Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

If you are saying that people who showed up to beat others into silence are good people, then you are debunked, you support fascism, and you are un-American.

Hmm. I don't see how you can call beating Nazis into silence "un-American." That's a huge part of what our modern national identity was founded upon. We stomped those evil fcks and became the bestest, most freedom-loving country ever. I don't support violence against American Nazis and white supremacist rally-goers (yet), but Captain America would definitely be punching away.

You realize that Nazis aren't just kind of bad racists, right? They are pro-extermination. They explicitly support those who committed genocide on an unimaginable scale. Even if they don't identify as Nazis themselves, anyone willing to march elbow to elbow with them is sick in the head. But you think the counter-protesters are far worse? Yeesh...

its_baddude wrote:

I wish liberals were more intelligent. All of you are very illogical and don't live in reality.

You are spewing nonsense. An innocent person is innocent, even if the innocent person happens to be standing next to a criminal. You make way to many assumptions about people to fit you narrative.

With your nonsense belief, I can say that innocent bystanders in front a police shooting are guilty of wanting to due harm to police because they did nothing even though they knew the shooter was a criminal.

I can say all Muslims who stay silent on ISIS want to kill Jews.

I can say all people that support Hamas want to kill Jews.

What total nonsense.

Conundrum wrote:

Lets put this discussion to rest.

If you bring weapons to forcibly stop people making a lawful but very hateful demonstration you are a bad person.

If you demonstrate against those making a hateful demonstration you are a good person.

If you encourage and root people root people on who are illegally using violence you are a bad person.

Anyone who Marches with those chanting and advocating for hate you are a bad person.

So there may have been bad on both sides but there wasn't good on both sides.

Conundrum wrote:

Now you are just being silly. You are forcing me to break this down for you in what will appear condescending.

If you are standing on the side of the road and racist neo-nazi hate mongers March past you while they are demonstrating, that doesn't make you bad.

If you are in the road marching with the racist neo-nazi hate mongers, yeah, you are not a good person.

Now does that make sense?

its_baddude wrote:

I wish liberals were more intelligent. All of you are very illogical and don't live in reality.

You are spewing nonsense. An innocent person is innocent, even if the innocent person happens to be standing next to a criminal. You make way to many assumptions about people to fit you narrative.

With your nonsense belief, I can say that innocent bystanders in front a police shooting are guilty of wanting to due harm to police because they did nothing even though they knew the shooter was a criminal.

I can say all Muslims who stay silent on ISIS want to kill Jews.

I can say all people that support Hamas want to kill Jews.

What total nonsense.

Shoebacca wrote:

I occasionally visit this thread just to see how Flagpole and other rational thinkers are holding up against the onslaught of trolling going on here to support Trump. Where I differ from Flagpole is that I really didn't put the odds as very high that Mueller would come down hard on Trump. Based on all of my recent reading, though, I'm starting to come around on there possibly being enough evidence to get Trump. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is the lynchpin in all of this. Everything went through him. He's going to claim all kinds of privileges for why he can't talk about his different clients or dealings and that may protect him, but he's had too many dealings. Felix Sater is the big Russian name in this. He may or may not give the FBI what they seek depending on his loyalties to his old pal Cohen. Paul Manafort is also buddies with them. It's possible they all protect each other, but one slip up and they are all screwed. Michael Flynn probably confirmed that Manafort, Sater, and Cohen are the big sleazeballs involved here. So many of the dealings are not illegal or criminal per se, though, and would not be useful to Mueller. But this Trump SoHo building in New York! Something like that is a gold mine for Mueller. The money funding it was likely obtained illegally by Sater, who was partnered with Trump, and they used it to build the place. This is alluded to in the Fusion GPS testimony and Mueller brought on the money laundering lawyer from New York who handled the Sater cases, so we know he is specifically looking into this side of it. This could be much more concrete than something like verbal obstruction of justice. I think they get him on illegal building operations that tie him to Russian crooks and for once I think it's possible to follow the trail.

Trollminator wrote:

Shoebacca wrote:

I occasionally visit this thread just to see how Flagpole and other rational thinkers are holding up against the onslaught of trolling going on here to support Trump. Where I differ from Flagpole is that I really didn't put the odds as very high that Mueller would come down hard on Trump. Based on all of my recent reading, though, I'm starting to come around on there possibly being enough evidence to get Trump. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is the lynchpin in all of this. Everything went through him. He's going to claim all kinds of privileges for why he can't talk about his different clients or dealings and that may protect him, but he's had too many dealings. Felix Sater is the big Russian name in this. He may or may not give the FBI what they seek depending on his loyalties to his old pal Cohen. Paul Manafort is also buddies with them. It's possible they all protect each other, but one slip up and they are all screwed. Michael Flynn probably confirmed that Manafort, Sater, and Cohen are the big sleazeballs involved here. So many of the dealings are not illegal or criminal per se, though, and would not be useful to Mueller. But this Trump SoHo building in New York! Something like that is a gold mine for Mueller. The money funding it was likely obtained illegally by Sater, who was partnered with Trump, and they used it to build the place. This is alluded to in the Fusion GPS testimony and Mueller brought on the money laundering lawyer from New York who handled the Sater cases, so we know he is specifically looking into this side of it. This could be much more concrete than something like verbal obstruction of justice. I think they get him on illegal building operations that tie him to Russian crooks and for once I think it's possible to follow the trail.

Solid points. If you want to look for incentives, the money trail is it. Any gray area obstruction on Trump’s part would not be enough because we all know he took the short bus to school so it wasn’t “intentional”. But the money! There is no way around that.

Shoebacca wrote:

I occasionally visit this thread just to see how Flagpole and other rational thinkers are holding up against the onslaught of trolling going on here to support Trump. Where I differ from Flagpole is that I really didn't put the odds as very high that Mueller would come down hard on Trump. Based on all of my recent reading, though, I'm starting to come around on there possibly being enough evidence to get Trump. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is the lynchpin in all of this. Everything went through him. He's going to claim all kinds of privileges for why he can't talk about his different clients or dealings and that may protect him, but he's had too many dealings. Felix Sater is the big Russian name in this. He may or may not give the FBI what they seek depending on his loyalties to his old pal Cohen. Paul Manafort is also buddies with them. It's possible they all protect each other, but one slip up and they are all screwed. Michael Flynn probably confirmed that Manafort, Sater, and Cohen are the big sleazeballs involved here. So many of the dealings are not illegal or criminal per se, though, and would not be useful to Mueller. But this Trump SoHo building in New York! Something like that is a gold mine for Mueller. The money funding it was likely obtained illegally by Sater, who was partnered with Trump, and they used it to build the place. This is alluded to in the Fusion GPS testimony and Mueller brought on the money laundering lawyer from New York who handled the Sater cases, so we know he is specifically looking into this side of it. This could be much more concrete than something like verbal obstruction of justice. I think they get him on illegal building operations that tie him to Russian crooks and for once I think it's possible to follow the trail.

its_baddude wrote:

Pizzagate has not been proven false. What do you think? I know you believe in science right? Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

How do you know the dossier was not what kicked off the investigation? I have not seen anything from you that provides even smoke of collusion.

First define collusion and then explain what you think is collusion. Please make sense. Don't post nonsense like "wish", "nothing is proven false", people had a meeting.

Flagpole wrote:

So, some things about the Dossier that need to be clarified.

1) It was not what kicked off the FBI investigation.

2) It was originally paid for by Republicans and then Democrats took it over later. Illegal? I actually don't know, but if it was, then any and all who participated should be held accountable.

3) Nothing in the Dossier has been proven false.

4) These things in the Dossier have been verified:

* Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft

* The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign

* Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

* Russia made numerous attempts to connect with officials in the Trump campaign during the campaign.

5) The Trump Administration wishes this Dossier was the only thing suggesting collusion with Russia.

Although the Pizzagate controversy remains a high-interest conspiracy, we are unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity.

Flagpole wrote:

What you should really be concerned with is why you continue to back a President who clearly is a criminal, a serial liar, and just a horrible person.

I have also said that while collusion is likely (legally it would be Conspiracy) that until Mueller (or the House or Senate) says he has clear evidence that I will not say we do and also that it will be the hardest thing to prove.

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was without question at a minimum an attempt to collude. Not only was the intent of the meeting made clear "dirt on Hillary", but Don Jr. not only said he loved it but told them when "later in the summer".

You seem to not know enough about the facts, brother. I suggest you try something other than just Fox and Breitbart. I frequently watch those two jokes of a news source (Shepherd Smith and Chris Wallace are good journalists on Fox though) to stay informed on what you Trumpers view as true.

And, Pizzagate has been proven false -

https://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/

You need to know:

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

its_baddude wrote:

Pizzagate has not been proven false. What do you think? I know you believe in science right? Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

How do you know the dossier was not what kicked off the investigation? I have not seen anything from you that provides even smoke of collusion.

First define collusion and then explain what you think is collusion. Please make sense. Don't post nonsense like "wish", "nothing is proven false", people had a meeting.