Donald Trump will be impeached.

Boston Guy said:

I'll take a bottle of champagne. The same I did after I voted for Trump when he was elected.

Click to expand...

Gotta love the air pollution, the offshore oil rigs, and the polluted rivers and lakes! And of course, lock up the potheads--Prohibition Forever!

Wait....shouldn't it be a toast of dirty water instead of alcohol? Considering it's about Prohibition and all.

Boston Guy, sorry about the sarcasm. But how WOULD you rate Trump's environmental policies and anti-State's Rights marijuana stance? Obviously, I rate them a 0, but that's just my opinion.

aquarius7000 said:

Please elaborate on the part in bold. What "limitations"? The limitations too are created by the net result of our own deeds. So we create everything on our own. And then there is the collective - but let us leave that out for now.

Click to expand...

I also believe that limitations are created by certain "deeds" or "intent", just look at Trumps evil being slammed back at him in an increasing fashion now when the spiritual control systems that have protected his evil actions/intent are being removed. So spiritual controls that have protected evil "spells" and blocked positive ones.

Y

Several people I know are pro-Trump, and get upset at any criticism of his policies and behavior. The strange thing is, he and those in his cabinet are nasty and belligerent, greedy and divisive, seeming to delight in making life more difficult for the least affluent and most vulnerable. Whereas these people who adore him are nice, generous, and enjoy making things easier for everyone around them, myself included. Why be one way yourself, on a personal level, but find someone nothing like how you are, so attractive on a public level where so much real, widespread harm can be accomplished?

david starling said:

Gotta love the air pollution, the offshore oil rigs, and the polluted rivers and lakes! And of course, lock up the potheads--Prohibition Forever!

Click to expand...

Prohibition? You are fooling yourself.

david starling said:

Wait....shouldn't it be a toast of dirty water instead of alcohol? Considering it's about Prohibition and all.

Click to expand...

If you think that Trump will push for (and the rest of the GOP will support) any measure aiming for prohibition of alcohol, I feel you are so off base that I question whether you are just opposed to conservative policies or just opposed to Trump as a man.

david starling said:

Boston Guy, sorry about the sarcasm. But how WOULD you rate Trump's environmental policies and anti-State's Rights marijuana stance? Obviously, I rate them a 0, but that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Forgiven.

I believe we have a proper obligation to have stewardship of the Earth. This said, we are not obligated to be exploited by other nations and international entities; especially when those nations and those members of those international entities don't pull their own weight.

America is under no obligation to carry the weight of everyone else who choose to do nothing and muck everything up for the rest of us (ahem, China).

Regarding Marijuana, I've never tried it. I know for one thing, there shouldn't be any want to add another recreational drug into the market. I think such an act would be dangerous. Given that I feel it is socially and personally dangerous, I feel it is appropriate for the Federal government to take caution.

For the record, I have an addiction. Dunkin' Donuts may say "America runs on Dunkins" but this Boston Guy runs on Miller, Bailey's, and a whole legion of other drinks. Had alcohol been illegal yesterday, I'd vote to keep it that way today.

I must say, however, even with your hyperbolic sarcasm, you are more eloquent than that fellow who keeps screaming "trumpanzee" and "countdown to impeachment". That's just poor form.

Cheers.

Thanks for your courteous reply. Clarifying, I see Marijuana prohibition as equivalent to alcohol Prohibition, except that marijuana is much less harmful, and is actually beneficial for many. It's already ON the market, and is a great revenue source for whatever States have legalized it And, it's a State's Rights issue, which Republicans used to champion. This is an attempt to impose Big Government in an area where it doesn't belong.
Leading by example is how stewardship should be done. I don't care about the Paris Accord, I'm talking about what's being done in this country, and Trump's environmental policies are the polar opposite of stewardship. Why isn't that obvious?

david starling said:

Thanks for your courteous reply. Clarifying, I see Marijuana prohibition as equivalent to alcohol Prohibition, except that marijuana is much less harmful, and is actually beneficial for many. It's already ON the market, and is a great revenue source for whatever States have legalized it And, it's a State's Rights issue, which Republicans used to champion. This is an attempt to impose Big Government in an area where it doesn't belong.

Click to expand...

Alcohol prohibition is not equivalent to marijuana prohibition. The former being in more use than the latter. I understand the states rights argument, and I agree. However given that I find it a national health concern (even if it is "better" than alcohol) I believe it is a federal issue. Even though I live in a state has legalized it, it is still illegal for me to use it what with my contract with the Army.

I have seen that, with states that have legalized and taxed it, there has been economic consequences. One such consequence has been the explosion of the homeless population. Naturally, these folks drift ever toward that which they might find enabling of their drug usage. I know in Boston, this has been the case to our detriment.

One might argue, in fact, that "big government" would stick its hands where it doesn't belong regardless. If illegal, they stick their hands in, if legal, they tax it to death. It is a lose-lose for the marijuana business.

To the point where it is "beneficial" to many, I would be inclined to disagree. Medically, perhaps, but recreational marijuana? What's the point? Why add another flavor into the mix of addiction? I've often been told that a user can't be addicted to marijuana; I tend to think that explanation is usually the marijuana talking. Of course users can be addicted to marijuana; perhaps not biologically, but definitely habitually.

No, I believe the Trump administration is on point in regards to marijuana remaining illegal. Tell me, were you crawling on President Obama's back when he didn't federally legalize marijuana, or was he big government too?

david starling said:

Leading by example is how stewardship should be done. I don't care about the Paris Accord, I'm talking about what's being done in this country, and Trump's environmental policies are the polar opposite of stewardship. Why isn't that obvious?

Click to expand...

I agree that we ought to lead by example. The way we do that, however, is a different point. I believe in order to solve a problem one must diagnose it properly. I think the way the problem of climate change has been diagnosed has been corrupted by falsities and inaccuracies. So-called scientists have muddied the waters by inserting politics; talk about big government.

Again, I believe that the President ought to do more, but to which end? I'm not so sure about the consensus that human release of carbon monoxide is the leading cause of this change. I am skeptical of the entire notion, in fact. However, I do believe most importantly in examine and keeping vigilant of the issue. The President has work to be done, and I'm all for calling him out when he fails to meet my standards as a voter.

For clarification, which policies are you so opposed to? This is more of a learning question for me; I'd like to read up on what folks are finding egregious about the Presidents environmental policy.

Cheers!

I was disappointed with Obama on a number of issues, including his inability to disengage from the wars in the Middle East, and yes, not ending Federal marijuana illegality. But he did insert a clause in the current law that allowed for medical usage, which Trump has now repealed, and the Fed's pretty much had a very low-key attitude towards how the States handled it, under Obama, which Trump is threatening to amp up.
But it's the clean air, clean water, and protection of wilderness areas where Trump has totally dropped the ball. On that issue, Obama got a "C", and Trump gets an "F". Since it's my major concern, I could never have voted, and will not vote for him. I want him out of there as soon as possible, before any further damage can be done. It's not about "Climate Change", it's about the Environment, and leading by example. "Stewardship", as you call it.

david starling said:

I was disappointed with Obama on a number of issues, including his inability to disengage from the wars in the Middle East, and yes, not ending Federal marijuana illegality. But he did insert a clause in the current law that allowed for medical usage, which Trump has now repealed, and the Fed's pretty much had a very low-key attitude towards how the States handled it, under Obama, which Trump is threatening to amp up.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you holding President Obama to accountability as you have done so thoroughly with President Trump.

In policy, the federal government had a "low-key attitude" but not in enforcement. In enforcement, the laws were adequately prosecuted and those who failed to stand on the side of the law were dealt with likewise. So I fail to see how President Obama seems to have your approval on this issue. Furthermore I fail to see how Clinton might have done better as she seemed to be, at least on this issue, a successor to Obama's policy and enforcement on marijuana.

On this issue, and the issue of drugs in general, I tend to fall back to Nancy Reagan and "Just Say No". I'm even more of a subsidiarity believer than you are, even if the states legalize it, in an ideal world, folks should have the sense to disregard marijuana usage. But alas! We have democrats still.

david starling said:

But it's the clean air, clean water, and protection of wilderness areas where Trump has totally dropped the ball. On that issue, Obama got a "C", and Trump gets an "F". Since it's my major concern, I could never have voted, and will not vote for him. I want him out of there as soon as possible, before any further damage can be done. It's not about "Climate Change", it's about the Environment, and leading by example. "Stewardship", as you call it.

Click to expand...

Truly, I think it is petty to want him out (I assume impeached) for the sole reason of not micro managing the environmental policy of his administration.

Since you say "it's not about climate change", but the preceding sentence declare that damage has been done, why is it not about climate change?

Certainly I agree that the environment ought to be a priority (certainly not the highest, however) and that all of Congress and the Executive ought to act in that effect. This said, I don't understand how one can refuse to vote for President Trump, and furthermore elect for his impeachment, but support President Obama. As was often repeated ad nauseam, "Obama inherited a poor economy". So then did President Trump inherit a poor environment? If this isn't the case, why so?

President Obama was not an ally to the environment as is often believed. He pandered to those who sought only to put coal and oil out of business; even when scientists have yet to agree on a consensus on whether or not human emissions are to blame for environmental changes. He pandered to businesses who funded him, like solar and wind, and why shouldn't he have? They were his investors.

Let us not forget the blunder that was the Copenhagen Accord, when the Obama administration used threats and subversive efforts to secure support for it.

Unfortunately in dealing with the environment as a nation, we are obliged, therefore, to assist other nations. This, in turn, drives our economic policies leftward. It is all connected, and these policies can not be analyzed by themselves, but instead in context of other policies that they will inevitably affect.

I think you're overcomplicating the issue. Trump has removed vital environmental regulations that were in place, and working, before Obama took office. The corporations are naturally out for profit, and restrictions with penalties for pollution are one area where Big Government can actually do some good. I gave Obama a "C", for business as usual in that regard. Trump is in charge, and knows full well what's going on. In his view, Money trump$ Stewardship--no use denying it.
If Obama wasn't easing up on medical marijuana, why was it necessary to remove his provision that basically decriminalized medical use? Are you saying that being a Republican automatically means you're for strict marijuana Prohibition? Doesn't sound likely. The Democrats never legalized it at the Federal level, even when they they had the chance. This is one area where the Government needs to get off our backs, regardless of which Party is in power. The difference between taxing it versus locking people up, and confiscating their property for growing and possessing it, is HUGE. No comparison, really. One thing I'm not clear about is your statement that the Federal government has been enforcing its marijuana laws. How then, could these States have legalized it without more serious, pre-Trump, Federal prosecution?

There is another thing that troubles me about not just Trump, but the Republicans now in office--the National Debt. Two Republican Presidents presided over major tax-cuts for the very wealthy, Reagan and Bush Jr. And in both cases, it resulted in massive Debt-increases. It's disingenuous to blame Obama for the results of Bush Jr's tax policy, because Obama attempted to roll it back before its disastrous effect could occur on his watch. He was unable to do so, because of collusion between Conservative Democrats, and Republicans.
I'm not against the rich getting richer, as long as it doesn't adversely affect the welfare of the Nation, which Trump's tax policy is almost certain to do. I also don't trust the Democrats to do anything about it, even though they wouldn't have pushed it through in the first place.

ynnest said:

I also believe that limitations are created by certain "deeds" or "intent", just look at Trumps evil being slammed back at him in an increasing fashion now when the spiritual control systems that have protected his evil actions/intent are being removed. So spiritual controls that have protected evil "spells" and blocked positive ones.

Y

Click to expand...

I am really eager to understand what you mean by "spiritual controls"

Happy New Year Unique Astrologer!

You were right on with his SR in 2017 and the Sun/Saturn which is causing him all kinds of problems.

aquarius7000 said:

I am really eager to understand what you mean by "spiritual controls"

Click to expand...

not relevant

Yeppers, I have seen the movie, but I do not agree with most of its content, but now that you have brought the movie up, at least I understand where you were headed.

This post and the next one will have tRump's solar and demi-solar returns through his demi-solar return in 2019. I stopped there because I think he will be finished in the month between January 13th and February 10th 2020. I do not thnk he will finish one complete term as president (that means before January 20th, 2020).

All returns are precession corrected and shown in the Tropical zodiac.

All of the returns have very tight negative aspects on their own without adding his natal or progressed natal planets. On January 13, 2020, the trasitting Sun, Saturn, and Pluto all oppose his natal Saturn. It is the strongest aspect in longitude to his natal chart in his term in office. The oppositions will be exact by right ascension on January 14th by the Sun, January 21st by Saturn, February 10th by Pluto.

His last 2 returns.

Thanks so much for the astrology charts and analysis Unique Astrologer. You were right on about his last SR and the Sun-Saturn opposition is really playing out now.

tRump’s natal Saturn/Pluto midpoint is at 125°02′. Saturn of that combination progressed to within 1 degree of it on January 20, 2009 (President Obama’s inauguration).

One of the probable manifestations in the opinion of Ebertin is “The pursuit of purely egoistic aims.”. In view of subsequent, current, and future aspects to his charts I think it could also accompany a growing chemical imbalance and/or a deepening depression. Saturn’s progression to the midpoint became exact on January 20, 2017 (his own inauguration). On January 20, 2021, if he is still alive, it will have progressed to 1/2 degree past exact.

It is within 7 minutes of exact now - that is exact for all intents and purposes. It has been a constant for almost 9 years. That is a long time to have to endure that constant, mostly negative, aspect as detailed in Ebertin's COSI. It's effect in his case can be seen in his low number of legislative accomplishments and attending low approval rating (the lowest in history). Even his one major legislative passage will prove detrimental in the lives of the vast majority of American citizens in the end.