On 05/07/2016 at 04:00, nutbean said:

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.

  

OK. I was referring to Hanson'r supporters and as I said, I doubt that they would give a stuff if you agreed with them or not, why would they, are you that important?

if you have a view that differs from Hanson then take it up with her, send an email, send a letter, send a text maybe even ring her, actively voice your opinion with her, you've already voted against her so that's a start. From what I have read or heard about her she has skin as thick as an Elephant and if you can get through that then good luck to you.

Pauline Hanson strikes an accord with certain people and her target audience like what she says, that's their right and if they want to vote for her, that's also their right.

If you have a problem with someone voting for her because she is a Bigot or anti Islam then get on to the airwaves and comment, send in your opinion to the newspapers, canvas your friends and disown any that agree with her, but at the end of the day, no matter what they think and whether they like her politics or not, it is their right to use their vote to support her if they wish.

Not every one will agree with your brand of politics and it would be sad if your friends dumped you because they didn't.

That's it for me, I don't care that much about it to spend the day arguing with someone that I don't know over and issue that I have no control over. I have never personally voted for Hanson and I don't know anyone that has.

 

 

  On 05/07/2016 at 03:16, Dante said:

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.

Not sure where I got that from?  Possibly from the lengths you are going to in defence of the ON party supporters and your extraordinary overreaction to NB's comments.

Not sure why I entered the conversation?  Possibly for the same reasons you entered the original conversation between Jaded and NB... in my case, I was stating my thoughts and was in agreement with NB... what was your reason?

They probably don't care what I think?  So what?  That's their prerogative and good luck to them.  Strange that you seem to care so much though.

Edit: and looking at your response to NB above, it seems that you have an issue with people using a discussion forum for discussion?

HT,

I guess my main concern with politics and I how I react to people's political view is the basis for their beliefs.

Climate science, brought up by Wrecker, is a perfect example. Wrecker and my difference of opinion is based on an issue that is not influenced by race, religion or gender.

What to do about terrorism is a more vexing issue. What I won't do is pillory an entire religion based on fanatics that have hijacked a religion and taken it to the extreme. (before anyone suggests that the Koran is full of extreme views  - Leviticus 20:10 prescribes that all adulterers get put to death . For me, I am not happy with religion because of the problems it can cause - however the evolution of religions - of Christianity,Judaism and Islam ( amongst others)  - where it is moderate and peaceful is not part of this problem ).

I have no problem with differences of opinion - I would happily have a beer (pepsi max) with a wrecker and we would tell each other how deluded each others views are. What I cannot abide by is bigotry and blatant racism. 

 

 

  On 05/07/2016 at 05:16, hardtack said:

Not sure where I got that from?  Possibly from the lengths you are going to in defence of the ON party supporters and your extraordinary overreaction to NB's comments.

Not sure why I entered the conversation?  Possibly for the same reasons you entered the original conversation between Jaded and NB... in my case, I was stating my thoughts and was in agreement with NB... what was your reason?

They probably don't care what I think?  So what?  That's their prerogative and good luck to them.  Strange that you seem to care so much though.

Edit: and looking at your response to NB above, it seems that you have an issue with people using a discussion forum for discussion?

How in God's name do you get that out of what I said? And if you think what I said indicates I support Hanson I'd suggest you have poor perception.

I'm more against the mass hysteria of those that think the World is going to end because some voters exercise their rights to vote for the person/party of their choice.

You can argue all you want, with whoever you want to, as long as they are interested in responding, but I'm not, so let's leave it at that, unless you are the type that wants the last word and if so, go ahead.

 

 

Of all the stupid [censored] that One Nation and Pauline Hansen stands for, the most concerning thing is her questioning of child vaccination.

There was another party (the health party?), who was campaigning against vaccination.

Honestly, how incredibly dumb can you be? Yes lets stop vaccinating our kids and bring back horrible preventable disease. That's just what the world needs!  

 

  On 07/07/2016 at 01:04, Jaded said:

Of all the stupid [censored] that One Nation and Pauline Hansen stands for, the most concerning thing is her questioning of child vaccination.

There was another party (the health party?), who was campaigning against vaccination.

Honestly, how incredibly dumb can you be? Yes lets stop vaccinating our kids and bring back horrible preventable disease. That's just what the world needs!  

I disagree. 

I don't disagree with your stance on vaccination - IMO opinion stopping vaccination is incredibly dumb. 

But if you base your vote for Hanson on this I will scratch my head in bewilderment but respect your right to your opinion.

I can turn away from an opinion that is a differing opinion which I believe is based on, as someone else said on here, "being an  idiot" - I counter that with the belief that if enough people feel the way I do then the policy will never become law - ( as in her vaccination policy). I can't turn a blind eye to bigotry and racism and whether these "policies" become law or not I won't sit back and just hope that enough people feel the same way. It is apparent already that this approach is already gaining traction as many people are already coming out and speaking against Hanson - they are not speaking about her policy on vaccination nor are the speaking about her policy on climate - they are speaking about her racist views.

Again - so it is clear - our democracy means that anyone with any views ( as long as they meet the necessary AEC criteria) can run for our parliament - I respect their rights to do this and I respect anyone's right to cast a vote for them as they see fit.

It looks as if the LNP will scrape in, despite Bill doing his Victory lap of the Country.

If I were he I would be more concerned about my own position and less worried about Turnbull's, he had a huge lead over Tony and allowed the great pretender to swamp him.

It may be a close call, but at the end of the day he is still opposition leader and spouting off to all that will listen that Turnbull is a loser, won't help that.

  On 07/07/2016 at 06:55, Dante said:

It looks as if the LNP will scrape in, despite Bill doing his Victory lap of the Country.

If I were he I would be more concerned about my own position and less worried about Turnbull's, he had a huge lead over Tony and allowed the great pretender to swamp him.

It may be a close call, but at the end of the day he is still opposition leader and spouting off to all that will listen that Turnbull is a loser, won't help that.

The key words "the LNP will scrape in"...despite not winning, Shorten (who completely reinvented himself in a few short weeks) gained far more credibility from this result that his opponent who will be reliant on/beholden to a couple of independents to get anything done and then will have to face a hostile Senate to get anything passed.

I would say that unlike his LNP counterpart, he will not be in any immediate danger of losing his position. I would have thought that a 16 seat turnaround is no mean effort at all.

  On 07/07/2016 at 07:57, hardtack said:

The key words "the LNP will scrape in"...despite not winning, Shorten (who completely reinvented himself in a few short weeks) gained far more credibility from this result that his opponent who will be reliant on/beholden to a couple of independents to get anything done and then will have to face a hostile Senate to get anything passed.

I would say that unlike his LNP counterpart, he will not be in any immediate danger of losing his position. I would have thought that a 16 seat turnaround is no mean effort at all.

I'd hate to scrape in as winner of a Grand Final, i guess you would prefer to run second but reinvent yourself.  It's now universally accepted that the biggest reason they got back in to it was because of the lie about Medicare, he will have to answer to that at the next election when they do nothing about privatising it.

He actually increased the Labor Vote by 1.82% to 35.2% which is not exactly earth shattering, especially after having a substantial lead over Abbott, pre Turnbull.

Do you think that Shorten would have a better chance dealing with the cross benches and Hanson and do you think it would have been any easier for him and there is a chance that Turnbull won't have to rely on support in the Reps.

  On 07/07/2016 at 08:58, Dante said:

I'd hate to scrape in as winner of a Grand Final, i guess you would prefer to run second but reinvent yourself.  It's now universally accepted that the biggest reason they got back in to it was because of the lie about Medicare, he will have to answer to that at the next election when they do nothing about privatising it.

He actually increased the Labor Vote by 1.82% to 35.2% which is not exactly earth shattering, especially after having a substantial lead over Abbott, pre Turnbull.

Do you think that Shorten would have a better chance dealing with the cross benches and Hanson and do you think it would have been any easier for him and there is a chance that Turnbull won't have to rely on support in the Reps.

By universally you mean LNP ministers, assorted LNP spokespeople and the cheer squad down at News Corp? The fact is the numerous opinion polls taken from 8 weeks out to the day before the election hardly moved from 50/50 or 51/49 to labour one poll then LNP the next. If you look at the polls voters had formed their opinions from very early on. Forget scare campaigns, Turnbull did little to convince people he had a vision although that said convincing 50% of voters, most of whom are battlers, that a cut to the company tax rate is in your interests is no mean feat. 

  On 07/07/2016 at 10:07, Earl Hood said:

By universally you mean LNP ministers, assorted LNP spokespeople and the cheer squad down at News Corp? The fact is the numerous opinion polls taken from 8 weeks out to the day before the election hardly moved from 50/50 or 51/49 to labour one poll then LNP the next. If you look at the polls voters had formed their opinions from very early on. Forget scare campaigns, Turnbull did little to convince people he had a vision although that said convincing 50% of voters, most of whom are battlers, that a cut to the company tax rate is in your interests is no mean feat. 

Probably as difficult as convincing them that greasing the palms of the Unions at the expense of the workers is best for them.

I actually read most off this from the Age site and I doubt that you will find many that don't agree it was a lie, even Shorten refused to answer if it was true or not, he would simply say it's in their DNA when asked a direct question. That, along with him using union members funds to pay for his elevation campaign, should be enough to convince even the most rusted on supporter he's dodgy.

I didn't have one major/minor party below the line and even had Hanson down at the end of the list.  Count me as one of the idiots - just like the LNP did.  I'd much rather Hanson asking questions that get slammed than having the LNP ram through anything they please.  Mediscare?  "Never, ever, GST".  "No changes to medicare".

 

 

  On 07/07/2016 at 10:50, Dante said:

Probably as difficult as convincing them that greasing the palms of the Unions at the expense of the workers is best for them.

I actually read most off this from the Age site and I doubt that you will find many that don't agree it was a lie, even Shorten refused to answer if it was true or not, he would simply say it's in their DNA when asked a direct question. That, along with him using union members funds to pay for his elevation campaign, should be enough to convince even the most rusted on supporter he's dodgy.

Only problem with your argument is that 50% of ex Johnny Howard battlers aren't union members these days so any greasing of palms is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars here and there, as the $50M Abbott Union Royal Commission found. It affects a few thousand people not 5 or 6 million voters. 

What was the lie? That Medicare is being dismantled bit by bit until we have an equivalent of the U.S. health system? It is inevitable and both LNP and Labour are going to watch it happen. It will probably happen earlier under the LNP that is all. Both parties are too timid to take on the medical profession and the multinational medical companies to control over servicing and their rates for services. The country is allowing too many GPs to have licenses to operate and specialists to charge what they like. 

  On 07/07/2016 at 11:20, Earl Hood said:

Only problem with your argument is that 50% of ex Johnny Howard battlers aren't union members these days so any greasing of palms is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars here and there, as the $50M Abbott Union Royal Commission found. It affects a few thousand people not 5 or 6 million voters. 

What was the lie? That Medicare is being dismantled bit by bit until we have an equivalent of the U.S. health system? It is inevitable and both LNP and Labour are going to watch it happen. It will probably happen earlier under the LNP that is all. Both parties are too timid to take on the medical profession and the multinational medical companies to control over servicing and their rates for services. The country is allowing too many GPs to have licenses to operate and specialists to charge what they like. 

i'm not sure what's worse, ripping union members off, or trying to justify it.

Andrews has gifted $hundreds of millions to the cfmeu with his disgraceful and blatant actions, but that's ok, isn't it? Wonder where he will finish up when he gets the flick at the next election, probably at some building company that has had the benefit of his largesse or perhaps at Transurban as some high paid flunky.

Shorten said the Liberals were going to privatise Medicare and unless you don't have a TV, i doubt you would have missed that. When he was pressed to provide evidence he just resorted to "it's in their DNA" no evidence jut a lie that if repeated often enough sounds right.

Where has Medicare been dismantled so far? Remember the co payment suggested by Abbott did't get through.

In case you hadn't noticed it the population of this country is increasing at an alarming rate and we need more and more GP's and specialists, perhaps if the general public stopped taking their children to the hospital when they have a headache the system wouldn't be so chaotic. If you have a genuine need for the Emergency Department you have to wait for hours whilst the doctors see some kid with a sniffle.

He lied to the electorate about the Medicare privatisation, he used union members funds for his own gain, but he's hero because he increased the Labor Vote by 1.82%.

 

 

  On 07/07/2016 at 11:56, Dante said:

i'm not sure what's worse, ripping union members off, or trying to justify it.

Andrews has gifted $hundreds of millions to the cfmeu with his disgraceful and blatant actions, but that's ok, isn't it? Wonder where he will finish up when he gets the flick at the next election, probably at some building company that has had the benefit of his largesse or perhaps at Transurban as some high paid flunky.

Shorten said the Liberals were going to privatise Medicare and unless you don't have a TV, i doubt you would have missed that. When he was pressed to provide evidence he just resorted to "it's in their DNA" no evidence jut a lie that if repeated often enough sounds right.

Where has Medicare been dismantled so far? Remember the co payment suggested by Abbott did't get through.

In case you hadn't noticed it the population of this country is increasing at an alarming rate and we need more and more GP's and specialists, perhaps if the general public stopped taking their children to the hospital when they have a headache the system wouldn't be so chaotic. If you have a genuine need for the Emergency Department you have to wait for hours whilst the doctors see some kid with a sniffle.

He lied to the electorate about the Medicare privatisation, he used union members funds for his own gain, but he's hero because he increased the Labor Vote by 1.82%.

 

 

Huh? CFMEU millions? Anyway was Mediscare any different to the Carbon Tax wrecking ball, the Whyalla wipeout, tje $100 lamb roast and on and on. I think Tony  set the bar at a new low for totally irrational, non factual, scare tactics. For some reason it is unacceptable if Labour comes up with their version. 

  On 07/07/2016 at 08:58, Dante said:

 

He actually increased the Labor Vote by 1.82% to 35.2% which is not exactly earth shattering, especially after having a substantial lead over Abbott, pre Turnbull.

 

Isn't that the point  - the removal of Abbott for Turnbull, irrespective of what Turnbull actually did in the last parliament after he took control  was seen as move to bringing the Liberal Party more to the centre. The Labor lead was always going to be eroded under Turnbull led Gov't as he is considered much more moderate than Abbott and has more appeal to Labor voters than Abbott.

As an aside, there are wins and there are wins and in the political sphere it is not always about a single election. In my opinion, Shorten is actually a two time winner ( and I am no member of the Shorten fan club). Firstly - he reduced the Coalition hold a power to a piece of thread. Secondly he is not in power in a Parliament that will most likely be a minority house of Reps with a Senate that has a balance of power held by assemblage of different interests. I would suspect that Shorten  is breathing a sigh of relief. This is not going to be pretty or easy governing for the libs.

  On 07/07/2016 at 13:26, Earl Hood said:

Huh? CFMEU millions? Anyway was Mediscare any different to the Carbon Tax wrecking ball, the Whyalla wipeout, tje $100 lamb roast and on and on. I think Tony  set the bar at a new low for totally irrational, non factual, scare tactics. For some reason it is unacceptable if Labour comes up with their version. 

Perhaps Dante is confusing Andrew Ferguson with Daniel Andrews?  Not quite 100's of millions, which is no surprise when one considers the CFMEUs funds totaled just $14mil.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cfmeu-accused-of-shifting-7m-into-secret-trust/news-story/28bf06392caccfb5026237e1792cad88

  On 07/07/2016 at 11:56, Dante said:

 

Where has Medicare been dismantled so far? Remember the co payment suggested by Abbott did't get through.

 

 

I'm not sure you understand the political process  - The co-payment wasn't just "suggested" - if it could have got through the Parliament it would have been law - just because a policy gets rejected by the Parliament ( or it is made clear that it will not pass through Parliament)  doesn't mean it wasn't policy in the first place !

There was rejection of so much Abbott's budget measures, medicare Co-payment, Childcare and family tax benefits, university fees deregulation,  stripping of funding/closure to various Enviromental funds/organisation ( which turnbull has now reversed)  to name but a few. 

Make no mistake  - if Abbott had a majority in the Senate lots of "suggestions" would now be law.

  On 07/07/2016 at 13:26, Earl Hood said:

Anyway was Mediscare any different to the Carbon Tax wrecking ball, the Whyalla wipeout, tje $100 lamb roast and on and on. I think Tony  set the bar at a new low for totally irrational, non factual, scare tactics. 

Your kidding right? 

Comparing a scare campaign on a Carbon Tax which was Labor policy and  Labor Implemented against a scare campaign on something that was clearly not on the Liberal agenda. Completely different. As for $100 lamb roast I guess it depends how big your family is ?

I despise Turnbull and would happily say he deserved it if it was legitimate but it was a complete lie and an enditement on Shorten and Labor.

  On 07/07/2016 at 08:58, Dante said:

.

Do you think that Shorten would have a better chance dealing with the cross benches and Hanson and do you think it would have been any easier for him and there is a chance that Turnbull won't have to rely on support in the Reps.

In answer to the first question - apparently yes (http://hotcopper.com.au/threads/crossbenchers-believe-bill-shorten-a-more-skilful-negotiator-than-malcolm-turnbull.2807424/)

In response to your second question - irrespective of a minority or majority in the House of Reps, Turnbull has to negotiate with two groups that are antagonistic - The Senate and the right wing of his own party.

  On 08/07/2016 at 01:37, Wrecker45 said:

Your kidding right? 

Comparing a scare campaign on a Carbon Tax which was Labor policy and  Labor Implemented against a scare campaign on something that was clearly not on the Liberal agenda. Completely different. As for $100 lamb roast I guess it depends how big your family is ?

I despise Turnbull and would happily say he deserved it if it was legitimate but it was a complete lie and an enditement on Shorten and Labor.

OMG! A politician told a lie during an election!

The Mediscare lie only worked because of a lie told during the 2013 election - the one about there being 'no cuts to Medicare, no changes to pensions' etc.

Abbott's broken promise / lie made Labor's claim plausible.

And yes - Abbott came to power on the back of Gillard's 2010 lie that 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'. 

etc and etc 

  On 08/07/2016 at 01:37, Wrecker45 said:

Your kidding right? 

Comparing a scare campaign on a Carbon Tax which was Labor policy and  Labor Implemented against a scare campaign on something that was clearly not on the Liberal agenda. Completely different. As for $100 lamb roast I guess it depends how big your family is ?

I despise Turnbull and would happily say he deserved it if it was legitimate but it was a complete lie and an enditement on Shorten and Labor.

Actually I am a little with Wrecker on this - I can state that I immensely dislike Abbott's politics ( despise is such a harsh word and i actually don't despise him) but I don't think we were left in much doubt on what his plans were when he put himself up for election last time around. 

I believe that is why Abbott got elected last time and Hanson this time ( and no I am not comparing their policies - just their approach) - you know exactly what they stand for. The problem for me is that whilst it is refreshing to having a pollie speak their mind and "tell it like it is"  - you then need to actually listen to what they are actually suggesting.

On this site before the last election I espoused the dangers of Abbott but when he was elected he pretty much did what he said he was going to do. Ultimately, in a fairly short space of time the polls ( if you want to take notice of them) told us that the public overwhelmingly repudiated his views  - but it does then raise the question - how on earth did he get elected in the first place ?

 

( and yes there were lies - but that is age old - I am talking more about Abbotts agenda which was never a secret)

  On 08/07/2016 at 01:48, nutbean said:

Actually I am a little with Wrecker on this - I can state that I immensely dislike Abbott's politics ( despise is such a harsh word and i actually don't despise him) but I don't think we were left in much doubt on what his plans were when he put himself up for election last time around. 

I believe that is why Abbott got elected last time and Hanson this time ( and no I am not comparing their policies - just their approach) - you know exactly what they stand for. The problem for me is that whilst it is refreshing to having a pollie speak their mind and "tell it like it is"  - you then need to actually listen to what they are actually suggesting.

On this site before the last election I espoused the dangers of Abbott but when he was elected he pretty much did what he said he was going to do. Ultimately, in a fairly short space of time the polls ( if you want to take notice of them) told us that the public overwhelmingly repudiated his views  - but it does then raise the question - how on earth did he get elected in the first place ?

 

( and yes there were lies - but that is age old - I am talking more about Abbotts agenda which was never a secret)

Except, you know, the 'no changes to age pension, medicare' thing.

I take your point though. You know what you have with Abbott.

  On 08/07/2016 at 01:54, Choke said:

Except, you know, the 'no changes to age pension, medicare' thing.

I take your point though. You know what you have with Abbott.

I work from the base all pollies lie. 

Nothing Abbott did surprised me - his form was pretty much to script. I have no idea what either Turnbull or Shorten stand for.

 

  On 08/07/2016 at 01:23, hardtack said:

Perhaps Dante is confusing Andrew Ferguson with Daniel Andrews?  Not quite 100's of millions, which is no surprise when one considers the CFMEUs funds totaled just $14mil.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cfmeu-accused-of-shifting-7m-into-secret-trust/news-story/28bf06392caccfb5026237e1792cad88

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/cfmeu-pay-demands-to-send-victorian-construction-costs-soaring/news-story/948f588bbc3b08b46cc2f26e211e25ea

http://www.afr.com/news/cfmeu-locks-in-18-per-cent-pay-deal-before-the-election-20160525-gp3e0z