Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Leafy feet wrote:

agip wrote:

McConnell: Don't tell the nation that Russia is meddling in the election

McConnell: Don't encourage more Americans to vote

The Republican Party is barely in favor of America or democracy.

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1090660773284757504

Yep.

This is in contrast to the champions of American democracy, the Democrats, who are imploring Schultz not to run for President.

Many Dems think it is okay to threaten financial harm to someone if they run for President.

SMH

Making my point wrote:

And some people want to just increase the number of voters via a new federal holiday, allow felons to vote, etc. instead of increasing the number of informed voters.

We have about 70% of voters who will vote for someone just because of the (D) or (R) at the end of their name. We don't need to increase that number - no matter which side. This is how we ended up with probably the two of the worst Presidents - Trump / Obama.

All very true. What's worse than uninformed voters is ignorant blind faith in the failed two party system. A system mired in bogus tradition and virtually incapable of effective governance.

Turf War? wrote:

in what way is this the dems "turf"

doesn't sound very democratic or american

Dem "turf" would be all those states the Trump whines about which did not vote for him.

When you are looking for "turf", look no further than Trump's unkempt "turf" that he pridefully glues to his bald skull.

Not in America wrote:

Many Dems think it is okay to threaten financial harm to someone if they run for President.

SMH

Meanwhile, your Deer Leader, Trump, imposed severe financial harm to American workers during his vanity shutdown.

alpha wrote:

Making my point wrote:

And some people want to just increase the number of voters via a new federal holiday, allow felons to vote, etc. instead of increasing the number of informed voters.

We have about 70% of voters who will vote for someone just because of the (D) or (R) at the end of their name. We don't need to increase that number - no matter which side. This is how we ended up with probably the two of the worst Presidents - Trump / Obama.

All very true. What's worse than uninformed voters is ignorant blind faith in the failed two party system. A system mired in bogus tradition and virtually incapable of effective governance.

So, which of the following do you prefer, Boris Ivan?

-- a one party system

-- a three+ party system

-- a king

-- a dictatorship

-- anarchy

Short Answer wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Man, no one has answered this for you yet?

Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, and if he were to run as a Democrat, he will either win the nomination or not...he won't be taking potential Democrat votes from the Democrat primary winner. Democrats aren't necessarily against HIM so much as they are against his potential to take down a Democrat candidate, opening up the door for Trump or whomever the Republican candidate will be to win. If he runs as an independent, he is likely to take more votes from Democrats than he takes from Trump...debatable there, but that is the reason Democrats would rather have him run as a Democrat than as an independent.

In other words...party over democracy.

BOYCOTT STARBUCKS (even though he is not CEO any longer)!!!!!!!!!!!!

No...not at all. Democrats aren't for him running as a Democrat or even as a Republican. As I already mentioned, in normal times with a normal President, I would agree that this is Party over democracy (but even then just barely as it is more than fair for a Party to be concerned with getting someone who supports their views elected LEGALLY). But, with Trump as President, someone whom Schultz does not like, and someone who is clearly a criminal and damaging what American stands for, it is reasonable to not want Schultz to run as an independent.

This is America over Party in this case.

Flagpole wrote:

Short Answer wrote:

In other words...party over democracy.

BOYCOTT STARBUCKS (even though he is not CEO any longer)!!!!!!!!!!!!

No...not at all. Democrats aren't for him running as a Democrat or even as a Republican. As I already mentioned, in normal times with a normal President, I would agree that this is Party over democracy (but even then just barely as it is more than fair for a Party to be concerned with getting someone who supports their views elected LEGALLY). But, with Trump as President, someone whom Schultz does not like, and someone who is clearly a criminal and damaging what American stands for, it is reasonable to not want Schultz to run as an independent.

This is America over Party in this case.

That should have been "Democrats aren't against him running as a Democrat or even as a Republican

Making my point wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

There are so many voters who will just vote their party’s candidate by default, no matter what. .

And some people want to just increase the number of voters via a new federal holiday, allow felons to vote, etc. instead of increasing the number of informed voters.

We have about 70% of voters who will vote for someone just because of the (D) or (R) at the end of their name. We don't need to increase that number - no matter which side. This is how we ended up with probably the two of the worst Presidents - Trump / Obama.

Explain how Obama was one of the worst? Rank your worst top ten and reasoning.

Alan

Not in America wrote:

Leafy feet wrote:

Yep.

This is in contrast to the champions of American democracy, the Democrats, who are imploring Schultz not to run for President.

Many Dems think it is okay to threaten financial harm to someone if they run for President.

SMH

Boycotts are used by the left, the right, and everyone in-between. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it. It's a free country.

Support businesses you like and don't support the ones you don't like.

Democrats lose again wrote:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1090967053689937921?s=20

And Republicans have become the party of criminals. The author of that tweet is headed for prison.

Let me get this straight. Trump has been railing about the harms and unfairness caused by illegal immigration since he first started running for office. It is his signature issue. Yet his organization has been employing illegal immigrants and helping them avoid getting caught the entire time. You can't find a bigger hypocrite.

Making my point wrote:

We have about 70% of voters who will vote for someone just because of the (D) or (R) at the end of their name. We don't need to increase that number - no matter which side. This is how we ended up with probably the two of the worst Presidents - Trump / Obama.

I disagree here. The more people involved and engaged the better for democracy. We need to connect people more with their politcians, not remove them. You can only lose accountability this way. You can forget about increasing informed voters, you can't measure that and people think differently and its their right to approach it the way they best interpret it is correct. People have ideological reasons for voting only for their party. For example if you believe saving the environment is the most important thing then you may default to Democrat each and every time regardless of the party. Same with ultra religious folks.

party system wrote:

alpha wrote:

All very true. What's worse than uninformed voters is ignorant blind faith in the failed two party system. A system mired in bogus tradition and virtually incapable of effective governance.

So, which of the following do you prefer, Boris Ivan?

-- a one party system

-- a three+ party system

-- a king

-- a dictatorship

-- anarchy

First off, I'd prefer not trying to converse with a complete idiot. But what the heck, I'll play.

Acknowledging that the American two party system is badly broken makes me Russian. Ok? The fact that you can't see how f**ked up our current system is makes you a dunce.

How about we keep our current system and fix a few things.

1. Revise term limits. No more than two terms per person, per office held.

2. NO revolving door between elected office and funded government agencies.

3. NO revolving door between elected office and government contractors, of any kind.

4. Elected officials may not hold passport/citizenship in ANY other country, this also means Israel.

5. Severe limits on lobbying, make all foreign interest lobby groups illegal. All perks like cash contribution, travel, etc should be completely illegal.

6. Severe limits on campaign funding. No funding from any for-profit entity. No funding from any foreign state, agency, non-profit, etc.

7. Massive reduction or elimination in elected official retirement plans.

8. All elected officials shall receive no more than minimal medicaid insurance coverage during their elected term, unless paid for out of pocket.

This, at least, would be a good start.

Trump's Sons wrote:

Let me get this straight. Trump has been railing about the harms and unfairness caused by illegal immigration since he first started running for office. It is his signature issue. Yet his organization has been employing illegal immigrants and helping them avoid getting caught the entire time. You can't find a bigger hypocrite.

Hiring illegals—to pay them less money, to force them to work more, and stiffing them on their pay̦—is something Trump has done since he starting working for his daddy.

Let's put a posse together and get this done. Term limits particularly.

alpha wrote:

party system wrote:

So, which of the following do you prefer, Boris Ivan?

-- a one party system

-- a three+ party system

-- a king

-- a dictatorship

-- anarchy

First off, I'd prefer not trying to converse with a complete idiot.

The two party system is a failure--using your word. So, that is not an option. Pick an option I offered, or post your own solution--the later is what I thought you would do, but you failed to do so, having no solution to your failure, so you resort to insults.

In other words, 0/10.

#1 above all else: Release the last 10 years, minimum, of your tax returns for public review, at least six months, BEFORE you are allowed to run for any public office. If you try to run without doing so, and your name is written in on ballots, votes for you are not counted at all; they are automatically null and void.