Talking Politics

[Sintiger]

I'm equally annoyed with all the junk they keep sending me in the mail, almost every day, it's predominately from the Libs.

I live in kooyong electorate and in the last two days I have had messages left on my phone. I have voice to text and today the message was from Josh bright and burke, yesterday it was from Jess wrightenluke

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Haven't read his maiden speech to the NSW parliament PT, just going by what he's said in many public forums in recent years, but he really was a progressive, firebrand leftist in his early days. It's just wrong to claim he hasn't changed. He has.

This was a guy who went from being an active feminist and supporter of women to vilifying Rosie Batty, the woman who's ex murdered their son. That's the degree of change in Mark Latham.

Much of his opening speech focussed on his belief in people being judged on their individual character, ability and needs and hence, merit. Rather than being judged on elements, such as sex, race, ethnicity, religion etc that the identity politics of the left (and right) seeks to do. He spoke very fondly of a female, Muslim colleague he had running in another seat. Not sure how such opinions are contrary to the feminist ideals you describe earlier in his career. In this context, perhaps it’s indicative of how feminist politics has morphed into something quite different to what it’s mission was in the early part of his career, rather than he himself changing on these issues.

 

[DavidSSS]

Especially with how much of them are full of... *smile*.

Why we don't have laws ensuring that what is 'put out there' is the truth is just beyond me.

Um, who do you think makes the laws? But seriously, yes, there should be some level of truth in advertising applied to political campaigns, not quite sure how you enforce it and you are going to get a defence of "we're only expressing an opinion". But the pollies set the laws so it ain't real surprising that they choose to exempt themselves.

I'm in Goldstein, safe Tory and the seat's namesake would not be a fan of the local numptie supposedly representing us, but even we have had leaflets from the Libs. Given where the Libs are campaigning their internal polling must be atrocious - hopefully this will be the end of this pack of neo-liberal extremists.

DS

 

[OldTiger67]

Um, who do you think makes the laws? But seriously, yes, there should be some level of truth in advertising applied to political campaigns, not quite sure how you enforce it and you are going to get a defence of "we're only expressing an opinion". But the pollies set the laws so it ain't real surprising that they choose to exempt themselves.


DS

How about a law that mandates that the PM and Treasurer are disqualified from Parliament if the budget figures promised during an election campaign vary from (say) 10% from the actual figures.

 

[Baloo]

When Howard coined the term "core promises" as the only ones promised during a campaign that were real promises, as opposed to the non-core promise anything to win, and the Australian population bought it, we now have no one to blame for what our election campaigns have become

 

[DavidSSS]

How about a law that mandates that the PM and Treasurer are disqualified from Parliament if the budget figures promised during an election campaign vary from (say) 10% from the actual figures.

Hope you have a ready supply of PMs and Treasurers, none of them will last long

DS

 

[easy_tiger]

He did even better than that Easy. I just love the vampire reference!

Paul Keating says he has never seen someone "as mean" as Peter Dutton in his 50 years since entering Parliament and says voters have a chance "to drive a stake through his dark political heart"

Thats magnificent. Except I would have left off the political.

I checked some prices with my bookie yesterday, cause they rarely get it wrong.

They are only offering 85c back for a dollar

for Abbott and Dutton to be unemployed on Sunday. artyfest

The double. Both lose at 9/10 on!

I don't think I will have barracked as hard for a pair off odds on favourites in my life.

 

[IanG]

Especially with how much of them are full of... *smile*.

Why we don't have laws ensuring that what is 'put out there' is the truth is just beyond me.

I agree. On top of TV I also have a relative who's a political journalist and he got me into a facebook group about political ads. What its done is just solidify my opinion that political advertising should be regulated.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Interesting seeing Bill Shorten getting stuck in today about Scott Morrison being a Christian and the inference of this being that because of he is a committed, practicing Christian, he is not of the required character to be PM.

Now of course, people may bring up valid points, that given he is a committed Christian means he holds conservative views, that people may find out of step with society (I must admit, I cringed when some of the photos of him singing eyes closed in his happy clapper church appeared in the media). However I'm unaware of Scott Morrison ever outwardly posting homophobic remarks or condemning gay and/or transgender people to hell or anything of that sort, as is the inference.

I was thinking to myself, what would be the reaction if the same inference were made of a person of another faith, other than Christianity? The same double standards of course apply to the Pauline Hanson and Cory Bernardi types on the right - I'm not denying that. But would a politician running for PM get away with outwardly inferring that a politician is unfit for office, explicitly due to their Islamic faith for instance? Outside of some far-righties, such comments would be widely condemned as "Islamaphobic", and you might even find yourself in the human rights commission under section 18C.

 

[K3]

Um, who do you think makes the laws? But seriously, yes, there should be some level of truth in advertising applied to political campaigns, not quite sure how you enforce it and you are going to get a defence of "we're only expressing an opinion". But the pollies set the laws so it ain't real surprising that they choose to exempt themselves.

They have managed to get something workable happening in Canadia. It 100% comes down to a complete lack of political will from either of the major parties. Bring on the independents who aren't RWNJs!

I'm in Goldstein, <snip>

Me too

DS

Not DS

 

[easy_tiger]

Interesting seeing Bill Shorten getting stuck in today about Scott Morrison being a Christian and the inference of this being that because of he is a committed, practicing Christian, he is not of the required character to be PM.

Now of course, people may bring up valid points, that given he is a committed Christianity means he holds conservative views, that people may find out of step with society (I must admit, I cringed when some of the photos of him singing eyes closed in his happy clapper church appeared in the media). However I'm unaware of Scott Morrison ever outwardly posting homophobic remarks or condemning gay and/or transgender people to hell or anything of that sort, as is the inference.

I was thinking to myself, what would be the reaction if the same inference were made of a person of another faith, other than Christianity? The same double standards of course apply to the Pauline Hanson and Cory Bernardi types on the right - I'm not denying that. But would a politician running for PM get away with outwardly inferring that a politician is unfit for office, explicitly due to their Islamic faith for instance? Outside of some far-righties, such comments would be widely condemned as "Islamaphobic", and you might even find yourself in the human rights commission under section 18C.

we have a clearly constituted secular government.

So I think pointing out any leader who runs any kind of prayer group in Parliament House on thursdays, be it about Jesus, mohamed, bhudda or Krishna,

should cop some scrutiny

 

[Panthera Tigris]

we have a clearly constituted secular government.

So I think pointing out any leader who runs any kind of prayer group in Parliament House on thursdays, be it about Jesus, mohamed, bhudda or Krishna,

should cop some scrutiny

I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But I don't think the wider political spectrum, or the confected offederati on social media would agree with you and hold the same, consistent standards. In fact, people of those other faiths you state would be held up on a pedestal and 'celebrated' on the alter of diversity.

Shorten is just dog whistling to preconceived prejudices and judgement of people that are just trendier than the preconceived prejudice, judgement and bigotry that gets spewed by people like Pauline Hanson.

 

[lukeanddad]

Interesting seeing Bill Shorten getting stuck in today about Scott Morrison being a Christian and the inference of this being that because of he is a committed, practicing Christian, he is not of the required character to be PM.

Now of course, people may bring up valid points, that given he is a committed Christian means he holds conservative views, that people may find out of step with society (I must admit, I cringed when some of the photos of him singing eyes closed in his happy clapper church appeared in the media). However I'm unaware of Scott Morrison ever outwardly posting homophobic remarks or condemning gay and/or transgender people to hell or anything of that sort, as is the inference.

I was thinking to myself, what would be the reaction if the same inference were made of a person of another faith, other than Christianity? The same double standards of course apply to the Pauline Hanson and Cory Bernardi types on the right - I'm not denying that. But would a politician running for PM get away with outwardly inferring that a politician is unfit for office, explicitly due to their Islamic faith for instance? Outside of some far-righties, such comments would be widely condemned as "Islamaphobic", and you might even find yourself in the human rights commission under section 18C.

Well said. All we should care about is Policy - and of course people doing what they say they will do.

This campaign feels like it has been grubbier than normal. And for the first time, I am leaning to voting informal - which is of course, entirely useless

 

[spook]

Morrison is not a Christian. Never mind that his oogity-boogity talking in tongues mass hysteria deindividuation cult of material acquisition is all about "feeling the Holy Spirit" and *smile* all to do with Christ, just look at the man's actions. Jesus would spit in his face.

Too many people claim Christianity, as if calling yourself a Christian is a virtue in itself, while never asking themselves "what would Jesus do?" (or at least not doing what Jesus would do). It's not enough to say you're a Christian, if you don't act in the way that Jesus laid out, you're not a Christian. You're a liar.

Morrison also made his religion a photo opportunity, inviting the press in to take photos of him singing and throwing his hands in the air. He put it on the table in some sort of virtue-signalling he thought would win him votes.

He ain't a Christian. I'd be hammering him on that if I were Shorten.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Well said. All we should care about is Policy - and of course people doing what they say they will do.

This campaign feels like it has been grubbier than normal. And for the first time, I am leaning to voting informal - which is of course, entirely useless

I live in a very safe ALP seat. So makes bugger all difference if I return a valid vote, or informal. It won't influence the outcome. So I'm thinking I'll go down that route as well.

Although my Senate ticket I'll number every box. My preferences will be spread all over the place, starting with the party *smile* Smith and Kelvin Thomson are tied up with - the Sustainable Australia Party (about the only Party I've found I largely align with on views). Then to some independents I like, followed by the DLP, then votes spread across all party lines, based on the particular person, rather than which party they are in. The bottom preferences will be a mixture of far left Greens-Socialist alliance types and far right rednecks like Fraser Anning's bogan fuckwhits.

 

[Baloo]

ScoMo brought this on himself by dodging a straight question about whether gay people go to hell. He answered straight the next day when Shorten highlighted the fact ScoMo dodged it. If ScoMo had given a straight answer (yes, tough for any politician to understand that concept) then it'd be a non-issue.

But on ScoMo, when the gay marriage vote came up he chose, with others, to walk out of parliament and avoid voting. It seems to be a common tactic these days to avoid scrutiny (who can forget Abbott and Pyne sprinting for the closing doors). I'd have more respect for ScoMo, or other potential PM, if he stayed and voted whichever way he chose, rather than just dodge the issue.

 

[spook]

He ain't a Christian. I'd be hammering him on that if I were Shorten.

Of course, this would be a losing tactic, as millions of people who call themselves Christians are just as hypocritical, self-deceiving, ignore what Jesus said liars as Morrison.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

ScoMo brought this on himself by dodging a straight question about whether gay people go to hell. He answered straight the next day when Shorten highlighted the fact ScoMo dodged it. If ScoMo had given a straight answer (yes, tough for any politician to understand that concept) then it'd be a non-issue.

But on ScoMo, when the gay marriage vote came up he chose, with others, to walk out of parliament and avoid voting. It seems to be a common tactic these days to avoid scrutiny (who can forget Abbott and Pyne sprinting for the closing doors). I'd have more respect for ScoMo, or other potential PM, if he stayed and voted whichever way he chose, rather than just dodge the issue.

I dodged voting in the plebiscite because I had torn feelings on the issue and the way it all played out and all the surrounding politics. I'm not a religious person either.

Abbott I can understand him abstaining. His conscience really didn't agree with it, but at the same time he was true to his word, that he didn't want to stand in the way of the will of his electorate. Pyne surprises me. He was one of the Libs who did actually support it! Yet sprinted to the doorway! Very poor form. And quite puzzling really.

Just remember there were some on the other side of the house who didn't agree with it. Generally some from the ALP-Right (it was of course mostly their electorates that voted against Same Sex Marriage). But rather than give up their cushy place on the party Senate ticket at subsequent elections and their MP pay and entitlements, they shut up and voted for something they didn't agree with.

Don't get me wrong. The 'for' side had the numbers even if everyone in the house voted with their conscience. But there were people across all party lines who voted against their conscience or avoided it all together for cynical political survival, rather than standing for what they believed in.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I dodged voting in the plebiscite because I had torn feelings on the issue and the way it all played out and all the surrounding politics. I'm not a religious person either.

Abbott I can understand him abstaining. His conscience really didn't agree with it, but at the same time he was true to his word, that he didn't want to stand in the way of the will of his electorate. Pyne surprises me. He was one of the Libs who did actually support it! Yet sprinted to the doorway! Very poor form. And quite puzzling really.

Just remember there were some on the other side of the house who didn't agree with it. Generally some from the ALP-Right (it was of course mostly their electorates that voted against Same Sex Marriage). But rather than give up their cushy place on the party Senate ticket at subsequent elections and their MP pay and entitlements, they shut up and voted for something they didn't agree with.

Don't get me wrong. The 'for' side had the numbers even if everyone in the house voted with their conscience. But many people across all party lines voted against their conscience or avoided it all together for cynical political survival, rather than standing for what they believed in.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Tony Abbott, Andrew Hastie, Michael Sukkar, Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke, George Christensen and Rick Wilson all abstained from the vote.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/samesex-marriage-vote-four-no-votes-in-historic-decision/news-story/4af70acb6a8d614b5a5593197e1b2f56


Looks like we both stand corrected. Pyne isn't listed in the absentees.

 

[lukeanddad]

ScoMo brought this on himself by dodging a straight question about whether gay people go to hell. He answered straight the next day when Shorten highlighted the fact ScoMo dodged it. If ScoMo had given a straight answer (yes, tough for any politician to understand that concept) then it'd be a non-issue.

But on ScoMo, when the gay marriage vote came up he chose, with others, to walk out of parliament and avoid voting. It seems to be a common tactic these days to avoid scrutiny (who can forget Abbott and Pyne sprinting for the closing doors). I'd have more respect for ScoMo, or other potential PM, if he stayed and voted whichever way he chose, rather than just dodge the issue.

I don't really have a problem with this.There are times in all our workplaces when the workplace policy is at odds with our values. We could resign, or we could abstain.