With much pomp and ceremony the Governor General opened Australia's 48th Parliament, 22nd July 2025. With no opposition candidate nominated, Milton Dick (Labor) was elected once again to the role of Speaker, is this a sign of the "Noaltion" once more becoming the Coalition, as it seeks to display a more positive and cooperative attitude towards the Labor government and its agenda, lets hope so, under new Opposition leader, Sussan Ley. Hopefully the negativity displayed by Peter Dutton, in the 47th Parliament will become a thing of the past, and Labor will be able to push ahead with a progressive reform agenda in its second term.

What to expect? Well since the election was heavy on hoopla and light on policy, we'll have to wait to find out what to expect. Even Albo will have to wait.

"Anthony Albanese will convene experts, unions and business leaders in Canberra later this year to brainstorm ideas for economic growth, as his government seeks a reform agenda to capitalise on its new-found parliamentary dominance." (ABC)

So having won, they now need to work out what to do. Great way to run a country. A bit like the dog who caught the car but now doesn't know what to do with it.

Both Liberal and Labor leaders kicked off with divisions in the community and identity politics. Albanese made the stupid statement that Welcome to Country is not controversial, when Australians, via polls and surveys, have shown that it is definitely controversial, and an insult to 97% of Australians.

So the “not controversial” comment was Albanese's first lie in the new Parliament.

How many to come?

He told 56 lies during the election. Three lies a day.

Documented by Senator Susan McDonald.

Albanese knew his lies were being recorded, but it didn't stop him.

The $275 reduction in power prices was only one of the lies, told 97 times.

The 1.2 million homes lie is a real beauty, now discredited by a leak.

Cutting immigration and foreign students is a real gob smackers.

Stage 3 tax cuts.

Cheap electricity.

Hydrogen.

No new taxes on superannuation.

Lie after lie, after ….. Yet the low-information voters gave them more seats than they had during all the lying,

Who is really to blame for the rotten state of Labor?

I see the usual suspects are out in force, confusing consultation with cluelessness and mistaking culture-war tantrums for insight.

Labor engages with business, unions and experts before making big reforms, and somehow that’s a problem? Meanwhile, the last government spent a decade doing the exact opposite: policy via press conference, and consultation only with donors.

As for the screeching over Welcome to Country? If that’s your rallying cry for the 48th Parliament, maybe take a breath. No one’s forcing anyone to clap, and most Australians aren’t spiralling into identity crisis every time someone acknowledges traditional owners.

And the “Albo lied” mantra? Please. A Gish gallop of out-of-context lines, shifting circumstances, and wishful outrage doesn’t make a case - just noise.

If this is what passes for opposition now, the Coalition’s road back is going to be even longer than it already looks.

I would think one quintessential of good government would be to consult with stakeholders, experts and interested parties on a range of issues. Our resident Trumpster must prefer the Donald approach, where the lunatic in charge calls all the shots, then backflips, denies, procrastinates and all in all make a bloody fool of himself. Then there is the mad poster from extreme right field who thinks it all, lies, lies, lies, quotes nonsense and fails to understand the bigger picture.

Calm down boys. I'm not opposed to pollies interacting with other power centres like business and unions. I'd just prefer to see them do it before elections so they could tell the people what the policies are, rather than try to work out what policies they'll follow after getting voted in.

Its pretty clear Albo et al really don't know what do do about the faltering economy and are hoping to get some inspiration from people who actually outside the Canberra bubble.

"Our resident Trumpster must prefer the Donald approach,"

Yes, I do prefer the approach where a pollie says what he's going to do before the election and then actually does it after the election. I wonder if we'll ever get a pollie who promises to make Australia great again, sets out a series of policies to achieve it and them implements them despite furious opposition from those who will lose their privileged position. i don't see any such figure on either side of the aisleat the moment.

Another of Albanese’s rants, ‘Future Made In Australia’ will be shown in the future to be another lie.

Economist Judith Sloan reckons that Albanese's you-beaut ‘Future Made In Australia’ mantra has “Trumpion tones”. Pity there is no Trump to go with it. Trump could possibly pull it off; but Albanese, never. The idea is just to convince “low-information” voters that there is a plan to get Australia making things again.

Rather than investing in Australia, the private sector is moving out. And, of course, there's that little matter of very expensive and unreliable electricity; plus appalling red tape, green tape and a fat, incompetent public ‘service’ beavering away to make doing business harder.

We will be scratching to maintain the bit of manufacturing we have now (5% of total output, down from 10% thirty years ago) in the future, with Albanese & The Socialists calling the tune.

There is no way that we can restart manufacturing in competition with Albanese's mates in China, who flog stuff to us cheaper than we could ever make because they use cheap, coal-powered electricity - as we used to.

Ms. Sloan sees the FMIA as “total crock”. But that describes most things over the past 3 years: and the next 3, the future, will be worse because all those “low-information” people put Albanese back in power.

Albanese and Wong have got what they wanted: praise from Hamas in the form of Ghazi Hamad, who gratefully acknowledged their calling on Israel to cease fire. The Australian Jewish Association, on the other hand says that it means that Australia has abandoned Israel - or the Albanese government has abandoned Israel. Decent Australians have not abandoned them: even the Liberal Party is sticking with Israel.

Hamas started the war. They can finish it before they are finished by Israel and even more women and children have to die on behalf of Hamas terrorists and cowardly thugs hiding behind those women and children. If they are dying, that is; it could be another lie like the ‘thousands of babies” BS. Even when they are lying, Hamas is using children to try to make Israel stop doing its duty to protect its own citizens from these lying, murderous bastards.

Israel doesn't kill innocent civilians like Hamas does. They know what they are doing, and hopefully they will continue to do it until there is no trace of Hamas left.

Sucking up to China, Albanese wants Australia to be “a neutral Switzerland of the South Pacific”. Although, while Australia has less than 60,000 military personnel, Switzerland has more than 120,000 trained volunteers.

Just imagine getting that many people to volunteer in multicultural Australia!

And in 1939, neutral though it was, Switzerland still had 430,000 troops and more than 200,000 support personnel from a population of a little over 4 million.

“Not only is Australia greatly under-armed and planning to remain so, but people are showing a disturbing indifference to national defence”. The return of the Albanese government clearly shows how true that is.

According to the Lowy Institute, only 52% said that they would definitely defend Australia, 24% said they would not, leaving another 24% who might or might not. Remember, 30% of Australians were born overseas and still living; so we have a fair idea who we should be looking at.

Now, the truth will only come out if push turns to shove with a foreign power, but it's definitely something for someone other than the dicks who have just gone back to Parliament to worry about.

We know who has caused the problems; but we don't know who, if anyone, is able to fix them.

That is very kind of the gentleman that wants parliament to sort out the way forward while they are on holiday. Lots of thought went into that one.

Gotta give it to The Mad Katter, nutty as a fruit cake, but always good value. Bob refused to swear allegiance to King Charles III, at the opening of Parliament, instead Bob substituted "The Australian People". Strange character is Old Bob, not sure if he's a raving commo, (he did once say he might be a communist, but he wasn't sure) or some strange kind of fascist, or maybe a bit of both. The Clark Of The Parliament had to tell Bob the Member for Kennedy to "shut up" several times during the election of the Speaker, as he tried to interject. Imagine the Parliament if they elected Bob as the Speaker!

The members of Hanson's Fascists Party turned their backs during the "welcome to country" ceremony. I'm sure they were thinking; "Didn't our great grand paps get rid of that mob, a 100 years ago, now they're bloody well back!"

mhaze,

Your “dog that caught the car” line only works if Labor entered government with no plan, but the evidence says otherwise.

They've built on a first term with major policy achievements: cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, climate legislation, childcare reform, and industrial relations changes. You don’t have to like their agenda, but calling it policy-free is just lazy framing.

You then say you’re not against consultation, just that it should happen before elections. But governments aren’t static. Complex problems require ongoing engagement with business, unions, experts, and affected sectors. That’s how responsible policymaking works. Pretending a party can (or should) lock in every detail before a three-year term even begins isn’t just unrealistic - it’s performative.

Now there’s Trump - your model of a leader who “says what he’ll do and then does it.” Yet:

- He promised to protect Social Security - then floated cuts.
- He vowed to crush China with tariffs - then quietly walked many back when they hurt U.S. farmers.
- He claimed he’d end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours” - then admitted it’d mean Ukraine surrendering land.

That’s not follow-through. That’s bluff and backpedal.

Worse, much of Trump’s “doing” has come at the cost of democratic norms and legal boundaries - from trying to overturn an election, to threatening judges, to openly encouraging constitutional violations. That’s not leadership. That’s authoritarian cosplay.

So when you long for someone who’ll “make Australia great again” by taking on “privileged elites,” what does that actually mean? Because if the model is a leader who overpromises, flip-flops, and trashes institutions when he doesn’t get his way, then no, we don’t need our own version of that.

We need grown-ups. Not grievance merchants in red hats.

ttbn,

It’s always hard to tell whether your posts are meant as commentary or just a running list of everything currently upsetting you.

In the space of a few comments, we’ve had Welcome to Country, Hamas, electricity prices, China, manufacturing decline, defence shortfalls, and of course, the classic fallback - those dreadful “low-information voters” who keep refusing to vote correctly.

Look, you’re entitled to your outrage medley. But the rest of us are trying to discuss Parliament, policy, and the direction of the country. You’re just narrating the apocalypse.

You call Future Made in Australia a lie, then cite Judith Sloan saying it has “Trumpian tones.” Which is strange, since Trump’s second term is all industrial policy, tariffs, and economic nationalism. So… are you for that or against it? Or is it just bad when Labor does it?

And your position on Israel is less a policy view than a loyalty test. No one here is defending Hamas, but you treat any acknowledgement of the humanitarian cost as treason. That’s the political version of slamming a beer can against your forehead and calling it strategy.

But let’s be honest: this isn’t really about policy. If it were, you’d offer one. Instead, we get cultural panic dressed up as political commentary. A lot of fire, not much light.

You shout “lies, lies, lies” like it’s a spell to make complexity disappear. But if all you’re offering is volume and venom, don’t be surprised when voters - the ones you keep insulting - tune you out.

Some of us are still trying to have a grown-up conversation. You’re welcome to join it.

Sorry JD, I thought I was able to assume some prior knowledge here. The Albanese Summit is about improving the nations productivity growth which is current appalling and not showing any sign of improving.

While all the hoopla that accompanies government moves on this or that might warm the cockles of the committed hearts, the future of the nation and its well-being is far more fundamental and relies on economic policy decisions made now. And improving the nations economic performance trumps all other issues in the long term.

During the election it was clear that neither side had or has any real plans to boost economic output and maintain current standards of living. The summit is a desperate attempt to dig up some new ideas. But those ideas will inevitably be unpopular in some sector or other and therefore neither side wanted to discuss them pre-election.

We'll see if the summit comes up with anything startling and if, less, likely, the government is prepared to implement mildly unpopular policies. I'd doubt it. These days, its all about winning the next election and the nation's welfare in a decade or three is effectively immaterial.

It’s no problem at all, mhaze.

//Sorry JD, I thought I was able to assume some prior knowledge here.//

You didn’t mention productivity - let alone frame the summit as a targeted response to it - so there was no way I could have known. And we both know how much you hate it when someone draws inferences from your comments, even when it makes no difference to what you actually said.

What you did say was that Labor had no real plan and was scrambling post-election like a dog that caught a car. It’s understandable you’d want to reframe that now.

And yes, improving productivity is vital - no disagreement there - but pretending that this summit reflects a lack of planning rather than a continuation of consultation-driven governance is disingenuous. It’s entirely possible (and necessary) to campaign on policy and keep working with stakeholders in a dynamic economy. That’s not flailing. That’s governing.

Also worth noting: you’ve conveniently avoided the core of my last reply: your praise for Trump’s “say and do” style, which I challenged with specific examples of flip-flops and norm-breaking. Ignoring that now suggests the “do” wasn’t as consistent as you claimed.

Lastly, this idea that “neither side” is serious about long-term reform is your usual strategic cynicism: flatten everything so no one has to be held accountable, especially the side you actually support. But the public’s not buying that anymore, and frankly, neither am I.

Happy to keep discussing policy, but if you're going to set the frame, you'll need to hold it up a little better.

"You didn’t mention productivity "

Yeah, I made the obviously mistaken assumption that the summit was about economic reform and boosting productivity growth.

"What you did say was that Labor had no real plan and was scrambling post-election like a dog that caught a car. It’s understandable you’d want to reframe that now."

No reframing. Just dumbing it down for those who obviously were ill-informed about the summit.

"especially the side you actually support. "

And which side do imagine that to be?

As to Trump, I'm not really interested in discussing it with someone who is obviously just regurgitating leftist talking points. eg "He vowed to crush China with tariffs - then quietly walked many back when they hurt U.S. farmers." Well he never made such a promise and the tariff battle is on-going so declaring his defeat is, shall we say, premature. Especially since China has already conceded so much.

mhaze,

You didn’t make a mistaken assumption, you made a vague comment and are now retrofitting it to sound more precise than it was.

There was no mention of productivity, reform, or any specific policy focus in your original post. You painted the summit as a post-election scramble by a government with no real plan. That was the message.

So yes, I responded to exactly what you said; not this more flattering version you’re now offering.

And let’s not pretend this is some act of benevolent simplification. “Dumbing it down” isn’t how one clarifies a point, it’s how one tries to save face without owning a misfire. You weren’t misunderstood; you were simply imprecise.

There’s a difference.

As for “which side do you imagine that to be?” - come on. Your comment history isn’t exactly subtle. You reliably oppose Labor, dismiss their actions as cynical, and run interference for the Coalition even when criticising them. If you're trying to present as neutral, the camouflage is pretty thin.

And then there’s Trump…

You praised his “say and do” style - I challenged that with specific examples. You now say you’re not interested in discussing it because I’m “regurgitating leftist talking points.” That’s not a rebuttal; that’s a cop-out.

And why the double-standard when it comes to rightist talking points?

Trump absolutely did promise to crush China with tariffs - repeatedly and publicly. He also delayed or reversed key tariffs when they hurt U.S. producers. And the so-called “concessions” you mention? Vague at best, and certainly not the decisive win you're implying.

You don’t have to defend Trump, but if you're going to cite him as a model of consistency, you can’t just duck out when the record doesn’t hold up.

Happy to continue, but let’s not pretend I'm the one missing things here.

I specifically said the summit was about economic policy and "brainstorm[ing] ideas for economic growth". I really can't help it if that went over your head.

"Your comment history isn’t exactly subtle. You reliably oppose Labor, "

Well I'm afraid that, as with most things, you leap to conclusions that aren't supported by the facts. Yes, I'm critical of Labor and their policies and have been for many years. But I have been vastly more critical of the Libs and their policies for at least a decade now. I have said on OLO for over a decade that I vote Labor and will continue to do so while-ever the Libs are the monumental mess they have been since the overthrow of Abbott. I really can't help it if that went over your head.

"Trump absolutely did promise to crush China with tariffs -"
Evidence?

"and certainly not the decisive win you're implying."
Again you make these claims that about things I never said. I haven't claimed this as a decisive win since the whole tariff and trade imbalance thing is still playing out. They are currently in trade talks and things will go on like that for months. Trumps promise was to rectify the trade imbalance and repatriate US jobs. Saying he's failed when his policies have barely begun is just inane

"if you're going to cite him as a model of consistency,"

If by that you mean he is doing what he said he'd do, then yes, that's exactly true. He said he'd stop the illegal alien invasion of the US. He has. He said he'd send the illegals home. He has or is. He said he repatriate US business and jobs. That's happening. He said he'd clean up the corruption in DC. That's begun. He said he'd protect and extend the 2017 tax cuts. That's done.

The Green Pakistani in the Australian Senate has been mildly sanctioned for holding up an anti-Israel sign, but she wasn't suspended by Wong as she should have been.

The woman has no more idea than anyone else not actually in Gaza does if people are starving; if they are, then she needs to contact Hamas, and stop lying about Israel. Moreover, she should not be anywhere near the Australian Parliament. Nobody not born in Australia should be. That of course would apply to the woman who failed to do her duty, Wong.

Yeah, yeah it's not like that in piss-weak Australia, but it should be.

Not quite, mhaze.

//I specifically said the summit was about economic policy and ‘brainstorm[ing] ideas for economic growth’.//

You quoted the ABC saying that - then called the summit a desperate scramble with a dog-catching-the-car metaphor, which doesn’t exactly scream “measured commentary on productivity policy.” You didn’t frame it as a strategic reform push, you framed it as aimlessness.

That was the tone, and tone carries meaning.

And no, nothing went over my head. I simply didn’t assume your real argument was hidden between the lines while you threw out a punchline. If you wanted to talk about productivity, you could have said so directly. That’s not on me.

As for your voting habits, I’m sure they’re very nuanced in your own mind, but don’t be surprised when others infer a pattern if you:

- spend your time echoing Coalition talking points,
- run defence for Trump, and
- portray Labor policy as unserious hoopla.

Trump’s public threats to hit China with massive tariffs are a matter of record, not a “leftist talking point.” If you're now saying the battle is still playing out and it’s too early to judge, fine - but you can’t simultaneously declare his economic promises fulfilled while also insisting they’re incomplete.

That’s not consistency. That’s a contradiction.

You say he’s doing what he promised - but “draining the swamp” while surrounding himself with loyalists, cronies, and convicted allies doesn’t quite hit the mark. Nor does sending migrants “home” through legally dubious means. Strongman optics aren’t policy outcomes, even if they play well on Sky After Dark.

Happy to continue, but don’t confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. I heard you just fine.

"That was the tone, and tone carries meaning."

Ahhh. The tone of it. Dennis Denuto's vibe lives.
Might I suggest that rather than reading between the lines, you read the actual lines.

"spend your time echoing Coalition talking points,"
Example?

"run defence for Trump"
What's that got to do with allegedly supporting the Libs? FYG, its been my point since 2015 that Trump is actually the voice of the worker so supporting him and supporting Labor makes sense.

Oh and Trump doesn't need running defence for him. He's doing just fine.

"Trump’s public threats to hit China with massive tariffs are a matter of record,"

But that's not the same as saying he wants to "crush" them which was your original assertion which I note you can't even try to back up. Trump wants to stop the Chinese ripping off the US working class but doesn't need to "crush" China to do that. I suspect I've now lost you.

"you can’t simultaneously declare his economic promises fulfilled"

Oh good. Because I didn't make such a declaration. Just making stuff up is so JD. Trump is fulfilling his promises by implementing the policies he promised. The jury remains out as to how successful they'll be.

"Nor does sending migrants “home” through legally dubious means."

Legally dubious? More leftist talking points.

"even if they play well on Sky After Dark."
I don't know what that means?

mhaze,

No need for the Castle reference, tone carries meaning - and weight - even in a courtroom.

You quoted the ABC on “economic growth,” then immediately mocked the summit as a post-election scramble with a dog-and-car metaphor. That contrast isn’t between the lines, it is the line.

As for echoing Coalition talking points? “Labor had no plan.” “Just hoopla.” “Desperate scramble.” “Vote-winning at all costs.” You can vote Labor and still talk like Sky After Dark - the pattern is rhetorical, not electoral.

You now say Trump doesn’t want to “crush” China, just stop them “ripping off the US working class.”

Fine.

But threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese goods and calling Xi a “dictator who’s killing us” sure sounded a lot like economic war talk. If “crush” offended your sensibilities, I’ll happily call it what it was: performative trade brinkmanship.

As for Trump’s promises, you previously said he is doing what he said he’d do. Now it’s “well, the jury’s still out.” That’s the contradiction. Either he’s delivered or he hasn’t. You can’t say “he’s doing fine” and “too early to tell” in the same breath and expect it not to be noticed.

And “legally dubious”? That’s not a talking point - it’s a legal reality. Mass deportations and bypassing due process don’t become lawful just because they poll well.

//I don't know what [Sky After Dark] means?//

Heh. No, of course you don't...

I was just thinking, mhaze…

If tone really is as meaningless as you suggest - just “vibes” and Castle references - then what do we make of your tone? After all, many of your comments drip with sarcasm, rhetorical framing, or strategic snark.

And that’s not me reading between the lines, it’s right there in the lines. You use tone deliberately to convey sarcasm, to mock, belittle, and undermine.

And you’re genuinely good at it!

So when I point out that your tone framed the summit as aimless - not serious policy - and you fall back on “read the actual lines”, it starts to look less like a defence and more like an attempt to dodge responsibility for how your words come across.

As I said: tone carries meaning - and weight - even in a courtroom. Yet, according to your logic:

- judges shouldn’t interpret a witness’s tone,
- journalists shouldn’t analyse political subtext, and
- voters shouldn’t read into how something is said, only what’s said.

Of course, you don’t think any of the above is actually the case. It’s just easier for you to weasel out of criticism if you can arbitrarily dictate when it’s off limits.

Convenient.

There were some laughs coming from the new Parliament, with the Labor newbies jumping up and prefacing their maiden bleats with recognition of this and that aboriginal tribe that ‘owned’ their particular electorates - described by one commentator as a “conga line of colonist contrition".

Good to see the new Labor government was quick off the mark with legislation reducing HECS debt by 20% for 3 million Aussie students. The Noalition opposed HECS debt relief during the election campaign, then supported it in the parliament, maybe ttbn and Mhaze will tags the Liberals as liars, like they so often claim Labor are liars.

Really good to see One Nation Senators turning their backs on welcome to country rubbish.

Being welcomed to our own country is a sick joke, especially when it's done by people calling themselves ‘indigenous’.

The ‘indigenous’ had 65,000 years to build a civilisation - cities, government, systems, law and order. They were unavailable to do it. They should be welcoming and showing appreciation for the British Empire and the first free settlers, whom they have been bludging off since 1788.

"Really good to see One Nation Senators turning their backs on welcome to country rubbish", and exposed their brown brains.

YES! That's about the sum total of the Hanson Fascist Parties contribution to this weeks parliament. Come to think of it, Hanson and her mob contributed nothing to the last parliament, then you only have to take one look at the leader and her "brains trust", to realize what a pack of dills they are. Hanson has admitted in the past that she's not real bright. Then there are the One Nation voters, well!

The Speaker of the House is probably seen by most of us as useless for anything but shouting ‘order ‘ and getting the same perks as a Minister.

But, the returning Speaker of our Parliament, with the unfortunate surname of Dick, apparently does more than that by way of something that is not his responsibility at all.

He is trying to promote civics and democracy in schools.

In his last term, he visited 160 schools, trying to promote civics education. This term, he intends to visit “every electorate in the country”.

The teaching of civics in this country is not up to much: preventing many from participating fully in politics; some saying that were never taught it - pretty damn obvious in disinterested Australians.

The author of the piece on the Speaker and the subject writes that, because of the lack of education, “young people” are feeling disillusioned.

Make that people of all ages!

His “Unless the benefits of democracy are embedded in every generation of school students they will be vulnerable to manipulation when it comes time to vote” is very obvious.

So, as well as keeping his childish colleagues in order, Milton Dick is probably more useful than the lot of them together.

https://ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/commentary/education-about-civics-and-democracy-a-matter-of-priority/

"Now it’s “well, the jury’s still out.” That’s the contradiction. Either he’s delivered or he hasn’t. "

That makes no sense. Trump is delivering the policies he promised. But whether those policies will ultimately work is as yet unknown. There are still many obstacles to be overcomes before we can be sure that the policies will be fully implemented and full successful. Bare in mind that there remains a tension between MAGA support for the working class and the elites support for non-productive class. Wall St and the globalists still have many arrows in their quiver.

The globalist project in the US has been ongoing for 30 years. Its beyond insane to expect that Trump will have reversed it in 6 months. The MAGA project and the transformation of the US economy will continue past Trump's second term. But he has instituted the policies he promised. A politician doing exactly what they promised seems to confuse some.

"And “legally dubious”? That’s not a talking point "
Actually it is. That a range of Obama and Biden appointed judges oppose the policies and declare them illegal isn't the same as them being illegal. As those decisions get appealed out of the Democrat judicial bubble, Trump's policies are found to be constitutional. It just takes time.

Just on that. You and others constantly whine that he's a dictator. But a dictator would ignore these judicial roadblocks. Yet Trump administration has been scrupulous in accepting the initial findings and appealing them to higher courts. Not the actions of a dictator. Compare that with the likes of Obama and Biden who openly bragged about ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court.

As to the Albo's economic summit, i'm not opposed. Its never wrong, always good that those who live in the Canberra bureaucratic bubble get advise and feedback from those who live in the real world.

My gripe is that it takes place after an election where the economic future of the nation barely got a hearing. From BOTH sides. The Libs are no better here and indeed a lot worse in that they constantly abandon their core beliefs because they might frighten off the voters or be misrepresented by the government.

I'm extremely pessimistic about our economic future under the current regimes and see neither side offering or likely to offer workable solutions. If the electorate is so despised by both sides that they refuse to deliver bad news during the election, there is little hope.

That the government is prepared to even potentially allow some of that bad news to come out only AFTER the votes are in, is a sign that they aren't prepared to make the tough but necessary decisions.

And to answer Paul's original question... that's what we can expect form this parliament. More of the same hoping that the faecal matter wont hit the cooling device until they've moved on.

Not quite, mhaze.

You're drawing a line between policy implementation and policy success, which is fair enough in theory. But in practice, when most people say a politician “delivered,” they don’t mean announced it. They mean it was achieved.

If a policy:

- gets blocked in court,
- reversed after legal challenge,
- or tied up in constitutional appeals…

…it wasn’t delivered. It was proposed.

So when you say “he’s delivering,” but then pivot to “success takes time” the moment it’s challenged. Either the delivery is complete and can be evaluated, or it’s still pending. You can’t bounce between the two depending on the heat.

If a policy keeps getting struck down by the judiciary, claiming it’s just Obama/Biden judges and will be vindicated later doesn’t really help your case. Even Trump-appointed judges have rejected key planks.

And if you're suggesting that he’s no dictator because he appeals rulings, that's setting an incredibly low bar. Undermining oversight, bypassing Congress with emergency powers, and openly antagonising the courts might not be dictatorship, but they’re hardly the gold standard for democratic governance.

Your second post has a noticeably softer tone than your earlier take. Almost like someone trying to retroframe their own words once they’ve been challenged on tone.

And sure, you say “the Libs are no better here and indeed a lot worse,” but look at the language you use:

- Labor: “not prepared to make the tough but necessary decisions”
- Coalition: “abandon their core beliefs because they might frighten off the voters”

The Coalition is portrayed as cowardly but principled-at-heart - Labor as manipulative and unserious. That’s not symmetrical.

Which is fine, if you own it.

But let’s not pretend your earlier framing of the summit as a “post-election scramble” by a party “with no plan” was ever intended as constructive critique. You’ve only now switched gears because the mockery didn’t land unchallenged.

If you want to talk about bipartisan failure, I’m all ears. But I’d suggest applying the same tone and scrutiny to both sides - not one set of adjectives for Labor and another for the Libs.

JD,

This is getting monotonous. You misunderstand what I say or put the worst possible spin on it and when I clarify your misuderstandings you then assert I'm backing down. I retract nothing of what I originally wrote. The summit is about a government looking for policies that they couldn't bear to mention pre-election. Its no way to run the country.

"The Coalition is portrayed as cowardly but principled-at-heart - Labor as manipulative and unserious. "

No the Libs aren't principled-at-heart. The opposite. They abandon any principles for electoral aims. That's my entire beef with the Libs post Abbott and why I stopped voting for them. Their abandonment of liberal (small 'l') principles is much worse than Labor who haven't and don't aspire to such principles.

As to Trump, your original claim was that he hadn't implemented the policies he promised. My point is that he has indeed implemented the policies but whether they will be successful is yet to be determined. Current trends are good but not conclusive.

Let me put it in terms you'll understand since you're so desperate to defend the ALP. They promised to implement policies to build 1.2 million homes this decade. But they haven't yet built those homes. Under you criteria that you've applied to Trump, that must mean they haven't yet implemented policies to meet their promise. I'm sure you'd dispute that.

"And if you're suggesting that he’s no dictator because he appeals rulings, "

No. I'm showing that that is yet another example of him not acting like a dictator

Noted, mhaze.

Forgive me, though, if I don’t take “I retract nothing” as proof that nothing has shifted. The tone did change - not in content necessarily, but in delivery.

Delivery matters.

You don’t get to wield sarcasm, mockery, and scorn in one post, then swap to sober reflection the next and insist it’s all been consistent.

//The summit is about a government looking for policies that they couldn't bear to mention pre-election.//

Right, but that’s not how you opened. You framed it with a “dog caught the car” punchline, which makes it sound reactive and clueless, not strategic or reluctant. That framing matters.

//...your original claim was that [Trump] hadn’t implemented the policies he promised.//

Not quite.

My point was that he’s claimed delivery, but the outcomes are being blocked, reversed, or declared unlawful. Announcing a policy isn’t delivering it. That’s why your defence, that he’s “doing what he promised,” doesn’t fully hold up. If the courts halt it, or it fails in execution, then the promise hasn’t been fulfilled.

//Let me put it in terms you’ll understand...//

You mean condescend? Sure, let’s play.

Labor’s 1.2 million homes target is a long-term policy goal. They’ve funded enabling mechanisms and signed agreements. It’s rolling out. If courts struck down the funding mechanism, then you’d have a point. But they haven’t.

Your comparison doesn’t hold.

//...that is yet another example of him not acting like a dictator.//

Again, low bar.

That he hasn’t torn up court rulings doesn’t mean he hasn’t undermined institutional norms, pressured judges, bypassed Congress via “emergency” powers, or defied oversight. “He files appeals” isn’t the ringing endorsement you think it is.

This is getting monotonous because you keep shifting your definitions to suit the moment under the guise of patient explanations for someone too dim to follow.

If you want to argue Trump’s following through on policy, make sure they're still standing. If you want to critique both parties, don’t load one side with venom and the other with tragic regret.

Or, keep doing what you’re doing - just don’t act surprised when someone calls it out.

Oh so Labor's housing policy is long term and we need to wait. But Trump's economic policies need to change everything overnight or they don't exist.

Now you're trying to pivot to say Trump hasn't delivered because some of his policies are being challenged in the lower courts. But that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the US system and a fundamental misunderstanding of what's actually happening.

The OBBB has passed. They courts might chip away at the edges for a short period, but its passed and implemented. Ditto with tariffs for which the policy is now set and the details being resolved. Ditto, illegal aliens being removed. There's the odd delay but there are vast numbers now being sent home and even more self-deporting. Vance thinks there'll be a net negative migration this year. USAID is no more. MAHA is being progressively implemented. NATO has now acceded to Trump's demands to take up more of the burden of Europe's defence.

Victories wherever you look. That the minnows slow things for a short period at the edges is immaterial. That their delaying tactics get lauded in press you adhere to isn't the same as them being material.

Even, hilariously, Australia succumbs, having now miraculously decided that biosecurity measures designed to ban US beef form being imported are now longer needed. Mere coincidence they laughingly proclaim.

The Trump revolution is happening, as he promised and his supporters both recognise and appreciate it. His detractors want to avert their gaze to his successes, but that's becoming increasingly difficult.

No, mhaze, I never said “overnight,” and you know that.

//Oh so Labor's housing policy is long term and we need to wait. But Trump's economic policies need to change everything overnight or they don't exist.//

The point was about what counts as “delivered.” If a policy is blocked in court, reversed, or still unresolved, then calling it “delivered” is, at best, premature.

Again, if courts struck down the funding mechanism, then you’d have a point. But they haven’t.

//Now you're trying to pivot to say Trump hasn't delivered because some of his policies are being challenged in the lower courts.//

That's not a pivot. I've been saying that the whole time.

//The OBBB has passed...Ditto with tariffs…Ditto, illegal aliens being removed…//

OBBB passed, yes, but with major concessions and legal pushback. Tariffs? Several had to be scaled back after they triggered inflation, supply chain disruptions, and economic fallout. As for immigration, removals are happening - but so are mass legal challenges and reversals.

Your “ditto”s are doing a lot of heavy lifting.

//USAID is no more.//

And this is good… why?

USAID still exists, by the way. It’s been downsized, not abolished.

//MAHA is being progressively implemented. NATO has now acceded to Trump's demands…//

NATO member spending began rising in 2014. Years before Trump’s pressure campaign. He may have accelerated the trend, but he didn’t start it.

//That the minnows slow things for a short period at the edges is immaterial.//

But that’s not immaterial, it’s the point.

If policies are consistently being slowed, challenged, or struck down, that’s not just “minnows at the edges.” It’s the kind of resistance that only kicks in when there are serious legal, constitutional, or practical flaws.

You talk as though the obstacles exist in a vacuum, with no connection to the policies themselves. But, the pushback is often a direct consequence of what those policies are designed to do or how it's proposed they'll be implemented.

Brushing it off as minor interference just avoids engaging with why it’s happening in the first place.

Just semantics now JD.

Trump said he'd reverse the illegal alien invasion. Border crossing are now basically finished. Tens of thousands have already been sent back and even more have self deported. Yet because a handful are held up by lower courts, you want to pretend that means Trump hasn't delivered.

Mere semantics.

The same with tariffs. Trump never delineated what the level of the tariff would be so just because he allowed some to be negotiated down doesn't mean he failed. His promise was that he'd reverse the massive trade deficits that other nations had with the US, not that the tariffs would be at a particular level. And those trade deficits are being addressed. A policy promised and implemented.

As to NATO spending, now you're just making stuff up. Trump said he wanted them to spend at 5% of GSP. They've opposed that for years. Now they've conceded and are complying.

"If policies are consistently being slowed, challenged, or struck down"

What policy has been struck down. Challenged yes. Of coarse those who lose under Trump's policies are challenging them. But none have been struck down. Again just fantasising about a world that exists only in your mind.

"USAID still exists, by the way. It’s been downsized, not abolished."

False. USAID is finished. A few of its more minor functions have been absorbed into the State Dept but all of its wanton distribution of funds to favoured groups is over..

"Several had to be scaled back after they triggered inflation, "
Rubbish. Indeed economists are now trying to work out why inflation hasn't been triggered.

Just on the Australian beef ban. I found this old post while teaching Paul about how he got it wrong...

"ME: "And I'd be willing to bet that the Australian quarantine control authorities are currently re-examining the trade barriers against US beef."
JD: "Where is the proof."

That my boy, is how you do predictions.

mhaze,

When someone gets caught overselling, it always becomes "just semantics." But words matter, especially when you're claiming delivery of contested, delayed, or reversed policies.

//Trump said he'd reverse the illegal alien invasion. Border crossings are now basically finished.//

False.

Border crossings remain high, with hundreds of thousands monthly as of mid-2025. Even conservative sources acknowledge the “invasion” isn’t over, it’s evolving.

//Yet because a handful are held up by lower courts, you want to pretend that means Trump hasn't delivered.//

It’s not a handful. Key policies like expedited removals, asylum bans, and TPS revocations have all been delayed or blocked. That’s not incidental. That’s structural pushback.

//The same with tariffs... just because he allowed some to be negotiated down doesn't mean he failed.//

The failure wasn’t just about rates. It was about the fallout. Tariffs triggered inflation, disrupted supply chains, and required backpedalling. That’s not precise delivery. That’s messy improvisation.

//His promise was to reverse trade deficits... and those are being addressed.//

Except they aren’t. The US trade deficit in goods hit record highs in 2022 and remained historically elevated into 2025. “Addressed” doesn’t mean “reversed.”

//Trump said 5% NATO spending. They've opposed it for years. Now they’ve conceded and are complying.//

No, they haven’t. NATO reaffirmed the 2 percent target agreed to in 2014, well before Trump. There is zero evidence of 5 percent compliance.

//What policy has been struck down?//

Plenty.

- DACA rescission: struck down
- Birthright citizenship EO: blocked
- Asylum bans: rejected
- Family separation: halted

You’re pretending judicial rebukes don’t count unless they come from the Supreme Court. But many rulings stand without appeal.

//USAID is finished.//

USAID.gov is still active, with updated programs and missions as of July 2025. It’s been restructured, not abolished.

//Inflation hasn’t been triggered.//

Tariff-driven inflation did happen, especially in consumer goods, construction, and agriculture. Economists aren't denying it. They’re parsing why it lasted longer.

//That my boy, is how you do predictions.//

Actually, it’s how you cherry-pick one outcome and pretend it validates an entire worldview. The beef reversal doesn’t retroactively vindicate everything you’ve claimed.

Try again.

Whew I just speed read through this thread and lots about government
/business/union conferences, pollie lies but nothing about energy.
Don't you lot have a look at what is happening in Europe on NetZero ?
The whole wind farm business is falling in a heap because the governments cannot afford the subsidies required.
They are cancelling here, but doesn't that alarm you ?
Hydrogen was always a no goer as the scientists said, energy is lost
every time you change its type.
Aaaarrrggghhh !

Bezza,

There’ve been some hiccups with wind rollout in parts of Europe, but does that mean Australia should ditch renewables entirely?

That would be like scrapping broadband because the NBN had teething problems.

Wind and solar are still expanding globally. Costs are trending down long-term, and most of the challenges are economic or regulatory - not technological dead-ends.

Hydrogen has niche uses, but that's all they are at this point: niche.

It sounds like you're mistaking bumps in the road for a sector collapse.

JD

Now you're just making stuff up to try to prop up a series of failed assertions.

"Border crossings remain high, with hundreds of thousands monthly as of mid-2025. "

This is the official figures for May 2025.... http://tiny.cc/k0cq001

"In May 2025, the Border Patrol encountered 8,725 illegal aliens crossing the southwest border between ports of entry. This was a 93% decrease from May 2024".

Quick JD, pivot away from illegals to all entries.

______________________________________________________

"Tariff-driven inflation did happen, especially in consumer goods, construction, and agriculture. "

Evidence? Yeah that's what I thought.
The most recent inflation data showed the rate is lower now than when Trump took over.

__________________________________________________________________

More fabrications... "There is zero evidence of 5 percent compliance."

From NATO itself... "At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies made a commitment to investing 5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually on core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending by 2035. " http://tiny.cc/t0cq001

_____________________________________________________________________

DACA. Trump hasn't done anything about DACA this term so saying he's been blocked is a little,,errrr, fabricate-y.

______________________________________________________________________

"USAID.gov is still active, with updated programs and missions as of July 2025. It’s been restructured, not abolished."

Did you even go to USAID.gov? Thought not!

"The State Department said Friday it was officially shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development, " http://tiny.cc/v0cq001

______________________________________________________________________

"The beef reversal doesn’t retroactively vindicate everything you’ve claimed."

It wasn't meant to. It was just trying to show someone who doesn't know how predictions work, how its done. Sorry you missed it.

mhaze,

Once again, the moment you’re caught overselling, it’s everyone else who’s “just making stuff up.” So let’s go line by line and clear the fog.

//“Border crossings remain high...” -> “Now you’re pivoting.”//

The number of illegal crossings between ports of entry dropped significantly in May 2025, yes - but that’s only part of the picture. The same CBP update you linked shows:

“In May 2025, Border Patrol encountered 8,725 people between ports of entry.”
http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-may-2025-monthly-update

But total encounters - including those who presented at ports - were 170,723. A drop in one category doesn’t mean the “invasion is basically finished.” That’s your framing, and it’s still false.

No pivot there.

//“Tariff-driven inflation...” -> “Evidence? The inflation rate is lower now.”//

This isn’t about overall CPI today, it’s about what tariffs did when introduced. The inflationary effects on agriculture, construction, and consumer goods during Trump’s first term are well-documented. Multiple independent analyses (Brookings, Fed papers, and the CFR) detail it.

Claiming that current CPI proves tariffs didn’t trigger price hikes is like claiming the flu doesn’t cause fever because you feel fine now.

//“Zero evidence of 5% NATO compliance” -> “Here’s a link!”//

You linked to a NATO statement saying:

“Allies made a commitment to investing 5%… by 2035.”
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

That’s a future goal. Not current compliance. So yes, zero evidence of 5% compliance now, which is what I said.

//“USAID is still active” -> “Did you even go to the site?”//

I did indeed.

The article you linked confirms that USAID’s functions continue under the State Department’s new Bureau for Global Development. Programs, staff, and missions didn’t vanish - they were restructured. Bureaucratic name changes are not abolitions.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/after-months-cuts-state-department-officially-shuttering-usaid/story?id=120267238

//“DACA blocked” -> “He hasn’t touched it this term!”//

Precisely. You previously argued Trump was being blocked by courts. But on DACA, he hasn’t even tried this term - so blaming obstruction makes no sense.

If you’re going to accuse someone of fabrications, mhaze, it helps to not have your own sources confirm everything they said.

Back you go...

"But total encounters - including those who presented at ports - were 170,723. "

Well you don't say or show where that number came from so who knows what it means. But the issue was illegals and the numbers are so far down that the CPB reports that "Border Patrol released zero illegal aliens into the interior of the US, down from 62,000 last May".

I know this level of success is distressing for the TDS crowd, but success it is.

"zero evidence of 5% compliance now,"

Now let me just this straight. Trump says he wants NATO nations to increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 and they, eventually, accede to his demands. But because they haven't done it yet, (which no one wanted or expected) you think this proves Trump failed.

You are so wrong on these things that you are now not even bothering to try to be serious.

"But on DACA, he hasn’t even tried this term "

You raised DACA not me. The future of DACA is being fought out in the courts. There's no reason for Trump to fight it out when its already being fought out. Yet somehow, you think this is a sign of failure.....not even bothering to try to be serious.

"USAID’s functions continue under the State Department’"

That's what I said previously. Glad you caught up or caught on

mhaze,

Let’s clear this up - again - since your latest reply mostly confirms what I said, even if you’re now trying to spin it the other way.

//Border Patrol released zero illegal aliens into the interior of the US...//

Correct, and that’s good. But it’s a narrow subset. The same CBP update also reports:

“In May 2025, the Border Patrol encountered 8,725 illegal aliens crossing the southwest border between ports of entry.”

I previously cited a broader figure (170,723), which I now can’t verify from the source, so I’ll retract that number. But encounters are still occurring daily across multiple channels: between ports, at ports, and via overstays. The process hasn’t ended, it’s just shifted forms.

So, your claim that the “invasion is basically finished” remains false.

//The most recent inflation data showed the rate is lower now...//

That misses the point. Tariff-driven inflation spiked when the tariffs were introduced – particularly in construction, agriculture, and consumer goods. This has been well-documented by Brookings, the New York Fed, and others.

Pointing to lower inflation now is like denying the flu caused fever because your temperature is normal today.

//Trump says 5% by 2035, and they’ve acceded...//

Right - by 2035. That’s a target, not compliance. So when I said there’s “zero evidence of 5% compliance now,” I was right.

//USAID is finished.//

No, USAID was restructured. Your own source confirms that its functions continue under the Bureau for Global Development. A name change isn’t abolition.

//DACA is in court, so Trump doesn’t need to act.//

Which proves my point: if he hasn’t taken any action this term, there’s nothing for the courts to obstruct. You can’t blame obstruction when there’s been no initiative.

Your sources don’t refute me - they keep confirming me.

John, there are big problems with wind in the UK and Germany.
The UK's recent call for Government subsidy tenders failed totally.
How long can the owners continue without subsidies ?
They are seeing the writing on the wall here hence the cancellations.
They report the maintenance costs are too high, surprised at Sea !!
Basically Net Zero is ending because no one can afford it !
Read the tea leaves.

You're reading storm clouds into every ripple, Bezza.

Yes, there’ve been problems with some UK and German offshore wind project, but that’s not “net zero ending.” It’s market correction. Projects stalled mostly due to inflation, high interest rates, and auction price caps not keeping pace with costs, not because renewables are inherently unviable.

Those same countries are now adjusting policies to keep investment flowing. The UK recently raised strike prices to re-attract bidders. Germany’s onshore wind additions actually hit a record high earlier this year. Globally, wind and solar added over 500GW in 2024 alone - the largest jump yet.

As for subsidies: fossil fuels still get far more globally. And yet no one argues oil is “ending” when a new well turns out unprofitable.

Maintenance at sea is expensive, sure, just like oil rigs. But offshore wind is still growing because long-term gains outweigh the upfront hassle. That’s why dozens of countries are still scaling it up.

So, let’s not confuse a few rough quarters with collapse. Read all the tea leaves - not just the ones floating in the Sky After Dark commentary.

"Your sources don’t refute me - they keep confirming me."

Only if you completely misunderstand the sources.

Just because some people still hopefully arrive at the border doesn't mean they invasion continues. They arrive, get picked up and immediately sent back. Which part of ""Border Patrol released zero illegal aliens into the interior of the US, ..." went over your head.

93.5% of the USAID functions have been discontinued. These were the wasteful parts of the programme (eg publishing homosexual comics for Columbians etc). The few useful parts were absorbed into State. Clinging to your error by pretending that Trump failed to close USAID is revealing.

As to NATO, we're back to your desperate attempts to say Trump failed to deliver because the policy takes several years to implement. Its ridiculous. Look back at how you sought to defend Labor's housing promise to see the hypocrisy in your thinking.

DACA. Trump hasn't done anything on DACA. Trump didn't promise to do anything on DACA until the court processes were finalised. Somehow in JD-land that's a failure. Go figure!!

But suffering TDS means that logic goes out the window.

Massive trade deal between the US and the EU overnight.

The US will have a baseline tariff on EU imports of 15%. The EU tariffs on US imports will be 0%. The EU will buy $750 billion in energy products from the US and will invest an additional $600 billon in the US in addition to what had already been announced. Additionally the EU will purchase hundreds of billions in armaments as they move to fulfill their promise to Trump to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP.

Clearly embarrassed at how much they'd given in to Trump the EU is now saying that the whole thing was about eliminating the EU-US trade deficit. Funnily, that's what Trump's been saying for a decade.

I suspect the usual suspects will incoherently spin this as a defeat for Trump.

No part went over my head, mhaze.

//They arrive, get picked up and immediately sent back. Which part ... went over your head?//

I acknowledged the stat and welcomed it. But again, thousands are still crossing illegally each month. You claimed the “invasion” was “basically finished.” Your own CBP source shows 8,725 people still crossing between ports in May.

A “finished” invasion doesn’t produce that number. You’re redefining success as “we caught them,” not “they stopped coming.”

//93.5% of the USAID functions have been discontinued...//

If 93.5% of functions were cut, cite a source. The ABC article you linked says no such thing. It reports the agency was shuttered and replaced with a bureau, not that nearly all functions ceased.

//Clinging to your error by pretending Trump failed to close USAID is revealing.//

You’re misrepresenting me. I never framed USAID’s continuation as a failure. In fact, I even asked why that would be a good thing.

What I said was that it wasn’t “finished,” as you claimed. And your own source confirms that: USAID’s functions were folded into a renamed bureau, not scrapped.

The only “error” here was your overstatement.

//As to NATO, we're back to your desperate attempts to say Trump failed to deliver because the policy takes several years to implement.//

Heh, "desperate." I like that.

I simply said it hasn’t happened yet. You implied success by citing a 2035 target. You want a 10-year grace period for Trump, and yet...

//Look back at how you sought to defend Labor's housing promise...//

...you show no patience for Labor’s housing plan.

//Trump hasn't done anything on DACA... until court processes are finalised.//

So, he hasn’t acted. Thanks, that’s all I said. You can’t blame obstruction for a policy that hasn’t even been introduced.

//But suffering TDS means that logic goes out the window.//

Crying “TDS” is a cop-out. When your claims are contradicted by your own sources - and your counterarguments amount to name-calling and goalpost-shifting - it’s not my logic that’s gone missing.

In fact, "TSD" is starting to look like a bit of a self-own.

You're just redefining what is a Trumpian success to suit your desire to deny the success.

You raised DACA as a failure not me, and now you assert that since Trump didn't promise or do anything about DACA that proves he failed.

Or you redefine stopping the illegal invasion as stopping everyone even trying to get access. But that's not at all what was promised. No illegals are being allowed into the country and those that try are being returned to Mexico. That level of success must be distressing for the TDS crowd.

The EU deal show just how successful Trump's tariff policy is.

The irony here is thick, mhaze.

//You're just redefining what is a Trumpian success to suit your desire to deny the success.//

You began by declaring things were “finished” - invasion stopped, USAID gone, NATO demands met. Now, with each rebuttal, you’re redefining “success” to mean partial implementation, renaming, or not being blocked.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

DACA:
I never raised DACA as a failure. You did - by suggesting Trump was being obstructed. I pointed out he hasn’t acted on it this term, which makes the obstruction excuse hollow. Your new claim - that he never promised to act until court cases were resolved - confirms exactly that. So there was no action to block.

My point stands. You’ve just conceded it while trying to spin it as a win.

Immigration:
First it was “invasion basically finished.” Now it’s: well, they’re still coming, but we’re catching them. That’s a change in definition. A finished invasion doesn’t involve 8,725 people crossing in a single month. Your framing has shifted from “it’s over” to “we’re managing it better.” Fine - that’s progress. But don’t pretend the original claim still holds.

USAID:
You claimed it was “finished.” I showed your own source says it was restructured. You now argue most of it was cut - fine, but that’s not finished. If functions continue, it wasn’t abolished. Again, you’ve changed the claim while acting like you haven’t.

That’s spin.

And now, instead of citing a source, you throw in “homosexual comics for Colombians” - which, aside from being an odd rhetorical flourish, isn’t evidence. It’s just another distraction.

NATO:
You cited a 2035 target, not compliance. So when I said there’s no 5% spending now, I was right. You want a 10-year grace period for Trump, but mock Labor’s 5-year housing plan. That’s not consistency, that’s partisan elasticity.

So no - I’m not redefining success. I’m holding your definitions up to the light. They’re the ones changing shape.

Illegal immigration - zero illegals are now entering the US. Done.

USAID - the dept is gone. Done.

DACA - Trump hasn't tried to close it off so saying he's blocked is wishful thinking. Done.

Tariffs - massive victories over the EU, China, even little Australia. Without the predicted (do you now know what a prediction is?) increase in inflation. Done.

NATO - now beginning to adhere to the Trump demand that they increase defence spending. Done.

(Just on the comparison to Labor's housing policy.... "mock Labor’s 5-year housing plan". I didn't. I support it. Go back and read the thread. I just used it to highlight your hypocrisy. Oh Labor has a policy that will be finalised in the future says JD - genuflect, swoon. Trump has a policy that will be finalised in the future - what a failure. Hypocrisy writ large).

This is getting increasingly embarrassing to watch, mhaze.

//Illegal immigration - zero illegals are now entering the US. Done.//

Your own CBP source says 8,725 crossed illegally between ports in May 2025. You previously acknowledged this and then redefined success as “they're caught and returned.” Now you’re back to pretending they’re not entering at all?

Not done.

//USAID - the dept is gone. Done.//

Once again, the department was renamed and restructured under the State Department. The same article you linked confirms this. If its programs continue under a new bureau, it wasn’t “gone” - it was moved. You’re just re-labelling continuity as closure.

Not done.

//DACA - Trump hasn't tried to close it off so saying he's blocked is wishful thinking. Done.//

Exactly. That was my point. You previously claimed courts were blocking Trump’s plans - but here you admit no plan was attempted. So what obstruction? You’ve just confirmed there’s been no action to block.

Nothing to "done."

//Tariffs - massive victories over the EU, China, even little Australia. Without the predicted (do you now know what a prediction is?) increase in inflation. Done.//

No one said inflation would be permanently high. The New York Fed, Brookings, and others documented significant initial inflation from tariffs in construction, agriculture, and consumer goods. Claiming victory now is like denying a drought ever happened because it rained last week.

No victory.

//NATO - now beginning to adhere to the Trump demand that they increase defence spending. Done.//

“Beginning” is not “done.” They agreed to a 2035 target. There’s no 5% compliance today. So again, you’re declaring a future intention as a completed policy. That’s not how time works.

Not done.

//I just used [Labor's housing policy] to highlight your hypocrisy.//

No, I'm happy for both to take time - but neither are "done." That was the point all along. There has been no hypocrisy on my part.

You're declaring victory like a child shouting “I'm the King of the castle!” from a ditch.

I give up.

Zero new illegals released into the US and JD claims that doesn't matter because a few thousand were caught and NOT released. BTW the sky isn't blue because there's that small fluffy white cloud over there!

USAID has been closed down but JD claims otherwise because some of its functions have been continued at State. BTW the White Australia Policy continues because we still have an immigration system.

Struth!

The gymnastics some will go through to deny the massive successes of the first 6 months of Trump's term are impressive not to mention comedic.
Posted by mHaZe, Tuesday, 29 July 2025 9:48:52 AM
_____

mhaze,

If you’re genuinely giving up, fair enough - but it’s not because I’ve been twisting anything. It’s because your claims haven’t held up.

- Saying “zero illegals enter” when thousands are caught crossing is like saying a store has zero shoplifters because they’re apprehended at the door. It’s still entry.

- Saying USAID was “closed down” while its functions continue at State is like saying the White Australia Policy survived because we still have immigration rules. The function matters more than the sign on the door.

Pointing that out isn’t gymnastics. It’s just being accurate.

"It’s because your claims haven’t held up."

No, Its because I can't be bothered arguing with someone who is so deranged by their hatred of Trump and all things MAGA that they effectively argue that the sky isn't blue because it has some clouds.

So, the fact that your claims haven’t held up doesn’t phase you, mhaze?

//...I can't be bothered arguing with someone who is so deranged...//

Right - nothing to do with repeatedly claiming things were “done,” having to redefine success mid-thread, or citing sources that contradicted you. Just that I’m clouding your sky-blue certainties with facts you can’t swat away.

If you truly “can’t be bothered,” you wouldn’t still be here calling me deranged. That’s not disengagement, that’s frustration dressed up as dismissal.

And honestly, when you’ve gone from “finished” to “well, partially implemented,” “abolished” to “restructured,” and “zero entering” to “thousands caught but success anyway”… maybe the problem isn’t that the clouds obscure the sky.

Maybe it’s that you keep insisting they’re not clouds at all.

"So, the fact that your claims haven’t held up doesn’t phase you, mhaze?"

Not a fact.... just your failed assertion based on a distortion of the truth.

Meanwhile in the real world....

Trump, after getting the NATO partners to all agree to raising their defence spending to 5% of GDP, has now negotiated a trade agreement with the EU that massively favours the USA. The usual suspects are averting their gaze. Most European national leaders are complaining about how favourable the deal is to the US while at the same time acknowledging that Trump had artfully forced them to accede to his demands.

Interestingly, the UK economic leaders are acknowledging that Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.

Domestically, both Columbia and Harvard universities are bowing to the inevitable and agreeing to implement policies to combat antisemitism within their institutions while paying massive fines for failing to do so previously.

Meanwhile, in what be bigger news than all the above, "Trump administration EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says he'll revoke an Obama-era endangerment finding that so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) pose a public threat, calling it the "most significant deregulatory action in U.S. history." http://tiny.cc/27hq001

And amid all this, long time economic commentator for various news organisations, Jim Cramer, whose Trump Derangement syndrome makes JD's seem almost rational, is having a meltdown about how good the Trump economy is.

So, mhaze… still celebrating “real world” wins that aren’t even finalised?

Let’s unpack this properly:

//“Trump… got NATO partners to agree to 5% GDP… acceded to his demands.”//

What was agreed was a 5% defence spending target by 2035, not immediate compliance in 2025. Your claim of success is based on a future goal, not current action

//“…negotiated a trade agreement with the EU that massively favours the USA… European leaders admit they gave in.”//
Reports indicate talks might lead to a framework, possibly featuring a 15% tariff on EU imports, but the deal isn’t finalized. Public commentary is preliminary - not proof of a “massive win”

//“…UK… Brexit allowed materially better deal… anti-Brexiteers now towing the line.”//

There’s no credible evidence showing a superior post-Brexit deal with the US. Economists - even some in Tory circles - still view Brexit as a long-term drag, not a trade coup. No sources to back the “better deal” claim.

//“…Columbia and Harvard… paying massive fines for antisemitism.”//

The Columbia deal involved a $200m settlement and reforms - not an arbitrary “massive fine.” Harvard is in negotiations that may result in potentially hundreds of millions - but nothing final yet.

//“…EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says he’ll revoke Obama-era GHG endangerment finding… ‘most significant deregulatory action…’”//

Zeldin announced plans to reconsider the finding, not that it’s already repealed. The proposal is subject to public comment and expected to face legal challenges. It’s intention, not implementation.

//“…Jim Cramer… meltdown about how good the Trump economy is.”//

A media figure’s sensational reaction doesn’t equate to macroeconomic proof. You dismissed serious economists earlier - now you lean on one anchor’s showmanship? That’s cherry-picking.

You keep declaring “Done,” but almost every claim is:

- A future target (NATO 2035)
- A prospective or incomplete deal (EU trade)
- Partial or pending settlements (Columbia/Harvard)
- Intentions still to be debated or litigated (EPA)

That’s not “real world” success. It’s political theatre still in rehearsal.

After saying you’d “given up arguing with me,” you’ve come back just to wave the same paper banners.

""The other thing I say to Europe, we will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States," Trump said during trade talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

"They’re killing us. They’re killing the beauty of our scenery, our valleys, our beautiful plains. It’s the most expensive form of energy. It’s no good," Trump said to an audience that must have been aghast at his politically incorrect audacity."

Destigmatising greenhouse gases, reversing regulations that made the use of anything approaching a GHG more expensive, and now declaring war on windmills.
The winning just keeps coming.

______________________________________________________

Europe's deal with the US includes a baseline tariff of 15%. The UK's deal with Trump includes a baseline tariff of 10%. If you can find someone vaguely numerate they'll explain that 10 is less than 15 and is preferable when it relates to tariffs.

mhaze,

You keep tossing out “wins,” but let’s stop pretending every move is a triumph just because Trump did it.

Windmills:
Blocking clean energy isn’t victory. Wind power is already cheaper and growing faster than coal or gas. Killing it doesn’t make America stronger - it hands future energy leadership to China and Europe.

“Destigmatising greenhouse gases”:
A clever phrase for rolling back protections that prevent pollution and climate damage. That’s not winning, that’s trading public health and long-term stability for a short-term applause line.

Tariffs (15% vs 10%):
Tariffs are taxes on Americans. Saying “we won because it’s only 10%” is like bragging your mugger left you $10 instead of taking it all. You don’t negotiate your way out of a hole by digging deeper.

EPA rollback:
Calling this “the biggest deregulatory action in history” doesn’t change what it is: making it easier for industries to pollute while taxpayers cover the clean-up. Even conservative economists warn this just shifts costs to disaster relief and healthcare.

Yes, Trump has made moves. The real question is whether these moves help the country.

Declaring every headline a “win” is just cheerleading. A serious argument would explain how banning renewables, taxing imports, and gutting safeguards actually improves America’s future.

Until then, it’s less “winning” and more just waving pom-poms.

"The real question is whether these moves help the country."

A majority of USians think it helps and also appreciate that its what they voted for.

"making it easier for industries to pollute"

Calling CO2 pollution is the victory of propaganda over logic.

"Even conservative economists warn this just shifts costs to disaster relief and healthcare. "

You just make this stuff up in the hope no one will notice its rubbish.

I think you misunderstood the 10% v 15% point. Britain is paying less in tariffs and that's a victory for Brexit.

I thought "Renewables are Cheaper" had been buried long ago when
people realised that the batteries, the subsidies, the $Trillion
transmission lines, the loss of farmland, the 20yr lifetime etc
etc etc was taken into account.

That's known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy, mhaze.

//Majority of USians think it helps… what they voted for.//

Popularity doesn’t automatically make something good policy. Majorities have been wrong before - on segregation, on Iraq, on countless failed economic experiments. If “the crowd likes it” is your metric for success, you’ve abandoned any claim to principled governance.

//Calling CO2 pollution is propaganda over logic.//

Propaganda? The US Supreme Court legally classified CO2 as a pollutant in Massachusetts v. EPA, citing its role in public health risks. That’s not leftist spin - that’s settled US law and mainstream science. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you a contrarian thinker, it just rewrites history and science for comfort’s sake.

But please, tell us all about how more CO2 has a greening effect on the planet...

//You just make this stuff up… rubbish.//

You keep saying that, but it's mere projection.

Economists - conservative and otherwise - have repeatedly shown deregulation shifts costs onto disaster relief and healthcare. From wildfire suppression to respiratory illness treatment, taxpayers pick up the bill while polluters pocket the profits. If you want to deny that, you’ll need more than “rubbish” as your argument.

//Britain is paying less… victory for Brexit.//

Even if true, “less bad” tariffs aren’t victories, they’re symptoms of a global trade war that Trump started and Americans are funding. Having to negotiate emergency carveouts isn’t triumph; it’s damage control.

Your defence isn’t about whether these moves actually strengthen the US long-term - it’s about dressing up partial wins and temporary applause as historic achievements.

Fallacies, denialism, "Nuh-uhs"... you're not even pretending to be reasonable anymore.

"Majorities have been wrong before"

And they've been right before. But they are closer to the action and are more likely to be right than some TDS suffer on the other side of the world.

"tell us all about how more CO2 has a greening effect on the planet..."

Seems I don't need to, you already know it. And wonder of wonders, you got it right.

"If you want to deny that, you’ll need more than “rubbish” as your argument."

You make these assertions without a skerrick of proof or evidence and then demand that I disprove it. Not playing.

"//Britain is paying less… victory for Brexit.//

Even if true,"

No no it is true. You'll have to just trust me on this but 10% is less than 15%.

"Your defence isn’t about whether these moves actually strengthen the US long-term -"

Oh I've explained how the tariffs strengthen the US several times over, even on this thread. But you don't want it to be true and are therefore never going to be convinced.

Bezza,

The fact that renewables are cheaper has been “buried” only if you ignore the actual data.

Independent market reports (including the CSIRO’s GenCost and multiple global studies) consistently show that, even when you factor in batteries, transmission upgrades, and 20-year lifespans, new solar and wind projects are cheaper than new coal or gas.

Subsidies? Fossil fuels in Australia still receive billions annually in tax breaks and direct support - far more than renewables.

Transmission? Coal required massive grid buildouts too; we just forget because they were built decades ago.

And as for farmland: solar and wind take a fraction of the land used by fossil fuel extraction and are increasingly integrated with farming (agrivoltaics, wind grazing).

The “hidden cost” narrative sounds convincing until you actually run the numbers, which is why energy operators and investors continue to shift to renewables.

It’s not ideology, it’s economics.

Apealing to proximity is just as fallacious, mhaze.

//“Majorities have been right before… closer to the action…”//

Proximity doesn’t automatically confer insight - just ask the many locals who cheered the Iraq War. Democracy is about weighing evidence, not crowning whoever’s standing closest to a flagpole as the oracle of truth.

//“Seems I don’t need to [talk about CO2 greening]… you got it right.”//

And here I was expecting you to cry: "I didn't say that!" Seems I gave you too much credit.

Yes, plants can grow faster with more CO2 - but that’s not a net benefit when the same emissions drive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse. If that’s your “victory of logic,” it’s a pretty pyrrhic one.

//“You make assertions without proof… demand I disprove… Not playing.”//

Except, I don't make assertions.

Brookings, the New York Fed, Council on Foreign Relations, and the EPA itself have documented deregulation shifting costs onto disaster relief and public health. You’ve been pointed to this before. Waving it off as “rubbish” isn’t a counterargument, it’s a retreat.

//“10% is less than 15%… trust me on this.”//

And yet, 0% is even less than 10%.

If this is your measure of a “victory,” it’s one carved out of a problem Trump created. A firefighter who starts the blaze doesn’t become a hero for putting out half the fire.

//“I’ve explained how tariffs strengthen the US several times… you’re never going to be convinced.”//

You’ve asserted it, yes - but whenever the data’s examined (trade deficits rising, farmers bailed out, manufacturers offshoring), the story falls apart. That’s not me refusing to be convinced; that’s your evidence refusing to cooperate.

If every challenge to your claims is met with “trust me,” “not playing,” or “you’ve got TDS,” it’s no wonder nothing you call “done” ever survives scrutiny.

Try again.

"Proximity doesn’t automatically confer insight "

Nor does distance. The people who will benefit from the tariffs support them. That, in the fulness of time they might be wrong is something to be decided in 2035. But to have people who benefit from the lack of tariffs say they won't work and we shouldn't try to rectify the economic problems caused by asymmetric trade policies is a recipe for decline. The 2018 tariff policies showed jobs returning to the rust belt states.

But if you want to vaguely wave your arms and say that's not true because I don't want it to be true, then so be it.

CO2. You're the one who raised the massive greening of the plant. I just agreed. Now you are flailing about saying the greening isn't good or something.

"Brookings, the New York Fed, Council on Foreign Relations, and the EPA itself have documented deregulation shifting costs onto disaster relief and public health."
Again, mere assertion. Dropping names without context isn't evidence.

"And yet, 0% is even less than 10%."

Still valiantly trying to reframe the point. I simply said that the UK did better in the trade negotiation than the EU and you've been desperately trying to find a way to reframe that. Fail.

"but whenever the data’s examined (trade deficits rising, farmers bailed out, manufacturers offshoring), the story falls apart. "

Its cute that you think you've examined those things let alone that you've refuted them.

Why remind me of that, mhaze?

//Nor does distance [automatically confer insight]…//

You're the only one who suggested that it did by dismissing outside critique as irrelevant. You're getting yourself tied up into all sorts of knots here, aren't you.

//...people who benefit from tariffs support them… jobs returning to the rust belt.//

Yes, some jobs returned briefly in 2018. But the overall trade deficit climbed to record highs under Trump, and manufacturing output flatlined by 2020. Even conservative think tanks admit the net effect was cost-shuffling, not a true industrial revival. That’s not a vague arm wave, it’s data you keep dodging.

//CO2… you raised the massive greening… I just agreed.//

And you keep missing the point.

CO2 can boost plant growth, yes, but those same emissions drive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse that wipe out those short-term gains. Treating “plants grow faster” as some trump card while ignoring the damage is the kind of half-truth that got us here.

//Dropping names without context isn’t evidence.//

I was referencing detailed analyses you’ve brushed off repeatedly. Do you need a refresher?

Brookings quantified tariff-driven price hikes. The New York Fed traced cost pass-through to consumers. The EPA itself documented how deregulation shifts disaster relief and healthcare costs onto taxpayers. Ignoring the evidence doesn’t erase it.

//Still valiantly trying to reframe the point.//

No, you’re the only one doing the reframing - going from ‘victory for Brexit’ to merely 'better than the EU’s deal.' This is mere projection.

//UK did better than EU… fail.//

“Better” only in relative pain. The EU got slapped with a 15% tariff baseline thanks to Trump’s trade war. The UK escaped with 10%, but only because Brexit weakened its bargaining power and forced a scramble for any deal.

That’s not victory. That’s salvaging scraps.

//Cute that you think you’ve examined… refuted them.//

Translation: you can’t rebut the numbers.

Trade deficits ballooned, farmers needed record bailouts, and offshoring marched on. If tariffs were the revolution you claim, we’d see sustained structural change. We don’t.

"CO2 can boost plant growth, yes, but those same emissions drive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse that wipe out those short-term gains. "

Still on the greening? I get that you hate the idea that CO2 fertilisation has some positive benefits, but you need to get a grip. You mentioned it. I agreed. That's it. I didn't dispute other effects despite you're constnt assertion otherwise.

"crop failures". You are aware that world-wide grain production continues to be at record levels, I hope. But I get it. Good harvest - nothing to see here. Bad harvest - omg we're all gunna die.

"because Brexit weakened its bargaining power "

Now let's see if I understand your 'logic' here. Brexit weakened British bargaining position and that's why they got a better deal? And you think you make sense.

"Brookings quantified tariff-driven price hikes."
Yeah well Brookings who haven't seen a Republican policy they like since 2000. But, yes, there were some price increases. But the US inflation rate is currently lower than when Trump took over. Looking at the trees rather than the forest is rarely good policy.

I never said you disputed them, mhaze.

//Still on the greening?... I didn’t dispute other effects…//

I said you ignored them. That’s not the same thing. Saying “plants grow faster” while waving away the heatwaves, droughts, and ecological damage is like celebrating a house fire because it keeps you warm.

//Grain production continues to be at record levels…//

Global grain output is rising thanks to technology, genetics, and irrigation - not because CO2 has magically made the climate better. Meanwhile, extreme weather is already reducing yields in key regions. Higher global averages don’t erase regional crop failures or mounting risks.

//Brexit weakened British bargaining position and that's why they got a better deal?//

No, that’s you misunderstanding (or pretending to). A weaker bargaining position forced the UK to take whatever deal it could get, hence a slightly lower tariff than the EU’s. That’s not a “better deal,” it’s a desperate concession spun as strategy.

//Brookings… some price increases… inflation lower now…//

And again, you sidestep the point.

Tariffs caused documented short-term inflation and billions in added costs for consumers. Pointing to today’s CPI doesn’t erase that - it’s like saying a surgery was painless because the scars have faded.

You keep treating partial pain, temporary patches, and desperate compromises as if they’re historic wins. That’s not “seeing the forest,” it’s refusing to see the fire burning in it.

But sure, mhaze, keep calling burnt toast “gourmet.” Whatever helps you believe every stumble is a standing ovation.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. What have you got next?

If Britain was still in the EU they'd now be on a 15% tariff. But they're not. Twist and turn as much as you like, but the fact is that being outside the EU was a benefit for the UK. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't make it false.

"Global grain output is rising thanks to technology, genetics, and irrigation "....and CO2 fertilisation. There you go, fixed it for you.

Nation Bureau of Economic Research.... "We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2; equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively. "... "find that CO2 was the dominant driver of yield growth".

But if you don't want it to be true.....

"This is like shooting fish in a barrel. "

It takes a monumental amount of chutzpah to think that just saying it ain't so is the same as winning the argument.

More fish, mhaze?

//“If Britain was still in the EU… benefit for the UK…”//

A 10% carve-out doesn’t erase the broader economic hit from Brexit: weaker GDP growth, reduced investment, and more expensive imports. Celebrating that as a “benefit” is like praising a firefighter for saving one room while the rest of the house burns.

//“CO2… fixed it for you… NBER yield increases…”//

NBER also cautions that these gains plateau and are offset by rising heat stress, drought, and pest damage - problems already cutting yields in major breadbaskets. Cherry-picking one line while ignoring the rest of the study isn’t a fix, it’s selective editing.

Even the authors say CO2 fertilization doesn’t mean climate change is a net agricultural win. If you think it does, cite them saying so directly.

//“Fish in a barrel… chutzpah…”//

It’s not chutzpah when the barrel’s full of unaddressed caveats, half-finished policies, and definitions you keep shifting mid-argument. Pointing that out isn’t denial, it’s why this keeps feeling one-sided.

Thanks for the fish! Keep 'em coming...

"A 10% carve-out doesn’t erase the broader economic hit from Brexit:'

oh good.. because I didn't say it did. I just said that being outside the EU got them a better deal. That's all I said. You've now spent how many posts trying to find a way to say what is obviously true is wrong by bringing up things I never claimed. Do try to do better next time.

"NBER also cautions that these gains plateau and are offset by rising heat stress, drought, and pest damage - problems already cutting yields in major breadbaskets."

Do they? Where?

"Even the authors say CO2 fertilization doesn’t mean climate change is a net agricultural win. "

Do they? Where?

You got me, mhaze.

//Do they? Where?//

They don't. I guess that means all your cited victories really WERE victories of Trump's.

Oh, hang on...

“...fertilization of yield diminish as droughts intensify under agricultural field conditions, and are lost … which tends to offset the influence of CO2.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016138

“...ambient carbon dioxide (CO2)… increased precipitation changes… climate extremes such as drought stress have emerged.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1375175/full

“...seed yields in response to rising carbon dioxide… or decreased yields in response to warming temperatures… synthesis of their concurrent effects is lacking.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192323004276

So, it appears I misattributed a fact. That's what you get for having too many tabs open, I suppose, but it doesn’t change the fact that the science still says your “CO2 win” comes with serious crop risks.

//Being outside the EU got them a better deal.//

A slightly better tariff carve-out isn’t a strategic win when the bigger Brexit picture is weaker GDP, higher import costs, and reduced investment. Calling that a “benefit” is like declaring victory for saving one lifeboat while the ship sinks.

//Brookings… price increases… inflation lower now.//

And yet, tariffs did cause documented short-term inflation and consumer cost spikes. Pointing to lower CPI today doesn’t erase the billions paid during the upheaval. That’s not “long-term success,” it’s a case of lighting a fire and then claiming credit when the smoke clears.

Back you go...

"So, it appears I misattributed a fact. "

Yeah I knew that your claims were wrong. So wrong that you couldn't even fudge it.

"A slightly better tariff carve-out isn’t a strategic win when the bigger Brexit picture is weaker GDP, higher import costs, and reduced investment. Calling that a “benefit” is like declaring victory for saving one lifeboat while the ship sinks."

Wow JD that's getting dangerously close to you admitting that my original point was correct. If I kept pounding away for another ten posts I might even get a full admission.... if I could be bothered.

"tariffs did cause documented short-term inflation"

Your original claim was that the tariffs "triggered inflation". Now we back to it caused a bit of a rise in prices in a few items for a short period. My work here is done.

Acknowledging a misattribution isn’t a fudge, mhaze.

//“So wrong you couldn’t even fudge it…”//

It’s what intellectually honest debate looks like. I corrected myself, cited stronger evidence, and the science still doesn’t say what you wish it did. That’s not you “catching me,” it’s me refusing to fake certainty like you do when cornered.

Those quotes again:

“...fertilization of yield diminish as droughts intensify under agricultural field conditions, and are lost … which tends to offset the influence of CO2.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016138

“...ambient carbon dioxide (CO2)… increased precipitation changes… climate extremes such as drought stress have emerged.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1375175/full

“...seed yields in response to rising carbon dioxide… or decreased yields in response to warming temperatures… synthesis of their concurrent effects is lacking.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192323004276

//“Dangerously close to admitting my original point was correct…”//

No. Your original claim wasn’t just “UK got a lower tariff,” it was that Brexit was a benefit. I’ve been consistent: a marginally better tariff doesn’t erase weaker GDP, higher import costs, and collapsing investment. If saving a lifeboat while the ship sinks is your idea of a Brexit “benefit,” we clearly measure success differently.

//“Tariffs didn’t trigger inflation… just short-term price rises…”//

Tariffs did trigger inflation - that’s what those short-term price spikes were. Brookings, the Fed, and the Council on Foreign Relations documented billions in added consumer costs. Saying “it was temporary” doesn’t erase the trigger or the damage. A fire you eventually put out still burned the house.

If this is “your work done,” it’s only because you’ve stopped defending the details. After all these posts, you still haven’t shown a single complete Trump victory.

Twenty-eight posts in and you're yet to make a single point that holds.

You're lucky I'm so patient.

"Your original claim wasn’t just “UK got a lower tariff,” it was that Brexit was a benefit. "

No, here's my original point.

"Interestingly, the UK economic leaders are acknowledging that Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line."

You just deliberately misinterpreted my point because you could argue against it. And still can't. My work is done.

"you still haven’t shown a single complete Trump victory" .... to your satisfaction. But then you'd never acknowledge a Trump victory. There's the old joke that if Trump was filmed walking across the Potomac the TDS crowd would scream "Trump can't swim". Or if he cured cancer they'd scream about all the lost oncology jobs. But those attitudes are mild compared to your Trump hysteria.

You didn’t just say “lower tariff,” mhaze.

//here's my original point… UK economic leaders… Brexit allowed… materially better trade deal… anti-Brexiteers towing the line.//

You explicitly framed Brexit itself as a benefit because it supposedly enabled a “materially better trade deal.” That’s far broader than just a single tariff carve-out. A materially better deal would mean a clear, overall economic advantage - better terms across multiple areas, stronger GDP prospects, or a net gain compared to staying in the EU.

Now you’ve shrunk that to one numeric difference in tariffs (10% vs 15%) because the wider “Brexit win” doesn’t hold up. That’s not me misinterpreting, it’s you rewriting your own point after it failed.

//you still haven’t shown a single complete Trump victory… to your satisfaction.//

Not just to my satisfaction. To anyone looking for a finished policy outcome. You’ve offered future promises, partial rollouts, renamed agencies, and numeric tweaks, but no fully implemented, uncontested wins. That’s why nothing sticks when examined.

//you’d never acknowledge a Trump victory… Potomac… curing cancer…//

That’s not evidence, that’s an excuse. If Trump had a completed, verifiable victory to point to, you wouldn’t need to hide behind hypotheticals and jokes about walking on water. You’d just show it.

Declaring “work done” doesn’t erase that your examples keep shrinking every time they’re scrutinised. A single tariff carve-out isn’t a sweeping Brexit success, no matter how you spin it.

Any other backpedals you'd like to reframe as misrepresentation?

Let's do this!

"You didn’t just say “lower tariff,” mhaze."

So what were all those posts about the 10% v 15% question?

From a few days back.... "I think you misunderstood the 10% v 15% point. Britain is paying less in tariffs and that's a victory for Brexit."

Having comprehensively lost that and having learned that 10 is indeed lower than 15, you suddenly pivot to claims that that was never the issue.

Its like trying to hold rancid custard in your palm. It keeps seeping through because it has no substance.

mhaze,

This “rancid custard” bit is clever spin, but let’s not pretend I’m the one moving the goalposts here. The record shows otherwise.

I'll try to make as clear as possible for you:

1. What you originally claimed

You wrote:

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371235

That’s not “10 vs 15.” That’s a broad economic claim that Brexit itself delivered a materially better deal - framed as proof that Brexit was beneficial and that even critics had conceded.
_____

2. How your claim narrowed

Later, when challenged on the broader benefit of Brexit (GDP loss, reduced investment, higher import costs), you shifted to:

“Britain is paying less in tariffs and that's a victory for Brexit.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371239

That’s a much smaller claim - no longer about a “materially better trade deal,” just about a single tariff differential. I addressed that by saying:

“A 10% carve-out doesn’t erase the broader economic hit from Brexit... It’s like praising a firefighter for saving one room...”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371256
_____

3. Why this isn’t me pivoting

I’ve addressed both claims:

The big picture: Brexit damaged the UK economy overall.

The numeric carve-out: A slightly lower tariff doesn’t change that damage.

You’re now pretending that I “lost” a maths debate about 10 < 15, when the debate was never about knowing which number is smaller - it was about whether Brexit was a strategic economic win. That’s what you originally claimed and have since shrunk down.
____

4. The real custard
You accuse me of having “no substance,” but:

Original claim = Brexit big-picture win.

Revised claim = Brexit got a 10% carve-out.

Future spin = Pretend that’s what you said all along.

That’s not custard leaking through my fingers - that’s you pouring your own argument into a smaller and smaller bowl to avoid admitting the larger point didn’t hold.

The maths was never in dispute. The meaning of it was - and on that, your original claim still doesn’t survive scrutiny. But you knew this all along.

Naughty, naughty.

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US.”

A better trade deal with the US. That's all I said. Nothing about GDP, import costs, investment levels or any of the other red herrings you want to dream up. Just a direct comparison between the deal done by London compared to the deal done by Brussels.

And you've spent how many posts(?) trying to say the trade deal wasn't better by pivoting to other completely unrelated issues. Why? Because you didn't want to admit the trade deal was better for reasons that aren't all that clear other than wanting to be contrarian.

Nowhere did I say Brexit resulted in better GDP outcomes or that Brexit was even a net good. Just that on this occasion it was a positive.

Now I know that you're now going to pivot to claims about the 'vibe' of what I said, but kindly show your working when doing so.

Your MO is outrageous and extremely funny. You assert without the slightest evidence that I made claims about Brexit being a net good and when I point out that I never said any such thing, you assert I'm backtracking.

mhaze claims that JD says the world is flat.
JD responds that he never said any such thing.
mhaze asserts JD is backtracking on his flat earth claims.

Simultaneously funny and sad.

A nice attempt to rewrite history, mhaze, but the record speaks for itself.

//A better trade deal with the US. That's all I said… just a direct comparison… nothing about GDP…//

No. Your own words:

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371235

“Materially better trade deal” + “rabid anti-Brexiteers towing the line” is not a mere 10% vs 15% tariff comment. That’s a sweeping political claim that Brexit delivered a better overall outcome - and that even critics had conceded it.

You didn’t limit it to “on this one tariff.” You added “materially better” and invoked a broader shift in opinion. That’s your own wording, not my imagination.

//Nowhere did I say Brexit resulted in better GDP… net good…//

You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, but that’s the implication of calling it “materially better” and a “positive.”

"iMpLiCaTiOn!!1!"

Yes, implication. Do you understand what it means to paraphrase? If you truly meant only “UK’s tariff was slightly lower,” you could have said that. Instead, you framed it as a broad vindication of Brexit.

Shrinking it now to just “this one tariff” isn’t clarification - it’s retreat.

//mhaze claims JD says the world is flat… JD says no… mhaze calls it backtracking…//

Cute analogy, but wrong way round.

This is like you saying “the world is round and thriving,” getting shown data of flooding coastlines, and then insisting you only meant “the world is round.” The scale of your own claim changed once challenged.

That’s not me dreaming up red herrings, that’s me holding you to what you originally said.

This has been your pattern all thread: big claim first, smaller claim later, then claim I misrepresented you.

Try again.

"You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, but that’s the implication of calling it “materially better” and a “positive.”"

As I predicted.... "Now I know that you're now going to pivot to claims about the 'vibe' of what I said,"

You're so easy to read its not fun any more.

mhaze,

Predicting my reply doesn’t make you right, it just means you knew I’d hold you to your own words.

//Now I know that you're going to pivot to the 'vibe' of what I said…//

This isn’t about a vibe. You wrote:

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.”

That’s not a mild comment about a single tariff - it’s a broad, political claim about Brexit delivering a “materially better” outcome and critics conceding defeat.

When challenged, you shrank it down to “just a 10% vs 15% tariff,” then accused me of imagining the larger claim.

Seeing that I’d point this out doesn’t absolve you - it confirms you know you moved the goalposts.

"Predicting my reply doesn’t make you right,"

In fact it does, although it will always go over your head.

Truthfully, reading people who are more prepared to beclown themselves than admit an error is child's ply.

Again, mhaze, it only proves your behaviour is predictable.

//In fact it does…//

Predicting that someone will respond to being cornered by deflecting or downplaying doesn’t make you right about the argument itself. It only proves your behaviour is predictable.

//“Reading people… beclown themselves… than admit an error…”//

You’re describing something I've done just recently - I admitted an attribution error earlier, cited better sources, and corrected myself.

Meanwhile, you’ve spent post after post shrinking claims, shifting definitions, and pretending victories are complete when they’re not - and still won't retract them, even after they're linked to and laid out clearly and chronologically.

That’s not me “beclowning” myself, it’s you refusing to hold your own claims steady long enough for anyone to take them seriously.

Being predictable doesn’t win arguments; it just makes your evasions easier to spot.

At this rate, you’re starting to sound like a parody of yourself.

""You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, " says JD. The implication of that phrase, the vibe of it, is that JD admits he's wrong but can't bring himself to admit it. Really he is admitting in the implications of what he wrote.

Because as we know, in JD-land, the implications of it, the vibe of it, are more important than the actual facts of it.

I wasn’t wrong about your Brexit retreat, mhaze.

//“JD admits he's wrong… the implication… the vibe…”//

I already showed how it played out here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371273

Your wording was broader (“materially better deal… anti-Brexiteers towing the line”), and you narrowed it only after it didn’t hold up. That’s not my “vibe,” that’s your edit history. You’ve yet to concede it.

//“Implications more important than facts…”//

As though the two are mutually exclusive.

Facts:

- Original claim: Brexit delivered a materially better trade deal, even critics conceded.
- Revised claim: Just meant UK’s tariff is slightly lower.

That’s not implication, that’s a documented retreat. You can meme about “JD-land” all you like, but it won’t change what’s written in your own posts.

And until you can own that retreat, every “my work is done” sounds less like victory and more like wishful thinking.

OH no.... after he admitted (or implied) he got it all wrong, JD is now trying to back-track on his admission.

No, mhaze.

You’re mixing up two entirely different points:

- I corrected a CO2 citation earlier in the thread. That had nothing to do with Brexit.

- On Brexit, I’ve never “admitted” you were right. In fact, I’ve shown - using your own posts - that you shifted from a materially better Brexit deal to merely lower UK tariffs.

Conflating those two doesn’t magically turn your Brexit retreat into a win. It just shows you’re hoping no one notices you’ve tied unrelated debates together to claim a backtrack that never happened.

Do keep up.

"You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, "

You made that admission of error in relation to my comments about Brexit.

Nothing to do with your errors over CO2 which I let you get away with out of sympathy for your mental struggles with the facts.

I find it very disappointing that, after admitting you got it wrong on my Brexit comments, you are now back-tracking

No, mhaze, that’s fiction.

When I wrote “You didn’t use those exact phrases, true,” it wasn’t an admission on Brexit. It was me saying you hadn’t literally typed “GDP boost,” while pointing to your actual wording:

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371235

That’s a broad “Brexit win” claim. When challenged, you shrank it to:

“Britain is paying less in tariffs and that’s a victory for Brexit.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371239

Now you’re pretending I admitted error to hide the retreat from “materially better trade deal” to “10% tariff.”

The only correction I made was on CO2; attribution, which I owned, backed with studies, and which you’re now trying to conflate with Brexit.

This isn’t me backtracking, it’s you rewriting history to patch up a point that collapsed days ago.

Is it any wonder you can never seem to lay out quotes chronologically?

No No JD, you definitely implied that what I said was true and that you got it wrong when you said otherwise... you even said it was true.

You've now been back-tracking for days from that momentary lapse of honesty.

(That 'implied' wording can carry quite a load, n'est pas?)

Where exactly did I do this, mhaze?

//…you definitely implied that what I said was true and that you got it wrong when you said otherwise... you even said it was true.//

Your claim is suspiciously light on quotes.

//That 'implied' wording can carry quite a load, n'est pas?//

No, it can’t.

You need to be able to show how something is implied if called on to do so - which is what I do when you imply then deny.

Notice you’ve not been able to do the same here?

"Your claim is suspiciously light on quotes."
It must be helpful for some to have such a short attention span.

""You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, " says JD. The implication of that phrase, the vibe of it, is that JD admits he's wrong but can't bring himself to admit it."

That’s not the “gotcha” you think it is, mhaze.

//“You didn’t use those exact phrases, true…”//

Yes, and I immediately explained that your own wording (“materially better deal… anti-Brexiteers towing the line”) still implied far more than just a 10% tariff difference. That wasn’t me admitting you were right; it was me showing why your claim was broader than you now pretend.

You’ve rebranded my clarification as a confession. That’s not proof, it’s spin.

If you actually had a quote where I said you were right on Brexit, you’d post it. Instead, we’re still stuck on vibes.

Try again...

"we’re still stuck on vibes."

I'm just giving you an education how relying on the vibes/implied card is a two way street. As well as having a deal of fun.

So, no quote then, mhaze.

//Giving you an education… relying on vibes… fun…//

Exactly my point: you can’t show where I admitted you were right, so now it’s “just vibes” and “just for fun.”

That’s not education, it’s evasion.

Well maybe it just goes over your head. What I'm showing is that when you used the 'implications' assertion to make claims about Brexit in regards to the US/UK to say I'd said things that I hadn't said, the I could use the same process to expand on the 'implications' of what you'd said.

Too subtle for you?

Yes, I knew you were heading there, mhaze.

But getting you to spell it out smugly makes correcting you so much more satisfying.

See, when I draw an implication, I show how it logically follows from your own words - like when you said “materially better trade deal… even anti-Brexiteers towing the line.” That clearly implied more than just a tariff carve-out. I didn’t invent that - I quoted your framing and explained the inference step-by-step.

You, on the other hand, tried to pin an entirely unrelated Brexit admission on me based on a comment I made about CO2 - and when asked to quote where this supposed “implication” occurred, you couldn’t. You still can’t. Because it wasn’t there.

There’s a difference between inventing a random meaning that bears no resemblance to what was said, and drawing a clear implication based on wording, context, topic, and prior behaviour.

Too subtle for you?