Despite the detractors, Trump doing well

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 04:58 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: If my opinion of Trump is that he's a douche bag and an idiot makes me "unhinged", I can deal with that.


Here's to praying we have better candidates in 2018 and 2020 

Nah, what makes one unhinged is blaming him for everything bad and ignoring his contribution for anything good.


I do hope the Dems trot out someone better; but with Trump's 90% rating among GOP voters I'm pretty sure he'll be the pick and I can live with that. Asshole or not; we're currently doing pretty well as a country. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, what makes one unhinged is blaming him for everything bad and ignoring his contribution for anything good.

I do hope the Dems trot out someone better; but with Trump's 90% rating among GOP voters I'm pretty sure he'll be the pick and I can live with that. Asshole or not; we're currently doing pretty well as a country. 

If someone can point to a policy decision he has made that has improved our country in an objective way, I'll give him credit.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If someone can point to a policy decision he has made that has improved our country in an objective way, I'll give him credit.

Removed us from the TPP

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Removed us from the TPP

That is not an objective improvement. I also agree that us pulling out of the TPP negotiations was a good thing, though there are many people that consider free trade to be a necessary component of the economy. Conservatives and neo-liberals alike have long considered it important to the free market. What the actual impact will be hasn't been seen, yet.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 06:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is not an objective improvement. I also agree that us pulling out of the TPP negotiations was a good thing, though there are many people that consider free trade to be a necessary component of the economy. Conservatives and neo-liberals alike have long considered it important to the free market. What the actual impact will be hasn't been seen, yet.

OK. I really didn't expect you to give him credit regardless what I suggested. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 06:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK. I really didn't expect you to give him credit regardless what I suggested. 

That's ok. I really didn't expect you to come up with an objective improvement.

[hollodero]

(07-04-2018, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Removed us from the TPP

Yeah I liked that one as well, though I'm not sure if the "objective" criteria is met there. He's also quite right in demanding Europe spend more for their own defense. Talking to Kim was controversial and still is to me, but that's not a negative in principle (the actual result and him saying threat averted and that he alone has avoided a certain war destroys it pretty much for me though). Enforcing a red line in Syria regarding chemical attacks was ok for me too.
Of course the economy is good, but I am not certain how much credit Trump deserves for that, and I also believe the price (deficit, environment) is too high if these things are responsible for that.

There certainly are things some will percieve as good, but I won't, like the Keystone pipeline, Paris accord, tax cuts etc.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 07:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I liked that one as well, though I'm not sure if the "objective" criteria is met there. He's also quite right in demanding Europe spend more for their own defense. Talking to Kim was controversial and still is to me, but that's not a negative in principle (the actual result and him saying threat averted and that he alone has avoided a certain war destroys it pretty much for me though). Enforcing a red line in Syria regarding chemical attacks was ok for me too.
Of course the economy is good, but I am not certain how much credit Trump deserves for that, and I also believe the price (deficit, environment) is too high if these things are responsible for that.

There certainly are things some will percieve as good, but I won't, like the Keystone pipeline, Paris accord, tax cuts etc.

Meh, I'm sure you guys have a different meaning for objective than I. I consider objective to be: not influenced by personal feeling. 

I consider removal from the TPP to be a sound decision and not one seeded in personal feelings. Of course the argument can be made that every decision POTUS makes is influenced by personal feeling. I do not find his decision to remove us from TPP was based on emotion. I feel it was based on sound business strategy. As is his current "trade war". But if folks do not want to give him credit for anything they can always find a "reason" not to. It's a symptom of TDS. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, I'm sure you guys have a different meaning for objective than I. I consider objective to be: not influenced by personal feeling. 

I consider removal from the TPP to be a sound decision and not one seeded in personal feelings. Of course the argument can be made that every decision POTUS makes is influenced by personal feeling. I do not find his decision to remove us from TPP was based on emotion. I feel it was based on sound business strategy. As is his current "trade war". But if folks do not want to give him credit for anything they can always find a "reason" not to. It's a symptom of TDS. 

Being a part of TPP can be good or bad depending on your economic viewpoint. This is why that is a subjective thing. For free-market conservatives and neo-liberals, forming those free-trade agreements is a good thing economically. We haven't seen any data showing a measurable impact on our economy from not being a part of the TPP either way. So we lack any objective measure to say whether it was good or bad.

You're right, though, that I could find lots of ways to not give him credit for a great many things. This is why my request was for something objective, because something objective would mean that I would be unable to not give him credit. Subjective things can go either way, and in multiple ways quite often. For instance, the TPP situation is one in which I could have said that he gets no credit for pulling out of those negotiations because Clinton would have done the same were she elected based on what she said, and there is a great possibility that the agreement would not have passed muster for congressional approval. So him doing it wasn't really a big deal.

What I will give him credit for with the TPP thing, though, is that it is one populist policy that he actually held to. He campaigned with a populist message and then abandoned those he gained with that message almost immediately. But not on the TPP thing.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a part of TPP can be good or bad depending on your economic viewpoint. This is why that is a subjective thing. For free-market conservatives and neo-liberals, forming those free-trade agreements is a good thing economically. We haven't seen any data showing a measurable impact on our economy from not being a part of the TPP either way. So we lack any objective measure to say whether it was good or bad.

You're right, though, that I could find lots of ways to not give him credit for a great many things. This is why my request was for something objective, because something objective would mean that I would be unable to not give him credit. Subjective things can go either way, and in multiple ways quite often. For instance, the TPP situation is one in which I could have said that he gets no credit for pulling out of those negotiations because Clinton would have done the same were she elected based on what she said, and there is a great possibility that the agreement would not have passed muster for congressional approval. So him doing it wasn't really a big deal.

What I will give him credit for with the TPP thing, though, is that it is one populist policy that he actually held to. He campaigned with a populist message and then abandoned those he gained with that message almost immediately. But not on the TPP thing.

And I've already conceded that is impossible, but it's not because of him.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 08:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I've already conceded that is impossible, but it's not because of him.  

If you are suggesting that I would not give him credit for something he was shown to have done that objectively improved the country, then you are wrong. I understand that you have been on this crusade as of late, but you have been making false accusations and assumptions of people for quite some time as a result. It is the version of TDS that you have been engaging in.

I don't deny having an ideological bent that puts me at odds with Trump and with you on a frequent basis, but there is something I hold more sacred than my ideology, and that is holding facts as facts and upholding logic. I know that to a lot of people this isn't the case, and that's fine, you do you. Just don't pretend you actually have an open mind.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you are suggesting that I would not give him credit for something he was shown to have done that objectively improved the country, then you are wrong. I understand that you have been on this crusade as of late, but you have been making false accusations and assumptions of people for quite some time as a result. It is the version of TDS that you have been engaging in.

I don't deny having an ideological bent that puts me at odds with Trump and with you on a frequent basis, but there is something I hold more sacred than my ideology, and that is holding facts as facts and upholding logic. I know that to a lot of people this isn't the case, and that's fine, you do you. Just don't pretend you actually have an open mind.

As I said: We just have different definitions of objective. You state that removal from the TPP could be beneficial to the country, but yet: Clinton would have done it too. So it doesn't count.

Open discussions with NK are good for the country, but it won't count. Trying to reduce our trade deficit is a good thing, but it won't count. Retaliating against Syria when they dropped chemical weapons on their citizens and in the area of US forces is a good thing, but it won't count. Unemployment at historic lows is a good thin, but it won't count.

You can say you only see facts as facts and uphold logic all you want and consider those that call BS on your supposed logic to not have an open mind, but that doesn't mean it is based in any form of fact. 

[hollodero]

(07-04-2018, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, I'm sure you guys have a different meaning for objective than I. I consider objective to be: not influenced by personal feeling. 

I consider removal from the TPP to be a sound decision and not one seeded in personal feelings. Of course the argument can be made that every decision POTUS makes is influenced by personal feeling. I do not find his decision to remove us from TPP was based on emotion. I feel it was based on sound business strategy. As is his current "trade war". But if folks do not want to give him credit for anything they can always find a "reason" not to. It's a symptom of TDS. 

It's really not, and I don't even know what you're getting at with all the "personal feeling" lines. Because a) I said I somewhat liked these things in the first place and b) how could I possibly say leaving TPP is "objectively" a good thing. I think it is, subjectively, other people think it's not, in the end I don't know if I'm right or wrong on this. I was in favor of leaving TPP be, and that's really all I could say to that.

Might be that you're right about the definition, because I consider "objective" to mean something like provable or demonstrable. Naturally, the TPP decision isn't that, and neither are most policy decisions (especially those involving not doing something). It always comes down to me liking things or not liking things for all kinds of reasons I'd consider "objective-ish", meaning persuading. Despising Trump isn't really one of those reasons, for I still can do that even if he gets something right.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 08:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's really not, and I don't even know what you're getting at with all the "personal feeling" lines. Because a) I said I somewhat liked these things in the first place and b) how could I possibly say leaving TPP is "objectively" a good thing. I think it is, subjectively, other people think it's not, in the end I don't know if I'm right or wrong on this. I was in favor of leaving TPP be, and that's really all I could say to that.

Might be that you're right about the definition, because I consider "objective" to mean something like provable or demonstrable. Naturally, the TPP decision isn't that, and neither are most policy decisions (especially those involving not doing something). It always comes down to me liking things or not liking things for all kinds of reasons. Despising Trump isn't really one of those reasons, for I still can do that even if he gets something right.

I consider being objective as not being influenced by personal feelings (bias); so that's where I "went there."

In your definition would objective be changing the name of Mt McKinley? Outside of that I have no idea what you are looking for. Because it seems that you can point to all the good things but they don't count as "objective." 

You, Matt and others can assert you are being objective (my definition) by asserting he hasn't done anything good for the country in his 18 months in office. Who knows, maybe you are, but in my opinion, it's a viewpoint seeded in bias.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you are suggesting that I would not give him credit for something he was shown to have done that objectively improved the country, then you are wrong. I understand that you have been on this crusade as of late, but you have been making false accusations and assumptions of people for quite some time as a result. It is the version of TDS that you have been engaging in.

I don't deny having an ideological bent that puts me at odds with Trump and with you on a frequent basis, but there is something I hold more sacred than my ideology, and that is holding facts as facts and upholding logic. I know that to a lot of people this isn't the case, and that's fine, you do you. Just don't pretend you actually have an open mind.

As I said: We just have different definitions of objective. You state that removal from the TPP could be beneficial to the country, but yet: Clinton would have done it too. So it doesn't count.

Open discussions with NK are good for the country, but it won't count. Trying to reduce our trade deficit is a good thing, but it won't count. Retaliating against Syria when they dropped chemical weapons on their citizens and in the area of US forces is a good thing, but it won't count. Unemployment at historic lows is a good thin, but it won't count.

You can say you only see facts as facts and uphold logic all you want and consider those that call BS on your supposed logic to not have an open mind, but that doesn't mean it is based in any form of fact. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: We just have different definitions of objective. You state that removal from the TPP could be beneficial to the country, but yet: Clinton would have done it too. So it doesn't count.

We don't really have different definitions of objective, you just don't seem to understand what it is at all. And I didn't say that about Clinton, I said that I could have said that. Your use of TPP didn't count because it wasn't objective and we don't know the impact it will have as of yet.

(07-04-2018, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Open discussions with NK are good for the country, but it won't count. Trying to reduce our trade deficit is a good thing, but it won't count. Retaliating against Syria when they dropped chemical weapons on their citizens and in the area of US forces is a good thing, but it won't count. Unemployment at historic lows is a good thin, but it won't count.

All but the last one are subjective. Unemployment being historically low is objective, though we have seen a lower unemployment number. Back before we started riding the deregulation train. Can you point to a policy decision made by Trump that has had a measurable impact on lowering the unemployment rate?

(07-04-2018, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can say you only see facts as facts and uphold logic all you want and consider those that call BS on your supposed logic to not have an open mind, but that doesn't mean it is based in any form of fact. 

My supposed logic follows the logical rules. Arguments are rooted in logic, every single one. If the logic is invalid and the facts are not accurate, then an argument is not going to be sound. If someone prevents to me a sound argument that causes me to reevaluate my thinking, then that is what I will do. That is how research works, and science. That's how we progress in our thought. That is the basis of being open-minded. You just seem to be hostile to anything you don't agree with, facts and logic be damned.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 09:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We don't really have different definitions of objective, you just don't seem to understand what it is at all. And I didn't say that about Clinton, I said that I could have said that. Your use of TPP didn't count because it wasn't objective and we don't know the impact it will have as of yet.


All but the last one are subjective. Unemployment being historically low is objective, though we have seen a lower unemployment number. Back before we started riding the deregulation train. Can you point to a policy decision made by Trump that has had a measurable impact on lowering the unemployment rate?


My supposed logic follows the logical rules. Arguments are rooted in logic, every single one. If the logic is invalid and the facts are not accurate, then an argument is not going to be sound. If someone prevents to me a sound argument that causes me to reevaluate my thinking, then that is what I will do. That is how research works, and science. That's how we progress in our thought. That is the basis of being open-minded. You just seem to be hostile to anything you don't agree with, facts and logic be damned.

No doubt I'm the one being hostile. 

As to the rest: Just roll with you being logical (facts based) to assert he has not done anything good for the Nation in his 18 months in office. I recognize he has done bad things (comments toward the judicial branch and media, ect..) and good things (retaliating against Syria, ect..) We'll both just have to think we're being open-minded. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I'm the one being hostile. 

As to the rest: Just roll with you being logical (facts based) to assert he has not done anything good for the Nation in his 18 months in office. I recognize he has done bad things (comments toward the judicial branch and media, ect..) and good things (retaliating against Syria, ect..) We'll both just have to think we're being open-minded. 

I have not once said he has not done anything good for the nation. You frequently make assumptions like that and put words in my mouth. Not something an open minded person would do.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If someone can point to a policy decision he has made that has improved our country in an objective way, I'll give him credit.

(07-04-2018, 09:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have not once said he has not done anything good for the nation. You frequently make assumptions like that and put words in my mouth. Not something an open minded person would do.

Sure you did. Then you changed objective to "something you could not deny giving him credit for". Seems like an impossible criteria to achieve if you refuse to give him credit for anything. As I said, you look in the mirror and think you're being open-minded. 

I have noticed you haven't spoken on the Syria retaliation yet: Does that meet your standard of "objective"?

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If someone can point to a policy decision he has made that has improved our country in an objective way, I'll give him credit.

(07-04-2018, 09:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have not once said he has not done anything good for the nation. You frequently make assumptions like that and put words in my mouth. Not something an open minded person would do.

Sure you did. Then you changed objective to "something you could not deny giving him credit for". Seems like an impossible criteria to achieve if you refuse to give him credit for anything. As I said, you look in the mirror and think you're being open-minded.