Despite the detractors, Trump doing well

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 09:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think that's a necessity for being objective, but it's not the only criteria. Not only do I need to be unbiased, I also need to know about the facts to be objective, at least that's how I use that word.
So, besides the fact that my refusal of TPP is far from being without feelings, it is certainly not based solely on facts and evidence. I think things I wouldn't like could happen with TPP, I could argue the case and make maybe some sense doing so, but I'd not dare saying that being against TPP is objectively the right call. I'm in no place to claim that kind of certainty. And that really has nothing to do with Trump.



Neither do many of the bad things. That's kind of the point. It's a difference in definition.
E.g. I still think the tax cuts are amazingly awful, but I'd equally not dare saying that this is objectively true. I think fearing the exploding deficit is a valid point, or seeing the benefits go to the richest five percent or stuff like that, but that's the kind of things I got. Far too little to give an "objective" opinion. I sure still have one, as do most of us. Reached by a mixture of facts, articles, words from other people, own thoughts, own fears and feelings and prejudices and a whole bunch of stuff.

With Mt. McKinley, an objective statement would be "US citizens call this mountain Mt McKinley". Also where it's located, height, rocks etc. etc. If I had polling, I could say pretty much objectively whether Americans like the name or not. If asked if it should be renamed Mt. Trump, I'd have a strongly worded answer, but not an objective one.

I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?