Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Good evening! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine PM?

leaping lanny wrote:

More diarrhea posting from Flagpole. So in addition to all the other bologna, you are saying that Trump will be found of guilty of a crime he has yet to commit. I guess it's just another prediction you'll get wrong. Sad!

No, Flagpole has been saying that Mueller is building his case, collecting evidence and testimony. For an investigation of this magnitude it's actually moving quite rapidly. Only a fool can't see the writing on the wall. This week's news alone is YUGE... Nader has been interviewed in front of a grand jury multiple times. He's putting a number of the puzzle pieces together. In reality, as I've been saying, Mueller is dotting the i's and crossing the t's. The evidence will be overwhelming. The combination of evidence and cooperating witness testimony will be damning to Trump and company. Trumpers have sold their soul to a con man, a traitor. You've chosen ideology over patriotism. Fortunately, rule of law will prevail. Mueller is a patriot.

1) Not bologna. Bologna is either a city of north-central Italy at the foot of the Apennines north-northeast of Florence OR a large sausage of finely ground pork or other meat, usually served as a cold cut. The word you were looking for is "baloney" which means foolish or deceptive talk; nonsense. Of course the word you meant to use does not describe what I have written. You can use "baloney" to mean "bologna" but not "Bologna", but you can't use "bologna" to mean "baloney" in the way that you intended. So, at least you've learned something today.

2) If Trump speaks to Mueller (and I have already pointed that out), he WILL commit perjury because he is incapable of telling the truth. I will submit to you that it is possible Mueller won't even need to talk to Trump if all the other evidence is so damning that they can charge him to the moon with other things, but for the investigation to be complete, Mueller needs to talk to Trump, and again, if he does, Trump will perjure himself.

Make no mistake...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Yes...this is all true. Very well said too.

leaping lanny [Hardloper] wrote:

^ EPIC Hardloper

First they came for the Muslims and I did nothing

Then they came for the Mexicans and I did nothing

Then they can came for women and I did nothing

Then they empowered white supremacists and again i did nothing

Then they wanted tariffs so I resigned

-short poem by Gary Cohn

Stormy Daniels!!!

Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

A very stable genius! wrote:

Good evening! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine PM?

I am going to guess you have that kind sense of humor that you find hilarious, but that no one else finds funny.

Am I right?

That's not an unreasonable assertion. Almost everyone believes that the godless Trump will perjure himself when he speaks to Mueller. This is a guy who simply doesn't know how to tell the truth.

I read the story and don't see anything wrong. The media is hyping stuff up. Can you please explain what you think Trump did wrong? Setup a communication channel with Russia for the presidency?

There is nothing wrong begin reported. What news do you see that is YUGE? What big puzzle pieces do you see being put together?

Sanctuary cities do violate federal law. That is why they are being sued. When they get cleared in courts for not violating federal law, then you can say they are not violating federal law. The slavery argument is not the correct argument for resisting federal law. It is quite the opposite. When slavery was outlawed by the federal government, states tried to secede from the Union. The civil war ensued to enforce federal law.

Fat hurts wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

If Dems want to say that any State has the right to disobey Federal laws, then let's get it said and then no one has a right to complain when Republican States disobey Federal laws they don't like. Otherwise States run by Democrats have to obey Federal laws even when the Federal government is run by Republicans. Anything else is the end of the republic.

Is every liberal so far gone that you can't see the danger in allowing States to violate Federal laws at will?

Sanctuary cities DO NOT violate Federal law.

Until the courts say different, stop making that stupid argument.

its_baddude wrote:

The slavery argument is not the correct argument for resisting federal law. It is quite the opposite. When slavery was outlawed by the federal government, states tried to secede from the Union. The civil war ensued to enforce federal law.

You don't know anything about this.

The Civil War began in 1861, following Lincoln's election to the presidency, because southern slave states feared his efforts to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories and to eventually end slavery in the nation.

Lincoln issued an executive order in the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 (almost two years into the war) that issued freedom to all slaves in the Confederacy, and not to slaves in states that had not seceded from the Union.

Slavery was "outlawed" by the federal government with the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. The 13th Amendment was first proposed in the House of Representatives on December 14, 1863 and proposed in the Senate on January 11, 1864. It passed the Senate in April of 1864 but didn't pass the House until January 31, 1865. The 13th Amendment only became part of the Constitution on December 6, 1865, when Georgia became the 27th state to ratify the amendment, satisfying the requirement that the amendment be ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states.

To recap, the Civil War started in 1861, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863 (which had no practical effect for the slaves in the Confederacy and no effect of any kind to slaves in Union states) and the federal government didn't ban slavery until December 1865, eight months after the surrender of the Confederacy.

its_baddude wrote:

I read the story and don't see anything wrong. The media is hyping stuff up. Can you please explain what you think Trump did wrong? Setup a communication channel with Russia for the presidency?

If there's nothing wrong, then why lie about it?

its_baddude wrote:

When slavery was outlawed by the federal government, states tried to secede from the Union. The civil war ensued to enforce federal law.

Your ignorance of history is stunning.

Slavery was LEGAL in the United States when the states of the Confederacy seceded. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until the third year of the war.

A tab bit of Advice wrote:

Your Leftist Math

Gotta give credit.

That's a great phrase.

Even if I lean left.

Rightist math doesn't have a good sound to it.

I might change my handle to Leftist Math.

L L wrote:

People/businesses hiring undocumented immigrants for cheap labor is the root of the problem.

There is all of this anger against "illegal" immigrants.

The problem is Americans.

Americans have a high demand for cheap labor and a high demand for drugs that we have declared to not be legal for sale or consumption, like marijuana.

But we place all of the blame and anger against people crossing the boarder to satisfy that demand.

And really the pace of illegal immigration has been slowing for years.

So it's strange that there is such a huge movement of conservatives acting like this is an expanding epidemic.

Why is that?

I find the whole 'illegal immigration' debate kind of amusing, honestly.

Is it, "illegal immigrants are taking all of our jobs!" or is it "illegal immigrants are sucking up our welfare because they don't work!"

Democrats will argue that every illegal immigrant is just a hard-working, honest person who is trying to help their family. Republicans will argue that illegal immigrants are murderers, terrorists, etc. in addition to job thieves.

Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants hold jobs that could otherwise be held by willing American citizens? Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want? There isn't a one-size-fits-all response, unless you support deporting all illegal immigrants (which would be lawful, albeit somewhat inhumane).

I would support some sort of system where, if you've managed to live in the US for at least 15 years without a criminal record, the government says "Hey, you win because we couldn't find you", and it allows a path to amnesty and citizenship.

Count Chocula wrote:

Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants hold jobs that could otherwise be held by willing American citizens? Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want?

You know I am on the left so I will answer from my perspective.

"Willing American citizens" want to be paid more that what the illegal immigrants will accept.

The problem lies with the bosses who hire them. That is the illegal act. And they are the ones undercutting willing and available to work American citizens.

But these immigrants keep costs down which often get passed on to consumers, so all of our stuff is cheaper.

And while there are some willing Americans, they would really rather have better jobs anyway.

So granting legal status to these immigrants helps in many ways, including the economic contribution.

And with unemployment so low, they are needed.

(That's my Leftist Math)

Yes, some come to profit from the drug trade. It's caused by American drug demand, but it is bad. They are bad people.

They should be prosecuted like any other criminals and in this case, deported.