Political Discussion

[Bicks]

What a load of utter garbage.

 

[Bicks]

Elite Crow

 

[Vader]

Religious motives... yes (and I haven't said otherwise). Doesn't mean he's trying to "influence" anything.

Being angry about something, and lashing out irrationally, is not the same as attempting to exert "influence".

 

[1970crow]

Religious motives... yes (and I haven't said otherwise). Doesn't mean he's trying to "influence" anything.

Being angry about something, and lashing out irrationally, is not the same as attempting to exert "influence".

Seems an odd requirement. How exactly do you prove attempt to exert influence? So blowing people up in the name of your God isn't enough. You need to be wanting something on top of carnage. Seems stupid and an unnecessary distinction.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Stopping Labour governing in their own right will be a huge improvement. Has there been anything from the 2 majors about willingness to govern with X?

Labor have not ruled out a coalition with X.
Libs have ruled it out, but may change their mind if it's a choice between a coalition government & opposition.

... Then there is option of a Libs & Labor coalition, but you would think that is the least likely option.

 

[1970crow]

Labor have not ruled out a coalition with X.
Libs have ruled it out, but may change their mind if it's a choice between a coalition government & opposition.

... Then there is option of a Libs & Labor coalition, but you would think that is the least likely option.

Oh well, that's it for Libs for a while. Surely no chance to win a majority and govern in their own right.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Oh well, that's it for Libs for a while. Surely no chance to win a majority and govern in their own right.

Marshall has said he will quit as leader if he loses, so if he refuses to form a coalition government, he is good as dead, pending a miracle.

Btw, he hasn't ruled out forming government with labor & I reckon if would change his mind on X & it's just pre-election talk.

 

[1970crow]

Marshall has said he will quit as leader if he loses, so if he refuses to form a coalition government, he is good as dead, pending a miracle.

Btw, he hasn't ruled out forming government with labor & I reckon if would change his mind on X & it's just pre-election talk.

No way can labour and liberal form a coalition government. It's sheer lunacy to rule out a coalition with X but not Labour. Dumb political manoeuvring. By the time he changes his mind, it'll be too late anyway. X and Labour would have thrashed out the detail.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

No way can labour and liberal form a coalition government. It's sheer lunacy to rule out a coalition with X but not Labour. Dumb political manoeuvring. By the time he changes his mind, it'll be too late anyway. X and Labour would have thrashed out the detail.

Agree entirely.

Think it's why Elite Crow is panicking at the moment.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I tend to think the Nick X effect will be overstated.

He may win Hartley himself but when voting on candidates, nobody knows who these blowhards in the SA Best party are.

They might win 3-4 seats but I still reckon Libs will get a majority.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I tend to think the Nick X effect will be overstated.

He may win Hartley himself but when voting on candidates, nobody knows who these blowhards in the SA Best party are.

They might win 3-4 seats but I still reckon Libs will get a majority.

Going to depend a lot on how preferences flow from all 3 parties.

Could be many who are 2nd on 1st preferences leaping the leading candidate on preferences.

Libs have more safe rural seats, but metro is going to be very interesting to see what happens.

 

[Elite Crow]

Agree entirely.

Think it's why Elite Crow is panicking at the moment.

You’ve used that word a couple of times now, can I suggest stopping because you’re being a w***er.

Just because I don’t share your view, I’m panicking?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Ps. SA Lower House is currently 23 Labor, 19 Libs, 5 independent (Bedford, Brock, Bell, McFetridge, Hamilton-Smith) for the 47 members.

I expect Liberals to win the most of the 3 parties, but not enough to govern in their own right - say around 18-22 seats.

Labor I expect to lose seats, including effectively to Bedford as an independent. Say 16-20 seats.

Probably be a couple of independents, with most seats going back to major parties (say Brock & Bedford).

This leaves 4-10 seats for X. I don't expect he will win more than the major parties, but prevent them from governing in their own right.

 

[Vader]

Seems an odd requirement. How exactly do you prove attempt to exert influence? So blowing people up in the name of your God isn't enough. You need to be wanting something on top of carnage. Seems stupid and an unnecessary distinction.

Having a bee in your bonnet, then acting on impulse because you're high on Ice, does not equal making a political statement. It's just anger, motivated by religion.

 

[1970crow]

I tend to think the Nick X effect will be overstated.

He may win Hartley himself but when voting on candidates, nobody knows who these blowhards in the SA Best party are.

They might win 3-4 seats but I still reckon Libs will get a majority.

Preferences will be interesting.

 

[1970crow]

Having a bee in your bonnet, then acting on impulse because you're high on Ice, does not equal making a political statement. It's just anger, motivated by religion.

But how do you know that's all that happened. What evidence do you need to satisfy that requirement? If he didn't leave a note or a video, how will it ever be terrorism?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Having a bee in your bonnet, then acting on impulse because you're high on Ice, does not equal making a political statement. It's just anger, motivated by religion.

Disagree 100%

If anything acting on that impulse shows what is really lurking underneath a person.

 

[Cap]

Disagree 100%

If anything acting on that impulse shows what is really lurking underneath a person.

I disagree, Drugs screw your brain up. The impulse isnt attached to reality.

Unless there is a real link to terrorist cell then like that flog last year its mental illness/drugs



Go Crows.

 

[Vader]

Disagree 100%

If anything acting on that impulse shows what is really lurking underneath a person.

No issue with that at all... but without the "influence" aspect it's not terrorism.

 

[Vader]

But how do you know that's all that happened. What evidence do you need to satisfy that requirement? If he didn't leave a note or a video, how will it ever be terrorism?

As distinct from those asserting the reverse - i.e. that it is terrorism?

 

[1970crow]

As distinct from those asserting the reverse - i.e. that it is terrorism?

Legislation changes. I don't think law makers are the singular arbiter of what is and isn't terrorism in the minds of the people. It determines what he can be charged with, no more and no less. Someone mows down innocent people whilst referencing Muslim treatment, then that's terrorism in my mind. Prosecutors may consider it too arduous to attempt to meet the legal definition of the day and choose a charge more certain of conviction. Pragmatism is a key driver of defining charges in our legal system.

 

[Vader]

Legislation changes. I don't think law makers are the singular arbiter of what is and isn't terrorism in the minds of the people. It determines what he can be charged with, no more and no less. Someone mows down innocent people whilst referencing Muslim treatment, then that's terrorism in my mind. Prosecutors may consider it too arduous to attempt to meet the legal definition of the day and choose a charge more certain of conviction. Pragmatism is a key driver of defining charges in our legal system.

I'm just working from the definition provided by someone else in a previous post.

When someone who is high on ice gets violent, it's a safe guess that it's the ice to blame, even if they're ranting semi-coherently about religion. It's just another ice addict, not an act of terrorism.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Seems an odd requirement. How exactly do you prove attempt to exert influence? So blowing people up in the name of your God isn't enough. You need to be wanting something on top of carnage. Seems stupid and an unnecessary distinction.

Exactly. If he was specifically trying to commit a terrorist act what would he have done? Probably driven a car into people.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I'm just working from the definition provided by someone else in a previous post.

When someone who is high on ice gets violent, it's a safe guess that it's the ice to blame, even if they're ranting semi-coherently about religion. It's just another ice addict, not an act of terrorism.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

There are thousands of people on ice right now. They aren’t all committing crimes.

 

[Bicks]

Exactly. If he was specifically trying to commit a terrorist act what would he have done? Probably driven a car into people.

Don't even need to learn how to build a suicide vest and procure the materials needed for a device of that kind, easier to get hold of a car than an automatic rifle too.

Fair bet those mown down by this cretin and those in the immediate vicinity felt plenty of terror in the seconds leading up to the event and most certainly following the event. Other than those involved in the incident that will be physically scarred for the rest of their life you would want to be made of really strong stuff not to be mentally scarred if you witnessed the heinous crime.