Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The economic benefits of free energy are mind-boggling.

I agree, very mind boggling! Especially considering it's impossible

So was going to the moon. But this is a LOT easier. Most of the basic technology is already there.

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

we're dealing with semantics here, but it matters. Because the Rs are going to tar everything the Ds propose as socialism, and it will work.

You are arguing that basically anything the government does is socialis*t* but not socialis*m*?

Yes, I'm arguing to brand socialist programs (vs a system of total socialism) as a good thing.

Social security is socialist

Medicare is socialist

Public schools are socialist

Public roads are socialist

Public funding of our military is socialist

Public hospitals are socialist

People like these things. They do not want them taken away.

Re-brand the word.

Say that Republicans want to take these things away. They are anti-social!

Don't forget:

Fire Department is socialist.

Police Department is socialist.

Military is socialist.

The lawsuit filed by 16 blue states without standing claims Trump has no Constitutional powers to reallocate funds to the wall based upon his declaration of a national emergency.

Um, no powers other than those granted to him in the National Emergencies Act which Congress passed.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Not official numbers but ...

https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Crime-Hoax-Lefts-Campaign-ebook/dp/B07F6RN7Y4

read it and weep. Seriously. It makes you weep. Victimhood makes you holy in this society, so many do all they can to be considered victims.

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

The website lists 350 or so fake hate crimes over what looks like 4 years maybe? There were over 7100 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2017 alone. Even if all 350 fake hate crimes occurred in 2017, that'd be like .05%.

Is social security security a form of socialism or not?

This article says, yes.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/122916/are-social-security-benefits-form-socialism.asp

"Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism."

Kavanaugh Says hi wrote:

I watched the Kavanaugh "trial" put on by the democrats. What they did to that man and his family was absolutely disgusting. Playing politics ...

Monica Lewinsky says hi.

Describer of Demss wrote:

Racket wrote:

I agree, very mind boggling! Especially considering it's impossible

Heck, if we can get to free energy, how about free car repair? Free Pizzas! Free massages! Free Beer! Ole!

Car repair actually does become almost free.

If you drive an EV, your car will almost never break down. And crash avoidance systems are getting so good that you won't need body work either.

The pizza and beer won't be free, but the cost to produce them will go down tremendously.

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

Yes, I'm arguing to brand socialist programs (vs a system of total socialism) as a good thing.

Social security is socialist

Medicare is socialist

Public schools are socialist

Public roads are socialist

Public funding of our military is socialist

Public hospitals are socialist

People like these things. They do not want them taken away.

Re-brand the word.

Say that Republicans want to take these things away. They are anti-social!

Don't forget:

Fire Department is socialist.

Police Department is socialist.

Military is socialist.

no they aren't.

L L wrote:

Is social security security a form of socialism or not?

This article says, yes.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/122916/are-social-security-benefits-form-socialism.asp

"Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism."

whatevs, Words have meanings, no matter how much people want to distort them.

Facts Please wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) Actually, yes I do. I didn't start to excoriate Trump until he was in office for a little while and I could see what was happening and more clearly the type of person he is.

And what facts have you used to formulate your opinion on the "type of person" he is?

1) "Good people...on both sides".

2) Blatant bald faced continual lying (confirmed) both from him and his initial mouthpiece Sean Spicer.

3) Stepped up attacks on the media, the courts, the justice department, comedians...basically anyone with any power to be critical of him.

4) Firing Comey because of the "Russia thing".

5) More and more evidence that he cozies up to dictators around the world and admonishes our allies.

The stuff above was enough to know what type of person he is.

As we have progressed beyond that initial realization, the lying has continued with a quickened pace, we have seen that he did NOT hire the "best people"...just about all of them are criminal or unethical. He committed two felonies (for which he will be indicted), he obstructed justice in many ways, but, not including firing Comey, we had the writing of that lying memo about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting.

He is a bad bad person. He's a serial liar, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a criminal of epic proportions, and beginning with a baseline of stupid, it appears he may be having additional mental decline.

A person only needs to know ONE thing about him to decide not to support him any more -- he's a serial liar. That is proven, and that should be all anyone needs to know.

That he is a criminal is what should call people to action...and it has, and he WILL be punished.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

read it and weep. Seriously. It makes you weep. Victimhood makes you holy in this society, so many do all they can to be considered victims.

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

The website lists 350 or so fake hate crimes over what looks like 4 years maybe? There were over 7100 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2017 alone. Even if all 350 fake hate crimes occurred in 2017, that'd be like .05%.

obvi the site lists only the hoaxes that are proved to be hoaxes. The vast majority of hate crimes are never solved. I think the large number of exposed hoaxes should give everyone serious pause before jumping on a bandwagon.

My personal rule is that unless there are witnesses, I don't believe any of them.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting.

The legal case for building the wall with emergency funding is even weaker than I thought.

The lawsuit filed by 16 blue states without standing claims Trump has no Constitutional powers to reallocate funds to the wall based upon his declaration of a national emergency.

Um, no powers other than those granted to him in the National Emergencies Act which Congress passed.

"the Trump administration is relying on a specific statute — 10 U.S.C. Section 2808 — to unlock approximately $3.6 billion in military construction funds to build the wall. This statute, however, doesn’t empower the president to build whatever structures he wants. It limits funding to emergencies that “requires the use of the armed forces” and even then only provides funds for “military construction projects” that are “necessary to support [the] use of the armed forces.” Moreover,“military construction” and “military construction projects” are terms precisely defined by a separate statute to mean improvements to a “military installation,” and a “military installation” means facilities like a “base, camp, post, station, yard, [or] center.”"

'preciate that, brother.

Monica says hi wrote:

Kavanaugh Says hi wrote:

I watched the Kavanaugh "trial" put on by the democrats. What they did to that man and his family was absolutely disgusting. Playing politics ...

Monica Lewinsky says hi.

Tell Monica that was confirmed to be true. Not sure what your point is.

This would be a good argument except that basically anything can be challenged, and Trump is the one to challenge those things (not a compliment of him).

Trump will always challenge anything that limits his power. Unfortunately for him, his own words MIGHT have sunk him in this case..."didn't have to do this", "just wanted it faster". Pretty much saying that it isn't an emergency.

While the best thing for the country and the world is to get Trump out of office as soon as possible, I would really like to see what would happen in these scenarios:

1) He is voted out in 2020. Would he leave with no challenge of any kind?

2) He hits the end of his second term with all that time between now and then to become even more dictator-like. Would he try to stay longer? Would he try to impost a succession type thing so that Don Jr. becomes the next President?

Too dangerous to HOPE for anything other than he is removed as quickly as possible, but it would be interesting to see if not.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting.

The legal case for building the wall with emergency funding is even weaker than I thought.

The lawsuit filed by 16 blue states without standing claims Trump has no Constitutional powers to reallocate funds to the wall based upon his declaration of a national emergency.

Um, no powers other than those granted to him in the National Emergencies Act which Congress passed.

I haven't read the National Emergencies Act and have no intention to do so.

But I'll go out on a limb and say that, in order to invoke it, there must be a "National Emergency".

Here, Trump said he didn't have to declare an emergency.

He's been in office for two years, why is it an emergency now and not two years ago, or one year ago, or six months ago.

What he is proposing to address this "emergency" will take years to build, even in the best case scenario.

None of this makes it sound like there really is an emergency, and without an emergency, I'm guessing the National Emergencies Act is inapplicable.

do you have a point wrote:

Monica says hi wrote:

Monica Lewinsky says hi.

Tell Monica that was confirmed to be true. Not sure what your point is.

It was confirmed to be true that Kavanaugh was an underage drunk --the O'Kavanugh book confirms. He cannot remember his attempted rape a 16 year old female.

johnny99 wrote:

I haven't read the National Emergencies Act and have no intention to do so.

But I'll go out on a limb and say that, in order to invoke it, there must be a "National Emergency".

Here, Trump said he didn't have to declare an emergency.

He's been in office for two years, why is it an emergency now and not two years ago, or one year ago, or six months ago.

What he is proposing to address this "emergency" will take years to build, even in the best case scenario.

None of this makes it sound like there really is an emergency, and without an emergency, I'm guessing the National Emergencies Act is inapplicable.

Wrong on all accounts.

There have been A LOT of national emergencies declared by past presidents. Were you and the liberal media as critical of every time Obama declared an emergency to ensure it was proper? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess...NO.

Truee wrote:It was confirmed to be true that Kavanaugh was an underage drunk --the O'Kavanugh book confirms. He cannot remember his attempted rape a 16 year old female.