Despite the detractors, Trump doing well

[*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.

(07-04-2018, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

(07-04-2018, 09:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I didn't. You're reading more into that post then is there. And I didn't change the criteria. Objective would be that it would be seen as an improvement without any sort of bias involved. Since I was the one talking about it, I was referring to myself because if it were objective then I would be unable to deny him credit. Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

I thought I had covered the Syria thing earlier, though maybe not. Whether that was good or bad is subjective, not objective. Not just by my criteria, but by definition.

Yep. I'm done putting words "in your mouth". Have a good remainder of the 4th and keep that open mind