ideologues whose "truth" follows from ideology rather than the other way around.

As a veteran of the "climate wars" I'd expect Fat Hurts to understand that there are those who are beyond redemption by any amount of contrary information. This has been demonstrated on this thread by those who have tried to convince Sally that the Mueller report absolves Trump of wrong doing. The only question about Sally is whether he truly blinded by ideology or whether he is a troll pretending to be that. Either way it's a waste of time engaging.

yes, that too.

Almost sounds like a RICO type case. He didn't directly order the crowd to do it, but he sorta did.

I thought Parler was about free speech.

Why would they remove a post from one of Trump’s lawyers?

Good call.

I have more to add to my list. There will be witnesses that will testify that even though Trump was told repeatedly that there was no evidence to support election fraud, he chose to continue his crusade because he believed it would strengthen his political power for after he left office. There will be Senators that will testify that even after the attack, they received calls from Trump and Giuliani asking them to contest as many states as possible because they believed lengthening the proceedings would help their cause somehow. The lunatic Giuliani even left a voicemail for documentation. Witnesses will confirm Trump's irrational state of mind when they describe how he called Pence explitives to his face when the V.P. refused to comply with his demands. That he had impaired judgement will be buttressed by testimony that he seriously considered declaring martial law.

A Senate trial will destroy Trump. The best decision Trump can make is to resign.

Monkeys typing wrote:

I'd expect Fat Hurts to understand that there are those who are beyond redemption by any amount of contrary information.

Hear, hear. I've just been on Facebook with a guy who would not accept, from *any* source, information that contradicted the "81mm for Biden, 74mm for Trump, only 133mm registered!" meme. Any *right-wing* publication that indicated 159 million people voted, and that many more than that were registered, *had* to be purveying fake news and thus perforce was a lefty rag.

I even used the appeal to "common sense" that so many Trumpistas are known to employ--"Aren't all, or almost all, of the adults *you* know registered? And you know there are a quarter-billion Americans aged 18+"--and it carried no weight at all. His mind was made up and he was in no mood to be confused by facts.

Fat hurts wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

It does not require real evidence. It is not a court proceeding. It only requires enough Republicans to be convinced they have more to lose by protecting the president. That’s all.

We have been swimming in a sea of evidence for 4 years, that is the easy part if deemed important. They can just print the tweets, speeches and interviews by trump, Don Jr, Lin wood, Sidney, and Rudy, and pin them in a timeline of different escalating events against the social media activity of the various trumpers who did his bidding.

If you don't present real evidence then Trump comes off as a sympathetic character who is being scapegoated for the riots. You won't get many Republicans on board if you can't present real evidence.

I repeat, this is not a court trial, it is a political process. It is not the evidence that will get republicans on board. If there are enough republicans sticking together and they think it will help their future survival they will be compelled. And if they are compelled their words will align with the evidence. We have all been watching the evidence live and of course there is much more that we don’t know but it is without question Trump incited violence and it led to 5 deaths.

I am curious, what specific evidence do you have in mind?

You will never hear Trump giving a direct and clear order, never. The most you are going to get is Trump having used some vague language to suggest to someone in charge to let their guard down. We won’t get witnesses because they are Republican and because they don’t want some psycho trumper going after their family. But that is not required here. He spoke to the trumpers openly. He primed them for this. He gave them his go-ahead.

But why are you comparing impeachment voting with a court trial?

jumbo shrimp wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Agreeing with me is always the correct thing to do.

We have too many people going to college today as it is (I don't consider anything less than a Bachelor's Degree to be "college"). We already have cheap ways of going to college -- live at home, go part time while you work, start off at a Community College, get scholarships based on need or achievement. All of us rely on people who did not go to college. Many of them work hard, and have great skill and pride in what they do. Society should value them more.

QQ: It’s easy to say that we should value them more. What does this look like in a meaningful way?

THAT is a very good question, and I do not have perfect answers. How about looking into these though:

If we go down the route of free college (which I don't agree with) so that a 4-year college person not only gets $200,000 in aid but a higher salary afterwards, then a trade school person who gets $30,000 in aid and a lower salary afterwards should get some other kind of benefit too...to the tune of the difference of $170,000. Now, the numbers are just for example...free college MIGHT mean JUST tuition at a state school, so we could be talking closer to $50,000 total for a 4-year degree, but the idea is the same...there needs to be equivalency here...not just another way for smart people to further distance themselves from people who can't or don't want to go to college. IF we do the free college thing, I think a trade school person should get a check for the difference upon completion of their trade school education. Perhaps this gets extended to apprenticeships also. This leaves out may people at the bottom still. I would recommend that the tax code be changed so that even more at the bottom do not pay federal or state income tax.

As a society, instead of constantly holding up teachers and nurses as our glowing examples of virtue and sacrifice (I mean, we really need to stop that...there are teachers in my school district who make over $100,000 a year, and nurses do very well for themselves), it should be skilled labor, service industry people, etc.

L L wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

Regarding the coal industry, Hillary campaigned on retraining displaced workers while Trump promised to bring the industry back.

Trump blamed the coal industry decline on environmental regulation (hence the liberals) and promised (and has) to roll back regulations.

The problem is that in reality coal was (and is) noncompetitive with natural gas and emerging clean energy technologies regardless of the regulatory environment. Hillary was selling a hard but economically realistic policy and Trump was selling a pleasant fantasy. It's hardly surprising that the pleasant fantasy won out out, but it's hardly the optimum route to good governance.

That’s what I’ve been saying that Democrats are better at looking out for less educated Americans but Republicans are better at tricking them into voting against their interests.

I agree with that.

Trump and his idiot crime family are exactly what RICO was created for...and you are right, the spirit of that applies to what Trump did on Jan. 6. He is culpable. Charles Manson didn't personally kill anyone, he just directed the cult. Same here with Trump.

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I do believe that Trump is responsible. Of course he is.

But I am not the one who needs to be convinced. We need to hear from witnesses who can attest to Trump's culpability and to his gleeful state of mind as the capitol was being desecrated.

The more who are convinced of Trump's responsibility, the more we can hope to drive Trumpism away forever.

Also, if he is ever charged in a criminal court for his role then a jury will need solid evidence to render a guilty verdict. And that is as it should be.

But why are you comparing impeachment voting with a court trial?

I'm not sure what you're saying. He will be impeached and the Senate proceedings will be very much like a court trial. Regardless of whether the Republicans bail him out again, Trump's criminality will be exposed.

L L wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-mike-pence/index.html

I thought Parler was about free speech.

Why would they remove a post from one of Trump’s lawyers?

Eventually all of these nutcase broadcasters and services (Parler, Newsmax, OAN) either have discovered or will discover that you can't lie without major consequences and you can't incite violence or allow it without consequences. It's the difference between mature (as in being around a long time) broadcasters and infant ones.

I like the idea of senators and other people that were in the chamber giving their account of the events during the hearing. Show the guys with the zip ties, go through the series of pictures and the video of the woman getting shot and the cop getting squeezed at the entrance. Describe the plans of some trumpers to kidnap pence and pelosi. Bring in the trumpers who overheard the others say they were going to kill somebody. Then put out a thorough timeline of trump’s desperate escalation of tweets and language and connect the dots with his minions and zero in on the specific events of the day using cause and effect analysis.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

But why are you comparing impeachment voting with a court trial?

I'm not sure what you're saying. He will be impeached and the Senate proceedings will be very much like a court trial.

Impeachment is a political and not a judicial process. Though some aspects of a Senate trial may resemble a court trial, and even the word "conviction" may be used, the fundamental tenets of a criminal trial (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) or a civil trial (liable by a preponderance of the evidence) do not apply.

Senators can, will, and perhaps should render their "verdicts" based on political as well as evidentiary considerations.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

But why are you comparing impeachment voting with a court trial?

I'm not sure what you're saying. He will be impeached and the Senate proceedings will be very much like a court trial. Regardless of whether the Republicans bail him out again, Trump's criminality will be exposed.

What I’m saying is the “jury” in an impeachment isn’t objective and doesn’t even have to pretend not to have bias. It’s completely different than a court trial. Everyone will know their own vote before the show starts. It’s a political show. It must be done in this case for Dems to go on record showing they tried to stop trump once again. Trump’s criminality has already been exposed, for those who have cared to see it. It won’t change many minds at all. As for the GOP, it’ll only cement their support for a criminal.

I do recognize it is the last lifeboat as the ship is sinking so some Rs will take the opportunity. I really do hope Rudy represents him haha.

If there is an impeachment trial for Trump inciting this riot, the victims will also be the jurors.

They don’t need to be presented with any evidence or testimony.

They are the witnesses for much of it.

Nope. I do not confuse one thing for another EVER. What he did absolutely was incitement. He stoked them ever since the election and even before. He invited them to DC to "take the country back". He sent them on their way toward the Capitol Building with the words, that you don't take the country back with weakness "you have to show strength". All of that surrounded by the tone of him saying he would never concede.