KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

a. Wilson dragged the US into WW1 despite repeated promises to avoid entering the slaughter
b. Did little to nothing to stop the spread of the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus because he was concerned such publicity would hurt the US war effort. Continued to pack troops on ships toward France where they died by the hundreds.
C.Butchered the WW1 peace settlement.
D.Hardcore racist
E. Failed to hand over power to the vice president even though he had suffered a massive stroke.

---

Where is your source for this?

I had always read the exact opposite. He was an isolationist who tried to avoid getting involved.

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

a. Wilson dragged the US into WW1 despite repeated promises to avoid entering the slaughter
b. Did little to nothing to stop the spread of the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus because he was concerned such publicity would hurt the US war effort. Continued to pack troops on ships toward France where they died by the hundreds.
C.Butchered the WW1 peace settlement.
D.Hardcore racist
E. Failed to hand over power to the vice president even though he had suffered a massive stroke.

---

Where is your source for this?

I had always read the exact opposite. He was an isolationist who tried to avoid getting involved.

---

During his re election bid Wilson repeatedly promised not enter the war. Magically changed his mind once the campaign was won.

Any biography will detail this.

Wilson also invaded Mexico prior to WW1. The Pershing Expedition.

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

a. Wilson dragged the US into WW1 despite repeated promises to avoid entering the slaughter
b. Did little to nothing to stop the spread of the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus because he was concerned such publicity would hurt the US war effort. Continued to pack troops on ships toward France where they died by the hundreds.
C.Butchered the WW1 peace settlement.
D.Hardcore racist
E. Failed to hand over power to the vice president even though he had suffered a massive stroke.

---

Where is your source for this?

I had always read the exact opposite. He was an isolationist who tried to avoid getting involved.

---

During his re election bid Wilson repeatedly promised not enter the war. Magically changed his mind once the campaign was won.

Any biography will detail this.

Wilson also invaded Mexico prior to WW1. The Pershing Expedition.

---

Pancho Villa was killing Americans. They went down there and dealt with him like many of us were/are hoping Trump would do now.

He didnt magically change his mind. The interventionists had a massive pressure campaign to get involved and after the Germans broke their deal to stop sinking US merchant vessels, he understandably capitulated.

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm sure he will be very sad.

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm right there with you brother!

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

a. Wilson dragged the US into WW1 despite repeated promises to avoid entering the slaughter
b. Did little to nothing to stop the spread of the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus because he was concerned such publicity would hurt the US war effort. Continued to pack troops on ships toward France where they died by the hundreds.
C.Butchered the WW1 peace settlement.
D.Hardcore racist
E. Failed to hand over power to the vice president even though he had suffered a massive stroke.

---

Where is your source for this?

I had always read the exact opposite. He was an isolationist who tried to avoid getting involved.

---

During his re election bid Wilson repeatedly promised not enter the war. Magically changed his mind once the campaign was won.

Any biography will detail this.

Wilson also invaded Mexico prior to WW1. The Pershing Expedition.

---

Pancho Villa was killing Americans. They went down there and dealt with him like many of us were/are hoping Trump would do now.

He didnt magically change his mind. The interventionists had a massive pressure campaign to get involved and after the Germans broke their deal to stop sinking US merchant vessels, he understandably capitulated.

---

Great Britain manipulated Wilson into the war. The Royal Navy had been blockading German ports for years...slowing starving the german people. Germany utilized their only significant naval asset...the submarine ....to impose their own blockade of Great Britiain. A declared blockade / war zone that Wison ignored.


After the war was over and we buried our thousands of dead, the American people generally believed they had been played for suckers. Which is why FDR had so much trouble getting the Anerican people to play along a 2nd time less than 23 years later.

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

a. Wilson dragged the US into WW1 despite repeated promises to avoid entering the slaughter
b. Did little to nothing to stop the spread of the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus because he was concerned such publicity would hurt the US war effort. Continued to pack troops on ships toward France where they died by the hundreds.
C.Butchered the WW1 peace settlement.
D.Hardcore racist
E. Failed to hand over power to the vice president even though he had suffered a massive stroke.

---

Where is your source for this?

I had always read the exact opposite. He was an isolationist who tried to avoid getting involved.

---

During his re election bid Wilson repeatedly promised not enter the war. Magically changed his mind once the campaign was won.

Any biography will detail this.

Wilson also invaded Mexico prior to WW1. The Pershing Expedition.

---

Pancho Villa was killing Americans. They went down there and dealt with him like many of us were/are hoping Trump would do now.

He didnt magically change his mind. The interventionists had a massive pressure campaign to get involved and after the Germans broke their deal to stop sinking US merchant vessels, he understandably capitulated.

---

Great Britain manipulated Wilson into the war. The Royal Navy had been blockading German ports for years...slowing starving the german people. Germany utilized their only significant naval asset...the submarine ....to impose their own blockade of Great Britiain. A declared blockade / war zone that Wison ignored.


After the war was over and we buried our thousands of dead, the American people generally believed they had been played for suckers. Which is why FDR had so much trouble getting the Anerican people to play along a 2nd time less than 23 years later.

---

At least we agree getting involved in WW1 was unfortunate.

WOW 🚨 Journalist David Khait tried to ask Democrat Rep Rashida Tlaib why she didn’t stand when Trump asked to support the American people over illegal immigrants, she got him detained by Capitol Police

“She completely flipped out and she called us racist. She stormed in her… pic.twitter.com/JiBP8KansO

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 5, 2026

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

"He doesn't keep any of his promises."

I guess you really aren't into truth finding on this thread. Seems the Iran strike is the real irritant for you.

It's only a few days in. Trump's previous record indicates he will not want this to last too long. We shall see. He's had good military advice previously in getting rid of ISIS and getting in and out of Venezuela. Let's see if the removal of Iran as a threat doesn't also go faster than so many think it possible.

On another note, he has not raised US presence in Ukraine, as he clearly doesn't trust either warring party to support any peace prospect.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm sure he will be very sad.

---

FWIW, I wasn't planning to vote for Trump in future elections already.

---

I hope no one is planning to vote for him to have a third presidential term! They will be sorely disappointed!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm sure he will be very sad.

---

FWIW, I wasn't planning to vote for Trump in future elections already.

---

Who did this pic.twitter.com/G48arMlM3o

— Dr. C (@OG_DrC) January 13, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

Wilson gave us the Income Tax and literally invited the KKK's leaders to the White House and praised their cause.

---

And that was on a good day.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm sure he will be very sad.

---

FWIW, I wasn't planning to vote for Trump in future elections already.

---

Doesn't mean you won't.

boognish_bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Border security is good… now let's get some more deportations

---

I don't know the numbers...but feels like it's really slowed down since Minneapolis

---

Imagine that.

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm sure he will be very sad.

---

He should be. People like me no longer care who he endorses for the midterms. IN fact a good number of people like me will vote for the people NOT endorsed by him.

This will lead to him losing the house in November and then being a lame duck that can't get anything done.

Which of course will just give him an excuse to cry and moan but at least give him a reason to change from blaming the previous president for every little thing to blaming the house for every little thing. Like he currently does when his economic plans haven't done a single thing for anyone that is not rich.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

"He doesn't keep any of his promises."

I guess you really aren't into truth finding on this thread. Seems the Iran strike is the real irritant for you.

It's only a few days in. Trump's previous record indicates he will not want this to last too long. We shall see. He's had good military advice previously in getting rid of ISIS and getting in and out of Venezuela. Let's see if the removal of Iran as a threat doesn't also go faster than so many think it possible.

On another note, he has not raised US presence in Ukraine, as he clearly doesn't trust either warring party to support any peace prospect.

---

The Iran strike was the last straw.

He wants to cry about not getting the Nobel PEACE prize but then turns around and starts bombing someone.

What promise has he kept?

boognish_bear said:

---

Another example of why we need term limits for Congress! https://t.co/akpY7WdENl

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) March 5, 2026

---

dont need term limits, just need to vote out all who voted to hide the misconduct

Which will never happen

>>
A Minneapolis man will spend nearly five years behind bars for attempting to bribe a juror during a federal trial related to Minnesota's infamous $250 million welfare fraud scandal.

Abdulkarim Farah, 25, was sentenced by District Court Judge Eric Tostrud Wednesday to 57 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release for his role in providing a bribe in the form of a gift bag full of $120,000 in cash to a juror in the first Feeding Our Future trial.

In April 2024, two of Farah's brothers were set to stand trial in the massive pandemic fraud case, when the trio hatched a plan to bribe Juror 52 in an effort to secure a not guilty verdict, according to federal prosecutors.

Farah's brothers were among dozens of predominantly Somali co-conspirators accused of stealing pandemic relief funds from a federal program meant to feed hungry children in need.
As part of their bribery plot, Farah "conducted surveillance" of Juror 52 and then recruited co-defendant Ladan Ali to deliver the bribe.

Farah unscrewed the license plates off a rental car "to avoid detection by law enforcement" before he drove Ali to the juror's home on the night of June 2, 2024, and recorded a video of her delivering the bribe, prosecutors said, citing Farah's plea agreement.
The Post previously reported that a Hallmark gift bag containing $120,000 cash and a note promising even more money if Juror 52 voted to acquit was delivered to her home just a few hours before closing arguments in the case.
An FBI affidavit said the Hallmark gift bag the juror received was stuffed with rolls of $20, $50 and $100 bills, and the note read, "This is for Juror 52," The New York Times reported. "Tell her there will be another bag for her if she votes to acquit."
The juror told the judge about the bribery attempt the following day.
<<

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……

---

They did wipe out Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. They must build more centrifuges to ramp back up. The 11 tons of material they have now is potential future danger that Iran refuses to give up. This is a clear sign they intend to rebuild their obliterated nuclear program. Would you rather wait for that time to strike them, or strike now while they cannot go nuclear?

---

Beat me to it. Darn facts.

---

LOL. Yeah those darn facts and words that have actual meanings. But for you Trump can do or say whatever he wants and you will bend over backwards, sideways, etc. trying to spin it to make him look good.

I voted for him 3 times but now see he is all lies just to get the vote. He doesn't keep any of his promises. He has lost me.

---

I'm sure he will be very sad.

---

FWIW, I wasn't planning to vote for Trump in future elections already.

---

Doesn't mean you won't.

---

No, that's a Democrat thing, voting after you're dead.

I knew it https://t.co/DBAEN8GGPW

— Mr Incredible (@incredibledude9) March 5, 2026

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Another example of why we need term limits for Congress! https://t.co/akpY7WdENl

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) March 5, 2026

---

dont need term limits, just need to vote out all who voted to hide the misconduct

Which will never happen

---

No.

We definitely need term limits.

We only ones benefitting are the political class and their donors.

Surprised

Thought she had done all that was expected of her.

Gal gave up her secure governor position just to be fired.

Man, politics is a dirty game.

KaiBear said:

---

Surprised

Thought she had done all that was expected of her.

Gal gave up her secure governor position just to be fired.

Man, politics is a dirty game.

---

She threw Donald under the bus on Ad campaign over 235M spend.

No coming back from that.