The dread many feared has finally arrived

Interesting how members of Trump's cult make up their hate as they go along, and, of course, can't provide any sources for their outrageous claims.

Some, like SkullKrusher here, try to outdo themselves when it comes to manufacturing their hate. Everyone of them support Trump.

 

I agree, and it began when the Republicans won the Senate, House, and the Oval Office in November, 2016.

Check out this graph. Pay particular attention to what happens after Nov. 2016.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/261690/monthly-performance-of-djia-index/

I am not complaining, mind you, but it's bizarre.

 

Market Watch reports, "The Dow Jones Industrial Average on Wednesday relinquished its biggest point gain since February, as selling in shares of bank and technology-and-internet companies offset gains in the resurgent energy sector.

"The Dow DJIA, -0.68% ended the session off 165.52 points, or 0.7%, at 24,117.59, after the blue-chip gauge touched an intraday high up 285.91 points. That retreat represents the largest turnaround lower for the Dow since Feb. 21, when the gauge rose 303.24 points to end down 166.97 points, according to WSJ Market Data Group. The S&P 500 index SPX, -0.86% also marked its largest blown lead since February, after it peaked up 0.85%, but finished the session down 0.9% at 2,699."

That is ten losses in eleven days. It began with Trump's trade wars which were started by his tariffs and in his complete inability to negotiate trade deals. Thank you, Mr. President. I have lost thousands in my IRA's and mutual funds.

 

It began when Obama started using the IRS to attack conservatives. It began when former Democrat Senator, Harry Reid, tried to bully an old cattle rancher named Cliven Bundy; and called Americans flying an American Flag rallying to the defense of Cliven Bundy, "Domestic Terrorists". That's when the Democrat party ended, and became the Socialist Marxist Party.

 

A little off topic but, did you see President Trump gets to pick a brand new Supreme Court Justice? I can not for the life of me wipe the smile off my face... good times ahead for America and Americans. Im sorry you will hate that.

 

Sorry, Soupnazi, impeachment is a political act. Period.

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
​

What law is broken if a President abuses his power, like Nixon having his political enemies targeted for audits by the IRS, or granting an unpaid volunteer top secret security clearance with unprecedented errors in the security forms and over the recommendations of the FBI? What law is broken if a President violates the public trust, like Lyndon Johnson lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate the Vietnam war, or threatening another country with nuclear war as a negotiating technique? What law is broken if a President undermines the rule of law by firing investigators investigating the President? Are those impeachable offenses, or not? I'll help you out, they are impeachable offenses, without violation of law. Malfeasance is a tort, or civil offense, not criminal, and is an impeachable offense. A "crime" is not required for impeachment, and impeachment is not a legal act, but a political one.

What we lack is not an impeachable offense, but a Congress willing to provide its Constitutional obligation to provide a check on the powers of the President.

 

You are wrong and that is simple fact you cannot refute.

Your link does not define what sort of act impeachment is. The constitution does in article 2 section 4.

Read it and weep it proves you wrong



It can only be done for high crimes and misdemeanors and you have no crime or impeachable offense.

None of the actions by previous presidents you mention were impeachable. You must have a crime and you have none.

 

Interesting notion. Thankfully, we have representatives that are also able to evaluate the conditions of the service of the President that isn't dependent on your evaluation. You suggest that you have actual crimes, you suggest that a company receiving rents from foreign nationals is associable to emoluments is frankly spurious. Of course you can point to the fraudulent and shameful political hacks who are advancing those frivolous suits, but who actually expects these courts to agree with them, or your premise? It's laughable.

 

More bad news caused by Trump's trade wars. Yesterday, I posted this message.

Market Watch reports, "The Dow Jones Industrial Average on Wednesday relinquished its biggest point gain since February, as selling in shares of bank and technology-and-internet companies offset gains in the resurgent energy sector.

"The Dow DJIA, -0.68% ended the session off 165.52 points, or 0.7%, at 24,117.59, after the blue-chip gauge touched an intraday high up 285.91 points. That retreat represents the largest turnaround lower for the Dow since Feb. 21, when the gauge rose 303.24 points to end down 166.97 points, according to WSJ Market Data Group. The S&P 500 index SPX, -0.86% also marked its largest blown lead since February, after it peaked up 0.85%, but finished the session down 0.9% at 2,699."

That is ten losses in eleven days. It began with Trump's trade wars which were started by his tariffs and in his complete inability to negotiate trade deals. Thank you, Mr. President. I have lost thousands in my IRA's and mutual funds.

Here is the reaction from members of Trump's cult. The last thing they want to talk about is the disastrous effect Trump is having on the economy. Their wish to escape from reality is quite humorous.

 

What was unemployment again? Or are you only concerned for the tippy top of the 1%? It makes one wonder just who you're shilling for here....

 

What does George Soros think about Trumps economic plans?

 

More than the top 1% have IRA's and mutual funds. What a pathetic statement.

There were 76 straight months of job growth under Obama. Trump has a way to go before beating that record.

Are you happy with the decline of stocks, IRA's, and mutual funds caused by Trump's tariffs? Or you just don't care?

 

Are we running the Dumbest Post Contest again? You may have a winner.

 

Pretty much explains it.

.

 

I suppose missing the point was expected. Of course "more than the top 1% have IRAs and mutual funds. That of course wasn't the point. The folks who are going to be effected aren't the average folks, it's only the very top of the investor class who live for the chance to find .5% because it makes them real money.

Spare us the anemic hyperbole vis a vis Obama. It's like saying, why yes, that was amazing gruel.

 

We have a complicit party in the majority that has chosen not to take action, despite the obligation to do so, because they have chose to keep power rather than do what is in the best interest of this country. History will not look favorably on this Congress.

I SUGGEST there is a court case moving forward against Trump on the Emoluments Clause. The courts have found standing for those businesses harmed by foreigners choosing to use Trump properties, rather than their own hotels, in order to curry favor with Trump's administration. Those foreigners have said so in no uncertain terms. Would be fine with you if the next president just openly took money from foreigners, to buy influence? Is that the way democracies work? Is this a country of the foreigners, for the foreigners, and for the foreigners, or is it something different? Do you really want middle eastern oil money making policy for the United States? There is a very valid reason why we have the Emoluments Clause, and it is expressly for the purpose of not allowing Presidential influence to be bought.

You're free to stick your head in the sand and pretend none of this matters. That's the great thing about free speech. It doesn't make you right though.

 

Good goobly goo… impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. There is no legal consequence to impeachment. Because you say so doesn't change that fact.

I'm done with this conversation. Facts are facts, and you're claiming something that simply isn't factual.

 

You might want to check your history book… See Nixon, IRS attack on political foes.

 

This is true and if democrats control the house and senate they will invent a reason but it would still be a mighty high hill to climb.

 

Yes and Nixon was forced to resign. So that brings us to James Rosen and his parents being wiretapped. Of course none of this involved Mr. Obatard, nooo siiiiriiiee, not the boy God!

You do see how these confirmed events have rendered all leftist accusations and examples as nothing but hypocrisy and partisan attacks.

And that's not even getting into the Hillyhag files! Either party comes to this table with clean hands, if either side can't or willfully wont condemn or pursue their own then what credibility should they be given?

IMHO opining, even less then the people they are levying accusation against because they are clearly agenda and hardly ethically driven by their own example!

 

Never going to happen from precedence alone! By the time the lawyers hash this hypocritical horseshit out in court, Trump will have finished out his second term if reelected, The best that the left could possible achieve is a censured like they did with Slick dick Willy the cigar lover

 

The facts prove you wrong and prove that impeachment is not a political act.

Once again read the constitution and state the political reasons listed for impeachment.

 

Did you actually read what you wrote? I wonder.... When you begin with the word "complicit" it doesn't leave a lot of room. I expect, like the cases regarding the travel restrictions that yes, there might be friendly courts, and I expect that they will be quashed later. The theater though continues until it does, like the BS theory that you can actually express "harm" because "foreigners" don't use your hotel....

 

Or Jared Kushner.

 

CNBC reports, "Investors bailed out of U.S. stocks at a near-record pace in the last week, as money flowing into Treasury bills surged to a 10-year high."

"That nervousness, the losses people were experiencing in non-U.S. markets with the trade wars has probably led to what you're seeing in the markets in the last week or so — a big unwind of positioning, a flight to quality," said Michael Hartnett, BofAML chief investment strategist.

Thank you, Mr. President.