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.