Auspol June/Election - hang parliament - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol June/Election - hang parliament

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

hooman posted:

"This slants the Coalition�s offerings away from policies that would appeal to their thoughtful traditional supporters, and towards superficial policies that appeal to the apathetic and ill-informed."

He's not wrong. Well, maybe about the traditional supporters being thoughtful.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2016 02:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:01

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Do Drum columnists get paid?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2016 08:47

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Is there some form of redress you can have for this? Like if an independent were blatantly racist, would we have no recourse until the next election?

What would you propose? Being racist isn't illegal, there are a number of parties running on overtly racists platforms.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2016 04:53

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

LDP advertising at tobacconists.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2016 07:47

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Don't they need the canals for drainage? The land used to be a swamp didn't it?

# ¿ Jun 7, 2016 01:45

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

stirlo posted:

IANALALA but as far as I know, if you're on private property someone can't just shoot photos of you especially when you're refusing or not giving explicit permission. Haven't a few people been jailed or at least fined for Creep Shots on public transport, shopping malls etc? If it was on the open street they can take a photo, but you might want to speak to a lawyer and flip it back on them, not have to pay any damages and possibly get some yourself?

I think they can. Creep shots are illegal for other reasons. http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

# ¿ Jun 8, 2016 09:01

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

If you'd just lost hundreds of thousands of dollars you'd probably be trying to get it back too. It's worth a shot, he might win.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 02:51

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Dude McAwesome posted:

I love that he only bought it last year. The previous owner must be loving life, or saw this coming a few years back.

Buy low sell high.

quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/notorious-bikie-aj-graham-wins-visa-appeal/7495972
One of Tasmania's most notorious bikies AJ Graham has won his Federal Court appeal against the Immigration Minister's decision to cancel his visa.

Graham was a founding member of the Rebels motorcycle gang in Tasmania and former president of the club's Kingston chapter.

Immigration minister Peter Dutton cancelled Graham's visa in June 2015 on character grounds, and the 48-year-old was detained as part of a major crackdown on Tasmania's bikies.

Justice Richard Tracey heard the appeal against the decision, and found Mr Dutton's personal decision under the Migration Act was invalid.

Justice Tracey quashed the decision to cancel AJ Graham's visa and ordered the Federal Government to pay his costs.

AJ Graham was locked up in a prison in Goulburn, New South Wales, awaiting deportation to his country of New Zealand after his visa was cancelled.

He hired a team of lawyers to fight the decision, headed by Victoria's former chief magistrate Nick Papas, and included Hobart lawyers Greg Barns and Neil Humphrey.

Is this going to stop the immigration minister from arbitrarily cancelling other people's visas?

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 03:03

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Sounds like nanny statism to me. Let people make their own rational decisions about where to build houses without getting the government involved. If you don't realise that your house might get washed away, well, that's on you. Caveat emptor and all that.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 04:18

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

You could say the same thing about smoking or non-safety glass shower screens or non-insulated wiring or whatever other peril the government is supposed to protect us from.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 06:36

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

It shouldn't really be legal to buy and sell property, or at least residential property, that can't be insured. Either the government should become an insurer of last resort, or they should be zoned so people can't live there. It's in no one's interest to have people losing their houses.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 07:55

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Recoome posted:

This is a good post, although the flood thing in 2011 in Brisbane really hosed people around because although people were covered for floods, some people got flooded via water coming up from the drains so the insurance peeps didn't want to pay out for that.

Yeah this is another thing. When you take out insurance on your house you should be insured against everything. None of this 'well you weren't insured against meteor strike so too bad'.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 08:27

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Tokamak posted:

Isn't this kicking the problem further down the road? You would end up with a lot of people electing not to insure because the premiums are way too high. You'd still end up with the same problem where people put living next to the ocean or surrounded by bush above the safety of the building.

You can mandate that every purchase agreement has an insurance quote on it, but people will ignore it. I suppose that you can make insurance mandatory. but it would be a cluster-gently caress to implement since insurers and leave people largely at the mercy of private insurers. It would also price many people out of where they live and be more of a political quagmire than negative gearing. You could subsidise it, but it just becomes another handout to rich people and idiots and a drain on treasury. I'm not sure this is a fixable problem or can be done in a manner that the public will support.

Sounds like an argument for a public insurer to me.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 08:41

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Tokamak posted:

There's still that matter of premium affordability, and preventing massive overnight readjustments to property values.

I'd guess that kind of thing could probably be worked out, but you're right. There's absolutely no political appetite for it.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 10:32

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Lid posted:

"Whatever their social status, non-violent, low-risk offenders should be given the chance to avoid prison."

This is right. No one should be in prison unless they pose a risk to public safety, and this is doubly important when the state can't even ensure the safety of prisoners.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 00:38

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Starshark posted:

Then how would you deter, say, rich people from committing crimes that hurt people (if only financially) if they can just buy their way out of it? You have some really dumb opinions sometimes.

Is your imagination so limited that locking people up in prison the only way you can think of to deter crime?

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 01:20

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

chyaroh posted:

Put it this way. Two people commit the same crime. One is rich, one is not. The offence has an option of either jail or paying a large fine and wandering off scott free afterwards. Can you say justice is served if the poor person goes to jail and the rich one pays a fine and goes back to their life?

The way this is being framed is that the perpetrator gets to choose their sentence. That's not how justice, supposedly blind and equal, is meant to work.

This isn't about buying your way out of prison, and there's no world in which I'd argue that rich and poor offenders should receive different sentences based on their ability to pay.

Sending people to prison doesn't make the world a better place, it doesn't improve the lives of victim or the perpetrator, it's very expensive and it causes all sorts of social problems. It's something that should be avoided if at all possible, and for people who don't pose a risk to public safety there is absolutely no value in locking them up other than sating the blood-lust of the more sadistic parts of society.

Starshark posted:

Noooo, and I don't know how you got that from what I said to you... Oh, you're pissed off because I called you an idiot. Well, okay.

If there are viable alternatives, and you are aware of them, then why would you ask how else we could deter people from committing crimes?

open24hours fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jun 10, 2016

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 01:33

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Vladimir Poutine posted:

One of these days NXT will have to loosely support one party over the other and it will seriously take the wind out of his sails either way. He's still avoiding it by running an open ticket as his voter base is an incomprehensible blend of ostensibly progressive and conservative voters but preferences deals and/or a hung parliament will probably see him support one of the L parties more than the other. I imagine those three SA seats will be pretty important this election and the amazing thing is one of them is one of those ultra-conservative semi-arid rural seats that has voted Liberal with a very comfortable margin for decades.

I know that this is what will probably end up happening, but does it have to be that way? Like, can't they just support individual policies on a case by case basis? Could the Greens and independents have done the same in 2013?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 02:02

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

"We will lend money at a rate above what we borrow it for so that people can do the work we should be doing ourselves. "

Truly inspiring.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 03:18

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

MonoAus posted:

Simone Seeley: "um EXCUSE ME! Gay people can be just as bigoted as NORMAL PEOPLE. We should be able to join the UPF"

(At least I think that's what they're saying.)

They're saying that massacres are an unavoidable consequence of Islamic immigration to 'progressive' countries. Same thing they've always been saying.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 05:52

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Oh right, nevermind then.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 05:57

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

freebooter posted:

Yeah I can't even find the list of candidates for my electorate in the House let alone the senate. I thought they had to be released by the time prepolling opened? Even the AEC website still just has data from 2013.

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/candidates.htm

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 01:44

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

That was senate.io, but it's apparently not running this time. http://senate.io/news/2016/06/not-available-for-2016

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 01:47

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

AR-15s are legal here if you've got one with a small magazine, aren't they?

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 04:48

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/election-live-blog-june-14/7506754
PM pledges 'zero tolerance' for anti-gay preacher

Today both leaders have been asked about the visa of British anti-gay preacher Farrokh Sekaleshfar, who is currently in Earlwood, Sydney.

The Islamic cleric has been quoted as describing death as an appropriate sentence for homosexuality.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has asked his department to conduct a review into the preacher's visa.

He said he had "zero tolerance" for people who come to Australia to preach hate.

"As you know this is a legal matter and has to be dealt with in the appropriate way but his visa is being reviewed at the request, the direction I should say, of the Minister even as we speak."

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said the cleric was not welcome in Australia.

"Let's call it straight. We've got a character test in our visas. I think the Government needs to get onto it quick smart and this person, in my opinion, is not welcome in Australia holding those abhorrent views."

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 07:01

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Lid posted:

Meh, in honesty gently caress this guy. We get rightly pissed when anti-vaccination preachers or Christian fundamentalists calling for murder get kicked to the curb here. It's not a good sign to be a moral relativist about these things when the morals espoused by the individuals are abhorrent.

I don't think being in favour of an immigration department that isn't run on an ad-hoc basis counts as moral relativism.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 07:21

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Chris Brown and Eminem should have to go through the same, transparent, immigration processes?

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 07:25

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA4Me7X5Blw

# ¿ Jun 15, 2016 01:59

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...07fb-1465962910
Plibersek canes �enemy� Greens

Tanya Plibersek has launched a full frontal assault on the Greens, saying they are the enemy of implementing progressive policies, Mark Coultan writes.

She said Greens were targeting Labor instead of conservatives, and threatened, like the Democratic Labour Party in the 1950s and 1960s, to keep Labor from power.

Ms Plibersek, who�s inner-city seat of Sydney has one of the highest Greens� votes in the country, said: �The Greens see Labor, not the Coalition, as their true competitor and enemy.

�Most simply put, to grow their party, they are targeting Labor, not the conservative party. The Greens� political strategy risks entrenching conservative governments.�

She accused the Greens of not having any achievements which had stood the test of time, and of rigidity, shallowness and �muddle headedness.�

She told a forum convened by the McKell Institute: �Inner city greens candidates are opposed to high density, and regional Greens are opposed to urban sprawl. NSW North Coast was opposed to fluoridation of water but their leader is in favour of it, at least when the North Coast Greens aren�t listening. Some of them are for compulsory vaccinations, others are against. Some want a population halt, others want a much higher level of migration. At the centre of their policies lies a disregard for the jobs and futures of people who are not lucky enough to be in their target demographic.�

quote:

The Liberals have published a �same old same old� Gif on their Facebook page mocking the Greens-Labor preference deal.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2016 04:59

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

We should offer them statehood if they leave the EU.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2016 07:45

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

EXAKT Science posted:

loving WHAT?

In practice it's more 'illegal' than illegal, but it's still something that needs to be changed. I thought the Queensland government voted to decriminalise it a few weeks ago though?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 01:29

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Domino's was probably closed because someone pushed two tables together and the council shut it down.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 03:31

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-16/election-2016-labor-promise-funding-to-national-library/7516914
Labor has promised $12 million in funding over four years to the National Library of Australia for it to resume adding new content to its online database Trove.

Trove allows people to access collections of books, photographs, newspapers, maps, and historical documents online.

The database was launched in 2009 and since has digitised millions of records from the library's own collection as well as items from state and local collections.

The Coalition Government has made cuts to a number of national cultural institutions in Canberra, including the National Library.

Recent budget estimates papers state the National Library will shed 28 staff as the result of a $20 million funding cut.

The Library previously said would not be able to keep adding to the database without dedicated funding.

Shadow Arts Minister Mark Dreyfus said it was essential Trove continued to be funded.

"It's an absolutely invaluable resource for historians, school teachers, for academics," he said.

"It's unique in the world, it's a national treasure and it has to go on being added to.

"It needs to keep adding to the items that are available to make it as complete and as full a resource as possible."

Trove has more than 20 million unique users every year including museums, libraries, galleries, historical societies and research bodies.

Mr Dreyfus said Trove was a resource worth continuing.

"We're going to have to examine carefully how the damage that's been done by those cuts can be repaired, but this one can't wait," he said.

This is a tiny amount of money in the scheme of things, but Trove is incredibly useful and it's good to see at least one party pledging to keep it funded.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 08:58

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

norp posted:

Good thing you need to number to 6 ATL now to make your vote formal.

Not really. Because of the bizarre 'savings provisions' you only need to number one box and it will still count.

quote:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/ceab2016323/memo_0.html
The instruction to number at least six boxes above the line does not account for a voter's ability, under the new section 269, to number fewer than six boxes. The principal requirement in amended section 239 is to number at least six squares. This requirement is considered to be an appropriate direction to voters to ensure that their vote has a reasonable life upon the distribution of preferences.

The ability to number fewer than six squares is a savings provision to ensure that voters are not disadvantaged by following the practice since 1984 of marking only '1' in one square above the line. Such votes should not be ruled informal; they express a clear voter choice. But the Senate ballot paper instructions will adopt the principal requirement in amended section 239, designed to give a reasonable life to an individual's vote on preference distribution, to number at least six squares.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 01:15

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Ask him if he regrets not calling the election last year when he would have romped it in.

[edit: He'll just say that he supports government intervention when it's warranted.]

# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 04:38

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

LibertyCat posted:

We should be under no obligation to allow anyone new into the country that we, as a democracy, decide aren't good for us.

Do you think if this was put to a vote your position would come out on top?

# ¿ Jun 18, 2016 03:09

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Anidav posted:

If the Libs have a Primary Vote of 41 and the ALP 37. Who wins? Both primary votes are in the danger zone. Greens preferences bring the ALP to about 46-7%? Which means they need 4% from others to get past 50%.

Maybe Leyonhjelm will support them?

# ¿ Jun 20, 2016 01:09

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

CrazyTolradi posted:

It's not even that the "tradie" in that ad wasn't an actual tradie, but wasn't even some C grade actor and instead they paid some HR company director to fill the role.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/the-fake-tradie-game?utm_term=.chdbqq8lV&bffboz#.xaOoBBOW4

Apparently he is an actor?

# ¿ Jun 20, 2016 01:54

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Even if he is an actual tradie he's still an actor.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2016 04:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:01

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Count Chocula posted:

But like why do people encounter/think about/fetishize working class jobs to the point where they give them cute nicknames? It stands out to me as an outsider.

They don't. They fetishize the successful tradie with a lifted Hilux and a jet boat.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2016 09:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol June/Election - hang parliament

«‹›5 »