Domestic Politics

[bt50]

37 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I certainly understand that and I'm not saying there needs to be a huge change in how the government redistributes income, I just get annoyed by people who wouldn't donate  $1 to charity and then act like they want to help the underprivileged by voting for the left. Most of them are voting for the left to help themselves, which is perfectly fine, just fuck off with the selfless act. The other annoying part is that I'd dare say those who vote for the right, in general, donate more to charity, and I'm tired of this BS assumption that a lot of people have that those on the right are more selfish and those on the left more selfless, because my experience is the opposite.

Speaking for myself, a large part of the reason I'm right of centre is that I believe people should be able to decide what they do with their money, and that is achieved by being taxed less.

So much this.

FWIW I don't even believe in God but the current crusade against the Catholic Church (and all others for that matter, but lets be honest its aimed at the Catholic Church) that the Greens and Sex Party have over the religious tax exemptions is ridiculous. The church from my experience dedicates every spare cent they can get to charity and helping the disadvantaged. Sure they have some warped views on things like any religion, but by and large they are putting a hell of a lot more back into the world than your average atheist hippie that 'just wants equality'  

[cadete]

42 minutes ago, bt50 said:

So much this.

FWIW I don't even believe in God but the current crusade against the Catholic Church (and all others for that matter, but lets be honest its aimed at the Catholic Church) that the Greens and Sex Party have over the religious tax exemptions is ridiculous. The church from my experience dedicates every spare cent they can get to charity and helping the disadvantaged. Sure they have some warped views on things like any religion, but by and large they are putting a hell of a lot more back into the world than your average atheist hippie that 'just wants equality'  

The dumbest thing is when these PPL get outraged about how State and Federal Governments partially fund Catholic Schools. The simple fact that both major parties know is that if the Catholic Education System was outlawed tomorrow the entire Education System in this Country would be fucked within under a year.

This is why they always agree eventually to pledge the same amount of funding to Catholic Education each election... and why the funding of Catholic Schools for anyone who knows anything about Government is basically considered a bipartisan issue. 

Regardless you get these idiots who love to list which Liberal (And sometimes even ALP) MP's went to Xavier or Riverview and how these two expensive Jesuit schools are a representation of all that is wrong with the funding of Catholic Schools... funding that they dont even receive.

The reality is those the Catholic System makes up 35% of the Education Sector with most of it students in Primary Schools no different to their State Counterparts and the vast majority of Catholic Secondary Schools look a lot more like High Schools than like bloody Xavier College. It's not hard to imagine what the State System which these PPL will inform day and night about being stretched to its limits would look like if it suddenly had to take on a extra 35% of the Nation's School Students.

The thing that ticks me most of is when these PPL who have made these complaints are the same people who have attended or sent their own children to other Non Catholic Posh APS schools or even funnier those outrageous overpriced No Name Grammar Schools... fucken clueless as its apparently its fine to send their children to these schools because they are Non Catholic - A pretty dumb assumption as when Xavier does receive Funding once every a decade then its the same small amount of funding these schools receive.

The amount of times I have read about the link between Jesuit Schools and the Abbott Government since the last the election from these types is just retarded... I feel like saying to these PPL maybe you could have a political career which you so obvious wish to have with your overused Twitter Account if you had gone to fucken Riverview instead of wasting your cash on "New Estate Grammar".

Edited May 11, 2016 by cadete

[cadete]

If PPL are bored they should give this a go...

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2309922536

I am such a crazy conservative being a Mick and all I ended up most aligned with the ALP and then the Greens before The Libs.... LOL.

(Obviously I dont take anything away from these quizes)

[Tesla]

13 minutes ago, cadete said:

If PPL are bored they should give this a go...

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2309922536

I am such a crazy conservative being a Mick and all I ended up most aligned with the ALP and then the Greens before The Libs.... LOL.

(Obviously I dont take anything away from these quizes)

 

16 minutes ago, cadete said:

If PPL are bored they should give this a go...

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2309922536

I am such a crazy conservative being a Mick and all I ended up most aligned with the ALP and then the Greens before The Libs.... LOL.

(Obviously I dont take anything away from these quizes)

Generally these things are worded in a way that makes you agree with the left especially on economic things. 

[bt50]

1 minute ago, Tesla said:

 

Generally these things are worded in a way that makes you agree with the left especially on economic things. 

I've found the same thing. Or with the social things they define a specific situation instead of an overall. Eg I care about refugees vs I think all refugees should be allowed into the country. Two very different statements.

Edited May 11, 2016 by bt50

[cadete]

They do make you more left, but I did actually click they stance option and got pretty specific on most of my answers...

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, bt50 said:

I've found the same thing. Or with the social things they define a specific situation instead of an overall. Eg I care about refugees vs I think all refugees should be allowed into the country. Two very different statements.

So much of this. My grandparents were refugees so I am particularly interested in the issue. I believe the refugee intake should be pragmatically decided and taken from bona fide refugee camps and those who come by boat from secondary countries like Indonesia and Malaysia should certainly be put under greater scrutiny. I do think it should be done onshore though just for the obvious human rights reasons.

[NewConvert]

3 hours ago, Tesla said:

The problem is those people don't like to help anyone unless they can force others to do the same.

That's one of the primary differences between those who are left of centre and those people who are right of centre. People on the left can't fathom helping anyone unless they can force others to do it too, or even better if they can force others (those who are richer) to do it and don't have to do it themselves. Whereas those on the right believe people should be able to chose what they do with their own money, whether it's help people or not.

What are your thoughts on the free rider problem?

[Tesla]

Did mine, no surprises with the party I vote for in the senate as #1 and the party I vote for in the lower house as #2. Not even surprised by the Greens at #3, I do agree with them on some non-economic things tbh (but it's outweighed by how much I disagree with them on everything else).

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2309995972

Edited May 11, 2016 by Tesla

[marn11]

Surprised Labor is that high, but everything else seems about right.

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310030151

[Tesla]

5 minutes ago, marn11 said:

Surprised Labor is that high, but everything else seems about right.

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310030151

That's cool, when I click yours it shows how much we agree based on my one, 97%

[GreenSeater]

No real shock here tbh.

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310029464

[HeartFc]

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310092175

Old fashion conservative I guess, although I consider myself more of a conservative libertarian.

 

Edit: didn't realise there was a map/graph at the bottom. I guess I'm pretty centre (slightly right)

Edited May 11, 2016 by HeartFc

[malloy]

Lol its funny that these quizzes make you out to be more left leaning. Cos I generally always land smack bang on liberals (on abc political compass etc)

[Tesla]

18 minutes ago, malloy said:

Lol its funny that these quizzes make you out to be more left leaning. Cos I generally always land smack bang on liberals (on abc political compass etc)

I actually think this one isn't bad in that regard if you use the answers with more options that let you qualify your answer.

I think it's pretty accurate for me and from what everyone has posted here it seems to follow their posts quite accurately as well. 

[Jimmy]

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310163809?from=MbMC8Fk9C

[Jimmy]

@Embee @thisphantomfortress Do this quiz. Interested to see where you fall on it.

[thisphantomfortress]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

@Embee @thisphantomfortress Do this quiz. Interested to see where you fall on it.

Slightly right of genghis khan

Edited May 11, 2016 by thisphantomfortress

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310163809?from=MbMC8Fk9C

The people on this forum make up 50% of the LDP's vote in Victoria going by these results.

[thisphantomfortress]

5 minutes ago, Tesla said:

The people on this forum make up 50% of the LDP's vote in Victoria going by these results.

+1

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310230694

[Tesla]

1 minute ago, thisphantomfortress said:

+1

http://australia.isidewith.com/results/2310230694

95% same as me.

TBH I'm just going to assume I brainwashed you guys with all my posts over the years.

[thisphantomfortress]

25 minutes ago, Tesla said:

95% same as me.

TBH I'm just going to assume I brainwashed you guys with all my posts over the years.

I think it's just anyone with half a brain. The stuff that makes me more lib dem than lib these days is that I like my gays married, my babies dead and terminally ill out of hospitals at their time of choosing.

[Tesla]

FWIW I think Libertarian ideas do have a lot of popularity but the problem is that generally Libertarian political parties are quite rigid because Libertarian views can be quite rigid themselves, because it all comes down to quite a simple idea: maximising an individual's freedom as long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's freedom.

What I'm getting at is, if there was libertarian leaning party that isn't too far from centre it would do pretty well. Something in between the Liberals and the LDP.  Right now if someone was to look at the LDP's policies and see shit like legalising all recreational drugs or some of their economic policies, it would scare off a lot of people that aren't 100% libertarian. And it's pointless, because if the LDP were to pick up a few seats and have some power it's not like they'd be able to negotiate to put any of these things through, at best they'd be able to add a touch of Libertarianism to the government's policies.

I think David Leyonhjelm has done an excellent job in the senate because he hasn't been rigid, he has been very flexible and negotiated and worked with the government. Putting aside the Family First guy (since FF is basically just like a right wing division of the Liberal party), he has voted the most with the government. And because of that he has managed to influence a number of things and do a good job representing libertarians in Australia.

You'll find a lot of potential voters for such a party currently vote for the Liberals, because they're both a more realistic option and because they don't have some of the more extreme views of the LDP. Leyonhjelm himself only switched to the LDP after Howard basically banned guns in this country. If you don't have the extreme views, you no longer scare people off and become a more realistic option at the same time.

To give an example of what I'm getting at, a policy of legalising recreational marijuana, rather than legalising all recreational drugs (which is LDP policy). Things like that.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

Ye I tend to agree with you on that coz I love the idea of libertarianism however I still believe in border control, legalisation of certain drugs only and I'm only pro choice for the 1st (maybe even 2nd) trimester or pregnancy. Interesting that I even got libs over dem libs considering I'm pro gay marriage too. Maybe the internet control and economics shifted me back a little. 

[Tesla]

8 minutes ago, HeartFc said:

Ye I tend to agree with you on that coz I love the idea of libertarianism however I still believe in border control, legalisation of certain drugs only and I'm only pro choice for the 1st (maybe even 2nd) trimester or pregnancy. Interesting that I even got libs over dem libs considering I'm pro gay marriage too. Maybe the internet control and economics shifted me back a little. 

Not sure where this idea that both you and @thisphantomfortress have got that Libertarian = pro-choice. As I said above Libertarian ideas are quite simple, they come from quite a simple philosophy which makes 95% of things obvious as to what the Liebrtarian view is. But abortion is one of the 5% of things that is debatable, because you can either argue pro-choice since it gives the mother the freedom to chose what happens with to body, but you can also argue pro-choice in that it encroaches on the baby's right to live. I don't think the LDP has any policy on it, and the most famous libertarian of recent times (Ron Paul) is pro-life for example.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

What is your stance on abortion? stats discuss

Liberal Democrats: Pro-choice  S

Your similar answer: Pro-choice, but ban after the first three months

 

But ye I understand some change according to who gets the choice, mother/child.

My point of view is more of a moral thing. I reckon its tough on the mum but you choice needs to be made before the fetus develops a central nervous system etc etc. Don't ask me why but its just a feeling I have about it but other wise if it wasn't for the pill and morning after pill id be fucked.

[Tesla]

3 minutes ago, HeartFc said:

What is your stance on abortion? stats discuss

Liberal Democrats: Pro-choice  S

Your similar answer: Pro-choice, but ban after the first three months

 

Found it on their website now as well, that is pretty much correct (website says no late term abortions).

Interesting that they hold a policy on it, as it's one of the few debatable things in Libertarianism.

Personally, I used to be pro-life but pretty indifferent these days, and that indifference is probably why I never cared what their policy is on it.

[HeartFc]

Its a touchy one which I try to avoid at "dinner parties". Single women seem to get really offended the most over it and straw man me as some hardcore misogynistic catholic authoritarian when I tell them 3rd tri abortion are too late. I like how rape victims and death are used as possible dilemma's when no one is against it in those situations and its probably about 0.05% of the reason why abortions performed these days.

[Jimmy]

Nah wasn't your brain washing Tes. Reading Mill and Smith at uni + studying economics + just generally having a brain has lead me to having libertarian views.

[Deeming]

9 hours ago, Tesla said:

Not sure where this idea that both you and @thisphantomfortress have got that Libertarian = pro-choice. As I said above Libertarian ideas are quite simple, they come from quite a simple philosophy which makes 95% of things obvious as to what the Liebrtarian view is. But abortion is one of the 5% of things that is debatable, because you can either argue pro-choice since it gives the mother the freedom to chose what happens with to body, but you can also argue pro-choice in that it encroaches on the baby's right to live. I don't think the LDP has any policy on it, and the most famous libertarian of recent times (Ron Paul) is pro-life for example.

Lots of Libertarians are pro-life, especially the younger media savy types coming out of North America like Ben Shapiro and BraveTheWorld

 

[HeartFc]

From a purely moral point of view I guess she makes great points however a line needs to drawn, a middle ground, somewhere we can met half way. Its never gonna be a black and white situation and a complete ban would never happen. Maybe in time a 2nd and 3rd trimester ban may lead to a lower number of 1st trimester abortions.  The rape part I completely disagree, I don't believe its ever a moral choice if a girls get raped purely based on the fact that the resulting conception wasn't even the least bit mutual. Rape is a crime, pregnancy could be a result of a crime, yes the baby is innocent but the mother is just as innocent and it should never be considered a moral choice. 

BTW Eastern European girls FTW

[GreenSeater]

My answer to the abortion question was that they should be legal, but that better sex education and more access to sexual health information and contraception would reduce the problem. Too many abortions are happening, no matter what side you're on. I'm pro-choice on the issue but I don't like the way it's becoming an alternative to wearing a condom basically.

 

In other news, Malcolm Turnbull has been named in the Panama Papers. It doesn't say he's done anything wrong but it isn't a great look. He also claims that he had no idea that the company he was the director of were represented by Mossack Fonseca, which as a director of the company, I somehow doubt he wouldn't know. Probably would have been smarter to just say he knew about the firm but deny he did anything illegal. Denying he knew who represented his own company makes it sound more suspicious.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/panama-papers-malcolm-turnbull-named/news-story/5f69bd009ef583d18d4a4edfa94339dc

[Tesla]

2 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

 

In other news, Malcolm Turnbull has been named in the Panama Papers. It doesn't say he's done anything wrong but it isn't a great look. He also claims that he had no idea that the company he was the director of were represented by Mossack Fonseca, which as a director of the company, I somehow doubt he wouldn't know. Probably would have been smarter to just say he knew about the firm but deny he did anything illegal. Denying he knew who represented his own company makes it sound more suspicious.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/panama-papers-malcolm-turnbull-named/news-story/5f69bd009ef583d18d4a4edfa94339dc

I think you don't understand what being a director involves. It certainly wasn't "his own company". It is conceivable he had no idea who represented the firm if he was just a director and had no role in the day to day operations of the company. 

[malloy]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

I think you don't understand what being a director involves. It certainly wasn't "his own company". It is conceivable he had no idea who represented the firm if he was just a director and had no role in the day to day operations of the company. 

Furthermore the company was a subsidiary of the ASX listed company that his directorship role was really for. The offshore company was also setup prior to Turnballs appointment.

Also there is nothing illegal about having companies in low/no tax jurisdictions and is common for ASX listed companies to have subsidiaries there.

[GreenSeater]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

I think you don't understand what being a director involves. It certainly wasn't "his own company". It is conceivable he had no idea who represented the firm if he was just a director and had no role in the day to day operations of the company. 

No you're right I don't really know, but as I mentioned it just isn't a good look regardless and I just found it interesting

 

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

No you're right I don't really know, but as I mentioned it just isn't a good look regardless and I just found it interesting

 

Shouldn't be too bad for him, it's not like he set up a union slush fund for his ex or anything...

[Tesla]

1 minute ago, GreenSeater said:

No you're right I don't really know, but as I mentioned it just isn't a good look regardless and I just found it interesting

 

Right, well a non-executive director, especially at a company large enough to be listed on the ASX, most likely has little to do with the day to day running of the company. That's down to the management (CEO, etc.). As malloy points out, he was only put as a director of the subsidary as he was a director of the ASX company and probably had next to nothing to do with the subsidiary. Details like what law firm the company uses are not something that would be of significance to him. He may have read it in documents etc, but he probably was a director of a number of companys and didn't have much reason to think twice about the law firm being used. Even if the law firm was engaged to do something illegal, he is unlikely to have known the reasoning for their engagement.

You're right, it doesn't look good when the media pounce on it and try to make it look like it's something that it's not, because a lot of people would be in the same boat as you and not understand how little the use of this law firm would have to do with Turnbull.

[GreenSeater]

27 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Right, well a non-executive director, especially at a company large enough to be listed on the ASX, most likely has little to do with the day to day running of the company. That's down to the management (CEO, etc.). As malloy points out, he was only put as a director of the subsidary as he was a director of the ASX company and probably had next to nothing to do with the subsidiary. Details like what law firm the company uses are not something that would be of significance to him. He may have read it in documents etc, but he probably was a director of a number of companys and didn't have much reason to think twice about the law firm being used. Even if the law firm was engaged to do something illegal, he is unlikely to have known the reasoning for their engagement.

You're right, it doesn't look good when the media pounce on it and try to make it look like it's something that it's not, because a lot of people would be in the same boat as you and not understand how little the use of this law firm would have to do with Turnbull.

Fair enough

And to be fair, were we expecting completely factual, fair reporting from the media throughout this election?

[thisphantomfortress]

1 minute ago, GreenSeater said:

Fair enough

And to be fair, were we expecting completely factual, fair reporting from the media throughout this election?

Tbf the greens are a left rabble that puts fluffy animals, drugs and sexual freedom above the economy 

[Embee]

7 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Tbf the greens are a left rabble that puts fluffy animals, drugs and sexual freedom above the economy 

Sounds eerily like your life priorities to be honest