Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

malaise

(269,212 posts) Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:36 PM Aug 2018

So the Con says you can't impeach someone who is doing well with

the ecomony?
Was he on drugs during the Clinton years?

That man is beyond bat shit crazy but he watches a lot of shows and he's done nothing wrong.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So the Con says you can't impeach someone who is doing well with (Original Post) malaise Aug 2018 OP

Stupid AND ignorant beyond belief: dalton99a Aug 2018 #1

he lives in a different world ginnyinWI Aug 2018 #2

The economy is great IF you are on top cutroot Aug 2018 #3

Trump is an idiot Gothmog Aug 2018 #4

dalton99a

(81,636 posts)

1. Stupid AND ignorant beyond belief:

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:37 PM

Aug 2018

ginnyinWI

(17,276 posts)

2. he lives in a different world

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:40 PM

Aug 2018

A world where he is at the center of everything. A world that runs on mafia rules. A world of businessmen who get away with anything, as long as they have enough money.

cutroot

(876 posts)

3. The economy is great IF you are on top

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:38 PM

Aug 2018

Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

Gothmog

(145,666 posts)

4. Trump is an idiot

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 05:57 PM

Aug 2018

Link to tweet

Reply to this discussion