mhaze,

I'm not objecting to drawing conclusions from data. I'm objecting to skipping the argument that links specific policy design and constraints to those outcomes.

Without that step, you haven't shown strategy - only correlation.

But let's be honest, you haven't misunderstood me in good faith, you're flattening the distinction between evidence and explanation because keeping that distinction would collapse your defence.

Defence of what?

You're setting up a strawman and then demanding that I defend it. Same old JD. Trump has a set of policies aimed at making the US strong again and revitalising the US economy.

The US is strong again and the US economy is being revitalised (see above).

QED.

That's not a strawman, mhaze, it's your argument written out.

You've asserted intent ("policies aimed at revitalisation"), cited favourable outcomes, and declared causation. The missing step is the argument that links specific policies to those outcomes rather than to cycles, monetary policy, inherited settings, or external conditions.

Outcomes alone don't demonstrate strategy. They only demonstrate coincidence unless you can show mechanism, constraints, and alternatives ruled out.

Repeating "the numbers are good" and adding "QED" doesn't supply that step - it just skips it.

Try again.

Not a strawman? If you say so!

Standard TDS.

Trump says he wants to revitalise the US economy => the US economy is revitalised but nothing to do with Trump.

Trump says he wants to reduce the deficit => deficit reduced but nothing to do with Trump.

Trump says he wants to use tariffs to reduce the trade deficit => the trade deficit is reduced but nothing to do with Trump.

The world is passing them by and look around askant.

No, it's not, mhaze - and not because I say so, either.

//Not a strawman? If you say so!//

But thanks for the show of confidence.

It's not a strawman because it's your argument written plainly - and because you're unable to show otherwise.

You're asserting intent, citing favourable outcomes, and declaring causation. What's missing is the argument that links specific Trump policies to those outcomes rather than to cycles, monetary policy, lagged effects, or external conditions.

Asking for mechanism, timing, and counterfactuals isn't "TDS". It's how causal claims are evaluated in every serious field.

Repeating "Trump wanted X and X happened" does not demonstrate competence or strategy unless you can show how X followed from policy rather than coincidence.

Until that step is supplied, this remains post-hoc attribution, not analysis.

Back to you...

Yep any one of of those things could have been a coincidence and you'll assert that 'til the cows come home. But when taken as a group, coincidence becomes untenable. One favourable outcome is perhaps chance or timing. But a whole group of favourable outcomes becomes a trend, although the usual crowd will refuse to see it.

Oh, BTW, remember when Trump's tariffs were going to cause inflation? Well good inflation numbers is one of those things supporting a trend. Perhaps all those who fell for the line that tariffs would cause inflation would be advised to rethink their views.... but I know one who won't be doing that.