OT: Scummo is gone

[Trevor Wilson]

How good is that?

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> How good is that?

Fan-fuckg-tastic.

Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all* up.

Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Yosemite Sam]

On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> How good is that?

time will tell. how strong will he be on defence? how will he handle
China's growing influence? "by 1990 no child will live in poverty"-
Hawke. fail. "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"-
Gillard. fail. "bringing all Australians together" -Albanese. or just
empowering minorities and a radical socialist agenda? will we all be
better off and in four years? time will tell.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

[keithr0]

On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> How good is that?

Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will move
to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.

[Xeno]

Yes, that detail was mentioned in the washup last night.

--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Yosemite Sam]

that was the Teal's agenda

[Daryl]

Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that there
was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but with a
reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken for
granted anymore.

--
Daryl

[John_H]

Noddy wrote:
>On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> How good is that?
>
>Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>
>Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
>over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all* up.

Monkey pox upon both their houses! :)

>Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)

Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
*We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
public servants).
*Diplomatic relations with China will improve (slightly).
*The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
return to Biloela.

What won't change for the better....
*The climate, which will continue to change irrespective of what they
do and, unfortunately, none of 'em have any effective policies for
mitigating the effects already upon us.
*The national debt (already the highest since the end of WW2).

What won't change at all....
*The rising cost of living.
*Housing affordability.
*An acute shortage of skilled labour.
*Our defence capability.
*Chinese expansion in the South Pacific.
*The filthy rich will continue to get richer and any attempts to
thwart them will hit the rest of us instead.
*Etc, etc.

--
John H

[Noddy]

I wouldn't get too excited just yet, as the "victory" is far from certain.

Despite the victory celebrations on the "red" side of the house, at the
last check of a few moments ago Labor was still 5 seats short of
outright victory with 13 seats still undecided. With the Libs securing
52 seats the only certainly is that they *cannot* win even if they
secure every one of the remaining seats still to be decided.

But Labor's fortunes are less certain.

As it stands this morning it is highly unlikely that Labor won't take
government, but it remains to be seen if it will be a Majority or a
Minority rule. If they win the necessary seats out of the remaining
undecided 13 then they're home and hosed, but if they don't then
Albanese will be forced to enter into a minority government seal with
independents or minor parties, and if he does this then his very first
act as PM will be to go back on a pledge of doing something he said he
wouldn't actually do.

I expect that the victory celebrations indicate that he's already made
his mind up to do so despite claiming he wouldn't :)

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> How good is that?
>>
>> Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>>
>> Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
>> over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all* up.
>
> Monkey pox upon both their houses! :)
>
>> Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)
>
> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
> public servants).

Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
watchdog than the libs were.

> *Diplomatic relations with China will improve (slightly).

Perhaps, although I saw something this morning that said Penny Wong was
tipped to be Foreign Minister, and she's made some pretty strong anti
Chinese government comments in the past.

> *The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
> return to Biloela.

And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri Lanka.
They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very successful at
playing the media off to their advantage.

> What won't change for the better....
> *The climate, which will continue to change irrespective of what they
> do and, unfortunately, none of 'em have any effective policies for
> mitigating the effects already upon us.

Agreed.

> *The national debt (already the highest since the end of WW2).

Yep. It's all down hill from here folks.

> What won't change at all....
> *The rising cost of living.
> *Housing affordability.
> *An acute shortage of skilled labour.
> *Our defence capability.
> *Chinese expansion in the South Pacific.
> *The filthy rich will continue to get richer and any attempts to
> thwart them will hit the rest of us instead.
> *Etc, etc.

Absolutely.

[Xeno]

On 22/5/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> How good is that?
>>>
>>> Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>>>
>>> Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
>>> over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all* up.
>>
>> Monkey pox upon both their houses!  :)
>>
>>> Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)
>>
>> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
>> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
>> public servants).
>
> Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
> happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
> watchdog than the libs were.

Labor was very much in favour of an ICAC with teeth. The Morrison
proposal had no teeth and so was *rejected* by Labor.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fact-check-what-did-morrison-say-about-a-federal-icac-20220415-p5adq9.html

Legal and public accountability experts were scathing. The Centre for
Public Integrity found the proposed agency would be “the weakest
integrity commission in the country”, leaving a raft of political
scandals relating to the abuse of public office free from scrutiny.

Labor was also critical. It claimed the proposed agency would be so weak
it would be unable to commence its own independent inquiries into
government corruption, prevented from holding public hearings into
politicians or public servants and banned from investigating multiple
past political scandals.

>
>> *Diplomatic relations with China will improve (slightly).
>
> Perhaps, although I saw something this morning that said Penny Wong was
> tipped to be Foreign Minister, and she's made some pretty strong anti
> Chinese government comments in the past.

She is half Malaysian Chinese. She would have a better idea than most of
what the CCP actually is and a far better understanding of the culture
that drives it.

>
>> *The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
>> return to Biloela.
>
> And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri Lanka.
> They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very successful at
> playing the media off to their advantage.
>
>> What won't change for the better....
>> *The climate, which will continue to change irrespective of what they
>> do and, unfortunately, none of 'em have any effective policies for
>> mitigating the effects already upon us.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> *The national debt (already the highest since the end of WW2).
>
> Yep. It's all down hill from here folks.

And your mates the Libs got us here.

>
>> What won't change at all....
>> *The rising cost of living.
>> *Housing affordability.
>> *An acute shortage of skilled labour.
>> *Our defence capability.
>> *Chinese expansion in the South Pacific.
>> *The filthy rich will continue to get richer and any attempts to
>> thwart them will hit the rest of us instead.
>> *Etc, etc.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>


--

[John_H]

Noddy wrote:
>On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:
>
>> *The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
>> return to Biloela.
>
>And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri Lanka.
>They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very successful at
>playing the media off to their advantage.

Not so. They were genuine refugees when they came here and were
provided with visas as such. When their visas ran out the situation
in Sri Lanka had changed and Tamils were no longer being persecuted
(according to the government). In fact they were being compulsorily
re-educated (as the Chinese do with Uyghurs).

It's the Biloela community who've supported them and maintained media
attention.

Sri Lanka has recently become an economic disaster and I wouldn't wish
the place on anyone apart from its own corrupt politicians... or a few
of ours if it was possible to export them!

--
John H

[Trevor Wilson]

On 22/05/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> How good is that?
>>>
>>> Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>>>
>>> Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
>>> over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all* up.
>>
>> Monkey pox upon both their houses!  :)
>>
>>> Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)
>>
>> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
>> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
>> public servants).
>
> Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
> happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
> watchdog than the libs were.

**That's not what they said. You're just making shit up. If Labor fails
to bring about a Federal ICAC, we boot them out. Eventually, politicians
will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's why
Scummo lost his. He failed us. Multiple times.

>
>> *Diplomatic relations with China will improve (slightly).
>
> Perhaps, although I saw something this morning that said Penny Wong was
> tipped to be Foreign Minister, and she's made some pretty strong anti
> Chinese government comments in the past.
>
>> *The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
>> return to Biloela.
>
> And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri Lanka.
> They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very successful at
> playing the media off to their advantage.

**You're both ignorant and completely heartless:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/26/tamils-fear-prison-and-torture-in-sri-lanka-13-years-after-civil-war-ended

https://www.mondaq.com/human-rights/1069294/the-continuing-tamil-genocide-in-sri-lanka-an-interview-with-trc-spokesperson-charanja-thavendran

>
>> What won't change for the better....
>> *The climate, which will continue to change irrespective of what they
>> do and, unfortunately, none of 'em have any effective policies for
>> mitigating the effects already upon us.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> *The national debt (already the highest since the end of WW2).
>
> Yep. It's all down hill from here folks.

**Taxes will rise.

[Yosemite Sam]

On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> How good is that?

nomo scomo

[lindsay]

Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around. Just
for something to do, mind you.

My only concerns are

1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)

2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still hear
Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate chop in
the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us defenceless.

3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear powered
subs?

Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?

As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
the rest of the crap is moot.

I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)

I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine. Fair chance
Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so will
we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're next.
It will all end in tears.. :-)



>

[Daryl]

On 22/5/2022 3:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> How good is that?
>>>>
>>>> Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>>>>
>>>> Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
>>>> over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all*
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> Monkey pox upon both their houses!  :)
>>>
>>>> Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)
>>>
>>> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
>>> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
>>> public servants).
>>
>> Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
>> happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
>> watchdog than the libs were.
>
> **That's not what they said.

You should know what politicians say and do aren't always the same.

You're just making shit up.

More like reading between the lines.

If Labor fails
> to bring about a Federal ICAC, we boot them out.

Which takes at least 3yrs and assumes that most voters think that an
ICAC is a major issue so its not a given.

Eventually, politicians
> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's why
> Scummo lost his. He failed us.

Us, don't you mean you?
You main gripe seems to be Aged Care and Labor has promised that each
facility with have a nurse on duty 24/7 but they didn't say where they
were going to get these nurses from, are they going to pluck them out of
the sky?
There is a worldwide shortage of medical staff due to Covid so I don't
see that promise being full filled anytime soon.

Multiple times.

Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does tell
is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority disagree with you.



--
Daryl

[Yosemite Sam]

On 22/05/2022 4:19 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> How good is that?
>>>
>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>
>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that
>> there was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but
>> with a reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken
>> for granted anymore.
>
> Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
> actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around.
> Just for something to do, mind you.
>
> My only concerns are
>
> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled
> bad there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when
> china handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends
> with a bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>
> 2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead,

we need a nuclear sub NOW. lease one from the yanks

> if the Labor party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I
> can still hear Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing
> her Karate chop in the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would
> leave us defenceless.
>
> 3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
> offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear
> powered subs?
>
> Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?
>
> As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
> the rest of the crap is moot.

exactly

>
> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister,
> because I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because
> she's of asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i
> know how you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all
> ...!)
>
> I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine.  Fair chance
> Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
> Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
> Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so
> will we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're
> next.
> It will all end in tears.. :-)
>
>

yes

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 3:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:

>>> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
>>> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
>>> public servants).
>>
>> Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
>> happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
>> watchdog than the libs were.
>
> **That's not what they said.

Of *course* it's not what they said. They used it as a political
football once the election campaign was up and running, but prior to
that they did jack shit to pressure the government to get it up and running.

> You're just making shit up. If Labor fails
> to bring about a Federal ICAC, we boot them out. Eventually, politicians
> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's why
> Scummo lost his. He failed us. Multiple times.

ROTFL :)

Given that the current system has been in place for many, many years
now, how long do you think it will be before they actually "start
learning"?

Political integrity seems to be getting *worse* with each new
government. Not better.

>> And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri Lanka.
>> They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very successful at
>> playing the media off to their advantage.
>
> **You're both ignorant and completely heartless:

Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit Trevor. We are not the world's
gathering point for every wannabee "refugee" who simply just wants to
live in a nicer country than their own.

>>> *The national debt (already the highest since the end of WW2).
>>
>> Yep. It's all down hill from here folks.
>
> **Taxes will rise.

A great many things will likely get more expensive, and not necessarily
for the better. If "Albo" keeps his word on things like raising wages
and kick starting a manufacturing base in this country then you can
comfortably bet your left nut that we will be in for a very interesting
time, and I'm sure the Reserve Bank will think so too.

[keithr0]

On 22/05/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> *The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
>> return to Biloela.
>
> And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri Lanka.
> They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very successful at
> playing the media off to their advantage.

They are the sort of people that we need, they're far better that a
whole bunch that get in legally.

[Daryl]

Not seen a specific mention of the subs or AUKUS but their defence
policy is pretty the same as the Coalition.

>
> Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?
>
> As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
> the rest of the crap is moot.
>
> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
> I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
> asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
> you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)
>
> I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine.  Fair chance
> Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.

Can't see that happening simply because its not in their best interest.

> Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA.

Very unlikely that they will do anything like that.

He does that?
> Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so will
> we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're next.
> It will all end in tears.. :-)
>

Hopefully China will be observing events in Ukraine and will see how
that is not going well for Russia, even if Russia eventually manages to
take over Ukraine their economy will be screwed and the rest of the
world will isolate them sending them back to the dark ages.
China's economy relies heavily on international trade, if that ceased
due to a major war most of their population would revert back to being
poor angry unhappy peasants which won't go well for their Govt.


--
Daryl

[Daryl]

I've not really followed their story closely but if the Biloela
community are happy to support them then I don't have a problem with
them staying.
Its certainly an unusual case with the 2 children being born in Qld.
To me a child born in Australia is Australian regardless of their
parents nationality although I know that that might not be how the law
looks at it.


--
Daryl

[lindsay]

On 22/05/2022 5:02 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 4:19 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> How good is that?
>>>>
>>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>>
>>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that
>>> there was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but
>>> with a reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken
>>> for granted anymore.
>>
>> Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
>> actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around.
>> Just for something to do, mind you.
>>
>> My only concerns are
>>
>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled
>> bad there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when
>> china handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends
>> with a bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>
>> 2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead,
>
>
> we need a nuclear sub NOW. lease one from the yanks

We will need more than one, and I'll bet we will lease 6 Los Angeles
class boats from the yanks. All service, maintenance, and armament done
by the yanks. As it should be. Announcement before the end of the year.
IMHO Depending on the new Govt and their stance.

The Yanks are retiring/mothballing their fleet of Los Angeles class subs
and upgrading to Virginia class...

I'll be happy with leasing LA class until our new boats
(Viginia?/Astute?) turn up. Either way, french diesel electric subs
with lead-acid battery's (FFS! 1940's tech!) are no good to Australia.
Yes, the Collins class are one of the worlds best diesel elec boats,
atm, BUT they have very poor endurance. A few other reasons to go LA
class as well.

And for all the squealing about ship building, wether ship, or sub....

This may be a bit harsh, but fuck all this crap about building ships and
subs in South Australia. Or WA. Or NSW...

FFS, just buy the BEST available instead of being a try-hard.

Australia just built a new class of Destroyer. 3 x Hobart class. Called
an "Air warfare destroyer" Great. Can throw it's weight around. Except
it's main armament is the Mk 41 VLS (vertical launch system), can launch
a total of 48 air-air, air-ground missiles, and then it's out of the
fight. Cant defend itself as such.

The new chinese destroyers have double.... a 96 cell missile launch
system, so they are in the fight twice as long punch wise. and are
pumping them out one per year, from multiple shipyards.

And we keep squealing about jobs for shipyards. Maybe better using steel
(mayde here at some stage!) to make some decent tanks and ground defence
gear...

[Trevor Wilson]

On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 3:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> How good is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery.
>>>>> Handing it
>>>>> over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it
>>>>> *all* up.
>>>>
>>>> Monkey pox upon both their houses!  :)
>>>>
>>>>> Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)
>>>>
>>>> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
>>>> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
>>>> public servants).
>>>
>>> Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
>>> happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
>>> watchdog than the libs were.
>>
>> **That's not what they said.
>
> You should know what politicians say and do aren't always the same.

**They need to be taught. Just like any child. They fuck up - they lose
their job. Simples.

>
>  You're just making shit up.
>
> More like reading between the lines.
>
> If Labor fails
>> to bring about a Federal ICAC, we boot them out.
>
> Which takes at least 3yrs and assumes that most voters think that an
> ICAC is a major issue so its not a given.

**A Federal ICAC was one of the big reasons, voters cited. Along with
dealing with global warming.

>
>  Eventually, politicians
>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>
> Us, don't you mean you?

**ALL of us.

> You main gripe seems to be Aged Care and Labor has promised that each
> facility with have a nurse on duty 24/7 but they didn't say where they
> were going to get these nurses from, are they going to pluck them out of
> the sky?

**My main gripes are:

* Lack of real action on dealing with climate change.
* A lack of a promised Federal ICAC.

> There is a worldwide shortage of medical staff due to Covid so I don't
> see that promise being full filled anytime soon.
>
>  Multiple times.
>
> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?

**Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.

> Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
> Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does tell
> is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority disagree with you.

**Liberal? Or Liberal AND Nationals? It's not one party you know. It's a
coalition of two parties.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Agreed.

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>
>> Us, don't you mean you?
>
> **ALL of us.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.

>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>
> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.

No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?

There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
want it to go).

>> Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
>> Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does tell
>> is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority disagree with
>> you.
>
> **Liberal? Or Liberal AND Nationals? It's not one party you know. It's a
> coalition of two parties.

So what?

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 5:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 5:20 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit Trevor. We are not the world's
>> gathering point for every wannabee "refugee" who simply just wants to
>> live in a nicer country than their own.
>
> I've not really followed their story closely but if the Biloela
> community are happy to support them then I don't have a problem with
> them staying.

So let the Biloela community support them :)

> Its certainly an unusual case with the 2 children being born in Qld.
> To me a child born in Australia is Australian regardless of their
> parents nationality although I know that that might not be how the law
> looks at it.

And I think that's exactly what the parents were thinking which is why
they elected to have children here in the first place.

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 5:24 pm, keithr0 wrote:

Why's that?

[Daryl]

On 22/5/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>
>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>
>> **ALL of us.
>
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>
>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>
>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>
> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>
> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
> want it to go).
>

Very much agree, you can usually find the information if you go looking
but its far from obvious and since preferences are what decides an
election it should be compulsory to declare that information.


--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 4:19 pm, lindsay wrote:

> On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> How good is that?
>>>
>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party
>>> will move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>
>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that
>> there was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat
>> but with a reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be
>> taken for granted anymore.
>
> Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
> actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around.
> Just for something to do, mind you.

Best news of the lot in my opinion is that ugly fat ranting cunt Craig
Kelly will not only *not* be our next Prime Minister, but he's lost his
seat as well.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving pig-eyed sack of shit.

> My only concerns are
>
> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt
> light the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china
> remove a pic of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He
> got trolled bad there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his
> guns when china handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be
> friends with a bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out
> again...)

Hopefully you're on the improve.

Difficult to say how Albanese will do with foreign issues, as I get the
feeling he is seen as "weak". I dunno about China, but I read a report
on my phone this afternoon that people smugglers in Indonesia are
already selling places on boats to Australia.

> 2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
> party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still
> hear Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate
> chop in the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us
> defenceless.

Their own (Greens) defence policy is absolutely fucking useless, and I
don't think they'd be in favour of continuing the AUKUS agreement any
time soon. Fortunately for Albanese he will most likely have his pick of
who he needs to side with to form a minority Government, and hopefully
the Greens get left holding the baby.

> 3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
> offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear
> powered subs?

Labor has supported the agreement, but Penny Wong has been overly
critical of the deal claiming that it's a threat to Australia's
"independence". I'm fucked if I know how buying a bunch of submarines
from countries we've been allied with for decades and who we've bought
military hardware from *many* times before could actually do that, but
apparently that's her position and it's one that's not exactly clear.

Whether she continues to hold that view on becoming foreign minister or
whether she changes her tune remains to be seen.

> Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?

I'm not speaking for Trevor, but this is taken directly from their
"platform" web page, and lists the proposed defence policies that they
took to the election:

[quote]

> Renegotiate the US alliance to secure a new relationship focused on
> making us a better global citizen

> Pass War Powers legislation to ensure governments can’t send us to war
> without Parliamentary approval

> Close all military bases that foreign militaries have set up
> in this country

> Sign and ratify the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty

> Ban the development and use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons in line with the
> international campaign ‘Stop Killer Robots’

> Reduce military spending to 1.5 % of GDP by buying fewer guns and tanks,
> and ensuring that we have a light, readily deployable and highly mobile force
> that meets the needs of our place in the world

> Increase oversight of defence procurement by establishing a Parliamentary
> Defence Office to provide independent advice to Members of Parliament.

[end quote]

They advertise these defence policy measures as a downloadable PDF under
the
heading of "Peace, Disarmament, and Demilitarisation"

I think that pretty much tells you how royally fucked we would all be if
they have any say in how this country goes about defending itself.

> As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
> the rest of the crap is moot.

Indeed.

> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister,
> because I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because
> she's of asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i
> know how you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all
> ...!)

Lol :)

Agreed 100%

> I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine. Fair
> chance Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not
> earlier. Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He
> does that? Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs
> them, so will we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance,
> and we're next. It will all end in tears.. :-)

It absolutely will, and we have a choice to make. Hopefully the people
in power take the "soft cock" option and leave us all standing here with
our dicks in the wind.

Personally if I was Prime Minister I'd be asking the Yanks if we could
do a "fleet" deal on all the B-52's currently sitting in the Arizona
aircraft boneyard, and if it wasn't too much trouble if they could ship
them all here with a 40 megatonne load in each one. I'd then set them on
patrols 2 hours from targets inside China, and once they were holding at
their failsafe points I'd issue them with a Wing Attack Plan R order :)

[Daryl]

On 22/5/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 5:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 5:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit Trevor. We are not the world's
>>> gathering point for every wannabee "refugee" who simply just wants to
>>> live in a nicer country than their own.
>>
>> I've not really followed their story closely but if the Biloela
>> community are happy to support them then I don't have a problem with
>> them staying.
>
> So let the Biloela community support them :)

From what I've read that's exactly what they are doing.
Lots of small towns are desperate for workers so I doubt that they will
have any trouble getting jobs.

>
>> Its certainly an unusual case with the 2 children being born in Qld.
>> To me a child born in Australia is Australian regardless of their
>> parents nationality although I know that that might not be how the law
>> looks at it.
>
> And I think that's exactly what the parents were thinking which is why
> they elected to have children here in the first place.
>

I think that I read that the couple meet in Australia, its possible that
they had children to improve their chances of staying, only they would
know that.
What annoys me about the whole saga is the time its taken the Fed Govt
to get their shit together, I think they first arrived 22yrs ago,
something is very screwed up if the Govt can't make a decision one way
or the other in 22yrs.
People shouldn't be kept locked up or kept in limbo for very long
periods, the Govt should make a decision to either let them stay or
deport them within no more than 2yrs, it really can't be that hard.


--
Daryl

[Daryl]

I just read this quote from a Liberal Senator on the ABC News website.

"Liberal frontbencher Anne Ruston was the manager of government business
in the Senate and played a crucial role in crossbench negotiations
during the last term of parliament.

Speaking on Saturday night, she said the Greens' wins could prompt Labor
and the Coalition to negotiate more around policies.

"What it may actually deliver, though, is the fact that the two major
parties may just have to start working a little more closely together to
get sensible policy because I don't think Australians necessarily would
like to see some of the policies of the Greens put into place by the
Labor Party," she said.

"I think there is going to have to be a … new relationship between the
two major parties to make sure we do get sensible policy, because we can
get some pretty crazy policy if you're relying on the Greens to support
Labor."

Very interesting:-)


--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:

Hopefully.

[keithr0]

Before Spud spent $24M to put them in prison, they had integrated into a
country community and were doing useful work.

[Noddy]

Sums the Greens up in a nutshell, I think.

[Noddy]

Absolutely.

[keithr0]

On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>
>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>
>> **ALL of us.
>
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>
>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>
>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>
> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>
> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
> want it to go).

You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 9:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> Its certainly an unusual case with the 2 children being born in Qld.
>>> To me a child born in Australia is Australian regardless of their
>>> parents nationality although I know that that might not be how the
>>> law looks at it.
>>
>> And I think that's exactly what the parents were thinking which is why
>> they elected to have children here in the first place.
>>
>
> I think that I read that the couple meet in Australia, its possible that
> they had children to improve their chances of staying, only they would
> know that.

True, but many probably speculate it :)

> What annoys me about the whole saga is the time its taken the Fed Govt
> to get their shit together, I think they first arrived 22yrs ago,
> something is very screwed up if the Govt can't make a decision one way
> or the other in 22yrs.
> People shouldn't be kept locked up or kept in limbo for very long
> periods, the Govt should make a decision to either let them stay or
> deport them within no more than 2yrs, it really can't be that hard.

Often the length of time taken to finalise cases is a direct result of
the residency applicant's actions. There are *many* avenues open for
appeals and reviews and legal challenges, and each time a new action is
sought their file goes back to the bottom of the pile and they start all
over again.

[Yosemite Sam]

On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:

> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>
>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>
>> **ALL of us.
>
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>
>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>
>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>
> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>
> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
> *don't* want it to go).
>
>
>

voters control their preferences

>>> Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
>>> Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does
>>> tell is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority
>>> disagree with you.
>>
>> **Liberal? Or Liberal AND Nationals? It's not one party you know.
>> It's a coalition of two parties.
>
> So what?
>

--

https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

[Daryl]

Certainly an interesting concept, the 2 majors working together to keep
out the Greens and independents.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>
>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>
>>> **ALL of us.
>>
>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
>> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>
>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>
>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>
>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
>> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>> *don't* want it to go).
>
> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.

True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.
Even if a reasonable number of people allocate their own preferences its
not going to make much difference if the majority vote following a how
to vote card.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

Could be but 22yrs from start to finish is a hell of a long time to sort
it out.

--
Daryl

[Xeno]

keithr0 <us...@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>
>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>
>>> **ALL of us.
>>
>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
>> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>
>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>
>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>
>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
>> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
>> want it to go).
>
> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>

Indeed, that is the case and the AEC ads on tv make that clear. Even a
moron could work out how to do preference to their own liking. No one
forces any voter to follow any party’s how to vote card.

>>>> Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
>>>> Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does
>>>> tell is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority
>>>> disagree with you.
>>>
>>> **Liberal? Or Liberal AND Nationals? It's not one party you know. It's
>>> a coalition of two parties.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

[Noddy]

On 22/05/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>
>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
>> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>> *don't* want it to go).
>
> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.

Yes you can, and I always do, but most candidates hand out "how to vote"
pamphlets with people blindly following their preference "advice"
without knowing too much about it other than who they put at "number 1".

The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where they
want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out until
polling day.

[Noddy]

That may be so, but it doesn't answer the question as to why you think
they're "far better than a whole bunch that get in legally" which was
what I was actually asking you.

[Noddy]

Has to be better than the shit we have now.

[Clocky]

On 22/05/2022 9:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> How good is that?
>
> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will move
> to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.

If they don't learn (and it's unlikely they will under Dutton) they will
get absolutely obliterated at the next election.

[Clocky]

On 22/05/2022 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:

> On 22/05/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> How good is that?
>>
>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>

> I wouldn't get too excited just yet, as the "victory" is far from certain.
>
> Despite the victory celebrations on the "red" side of the house, at the
> last check of a few moments ago Labor was still 5 seats short of
> outright victory with 13 seats still undecided.

If you had been paying attention instead of parroting Murdoch rhetoric
you should know that they won't need a majority to form an effective
government.

[Clocky]

On 22/05/2022 12:49 pm, Xeno wrote:

> On 22/5/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 12:13 pm, John_H wrote:

>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> How good is that?
>>>>

>>>> Fan-fuckg-tastic.
>>>>
>>>> Just what we need on the back of a strong pandemic recovery. Handing it
>>>> over to Labor so they can pander to the minorities and fuck it *all*
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> Monkey pox upon both their houses!  :)
>>>
>>>> Get back to me in 4 years time and let's see how happy you are then :)
>>>
>>> Sure there'll be mistakes but what will change for the better....
>>> *We'll get an ICAC that can kick the arses of errant politicians (and
>>> public servants).
>>
>> Be good if we do, but I won't get excited about it until it actually
>> happens. I don't think Labor was any more in favor of an integrity
>> watchdog than the libs were.
>

> Labor was very much in favour of an ICAC with teeth. The Morrison
> proposal had no teeth and so was *rejected* by Labor.
>
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/fact-check-what-did-morrison-say-about-a-federal-icac-20220415-p5adq9.html
>

Correct. Morrison tried to spin this as Labor not wanting an ICAC when
the reality is that Morrison tabled an ineffective ICAC that Labor could
not support. Now there will be an effective one much to the chagrin of
the Lieberals.

[Clocky]

On 22/05/2022 6:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>
>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>
>> **ALL of us.
>
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>
>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>
>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>
> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>
> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
> want it to go).
>

You vote but don't even understand how the system works... in which case
you'll always be casting a donkey vote no matter who you vote for.

Dumbass!

[Clocky]

On 22/05/2022 9:10 pm, Xeno wrote:
> keithr0 <us...@account.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>>
>>>> **ALL of us.
>>>
>>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
>>> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>>
>>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>>
>>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>>
>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
>>> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
>>> want it to go).
>>
>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>>
> Indeed, that is the case and the AEC ads on tv make that clear. Even a
> moron could work out how to do preference to their own liking. No one
> forces any voter to follow any party’s how to vote card.

Something else the moron on the mesa fails to comprehend :-)

[Clocky]

On 22/05/2022 8:39 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>
>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>
>>> **ALL of us.
>>
>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
>> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>
>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>
>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>
>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
>> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>> *don't* want it to go).
>>
>>
>>
>
> voters control their preferences
>
>

<snigger> He's the donkey voting :-)

[John_H]

lindsay wrote:
>On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>>> How good is that?
>>>

>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>

>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that there
>> was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but with a
>> reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken for
>> granted anymore.
>
>Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
>actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around. Just
>for something to do, mind you.
>

>My only concerns are
>
>1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)

The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
shred of credible evidence (then or now).

>
>2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
>party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still hear
>Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate chop in
>the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us defenceless.

We're already way behind on defence (no armed drones, no long range
missiles, etc) which isn't likely to change anytime soon.

>
>3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they

>offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear powered
>subs?

Labor supports AUKUS however we'd be getting nuclear subs much sooner
if the Happy Clapper had stuck with the French who could've supplied
same. The real problem is that all parties (including the Libs) have
a ban on Australian based nuclear power. The difference being the
AUKUS subs' reactors are supposed to last the life of the sub.

>
>Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?

Rubber band guns probably! But who gives an FF since they're unlikely
to be able to form any sort of alliance with Labor after the last
experience with the Ranga.

>
>As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
>the rest of the crap is moot.

Stated Lib policy was to *increase* it to 2% of GST if re-elected.
USA spends 3.5%, Russia spends 4%.

>
>I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
>I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)

Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
Happy Clapper shafted. Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .

>
>I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine. Fair chance
>Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
>Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
>Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so will
>we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're next.
>It will all end in tears.. :-)

Your paranoia is showing. China isn't likely to invade anyone now
they've seen what's happening to Putrid in Ukraine. What China mainly
wants is economic superiority over the US, which also requires a
superior military capability. Hopefully neither will use it.

The imminent threat is Russia and in terms of history repeating itself
it's now 1938. Putrid has to stopped, the world can't afford
otherwise. Obummer blew the opportunity when the little green men
invaded Crimea.

--
John H

[Noddy]

On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:

> lindsay wrote:

>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>
> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
> shred of credible evidence (then or now).

I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)

All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.

The Chinese government getting their knickers in a twist over it just
shows the world what a morally corrupt bunch of turds they really are.

>> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
>> I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>> asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>> you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)
>
> Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
> Happy Clapper shafted. Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .

I always thought Garath Evans was half reasonable. When he wasn't
choc-a-bloc up Cheryl Kernot that is :)

[John_H]

Daryl wrote:
>On 22/5/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 5:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 22/5/2022 5:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit Trevor. We are not the world's
>>>> gathering point for every wannabee "refugee" who simply just wants to
>>>> live in a nicer country than their own.
>>>
>>> I've not really followed their story closely but if the Biloela
>>> community are happy to support them then I don't have a problem with
>>> them staying.
>>
>> So let the Biloela community support them :)
>
> From what I've read that's exactly what they are doing.
>Lots of small towns are desperate for workers so I doubt that they will
>have any trouble getting jobs.

The husband had a job and his employer has indicated it's still open.
Same applies to housing. Wife was active in the community as well as
raising two kids. Model citizens IOW, of which we could do with lots
more.

--
John H

[John_H]

Noddy wrote:
>On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>
>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>
>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>
>I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)

It's called selective perception. :)

>
>All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
>investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
>interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
>again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
>economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.

Trump was first, Morrison promptly followed. China retaliated against
both.

Morrison was up Trump's arse at every opportunity (happy snaps
abound). Even tried to get the head happy clapper an invite to one of
Trump's parties... and then lied about when word got out.

--
John H

[Noddy]

On 23/05/2022 8:48 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>>> lindsay wrote:
>>
>>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>>
>>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>>
>> I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)
>
> It's called selective perception. :)

Right. On who's part? Yours or mine? :)

>> All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
>> investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
>> interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
>> again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
>> economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.
>
> Trump was first, Morrison promptly followed. China retaliated against
> both.

I don't recall Morrison mentioning the "China Virus", or making any kind
of defamatory or racist comments along the lines of Trump's mental
rants. All I ever saw Morrison state was that there should be an
investigation into the origins of the virus so we can learn from it.

If that's all China needed to react in the way they did then they were
just waiting for any excuse....

[keithr0]

On 22/05/2022 10:48 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy.
>>>>>> It's why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>>
>>>> **ALL of us.
>>>
>>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
>>> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>>
>>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>>
>>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>>
>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>>> *don't* want it to go).
>>
>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>
> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.

Then you get the politicians that you deserve, not the ones you need.

> Even if a reasonable number of people allocate their own preferences its
> not going to make much difference if the majority vote following a how
> to vote card.

Do they?

[keithr0]

Only if you're stupid. Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards
and make up my own mind.

[keithr0]

Most hole up in ghettos of their own making in the major cities, where
they aren't really needed.

[Noddy]

That would probably include 85% of the population.

> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.

I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge an
absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit, and
have done for years.

The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
the process.

Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to be
not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first plat
the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way we
avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled the
most votes doesn't get elected.

[Noddy]

Is that so, Herr Gruppenführer?

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 20:18:54 UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
> >>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
> >>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
> >>
> >> Us, don't you mean you?
> >
> > **ALL of us.
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
> >> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
> >
> > **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.

> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?

>
> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
> want it to go).

> >> Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
> >> Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does tell
> >> is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority disagree with
> >> you.
> >
> > **Liberal? Or Liberal AND Nationals? It's not one party you know. It's a
> > coalition of two parties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not for much longer I`d reckon....Time will tell!.

> So what?

[Yosemite Sam]

On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:

agree with all that

[Yosemite Sam]

he did

> or making any kind of defamatory or racist comments along the lines of
> Trump's mental rants. All I ever saw Morrison state was that there
> should be an investigation into the origins of the virus so we can
> learn from it.
>
> If that's all China needed to react in the way they did then they were
> just waiting for any excuse....
>
>
>
>
>

--

https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

[keithr0]

At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.

> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to be
> not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first plat
> the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way we
> avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled the
> most votes doesn't get elected.

That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is by
electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has exactly
the same number of voters, there will always be a difference. The most
extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the post,
Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable electorates.

There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for instance,
you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result is
determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is needed.

[keithr0]

Ya mein Fuhrer.

[Yosemite Sam]

yes

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 22:48:35 UTC+10, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
> >>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
> >>>>
> >>>> Us, don't you mean you?
> >>>
> >>> **ALL of us.
> >>
> >> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
> >> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
> >>
> >>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
> >>>
> >>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> >> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
> >>
> >> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> >> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> >> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> >> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
> >> *don't* want it to go).
> >
> > You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Anyone that wants their vote to be allocated *exactly* as they want!. Too many treat voting as something they *have* to do, then grizzle about preference allocation. :(.
Only got themselves to blame!.

> Even if a reasonable number of people allocate their own preferences its
> not going to make much difference if the majority vote following a how
> to vote card.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, *that* attitude!. The *sheeple* approach......
>
> --
> Daryl

[Yosemite Sam]

On 23/05/2022 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:

99% of the population must be stupid then

> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>

so you're so knowledgeable about politics that you're well aware of who
all the candidates are, and their polices, that you have no need to look
at how to vote cards? congratulations, you're exceptional.

[Noddy]

On 23/05/2022 11:16 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 22:48:35 UTC+10, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:

>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you
>>> want.
>> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Anyone that wants their vote to be allocated
> *exactly* as they want!. Too many treat voting as something they
> *have* to do, then grizzle about preference allocation. :(. Only got
> themselves to blame!.

That *is* the old saying, isn't it? "People get the government they
deserve".

For the most part I think that's largely true, but then the system is
stacked in favour of the politicians rather than the people. You're
compelled to vote by law, then you're handed a card telling you *how* to
vote, but then your vote may end up electing someone you never wanted to
see in office in the first place.

In a country where apathy reigns supreme, it is the *perfect* system to
permit the politicians to control the people....

[Noddy]

On 23/05/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:

>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out
>>>> until polling day.
>>>
>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>
>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>
>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>>
>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge
>> an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit,
>> and have done for years.
>>
>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
>> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
>> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
>> the process.
>
> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.

That may be so, but I can't say I've ever taken the time to take any
notice of such things. Some people may take all the cards so as not to
reveal their allegiance in public but vote along party lines once they
get up and draw the curtain.

Who knows. The point is that *all* candidates have a preference
selection that they want you to follow, which is why they hand out the
cards in the first place, and I would imagine a fair portion of the
public follow that advice without fully appreciating why they're doing it.

>> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to
>> be not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first
>> plat the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way
>> we avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled
>> the most votes doesn't get elected.
>
> That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is by
> electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has exactly
> the same number of voters, there will always be a difference.

I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make. The
winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the highest
number of votes.

The most
> extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the post,
> Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable electorates.

Fortunately we're not the US.

> There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for instance,
> you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result is
> determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is needed.

I think ruling out compulsory voting and having IQ tests for those that
bother turning up on the day will see the country's fate decided by 10
people.

The solution, I think, is easier than most people realise. Just have a
vote for each candidate and drop the preferences. The candidate in each
electorate with the greatest number of votes is declared the winner
regardless of whatever the percentage of the vote total that number is,
and they then go on to take a seat in the house.

True democracy, as opposed to the silly "forced results" we have now.

[Xeno]

That is exactly so! Think of Springvale, Footscray, Nth Richmond,
Mitcham. What do all these suburbs have in common, apart from high
concentrations of migrants of particular ethnicities. That's right,
proximity to migrant centres where, for instance, the Vietnamese
refugees were first settled. It is, however, cyclical. Those migrants
followed waves of Italians, Greeks, Maltese and general WWII refugees.
Now you're getting suburbs like Nth Dandenong filling up with *Indian*
migrants and Box Hill with *Chinese* migrants.
My own wife is a migrant but, because she was married to me, she
directly integrated into Aussie communities aided and abetted by the
kinds of work she undertook. Did I mention, unlike a lot of Aussies, she
has never been *unemployed* in this country, even when the unemployment
rate was high. Thus far she has spent a total of 55 years in the
fulltime workforce, both here and in her home country.

--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Xeno]

You mean Darren would lose his voting rights?

[Xeno]

On 23/5/2022 12:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that
>>>>> out until polling day.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>>
>>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>>
>>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>>>
>>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge
>>> an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit,
>>> and have done for years.
>>>
>>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
>>> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
>>> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
>>> the process.
>>
>> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
>> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.
>
> That may be so, but I can't say I've ever taken the time to take any
> notice of such things. Some people may take all the cards so as not to
> reveal their allegiance in public but vote along party lines once they
> get up and draw the curtain.

HTF do you know that if, as you say, they *draw the curtain*. You, as
always, are making huge assumptions.

[Noddy]

Well then, what are you doing wasting time in here? If they're such a
burden on society you should be rounding them up and gassing them.

[keithr0]

I'll make it simple for you, for example you have 5 electorates, 3 of
them have 100,000 voters, the other two have 200,000 voters, party A
wins the first 3, party B wins the other two. Therefor party A wins the
election although party B has more votes. That's the way elections work
in almost every democratic country.

[keithr0]

You really think that 98% follow how to vote cards? As for knowing the
policies of the various parties, they have been forced down our throats
for the last few months through every form of media, if you don't know
them then you must be deaf blind and dumb.

[keithr0]

You have reliable figures on that?

[alvey]

Great stuff Fraudster! The election results from all of 48 hours ago have
shown precisely the opposite to "apathy" by the voting public. It takes a
special kind of blithering idiot not to recognise that.



alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Noddy]

On 23/05/2022 2:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 12:02 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make.
>> The winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the highest
>> number of votes.
>
> I'll make it simple for you,

I doubt it, but anyway.....

> for example you have 5 electorates, 3 of
> them have 100,000 voters, the other two have 200,000 voters, party A
> wins the first 3, party B wins the other two. Therefor party A wins the
> election although party B has more votes. That's the way elections work
> in almost every democratic country.

Where's the problem there?

Moreover, how is that worse than the system we have now, where in any
electorate if there is no clear winner with better than 50% of the total
vote we keep taking votes away from the lowest ranked candidate in order
and awarding those votes to other candidates in order of preference
until *someone* is pushed over the magical 50.01% line?

It's *artificial*. We're not electing the candidate most people in that
electorate actually want, but the one who gets lucky based on what
number people scribbled on their ballet as an "also ran".

[Noddy]

What a ridiculous comment.

So, without picking up party flyer, you know what the policy details for
every party and independent standing at the recent election where, do you?

Amazing.....

[keithr0]

So the party policies are printed on the how to vote card? As you say
Amazing.

[alvey]

On Mon, 23 May 2022 12:02:01 +1000, Noddy wrote:

snip drivel

>
> True democracy, as opposed to the silly "forced results" we have now.

One time only Fraudster.

There is no ideal voting system. FPTP is flawed in that if party A wins
every electorate with 51% of the vote and party B get 49% in every
electorate then 49% of the population will have zero representation in the
legislative arm of gvt. So a long way from true "democracy" then.

[alvey]

Have a read.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/07/which-party-has-the-most-sheeple-for-voters/

Unsurprising which party had the highest %age of sheep.

[Noddy]

The party policies are generally handed out *with* the how to vote cards.

Have you ever been to a polling booth on election day? :)

[Xeno]

Short answer; the word "apathy" has way too many syllables for Darren to
have even the slightest clue as to its meaning. And he is a special kind
of blithering idiot as well.

[Xeno]

On 23/5/2022 4:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 2:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 12:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make.
>>> The winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the
>>> highest number of votes.
>>
>> I'll make it simple for you,
>
> I doubt it, but anyway.....

I doubt it too. You're so stupid that it's practically impossible to
simplify it to the point where *you* have any hope of understanding it.

>
>> for example you have 5 electorates, 3 of them have 100,000 voters, the
>> other two have 200,000 voters, party A wins the first 3, party B wins
>> the other two. Therefor party A wins the election although party B has
>> more votes. That's the way elections work in almost every democratic
>> country.
>
> Where's the problem there?
>
> Moreover, how is that worse than the system we have now, where in any
> electorate if there is no clear winner with better than 50% of the total
> vote we keep taking votes away from the lowest ranked candidate in order
> and awarding those votes to other candidates in order of preference
> until *someone* is pushed over the magical 50.01% line?
>
> It's *artificial*. We're not electing the candidate most people in that
> electorate actually want, but the one who gets lucky based on what
> number people scribbled on their ballet as an "also ran".
>

I rest my case!

[Xeno]

What is amazing is that *you* need a party flyer to work out what a
political party is all about. That is sad, so sad.
What's more, in these times of the internet and other alternate sources
of media, it is strikingly easy to find out every detail about a party's
policies. See below.
>
https://greens.org.au/platform

https://www.alp.org.au/policies

https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan

https://nationals.org.au/policies/

https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/national_policy/

https://www.onenation.org.au/issues

https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/aboutjln

You're an idiot Darren, you truly are!
You are the perfect justification for IQ tests before voting.

[keithr0]

More than you, it would appear, I haven't done a postal vote for years.
At the booth that I went to to do an early vote, they were handing out
how to vote card not party manifestos. Anyway, it's a bit late in the
day to try and get your ideas across right at the booth, that job has
already been done with saturation coverage across all the media, and the
tons of dead tree material dropped in letterboxes.

[Yosemite Sam]

LOL

[Xeno]

Bring in an IQ test for electors, if nothing else it will stop Darren
the moron voting.

[Yosemite Sam]

yep. he does it a lot then treats them as fact

[Xeno]

Hey Darren, if you're only reading party policy at the polling booth on
election day, you're way too late to the party.

Anyway, those policies would have to be brief enough to fit on a *flyer*
and *simple* enough for you to comprehend them! Good luck with that!

[Yosemite Sam]

On 23/05/2022 2:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:

most ppl do

> As for knowing the policies of the various parties, they have been
> forced down our throats for the last few months through every form of
> media, if you don't know them then you must be deaf blind and dumb.

in my electorate there were 9 candidates for the Reps and God knows how
many for the Senate. of all of those the only ones I'd heard of via
advertising were the Libs, Labor, and UAP, and it would have been
similar in your electorate. so to even suggest that you knew all the
candidates AND their policies, is beyond ridiculous.

[Yosemite Sam]

any advertising only gives their main policies not all their policies in
detail

[keithr0]

Alvey posted this:
https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/07/which-party-has-the-most-sheeple-for-voters/

It says:

Following the Senate order a party prefers requires voters to pick up
and follow that party’s HTV card, something 27.43% of those who voted
for the Coalition as their first preference did. Labor voters were much
more independent minded — 12.68% followed the ALP’s how-to-vote card.
And just 9.41% of Greens voters followed the party’s directions. The
figures for minor parties were uniformly lower again.

>> As for knowing the policies of the various parties, they have been
>> forced down our throats for the last few months through every form of
>> media, if you don't know them then you must be deaf blind and dumb.
>
>
> in my electorate there were 9 candidates for the Reps and God knows how
> many for the Senate. of all of those the only ones I'd heard of via
> advertising were the Libs, Labor, and UAP, and it would have been
> similar in your electorate. so to even suggest that you knew all the
> candidates AND their policies, is beyond ridiculous.

If that taxed your brain, heaven help you if you had to make a really
difficult decision.

[Xeno]

That's why the *thinking voter* goes to the respective websites for the
parties of interest. The pro-active voter goes down to his favoured
party's electoral offices and gets the guff first hand and, whilst
there, airs any differences/doubts/concerns they may have.

[Yosemite Sam]

so then, tell us who ALL the candidates in your electorate were and what
ALL their policies were without googling. I'll wait with bated breath..

[Noddy]

On 23/05/2022 5:13 pm, keithr0 wrote:

> On 23/05/2022 4:37 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>>>
>>>> So, without picking up party flyer, you know what the policy details
>>>> for every party and independent standing at the recent election
>>>> where, do you?
>>>>
>>>> Amazing.....
>>>
>>> So the party policies are printed on the how to vote card? As you say
>>> Amazing.
>>
>> The party policies are generally handed out *with* the how to vote cards.
>>
>> Have you ever been to a polling booth on election day? :)
>
> More than you, it would appear, I haven't done a postal vote for years.

Good for you. As I mentioned, *not* going to the polling booth and
having to stand in line with a bunch of munts is my preferred method of
voting.

> At the booth that I went to to do an early vote, they were handing out
> how to vote card not party manifestos. Anyway, it's a bit late in the
> day to try and get your ideas across right at the booth, that job has
> already been done with saturation coverage across all the media, and the
> tons of dead tree material dropped in letterboxes.

That's all nice and dandy there Keith, but as usual you have completely
avoided answering the question by asking one of your own and steering
the conversation off into another irrelevant direction.

You made the claim earlier in reply to Felix where you stated that "As

for knowing the policies of the various parties, they have been forced
down our throats for the last few months through every form of media, if
you don't know them then you must be deaf blind and dumb."

In reply to that I asked if you knew the policy details of every party
and independent, and of course you wandered off with your irrelevant
question in reply.

So *again* I ask you. Without picking up a flyer from one of the
candidates, were you aware of the policies of every party or independent
standing for the recent election as you seemed to indicate with your
earlier statement?

For the record, I'm a regular newspaper reader and watch the nightly
news, and apart from the Labour and Liberal party ads, and the repeated
bullshit from the UAP, I never saw jack shit about anyone else and think
your claim of people not knowing must be "deaf, blind and dumb" to be a
completely nonsensical.

[Noddy]

ROTFL :) Crikey. The last great bastion of truth in journalism started
by a former failed Liberal candidate who went on a Liberal hatred
campaign and has been ever since.

Hahahahaha :)

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a clueless fuckstick like
Alvey would be a follower :)

> It says:
>
>  Following the Senate order a party prefers requires voters to pick up
> and follow that party’s HTV card, something 27.43% of those who voted
> for the Coalition as their first preference did.  Labor voters were much
> more independent minded — 12.68% followed the ALP’s how-to-vote card.
> And just 9.41% of Greens voters followed the party’s directions. The
> figures for minor parties were uniformly lower again.

Actually what it says is that they used their own "speshul calculating
program" to come up with figures that mean nothing to anyone.

Wow.