mhaze,

Thanks for confirming once again that your only way out is to focus on a word I clearly used to characterise the tone of your claims - not to quote you. I never said you used the word “engaging”. What I said was:

“Only after pushback did the certainty start to splinter: suddenly ‘begging’ became ‘engaging.’”

That’s a rhetorical contrast - not an attribution. And it was immediately obvious to anyone reading in context, especially since I followed it with a clarification days ago.

But instead of addressing the points I raised about how your narrative shifted - from definitive global trends to “different countries reacting differently” - you’ve spent multiple posts trying to convince everyone I was confused by my own paraphrasing. That’s not debate. That’s misdirection.

As for Kevin Hassett’s “dozens of countries” quote - I’m sure many countries are reaching out. That’s what countries do when trade policy becomes unpredictable. But being in contact isn’t the same as “begging,” and vague quotes from administration officials don’t suddenly justify the list of outcomes you implied.

And regarding Paul - if you think public health regulations exist only as “jingoism,” that might say more about your views than his.

Anyway, if the best you can offer in the face of all this is repeated outrage over a word I used, I think the audience can see who’s really squirming.

Its not about the word you used but the false use of a word to try to make a false claim that I had backtracked on my original, correct, point. That you can't admit it, (I'm sure you see it) is revealing. You should note that all this was done at your initiation. I made the original point that nations were begging for trade talks and you made that characterisation a point of issue. You, not I. Only now that its all gone pear shaped for you do you suddenly decide (beg!!) that we drop it and move to other matters.

As to the meat issue, no one is suggesting its OK to bring in diseased meat. I made that point earlier and quoted from Dutton making that same point. But there is good indications that, while the original ban might have been valid back in 2003, that's no longer the case and that, as the Americans claim, its simply a trade barrier measure dressed up as quarantine. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6750ZM/

The assertion that US meat is so diseased that it needs to be banned is absurd. I expect the ban to be lifted after the election.

mhaze,

I’m happy to let the readers you're so fixated on decide for themselves whether I claimed you used the word “engaging”, or whether I clearly used it to describe the tone of your claims - which I’ve now explained three separate times. At this point, your audience is smart enough to distinguish between a misquote and a paraphrase.

They also don’t have the memory of goldfish - clearly you’re hoping they do.

And no, I’m not “begging to drop it.” The longer you flog this furphy, the worse it reflects on you - and frankly, the easier my job gets. I’m simply recognising that the conversation stopped being about tariffs and started being about one word in a sentence I wrote days ago. I’ve clarified. You’ve demanded I walk it back. I haven’t - because I don’t need to.

As and aside: Isn't it funny how your opponents only ever seem to “misquote” or “misconstrue” you when you’re the one running out of arguments? I mean, it's not exactly the moment you'd expect them to start getting desperate now, is it?

What’s more telling is how much effort you’ve spent trying to reframe this as some kind of moral failing on my part, while skimming past the substance of your original claims about Trump’s global impact. That shift speaks volumes.

As for the meat issue - you’re welcome to argue it’s a non-scientific trade barrier. That’s a separate discussion. But it’s a far cry from your earlier suggestion that Australia is already re-examining its position in response to Trump’s pressure. That’s been the pattern all along: speculation presented as outcome… until questioned.

If you’re ready to return to the actual topic of Trump’s trade policies, I’m happy to engage. Otherwise, I’m happy to see how long you managing perception to avoid debating facts.

"But it’s a far cry from your earlier suggestion that Australia is already re-examining its position in response to Trump’s pressure."

I never said Australia IS re-examining its beef policy only that it would be prudent to do so and given that I expect the government is prudent then its likely to be doing so. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Its hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who continually misunderstands or mis-characterises your views and then pats themselves on the back for having discredited views you never held.

Yes, mhaze, we've seen this all before.

The part where you claim you didn’t say what you clearly implied, and accuse your opponent of mischaracterising “views you never held.”

You wrote:

“I'd be willing to bet that the Australian quarantine control authorities are currently re-examining the trade barriers against US beef.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10583#369688)

That’s not “I think it would be prudent,” or “maybe they should.” You said you’d bet that it is happening. That’s a statement of belief about the present - presented, I might add, alongside claims about Apple repatriating jobs, Canada and Mexico relocating businesses, and Europe buying US fossil fuels.

Only after being asked for evidence did it shift to:

“Just my opining that a prudent Australian government would be re-examining its biosecurity policies as regards US beef”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10583#369696)

That’s not clarification. That’s a rewrite. You knew this - which is why you immediately followed it up with a deflection aimed at undermining my credibility:

"Sorry that went over your head. Was it the word 'prudent' that confused you?"
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10583#369696)

This routine - make a confident claim, double down on it, then later insist it was misunderstood all along - has come up several times now in this thread alone.

If you’re genuinely interested in an intelligent conversation, try holding your position long enough for it to be tested before reshaping it into something safer.

At this point, however, I’m starting to think the only thing you’re consistent about is insisting on being misquoted.

Pick one as a real threat to Australia:

A. US tariffs
B. Communist China