The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[pharmaboy]

There is always dissonance between the actual specific reasons, the information that leads to any decision and the information the public receives to placate the average citizen. Absolute truth as a virtue is absolutely unattainable, as far as I can tell. Especially so for those speaking to millions.

You've only got to look at sloganeering politics to see the truth in that. I'm definately getting old, but it seems to be getting worse and worse both locally and internationally and that's because a simple message repeated often lands with the average voter who swings elections.

Now I'm going to be biased - the idea that important issues of security would be exposed to the greens and people like Lambie fills me with dread - perhaps in the lower house, but the upper house is full of numpties.

 

[Norco Maniac]

You've only got to look at sloganeering politics to see the truth in that. I'm definately getting old, but it seems to be getting worse and worse both locally and internationally and that's because a simple message repeated often lands with the average voter who swings elections.

Now I'm going to be biased - the idea that important issues of security would be exposed to the greens and people like Lambie fills me with dread - perhaps in the lower house, but the upper house is full of numpties.

why are you worried about the Greens? i agree that Lambie is a loose cannon racist bogan ala Pauline Hanson. i'd be more worried about a communications minister that can't even articulate what Data Retention actually is.


my weird sense of humour keeps picturing rooms full of FBI-style agents in suits fapping away to everyone's porn channel picks...

 

[johnny]

I think you're likely referring to the Attorney General rather than Turnbull.


The Senators and Greens don't need to be given briefings that are classified secret, etc. It's up to the govt as to who they bring in to the fold and much of the time MPs have to have security clearance to receive some information and definitely must be cleared to sit on committees that review secret information.

I think most MPs have enough sense and/or have the fear of god put in to them in regards to responsible/legal use of information.

 

[GeoffRidesBikes]

I think you're likely referring to the Attorney General rather than Turnbull.


The Senators and Greens don't need to be given briefings that are classified secret, etc. It's up to the govt as to who they bring in to the fold and much of the time MPs have to have security clearance to receive some information and definitely must be cleared to sit on committees that review secret information.

I think most MPs have enough sense and/or have the fear of god put in to them in regards to responsible/legal use of information.

The wholly frightening part of that is that Comms Minister understands precisely the implications of mandatory retention.

The AG may not, and it is funny watching Mal squirm when Brandis fucks it up on TV again, but Mal knows the score with mandatory retention and that is dangerous. He is already insidious and self serving within his portfolio. To say that retention is limited to the AG's swag, as we are so often told, is to under play the whole situation.

 

[DJninja]

You've only got to look at sloganeering politics to see the truth in that. I'm definitely getting old, but it seems to be getting worse and worse both locally and internationally and that's because a simple message repeated often lands with the average voter who swings elections.

Now I'm going to be biased - the idea that important issues of security would be exposed to the greens and people like Lambie fills me with dread - perhaps in the lower house, but the upper house is full of numpties.

It might of been different in the past; the ability to be informed and connected has never been better than right now. The principles of good governance, such as accountability and transparency and the voters ability to enforce them, are ever growing. I can't wait to get an internet baby prime minister who truly uses it to interface with the public.

 

[placebo]

You've only got to look at sloganeering politics to see the truth in that. I'm definitely getting old, but it seems to be getting worse and worse both locally and internationally and that's because a simple message repeated often lands with the average voter who swings elections.

Sloganeering politics is largely an American political phenomenon. Apathy, gerrymandering, and disenfranchisement of voters leads to turnouts of only 30% for elections there. So generally the two parties don't focus on swinging or average voters to the degree we do here, but tend to focus on issues that attract their core supporters and encourage their turnout on voting day. Getting your guys angry enough to get up and vote has a larger return for the effort than trying to engage with a moderate voter who probably won't even make the effort to vote. The "tea party" is a result of this focus on narrow issues. That's not as an appealing strategy when the voter turnout is closer to 100%, there's generally a large moderate group that's repelled by ideological extremism.

Now I'm going to be biased - the idea that important issues of security would be exposed to the greens and people like Lambie fills me with dread - perhaps in the lower house, but the upper house is full of numpties.

Hearing George Brandis speak on issues he thinks are important to security, such as metadata, fills me with dread.

 

[pharmaboy]

It might of been different in the past; the ability to be informed and connected has never been better than right now. The principles of good governance, such as accountability and transparency and the voters ability to enforce them, are ever growing. I can't wait to get an internet baby prime minister who truly uses it to interface with the public.

The ability to be connected is a 2 way street, no?

Sorry, but suspect that 80% of the population wouldn't even understand what you have written ( excluding the Internet baby bit), the availability of information isn't the problem, it's the motivation to seek it and engage with it.

The parties want someone when asked in the street to describe them in 5 words or less - there is no thought in that, only memory of marketing

 

[Pastavore]

Just. Wow.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...invasion-of-iraq/story-fnpdbcmu-1227233174095

 

[pharmaboy]

Paywall pastavore......

 

[GeoffRidesBikes]

I can't wait to get an internet baby prime minister who truly uses it to interface with the public.

We'll likely see that, and it will be good.

The parliament of the day will still be full of scraggy old coots though.

 

[FR Drew]

Paragraph 1 - no response - I read conspiracy and know that no sense can come from any discussion .

Wow, nice dismissal... Pretentious much?

The paragraph in question:
-------------------------------
What is an enemy when you haven't actually declared war on anyone in particular and a going into a country with an elected government to install your own preferred group, where the person in question has been arrested based upon accusations made by groups who will profit financially from handing over anyone on any heresay reports that they choose to pass on. Where the evidence is suspect, either due to the motivations of those supplying it, or where it has been obtained through torture...
-------------------------------

There was no declaration of war. FACT
The Taliban was the legitimate Govt in Afghanistan. FACT
The coalition wanted to install someone else as the Govt in Afghanistan. FACT
The alliance warlords were being paid to hand over captives to coalition forces. FACT
Evidence was being obtained by people who had a vested interest in the outcomes resulting from that evidence and were far from impartial. FACT
Evidence was being obtained through torture and anyone who has been involved in that process is fully aware that it gives suspect evidence and that you can get anyone to admit to anything eventually. FACT

When you are willing to have an adult dialogue with your blinkers off, feel free.

 

[Drizz]

Can I recommend everyone to watch Adam Curtis' excellent part geopolitical, part conceptual art Doco - "Bitterlake"? Its a great insight into Afghanistan and goes into how KSA (and later on the US) screwed the pooch and how politicians shaped narratives to fit their own agendas.


[video=youtube_share;OzeiA5MkTXw]http://youtu.be/OzeiA5MkTXw[/video]

 

[johnny]

Wow, nice dismissal... Pretentious much?

The paragraph in question:
-------------------------------
What is an enemy when you haven't actually declared war on anyone in particular and a going into a country with an elected government to install your own preferred group, where the person in question has been arrested based upon accusations made by groups who will profit financially from handing over anyone on any heresay reports that they choose to pass on. Where the evidence is suspect, either due to the motivations of those supplying it, or where it has been obtained through torture...
-------------------------------

There was no declaration of war. FACT
The Taliban was the legitimate Govt in Afghanistan. FACT
The coalition wanted to install someone else as the Govt in Afghanistan. FACT
The alliance warlords were being paid to hand over captives to coalition forces. FACT
Evidence was being obtained by people who had a vested interest in the outcomes resulting from that evidence and were far from impartial. FACT
Evidence was being obtained through torture and anyone who has been involved in that process is fully aware that it gives suspect evidence and that you can get anyone to admit to anything eventually. FACT

When you are willing to have an adult dialogue with your blinkers off, feel free.

In saying that though, the US mainland was attacked by an organisation within Afghanistan. Not something the US could be passive in responding to.

 

[Pastavore]

Paywall pastavore......

Ah, sorry.

It's interesting, I was linked into the article on FB, opened with no paywall, pasted in here, paywall up.

I'll see if I can do it another way.

 

[johnny]

IF it's about troops to Iraq the PM is flat out denying he suggested it.

 

[FR Drew]

In saying that though, the US mainland was attacked by an organisation within Afghanistan. Not something the US could be passive in responding to.

Oh, certainly, and I make no argument that Hicks is blame free or an that he is an altarboy, but kidnapping, forced relocation, torture and 'we won't release you unless you plead guilty to charge "X" ' is also far from Kosher. It was very convenient for the USA to be able to classify people as "non legal combatants" and then throw out any accepted standards and rulebook. The Australian Gov't shouldn't have sat on their hands and facilitated this happening to one of their citizens.

 

[Pastavore]

TONY Abbott suggested a unilateral invasion of Iraq, with 3500 Australian ground troops to confront the Islamic State terrorist group.

Flanked by his chief of staff, Peta Credlin, in a meeting in *Canberra on November 25, the Prime Minister said the move would help halt the surge of *Islamic State in northern Iraq.

After receiving no resistance from Ms Credlin or his other staff in the room, Mr Abbott then raised the idea with Australia’s leading military planners. The military officials were stunned, telling Mr Abbott that sending 3500 Australian soldiers without any US or NATO cover would be disastrous for the *Australians.

They argued that even the US was not prepared to put ground troops into Iraq and it would make Australia the only Western country with troops on the ground.

Asked this week about the suggestion by the Prime Minister of sending Australian ground troops to Iraq, a spokesman for Mr *Abbott said: “The Prime Minister has consistently said that the Australian government will continue to talk to the government of Iraq and to our *coalition partners about what Australia can usefully do to make the world a safer place and to make Australia a safer country.”

The suggestion by Mr Abbott has been uncovered during an *investigation by The Weekend Australian into how the Abbott government is working and why it has been hit with problems on several flanks.

One minister said the partyroom would not permit the management style of Mr Abbott’s office, under Ms Credlin, to continue. He said: “If the management style continues this way, Tony *Abbott will not take us to the next election — Malcolm Turnbull will.”

That minister had publicly supported Mr Abbott in the lead-up to the motion for a leadership spill.

The proposal to invade Iraq raises the issue of Mr Abbott’s judgment — it was made two months before his decision to award a knighthood to Prince *Philip. The knighthood triggered a motion for a leadership spill against Mr Abbott.

The motion was *defeated but it was supported by 39 members of the parliamentary party.

 

[Pastavore]

There you go, Pharma. Opens from the FB link, would hate you to think I was a The Australian subscriber

 

[johnny]

I have doubts that he would have suggested it the way it's been made out in that report. Even looney tunes Tony would know that 3.5k Aust soldiers would not be a feasible deployment to make like it's made out there. Something's not complete in that story or it's altogether bogus.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

I have doubts that he would have suggested it the way it's been made out in that report. Even looney tunes Tony would know that 3.5k Aust soldiers would not be a feasible deployment to make like it's made out there. Something's not complete in that story or it's altogether bogus.

Are you doubting the credibility of NewsCorp journalists?