I give up.

Zero new illegals released into the US and JD claims that doesn't matter because a few thousand were caught and NOT released. BTW the sky isn't blue because there's that small fluffy white cloud over there!

USAID has been closed down but JD claims otherwise because some of its functions have been continued at State. BTW the White Australia Policy continues because we still have an immigration system.

Struth!

The gymnastics some will go through to deny the massive successes of the first 6 months of Trump's term are impressive not to mention comedic.
Posted by mHaZe, Tuesday, 29 July 2025 9:48:52 AM
_____

mhaze,

If you’re genuinely giving up, fair enough - but it’s not because I’ve been twisting anything. It’s because your claims haven’t held up.

- Saying “zero illegals enter” when thousands are caught crossing is like saying a store has zero shoplifters because they’re apprehended at the door. It’s still entry.

- Saying USAID was “closed down” while its functions continue at State is like saying the White Australia Policy survived because we still have immigration rules. The function matters more than the sign on the door.

Pointing that out isn’t gymnastics. It’s just being accurate.

"It’s because your claims haven’t held up."

No, Its because I can't be bothered arguing with someone who is so deranged by their hatred of Trump and all things MAGA that they effectively argue that the sky isn't blue because it has some clouds.

So, the fact that your claims haven’t held up doesn’t phase you, mhaze?

//...I can't be bothered arguing with someone who is so deranged...//

Right - nothing to do with repeatedly claiming things were “done,” having to redefine success mid-thread, or citing sources that contradicted you. Just that I’m clouding your sky-blue certainties with facts you can’t swat away.

If you truly “can’t be bothered,” you wouldn’t still be here calling me deranged. That’s not disengagement, that’s frustration dressed up as dismissal.

And honestly, when you’ve gone from “finished” to “well, partially implemented,” “abolished” to “restructured,” and “zero entering” to “thousands caught but success anyway”… maybe the problem isn’t that the clouds obscure the sky.

Maybe it’s that you keep insisting they’re not clouds at all.

"So, the fact that your claims haven’t held up doesn’t phase you, mhaze?"

Not a fact.... just your failed assertion based on a distortion of the truth.

Meanwhile in the real world....

Trump, after getting the NATO partners to all agree to raising their defence spending to 5% of GDP, has now negotiated a trade agreement with the EU that massively favours the USA. The usual suspects are averting their gaze. Most European national leaders are complaining about how favourable the deal is to the US while at the same time acknowledging that Trump had artfully forced them to accede to his demands.

Interestingly, the UK economic leaders are acknowledging that Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.

Domestically, both Columbia and Harvard universities are bowing to the inevitable and agreeing to implement policies to combat antisemitism within their institutions while paying massive fines for failing to do so previously.

Meanwhile, in what be bigger news than all the above, "Trump administration EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says he'll revoke an Obama-era endangerment finding that so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) pose a public threat, calling it the "most significant deregulatory action in U.S. history." http://tiny.cc/27hq001

And amid all this, long time economic commentator for various news organisations, Jim Cramer, whose Trump Derangement syndrome makes JD's seem almost rational, is having a meltdown about how good the Trump economy is.

So, mhaze… still celebrating “real world” wins that aren’t even finalised?

Let’s unpack this properly:

//“Trump… got NATO partners to agree to 5% GDP… acceded to his demands.”//

What was agreed was a 5% defence spending target by 2035, not immediate compliance in 2025. Your claim of success is based on a future goal, not current action

//“…negotiated a trade agreement with the EU that massively favours the USA… European leaders admit they gave in.”//
Reports indicate talks might lead to a framework, possibly featuring a 15% tariff on EU imports, but the deal isn’t finalized. Public commentary is preliminary - not proof of a “massive win”

//“…UK… Brexit allowed materially better deal… anti-Brexiteers now towing the line.”//

There’s no credible evidence showing a superior post-Brexit deal with the US. Economists - even some in Tory circles - still view Brexit as a long-term drag, not a trade coup. No sources to back the “better deal” claim.

//“…Columbia and Harvard… paying massive fines for antisemitism.”//

The Columbia deal involved a $200m settlement and reforms - not an arbitrary “massive fine.” Harvard is in negotiations that may result in potentially hundreds of millions - but nothing final yet.

//“…EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says he’ll revoke Obama-era GHG endangerment finding… ‘most significant deregulatory action…’”//

Zeldin announced plans to reconsider the finding, not that it’s already repealed. The proposal is subject to public comment and expected to face legal challenges. It’s intention, not implementation.

//“…Jim Cramer… meltdown about how good the Trump economy is.”//

A media figure’s sensational reaction doesn’t equate to macroeconomic proof. You dismissed serious economists earlier - now you lean on one anchor’s showmanship? That’s cherry-picking.

You keep declaring “Done,” but almost every claim is:

- A future target (NATO 2035)
- A prospective or incomplete deal (EU trade)
- Partial or pending settlements (Columbia/Harvard)
- Intentions still to be debated or litigated (EPA)

That’s not “real world” success. It’s political theatre still in rehearsal.

After saying you’d “given up arguing with me,” you’ve come back just to wave the same paper banners.

""The other thing I say to Europe, we will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States," Trump said during trade talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

"They’re killing us. They’re killing the beauty of our scenery, our valleys, our beautiful plains. It’s the most expensive form of energy. It’s no good," Trump said to an audience that must have been aghast at his politically incorrect audacity."

Destigmatising greenhouse gases, reversing regulations that made the use of anything approaching a GHG more expensive, and now declaring war on windmills.
The winning just keeps coming.

______________________________________________________

Europe's deal with the US includes a baseline tariff of 15%. The UK's deal with Trump includes a baseline tariff of 10%. If you can find someone vaguely numerate they'll explain that 10 is less than 15 and is preferable when it relates to tariffs.