The TDS mob is panicking ! Some of the hypocritical are switched on enough to realise !

there are lots of dummies around.
TomBie,
Enough to get Labor in last time !

Graham article tries to sell Trumpism as corporate triage instead of what it actually is: chaos retrofitted with meaning after the fact.

The whole article rests on three moves: inflate the crisis, sanctify the strongman, and dismiss all contrary evidence as media corruption. Once you notice that structure, the rest reads like political fan-fiction.

Start with the headline claim: Australians only distrust Trump because of "deliberate misreporting." No evidence. None. Young names the ABC as a villain but never demonstrates how they "framed" Trump for January 6. This hand-waving conveniently ignores bipartisan Senate findings, court rulings, and Trump’s own advisers who testified that he sparked the riot and then refused to stop it. "Russiagate Hoax" gets tossed in too, again without acknowledging the Mueller Report’s core findings: documented Russian interference and repeated contacts between Trump’s team and Russian actors.

Declaring something a hoax is not the same as disproving it.

Young then paints a baroque crisis narrative where every American institution is failing, every university is "ideological," every city lawless, the border undefended, the courts corrupt, the agencies weaponised, and China is simultaneously running cyberwar, drug warfare, manufacturing warfare, IP warfare, and espionage through solar panels. This is not analysis. It’s a mood board.

From this inflated crisis he conjures a saviour: Trump as the "company doctor" who sees truths others can’t. The problem is that none of the policies Young admires actually worked. Tariffs hurt US consumers and farmers, didn’t revive manufacturing, and handed China market share. Tax cuts exploded deficits without producing the promised growth. "Ending forever wars" was often incoherent retreat, not strategy. And withdrawal from the Paris Agreement weakened US influence for no strategic gain.

His immigrant numbers are wildly inflated (no, there are not 40-50 million undocumented people in the US) because the fantasy requires a looming insurgency only Trump can solve.

Young’s argument collapses under the simplest test: it only makes sense if every critic, court, expert, journalist, ally, and statistic is wrong, and Trump alone is right.

That’s not geopolitics. It’s hero-worship.

No evidence. None.
John Daysh,
Not a little too confident about that, are you ?

Oh JD's back. Enough time has passed since his last humiliation I guess.

"Australians only distrust Trump because of "deliberate misreporting." No evidence. None."

I think Graham was probably writing to an audience that had a vague knowledge of the facts surrounding the ABC's lies about Trump. Clearly you don't fall into that category. He was referring to Ferguson's doctoring of the Trump January 6 speech - the exact same doctoring that led to the BBC's utter humiliation. And he was referring to Ferguson's embarrassment of a report on the RussiaGate hoax where her assertions and claims were totally discredited once the Mueller Report was forced to admit there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump.

I can't be bothered to fisk all of JD's laughable assertions - I'll leave that to GY. But just one. The USA has been handing its manufacturing dominance to China via failed trade policies, failed international institutions and failed attempts to stop intellectual property thefts for over 30 years now. And JD then asserts that 6 months of Trump tariff policy has failed to undo 30 years of errors and therefore they've failed. Someone with a modicum of sense would realise that it might take a little longer than that

What humiliation was that, mhaze?

//Enough time has passed since his last humiliation I guess.//

Personal abuse is doing the work here because the argument isn’t. If you think something I wrote is wrong, quote it and rebut it. Posturing isn't evidence.

//I think Graham was probably writing to an audience that had a vague knowledge of the facts surrounding the ABC's lies about Trump.//

That’s not how serious argument works. If you accuse the national broadcaster of lying, you demonstrate it. You don’t rely on assumed background knowledge.

//He was referring to Ferguson's doctoring of the Trump January 6 speech...//

Then show it. Quote the original speech, quote the edited version, explain how meaning was altered, and explain why that outweighs court rulings, congressional findings, sworn testimony, and Trump’s own recorded conduct. Assertion is not proof.

//…the RussiaGate hoax where her assertions and claims were totally discredited once the Mueller Report was forced to admit there was no evidence of collusion…//

This is false.

The Mueller Report did not say "no evidence." It said it could not establish criminal conspiracy to the required legal standard, while documenting extensive Russian interference and multiple contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors. Those are different claims.

//I can't be bothered to fisk all of JD's laughable assertions...//

Translation: no rebuttal. I wouldn't count on Graham coming to the rescue there, either.

//The USA has been handing its manufacturing dominance to China… for over 30 years now.//

Agreed. That does not validate Young’s argument. Long-term structural decline does not justify incoherent short-term policy.

//…JD then asserts that 6 months of Trump tariff policy has failed…//

I said the measurable outcomes so far include higher consumer prices, retaliation, and negligible reshoring. You haven’t disputed that evidence.

//Someone with a modicum of sense would realise that it might take a little longer than that//

By that logic, no policy ever fails. It just hasn’t "had enough time."

The core problem remains untouched: Young’s thesis only works if every critic, institution, court, and dataset is wrong, while Trump alone sees clearly.

Try again.