Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

jesseriley wrote:

Pelosi owns trump. IF she’s calling for investigating him without forgetting legislators’ own work, you can bet that’s the high-percentage play.

Pelosi herself seems to be quite savvy--regardless of whether I agree with her politics, I have to give her that. But that's a big "if": Right now it seems like many other Democratic legislators (in the House, and out) are letting themselves be distracted by the Trump/Russia fallout . . . not taking care of their "own work."

The Dems had some success in 2018 by *not* focusing solely on Trump. Instead, they addressed important issues (e.g. healthcare), as well. If they make 2020 only/mostly about Trump, then the person who *is* Trump will have a big advantage--in addition to his current advantages of incumbency and the media's tendency to give him free publicity.

OF COURSE the President obstructed justice. And? So? You know that impeachment is ultimately going nowhere.

Again, I give Pelosi credit: She can play the long game, and maybe she knows what she's doing. I can't say the same for a lot of other Democrats, though.

“OF COURSE the President obstructed justice. And? So?”

That kind of thinking erodes away at our democracy, or democratic republic or whatever you wish to call our government system.

And? So? Is largely how Trump was elected in the first place. Conservatives and Evangelicals voting for Trump simply because he was an R.

I would hope our country is better than that and we haven’t gotten to the point with our tribalism where one side completely demonizes the other and there is no longer any middle ground.

Maybe I’m wrong. I think there are very vocal extremes that get a lot of exposure.

I don’t think Republicans are trash. We just have a difference of opinion. Mostly on social issues. Fiscal conservatives are dead, so I’m not sure what rank and file conservatives are for other than on social or emotional string issues and the military.

Alan

My take on kibitzer's comment is that he/she is talking about the political winds within DC, what is likely to happen and what is likely to be politically effective. I do not think that he/she is saying that people should not care about (or condemn) obstruction of justice.

Sometimes you have sacrifice your queen to make a gambit. Doing "the right thing" is cute and fine for the everyday townsfolk but it's not how things get done in Washington. By not focusing on an impeachment campaign that would never produce any positive results, the Democrats can build a platform on real issues and actually win in 2020 just like they did in 2018. Once Democrats win in 2020, they can start working on actually advancing this country forward

Or you can railroad through an impeachment process that will only result in alienating independents and losing prospective 2020 votes. But, you know, "it was the right thing to do."

agip wrote:

Impeaching would make the Dems look a little vengeful, angry and nasty.

No. That is what the Republican spin will be.

But in truth, impeaching would be the appropriate step when you have evidence that the president has done a crime and the Office of Legal Council has a policy of not indicting a sitting president.

The problem with the Constitution is that it placed politicians on charge of over site of the president instead of some independent un-elected body.

You have the recent president appointed Attorney General who was appointed specifically to defend the president and not the American people on one side, and a body of people worrying about their 2020 election chances on the other side.

And if they did impeach, there is a strong chance that McConnell won't even hold a trial let alone a vote on conviction.

Screw the constitution. He did it with Garland.

There is nothing in place to stop Trump from violating any law that he wants as long as Republicans stand by him, which they appear to be doing.

agreed that Mitch would most likely decline to have the senate try a House impeachment. It would be a perfect captstone to his career of poisoning the well.

I think a core problem with the Constitution is that the Department of Justice (and the AG) work under the thumb of the president. It's not right that the executive branch can order around the DOJ. We've seeen problems with this setup in watergate, now and in the clinton era. The head of the DOJ should not be a political appointee.

No way non-elected people should have ultimate oversight either. That's a recipe for instability. It's a quandary, but ideally the House and Senate should work together on WH oversight. Elected officials, representing the nation.

The elected Republicans won't vote to convict because they fear their primary voters won't like that, regardless if they think he is guilty of anything.

The elected Democrats appear to not want to vote to impeach because the elected Republicans won't vote to convict.

So, Republican primary voters (which are a pretty small slice of the American people) are keeping Trump from being impeached and allowing him to behave any way he wants to.

L L wrote:

The elected Republicans won't vote to convict because they fear their primary voters won't like that, regardless if they think he is guilty of anything.

The elected Democrats appear to not want to vote to impeach because the elected Republicans won't vote to convict.

So, Republican primary voters (which are a pretty small slice of the American people) are keeping Trump from being impeached and allowing him to behave any way he wants to.

yeah. It shows you how damaging the Obama years were to the nation, in a sense. The Dems completely abandoned red areas...they let R politicians work in situations where they have no competition. R politicians in red areas don't have any fear of dem opposition, so they can move whereever their primary voters want them. Right now that means authorititarian lawlessness/populism.

For the sake of the body politic, we need the Dem party to reestablish itself as a real option in R areas. Mayor Pete could do that. Eliz Warren and Bernie cannot. We need to create a gravity source opposite trumpism, to pull elected officials more toward the middle and behave themselves.

I mean even would-be free thinkers like ben sasse are completely silenced by R primary voters. he can't say a word against trump anymore. If he could count on more moderates to back him, he could be a responsible and re-electable politician.

The R party might be the most dangerous organization on the planet right now.

My Very Own Name wrote:

My take on kibitzer's comment is that he/she is talking about the political winds within DC, what is likely to happen and what is likely to be politically effective. I do not think that he/she is saying that people should not care about (or condemn) obstruction of justice.

Correct read.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Let’s be honest. Cronkite isn’t on the news anymore. In general most people are rather clueless and aren’t really paying attention. People had their mind made up on Trump long time ago. His approval won’t move up or down beyond 40-43%, +/- 2-3%. It’s really rather astonishing when you compare his approval to other presidents who have had a much wider swing and a much more undecided opinion.

Alan

I think you are underestimating how popular President Trump is.

Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Let’s be honest. Cronkite isn’t on the news anymore. In general most people are rather clueless and aren’t really paying attention. People had their mind made up on Trump long time ago. His approval won’t move up or down beyond 40-43%, +/- 2-3%. It’s really rather astonishing when you compare his approval to other presidents who have had a much wider swing and a much more undecided opinion.

Alan

I think you are underestimating how popular President Trump is.

I think you are underestimating how the midterms showed how unpopular President Trump is.

Popular enough to lose 40 seats.

Mayor Pete is almost within the margin of error in Iowa, despite few knowing who he is. Pretty shocking stuff. Dems are dying for someone normal, not a socialist, not an overly animated and critical Harvard professor, not a weird gen x emo guy.

How do you all think pete will do on stage? he has a military bearing that should make him look pretty good. and he speaks very well off the cuff.

Art you've been predicting Beto, but any changes since pete has been moving up?

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1120328721372778497

agip wrote:

1) not an overly animated and critical Harvard professor

2) not a weird gen x emo guy.

Which candidates are these supposed to be?

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

1) not an overly animated and critical Harvard professor

2) not a weird gen x emo guy.

Which candidates are these supposed to be?

Seriously, Racket? We're usually trying to keep up with you, not vice versa.

1) Warren

2) Beto

Art you've been predicting Beto, but any changes since pete has been moving up?

///

F it I meant Alan. I need to focus.

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

Which candidates are these supposed to be?

Seriously, Racket? We're usually trying to keep up with you, not vice versa.

1) Warren

2) Beto

Well I didn't know Beto was emo and I forgot Elizabeth Warren was (is still technically?) a professor at Harvard.

Pay for play. No wonder Trump approved of Israel's claim to the Golan Heights. It makes much more sense now,

Israel has granted a U.S. company the first license to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights, John Reed of the Financial Times reports. A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

Seriously, Racket? We're usually trying to keep up with you, not vice versa.

1) Warren

2) Beto

Well I didn't know Beto was emo and I forgot Elizabeth Warren was (is still technically?) a professor at Harvard.

Pete Buttigieg is a Harvard grad and was a Rhodes Scholar.