Brexit

[hardtack 10,126]

40 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

they did whitewash the aussies in the rugger though, hardtack

Yeah, but that's not such a big achievement these days DC (the halcyon days of Australian rugby are long gone; not that I've ever had any interest in the game)... but for them to go down in a game of football to a country with an entire population (330k) that equates to a small percentage of the number of registered players in the UK, now THAT'S a big deal.

[daisycutter 28,508]

12 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Yeah, but that's not such a big achievement these days DC (the halcyon days of Australian rugby are long gone; not that I've ever had any interest in the game)... but for them to go down in a game of football to a country with an entire population (330k) that equates to a small percentage of the number of registered players in the UK, now THAT'S a big deal.

of course, just like leicester city, but surprise wins in soccer are not unusual with the icelanders also beating the czechs last week. wasn't that long ago that the yanks beat the poms too. anyway, i was just pointing out that all was not gloom for pommy sporting sides. and as far as aussie rugger, i agree, but let's not forget the aussies recently made the world cup final.

Edited June 29, 2016 by daisycutter

[nutbean 8,837]

56 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

of course, just like leicester city, but surprise wins in soccer are not unusual with the icelanders also beating the czechs last week. wasn't that long ago that the yanks beat the poms too. anyway, i was just pointing out that all was not gloom for pommy sporting sides. and as far as aussie rugger, i agree, but let's not forget the aussies recently made the world cup final.

I am a union devotee. I am surprised that we actually ever did so well at the sport nationally when you consider where it sits in terms of participants and dollars spent on the sport.

(apparently I am a rugby league devotee as well since the girlfriends son who lives with us gave us AFL and started supporting The Storm - we watch that as well.)

[bing181 8,165]

18 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

You obviously don't have much of a political understanding. When I correctly stated the political Left advocates bigger Government, it is stating a fact. It is not even an argument let alone a "straw mans argument".

Now, just where did I leave that picnic hamper.

[Earl Hood 5,789]

8 hours ago, Choke said:

 

Thanks Wrecker. In this case, yes it didn't go the way I would have liked, however it's not the only example of how I feel democracy isn't working as it should.

I probably wasn't clear enough on my media point. I was in London last month (before the vote) and all I heard in the media was negative commentary on immigration. It was constant, and it was clear that it was influencing voters when I discussed it with British colleagues. Similar to what happened here with the Tampa, although again I'd say you'd disagree.

The media love a bloodbath. It sells papers and subscriptions or whatever. When I say 'manipulation', I mean that their actions (what they cover and the manner in which they cover it) has a significant effect on voters. The media's role in educating the public on important issues is compromised by their imperative to run a business. And with the size that these conglomerates have reached, their power to influence voters (consciously or not) has reached a level that I think is actually hampering our political system.

And often it is conscious. I know you won't like this example, but it's pretty clear how the Murdoch run media outlets blatantly barrack for one side. I was disappoined to see that The Age (Fairfax I think) also fell into this trap at the last election, openly publishing stories on how the public should vote. As I've been overseas recently I can't say if they've done so again this time around, although it wouldn't surprise me.

The vote did 'go my way' when Rudd was elected. It was the first (and so far only) time I have voted for that party. The years following his election were the first time I felt the political system wasn't working properly, especially after the minor parties holding such power during the Gillard years. Political disenfranchisement breeds protest votes, which further dilutes the major parties' ability to do things when those votes go to protest parties with no experience and no proper policies. I think Turnbull actually made that point last week, and it's a good one.

I feel like democracy as a political system, despite being the best model we currently have, could be working much much better. But to do so we need 2 things:

1 - Better education of voters on issues, and how issues will effect them *

2 - Better regulation of media coverage on those issues.

I have no idea how to achieve either of those, but those 2 I think are the big impediments to getting our political system working properly.

* I'm a financial adviser and you would be staggered if I told you how many people don't understand the implications of the last federal budget. They are all voters, and they have no idea what's going on. They vote for the party they have all their lives, with no mind to how that party's actual policies effect them. I find this is true of clients on both sides of the political divide. You should see the look on the faces on some of the Labor voters when I explain Shorten's super tax plan is mathematically similar to Turnbull's. They think it goes further, and it does, just nowhere near the extent to which they think. Then you explain the issues with Industry super funds to them and their jaw drops. They've been on a side of politics all their lives that has lead them to believe one thing, when in fact another is true.

TL:DR; People are idiots and will vote against their best interests if the media tells them a scary story to sell more papers.

Choke

as a member of an industry fund I am interested in "the issues". I know there are plenty of issues with Retail funds! 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

14 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Choke

as a member of an industry fund I am interested in "the issues". I know there are plenty of issues with Retail funds! 

Unfortunately there are quite a few.

I wrote a big thing, but thought it'd probably be inappropriate to post it publicly.

I'll pm you.

[Bartleby 5]

I'm stoked that Boris Johnson is not going to run for PM. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/30/europe/uk-conservative-pm-candidates/index.html

[nutbean 8,837]

I watched John Oliver's this week tonight ( I love his show) - it was done pre Brexit on Brexit  - looking forward to his response this week as he was very much for remain.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

4 hours ago, Bartleby said:

I'm stoked that Boris Johnson is not going to run for PM. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/30/europe/uk-conservative-pm-candidates/index.html

Boris Johnson is the exact opposite to Malcolm Turnbull. The winner of an intensely fought national referendum but with an ego in check enough to put the country first over his own ambitions.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 6/29/2016 at 9:18 AM, Choke said:

 

I feel like democracy as a political system, despite being the best model we currently have, could be working much much better. But to do so we need 2 things:

1 - Better education of voters on issues, and how issues will effect them *

2 - Better regulation of media coverage on those issues.

I have no idea how to achieve either of those, but those 2 I think are the big impediments to getting our political system working properly.

* I'm a financial adviser and you would be staggered if I told you how many people don't understand the implications of the last federal budget. They are all voters, and they have no idea what's going on. They vote for the party they have all their lives, with no mind to how that party's actual policies effect them. I find this is true of clients on both sides of the political divide. You should see the look on the faces on some of the Labor voters when I explain Shorten's super tax plan is mathematically similar to Turnbull's. They think it goes further, and it does, just nowhere near the extent to which they think. Then you explain the issues with Industry super funds to them and their jaw drops. They've been on a side of politics all their lives that has lead them to believe one thing, when in fact another is true.

TL:DR; People are idiots and will vote against their best interests if the media tells them a scary story to sell more papers.

Point 1 is very interesting. Part of me wants to argue that I suspect you believe the voters are uneducated when they vote against what you believe to be the best outcome. Burt after reading your asterisk I completely agree that people who vote for someone just because they always have and more than likely because their parents always have are letting down the democratic process. Having said that the Brexit vote was a one off it is not a case of the people just voting for what they always have.

 

 

[hardtack 10,126]

On 1 July 2016 at 5:55 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Boris Johnson is the exact opposite to Malcolm Turnbull. The winner of an intensely fought national referendum but with an ego in check enough to put the country first over his own ambitions.

What, you mean place the country in an extremely precarious position and then bail out? Yep, his ego's really in check...shame his spine seems to be a little out of whack.

[hardtack 10,126]

[nutbean 8,837]

On 7/1/2016 at 6:06 PM, Wrecker45 said:

 Burt after reading your asterisk I completely agree that people who vote for someone just because they always have and more than likely because their parents always have are letting down the democratic process.

Hmmm. I know quite a lot of these people and I find it frustrating. I know I am generalising ( before I get yelled down !)  but find this syndrome is particularly prevalent in the young voters ( who I find very black and white ) and the old ( who I find that historically they have always voted the same way). Both my mum and my partners mum would vote a particular way even if Attila the Hun was leading the party ( they would cite that he is a "changed man") 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 3 July 2016 at 2:07 PM, hardtack said:

But put them straight back on like any fad diet.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Choke said:

Also true, the politics of fear is strong with both parties.

The last time I felt positive about politics was when Rudd got in. I fell completely for the "Howard lite" routine. The positive feeling didn't last long!

It still staggers me that Pauline Hanson got so much traction, but it's a good example of how the system can be exploited if you can tap into the mob's misdirected anger and fear.

As i have stated in other threads Pauline Hanson is not my cup of tea but it is foolish for anyone to ignore her.

There is a massive revolt against immigration in the western world. It might be impolite to mention it but it is there none the less.

Abbott who everyone including myself thought was unelectable won the last election in a landslide with a 3 word slogan. " stop the boats"

Turnbull just got smashed because he was silent on it.

Brexit - europe is letting in mass imigration that could freely sail through to the uk. The uk said no thanks.

Trump - unhinged individual who i don't think anyone could argue will bring stability to the USA or world. Yet has his hands on the keys to the white house on the back of anti-immigration policies.

There is a clear trend.

I don't know the answer but i do know shouting racist doesn't work.

[daisycutter 28,508]

brexit explained in simple terms

 

[nutbean 8,837]

On 7/5/2016 at 3:49 PM, Wrecker45 said:

As i have stated in other threads Pauline Hanson is not my cup of tea but it is foolish for anyone to ignore her.

I don't know the answer but i do know shouting racist doesn't work.

Sorry to paraphrase you.

Hanson's views are not completely isolated and there is a large enough percentage of people that support her to make me believe that her election is a good thing.

It means that the spotlight will be ( should be) on what she says and what she stands for. It means that her views will very much be in the public arena and can logically and respectfully ( well semi respectfully) be dismantled. 

Call me naive, but I like that Hanson is given airtime as I believe that views as abhorrent as hers will unite most sensible and right thinking people into debating and rationally exposing her views for exactly what they are. The immediate impact has been the media time to given to her detractors has gone beyond gone just shouting racist - there has been a systematic highlighting, analysis and dismantling of what she stands for and thankfully this will continue.    

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 7/15/2016 at 0:22 PM, nutbean said:

Sorry to paraphrase you.

Hanson's views are not completely isolated and there is a large enough percentage of people that support her to make me believe that her election is a good thing.

It means that the spotlight will be ( should be) on what she says and what she stands for. It means that her views will very much be in the public arena and can logically and respectfully ( well semi respectfully) be dismantled. 

Call me naive, but I like that Hanson is given airtime as I believe that views as abhorrent as hers will unite most sensible and right thinking people into debating and rationally exposing her views for exactly what they are. The immediate impact has been the media time to given to her detractors has gone beyond gone just shouting racist - there has been a systematic highlighting, analysis and dismantling of what she stands for and thankfully this will continue.    

Nutbean this is a fantastic post. I could not agree with you more.

The best way to call out a poor argument is to do it publicly. 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 3 July 2016 at 11:24 AM, hardtack said:

What, you mean place the country in an extremely precarious position and then bail out? Yep, his ego's really in check...shame his spine seems to be a little out of whack.

No. Foreign Secretary is hardly bailing out. Not everyone is like Turnbull and thinks they are entitled to rule.

[hardtack 10,126]

21 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

No. Foreign Secretary is hardly bailing out. Not everyone is like Turnbull and thinks they are entitled to rule.

In all fairness Wrecker, at the time I posted that he had bailed out... the Foreign Secretary position was offered and accepted more recently.

[Dante 2,562]

On 15 July 2016 at 0:22 PM, nutbean said:

Sorry to paraphrase you.

Hanson's views are not completely isolated and there is a large enough percentage of people that support her to make me believe that her election is a good thing.

It means that the spotlight will be ( should be) on what she says and what she stands for. It means that her views will very much be in the public arena and can logically and respectfully ( well semi respectfully) be dismantled. 

Call me naive, but I like that Hanson is given airtime as I believe that views as abhorrent as hers will unite most sensible and right thinking people into debating and rationally exposing her views for exactly what they are. The immediate impact has been the media time to given to her detractors has gone beyond gone just shouting racist - there has been a systematic highlighting, analysis and dismantling of what she stands for and thankfully this will continue.    

There is always an attack on anyone that does't spout the general, accepted media view and if you are different you get crucified on social media. Can you give me a rundown on the abhorrent views she holds, I must say I don't read much about her but I'd like to know just how bad she is.

God help you if you don't agree with mass immigration or climate change, you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back. You may even be eviscerated or smacked down by Waleed and I doubt you'd survive that.

There are a lot of people that voted for Pauline Hanson and a lot that agree with her but didn't vote for her, there is a ground swell behind her and the politicians, media and commentators could well learn from what has happened in the recent election and start to understand what the people that voted for her want.

 

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

11 hours ago, hardtack said:

In all fairness Wrecker, at the time I posted that he had bailed out... the Foreign Secretary position was offered and accepted more recently.

I'll pay that mate. I knew when I posted that was the case.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

4 hours ago, Dante said:

There is always an attack on anyone that does't spout the general, accepted media view and if you are different you get crucified on social media. Can you give me a rundown on the abhorrent views she holds, I must say I don't read much about her but I'd like to know just how bad she is.

God help you if you don't agree with mass immigration or climate change, you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back. You may even be eviscerated or smacked down by Waleed and I doubt you'd survive that.

There are a lot of people that voted for Pauline Hanson and a lot that agree with her but didn't vote for her, there is a ground swell behind her and the politicians, media and commentators could well learn from what has happened in the recent election and start to understand what the people that voted for her want.

 

 

I found the "asian invasion" speech Pauline Hanson made in her maiden Parliment speech 18 years ago abhorrent.

Outside of that I agree with you.

Watching her on Q&A last week was probably the best episode I have seen. I expected her to be completely out of her depth but thought she held her own with a hostile panel and audience. For her to even go on the ABC showed guts. Plenty of gotcha moments she was too clever for. I never could have imagined I would say clever and Pauline Hanson in the same sentence.

 

[nutbean 8,837]

On 7/26/2016 at 5:56 PM, Dante said:

Can you give me a rundown on the abhorrent views she holds, I must say I don't read much about her but I'd like to know just how bad she is.

There are a lot of people that voted for Pauline Hanson and a lot that agree with her but didn't vote for her, there is a ground swell behind her and the politicians, media and commentators could well learn from what has happened in the recent election and start to understand what the people that voted for her want.

If you want to know how bad or good she is then you have to read - http://www.onenation.com.au/

I think she should be debated respectfully but she makes it difficult as she can't present a coherent thought. - Here is a snippet  - the first two lines of her policy on Islam " Australia is a country built on Christian values. Our laws, way of life and customs enforced in the Australian Constitution were based on a secular society" 

Whilst this doesn't particularly offend me  - WTF ? Seriously ?? So I will paraphrase "our country is based on religious values and therefore our country wasn't based on religious values". That's pretty straight forward. 

The whole document is full of distortion, untruths, bigotry, exaggerations and contradictions. But that is my opinion  - you need to read it and make up your own mind.

Your reference to Waleed suggests that you don't really read or listen to him either - Again a bit of research as to what he said about Pauline Hanson and Sonia Kruger is quite insightful. He actually agrees with you that they should be listened to but suggests that they then be debated respectfully.

Lastly -  "God help you if you don't agree with mass immigration or climate change, you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back" - Happy for you to present any foul names and denigration on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show. However to keep the balance  I will return serve with Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun and Alan Jones and other shock jocks. 

 

 

 

[nutbean 8,837]

On 7/26/2016 at 11:06 PM, Wrecker45 said:

 

Watching her on Q&A last week was probably the best episode I have seen. I expected her to be completely out of her depth but thought she held her own with a hostile panel and audience. For her to even go on the ABC showed guts. Plenty of gotcha moments she was too clever for. I never could have imagined I would say clever and Pauline Hanson in the same sentence.

 

I thought she has improved from her previous efforts but she has problems stringing three coherent words together. I will agree it showed guts for her to come on the program but if you examine what she says  - there is so much exaggeration and plain untruths it is mind blowing. The difference for me is that all politicians lean to exaggeration and lies but i guess when it comes to whether one party's position and past credentials on negative gearing or tax breaks some distortion is fairly innocuous  - she headlines issues that need to be discussed but I believe need to be discussed with care. This is not being politically correct - it is acknowledging that religion and ethnicity is something that penetrates to the core of so many. Do you think the below statements are helpful. 

 “I would say we’re in danger of being swamped by Muslims,” she said. “If you’re going to bury your head in the sand about it, you’re a fool.” (may 2016)

2.2% of Australia's population is Muslim ( old figures) and the fastest growing religion in Australia is Hinduism.

It is the politics of fear. It is ugly and divisive.

However that is not to say that these sensitive  issues should not be respectfully and intelligently  discussed - I just don't believe Pauline Hanson does this.