Domestic Politics

[malloy]

[n i k o]

Lol

Edited May 21, 2014 by n i k o

[Tesla]

TL/DR: I don't fear Liberal governments for what they might to me. I fear them because I know what they do to others.

There is nothing selfless about not wanting to help others of your own accord, but rather only if everyone else is forced to, or even better yet, if just the rich are and you yourself aren't.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Clive Marx?

Seems legit...

[malloy]

Clive Marx?

Seems legit...

 

 

FFS this guy is a fucking idiot. He knows he can say what ever he wants and never actually have to be held accountable because his party should never have a majority in parliment

[Tesla]

Clive Marx?

Seems legit...

 

 

FFS this guy is a fucking idiot. He knows he can say what ever he wants and never actually have to be held accountable because his party should never have a majority in parliment

Anyone that actually thinks Clive will be 'a man of the people' if he was in power is more deluded than your average Greens voter.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Tesla

[hedaik]

Malcolm Turnbull 

[Dylan]

I have to hand it to him. Showed huge restraint in that interview, no way I could have been that calm the entire time.

[Tesla]

I want Alan Jones' job.

[Tesla]

So looks quite clear that Labor we'll win the state election, and dump stage 2 of the EW link, possibly one of the most beneficial projects to ever happen for the Footscray seat which has been held by Labor for almost 90 years.

Victorian Labor, always fucking over their own voters, can't believe people in Melbourne's west keep voting for them

[hedaik]

Stupid people that can't differentiate between State and Federal Libs

 

1000 posts! 

 

Edited June 26, 2014 by hedaik

[Chris]

Christ, just had a read through a couple of pages of this thread. I hadn't thought of our supporters as being such right wing nut jobs. Obviously it comes down to personal ideology: whether you subscribe to a better society or simply looking after yourself. That's fine, a lot of people will only ever think of themselves.

 

The key to why the right is so fundamentally wrong is their stance on basic, irrefutable science. You can't argue with it, science is fact, yet the right argue against the legitimacy of climate change (along with evolution, the necessity of well funded scientific institutions and the need for education for anybody other than the wealthy). Until they understand right versus wrong on something as critically important as climate change, I'll put every other aspect of their beliefs down as being wrong.

[marn11]

Christ, just had a read through a couple of pages of this thread. I hadn't thought of our supporters as being such right wing nut jobs. Obviously it comes down to personal ideology: whether you subscribe to a better society or simply looking after yourself. That's fine, a lot of people will only ever think of themselves.

The key to why the right is so fundamentally wrong is their stance on basic, irrefutable science. You can't argue with it, science is fact, yet the right argue against the legitimacy of climate change (along with evolution, the necessity of well funded scientific institutions and the need for education for anybody other than the wealthy). Until they understand right versus wrong on something as critically important as climate change, I'll put every other aspect of their beliefs down as being wrong.

Here we go.

[malloy]

Christ, just had a read through a couple of pages of this thread. I hadn't thought of our supporters as being such right wing nut jobs. Obviously it comes down to personal ideology: whether you subscribe to a better society or simply looking after yourself. That's fine, a lot of people will only ever think of themselves.

The key to why the right is so fundamentally wrong is their stance on basic, irrefutable science. You can't argue with it, science is fact, yet the right argue against the legitimacy of climate change (along with evolution, the necessity of well funded scientific institutions and the need for education for anybody other than the wealthy). Until they understand right versus wrong on something as critically important as climate change, I'll put every other aspect of their beliefs down as being wrong.

I would consider myself fairly right yet I am not one to argue with science. I even have a degree in one of the hard sciences.

I would like to point out that science itself is an ever changing evolving thing where what was right at one point is proven to be wrong down the track as our understanding increases.

While I do not doubt that pollution is detrimental to the world (in more ways than just climate change) I am uncertain of whether the extent of climate change being blamed on pollution is actually correct. For example there is relatively low amounts of information and research regarding the effect of a pole switch (and the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field as the switch nears) on the earth's climate despite a good historical correlation between the two.

I think that the earth's poles are currently in the pre stages of a switch. (Have read something along these lines from varying sources some time ago)

[Tesla]

Christ, just had a read through a couple of pages of this thread. I hadn't thought of our supporters as being such right wing nut jobs. Obviously it comes down to personal ideology: whether you subscribe to a better society or simply looking after yourself. That's fine, a lot of people will only ever think of themselves.

 

The key to why the right is so fundamentally wrong is their stance on basic, irrefutable science. You can't argue with it, science is fact, yet the right argue against the legitimacy of climate change (along with evolution, the necessity of well funded scientific institutions and the need for education for anybody other than the wealthy). Until they understand right versus wrong on something as critically important as climate change, I'll put every other aspect of their beliefs down as being wrong.

Rediculous post. Most lefties are in it for selfish reasons, but then they like to take the moral high ground and act like their some benevolent selfless saviour.

Plenty of people who follow right wing ideologies do so because they think it will benefit society as a whole. I don't currently make enough money for some of the economic principles I believe in to actually significantly benefit me individually, so I reject the notion that it's for selfish reasons.

Of course, I don't see anything wrong with holding certain political positions for selfish reasons, but to then try and deny it and attempt to take the moral high ground is the kind of shit that fucking annoys me.

As for climate change, never really looked it up so I don't know either way, if it really is as irrefutable as you claim please provide me with some studies etc. that demonstrate this and I'll have a read when I have time.

[Jun]

I've found most right and left wing supporters to be fucking idiots.

[malloy]

I've found most far right and far left wing supporters to be fucking idiots.

 

Fixed.

[Tesla]

I've found most far right and far left wing supporters to be fucking idiots.

 

Fixed.

Why are you calling yourself an idiot Mr Griffin?

[Tesla]

I've found most right and left wing supporters to be fucking idiots.

Brother,

I think in you're heart you're still searching for something.

[xXJawsaXx]

The thing that really annoys me about the left is how much infighting and shit flinging that goes on. Particularly amongst various Socialist groups, whether it be Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance, whatever, all they seem to do is bitch and moan, whilst alienating people who end up seeing them as being whiny fuckwits.

Edited June 28, 2014 by xXJawsaXx

[HeartFc]

Centre right has always made sense to me. No one has ever tired for influence me in anyway.

[Tesla]

Christ, just had a read through a couple of pages of this thread. I hadn't thought of our supporters as being such right wing nut jobs. Obviously it comes down to personal ideology: whether you subscribe to a better society or simply looking after yourself. That's fine, a lot of people will only ever think of themselves.

 

The key to why the right is so fundamentally wrong is their stance on basic, irrefutable science. You can't argue with it, science is fact, yet the right argue against the legitimacy of climate change (along with evolution, the necessity of well funded scientific institutions and the need for education for anybody other than the wealthy). Until they understand right versus wrong on something as critically important as climate change, I'll put every other aspect of their beliefs down as being wrong.

As for climate change, never really looked it up so I don't know either way, if it really is as irrefutable as you claim please provide me with some studies etc. that demonstrate this and I'll have a read when I have time.

Hi mate,

Still waiting for some studies, I'm sure you have a bunch on hand since climate change is so irrefutable. Really interested

[Libero]

I have to do a report on the cuts made to the ABC and SBS ...

 

 

anyone got any thoughts/opinions on this? 

[Braveheart]

I have to do a report on the cuts made to the ABC and SBS ...

 

 

anyone got any thoughts/opinions on this? 

My thoughts and opinions would be to not base your thoughts or opinions and especially not your research on stuff you read on an internet soccer forum. Whoever it comes from  

[Tesla]

I have to do a report on the cuts made to the ABC and SBS ...

 

 

anyone got any thoughts/opinions on this?

I think most of the funding that has been cut could be made up by appealing to the public for donations/contributions, these are highly valued media providers who I'm sure will have no problem raising a few million a year each through such methods.

Having said that, I don't know if what I describe is allowed, but if it isn't it should be.

Replacing government funding with voluntary private sector contributions like I describe would be a great outcome for everyone.

Of course greater commercialisation and pursuing greater efficiencies are other methods of replacing the funding, again I don't think greater commercialisation is allowed but maybe it should be looked into.

If government funding can be reduced without a significant detrimental effect in the quality of service provided, then I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Of course if that's not possible, then I think the money being saved is quite minimal in the grand scheme of things and the cuts should be avoided.

[Libero]

 

I have to do a report on the cuts made to the ABC and SBS ...

 

 

anyone got any thoughts/opinions on this? 

My thoughts and opinions would be to not base your thoughts or opinions and especially not your research on stuff you read on an internet soccer forum. Whoever it comes from

 

 

dont worry - I'm not. 

 

I've done the research, just want some general opinions as most articles are 'reports' rather than opinion pieces.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Libero

[hedaik]

 

 

Replacing government funding with voluntary private sector contributions like I describe would be a great outcome for everyone.

 

 

That would be the worst thing you could do. It would then be no different to the commercial stations who are too scared to attack certain groups because they'll lose money from sponsorship (like when Coke threatened any commercial station if they played the Greenpeace ads about being in favour of the bottle recycling scheme). 

 

As far as cuts go, I love the ABC, but if every other aspect of society is having money cut from the Government then I don't think the ABC should be immune to it either. 

[Tesla]

New senate delivering the entertainment already.

Surely if they were leading the polls the coalition would call a double dissolution (when they got the chance).

I guess for now we have to just sit back and watch the circus unfolding.

[Tesla]

This whole senator muir not voting with PUP thing is surely just one of Palmer's retarded 'games'. Told the bloke to vote against them for whatever fucked up reason entered Clive's mind in the morning.

[cadete]

New senate delivering the entertainment already.

Surely if they were leading the polls the coalition would call a double dissolution (when they got the chance).

I guess for now we have to just sit back and watch the circus unfolding.

There is a reason why nobody ever calls a Double Dissolution all the times they threaten too... lining up to vote pisses the average person off and such anger can be directed at those who are making them vote again.

[Braveheart]

New senate delivering the entertainment already.

Surely if they were leading the polls the coalition would call a double dissolution (when they got the chance).

I guess for now we have to just sit back and watch the circus unfolding.

The problem is more complex though. The double dissolution trigger is both hard to pull(in terms of the mechanism), extremely politically risky for the incumbent but moreover throws up some rather conceptually complex questions due to its catalytic properties for a constitutional crisis.

1: No blocking of supply has actually occurred yet and thus the mechanism hasn't ticked over to a point where the GG is likely to let Abbott take the safety off.

2: Even if Abbott was leading the polls, Australians are beyond politically apathetic and moreover lazy. IMO it comes from having it so good for so long and having a generally safe and sensible centrist political history. To this end, voters would 'kick' the fuck out of the incumbent making them front up again to another fuckin primary school on another Saturday. I say this with no partisanship. It would happen to either major.

2a: Also, neither major centre segment (left/right) of what we call the bi-cameral voting nucleus is dissatisfied enough to make a D-D worth proceeding with. That is, the power-brokers, big business, unions, middle class (left and right) feel strongly enough for it to be worth the risk for Abbott.

2b: Pollies are inherently conservative (both sides). The notion is generally "If you are in government, don't offer an opportunity to have that taken away because you can't effect change in opposition". One in the hand, two in the bush etc.

3: Nobody wants another 1975. Much smarter men with much better credentials than me have written countless books on the inherent problems and glaring elisions within the conceptual and legal substratum of our political institutions, being the constitution. The interpretive nature it allows for creates issues when trying to design and substantiate statute and the sacking of elected governments by a politically appointed official evinces archaic realities upon which we base our system of government. This is not the 1975 crises but any actioning of the D-D trigger draws the constitution and all it's mandated agency into question. Trust me, neither side of politics (esp. the Conservative side) wants scrutiny of the 'hole-y'(a play on words for the documents legal gaps) scripture. Cadete's dad could tell you all about it I'm sure.

Anyway, they will compromise. Just as all parties always do. It's not a crisis. Abbott is just a bit of a public alarmist (good strategy for conservative govs IMHO) and this is no different to how he communicates most of his desired legislative agenda.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Braveheart

[Braveheart]

This whole senator muir not voting with PUP thing is surely just one of Palmer's retarded 'games'. Told the bloke to vote against them for whatever fucked up reason entered Clive's mind in the morning.

I honestly don't know what to make of this Muir bloke. My gut feeling says slow-witted tin-assed, single-interest, opportunist who has no idea the opportunity he has been afforded and will make a complete pig of the gift he's been given.

That said I could be wrong...

[Tesla]

Anyway, they will compromise. Just as all parties always do. It's not a crisis. Abbott is just a bit of a public alarmist (good strategy for conservative govs IMHO) and this is no different to how he communicates most of his desired legislative agenda.

The problem is, you are dealing with a bloke (Clive Palmer) whose belief in his own ability and intelligence far exceeds his ability and intelligence (which you probably can't blame him for, it's only natural with his success). He is also completely insane. As much as I've enjoyed Clive's antics at times, once he entered politics, and did so with reasonable success, it got a lot more serious and his behaviour has far greater consequences these days.

I'd say it's also in his interest to fuck the government around as much as possible, because his political success has come from a disenchantment with the 2 major parties, and he realises this. He also realises the more media attention he gets, in general, the better it is for him as well (he is also a complete narcissist who enjoys the attention regardless).

So he is basically going to fuck around, block legislation, negotiate ridiculous shit, blow the budget out, and at the next election PUP will probably get more votes.

Actually, it's quite well played.

Anyway, the point is, I think it isn't your usual 'negotiating' when dealing with Clive Palmer.

FWIW, I can't see the Coalition taking a lead in the polls until just before the next election, so either way I don't see a DD happening but some good points you make (I already considered a few of them,g it will come at quite a political cost, but probably not to the same extent as you allude to).

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tesla

[Tesla]

This whole senator muir not voting with PUP thing is surely just one of Palmer's retarded 'games'. Told the bloke to vote against them for whatever fucked up reason entered Clive's mind in the morning.

I honestly don't know what to make of this Muir bloke. My gut feeling says slow-witted tin-assed, single-interest, opportunist who has no idea the opportunity he has been afforded and will make a complete pig of the gift he's been given.

That said I could be wrong...

The way I see it, he is a bloke who isn't 'book smart' and was probably never successful in school, which has lead to him having little confidence in his intelligence, and that leads him to having little confidence in his ability to be a successful politician (not that it necessarily requires intelligence, that's just what Ricky would believe).

So the bloke would already be feeling like his in way over his head, then he probably had everyone trying to get him on their side, whether it's his own party, labor, liberals, palmer, etc., which wouldn't have helped.

Then you have the media making him out like a complete moron, and also a dodgy cunt possibly receiving money or something else from palmer in return for his allegiance.

I actually kind of feel sorry for himself, he probably regrets the whole thing by now.

So I don't know if he's snapped, grown some balls, and actually started thinking and making decisions for himself, or this is just one of palmer's games and he continues to be palmer's boy (more likely).

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Also, back on Clive Palmer, the bloke is a perfect example of what you can achieve in life just by believing in yourself, regardless of how inept you are. Amazing.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tesla

[cadete]

The next Federal Election no matter who wins the Clive Palmer Party will take a sizeable chunk of votes away from the LNP and the Abbott Government is wary of this fact.

 

The Federal Election after will be the start of this Pretend Political Party's very fast decline and inevitable conclusion.

Edited July 9, 2014 by cadete

[hedaik]

Being a conspiracy theorist I would have thought Muir would be against any kind of climate change action?

[Tesla]

Being a conspiracy theorist I would have thought Muir would be against any kind of climate change action?

Exactly what I was thinking, his votes don't match what I'd expect from him, hence why I can see it being some retarded Palmer idea.

Unless he thinks his niche can be 'sticking up for the average australian', and he is now voting along those lines to further his political career.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tesla

[Braveheart]

This whole senator muir not voting with PUP thing is surely just one of Palmer's retarded 'games'. Told the bloke to vote against them for whatever fucked up reason entered Clive's mind in the morning.

I honestly don't know what to make of this Muir bloke. My gut feeling says slow-witted tin-assed, single-interest, opportunist who has no idea the opportunity he has been afforded and will make a complete pig of the gift he's been given.

That said I could be wrong...

The way I see it, he is a bloke who isn't 'book smart' and was probably never successful in school, which has lead to him having little confidence in his intelligence, and that leads him to having little confidence in his ability to be a successful politician (not that it necessarily requires intelligence, that's just what Ricky would believe).

So the bloke would already be feeling like his in way over his head, then he probably had everyone trying to get him on their side, whether it's his own party, labor, liberals, palmer, etc., which wouldn't have helped.

Then you have the media making him out like a complete moron, and also a dodgy cunt possibly receiving money or something else from palmer in return for his allegiance.

I actually kind of feel sorry for himself, he probably regrets the whole thing by now.

So I don't know if he's snapped, grown some balls, and actually started thinking and making decisions for himself, or this is just one of palmer's games and he continues to be palmer's boy (more likely).

Should have gone the way of big Mal IMO.

[malloy]

Being a conspiracy theorist I would have thought Muir would be against any kind of climate change action?

Exactly what I was thinking, his votes don't match what I'd expect from him, hence why I can see it being some retarded Palmer idea.

Unless he thinks his niche can be 'sticking up for the average australian', and he is now voting along those lines to further his political career.

Tbh it could be as simple as him trying to show people he is not the idiot the media has made him out to be and not a PUP puppet.

That being said I still think he is rtard