Ten oz

The word "anything" covers a lot. Trump appears to being way more bad than good but the OP is asking for any examples of anything good. So while I agree with you the that overall answer is No line by line everything isn't No. I thought the pardon of Jack Johnson was good-ish. Pardoning Alice Johnson was good-ish as well. Of course I suspect he is exercising so many pardons as a way to get everyone use to the idea that he has that authority so it goes over better when he pardons his kids.

No insult directed at you. 20 people associated with Trump's team have been indicated, 5 already plead guilty. I think the guy is a crook yet this thread is asking to ignore that bit and focus on the good. It isn't easy. The guy literally just trashed out strongest allies and blamed President Obama for Russia invading Crimea. There is a lot not to like. So am playing devil's advocate beat I can. Perhaps I am no good at it.

On the Economy the standard bench marks most wildly examined have always been 5 this: unemployment, GDP, stock markets, budgets (surplus/deficit), and work participation. Under Trump unemployment has continued to creep down. That is good. GDP has remained unchanged which is bad considering the tax cuts were meant to stimulate growth and hasn't. The Stock market has been bear (first in 9yrs) thus far in 2018. Deficits have soared and the work participation rate is unchanged. So of the 5 economic benchmarks Trump has 1 good, 1 no change, and 3 bad. I can go issue by issue if you'd like and rate his performance dispassionately. Ultimately nothing jumps out as exceeding good for the U.S. To be fair to Trump I at this stage of any presidency it is difficult to really identify good things. It is early. My thoughts on the matter only carry so much weight, perhaps none. What I want and what will be are very different things so each new day requires re-examination.

It seems to me that Western leadership in the world is terribly distracted at the moment. Whether it is the UK dealing with Brexit, the U.S. dealing with all things Trump, or Canada wonder where their special place in Hell is. The absence of that leadership has allowed things are slipping through the crack. Assad has re-established his authoritarian control over Syria and isn't being held accountable for war crimes and a massive ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen are being ignored. Then there is that pesky matter of Russia aggressively attacking elections in Germany, UK, and US. Maybe all works out for the best. Maybe Western involvement in Yemen would only make things worse. I rather see these things soberly debated but ultimately we'll have to wait and see.

Right, some are acting as if Kim Jung-un took convincing to meet. Kim Jung-il was willing to meet Clinton and Bush. Likewise Jung-un was willing to meet Obama. A one on one weeing has always been available. It didn't take work to accept what has been there the whole time. It wasn't done before so avoid rewarding NK for bad behavior. This was something Democrats and Republicans both equally agreed with.

How are you defining success? I believe Trump and an increasing number of his supporters define Trump's success by what's good for Trump. By that definition Trump has had numerous successes. - Trump has crushed the moderate movement within his party that opposed him. - Trump got his tax cuts push through. - Trump won superficial battles with NFL players by pressuring for a rule change. - Trump has successfully put U.S. military operations in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq out of sight out of mind. Trump has been wildly successful in doing what he wants.. The question is whether or not that is good for the U.S. and the rest of the world. Trump doesn't hold himself to any standard. He seldom ever lays out a clear standard for what success looks like. It allows him to celebrate any outcome as successful.

The goal posts seem to have been moved. The Kim legacy in North Korea and their human rights and authoritarianism has always been part of tensions. In the last 2 decades Kim Jung-il and Jung-un pursued WMDs as a strategy to protect their own hold on power. By meeting with Kim and exclusively addressing the WMDs while ignoring all other concerns and making concessions without consulting our allies in the region rewards the strategy Kim Jung-il and Jung-un have implemented. By developing WMDs Jung-un earned himself a seat at the table and is no winning concessions without changing course on anything. Simply being willing to talk if progess enough. Why shouldn't Assad or Iran take this strategy? If having weapons earns you respect and one on one good faith diplomacy why make deals in advance. This is especially painful for Iran who made a deal with the U.S. not to develop nukes just to have the U.S. turn around half way through and demand a new deal. This lesson here for authoritarians around the world might be to get nukes first and then negotiate from a position of power.

Excellent point. Tortured definitions for faith that state garbage like "breathing requires faith because you can never know 100% that the air you are about the breath isn't invisible poised gas" ignore the difference between knowing quite a bit facts and no facts at all.

I commented on your political leanings and not your character. I don't know anything about you beyond what you have posted.

There are a lot of different types of Christians. Within their own tight perspective the differences are so great some refuse to even acknowledge others are Christians at all. For example I think we all know a few Evangelicals who insist Catholics aren't Christians. End of the day though whether one is Baptist, Episcopalian, Non-Denomination, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or etc they are all virtually indistinguishable to non-Christians. What they have in common greatly out weighs their nuanced differences. You have repeated labelled yourself a fiscal conservative and brought up Doug Ford and the election in Ontario while at the same time attempt to draw some distinction between yourself as a Canadian and U.S. varieties of Conservatives. Doug Ford ran on cutting taxes, freezing the minimum wage, ending Ontario's Green Energy Act, repealing cap and trade, and has claim Christianity is the only true faith. The issue of debt played heavy role and Ford promised to fix it but does not have a plan at the moment and his initial estimates for spending are high as his opponents were. Now we can debate how successful those policies may or may not be but they don't read as being significantly different to the things conservatives outside of Canada push. Deregulation and Tax Cuts is the gold standard for Conservatives. What's in common seems to greatly outweigh whatever the nuanced differences are. Both on us have been on this forum for years. I have read at least a hundred of your posts on political issues. So stop with the broad brush nonsense as if there is no way in the world I could possible know about your political views. You literally have typed them out for me over the years. I have specifically read from you what your views are and in my opinion those views as I have read them are in line with what I understand Conservative positions to be.

Do you feel there is something coming in the immidiate future? I asked because calling out "both sides" at a time when there is only one side seems like an empty platitude.

Is there an extreme left in North America equivalent to the Right?

I addressed Ontario's election and Ford's position of debt and taxation after you brought them up but instead you have chose to carry on about Trump and your disdain for generalizations. So fine lets discuss it. After Charlottesville you argued "both side" just as Trump did. Just last week you started a thread to push the right wing talking point about Samantha Bee & Rosanne Barr. For a guy who insists he is a moderate who disagrees with Trump's nonsense you sure tow Trump's line an awful lot and those were just 2 quick examples which come to mind.

Nothing wrong with groups standing shoulder to shoulder. My point was that Conservatives that don't want to be associated with bigots should rethink who they are standing with. Also zero doesn't exist. Priorities are always divisible.

Conservatives (Fiscal, Religious, Nationalist, etc) all vote shoulder to shoulder and lean on each other to get their agendas passed. Racism, Sexism, Anti Political correctness, and etc are tools used to appeal to different conservative leaning groups but the end goal always seems to be deregulation and tax cuts.

Human Rights are off the table.

You do label yourself. You have repeatedly called yourself a "fiscal conservative". Not just in this thread but several others. If you don't like the company which that invites stop calling yourself that.

Cutting social programs isn't the biggest problem I have with "fiscal" conservatives. Rather it is in the insincere way the speak about what they want. There is no political middle ground with liars. When out of power debt is treated as a national tragedy stealing away the hopes and dreams of future generations. When in power debt ceases to matter and everything becomes about tax cuts. Here in the U.S. we just saw it (yet again) with "fiscal" conservatives. During 8yrs of Obama the bemoaning about debt was never ending from the right. Soon as they got control of the govt they increased debt even further and cut taxes. Just as "Animal" in conservative emphasizes race the word "Debt" is used to emphasize who is doing the spending and not spending as a whole. In Ontario Ford has already conceded that budgets will be large as the liberals budgets were projected to be over the next couple years. Conservatives promise is to balance the budget at some yet to be announce point in the future through some yet to be announced plan. What Conservatives do want and have a plan for in real time is - Tax Cuts. The amount of interest Ontario pays on debt does not change when taxes are cut. The amount of money the govt has to pay interest is changed. This just leads to more debt and the interest on that debt taking away larger percentage of available funds. Even if services do get cut the savings will only help pay for the tax cuts and not actually improve the debt situation.

You don't seem to care much about law. A business must be licensed and registered as such. Likewise so must a Church. In the eyes of the Law the 2 are different.

Actually most all cases including this one are that black and white. Sincerity had nothing to do with SCOTUS ruling. The Court ruled against a previous 2012 Commissions position regarding CO's Public Accommodations Law. The bigger questions regarding religious expression weren't addressed. So this issue actually isn't resolved. Local laws simply need to be written more clearly.

Courts form an opinion based on Law. What law states is and should be the singular factor considered. Any time a Court deviates from that it trouble in my opinion.

Until a mind reading device is created sincerity can never absolutely be known. Such subjective variables should not be the bases for court rulings.

Than you must not understand how political affiliation works. I do not suspect you to change your view. Your position often seems to be that while you don't agree with Trump, White Supremacists, Nazis, and etc it is important not lump those who enable them together. You have enough sense to know such people and groups are beyond defense so you passively tug toward some imaginary point where all these competing ideas merge. However the tug is always in the same direction and only every benefits one ideology. From all your posts I have read your concept of centrism has a very strong bias. You could say the exact same about me only I do not put up the facade of being a centrist. I acknowledge I am a progressive and accept the good and bad which goes along with that. This gets to what this thread is about. The way language is used in an attempt to manipulate political discussions. Conservatives do not speak in concise language which outlines political ideas but rather code their speak as a means of influencing and manipulating matters. I feel you do this often. You'll quote me or someone else who has criticized Conservatives with an appeal not to lump everyone together while positioning yourself as a "fiscal conservative" imply some significant difference among types of Conservatives. Such posts are empty. They defend Conservatism as a whole yet fail to every actually justify a policy or action by the Conservatives which are the subject of discussion. You are providing all conservatives cover broadly by arguing the can't be all criticized broadly. You can say all you want that when Trump calls someone an "Animal" you don't hear it as racial. Good for you.The Bigots with legions of followers like David Duke make no secret that they are hearing Trump loud and clear. I am not going to ignore the torch burning mob chanting racial slurs in my streets or the families being separated at the border just because you make a plausible deniability argument. Seems to me that you were referencing perspective. Either way I think what is right vs wrong matters more. No one every come into these threads and argues that there are good and bad things about Dictatorships and that we can't lump all Authoritarians together. That an anti Dictator position is bias less it includes voices from with their regimes. No, we are able to use their history of abuse and failure to form an opinion about them. Likewise I am capable of form opinions about conservative policies in Western Democracies without myself being one. You it is about "time-honored methods". I challenge you to list what those are specifically as policies. It is off topic for this thread but feel free to do so in the thread I created asking for examples of successful Conservative policies.

I started a thread back in 2014 specifically asking for examples of successful Conservative policies. None were provided. Their ideas simply do not work.

Many systems of govt exist today and have been tried in the past. Nothing any conservative wing in operation today, that I am aware of, advocates for anything new. It has all been tried re-branded and tried again several times over. We can look at outcomes and know what has and has not worked. Arguments which assume inclusion of ardent supporters from all side must be heard ignore the fact that some sides have all ready been heard ad nauseam. Very few of the solutions pitch to solve the challenges Western Democratic Countries face today new.