Non Footy Chat Thread II

[I'm a loser baby...]

It may not theoretically, but the yes vote crew have done the numbers and have said that it will pass with a 70% majority. Unfortunately the churchies in the LNP are roadblocking the free vote bc they have the PM by the balls. If there is a leadership spill, them PM needs their votes to survive.

What are they gonna do? Bring Abbott back?

 

[Gronk]

Gronk, please explain why other than for political purposes that the Green/Labour alliance oppose the plebiscite, when they were cheerleaders for one after the Irish vote

All this tosh about about the avoiding the extremists applies to both sides of the argument, it's politics pure and simple. Even hetero white Anglo Saxon males like me understand it's all about the spin, nothing to do with actually getting a vote on the issue

I did. Read my post above. The plebiscite was designed by Abbott to fail. He knows that Australia has a very very poor conversation rate for plebiscites and referendums. In fact he said today that it should be coalition policy going into the next term as well. Hmmmm.

The labor party greens etc took advice from the LGBT community who said that it in their view, it would cause great division and result in unnecessary vilification.

The crazy thing is most of Australians are at peace with SSM and are happy for it to be passed by their elected representatives. Most say that it is not a front of mind issue and they are perplexed why a few politicians are making such a great fuss.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I did. Read my post above. The plebiscite was designed by Abbott to fail. He knows that Australia has a very very poor conversation rate for plebiscites and referendums. In fact he said today that it should be coalition policy going into the next term as well. Hmmmm.

The labor party greens etc took advice from the LGBT community who said that it in their view, it would cause great division and result in unnecessary vilification.

The crazy thing is most of Australians are at peace with SSM and are happy for it to be passed by their elected representatives. Most say that it is not a front of mind issue and they are perplexed why a few politicians are making such a great fuss.

I haven't seen research like this since HJ's last post about big f**k off lizard people.

 

[Delboy]

Gronk, in your part of Sydney there might be peace with the left pushing this through., certainly not true here in the Hills. Like most , I would vote yes, but the more that Shorten smarties his way around, the less inclined a lot of people here are to just nod compliantly

The danger is that it would have passed if not for the political machinations of the Labour/green alliance trying to manoeuvre the issue into a political point scoring argument.

The sad reflection on Shorten and his political manoeuvring , is that it would have been passed, gay marriage would be celebrated and the populace could start thinking about the major issues like base power electricity and debt. Those are weak points for that side of politics and the longer they can keep the focus off that, the better for their fortunes.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Gronk, in your part of Sydney there might be peace with the left pushing this through., certainly not true here in the Hills. Like most , I would vote yes, but the more that Shorten smarties his way around, the less inclined a lot of people here are to just nod compliantly

The danger is that it would have passed if not for the political machinations of the Labour/green alliance trying to manoeuvre the issue into a political point scoring argument.

The sad reflection on Shorten and his political manoeuvring , is that it would have been passed, gay marriage would be celebrated and the populace could start thinking about the major issues like base power electricity and debt. Those are weak points for that side of politics and the longer they can keep the focus off that, the better for their fortunes.

Read this:

http://www.essentialvision.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Essential-Report_170704.pdf

63% in favour nationwide = who gives a shit what you or anyone you claim to represent from the Hills thinks?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think if politicians have conscience issues about any of these ideas they shouldn't be forced into supporting them just because 'the majority' allegedly do. There is a sentiment that was famously verbalised as not-on-my-watch, that is very explicit about not accepting the inevitable while you have the power to resist. On your death bed you have nobody to answer to but yourself. People are entitled to look after their own consciences. Call it a mental health issue.

And if the voters don't like it they will let them know at the next election.

 

[Delboy]

Gary, you can respectfully f .'k off, I have an opinion and that's it's. Your mind numbing nasty little posts reflect on why there are far less posters and interested footy people on LU

Happy to meet and discuss if you ever attend a game

 

[Gary Gutful]

Gary, you can respectfully f .'k off, I have an opinion and that's it's. Your mind numbing nasty little posts reflect on why there are far less posters and interested footy people on LU

Happy to meet and discuss if you ever attend a game

I will only f**k off if I can do it disrespectfully.

#ThatsIts

 

[Gary Gutful]

I think if politicians have conscience issues about any of these ideas they shouldn't be forced into supporting them just because 'the majority' allegedly do. There is a sentiment that was famously verbalised as not-on-my-watch, that is very explicit about not accepting the inevitable while you have the power to resist. On your death bed you have nobody to answer to but yourself. People are entitled to look after their own consciences. Call it a mental health issue.

And if the voters don't like it they will let them know at the next election.

You could be right - maybe we should celebrate instances where politicians don't succumb to public pressure. Its all too rare these days.

If only Delboy made this point earlier...

 

[Gronk]

Gronk, in your part of Sydney there might be peace with the left pushing this through., certainly not true here in the Hills. Like most , I would vote yes, but the more that Shorten smarties his way around, the less inclined a lot of people here are to just nod compliantly

The danger is that it would have passed if not for the political machinations of the Labour/green alliance trying to manoeuvre the issue into a political point scoring argument.

The sad reflection on Shorten and his political manoeuvring , is that it would have been passed, gay marriage would be celebrated and the populace could start thinking about the major issues like base power electricity and debt. Those are weak points for that side of politics and the longer they can keep the focus off that, the better for their fortunes.

You seem to be hung up on the left and Shorten. My view is this is beyond politics. We are simply talking about two people who already live together, may already have children together, the law already recognises their de facto relationship as if it is a marriage, yet a minority of our elected politicians are frothing at their mouths about if people they dont even know and will probably never know, can get married or not.

Ridiculous.

FYI in Germany Angela Merkel who is the leader is the Christian Democrats, allowed a free vote in parliament. She personally voted no, yet it passed anyway. She makes our convervatives look medieval.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I think if politicians have conscience issues about any of these ideas they shouldn't be forced into supporting them just because 'the majority' allegedly do. There is a sentiment that was famously verbalised as not-on-my-watch, that is very explicit about not accepting the inevitable while you have the power to resist. On your death bed you have nobody to answer to but yourself. People are entitled to look after their own consciences. Call it a mental health issue.

And if the voters don't like it they will let them know at the next election.

But the politicians are supposed to represent their electorate. Knowing which way to vote if the issue wasn't campaigned on could be difficult to determine. And simply leaving it to the next election could just mix it up with a bunch of other issues.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

And I still don't understand the threat to Turnbull. Is Abbott a chance of reinstatement? Or is there another threat? I would've thought that at present he could fully support this issue, if he wants, and could even attract votes from non liberals.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But the politicians are supposed to represent their electorate. Knowing which way to vote if the issue wasn't campaigned on could be difficult to determine. And simply leaving it to the next election could just mix it up with a bunch of other issues.

Yeah of course, but would you sign into law something you thought was morally wrong just because your opinion was in the minority? In this case it's obviously not about politicians pandering to the masses. The masses love gay marriage even more than they love abortion. Plebs love anything that costs them nothing. It's like raising awareness.

 

[Gronk]

And I still don't understand the threat to Turnbull. Is Abbott a chance of reinstatement? Or is there another threat? I would've thought that at present he could fully support this issue, if he wants, and could even attract votes from non liberals.

Abbott got turfed because he was on the nose and the writting was on the wall that they would lose to Shorten. Whilst Turnbull only won the double d election by a pubic hair, he still won.

Currently Turnbull is 17 polls behind Shorten in the 2PP but he is significantly behind Turnbull in the preferred PM. That is his advantage. IMO Turnbull would be better off in the polls if the far right of the LNP pulled their heads in and let him do his job. However like the SSM issue they are shooting themselves in the foot by stick to their antiquated views of fossil fuels, health and education. You only have look at Abbotts first budget to see where they sit on the political spectrum. Now the far right are not too far away from Pauline Hanson. Who'd of thunk that.

To answer your qn, They think that they can control Turnbull but threatening a spill. That night be true, but Turnbull is slowly ticking boxes (Gonski 2.0 etc) and if he can get SSM through, the right might have to losen their grip on Mal's gonads.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Yeah of course, but would you sign into law something you thought was morally wrong just because your opinion was in the minority? In this case it's obviously not about politicians pandering to the masses. The masses love gay marriage even more than they love abortion. Plebs love anything that costs them nothing. It's like raising awareness.

I can't say for sure what I would do. But if I had a good idea of what my electorate wanted I'd know what I should do. Because that's how the system is supposed to work, even if it doesn't.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Abbott got turfed because he was on the nose and the writting was on the wall that they would lose to Shorten. Whilst Turnbull only won the double d election by a pubic hair, he still won.

Currently Turnbull is 17 polls behind Shorten in the 2PP but he is significantly behind Turnbull in the preferred PM. That is his advantage. IMO Turnbull would be better off in the polls if the far right of the LNP pulled their heads in and let him do his job. However like the SSM issue they are shooting themselves in the foot by stick to their antiquated views of fossil fuels, health and education. You only have look at Abbotts first budget to see where they sit on the political spectrum. Now the far right are not too far away from Pauline Hanson. Who'd of thunk that.

To answer your qn, They think that they can control Turnbull but threatening a spill. That night be true, but Turnbull is slowly ticking boxes (Gonski 2.0 etc) and if he can get SSM through, the right might have to losen their grip on Mal's gonads.

I don't pay a lot of attention to current politics but that's what I was thinking. If Turnbull shows some leadership and starts dragging in support from non liberals then turfing him starts to look more stupid, particularly given the absence of an obvious vote getter.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I can't say for sure what I would do. But if I had a good idea of what my electorate wanted I'd know what I should do. Because that's how the system is supposed to work, even if it doesn't.

To use a historical example, what if your electorate wanted you to send Jews to internment camps?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

To use a historical example, what if your electorate wanted you to send Jews to internment camps?

Excellent point. You've just made clear the difference between something I think might not be right and something I think is evil. If I felt that strongly about something then yeah, f**k the electorate.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It is inevitable though. Attitudes obviously do change. Homosexuality was once illegal over most (all?) of the Western world. The laws changed in response to people's attitudes.

 

[phantom eel]

And before it was illegal (Victorian era?) it was openly practiced and accepted in the Greek and Roman civilisations.

Just because chruchies got all uptight about it at some point, doesn't mean a bunch of churchy politicians should get to hold the electorate's wishes to ransom. They are fast making this from what should be a non-issue/just approve it and move on, into potentially a key delineator issue at the next election... and the majority will let them know where they stand.