"And now, rather than defend the implication,"

So JD draws the wrong implication from what I wrote and then demands that I defend his wrong inferences!!

Do me a favour JD. Rather than reading between the lines, try just reading the actual lines.

mhaze,

You’ve shifted from defending your point to pretending it never existed - and now you’re accusing me of imagining things that weren’t there?

You wrote:

“I'd be willing to bet that the Australian quarantine control authorities are currently re-examining the trade barriers against US beef.”

Not should be, not might be, not would be prudent if they did. You said you’d bet that it is happening - right after claiming countries are “scrambling” and “racing” in response to Trump’s tariffs.

That wasn’t subtle. It was narrative framing - and it’s perfectly valid to draw reasonable inferences from how you structure and present your claims.

So no, I’m not asking you to defend my inferences. I’m asking you to take ownership of the implications you built into your own argument - before walking them back once they were challenged.

That’s not misreading the lines. That’s recognising the space between them was never empty.

Is that the same JD who wrote: "You’re right - you didn’t say it. You implied it.".
I don't have the slightest intention of trying to explain what you thought I said in opposition to what I actually said.

Yes, mhaze - that’s me.

I said you didn’t state it outright. You implied it - clearly, deliberately, and consistently within a broader narrative where Trump’s tariffs had sent countries “scrambling,” “racing,” and “begging.” Australia’s beef policy appeared in that same paragraph, with the same framing.

So when I said “you didn’t say it,” I wasn’t conceding - I was clarifying the nature of your claim: rhetorical implication, not literal quotation. That’s what implication means.

But you knew all this already, didn't you?

You’re free to refuse to explain the contrast between what you implied and what you now claim you meant - but that refusal doesn’t erase the record. It just confirms the pattern.

And if you truly believed the implication was mine alone, you’d have corrected it back then - not doubled down and only rewritten it once challenged.

Trumpster, when you get caught out, you move the goal posts.

You said; "What diseased US beef? Well none can be found"

YES IT CAN,

The answer to that was; "In May 2023, a case of atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, was detected in a beef cow at a slaughter plant in South Carolina."

"US animal health officials, have identified 6 BSE (mad cow disease) cases in cows in the United States"

Caught out you move the goal posts;

"No diseases have been found in the food chain. That there are diseases in the herd is different issue"

BTW The first mad cow was in the slaughter house, what was he doing there? Having a holiday! Wake up sunshine.

So Paul, if you're gunna fret about the BSE in a few American cows are you fretting about all the diseases in the Aussie cows? When did you become a vegan?

___________________________________________________________________

I was assured by all the best people (in their minds) that this could never happen....

http://amac.us/newsline/economy/massive-numbers-trumps-economic-agenda-sparks-7-trillion-in-investment/