Domestic Politics

[Shahanga]

I

On 7/27/2016 at 8:51 AM, thisphantomfortress said:

A guy I went to school with did time for armed robbery, he thinks he's a rapper now. He's still offending committing crimes against music....

Crimes of a similar proportion if you ask me.

[Tesla]

Forming the Punters Party next election and pursuing minimum bet laws that force bookmakers to take on a $2k minimum liability from any punter on all publicly available odds/markets

And before you ask, yes Cad that does include Scandinavian trots.

And Trackside for @tomby

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tesla

[Shahanga]

6 hours ago, Tesla said:

Forming the Punters Party next election and pursuing minimum bet laws that force bookmakers to take on a $2k minimum liability from any punter on all publicly available odds/markets

And before you ask, yes Cad that does include Scandinavian trots.

And Trackside for @tomby

1. Honestly if these bastards want to be in the gambling industry they shouldn't have the laws set up for them to limit their prey to mug punters. They shouldn't be able to ban people because "they know how to win". Same with counting cards. It's not cheating, it's maths.

2. You get $2.60 a vote if you get enough to get your deposit back.

[malloy]

7 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

1. Honestly if these bastards want to be in the gambling industry they shouldn't have the laws set up for them to limit their prey to mug punters. They shouldn't be able to ban people because "they know how to win". Same with counting cards. It's not cheating, it's maths.

2. You get $2.60 a vote if you get enough to get your deposit back.

Like any business shouldn't they be able to choose not to engage with non profitable customers (assuming it is not because of race, religion, sex etc.) or atleast change their pricing model to make them profitable customers.

[Tesla]

1 minute ago, malloy said:

Like any business shouldn't they be able to choose not to engage with non profitable customers (assuming it is not because of race, religion, sex etc.) or atleast change their pricing model to make them profitable customers.

I do agree to an extent and I'm much less accepting of it than most people in my position because I do understand this side of the argument.

But fact is gambling isn't treated like any other business already, wagering on sports/racing is only legal in a small number of countries, and even then it's highly regulated and taxed.

Forcing them to accept a minimum liability could replace some of the regulations/taxes as another way of paying for the negative externality gambling creates. I also think it reduces the need for a lot of the other regulations, eg if they were exposed to more sophisticated gamblers do you think the amount of incentives they offer to attract new gamblers would be the same? Certainly not. 

Another point I'd like to make is that other business already can't do what the gambling companies do. Coles can't advertise a kg of cheese for $1 and when I scan my flybuys card the system sees I'm costing Coles money with the amount of loss leaders I'm buying and then turnaround and say sorry that will be $6. They certainly can target special offers to me, but to deny people publicly advertised items/prices would see the ACCC on the case pretty quick. Often they'll have a disclaimer, two per customer or whatever, I think that's fair enough. Maybe the gambling companies should have a disclaimer on every advertisement and every page of their website "only allowed to win $X before ban", I would accept that solution. But I bet you they'd rather just have minimum bet laws so they can keep sucking people in with the fantasy of winning big even if it costs them money to the less than 1% of people that win.

And that last point is a good one too, it could be argued that they sell a fantasy of winning money, and the reality is that what they're actually selling is far from that, even if you're able to find an edge your winning will be limited. So again, it's bordering on a lot of things already outlawed by consumer laws. 

Finally, more tax money. Who cares whats right and wrong? Smokers get fucking raped and we're all cool with it cause more tax money thats not coming out of the rest of our pocket. I don't think anyone would be complaining.

[Shahanga]

11 minutes ago, malloy said:

Like any business shouldn't they be able to choose not to engage with non profitable customers (assuming it is not because of race, religion, sex etc.) or atleast change their pricing model to make them profitable customers.

Well i think it's different.

Now you ring me up and want a job done we give you a price, if you want it done cheaper you'll end up getting someone else.

These guys however are supposedly offering odds on a game of chance, (not a service based on their skills like my employer). Why should they reject some one from their game of chance because they actually understand the game?

The best analogy is like banning profitable traders from the ASX.

The only reason these rules exist in my book is to maximise the tax return. That being the case I can't see the laws changing any time soon.

[Tesla]

1 minute ago, Shahanga said:

 

The only reason these rules exist in my book is to maximise the tax return. That being the case I can't see the laws changing any time soon.

Completely the opposite, the current system is costing a huge amount of tax money.

The average punter bets about $30 per bet and puts on less than 10 bets a week, whereas sophisticated punters bet much larger amounts and more often. One sophisticated gambler probably turns over more than 25 regular punters. So letting these people make a decent sized bet brings in a lot more turnover and therefore tax revenue. Not to mention that a lot of sophisticated gamblers, especially the bigger ones, bet with 'illegal operators' because they can't bet with the licenced Australian operators. This illegal sector is probably worth close to  what the legal sector is worth, imagine bringing that money back into the taxed system.

Not to mention you make it possible for people to be professional gamblers, which means they'd be charged income tax on their gambling winnings.

Would be a massive tax windfall.

[malloy]

1 minute ago, Shahanga said:

Well i think it's different.

Now you ring me up and want a job done we give you a price, if you want it done cheaper you'll end up getting someone else.

These guys however are supposedly offering odds on a game of chance, (not a service based on their skills like my employer). Why should they reject some one from their game of chance because they actually understand the game?

The best analogy is like banning profitable traders from the ASX.

The only reason these rules exist in my book is to maximise the tax return. That being the case I can't see the laws changing any time soon.

They would reject them because they aren't profitable. They have to be profitable to even exist if you don't like it then stick to exchanges. And no the best analogy is not banning profitable traders. A true analogy would be trading CFDs with a market maker, in which these people also undertake actions to cap and restrict profitable traders.

FWIW you should Google the term 'invitation to treat'.

8 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I do agree to an extent and I'm much less accepting of it than most people in my position because I do understand this side of the argument.

But fact is gambling isn't treated like any other business already, wagering on sports/racing is only legal in a small number of countries, and even then it's highly regulated and taxed.

Forcing them to accept a minimum liability could replace some of the regulations/taxes as another way of paying for the negative externality gambling creates. I also think it reduces the need for a lot of the other regulations, eg if they were exposed to more sophisticated gamblers do you think the amount of incentives they offer to attract new gamblers would be the same? Certainly not. 

Another point I'd like to make is that other business already can't do what the gambling companies do. Coles can't advertise a kg of cheese for $1 and when I scan my flybuys card the system sees I'm costing Coles money with the amount of loss leaders I'm buying and then turnaround and say sorry that will be $6. They certainly can target special offers to me, but to deny people publicly advertised items/prices would see the ACCC on the case pretty quick. Often they'll have a disclaimer, two per customer or whatever, I think that's fair enough. Maybe the gambling companies should have a disclaimer on every advertisement and every page of their website "only allowed to win $X before ban", I would accept that solution. But I bet you they'd rather just have minimum bet laws so they can keep sucking people in with the fantasy of winning big even if it costs them money to the less than 1% of people that win.

And that last point is a good one too, it could be argued that they sell a fantasy of winning money, and the reality is that what they're actually selling is far from that, even if you're able to find an edge your winning will be limited. So again, it's bordering on a lot of things already outlawed by consumer laws. 

Finally, more tax money. Who cares whats right and wrong? Smokers get fucking raped and we're all cool with it cause more tax money thats not coming out of the rest of our pocket. I don't think anyone would be complaining.

No they can't, but they can certainly limit you to buying 1 block of cheese or in the case of betting companies restrict the amount you are able to bet, which is distinctly different to  changing 'the price of cheese'.

[Tesla]

Just now, malloy said:

 

No they can't, but they can certainly limit you to buying 1 block of cheese or in the case of betting companies restrict the amount you are able to bet, which is distinctly different to  changing 'the price of cheese'.

I mentioned that in my post, in that case supermarkets will advertise that it's limited to one per customer. I'm more than happy for the gambling companies to have to advertise that they'll only let people win a certain amount before cutting them off. But I think you'll find they'd rather keep that under wraps and accept taking on a reasonable minimum liability instead as long as they can keep the fantasy up that people can win large amounts of money by gambling.

[malloy]

4 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I mentioned that in my post, in that case supermarkets will advertise that it's limited to one per customer. I'm more than happy for the gambling companies to have to advertise that they'll only let people win a certain amount before cutting them off. But I think you'll find they'd rather keep that under wraps and accept taking on a reasonable minimum liability instead as long as they can keep the fantasy up that people can win large amounts of money by gambling.

You did somewhat mention it, but you made out as if supermarkets weren't doing something similar to gambling providers and if they were the ACCC would be on it quick smart, but this is not true, as they are doing something similar. At the end of the day you sign up and you agree to the providers terms and conditions.

[Tesla]

Just now, malloy said:

You did somewhat mention it, but you made out as if supermarkets weren't doing something similar to gambling providers and if they were the ACCC would be on it quick smart, but this is not true, as they are doing something similar. At the end of the day you sign up and you agree to the providers terms and conditions.

Indeed, but that's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about laws/regulations that supersede a provider's T&C.

Fair enough, I'm being a bit hypocritical here, they shouldn't be forced to take any business, that's not consistent with my beliefs.. What they should have to do is disclose what, if any, minimum liability they will take from every customer, and what circumstances trigger restrictions. These disclosures should accompany every advertisement or offer to bet (so every page of their website). Thereby increasing the amount of information available to consumers so they can make a more informed decision and so the market operates more efficiently with greater competition. Again, I don't think I'll see any website say they'll limit you to $10 bets if you win a few thousand dollars, so I suspect the end result will be what I want.

And that's consistent with my opinion on all economic matters, government shouldn't restrict the market, but allow it to flourish by facilitating greater information symmetry.

[Tesla]

Maybe theyll be no need for my political party after all , didn't realise Vic and Qld are also looking to join nsw in putting min bet laws.

Might have to change my focus to domestic racing

 

[Shahanga]

Those bet360 ads should instead say "I am a member of bet360....as long as they are confident I'm a loser"

[tomby]

had a mint night on trackside lost like 5 hunna or somtin 

[Tesla]

On 20/07/2016 at 11:32 AM, Tesla said:

FWIW, one negative about more liberal gun laws is then you give the police a plausible excuse for fulfilling their underlying desire to kill people for fun. That's probably the only negative we see in the US that would be imported into Australia if we had more liberal gun laws.

Right now cops in Australia have to suppress their desire as they can't easily get away with it, if they killed you for LOLs and said you had a gun or even planted one on you people are going to be pretty suspicious, but if we had more liberal gun laws they could get away with it like they can in the US.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-police-officer-allegedly-shoots-man-three-times-plants-knife-on-body-20160801-gqihg1.html

I'm spot on as usual, these psychopaths would be killing people for a laugh all day every day like in the US if they could get away with planting guns on us. 

Good thing they'll all soon be wearing cameras.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tesla

[Deeming]

On 6/24/2016 at 8:45 AM, Deeming said:

But for Vic my guess is we will end up with:
Labor: 4
Greens: 2
Coalition: 4
Hinch: 1 (got the #1 spot on the ballot, will get a high personal vote and on both Labor and Coalitions HTV)
A Conservative Party most likely FF (2nd on Coalition'S HTV), then Australian Christians or DLP): 1

We ended up with 

Labor: 4
Greens: 2
Coalition: 5
Hinch: 1

As I read the vote count FF was beaten out for the last spot by the Liberals by 26,812 votes  

[Tesla]

Looks like NSW and QLD are in now as well, LDP got the last seat in NSW but missed out in QLD to second One Nation.

I wonder if the government  got wind of these results early somehow, seemed unusual to betray the deal with the LDP with them staring at two senate seats. Pretty much every political commentator who knows their shit had the last Qld seat down as LDP.  With only one LDP senator it makes a lot more sense that the government would betray the deal they made.

I'm glad Day got up in SA, don't dare look at what his social policies are but unlike most these other supposed conservative minor parties FF are pretty big on free market economics.

Economy is gonna get a hammering with the supposed 'centrist' NXT (more like socialist), and 'conservative' One Nation (more like racist socialist) who will be gunning for all kind of protectionist BS I imagine. Leyonhjelm and Day the only hope outside of a few Liberals for this country not becoming a socialist shit hole.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Deeming]

The DD was a big backfire:
Change to Senate:
Coalition: -3
Labor: +1
Greens: -1
Crossbench: +3

[Tesla]

5 minutes ago, Deeming said:

The DD was a big backfire:
Change to Senate:
Coalition: -3
Labor: +1
Greens: -1
Crossbench: +3

The irony that the Liberals and Greens lost out when they passed the senate changes.

Too bad the other accomplice, Xenophag, came out much better off.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Interesting to look at what it means.

Obviously as always if Coalition and Labor vote together they can pass anything.

New BFFs the Coalition and Greens are also still able to join together to pass anything they want.

But apart from that, everything needs both One Nation and NXT to agree. That surprise 4th One Nation seat has fucked everything up, if it wasnt for that the rest of the crossbench could have been enough along with one of NXT or One Nation.

Basically the country will be held to ransom by Xenophag and Pauline Hanson.

Hopefully those shit partys breakdown.

What happens if the One Nation candidate in (WA was it?) is found ineligible?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Deeming]

 

12 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Interesting to look at what it means.

Obviously as always if Coalition and Labor vote together they can pass anything.

New BFFs the Coalition and Greens are also still able to join together to pass anything they want.

But apart from that, everything needs both One Nation and NXT to agree. That surprise 4th One Nation seat has fucked everything up, if it wasnt for that the rest of the crossbench could have been enough along with one of NXT or One Nation.

Basically the country will be held to ransom by Xenophag and Pauline Hanson.

Based on the last session in the last government I'm sure the coalition aren't holding their breath for  the Greens voting with them. I'm surprised Xenophon voted against the government so often. 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-surprise-findings-of-whos-backing-who-in-the-colourful-senate-chamber-20150520-gh6bj9.html

[Tesla]

7 minutes ago, Deeming said:

 

Based on the last session in the last government I'm sure the coalition aren't holding their breath for  the Greens voting with them. I'm surprised Xenophon voted against the government so often. 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-surprise-findings-of-whos-backing-who-in-the-colourful-senate-chamber-20150520-gh6bj9.html

 

Leyonhjelm has posted these stats on his FB often. He also has said a number of times that Xenophon votes with the Greens the majority of the time, which this image doesn't explicitly show but I guess you can infer it by the fact Xeno and Greens vote with the Coalition the least.

Like I've been saying, Xenophon being a 'centrist' is bullshit. In fact, I regard him as worse than the Greens.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Jimmy]

So shit that Hanson knocked off Gabe Buckley in QLD. Means they have next to no influence on anything. Like a Tes said, NXT/One Nation effectively being granted veto powers is not a nice prospect.

[NewConvert]

Actually the veto powers rest solely within the coalition. They will determine what comes to a vote and the first hurdle that the government will face will be discipline within the coalition ranks. Some people like Bernardi are very close to the likes of Day. Iif they are capable will be able to tailor their legislation just so that they get most of what they want through without suffering public support. It will require leadership, smarts and charm. This will be MT's challenge.

[Shahanga]

I see this parliament as being a total disaster.  Can't see any important legislation being passed and all important issues that need to be sorted (like economic reform) just left to fester.  Why?  Well the watermelons won't vote with the government ever and the ALP are unlikely to (not because they disagree, but just because they want to score points, as all oppositions tend to) so it means the government will have to try to convince a herd of cats to all do the same thing at the same time.  Good luck with that.

Who do I blame for this situation - well "we" elected the mess, but only because neither the coalition nor the ALP showed any evidence that they would be a good government.  

[Shahanga]

8 hours ago, Deeming said:

The DD was a big backfire:
Change to Senate:
Coalition: -3
Labor: +1
Greens: -1
Crossbench: +3

Honestly do you know why they called a DD?  I couldn't figure it out.  It obviously wasn't on the principle of the legislation (law and order in industrial relations) as this was never mentioned in the campaign.  "Improving" their senate position always looked dubious, as DD allows senators to be elected with half quotas, which provides more to the little parties.  Now I'm sure these people aren't complete idiots, so what have i missed?

[Jimmy]

42 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Honestly do you know why they called a DD?  I couldn't figure it out.  It obviously wasn't on the principle of the legislation (law and order in industrial relations) as this was never mentioned in the campaign.  "Improving" their senate position always looked dubious, as DD allows senators to be elected with half quotas, which provides more to the little parties.  Now I'm sure these people aren't complete idiots, so what have i missed?

I think you have to acknowledge the difference in the political climate at the time the DD was called (and the decision was probably made much earlier) and when we actually went to the polls. Turnbull had huge approval ratings and was probably confident that he could sustain them and thus improve the Coalition's Senate position. They were probably also confident that the Senate voting changes would go a long way to keeping the minor parties out. This became an increasingly worse idea as the weeks went by but they were in too deep.

How I see it anyway.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Jimmy

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

I think you have to acknowledge the difference in the political climate at the time the DD was called (and the decision was probably made much earlier) and when we actually went to the polls. Turnbull had huge approval ratings and was probably confident that he could sustain them and thus improve the Coalition's Senate position. They were probably also confident that the Senate voting changes would go a long way to keeping the minor parties out. This became an increasingly worse idea as the weeks went by but they were in too deep.

How I see it anyway.

I recall reading an article not long ago (can't recall who wrote it but it may have been Shaun Carney) who said that the actual election date was decided long before the coalition formally asked the GG to do a DD. At that time MT was still riding quite high but he didn't have the suitable trigger in place so began the whole process of creating the legislative trigger into shape and time passed and more time passed and MT's ratings nose dived. I think that tesla wrote that when it was going to be all over and people looked back on it they would decide that it seemed like a good idea at the time. DDs tend to be quite disappointing for the government of the day - when Hawke called his DD he also had an eight week election and they went backwards big time. The only time I can recall a DD not having an effect was when the Senate and the House electoral cycles had become quite out of whack requiring Senate only elections and so a DD was engineered solely to bring the electoral cycles back into line. Then there was a minimal effect.

[Tesla]

On 14/04/2016 at 3:14 PM, Tesla said:

You know sometimes when you have a great plan, and invest a lot of time and other resources into that plan, and everything is going well,  but just before the point of no return comes it start to look like it's no longer a good plan because circumstances have changed? But because you've invested so much into it for such a long time it's hard to accept it's no longer ideal and make the rational choice to abandon the plan? 

That's what the double dissolution looks like to me. 

This is how it always looked like to me, even more so now that it's all said and done.

I think everyone has been in the sort of situation I've described, and it's hard AF to make that call, but if it's the right decision it has to be done.

Certainly we are talking about a pretty natural and common irrational behaviour, but it's irrational none the less. It's fairly similar to, if not an example of, the sunk cost fallacy.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

7 hours ago, Tesla said:

This is how it always looked like to me, even more so now that it's all said and done.

I think everyone has been in the sort of situation I've described, and it's hard AF to make that call, but if it's the right decision it has to be done.

Certainly we are talking about a pretty natural and common irrational behaviour, but it's irrational none the less. It's fairly similar to, if not an example of, the sunk cost fallacy.

Generally agree with this. But also it becomes a risk assessment - sometimes you have to make a decision in the longer term with a lot of uncertainty but delaying it is itself a risk, and then the whole things just falls apart. However I think that in this case, MT and the coalition should have kept their mouths shut so as to not create the expectations, the triggers should have been carefully prepared before putting the plan into action and make sure that it is a short election campaign. That is political management which they failed. There is one nagging issue that perhaps I am overlooking - that the system is built so that DDs are rare because the cost of calling them is high for the governing party. As I mentioned earlier aside from the 1975 DD which was an extraordinary event all but one DD in my lifetime has been at great cost to the governing party; and that was the one in the 90s which was called to re-align the Senate elections with those of the House.

[Shahanga]

I had a look at the flow of preferences in the Vic senate. As you'd expect under the new system preference flow is no longer tight, but rather goes pretty much anywhere. Particularly true of below the line voting ( which makes sense if you vote below the line you probably don't want to follow a party)

[Chris p]

Victorias a joke.No minor parties to speak of, Just a bunch of big government nanny staters at every turn 

[Tesla]

39 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

I had a look at the flow of preferences in the Vic senate. As you'd expect under the new system preference flow is no longer tight, but rather goes pretty much anywhere. Particularly true of below the line voting ( which makes sense if you vote below the line you probably don't want to follow a party)

I haven't looked at it myself but that's no surprise since there arent htv cards being handed out to the minors, they're available online for most if you're keen but I reckon someone thats voting for a minor is less likely to follow a htv card anyway. I expect that a lot of the major parties preferences follow the htv card though.

 

 

On 04/08/2016 at 8:20 PM, Shahanga said:

I see this parliament as being a total disaster.  Can't see any important legislation being passed and all important issues that need to be sorted (like economic reform) just left to fester.  Why?  Well the watermelons won't vote with the government ever and the ALP are unlikely to (not because they disagree, but just because they want to score points, as all oppositions tend to) so it means the government will have to try to convince a herd of cats to all do the same thing at the same time.  Good luck with that.

Who do I blame for this situation - well "we" elected the mess, but only because neither the coalition nor the ALP showed any evidence that they would be a good government.  

The funny thing is the new senate is probably the most democratically elected house of parliament in my lifetime if not in Australian history. I'm not trying to get into the proportional vs not debate but I think there is no denying it's more democratic at the cost of stability, plus the new senate voting system is more democratic with people choosing where their preferences go rather than preference deals being made, and of course because it was a DD and the quota was halved it also makes it more democratic, it kind of defeats the point of having a proportional system when the quota is so high in a regular senate election.

If you look at it from a national vote point of view:

Coalition 35.2% of votes, 39.5% of senators

Labor 29.8% votes, 34.2% of senators

Greens 8.7%, 11.8% of senators

One nation 4.3% of votes, 5.3% of senators

NXT 3.3% of votes, 3.9% of senators

LDP 2.2% of votes, 1.3% of senators

Hinch 1.9% of votes, 1.3% of senators

FF 1.4% of votes, 1.3% of senators

Lambie 0.5% of votes, 1.3% of senators

The rest 8.8% of votes, 0% of senators

 

As always the majors are overrepresented, and the minors underrepresented, but it's a lot better than usual. Exceptions like Lambie and NXT obviously makes more sense if you look at it from a state point of view as well, since it is meant to be the state's house.

Really you can't complain about the minor parties getting in, because theyr'e still underrepresented. If it was truly proportional and representative, there would be more minor party senators.

Actually if the result was more proportional than the situation would be better, you'd have some more one senator parties in there which means you dont have blocks of 3/4 senators like One Nation and NXT which is the reason why this senate is going to be a problem. Giving those minor party senators less power, a power that reflects their voter base and representation in the Senate, as opposed to having the correct number of senators to veto whatever they want like NXt and One Nation have right now.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Fuck me, all this shit about the banks is doing my head in. So many idiots in our society. Probably got charged a $10 overdraft fee when their centrelink hadn't come in and now they cry for a royal commission.

That's the irony, that a large proportion of the people having a whinge would be poor people whom the bank makes no money off of, in fact they probably cost the bank money. Personal bank accounts are loss leaders. The bank isn't making shit off you unless you have a credit card or a mortgage or whatever.

The only thing the governments needs to do in regard to the banking sector is make bank account numbers transferable like phone numbers. Easier said than done since it would require a huge overhaul of the system, likely costing a fuckload of $$$ and taking some time, but it would transform the banking sector. It would be worth it and fix any issues regarding competition. Mortgages are easier than ever to transfer, credit card debt can be transferred easily with the amount of interest free balance transfer offers around, but bank accounts are a hassle and hard to transfer since you dont know who still has your old bank details etc, particularly for businesses who get paid by EFT.

Think it was Abbott who was keen on looking into doing something like that, but obviously ended up having bigger shit to deal with.

[Pigs 2]

ok guys I'm a idiot that knows very little about Australian politics. 

i have a few stupid questions if use cunts arnet going to shit on me too much 

[bt50]

27 minutes ago, Pigs 2 said:

ok guys I'm a idiot that knows very little about Australian politics. 

i have a few stupid questions if use cunts arnet going to shit on me too much 

People only tend to get torn to shreds in this thread when the state a fact others disagree with. Ask away.

In fact, whoever responds first is more likely to get torn to shreds 

[hedaik]

30 minutes ago, bt50 said:

People only tend to get torn to shreds in this thread when the state a fact others disagree with. Ask away.

Fair enough.

Can anybody in here suggest the best way for me to join the Greens?

[bt50]

12 minutes ago, hedaik said:

Fair enough.

Can anybody in here suggest the best way for me to join the Greens?

I stand corrected.

[Pigs 2]

If this was America and someone asked me which political party I supported I would say libertarian. Are there any parties that have the same sort of values as the American libertarian party in Australia? 

 

I also think Gary Johnson is a fuckwit just for the record 

[thisphantomfortress]

19 minutes ago, Pigs 2 said:

If this was America and someone asked me which political party I supported I would say libertarian. Are there any parties that have the same sort of values as the American libertarian party in Australia? 

 

I also think Gary Johnson is a fuckwit just for the record 

The liberal democrats - if you like them you'll fit in just fine here