The fact of the matter is that you have an idiosyncratic view of Australian politics but assume that many people agree with that view.
Our system of government has checks and balances, and a responsive electorate, that mean that we will never have to put up with the incompetence and megalomania that's made the USA a global laughing stock ... but a very dangerous laughing stock.
If anyone is a laughing stock with that statement....
You are that rusted on that you want us to believe our system prevents corrupt politicians simply as your party is the one with all the allegations of corruption! Funny that.
Yet despite having this rock solid system here we are at the start of a Royal commission costing tax payers money we don't have, representing Mr Andrews and Mrs Allan for all the corruption allegations ...
Give it up mate and just have the balls to admit your views are skewed like most of us are.
Which party is my party Shawny?
For the record, I have never been a member of any political party and have voted for Labor, Liberal, Australian Democrats, and independent candidates. Vote Compass says I’m right of centre.
I was talking to an RSL mate at our Remembrance Day commemoration today and he just happens to be our local One Nation candidate. He’s pretty switched on and I think that he would be a decent local member. I can’t vote for him because his party is based on racism and bigotry, has no policies, and is owned by Gina Rinehart.
Another mate is running as an independent candidate and she is far and away the most intelligent and well-educated in the field. She’d be a great MP but, realistically, has no chance. I could vote for her, knowing that my vote would go to my second preference.
I didn’t speak to the sitting State MP today - the Commonwealth MP told me that I looked “sharp”! - but she is very popular and will probably retain the seat.
The Liberal candidate seems to have accepted that outcome and is doing an excellent impression of the invisible man. The Greens candidate just makes up the numbers.
The thing is that I have worked with every Victorian State Government from Henry Bolte to Denis Napthine, and have briefed and advised Labor, Liberal and Nationals Ministers in the Bracks/Brumby and Baillieu/Napthine governments. Some were risk averse, some were “courageous” as Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, some acted on advice, others wanted the advice to fit their agenda, all were driven and believed in what they were doing, and there was only ever one hint of corruption; a planning minister ignored departmental advice and approved a development that was later overturned on appeal. This was all in the days before IBAC but the Auditor-General and Ombudsman still kept a very tight rein.
I’m sure that nobody really gives a fat rat’s clacker about your bizarre political beliefs, or mine for that matter, but don’t presume that you know anything about my politics, or how the State Government is run. Right wing conspiracy theories aren’t real, and neither are the left wing equivalents.
The simple answer is that there is a senile malignant narcissist with the nuclear codes in the White House. A fool who has disrupted world trade with his tariffs and tanked the global economy with his illegal war in Iran.
Our pollies, of all persuasions, are constrained by more effective constitution and electoral system and aren't really able to do much damage, particularly at an international level.
And you would have to be joking to suggest that any past or present Australian government, even the notorious Bjelke-Petersen government, comes anywhere near the nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, grifting and disregard for the rule of law displayed by POTUS #45 amd #47.
So what your saying is that theory is based on how the current party is viewed?
The fact of the matter is that you have an idiosyncratic view of Australian politics but assume that many people agree with that view.
Our system of government has checks and balances, and a responsive electorate, that mean that we will never have to put up with the incompetence and megalomania that's made the USA a global laughing stock ... but a very dangerous laughing stock.
Why is it there is 350 plus pages on this site relating to a leader of a country on the other side of the world that most say is unfit to serve and any alternative is an improvement over him yet here in our own backyard when faced with an equally corrupt government and one that in this case directly affects their own families have a different theory on replacing a government.
The old 'they are all the same or pick your poison' is used to try and cast doubts on the new incoming party instead of calling the current inept corrupt party for what they are and saying they deserve to be replaced.
It wouldn't be they are bias - Nah surely not
The simple answer is that there is a senile malignant narcissist with the nuclear codes in the White House. A fool who has disrupted world trade with his tariffs and tanked the global economy with his illegal war in Iran.
Our pollies, of all persuasions, are constrained by more effective constitution and electoral system and aren't really able to do much damage, particularly at an international level.
And you would have to be joking to suggest that any past or present Australian government, even the notorious Bjelke-Petersen government, comes anywhere near the nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, grifting and disregard for the rule of law displayed by POTUS #45 amd #47.
One of the problems is that governments of all persuasions and levels are faced with ever-increasing demands for the provision of services as well as the expectation that they will lower taxes or, at least, won't increase them. If society has to have appropriate infrastructure; housing, water, sewerage, health care, police, schools, courts, aged care, mental health care, disability services, environmental protection, sporting facilties, public transport, etc; someone has to pay.
I failed economics at university - one of several inappropriate choices - but I know enough to realise that the Reserve Bank's fixation with interest rate rises isn't the only way to combat inflation (a world-wide problem not helped by the disastrous wars in Ukraine and Iran). Our Governments could tackle inflation by raising taxes but to do so would be political suicide unless there was a bi-partisan approach ... and that's not going to happen.
Could they reduce spending by any chance?
Of course they could, but only by cutting health, education, police, and all of the other services that people expect and need.
yeah nah. If they are not doing the job they were elected to do they must be taken out of that position. Rewarding poor governing with extra terms is saying ok we accept the corruption, we accept the 200B debt, we accept the pot holes, the waiting lists, the crime etc etc etc. Unless you want the country to turn into the 3rd world you have to replace them and trust the new leadership will improve things. If they dont they are replaced as well.
To try and down play that by throwing in the alternative could be worse is simply showing your bias to a particular party.
Based on your thinking the yanks should re-elect Trump too cause the alternative could be worse
Pick your poison....
You've got me wrong. I'm 'showing my bias' is proof of that.
I couldn't give a fat rats clacker about what happens. I've already stated they're all the same. What i'm pushing back against is the fact that people say THIS will fix the problem. I disagree. There are no good options. There's a big pile of trash in the room, everyone keeps pointing at and blaming the current government for it. Each alternative political party will highlight this big pile of trash and say they will fix it. If/when they get into power, that big pile of trash may well be cleaned up. However, all they will do in reality is move it to another room. Or put it in the closet. Or put it in the garage. Hide it there, until its found, and the cycle repeats. Eventually someone else will make promises that everyone falls for....the trash just gets hidden somewhere else.
That's a pretty fair assessment Kruddler.
One of the problems is that governments of all persuasions and levels are faced with ever-increasing demands for the provision of services as well as the expectation that they will lower taxes or, at least, won't increase them. If society has to have appropriate infrastructure; housing, water, sewerage, health care, police, schools, courts, aged care, mental health care, disability services, environmental protection, sporting facilties, public transport, etc; someone has to pay.
I failed economics at university - one of several inappropriate choices - but I know enough to realise that the Reserve Bank's fixation with interest rate rises isn't the only way to combat inflation (a world-wide problem not helped by the disastrous wars in Ukraine and Iran). Our Governments could tackle inflation by raising taxes but to do so would be political suicide unless there was a bi-partisan approach ... and that's not going to happen.
I was listening to Boof Lehmann on the wireless and his comment about Khawaja's claims was along the lines; publishers usually write into the contract a requirement to create a controversy when the book is released.
That may be all there is to the latest version of the story but, in Khawaja's favour is the fact that elite bowlers would know the intricate details of the ball's entire surface and would detect any change between overs or balls.
I'd like to think that only three players were involved, and I accepted that at the time, but I'm finding it harder to accept that the bowlers weren't aware, if not complicit.
It is not an easy task to readily describe the American political parties. Both came about a long time ago and were born of political issues that no longer exist. Nor are they consistent as to their political directions. For much of their history the Republicans were a 'more progressive', potentially 'left' leading party. The Democrats have for much of their history been quite autocratic; especially under the 'new deal'. It has only been after WWII that the parties have taken their present 'directions'.
NM intercepted everything, kicks, handballs, they cut it off every time we tried break the zone or create a chain.
Question: Is it me or do the AFLW players not know how to (haven't been taught or physically cant) scoop the ball up off the ground on the run? I watch AFLW matches and they run towards a ball on the ground and slow right down, hover over the ball and then pick it up all with the speed of the QE2. Time affords no one on AFL (mens or women's) and it's an observation I seem to have made. I get that the women have smaller hands and what not but surely they can do better than that. Thoughts?
Erone Fitzpatrick is an exception but I suspect that it's not just hand size that makes it harder for women to execute a one handed pick up on the run. Perhaps they should be taught the two-handed wet weather pick up.
The bottom line is that sexual dimorphism is a reality in our species and that will always be a factor in why the men's and women's competitions will continue to be played differently.
The Republicans and Democrats are very different beasts to our political parties. While our parties may have factions, party discipline is still very strong and elected representatives have to park any individual agendas. US members of Congress may identify as Republican or Democrat but they will vote according to their own agenda, best interests, and/or the interests of their constituents/donors.
James Talarico, who many Republicans see as the spawn of the devil, has just announced that he wants to work with Taco to strengthen border protection. Then there's a host of Republicans who are openly opposed to Taco about a range of issues, obviously including his refusal to release incriminating Epstein files.
You can be sure that some Democrats will vote against impeachment or measures to curtail Taco's actions just as you can be sure that some Republicans will vote for them.
In some ways it would be best for the Democrats to leave Taco in place in order to build support for their next Presidential candidate.
While all this is going on, Taco is getting into more and more legal strife with both his personal cases, like his failure to pay E Jean Carroll and his disastrous BBC claim, and his administration's actions; the golf course, Kennedy Center, ballroom, press bans, executive orders,etc
None of this strategic losing garbage in case you can only beat them once.
Thats a losers mentality. Winning is winning. If you can beat them now, you can beat them in the big one. If you cant win now, the belief in the final may not be there.
Agreed, you never strategically lose, it will burn a winning culture once you start picking and choosing when to try. Sends all the wrong signals to the existing list, and kicks mud in the face of sponsors who support you financially and support staff who volunteer precious time and resources.
For the very same reason you should never throw games for draft lotto, because it burns the bird in hand for just a hope of future good fortune.
I'm not sure how you could deliberately lose a game of footy. The coach could deliver an uninspiring address, bench the better players and play others out of position, but the players are still going to try their hardest.
