Opinion Domestic Politics BF style

Remove this Banner Ad

I’m assuming Intel and law enforcement probably tee off and store their own feeds, unconstrained by acts of moderation by the platform that might obscure intent (like deleting troll accounts, or an individual’s personal data on request).

Historians are having to do the same with all this... important ephemera. Good. Speaking of Intel...

1) Ask a good question...

Did the Russian State attempt to interfere on a large scale via social? Absolutely...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/

It’s surprising there were even more such tweets post election than before it. They must not have full confidence in “their guy” in the White House ;)

Fair enough given a quick assessment of his actions in foreign relations. He’s probably sold the Ukraine less weapons than Hilary would have, has made NATO pay more for a similar long term pipeline of defence projects, has bumblingly supported a hard Brexit, has accepted that Assad/Russia are there to stay and a less murderous set than any ISIS regime, hasn’t yet pissed off the Turks too much or betrayed the Kurds yet (watch that space), has flailed his arms in a Douglas Adams-worthy “mostly harmless” kinda way at Iran, at North Korea and at his own Justice and Intel agencies, is not so much bumbling IMO but “publicly learning” his way into a trade war with China at the same time as reviving the “Quad” concept, shaking up the insular ASEAN grouping. At the same In his own backyard he’s tried to bully his NAFTA neighbours and pay off his own farmers caught in the opening skirmishes of his multi-front trade imbroglios.

Personally I think China’s Xi is mostly biding his time and doesn’t mind having the US “system” hand him someone “Making America Ineffectual Again” for a mere four years. Didn’t Xi mention to afl.com that Ken’s contract extension worried him more? ;) The US bested Japan in trade wars 20-30 years ago but this is not an uneven contest as that was.

But collusion? With Putin? I just don’t think Trump is that stupid, but he’s such an arsehole that I find it unimaginable that at least some of the sorts of folks who could tolerate “working for him” wouldn’t seek advantages on the margins of the law. So far Mueller has seemingly got one of them. Please continue, this bloody time, yes, please get right the actual, substantial release of new information without regard to political process. Not interfering with an election by yelling “there might possibly be a bomb under that guy!” then retracting a moment before impact is due.

Putin preferred Trump, and I don’t see a hint that he’s been surprised by him. The notion of Putin having dirt on him is too simplistic for a career Intel dude. The notion that Putin wants Trump to think he has dirt on him is more like it for mine. This is not some cheap novel - but there are a few chapters that sound like it. “What’s Putin got on (the famously pure and religious) Pence and Ryan?” you *need* to ask. A Republican Party suddenly unbound from Trump, maybe without such a hold on Congress but emboldened by a more supportive Supreme Court would actually make a greater “ungodly” mess of things around the world than Trump is already doing and in their hubris waste a lot of time and energy on some of their reactionary “social” agendas.

Now: Forza, Raman, go your hardest. Play the ball ;)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
raman said:
LOL nah, this is a #safespace remember.
Click to expand...

Good thing it’s not administered by that Christian from the AFL then ;) e less consistent than his namesake’s textbook ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

A wonderfull perspective, albeit one relying on simple back-of-the-envelope numbers.

Thing is, Trump isn’t actually *ignoring* their “real” national emergencies. He’s using US voters’ own weaknesses, and I’m being very bloody diplomatic there, to distract attention from those emergencies. For whatever reason.

I think there’s a few on here who might argue with me about Trump policy x, y or z but would struggle to argue that this isn’t his “method”.

He’s a real estate croook. It’s all he does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/migrant-caravan-trump.amp.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Portology said:
A wonderfull perspective, albeit one relying on simple back-of-the-envelope numbers.

Thing is, Trump isn’t actually *ignoring* their “real” national emergencies. He’s using US voters’ own weaknesses, and I’m being very bloody diplomatic there, to distract attention from those emergencies. For whatever reason.

I think there’s a few on here who might argue with me about Trump policy x, y or z but would struggle to argue that this isn’t his “method”.

He’s a real estate croook. It’s all he does.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/migrant-caravan-trump.amp.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Americans are starting to wake to the fact that the two party theory that if you don’t vote for one then it’s just a dead vote is bullshit.

The dems and republican could be ****ed come next election.
 
I think it is time that Sarah Hansen-Young gave politics away. If the posters placed near her office proclaimed 'It's OK to be Black' would Ms Hansen -Young be as upset? Of course not.

When Hansen-Young proclaimed these were Neo-Nazi posters I expected to see Nazi swastikas or eagles all over them. But no, simply some one telling me I should not be ashamed to be a white man. The Nazi connotation is entirely Ms Hansen-Young's invention.
 
raptalia said:
I think it is time that Sarah Hansen-Young gave politics away. If the posters placed near her office proclaimed 'It's OK to be Black' would Ms Hansen -Young be as upset? Of course not.

When Hansen-Young proclaimed these were Neo-Nazi posters I expected to see Nazi swastikas or eagles all over them. But no, simply some one telling me I should not be ashamed to be a white man. The Nazi connotation is entirely Ms Hansen-Young's invention.
Click to expand...
Who is this someone?
 
charcolechaddy said:
Who is this someone?
Click to expand...

Someone who feels no need to apologise for being white?

If a blackman puts up a poster proclaiming it is 'OK to be black' he or she is 'a civil rights activist' if some one puts up a poster proclaiming it is 'OK to be white' he or she is branded a 'neo nazi'.

All this would not be that hard to take if one didn't feel that Hansen- Young was postulating to a section of the the electorate. After all being seen as anti racist is a vote winner regardless of personal feelings.
 
raptalia said:
I think it is time that Sarah Hansen-Young gave politics away. If the posters placed near her office proclaimed 'It's OK to be Black' would Ms Hansen -Young be as upset? Of course not.

When Hansen-Young proclaimed these were Neo-Nazi posters I expected to see Nazi swastikas or eagles all over them. But no, simply some one telling me I should not be ashamed to be a white man. The Nazi connotation is entirely Ms Hansen-Young's invention.
Click to expand...
Look at the history. It was a phrase first used by neo Nazis and KKK or the United Klans of America going back to 2005. Its a dog whistle. In the hands of a dropkick like Pauline Hansen she tries to portray it as some simple all inclusive non racist message. It ain't that.
 
raptalia said:
I think it is time that Sarah Hansen-Young gave politics away. If the posters placed near her office proclaimed 'It's OK to be Black' would Ms Hansen -Young be as upset? Of course not.

When Hansen-Young proclaimed these were Neo-Nazi posters I expected to see Nazi swastikas or eagles all over them. But no, simply some one telling me I should not be ashamed to be a white man. The Nazi connotation is entirely Ms Hansen-Young's invention.
Click to expand...


If they really wanted to troll her they should have had "It's OK to be a white woman" - she could hardly argue against that :p
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Look at the history. It was a phrase first used by neo Nazis and KKK or the United Klans of America going back to 2005. Its a dog whistle. In the hands of a dropkick like Pauline Hansen she tries to portray it as some simple all inclusive non racist message. It ain't that.
Click to expand...

No way. The phrase is what it is and in any case Hansen-Young automatically assumes it is the work of a black shirt sympathiser. It contains no threats, does not blaspheme and has no profanity on it.

Pauline Hansen's 'OK to be White' motion was only defeated 28-31 so there must be a fair proportion of our elected Members who also think it is 'OK to be White'. I have not looked at Hansard so I have no idea what Hansen- Young said in the House but I can imagine that she had a bit to say and none of it would have flattered Pauline Hanson. Rather than some sort of neo Nazi plot this is more likely to be someone making a point about Hansen- Young's stance on the Hanson Bill.

I am white and see no reason to be ashamed of it and if that sentiment concurs with the thoughts of Pauline Hansen, Andrew Bolt and whoever so be it. As I posted in my original post, put up an 'OK to be Black' poster and you are a hero but put up an 'OK to be White' poster and you are automatically a racist.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

raptalia said:
No way. The phrase is what it is and in any case Hansen-Young automatically assumes it is the work of a black shirt sympathiser. It contains no threats, does not blaspheme and has no profanity on it.

Pauline Hansen's 'OK to be White' motion was only defeated 28-31 so there must be a fair proportion of our elected Members who also think it is 'OK to be White'. I have not looked at Hansard so I have no idea what Hansen- Young said in the House but I can imagine that she had a bit to say and none of it would have flattered Pauline Hanson. Rather than some sort of neo Nazi plot this is more likely to be someone making a point about Hansen- Young's stance on the Hanson Bill.

I am white and see no reason to be ashamed of it and if that sentiment concurs with the thoughts of Pauline Hansen, Andrew Bolt and whoever so be it. As I posted in my original post, put up an 'OK to be Black' poster and you are a hero but put up an 'OK to be White' poster and you are automatically a racist.
Click to expand...
Put up a swastika on that pole and watch people's reaction. They will go nuts because of the meaning attached to it by different groups.

Put up a swastika in India and they wont. Why? because for 3,000 years it has been a symbol of love/ good luck/good will / the divinity in Indian religions and culture, before the Nazi's stole it and deliberately changed manipulated its meaning for its own propaganda purposes.

So the history behind any symbol or saying, matters, as does the context of its use.
 
Last edited:
raptalia said:
Someone who feels no need to apologise for being white?

If a blackman puts up a poster proclaiming it is 'OK to be black' he or she is 'a civil rights activist' if some one puts up a poster proclaiming it is 'OK to be white' he or she is branded a 'neo nazi'.

All this would not be that hard to take if one didn't feel that Hansen- Young was postulating to a section of the the electorate. After all being seen as anti racist is a vote winner regardless of personal feelings.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry if you feel oppressed or marginalised being white, must be hard being the majority.

I’m am scared of anyone who thinks Pauline Hanson has a point as mutch as someone who thinks I have to call them Ze.

So I’ll ask again , who said this.
 
Last edited:
Foodbank just had 40% of it's funding cut. Though they are a charity partner - we'll need to help them out as supporters as much as we can.
 
Last edited:
Doctor Feel said:
Foodbank just had 40% of it's funding cut. Though they are a charity partner - we'll need to help them out as supporters as much as we can.
Click to expand...
When did they get so big, that they got so much funding from the government? I obviously missed it. I reckon when Duncanson signed them on as Charity partner, I read on their website that they were only dependent on the government for less than 20% of their revenue. They are a shitload bigger than they were in 2012.
 
I knew Foodbank received bugger all from the government when we signed up as a charity partner in 2012. The following is for the national organisation not just the SA division. The following story shows Foodbank receive SFA from the feds but they make it go a long way. The private sector provides tens of millions of dollars of food. Its stupid for skimping on $323,000 when the budget position is way head of forecasts. This is what the final 2017-18 budget outcome in September said

https://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/fbo/download/FBO_2017-18_Combined.pdf
In 2017-18, the Australian Government general government sector recorded an underlying cash deficit of $10.1 billion (0.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP)). The net operating balance was in deficit by $4.0 billion (0.2 per cent of GDP). The Final Budget Outcome for 2017-18 was a $19.3 billion improvement compared with the underlying cash deficit estimated at the time of the 2017-18 Budget. Total receipts were $13.4 billion higher than expected and total payments were $6.9 billion lower than expected. Net Future Fund earnings were $1.1 billion higher than expected at the time of the 2017-18 Budget.

I guess the government doesn't see many votes in $323k.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...eed-hungry-australians-almost-halved/10485182
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended the Federal Government's move to split food charity funding between three agencies. Foodbank, which provides more than 67 million meals for hungry Australians each year, will have its federal funding almost halved from January 1.

While it normally receives $750,000 in Government assistance, it's been told from January 1 its funding will be cut to $427,000. Mr Morrison told Channel 10 the sector's funding had not been cut, rather it had been reallocated. "We've actually maintained the funding for those services, it's gone to three charities instead of … [two].

Key points
  • Food relief charity Foodbank's federal funding will be cut from $750,000 to $427,000
  • Prime Minister Scott Morrison says food charity funding is being maintained, but will be split between three agencies rather than two
  • An additional organisation, OzHarvest, will share $4.5 million in funding alongside Foodbank and SecondBite
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...eed-hungry-australians-almost-halved/10485182
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
I knew Foodbank received bugger all from the government when we signed up as a charity partner in 2012. The following is for the national organisation not just the SA division. The following story shows Foodbank receive SFA from the feds but they make it go a long way. The private sector provides tens of millions of dollars of food. Its stupid for skimping on $323,000 when the budget position is way head of forecasts. This is what the final 2017-18 budget outcome in September said

https://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/fbo/download/FBO_2017-18_Combined.pdf
In 2017-18, the Australian Government general government sector recorded an underlying cash deficit of $10.1 billion (0.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP)). The net operating balance was in deficit by $4.0 billion (0.2 per cent of GDP). The Final Budget Outcome for 2017-18 was a $19.3 billion improvement compared with the underlying cash deficit estimated at the time of the 2017-18 Budget. Total receipts were $13.4 billion higher than expected and total payments were $6.9 billion lower than expected. Net Future Fund earnings were $1.1 billion higher than expected at the time of the 2017-18 Budget.

I guess the government doesn't see many votes in $323k.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...eed-hungry-australians-almost-halved/10485182
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended the Federal Government's move to split food charity funding between three agencies. Foodbank, which provides more than 67 million meals for hungry Australians each year, will have its federal funding almost halved from January 1.

While it normally receives $750,000 in Government assistance, it's been told from January 1 its funding will be cut to $427,000. Mr Morrison told Channel 10 the sector's funding had not been cut, rather it had been reallocated. "We've actually maintained the funding for those services, it's gone to three charities instead of … [two].

Key points
  • Food relief charity Foodbank's federal funding will be cut from $750,000 to $427,000
  • Prime Minister Scott Morrison says food charity funding is being maintained, but will be split between three agencies rather than two
  • An additional organisation, OzHarvest, will share $4.5 million in funding alongside Foodbank and SecondBite
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...eed-hungry-australians-almost-halved/10485182
Click to expand...

Like most reporting these days, the details get lost in the sensationalist headlines.
 
In the absence of any obvious rationale for this decision, am I allowed to wonder whether Foodbank have ever committed the 'mortal sin' of advocating on behalf of the people who need their service?
And will be interesting to see which Liberal party member/donor has connections with OzHarvest.
Good time to do this, 6 weeks before Christmas and just after Armistice centenary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GremioPower
Opinion Education BF-style
Replies
0
Views
133
GremioPower
GremioPower

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top