The Politics Thread 2017

Post by **T_R** » September 22, 2017, 8:05 am

I didn't suggest for a second that Tony Abbott was an everyday politician struggling for airtime. No offence old boy, but you've established your own little strawman there to then accuse me of making one.

No matter who you are, TV cameras do not follow people around 24/7. I saw Malcolm Turnbull walking around on the Sunshine Coast yesterday without a camera anywhere near him. It is far, far more likely that an incident like this does NOT happen on camera than does...really, that's all I was saying and I'm quite surprised that you've taken up on the point.

Quite honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » September 22, 2017, 8:14 am

Perhaps I have drawn a longer bow than I should have from your post, but I don't think it's an unreasonable reading. Referring to the difficulty "a politician" has in getting coverage I think is misleading as my impression is that at the moment Tony Abbott could garner plenty of attention at a whim. He is clearly not equivalent to just "a politician" at present.

The idea that Tony Abbott might be being followed by reporters for significant portions of the day does not seem beyond the realms of a reasonable expectation at present.

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 8:35 am

I'm curious with the benefit of hindsight and considering we're not even half way through this debacle would the posters who were in favor still be in favor of the public voting for it if we could rewind time?

Botman · Post by **Botman** » September 22, 2017, 8:40 am

Yeah I still favour this over sitting our hands until ALP. It's not as if their history on this is any better than LNP.

Penny Wong didn't even have the stones to stand up for this when they were in charge, so I don't have great faith than the ALP would do much about it either

Any step towards equality is one I want to take

Post by **greeneyed** » September 22, 2017, 8:42 am

This is what I feared happening. A divisive, horrible "debate". And it's exactly what those who wanted to stop SSM planned.

Post by **T_R** » September 22, 2017, 8:46 am

gangrenous wrote:Perhaps I have drawn a longer bow than I should have from your post, but I don't think it's an unreasonable reading. Referring to the difficulty "a politician" has in getting coverage I think is misleading as my impression is that at the moment Tony Abbott could garner plenty of attention at a whim. He is clearly not equivalent to just "a politician" at present.

The idea that Tony Abbott might be being followed by reporters for significant portions of the day does not seem beyond the realms of a reasonable expectation at present.

Well, let me help you out with that. Politicians in this country, even the colourful ones, are not routinely followed around by the media.

Hell, when they WANT to be followed around, like in election campaigns, they have to provide transport, meals etc to get anyone to do it.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

papabear · Post by **papabear** » September 22, 2017, 8:52 am

Manbush wrote:I'm curious with the benefit of hindsight and considering we're not even half way through this debacle would the posters who were in favor still be in favor of the public voting for it if we could rewind time?

When u see the result i dont see u agreeing with labor and the greens.
And knocking over the plebiscite.

When the coalition won the last election this was always going to some sort of vote or not going at all.

-PJ- · Post by **-PJ-** » September 22, 2017, 8:59 am

Totally disgusting behaviour from that muppet who headbutted Tony.

I don't know how I would have reacted.

I would have probably gone all Chuck Norris on that bloke.

Dibbers · Post by **Dibbers** » September 22, 2017, 9:02 am

-PJ- wrote:Totally disgusting behaviour from that muppet who headbutted Tony.

I don't know how I would have reacted.

I would have probably gone all Chuck Norris on that bloke.

Yes I agree. Not helping the cause at all either..

Although, a small part of me is a little envious... I'd love to smack some sense in the bloke over numerous issues, not just this one... but i digress

Wiggy · Post by **Wiggy** » September 22, 2017, 9:04 am

T_R wrote:And now, there are reports that some SSM supporter has head butted the former PM.

Seriously, are they TRYING to lose this?

Wait, the entire 'Yes' campaign are responsible for a crazy person? How is that fair?

reptar · Post by **reptar** » September 22, 2017, 9:09 am

It was in Tasmania, so was it the left or right head?

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 9:20 am

papabear wrote:
Manbush wrote:I'm curious with the benefit of hindsight and considering we're not even half way through this debacle would the posters who were in favor still be in favor of the public voting for it if we could rewind time?
When u see the result i dont see u agreeing with labor and the greens.
And knocking over the plebiscite.

When the coalition won the last election this was always going to some sort of vote or not going at all.

Depends on the results, support is dropping as people are buying the fear mongering and fallacies instead of the actual issue itself.

Even if the yes gets up it still won't be enacted till next year, so I don't think all the hate and division which will have lasting effects will be worth not waiting 12months, not to mention we haven't seen the possible additions the LNP could put in place.

Post by **T_R** » September 22, 2017, 9:27 am

Wiggy wrote:
T_R wrote:And now, there are reports that some SSM supporter has head butted the former PM.

Seriously, are they TRYING to lose this?

Wait, the entire 'Yes' campaign are responsible for a crazy person? How is that fair?

Read back, Wiggy

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 9:30 am

The "no" are definitely winning media saturation.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... MP=soc_567

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 10:03 am

Am so skeptical of Abbott's claim, the area is supposedly well populated with a lot of CCTV, he only lodged a complaint after police contacted him about it, no evidence of marks and a very light description except a "yes" badge. Would crack me up if this game back false and he was charged.

The Nickman · Post by **The Nickman** » September 22, 2017, 10:27 am

I've been fearful all along that the NO vote will either get up or it'll be too close to be significant, and I'm still pretty confident of that

Mainly because a) people are *****, and now b) all of a sudden the bigots and the racists who are pushing the NO vote so hard are all crying foul that they're being called as **** bigots and racists so now apparently other folk are siding with the **** bigots and the racists to protect their **** right to carry on like **** bigoted racist ***** with their absolute **** Bull

Democracy just doesn't work. Too many **** ***** pushing absolutely **** horrible **** agendas grounded in nothing but bigotry and fear, as we've seen here in this very forum

**** em all

Post by **T_R** » September 22, 2017, 10:29 am

The Nickman wrote:I've been fearful all along that the NO vote will either get up or it'll be too close to be significant, and I'm still pretty confident of that

Mainly because a) people are ****, and now b) all of a sudden the bigots and the racists who are pushing the NO vote so hard are all crying foul that they're being called as **** bigots and racists so now apparently other folk are siding with the **** bigots and the racists to protect their **** right to carry on like **** bigoted racist **** with their absolute **** Bull

Democracy just doesn't work. Too many **** ****

Every time you post like this, you further legitimise their claims

Post by **dubby** » September 22, 2017, 10:29 am

You ok nickman? Serious question. You're not normally angry.

The Nickman · Post by **The Nickman** » September 22, 2017, 10:31 am

I'm pissed off with absolute ***** derailing this thing to make it something it's not about, yes I am angry

Toviii · Post by **Toviii** » September 22, 2017, 10:31 am

God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

The Nickman · Post by **The Nickman** » September 22, 2017, 10:34 am

Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted ****

Post by **dubby** » September 22, 2017, 10:57 am

I know you're angry right now mate, but it's a little presumptuous to assume all No voters are bigots.
There are gay people who are voting no.....

reptar · Post by **reptar** » September 22, 2017, 11:00 am

Gay people can be bigots too...

Northern Raider · Post by **Northern Raider** » September 22, 2017, 11:01 am

The Nickman wrote:
Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted piece of ****

Citing extreme cases of one side and painting them all with the same brush is about as unfair as it gets. There are a large contingent on the 'No' side based on legitimate religious beliefs. While I don't agree with them I can at least accept their opinion as valid. To brand everybody on the 'No' side as ignorant bigots is very poor form and equally discriminatory. The more people do this the more they damage the 'Yes' campaign.

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 11:03 am

dubby wrote:I know you're angry right now mate, but it's a little presumptuous to assume all No voters are bigots.
There are gay people who are voting no.....

With the benefit of history and hindsight would you say those that were against interracial marriage were racist, those against women voting sexist deep down whether they realized it or not?

Post by **T_R** » September 22, 2017, 11:06 am

The Nickman wrote:
Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted piece of ****

Seems to me that you're creeping into bigot territory yourself.

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 11:07 am

Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote:
Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted piece of ****
Citing extreme cases of one side and painting them all with the same brush is about as unfair as it gets. There are a large contingent on the 'No' side based on legitimate religious beliefs. While I don't agree with them I can at least accept their opinion as valid. To brand everybody on the 'No' side as ignorant bigots is very poor form and equally discriminatory. The more people do this the more they damage the 'Yes' campaign.

I'm leaving that alone way too easy and cheap

The only thing I'll say on it is in a secular nation it is not a legitimate reason, same as religious beliefs were not valid against abolishing slavery or against interracial marriage.

Northern Raider · Post by **Northern Raider** » September 22, 2017, 11:10 am

Manbush wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote:
Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted piece of ****
Citing extreme cases of one side and painting them all with the same brush is about as unfair as it gets. There are a large contingent on the 'No' side based on legitimate religious beliefs. While I don't agree with them I can at least accept their opinion as valid. To brand everybody on the 'No' side as ignorant bigots is very poor form and equally discriminatory. The more people do this the more they damage the 'Yes' campaign.
I'm leaving that alone way too easy and cheap

The only thing I'll say on it is in a secular nation it is not a legitimate reason, same as religious beliefs were not valid against abolishing slavery or against interracial marriage.

What a load of rubbish.

Dibbers · Post by **Dibbers** » September 22, 2017, 11:13 am

Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote:
Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted piece of ****
Citing extreme cases of one side and painting them all with the same brush is about as unfair as it gets. There are a large contingent on the 'No' side based on legitimate religious beliefs. While I don't agree with them I can at least accept their opinion as valid. To brand everybody on the 'No' side as ignorant bigots is very poor form and equally discriminatory. The more people do this the more they damage the 'Yes' campaign.

I think that's where the majority on here don't agree. Religious beliefs and the Law should be separate for a lot of people (myself included). If this was an issue that affected how a religious organisation operated, then that reasoning would be valid, but its not. Its about how marriage is recognised under australian law, not by religions.

The thing that gets me is that religions don't recognise marriages that have been performed outside of a church anyway, so I can't see their argument. If they believe that the LGBTI community getting married is against God, then accept the fact that these people will, in their opinion, burn in eternal hellfire and that heaven won't be as crowded.

Fact is, these people will be living in "sin" regardless of whether they're legally married or not. For most of the religious crowd (and apologies if you're part of that crowd and not of this opinion) its about the word "marriage" being applied to LGBTI people.

This argument is stupid IMO. Its a word with differing meanings in differing contexts. Catholics call a wafer "bread", its not bread, but in the context of Holy Communion it is...

Now if Religions want a monopoly on the word "Marriage" then thats a separate argument. And quite frankly, i'm starting to doubt whether Priests should be able to ratify a "Marriage" under Australian law. If only the religious "Marriage" is right to them, thats fine. But then everyone who enters this arrangement should have to go to a registry and be "Joined" in accordance with Australian Law, because the Church and the State are separate, and if Religious organisations can't accept that the word has a different meaning between the 2, they should only be allowed to perform the religious aspect of Marriage, and only the state should be able to perform the Civil part. Its a stupid outcome sure, but it people are arguing over semantics and the meaning of a word and who has the right to define what that word means, then responsibility of performing the 2 different "Marriages" should be divided...

Just my opinion anyway.

Wiggy · Post by **Wiggy** » September 22, 2017, 11:17 am

I don't believe that religious belief is a legitimate reason to justify infringing on others rights.

I respect that I can't force a minister to recognize a gay couples marriage (nor do I want to), because that would infringe on the ministers rights.

Live and let live. Two men being recognized by the government as "married" does not effect the religious.

The Nickman · Post by **The Nickman** » September 22, 2017, 11:20 am

Wiggy wrote:I don't believe that religious belief is a legitimate reason to justify infringing on others rights.

It's not. And where the hell do people get off thinking they have the right to based on their ridiculous, outdated belief systems anyway?

It's hypocrisy at its finest that an organisation that's spent the better part of the last century covering up child abuse feels it has the moral fortitude to impose their rights on the rest of us.

It would be almost laughable if they weren't horribly discriminating against a section of our society. Oh yeah, and "but god hates homosexuals" just doesn't cut it for me anymore.

Northern Raider · Post by **Northern Raider** » September 22, 2017, 11:20 am

Dibbers wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote:
Toviii wrote:God this whole survey makes me so mad. The main arguments I've heard used by the 'No Campaign' are deeply offensive and distressing for the LGBTI community. Not to mention the years of violence propagated against the LGBTI community - including during this period. Yet a bit of social media backlash, and one ex-PM allegedly getting a very very minor swollen lip, and suddenly the Yes vote are the ones doing themselves a disservice. I think the standards expected for those fighting for their basic human rights in this debate are a bit ridiculous frankly.

Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
It's ridiculous the amount of people saying they won't vote or will vote NO now because a bunch of bigots and racists have hurt feelings.

I'm with Pig on this one, I don't think anyone is changing their vote, they're just justifying as they've still never had a legitimate reason to vote NO other than they're a bigoted piece of ****
Citing extreme cases of one side and painting them all with the same brush is about as unfair as it gets. There are a large contingent on the 'No' side based on legitimate religious beliefs. While I don't agree with them I can at least accept their opinion as valid. To brand everybody on the 'No' side as ignorant bigots is very poor form and equally discriminatory. The more people do this the more they damage the 'Yes' campaign.
I think that's where the majority on here don't agree. Religious beliefs and the Law should be separate for a lot of people (myself included). If this was an issue that affected how a religious organisation operated, then that reasoning would be valid, but its not. Its about how marriage is recognised under australian law, not by religions.

The thing that gets me is that religions don't recognise marriages that have been performed outside of a church anyway, so I can't see their argument. If they believe that the LGBTI community getting married is against God, then accept the fact that these people will, in their opinion, burn in eternal hellfire and that heaven won't be as crowded.

Fact is, these people will be living in "sin" regardless of whether they're legally married or not. For most of the religious crowd (and apologies if you're part of that crowd and not of this opinion) its about the word "marriage" being applied to LGBTI people.

This argument is stupid IMO. Its a word with differing meanings in differing contexts. Catholics call a wafer "bread", its not bread, but in the context of Holy Communion it is...

Now if Religions want a monopoly on the word "Marriage" then thats a separate argument. And quite frankly, i'm starting to doubt whether Priests should be able to ratify a "Marriage" under Australian law. If only the religious "Marriage" is right to them, thats fine. But then everyone who enters this arrangement should have to go to a registry and be "Joined" in accordance with Australian Law, because the Church and the State are separate, and if Religious organisations can't accept that the word has a different meaning between the 2, they should only be allowed to perform the religious aspect of Marriage, and only the state should be able to perform the Civil part. Its a stupid outcome sure, but it people are arguing over semantics and the meaning of a word and who has the right to define what that word means, then responsibility of performing the 2 different "Marriages" should be divided...

Just my opinion anyway.

I totally agree with all that. The point I was making is people who don't see it that was should not be immediately branded as bigots.

As I posted earlier, this whole debate is too much about semantics in use of the word "marriage". Change the law so any form of legally recognised civil union holds exactly the same rights as a marriage. Let people call it whatever that like after that.

The Nickman · Post by **The Nickman** » September 22, 2017, 11:21 am

Or just let them get **** married!

Northern Raider · Post by **Northern Raider** » September 22, 2017, 11:22 am

The Nickman wrote:Or just let them get **** married!

...so you can create the argument currently raging.

Manbush · Post by **Manbush** » September 22, 2017, 11:23 am

Northern Raider wrote: What a load of rubbish.

So you think religious belief was a legitimate reason to fight against the abolition of slavery and fight against interracial marriage?

"Cloaking your bigotry in religion doesn't make it any less bigoted. And calling you out on your bigotry isn't persecution, it's accountability." ~ David Silverman