• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elaugaufein

Member
D.Lo said:
What I can't believe is that NSW Liberal party has 12 sitting member resignations due to corruption exposed by ICAC last term, plus the fucking Premier resigning, but the party has somehow come out unscathed.

Just because they put a smiley guy out front. SMH.
Click to expand...

In fairness to NSW, NSW Labor also had findings against them first , and from what I remember those findings were generally worse / more substantiated. I don't remember any of the Liberals having a finding against them that they orchestrated a scheme to abuse ministerial power for private benefit.
 
M

manipulate

Member
wonzo said:
for anyone wondering where that future alp™ leader went

CN4RBLzUEAAE2Ra.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Err, how does one directly leave a union job and become a partner at KPMG? Somebody explain this to me.
 
B

bomma_man

Member
David Cameron said:
This is not about us. It is not entirely clear whether we would suffer from increasing our refugee intake. But suppose we did. How could we possibly lose anything close to what these families would gain from being here? And how is it that our being lucky enough to be born into affluence could possibly justify not sacrificing some of that for those born into warzones? How can we talk so much about our own economic growth and yet ignore the families torn apart around the world, who come humbly to us, knocking on our door for help? Economics is important. And practical politics is important. But it is all worthless if it is not put to the service of those who need our help most desperately.
Click to expand...

.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
Coal: What can't it do?

The Guardian said:
A voiceover explains the “endless possibilities” of coal, claiming the coalmining industry provides $40bn a year to Australia’s economy. It adds that coal “can now reduce its emissions by up to 40%. It’s coal. Isn’t it amazing what this little black rock can do?”

...

The campaign claims that low-emission coal-fired power plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is “now a reality” and are slashing emissions.

However, there is only one CCS-enabled plant operational in the world, in Canada. In Australia, there is just one CCS project aimed at coal emissions in the pipeline, which may arrive at some point in the 2020s.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKp8W1jBuHw

Amazing stuff.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
hidys said:
He has a political acumen unlike anybody who has led the Greens before and without doubt was the smartest choice to lead the party.

I'm still curious to see where he takes the party.
Click to expand...
I saw him at a fundraiser in Torquay on Friday night, and he's really quite inspiring in person. Event was packed (it was some seniors function hall) and there was nothing he didn't answer fully and confidently. Heard he throttled Bolt but did not expect it to be as fantastic as it was. Can't help but think the segment would've gone for longer if Bolt thought he was "winning".

I'm just happy that with him as leader, the Greens now have a solid media presence (along with Ludlam) and a strong understanding of things like healthcare and budgeting. Di Natale even addressed the fact that when the party came up with budget solutions, they never had solid numbers to show until now.


BTW I attempted to record it on my iPhone, be more than happy to try and upload it somewhere if there's interest... and it turned out okay.
 
V

viciouskillersquirrel

Member
danm999 said:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/opera...dle-east-face-extinction-20150906-gjg9p2.html

A very dark piece of writing that I had trouble believing I was reading the further I went along.
Click to expand...
The extinguishing of Christian communities and their brutal mistreatment by a militant Muslim minority (aided, unfortunately, by the assent, indifference or impotence of the majority) is a real thing and these people do need asylum.

The idea of taking only these people into Australia at the exclusion of everyone else because they're of the right religion is doing a right thing for all the wrong reasons.

The article also assumes that the government's refugee policy up until now has been motivated by anything resembling humanitarianism.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
viciouskillersquirrel said:
The article also assumes that the government's refugee policy up until now has been motivated by anything resembling humanitarianism.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone trying to communicate to the middle about refugees starts with assuming that this is an established fact. "Stopping the boats was a great humanitarian achievement, but we should do more... "
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
I think it's kind of disingenuous and opportunistic, honestly, but it would be hypocritical of me to object to helping those in need if we can.

Also "Is it discrimination ? Not according to the law." Is freaking dodgy reasoning.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Also "Is it discrimination ? Not according to the law." Is freaking dodgy reasoning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I reckon so to. I'd almost liken it to not giving one homeless person some money but giving it to another purely because of what they're wearing. They all need help, it shouldn't be discriminatory.
 
D

danm999

Member
I personally don't think much of the argument that Christians are the only ones we can help in the Middle East because the Sunnis and Shia hate each other too much.

Very much shades of the 'multiculturalism has failed'.
 
D.Lo

D.Lo

Member
So the group that's being wiped out should not be prioritised?

The group that gets actively killed for what they peacefully believe, in multiple countries, instead of just being collateral damage in sectarian islamic wars like the displaced muslims, should not be prioritised?

The group that has no 'non-hostile to their way' of life local neighbours to flee to should not be prioritised?

Very brave article that cuts through the weak white guilt 'can never discriminate even when it will help' lefty mantra.

Yes it's discriminating based on religion. But in response to a much more horrific discrimination based on religion. It's reverse discrimination, something lefties are somehow all about when it comes to female quotas in parliament and indigenous benefits and programs. Sometimes discrimination can help more that hurt.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
D.Lo said:
Yes it's discriminating based on religion. But in response to a much more horrific discrimination based on religion.
Click to expand...

It's not "in response" to the the specific discrimination against one religion at all, if that were true we'd already have boat loads on the way. It's trying to find a politically palatable solution "in response" to a rising tide of awareness of the refugee problem. Seeing tens of millions displaced and window shopping for the ones you like is distasteful, and lets not pretend that the way listed in the article is the only way forward. Plenty of Liberal leaders have spoken up in favour of the need to accept more refugees, it's completely down to the pig headedness of Abbott that we are not.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Resettling refugees generally doesn't involve C130s swooping into hot zones and extracting them from imminent attack. Picking and choosing which group of established and verified refugees gets accepted into your pre-determined resettlement quota is unlikely to save any more lives. Sheehan's argument that ME Christians would integrate better than Muslims is only slightly less weak than his argument that ME Muslims will have an easy time resettling in the region (the Palestinians sure have been welcomed with open arms).
 
C

Candescence

Member
You'd think we'd be taking in more refugees from Iraq and Syria mainly because we're kinda responsible (along with the rest of the western coalition) for destabilizing the region. As much of a dick as Saddam was, he would have fucking crushed ISIS in no time.

Granted, the situation that allowed ISIS to flourish is also mainly because the US went into Iraq with absolutely no reconstruction plan. That, and they let Maliki rule the damn country.
 
D

danm999

Member
D.Lo said:
So the group that's being wiped out should not be prioritised?

The group that gets actively killed for what they peacefully believe, in multiple countries, instead of just being collateral damage in sectarian islamic wars like the displaced muslims, should not be prioritised?

The group that has no 'non-hostile to their way' of life local neighbours to flee to should not be prioritised?

Very brave article that cuts through the weak white guilt 'can never discriminate even when it will help' lefty mantra.

Yes it's discriminating based on religion. But in response to a much more horrific discrimination based on religion. It's reverse discrimination, something lefties are somehow all about when it comes to female quotas in parliament and indigenous benefits and programs. Sometimes discrimination can help more that hurt.
Click to expand...

It does not have to be a zero sum game, especially with the number of refugees we are talking about. It may at some point, but we aren't even close to that yet when we examine how many people we take.

As many even in the Cabinet have pointed out, past Coalition governments have increased the intake in exceptional circumstances (including Howard).

Attempting to split the political difference by picking a group certain swing voters, rather than simply increasing the amount we take, is cowardice.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
danm999 said:
It does not have to be a zero sum game, especially with the number of refugees we are talking about. It may at some point, but we aren't even close to that yet when we examine how many people we take.

As many even in the Cabinet have pointed out, past Coalition governments have increased the intake in exceptional circumstances (including Howard).

Attempting to split the political difference by picking a group certain swing voters, rather than simply increasing the amount we take, is cowardice.
Click to expand...

Yes,but cowardice is actually a viable political strategy at this point. Shorten is effectively winning by dent of a) not being Tony Abbott and b) keeping small target on anything that doesn't fairly clearly have at least plurality support. So politicians are going to operate in that paradigm. Not that I think they should be given a free pass. Much like when it comes to businesses being douchebags in accordance with the law: You don't get a free pass on playing according to the current rules of the game when you helped to construct them.
 
A

Arksy

Member
I'm not usually proud of the country my parents migrated from but Turkey has uncomplainingly accepted 2.5 MILLION people since the war began. We can definitely help accommodate more here in Australia.
 
D

danm999

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Yes,but cowardice is actually a viable political strategy at this point. Shorten is effectively winning by dent of a) not being Tony Abbott and b) keeping small target on anything that doesn't fairly clearly have at least plurality support. So politicians are going to operate in that paradigm. Not that I think they should be given a free pass. Much like when it comes to businesses being douchebags in accordance with the law: You don't get a free pass on playing according to the current rules of the game when you helped to construct them.
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike Shorten as spineless, he has at least proposed we take in 10,000 extra, rather than just shifting the vegetables around on the plate.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
danm999 said:
As much as I dislike Shorten as spineless, he has at least proposed we take in 10,000 extra, rather than just shifting the vegetables around on the plate.
Click to expand...

While that is positive, 10 000 is basically just shifting vegetables. I grew up on farm just outside what most would view as a small country town (albeit the largest one in the region). The town itself has a population of 13 000 people. These things seem like big numbers but they aren't on the scale of federal policy (to put it in perspective its 0.4% of the population of Brisbane, which is basically a rounding error).
 
D

danm999

Member
Elaugaufein said:
While that is positive, 10 000 is basically just shifting vegetables. I grew up on farm just outside what most would view as a small country town (albeit the largest one in the region). The town itself has a population of 13 000 people. These things seem like big numbers but they aren't on the scale of federal policy (to put it in perspective its 0.4% of the population of Brisbane, which is basically a rounding error).
Click to expand...

Hey, I'll take any conversation these days that has the underlying thrust of how we can do more. I'm pretty heartened to see it coming from a swathe of politicians across the spectrum.
 
D.Lo

D.Lo

Member
danm999 said:
It does not have to be a zero sum game, especially with the number of refugees we are talking about. It may at some point, but we aren't even close to that yet when we examine how many people we take.

As many even in the Cabinet have pointed out, past Coalition governments have increased the intake in exceptional circumstances (including Howard).

Attempting to split the political difference by picking a group certain swing voters, rather than simply increasing the amount we take, is cowardice.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I took the article primarily on the needs of those populations, not the strategy element, though that was part of it too.

They are the most opressed.

It won't happen anyway, too difficult an argument to make, and wouldn't appeal to anyone who would be pro increasing the intake anyway.

Elaugaufein said:
While that is positive, 10 000 is basically just shifting vegetables. I grew up on farm just outside what most would view as a small country town (albeit the largest one in the region). The town itself has a population of 13 000 people. These things seem like big numbers but they aren't on the scale of federal policy (to put it in perspective its 0.4% of the population of Brisbane, which is basically a rounding error).
Click to expand...
It's almost triple.

Take any wins.
 
Y

Yagharek

Member
I can't agree with all that article. Yes, Christian Syrians are probably a higher risk, but at this point surely there is little point distinguishing beyond which part of the country the refugees are from, so long as they aren't Sunni insurgents.

Arksy said:
I'm not usually proud of the country my parents migrated from but Turkey has uncomplainingly accepted 2.5 MILLION people since the war began. We can definitely help accommodate more here in Australia.
Click to expand...

I think if Australia were to take anything approaching that many (difficult logistic exercise) we would probably have to start sending boats over there to bring them here. I don't think we have that capability to actually carry as many that quickly.

But we should try as many as possible imo.

edit: as for the SMH article, Sheehan insists its a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. With Russia now getting its fingers in with greater involvement/backing of Assad, are we sure its not another Cold War in the making? If we go down that route maybe its time to start thinking about sanctions of the Saudi regime (ho ho ho, imagine the fallout). Saudis seem more than happy to fund terrorism through the MENA region, so its about time something was done there. In for a penny, in for a pound etc etc.
 
D

danm999

Member
Wonder if the Telegraph will accuse everybody of sponsoring a terrorist's picnic now though that humanitarian efforts in Syria seem to be the call.

Doubt it.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Haha, didn't say we should accept 2.5 million people, that would be a feat in itself but no, but we can still take more than say 10 thousand. We're talking about a country that's lost over half its population in three years.
 
Y

Yagharek

Member
Arksy said:
Haha, didn't say we should accept 2.5 million people, that would be a feat in itself but no, but we can still take more than say 10 thousand. We're talking about a country that's lost over half its population in three years.
Click to expand...

50,000 as a random number target.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Candescence said:
Greens vote in Morgan poll rises to 16.5%. Geez, the 20% goal looks more and more possible by the day. Makes me wonder what kind of vote they'd need to create a hung parliament.
Click to expand...

Greens usually overpoll noticeably , though not in a way that effects 2PP much, so I'd guess most of the lost vote is to Labor.

"Hanging" the Senate is pretty trivial for the Greens, if you get a Labor victory that isn't a land slide. The Coalition's current polling might actually be sufficiently bad to give Labor a majority in its own right but that's an anomaly historically.

Hanging the house is pretty much impossible for the Greens vote ,a) it's too dispersed and b) Labor often takes a scorched earth tactic (preferencing the Coalition) when it could happen in their seats. If the Greens start winning Coalition seats with any consistency you can expect to see them do the same thing (there's actually a tendency to do this already and frankly, it makes complete sense, for the Coalition losing a seat to Labor is muuuch better than losing it to the Greens). Between those two factors its surprising if the Greens win 1 seat, let alone enough to hang Parliament.
 
H

hidys

Member
Candescence said:
Greens vote in Morgan poll rises to 16.5%. Geez, the 20% goal looks more and more possible by the day. Makes me wonder what kind of vote they'd need to create a hung parliament.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt the Greens will be able to manage 20% this election cycle or frankly even 15%, but I think they will achieve there best result (in percentage terms) this election cycle. Keep in mind that that is a record for Morgan, I'm pretty sure I remember the Greens polling at 17% before the 2010 election in Newspoll. The reality is that these polls always overstate the results of the Greens by a few percentage points.

When it comes to a hung parliament they would have to be polling a lot more than they currently are, in fact it would have to be very, very close to the ALP. That is because their support is held mostly in inner-city areas and very little outside of that.

At this point they should focus on laying some ground work in seats like Batman, Brisbane, Fraser, Sydney and Grayndler (though those last 3 have popular incumbents and they won't be able to win those seats until they retire). Once they have calved out a few seats then maybe in a close election they might be kingmakers in a minority government.

EDIT: Well it appears I was largely beaten.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
hidys said:
I sincerely doubt the Greens will be able to manage 20% this election cycle or frankly even 15%, but I think they will achieve there best result (in percentage terms) this election cycle. Keep in mind that that is a record for Morgan, I'm pretty sure I remember the Greens polling at 17% before the 2010 election in Newspoll. The reality is that these polls always overstate the results of the Greens by a few percentage points.

When it comes to a hung parliament they would have to be polling a lot more than they currently are, in fact it would have to be very, very close to the ALP. That is because their support is held mostly in inner-city areas and very little outside of that.

At this point they should focus on laying some ground work in seats like Batman, Brisbane, Fraser, Sydney and Grayndler (though those last 3 have popular incumbents and they won't be able to win those seats until they retire). Once they have calved out a few seats then maybe in a close election they might be kingmakers in a minority government.
Click to expand...

Actually if their support was that concentrated, they'd do significantly better than they do in the lower House. It's much much better to have ~30% of the population in 4 inner city seats across Australia (assuming Labor preferences flower to the Greens) than their current situation. The Nationals have as many seats as they do because their vote is very concentrated in rural electorates. The Nationals have more than 9 time as many lower house seats as the Greens despite having approximately the same number in the Senate.
 
D

danm999

Member
Bernbaum said:
Murdoch's Courier Mail ladies and gentlemen:
Click to expand...

Guessed the content of that garbage before I read it.

"Hypocrisy of the left to attack the Prime Minister".

"It's not our problem"

"Humanitarian beacons like Saudi Arabia aren't doing much so why should Australia"

"Bombing ISIS is the best help"

It does indicate to me though the extreme right wing of politics that likes to portray refugees as bludgers and malcontents has completely lost control of the conversation when they're trying to tell you why pictures of dead children are overblown.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
Someone wrote this on Facebook earlier today:
OK so why don't we worry about housing our homeless before we start to worry about housing these trouble makers?? Seriously Australia wake the fuck up!!
Click to expand...
I want to unfollow them, but they have a really amazing pinball collection :(
 
Y

Yagharek

Member
Shaneus said:
Not like this. Given how far their priorities are out of whack, anyone with any sense has the sense to not spend anywhere near as much money on pinball machines as these folk.
Click to expand...

Maybe they can look after Australia's homeless people in their personal arcade
 
S

shanshan310

Member
JC Sera said:
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...d-with-australian-assistance?CMP=share_btn_tw

hahha shame this fucking country
Click to expand...
What the fuck seriously. I feel so helpless and it's happening in our name :(

Shaneus said:
Someone wrote this on Facebook earlier today:

I want to unfollow them, but they have a really amazing pinball collection :(
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest argument. Like we, as one of the wealthiest countries around, are only capable of helping one group of people.
 
D

danm999

Member
shanshan310 said:
This is the dumbest argument. Like we, as one of the wealthiest countries around, are only capable of helping one group of people.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, if you were ever to complain about conditions in Australia I'm sure you'd get an earful about how bad they have things overseas and that you should stop complaining.

The problem that needs to be addressed is always something else.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
danm999 said:
Don't worry, if you were ever to complain about conditions in Australia I'm sure you'd get an earful about how bad they have things overseas and that you should stop complaining.

The problem that needs to be addressed is always something else.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And once you look at addressing something else, something else AGAIN pops up. End result = nothing gets done.

= this government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
968
mansoor1980 replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
22K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
210K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Top Bottom