A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

He sure did smack down those whistleblowers.

Obama’s affable bloke next door charm sure hoodwinked a lot of people. The same same and something more of the same. It’ll be years before the world sees a great president/prime minister or leader.

Seems like our kiwi cousin is doing a great job but early days yet
 
Viceregal said:
The same folks who condemn Trump in that only a criminal could have succeeded in a place as corrupt as New York seem to not mind Obama being a product of the Chicago political machine...
Click to expand...

Which cities pray tell have pure political machines?

Regardless, can't say I've seen the "Trump is from New York and therefore dodgy" argument much. I think the accumulated evidence of his business practices are more compelling than geography.

In any case, both Roosevelts had New York roots and did okay. Ditto Lincoln and Illinois.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TheBrownDog said:
In any case, both Roosevelts had New York roots and did okay. Ditto Lincoln and Illinois.
Click to expand...

Actually that reminds me of something else I saw the other day and would be interested in your take on ... they were suggesting that the US had had three dictators in its history so far ... George Washington, Lincoln and FDR (although I note that all three were on boards during fairly intense military times which kind of fits in with the old Roman usage of the title of Dictator)
 
Presumably the FDR stuff relates to the pretty heavy handed legal approach he took to facilitate the New Deal including the emergency banking regulations etc. As we saw with Obamacare, any executive action to drastically reshape the social welfare system is seen by many to be a serious overreach and an assault on "freedom". Can't create the middle class in 100 days without ruffling a few feathers or sitting around debating issues ;)

Lincoln is an easy one I guess, was willing to lose half the country to preserve the Union. Not going to be popular with the other half. The ethical condemnation of slavery is a given today, but for the south at the time it was about their prosperity and way of life.

The Washington presidency is a bit more of a historical blind spot for me. I've got a bit of knowledge about the War of Independence and General Washington, but not the Presidential version. Obviously not all the Colonies were chomping at the bit to sign the Declaration of Independence and be dragged into a war that benefitted a few "mutinous" colonies more than the rest. That wasn't really Washington's call though... it was Adams and the Massachussets delegation with a bit of help from Jefferson and Franklin that did all the politicking for that.

If the dictator stuff is more about Washington after assuming the presidency, I am not informed enough at all to comment. I know more about Adams and Jefferson's presidencies. Adams had a hard-on for strong Federal government and had a bit of a whiff of the dictator about him with his sedition laws.
 
Last edited:
Viceregal said:
Question - If Donald Trump got up tomorrow morning and announced that he now identified as a woman ... would the Democrats/Left/SJWs, according to their own logic, be forced to celebrate her as the first woman president, the first transgender president, and the first lesbian president? And since Donna Trump would now belong to all these categories of Good People, would any criticism against her by definition be sexist, transphobic, and homophobic?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't trust him/her, I reckon it'd be fake .......... aaahhh ...... news.
 
Viceregal said:
Question - If Donald Trump got up tomorrow morning and announced that he now identified as a woman ... would the Democrats/Left/SJWs, according to their own logic, be forced to celebrate her as the first woman president, the first transgender president, and the first lesbian president? And since Donna Trump would now belong to all these categories of Good People, would any criticism against her by definition be sexist, transphobic, and homophobic?
Click to expand...
Donna Trump would still stand guilty of running her campaign and presidency on policies of eliminationism. She would still have forcibly separated thousands of children from their families. She would still be responsible for those who have died, been raped, or drugged in the custody of ICE under her administration. She would still be responsible for the malign neglect of Puerto Rico. She would be responsible for cosying up to dictators and endorsing terrorists. As should be any man who, in his presidency, was responsible for those things.
 
Jivlain said:
Donna Trump would still stand guilty of running her campaign and presidency on policies of eliminationism. She would still have forcibly separated thousands of children from their families. She would still be responsible for those who have died, been raped, or drugged in the custody of ICE under her administration. She would still be responsible for the malign neglect of Puerto Rico. She would be responsible for cosying up to dictators and endorsing terrorists. As should be any man who, in his presidency, was responsible for those things.
Click to expand...

She’s a ******* bitch tbh.
 
bungalow_bill said:
This new proposal from Texas makes Trump seem like a moderate. Death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. States don't come any more red then Texas.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...death-penalty-women-who-get-abortions-n993171
Click to expand...

Are you using info from other sources?

That article does say anything about death penalty for doctors and talks about being charged with homicide which can carry (as opposed to automatically carries) the death penalty...?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Viceregal said:
Are you using info from other sources?

That article does say anything about death penalty for doctors and talks about being charged with homicide which can carry (as opposed to automatically carries) the death penalty...?
Click to expand...

Ah phew... hopefully we just give doctors a life sentence then for performing a medical procedure currently protected by the constitution.
 
TheBrownDog said:
Ah phew... hopefully we just give doctors a life sentence then for performing a medical procedure currently protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Behave ... I wanted to clarify if the description was compiled notes from various sources or more along the lines of a clickbait headline...
 
Jivlain said:
Just got my postal ballot today. Gosh, the state of these candidates. Some real stinkers amongst the various new parties.
Click to expand...

In the NSW Senate election I was glad they give the option for 6+ above the line or only 12+ below the line, because I couldn't find six parties above the line that I'd be willing for my vote to go to (I think I topped out at four, including both major parties). So many fringe nutters wanting to get on the gravy train.
 
dlanod said:
In the NSW Senate election I was glad they give the option for 6+ above the line or only 12+ below the line, because I couldn't find six parties above the line that I'd be willing for my vote to go to (I think I topped out at four, including both major parties). So many fringe nutters wanting to get on the gravy train.
Click to expand...
When I can get barely half the candidates ahead of the f'ing LaRouchites, it's a bit of a problem.
 
The new senate voting requirements are dangerous if you ask me and I can see a whole heap of people/parties installed when it was actually the last thing people wanted.

The mismatch between how you vote for the house of reps and the new requirement of having to vote for 6 parties in the senate will confuse a huge number of people.

There will be thousands, tens of thousands - honestly I'd bet hundreds of thousands thinking that if they put a person 6th in the senate they would be voting to keep them out not put them in. We will end up with a senate comprised of people who most wanted least.

Fraser Anning will be hoping the confusion plays into his hands. I truly fear he will be elected with a decent number of votes - most accidentally.

Speak to people you know, ask them if they understand the changes. You'll be horrifically surprised.

Moreover I'm bloody sure I would find 6 parties I'd actually want...



How to complete the ballot paper

On the white Senate ballot paper, you need to either:

  • number at least six boxes above the line for the parties or groups of your choice, or
  • number at least 12 boxes below the line for individual candidates of your choice.
Above the line

If you vote above the line, you need to number at least six boxes from 1 to 6.

Place a 1 in the box above the party or group that is your first choice, the number 2 in the box above the party or group that is your second choice and so on until you have numbered at least six boxes above the line. You can continue to place numbers in the order of your choice in as many boxes above the line as you like.

Your preferences will first be distributed to the candidates in the party or group of your first choice, then to candidates in the party or group of your second choice and so on, until all your preferences have been distributed.
 
Speaking of the Senate - I find the concept of the "Flux" Party attractive.

For those who don't know the concept is pretty simple - the elected representatives don't actually take a platform or agenda to the senate - they rely on an app where each bill or at least a synopsis of it is sent to anyone who downloads it. From there the reader can vote on whether they agree with it or not and once that process is complete the representative will use those numbers to vote accordingly - regardless of their personal preference.

It's flawed for sure but as a first serious attempt to put democracy back in the hands of the people who might actually be interested it's a start.

For the curious...

https://www.voteflux.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
979
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top