Johnny CB.

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

A lot of words from CB, but very little substance.
Repeat: you’re the one attempting to make a case against Trump, not me. This conversation is a compass with a north pointing needle.
I’ve obliged you repeatedly with an invitation to state your case in detail; you either can’t or won’t.
I’ve made a very real suggestion to you, extending the invitation into an area all can relate to, and that is to compare Biden tenure to Trumps tenure as US President but you dodge and weave your way out.
As the leftist you unashamedly project yourself as, the use of “equivalence “ should be familiar ground to you.

Again, it’s not for me to defend Trump, it’s for you to make the argument against Trump policy; your proving an abismal failure on that score Johnny CB.

Correct, Muff Dive Man.

//Repeat: you're the one attempting to make a case against Trump, not me.//

And I've made that case clearly with the help of your inability to list even one policy without impulsive execution, absence of constraint, and post-hoc justification.

But since you're apparently happy to make things worse for yourself, here's an example from me...

Trade policy: tariffs were announced, escalated, paused, reversed, selectively waived, then re-announced, with justifications shifting between jobs, punishment, leverage, patriotism, and grievance depending on the news cycle. No stable framework, no stated limits, no trade-offs acknowledged in advance.

Would you like more?

Everything he's done is an example, so we can on forever if you'd like.

//This conversation is a compass with a north pointing needle.//

Metaphors don't substitute for engagement. If the direction is so obvious, it should be easy to point to a single Trump policy that demonstrates planning, constraint, and restraint.

//I've obliged you repeatedly with an invitation to state your case in detail; you either can't or won't.//

I've stated it repeatedly and in detail. What's missing is not explanation from me, but engagement from you. Declining to quote or rebut any specific point doesn't make the case disappear.

//I've made a very real suggestion… to compare Biden tenure to Trump's tenure…//

That's a pivot. Critiquing Trump does not require defending Biden. Switching comparisons is a way to avoid examining Trump's actions on their own terms.

//As the leftist you unashamedly project yourself as, the use of "equivalence " should be familiar ground…//

As the rightist, you fail to realise that equivalence cuts both ways: if Trump's conduct can't stand on its own without comparison, that's already informative.

//Again, it's not for me to defend Trump…//

Then there's nothing left to argue. You can't simultaneously refuse to defend Trump while insisting my critique fails. One of us has put claims on the table, the other has avoided them.

//…you're proving an abysmal failure on that score.//

Repeating that doesn't make it true. The case has been made. It simply hasn't been answered.

JD evades..."You want an example? Is there even a counter-example?"

Standard JD here. Makes a series of assertions which he purports to support with a series of other assertions, and when challenged for actual data, bolts. But he's happy to demand evidence from others which he'll then spend 10 posts trying to disparage and at the end of it, when shown to be wrong, deny that he tried to disparage it.

From Aries... "“… Treasure will be spent judiciously…” That would be nice, but there has been no sign of that yet. "

US Federal Budget deficit fell in 2025 and is projected to fall even more in 2026.
US trade deficit in October 2025, lowest since 2009.
The US real GDP grew by an annualized rate of 4.3% in Q3 2025. This is projected to increase to 5.1% in Q4.
Inflation is down to 2.6% for the year to October 2025. (Remember when all the 'experts' said tariffs would cause inflation to rise? Well forget it - they have as has JD).
Real wages for lower and middle income earners rose 1.1% in the year. What wouldn't Chalmers give for that type of result.

The US economy is going gangbusters thanks to Trump.

No, he doesn't, mhaze.

//JD evades...//

He explicitly asked for either a counter-example to make it even easier for diver dan, then later supplied a policy example himself when it was clear DD couldn't..

//Makes a series of assertions… and when challenged for actual data, bolts.//

Bolts? I'm still here and have provided diver dan with everything he's asked for.

//US Federal Budget deficit fell in 2025…//

A falling deficit can occur for many reasons: cyclical recovery, monetary tightening, lagged fiscal effects, or inherited policy settings. You haven’t shown a causal link to a specific Trump policy, nor that the outcome resulted from disciplined planning rather than circumstance.

//US trade deficit… lowest since 2009.//

Trade balances fluctuate with exchange rates, global demand, and energy prices. If tariffs were the strategy, you still haven’t articulated the framework, limits, or trade-offs in advance. Pointing to a number after the fact isn’t strategy, it’s correlation.

//GDP grew… Inflation is down… wages rose…//

Again, you’re listing favourable indicators and treating them as proof of intentional design. That’s precisely the retrofitting problem under discussion. Strong numbers do not retroactively supply coherence, constraints, or planning discipline.

//Remember when all the ‘experts’ said tariffs would cause inflation?//

Some did, some didn’t, and outcomes depend on timing, monetary policy, global supply conditions, and demand destruction. Even if tariffs didn’t raise inflation, that doesn’t establish they were part of a coherent, restrained strategy rather than a blunt instrument that happened not to bite in that way.

//The US economy is going gangbusters thanks to Trump.//

That’s a conclusion, not an argument. If you think Trump’s actions reflect strategic competence, the test is simple:

identify a policy where limits were acknowledged in advance, trade-offs were articulated, and restraint was exercised because legitimacy or process mattered.

Until then, citing outcomes is just post-hoc justification, not evidence of knowing what one is doing.