Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Greg wrote:

I hope everyone on this thread gets along.

I will have more peace of mind when DJT has been impeached.

This nation is in a very bad and dangerous spot as long as he is President. He needs to be removed, and it needs to be done legally...either by impeachment and conviction or loss of election or 25th Amendment.

Once he is out of office, he needs to be indicted for all of his crimes, and I believe he will be. I wish for him the greatest of health so that he lives a long life of punishment.

present, esq. wrote:

Oh, and at Harvard the "President" of Law Review is their editor in chief.

I understand that, but Sally was concerned that as a "Lecturer" Obama wasn't really a "Professor" even though the University of Chicago called him a "Professor", so since he is so concerned with titles, I'm letting him know that he was the "President" of the Harvard Law Review. Just one more way that he is wrong.

Flagpole wrote:

This nation is in a very bad and dangerous spot as long as he is President. He needs to be removed, and it needs to be done legally...either by impeachment and conviction or loss of election or 25th Amendment.

Once he is out of office, he needs to be indicted for all of his crimes, and I believe he will be. I wish for him the greatest of health so that he lives a long life of punishment.

Yup, the United States is in a state of peril as long as Donald Trump is calling the shots.

Putin's dirty deeds (illegal occupation of Crimea, downing of flight mh17, killing anyone who opposes him in Russia)

and Trump's association with this man tell you the entire planet is being run

by a bunch of bullies. Trump has his finances rooted in Russia. His businesses

have their banking support coming from that country.

He doesn't care about what is going on in the Ukraine.

He is not a man with high character.

I believe a prison sentence of 5 years at minimum would be appropriate for his seemingly obvious collusion with the Russians. I don't know how that will all play out. I hope American's get him out of the Whitehouse ASAP.

How can you have the audacity to run a country when you know you cheated to do it? That's an entire country and peoples lives you are playing around with.

Flagpole wrote:

Exhaustively extensive wrote:

I think that you meant to say "extensive."

Nope. I COULD have said that, but I used "exhaustive" instead which is a synonym for "extensive".

"synonyms of exhaustive: comprehensive, all-inclusive, complete, full, full-scale, all-embracing, all-encompassing, encyclopedic, thorough, in-depth, thoroughgoing, extensive, intensive, all-out, profound, far-reaching, sweeping, umbrella; definitive; detailed, minute, meticulous, painstaking, careful;"

In that case, you purposely chose the wrong word. Two words being listed as synonyms means that they can be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning under certain circumstances and to convey a particular concept. Being synonyms does NOT mean that they can be used interchangeably under all circumstances nor does it imply that every appropriate meaning of one word can also be conveyed with the other. As such, your listing of synonyms is embarrassingly irrelevant.

"Exhaustive" is simply inappropriate in the context of your original post.

1) If you had referenced a clearly enumerated list of all of the things that you were right about then the use of "exhaustive" may have been appropriate but it would have been pointing out that there were no other things that you were right about. Clearly this was not your intent and no such enumerated list was supplied, rendering this "possibility" actually a non-possibility - even to convey that which you clearly did not intend to convey.

2) If, on the other hand, you did not supply or reference any clearly enumerated list of all of the things that you were right about (which is, in fact, the case here), then the use of the term, "exhaustive", simply does not apply in any way. For a list of X to be "exhaustive" it must enumerate all of X. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Definition: Exhaustive - a) including all possibilities, b) comprehensive, thorough, exhausting all possibilities

So what will the end result be of everyone ignoring these subpoenas? Jail? Court battle? A private citizen like you or me wouldn’t be able to do this.

The impeachment process is broken and will remain broken until the DOJ policy on indicting sitting presidents is changed. Trump would likely be indicted now on numerous charges and then it would be much easier for the GOP to accept impeachment.

Alan

Flagpole wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

Sally is remarkably knowledgeable about points that support his position and completely unwilling to acknowledge points against his position even after repeated corrections. Call it trolling or call it something else, but it surely isn't a good faith discussion.

I disagree that Sally is remarkably knowledgeable about anything...all based on what I know from his posting in this thread. He DOES spout some right-wing talking point nonsense, but that doesn't make him knowledgeable about anything.

I DO agree that what Sally does is NOT good faith discussion, because what he spouts is based on lies and ignorance. Can't even get Obama's position correct at the Harvard Law Review and then refuses to accept the University of Chicago referring to him as a "professor". We can never get to the point of discussing political opinion differences because he has all the facts wrong.

You question Sally’s credibility? You promised all of us conspiracy and collusion accusations against POTUS and you were dead wrong. You try to save face with a phony obstruction accusation.

Also you try to be the smartest and most articulate person in the room full of 20 year old runners.

Trump voters who supported him because he was hard on immigration, how can you justify this?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-prepares-release-central-205824663.html

The man routinely makes a fool out of his base. Amnesty Don.

Ciro wrote:

Trump voters who supported him because he was hard on immigration, how can you justify this?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-prepares-release-central-205824663.html

The man routinely makes a fool out of his base. Amnesty Don.

The political calculus here is that at least one of those released will go on to commit a heinous crime which will be:

A) blamed on the Dems

and

B) held up as proof that we need to BUILD THE WALL.

It will work to fire up his base.

Polly Ticks wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Trump voters who supported him because he was hard on immigration, how can you justify this?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-prepares-release-central-205824663.html

The man routinely makes a fool out of his base. Amnesty Don.

The political calculus here is that at least one of those released will go on to commit a heinous crime which will be:

A) blamed on the Dems

and

B) held up as proof that we need to BUILD THE WALL.

It will work to fire up his base.

The calculus is worse than that. Stephen Miller plans to release known criminals, who WOULD not be allowed in under any circumstances by any other administration, to cities in the hope that at least a few of them will commit heinous crimes.

That is the "game" being played by this "administration." Sacrifice a few Americans to rile up the base in an attempt to win in 2020.

Flagpole wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

Sally is remarkably knowledgeable about points that support his position and completely unwilling to acknowledge points against his position even after repeated corrections. Call it trolling or call it something else, but it surely isn't a good faith discussion.

I disagree that Sally is remarkably knowledgeable about anything...all based on what I know from his posting in this thread. He DOES spout some right-wing talking point nonsense, but that doesn't make him knowledgeable about anything.

I DO agree that what Sally does is NOT good faith discussion, because what he spouts is based on lies and ignorance. Can't even get Obama's position correct at the Harvard Law Review and then refuses to accept the University of Chicago referring to him as a "professor". We can never get to the point of discussing political opinion differences because he has all the facts wrong.

Flagpole - you are exhausting. Please. Obama was NEVER a professor the the Univ of Chicago. He was a lecturer and later a senior lecturer. Are you really too dumb to understand this? The university after the fact said that he was a professor just to help his presidential candidacy. Come on dude, you can't really be this dumb. I love you but put your big man shorts on. You are embarrassing yourself for like the 1000th time. Dude, get it together.

Sally Vix wrote:

The valuable part of the troll named Sally Vix's post has been copied above.

sally is a TROLL wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

The valuable part of the troll named Sally Vix's post has been copied above.

+1

She is pathetic. A "girl" pretending to be a guy. #sad.

Nope. I am correct here. Doesn't matter WHY the University of Chicago called him a Professor. It only matters that it did. I take their word for it over yours. The University of Chicago even said, "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors." So, not even just focused on Obama as you insinuated. You are wrong.

Also, I do not get embarrassed, so your penultimate sentence is incorrect.

Flagpole wrote:

He needs to be removed,

and I'm surprised impeachment isn't trending on Twitter.

Dealing with a racist like Sally, it’s personal that Obama is more educated & successful than she’ll ever be. Her dying words will be, “...and I can’t believe Obama was a professor...”

Greg wrote:

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

Flagpole: 1

Sally Vix: 0

jesseriley wrote:

Dealing with a racist like Sally, it’s personal that Obama is more educated & successful than she’ll ever be. Her dying words will be, “...and I can’t believe Obama was a professor...”

Where did the "racist" accusation come in to play? Please sure me ONE thing I have ever said that was racist. Jesse, that is low ball slinging about racist accusations when there is no reason to be doing that. Please show me one thing I have ever said that is racist. Thanks in advance.

Flagpole wrote:

present, esq. wrote:

Oh, and at Harvard the "President" of Law Review is their editor in chief.

I understand that, but Sally was concerned that as a "Lecturer" Obama wasn't really a "Professor" even though the University of Chicago called him a "Professor", so since he is so concerned with titles, I'm letting him know that he was the "President" of the Harvard Law Review. Just one more way that he is wrong.

I am never wrong, Flagpole. Never. You said that Obama was a professor. Wrong! You said that Trump would lose. Wrong. You said that the Mueller investigation would bring down Trump. Wrong. I can't keep up with all of your wrong stuff. Please just take a breather. I can't keep adding up all your wrongs on my abacus. Let me get everything going!