Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Fact Checking wrote:

Well, the above is true except that Trump seems to be paying lower tax rate the estimated by the poster.

Trump can only donate what is left after-taxes. Trump's total presidential income is more than $400,000.

Trump's salary is $400,000, plus $50,000 for expenses, plus $100,000 non-taxable for travel, plus another $19,000 for entertainment. A total of $569,000 per year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/how-much-the-president-on-the-united-states-gets-paid.html

If he's really a billionaire you're talking about pennys. $400,000 is 1/2500th of $1B. He could give it charity, burn it or throw it out the window and it wouldn't matter.

True, but we will have decades of information coming in about Trump including how he wasn't even really a billionaire let alone a multi-billionaire. He is going to be hurt big time by the legal challenges he has once out of office, might even perhaps be forced to sell/dismantle The Trump Organization. He famously loves debt, so it is really unclear how much debt he has. $400,000 guaranteed per year the rest of his life might not be a bad thing.

He should resign and make a deal.

nob wrote:

bon wrote:

You misspelled McConnell and Trump.

McConnell has denied Senate floor votes hundreds of times.

Trump diverts Congressionally approved money and refuse to allow Congress to vote on his diversion.

very telling how far you guys are willing to go in order to give Pelosi a pass on this.

It's just a fact that in the Clinton and Nixon inquiries the entire house was given a vote and rights were given to the president. Pelosi doesn't care about precedent or fairness - it's just 'go get trump.' and she's a coward for not having a vote. As if impeaching the president is just another normal issue. (it's not - it needs a vote to be fair)

Meh...not really. It's not mandated in the Constitution. What IS mandated though is a ton of things this administration is ignoring.

If I were Pelosi, after I got tired of looking at my huge rack, I would call for a vote just to get rid of this stupid "concern" from Republicans.

About that Foxnews poll that you libs keep touting. It had a D+8 sample. The poll is 48% D, 40% R and 12% I. I don't know any election where that was the electorate. Another fraud pollster and you libs fell for it.

The traitors finally woke up! Enjoy the show, stupid trumpers!

Sally Vix wrote:

Not sure why you would suggest that I am a mindless stooge...

Because you are a mindless stooge.

Flagpole wrote:

If I were Pelosi, after I got tired of looking at my huge rack, ...

ANOTHER misogynistic post by Flagpole.

Throw it on the stack with the others.

Flagpole wrote:

nob wrote:

very telling how far you guys are willing to go in order to give Pelosi a pass on this.

It's just a fact that in the Clinton and Nixon inquiries the entire house was given a vote and rights were given to the president. Pelosi doesn't care about precedent or fairness - it's just 'go get trump.' and she's a coward for not having a vote. As if impeaching the president is just another normal issue. (it's not - it needs a vote to be fair)

Meh...not really. It's not mandated in the Constitution. What IS mandated though is a ton of things this administration is ignoring.

If I were Pelosi, after I got tired of looking at my huge rack, I would call for a vote just to get rid of this stupid "concern" from Republicans.

you know what IS required by the Constitution for the House to impeach? NOTHING. There is no constitutional language of investigations or whatever.

She could cut the investigation off today, have a vote, impeach, and send it to the Senate on Wednesday. Every Speaker of the house could do that on the first day of his or her term, every time.

So Constitutionality is not the issue. Precedent and fairness is the issue and no one should defend pelosi on this. Be fair, be open, follow precedent, and then maybe this thing will be able to pull the american people along with it. Otherwise it's a partisan hack job. Which is clearly where this is going.

King of Debt wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If he's [Trump is] really a billionaire you're talking about pennys. $400,000 is 1/2500th of $1B. He could give it charity, burn it or throw it out the window and it wouldn't matter.

Except for the fact that the King of Debt (Trump) does not have that much ready cash. His money is tied up in immovable objects (longterm loans). He needed to spread out his $130k payoff to the porn star over a period of about one year. Really?

If we're assuming a net worth, assets minus liabilities, of $1B, his presidential salary is still meaningless. A modest return on his equity of 5% would generate a cash flow of $50M. If his cash flow is as bad as you say it is, his net worth is significantly less than $1B, which is possible.

Two Giuliani associates involved in Trump-Ukraine controversy arrested on campaign finance charges. The two Ukraine-born criminals...

Donated $325,000 to the Trump reelection campaign.

Had dinner with Trump at the White House.

Arraigned meetings between Giuliani and Ukraine's top prosecutor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/10/impeachment-inquiry-lev-parnas-igor-fruman-witness-list/3866159002/

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

About that Foxnews poll that you libs keep touting. It had a D+8 sample. The poll is 48% D, 40% R and 12% I. I don't know any election where that was the electorate. Another fraud pollster and you libs fell for it.

Aren't you the one who posted a false quote from Hillary as if it were real and then wouldn't admit you were tricked by it? Why should anyone here believe anything you say when you don't have enough integrity to admit when you are wrong?

Go away wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If I were Pelosi, after I got tired of looking at my huge rack, ...

ANOTHER misogynistic post by Flagpole.

Throw it on the stack with the others.

In other news today, the sun came up.

I love the way the Ukrainians were caught at the airport trying to skip the country right before their House testimony.

agip wrote:

you know what IS required by the Constitution for the House to impeach? NOTHING. There is no constitutional language of investigations or whatever.

Actually there is. Each house is allowed to set its own rules for proceedings. Courts ruled long ago (1892) that each new Congress is not bound by any previously set of rules.

Precedent is an issue here, but not fairness. I agree that she SHOULD do that, but really only to get rid of it as a talking point for Republicans. There is no issue of fairness here, ESPECIALLY not here -- Trump and Giuliani have already admitted to wrongdoing, and the readout proves it. Like you said, they could draw up articles of impeachment today and vote immediately.

jesseriley wrote:

I love the way the Ukrainians were caught at the airport trying to skip the country right before their House testimony.

Why do you love that?

I think Ghost has a flight to Moscow to catch, he may not be posting for awhile.

Rules of Proceedings wrote:

agip wrote:

you know what IS required by the Constitution for the House to impeach? NOTHING. There is no constitutional language of investigations or whatever.

Actually there is. Each house is allowed to set its own rules for proceedings. Courts ruled long ago (1892) that each new Congress is not bound by any previously set of rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

BAM!!!

Flagpole was right and you were WRONG.

You owe him an apology.

Go away wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If I were Pelosi, after I got tired of looking at my huge rack, ...

ANOTHER misogynistic post by Flagpole.

Throw it on the stack with the others.

Not misogynistic at all. I want Warren to be President after all.

If you are telling me that if you suddenly became a woman and wouldn't take at least a little while to explore what you've now got, you're a liar. Oh, and yes I know you are Sally. {IPchecker.87.999.1112,fromeglom 298 - do not display}

SDSU Aztec wrote:

King of Debt wrote:

Except for the fact that the King of Debt (Trump) does not have that much ready cash. His money is tied up in immovable objects (longterm loans). He needed to spread out his $130k payoff to the porn star over a period of about one year. Really?

If we're assuming a net worth, assets minus liabilities, of $1B, his presidential salary is still meaningless. A modest return on his equity of 5% would generate a cash flow of $50M. If his cash flow is as bad as you say it is, his net worth is significantly less than $1B, which is possible.

Don't confuse net worth with readily cashable assets. Real estate is a not a ready cash asset. Trump is cash sort so even a $100,000 is a lot of money for part with.

It was pointed out that Trump's salary of $400k (it is actually more than that with expense allowances) is not tax-free. He cannot possible donate $100k per quarter because he doesn't get $100k; unless he is included the separately paid for expenses. But he claims is donating a full $100k per each quarter. You would have to see his tax returns to arrive at the true amount of the donation. The presidential salary part won't be $400k per year, unless some creative accounting (illegal) math was used.