Shrugging off the Communist Chinese recent naval aggression around our country “cost the Australian public a chance to understand the risks”.

(https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chinese-warships-australians-never-got-debate)

And, this matters because, as the author of the above article says diplomatically, Australia's security interests are “not aligned” with those of Communist China, whose ships came within 5-7 nautical miles from our Exclusive Economic Zone.

What could be surprising to many of us is that Chinese vessels are entitled to (under those ‘international laws’) enter our EEZ, and even conduct exercises there, including gunnery exercises.

But, our EEZ is not a “transit corridor”, and it is not analogous to the Taiwan Strait or the EEZ zones of SE Asia. While that doesn't mean that China cannot enter it, Australians “should pay explicit attention to why it would want to operate here.

Each demonstration of power (there were two) was the CCP sending a signal to Australia and the neighbourhood. China can reach and sustain operations in our region. The author doesn't think the exercises were a threat; but they “were not trivial” - as Albanese, lacking interest in defence and foreign affairs, acted as though they were.

We no longer enjoy the protection of distance from major conflicts. We are dependent on sea lanes and maritime trade. China is reminding us of that. Is Canberra listening? The Albanese government's “underwhelming” interest in defence suggests not.

Australians are owed an explanation as to what could happen, and how they could handle it as civilians in a country that has never had war come to it in the past. Apart from Darwin over 80 years ago.

Albanese shrugged off our new vulnerability, smirking, even giggling about how ‘everyone does it’.

Australia was unprepared for war when WW2 broke out. Then we had the advantage of the action being far away. Not any more.

Australians need to know the risks we all face (not just soldiers) if the country is attacked. Everywhere in Australia is now potentially dangerous for civilians.

China acts provocative towards us when we act provocative towards them.
China doesn't need to attack or invade anyone, they will win without having to fire a shot anyway, their electricity is a third of the price of the West, they get discounted oil, control supply chains and they are a global manufacturing powerhouse introducing AI industrial efficiency, AND they produce far more STEM graduates, it's inevitable.
The world needs China more than China needs any one nation.

All this talk does is play into defense procurement, to attempt to make us ready to fight a war we could never win, so unless you wish to obtain a nuclear bomb and real soverignty, just stop.

The old world is gone.
The U.S. cannot defend us anymore than they can defend Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel or anywhere else.
Stop living in the past and trying to march us all off a cliff, please.
You are going to end up getting everyone killed with you war driven fearmongering.
It's time to accept the new realities.

Hi AC,

A good critique of the real world situation. We certainly don't want a war with China, or with any other nation for that matter, it would be disastrous for Australia. Unfortunately some people are detached from reality and are living in the past, thinking a modern war would be fought in the trenches. Our best weapons are diplomacy, and the development of good relationships through free trade and cultural exchange. China has lifted itself out of poverty to become an economic super power, without having to fire a single shot.

China is expected to contribute 26.6% of global real GDP growth in 2026, the highest of any country, followed by India at 17%. With an annual growth rate of 5.5% compared to the US 2%, Australia doesn't even rate.

I should hope that Australia doesn't want to go to war with China. However, that doesn't mean that China doesn't want to go to war with Australia and other countries in the region. Xi has openly told China to prepare for war against Taiwan.

Things could very well be “disastrous ” for Australia when that happens.

In my 83rd year, I am unlikely to be affected; but the two idiots who jump in to howl me down for my opinions might very well be in for a shock, as will all Australians too young to have been taught history, and what could happen to them as citizens under siege, or just having imports they need cut off - not just from China, but by China.

50 or so million civilians were killed in WW2 with weapons downright primitive compared with those available today. Australia was remote from it all; not now. Distance and troops sent overseas won't protect us from China - as they have clearly shown us.

However, these days my posts attract only idiots, so I'm not bothering any more. All the other “old farts” have disappeared from the site, and it's time for me to go as well.

Talking about China as if they were a challenger is stupid. China is all but bankrupt and in ruins. They are stuffed and unable to come out of it.
China and US have been at war for the last 12 months. China will fall along with Iran, Russia and Cuba. They are all self destructing from the inside. Chinas biggest income is by scams. Communism has never worked.

"I should hope that Australia doesn't want to go to war with China."
- If we sent troops abroad to fight China, I wouldn't put much hope in many of them coming back.

"However, that doesn't mean that China doesn't want to go to war with Australia and other countries in the region."
- What if they did, what then?

We lose 200,000 Aussies and capitulate within a month or so anyway with several hundred billion in debt attempting to mount an inadequete defence with weapons not fit to task and spread to thin we couldn't prevent an invasion anyway?

"Xi has openly told China to prepare for war against Taiwan."
- We should stay out of it, encourage both parties to work things out diplomatically, and not add to any conflict.

Best if we just learn to co-exist, embrace their achievements, focus on trade and nation building the best we can.

"...having imports they need cut off - not just from China, but by China."
Exactly, so why do they need to invade us when they already have leverage?
And is it not the Wests own fault, in its own profit-driven ways they exported all the jobs and manufacturing themselves looking for cheaper wages, China's communism also includes central planning, and they actually build and plan for their future, whose fault is it if they are smart enough to focus on and subsidise specific areas and build controlling positions in supply chains when they are focussed on manufacturing, we are the ones who made ourselves reliant upon them in our own demand for cheap products.

How are we going to compete with them when their electricity and wages are a third of the price and manufacturing is so advanced they have factories full of robots.

"50 or so million civilians were killed in WW2 with weapons downright primitive compared with those available today."
- Well lets hope cooler heads prevail and it doesn't come to that ttbn.

Because it would be pointless.

"However, these days my posts attract only idiots, so I'm not bothering any more. All the other “old farts” have disappeared from the site, and it's time for me to go as well."

ttbn, you have been saying that for 20 years on the forum, and you are still here. I suspect as the number one forum poster you'll be back tomorrow posting, posting and posting. The only old fart who seems to have departed is that Hassy (Hasbeen) maybe he's gone to the big chicken coop in the sky, don't know. The forum would be diminished without your insightful ramblings, if you did a runner (he's gone to), so why not stick around.

BTW, China views Taiwan in the same way Australia views Tasmania, as part of their sovereign country. My view, is like that of my good Taiwanese friend living in Sydney, she wants Taiwan to be free and independent, without foreign interference. She is vehemently anti communist, but she also wants America to stop using Taiwan as a weapon against China. My friend has great worry for her family back home, they also have relatives living on the mainland.

Well it's official.
Donald Trumps a steaming turd.
53% of Americans now think the country is worse under Trump than under Biden.
Considering Biden was near incoherent, this has to be Trumps greatest achievement yet.

Democracy never gives anything better.
It gives lies and manipulation and grandstanding, talk about unity, but the outcome always follows a slow downward spiral.

53% of Americans
Armchair Critic,
"Americans". ? Did they do a survey in New York ?

No worries about a war with China, should it happen we'll get a bunch of red necked politicians from the Noalition and One Nutter parties to go get em', maybe send along a couple of forum old farts to SHIRT FRONT EM' as well!

AI Overview
A February 2026 Axios/Harris poll indicated that a majority of Americans, specifically 53%, believe the country was better off under Joe Biden, according to Axios. This survey, taken during Donald Trump's term, reflected a shift in voter sentiment regarding the economic and policy outcomes of the two administrations

A year into Trump's term, voters say Biden was better
http://www.axios.com/2026/02/12/trump-polling-approval-biden-democrats

'President Trump has become so politically toxic that voters now say Joe Biden — whose unpopularity forced him into early retirement — did a better job as president, according to three new polls.'

Seems The Donald has something else in common with Hitler, making long boring speeches. Yesterday it was 1 hour 47 minutes of propaganda and nonsense.

Hi Paul,
Donald would tell you it was the best speech ever in the history of the U.S. and that there's never been another speech like that.

"Axios/Harris poll indicated that a majority of Americans,"

Axios you say? now there's an unbiassed source.

What's next? Let's ask Pravda what Russians think about Putin </sarc>

Meanwhile, following that speech that Paul thought boring (and I'm sure he watched the whole thing - sure!!)... following the speech, 64% of USians thought that "Trump’s policies would move the United States in the right direction". These same people were polled prior to the speech when 54% thought that. So the speech moved one in 5 people in Trump's direction.

Here's the kicker. The poll was from CNN - the most anti-Trump media in the US. If they're admitting this, you can bet the numbers are even better than that.

mhaze,

The idea that a CNN poll must be understating support assumes systematic anti-Trump skew in their polling methodology.

That's a serious claim. Is there evidence for that in their sampling or weighting, or is it just an inference based on branding?

No, its an observation based on their previous polling.

But that's JD for you. Ignore the substance and focus on the minutia.

If it's based on previous polling, mhaze, then it should be easy to show.

Which CNN polls systematically understated Trump support, by how much, and across what timeframe?

"Observation" isn’t methodology.

Australians deserve to be told what could happen to them in a conflict with China.

I'm just wondering the actual scenarios
What kind of foolishness would lead to finding ourselves at war with China in the first place?

Right now if China wants to fire a few shots at Australian naval vessels because the Aussies are provoking them by sailing through the Taiwan strait, then that's up to them.

What's the point of it anyway?
Maybe our naval personnel should also go up on deck drop their pants and display their arsecheeks for the Chinese as well.

"Ner, ner, we're sailing our crappy ship through your strait.
What are you going to do about it silly Chinese people?
We dare you to do something.
Come and kiss our arses"

And the same people going
'Yes - take that ya dirty chinese bastards...'

Will be the same people
Literally screaming like 7 year olds until your eardrums break
Relentlessly screaming that our nation is in danger
When the Chinese decide to sail their own ship too close to our place

"Ner, ner, we're sailing our crappy ship through your strait.
What are you going to do about it silly Australian people?
We dare you to do something.
Come and kiss our arses"

Bunch of idiots.

Hi AC,

"Right now if China wants to fire a few shots at Australian naval vessels because the Aussies are provoking them by sailing through the Taiwan strait, then that's up to them."

We should beg them not to sink any, as we only have a couple that actually float. Could they hold off until 2045 or later when our secondhand nuk subs arrive from Uncle Donald!

I don't know why we are buying American nuk subs anyway, the new Chinese model nuk sub costs one fifth the price of those Yankee rust bucket jobs! Why buy an overpriced Ford for big dollars, when you can get the latest Great Wall model for heaps of Yuan less!

Navy, Air Force, submarines, battleships, fighter planes etc etc are & will prove to be a total waste of money, time & lives, China or no China. Australia can't even control its borders now in peacetime let alone in a conflict. Much more efficient & also much cheaper would be coastal missile stations all around the continent. If it's out of range of the missiles it's not Australia's concern !

It'd cost trillions of dollars Indy
I hear they're swimming in shite aboard the Gerald Ford
Angry sailors stuffing T-Shirts into the toilet system.
Haven't seen port in 8 months.

"then it should be easy to show."

Off you go then. Good luck.

""Observation" isn’t methodology."
What a ludicrous thing to say.... of course it is.

_________________________________________________________________________

""Ner, ner, we're sailing our crappy ship through your strait."

Its not THEIR strait. Its international waters. Although AC is so obsequious toward the CCP, that if they say its theirs. in his view that's the end of the discussion

You're the one who made the claim, mhaze.

//Off you go then. Good luck.//

I take it you are unable to support your claim of systematic skew. If it’s based on "previous polling," which polls and what were the quantified errors?

//What a ludicrous thing to say.... of course [obeservation is methodology].//

No, it's not.

Observation is how a hypothesis forms. It is not the same thing as demonstrating it.

If your observation is that CNN polls systematically understate Trump support, then that should be testable against historical results.

Which specific polls, and by how much?

"Its not THEIR strait. Its international waters. Although AC is so obsequious toward the CCP, that if they say its theirs. in his view that's the end of the discussion.

It's no wonder the world is always in conflict with thinking like this.
It's contested by China, and should be, considering Taiwan is recognised by the U.S. in the One China policy, you know - the concessions Nixon made when the U.S. wanted to export all the U.S. jobs so the rich could get richer.

And it's provocative, you're starting shite.

In fact it's also the equivalent of taking your pet dog over the road to shite on your neighbours nature strip each day, in full view, inviting them to do something about it, like turn the lawn sprinkler on you moron.

Seriously, grow the feck up Australia.

With this in mind, I wholeheartedly invite the Chinese to sail a carrier fleet through Bass Strait so that we can play 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander', and then I'll be able to hear your high-pitched girl scream from up here in QLD.

- I'm sure I'll be able to hear the screaming from Canberra up here, and you're closer.

JD,
Still trying to avoid the substance, being that the CNN poll found that the Trump speech was well received by 2/3rds of those who viewed it and swayed 1 in 5 of those who started off opposed to Trump. Averting your eyes from unwanted facts isn't the path to the truth, but, in your case, explains a lot.

As to the previous polling which you are so vexed by, check their polling in the 2024 presidential election.

AC,

Its a simple statement of fact that the western ships sailing through the Taiwan straits are in international waters. Throwing a tantrum over it on behalf of the CCP doesn't change the facts although that simple truth seems to elude you.

Its not possible to sail through the Bass Strait without entering Australian territorial waters. See the difference? Probably not. Stand by for another tantrum.

What would you like me to say about them, mhaze?

//Still trying to avoid the substance, being that the CNN poll found…//

I questioned your additional claim that the "real" numbers must be even higher because CNN is biased.

That's the substantive point.

//check their polling in the 2024 presidential election.//

Which specific CNN polls in 2024 systematically understated Trump support, and by how much?

If there's a consistent directional error, it should be easy to show in the margins.

"What would you like me to say about them, mhaze?"

The old saying is that if you can't say anything intelligent its best to remain quiet. So therefore I don't want you to say anything about them.

We were talking about the Axios/Harris poll which underestimated Trump's vote by well over 2% in 2024. etc etc

Still, things are looking up for CNN. Its just been announced that Paramount has won the bidding to buy our Warner Bros which includes, among other things, CNN.

That means that CNN editorially will come under the control of the still relatively new team at Paramount which includes the inestimable Bari Weiss (quick JD run off to Grok to see what dirt you can find on her). It was a mere 6 years ago that Weiss left the New York Times because it was no longer an unbiassed news service. She established The Free Press website which gathered a group of excellent reports and commentators (I am proud to say I was an early subscriber) which came to vex the left. Free Press was eventually bought out by Paramount and Weiss enlisted to try to salvage the editorial integrity of the CBS newsroom.

Now CNN will now get the same treatment. Who knows, at this rate, by the end of the Trump administration, the US media might end up being reasonably unbiassed.

mhaze,

We were discussing your claim that CNN polling systematically understates Trump support. Now you're citing Axios/Harris in 2024.

Which specific CNN polls in 2024 understated Trump support, and by how much?

If the claim is about a broader industry polling error, that's different from asserting partisan institutional skew.

Trumpster,

"Who knows, at this rate, by the end of the Trump administration, the US media might end up being reasonably unbiassed." Was the misspelling of the word unbiased due to the fact its not in the Trumpster vocabulary? Your folk hero the Dangerous Doctor Donald attacks any reporter who dares to ask "uncivilised" questions like; "What hanky panky did YOU and your good mate Jeffo get up to on the island?

mhaze

I was just thinking... this would be a rather strange thing for me to do, given that I've never done it before:

//quick JD run off to Grok to see what dirt you can find on her//

Let alone consult an LLM for dirt. Not here, not ever.

After all, why would I need to?

What I do do, however, is audit your behaviour in debates. For this one, I created a fresh Grok account with another made-up Gmail address (faucihatesfreedom@). Then I switched the names:

Question:
In the attached debate, who is the most intellectually honest out of mhaze and John Daysh?

Grok:
mhaze is the most intellectually honest between the two. He consistently seeks evidence for claims, challenges assumptions without personal attacks, and focuses on the methodological substance rather than deflecting or shifting topics.

John Daysh, in contrast, makes unsubstantiated assertions about polling bias, avoids providing specific supporting examples when directly asked, and resorts to evasion and ad hominem remarks.

http://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vc4vyMS9-HdaQ3Z-cjNYi7y-OubDG2OS
http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_3a8f79e8-a2fe-4fc7-8b96-f1057e9650ad

Go ahead. Try it yourself. Let’s see what you get.

"We were discussing your claim that CNN polling systematically understates Trump support."

No, you were discussing it. I was talking about more substantive issues.

________________________________________________________________________

"attacks any reporter who dares to ask "uncivilised" questions like; "What hanky panky did YOU and your good mate Jeffo get up to on the island?"

Yes Paul, that's the type of bias I was talking about. Asking Trump questions based on utter lies and then being surprised when he points out its utter lies. FYG Trump never went to the island.

Now run away like a startled mouse like you did when you were asked to show any evidence that 100 people died from drinking disinfectant.

Oh, BTW something else for you to ignore.... the male Clinton admitted in testimony that Trump was not involved with Epstein. Paul will have forgotten that by his bedtime.

_____________________________________________________________________

Oh dear JD. I thought that after your last drubbing on this, you'd learned to avoid these errors. But a tiger can't change its spots I guess!

You fundamentally misunderstand how LLM's work and then think they mean something. Even when they tell you that they aren't built for what you want to use them for, you ignore that and then still think that it means something when they tell you what you want to hear.

Oh dear, mhaze.

You introduced the claim that if CNN reports pro-Trump numbers, the real numbers must be even higher because of bias. I asked you to substantiate that claim.

If you'd prefer to withdraw it, that's fine.

//Oh dear JD. I thought that after your last drubbing on this, you'd learned to avoid these errors.//

There was no drubbing.

You pretended that LLM bias was insurmountable - even after I had shown that it's not. I've just done so again; this time, by switching the names as well.

Your response? To again pretend that I don't understand how they work.

All it would take for you to prove your point would be to show what you get using the same prompt, but you don't because you get the same result I do.

"There was no drubbing."

Well anyone reading that thread might come up with a different understanding. I noticed at the time you couldn't change the subject quickly enough.

"All it would take for you to prove your point would be to show what you get using the same prompt,"

Oh dear. Did you miss the point I made about that earlier or were you still in shock at your drubbing. The Gemini AI had pointed out that once the question is asked of an LLM, the water is muddied since that then forms part of the AI's database and is referred to next time the issue is raised. I suspect you won't understand that.

Hi mhaze,

Are you still going around and around in circles with other commenters, never acknowledging any of the other persons points, arguing bs 'technicalities' that don't even mean anything to try and win the entire argument, and then pronouncing yourself victorious, without ever winning any actual argument on merit, again?

[Rolls eyes, oh no, not this again]

I see Israel attacked Iran.
I was kind of expecting it today, (night there) given they finally put ambassadors on flights yesterday, I think Australia gave their advice the day before.

Looks like they tried to assassinate Pezeshkian and Khomeini.
I don't have any other details as yet about targets.

US claimed to be in negotiations with Iran yesterday and supposedly continuing today, so the same kind of pretense he's used before for surprise attacks.

Israels declared a state of emergency, but I havent heard anything about Iran launching retaliatory strikes.

Again, there was no "drubbing", mhaze.

//Oh dear JD. I thought that after your last drubbing on this…//

"Oh dear," indeed.

You asserted LLM bias was insurmountable. I showed that swapping names in the same prompt produced symmetrical outputs. You never demonstrated otherwise.

Convenient.

//You fundamentally misunderstand how LLM's work…//

Again, you haven't shown that.

//The Gemini AI had pointed out that once the question is asked… the water is muddied…//

Wrong.

Consumer LLMs do not update their global training corpus from individual user prompts. Session context influences a conversation, it does not permanently rewrite the model. If you believe otherwise, cite documentation.

Back to the substance you seem keen to avoid:

You originally claimed that if CNN reports pro-Trump numbers, the "real" numbers must be even higher because of bias. If you wish to withdraw the CNN skew claim, that’s fine. If you wish to defend it, the question remains: which specific CNN polls, and by how much?

Trumpster,

Your ignorance is astronomical! "But a tiger can't change its spots" Of course a tiger can't change its spots, tigers don't have spots, they have stripes, leopards have spots! The Forum Fool Award Of The Week goes to mhaze for the 40th week running!

BTW, with such astounding ignorance you must be on the One Nation ticket at the next election!

"FYG Trump never went to the island." Yes he did, hundreds of times, it all part of the great conspiratorial cover up.

When I quote reliable sources its an unquestionable established fact! At least 100 Americans died from drinking diso, on the advice of Dangerous Doctor Donald! What more proof do you want, a seance with the dearly departed? That can be arranged, dust off the weegee board, shine up the crystal ball, mhaze wants proof!

I think I heard somewhere that maybe Epstein introduced Trump to Melania, and that they were both on the Lolita Express, but I don't know how true it is.

Here's an interesting Epstein backstory for you all...

How a High School Girl Fight Led to Jeff Epstein’s Arrest
http://youtu.be/ujWNo_1i93k

So Iran has retaliated hey, seems like it's all going down atm...

'UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and more': 6 countries under attack as US-Israel launch strike against Iran
http://www.wionews.com/photos/-uae-saudi-arabia-qatar-and-more-6-countries-under-attack-as-us-israel-launch-strike-against-iran-1772274204593/1772274204596

mhaze,

It doesn't matter whether I switch the names or not, our little right-leaning friend disagrees with your "drubbing" assertion, too.
_____

Question:
In the attached debate, did mhaze suffer a drubbing from John Daysh regarding LLMs?

Grok:
No, mhaze did not suffer a drubbing from John Daysh on the topic of LLMs.

http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_91be807d-52bb-468d-9d35-ac18c23fbc8a
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1Do99ncmaDdE9Z83YcGGYEO2V6chd2n7l - names switched
_____

Question:
In the attached debate, did John Daysh suffer a drubbing from mhaze regarding LLMs?

Grok:
No, John Daysh did not suffer a drubbing from mhaze on the subject of LLMs.

http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_cbc6159e-7e31-40fc-beb7-2ae3a3be66c7
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1hNaN3tp2nruPdm9CPa8JsS4Fxcvskx1J - correct names
_____

Nice try, mhaze, but all the analyses stand.

The question you asked Grok and linked to in the previous thread describes contextual sycophancy tendencies. It doesn’t establish structural partisan bias, nor does it support the claim that a single query permanently alters model outputs:
http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_7ab7eba4-39f4-4847-86ac-4486cb46bcc7

You’re generalising from a limitation to an ideological conclusion.

U.S. Air Defense Doesn't Work!
http://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/2027820486114296167

"You asserted LLM bias was insurmountable. "

No. I reported that the LLM's said their bias was insurmountable. Its pretty funny really. You're using a system to get answers that the system itself says is inappropriate to use, and then declaring that the answers you get are valid.

OK. On CNN. Its obvious that looking it up for yourself is beyond your capabilities so I'll spoon-feed you again....AGAIN.

2016 - they had Clinton winning popular vote by 8-10%. Actual result..2%
2020 - Biden by 12%. Actual result...4.5%
2024 - Kamala by 1%. Actual result...Trump by 1.5%

_______________________________________________________________________

Paul...."Of course a tiger can't change its spots,"
Its an old ironic saying. They might teach you about it in 4th grade.

"Yes he did, hundreds of times, it all part of the great conspiratorial cover up."
Oh so the fact that there's no evidence for it is proof of the cover up. Oh dear Paul. You're becoming increasingly deranged.

"When I quote reliable sources its an unquestionable established fact!"
Except you didn't mention any sources. And I'll wager you never will because there aren't any

No, they didn't, mhaze.

//...the LLM's said their bias was insurmountable.//

Read Grok's answer to your question again. Either way, I've just demonstrated that they're not insurmountable.

Again, all my analyses stand.

Consumer LLMs do not retrain their global models based on individual user prompts. Session context affects a conversation, it does not permanently muddy the database.

As I said before, contextual sycophancy tendencies are not the same thing as structural partisan alignment.

Back to the actual topic, two questions:

1. How did those errors compare to the industry average in the same cycles?
2. Were those CNN's final pre-election national polls, and what were their stated margins of error?

Polling error across cycles is not the same as institutional partisan skew. To support your earlier claim, you'd need to show that CNN's directional error was uniquely and consistently anti-Trump relative to peers.

"1. How did those errors compare to the industry average in the same cycles?
2. Were those CNN's final pre-election national polls, and what were their stated margins of error?"

Well I didn't say the errors from CNN were unique. Just that they existed.

Standard JD here. Raises objections to unwanted facts, has those objections knocked down and, without the slightest acknowledgement of his previous errors, raises new objections, each one more deranged than the others.

You didn't merely say polling errors existed, mhaze.

You said that if CNN reports pro-Trump numbers, the real numbers must be even higher because of bias.

The existence of polling error alone doesn't justify that inference.

To support that conclusion, you'd need to show consistent directional skew relative to peers.

Standard mhaze here: says something is standard of me, then it turns out it wasn't.

"The existence of polling error alone doesn't justify that inference."

Why not? In fact it does. If CNN is consistently understating the Trump vote, then what others are doing is neither here nor there in terms of whether their latest numbers are likely to also understated the Trump vote. Does that logic confuse you?

I showed you three straight election predictions that consistently understated Trump's vote. But we all know that there is no level of evidence that will get you to accept a fact that you don't want to accept. And that, my boy, is why you get so much of the world wrong. If there is no level of evidence that will get you to re-examine a failed world-view, those failures will continue.

Meanwhile, returning to substantive issue that JD so much wants to avoid, CNN is already making alarmed noises that they'll be required to take a less 'liberal' (US liberal not Australian Liberal) stance on the editorialising. As I said, by 2028 we might find a reasonable unbiased US media for the first time since the 1960s.

mhaze,

You're asserting consistent directional understatement, but consistency alone isn't sufficient to establish institutional bias.

To support your earlier inference, you'd need to show that CNN's error was systematically larger than the industry average and outside its stated margins of error across cycles.

If their error mirrored the broader polling industry, that suggests shared methodological challenges, not unique partisan skew.

"but consistency alone isn't sufficient to establish institutional bias."

Being consistently biased doesn't show bias?

Wow!

Just say anything to avoid admitting error. I've never understood the willingness of some to beclown themselves rather than admit they were wrong

mhaze,

There's a difference between consistent polling error and institutional partisan bias.

If multiple pollsters exhibited similar directional errors in the same cycles, that points to shared modelling challenges, not unique bias within one outlet.

Your earlier inference - that CNN's current pro-Trump numbers must therefore be understated because of bias - requires showing that CNN's error was systematically larger than its peers.

"Your earlier inference "

Back to inferred? Every time JD makes up views for me and I point it out, he, instead of admitting he got it wrong, decides that even though I didn't say what he asserted I said, that I 'inferred' it. Every bloody time.

Why is it so hard for some to just admit error or to at least just drop it and exit the room?

Yes, I certainly am, mhaze.

//Back to inferred?//

And I'll continue to point out the relevant implications and inferences in your comments for so long as they're there.

If you don't mean for them to be there, then you need to manage your language better. No one else seems to suffer from this problem, funnily enough.

You said that because CNN had understated Trump in previous cycles, their current pro-Trump numbers are likely understated as well.
That’s a conclusion drawn from past error to present reliability.

I’m simply pointing out that to justify that conclusion, you’d need to show that CNN’s error was uniquely directional rather than industry-wide.

"Every time JD makes up views for me and I point it out, he, instead of admitting he got it wrong, decides that even though I didn't say what he asserted I said, that I 'inferred' it. Every bloody time." - mhaze

"Makes up"

So let's recap before I leave JD to wallow in his ignorance...again.

I pointed out that CNN ran a poll showing that the majority of USians favoured Trump's SOTU speech and made the observation that CNN polls traditionally underestimate Trump's support.

Now poor JD didn't like the poll but there are some facts that even he can't distort beyond recognition, so he tried to change the subject to CNN's polling errors. He demanded proof that CNN previously underestimated Trump's numbers even though he could have gone and seen that for himself. (I'm his new BFF Grok would have helped out).

In the end I relented and spoon-fed him the proof that CNN always underestimated Trump's support.

To which JD, clearly deflated, then decided that it was OK for CNN to underestimate Trump's support if others were doing likewise. A stupid assertion no doubt but desperate men take desperate measures. And boy was JD desperate.

So here's my final word. Whether others were also underestimating Trump's support is irrelevant to my original point. That CNN always did it is the only issue and given that they always did, and even fact-denying JD has accepted that, my point that they likely would have also underestimated these numbers stands.

Now back to the relevant issue. Paramount are now almost certain to take over WBD which gives them CNN and will then result in CNN being, over time, forced to adopted a more centrist position on the news. Laughably, some of the CNN staff are already trying to spin the story that they were never a left of centre anyway.

No, it's very relevant, mhaze.

//Whether others were also underestimating Trump's support is irrelevant to my original point.//

If multiple pollsters exhibited similar directional errors in the same cycles, that points to shared modelling issues.

If CNN's errors were materially larger than its peers, that would support your claim of institutional skew.

Without that comparison, you're projecting past error into present understatement without establishing cause.

Back to you, I'm afraid.

"hat would support your claim of institutional skew."

Except I didn't make that claim. You made it up. As usual. and as usual it was to try to hide your previous errors.

Let's ask out right-leaning friend how accurate your summary was, mhaze.
_____
Question:
In the attached debate, has mhaze summarised his exchange with John Daysh accurately?

Grok:
No, mhaze has not summarised his exchange with John Daysh accurately. His recap contains several misleading characterisations, selective omissions, and outright misrepresentations of what actually occurred in the back-and-forth.

Here’s a breakdown of the key inaccuracies in mhaze's final summary (the long recap post on Monday, 2 March 2026):
...

http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_5e2799ab-78ed-47c0-bca3-0ceb0b7091af
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1YnVlS7XzUwLWTeeviFMjU7V1lbz7pI5k - Correct names retained
_____

Now with the names switched, to account for your misunderstanding of how LLMs work...

Question:
In the attached debate, has John Daysh summarised his exchange with mhaze accurately?

Grok:
No, John Daysh has not summarised his exchange with mhaze accurately.

His recap contains several distortions, selective omissions, and mischaracterisations that make his version more favourable to himself than the actual back-and-forth supports.

Here are the key inaccuracies in his summary, based on the documented exchange:
...

http://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_223343c1-f845-4813-b257-f25d7f64b8d2
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1qncA02eBSb3ioSIap0aScNJYaJhsnzhk - Names switched
_____

One day you will learn to be honest, mhaze.

mhaze,

If CNN's past underestimation was simply industry-wide modelling error, then it doesn't justify projecting current understatement.

If you believe it reflects a stable factor unique to CNN, then you're attributing more than generic polling error.

Either way, the strength of your "you can bet" conclusion depends on explaining the cause of the past error.

"If CNN's past underestimation was simply industry-wide modelling error, then it doesn't justify projecting current understatement."

Why not? Just because others underestimate Trump's support has nothing to do with whether CNN has a proclivity to do so also. I've said this several times and you whistle right past it.

"If you believe it reflects a stable factor unique to CNN,"

I never said it was unique. That's just another (YET ANOTHER) thing you've made up to try to get out of the corner you've painted yourself in.

I always know when you realise your wrong. You run off to the algorithm to try to comfort your wounded pride. You do realise its not a real person, right? Pretty funny.

mhaze,

If multiple pollsters exhibited similar directional errors in the same cycles, that's the base rate.

To argue that CNN has a proclivity, you need to show its error was materially different from that base rate.

Otherwise you're attributing to CNN what may simply have been a broader polling issue.

//That's just another (YET ANOTHER) thing you've made up to try to get out of the corner you've painted yourself in.//

Hardly - given that it makes no difference to anything. For example, let's swap it with:

"If CNN's error was materially different from the broader polling pattern…"

See?

Nice try, though.

And again, we can't get to "another" (let alone "another" in caps) when there hasn't yet been a first time.

Trumpster,

Australians deserve to be told what could happen to them, with the crazy warmonger Donald trying to start WWIII in the Middle East.

You're not going to address this are you JD. We know why. To do so would be to end your claims.

Again... even if others make the same errors as CNN, it doesn't change the fact (and you're not disputing this fact) that CNN consistently underestimated Trump's support. It might partially explain it but it doesn't alter that fact. And given that they have consistently underestimated the Trump support, its likely that they'd do it again in the above instance.

Now I know that you won't address that simple piece of logic. I'm doing you the curtesy of assuming you get this and just haven't got the cajones to admit it. But there's always the possibility that its just beyond you.

"Australians deserve to be told what could happen to them"

OK so why won't the government do it?

And why is it always the imminent start of WW3 with these bozos. A death wish?

I am addressing it, mhaze.

Past directional error can justify predictive caution - but only if the cause of that error is stable.

If CNN's underestimation mirrored the broader industry pattern, that suggests a shared modelling issue rather than something specific to CNN.

Without isolating CNN's performance relative to the field, the projection from "they did it before" to "they are likely doing it again" remains an assumption about cause.

I'm going with lack of cajones.

"Without isolating CNN's performance relative to the field, the projection from "they did it before" to "they are likely doing it again" remains an assumption about cause."

Lots of words looking for a coherent thought.

It's simple, mhaze:

- If everyone made the same error, that suggests a shared modelling issue.
- If CNN made a materially larger error than others, that suggests something specific to CNN.

Without that comparison, you can't distinguish between the two.

Just making the same erroneous claim over and over doesn't improve it.

CNN is being bought by Zionist Larry Ellis.

It isn't erroneous, mhaze.

Distinguishing shared industry error from outlet-specific deviation requires comparison.

Without that comparison, you can't determine whether the pattern reflects CNN specifically or the broader polling environment.

Trumpster,

Is this murderous action by Donald in the Middle East, just a diversion from Donald's hanky-panky with best mate Jeffo. Seems Donald took dozens of flight on Jeffo's private jet. Where were they heading? To the island?.

Donald's MEGA base is not happy Jan! Donald starting wars, when he said he wouldn't. Donald not releasing the Epstein files, when he said he would. Donald named hundreds of times in the Epstein files, Donald with young girls. Do ya think Jeffo necked himself in jail? Hummm, seemed rather convenient for some rich and powerful people, don't you think.

Only 1 in 4 Americans approve of Donald attacking Iran.

oh dear JD, maybe this is toooo hard for you.

Let's assume that every other polling group made the same underestimation as CNN (they didn't but I'll need to play pretend to help you understand). So everyone else got it wrong as well as CNN. Even then it remains valid to assume that their next set of numbers are also going to be an underestimation. Whether the others were as wrong or even wrong-er than CNN is beside the point as regards evaluating CNN's next set of figures.

I don't know. I guess its just tooo much for you to follow.

______________________________________________________________________

"Donald's MEGA base is not happy "

SOME of the MEGA base isn't happy. There fixed it for you.

"Seems Donald took dozens of flight on Jeffo's private jet. "

Now if only there was the slightest evidence of that. Evidence? says Paul. What's that?

"Do ya think Jeffo necked himself in jail?"

No. I said from the outset he was suicided.

"Where were they heading? To the island?."
No. Never. Now if only there was the slightest evidence of that. Evidence? says Paul. What's that?

"Donald named hundreds of times in the Epstein files, "

This is becoming a bit like McCarthyism. "Are you or have you every been a communist" becomes "have you ever been named in the Epstein files". Just having your name there is proof, among the bozo class, of guilt.

Of course, some of the entries about Trump were him informing on Epstein and Maxwell to the FBI. I already told Paul that but it was last week so he will have long since forgotten it.

Oh dear, mhaze.

If every pollster made the same error for the same underlying reason, then the predictive factor is the shared modelling assumption - not CNN specifically.

In that case, citing CNN's past error doesn't add explanatory weight beyond the broader polling environment.

That's the distinction.

"In that case, citing CNN's past error doesn't add explanatory weight beyond the broader polling environment."

More incoherency hoping to avoid admitting error.

The man has the morals of an alley tom. Fin.

mhaze,

I'm sorry my basic point is incoherent to you. The causal distinction remains. No amount of insults will change that.

"Do ya think Jeffo necked himself in jail?"
- There's just as much chance it was staged and it wasn't Epstein.
Look up testimony from prison guards.

Looks like America and Israels war on Iran isn't going well, as many predicted.
27 bases struck, radars taken out, loss of fighter jets, talk of missiles hitting the Lincoln which has now retreated to the southern Indian ocean. Israel caught trying to stage attacks in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and Iran just struck the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia.

Trump thought he could beat his chest and make the Iranians submit.
He thought he could get this war done in a few days, he was wrong.
He fell into the escalation trap.
He said regime change and that he won't stop, but America and Israel are the ones getting smacked around now, without any quarter given.
Talk of 560 dead and injured U.S. troops, and that was a day ago.

This is the end of U.S. military dominance.

Also notice Hegseth is saying we didn't start this war, meanwhile Rubio says Israel were going to attack, and that U.S bases would get hit, so they decided to go first.

They're a clownshow, and they will pay for the foolishness.

I've seen some footage of barrages of missiles hitting Israel, you don't even see any air defense.

Bye bye Epsteinland.
Before you go, how about pay for my excess fuel costs.

The death of Ali Khameini

"They lost the war with the very first six missiles they fired in the war because their calculations were that by eliminating Khameini they would trigger immediate responses in the streets of people cheering 'Death to khameini', 'The end of the ayatollas' etc.
I sort of have to laugh where Trump says you know the CIA was tracking them and they found him and we killed him.

Ali Khameini was at home having his weekly meeting with his granddaughter, 14-month old girl, beautiful girl.
He meets her every week at the same time, same place.
And so he was home meeting with his granddaughter when these six missiles fired from Israel hit him.
Now, according to the Iranians, uh they had told him that he should evacuate, but Ali Khameini allegedly told them that as soon as you evacuate 90 million Iranians from harm's way, then you could evacuate me.
They said, "Well, let me take you to a basement."
He said, "As soon as you could take 90 million Iranians to a basement, you can take me to a basement."
Um, it sounds like a man who was resigned to his fate.
And here comes the essential aspect of this.
He was, this is a man who has cancer, who was dying, and his greatest fear was to go out a feeble old man.
He wanted to go out a martyr, he wanted to go out as somebody who made a difference with his death."

Israel and America,
Be careful what you wish for, now you reap what you've sown.

“Is Ahmadinejad Alive?” - Ex-Iranian President Reported DEAD After Israeli Airstrikes
http://youtu.be/t6T2flsfRDw

>>By the way, yesterday the the news came out that former president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, was killed. And if you guys haven't seen this report from New York Post that came out and it was going viral all over the place, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's ex-president, who said Israel must be wiped off the map, killed in Israeli air strike. Um their team, we were supposed to have him on the podcast last Friday. He was scheduled to do a 45minute interview last Friday on the podcast. And we've spoken a few times about doing this. Every time we did, one time we were supposed to travel to a destination in Europe to uh do a face-to-face interview. A last minute he canceled because he was worried about his life. And then the reports that he was killed. I We got an update from his team.
I'm telling you what his team told me.
So this is their team telling us this is not true. That he is not killed. He's alive. They hid down the street from where he was at and they didn't kill him. So, this is their report to us as of first thing this morning.
Okay, that this may come out. And remember, I'm telling you, their team is telling me this. So, we don't know for a fact. This may or may not be accurate.<<

Since 1776 America has involved itself in 416 wars, and military conflicts. Pre 1776 the penchant for killing others got off to a very quick start, with the Virginia colonists massacring the Powhatan Indians starting in 1609. The most famous Powhatan was Pocahontas. The Indian wars lasted over 300 years with the final conflict resulting in the defeat of the Ute and Paiute Indians in Utah in 1923. In its history America has involved itself in wars on every continent except Antarctica, but just give them time, how fortunate for the penguins!

It'd cost trillions of dollars Indy
Armchair critic,
No, it wouldn't & definitely not to start off with. I can see why career bureaucrats would be against it but ask any soldier that has to hang his butt out the window & I guarantee you they'd be for it ! For the cost of ust one of those useless subs you could defend half the northern coastline of Australia alone. Don't ask for the opinion of people who only want to make money but not take risks ! Careers in the armed forces are the armed forces costliest part but not necessarily the most effective. Literally like everything else bureaucrats & career mongers are involved in !

Hi Indy,

Here, you do the math...

Australia's total coastline is approximately 59,681 to 59,700 kilometers.
The Patriot missile system has an effective engagement range of approximately 150-180 km for detection and tracking.
Interceptor ranges vary by type: PAC-2 missiles reach up to 160 km for aircraft, while PAC-3 missiles are designed for tactical ballistic missiles at closer ranges of 35-60 km.
So how many batteries would we need?

Now lets look at cost, effectiveness and production capabilities.

Cost

How much do interceptor missiles cost?

A full, newly-produced Patriot missile battery costs over
US 1-1.1 billion, with roughly $400 million for the system (radars, command station, launchers) and over $690 million for the interceptor missiles. Individual PAC-3 interceptor missiles cost approximately $4 million each, with some advanced variants costing more.
A Patriot missile battery also requires approximately 90 soldiers for full operation and maintenance.

Effectiveness - do they work?

Watch

http://x.com/Indian_Bronson/status/2028238799902244955
11 Patriot missile interceptors flown to miss one Iranian hypersonic missile.

- You just watched 44 million dollars wasted, they can't touch hypersonic missiles.

Production Capabilities

http://x.com/Iran_Agency/status/2028655064433492160
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the US can produce only 6 to 7 interceptors per month, while Iran can produce more than 100 missiles and thousands of suicide drones.

So the first video above, not only did it cost US 44 million to launch those interceptor, they just used a month and a half of their annual production just trying to intercept that 1 hypersonic missile.

And finally even if they were stationed all around our coastline, (anyone care to tell me what that will cost) one big problem remains.
- THEY DON'T WORK.

And if they don't work, they are just a military target waiting to get blown up.
Forget the cost, do you really want Aussie troops standing anywhere near one, because you know exactly what will happen to those Aussies.

I saw a good video of a patriot battery targeted in Tel Aviv yesterday, direct hit, interceptors cooking off in every direction like a tank full of munitions.

"I've seen some footage of barrages of missiles hitting Israel, you don't even see any air defense."

Yeah. So have I. Its amazing how realistic AI generated propaganda is these days and how easily it ropes in the perpetually gullible.

If US air defence was effective Indy, there wouldn't be 27 U.S. bases reduced to smouldering ruins.
The use-by date on U.S. air defence systems has been and gone, it's overpriced and obsolete rubbish.
It will give us a false belief in our defensive capabilities and a false sense of security, send us completely broke, and turn ADF wives into widows.

And if we act macho like these things can protect us and start acting like we can punch above our weight then this misplaced confidence may end up with the whole entire nation routed.

Don't put your faith in America, it would be misplaced.
The gulf states did and they are all being blown up.
U.S. doesn't have enough air defence to go around and most of the interceptors went to Israel, leaving other U.S. allies in the region short; and now completely undefended.

I've been telling you all for years.

Hi mhaze,
I didn't think of that, I've seen a few videos of incoming missiles into Israel, and footage of attacks on U.S. bases.

I looked if grok had verified the video.

Grok: This footage first emerged on February 28, 2026, during Iran's retaliatory missile attacks on Israel following U.S.-Israeli strikes that day (which reportedly killed Supreme Leader Khamenei). It shows nighttime air-defense interceptions and impacts over areas like Tel Aviv, with widespread circulation starting that evening. No earlier original versions found.

I had a whole heap of X posts I was going to share.
Had them open from last last night but I must've closed the browser...
Lots of footage was from Israel, often attacks are confirmed from multiple views- multiple people at different locations..

Melania Trump Opens UN Security Council Amid Iran Attack
http://youtu.be/WdWpc9qUEHs?si=bknpHrLwpdLA0J2l
Like Melania Trump at the UN Security Council session on Children, Technology and Education in Conflict.
"The provisional agenda for this meeting is maintenance of international peace and security, children, technology and education in conflict."

Meanwhile, hubby Donald...

http://x.com/sheykhian_h/status/2028744829597835498
Minab: The Largest Mass Killing of Schoolgirls in History

The massacre of 167 girls, aged 7 to 12, in their classrooms at an elementary school in Iran is the greatest atrocity committed by the United States since the Vietnam War. Near the Strait of Hormuz, in a remote and almost unknown area of Iran, and for no reason that anyone can comprehend. Sixty others are hospitalized with injuries.
Later, on that very first day of the war, 40 volleyball players three full women’s teams were killed in a single airstrike. You may not even have heard about the slaughter of the schoolgirls. It is the largest mass killing of schoolgirls ever recorded in world history.
Yet no one is talking about it. I do not wish to overstate the point, but pause for a moment and consider: if Russia had killed 167 Ukrainian schoolgirls, if Palestinians had killed 167 Israeli schoolgirls, if Iran had killed 167 schoolgirls, it would have been the biggest news story in the world for years.

175 now maybe?

Oh the irony, right?

I stand back and look at it, the hope for America, placed in Trump.
His promises, to stay out of wars, stop regime changes, wanted to rebuild America and put Americans first, and all those young men went and signed up for the military and in the end, Trump's a total liar and he betrayed everything.

In the beginning people asking 'Is Trump a neocon' trying to figure out if he could be trusted.

In the end he's just a (likely) suspected pedophile on a leash because of ties to the Epstein pedophile / blackmail operation by Mossad.
Bibi Netanyahu's pet poodle, not America first, Israel first.
And all these young US men who signed up are going to die because Trump started a huge mess he might not easily finish that will have untold repercussions.
It's the biggest betrayal of America and the worst president they ever had.
And where's Trump and his kids leading the fight?
No, they're just all enriching themselves.
Building new Trump Towers, one coming to Surfers Paradise

Perfumed princesses enriching themselves.

So Trump and his Epstein class mates can all sit on their gold toilets, while America and it's sons and daughters die for Israel.

http://x.com/Palestine001_/status/2029113707007987954
The moments when Iran destroyed the US Navy fleet in Bahrain…
The footage taken by the US soldiers themselves as they fled the area shouting "OMG!"

http://x.com/RadarHits/status/2029090232075780381
>>BREAKING: All of our bases have been destroyed, says Former U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor

“China and Russia are providing satellite intelligence... All of our bases have been destroyed. Our harbor installations are destroyed. We actually have to fall back on India and Indian ports which is less than ideal. And I think Iran, much to our disappointment, is fairing very very well.”<<

http://x.com/SprinterPress/status/2028840829922558338
>>Look at Trump's face — all his pride has vanished, he looks internally tense and scared.

He thought that Iran would surrender by this point, and he would brag about it everywhere. However, the Iranians showed resistance that no one expected.<<

Some did.
That looks like a walk of shame, a man headed to the gallows.
- They're going to tear him to pieces for this...

http://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2029143713751155097
It’s ok kid, daddy needed to help Israel kill hundreds of thousands of kids just like you.

http://x.com/RadarHits/status/2029217143737168285
Iran is launching missiles from its underground missile cities without launch pads or standard equipment.

Virtually impossible to detect beforehand.

GAME CHANGER

Hi AC,

The Americans and Israelis have totally underestimated Iran's capability. Trump was partly forced into this war by Netanyahu, and partly by incorrect advice from the American military. There was no clear objective, or justification for a preemptive attack, the "reasons" given by Trump and his mates in Washington has been a collection of confusing, and misleading nonsensical lies.

"The moments when Iran destroyed the US Navy fleet in Bahrain…
The footage taken by the US soldiers themselves as they fled the area shouting "OMG!""

AC,

Its fake. Its a combination of footage from other battles, edited and given the AI treatment. None of that happened.

Most of the stuff you're posting is fake. And, as you always do, you fall for it and then post vast amounts of it on the basis that quantity equals quality.

Hardly surprising that you suck in people like Paul, but fake it is. Surely after all this time, after you've made so many errors in the war on the Russian steppes and so many errors in the 12 day war, you'd realise you ought to be more discerning in what you believe.

The war is going exactly opposite to what your propagandising 'sources' are feeding you. But you so want what they tell you to be true, you show maximum credulity.

Oh BTW did you see this footage of an Iranian rocket (which looks remarkably like a Soyuz rocket) sinking a US battleship (which looks remarkably like the Yamamoto)? http://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/2029097402993365187

Completely factual I'm sure.

mhaze,

I'm still waiting for you to produce this video showing the attack on the Iranian schoolgirls you claim was caused by Iran.

There's been UK members of Parliament and US Congressmen mentioned it, and for all the footage I've seen on X I haven't once come across your footage.

Maybe when you produce it, I'll say it's AI as well.

You seem to forget that most of the info I get actually comes from Americans, experts in almost every area of expertise.

Who cares if it's AI.
It's no more of a lie than Donald Trump himself.

And their claim of winning the war or everything going to plan.
No different than when they try to sway election results by saying someone is leading when they're not, because undecided and stupid voters will want to back the winner.

When the war first started a few days back General Jack Keane said it'd be over in a 3 or 4 days. The U.S. convinced themselves that they could get the job done, but do you want to know the truth?

Trumps just an arrogant fool who surrounds himself with yes-men.
If they don't tell him what he wants to hear, he fires them.
So he surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear as opposed to the truth because its what the arrogant orange faced douchebag expects.

He has no real understanding of politics, or the constitution, international law, the economy, or limits to military power.
You stupid Trump groupies think he's playing 4D chess, but the truth is the guy couldn't even manage 1D checkers, he doesn't even read documents, prefers TV presentations like a child watching play-school.

The longer the war goes, it's more money for Russia, while EU becomes decimated by high energy costs, Gulf States lose because of supporting Israel and if this war goes on for more than a few weeks, the cascading effects will destroy the global economy.

You're the genocide, baby killer and suspected pedophile supporter, Pell and Trump.
You seem to have a thing for defending suspected peedos.

The Jews and the U.S. are that pathetically gutless, that after they started this war, (and claim Iran did) they are relying on Kurdish women as their ground troops, while they evacuate all their bases as hide amongst civilians.

http://www.facebook.com/61555112835385/photos/-kurdish-women-warriors-drill-for-showdown-in-the-mountains-%EF%B8%8Fhigh-in-the-rugged-/122273538392170427/

So pathetic, they had to sink an Iranian warship in Sri Lanka which had been there after India invited them to military drills, and had no real part to play in this conflict (then dobbed them in to the Americans and then didn't come to their aid afterwards after the naval vessel sunk), the Americans desperate just to try and get some points on the board.

What has Trump achieved exactly?
Nothing tangible for Americans.

When all is said and done, he'll be the most hated President ever.

Australians deserve to be told what could happen to them in a conflict with China.

* 'Australians'

What about 'hyphenated Australians'

There's over a million Chinese here, how do you plan on rounding them up, good luck.

Beware the hyphen..
Are people that identify as 'hyphenated Australians' the same as people who don't?

Ukrainian - Australian
Chinese - Australian
Filipino - Australian

Feels like a woman who upon marriage won't give up her last name.

Hi, I'm Mrs Mackenzie Wong.

What happens when 2 hyphenated people fall in love, but they both want to keep their existing names and create a new hyphen.

Kids: Hi, I'm Mr Mackenzie Wong Wilson Brown. Stupid.

Maybe I have to start identifying as an Australian - Australian?

Silly hyphen.

"Who cares if it's AI."

That pretty much sums up ALL of AC's 'research'.

I got a bigger question for you mhaze,

PM says military assets deployed to Middle East as Opposition seeks more details
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/pm-says-military-assets-have-been-deployed-to-middle-east-as-another-flight-departs/aivlrbayk

Comment from the Foreign Minister Penny Wong

"I don't think we anticipated, or any country might have anticipated that Iran would respond in the way that it has," she said.

My question... 'Is she lying, or are they incompetent. Which is it?

Iran has been openly stating exactly what was going to happen when attacked.
They said they would hit U.S. bases, they said they would immediately target Israel and there would be no stopping like they did last time after Israel gets a pounding.
They said that they were not going to do any 'I'll target you, then you target me' theatrics, they said it would be open war.
They said they would close the Strait of Hormuz.
They said they would attack any gulf country that supported strikes against them.

U.S. said at first it may take a few days
Then they said it may take 5 weeks
Now I think it's open ended, could be months.

So when Penny Wong says

"I don't think we anticipated, or any country might have anticipated that Iran would respond in the way that it has," she said.

I have to ask is she lying or incompetent.
Because if these people are that freaking dumb,,,
Then I really hope she was lying, the other possibility is far worse.

These idiots were actually the first ones to support it.
maybe they're trying to set the narrative prior to the economic meltdown.

How much fuel reserves do we have?
30 days?

And too bad for Europe, they'll need to go back to buying Russian oil and gas.

At what point do we accept that western leaders are a bunch of idiots?
All this talk of the U.S. demanding a nuclear deal with Iran, Trump was the effing idiot that tore the previous agreement up.

And at the top of it all is Netanyahu and a bunch of blackmailed western pedophiles.

Truth is stranger than fiction.
You couldn't make this stuff up.

Iran has drained Western interceptor reserves & taken out radar installations is now rolling out its newer missiles.

http://x.com/AryJeay/status/2029678378651939020
Former IRGC Aerospace Commander, Martyr Hajizadeh:

“This missile (Khorramshahr-4) when launched, is only a single missile which targets 80 spots with 80 submunitions.

If we launch 100 of these missiles, we can impact 8000 hits.”

http://x.com/squatsons/status/2029691293954416860/video/1

http://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2029517602163490974
Iran has released footage launching the new Khorramshahr 4 missile, it has a 1 tonne warhead. Remember when trump claimed Iran ran out of missiles ?

Hi AC,

The first casualty of war is TRUTH. Propaganda reigns supreme, and Donald Trump is a master at lying propaganda.

Justice Department publishes missing Epstein files involving uncorroborated claim about Trump
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-06/justice-department-publishes-missing-epstein-files/106424246

Right on cue.
'You better do more to take care of Iran Donald, or we might find some more things you won't like.'