The Politics Thread 2024

[papabear]

I don't think anyone should be obligated to respect every opinion
As an example if you tell me vaccines cause autism or the earth is flat or that 9/11 was an inside job and jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams, I'm not going to give that opinion a single ounce of respect and I am going to think and probably say that you're an idiot.... actually in the last case, I'll probably ask you to provide more detail so I get a good laugh out of the sheer insanity of it all... love me a 9/11 truther … but my entertainment aside, I don't respect that opinion and nor should I.

That’s how I feel about people who tell me Andrew Johns is not the GOAT.

I didn’t know these people existed…

[gerg]

To me that’s all well and good. But there’s a line beyond which it’s wasted.

Given I’m not going to convince them, I’m going to let them know I think they’re a ****. Yeah they’ll probably push back and that won’t help either. But I think it’s probably still significantly better than the kid gloves and allowing the charade of them holding a reasonable view to continue.

It’s not really a charade more just a bit more decency, like if ur at the pub and someone is a maga, doesn’t mean you pop off at them and challenge them to a physical or mouthy duel, if it means that much to you just explain why you think their position isn’t particularly strong.

No. If you're at a pub and there is somebody you cannot stand, whether it's because of their opinions or behaviour you can leave or simply ignore them. But if it's a good pub and you enjoy the company of the majority of the other patrons you'd be happy to just ignore them. Thankfully this site has an ignore function, however it doesn't work with moderators.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[gerg]

I don't think anyone should be obligated to respect every opinion
As an example if you tell me vaccines cause autism or the earth is flat or that 9/11 was an inside job and jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams, I'm not going to give that opinion a single ounce of respect and I am going to think and probably say that you're an idiot.... actually in the last case, I'll probably ask you to provide more detail so I get a good laugh out of the sheer insanity of it all... love me a 9/11 truther … but my entertainment aside, I don't respect that opinion and nor should I.

That’s how I feel about people who tell me Andrew Johns is not the GOAT.

Cameron Smith is the GOAT. I hated his wrestling and game manipulation through the ref's but he was the best player in the game for a longer stretch than Johns was.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[samvucago]

I don't think anyone should be obligated to respect every opinion
As an example if you tell me vaccines cause autism or the earth is flat or that 9/11 was an inside job and jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams, I'm not going to give that opinion a single ounce of respect and I am going to think and probably say that you're an idiot.... actually in the last case, I'll probably ask you to provide more detail so I get a good laugh out of the sheer insanity of it all... love me a 9/11 truther … but my entertainment aside, I don't respect that opinion and nor should I.

That’s how I feel about people who tell me Andrew Johns is not the GOAT.

Cameron Smith is the GOAT. I hated his wrestling and game manipulation through the ref's but he was the best player in the game for a longer stretch than Johns was.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

You can make a case either way for both. Both great players. I maintain that Nathan Cleary is better than both of them. Love a GOAT argument.

[Botman]

Johns isnt even the GOAT halfback
Very sad to see RL tragic's who apparently never saw Cameron Smith play football

[gangrenous]

To me that’s all well and good. But there’s a line beyond which it’s wasted.

Given I’m not going to convince them, I’m going to let them know I think they’re a ****. Yeah they’ll probably push back and that won’t help either. But I think it’s probably still significantly better than the kid gloves and allowing the charade of them holding a reasonable view to continue.

It’s not really a charade more just a bit more decency, like if ur at the pub and someone is a maga, doesn’t mean you pop off at them and challenge them to a physical or mouthy duel, if it means that much to you just explain why you think their position isn’t particularly strong.

The charade is that their view is something that could be supported by anyone with more than half a brain. I’m sick of the new age “both sides” Bull and people thinking they have a right to ridiculous opinions and not be called a **** idiot for it.

[samvucago]

What's the story with Paul Keating?

Just another egotistical ex-PM trying to stay relevant. Paul Keating was a great treasurer in a good Hawke govt. Terrible PM, horrible human.

[Dr Zaius]

Trump calling Kevin Rudd "nasty" and "not the brightest bulb".

Political commentators saying that he is only 50% correct.

[Mickey_Raider]

Trump calling Kevin Rudd "nasty" and "not the brightest bulb".

Political commentators saying that he is only 50% correct.

One thing I find about jarring about Trump is the complete and utter lack of any subtlety or intellectual wit on display.

When he is unloading on someone, which happens often because his whole schtick is predicated on grievance, there is never any deeper meaning behind his attacks.

It is like his attacks are workshopped by a bunch of 8 year olds and usually are no more nuanced than mocking them for their appearance or some other physical trait. To the adoring cheers of his legions of moronic supporters.

Just an empty vessel of a man with constitutionally comprised of narcissism, sycophancy and nastiness. An odd mix to be sure.

[Dr Zaius]

He is very childish.

[papabear]

Johns isnt even the GOAT halfback
Very sad to see RL tragic's who apparently never saw Cameron Smith play football

Andrew John’s was the best player I have seen play and tbh for me it isn’t even particularly close. Easy the best half… honestly I don’t like the guy and I don’t like Newcastle.

But he managed games exteremely well, his kicking superb (both long and short) passing superb, running superb and defence superb.

Some qlders tried to argue Lockyer was better than him, that is how deranged qlders opinions of players are. If Lockyer played for Newcastle (instead of Andrew) they don’t win premiership and way less games.

Conversely if Andrew plays for the broncos (in Lockyer’s spot) maybe not at fb, but they pretty much win every year…

Cameron smith probably has the most decorated career. But it will be interesting to see how nathan clearys career ends.

[papabear]

To me that’s all well and good. But there’s a line beyond which it’s wasted.

Given I’m not going to convince them, I’m going to let them know I think they’re a ****. Yeah they’ll probably push back and that won’t help either. But I think it’s probably still significantly better than the kid gloves and allowing the charade of them holding a reasonable view to continue.

It’s not really a charade more just a bit more decency, like if ur at the pub and someone is a maga, doesn’t mean you pop off at them and challenge them to a physical or mouthy duel, if it means that much to you just explain why you think their position isn’t particularly strong.

The charade is that their view is something that could be supported by anyone with more than half a brain. I’m sick of the new age “both sides” Bull and people thinking they have a right to ridiculous opinions and not be called a **** idiot for it.

You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.

I don’t see it as a this side or not this side thing.

I agree with all different political parties / candidates across different policy issues and some more than others. But for me you are not on my side or on the other side, you are just another fellow raiders supporter sharing his opinion. Some I agree with, some I don’t..

[samvucago]

Johns isnt even the GOAT halfback
Very sad to see RL tragic's who apparently never saw Cameron Smith play football

Andrew John’s was the best player I have seen play and tbh for me it isn’t even particularly close. Easy the best half… honestly I don’t like the guy and I don’t like Newcastle.

But he managed games exteremely well, his kicking superb (both long and short) passing superb, running superb and defence superb.

Some qlders tried to argue Lockyer was better than him, that is how deranged qlders opinions of players are. If Lockyer played for Newcastle (instead of Andrew) they don’t win premiership and way less games.

Conversely if Andrew plays for the broncos (in Lockyer’s spot) maybe not at fb, but they pretty much win every year…

Cameron smith probably has the most decorated career. But it will be interesting to see how nathan clearys career ends.

That is really harsh on Lockyer. He was very very good in pressure situations and iced many big moments . If he was in the 6 either with or without Johns at Newcastle they would have won more than 1.5 comps.
IMO Smith won a lot because he controlled and managed very good rosters/teams that he was a part of.

[Botman]

Johns isnt even the GOAT halfback
Very sad to see RL tragic's who apparently never saw Cameron Smith play football

Andrew John’s was the best player I have seen play and tbh for me it isn’t even particularly close. Easy the best half… honestly I don’t like the guy and I don’t like Newcastle.

With all due respect, you are outside your mind. Not even the best half back of the modern era... he's certainly behind JT, probably Cronk and when it's all said and done Cleary in all likelihood too.
Least of all to consider the real GOAT Cam Smith and others.

Johns is a great player. One of the best to ever lace a boot. Being one of the best 7-12ish players to ever play our great game is no shame.

[gangrenous]

To me that’s all well and good. But there’s a line beyond which it’s wasted.

Given I’m not going to convince them, I’m going to let them know I think they’re a ****. Yeah they’ll probably push back and that won’t help either. But I think it’s probably still significantly better than the kid gloves and allowing the charade of them holding a reasonable view to continue.

It’s not really a charade more just a bit more decency, like if ur at the pub and someone is a maga, doesn’t mean you pop off at them and challenge them to a physical or mouthy duel, if it means that much to you just explain why you think their position isn’t particularly strong.

The charade is that their view is something that could be supported by anyone with more than half a brain. I’m sick of the new age “both sides” Bull and people thinking they have a right to ridiculous opinions and not be called a **** idiot for it.

You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.

I don’t see it as a this side or not this side thing.

I agree with all different political parties / candidates across different policy issues and some more than others. But for me you are not on my side or on the other side, you are just another fellow raiders supporter sharing his opinion. Some I agree with, some I don’t..

I suppose I should look at what my issue is with murder as well, so it doesn’t bring me negativity? What kind of line of reasoning is that? No effort to argue that the thing isn’t actually negative, just a “that’s a problem with you”?

On the “sides” thing you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t talking to political sides, but presenting opposing views on a topic to be seen as balanced and treating them as equally valid. Particularly when someone is espousing an objectively stupid view (like climate change isn’t real), that shouldn’t be given any respect.

[Mr Squiggle]

To me that’s all well and good. But there’s a line beyond which it’s wasted.

Given I’m not going to convince them, I’m going to let them know I think they’re a ****. Yeah they’ll probably push back and that won’t help either. But I think it’s probably still significantly better than the kid gloves and allowing the charade of them holding a reasonable view to continue.

It’s not really a charade more just a bit more decency, like if ur at the pub and someone is a maga, doesn’t mean you pop off at them and challenge them to a physical or mouthy duel, if it means that much to you just explain why you think their position isn’t particularly strong.

The charade is that their view is something that could be supported by anyone with more than half a brain. I’m sick of the new age “both sides” Bull and people thinking they have a right to ridiculous opinions and not be called a **** idiot for it.

You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.

I don’t see it as a this side or not this side thing.

I agree with all different political parties / candidates across different policy issues and some more than others. But for me you are not on my side or on the other side, you are just another fellow raiders supporter sharing his opinion. Some I agree with, some I don’t..

I suppose I should look at what my issue is with murder as well, so it doesn’t bring me negativity? What kind of line of reasoning is that? No effort to argue that the thing isn’t actually negative, just a “that’s a problem with you”?

On the “sides” thing you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t talking to political sides, but presenting opposing views on a topic to be seen as balanced and treating them as equally valid. Particularly when someone is espousing an objectively stupid view (like climate change isn’t real), that shouldn’t be given any respect.

Who decides what is a stupid view? I think climate change is obvious and that buying a Tesla and eating lab grown GMO food is not the solution. Is my view stupid?

[papabear]

To me that’s all well and good. But there’s a line beyond which it’s wasted.

Given I’m not going to convince them, I’m going to let them know I think they’re a ****. Yeah they’ll probably push back and that won’t help either. But I think it’s probably still significantly better than the kid gloves and allowing the charade of them holding a reasonable view to continue.

It’s not really a charade more just a bit more decency, like if ur at the pub and someone is a maga, doesn’t mean you pop off at them and challenge them to a physical or mouthy duel, if it means that much to you just explain why you think their position isn’t particularly strong.

The charade is that their view is something that could be supported by anyone with more than half a brain. I’m sick of the new age “both sides” Bull and people thinking they have a right to ridiculous opinions and not be called a **** idiot for it.

You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.

I don’t see it as a this side or not this side thing.

I agree with all different political parties / candidates across different policy issues and some more than others. But for me you are not on my side or on the other side, you are just another fellow raiders supporter sharing his opinion. Some I agree with, some I don’t..

I suppose I should look at what my issue is with murder as well, so it doesn’t bring me negativity? What kind of line of reasoning is that? No effort to argue that the thing isn’t actually negative, just a “that’s a problem with you”?

On the “sides” thing you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t talking to political sides, but presenting opposing views on a topic to be seen as balanced and treating them as equally valid. Particularly when someone is espousing an objectively stupid view (like climate change isn’t real), that shouldn’t be given any respect.

Ok on the views thing, somethings are more subjective then others…

2+2=4 if someone said it’s 5, they are objectively measurably incorrect. You still don’t need to say you’re an idiot it’s 4. You make the same point better by saying it’s 4.

As things become even more subjective the insult becomes even more jarring and makes a counter point(that would have been stronger) even less persuasive.

Obviously I don’t think all views are equal …that’s a ridiculous position.. but you shouldn’t be rude/mean / personally insulting to some people just on their political view..

[gangrenous]

If a person says 2 + 2 = 5, and you say “no, it’s 4”, then they want to have a discussion about how it’s actually 5 - that’s where I’m calling them an idiot and saying it’s ridiculous to treat their view with respect.

Someone supporting Trump now after 10 years of seeing who he is loud and clear. That’s not a difference of opinion. You’re an idiot and there’s no point discussing or showing respect because what evidence will sway you beyond watching a guy incite an insurrection?

A political difference of opinion is “I think the dole should be lower” and “you think it should be higher”. Not “I’m going to support this guy who gets people killed because he tantrums when he loses an election” and “I’m against raving lunatics that threaten democracy as president”.

[Dr Zaius]

Another disappointing David McWilliams podcast this week. This time their discussion of the US Congress' bipartisan passing a bill to potentially ban TikTok.

They painted it as essentially a money grab by Google and Meta.

They never actually mentioned the rationale behind the bill, the concern that it is a Chinese owned company and the potential the Chinese National Security Act could see it weapomised. Not once.

Pretty disappointing again.

[papabear]

If a person says 2 + 2 = 5, and you say “no, it’s 4”, then they want to have a discussion about how it’s actually 5 - that’s where I’m calling them an idiot and saying it’s ridiculous to treat their view with respect.

Someone supporting Trump now after 10 years of seeing who he is loud and clear. That’s not a difference of opinion. You’re an idiot and there’s no point discussing or showing respect because what evidence will sway you beyond watching a guy incite an insurrection?

A political difference of opinion is “I think the dole should be lower” and “you think it should be higher”. Not “I’m going to support this guy who gets people killed because he tantrums when he loses an election” and “I’m against raving lunatics that threaten democracy as president”.

The point of the 2+2=4 was to differentiate objective views with subjective ones with political views being more so in the latter camp.

Eitherway, if you don’t think an opinion is worth your time to put a cohesive or comprehensive argument against just go with:-

1- you are wrong
2- don’t respond, it’s not worth it.

Once you drop the your an idiot / any other personal insult it says more about you then the opposition point of view.

[gerg]

For some strange reason people in the US, and apparently all over the world - as evidenced by this thread - feel a connection to Trump and what he stands for. They think he represents or speaks for them. But make no mistake, and I don't say this lightly because all politicians have narcissistic tendencies - Trump only cares about Trump.

When he came to office he fired some of the most experienced administrators in the country and replaced them with his own family members. Extremely experienced officials were in a predicament where many quit rather than dealing with his ****, but there were also others that gritted their teeth and stuck it out because of their sense of duty to public service. The country basically stopped operating for 6 months when he came to office. Their government had to secure emergency loans to pay their own staff, such was the state of the place. That is the sort of **** you expect from Zimbabwe not the most powerful nation in the world.

He played a large part in legitimising conspiracy theorists. Sure we all love to laugh at those groups that really think the earth is flat but for a world leader to respond to absolute facts as 'fake news' and doing this repeatedly and every single time he wanted to avoid any form of scrutiny is almost as bad as his attempts to kill off democracy.

He slept with a porn star and paid her hush money. While threatening to build a wall to protect the US from illegal immigrants he was using illegal immigrants from Mexico to renovate one of his hotels.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Well apparently the US has just averted another government shut down.

The US has narrowly avoided its 22nd government shutdown in 50 years, after Republicans in Congress sided with Democrats to pass a last-minute temporary spending plan. The move resets the clock on the Congress deadline to pass a new budget to keep funding the federal government, granting lawmakers another 45 days to strike a long-term deal: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46927916

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

22 times in 50 years? Doesn't even sound that uncommon.

[Dr Zaius]

22 times in 50 years? Doesn't even sound that uncommon.

How many of them have been in recent years? That's three in less than 12 months that I can think of

[gangrenous]

If a person says 2 + 2 = 5, and you say “no, it’s 4”, then they want to have a discussion about how it’s actually 5 - that’s where I’m calling them an idiot and saying it’s ridiculous to treat their view with respect.

Someone supporting Trump now after 10 years of seeing who he is loud and clear. That’s not a difference of opinion. You’re an idiot and there’s no point discussing or showing respect because what evidence will sway you beyond watching a guy incite an insurrection?

A political difference of opinion is “I think the dole should be lower” and “you think it should be higher”. Not “I’m going to support this guy who gets people killed because he tantrums when he loses an election” and “I’m against raving lunatics that threaten democracy as president”.

The point of the 2+2=4 was to differentiate objective views with subjective ones with political views being more so in the latter camp.

Eitherway, if you don’t think an opinion is worth your time to put a cohesive or comprehensive argument against just go with:-

1- you are wrong
2- don’t respond, it’s not worth it.

Once you drop the your an idiot / any other personal insult it says more about you then the opposition point of view.

I got that, and part of my counter point is that in many cases what is being disguised as subjective political views is also objective (e.g. climate change denial).

On the name calling, I disagree with you, but I don’t think you’re an idiot. I see your point of view and it’s reasonable, it’s just not mine.

In my view there is another level where the other person is arguing things that make no sense. Here is where I’m comfortable throwing in calling them an idiot. I think there’s a useful differentiation there - people should be able to tell the difference between when people in the community think they’re wrong, and when people think they’re a **** who didn’t bother using their brain in the slightest.

[Regs Revolution]

22 times in 50 years? Doesn't even sound that uncommon.

How many of them have been in recent years? That's three in less than 12 months that I can think of

Means absolutely nothing. We’re in a capitalist age with a perpetual debt cycle that will go on and on and only ever increase as time goes on. This government shutdown is nonsense. Scare tactics from opposition parties flexing to shift sentiment in a wonderful propaganda machine. Government shutdown

[gerg]

22 times in 50 years? Doesn't even sound that uncommon.

How many of them have been in recent years? That's three in less than 12 months that I can think of

Means absolutely nothing. We’re in a capitalist age with a perpetual debt cycle that will go on and on and only ever increase as time goes on. This government shutdown is nonsense. Scare tactics from opposition parties flexing to shift sentiment in a wonderful propaganda machine. Government shutdown

Yes and no. Some of those Shut-downs lasted several weeks. How would you or those you know cope without getting paid for a month? Maybe it would have little effect on you but I'm sure you would know people that would be in crisis if they missed one or two pay days.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

Think you missed his point gerg.

I don’t think he’s saying the shutdowns themselves are meaningless. He’s saying the theatre around them is all stupidity and Bull politics from oppositions causing pain for the government.

[gerg]

Think you missed his point gerg.

I don’t think he’s saying the shutdowns themselves are meaningless. He’s saying the theatre around them is all stupidity and Bull politics from oppositions causing pain for the government.

Nope. I was responding directly to 'means absolutely nothing'. If you're a person or family living pay cheque to pay cheque it's probably the most important thing in your life.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

I think that’s the wrong interpretation of his intent with that line, but whatever.

[Regs Revolution]

Again, you’ve completely missed the point as I’m looking at Macroeconomics not Micro but I’ll entertain you.

There have only been 4 shutdowns that have lasted longer than 1 business day. Only one in recent times and it was a partial shutdown. Contingency plans are in place for every government sector to ensure that employees are not affected and since 2019 there are laws that ensure that all pay that has been furloughed is paid the moment it’s out. Further to this, majority of employees are paid fortnightly.

The propaganda behind these shutdowns is comical.

[gerg]

Again, you’ve completely missed the point as I’m looking at Macroeconomics not Micro but I’ll entertain you.

There have only been 4 shutdowns that have lasted longer than 1 business day. Only one in recent times and it was a partial shutdown. Contingency plans are in place for every government sector to ensure that employees are not affected and since 2019 there are laws that ensure that all pay that has been furloughed is paid the moment it’s out. Further to this, majority of employees are paid fortnightly.

The propaganda behind these shutdowns is comical.

From the article the longest recent shutdown was in 2018 (35 days) before that law was implemented.

From the article I linked.

Services classed as essential - mostly related to public safety - continue to operate, and those workers are required to show up without pay.

That usually includes border protection, hospital care, air traffic control, law enforcement, and power grid maintenance.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

The discontent continues to grow with high immigration in a broken housing market.

Don’t think it matters that it’s catching up COVID years. We didn’t build the infrastructure in those years either.

Think this is the biggest risk to Labor re-election.

[Mickey_Raider]

The discontent continues to grow with high immigration in a broken housing market.

Don’t think it matters that it’s catching up COVID years. We didn’t build the infrastructure in those years either.

Think this is the biggest risk to Labor re-election.

I think the immigration lever is the low hanging fruit which the government can pull to send a signal and it may have a modest impact.

But really, the issues with our housing market are multidimensional and it would be super disingenuous to pretend (not saying you are necessarily) that a temporary increase in immigration intake is the source of all our woes. Woes which are now rightly viewed as an intergenerational equity issue.

People who laud the man really won’t want to hear it, but the one dude who really boned the country in terms of housing affordability and generational equity was John Winston Howard.

Pretty much the moment his government made the CGT changes in 1999 the house prices line on the graph said adios to the income line on the graph, and it has been getting aggressively worse over time.

There are of course other compounding factors such as successive governments refusal to meaningfully invest in social and affordable housing supply. But yeah, look no further than 1999 for the seminal moment in the current crisis.

Unless there is a shift in the way we view housing, and by that I mean primarily as a means for people to have a roof over their head rather than being viewed primarily as an investment class, I can’t see much changing .

[gangrenous]

Yeah, agree.

Had a chuckle at the whining landlord the other night. “I only own 4 houses, I’m not the problem”. Well, yeah you are that’s 3 more houses than you need and 25% home ownership if everyone has your attitude.

Obviously we require some amount of landlords and rentals available. But we’ve gone and screwed that balance for no good reason.

[T_R]

The next election will be fought in a large part on immigration. The Libs are attacking Labor in the outer suburbs (argument: There's too many godammned foreigners around here!), while the Greens are going after them in the inner cities (Argument: International students stole your sharehouse!). Classic wedge.

Labor are absolutely petrified and have hit the panic button. They will peel $10bn of national earnings and drive us into a labour shortage to save four inner city seats, and are entirely shameless about it. They also have the utterly gormless and usually entirely bewildered-by-the-world Clare O'Neil and factional attack-poodle Julian Hill running the offense, so will cock it up anyway.

I voted Labor last time round, but having spent a year working closely with the above mentioned duo, would not do so again at gunpoint.



Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk