A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Hollow Knight]

I think Trump's channeling of American exceptionalism and nod toward isolationism show a profound ignorance of globalisation and the new world economic order. The global economy is so fluid, intertwined and interdependent that that oldschool sort of isolationism just isn't feasible. Events on the other side of the world can have a profound effect everywhere else. He'd find himself getting involved in other countries' business very quickly. He'd have no choice.

I find it impossible to believe a businessman of his calibre would be ignorant to this, so I think it is obvious he is just pandering to the ignorance of his constituency.

 

[SizeMatters]

I think Trump's channeling of American exceptionalism and nod toward isolationism show a profound ignorance of globalisation and the new world economic order. The global economy is so fluid, intertwined and interdependent that that oldschool sort of isolationism just ins't feasible. Events on the other side of the world can have a profound effect everywhere else. He'd find himself getting involved in other countries' business very quickly. He'd have no choice.

I find it impossible to believe a businessman of his calibre would be ignorant to this, so I think it is obvious he is just pandering to the ignorance of his constituency.

My thinking as well. It's not like the early 1900s anymore. But I do think his is more so a military isolationism than a total economic isolationism from my understanding of the few clips I've seen of his speeches. I think Russia especially will be rubbing their hands together with glee... can't imagine what they will do to the Middle East without any USA intervention. Russian borders might one day expand a little bit further.

 

[carnthemlions]

I think Trump's channeling of American exceptionalism and nod toward isolationism show a profound ignorance of globalisation and the new world economic order. The global economy is so fluid, intertwined and interdependent that that oldschool sort of isolationism just ins't feasible. Events on the other side of the world can have a profound effect everywhere else. He'd find himself getting involved in other countries' business very quickly. He'd have no choice.

I find it impossible to believe a businessman of his calibre would be ignorant to this, so I think it is obvious he is just pandering to the ignorance of his constituency.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/don...dential_bid_is_a_long_and_calculated_con_job/
This sums up my thoughts on Trump. He's a fraud, and a very good one at that. I have no idea what Trump really thinks beyond the fact that he is a bigot who hates 'political correctness' and parts of the political establishment (when it suits him anyway). The scariest thing about Trump is that we have no idea what he'd do as president, and we don't even know if he knows what he'd do either. He's a great self promoter, but he's actually not a very smart guy.
He doesn't really have policies at the moment, he has thought bubbles and ridiculous suggestions he comes up with every now and then. Given that he's not really one to put much stock in the opinions of the public or the party, it's impossible to predict what he would actually do. The one thing we can be sure of is that he doesn't understand foreign policy at all and would be a total disaster in that regard.

My thinking as well. It's not like the early 1900s anymore. But I do think his is more so a military isolationism than a total economic isolationism from my understanding of the few clips I've seen of his speeches. I think Russia especially will be rubbing their hands together with glee... can't imagine what they will do to the Middle East without any USA intervention. Russian borders might one day expand a little bit further.

He talks a lot about about winning at trade and making countries like China and Mexico lose. That's not not how it works, of course. He's definitely dumb enough to believe something so wrong, but in this case surely he has some understanding of economics.

 

[Hollow Knight]

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/don...dential_bid_is_a_long_and_calculated_con_job/
This sums up my thoughts on Trump. He's a fraud, and a very good one at that. I have no idea what Trump really thinks beyond the fact that he is a bigot who hates 'political correctness' and parts of the political establishment (when it suits him anyway). The scariest thing about Trump is that we have no idea what he'd do as president, and we don't even know if he knows what he'd do either. He's a great self promoter, but he's actually not a very smart guy.
He doesn't really have policies at the moment, he has thought bubbles and ridiculous suggestions he comes up with every now and then. Given that he's not really one to put much stock in the opinions of the public or the party, it's impossible to predict what he would actually do. The one thing we can be sure of is that he doesn't understand foreign policy at all and would be a total disaster in that regard.

He talks a lot about about winning at trade and making countries like China and Mexico lose. That's not not how it works, of course. He's definitely dumb enough to believe something so wrong, but in this case surely he has some understanding of economics.

Yep, his victory speech in New Hampshire was basically "we're gonna make America great"... "I will get the economy going again... I'll make great deals, it's gonna be great".

No one is calling him out on a lack of substance and seeming ignorance for what the job of a president actually entails and his popularity continues to rise. He has a lot of people conned so far.

 

[SizeMatters]

Yep, his victory speech in New Hampshire was basically "we're gonna make America great"... "I will get the economy going again... I'll make great deals, it's gonna be great".

No one is calling him out on a lack of substance and seeming ignorance for what the job of a president actually entails and his popularity continues to rise. He has a lot of people conned so far.

Probably says more about his opposition if anything.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Says a lot about the republican candidates that Jeb Bush starts to look like a sane choice, relatively speaking.

 

[M Malice]

politics- slogans trump substance. especially since the 24 hour news cycle and the quick grab or the gotcha moment was the accepted form of political debate.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Hard to criticise the Trump campaign too much though when you see the efficiency at which they are operating. Playing the free media brilliantly.

 

[carnthemlions]

Yep, his victory speech in New Hampshire was basically "we're gonna make America great"... "I will get the economy going again... I'll make great deals, it's gonna be great".

No one is calling him out on a lack of substance and seeming ignorance for what the job of a president actually entails and his popularity continues to rise. He has a lot of people conned so far.

Lack of policy substance from candidates/parties and the media's inability to push for more in that area is a problem everywhere (stop the boats, axe the tax etc), but it's especially bad in the US. While Trump is an extreme case, you couldn't get a coherent policy out of most of the other candidates either (unless you give them a bunch of money, of course). There's still a long way to go and specifics, costings etc would be too much to ask. But letting candidates get away with unrealistic lunacy or blatant lying is a bit much. 'I would torture terrorists', 'win at trade', 'carpet bomb the middle east', 'build a wall', ' i'm a progressive' etc.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174883/jay_rosen_mindlessness_in_the_media_campaign_2008
This is probably even more relevant now than it was in 2008 if anyone's interested in critiques of political journalism. Jay Rosen is always right.

Says a lot about the republican candidates that Jeb Bush starts to look like a sane choice, relatively speaking.

I have nothing to back this up, but I imagine surveys of republican voters would find a lot of people reporting no negative or positive feelings toward Jeb.
He's just so meh.

 

[Skoob]

Despite the disgusting policies, ineptitude and gutlessness, because he is educated and has some mature class, I can stomach Turnbull as PM for the time being.
But this guy;

 

[knaf]

over the years I have been pleasantly surprised by national party leaders. Tim Fischer comes to mind as a decent bloke who did a great job for the whole country as the Trade Minister. But I really worry about Barnaby. I was watching Parliament yesterday as he was speaking. The utter contempt on the faces of the Liberals sitting behind him was telling. Turnbull's in trouble trying to hold his mod together. May go to early election before more trouble spills into public.

 

[Crimso]

My opinion is that Turnbull is turning into an a-hole with what looks to be happening with Medicare.

 

[dlanod]

Scalia dead, and with several senators running for president there is going to be so much grandstanding going on...

Sounds like there's a likely next cab off the rank though - http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/who-sri-srinivasan-supreme-court.

 

[Ironmonger]

Scalia dead, and with several senators running for president there is going to be so much grandstanding going on...

Sounds like there's a likely next cab off the rank though - http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/who-sri-srinivasan-supreme-court.

One day, they are going to make one hell of a TV drama about this Presidential election. So many twists.

Apparently most Republicans are firmly stating they won't approve any Obama nominee, and will happily leave the position vacant for over a year until there's a new President. It seems so obviously barmy, but that's politics.

I feel similarly to Scalia's death as I did when Bjelke-Peterson died. We're supposed to be respectful in these moments, but I have nothing good to say about the man.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Scalia is worthy of some amount of respect IMO, despite the fact I disagree with his views on most contentious issues.

He seemed to stick pretty honourably to his philosophy of interpreting the constitution via a literal analysis of the text which naturally resulted in a lot of small government, conservative, States rights type decisions on key issues.

That said, his dissent on the overturning of DOMA felt like a diversion from that approach, and felt a bit like an imposition of his personal values, which is something he consistently claimed to oppose his whole career.

But yeah, his overall track record was pretty consistent as a defender of a literal view of the constitution, and I can respect that consistency and conviction.

Personally though I think that constitutions have to be seen as living documents that are constrained by the historical context they are created in. As much as conservatives like to deify the "framers" (and I am admittedly a massive fan of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)... you can't expect a document created in the late 1700s to be able to fully encompass issues for all time such as the effects of widespread financial speculation on markets, cloning, abortion, gay marriage, online privacy, drugs, surveillance, pharmaceutical patents, net neutrality etc...

I think Justices have to respect the spirit of the original document but apply it to the current context. I despise it when justices who effectively do so are accused of "activism" or "legislating from the bench".

 

[Hollow Knight]

And yeah, the political ramifications of the timing of his death are very interesting.

I don't think the GOP candidates covered themselves in glory at the debate by basically all saying "yeah if I was a president in my last year, I'd make a nomination, but Barack Obama is the devil and we won't respect his right to do the same". Is that really the best they can do?

Obama is the president for 11 more months and he is fully entitled (and even obligated) to make a nomination. The Republican held senate have also made it clear that they will do everything to stop him.

Uttimately, I suspect it is all a bit of a theatre and in the end, someone resembling a moderate will get confirmed and appointed.

I think the Republicans have to be careful about dragging out the process for too long. If Democrats fear that the next president will start their term with a judicial appointment, they may feel compelled to unify behind the safe electable bet in Hillary Clinton and really give her momentum leading into November. Bad news for Sanders I think.

 

[Ironmonger]

Scalia is worthy of some amount of respect IMO, despite the fact I disagree with his views on most contentious issues.

He seemed to stick pretty honourably to his philosophy of interpreting the constitution via a literal analysis of the text which naturally resulted in a lot of small government, conservative, States rights type decisions on key issues.

That said, his dissent on the overturning of DOMA felt like a diversion from that approach, and felt a bit like an imposition of his personal values, which is something he consistently claimed to oppose his whole career.

But yeah, his overall track record was pretty consistent as a defender of a literal view of the constitution, and I can respect that consistency and conviction.

Personally though I think that constitutions have to be seen as living documents that are constrained by the historical context they are created in. As much as conservatives like to deify the "framers" (and I am admittedly a massive fan of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)... you can't expect a document created in the late 1700s to be able to fully encompass issues for all time such as the effects of widespread financial speculation on markets, cloning, abortion, gay marriage, online privacy, drugs, surveillance, pharmaceutical patents, net neutrality etc...

I think Justices have to respect the spirit of the original document but apply it to the current context. I despise it when justices who effectively do so are accused of "activism" or "legislating from the bench".

In my opinion, his stance as a firm originalist became conveniently rubbery on other issues as well - extending the 14th amendment to companies and limiting minority religious freedoms, for example.

But more importantly, I think legislative originalism is just plain wacky. I'd echo all of your thoughts on that, TBD, but I'd go further - it's just a convenient cloak for conservatism.

I think the Republicans have to be careful about dragging out the process for too long. If Democrats fear that the next president will start their term with a judicial appointment, they may feel compelling to unify behind the safe electable bet in Hillary Clinton and really give her momentum leading into November. Bad news for Sanders I think.

That's a good point.

Sanders' electability seems to have become less of a factor, if anything, as the primaries began. I wonder if that will change in the next few weeks if Clinton has big wins in Nevada and North Carolina.

 

[Hollow Knight]

That's a good point.

Sanders' electability seems to have become less of a factor, if anything, as the primaries began. I wonder if that will change in the next few weeks if Clinton has big wins in Nevada and North Carolina.

And with a Supreme Court appointment firmly on the agenda, Roe v Wade looms large again which means a bunch of old republican male candidates in suits telling women what they can and can't do with their body, which will potentially nudge some undecided women into the Democratic column.

 

[James North]

Almost half of greyhound industry's banned trainers have their bans reduced or overturned:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ainers-had-life-bans-cut-20160215-gmutsc.html

These people should not be allowed near animals ever again, let alone racing/training them.

Clearly the industry hired this 'independent' review panel to save itself - no doubt these trainers were integral to the survival of the 'sport'.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Personally though I think that constitutions have to be seen as living documents that are constrained by the historical context they are created in. As much as conservatives like to deify the "framers" (and I am admittedly a massive fan of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)... you can't expect a document created in the late 1700s to be able to fully encompass issues for all time such as the effects of widespread financial speculation on markets, cloning, abortion, gay marriage, online privacy, drugs, surveillance, pharmaceutical patents, net neutrality etc...

I think Justices have to respect the spirit of the original document but apply it to the current context. I despise it when justices who effectively do so are accused of "activism" or "legislating from the bench".

The High Court of Australia has been gradually interpreting our Constitution in much more contextual terms over time, often asking itself the question of 'what were the framers actually intending here?' This is known as the purposive approach which has increasingly prevailed over the literal approach, and has led to the rise of the Federal government over the states being more 'involved' in the creation of laws and management of our economy. One major example was the expansion of the Commonwealth's ability to collect income tax in the 1940s.

A more federal-orientated system makes administrative sense and has efficiency benefits. Unlike Australia, the states of the U.S. have still maintained more law-making power and thus why there are many more variances between state laws over there. I guess when you have 50 as opposed to 6 (excluding the territories) it would be much harder to implement and establish federal dominance.

Basically your sentiments are spot on and I wholeheartedly agree. The courts are still cautious to give its words too broad a meaning, and for good reason as the document should be designed to have some level of rigidness to promote the consistent regulation of law-making powers between the Commonwealth and states.

 

[M Malice]

Personally though I think that constitutions have to be seen as living documents that are constrained by the historical context they are created in. As much as conservatives like to deify the "framers" (and I am admittedly a massive fan of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)... you can't expect a document created in the late 1700s to be able to fully encompass issues for all time such as the effects of widespread financial speculation on markets, cloning, abortion, gay marriage, online privacy, drugs, surveillance, pharmaceutical patents, net neutrality etc...

I think Justices have to respect the spirit of the original document but apply it to the current context. I despise it when justices who effectively do so are accused of "activism" or "legislating from the bench".

i would include the interpretation of the 2nd amendment in your etc... list. i don't think the authors of the amendment would have been able to foresee the advent of the range of weapons that the USA has available today, which is used as the basis of the gun lobbys argument for liberal gun laws.

 

[SizeMatters]

Thoughts on the 'Baby Asha' debacle? I'm probably more leaning towards sending the child back to Nauru for multiple reasons. The first that comes to mind is that we have to send a strong message to stop future illegals with various loop holes that could open up over this, second point is that it will just create some potential legal actions against the government for a 'stolen generation' if an influx of children who are in need of medical care are brought over and never returned. What's to stop the parents claiming later on that they have had their child taken away from them? Unless it means that the parents are brought over as well... but refer to point 1.

I heard on talk back radio a few nights back that if it was a boatload of Swedish blondes looking for asylum we would be the first to help them.

 

[Skoob]

Thoughts on the 'Baby Asha' debacle? I'm probably more leaning towards sending the child back to Nauru for multiple reasons. The first that comes to mind is that we have to send a strong message to stop future illegals with various loop holes that could open up over this, second point is that it will just create some potential legal actions against the government for a 'stolen generation' if an influx of children who are in need of medical care are brought over and never returned. What's to stop the parents claiming later on that they have had their child taken away from them? Unless it means that the parents are brought over as well... but refer to point 1.

I heard on talk back radio a few nights back that if it was a boatload of Swedish blondes looking for asylum we would be the first to help them.

I think until people get their head around the term "illegals" being inaccurate and discriminatory/deliberately derogatory, the argument will be nonsensical.

 

[Kevvo]

Nothing they have done is illegal. They have a legal right to seek asylum. Also, the argument that you prevent future harm by torturing scapegoats is pretty flimsy even in the best circumstances.

How to respond to asylum seekers at a time of massive displacement dredges up a lot of complex questions, but absolutely we've taken the worst possible course.

 

[SizeMatters]

I think until people get their head around the term "illegals" being inaccurate and discriminatory/deliberately derogatory, the argument will be nonsensical.

Fair enough I know it's not illegal to seek asylum but from memory Asha and her parents are UMAs which means it's illegal to keep her in Australia AFAIK.

Nothing they have done is illegal. They have a legal right to seek asylum. Also, the argument that you prevent future harm by torturing scapegoats is pretty flimsy even in the best circumstances.

How to respond to asylum seekers at a time of massive displacement dredges up a lot of complex questions, but absolutely we've taken the worst possible course.

not sure what you mean by torturing scapegoats. I just believe we should stick to the law or else it will cause problems later on and create loop holes potentially. I was told that Asha was injured under suspicious circumstances as it is... not saying the parents deliberately injured their own child but it could pan out that way if we keep Asha on Australian soil for asylum seekers who want to jump the queue later on.

What course of action do you believe is best for the asylum seekers and that adheres to the law?