The Politics Thread 2017

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43041
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2017, 12:24 pm

I honestly don't see what anyone thinks is to be gained by Turnbull "standing up to his party", trying to push it through and getting punted from the top job... would we have marriage equality now?? Certainly not. Would we have some **** in charge now like Abbot again?? Most certainly.

This is bizarre reasoning by people who, as far as I can tell, are largely annoyed that the Libs got SSM up and Labor didn't and won't get the chance to get the job done.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 986
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 12:41 pm

T_R wrote: Thanks for your input, Kim Jong Un.

It was the same Labor party, champ.

And what discriminatory legislation did the Libs put through??? You've lost me.

I think they've both acted poorly. I would very much have liked Turnbull to have stood up and demanded the changes, too. I think he's been a great disappointment as Prime Minister.

But I guess I'm a practical chap at heart. Turnbull did what Wong and the Labor party could not. We have equal rights in relation to marriage in Australia as a result of the process that he went through. Was it my preferred way? Absolutely not. Can I respect him for achieving what he promised - and for achieving what the allegedly 'progressive' side of politics completely failed to manage? Yes, I can.
I don't believe Kim Jong Un would be fighting to eradicate discrimination.... but keep resorting to name calling if you must

I believe the Marriage Act under John Howard was altered to stipulate that it was between a man and a woman... basically everything that this whole opinion poll was brought in to change... so thats the discriminatory legislation Howard brought in... and the bloody Dictator didn't even conduct a postal survey!!! the hide of the man!!!

Turnbull had quite a significant advantage over Penny Wong in that he was the leader of the party and it could be argued had more influence... but lets not let semantics get in the way of you proving your point.
Nickman wrote:I honestly don't see what anyone thinks is to be gained by Turnbull "standing up to his party", trying to push it through and getting punted from the top job... would we have marriage equality now?? Certainly not. Would we have some **** in charge now like Abbot again?? Most certainly.

This is bizarre reasoning by people who, as far as I can tell, are largely annoyed that the Libs got SSM up and Labor didn't and won't get the chance to get the job done.
The point i am trying to make is that the Prime Minister, and leader of the Liberal Party, isn't expected to stand up to his party to try get this pushed through, But Penny Wong is getting absolutely slated for being in the same position minus the leadership roles...

Now i don't agree with the path either took, but if i'm going to be critical of Penny Wong for going against everything she stands for and not stand up to her own party, then i feel I should be equally as critical of Turnbull. What was there for Penny Wong to gain by standing up to Labor exactly?
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 12:54 pm

Dibbers wrote: I don't believe Kim Jong Un would be fighting to eradicate discrimination.... but keep resorting to name calling if you must

It was a reference to your desire to see parliament acting against the wishes of 80% of the population. I think you're being deliberately obtuse with this.
Dibbers wrote:
Turnbull had quite a significant advantage over Penny Wong in that he was the leader of the party and it could be argued had more influence... but lets not let semantics get in the way of you proving your point.
I think that means the opposite to what you think it does, but I get what you're trying to say. I don't question that Turnbull has more influence within his party. I don't understand why you've tried to make such an obvious point. What I've said about Wong is that she is a hypocrite - and I can't see in any way that you can argue with that.

Dibbers wrote: Now i don't agree with the path either took, but if i'm going to be critical of Penny Wong for going against everything she stands for and not stand up to her own party, then i feel I should be equally as critical of Turnbull. What was there for Penny Wong to gain by standing up to Labor exactly?
Leadership? Self respect? Principle? I note that others in the party managed to do so.

For the record, I also disagree with the path that Turnbull took.

The difference is, whatever path he took, he got the legislation through. Labor did not. All I believe Nickman is asking for is an acknowledgement of Turnbull's success.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 986
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 1:01 pm

T_R wrote:
Dibbers wrote: I don't believe Kim Jong Un would be fighting to eradicate discrimination.... but keep resorting to name calling if you must

It was a reference to your desire to see parliament acting against the wishes of 80% of the population. I think you're being deliberately obtuse with this.
Dibbers wrote:
Turnbull had quite a significant advantage over Penny Wong in that he was the leader of the party and it could be argued had more influence... but lets not let semantics get in the way of you proving your point.
I think that means the opposite to what you think it does, but I get what you're trying to say. I don't question that Turnbull has more influence within his party. I don't understand why you've tried to make such an obvious point. What I've said about Wong is that she is a hypocrite - and I can't see in any way that you can argue with that.

Dibbers wrote: Now i don't agree with the path either took, but if i'm going to be critical of Penny Wong for going against everything she stands for and not stand up to her own party, then i feel I should be equally as critical of Turnbull. What was there for Penny Wong to gain by standing up to Labor exactly?
Leadership? Self respect? Principle? I note that others in the party managed to do so.

For the record, I also disagree with the path that Turnbull took.

The difference is, whatever path he took, he got the legislation through. Labor did not. All I believe Nickman is asking for is an acknowledgement of Turnbull's success.
I've not said Wong isn't a Hypocrite, I said she was one. But so is Turnbull. If he felt so strongly in favour of SSM, why go through a postal survey and not simply do what his predecessor wouldn't and allow a conscience vote?

And Leadership, Self Respect and Principle are all traits i'd much rather see from the Prime Minister of Australia... not saying that other politicians shouldn't have these, but its a bit rich calling out a Senetor for not having these traits when our Prime Minister isn't showing any...

And I freely acknowledge that the path Turnbull elected to take is what brought about the legalisation of SSM, thats a point that you can't argue against. But I won't for one second say or think it had anything to do with his leadership abilities or his moral compass. It was plain and simply the only way he could keep everybody on side and keep his job.
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 1:08 pm

Dibbers wrote:
T_R wrote:
Dibbers wrote: I don't believe Kim Jong Un would be fighting to eradicate discrimination.... but keep resorting to name calling if you must

It was a reference to your desire to see parliament acting against the wishes of 80% of the population. I think you're being deliberately obtuse with this.
Dibbers wrote:
Turnbull had quite a significant advantage over Penny Wong in that he was the leader of the party and it could be argued had more influence... but lets not let semantics get in the way of you proving your point.
I think that means the opposite to what you think it does, but I get what you're trying to say. I don't question that Turnbull has more influence within his party. I don't understand why you've tried to make such an obvious point. What I've said about Wong is that she is a hypocrite - and I can't see in any way that you can argue with that.

Dibbers wrote: Now i don't agree with the path either took, but if i'm going to be critical of Penny Wong for going against everything she stands for and not stand up to her own party, then i feel I should be equally as critical of Turnbull. What was there for Penny Wong to gain by standing up to Labor exactly?
Leadership? Self respect? Principle? I note that others in the party managed to do so.

For the record, I also disagree with the path that Turnbull took.

The difference is, whatever path he took, he got the legislation through. Labor did not. All I believe Nickman is asking for is an acknowledgement of Turnbull's success.
I've not said Wong isn't a Hypocrite, I said she was one. But so is Turnbull. If he felt so strongly in favour of SSM, why go through a postal survey and not simply do what his predecessor wouldn't and allow a conscience vote?

And Leadership, Self Respect and Principle are all traits i'd much rather see from the Prime Minister of Australia... not saying that other politicians shouldn't have these, but its a bit rich calling out a Senetor for not having these traits when our Prime Minister isn't showing any...

And I freely acknowledge that the path Turnbull elected to take is what brought about the legalisation of SSM, thats a point that you can't argue against. But I won't for one second say or think it had anything to do with his leadership abilities or his moral compass. It was plain and simply the only way he could keep everybody on side and keep his job....
...and get the legislation passed. As opposed to the previous Labor government, who also wanted to keep their jobs and DIDN'T get the legislation passed. This seems to me to be a point you're failing to appreciate.

As Pigman explained previously, it's very likely if Turnbull had taken on the Right of the party, he would have been rolled and the legislation would not have been proposed in this term of parliament. As such, we would not have SSM in Australia now and would not until at least after the next election, at best.

I appreciate the ideological purity of your debate. I think it is a shame though that you would have risked the success of this legislation in pursuit of that ideological purity. Personally, I'd prefer to make some compromises and remove discriminatory legislation, but as I said...each to their own.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 986
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 1:15 pm

Yes the previous labor govt failed to get it passed. Turnbull did get it passed. But Turnbull got it passed as a means of protecting his Job.

So while i don't disagree that its a good thing that it's gotten through, the main premise of my argument is that i refuse to give Turnbull credit for it. Its not going to score him any political points in my book, because quite frankly, while the outcome was great, it wasn't through his efforts to fight for the legislation that saw it get through.

The comments on here i'm trying to refute (albeit convolutedly, a habit of mine i'll admit), is that while the legislation was passed as a result of the postal vote, the reason for the postal vote wasn't to get the legislation passed. The reason was it was the only way Turnbull could appease both sides of the fence and not get his backside handed to him. So no political brownie points for Turnbull in my book.
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 1:20 pm

Dibbers wrote:Yes the previous labor govt failed to get it passed. Turnbull did get it passed. But Turnbull got it passed as a means of protecting his Job. .
That is patently not the case. He has been a strong supporter of SSM for the entirety of his Prime Ministership and has regularly expressed both he and his wife's desire to see the legislation passed.

This legislation was the greatest threat to his Prime Ministership, at least during this term. There was no other issue more likely to see him rolled by the rest of his party. If his main focus was to protect his job, he would not have pursued SSM legislation at all.

I'm sorry, but what you wrote makes no sense.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 986
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 1:26 pm

It makes perfect sense. Because if he didn't do anything, Labor would have won the next election in a landslide. So he had to be seen to be doing something to help the SSM cause, while at the same time look to be obstructing it as much as possible.

If he put it to a conscience vote, he'd be seen to be going against the far right.
If he didn't address the issue, he'd get voted out by the public (or at least thats what the polls were suggesting)
If he put it to a parliamentary vote and said the Libs had to vote in a block against, he'd get voted out by the public.

The only option left was to let the public decide in a non binding vote. That way, it'd give the far right the opportunity to campaign strongly against it, and use their financial power to influence the masses. I don't think they ever thought they'd get an outright "No" result, but they were hoping it'd be close enough to continue to block it at every turn.

If he wanted to get this through, couldn't go against his party, and couldn't put it to a conscience vote, why make the public vote non-binding? THAT alone should be enough to tell you he's still nothing but a puppet for the far right.
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 1:28 pm

That's cute, but ignores the fact that the greatest threat to Turnbull is not and has never been an election - it's the right wing of his own party.

But if your argument is that Turnbull passed legislation because it is what the public wanted of him, then...well yeah, you're probably right.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 986
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 1:50 pm

Whats cute is that you're under the impression that if Turnbull wasn't seen to be doing something about SSM that his biggest threat would have been the right wing of his own party not the major swing in votes to Labor as a result of his inaction.

You keep beating the Turnbull drum for SSM. I'll take view based on his track record as PM to date, because none of what i've seen from him shows any indication that he does anything other than protect his backside.
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 2:10 pm

Well, gay people are going to start getting married in January, and they weren't until he got it down. I'll just be happy about that, and leave you to gnash your teeth over the way it happened.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43041
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2017, 2:17 pm

Dibbers is right though, all Turnbull does is make decisions that protect his own butt politically... unlike our previous Labor prime ministers who only ever legislated for the good of humanity.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 986
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 2:31 pm

The Nickman wrote:Dibbers is right though, all Turnbull does is make decisions that protect his own butt politically... unlike our previous Labor prime ministers who only ever legislated for the good of humanity.
Never said they didnt. Merely pointing out that politicians as a whole shouldnt be given credit for doing so...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22594
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 3:09 pm

The Nickman wrote:I honestly don't see what anyone thinks is to be gained by Turnbull "standing up to his party", trying to push it through and getting punted from the top job... would we have marriage equality now?? Certainly not. Would we have some **** in charge now like Abbot again?? Most certainly.

This is bizarre reasoning by people who, as far as I can tell, are largely annoyed that the Libs got SSM up and Labor didn't and won't get the chance to get the job done.
We can speculate all we like on what might have happen but overall I believe this is exactly what would have occurred. People can claim all they want about Turnbull "not having any backbone" and "not standing up to the right wing". While this may be true one thing is certain. His method was able to circumvent any power plays by those he couldn't/wouldn't stand up to. He effectively played the 'bullies' within his own party into a corner where they had little option but to submit.

Quite simply Turnbull won this battle decisively. A battle won by strategy and tactics. Not by force ....and for those who only see politics as black and white (or red and blue) I'm not talking about beating Labor. I'm talking about beating the right wing power brokers within the LNP who posed the biggest threat to this legislation.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Notaroboticfish
Jason Croker
Posts: 4134
Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
Location: Middle Earth

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Notaroboticfish » December 8, 2017, 4:17 pm

If LNP were in charge from 2007-2013 would they have passed SSM? No.
If ALP were in charge from 2013-Now would they have passed SSM? Yes, and probably sooner.

This has nothing to do with Turnbull, SSM happens regardless of who the PM is


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

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22594
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 4:27 pm

Notaroboticfish wrote:If LNP were in charge from 2007-2013 would they have passed SSM? No.
If ALP were in charge from 2013-Now would they have passed SSM? Yes, and probably sooner.

This has nothing to do with Turnbull, SSM happens regardless of who the PM is


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I guess nobody can prove you wrong can they :lol:

You really can't escape the ALP vs LNP argument can you?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Notaroboticfish
Jason Croker
Posts: 4134
Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
Location: Middle Earth

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Notaroboticfish » December 8, 2017, 4:30 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:If LNP were in charge from 2007-2013 would they have passed SSM? No.
If ALP were in charge from 2013-Now would they have passed SSM? Yes, and probably sooner.

This has nothing to do with Turnbull, SSM happens regardless of who the PM is


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I guess nobody can prove you wrong can they :lol:
You wanna dispute it lol? Can you give me a scenario where Turnbull is not PM and no one from the far right is either where SSM doesn’t pass?


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

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22594
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 4:33 pm

Notaroboticfish wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:If LNP were in charge from 2007-2013 would they have passed SSM? No.
If ALP were in charge from 2013-Now would they have passed SSM? Yes, and probably sooner.

This has nothing to do with Turnbull, SSM happens regardless of who the PM is


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I guess nobody can prove you wrong can they :lol:
You wanna dispute it lol? Can you give me a scenario where Turnbull is not PM and no one from the far right is either where SSM doesn’t pass?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Why would I bother. You have demonstrated complete tunnel vision on any political debate. It wouldn't matter what opinion I gave, what reasoning formed it or what evidence to back it up. You would simply argue against it.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Notaroboticfish
Jason Croker
Posts: 4134
Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
Location: Middle Earth

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Notaroboticfish » December 8, 2017, 5:04 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:If LNP were in charge from 2007-2013 would they have passed SSM? No.
If ALP were in charge from 2013-Now would they have passed SSM? Yes, and probably sooner.

This has nothing to do with Turnbull, SSM happens regardless of who the PM is


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I guess nobody can prove you wrong can they :lol:
You wanna dispute it lol? Can you give me a scenario where Turnbull is not PM and no one from the far right is either where SSM doesn’t pass?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Why would I bother. You have demonstrated complete tunnel vision on any political debate. It wouldn't matter what opinion I gave, what reasoning formed it or what evidence to back it up. You would simply argue against it.
Where have you proven me without a doubt wrong? On the citizenship drama? Because that is still much worse for the LNP than it is the ALP.

On this? Because I am not the only one arguing this point here


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

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22594
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 5:05 pm

Notaroboticfish wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:If LNP were in charge from 2007-2013 would they have passed SSM? No.
If ALP were in charge from 2013-Now would they have passed SSM? Yes, and probably sooner.

This has nothing to do with Turnbull, SSM happens regardless of who the PM is


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I guess nobody can prove you wrong can they :lol:
You wanna dispute it lol? Can you give me a scenario where Turnbull is not PM and no one from the far right is either where SSM doesn’t pass?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Why would I bother. You have demonstrated complete tunnel vision on any political debate. It wouldn't matter what opinion I gave, what reasoning formed it or what evidence to back it up. You would simply argue against it.
Where have you proven me without a doubt wrong? On the citizenship drama? Because that is still much worse for the LNP than it is the ALP.

On this? Because I am not the only one arguing this point here


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Didn't I just say nobody can prove you wrong. :?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Notaroboticfish
Jason Croker
Posts: 4134
Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
Location: Middle Earth

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Notaroboticfish » December 8, 2017, 5:06 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
Notaroboticfish wrote:
Northern Raider wrote: I guess nobody can prove you wrong can they :lol:
You wanna dispute it lol? Can you give me a scenario where Turnbull is not PM and no one from the far right is either where SSM doesn’t pass?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Why would I bother. You have demonstrated complete tunnel vision on any political debate. It wouldn't matter what opinion I gave, what reasoning formed it or what evidence to back it up. You would simply argue against it.
Where have you proven me without a doubt wrong? On the citizenship drama? Because that is still much worse for the LNP than it is the ALP.

On this? Because I am not the only one arguing this point here


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Didn't I just say nobody can prove you wrong. :?
They can’t because it’s correct


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

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22594
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 5:07 pm

:lol: You're a quality piece of work.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43041
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2017, 5:46 pm

Haha some of you blokes are so blinkered. And before you accuse us of the same, I voted Labor at the last Queensland election, Nocko says he voted Labor at the last federal... we’re capable of seeing both sides

But fair dinkum, some of you are just “Labor good, liberal bad” and you just won’t entertain a thought that challenges your narrow-minded view of the world
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 5:49 pm

I thought that GEM could never be challenged as the GH's leading neo-trotskyite dormroom revolutionary, but some of these guys are giving it a hell of shake.

But you'll always be the leading neo-trotskyite dormroom revolutionary of my heart, GEM.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25132
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by PigRickman » December 8, 2017, 5:50 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote:I honestly don't see what anyone thinks is to be gained by Turnbull "standing up to his party", trying to push it through and getting punted from the top job... would we have marriage equality now?? Certainly not. Would we have some **** in charge now like Abbot again?? Most certainly.

This is bizarre reasoning by people who, as far as I can tell, are largely annoyed that the Libs got SSM up and Labor didn't and won't get the chance to get the job done.
We can speculate all we like on what might have happen but overall I believe this is exactly what would have occurred. People can claim all they want about Turnbull "not having any backbone" and "not standing up to the right wing". While this may be true one thing is certain. His method was able to circumvent any power plays by those he couldn't/wouldn't stand up to. He effectively played the 'bullies' within his own party into a corner where they had little option but to submit.

Quite simply Turnbull won this battle decisively. A battle won by strategy and tactics. Not by force ....and for those who only see politics as black and white (or red and blue) I'm not talking about beating Labor. I'm talking about beating the right wing power brokers within the LNP who posed the biggest threat to this legislation.
It’s exactly how it would have played out
Even the faintest whiff of a conscious vote being called on a drafted SSM bill would have seen the power brokers turf Turnbull immediately and replace him with a hard liner on this issue

Standing up to the right wing LNP would have undoubtedly resulted in Turnbull losing his job and more importantly, this issue remaining unresolved for the remainder of this term, and perhaps longer had his successor won the next election

This seems much better to me
And again, I voted ALP last election on this very issue. I’m very pleased to see I was proven wrong to doubt Turnbull’s ability to get this done

See... it’s not that hard guys
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22594
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 7:44 pm

T_R wrote:I thought that GEM could never be challenged as the GH's leading neo-trotskyite dormroom revolutionary, but some of these guys are giving it a hell of shake.

But you'll always be the leading neo-trotskyite dormroom revolutionary of my heart, GEM.
I had to Google that.

Hate it when T_R uses big words. :evil:
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9594
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 9, 2017, 7:04 am

The Nickman wrote:Haha some of you blokes are so blinkered. And before you accuse us of the same, I voted Labor at the last Queensland election, Nocko says he voted Labor at the last federal... we’re capable of seeing both sides

But fair dinkum, some of you are just “Labor good, liberal bad” and you just won’t entertain a thought that challenges your narrow-minded view of the world
Speaking for myself this is rubbish. I have no ties to either party and will no doubt vote Liberal again. I was going to vote Liberal when Turnbull rolled Abbott, except the few months of “leadership” after the takeover showed me I wasn’t likely to get the policies I’d hoped for.

The main thing that has annoyed me in the last day or so is that Malcolm Turnbull deserves particular credit for this happening. Gay marriage would most likely have happened faster and in a fashion that more of the electorate were happy with had Labor been elected (which clearly was pigman’s belief, and possibly also yours given your vote). Mostly this was about timing, not either political party.

T_R doesn’t think this vote gets through without Labor, but derides Labor for being unable to get the vote through in the face of full opposition from the Liberals. We’re condemning Penny Wong for a few cowardly words despite voting for equality, while many of her contemporary counterparts we’re congratulating now were actively voting to block progress.

I see double standards in the way the two parties are being held to account here.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 9, 2017, 10:29 am

gangrenous wrote:
T_R doesn’t think this vote gets through without Labor, but derides Labor for being unable to get the vote through in the face of full opposition from the Liberals. We’re condemning Penny Wong for a few cowardly words despite voting for equality, while many of her contemporary counterparts we’re congratulating now were actively voting to block progress.
.
God, this is simplistic.

Labor had the numbers to get the legislation through 7 years ago. The didn't need the Libs. They bottled it, almost certainly because the ultra-Catholic leadership of the Shop Workers Union would have pulled the plug on the Gillard leadership. To quote so many of our friends in this thread, she was just worried about saving her job. The difference is that faced with the same threat, Turnbull found a way to make it happen. Was the timing a factor? Absolutely? Was the threat any less? Absolutely not. He gets credit because he got it done.

As for Wong, I despise her as a hypocrite. To come out AGAINST gay marriage and then vote for it, and then have the gall to celebrate as if it were her doing all along, is just plain revolting. 40% of Australians didn't want gay marriage. I would expect that to be reflected in parliament. All I ask for here is a little integrity in our 'leaders', and Wong fell massively, massively short. But she didn't piss off her union masters, so that's the important thing.

EDIT: I wouldn't normally reference a blog, but this is probably the best summary of the relationship between Gillard and the SDA in relation to the SSM issue that I can find. There is plenty of maintstream media reference to the issue from 2010-12 still online if you want to google it - https://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com ... ay-rights/
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9594
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 9, 2017, 10:39 am

God you’re condescending.

Labor had the numbers to get it through if they had the entirety of the party on board and support of their backers. Or the support of the opposition. Or the groundswell of public opinion that this issue was going to decide a number of seats. They didn’t have any of those things and they bottled it to save their jobs.

Turnbull was not faced with the same threat. He had 2/3 things mentioned that Labor did not. Particularly he was caught in a position where passing without a plebiscite would cost his job, and doing nothing and canning it would do the same. Maybe not as fast, but when close enough to next election he would be replaced with someone not carrying the stigma of having done nothing. So he did what he had to to save his job and luckily for him the outcome of that is something that history will judge favourably.

I’m not big on backslapping people for making the only choice they can rationally make. Particularly when the restrictions on better paths originate from their own parties and they played a role in their making.

Also, I’m sorry to hear about your basket of kittens.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 9, 2017, 10:49 am

gangrenous wrote:God you’re condescending.
:D Deliberately so. Don't personalise it.


Well, I disagree, and I think there is a lot of assumption in your post. I don't, for example, accept that the media commentary in 2016 was any more supportive of SSM than it was in 2010-12. Google it, and have a read through. I agree that it has become more so, but that is a function of the immediacy of the debate as much as anything.

I certainly don't agree that passing SSM was the safe option for Turnbull. He was much, much more likely to be rolled by his own party in the leadup to the vote than by the electorate a few years later. Seats might go from Labor to Green on this kind of issue, but very few LNP seats are going to turn on this, at least not in support of it.

If Gillard had been prepared to face up to the unions, she would have had the numbers to get the legislation passed, particularly since the Greens would have offered up some pretty attractive concessions on other issues to get it through. But that would have cut off the cash and fired up the right factions, so she was not, and did not.

And I don't understand the kittens reference. I'm quite old, and these things are often lost on me.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9594
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 9, 2017, 11:04 am

I wasn’t referring to media commentary. I agree with you in that respect. I think this has become more of a vote deciding issue with time due to people becoming fed up with politicians dragging this out over years.

I think a government with a one seat majority who is copping a caning in the polls is not going to gamble a lot on your confidence that this would not cost them seats. It’s not a few years later either, they’d want to ditch him at least 6 months out from the election. I agree he was/is in more imminent danger from the Right ousting him. But the biggest dog on the Right does not allow him to ignore the big dog on the left.

The kittens refers to your basket of kittens that Penny Wong ran over. My condolences.

User avatar
Notaroboticfish
Jason Croker
Posts: 4134
Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
Favourite Player: Royce Hunt
Location: Middle Earth

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Notaroboticfish » December 9, 2017, 11:09 am

Maybe something we can all agree on and be happy about; Tony Abbott had a net-28% favourability on the No campaign. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... poll-shows


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

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 9, 2017, 11:11 am

I don't understand why Gillard - under siege in the inner cities from the Greens - wasn't going to lose seats by walking away on this issue, but two parliaments later it was going to cost Turnbull his job. Even if I agreed that public opinion has massively shifted in that time (and opinion polls suggest strong that you are incorrect on that...I think support grew by about 4% or something...pretty much within the margin of error), Labor is far more exposed than the LNP on the issue. This seems to be inconsistent at best.

And I hate cats. It would have redeemed Penny in my eyes.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9594
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 9, 2017, 11:15 am

You’re verballing me. I didn’t say public support had massively shifted. I said I believed it had become a more vote defining issue.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15736
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 9, 2017, 11:24 am

gangrenous wrote:You’re verballing me. I didn’t say public support had massively shifted. I said I believed it had become a more vote defining issue.
Yeah, but you failed to quantify it in any way, so I was forced to look at public support data.

I believe a heap of things, many of them quite alarming, but it doesn't make them true.

For what it's worth, Vote Compass shows that this is a issue of far more importance to Green and Labor voters than LNP voters. It is much more likely to substantially influence movement of seats between those two parties than the LNP, One Nation or whatever (at least negatively - I suspect a rejection of SSM would shore up seats quite nicely in QLD and parts of WA).
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Post Reply