Politics How does the left get its political mojo back and win power?

[Carringbush2010]

And ill say it again - stop the boats was a liberal wedge that had racist folk voting liberal

Yes and those racist folk are a very small minority, don't be seduced by the 'noise'.

If they weren't a minority then Hanson would be in power.

I think you're looking at the 'stop the boats policy' from only one angle, this policy was also 'sold' as a 'saving the refugees lives' angle and 'stop human trafficking angle'

Among other policies that could be viewed as 'right wing friendly' and that's how it was reported by media - the 'noise'.

Sure that appeals to the white supremo neo lib, but also appeals to those who have empathy for refugees or disdain for traffickers - y'know the centred folks (which is obviously majority).

 

[projectv]

Was there taxes?

Is there a threshold for contributing more than would be expected of an average member of society that would constitute the title of citizen?

Personally I'm not sure if pouring money into the system should be something that gains you status.

I don't believe it was ever mentioned. I'm making an assumption around taxes in the movie, as I'm not sure how a society could function if non-serving people didn't pay taxes but also consumed services (like education, which is where Rico is told only veterans can vote, yet as you say, his parents were only civilians.. so how is the school funded?).

I agree that buying your way into higher privileges is bad, but I didn't suggest it. I used it as an example as to what other potential things could result in a title of citizen.

But in truth I don't see the distinction as valid at all. The movie used it as an "us and them" mechanic, just like they used the bugs.

The libertarian take would be that everyone is a citizen, can vote, and if they want to serve in the military then they can but it's just like any other job.

 

[kranky al]

Yes and those racist folk are a very small minority, don't be seduced by the 'noise'.

If they weren't a minority then Hanson would be in power.

I think you're looking at the 'stop the boats policy' from only one angle, this policy was also 'sold' as a 'saving the refugees lives' angle and 'stop human trafficking angle'

Among other policies that could be viewed as 'right wing friendly' and that's how it was reported by media - the 'noise'.

Sure that appeals to the white supremo neo lib, but also appeals to those who have empathy for refugees or disdain for traffickers - y'know the centred folks (which is obviously majority).

When the polls show 2pp liberals winning by 1% - those voters are important

 

[Coolangatta]

Yeah, and I've never seen anyone who supports the boat turnbacks show one iota of empathy for refugees. These are the same people who say, "We should take care of our homeless first!" or some crap about respecting Australian cultah or farkin off ay.

 

[Seeds]

So, since this thread was created, we've seen the election of the centre-left (and I use that term loosely) in the US and Germany, and its re-election in Queensland, Western Australia, Aotearoa and Canada. Although we had 50 pages of argument about culture wars, in reality it had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with looking more competent than the main conservative opponent. In the short-term, that seems to be their path to success.

Covid elected most of those groups. people have preferred lockdowns over the conservatives desire to let it rip.

 

[sherb]

Yeah, and I've never seen anyone who supports the boat turnbacks show one iota of empathy for refugees. These are the same people who say, "We should take care of our homeless first!" or some crap about respecting Australian cultah or farkin off ay.

Whilst having no empathy for them either.

 

[Carringbush2010]

When the polls show 2pp liberals winning by 1% - those voters are important

No ones arguing that, but they're not the majority of popular views and values.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah, and I've never seen anyone who supports the boat turnbacks show one iota of empathy for refugees. These are the same people who say, "We should take care of our homeless first!" or some crap about respecting Australian cultah or farkin off ay.

Whilst having no empathy for them either.

You're pushing sh*t up hill to argue that every single person who supports boat turn backs are of the narrative 'look after our own first' strayans. Don't be seduced by the 'noise'.

 

[Coolangatta]

Let me know if you ever encounter someone who supports the boat turnbacks but hates that "homeless before refugee" argument.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Yeah, and I've never seen anyone who supports the boat turnbacks show one iota of empathy for refugees. These are the same people who say, "We should take care of our homeless first!" or some crap about respecting Australian cultah or farkin off ay.

My sense is they are itching to say what they say on Sydney talk back - that they should hole the boats and machine gun the passengers.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Let me know if you ever encounter someone who supports the boat turnbacks but hates that "homeless before refugee" argument.

I'm one,

I'm not one for 'woe is us over woe is them' bs. It's childish, stop being seduced by the vibe that people are either naively ignorant or deliberately.

Bit offensive to be labelling the general populous as such, don't be blinded by your (valid) abhorrence of fringe right wing values.

 

[Coolangatta]

And can I ask why you support the boat turnbacks? Just curious.

 

[Reynolds Number]

There are currently some 30,000 refugees unable to get approval to enter the country because of the federal and state hard borders.

 

[Coopers]

Yeah, and I've never seen anyone who supports the boat turnbacks show one iota of empathy for refugees. These are the same people who say, "We should take care of our homeless first!" or some crap about respecting Australian cultah or farkin off ay.

Lols, like we care about the homeless.

 

[Carringbush2010]

And can I ask why you support the boat turnbacks? Just curious.

Because it's extremely dangerous for vulnerable and desperate people taken advantage of by disingenuous types.

The more illegal entries, the more demand from people in desperate situations fuel market for this abhorrent human trafficking. It's a vicious cycle.

Not to mention it is also a slap in the face for those who wish to enter legally. That takes away from those refugees trying to do the right thing, it's unfair to them

Can I ask why you do not reply directly? Seems like you're trying to avoid engaging.

 

[Coolangatta]

Because it's extremely dangerous for vulnerable and desperate people taken advantage of by disingenuous types.

The more illegal entries, the more demand from people in desperate situations fuel market for this abhorrent human trafficking. It's a vicious cycle.

Not to mention it is also a slap in the face for those who wish to enter legally. That takes away from those refugees trying to do the right thing, it's unfair to them

Can I ask why you do not reply directly? Seems like you're trying to avoid engaging.

Yeah, I should have, I didn't because my comment was next after yours, but I forgot about the notification.

Here is a counter-argument to your argument that it's illegal. https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parlia...liamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1415/asylumfacts

"It is not a crime to enter Australia without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly states that refugees should not be penalised for arriving without valid travel documents. What may be considered an illegal action under normal circumstances (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not, according to the Convention, be considered illegal if a person is seeking asylum.

Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe or even possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels. Refugees are, by definition, people fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own governments. It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as this could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating situations and do not have time to apply for travel documents or arrange travel through authorised channels.

In other cases, refugees may be unable to obtain travel documents because they do not have identity documentation or because they cannot meet the necessary visa requirements. Australia has very restrictive policies which work to prevent citizens of countries where persecution is widespread from getting access to temporary visas of any kind. These policies leave many people seeking to flee to Australia with no way of entering in an authorised manner. Permitting asylum seekers to enter a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency – the action may ordinarily be illegal but, in order to protect lives at risk, an exception is made."

According to the same site, regarding the places asylum seekers take away:

"Do boat arrivals ‘take all Australia’s refugee places’?
Historically, successful onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals) usually only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of refugees and other humanitarian entrants accepted by Australia each year—usually in the region of 17 to 20 per cent.[45] In 2000–01 and again more recently, the proportions have been higher due to an increase in the number of boat arrivals. However, even then onshore grants to boat and air arrivals combined still only comprise about 50 per cent of Australia’s Humanitarian Program.

Over the last fifteen years, approximately 13,700 places have been granted under Australia’s Humanitarian Program each year with fluctuating levels of onshore visa recipients. For example:

• due to an increase in boat arrivals, 41.8 per cent of the 13,733 Humanitarian Program grants in 2000–01 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals)
• only 17.9 per cent of the 13,507 humanitarian grants in 2008–09 were protection visas granted under the onshore component
• due to another increase in boat arrivals, 32.9 per cent of the 13,770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals). In 2011–12, 51.2 per cent of the 13,759 grants were to onshore applicants
• in 2012–13 the Government made a decision to raise the Humanitarian Program intake to 20,000 with the majority of the places allocated to offshore refugees. As a result, only 37.5 per cent of the available visas were granted to onshore (air and boat) applicants and
• in 2013–14 the intake returned to 13,750 and only 20 per cent of the grants went to onshore (air and boat) applicants.[46]"

And according to Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (yeah I know, of course we know who's "side" they'd be on) re: people smugglers.

https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/people-smuggling-mythbuster.pdf

"MYTH: People smuggling is a business model that needs to be smashed FACT People smuggling is not a ‘business model’ that needs to be ‘smashed’ but rather vulnerable people who need protection from persecution. While there is a legitimate need to address the behavior of people smugglers who exploit vulnerable people, a real solution would focus upon providing adequate alternative pathways for asylum seekers to escape their conditions of persecution and destitution. Until such options exist people will always get on boats because they having nothing to lose when a likely death awaits then back home."

"MYTH: The Australian Government policy is reducing people smuggling FACT The Australian government has in fact contributed to the creation of people smuggling by restricting the legal avenues for asylum seekers to find protection in Australia. As the world’s leading authority on international refugee law, Professor James Hathaway, explains5 , The whole people-smuggling problem is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If asylum seekers could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in by boat, they would do it. But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on."

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah, I should have, I didn't because my comment was next after yours, but I forgot about the notification.

Here is a counter-argument to your argument that it's illegal. https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parlia...liamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1415/asylumfacts

"It is not a crime to enter Australia without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly states that refugees should not be penalised for arriving without valid travel documents. What may be considered an illegal action under normal circumstances (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not, according to the Convention, be considered illegal if a person is seeking asylum.

Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe or even possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels. Refugees are, by definition, people fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own governments. It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as this could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating situations and do not have time to apply for travel documents or arrange travel through authorised channels.

In other cases, refugees may be unable to obtain travel documents because they do not have identity documentation or because they cannot meet the necessary visa requirements. Australia has very restrictive policies which work to prevent citizens of countries where persecution is widespread from getting access to temporary visas of any kind. These policies leave many people seeking to flee to Australia with no way of entering in an authorised manner. Permitting asylum seekers to enter a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency – the action may ordinarily be illegal but, in order to protect lives at risk, an exception is made."

According to the same site, regarding the places asylum seekers take away:

"Do boat arrivals ‘take all Australia’s refugee places’?
Historically, successful onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals) usually only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of refugees and other humanitarian entrants accepted by Australia each year—usually in the region of 17 to 20 per cent.[45] In 2000–01 and again more recently, the proportions have been higher due to an increase in the number of boat arrivals. However, even then onshore grants to boat and air arrivals combined still only comprise about 50 per cent of Australia’s Humanitarian Program.

Over the last fifteen years, approximately 13,700 places have been granted under Australia’s Humanitarian Program each year with fluctuating levels of onshore visa recipients. For example:

• due to an increase in boat arrivals, 41.8 per cent of the 13,733 Humanitarian Program grants in 2000–01 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals)
• only 17.9 per cent of the 13,507 humanitarian grants in 2008–09 were protection visas granted under the onshore component
• due to another increase in boat arrivals, 32.9 per cent of the 13,770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals). In 2011–12, 51.2 per cent of the 13,759 grants were to onshore applicants
• in 2012–13 the Government made a decision to raise the Humanitarian Program intake to 20,000 with the majority of the places allocated to offshore refugees. As a result, only 37.5 per cent of the available visas were granted to onshore (air and boat) applicants and
• in 2013–14 the intake returned to 13,750 and only 20 per cent of the grants went to onshore (air and boat) applicants.[46]"

And according to Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (yeah I know, of course we know who's "side" they'd be on) re: people smugglers.

https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/people-smuggling-mythbuster.pdf

"MYTH: People smuggling is a business model that needs to be smashed FACT People smuggling is not a ‘business model’ that needs to be ‘smashed’ but rather vulnerable people who need protection from persecution. While there is a legitimate need to address the behavior of people smugglers who exploit vulnerable people, a real solution would focus upon providing adequate alternative pathways for asylum seekers to escape their conditions of persecution and destitution. Until such options exist people will always get on boats because they having nothing to lose when a likely death awaits then back home."

"MYTH: The Australian Government policy is reducing people smuggling FACT The Australian government has in fact contributed to the creation of people smuggling by restricting the legal avenues for asylum seekers to find protection in Australia. As the world’s leading authority on international refugee law, Professor James Hathaway, explains5 , The whole people-smuggling problem is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If asylum seekers could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in by boat, they would do it. But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on."

Fair enough,

That reads like it's from opposition in parliament, So not exactly unbiased, in fact it's parliamentary pages. Doesn't guarantee it's 100% accurate without bias.

It also insinuates that the Aust govt. is the cause of refugees being forced onto boats - that doesn't look at the root cause of the problem does it. It's not the Australian govt.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that forcing people onto a leaky boat with high risk of death is not something I'd support (nor should anyone else IMO).

TBH we're derailing the thread so I'll leave it there unless you want to continue this discussion in pm?

 

[CM86]

Can I ask why you do not reply directly? Seems like you're trying to avoid engaging.

Yeah, I should have, I didn't because my comment was next after yours, but I forgot about the notification.

Here is a counter-argument to your argument that it's illegal. https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parlia...liamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1415/asylumfacts

"It is not a crime to enter Australia without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly states that refugees should not be penalised for arriving without valid travel documents. What may be considered an illegal action under normal circumstances (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not, according to the Convention, be considered illegal if a person is seeking asylum.

Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe or even possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels. Refugees are, by definition, people fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own governments. It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as this could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating situations and do not have time to apply for travel documents or arrange travel through authorised channels.

In other cases, refugees may be unable to obtain travel documents because they do not have identity documentation or because they cannot meet the necessary visa requirements. Australia has very restrictive policies which work to prevent citizens of countries where persecution is widespread from getting access to temporary visas of any kind. These policies leave many people seeking to flee to Australia with no way of entering in an authorised manner. Permitting asylum seekers to enter a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency – the action may ordinarily be illegal but, in order to protect lives at risk, an exception is made."

According to the same site, regarding the places asylum seekers take away:

"Do boat arrivals ‘take all Australia’s refugee places’?
Historically, successful onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals) usually only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of refugees and other humanitarian entrants accepted by Australia each year—usually in the region of 17 to 20 per cent.[45] In 2000–01 and again more recently, the proportions have been higher due to an increase in the number of boat arrivals. However, even then onshore grants to boat and air arrivals combined still only comprise about 50 per cent of Australia’s Humanitarian Program.

Over the last fifteen years, approximately 13,700 places have been granted under Australia’s Humanitarian Program each year with fluctuating levels of onshore visa recipients. For example:

• due to an increase in boat arrivals, 41.8 per cent of the 13,733 Humanitarian Program grants in 2000–01 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals)
• only 17.9 per cent of the 13,507 humanitarian grants in 2008–09 were protection visas granted under the onshore component
• due to another increase in boat arrivals, 32.9 per cent of the 13,770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals). In 2011–12, 51.2 per cent of the 13,759 grants were to onshore applicants
• in 2012–13 the Government made a decision to raise the Humanitarian Program intake to 20,000 with the majority of the places allocated to offshore refugees. As a result, only 37.5 per cent of the available visas were granted to onshore (air and boat) applicants and
• in 2013–14 the intake returned to 13,750 and only 20 per cent of the grants went to onshore (air and boat) applicants.[46]"

And according to Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (yeah I know, of course we know who's "side" they'd be on) re: people smugglers.

https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/people-smuggling-mythbuster.pdf

"MYTH: People smuggling is a business model that needs to be smashed FACT People smuggling is not a ‘business model’ that needs to be ‘smashed’ but rather vulnerable people who need protection from persecution. While there is a legitimate need to address the behavior of people smugglers who exploit vulnerable people, a real solution would focus upon providing adequate alternative pathways for asylum seekers to escape their conditions of persecution and destitution. Until such options exist people will always get on boats because they having nothing to lose when a likely death awaits then back home."

"MYTH: The Australian Government policy is reducing people smuggling FACT The Australian government has in fact contributed to the creation of people smuggling by restricting the legal avenues for asylum seekers to find protection in Australia. As the world’s leading authority on international refugee law, Professor James Hathaway, explains5 , The whole people-smuggling problem is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If asylum seekers could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in by boat, they would do it. But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on."

TBH we're derailing the thread so I'll leave it there unless you want to continue this discussion in pm?

That is hilarious.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Go to a pub where workers (tradies, truckies, construction worker) hang out on a friday night, they should the ALP's bread and butter.
Big turn off's
1 PC/ identity politics: shove it up ya rusty bullet hole
2 Climate change: just another tax on the working man
3 Immigration: The ALP and the working class are miles apart

Wow that fits today perfectly from 2017 and all thats gone on since.
The fact now is, that the left is in power.
The Prime Minioster is going to the charade of Glasgow global warming
insanity, he a Lib? The Nats are spewing.

The ALP will take government which ever way it can
legally, illegally, lying, trickery, propaganda from the ABC their political
news wing, ha ha.
Why the left is winning , is because the climate warming fear mongering is false
and it if taken up by the numbers that seem to believe in it these days, well,
the working man/woman may as well just quit, everything full stop.

Xi Jinping isn't going to Glasgow, he smiles and says all the right things ,
but they never use the word "no" They'll aim for a target and never reach it.
They know that already.

Xi Jinping will not turn China into a renewable paradise, he can't.

No more than Bull Shatners trip into space will turn him into Captain Kirk!

So my point has been for ages way before 2017 global warming and stupid
doom like predictions that never meant s**t. And are not there in the reality
because of our existence on earth.

Climate changes forever , always will, we can't dictate to nature.

How ever Greta Thunberg and her very leftwing and money hungry parent (s) may
try to make people believe, we're doomed , to what end who knows?????

Now the answer , the ALP the left wing may persuade people with bullshit.
They will never be right and they will never get BACK their original people who
were part of them and made them, because ALP/UNIONS have forgotten
their rank and file , their manufacturers their miners their modern life styles .

The ALP and the left must surely be heading for a terrible fall, because they are frauds.

Any one who has watched closely knows when something changes drastically,
Albanese is hopeless, Morrison seems choiceless, but if he stood up and said
ZERO 2050 is not only nonsense, but impossible, he maybe surprised at how
many vote for him, global warming is a terror for bad politicians, desperate power grabbers?,
Global warmin? It is nothing new either. It has happened for ever. So has cooling.

Both these leaders think that votes will come from going along with the ridiculous
sham of climate fear, frightening children at the same time, they both think there is
votes coming from it. May be there is, for the life of me I can't figure out mass hysteria
maybe its the media and its all bullshit.

I wish one of them would call it out for what it really is, it is exxaggerated fear provoking
garbage from the lowest proffesion on earth politics.
That is why who ever you vote for , better the most sensible seeming of the two.

I don't think its Albanese, because he truly has forgotten his base completely.
He has no renewable costings or any proof for the future, like Bill Shorten, mind you
if Morrison goes for this crap he's no better.

Someone with guts needs to say what its really all about. Unless it really is a new religion,
then the world is stuffed!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Chief I reckon we should dismantle hierarchies and live in collectives where everyone is equal.

What do you think?

 

[Eagle Wrath]

This wont help the democrats.

Lets go Brandon, now going viral as a song and meme ion the US. Code for F.U Biden. Even politicians are now using this.



Currently 1, 2 and 3 on Itunes. LGB (Lets go Brandon) by different artists, taking the piss out of a nascar reporter lying about what the crowd was really chanting.

Number 1 on itunes



LGB
]

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This wont help the democrats.

Lets go Brandon, now going viral as a song and meme ion the US. Code for F.U Biden. Even politicians are now using this.



Currently 1, 2 and 3 on Itunes. LGB (Lets go Brandon) by different artists, taking the piss out of a nascar reporter lying about what the crowd was really chanting.

Number 1 on itunes



LGB
]

A meme isn't an election result. Obama had shocking popularity ratings in 2010 and still won re-election two years later.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

A meme isn't an election result. Obama had shocking popularity ratings in 2010 and still won re-election two years later.

Yeah I agree but it all helps the republicans. Having all the most popular songs on Itunes basically saying F U Biden is very powerful. And politicians are now regularly saying - Lets go Brander, when they want to insult Biden.

Apparently Adele is pissed off too haha. Lost her top spot to a meme song.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

A meme isn't an election result. Obama had shocking popularity ratings in 2010 and still won re-election two years later.

Biden/Harris isn't Obama unfortunately.

 

[CD Xbow]

Wow that fits today perfectly from 2017 and all thats gone on since.
The fact now is, that the left is in power.
The Prime Minioster is going to the charade of Glasgow global warming
insanity, he a Lib? The Nats are spewing.

The ALP will take government which ever way it can
legally, illegally, lying, trickery, propaganda from the ABC their political
news wing, ha ha.
Why the left is winning , is because the climate warming fear mongering is false
and it if taken up by the numbers that seem to believe in it these days, well,
the working man/woman may as well just quit, everything full stop.

Xi Jinping isn't going to Glasgow, he smiles and says all the right things ,
but they never use the word "no" They'll aim for a target and never reach it.
They know that already.

Xi Jinping will not turn China into a renewable paradise, he can't.

No more than Bull Shatners trip into space will turn him into Captain Kirk!

So my point has been for ages way before 2017 global warming and stupid
doom like predictions that never meant sh*t. And are not there in the reality
because of our existence on earth.

Climate changes forever , always will, we can't dictate to nature.

How ever Greta Thunberg and her very leftwing and money hungry parent (s) may
try to make people believe, we're doomed , to what end who knows?????

Now the answer , the ALP the left wing may persuade people with bullshit.
They will never be right and they will never get BACK their original people who
were part of them and made them, because ALP/UNIONS have forgotten
their rank and file , their manufacturers their miners their modern life styles .

The ALP and the left must surely be heading for a terrible fall, because they are frauds.

Any one who has watched closely knows when something changes drastically,
Albanese is hopeless, Morrison seems choiceless, but if he stood up and said
ZERO 2050 is not only nonsense, but impossible, he maybe surprised at how
many vote for him, global warming is a terror for bad politicians, desperate power grabbers?,
Global warmin? It is nothing new either. It has happened for ever. So has cooling.

Both these leaders think that votes will come from going along with the ridiculous
sham of climate fear, frightening children at the same time, they both think there is
votes coming from it. May be there is, for the life of me I can't figure out mass hysteria
maybe its the media and its all bullshit.

I wish one of them would call it out for what it really is, it is exxaggerated fear provoking
garbage from the lowest proffesion on earth politics.
That is why who ever you vote for , better the most sensible seeming of the two.

I don't think its Albanese, because he truly has forgotten his base completely.
He has no renewable costings or any proof for the future, like Bill Shorten, mind you
if Morrison goes for this crap he's no better.

Someone with guts needs to say what its really all about. Unless it really is a new religion,
then the world is stuffed!

I think this is dumbest post I have read for a very long time, possibly since the Essendon Drug Saga.