Election Day

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

but nope, no winning. You all can keep harping on the histrionics of Trump, but if half of these same accomplishments had occurred under Pres Obama in ANY of his years as President (they didn't) some of you would have been lining up a constitutional amendment allowing him to serve another term.

Honestly except for the boarder crossing and even that is suspect.Trump is not responsible for anything except rolling back all Obama executive orders and wrecking the environment.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Honestly except for the boarder crossing and even that is suspect.Trump is not responsible for anything except rolling back all Obama executive orders and wrecking the environment.

Using our military in coordination with middle eastern allies without telegraphing our every move is a direct reason for the ISIS rollback in Iraq and Syria. That was a change attributable to Trump's military commanders and his policies.

The growth is a direct result of corporations and small companies looking to his pledges of rolling back regulations and taxes.

The border decrease is likely due to a tougher enforcement in the US as well as at the border.

Pretty sure acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital, putting Neil Gorsuch on the bench, pulling out of the TPP and Paris accords all would not of happened in an HC administration, and as I said, as a Trump voter, I consider them winning and keeping his promises. I get that the other commentators here didn't vote for him, and don't see that as "winning".

But Matty's comment was still waiting for the winning. I am saying IF a person can open their eyes and see the discussion from another point of view, then there is winning going on. But if a mind is to narrow and focused on the petty mainstream media BS, then the person doesn't want to see the winning, and they won't see it no matter how many lists or facts are presented. Because ultimately the only winning that the that person can imagine is Trump being impeached, and that is not going to happen.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Using our military in coordination with middle eastern allies without telegraphing our every move is a direct reason for the ISIS rollback in Iraq and Syria. That was a change attributable to Trump's military commanders and his policies.

The growth is a direct result of corporations and small companies looking to his pledges of rolling back regulations and taxes.

The border decrease is likely due to a tougher enforcement in the US as well as at the border.

Pretty sure acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital, putting Neil Gorsuch on the bench, pulling out of the TPP and Paris accords all would not of happened in an HC administration, and as I said, as a Trump voter, I consider them winning and keeping his promises. I get that the other commentators here didn't vote for him, and don't see that as "winning".

But Matty's comment was still waiting for the winning. I am saying IF a person can open their eyes and see the discussion from another point of view, then there is winning going on. But if a mind is to narrow and focused on the petty mainstream media BS, then the person doesn't want to see the winning, and they won't see it no matter how many lists or facts are presented. Because ultimately the only winning that the that person can imagine is Trump being impeached, and that is not going to happen.

Just curious, let's say Mueller keeps going up the ladder, with Ivanka/Kushner indicted, and then finally ol' boy himself indicted, are you going to claim the investigation is biased due to the political leanings of the investigators, or are you simply going to accept they have enough evidence to bring charges? This whole thing is worthless if they don't have evidence.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Just curious, let's say Mueller keeps going up the ladder, with Ivanka/Kushner indicted, and then finally ol' boy himself indicted, are you going to claim the investigation is biased due to the political leanings of the investigators, or are you simply going to accept they have enough evidence to bring charges? This whole thing is worthless if they don't have evidence.

So far it seems pretty thin - even speculative and I generally think it is politically motivated more then evidentially based. And if it does come out that the FISA warrants were obtained by a politically charged false document like the Steel Dossier, than yes I will look at it as "the revenge of the Swamp".

BUT if evidence shows true criminal malice and behaviour in some way related to tampering with the election then, I will believe it. It won't be because CNN says so, but if the Supreme Court hears the case and upholds the facts, OR a Republican majority in the House of Representatives votes to impeach, then yes I will accept that