Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, put it more bluntly: "If he enters the race, I will start a Starbucks boycott because I'm not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a guy who will help Trump win."

Why would she start a Starbucks boycott?

Ole Red wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

In normal times with a normal President at the helm, I would agree with you...but Trump is a clear and present danger, and Democrats have a reason to be perturbed at Schultz, and I believe in this case Democrats ARE putting country over Party in not wanting him to run.

Call me naive if you will, but I'm just an old redneck from the western Penn. Explain to me in terms that I can understand why the Democrats don't support Shultz running as an independent, but do support him running as a Democrat.

Party over Democracy.

Bird in the Hand wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

It's one thing to say, you shouldn't run. It's another to say you shouldn't run as an Independent because it will hurt my party's chances to win the general, that's a whole other.

INCORRECT!

The ONLY legitimate reason for a non-family member to say someone shouldn't run is because running would be to the detriment of the nation. It is VERY possible that someone saying that he shouldn't run "because it will hurt my party's chances to win the general" is CORRECTLY concerned that his independent run would be to the detriment of the nation.

Roller of eyes wrote:

L L wrote:

I will reiterate my idea that the general election should be between exactly two people to give voters a binary choice. And there should be prelims open to all parties to encourage a moderate strategy to make the final two.

Abolish the Democrat and Republican primaries and conventions all together.

(no chance this will happen)

Yeah. Less choice is always better.

My idea gives people more choices.

Currently, a third party candidate has no chance and people only get the choice of choosing one person in a primary to make the general election in their party.

If you are a Democrat you have no say in who the Republican nominee is and vice versa.

Have three rounds of national elections.

Have a wide open election in June. All Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Purple Party, Independents, etc. on one ballot. (set rules to get on that ballot)

The top 4 vote getters, regardless of party go on a ballot in early September for everyone to vote on again.

Then the top 2 go to the general election in November. Guarantees someone gets more than 50% of the vote.

(though, that person still may not get more than 270 electoral votes)

SOME birds are smart wrote:

Bird in the Hand wrote:

It's one thing to say, you shouldn't run. It's another to say you shouldn't run as an Independent because it will hurt my party's chances to win the general, that's a whole other.

INCORRECT!

The ONLY legitimate reason for a non-family member to say someone shouldn't run is because running would be to the detriment of the nation. It is VERY possible that someone saying that he shouldn't run "because it will hurt my party's chances to win the general" is CORRECTLY concerned that his independent run would be to the detriment of the nation.

That's quite a streeeeeeeeeeeeeetch. lol

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Showing your approval or disapproval of a candidate is about the most pro-democracy thing I can think of.

Anyone who approves or disapproves of Shultz's candidacy should let him know. That's not suppression. It's democratic free speech.

CORRECT!

What are you guys afraid of. If Schultz is a viable candidate, you should support his bid to run for the presidency. Don't denounce his candidacy (if he decides to run). Welcome him as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. You guys seem like you are so afraid of anyone who is not far-left. Grow a pair!

Sally Vx wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

CORRECT!

What are you guys afraid of. If Schultz is a viable candidate, you should support his bid to run for the presidency. Don't denounce his candidacy (if he decides to run). Welcome him as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. You guys seem like you are so afraid of anyone who is not far-left. Grow a pair!

We're not really in favor of a centrist. A centrist can't beat Trump.

BHO wrote:

Sally Vx wrote:

What are you guys afraid of. If Schultz is a viable candidate, you should support his bid to run for the presidency. Don't denounce his candidacy (if he decides to run). Welcome him as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. You guys seem like you are so afraid of anyone who is not far-left. Grow a pair!

We're not really in favor of a centrist. A centrist can't beat Trump.

So only a radical leftist can beat Trump?

I agree that you shouldn't be a d!(k.

But do you really think that Schultz was intimidated by that? If so, he definitely shouldn't be president.

Just checking in...

The hillary lovers are still convinced that trump is going to be forcibly removed from the White House in handcuffs.

That’s hilarious!!!!!

Dazed and Confuzed wrote:

scary brown lady wrote:

The real question is, why didn't Trump have a white housekeeper? Did this brown-skinned lady, likely with a scary foreign accent, do a better job of housekeeping that his white housekeepers? Does Trump even employ any white housekeepers? I can't imagine any white person would work for Trump at the wages he is willing to pay.

This is Trump's personal maid?

She was in charge of cleaning his, and his families, rooms at one of his resorts. So, yes, she was his maid.

Grow up wrote:

Dazed and Confuzed wrote:

This is Trump's personal maid?

Are there any adult politicians around any more? It was childish when Trump brought in Clinton's "bimbos" and this is childish as well.

Not childish at all.

Rule of Law wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

It's still funny.

As a Rule of Law person, what do you think should happen to this person who is in the country illegally?

The person is of no interest. The person who hired her is of interest, The only way to stop the problem is to go after the person who hires. That means Trump. ... His penalty: fired from the job of president. Forced to sell his businesses that employed such individuals. Forced to pay back taxes with at least 3x the penalties and interest. Forever prevented from owning any business that employs workers. ... Sucks to be Trump.

I don't think he was intimidated by that, Per Se.

I'm saying I don't like the concept of trying to bully someone into dropping out of a candidacy.

Just speaking in general terms, whoever the candidate, however the tactics.

Schultz is not going to be president anyway.

It's just a question of if he runs and does well, who does he draw more votes away from.

Some people think he will split the anti-Trump vote.

Yet some think he will be an alternative to those that voted for Trump before.

Either way, he's allowed to run independent. Based on current rule and laws.

PIO!! wrote:

Grow up wrote:

Are there any adult politicians around any more? It was childish when Trump brought in Clinton's "bimbos" and this is childish as well.

Agreed

A small sign, sure - but still another sign that we are now a banana republic.

Nope. Time to let Trump say exactly what he thinks about a person he illegally employed for years.

Remember, having sex with a bimbo is not the concern of anyone, according to Donald J Trump. But hiring illegals is very evil, according to Donald J Trump.

Colonel Click wrote:

Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, put it more bluntly: "If he enters the race, I will start a Starbucks boycott because I'm not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a guy who will help Trump win."

Why would she start a Starbucks boycott?

Why would Trump start a trade war?

bananass wrote:

PIO!! wrote:

Agreed

A small sign, sure - but still another sign that we are now a banana republic.

Nope. Time to let Trump say exactly what he thinks about a person he illegally employed for years.

Remember, having sex with a bimbo is not the concern of anyone, according to Donald J Trump. But hiring illegals is very evil, according to Donald J Trump.

Pathetic. Just pathetic. You hate Trump so much you can't even function.

Checking in wrote:

The [H]illary lovers are still convinced that [T]rump is going to be forcibly removed from the White House in handcuffs.

Well, I can't speak with complete authority on the subject--having never pulled the Dem lever for any office, in nearly fity years as a voter--but I do know and work with many Hillary *voters* (do those count as Hillary "lovers"?), and I literally don't know anyone who thinks DJT "is going to be forcibly removed from the White House in handcuffs." [Full disclosure: I personally hope he serves out his full term.]

So to whom are you referring? Not Flagpole, surely (he was a reluctant Hillary voter anyway); so I have to think you have someone else on this thread in mind. Whom?

Sally Vx wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

CORRECT!

What are you guys afraid of. If Schultz is a viable candidate, you should support his bid to run for the presidency. Don't denounce his candidacy (if he decides to run). Welcome him as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. You guys seem like you are so afraid of anyone who is not far-left. Grow a pair!

I support Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to run as a team as the new Republican Party. They will crush Trump. But in 2024, the new Republican Party will be the party of choice for conservatives. It is time to cut the head off the Trump ogre,