Pittonet in for Reidy
L. Young in for McKay
Thats our changes
Reidy, F. Young, Williams our emergencies.
Not a camporeale in sight.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/23/pauline-hansons-comments-about-domestic-violence-are-more-than-vile-they-are-dangerous-for-women-ntwnfb
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/23/pauline-hanson-said-domestic-violence-prevented-police-from-dealing-with-real-in-2025-podcast-ntwnfb
What am I not getting about this woman ? I've been racking my brain for months, trying to understand the mass appeal of someone so intellectually, ethically and linguistically bankrupt, and I'm at a loss. Whilst her lack of empathy and understanding of the issue of DV is perfectly consistent with her lack of empathy and understanding on most topics, this, for reasons I cannot really articulate, just feels like a new low.
It's probably difficult for some of us to understand Paul because we come from a position that is diametrically opposed to everything she stands for, but even there we have differences.
At the extreme end there would be no common ground whatsover.
But it's not a black and white situation.
The spectrum doesn't work like that and as someone moves further away from their own set position, and towards a more centralised general position there will be social grey areas.
In the middle, folks will take up positions on either side of an issue.
Sometimes chopping and changing
The law and order one is an example, with some favouring an extreme "lock them up and throw away the key" while others suggest more effort (and money) into education and diversion programs. The best approach in my opinion is probably a combination of both.
But even there I have an issue because a vast number of the 'lock them up forever group' more rightly belong in mental health facilities, which aren't readily available.
The thing about Hanson is that she's had a good run of late.
While she's been around for a long time she's always been more of a novelty.
People weren't going to take her seriously because they realised she would never be in a position to implement the policiees she sprouted.
There was no need for scrutiny.
She's tapped into a similar group to the one that Trump has tapped into.
And people opposed to Labor have lost faith with the coalition which has resulted in more support for One Nation.
But she's also escaped a fair bit of scrutiny that has now started to come on her with her parties rise in the polls.
As she appears more often and is challenged more often on the things she says people will begin to take more notice...and realise she's not the answer.
“MAGA CANDIDATES WON EVERYTHING LAST NIGHT IN ARIZONA, A COMPLETE SWEEP!!! I WON ARIZONA 18 MONTHS AGO. THE DUMOCRATS ARE DUMBFOUNDED. AFTER DECADES, ARIZONA IS BECOMING A REPUBLICAN STATE. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!” Trump wrote.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/23/pauline-hansons-comments-about-domestic-violence-are-more-than-vile-they-are-dangerous-for-women-ntwnfb
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/23/pauline-hanson-said-domestic-violence-prevented-police-from-dealing-with-real-in-2025-podcast-ntwnfb
What am I not getting about this woman ? I've been racking my brain for months, trying to understand the mass appeal of someone so intellectually, ethically and linguistically bankrupt, and I'm at a loss. Whilst her lack of empathy and understanding of the issue of DV is perfectly consistent with her lack of empathy and understanding on most topics, this, for reasons I cannot really articulate, just feels like a new low.