Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Teacher wrote:

Yesterday we learned that Trump is a narcissistic, insecure, exaggerating, lying fraud.

Sounds just like someone on this thread.

That was already known.

Here is where I see this going ...

The Mueller report will offer little. Rosenstein has already pretty much indicated as much.

Pelosi, from what I have been reading, is hesitant to pursue the impeachment route. Those progressives like AOC and Adam Schitt in the party are hell-bent on impeachment but she understands the ramifications of that path. Clinton's approval rating went to 70% after he was impeached. Without a conviction from the Senate, an impeachment of Trump would only pretty guarantee his re-election in 2 years.

The only way to remove Trump is via the Southern District of NY. There are the Justice Dept. guidelines that pretty much say you can't indict or subpoena a sitting president. If they indeed indict Trump - it would ultimately fall upon Chief Justice Roberts to make the decision - the liberals justices will of course go one way while the other conservatives likely the other. Roberts after the Obamacare ruling is a tough nut to crack. He will most likely whether Trump can be indicted and possibly removed.

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

I'm surprised no one has posted about the North Korean summit yet. I was up late last night and heard the press conference live. Reading between the lines, it didn't sound like there was any path forward towards denuclearization, or any real progress made at the summit. Trump insisted they ended the summit on good terms, but if that's true, it seems a little odd that they cancelled the lunch that was planned. My guess is we won't hear about North Korea again, at least in the first term.

Trump got dog walked by Kim and then left.

Don’t ask blind people where they see this going.

Trollminator wrote:

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

I'm surprised no one has posted about the North Korean summit yet. I was up late last night and heard the press conference live. Reading between the lines, it didn't sound like there was any path forward towards denuclearization, or any real progress made at the summit. Trump insisted they ended the summit on good terms, but if that's true, it seems a little odd that they cancelled the lunch that was planned. My guess is we won't hear about North Korea again, at least in the first term.

Trump got dog walked by Kim and then left.

Why would you say that? Kim wanted all sanctions removed without totally dismantling his nuclear program. That was a no-brainer situation. Trump chose the correct path. What would you have done?

Do you think Trump will be indicted the day after he leaves office?

Good question. If he actually did the things that many on the left are saying I would be fine with that.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

Do you think Trump will be indicted the day after he leaves office?

Good question. If he actually did the things that many people are saying I would be fine with that.

Fixed

Timing is a very strategic element with impeachment. If the Dems time it right, they could cause peak damage to his popularity in the heat of his re-election bid. Do not forget most of those newly elected congress members on the left campaigned on impeaching him, so if they are working in their constituents’ interest then they this as a must. I’m not saying that’s the best path of course.

Nice point. But those supporting the far-left progressives in the party are already going to be voting for anyone who is opposing Trump. They will oppose him no matter what. The independents are key. Just like Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed after his impeachment the same thing may happen to Trump's approval. And if that happens, he is a shoo-in to win the re-election.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Trump got dog walked by Kim and then left.

Why would you say that? Kim wanted all sanctions removed without totally dismantling his nuclear program. That was a no-brainer situation. Trump chose the correct path. What would you have done?

Do you think it made sense for him to even agree to meet with Kim in person without having some advance assurance he would be willing to make concessions? I wouldn’t have gone until I was convinced we could deal.

But we all know trump cares about the photo op and distraction, if not as much as he does about real change. Kim has not budged and his position has strengthened. Trump’s has weakened, that is common sense negotiations 101.

Sally Vix wrote:

Nice point. But those supporting the far-left progressives in the party are already going to be voting for anyone who is opposing Trump. They will oppose him no matter what. The independents are key. Just like Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed after his impeachment the same thing may happen to Trump's approval. And if that happens, he is a shoo-in to win the re-election.

It's all about motivating your side to the polls. An impeachment based on what those who favor Trump think is bs could certainly motivate more of them to get to the polls and sway enough independents to vote for Trump over any Democrat.

If the Dems stick to more of an investigative track they can use it as a motivating tact for the left and possibly sway enough independents to vote against Trump while not really firing up the base of Trump.

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Why would you say that? Kim wanted all sanctions removed without totally dismantling his nuclear program. That was a no-brainer situation. Trump chose the correct path. What would you have done?

Do you think it made sense for him to even agree to meet with Kim in person without having some advance assurance he would be willing to make concessions? I wouldn’t have gone until I was convinced we could deal.

But we all know trump cares about the photo op and distraction, if not as much as he does about real change. Kim has not budged and his position has strengthened. Trump’s has weakened, that is common sense negotiations 101.

Who knows what concessions Kim was going to make. Kim was never going to totally dismantle his nuclear program. His country is a sh%thole without his nuclear program. His only strength is via his nuclear program. It is a third-world country with nothing. Trump had nothing to lose going over there and trying to make some headway. I think it is wrong to fault him for that.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Timing is a very strategic element with impeachment. If the Dems time it right, they could cause peak damage to his popularity in the heat of his re-election bid. Do not forget most of those newly elected congress members on the left campaigned on impeaching him, so if they are working in their constituents’ interest then they this as a must. I’m not saying that’s the best path of course.

Nice point. But those supporting the far-left progressives in the party are already going to be voting for anyone who is opposing Trump. They will oppose him no matter what. The independents are key. Just like Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed after his impeachment the same thing may happen to Trump's approval. And if that happens, he is a shoo-in to win the re-election.

I wouldn’t assign any win certainty to someone who only managed to get 46% of the popular vote and whose party got body slammed in the most recent midterms.

Can’t compare with Bill - he was impeached during his second term not first. I do think there would be some damage to Dems though if they try to impeach on very soft substance.

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Nice point. But those supporting the far-left progressives in the party are already going to be voting for anyone who is opposing Trump. They will oppose him no matter what. The independents are key. Just like Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed after his impeachment the same thing may happen to Trump's approval. And if that happens, he is a shoo-in to win the re-election.

I wouldn’t assign any win certainty to someone who only managed to get 46% of the popular vote and whose party got body slammed in the most recent midterms.

Can’t compare with Bill - he was impeached during his second term not first. I do think there would be some damage to Dems though if they try to impeach on very soft substance.

Presidential elections are not won by popular votes. They are won by electoral votes. The Repubs did indeed get body-slammed in the mid-terms but held their own in the Senate.

Comparing Trump to Clinton is apples to oranges.

I think the House will corroborate Cohen’s testimony.

I think the Mueller report will be enough circumstantial evidence along with the House investigation to give the House enough political leverage to start impeachment.

Those proceedings won’t have any affect on 2020. He will still run and lose regardless.

Again Trump isn’t Clinton. Trumps approval will never be north or 50%, and it’s NEVER been north of 50%.

Alan

Liberals have been rooting for Trump to fail in North Korea rather than supporting the President's goal to reach a deal and prevent an imminent war. They own this and I hope they are happy now.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I wouldn’t assign any win certainty to someone who only managed to get 46% of the popular vote and whose party got body slammed in the most recent midterms.

Can’t compare with Bill - he was impeached during his second term not first. I do think there would be some damage to Dems though if they try to impeach on very soft substance.

Presidential elections are not won by popular votes. They are won by electoral votes. The Repubs did indeed get body-slammed in the mid-terms but held their own in the Senate.

They held their own in the Senate because there weren’t enough winnable seats for Dems to grab. That will be a very different picture in 2020.