Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

DiscoGary wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If and when I guarantee something, I will make that clear to you.

For now, you get:

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

The only thing you have made clear on this site is that your judgement is clouded by political partisanship. You only see the things which support your desired outcome, and ignore anything that challenges your conclusions. This makes your analysis and your conclusions worthless.

The fact that no "smoking gun" has been leaked is enough to know that there never will be one.

A sober analysis of real world events would reveal that Mueller's entire team is made up of corrupt political hacks and that the investigators themselves are likely to find themselves under siege. The deep-state bureaucracy can only function in the darkness... and this Trump investigation is shining light on their nefarious activities. Trump may survive this persecution and in the process undo the weaponization of political institutions in DC that occurred under Obama and Hillary. If that happened it would be one of the greatest gifts Trump could give to the American people.

Count Chocula wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

The only people I know on social media (IE twitter, Instagram, and other worthless sites) are my stepdaughter and her pinhead friends. I'm an old SOB so the only one I frequent to any degree is Lets Run, as I was once a runner (go figure). I do know some that are on Facebook but not many. My suspicion is that the percent on these stupid sites are most probably people under 40, those without jobs, or people sharing recipes. I will do some research and see what I find, in any event. I also think that the "basket of deplorables" that got Trump elected get their social media information from the news thats reported not the actual platform itself. I don't see a coal miner, steel worker or even an MD or Lawyer getting their information from these sites or being swayed by them. Sure, any country messing around in another country's election is wrong, however they all do it. We did it many times. But to think that Trump actually colluded with Putin to throw the election his way, and Putin bought it is a stretch at best. These no evidence, nor will any be presented. Had their been, this would be wrapped up by now. The best they will do is get a few to admit they lied to the FBI about things that we're illegal to begin with, or for financial dealings outside the scope of the investigation itself. Drag a net through ANY campaign or Administration, and thats what you'll find. Collusion with Russia? I don't think so.

There is a distinction between "the Russian government preferred Trump to Hillary and acted accordingly" and "Trump worked with the Russian government to manipulate vote totals". I believe the former, not the latter. Some people are desperate to believe that the election was not fair, and that somehow a Russian guy telling you lies about HRC is appreciably different from an American guy telling you lies about HRC. However, it's not right for a campaign or its surrogates to exchange information with foreign nationals. While that doesn't mean the president should be impeached, this knowledge should be public because it demonstrates that the campaign is willing to break the law and also side with foreign nationals against American interests.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Sorry, but today pretty much everyone is on social media.'

2) I have never said Democrats haven't done things they shouldn't. That is deflection though and has no bearing on whether this president has done anything wrong.

3) Did social media get Trump elected? By itself, no. Of course it had a hand in it though. But, even if it didn't, and even if it was determined that what Russia did with social media had the opposite desired effect, that STILL would not absolve them and any possible conspirators of guilt. If someone tries to hire a hitman to kill a spouse, they are still guilty of a crime even if it is foiled. Conspiring with a foreign country, especially with an enemy foreign country to throw an election a certain way undermines our democracy. it is not right and should not stand. Country over Party, brother.

4) You wish this had to do with me being upset that Hillary lost. Had she won, I believe we would be embroiled in some investigations or at least serious questions about her. I have no delusions. But, the problem at hand is the Orange person in the White House, and I maintain he is way worse than Hillary but that that comparison doesn't matter anyway. HE is the President, and we need to get to the bottom of not only whether he colluded with the Russians to get elected but if he is in a financial situation that allows for blackmail or other influence by Russia. All indicators are that there is something there. I am after the truth. You should be too.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

The only people I know on social media (IE twitter, Instagram, and other worthless sites) are my stepdaughter and her pinhead friends. I'm an old SOB so the only one I frequent to any degree is Lets Run, as I was once a runner (go figure). I do know some that are on Facebook but not many. My suspicion is that the percent on these stupid sites are most probably people under 40, those without jobs, or people sharing recipes. I will do some research and see what I find, in any event. I also think that the "basket of deplorables" that got Trump elected get their social media information from the news thats reported not the actual platform itself. I don't see a coal miner, steel worker or even an MD or Lawyer getting their information from these sites or being swayed by them. Sure, any country messing around in another country's election is wrong, however they all do it. We did it many times. But to think that Trump actually colluded with Putin to throw the election his way, and Putin bought it is a stretch at best. These no evidence, nor will any be presented. Had their been, this would be wrapped up by now. The best they will do is get a few to admit they lied to the FBI about things that we're illegal to begin with, or for financial dealings outside the scope of the investigation itself. Drag a net through ANY campaign or Administration, and thats what you'll find. Collusion with Russia? I don't think so.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:

There is a distinction between "the Russian government preferred Trump to Hillary and acted accordingly" and "Trump worked with the Russian government to manipulate vote totals". I believe the former, not the latter. Some people are desperate to believe that the election was not fair, and that somehow a Russian guy telling you lies about HRC is appreciably different from an American guy telling you lies about HRC. However, it's not right for a campaign or its surrogates to exchange information with foreign nationals. While that doesn't mean the president should be impeached, this knowledge should be public because it demonstrates that the campaign is willing to break the law and also side with foreign nationals against American interests.

Well I don't think there is enough evidence to conclude even that Russia preferred HRC. She is the one that did in fact, OK the uranium deal. Seems to me that this would have gone a long way to cement that relationship. Or perhaps they felt that the "quid pro quo" arrangement was fully consummated, with the money Billy boy got for giving speeches over there.

Flagpole wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

The only people I know on social media (IE twitter, Instagram, and other worthless sites) are my stepdaughter and her pinhead friends. I'm an old SOB so the only one I frequent to any degree is Lets Run, as I was once a runner (go figure). I do know some that are on Facebook but not many. My suspicion is that the percent on these stupid sites are most probably people under 40, those without jobs, or people sharing recipes. I will do some research and see what I find, in any event. I also think that the "basket of deplorables" that got Trump elected get their social media information from the news thats reported not the actual platform itself. I don't see a coal miner, steel worker or even an MD or Lawyer getting their information from these sites or being swayed by them. Sure, any country messing around in another country's election is wrong, however they all do it. We did it many times. But to think that Trump actually colluded with Putin to throw the election his way, and Putin bought it is a stretch at best. These no evidence, nor will any be presented. Had their been, this would be wrapped up by now. The best they will do is get a few to admit they lied to the FBI about things that we're illegal to begin with, or for financial dealings outside the scope of the investigation itself. Drag a net through ANY campaign or Administration, and thats what you'll find. Collusion with Russia? I don't think so.

Read this again and try to understand its meaning:

3) Did social media get Trump elected? By itself, no. Of course it had a hand in it though. But, even if it didn't, and even if it was determined that what Russia did with social media had the opposite desired effect, that STILL would not absolve them and any possible conspirators of guilt. If someone tries to hire a hitman to kill a spouse, they are still guilty of a crime even if it is foiled. Conspiring with a foreign country, especially with an enemy foreign country to throw an election a certain way undermines our democracy. it is not right and should not stand. Country over Party, brother.

Regarding the rest of what you said, just wishful thinking, brother, and part of it you just have wrong. Trump didn't contact Putin to throw the election his way so that Putin had to buy it...PUTIN is the one with the strings, brother. He has incriminating evidence on Trump, and wanted Trump to win for two main reasons: 1) He had a great personal dislike of Hillary Clinton; 2) he knew Trump was a rube that he could influence because he has so much dirt on him.

I believe you will get it some day. Keep trying.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Read this again and try to understand its meaning:

3) Did social media get Trump elected? By itself, no. Of course it had a hand in it though. But, even if it didn't, and even if it was determined that what Russia did with social media had the opposite desired effect, that STILL would not absolve them and any possible conspirators of guilt. If someone tries to hire a hitman to kill a spouse, they are still guilty of a crime even if it is foiled. Conspiring with a foreign country, especially with an enemy foreign country to throw an election a certain way undermines our democracy. it is not right and should not stand. Country over Party, brother.

Regarding the rest of what you said, just wishful thinking, brother, and part of it you just have wrong. Trump didn't contact Putin to throw the election his way so that Putin had to buy it...PUTIN is the one with the strings, brother. He has incriminating evidence on Trump, and wanted Trump to win for two main reasons: 1) He had a great personal dislike of Hillary Clinton; 2) he knew Trump was a rube that he could influence because he has so much dirt on him.

I believe you will get it some day. Keep trying.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

I don't happen to agree with anything you have to say about the matter at hand thus my commentary. No conspiracy, no indictment, no collusion, no dirt, no impeachment. So I assume that you also think the "pee tape" is real. We can agree to disagree, thats fine. When the dust settles, we'll see who's right, but your track record in regards to predicting things related to Trump isn't real strong shall we say.

Count Chocula wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Well I don't think there is enough evidence to conclude even that Russia preferred HRC. She is the one that did in fact, OK the uranium deal. Seems to me that this would have gone a long way to cement that relationship. Or perhaps they felt that the "quid pro quo" arrangement was fully consummated, with the money Billy boy got for giving speeches over there.

I was specifically thinking of the speech Putin gave on November 9 (the day after the election). I searched for it quickly but couldn't find any link besides RT. The closest thing I could find is a CNN article that mentions the speech:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/us-election-the-world-reacts/index.html

I could be mistaken, but I thought that in the speech Putin specifically stated that he preferred Trump. Take a look, if you have the time. I'll do a more in depth search later today when I get a chance.

Pee Tape is Real wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Where specifically was that reported?

It's called reading between the lines.

“My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body. She made a lot money as a model—a tremendous amount.”

"I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."

"Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father . . .’”

"“What’s the favorite thing you have in common with your father?” Ivanka replies, “Either real estate or golf.” When it was Trump’s turn to answer the question, he said, “I was going to say sex but I can’t relate that to her.”

Trump: “My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka."

Stern: “By the way, your daughter…”

Trump: “ - she’s beautiful"

Stern: “Can I say this? A piece of ass.”

Trump: “Yeah.”

https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/86e/82/ZBlNJPHpghJJRuS-800x450-noPad.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5YkZ2dU0AA6VZF.jpg