Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Billionaire and activist Tom Steyer released an ad May 16 to urge Congress to hold President Trump "accountable." https://wapo.st/2JnCD2w

Democrats lose again

RU Serious? wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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?

Dude, I was no supporter of Trump, and I knew he was a crook and didn't vote for him, but he successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of many in 2016...many who will not vote for him again. As big a con man as many knew he was in 2016, the extent of his cons was not known then. Sorry, but that's true. There is stuff that has come out about him since 2016 that none of us knew.

Racket 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.

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

I think it is a major error to say things like 'Rs don't care about health care' and 'Rs don't really care about unborn children' etc.

Seriously.

believing that relying on compulsion from the state for your health care...is a real philosophy.

believing that an unborn child is a child is a real philosophy

believing that the state should not hand out a lot of free stuff because it kills initiative and is inherently unfair...is a real philosophy.

in short, Rs believe that if we keep the government out of solutions...more good will happen. Health care will be better, kids will be taken care of better, etc. It's not phony.

Those are the positions of the general public. The only position a politician has is how they can stay in power for as long as possible and make as much money possible doing it.

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.

I'm more practical in that unless it's likely that unless the Senate is likely to close the deal, an impeachment is pointless. Trump would again claim to be victim of a coup and then exoneration when the Senate didn't follow through.

In regard to Clinton, Republicans voted for conviction and Democrats for acquittal. I'm confident that no careers were affected. Even after an impeachment, Trump's base will be still be powerful and Republicans could suffer negative consequences were they to go against him.

How is this putting Americans first?

If you give more visas for skilled positions as well as foreigners with degrees and foreigners who have job offers, won’t this just mean less availability of these more desirable jobs for Americans?

Yes I know foreign recruitment is necessary for some high end jobs but let’s be honest it’s also necessary for low end jobs.

https://news.yahoo.com/border-security-green-card-changes-drive-trump-proposal-040344372--politics.html

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.

If the challenge to Roe fails then I think many will become disillusioned. They will think that no matter who is on the court, Roe will never be struck down.

A lot of people only voted for Tiny because of the Supreme Court. Those voters may finally give up on the abortion issue. If that happens, Republicans lose big time.

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.

We've argued about this before. There is no constitutional "duty" to start an impeachment that won't go anywhere.

But what is this about senators getting a decent job? When was the last time you heard about a former US Senator that couldn't get a decent job? (Except if that senator was dead or in prison)

I don't think many senators care about being judged by history either. Most senators are forgotten soon after they are gone.

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.

I think he would allow a vote. McConnell is up for re-election. If he has a strong opponent then that person could make a good case that McConnell has abused his authority and failed to do his job under the Constitution.

McConnell would only refuse to allow a vote if he thinks the vote will not go his way.

Acquittal in the senate helps both Tiny and McConnell.

Y-T-D wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

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.

I don't have one now, but I did in the house I grew up in.

I disagree that it's harder to throw it away. It's easier to scrape your plate into a large trash can than to scrape it into a small drain.

Then you figure in the fact that these contraptions break or that something ends up getting mangled that wasn't supposed to be there.

It's not worth the hassle and extra cost. One of the dumbest inventions in history.

I don't think so. Those people are fanatics. Many years ago, the bank I worked for owned an office building with an abortion clinic on the 9th floor. There were protesters in front of the building every single day who would harass every young woman that entered the building even though about 95% of them were just office workers.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

If the challenge to Roe fails then I think many will become disillusioned. They will think that no matter who is on the court, Roe will never be struck down.

A lot of people only voted for Tiny because of the Supreme Court. Those voters may finally give up on the abortion issue. If that happens, Republicans lose big time.

I don't think so. Those people are fanatics. Many years ago, the bank I worked for owned an office building with an abortion clinic on the 9th floor. There were protesters in front of the building every single day who would harass every young woman that entered the building even though about 95% of them were just office workers.

Oh they will continue that kind of activism.

It's just that they might start to think that electing a Republican president just to get anti-abortion judges on the court is a fool's errand.

Fat hurts 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.

I think he would allow a vote. McConnell is up for re-election. If he has a strong opponent then that person could make a good case that McConnell has abused his authority and failed to do his job under the Constitution.

McConnell would only refuse to allow a vote if he thinks the vote will not go his way.

Acquittal in the senate helps both Tiny and McConnell.

What if the acquittal has a majority voting guilty but short of the 2/3 needed?

That's when many Americans will scratch their heads and learn the 2/3 rule and vote their reactions.

There is a Congressional duty to protect the constitution and the balance of power it dictates, and if there is a President who has engaged in activity that directly threatens that (and this one has), then it is their duty to act.

Depending on the Senator, being on the wrong side of history definitely COULD affect opportunities. Whether they care or not about how History remembers them, let future Americans remember them. Let their vote PERHAPS affect their elect-ability in the next election. They should have to show their cards on how much they support this president. Trump being elected in 2016 and then being the ass he has been since was PART of the reason we had so many women running in 2018.

Again though, a possible political outcome should NEVER be the reason to either impeach or not.

Ciro wrote:

How is this putting Americans first?

If you give more visas for skilled positions as well as foreigners with degrees and foreigners who have job offers, won’t this just mean less availability of these more desirable jobs for Americans?

Yes I know foreign recruitment is necessary for some high end jobs but let’s be honest it’s also necessary for low end jobs.

https://news.yahoo.com/border-security-green-card-changes-drive-trump-proposal-040344372--politics.html

It doesn't. He has hired more illegal workers than probably the totality of the posters here, and HE is the one to crack down on illegal immigrants? Unreal.

And then, of course, more to your point, allowing highly-skilled people to come in is still allowing immigrants to potentially take jobs from Americans. With the unemployment rate like it is, we need people of all skill levels to come here. Every service company here in Ohio has a "Hiring" sign in the window. I had to wait for 90 minutes for a pizza two weeks ago because the place only had one driver. Ridiculous.

Trumpers don't realize how wildly patriotic people become when they come here from a bad situation in another country.

Flagpole wrote:

Again though, a possible political outcome should NEVER be the reason to either impeach or not.

We simply disagree on that. Impeachment is a political process. Political outcome must always be considered.

The reason is that political outcomes have real-world consequences.

Flagpole wrote:

And then, of course, more to your point, allowing highly-skilled people to come in is still allowing immigrants to potentially take jobs from Americans. With the unemployment rate like it is, we need people of all skill levels to come here. Every service company here in Ohio has a "Hiring" sign in the window. I had to wait for 90 minutes for a pizza two weeks ago because the place only had one driver. Ridiculous.

More low skilled workers isn't always the answer. Massive inflow of low skilled workers can lead to stagnation. Maybe the pizza chain should offer more money to delivery drivers to attract employees or innovate and find a way to do business better. Can't do it? Sucks, but that's capitalism. Just something to consider