Johnny CB

#…Trump's actions have been a series of uncoordinated impulses driven primarily by emotion and dangerously disorganised thinking. And again, his mode of justification treats power as self-validating and restraint as optional…#

Give some examples.

#…These aren't insults, they're observable patterns (or the lack thereof).…#

You try to escape censure with a preceding apology, but you can’t hide the fact that your Trump bigotry gets in the way of logical analysis; and that is simply true, since you offer no evidence to back up your bigoted analysis of Trump.
I can only argue against your bigotry, which isn’t worth the effort.

It was truly said of Trump by the inestimable Salena Zito that ""When he makes claims like this, his enemies take him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

If you see Trump as a fool, then everything he does is seen as foolish. The problem there is you're constantly trying to find ways to rationalise his many successes, but the left is very practiced at rationalising away unwanted facts.

What an ode and all hail to the emperor DJT. So much forelock tugging and boot licking I’ve got a sore tongue just reading it.

Where to start? GY mentions: Trump’s “…occasionally rambling press conference…” Trump ‘occasionally rambling’? Seriously, that’s what he is known for, love it or loathe it. He is unable to string a coherent sentence together unless it is a personal attack on an individual he doesn’t like, or singing his own self praises.

A little further along we get this gem - “… Treasure will be spent judiciously…” That would be nice, but there has been no sign of that yet. Rather we have had the treasure distributed to the man himself, his family, his cronies, or his donors. Judicious spending of treasure? I don’t think so.

And on it goes, 3 pages of it. So much effort spent defending the indefensible. A bit like the Zionists expanding all that energy defending genocide. It just can’t be excused

Muff Diver Daniel,

You want an example? Is there even a counter-example?

I'll make it easier for you. Name what you think was Trump's best policy. Not a slogan. Not an intention. An actual policy choice.

I'll then describe, step by step, how it unfolded in practice: the impulsive execution, the absence of planning, the disregard for constraints, and the damage that followed.

No retrofitting motives. No speculation about psychology. Just his actions, in sequence.

If Trump "knew what he was doing," this should be easy. A coherent policy should survive simple description without collapsing into chaos, grievance, or retribution-driven impulse.

Pick your strongest example.
______

mhaze,

That Salena Zito line is catchy, but it doesn't do what you think it does.

Saying that supporters take Trump "seriously but not literally" is not a defence of competence, it's an admission that meaning is being supplied by the audience rather than constrained by the speaker. That's precisely the problem under discussion.

Serious leadership requires literal commitments at some point. Policy, law, deterrence, and strategy all depend on actors knowing what statements bind action and what statements don't. If Trump's words are never meant literally, then they cannot function as strategy, red lines, or doctrine.

This isn't about "seeing Trump as a fool." It's about observing a consistent pattern: action first, justification later; maximalist rhetoric followed by selective reinterpretation; and supporters retrofitting coherence after outcomes are known.

Calling the results "successes" doesn't resolve that. Outcomes alone don't demonstrate strategy unless they were pursued through articulated plans, accepted constraints, and identifiable trade-offs before the fact.

If you think Trump's record reflects strategic competence rather than improvisation smoothed by narrative, point to a case where he publicly bound himself to limits, accepted restraint, or abandoned a preferred outcome because legitimacy or process mattered.

Without that, "serious but not literal" isn't insight. It's a licence for unfalsifiable interpretation.

CB Johnny.

#…I'll make it easier for you. Name what you think was Trump's best policy. Not a slogan. Not an intention. An actual policy choice…#

It already is easy without your help. No..I won’t name anything. I’m not here on these opinion pages defending Trump, I’m criticising your hate session on Trump, which is so boringly familiar, and you dishing up the usual rhetoric of hand-me-downs which have appeared wherever they can be pushed, as original and meaningful; they are not, and they are no more meaningful or truthful from your contributions, simply repeats attempting to sharpen your repeated boring vector of spin.

Let’s move away from that line of thinking for a moment though, to discuss Trump as a comparison to Biden. To do that, one would need to compare the US now, as opposed to then, and the direction Trump has managed to redirect its future, and to actually give it a future with hope, as opposed to the direction Biden, under his erratic leadership, dragged it downwards on many levels, positioning it for a hopeless and ruinous future.

Go to town on that one CB Johnny, the Democrats handy-man.

Thanks, Muffin Man.

You've just answered the question - not with a policy, but with a refusal. I really expected you to list something, but this is even better!

I ask you to name Trump's best policy so it could be examined on its own merits. You decline. And not because the question is unfair, but because you know where it leads: once a concrete policy is named, the analysis can no longer be evaded with slogans, attitude, or grievance.

So now, you've switched to motive-policing ("hate session") and a Biden comparison. That pivot is doing all the work here. I'm not obliged to defend Biden in order to critique Trump, and the fact that you can't defend Trump without changing the subject demonstrates the very point I've been making from the start.

This was never about personalities or teams. It was about whether Trump's actions exhibit planning, constraint, and strategic coherence, or whether coherence is supplied afterwards by supporters.

You've now made that visible.

When asked for examples, you declined. When asked for a policy, you refused. When pressed on substance, you pivoted.

Again, thanks.