Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[jmoo wan]

I have this bad habit of assuming everyone knows what I'm talking about.

It's The Excorcist. Ha!

thanks! should've added, "Trump's mother sucks utensils in hell" then it's a movie reference everyone can enjoy!

 

[Teflon Dons]

How do we end up with a choice of either him or Shorten? Something's wrong with that, the US picked a black guy that said they'd change and a trillion bucks went misssing and everyone realised nothing changed. They try a woman and people are so sick of the next muppet being forced in front of them saying it'll be better this time. So they had nowhere to go except someone who you could trust because the things he *in says are too funny not to be what he honestly thinks. Beginning of the end of that system. Flaws everywhere, too many old white dudes in positions of power, Turnbull just like the rest of them

 

[Lore]

How do we end up with a choice of either him or Shorten? Something's wrong with that, the US picked a black guy that said they'd change and a trillion bucks went misssing and everyone realised nothing changed. They try a woman and people are so sick of the next muppet being forced in front of them saying it'll be better this time. So they had nowhere to go except someone who you could trust because the things he ****in says are too funny not to be what he honestly thinks. Beginning of the end of that system. Flaws everywhere, too many old white dudes in positions of power, Turnbull just like the rest of them

Indeed. I used to follow politics fairly closely, but I stopped when Tony Abbott got elected. What a bleeding disaster.

I don't like either of the major parties, they're too invested in getting power and keeping power, and it's not really about the national interest. I preference independents and small parties, because they are elected for a diversity of reasons and retain their power based on integrity. Party members, particularly of big parties, are elected for their party line and therefore have to compromise their integrity in order to retain power (I realise that's a simplistic description but yeah).

Someone said the other day that we get the government we collectively deserve. Sounds about right really.

 

[Teflon Dons]

Indeed. I used to follow politics fairly closely, but I stopped when Tony Abbott got elected. What a bleeding disaster.

I don't like either of the major parties, they're too invested in getting power and keeping power, and it's not really about the national interest. I preference independents and small parties, because they are elected for a diversity of reasons and retain their power based on integrity. Party members, particularly of big parties, are elected for their party line and therefore have to compromise their integrity in order to retain power (I realise that's a simplistic description but yeah).

Someone said the other day that we get the government we collectively deserve. Sounds about right really.

Thats how every single one of them got to where they are. By being invested in themselves to get to the top of the party. That's the biggest one probably. Why is there one guy that gets the final say? Giving people like that power is so dangerous, why would they thinking about everyone else when thinking about themselves has got them to that position in the first place. Needs to be more than one person ultimately deciding things and probably more women, how they get paid less for doing the same job is beyond me. At the same time it's not, because the more you sit back and look at the type of characters in positions of power and influence the more you realise they're probably doing it so no one with any sense can get into these positions and stop the obscenity that is going on within the richest 1%.

Making, earning and winning money has the same effect on the brain as cocaine. Think about how many college and university educated people are clearly addicted to money the way they talk about it. Then imagine what they'd do for more.

Then remember Turnbull worked for Goldman Sachs, the most powerful investment bank in the world who was in large part responsible for causing the 2007-08 global financial crisis, and he's the best, most qualified person to listen and lead us as the majority of Australia's people wish? no we picked him because he's the best person to sweet talk us into agreeing with what he wishes. While the other option was Bill Shorten? Wtf

 

[Lore]

It shouldn't surprise me, but it kinda does. I mean no I'm not surprised. But I also didn't know for certain, and now it's here in front of me in black and white.

All MPs getting Foxtel subscriptions for free.

Apparently Sky News is an important aspect of your job as an MP..... I'm sure having free access to Sport and HBO series doesn't sway your vote with regard to NBN though does it? You know, while Foxtel tries to salvage it's marketshare that online streaming services might be poaching?

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/23/politicians-foxtel-subscriptions/

 

[Mercurial89]

It shouldn't surprise me, but it kinda does. I mean no I'm not surprised. But I also didn't know for certain, and now it's here in front of me in black and white.

All MPs getting Foxtel subscriptions for free.

Apparently Sky News is an important aspect of your job as an MP..... I'm sure having free access to Sport and HBO series doesn't sway your vote with regard to NBN though does it? You know, while Foxtel tries to salvage it's marketshare that online streaming services might be poaching?

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/23/politicians-foxtel-subscriptions/

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/fox-sports-foi-request-30-million-sports-deal/8722656

We live in a nation that is corrupt at its core.

But to be honest when you have a country like we do that has a general apathy towards political discussion we end up with what we have.
Old white men lining their pockets to further their own and their mates interests while they run the countries future into the ground.

 

[Mercurial89]

Following on from the carlton same sex marriage stance Alfred E Neuman brought up.

Does anyone else have a bit of an issue about the way people are handling those with differing views?
Just read an article about someone who was sacked due to their stance as a no voter on facebook (it was apparantly for religeous reasons).
I gound that a very concerning thing.
Then add in the backlash to the woman who fired the young girl getting waves of abuse and death threats.

Im not entirely sure how a vote/survey that targets the oppression of a group of people can have so many on both sides trying to oppress/belittle/stamp out people who hold a different view.

Its like the US having riots, burning effigys and violence against Trump supporters whilst screaming about freedom and rights and then labelling people Nazis for holding a different view and wanting to bash them.

When has calling people names or trying to stamp out a view with force ever worked? For any side of a debate.

 

[quotemokc]

Following on from the carlton same sex marriage stance Alfred E Neuman brought up.

Does anyone else have a bit of an issue about the way people are handling those with differing views?
Just read an article about someone who was sacked due to their stance as a no voter on facebook (it was apparantly for religeous reasons).
I gound that a very concerning thing.
Then add in the backlash to the woman who fired the young girl getting waves of abuse and death threats.

Im not entirely sure how a vote/survey that targets the oppression of a group of people can have so many on both sides trying to oppress/belittle/stamp out people who hold a different view.

Its like the US having riots, burning effigys and violence against Trump supporters whilst screaming about freedom and rights and then labelling people Nazis for holding a different view and wanting to bash them.

When has calling people names or trying to stamp out a view with force ever worked? For any side of a debate.

The Yes side were opposed to the survey because it would unleash lots of hatred towards gays etc but what we are actually seeing is anyone who dares to publicly say they are voting No get shouted down and abused from all angles. (who didn't see that coming)

It almost as if the No voters are the braves ones.

The term bigot and homophobe(ic) has come back into vogue big time the last few weeks.

Keep calling people slurs and the words will eventually lose their effect. (again)

 

[Phone]

It almost as if the No voters are the braves ones.

just to be absolutely clear: they are not

 

[Phone]

And

The Yes side were opposed to the survey because it would unleash lots of hatred towards gays etc but what we are actually seeing is anyone who dares to publicly say they are voting No get shouted down and abused from all angles. (who didn't see that coming)

The yes side was opposed to the survey because per the Howard government in 2004, this issue can solely be dealt by our parliament and without a bitterly fought, $100 million vote, and the fight was always going to be bitter despite the bizarre public statements from the Prime Minister. Given many people on the 'yes' side were willing to sacrifice the possibility of being able to actually marry the person they love for 2 or 3 more years just to avoid this bitter public fight, I'd say they're probably the 'brave' ones rather than people who are mostly not able to actually form any kind of logical argument and instead go on about protecting the children.

 

[Phone]

(and yes, the person should not have been sacked)

 

[Doss]

And



The yes side was opposed to the survey because per the Howard government in 2004, this issue can solely be dealt by our parliament and without a bitterly fought, $100 million vote, and the fight was always going to be bitter despite the bizarre public statements from the Prime Minister. Given many people on the 'yes' side were willing to sacrifice the possibility of being able to actually marry the person they love for 2 or 3 more years just to avoid this bitter public fight, I'd say they're probably the 'brave' ones rather than people who are mostly not able to actually form any kind of logical argument and instead go on about protecting the children.

This is the crux of it.

Parliament hasn't consulted us when it went into any number of wars. They haven't when they have brought in a GST. They didn't when they brought in Work Choices. They didn't when they brought in a carbon tax. They didn't...you get the point.

And as you so rightly point out, Howard certainly didn't have a plebiscite when he made his 2004 laws.

Guess what, that is what elected governments are meant to do; make a ******* decision. Not sit on the fence and allow a bitter debate over something that does not need to be this bitter, play out in full. No one benefits from that; least of all the people at the epicentre of the debate, gay people.

 

[Mercurial89]

And



The yes side was opposed to the survey because per the Howard government in 2004, this issue can solely be dealt by our parliament and without a bitterly fought, $100 million vote, and the fight was always going to be bitter despite the bizarre public statements from the Prime Minister. Given many people on the 'yes' side were willing to sacrifice the possibility of being able to actually marry the person they love for 2 or 3 more years just to avoid this bitter public fight, I'd say they're probably the 'brave' ones rather than people who are mostly not able to actually form any kind of logical argument and instead go on about protecting the children.

Its purely a political tactic and it is totally understandable why everyone on both sides was so angry at the Government for doing this "survey" (its not actually a vote is it?). Its pretty much, we know we cant win public support lets put it to a public knowing full well what would happen and people get so swept up in the debate the party can sit back and regroup, but its very short term thinking.

I just think we have a real issue arising in our culture and in Western culture as a whole. We are supposed to live in a democracy, we parrot the line about freedom of speech and that opinions can be held, but we appear afraid of reasonable debate (I stress reasonable here).
You should never feel like you should have to push down or censor or act violently/abusively against others that hold a different opinion, Society doesn't grow that way, it segments it and you have silent groups that stew on their beliefs.
You must be able to speak your opinion and you need to be able to put these things in the open, but you also need to be open to hearing other sides and not play the person. Its the only way to educate people and possibly change views. It also must be noted that you don't need to change your view, but you need to understand that if your view affects another group of people in a negative way, that there may come a time as Society evolves that your view is not relevant to that society.

I just really worry that we are heading down a path where its ok to sack, vilify those that hold different opinions, that is a really slippery slope.

* I've said you a lot there, obviously not speaking directly to you but more the individual.

Not sit on the fence and allow a bitter debate over something that does not need to be this bitter, play out in full. No one benefits from that; least of all the people at the epicentre of the debate, gay people.

I think this is affecting a lot of people, obviously some in the LGBT community are copping it the worst (though I will say among some of my gay friends there is a very detached view about the whole thing, very cynical, actually refuse to discuss any of it).

I just don't know if we are demanding too much of people. Take for example a 60 year old Christian man, who may be against gay marriage. He has been raised a certain way all his life. His views are ingrained in him as a person. He could be the nicest person in the world and kind to everyone he meets, he just doesn't want to change his definition. Should that open him up to public condemnation and abuse?
Wouldn't it be better that we educate him on why we as a society are evolving past those views, and whilst he wont force him to change his opinion, this is the way we are going, work with these people. Not "you are wrong, you are a bigot you are a homophobe and we don't want you in our society". There is a middle ground (obviously there are your extreme nutjobs, but they should be handled like we handle most of these people, ignore them, they are a forever shrinking group).
There is a reason an overwhelming majority of young people are accepting of people, its because we grew up in a society that pushes this, a lot of older people or people from different cultures did not grow up with this message. It does not make them horrible people. It just takes time for views to change as people grow up educated on these issues.
What we don't want is young people growing up hating other people who hold a different view.

 

[Howard Moon]

I mentioned to a few people this morning that I was getting a little agitated at the moment re this entire debate.

It seemed from my perspective that the yes voters/campaigners had taken on pack mentality and are highly pressurising no voters or even abstainers... to the point of near bullying. People losing their jobs over no votes, hoards of yes ppl flooding social media with complaints against carlton, the afl.. ect feels like a huge chunk of society are pushing their supposed majority in the face of a minority .. and i'm fully aware that this is a total role reversal, and ironic, being that the entire vote is on the rights of a minority group who have been systematically marginalised by the majority..

anyway, that's not why I post.. I had an epiphany this morning.

btw, i'm a yes voter - not that it matters. But I felt the need to clarify... see, pressure

anyway a few people told me about how the no people are acting, about bestiality ect.. I had zero idea.

My epiphany is regarding my consumption of news and current affairs.

I don't watch the news, I don't read a paper.

My entire diet of current affairs is digested via social media, be it twitter, Facebook, or my friendship circle.

I didn't realize but now I do, Social media by design is filtered down to a collection your own personal likes and beliefs, be it the friends you keep, the pages you follow, or the extended friends of your friends - in the end it just turns into an echo chamber that vindicates your own personal beliefs and thoughts. Possibly to a point that your own views never get challenged, and everything you see in the 'news' feed is catered to how you already think.

gee, put like that, it seems very dangerous, seems like it just creates insular people set in their beliefs who are never challenged.

is this a thing?

maybe I need to digest my news in a different way, to see more sides of issues. (not that id appreciate people discussing bestiality or whatever) but I kind of felt like id been sheltered in my own social media world... it rocked me.

 

[Mercurial89]

I mentioned to a few people this morning that I was getting a little agitated at the moment re this entire debate.

It seemed from my perspective that the yes voters/campaigners had taken on pack mentality and are highly pressurising no voters or even abstainers... to the point of near bullying. People losing their jobs over no votes, hoards of yes ppl flooding social media with complaints against carlton, the afl.. ect feels like a huge chunk of society are pushing their supposed majority in the face of a minority .. and i'm fully aware that this is a total role reversal, and ironic, being that the entire vote is on the rights of a minority group who have been systematically marginalised by the majority..

anyway, that's not why I post.. I had an epiphany this morning.

btw, i'm a yes voter - not that it matters. But I felt the need to clarify... see, pressure

anyway a few people told me about how the no people are acting, about bestiality ect.. I had zero idea.

My epiphany is regarding my consumption of news and current affairs.

I don't watch the news, I don't read a paper.

My entire diet of current affairs is digested via social media, be it twitter, Facebook, or my friendship circle.

I didn't realize but now I do, Social media by design is filtered down to a collection your own personal likes and beliefs, be it the friends you keep, the pages you follow, or the extended friends of your friends - in the end it just turns into an echo chamber that vindicates your own personal beliefs and thoughts. Possibly to a point that your own views never get challenged, and everything you see in the 'news' feed is catered to how you already think.

gee, put like that, it seems very dangerous, seems like it just creates insular people set in their beliefs who are never challenged.

is this a thing?

maybe I need to digest my news in a different way, to see more sides of issues. (not that id appreciate people discussing bestiality or whatever) but I kind of felt like id been sheltered in my own social media world... it rocked me.

its not just social media mate, that's how we as humans are wired. Most of us have a biological/psychological need to form relationships, its much easier to form those with people who see the world you do. look at the friends you keep, the circles you have. Quite often the immediate circle (of course people can change their views) hold similar or the same beliefs.

 

[Howard Moon]

its not just social media mate, that's how we as humans are wired. Most of us have a biological/psychological need to form relationships, its much easier to form those with people who see the world you do. look at the friends you keep, the circles you have. Quite often the immediate circle (of course people can change their views) hold similar or the same beliefs.

interesting.

so nobody wants their thoughts or beliefs challenged essentially?

 

[Lore]

I mentioned to a few people this morning that I was getting a little agitated at the moment re this entire debate.

It seemed from my perspective that the yes voters/campaigners had taken on pack mentality and are highly pressurising no voters or even abstainers... to the point of near bullying. People losing their jobs over no votes, hoards of yes ppl flooding social media with complaints against carlton, the afl.. ect feels like a huge chunk of society are pushing their supposed majority in the face of a minority .. and i'm fully aware that this is a total role reversal, and ironic, being that the entire vote is on the rights of a minority group who have been systematically marginalised by the majority..

anyway, that's not why I post.. I had an epiphany this morning.

btw, i'm a yes voter - not that it matters. But I felt the need to clarify... see, pressure

anyway a few people told me about how the no people are acting, about bestiality ect.. I had zero idea.

My epiphany is regarding my consumption of news and current affairs.

I don't watch the news, I don't read a paper.

My entire diet of current affairs is digested via social media, be it twitter, Facebook, or my friendship circle.

I didn't realize but now I do, Social media by design is filtered down to a collection your own personal likes and beliefs, be it the friends you keep, the pages you follow, or the extended friends of your friends - in the end it just turns into an echo chamber that vindicates your own personal beliefs and thoughts. Possibly to a point that your own views never get challenged, and everything you see in the 'news' feed is catered to how you already think.

gee, put like that, it seems very dangerous, seems like it just creates insular people set in their beliefs who are never challenged.

is this a thing?

maybe I need to digest my news in a different way, to see more sides of issues. (not that id appreciate people discussing bestiality or whatever) but I kind of felt like id been sheltered in my own social media world... it rocked me.

Twitter feeds and forums don't do this, thankfully. Twitter does default to using info about you for the trending hashtags thing, but you can turn that off (and I do). Just don't get caught in your own newsfeed, because that will be an echo chamber on the other hand the demographic that uses twitter politically seems to be largely left leaning (this from mapping of communication, not just personal experience). The opposite is true in America though, twitter is apparently right-leaning there

Forums like this one that are based around a neutral topic (football) take all sorts, although I think even here there is peer pressure and group think. It might not be curate to your interests but probably your interests are influenced by the group?


As for the actual vote, I've done postal votes a couple of times before. Normally you have to sign and witness the envelope and put it inside another envelope to send it, to ensure one vote per person is counted and it has all this security/privacy stuff so you can't just shine a light through the envelope and read What's inside. The SSM paperwork is literally a yellow sheet with one question on it and a normal reply paid envelope, no real security. If you happened across an opened envelope there's nothing stopping you from filling it out and sending it (technically opening someone else's mail is a crime, but assume it's already opened there's no other reason not to).

 

[Howard Moon]

Twitter feeds and forums don't do this, thankfully. Twitter does default to using info about you for the trending hashtags thing, but you can turn that off (and I do). Just don't get caught in your own newsfeed, because that will be an echo chamber on the other hand the demographic that uses twitter politically seems to be largely left leaning (this from mapping of communication, not just personal experience). The opposite is true in America though, twitter is apparently right-leaning there

Forums like this one that are based around a neutral topic (football) take all sorts, although I think even here there is peer pressure and group think. It might not be curate to your interests but probably your interests are influenced by the group?


As for the actual vote, I've done postal votes a couple of times before. Normally you have to sign and witness the envelope and put it inside another envelope to send it, to ensure one vote per person is counted and it has all this security/privacy stuff so you can't just shine a light through the envelope and read What's inside. The SSM paperwork is literally a yellow sheet with one question on it and a normal reply paid envelope, no real security. If you happened across an opened envelope there's nothing stopping you from filling it out and sending it (technically opening someone else's mail is a crime, but assume it's already opened there's no other reason not to).

I know twitter doesn't default filter like that - but you do it yourself by the people you follow, I guess ?

 

[Whispering_Jack]

The extreme sides of all debates, arguments, opinions etc are always bitterly fought, and in the past, often violently so. It's no surprise that there has been aggression and bitterness from the extremes of this debate. The middle 80% or so are where all positions are truly fought and in a reasonable level, level headed way.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

I know twitter doesn't default filter like that - but you do it yourself by the people you follow, I guess ?

Absolutely.

 

[Lore]

I know twitter doesn't default filter like that - but you do it yourself by the people you follow, I guess ?

The default view on twitter is your newsfeed, which you curate yourself, and the trending hashtags, which are curated for you. So unless you deliberately change the settings it will be an echo chamber like any other.

The way to get around it is to change the setting (settings>content>trends) so it is purely location-based instead of tailored, and to use hashtags and create lists. Even then you get some that tweet more often than others, and loud people tend to gain more followers than the quiet ones (even when the quiet ones have better ideas)

 

[Phone]

Its purely a political tactic and it is totally understandable why everyone on both sides was so angry at the Government for doing this "survey" (its not actually a vote is it?).

Well that's just an euphemism so that the ABS could run it, and to try to prevent the high court from axing it. it's a vote. It's basically a lot like Brexit where there's a vote on a concept, but there's no bill attached, which means if the vote is Yes, the Government still has to actually write up a bill that appeases the conservatives, which is gonna be tough given the leverage they have and the fact that finding common ground in "protecting religious freedoms" is gonna be tough. Add onto that whichever side loses can easier point to cases of envelopes being delivered improperly and...yeah. Hopefully everything goes smoothly in the event of a yes vote. (In the event of a no vote, I assume next time Labor has a majority of more than a couple of seats they'll probably do a vote in Parliament, now that they've sorted out their internal politics sorted, which prevented them from doing so from 07 to 13)

 

[jmoo wan]

news limited not pulling any punches describing those that are anti same sex marriage

 

[DapperDon]

Ahh a pre photo before headbutt of the year

 

[Doss]

Hi my name is Tony, the worst PM in Australia's history.