"Now it’s “well, the jury’s still out.” That’s the contradiction. Either he’s delivered or he hasn’t. "

That makes no sense. Trump is delivering the policies he promised. But whether those policies will ultimately work is as yet unknown. There are still many obstacles to be overcomes before we can be sure that the policies will be fully implemented and full successful. Bare in mind that there remains a tension between MAGA support for the working class and the elites support for non-productive class. Wall St and the globalists still have many arrows in their quiver.

The globalist project in the US has been ongoing for 30 years. Its beyond insane to expect that Trump will have reversed it in 6 months. The MAGA project and the transformation of the US economy will continue past Trump's second term. But he has instituted the policies he promised. A politician doing exactly what they promised seems to confuse some.

"And “legally dubious”? That’s not a talking point "
Actually it is. That a range of Obama and Biden appointed judges oppose the policies and declare them illegal isn't the same as them being illegal. As those decisions get appealed out of the Democrat judicial bubble, Trump's policies are found to be constitutional. It just takes time.

Just on that. You and others constantly whine that he's a dictator. But a dictator would ignore these judicial roadblocks. Yet Trump administration has been scrupulous in accepting the initial findings and appealing them to higher courts. Not the actions of a dictator. Compare that with the likes of Obama and Biden who openly bragged about ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court.

As to the Albo's economic summit, i'm not opposed. Its never wrong, always good that those who live in the Canberra bureaucratic bubble get advise and feedback from those who live in the real world.

My gripe is that it takes place after an election where the economic future of the nation barely got a hearing. From BOTH sides. The Libs are no better here and indeed a lot worse in that they constantly abandon their core beliefs because they might frighten off the voters or be misrepresented by the government.

I'm extremely pessimistic about our economic future under the current regimes and see neither side offering or likely to offer workable solutions. If the electorate is so despised by both sides that they refuse to deliver bad news during the election, there is little hope.

That the government is prepared to even potentially allow some of that bad news to come out only AFTER the votes are in, is a sign that they aren't prepared to make the tough but necessary decisions.

And to answer Paul's original question... that's what we can expect form this parliament. More of the same hoping that the faecal matter wont hit the cooling device until they've moved on.

Not quite, mhaze.

You're drawing a line between policy implementation and policy success, which is fair enough in theory. But in practice, when most people say a politician “delivered,” they don’t mean announced it. They mean it was achieved.

If a policy:

- gets blocked in court,
- reversed after legal challenge,
- or tied up in constitutional appeals…

…it wasn’t delivered. It was proposed.

So when you say “he’s delivering,” but then pivot to “success takes time” the moment it’s challenged. Either the delivery is complete and can be evaluated, or it’s still pending. You can’t bounce between the two depending on the heat.

If a policy keeps getting struck down by the judiciary, claiming it’s just Obama/Biden judges and will be vindicated later doesn’t really help your case. Even Trump-appointed judges have rejected key planks.

And if you're suggesting that he’s no dictator because he appeals rulings, that's setting an incredibly low bar. Undermining oversight, bypassing Congress with emergency powers, and openly antagonising the courts might not be dictatorship, but they’re hardly the gold standard for democratic governance.

Your second post has a noticeably softer tone than your earlier take. Almost like someone trying to retroframe their own words once they’ve been challenged on tone.

And sure, you say “the Libs are no better here and indeed a lot worse,” but look at the language you use:

- Labor: “not prepared to make the tough but necessary decisions”
- Coalition: “abandon their core beliefs because they might frighten off the voters”

The Coalition is portrayed as cowardly but principled-at-heart - Labor as manipulative and unserious. That’s not symmetrical.

Which is fine, if you own it.

But let’s not pretend your earlier framing of the summit as a “post-election scramble” by a party “with no plan” was ever intended as constructive critique. You’ve only now switched gears because the mockery didn’t land unchallenged.

If you want to talk about bipartisan failure, I’m all ears. But I’d suggest applying the same tone and scrutiny to both sides - not one set of adjectives for Labor and another for the Libs.

JD,

This is getting monotonous. You misunderstand what I say or put the worst possible spin on it and when I clarify your misuderstandings you then assert I'm backing down. I retract nothing of what I originally wrote. The summit is about a government looking for policies that they couldn't bear to mention pre-election. Its no way to run the country.

"The Coalition is portrayed as cowardly but principled-at-heart - Labor as manipulative and unserious. "

No the Libs aren't principled-at-heart. The opposite. They abandon any principles for electoral aims. That's my entire beef with the Libs post Abbott and why I stopped voting for them. Their abandonment of liberal (small 'l') principles is much worse than Labor who haven't and don't aspire to such principles.

As to Trump, your original claim was that he hadn't implemented the policies he promised. My point is that he has indeed implemented the policies but whether they will be successful is yet to be determined. Current trends are good but not conclusive.

Let me put it in terms you'll understand since you're so desperate to defend the ALP. They promised to implement policies to build 1.2 million homes this decade. But they haven't yet built those homes. Under you criteria that you've applied to Trump, that must mean they haven't yet implemented policies to meet their promise. I'm sure you'd dispute that.

"And if you're suggesting that he’s no dictator because he appeals rulings, "

No. I'm showing that that is yet another example of him not acting like a dictator

Noted, mhaze.

Forgive me, though, if I don’t take “I retract nothing” as proof that nothing has shifted. The tone did change - not in content necessarily, but in delivery.

Delivery matters.

You don’t get to wield sarcasm, mockery, and scorn in one post, then swap to sober reflection the next and insist it’s all been consistent.

//The summit is about a government looking for policies that they couldn't bear to mention pre-election.//

Right, but that’s not how you opened. You framed it with a “dog caught the car” punchline, which makes it sound reactive and clueless, not strategic or reluctant. That framing matters.

//...your original claim was that [Trump] hadn’t implemented the policies he promised.//

Not quite.

My point was that he’s claimed delivery, but the outcomes are being blocked, reversed, or declared unlawful. Announcing a policy isn’t delivering it. That’s why your defence, that he’s “doing what he promised,” doesn’t fully hold up. If the courts halt it, or it fails in execution, then the promise hasn’t been fulfilled.

//Let me put it in terms you’ll understand...//

You mean condescend? Sure, let’s play.

Labor’s 1.2 million homes target is a long-term policy goal. They’ve funded enabling mechanisms and signed agreements. It’s rolling out. If courts struck down the funding mechanism, then you’d have a point. But they haven’t.

Your comparison doesn’t hold.

//...that is yet another example of him not acting like a dictator.//

Again, low bar.

That he hasn’t torn up court rulings doesn’t mean he hasn’t undermined institutional norms, pressured judges, bypassed Congress via “emergency” powers, or defied oversight. “He files appeals” isn’t the ringing endorsement you think it is.

This is getting monotonous because you keep shifting your definitions to suit the moment under the guise of patient explanations for someone too dim to follow.

If you want to argue Trump’s following through on policy, make sure they're still standing. If you want to critique both parties, don’t load one side with venom and the other with tragic regret.

Or, keep doing what you’re doing - just don’t act surprised when someone calls it out.

Oh so Labor's housing policy is long term and we need to wait. But Trump's economic policies need to change everything overnight or they don't exist.

Now you're trying to pivot to say Trump hasn't delivered because some of his policies are being challenged in the lower courts. But that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the US system and a fundamental misunderstanding of what's actually happening.

The OBBB has passed. They courts might chip away at the edges for a short period, but its passed and implemented. Ditto with tariffs for which the policy is now set and the details being resolved. Ditto, illegal aliens being removed. There's the odd delay but there are vast numbers now being sent home and even more self-deporting. Vance thinks there'll be a net negative migration this year. USAID is no more. MAHA is being progressively implemented. NATO has now acceded to Trump's demands to take up more of the burden of Europe's defence.

Victories wherever you look. That the minnows slow things for a short period at the edges is immaterial. That their delaying tactics get lauded in press you adhere to isn't the same as them being material.

Even, hilariously, Australia succumbs, having now miraculously decided that biosecurity measures designed to ban US beef form being imported are now longer needed. Mere coincidence they laughingly proclaim.

The Trump revolution is happening, as he promised and his supporters both recognise and appreciate it. His detractors want to avert their gaze to his successes, but that's becoming increasingly difficult.