Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I hope impeachment happens, even if the Senate will not convict. We have an out of control President, and his behavior can not go on unchecked.

If the senate does not convict then no check actually happened. It would just be an endorsement of his lawlessness.

Don't just blame the Senate as endorsing his lawlessness. Millions of Americans happily pulled the lever for the world's most obvious con man in 2016 and then did it again in 2018 when they sent Republicans back to the Senate. The people have spoken

Flagpole wrote:

forgetfulled wrote:

There has been a member of Congress not named Obama (interesting that your racist mind went to him though) that actually held a title of community organizer.

Do a little research and get back to me so you can be educated.

[sigh] To call him a "Community Organizer" before he was elected is like referring to Reagan as the President of the Screen Actor's Guild. Referring to Obama as a Community Organizer is ONLY a racist belittling attempt. He was MUCH more than that, and of course, much more qualified than Reagan was (since I brought up Reagan) to be President. Stop being racist.

And calling Mitch McConnell and unpaid intern.

And calling Trump a trust find baby.

trust *fund* baby

well sure, we're not going to get alabama evangelicals to vote for Biden. But Texas moderates? The ones who go to church but aren't sure about the whole Trump/felon as president thing? They might vote D unless they think they are voting for abortion. They really don't want to vote for abortion.

The Rs vote for healthcare for poor people - they vote for Medicaid spending and they fund planned parenthood. Don't exaggerate the R position.

Racket wrote:

Anyone else think the abortion bill in Alabama goes suspiciously too far in it's wording?

That's because it's designed to fail. By creating such an over the top restriction, Republicans can signal to their hardcore single issue voting "abortion is literally murder" supporters but also ensure that the Supreme Court pretty much has to strike it down.

Pro-life interest groups are a massive cash cow and securing the pro-life vote is too important for Republicans to actually want to pass anything viable (pun intended). The pro-life debate is only a tool that Republicans can screech about and raise money on.

Then again, Brexit was pretty much the same thing for the Conservative party and now they're stuck with a massive mistake and buyer's remorse.

I think that's a good analysis.

I'm sure there are some in the Alabama Leg who think the Supremes are now sufficiently conservative that they might overturn Roe. But I think most see it the way you do.

Republicans need Roe to keep the fundamentalist Christians in line. If that is gone then they might rediscover Matthew 25 and start voting Democrat.

I believe that most pro-life activists are serious about their concern for the unborn.

Their argument is valid.

I don't believe that most of the actual Republican elected politicians care as much as they let on.

Zero abortions is the goal for everyone.

Left leaning people want to accomplish this with more access to birth control.

The actual lawmakers for anti abortion laws are almost all men. So yes, they are controlling the women who want the option of the procedure.

In my opinion, I don't think the strategical Republican politicians actually want abortions banned. They want to campaign on it. Passing a law that will get struck down by the Supreme Court gives them more campaign fodder.

Again, real anti-abortion activists are sincere. It's a horrible thing.

agip wrote:

I'm wildly out of consensus on abortion issues, but I think the whole 'they don't care about babies, they're real goal is to control women' argument is very weak.

And same with this sort of 'playing chess' argument. I think Dems are wrong to dismiss the sincere belief among anti-abortion forces that abortion is murder.

Dems should stay with the Bill Clinton line - 'safe, legal and rare' phrasing and not let the Rs paint them into a corner like this as being the party of abortion.

Fetuses are not babies. A fertilized egg is not a baby. There is no doubt that some believe abortion is murder, but it is also true that there is a element to not allow women to have control of their bodies and lives. If men gave birth, this would not even be an issue.

L L wrote:

I believe that most pro-life activists are serious about their concern for the unborn.

Their argument is valid.

. . . .

Again, real anti-abortion activists are sincere. It's a horrible thing.

Their beliefs are specious. After birth they want nothing to do with the "born" child. No tax support money. No nothing. Children can go to work like in the good old days.

Racket wrote:

Don't just blame the Senate as endorsing his lawlessness. Millions of Americans happily pulled the lever for the world's most obvious con man in 2016 and then did it again in 2018 when they sent Republicans back to the Senate. The people have spoken

The senate may have retained the majority in 2018 but that's because most of the Republicans were not up for re-election in 2018.

Moe than 2/3 of the 2018 elected senators were Democrats.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I hope impeachment happens, even if the Senate will not convict. We have an out of control President, and his behavior can not go on unchecked.

If the senate does not convict then no check actually happened. It would just be an endorsement of his lawlessness.

I disagree completely. The House has a duty to hold Presidents accountable, and if a President does something that calls for impeachment, then they MUST act, no matter what the Senate might do. Elizabeth Warren is correct about this. Any Senator who votes NOT to convict a lawless President should have to have to live with the potential consequences of that vote; not all of them are in deeply red areas. Not all of them are guaranteed decent jobs after they are no longer Senators. History should judge them based on their vote. An endorsement of his lawlessness would be if the House does nothing.

So far it's me, LL, and Fat Hurts for, and agip against. We'll have to wait for the Fountain of All Knowledge, the 100% Always Honorable Flagpole to chime in and settle it (his vote counts as three because of all the integrity he has)

Flagpole wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

If the senate does not convict then no check actually happened. It would just be an endorsement of his lawlessness.

I disagree completely. The House has a duty to hold Presidents accountable, and if a President does something that calls for impeachment, then they MUST act, no matter what the Senate might do. Elizabeth Warren is correct about this. Any Senator who votes NOT to convict a lawless President should have to have to live with the potential consequences of that vote; not all of them are in deeply red areas. Not all of them are guaranteed decent jobs after they are no longer Senators. History should judge them based on their vote. An endorsement of his lawlessness would be if the House does nothing.

You don't play chess, do you?

Racket wrote:

So far it's me, LL, and Fat Hurts for, and agip against. We'll have to wait for the Fountain of All Knowledge, the 100% Always Honorable Flagpole to chime in and settle it (his vote counts as three because of all the integrity he has)

Jamin, HardLoper, Sally Vix, and Rigged by "Squirrel" will post 100 votes in support of white men controlling all women's reproductive rights. "Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" is their motto.

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

If the senate does not convict then no check actually happened. It would just be an endorsement of his lawlessness.

Don't just blame the Senate as endorsing his lawlessness. Millions of Americans happily pulled the lever for the world's most obvious con man in 2016 and then did it again in 2018 when they sent Republicans back to the Senate. The people have spoken

He was not as obvious a con man in 2016 as he is today. The 2018 election was overall a rebuke of Trump. The only reason Republicans kept the Senate was because of a very rare very pro-Republican map for that election.

Flagpole wrote:

He was not as obvious a con man in 2016 as he is today. The 2018 election was overall a rebuke of Trump. The only reason Republicans kept the Senate was because of a very rare very pro-Republican map for that election.

Really, you thought a wealthy elite with a very recent history of accusing then president Obama on not being born in the US (among like 10,000 other stupid things he said) was going to be a good leader, wasn't in it for the name publicity, definitely wanted to win the election, and was going to be a champion of blue collar people?

This article and video of the ad to impeach sums up my view pretty well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/16/democrats-are-badly-blowing-it-against-trump-brutal-new-tv-ad-shows-how/?utm_term=.3bb8306751d1

Racket wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I disagree completely. The House has a duty to hold Presidents accountable, and if a President does something that calls for impeachment, then they MUST act, no matter what the Senate might do. Elizabeth Warren is correct about this. Any Senator who votes NOT to convict a lawless President should have to have to live with the potential consequences of that vote; not all of them are in deeply red areas. Not all of them are guaranteed decent jobs after they are no longer Senators. History should judge them based on their vote. An endorsement of his lawlessness would be if the House does nothing.

You don't play chess, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_sacrifice

I understand the potential political ramifications of impeaching him in the House when the Senate might acquit. This is an example of politics getting in the way of doing what is right. People like to bring up that Clinton's popularity increased after he was impeached, but his situation was very different from Trump's. First of all, he was in his second term. Second of all, the public felt he was unfairly treated and that basically he was impeached due to a BJ with someone who wasn't his wife. The behavior of Trump if far more serious than what Clinton did (though, as I have said before, I think Clinton should have been removed from office for lying and obstructing).

Trump isn't going to gain sympathy if the House impeaches him. Clinton has had that as a stain on him ever since. He has not benefited by being impeached.

Really though, the only thing that should matter here is, "Did Trump do something that deserves impeachment?" Of course, the answer is Yes.

Silly Willy is a liar!

Flagpole is 5'2", not 5'3".

Flagpole wrote:

I understand the potential political ramifications of impeaching him in the House when the Senate might acquit.

McCONnell won't allow a vote to be taken.