Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Trump can fire the Attorney General for any reason he wants. He may pay a price at the polls but he is the head of the executive branch and, hence, can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he so desires. Is this really too difficult for you to see?

this is crazy. No, trump cannot fire the AG for any reason he wants. I mean he could, but there would be consequences should be do so for the wrong reason.

Say the AG goes to trump and says 'hey prez I have here proof that your daughter stole a million dollars and I'm going to prosecute.' And indeed, the daughter did steal a million dollars.

Can trump fire the AG because of that?

No - that would be a clear obstruction of justice.

Why do you bother responding to this person?

Flagpole wrote:

Sinner wrote:

You think gambling is a sin? Weird.

No. I do not THINK it is a sin. It IS a sin. I do not define what is a sin or not. THAT is not the reason I do not gamble, however. Gambling is low class and douchebaggery.

How is it a sin?

Who defines what a sin is?

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

It most certainly is a bet...I bet that if Trump wins, I will no longer post here. THAT is a bet. An action yet to be determined followed by a consequence if you get it wrong. I will NOT do that. Betting is low class, sinful, stupid. Only low class douche bags bet.

Are not welching, shirking, evading, skating, skirting, reneging and eluding responsibility low-class items as well and those engaging in them should be rightfully called low-class douche bags as well? Low class is also not knowing the compound adjectives need to be hyphenated.

Are you saying flagpole is low-class?

Plarpy wrote:

agip wrote:

this is crazy. No, trump cannot fire the AG for any reason he wants. I mean he could, but there would be consequences should be do so for the wrong reason.

Say the AG goes to trump and says 'hey prez I have here proof that your daughter stole a million dollars and I'm going to prosecute.' And indeed, the daughter did steal a million dollars.

Can trump fire the AG because of that?

No - that would be a clear obstruction of justice.

Why do you bother responding to this person?

He agreed with me. I said Trump could fire the AG for any reason and he agreed with me. Now I am wondering why I responded to you. You have never contributed anything. NOTHING. Who are you again?

Sinner wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

No. I do not THINK it is a sin. It IS a sin. I do not define what is a sin or not. THAT is not the reason I do not gamble, however. Gambling is low class and douchebaggery.

How is it a sin?

Who defines what a sin is?

You know how sins are defined.

I have no need to convince you. Go Google it if you like. I am more than fine if you decide the Bible does not define gambling as a sin (I submit that you would be wrong there...but again, I do not care to convince you). I am more than fine if you couldn't care less if gambling is a sin or that you don't care what the Bible says. I do not do things to make others do the same or even just hope they do. Do what you will.

For me, it is clear that:

1) Gambling is low class.

2) Gambling is for douche bags.

3) Gambling is a sin. Again, this is not what keeps me from gambling as I am not a religious person. Just stating a fact here.

You decide if any of those three things would keep you from gambling.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Asking Mueller why he ended the investigation would be an odd question. His first response would be, "Huh?" and if pressed it would be, "Because we were done."

I think you can count on Mueller being asked to describe in detail how the investigation was completed.

If his answer is, "We were done.", he will be asked endless questions about why he didn't press to get more answers from the president and other key witnesses. But that will be the end of it.

But his answer might be, "It was Barr's view that if I could not indict I should no longer investigate. Since he is my boss, I had to follow his orders." At that point, it's game on for impeachment.

I believe this expected speech on environment is his way of moving a bit toward the center. Maybe it’s been beaten into him enough that he’s going to lose if he keeps moving only to the right. I doubt we will hear anything genuine out of his mouth as usual but he’s going to probably try anyway. Hopefully it backfires and he gets stung by both sides. He doesn’t know anything about the environment and really could not care less. Moving a bit on policy might make him more slightly more likable to some voters.

Sally Vix wrote:

Who are you again?

Who are you? I don't answer to you.

Fat hurts wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Asking Mueller why he ended the investigation would be an odd question. His first response would be, "Huh?" and if pressed it would be, "Because we were done."

I think you can count on Mueller being asked to describe in detail how the investigation was completed.

If his answer is, "We were done.", he will be asked endless questions about why he didn't press to get more answers from the president and other key witnesses. But that will be the end of it.

But his answer might be, "It was Barr's view that if I could not indict I should no longer investigate. Since he is my boss, I had to follow his orders." At that point, it's game on for impeachment.

Come on Fat Hurts. Mueller had over 2 years with a slew of crackpot attorneys all honing in on anything and everything Trump. They looked at EVERYTHING. They interviewed scores of witnesses. They worked with 40 FBI agents. It is clownish to say that 2-plus years was not enough.

Flagpole wrote:

You know how sins are defined.

I have no need to convince you. Go Google it if you like. I am more than fine if you decide the Bible does not define gambling as a sin (I submit that you would be wrong there...but again, I do not care to convince you).

That one is not so clear-cut, Flaggy. The Bible really doesn't address it directly.

And after all, the Catholic church is famous for its "bingo nights".

Gambling can certainly lead to other sins. But I'm on the fence as to whether or not it is prohibited by scripture.

1) Incorrect.

2) Incorrect.

3) Depends.

Plarpy wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Who are you again?

Who are you? I don't answer to you.

I am not answering to you either.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I think you can count on Mueller being asked to describe in detail how the investigation was completed.

If his answer is, "We were done.", he will be asked endless questions about why he didn't press to get more answers from the president and other key witnesses. But that will be the end of it.

But his answer might be, "It was Barr's view that if I could not indict I should no longer investigate. Since he is my boss, I had to follow his orders." At that point, it's game on for impeachment.

Come on Fat Hurts. Mueller had over 2 years with a slew of crackpot attorneys all honing in on anything and everything Trump. They looked at EVERYTHING. They interviewed scores of witnesses. They worked with 40 FBI agents. It is clownish to say that 2-plus years was not enough.

The Whitewater investigation took a lot longer and it was a lot less complicated.

Mueller did not look at EVERYTHING. Not even close. That's why Mueller spawned lots of other investigations still ongoing.

Mueller will be asked about what he pursued and what he didn't pursue. The answers should be interesting.

sigh: Did you just call Obama a low class dbag?

Sally Vix wrote:

Plarpy wrote:

Why do you bother responding to this person?

He agreed with me. I said Trump could fire the AG for any reason and he agreed with me. Now I am wondering why I responded to you. You have never contributed anything. NOTHING. Who are you again?

i did not agree with you.

you are basically saying we all *can* do whatever we want, without limits.

well sure.

You can steal, I can not pay taxes, he can rob banks, she can shoot people.

yeah, we can all do that. Just as trump *can* fire people for whatever reason he wants.

but

we would be prosecuted, and so would the president if we did those things.

Flagpole wrote:

Sinner wrote:

How is it a sin?

Who defines what a sin is?

You know how sins are defined.

Yes. However, you obviously don't.

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

You know how sins are defined.

I have no need to convince you. Go Google it if you like. I am more than fine if you decide the Bible does not define gambling as a sin (I submit that you would be wrong there...but again, I do not care to convince you).

That one is not so clear-cut, Flaggy. The Bible really doesn't address it directly.

And after all, the Catholic church is famous for its "bingo nights".

Gambling can certainly lead to other sins. But I'm on the fence as to whether or not it is prohibited by scripture.

The Catholics are clearly sinning. The Bible doesn't address a LOT of things directly. Google searches pull up a LOT of confirmation about what I say about gambling and sinning, and I agree with those findings.

The Bible is FOR hard work, against greed, against coveting (arguably when you bet and win, you take someone else's losses, so you WANT or COVET what they had), against "good luck" or superstition (idolatry), against an unhealthy competitive spirit and envy.

Gambling is against hard work, for greed, for coveting and envy, for good luck and perhaps superstition. Unearned success is what gambling is.

Low class

Douchebaggery

Sinful

Murdering unborn babies is a sin, no getting around it. You support it.

Fat hurts who professes to be a born again Christian, incredibly finds nothing wrong by supporting it too. He will have to answer for that at the Judgment Seat.

Some of the babies are BORN. They have survived botched abortions and are terminated. Fat Hurts - do you disagree with exterminating babies who are born alive?