I'd like someone (that has the time) to do a post on the stuff that we were told would happen, versus what actually happened. They could go back through old threads to get quotes from members.
Some I remember; Trump is not going to bring jobs back to the US, theyre will never be a tax reduction, unemployment is going to skyrocket up, they will never get rid of Obumacare, Trump was going to be impeached by last summer, or there would soon be proof Trump was colluding with Russia . Also dont forget further back when it was impossible to consider Trump winning or Hillary losing.
I'll bet that most of these people who are now employed, also now have healthcare through their jobs, rather than through the confiscation of wealth from private, working class citizens.
Some I remember; Trump is not going to bring jobs back to the US, theyre will never be a tax reduction, unemployment is going to skyrocket up, they will never get rid of Obumacare, Trump was going to be impeached by last summer, or there would soon be proof Trump was colluding with Russia . Also dont forget further back when it was impossible to consider Trump winning or Hillary losing.
Don't forget the Tesla prediction that I did a month or so ago. I may have to eat crow on that one, but none other.
It reminded me of when Trump was doing some of his campaign rally-style appearances in states that have had some big-time Coal going on, and he was talking about the Coal industry.
That's actually great news, fewer incentives and less regulation is the way it's supposed to work, it's not about favoring one industry over the other.
It reminded me of when Trump was doing some of his campaign rally-style appearances in states that have had some big-time Coal going on, and he was talking about the Coal industry.
Carry on, gents.
Actually, I don't have a problem with this, and I don't think anyone else would. If people are moving away from coal... IE... if the "economy" is moving away from coal on their own, without pressure or push from the Federal Government, then it's working exactly as it should.
Most of the time, when the Government forces change (rather than helping to supply options), there is chaos. When the Government largely let's the economy work things out with fair competition, everyone wins.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Everything that you copy and paste falls apart.
What is it that "falls apart"..?
I said that this brief report from Forbes reminded me of what Trump is known to have said about his plans or his interest in reviving or saving the U.S. coal industry: remarks that were heard from President or candidate Trump, when he was at some localities that tend to be described as COAL country.
I didn't say that this report is any kind of a "black eye" for Trump.
It's an awareness-worthy example of contradictions that emerge: contradictions that divide local politics from state-wide and national politics.
Poli Sci 101.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-10-2018).]
Another member just recently spoke of all the things that did not happen to President Trump that you spoke of. You nailed nothing to the wall. Like CNN, it is all news to discourage it's readers.
I do not like you. You troll members here. You are not a good forum member.
Another member just recently spoke of all the things that did not happen to President Trump that you spoke of. You nailed nothing to the wall. Like CNN, it is all news to discourage it's readers.
Hey, just thought I'd mention, in case you get it... but have you watched OANN?
I get it on ATT U-Verse, and you can also get it on Roku. A few other stations also get it... check it out if you have some time. It's such a good news station.
It honestly takes some getting used to because you don't have "FOX NEWS ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" every couple of seconds.
It's like watching News from the 1960s where it's very professional, calm, without emotion or radical words... but it's so much more reliable, and you pick up SOO much more news. I mean, I cannot express this enough.
I know you dislike FOX. Heck, so do I, but it is better than CNN et. all. Just watch the video.
I answer your liberal stupidity. You progressives hold no facts. I do not play coy.
So, aspersions are being cast. This is OK, though. I don't mind being "done". I don't like being "over done." I'm best when I'm served Medium Well. Just a tinge of "pink" remaining in the center of the cut.
Just to be clear, I would like to duplicate the text (it's from me) from the other thread. Instead of depending on the topical cross-link that I provided. To wit:
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
If nothing that is directly against Donald J. Trump emerges from the Mueller investigation--nothing beyond Obstruction of justice1 or some relatively Anodyne2 white collar business or campaign money-related infractions--then I wouldn't want to go overboard with enthusiasm about any attempts to impeach President Trump.
Footnotes:
Obstruction of justice: efforts by President Trump to "lobby" James Comey and other officials to let Michael Flynn off the hook.
Anodyne: white collar business or campaign money-related infractions without any "Russia-gate" connections or implications.
Now, about this Fox News video segment here, from Tony K (Kania) . . .
I doubt that this point that is being raised by the lawyer Joe DiGenova is going to carry much weight, in terms of any kind of derailment or immediate curtailment of the Mueller investigation.
This is what I think is going on, in terms of this Fox News video content:
Special Counsel Mueller--this was some months ago--indicted 13 Russian nationals and one Russian company, for their involvement in terms of manipulating social media content during the U.S. 2016 national elections cycle.
No one had any expectation that any of these defendants would appear to answer the indictments in any U.S. court.
Now a Russian lawyer or a lawyer who wants to get involved on the side of the Russians had a "brainstorm". He thinks, "Let's surprise the federal prosecutors and show up in a U.S. court to answer the indictments. But we have a trick up our sleeve. We can use the process of discovery to ask the prosecutors for evidence. And we can throw in a request for the prosecutors to reveal 70 years worth of efforts by the U.S., going all the way back to 1945, about the way that the U.S. has interfered in other countries' politics and elections. We can ask for a lot of classified information, involving covert actions and programs by the CIA. The prosecutors will never agree to this, and then the judge will rule that the charges against us are dismissed."
That's what I've heard about this.
I think the judge would likely rule that this is an extravagant request by the Russian defendant(s), and so, the judge would deny it.
But I am just speculating. I want to have my keyboard (so to speak) out here in the Pennock's domain, before I would do any more research on what's going on with this issue that has been raised on that Fox News video segment by lawyer Joe DiGenova.
"Carry on, gents." Kind of a new message sign-off I'm trying out. Customer Acceptance Testing.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-12-2018).]
