Talking Politics

[MD Jazz]

I agree very much with this post. Where I'm a bit unconventional. I'm not opposed to a combination of an optimum mix of renewables and nuclear energy. We have the perfect elements for both these types of zero emissions energy sources.

Tick this. Nuclear must be part of the conversation.

 

[easy_tiger]

I was chatting to a mate yesterday, who is a climate scientist and has in the past been a paid up member of the Greens at various times. He isn't anymore as he is totally disillusioned with them. Not for their environmental stance, he still agree wholeheartedly with that side of things. But his viewpoint was, in an attempt to grow, they broadened their umbrella to take in a large portion of people who, once upon a time were more involved with the Socialist Alliance and other such University activist, Marxist organisations. These people are more interested in the more radical elements of gender, sexuality and racial politics, with environment taking a back seat to this faction. He says this has been a very unstablising force, more so in NSW and Victoria, than other branches. And in his opinion, takes them away from their core business and alienates more voters than it attracts. He now votes for centre-left independents running on an environmental platform.

Similarly, I used to regularly vote Green in HOR, only occasionally for a quality senator now. Greens put up some dreadful candidates for the house.

however, my question is this.

How is say a radical Green gender policy, hypothetically but realistically, lets say they want people to be able to record 'non-binary' under gender on their birth certificate,

as evil and socially destructive as say Fraser Annoying proposing in parliament that certain immigrants be gassed? Or say One Nation trying to get sponsorship of the NRA on the promise of semi-automatics for the people?

How can they be considered equally in the extreme basket?

Surely it can't, and people who suggest it is, are just having their viewpoint manipulated by misinformation on high rotation by Murdoch.

A central, clearly articulated policy of the Greens this election, was a royal commission into the management of the dying Murray River.

How could any sane, intelligent person argue that is a radical, let alone, bad position?

 

[Chelsea]

If Liverpool was still allowed to post around here would be happy that the Libs won, of shattered that Tony Abbott was voted out?

Hi MB78

Going by their previous posts on here, I think Liverpool might be one of the "quiet Australians" that ScoMo has spoken about.
A group that have learnt to nod their heads in workplaces or social settings for fear of being ostracised or turned on by the more vocal virtue signalling minority.
A group that uses logic and facts instead of emotions, feelings, and arrogant denigrating views on anyone else with a different opinion or idea.
A group that respects an individual's right to determine their own finances, livelihoods, and thoughts instead of a socialist agenda of government control and a do as I say approach.
A group that has an opinion but are silenced time and time again, through censorship, ridicule, or even violence.
This is why we have seen opinion polls and the media so wrong in the Trump election, Brexit, and now Shorten's devastating loss.
The silent majority have again spoken when it mattered most - in the polling booth.
Don't you just love Australia and Australians! 8-

Just my two cents

 

[easy_tiger]

Hi MB78

Going by their previous posts on here, I think Liverpool might be one of the "quiet Australians" that ScoMo has spoken about.
A group that have learnt to nod their heads in workplaces or social settings for fear of being ostracised or turned on by the more vocal virtue signalling minority.
A group that uses logic and facts instead of emotions, feelings, and arrogant denigrating views on anyone else with a different opinion or idea.
A group that respects an individual's right to determine their own finances, livelihoods, and thoughts instead of a socialist agenda of government control and a do as I say approach.
A group that has an opinion but are silenced time and time again, through censorship, ridicule, or even violence.
This is why we have seen opinion polls and the media so wrong in the Trump election, Brexit, and now Shorten's devastating loss.
The silent majority have again spoken when it mattered most - in the polling booth.
Don't you just love Australia and Australians! 8-

Just my two cents

watch yourself Chelsea, or you'll be Manchester United before you know what hit ya.

logic and facts is no way to interpret the world.

 

[HR]

And if everyone has this attitude then nothing gets done. Someone has to lead, and given the emerging economics of sustainable energy technologies its likely that the leader will reap benefits that followers won't.

Nice Ian. I guess we will have to agrue the toss.
What is better, doing nothing on a personal level for the environment or doing something on a personal level for the environment?
Change wil happen mate. It will. T
he issue is that the government's are not solely focused in this topic. They cannot be solely focused on the topic. They are also responsible for looking after the country in more ways than one, do you agree. The parties select their focus and unfortunately for you the Greens don't do it for 90% of Aussiies. They should do, I have said it before.
Problem is the rest of their platform and their politicians get involved in non core green business and are generally poor cousins to the major parties in political nous.
Easy too is struggling to understand why the greens don't do it for enough people to have real influence.
If they were green, they get my vote as an environmentally conservative person, not my first vote but certainly in the top 3. If they remain the same as we see currently, they get nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[easy_tiger]

Easy too is struggling to understand why the greens don't do it for enough people to have real influence.
If they were green, they get my vote as an environmentally conservative person, not my first vote but certainly in the top 3. If they remain the same as we see currently, they get nothing. Absolutely nothing.

this doesn't make much sense.

Greens never propose to hold a majority in the HOR and put up a PM candidate.

they are an issues outfit, and their core issues are environment and social equality - always have been.

Why aren't people saying 'If One nation would just stick to hating black and brown people, I'd vote for them, but they lost me with the Charlton Heston stuff'

So I am perfectly clear

I'm not confounded by why people don't like, and don't vote for The Greens.

I get that completely.

Im confounded by the vitriol, and the uninformed assertion that they are as evil, or more evil, than Pauline Hanson, Fraser Anning and Clive Palmer.

and no-one can articulate it. Nobody.

 

[HR]

Morning easy, Palmer is a grub, he spent his own money but was actually in the game.
Getup were a disgrace but achieved a bit of what they set out to do. Activists give me the *smile*, especially ones who hide. Gutless and typical.
Murdoch yeah, 200mil hey. This is another counter balance to all the other mainstream and gov funded media outlets who didn't see it coming because of their bias. More than likely way more than 200mil gone across all these players.
By the way as an aside, I think Bill got beaten in all 3 debates, comfortably. But that is a headline you didn't read, why?

 

[HR]

this doesn't make much sense.

Greens never propose to hold a majority in the HOR and put up a PM candidate.

they are an issues outfit, and their core issues are environment and social equality - always have been.

Why aren't people saying 'If One nation would just stick to hating black and brown people, I'd vote for them, but they lost me with the Charlton Heston stuff'

So I am perfectly clear

I'm not confounded by why people don't like, and don't vote for The Greens.

I get that completely.

Im confounded by the vitriol, and the uninformed assertion that they are as evil, or more evil, than Pauline Hanson, Fraser Anning and Clive Palmer.

and no-one can articulate it. Nobody.

I don't vote for one nation either.

 

[IanG]

The greens aren't necessarily stable.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/02/11/crisis-watch-the-various-scandals-threatening-the-greens/

The libs don't need to tar the greens with any brush, they do their own painting.

Agree with the rest of your post.

Yes this is why I have moved away from supporting the greens for the moment. Having said that I would never ever tar them as being extremists as bad as Anning etc.

 

[easy_tiger]

Morning easy, Palmer is a grub, he spent his own money but was actually in the game.
Getup were a disgrace but achieved a bit of what they set out to do. Activists give me the sh!ts, especially ones who hide. Gutless and typical.
Murdoch yeah, 200mil hey. This is another counter balance to all the other mainstream and gov funded media outlets who didn't see it coming because of their bias. More than likely way more than 200mil gone across all these players.
By the way as an aside, I think Bill got beaten in all 3 debates, comfortably. But that is a headline you didn't read, why?

ive got nothin'

 

[IanG]

By the way as an aside, I think Bill got beaten in all 3 debates, comfortably. But that is a headline you didn't read, why?

Consensus was he won all 3 even from News Corp journalists, so mileage clearly varies.

 

[IanG]

As part of our conversation, I was trying to steer him across to the Sustainable Australia Party, who are a party based on environmental politics, but coming at it from a different angle to the Greens and more palatable if one isn't too partial to the overreach of gender, sexuality and racial politics I mentioned above.

Cheers for this PT. How did they go in the election? I might have a look at them in the future.

 

[Al Bundy]

Early hours of Saturday morning as heading to work, one of the stations I was through (?who) mentioned some person who runs a specific program that scans twitter remarks, FB remarks, media responses of people reply to articles & more, had done an in-depth analysis of it all. Same guy did the same in the USA who successfully predicted Trump getting in and exactly forecast all the seats.

His program predicted a majority win to the coalition.

Went hmmm, so as I got out of the car walking to work, put a lazy $5 on 7:1 on Sportsbet & won. LOL

 

[Baloo]

Im confounded by the vitriol, and the uninformed assertion that they are as evil, or more evil, than Pauline Hanson, Fraser Anning and Clive Palmer.

Who has said the Greens are more evil than Anning? As for the use of the word 'uninformed', that's exactly the type of argument that turned many voters against the vocal left. Thats the exact type of language by he left that helped ScoMo get re-elected.

By the way as an aside, I think Bill got beaten in all 3 debates, comfortably. But that is a headline you didn't read, why?

Because it didn't happen that way. When the News Corp press try hard to call the debate a Draw, you know ScoMo didn't win it clearly.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Your sums are just wrong on this L2. Cumulative effects matter. China and India ARE building renewable into their systems. Their size is causing the problem but if everyone else is ahead of them as they grow towards their own prosperity that just means we are closer to the goal when their emissions heavy growth phase tails off. If we all wait then when they tail off we will be that much further from our goal. We will all have to do the work to undo all the extra CO2 emitted over the intervening years just to reach parity with where we stand today. How is that a good idea?

No they're not. Of the four Big Emitters, China has gone ballistic and India is taking off.

Australia has special challenges due to its size. If we cut our own throats economically, we will have disappeared up our own *smile* before these countries even get a handle on the problem.

We should be trailing, not leading, on this issue.

 

[easy_tiger]

Who has said the Greens are more evil than Anning?

You, by ommision, ranked them equally.

This started by me pointing out that all extremism is NOT equal.

Ive been pleading for someone to show me how it is.

And noone has.

This whole vocal left got scomo in is complete crap too.

The vocal murdoch press and 2GB and palmers 80m got scomo in.

As well as a very tactically clever campaign and a slightly complacent, underwhelming opponent. Got scomo in

Anyway. Im signing off. Its all to depressing.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

No they're not. Of the four Big Emitters, China has gone ballistic and India is taking off.

Australia has special challenges due to its size. If we cut our own throats economically, we will have disappeared up our own *smile* before these countries even get a handle on the problem.

We should be trailing, not leading, on this issue.

"No they're not" what? Doing what I said or doing whatever you decided I said without actually reading my post? Building renewable? (what I actually said). Sure they are. Up to $100bn probably more by now.

"We should be trailing", why? An analogy. You know how love them, so. There is a juggernaut bearing down (catastrophic climate change). It's speed is determined by how fast you shovel coal into its furnace (CO2). There are 207 shovellelers and some can shovel at 10X the rate of the others (large emitters versus small ones). But every shovel load increases the speed. You are arguing that the little bloke/sheila should keep shovelling because the big bloke is cumbersome and will take longer to slow to a stop. But it all reduces the speed, that's the goal. Even the small shovels. Get it down enough and by the time the big bloke has stopped you can erect bulwark and derail the bastard. Keep shovelling and the bulwark won't matter. The speed at impact will be too high.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Cheers for this PT. How did they go in the election? I might have a look at them in the future.

https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/

Check out their policy platform. Very reasonable. I may differ from them slightly on some points (I'm open to nuclear energy as part of our mix with renewables, they aren't). But it's about the closest party I can relate to.

It appears the didn't perform overly well. Still in the realms of a microparty. I feel though, they do have the ingredients to perhaps translate into a minor party that can gain seats. They have one member in the Victorian upper house, Clifford Hayes. Former ALP MP, Kelvin Thomson is a member (defecting from the ALP) of the Party and advisor to Clifford Hayes. And *smile* Smith is a member and donor. *smile* Smith I believe toyed with the idea of running in Warringah (against Tony Abbot) or in neighbouring Mackellar (another Liberal safe seat, formerly held by Bronwyn Bishop) under the SAP banner in recent years, but didn't in the end. Perhaps he feels at his age, his time has past for a tilt at politics.

But it just seems so hard for any new players with fresh viewpoints to get a foothold in our political system. Obviously One Nation and the Greens have managed it over the past 20-30 years, although it still doesn't translate to many seats. But at least they have a profile. Other minor parties even struggle for much of a profile. Then the system is rigged towards the two majors. You have enormous corporate donations going to the L-NP Coalition and enormous Union and Industry Super funds (plus some Corporate money) going to the ALP. If that isn't enough of an uphill battle, the two majors are only gaining 65-68% (and shrinking) of the primary vote between them, but are shielded by a preferential voting system that allows them to hold 96-97% of the representative seats. About the only time they get along, must be behind closed doors, slapping each other on the back that between them, they hold a virtual, closed shop duopoly

 

[Baloo]

Im confounded by the vitriol, and the uninformed assertion that they are as evil, or more evil, than Pauline Hanson, Fraser Anning and Clive Palmer.

Who has said the Greens are more evil than Anning?

You, by ommision, ranked them equally.

Even with your warped logic the best you can come up with is "equally". You really believe I think the Greens are as evil as Anning?

So anyway, your original assertion is wrong. No one in this thread has said Greens are more evil than Anning. This is the problem with trying to debate those in the extremes, there is no shade of grey, just black and white.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

"We should be trailing", why?

The technology's not mature. Let the big nations with the big budgets develop the technology, then acquire it once it's ready.

It makes little sense to be at the expensive cutting edge unless we're exporting it to others, which I'm not aware of.

There is a juggernaut bearing down (catastrophic climate change).

No, that's the alarmism speaking. Disaster is not imminent.

Australia's contribution makes negligible difference, one way or the other.