The swings currently being reported in the polls depend greatly on who you ask and what is the question. As I've mentioned before, Victorian's voting for Hansen's One Nation party which is almost devoid of local representation, is like Australian's voting to be remote managed by Bejing.
Her party is built on a primary industry foundation, primary industry that is almost 100% subservient to China's buying power.
Beef, lamb, coal, iron, aluminium, soy, wheat, corn, etc., etc., etc.. you name it, China's market dominance controls it and indirectly funds One Nation, despite her racist rhetoric she is completely beholding to them.
Sorry Shawny but you’re not the public and I think you’ll find that the sensible centre has had a gutful of extremist claims, be they right or left.
As with the CFMEU $15-30Bn beat up, none of this stands up to scrutiny. The Government, regardless of its persuasion, has to comply with the law.
But let’s celebrate yet another right wing terrorist being arrested by the WA Joint Counter Terrorism Team before he could implement his deadly plan. I suspect that these wannabe Nazis present a much greater threat than the ISIS brides and their children. Where’s the outrage at these terrorists?
Never a truer word was spoken, kick the Nazis and the Sovcits out and Australia will probably be a better place, but keep them here under surveillance and they will go extinct!
They are the minority, they only have impact when the majority stays silent. Germany and Japan both learned that, now it's their national shame. The strongest opponents of the radicals come from within.
I would take anything Senator James Paterson says with a grain of salt.
The former immigration detainees were granted Criminal Justice Visas; a standard procedure when immigration detainees are charged with criminal offences or required to give evidence in a trial. Depending on the outcome of the court cases, the former detainees will be imprisoned and then deported or returned to immigration detention, then deported.
Yes, and in the context of @Thryleon referencing statistical fraud, the media and politicians like Hanson try to paint it as a tidal wave of criminals using legal loopholes, when in reality it might be a fraction of 1% in many tens of thousands.
Compelling. Thought this belonged here more than anywhere else. Remember this when people start bashing numbers at you.
It's the tool that the media and politicians have used for years, cherry-picking the frame of reference to make the numbers look good or bad.
Media will do it deliberately 100% of the time, if not the reporter the editor, and they have no intention of substantiating the report with unfiltered hard numbers, they only ever provide a subset. Yet the same media happily accuse scientists and scientific publications of distorting the figures, sound familiar?
btw., In R&D or fundamental science they have a term that relates to this, it's called P-Hacking, and if you are a career scientist or engineer who gets caught doing it your career is over! If the media or a politician does it they just do it again, some even become more extreme!
If you’re on stalkbook, look up “Mr Cucumber” he ran this on Monday. Investigation… absolutely required, crimes committed… possibly… A headline screamed from the rooftops, totally !
But regardless the source is a problem, because it has zero accountability and therefore plastic legitimacy. The lack of accountability across all media destroys the concept of news, which is exactly what some want. If the public question hard evidence supported facts, they can say pretty much whatever they like, and that leads to doing anything they like.
Obama's playing this game at the moment, giving RedTrump some of his own medicine.Much of MAGA is disappearing up it's own alien rectum, which is amusing but concerning also.
The AFL got the ruck rules wrong starting two years back when Scott complained about TDK, it was wrong again last year and instead of admitting a mistake it has doubled down.
And as I have been warning, that could easily have been BigH hobbling off instead of Neale.
I probably should have mentioned Cooper Lord before. He’s your quintessential blue collar worker whose efforts lead to chains of possessions and disrupt opposition plays.
He’s a player who is easily overlooked and/or undervalued.
More than blue collar, and is making the most of his opportunities, that is all we can ask of some, don't waste the opportunity.
If the umpire wants to influence the game, just throw the ball to one side and penalise the ruck for going over the line to get access to it. Its bollocks.
But more seriously, in case someone thinks you made a valid point, editorials are not peer reviewed because they are opinion and commentary, they can be debated but that is not peer review. If an editorial references scientific papers, then those reference papers should be peer reviewed, commenting on papers that are yet to be reviewed is like commenting on a mirage.
Scientific papers that contain hypothesis, theory and scientific finding are peer reviewed because they are meant to contain testable claims. Many good quality papers typically offer ways to put the hypothesis to the test, and very rarely if ever do they make claims of certainty.
When an alleged scientific paper makes claims that aren't testable you know it's probably bogus. Like fool who told the world MMR vaccine caused Down Syndrome, what a jerk, can you think of others? The scientific papers in response made testable claims that the MMR vaccine was safe, they didn't argue the jerks false claims because it's impossible to prove a negative, they just let you infer from the testable evidence that the jerk was a jerk.
Scientific papers might never offer certainty about the subject matter, but they often rule out assertions that obviously cannot be true.
I don't know about the validity of the various fixes being proposed, but the headlines claiming peer review is diminished are true for a variety of reasons.
What's not true are the claims that science is broken because peer review is broken.
The real situation is that peer review is actively under attack by those trying to assert that science is broken, they frame science like a religion. But science has no component of faith. Those with influence are using restriction of funding to try and influence or restrict peer review and careers, to the point people are reluctant to review because of retribution.
Thats part of what I said, yep its all Democratic but thats not what Shawny was arguing imho, Allan didnt enter the election as Premier and as I suggested a lot of voters often vote for the personalities/leaders rather than knowing too much about the policies.
If Andrews had lost his seat, we'd have a Premier nobody voted for because nobody votes for the Premier, regardless of which party forms power.
An interpretation of the wider meaning of a debate is fine, but it doesn't mean those getting involved can't be free to highlight factual errors. Taking offense isn't a defence for being called out for posting stuff that is blatantly incorrect, and the poster is not a victim of bullying or under a personal attack, such claims are just diversionary, an attempt to avoid debate.
If people do not debate stuff, it usually means they have no opinion, or no basis for an informed opinion, not that the point being ignored is right or wrong, non-debate is a neutral stance. It's completely counterfactual for some to claim that a point ignored is proof of validity.
Further, on the issue of the state politics, it's fine to talk about the mistakes, mismanagement and morality, but stick to the facts which are more than enough to debate without slathering it in a veneer of bullsh1t! As Paul Keating would say, there is no need to paint the turd, it's clearly already an obvious turd!
How are you and others being tolerant of Shawny's views? This thread was created to mock him.
I understand this thread was created to enable @shawny to post his political views here without cross posting on pretty much every thread. No different to the RedTrump thread, or the EV thread, they are nothing more than a filing cabinet? But even so, that doesn't give license to anyone to post fake news or false claims without opportunity for others to redress.
