Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Racket wrote:

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?

I knew he wasn't going to be a good leader, but again, he was not as obvious a con man in 2016 as he is today. No one (not even me) knew he was the unbelievable serial liar that he is. TONS of his voters referred to him as a "successful businessman". Even I believed he was wealthier then than he really likely was and is. MOST Americans didn't know that US banks would not give him any more loans. None of us knew of the decade of losses amounting to a billion dollars, making him the biggest losing American during that time period. In just a little over 2 years, we have heard countless stories from White House insiders about his incompetence, we have heard from the real author of The Art of the Deal about how Trump really is. We have seen the criminals he has surrounded himself with. We have seen the MAJOR promises broken (Mexico not paying for the wall, Obamacare is still here, Hillary is not in prison, etc.). We have since heard mind-numbing nonsense come from him that tops anything he said before.

Jamin Rigged by SallyLoper wrote:

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.

The states with the highest teen (15-19) birth rates in the USA are, guess? The red states with religious white men passing restrictive abortion laws. Not surprising in the least.

not surprising wrote:

Jamin Rigged by SallyLoper wrote:

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.

The states with the highest teen (15-19) birth rates in the USA are, guess? The red states with religious white men passing restrictive abortion laws. Not surprising in the least.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm

Those are also the same states that rank at the bottom of secondary education.

L L wrote:

I don't think McConnell will even allow a trial to happen let alone a vote.

But at least an impeachment will be on record.

Could very well be true. If that were to happen, perhaps some rules would be put in place to NOT allow it to happen again. We (society at large and political bodies) should ALWAYS do what is right and just, NO MATTER potential consequences.

Racket wrote:

not surprising wrote:

The states with the highest teen (15-19) birth rates in the USA are, guess? The red states with religious white men passing restrictive abortion laws. Not surprising in the least.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm

Those are also the same states that rank at the bottom of secondary education.

So the argument is that the Northern states are more moral because they have more abortions up there? Is that where we are going with this? Because it doesn't sound like a great argument to me.

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

Those are also the same states that rank at the bottom of secondary education.

So the argument is that the Northern states are more moral because they have more abortions up there? Is that where we are going with this? Because it doesn't sound like a great argument to me.

No, the argument is that Republicans seem to care an awful lot about fetuses but for some reason the interest in quality of human life drops off dramatically after birth.

This is the party that wants to drug test people before they can get food stamps and accuses every poor single mother of being a welfare queen with an "Obama phone."

It's not about the people, it's about riling up a bunch of hardcore pro-lifers

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

Those are also the same states that rank at the bottom of secondary education.

So the argument is that the Northern states are more moral because they have more abortions up there? Is that where we are going with this? Because it doesn't sound like a great argument to me.

Yeah, that's not a good argument. I will offer though that less educated people have babies earlier than more educated people, so not all of those teen pregnancies in the south were unwanted...some of them were even married.

agip wrote:

Racket wrote:

Those are also the same states that rank at the bottom of secondary education.

So the argument is that the Northern states are more moral because they have more abortions up there? Is that where we are going with this? Because it doesn't sound like a great argument to me.

The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates preach abstinence. Birth control is not an option. The end results are obvious.

Flagpole wrote:

L L wrote:

I don't think McConnell will even allow a trial to happen let alone a vote.

But at least an impeachment will be on record.

Could very well be true. If that were to happen, perhaps some rules would be put in place to NOT allow it to happen again. We (society at large and political bodies) should ALWAYS do what is right and just, NO MATTER potential consequences.

First they need to put in a rule that if a president makes a Supreme Court nomination that the senate must vote on that pick.

But how does any of this get enforced?

The Constitution says the Senate must advise and consent with the President's Supreme Court pick and they failed to advise (have a vote) on Merrick Garland.

L L wrote:

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.

I think the Alabama law is an attempt to change the discussion from one of privacy to one of personhood. The Roe v Wade decision was based on the privacy of women not personhood. I don’t see Roe v Wade changing. There are two moderates on the court so I don’t see it changing.

If you change it so that a fetus is a person then that opens up another can of worms...life insurance, taxes, etc....

Alan

Mike Pence has more reason and sanity than DJT.

Napoleon Dynamite wrote:

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.

BZZZZZ - Unsupported supposition.

BZZZZZZZ!!!!!!

specious wrote:

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.

Discussions about:

1) the best public policy

and

2) how wonderful of a person someone is who supports a particular policy

are two different discussions. Neither is relevant to the other. Please stop conflating the two.

Fat hurts wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Bahahahaha!!!! Watch her commentary about garbage disposals. It's all over youtube.

I haven't watched it, but I will say the garbage disposal is one of the dumbest inventions in history. Is it so hard to throw food in the garbage?

What? It's harder than putting it down the disposal. You must not have one.

not surprising wrote:

agip wrote:

So the argument is that the Northern states are more moral because they have more abortions up there? Is that where we are going with this? Because it doesn't sound like a great argument to me.

The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates preach abstinence. Birth control is not an option. The end results are obvious.

Data? note that there is a big difference between teen pregnancy rates and teen birth rates, because abortion reduces the birthrate.

Flagpole wrote:

Racket wrote:

He's right Flagpole. You assumed it was a reference to Obama but a quick google search indicates there's been many Congressmen/women who have once been community organizers. I deem this person technically correct (the very best kind of correct)

Well, that was a comment designed to trick (a troll comment). Had Obama not been a "Community Organizer" and ripped by the right his whole Presidency for that, this poster would not have mentioned it. So, I fell victim to a troll. Nice going troll.

Those who are easily trolled are either ignorant or prone to knee-jerk reactions. It appears that you are both.

Flagpole wrote:

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

He [Trump]was not as obvious a con man in 2016 as he is today.

Seriously? Were you blind, deaf and dumb (the stupid kind) during the 2016 campaign? How about when he went after Obama and his birth certificate?

That sounds an awful lot like the conservative view that gay marriage, transgender, etc. "opens up another can of words."

L L wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Could very well be true. If that were to happen, perhaps some rules would be put in place to NOT allow it to happen again. We (society at large and political bodies) should ALWAYS do what is right and just, NO MATTER potential consequences.

First they need to put in a rule that if a president makes a Supreme Court nomination that the senate must vote on that pick.

But how does any of this get enforced?

The Constitution says the Senate must advise and consent with the President's Supreme Court pick and they failed to advise (have a vote) on Merrick Garland.

Not sure, but some things simply can't be left up just to one person (Senate Majority Leader). The ability of the Senate Majority Leader to be able to not even bring something up for a vote is way too much power for one person. If he did that with regard to an Impeachment vote, there would very likely be push back that COULD lead to change.