No matter which way you voted (unless you voted One Nation, in which case please go back to 1998 and uppercut yourself!), this is a bad result for pretty much everyone.

I look forward to absolutely SFA being done in parliament for the next 3 years, or however long it will take before they call yet another election.

And on a side note, as someone who has gay friends and family, and cares deeply about marriage equality, I also look forward to yet another government doing the wrong thing and not allowing same sex couples to get married. Hooray for being the last remaining English speaking 1st world country to still be so damn backwards and not view love as a universal right for all people! 

12 hours ago, Jaded said:

No matter which way you voted (unless you voted One Nation, in which case please go back to 1998 and uppercut yourself!), this is a bad result for pretty much everyone.

 

I respect everyone's political opinion with the same proviso as you have made - it is individual choice whether you vote for  one of the 95% of options available and that is what democracy is all about and I respect that  - but if anyone votes One Nation - I judge you and I judge you harshly. (I include Rise up Australia with One Nation as a blight on the political landscape). 

So whilst I am ranting - I have heard a few people ( not on Demonland thankfully) say about the likes of Hanson and Trump - "I like that they are not normal  politicians and don't resort to political speak - I like that they speak their mind". This is 100% correct - they do not resort to political speak and they do speak their minds - the second part of the equation that these same people have not grasped is to take the next logical step. Listen exactly to what is on their minds - it is both repulsive and repugnant.  

 

 

17 hours ago, Jaded said:

And on a side note, as someone who has gay friends and family, and cares deeply about marriage equality, I also look forward to yet another government doing the wrong thing and not allowing same sex couples to get married. Hooray for being the last remaining English speaking 1st world country to still be so damn backwards and not view love as a universal right for all people! 

Don't get me started on this issue. It absolutely maddens me. To anyone but anyone who objects to same sex marriage I again suggest this. If you sincerely have a problem with same sex marriage then protest in the strong way possible - don't marry someone of the same sex. Job done ! (in other words - butt out of something that does not impact you in way, shape or form)

14 hours ago, Jaded said:

 

And on a side note, as someone who has gay friends and family, and cares deeply about marriage equality, I also look forward to yet another government doing the wrong thing and not allowing same sex couples to get married. Hooray for being the last remaining English speaking 1st world country to still be so damn backwards and not view love as a universal right for all people! 

As someone who has gay friends that are against gay marriage I think everybody has a right to an opinion without being dubbed homophobic. I also think love is a universal right and would condemn anyone who argues otherwise. 

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

As someone who has gay friends that are against gay marriage I think everybody has a right to an opinion without being dubbed homophobic. I also think love is a universal right and would condemn anyone who argues otherwise. 

I'm curious... I can understand that like many non gays, they may not particularly find the institution of marriage attractive or necessary and prefer, like I did, a de facto situation, but on what grounds would your gay friends be AGAINST gay marriage? 

8 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I'm curious... I can understand that like many non gays, they may not particularly find the institution of marriage attractive or necessary and prefer, like I did, a de facto situation, but on what grounds would your gay friends be AGAINST gay marriage? 

I'm curious about this too.

Responses from the few gay people I know range from "gay marriage now!" to "meh, cbf".

None have responded in the outright negative.

12 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I'm curious... I can understand that like many non gays, they may not particularly find the institution of marriage attractive or necessary and prefer, like I did, a de facto situation, but on what grounds would your gay friends be AGAINST gay marriage? 

The gay person I am closest with that is against gay marriage believes that marriage is a necessary evil (his words not mine) to provide the best environment to raise a child. He is also a believer in a bit more promiscuity than traditional marriage allows. I have another gay mate, quite high profile too, who is worried that churches will be forced to provide the ceremonies. That he is concerned about that baffles me somewhat but I respect his right to an opinion.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with their opinions just stating that gay people, like everyone else, have political leanings. To generalise that all gay people think one way on a contentious and largely political subject is offensive.

Just google gays against gay marriage and you will see it is much more common than the media will have you believe. 

Interesting, especially the church one.

Thanks for sharing Wrecker.

8 hours ago, nutbean said:

I respect everyone's political opinion with the same proviso as you have made - it is individual choice whether you vote for  one of the 95% of options available and that is what democracy is all about and I respect that  - but if anyone votes One Nation - I judge you and I judge you harshly. (I include Rise up Australia with One Nation as a blight on the political landscape). 

So whilst I am ranting - I have heard a few people ( not on Demonland thankfully) say about the likes of Hanson and Trump - "I like that they are not normal  politicians and don't resort to political speak - I like that they speak their mind". This is 100% correct - they do not resort to political speak and they do speak their minds - the second part of the equation that these same people have not grasped is to take the next logical step. Listen exactly to what is on their minds - it is both repulsive and repugnant.  

 

 

I'm not a Hanson fan but I believe that anyone that voted for her has the right to do so, it's not up to you or me to judge them, just as it's not up to you or me to judge Green or Labor or Liberal voters. If the majority of Hanson's supporters are Bogans, so what, they have just as much right as you or I to have a voice that speaks for them.

I don't like the Greens, but if they get enough votes to have some of their members elected then so be it, the people have spoken, that's their right.

This election has been a disaster for the main political parties and will probably mean there will be nothing done for the next three years.

 

13 hours ago, Dante said:

I'm not a Hanson fan but I believe that anyone that voted for her has the right to do so, it's not up to you or me to judge them, just as it's not up to you or me to judge Green or Labor or Liberal voters. If the majority of Hanson's supporters are Bogans, so what, they have just as much right as you or I to have a voice that speaks for them.

I don't like the Greens, but if they get enough votes to have some of their members elected then so be it, the people have spoken, that's their right.

This election has been a disaster for the main political parties and will probably mean there will be nothing done for the next three years.

 

You are confusing "right" with "respect". Under our democracy everyone has the "right" to vote for who they want. I will never denigrate or disrespect anyone's "right" to vote for whoever they want. However, I will not "respect" their choice in this case. I'll call a spade a spade - you use the word bogan. I will say that Hanson is bigoted and racist and by association people supporting her open themselves to them same labels. If I hear again "Pauline is just saying what we are all thinking" I will spew. She is saying what racists and bigots are thinking.

Interestingly, I think that Hanson is good for the political process. Her last stint, she brought up a lot of issues that people just did not want to talk about - indigenous issues and immigration. I thought that was great. She put a spotlight on these issues and then was completely pilloried for her repulsive solution which was also great. 

Again, she has been elected and the bubbling undertones of these issues will be given public airtime which is a good thing. I believe (hope) exactly the same thing will eventuate as the last time. People will see her narrow minded, ignorant, Xenophobic, bigoted views for what they are and reject them outright.

 

footnote - I sit right in the middle of the political sphere and have voted in the past for all  3 of the major parties.  I "respect" the choices of everyone except for a small minority of the parties/candidates whose platform resorts to bigotry and racism 

 

13 hours ago, Dante said:

I'm not a Hanson fan but I believe that anyone that voted for her has the right to do so, it's not up to you or me to judge them, just as it's not up to you or me to judge Green or Labor or Liberal voters. If the majority of Hanson's supporters are Bogans, so what, they have just as much right as you or I to have a voice that speaks for them.

I don't like the Greens, but if they get enough votes to have some of their members elected then so be it, the people have spoken, that's their right.

This election has been a disaster for the main political parties and will probably mean there will be nothing done for the next three years.

 

Sure, they have the right to vote for who they want. But what Hanson says means I'll judge them for being idiots for voting for her. Not a judgement I'd make for any other vote.

Hanson's presence in the Senate indicates to me that there are a lot of idiots in this country.

Edit: what Nutbean said

16 minutes ago, Choke said:

Sure, they have the right to vote for who they want. But what Hanson says means I'll judge them for being idiots for voting for her. Not a judgement I'd make for any other vote.

Hanson's presence in the Senate indicates to me that there are a lot of idiots in this country.

Edit: what Nutbean said

I believe that anyone that voted for the Greens is an idiot and that most of them wouldn't have a clue why and what they are voting for, I have no respect for them either but once again, this is their right and I do respect that.

Ricky Muir? Glen Lazarus? Clive Palmer? 

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them idiots, it's just part of the political process.

Answer to nut bean as well. Perhaps we should lock up all the racists and bigots, or at least not allow them to vote. Would that work for you?

 

1 minute ago, Dante said:

I believe that anyone that voted for the Greens is an idiot and that most of them wouldn't have a clue why and what they are voting for, I have no respect for them either but once again, this is their right and I do respect that.

Ricky Muir? Glen Lazarus? Clive Palmer? 

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them idiots, it's just part of the political process.

Answer to nut bean as well. Perhaps we should lock up all the racists and bigots, or at least not allow them to vote. Would that work for you?

 

Hanson voters are a whole different level of stupid.

Also did you miss the bit where Nut and I both said they have a right to vote how they want?

No one is saying take away their vote. Just that we judge them more harshly for how they use that vote than we would anyone else.

Don't conjure up ridiculous hypotheticals in response to something that wasn't actually said.

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

Hanson voters are a whole different level of stupid.

Also did you miss the bit where Nut and I both said they have a right to vote how they want?

No one is saying take away their vote. Just that we judge them more harshly for how they use that vote than we would anyone else.

Don't conjure up ridiculous hypotheticals in response to something that wasn't actually said.

I'm not a Hansonite and don't really care what you think of her or her supporters, just as I'm sure they don't really care either. You would probably have a drink with some of them and not really know that they shared her view of the World,  you'd probably walk away thinking that they were good people, just as I would probably think some of the Greens voters are.

Shorten and Andrews have done some shady deals with the unions and some of them verge on criminal, some time in the future it may well be found out they were, but that doesn't mean I should think all Labor supporters are criminals as well.  Most people agree with some parts of their chosen party's agenda but not all, maybe the Hansonites are the same.

My point is that it is their right to think what they want and to vote how they want and your view of that is irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue to discuss this, I'm not a Hanson supporter and have better things to do with my morning.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Dante said:

I'm not a Hansonite and don't really care what you think of her or her supporters, just as I'm sure they don't really care either. You would probably have a drink with some of them and not really know that they shared her view of the World,  you'd probably walk away thinking that they were good people, just as I would probably think some of the Greens voters are.

Shorten and Andrews have done some shady deals with the unions and some of them verge on criminal, some time in the future it may well be found out they were, but that doesn't mean I should think all Labor supporters are criminals as well.  Most people agree with some parts of their chosen party's agenda but not all, maybe the Hansonites are the same.

My point is that it is their right to think what they want and to vote how they want and your view of that is irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue to discuss this, I'm not a Hanson supporter and have better things to do with my morning.

 

 

Says the bloke who quoted and responded to Nutbean's opinion on Hanson supporters.

Go about your morning then.

53 minutes ago, Dante said:

Answer to nut bean as well. Perhaps we should lock up all the racists and bigots, or at least not allow them to vote. Would that work for you?

 

Nope - that would not work for me - again you didn't read what I wrote. My ( and pretty much the greater majority of Australians) complete disrespect and ridicule is enough. I am firm believer in bringing down people with these beliefs by the power of argument. Not quite sure how you made the leap to "locking them up" and as to the idea of not allowing them to vote, I will repeat again since you may have missed it - I respect everyone's right to vote.  

56 minutes ago, Dante said:

I'm not a Hansonite and don't really care what you think of her or her supporters, just as I'm sure they don't really care either. You would probably have a drink with some of them and not really know that they shared her view of the World,  you'd probably walk away thinking that they were good people, just as I would probably think some of the Greens voters are.

You don't have to necessarily discuss politics to understand peoples views or belief system. I have friends who don't believe in the science of climate change and some that do. I have friends that oppose and support negative gearing. Funnily enough, I don't have friends who are bigoted. You are right some of my friends may be closet Hansonites. Once they publicly espouse her views I would just say, all good , but then I wouldn't feel the need to continue the friendship. We all have opinions and we have core values. I have friends with differing opinions but I don't have friends with differing core values.  

1 hour ago, Dante said:

Answer to nut bean as well. Perhaps we should lock up all the racists and bigots, or at least not allow them to vote. Would that work for you?

Overreaction much?  I think that NB is well within his rights in labeling those who vote for Hanson because they support her racist/xenophobic views, idiots. However, I'm not sure how you extrapolate from that, that people think they should be locked up simply for holding those views.

Perhaps you admire her politics and are taking this a little too personally?

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Overreaction much?  I think that NB is well within his rights in labeling those who vote for Hanson because they support her racist/xenophobic views, idiots. However, I'm not sure how you extrapolate from that, that people think they should be locked up simply for holding those views.

Perhaps you admire her politics and are taking this a little too personally?

I'm going to be both precise and perplexed. I have met people who hold racist/Xenophobic views and I usually use the term ignorant/uneducated rather than idiots. But I can't explain the likes of David Irving  who is far from being ignorant/idiots and is highly educated. I can't reconcile someone as highly educated as he is holding the views that he does.

26 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I'm going to be both precise and perplexed. I have met people who hold racist/Xenophobic views and I usually use the term ignorant/uneducated rather than idiots. But I can't explain the likes of David Irving  who is far from being ignorant/idiots and is highly educated. I can't reconcile someone as highly educated as he is holding the views that he does.

Don't know who that is, but surely he's just a different kind of idiot.

29 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I'm going to be both precise and perplexed. I have met people who hold racist/Xenophobic views and I usually use the term ignorant/uneducated rather than idiots. But I can't explain the likes of David Irving  who is far from being ignorant/idiots and is highly educated. I can't reconcile someone as highly educated as he is holding the views that he does.

Don't know who that is, but surely he's just a different kind of idiot.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

You don't have to necessarily discuss politics to understand peoples views or belief system. I have friends who don't believe in the science of climate change and some that do. I have friends that oppose and support negative gearing. Funnily enough, I don't have friends who are bigoted. You are right some of my friends may be closet Hansonites. Once they publicly espouse her views I would just say, all good , but then I wouldn't feel the need to continue the friendship. We all have opinions and we have core values. I have friends with differing opinions but I don't have friends with differing core values.  

Nutbean - you say you have friends that don't believe in climate science. Then you say if anyone of your friends revealed they voted for Hanson you wouldn't continue the friendship. One of Hanson's core policies was to scrutinise climate science. What if your friends who felt strongly about climate science, which you clearly accept, voted for her for that reason only?

I found Hanson abhorrent 18 years ago. I still cringe at her "asian invasion" speech. Whilst she is not my cup of tea her policies are much more well thought out this time around.

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

 

Overreaction much?  I think that NB is well within his rights in labeling those who vote for Hanson because they support her racist/xenophobic views, idiots. However, I'm not sure how you extrapolate from that, that people think they should be locked up simply for holding those views.

Perhaps you admire her politics and are taking this a little too personally?

Not sure where you got that from.

Not even sure why you entered the discussion, perhaps you think they needed your help.

My only issue with all of this is that everyone has their view and is entitled to it, whether you agree with to or not is irrelevant and I doubt that most of them would even care what you think.  

Anyway, carry on.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Nutbean - you say you have friends that don't believe in climate science. Then you say if anyone of your friends revealed they voted for Hanson you wouldn't continue the friendship. One of Hanson's core policies was to scrutinise climate science. What if your friends who felt strongly about climate science, which you clearly accept, voted for her for that reason only?

I found Hanson abhorrent 18 years ago. I still cringe at her "asian invasion" speech. Whilst she is not my cup of tea her policies are much more well thought out this time around.

I have got to draw the line somewhere - for each person the line may be different. I can only call it as I see it. Pauline Hanson's view on marriage equality is either a binding referendum or free vote in parliament. I have no problem with that. My issue is that I strongly believe that people are not voting for her because of her marriage equality stance or her stance on climate change.Whilst she is much broader in her policy outlook this time around rightly or wrongly her views on race and religion is core and IMO is THE reason why people voted for her.

As to finding her abhorrent 18 years ago - for me the only change is she now can talk (barely) on other issues. She has not changed her stance on the Asian invasion  - it was abhorrent 18 year ago and the abhorrence has stood the test of time.  

 

 

36 minutes ago, Dante said:

My only issue with all of this is that everyone has their view and is entitled to it, whether you agree with to or not is irrelevant and I doubt that most of them would even care what you think.  

 

Firstly  - everyone has a view and is entitled to it-  absolutely spot on. Whether I agree with a view is not irrelevant - that is why we have a democracy. It is my chance to show my opinion is not irrelevant  - I can agree by voting for that person or disagree by actively voicing my opinion and then voting against the likes of Pauline Hanson. And as to them not caring what I think  - I ask why on earth a person would run for Parliament if they didn't care. Pauline Hanson does care what we think and does want as many people to vote for her as possible so we can have a royal commission into Islam and climate science.