I didn’t know these people existed…yeh raiders wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 9:51 pmThat’s how I feel about people who tell me Andrew Johns is not the GOAT.Botman wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 1:01 pm 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.
The Politics Thread 2024
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.papabear wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 5:21 pm 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.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.yeh raiders wrote:That’s how I feel about people who tell me Andrew Johns is not the GOAT.Botman wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 1:01 pm 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.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.gerg wrote: ↑March 20, 2024, 9:28 amCameron 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.yeh raiders wrote:That’s how I feel about people who tell me Andrew Johns is not the GOAT.Botman wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 1:01 pm 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.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
Johns isnt even the GOAT halfback
Very sad to see RL tragic's who apparently never saw Cameron Smith play football
Very sad to see RL tragic's who apparently never saw Cameron Smith play football
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.papabear wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 5:21 pm 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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
Trump calling Kevin Rudd "nasty" and "not the brightest bulb".
Political commentators saying that he is only 50% correct.
Political commentators saying that he is only 50% correct.
- Mickey_Raider
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4435
- Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
- Favourite Player: Big Papa
- Location: North Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.
Up The Milk
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
He is very childish.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 20, 2024, 7:30 pmThe 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.papabear wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 5:21 pm 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.
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..
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.papabear wrote: ↑March 22, 2024, 3:25 pmAndrew 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.
IMO Smith won a lot because he controlled and managed very good rosters/teams that he was a part of.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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”?papabear wrote:You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 20, 2024, 7:30 pmThe 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.papabear wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 5:21 pm 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.
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..
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.
-
- Ken Nagas
- Posts: 144
- Joined: January 27, 2020, 9:10 pm
- Favourite Player: Brad Clyde
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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?gangrenous wrote: ↑March 23, 2024, 7:52 amI 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”?papabear wrote:You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 20, 2024, 7:30 pmThe 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.papabear wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 5:21 pm 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.
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..
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
Ok on the views thing, somethings are more subjective then others…gangrenous wrote: ↑March 23, 2024, 7:52 amI 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”?papabear wrote:You should work through what you’re sick of so it doesn’t bring you negativity.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 20, 2024, 7:30 pmThe 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.papabear wrote:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2024, 5:21 pm 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.
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..
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.
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
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
The Politics Thread 2024
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”.
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”.
Last edited by gangrenous on March 23, 2024, 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 23, 2024, 10:26 am 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”.
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
Well apparently the US has just averted another government shut down.gerg wrote: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
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
Shoving it in your face since 2017
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51570
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
22 times in 50 years? Doesn't even sound that uncommon.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
How many of them have been in recent years? That's three in less than 12 months that I can think ofThe Nickman wrote:22 times in 50 years? Doesn't even sound that uncommon.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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).papabear wrote: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.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 23, 2024, 10:26 am 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”.
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.
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
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2525
- Joined: April 26, 2010, 11:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki
- Location: Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.Regs Revolution wrote: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
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.gangrenous wrote: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.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
I think that’s the wrong interpretation of his intent with that line, but whatever.
- Regs Revolution
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2525
- Joined: April 26, 2010, 11:50 pm
- Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki
- Location: Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.
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.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
From the article the longest recent shutdown was in 2018 (35 days) before that law was implemented.Regs Revolution wrote: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 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
Shoving it in your face since 2017
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.
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
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4435
- Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
- Favourite Player: Big Papa
- Location: North Sydney
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 31, 2024, 10:04 am 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.
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 .
Up The Milk
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16803
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
The Politics Thread 2024
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.
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.
Last edited by gangrenous on March 31, 2024, 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Politics Thread 2024
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
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
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.