Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Owl wrote:

Who?

google. man, google.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+adderol&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS614US614&oq=trump+adderol&aqs=chrome..69i57.3655j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Tom Arnold?

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

Rs are saying 'send her back' isn't racist - it's about rejecting socialism. Ok.

They know it's racist. They just don't care.

Anybody who goes to a Trump rally or wears a M A G A hat will be seen as a racist. They know that. They really don't mind.

No they don’t mind and they feel rather emboldened with the president’s open support for racist tension.

I don’t think anyone can offer a strong defense of trump having an intentionally divisive strategy. It’s clear to all what he’s openly doing and it can’t be dismissed as just funny tweets or trump being trump. He doesn’t get a pass.

The damage he’s doing to attitudes in society is crippling. He’s openly pushing for Americans to hate and reject each other, and it’s bringing the worst out in people. Those truly bigoted and racist folks are now being told it’s ok to think and act that way... that is just tragic.

Trump has clearly chosen his campaign strategy, he’s just going for consolidation of the 46% vote. That’s actually very promising to Dems as I think it wouldn’t have been too difficult for him make some effort to appeal to more voters.

I think it’s going to come down to the one on one debates between the Dem nominee and trump. Whoever wins on the Dem side will have ample ammo to choose from. They can absolutely crush him across the board on policy issues, ethics and his track record.

No prison time for Trump (at least for this):

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-cohen-probe-court-files

Sgt. Schultz wrote:

agip wrote:

How did Germany become Nazified? When good Germans let Hitler take over their country.

How could that happen in a civilized nation?

It's happening right now and the Republican party is encouraging it.

Trump presides over 'Send her back ' chants against minority citizens.

You can't just say 'judges and tax cuts' Republicans. You want trump you want the whole thing. There are plenty of regular Rs who will give you judges and tax cuts. You support Trump, you are no better than Germans in 1933 saying 'eh, he's a fool but yeah we do have problems with the jews and communists.'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/donald-trump-race-america-democrats/index.html

If true, you'd better get on his side quickly or else you might find yourself in a camp.

you are joking, but anyone who is Jewish is taking all this very very very seriously. it's not a joke to them. The bigots always go after the jews at some point.

that's part of the reason trump is saying the dems are anti-israel - trying to mend that damage with jews. The idiot Rs think that the jews will vote for Trump. They won't.

Trump will certainly lose voters from 2016 that simply didn't want Hillary to win or wanted to try something different and don't like how it turned out.

In order to win, he'd have to gain voters somewhere.

Does anyone see what new voters Trump could get with this rhetoric?

In 2012 Obama lost two states that he won in 2008 but his 2008 victory was big enough to lose them and more.

Obama also lost votes due to the 2010 census and shifting of electoral votes from blue states to red states.

NO Prison Time wrote:

No prison time for Trump (at least for this):

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-cohen-probe-court-files

I've seen multiple accounts of this, but it's simply not clear to me that no charges might be filed against DJT in future.

They can't now, of course, because he's a sitting president. "No further charges are anticipated"--that doesn't really mean they've cleared him, does it?

-

I agree with those who've said that President Trump will never spend a day behind bars, but this still doesn't quite seem like an exoneration.

lookout wrote:

Trump will certainly lose voters from 2016 that simply didn't want Hillary to win or wanted to try something different and don't like how it turned out.

In order to win, he'd have to gain voters somewhere.

Does anyone see what new voters Trump could get with this rhetoric?

In 2012 Obama lost two states that he won in 2008 but his 2008 victory was big enough to lose them and more.

Obama also lost votes due to the 2010 census and shifting of electoral votes from blue states to red states.

No way he net gains more votes.. Re election turnout is always poorer. I think he will hit slightly below his total 2016 vote count and there will be a change in state-to-state results. Republican turnout in deep red states should pick up while he loses in others which will have proven to be his fatal mistake - moving to the extreme right will turn moderates off.

I just don't see how he would have been able to win additional votes.. unless of course I'm giving people much more credit for their values and decency than they deserve.

present, esq. wrote:

NO Prison Time wrote:

No prison time for Trump (at least for this):

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-cohen-probe-court-files

I've seen multiple accounts of this, but it's simply not clear to me that no charges might be filed against DJT in future.

They can't now, of course, because he's a sitting president. "No further charges are anticipated"--that doesn't really mean they've cleared him, does it?

-

I agree with those who've said that President Trump will never spend a day behind bars, but this still doesn't quite seem like an exoneration.

That points to Barr meddling in the process. Only Barr has interpreted that a "sitting" president cannot be indicted for any law breaking. Barr has intentionally misinterpreted the law for not indicted for actions directly related to the job of president versus acts not directly related to the job of president.

Under Barr's politically-biased view Trump cannot be guilty of accepting bribes to line his own pockets.

Trump cannot be guilty for ordering nukes dropped on an evil liberal cities which made him angry.

And Trump could not be guilty of releasing an executive order that give each Trump voter the power of two votes.

In other words, Barr is interpreting the law incorrectly to suit an unconstitutional agenda.

Trollminator wrote:

I just don't see how he would have been able to win additional votes.. unless of course I'm giving people much more credit for their values and decency than they deserve.

DING-DING-DING!

.

.

Joking aside, though, I agree with the previous discussions re turnout. Trump's "base" will be turning out en masse--they'll be afraid AND angry. Whether the Dems can generate similar levels of fear (the threats to healthcare and Social Security, for instance) and anger in 2020--similar to what they got in 2018--remains to be seen.

.

If they can't, Trump wins.

Trollminator wrote:

Re election turnout is always poorer.

Except that W Bush gained states in his re-election and got a majority popular vote which he lost the first time around.

People rallied around him after 9/11 at the same time many protested the Iraq invasion.

There can't be any more racists that didn't already support Trump in 2016.

And the top 1% earners that gained from Trump only get one vote per person, not dollar.

Good post. As is the case with the emoluments discussion, coming into office Trump purposefully blurred the lines between personal and business enough confuse the situation. Remember his refusal to adhere to any mechanism to separate his business dealings? Yeah that was why. He happily brought business right into the WH and that’s what his presidency has been all about thus far..

Trump needs to be heavily criticized for telling the 4 ladies to go home. But what is very telling is none of the Democratic presidential candidates have spoken out to repudiate Trump for his comments. These candidates are terrified of being associated with these 4 ladies who are extremely radical in their socialist views and policies.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trump needs to be heavily criticized for telling the 4 ladies to go home. But what is very telling is none of the Democratic presidential candidates have spoken out to repudiate Trump for his comments. These candidates are terrified of being associated with these 4 ladies who are extremely radical in their socialist views and policies.

Do you live under a rock? Do you have access to news? WTF are you talking about dumb dumb? All of the major Democratic candidates have denounced Trump for those comments.

You are really a dumb dumb. It's shocking how dumb you are.

To Dumb Dumb:

Sanders and Warren:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/aoc-sanders-and-warren-rally-around-ilhan-omar-following-trumps-racist-attacks/

Biden:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-18/joe-biden-denounces-trumps-attacks-on-ilhan-omar-congresswomen

Harris:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/kamala-harris-cnn-interview/index.html

Booker:

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/07/17/cory-booker-2020-trump-tweets

I could list more, Dumb Dumb.

Send her back!

Send her back!

Send her back!

Just say no to immigration!!!!

Gordon Frank wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Trump needs to be heavily criticized for telling the 4 ladies to go home. But what is very telling is none of the Democratic presidential candidates have spoken out to repudiate Trump for his comments. These candidates are terrified of being associated with these 4 ladies who are extremely radical in their socialist views and policies.

Do you live under a rock? Do you have access to news? WTF are you talking about dumb dumb? All of the major Democratic candidates have denounced Trump for those comments.

You are really a dumb dumb. It's shocking how dumb you are.

Well, Gordon Frank. Trump has rebuked those doing the chant. I guess you will applaud him for doing that. Yes?

Sally Vix wrote:

Gordon Frank wrote:

Do you live under a rock? Do you have access to news? WTF are you talking about dumb dumb? All of the major Democratic candidates have denounced Trump for those comments.

You are really a dumb dumb. It's shocking how dumb you are.

Well, Gordon Frank. Trump has rebuked those doing the chant. I guess you will applaud him for doing that. Yes?

Just as Hitler could have rebuked burning people in chambers AFTER they were already turned to ashes.

Ashes wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Well, Gordon Frank. Trump has rebuked those doing the chant. I guess you will applaud him for doing that. Yes?

Just as Hitler could have rebuked burning people in chambers AFTER they were already turned to ashes.

No matter what Trump does, you Liberals will criticize for anything. Has there ever been ONE thing that he has done that you have complimented him on? NO, you criticize EVERYTHING he does. Talks with North Korea, you and the mainstream media want him to fail. You criticize him for EVERYTHING he does. He could help an old lady cross the street and you would criticize him in some way for that. You are NEVER going to say one good thing about him. The economy? OH, that was Obama even though Obama was president years ago. No Wars? You would never say anything positive. You are consumed with hate for Trump. Your hate precludes you from ever saying anything nice about him. Everything you say is hate, hate and more hate Trump.

Sally Vix wrote:

Gordon Frank wrote:

Do you live under a rock? Do you have access to news? WTF are you talking about dumb dumb? All of the major Democratic candidates have denounced Trump for those comments.

You are really a dumb dumb. It's shocking how dumb you are.

Well, Gordon Frank. Trump has rebuked those doing the chant. I guess you will applaud him for doing that. Yes?

No, Dumb Dumb. He created the situation to begin with and allowed the chant to go on for nearly 15 seconds. He rebuked that chant the same way he changed his tune and said he meant to say "wouldn't". Pressure from supporters made him do it.

You are shockingly dumb.