Trump a really good job of making the "chick" look out of her league. He navigated some of the questions so well that it was quite shocking to see what competency looks like.

It goes back to the theme of the modern liberal, black and white. You either for or against. There is only fact and fiction. There is no in between. Trump masterfully showed things are quite nuanced. Here are a few thoughts:

On Ukraine and Putin: Trump said if it was him, there would have never been a war. Now they are trying to make him make a choice to support Ukraine or obviously: side with Russia. He answered correctly: I don't care: lets save lives. They did it again with the Putin question: is he a war criminal? Obviously trying to push the muh-russia line again. He refused to answer for a smart reason: how are we going to get an enemy to the table if we shit talked him? How would that help end the war?

On abortion: Would you sign an abortion ban. I don't know: depends on the terms, and those terms would come to a head when I am in office. I do know it helped the pro-lifers, now the pro-abortionists must come to the table and negotiate terms if they want their "women's rights" back. They tried to paint him as anti-women's rights, but he show again: its much more nuanced than that.

The wall: technically he put down 52 miles of new wall. But that doesn't cover the literal hundreds and hundreds of miles of wall that were repaired. Like is said, a wood fence, knocked over, is considered a wall to the libs. He repaired that, and gave an excellent example of what misinformation is and how it skews stories.

Even when the liability was discussed: what does it matter if he testified? It wouldn't help, he was going to be railroaded on this. So he did the only thing he could do: laugh at the subject and her credibility: we all knew how silly the situation was. Same with the "grab-em" line. He corrected them on his language, and pointed out: yes famous people bring that sort of behavior out of people. Power is attractive. Deal with it.

Ultimately he showed how one sided the democrats are, and showed what politics should be: a negotiation. This was definitely a win for him.

I could go on, but ultimately I want to know what was the point of this exercise? Clearly this did NOT help the Democrats. It did not help this "chick's" career. It won't help CNN long term, this is a drop in the bucket. I can see why this seemed like a white hat operation, because the only people it really helped was the Trump camp.

Trump a really good job of making the "chick" look out of her league. He navigated some of the questions so well that it was quite shocking to see what competency looks like.

It goes back to the theme of the modern liberal, black and white. You either for or against. There is only fact and fiction. There is no in between. Trump masterfully showed things are quite nuanced. Here are a few thoughts:

**On Ukraine and Putin: **Trump said if it was him, there would have never been a war. Now they are trying to make him make a choice to support Ukraine or obviously: side with Russia. He answered correctly: I don't care: lets save lives. They did it again with the Putin question: is he a war criminal? Obviously trying to push the muh-russia line again. He refused to answer for a smart reason: how are we going to get an enemy to the table we shit talked him? How would that help end the war?

On abortion: Would you sign an abortion ban. I don't know: depends on the terms, and those terms would come to a head when I am in office. I do know it helped the pro-lifers, now the pro-abortionists must come to the table and negotiate terms if they want their "women's rights" back. They tried to paint him as anti-women's rights, but he show again: its much more nuanced than that.

The wall: technically he put down 52 miles of new wall. But that doesn't cover the literal hundreds and hundreds of miles of wall that were repaired. Like is said, a wood fence, knocked over, is considered a wall to the libs. He repaired that, and gave an excellent example of what misinformation is and how it skews stories.

Even when the liability was discussed: what does it matter if he testified? It wouldn't help, he was going to be railroaded on this. So he did the only thing he could do: laugh at the subject and her credibility: we all knew how silly the situation was. Same with the "grab-em" line. He corrected them on his language, and pointed out: yes famous people bring that sort of behavior out of people. Power is attractive. Deal with it.

Ultimately he showed how one sided the democrats are, and showed what politics should be: a negotiation. This was definitely a win for him.

I could go on, but ultimately I want to know what was the point of this exercise? Clearly this did NOT help the Democrats. It did not help this "chick's" career. It won't help CNN long term, this is a drop in the bucket. I can see why this seemed like a white hat operation, because the only people it really helped was the Trump camp.

Trump a really good job of making the "chick" look out of her league. He navigated some of the questions so well that it was quite shocking to see what competency looks like.

It goes back to the theme of the modern liberal, black and white. You either for or against. There is only fact and fiction. There is no in between. Trump masterfully showed things are quite nuanced. Here are a few thoughts:

**On Ukraine and Putin: **Trump said if it was him, there would have never been a war. Now they are trying to make him make a choice to support Ukraine or obviously: side with Russia. He answered correctly: I don't care: lets save lives. They did it again with the Putin question: is he a war criminal? Obviously trying to push the muh-russia line again. He refused to answer for a smart reason: how are we going to get an enemy to the table we shit talked him? How would that help end the war?

On abortion: Would you sign an abortion ban. I don't know: depends on the terms, and those terms would come to a head when I am in office. I do know it helped the pro-lifers, now the pro-abortionists must come to the table and negotiate terms if they want their "women's rights" back.

The wall: technically he put down 52 miles of new wall. But that doesn't cover the literal hundreds and hundreds of miles of wall that were repaired. Like is said, a wood fence, knocked over, is considered a wall to the libs. He repaired that, and gave an excellent example of what misinformation is and how it skews stories.

I could go on, but ultimately I want to know what was the point of this exercise? Clearly this did NOT help the Democrats. It did not help this "chick's" career. It won't help CNN long term, this is a drop in the bucket. I can see why this seemed like a white hat operation, because the only people it really helped was the Trump camp.