Streamer,

Thanks you for the hearty belly laugh! You posted: ". . . because I am more objective and reasonable than you." This tells me that you surely don't know me. We really should meet for a beer. Honestly, I am called objective and reasonable, almost to the extreme, rather frequently. And here's a laugh for you: my family considers me the redneck conservative.

No country is utopia. Utopia does not exist, but you asked about successful leftist countries. And they are not that uncommon. All countries have problems. Any time you have a group of people, you have problems, and the larger the group, I'd wager that there are more problems. I used to favor the idea of a smaller and more limited government, i.e., the government that governs least, governs best. However, the more I study damn near everything, the more I realized that the shear size of our population requires a larger government, especially if we are to persist as a democratic republic, or constitutional republic, if you prefer. Either way, we need some set of common values, like a belief in democracy and the rule of law. To have those we need an educated population, so I believe in the value of public education. Because we are a multi-cultural society, I believe separation of church and state is more important than ever. I think it's interesting that at a time when most religious people in the US were Christian that the founders decided this separation was imperative. (Mainly I think, because where religion and state are combined, you end up with a monarchy.)

I agree that where there are varying demographics, the social contract is invariably more difficult, regardless of whether the group is socialist or laissez-faire. Laissez-faire economics is not far removed from anarchy, each to himself and may the better man win. Except for the better man part, because any objective observer sees that the "better man" gets lucky far more than he admits and amasses allies and strength to better himself at the expense of his competitors, and then uses that strength to not only dominate, but bit by bit, eliminate his competition. Then you get oligarchies and dictators, like what Trump is trying to amass.

My bias against Trump is based on the objective evidence that he is unabashedly a despicable POS. I've listed the reasons a while back, and the only one I recall any push back on was my declaration that he attempted a coup or insurrection. And I stand by my observation. No president has ever resisted so strongly the peaceful transfer of power, or declared an objectively verified election as stolen. He knows he lost the election to Biden, but he invariably doubles down no matter how wrong, no matter how stupid his position is. So to me he remains a traitor to the US who escaped prison primarily due to bungling Democrats.

I have addressed the only positive aspect of Trump's administration. He doesn't do it with a class act, but he has done more than any administration to control the US southern border. If he has any other positive aspect to his agenda, I don't know what it is.

His tariff plan is stupid; most economists and financial experts agree. When he announced the tariffs taking effect today, the Dow immediately dropped 200 points. Apparently investors know more about the effect of tariffs than Trump and his close knit group of knuckleheads. Trump summarily fired 17 Inspectors General, but couldn't be bothered to follow the law. Why? He is demanding resignations or firing everyone at the FBI who participated in investigations of him, that is, agents who were doing their jobs. Trump is picking Cabinet and Department heads based mainly, if not solely, on their loyalty to HIM, with zero regard to fealty to the US Constitution. No president, even Nixon, has done that (although Nixon kinda' tried). Can anyone who is OK with this even be considered an American? Really? The FBI didn't investigate Trump because they disliked Trump; they investigated Trump because there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Trump violated the law. So just where is this "good" you associate with Trump? Oh, and now Trump prohibited DOD and the State Department from any observation of or acknowledgement of Black History month. Now I'm not a big observer of this or most any of the "month" dedications. But just how does this Trump proclamation serve the country? Other than, of course, appeasing Trump's many racists fans? Tell you what, why don't you make a list of 2 columns, one for Trump's positive attributes and one for his negative. When you run short of negative ones, I'll help you out.