This is going to be good fun to watch though.
Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk
The Politics Thread 2022
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
This place is woke.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
are extremely happy today.Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk
This place is woke.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
I wasn't trying to make a partisan point, Gangrenous. It was a comment on the state of politics, that's all - I was actually thinking in terms of how challenging it is for Albo to claim any kind of mandate when 70% of the electorate wanted someone else. Tough gig.gangrenous wrote:Just like our old PM’s party without the coalition.T_R wrote:Our new PM's party will end up with about 30% of the vote.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Interesting how this will play out in years to come. Can a single party rule without a coalition to cater to splintered interests? Can a coalition continue to run well as the interests within the coalitions diverge?
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
And by the way he couldn't even control his numerous teenage rent a crowd last night during his acceptance speech he's in for a doozy.
Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk
This place is woke.
-
dubby
- Don Furner
- Posts: 34012
- Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: You have never heard of it.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
This is going to be a fun few years
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
-
gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
The Politics Thread 2022
I also wasn’t going for a partisan point. Just observing that the scenario isn’t too dissimilar to the gig ScoMo had.T_R wrote:I wasn't trying to make a partisan point, Gangrenous. It was a comment on the state of politics, that's all - I was actually thinking in terms of how challenging it is for Albo to claim any kind of mandate when 70% of the electorate wanted someone else. Tough gig.gangrenous wrote:Just like our old PM’s party without the coalition.T_R wrote:Our new PM's party will end up with about 30% of the vote.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Interesting how this will play out in years to come. Can a single party rule without a coalition to cater to splintered interests? Can a coalition continue to run well as the interests within the coalitions diverge?
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Obviously easier to claim the Nationals votes as a mandate given the formal coalition. But be interesting to consider how voters might perceive their support for the Greens in similar fashion in this case.
-
Mickey_Raider
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4393
- Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
- Favourite Player: Big Papa
- Location: North Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
That was a complete and utter repudiation of the Scott Morrison and the LNP.
Up The Milk
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
Yeah it really was.Mickey_Raider wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 10:34 am That was a complete and utter repudiation of the Scott Morrison and the LNP.
The voters sent a clear message to both the majors though. It would be wise for both to take stock of that message and lift their game. More aggressive independent campaigns are going to come on the back of this and the voters have shown now they’ll put them in seats if the majors aren’t offering good candidates and competence in the party
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
Yeah Dubby. As a comparison the past 3 years have just been delightful.dubby wrote:This is going to be a fun few years
Shoving it in your face since 2017
-
dubby
- Don Furner
- Posts: 34012
- Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: You have never heard of it.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
No, the past few years have been putrid.
Lockdowns and everything covid was an ugly era
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
I watched Sky news Outsiders this morning for a laugh.
Talk about Sunday morning quarterbacks with claims about why they knew this result was always going to happen (despite spending weeks saying the complete opposite) and also claiming the Coalition would have easily won the election if they’d launched themselves to the far right.
Talk about Sunday morning quarterbacks with claims about why they knew this result was always going to happen (despite spending weeks saying the complete opposite) and also claiming the Coalition would have easily won the election if they’d launched themselves to the far right.
-
gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
What’s the original quote? Surely ‘proudly’ is well overegging it given her circumstances. Pragmatically did it to avoid issues for her position and her party I’d believe, but not ‘proudly’ like this was actually what she was happy to support.
I have less respect for people who actively drove for gay marriage not to happen, rather than someone part of the oppressed minority who presumably judged they didn’t have the capital/power to make the change at the time.
I can certainly understand why people would be upset and disappointed that she didn’t stand on her true principles, didn’t try to make the argument for change in public, and that undermines her as a politician.
-
Mickey_Raider
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4393
- Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
- Favourite Player: Big Papa
- Location: North Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
I said Albanese would win in about April last year.
Thank yup.
Thank yup.
Up The Milk
-
gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
The Politics Thread 2022
Well you were wrong, he only won last night 
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
The question was " Do you agree with your party's stance on gay marriage?". Her reply was ""On the issue of marriage, I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious and historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear and that is an institution between a man a woman.''gangrenous wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 12:26 pmWhat’s the original quote? Surely ‘proudly’ is well overegging it given her circumstances. Pragmatically did it to avoid issues for her position and her party I’d believe, but not ‘proudly’ like this was actually what she was happy to support.
I have less respect for people who actively drove for gay marriage not to happen, rather than someone part of the oppressed minority who presumably judged they didn’t have the capital/power to make the change at the time.
I can certainly understand why people would be upset and disappointed that she didn’t stand on her true principles, didn’t try to make the argument for change in public, and that undermines her as a politician.
She was then asked if she was just 'toeing the party line". She responded ''I do respect the fact that's how people view the institution.''
She then went home to her same sex partner.
It was political cowardice of the worst kind, and I have had contempt for her ever since.
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.
-
gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
Cheers for digging that up.
Fits what I was expecting, wouldn’t characterise that as anywhere near ‘proudly’.
It’s certainly not good. But the subtext of that looks pretty clear to me as “the majority of people won’t accept it and at this stage I have to live with that or cut off my nose to spite my face”.
Fits what I was expecting, wouldn’t characterise that as anywhere near ‘proudly’.
It’s certainly not good. But the subtext of that looks pretty clear to me as “the majority of people won’t accept it and at this stage I have to live with that or cut off my nose to spite my face”.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
It reads to me like " I am a snivelling coward", but each to their own.gangrenous wrote:Cheers for digging that up.
Fits what I was expecting, wouldn’t characterise that as anywhere near ‘proudly’.
It’s certainly not good. But the subtext of that looks pretty clear to me as “the majority of people won’t accept it and at this stage I have to live with that or cut off my nose to spite my face”.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
FWIW, i dont think it's overegging it when an openly gay senator decides to go on national tv to betray her own values without a hint of hestitancy or reservation because she thought it might help her politically.
Proud is exactly how she looked on that day making those remarks. And everyone is welcome to their opinions, but mine is that the openly gay senator telling the country that she supports marriage inequality did indeed play an active role in driving gay marriage not to happen
Proud is exactly how she looked on that day making those remarks. And everyone is welcome to their opinions, but mine is that the openly gay senator telling the country that she supports marriage inequality did indeed play an active role in driving gay marriage not to happen
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
And here's the thing - it would have done her absolutely no harm to dissent...Botman wrote:FWIW, i dont think it's overegging it when an openly gay senator decides to go on national tv to betray her own values without a hint of hestitancy or reservation because she thought it might help her politically.
Proud is exactly how she looked on that day making those remarks. And everyone is welcome to their opinions, but mine is that the openly gay senator telling the country that she supports marriage inequality did indeed play an active role in driving gay marriage not to happen
"I am aware of the party's position on this and I respect the opinions of my caucus colleagues, but if I am to be true to myself I have to disagree with them on this occasion...."
No harm, no comeback.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
The Labor Party, sadly, at the time, chose not to pursue the issue, sadly terrified of being "wedged". Penny Wong was left with a choice of accepting the majority view within the party, or stepping down from her role in Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. She was bound to Cabinet solidarity. She probably took the view that it was better to work from a position of greater influence within the party, so as to change it. Easy for those who have always had such rights, who are part of the establishment and the majority, to sit back and judge those in a minority who have basic rights denied... and worse... because of who they are.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
She would not have needed to step down.. absolutely no chance.greeneyed wrote:The Labor Party, sadly, at the time, chose not to pursue the issue, sadly terrified of being "wedged". Penny Wong was left with a choice of accepting the majority view within the party, or stepping down from her role in Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. She was bound to Cabinet solidarity. She probably took the view that it was better to work from a position of greater influence within the party, so as to change it. Easy for those who have always had such rights, who are part of the establishment and the majority, to sit back and judge those in a minority who have basic rights denied... and worse... because of who they are.
As for 'those of us who've always had rights can't judge...'. Rubbish. She sells herself as a 'leader'. When a moral issue arose with the slightest risk to her political career, she bottled it.
It was rank cowardice.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
Correct. She simply could have said her views dont align with the party, or actually even made no comment on it publicly at all. And reasonable people would have understood the difficult position she was in. IN fact thats what i thought she was going to do! Which is why i was so stunned when i heard her commments. There was 1000 things she could have said or done to maintain her integrity.T_R wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 7:53 pmAnd here's the thing - it would have done her absolutely no harm to dissent...Botman wrote:FWIW, i dont think it's overegging it when an openly gay senator decides to go on national tv to betray her own values without a hint of hestitancy or reservation because she thought it might help her politically.
Proud is exactly how she looked on that day making those remarks. And everyone is welcome to their opinions, but mine is that the openly gay senator telling the country that she supports marriage inequality did indeed play an active role in driving gay marriage not to happen
"I am aware of the party's position on this and I respect the opinions of my caucus colleagues, but if I am to be true to myself I have to disagree with them on this occasion...."
No harm, no comeback.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Instead she did what she did. And im sure she loses no sleep around the fact there are some people like me who have no respect for her and never will. She's still incredibly popular so toot on i guess.
The Politics Thread 2022
Absolutely she would have had to stand down. It is a basic principle of Cabinet government. Some don’t “get it” in more ways than one.T_R wrote:She would not have needed to step down.. absolutely no chance.greeneyed wrote:The Labor Party, sadly, at the time, chose not to pursue the issue, sadly terrified of being "wedged". Penny Wong was left with a choice of accepting the majority view within the party, or stepping down from her role in Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. She was bound to Cabinet solidarity. She probably took the view that it was better to work from a position of greater influence within the party, so as to change it. Easy for those who have always had such rights, who are part of the establishment and the majority, to sit back and judge those in a minority who have basic rights denied... and worse... because of who they are.
As for 'those of us who've always had rights can't judge...'. Rubbish. She sells herself as a 'leader'. When a moral issue arose with the slightest risk to her political career, she bottled it.
It was rank cowardice.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
No, if she crossed the floor and voted against them she would be required to offer a resignation.greeneyed wrote:Absolutely she would have had to stand down. It is a basic principle of Cabinet government.T_R wrote:She would not have needed to step down.. absolutely no chance.greeneyed wrote:The Labor Party, sadly, at the time, chose not to pursue the issue, sadly terrified of being "wedged". Penny Wong was left with a choice of accepting the majority view within the party, or stepping down from her role in Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. She was bound to Cabinet solidarity. She probably took the view that it was better to work from a position of greater influence within the party, so as to change it. Easy for those who have always had such rights, who are part of the establishment and the majority, to sit back and judge those in a minority who have basic rights denied... and worse... because of who they are.
As for 'those of us who've always had rights can't judge...'. Rubbish. She sells herself as a 'leader'. When a moral issue arose with the slightest risk to her political career, she bottled it.
It was rank cowardice.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There was no vote.
She chose to come out and make public statements. There are endless scenarios where she could have disagreed without serious consequence.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
No, clearly you don’t understand the basic principles of Cabinet government. You must support the decisions. You can say what you like as a backbencher, but you don’t get to if you’re a Cabinet Minister.T_R wrote:No, if she crossed the floor and voted against them she would be required to offer a resignation.greeneyed wrote:Absolutely she would have had to stand down. It is a basic principle of Cabinet government.T_R wrote:She would not have needed to step down.. absolutely no chance.greeneyed wrote:The Labor Party, sadly, at the time, chose not to pursue the issue, sadly terrified of being "wedged". Penny Wong was left with a choice of accepting the majority view within the party, or stepping down from her role in Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. She was bound to Cabinet solidarity. She probably took the view that it was better to work from a position of greater influence within the party, so as to change it. Easy for those who have always had such rights, who are part of the establishment and the majority, to sit back and judge those in a minority who have basic rights denied... and worse... because of who they are.
As for 'those of us who've always had rights can't judge...'. Rubbish. She sells herself as a 'leader'. When a moral issue arose with the slightest risk to her political career, she bottled it.
It was rank cowardice.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There was no vote.
She chose to come out and make public statements. There are endless scenarios where she could have disagreed without serious consequence.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Mickey_Raider
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4393
- Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
- Favourite Player: Big Papa
- Location: North Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
What the hell does Kristina Keneally do now?
Retire? Another parachute?
Pretty humiliating loss to be honest.
Retire? Another parachute?
Pretty humiliating loss to be honest.
Up The Milk
-
gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
You think she could have abstained from comment without being hounded on the point at any interview? That’s just not realistic.T_R wrote: She chose to come out and make public statements.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
So, to clarify, if she has said in the interview that "I am aware of my party's position on this, and I hope over time it continues to evolve' or simply talked about gay issues of just declined to answer, or any of the thousand other non answers politicians provide every day....she'd have to have stepped down?greeneyed wrote:No, clearly you don’t understand the basic principles of Cabinet government. You must support the decisions. You can say what you like as a backbencher, but you don’t get to if you’re a Cabinet Minister.T_R wrote:No, if she crossed the floor and voted against them she would be required to offer a resignation.greeneyed wrote:Absolutely she would have had to stand down. It is a basic principle of Cabinet government.T_R wrote:She would not have needed to step down.. absolutely no chance.greeneyed wrote:The Labor Party, sadly, at the time, chose not to pursue the issue, sadly terrified of being "wedged". Penny Wong was left with a choice of accepting the majority view within the party, or stepping down from her role in Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. She was bound to Cabinet solidarity. She probably took the view that it was better to work from a position of greater influence within the party, so as to change it. Easy for those who have always had such rights, who are part of the establishment and the majority, to sit back and judge those in a minority who have basic rights denied... and worse... because of who they are.
As for 'those of us who've always had rights can't judge...'. Rubbish. She sells herself as a 'leader'. When a moral issue arose with the slightest risk to her political career, she bottled it.
It was rank cowardice.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There was no vote.
She chose to come out and make public statements. There are endless scenarios where she could have disagreed without serious consequence.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Utter rubbish.
She chose to promote the party line. Grotesque cowardice and an abrogation of leadership.
And I'm well aware of how the system works, thanks - there's no need to post your patronising 'some people don't get it' for the third time.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
Hopefully never be seen or heard from againMickey_Raider wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 8:07 pm What the hell does Kristina Keneally do now?
Retire? Another parachute?
Pretty humiliating loss to be honest.
I have NO idea why ALP power brokers are so high on her. How many times does she have to be rejected outright because the party concedes defeat. It's the old Mean Girls line - "Stop trying to make Kristina Keneally a thing! It's not going to happen!"
Putting her in that seat was absurd too, that seat was never going to rally behind a parachute candiate who looked like her and had no connection with the local community.
Last edited by Botman on May 22, 2022, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
It was a soft and cuddly Channel Ten magazine piece. Yes, she could have easily avoided the question, as she and other politicians do a dozen times a day.gangrenous wrote:You think she could have abstained from comment without being hounded on the point at any interview? That’s just not realistic.T_R wrote: She chose to come out and make public statements.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
She IS the powerbroker. She runs the Right faction and is absolutely in bed with old mate Obeid.Botman wrote:Hopefully never be seen or heard from againMickey_Raider wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 8:07 pm What the hell does Kristina Keneally do now?
Retire? Another parachute?
Pretty humiliating loss to be honest.
I have NO idea why ALP power brokers are so high on her. How many times does she have to be rejected outright because the party concedes defeat. It's the old Mean Girls line - "Stop trying to make Kristina Keneally a thing! It's not going to happen!"
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
T_R wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 8:14 pmShe IS the powerbroker. She runs the Right faction and is absolutely in bed with old mate Obeid.Botman wrote:Hopefully never be seen or heard from againMickey_Raider wrote: ↑May 22, 2022, 8:07 pm What the hell does Kristina Keneally do now?
Retire? Another parachute?
Pretty humiliating loss to be honest.
I have NO idea why ALP power brokers are so high on her. How many times does she have to be rejected outright because the party concedes defeat. It's the old Mean Girls line - "Stop trying to make Kristina Keneally a thing! It's not going to happen!"
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Oh really? I was unaware... that suddenly makes a lot more senseRe: The Politics Thread 2022
I can’t see how it’s patronising, based on what was written. In any case, I think there’s some harsh judgements being passed based on all the circumstances.T_R wrote:So, to clarify, if she has said in the interview that "I am aware of my party's position on this, and I hope over time it continues to evolve' or simply talked about gay issues of just declined to answer, or any of the thousand other non answers politicians provide every day....she'd have to have stepped down?greeneyed wrote:No, clearly you don’t understand the basic principles of Cabinet government. You must support the decisions. You can say what you like as a backbencher, but you don’t get to if you’re a Cabinet Minister.T_R wrote:No, if she crossed the floor and voted against them she would be required to offer a resignation.greeneyed wrote:Absolutely she would have had to stand down. It is a basic principle of Cabinet government.T_R wrote:She would not have needed to step down.. absolutely no chance.
As for 'those of us who've always had rights can't judge...'. Rubbish. She sells herself as a 'leader'. When a moral issue arose with the slightest risk to her political career, she bottled it.
It was rank cowardice.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There was no vote.
She chose to come out and make public statements. There are endless scenarios where she could have disagreed without serious consequence.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Utter rubbish.
She chose to promote the party line. Grotesque cowardice and an abrogation of leadership.
And I'm well aware of how the system works, thanks - there's no need to post your patronising 'some people don't get it' for the third time.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2022
I’m not talking in this one interview. If she doesn’t take a position on gay marriage as (one of? the only?) openly gay senior party member then it would have kept coming back at her from the press until she did.T_R wrote:It was a soft and cuddly Channel Ten magazine piece. Yes, she could have easily avoided the question, as she and other politicians do a dozen times a day.gangrenous wrote:You think she could have abstained from comment without being hounded on the point at any interview? That’s just not realistic.T_R wrote: She chose to come out and make public statements.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk