OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Angry_eel]

Election	Labor (1st)	LNP (1st)	Other (1st)
2022	32.8%	35.7%	31.5%

35.7% is the lowest LNP first preference % since 1943 .... have only been below 40% one other time since 1949 (in 1998)

The biggest other first prefrence % ever

Clearly 30% of the people feel they're not being represented by either party. The Centre-Right may be ripe for the picking for an alternative if LNP keep shifting further right.

 

[Gronk]

Clearly 30% of the people feel they're not being represented by either party. The Centre-Right may be ripe for the picking for an alternative if LNP keep shifting further right.

Teal is pretty much CR.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Angry_eel]

Teal is pretty much CR.

But Teal are not a party, unless the Teals combine to form a party.

 

[Eelogical]

But Teal are not a party, unless the Teals combine to form a party.

What do you get when you mix teal with green?

 

[strider]

But Teal are not a party, unless the Teals combine to form a party.

There was a bit of common funding tho

The biggest issue for the indies is that many have a history of big showing in single elections, but then people roll back to their usual alegances next time round ..... but maybe that could change???

 

[strider]

What do you get when you mix teal with green?

Greenies that arent batshit crazy?

 

[Twizzle]

There was a bit of common funding tho

Has that actually been confirmed ?

From what I have read it may just be a whinge from Sky News and their fan bois

 

[Suitman]

Has that actually been confirmed ?

From what I have read it may just be a whinge from Sky News and their fan bois

Some of it was confirmed on radio by some of their candidates. Not sure how much though.

 

[Gronk]

There was a bit of common funding tho

The biggest issue for the indies is that many have a history of big showing in single elections, but then people roll back to their usual alegances next time round ..... but maybe that could change???

There are conspiracy theories being spread about the teals. Which is silly really, because it’s being painted as them having sone sort of an unfair advantage. Of course LIbs are bankrolled by fossil fuels and Labor the unions.

The common one is that climate activist Simon Holmes a Court bankrolled them. He paid a bit but was seeking likeminded funders.

However donation’s come from all walks of life.

Zali Steggall defends $100,000 donation from coal investor, saying ‘most people have through super’

Federal MP says she received more than 1,700 donations before 2019 election and if coal investors were ruled out ‘you pretty much rule out everyone’

www.theguardian.com

The Climate 200 team backed by him aimed to raise $15m to be spread across 20 campaigns. That’s a drop in the ocean compared to the fossil fuel backed Clive.

Climate 200 - About Us

Climate 200’s goal is to support political candidates committed to a science-based approach to climate change and to restoring integrity in politics

www.climate200.com.au

I have been told that the most philanthropic climate change activist is in fact Mike Cannon-Brookes.

 

[strider]

Why are people so defensive about it? ... it happened. Its not necessarily a bad thing. People are allowed to put money in. Is there some rule about? Can they not call themselves indies if they have a common money source?

People should also have the right to discuss it too. Holmes a court getting all shirty about it doesnt make it look better. Just call it what it is ffs.

Does it have strings attached? Is there more to come? What happens in 3 years time? Sure its not the budgets the big parties have, but its not chicken feed. So i reckon he would want some assurance it gets an outcome he wants.

I thought holmes a court himself said it was 12m across 6 candidates on saturday. You can probably guess its more the way they are being so defensive. He said the big parties have 100-200m so its small in comparison. But the big parties also have closer to 150 electorates and the senate to spread it.

 

[Gronk]

^^^^ 2012. Hi Alan

 

[Gary Gutful]

Easier when you aren't part of a major party to talk in hypothetical terms and promise everyone pennywhistles and moon pies but if thats what resonates I dont have a problem with it.

It's ironic though that the greens are now largely the party of the uber wealthy, no care in the world, inner city types. It was always the case but has been revealed more starkly in this election. Aren't they the very people that they would argue are the problem?

Anyway, there will be a tipping point at some stage. Eventually it wont be about ALP v LNP anymore.

 

[Gronk]

But wait, there’s more.

 

[Angry_eel]

Anyway, there will be a tipping point at some stage. Eventually it wont be about ALP v LNP anymore.

Australians are way too educated and care about way too many issues for it to be ALP V LNP. The demands of Lindsay are completely different to Sydney Harbour seats. The demands outside of Sydney and Melbourne are different as well. It's a shame that there's no left party representing the farmers. Poor souls have no choice at all.

Also, isn't there a law in US enforcing Democrats V Republicans?

 

[Gary Gutful]

Australians are way too educated and care about way too many issues for it to be ALP V LNP. The demands of Lindsay are completely different to Sydney Harbour seats. The demands outside of Sydney and Melbourne are different as well. It's a shame that there's no left party representing the farmers. Poor souls have no choice at all.

Also, isn't there a law in US enforcing Democrats V Republicans?

Its largely been about the fortunes of 2 parties for decades.

 

[Angry_eel]

Its largely been about the fortunes of 2 parties for decades.

I moved here as the Democrats were dying. Since then the Greens have gotten stronger. I'd say they've become more mainstream.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I moved here as the Democrats were dying. Since then the Greens have gotten stronger. I'd say they've become more mainstream.

They've waxed and waned in popularity since the democrats had their golden era. Strong showing at this election, but not surprising given Smugmo couldn't swallow his pride and make (even a token) policy announcement on climate change.

#OwnGoal

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Questions ?

HERE you said that you're against countries sending arms to help Ukraine because it would add fuel to the fire. No Question otherwise posed.

HERE you just applauded Turkey. No question posed.

HERE you posed no questions, but followed the stance that helping Ukraine just kills more people.

HERE you just backed Turkey again, just because.

HERE you just said I have NFI. No question posed.

HERE you posed no questions, but reiterated how scared you were of Russia and standing up to them is somehow counter-productive.

HERE you did pose a question, but it was comparing apples and oranges. You attempted to draw a parallel with the Russians flying nuclear armed planes last week in Swedish airspace as a nothing burger and asked if if the recent China ship which was 250 nautical miles from Broome was an attempt to invade. So my answer is ~ well no, but China is not currently invading PNG or Indonesia right now. You then reinforced your support for Turkey's opposition for the NATO block for no reason other than you think the outcome is a good one.

HERE you asked if Turkey are in Russia's pocket, why are they in NATO. My answer was HERE.

HERE you asked the only other unanswered questions and quite frankly they are rhetorical alarmism. You are just pushing a line of military acquiescence. Give them what they want because otherwise bad shit could happen. Let's play your logical fallacy bingo game then... OK so we let them have Ukraine to save lives. What happens if they then decide to invade other non NATO countries ? Stand by and watch that too ?

Q1 Does anyone in the west understand that Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over?

Q2 Do you trust Putin not to use them?

Q3 Do you think his invasion of the Ukraine was sane and reasonable?

With respect, you haven't offered plausible reasons to exclude the nordic countries from NATO other than you are scared of Russia.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that binds NATO countries and it is all about collective defence. An attack on one is an attack on all. This was formed shortly after WWll because of the risk that the Soviet Union may try and muscle their way to control eastern europe. Fast forward to 2022 and following the breakdown of the USSR, Russia is doing exactly what was originally feared. We need to stand up to this barbaric merkin, not fall to our knees in subservience.

Collective defence and Article 5

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

www.nato.int

Well I was obviously referring to the questions I asked and not the ones you invented which were statements and of course you have not addressed the ones I’ve actually asked except to cite some irrelevant article from NATO.

It is understood that Russias response in the Ukraine arose from its dealings with the US backed NATO when NATO agreed to enhance the route for the Ukraine to join it. This is akin to Mexico looking to import Nuclear weapons which the US wouldn’t tolerate.

They were given warnings but they went ahead anyway and it is believed this is one of the reasons for the invasion.

I’ve made the point several times that I do not agree with the invasion and Russia should have used sanctions.

By pouring in billions of dollars of weapons into the Ukraine, the ultimate outcome is more death and destruction of civilians. Not politicians etc.

By creating more enemies right on Russia’s doorstep, all that does is raise tensions.

It serves to isolate Russia and make them more desperate. They are already on high nuclear alert.

By vetoing these Scandinavian states, Turkey is helping to de-escalate the situation. Mutterings about terrorism and speculation about its objectives are less important to the civilians under fire and who are being killed and maimed in the Ukraine etc.

You should otherwise retract the straw men in your argument.

Otherwise, if you think these countries joining NATO are going to assist peace, I think your logic is flawed as is your venom about Turkey.

Russia has proven itself ready, willing and able to stand up for its interests. Why you consider Putin will suddenly back down seems irrational.

The western media is all Gung Ho to create a picture and support the death and destruction and that should raise a lot of questions in its own right.

If you think Putin got up one day, decided he was going to be evil and invade the Ukraine, you’re too far gone to discuss this sensibly.

The priority for the west should be to resolve the matter ASAP. Not prolong the war and beat chests.

Fight to the last Ukrainian is it?

To rely on Putin to change his mind this far in is also asking him to accept defeat before his own people. What are the chances of that?

I do not support the invasion but our response has been garbage.

Russia has the second biggest nuclear missile force on earth and a massive load of conventional weapons. It can wipe the Ukraine off the map either way. It has to be respected for those reasons at least.

And what happened to the chemical weapons they were meant to have used? That was all propaganda and complete rubbish.

Western media makes the LNP campaign look good!

 

[Gary Gutful]

What do you get when you mix teal with green?

Avocado.