Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[BanjoRules]

Not dissimilar but definitely not the same thing. Ill make the point that the POTUS said pretty much the same thing as me only a week or so ago. The issue is real.You see, one group is looking to create a Christian Theocracy which is actively and publicly promoting the stripping of women's rights, voting rights, banning books, curtailing free speech, ignoring the results of free elections, violently over throwing the government when they dont agree with the result of an election. Things that are absolutely the essence of a free democracy.
While the other group wants us to cut down less trees, move to a system of enery and life that is less harmful to our planet and generally live a more sustainable life.
I'm proud of the side of the fence I sit on.
Where do you sit

If you watch the ABC or CNN you would think your scenario is real.

There are plenty of people that think like you that have been compromised by the scensorship on social media and MSM.

Not only that there are plenty of people who won't question the narrative, do the work to try and get closer to the truth and think for themselves. They are easily manipulated.

The testimony of FBI whistle-blowers highlighting attacks they have received to get in line with the get Trump agenda no doubt will be completely ignored by you.

No doubt you saw that recent interview with Sam Harris when he made it clear it was perfectly acceptable to hide the Hunter Biden scandal to deny the presidency to Trump.

You may or may not be one of those people that believe that all of your principles can be put aside to get trump but there are heaps on your side that are fine to put democracy aside to meet this goal. If that is achieved do you really think that will be limited to Trump ?

Getting back to this graph where do you see yourself ?

 

[Bicco]

Taylor and BanjoRules, let's start at the beginning.
The foundation of Democracy is fair elections with the results being accepted by both sides. Yes or no?

 

[Taylor]

Taylor and BanjoRules, let's start at the beginning.
The foundation of Democracy is fair elections with the results being accepted by both sides. Yes or no?

Where the votes are free, fair and just - absolutely.
The security of their elections was an issue raised by Democrats in 2017.

Personally I would like their nation to have compulsory voting on a weekend with the bare minimum of voter ID of checking names off a register.

 

[BanjoRules]

Taylor and BanjoRules, let's start at the beginning.
The foundation of Democracy is fair elections with the results being accepted by both sides. Yes or no?

Yes free, fair and devoid of voter fraud.

You cannot have that without voter ID.

You also can't have that with the level of political scensorship in one party's favor at play.

 

[Episode IV]

Not dissimilar but definitely not the same thing. Ill make the point that the POTUS said pretty much the same thing as me only a week or so ago. The issue is real.You see, one group is looking to create a Christian Theocracy which is actively and publicly promoting the stripping of women's rights, voting rights, banning books, curtailing free speech, ignoring the results of free elections, violently over throwing the government when they dont agree with the result of an election. Things that are absolutely the essence of a free democracy.
While the other group wants us to cut down less trees, move to a system of enery and life that is less harmful to our planet and generally live a more sustainable life.
I'm proud of the side of the fence I sit on.
Where do you sit?

The Thames is regarded as the cleanest river in the world (which runs through a major city). If it's not at any particular point in time, it runs very close.
There were numerous reasons the Thames was once a major source of pollution, and at one point (I think it might have been in the 1950's) it was regarded as being biologically dead, unable to sustain life.
Also from memory, it was a Tory government which enabled the building of the sewerage system after the Great Stink in 1858. Actually, 1858 was a good year for England - many changes and social improvements leading to better qualities of life. Even in India.

But who was ultimately responsible for bringing the Thames back to where it is now? Margaret Thatcher's government. Have a read of her government's climate related actions in the late 1980's and ruminate on that for a while. There were no Greens to vote for back then, and the political party most concerned with fixing things environmentally was Conservative.
You could actually do a fair amount of reading on Thatcher to educate yourself as to what a real "conservative" actually is; but I won't force you to do so. You either continue to adhere to a narrative ignoring reality all your life, or you don't. That choice is yours. As is the continual pointing to America as the primary example of what being conservative is; they are an example only. Not a very good one, either, in my opinion. My personal view is that if Australians ceased with the identification as Americans and got back to our roots, which are primarily European, we'd be far better off on both sides of the social and political scale.
The current political and social state America is in should stand as a warning for all Australians who want "change" because they adhere to lofty ideals with little regard to the reality of what they're advocating. That's a conservative opinion too.

Violent overthrows of government are not solely in the province of the conservatives. That much should be historically obvious. Free speech is as much (if not more) curtailed by the left as by the right; if you want a very close example of that, go and take a gander at SRP down there. That's your "democratic left" on display. If you think that isn't an example of the lengths of autocratic action socially left-leaning governments begin to take, given enough time and rope, I've got some news for you. What's the old saying? "The road to hell was paved with good intentions". More of that old conservative folksy wisdom for you.

Main point is, being a "conservative" does not immediately confer those attributes bandied about in public discourse to real, live individuals. Real people can be both "green", and in favour of adherence to certain traditions as per those cultural roots. Real people might have voted for SSM and be concerned about the state of the Indigenous folks, but are saddened by the loss of a decent Queen and a little concerned about what Australia becoming a republic might result in. Real people are environmentally concerned, yet aware of the reality of Australia's role and influence on in climate change, and of the social and economic realities of effecting it.

Real people aren't opposed to change, in general, nor afraid of it. Many of them simply don't think widespread social change necessarily "progressive" in the way you do - personally, I don't even like using that word to describe much of leftist policy, as if its an assumption that that policy represents progress in all ways. Particularly not when it entails changes which have been proven time and again to be ineffective and divisive, or which will detract from the quality of life our ancestors worked and fought for that we enjoy today.
The appropriation of that word to describe only one side of politics is a narrative in itself. It's wordplay, nothing more.

Real people are quite complicated. Instead of being "proud of the side of the fence you sit on", how about you take the damned fence down, and consider reality rather than whatever false narrative you're buying into.

 

[Bicco]

If you watch the ABC or CNN you would think your scenario is real.

There are plenty of people that think like you that have been compromised by the scensorship on social media and MSM.

Not only that there are plenty of people who won't question the narrative, do the work to try and get closer to the truth and think for themselves. They are easily manipulated.

The testimony of FBI whistle-blowers highlighting attacks they have received to get in line with the get Trump agenda no doubt will be completely ignored by you.

No doubt you saw that recent interview with Sam Harris when he made it clear it was perfectly acceptable to hide the Hunter Biden scandal to deny the presidency to Trump.

You may or may not be one of those people that believe that all of your principles can be put aside to get trump but there are heaps on your side that are fine to put democracy aside to meet this goal. If that is achieved do you really think that will be limited to Trump ?

Getting back to this graph where do you see yourself ?

What is at either end of the spectrum? Is it communist North Korea one end and Saudi Arabia at the other?

 

[Taylor]

What is at either end of the spectrum? Is it communist North Korea one end and Saudi Arabia at the other?

That's the exact right question, but we actually need to define the middle and then review it in five to ten years.

 

[Bicco]

Exactly. I figure that when the entire machine turns on someone - it means they are right over the target.

This is the reality where the side using the cogs of the government to drive political purposes is also the one calling the targets of that government action fascists.

So sort of like when Rudd wanted to introduce a mining super profits tax and the media (Daily Telegraph/ 2GB) with the Liberals were all over it. Or Andrew Wilkie trying to reduce pokies and the same again piling on the criticism?
If a group of people (MAGA) are behaving like fascists, then they deserve to be called out on it and it is right to do so.

 

[BanjoRules]

What is at either end of the spectrum? Is it communist North Korea one end and Saudi Arabia at the other?

Not in Australia.

I can say with certainty the greens party now resides on the far left

 

[Bicco]

The Thames is regarded as the cleanest river in the world (which runs through a major city). If it's not at any particular point in time, it runs very close.
There were numerous reasons the Thames was once a major source of pollution, and at one point (I think it might have been in the 1950's) it was regarded as being biologically dead, unable to sustain life.
Also from memory, it was a Tory government which enabled the building of the sewerage system after the Great Stink in 1858. Actually, 1858 was a good year for England - many changes and social improvements leading to better qualities of life. Even in India.

But who was ultimately responsible for bringing the Thames back to where it is now? Margaret Thatcher's government. Have a read of her government's climate related actions in the late 1980's and ruminate on that for a while. There were no Greens to vote for back then, and the political party most concerned with fixing things environmentally was Conservative.
You could actually do a fair amount of reading on Thatcher to educate yourself as to what a real "conservative" actually is; but I won't force you to do so. You either continue to adhere to a narrative ignoring reality all your life, or you don't. That choice is yours. As is the continual pointing to America as the primary example of what being conservative is; they are an example only. Not a very good one, either, in my opinion. My personal view is that if Australians ceased with the identification as Americans and got back to our roots, which are primarily European, we'd be far better off on both sides of the social and political scale.
The current political and social state America is in should stand as a warning for all Australians who want "change" because they adhere to lofty ideals with little regard to the reality of what they're advocating. That's a conservative opinion too.

Violent overthrows of government are not solely in the province of the conservatives. That much should be historically obvious. Free speech is as much (if not more) curtailed by the left as by the right; if you want a very close example of that, go and take a gander at SRP down there. That's your "democratic left" on display. If you think that isn't an example of the lengths of autocratic action socially left-leaning governments begin to take, given enough time and rope, I've got some news for you. What's the old saying? "The road to hell was paved with good intentions". More of that old conservative folksy wisdom for you.

Main point is, being a "conservative" does not immediately confer those attributes bandied about in public discourse to real, live individuals. Real people can be both "green", and in favour of adherence to certain traditions as per those cultural roots. Real people might have voted for SSM and be concerned about the state of the Indigenous folks, but are saddened by the loss of a decent Queen and a little concerned about what Australia becoming a republic might result in. Real people are environmentally concerned, yet aware of the reality of Australia's role and influence on in climate change, and of the social and economic realities of effecting it.

Real people aren't opposed to change, in general, nor afraid of it. Many of them simply don't think widespread social change necessarily "progressive" in the way you do - personally, I don't even like using that word to describe much of leftist policy, as if its an assumption that that policy represents progress in all ways. Particularly not when it entails changes which have been proven time and again to be ineffective and divisive, or which will detract from the quality of life our ancestors worked and fought for that we enjoy today.
The appropriation of that word to describe only one side of politics is a narrative in itself. It's wordplay, nothing more.

Real people are quite complicated. Instead of being "proud of the side of the fence you sit on", how about you take the damned fence down, and consider reality rather than whatever false narrative you're buying into.

I've read Thatcher's auto biography, does that count?
But let's not kid ourselves that the overwhelming advances in environmental protections are due to the efforts of environmentalists aka 'Greenies'.
My description of conservative is one built on many years reading different views on different topics and forming my own conclusions. Most definitely people can be conservative and green, the Teals in our last election proved this.
The left in its extreme is not a place I want to be. I agree that the European bent on capitalism within a Socialist frame work is a very appealing goal.
I would disagree that 'Real people aren't afraid of change'. The marriage equality debates are but one of many that disprove your point.
The MAGA Christian right is most definitely a very, very dangerous movement embodying the most basic fascists principles.

 

[Bicco]

Yes free, fair and devoid of voter fraud.

You cannot have that without voter ID.

You also can't have that with the level of political scensorship in one party's favor at play.

Do you believe that the last US election was won by Trump?

 

[Bicco]

Not in Australia.

I can say with certainty the greens party now resides on the far left

Define 'far left'.

 

[BanjoRules]

Do you believe that the last US election was won by Trump?

No

 

[BanjoRules]

Define 'far left'.

People on the left that will not listen, will not compromise, will not apply logic or reason to meet their political goals.

They are happy to put any sense of principle or morals aside to meet their political goals.

They throw words around like fascist, white supremacy, white priviledge, systemic racism, misogyny, swxism, transphobe etc etc to discredit anyone that doesn't fall in line with their narrative.

The divide people and apply post modern maxist ideology to pit people off against each other. I could go on.

 

[salim malik]

People on the left that will not listen, will not compromise, will not apply logic or reason to meet their political goals.

They are happy to put any sense of principle or morals aside to meet their political goals.

They throw words around like fascist, white supremacy, white priviledge, systemic racism, misogyny, swxism, transphobe etc etc to discredit anyone that doesn't fall in line with their narrative.

The divide people and apply post modern maxist ideology to pit people off against each other. I could go on.

FFS , change your ramble to the right and it fits them perfectly. When has the right ever accepted defeat gracefully in an election.
Trump and his bullshit comes to mind immediately. The KKK and the proud boys are definitely not lefties.
Go back and read the history of Whitlam and how the right in Australia with the help of right USA deposed him
Howard and his children overboard lies.
Abbott and his carbon tax lies.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The Democrats never accepted the 2016 election. Never. Even when their invention, the Russia conspiracy, was eventually disproved.

 

[Square Peg]

FFS , change your ramble to the right and it fits them perfectly. When has the right ever accepted defeat gracefully in an election.
Trump and his bullshit comes to mind immediately. The KKK and the proud boys are definitely not lefties.
Go back and read the history of Whitlam and how the right in Australia with the help of right USA deposed him
Howard and his children overboard lies.
Abbott and his carbon tax lies.

He's talking about the far left censoring debate by calling everything that doesn't align with their views hate speech
That's way beyond political lies

 

[BanjoRules]

The Thames is regarded as the cleanest river in the world (which runs through a major city). If it's not at any particular point in time, it runs very close.
There were numerous reasons the Thames was once a major source of pollution, and at one point (I think it might have been in the 1950's) it was regarded as being biologically dead, unable to sustain life.
Also from memory, it was a Tory government which enabled the building of the sewerage system after the Great Stink in 1858. Actually, 1858 was a good year for England - many changes and social improvements leading to better qualities of life. Even in India.

On a lighter note, I worked on the river Thames in 1990 extending a wharf not far from the London Bridge.

When the tide went out I found a fish splashing in a puddle a good 70/80 metres down the bank. The poms I was with were stunned.

Simply awesome that people have turned thle health of that river around.

 

[Episode IV]

I've read Thatcher's auto biography, does that count?

No, it doesn't. I haven't, personally. I don't read autobiographies.
I'm an adherent to the idea that in order to find out who someone truly is, you watch what they do, observe the results of their actions. Not what they say. Sometimes, the two will align. More often than not, they won't, certainly not entirely.
Actually, one of the reasons I have a deep mistrust of leftist speakers is that as noted previously, given a modicum of authority, they have a tendency to misuse it more than the right do.

But let's not kid ourselves that the overwhelming advances in environmental protections are due to the efforts of environmentalists aka 'Greenies'.

I thought I'd made that point clear.
I think that, overall, people really do want to do "the right thing".
The debates and acrimony are, more often than not, the result of opposing views on how or when the right thing is going to be done.

My description of conservative is one built on many years reading different views on different topics and forming my own conclusions. Most definitely people can be conservative and green, the Teals in our last election proved this.

People, as I said, can be all sorts of things. You were the one who wrote about "fences" dividing conservatives and the environmentally aware, placing yourself on a side. Categorisation is real, and what I was commenting on. What makes that point more important in relation to the Left is that they are supposed to be the ones in opposition to it, all being equal and wotnot; yet here we are.

The left in its extreme is not a place I want to be. I agree that the European bent on capitalism within a Socialist frame work is a very appealing goal.

I don't think that the European goal is capitalism within a socialist framework, and I certainly don't find the idea appealing.
You're going to have to elaborate on how you formed that opinion.

I would disagree that 'Real people aren't afraid of change'. The marriage equality debates are but one of many that disprove your point.

The marriage equality debate showed that most people were in support of SSM. Said debate being, IIRC, a Coalition government initiative. They might have been against it as a matter of party policy, but held the debate and survey, and took action based upon the result. Like I said, some take action based upon prevailing public opinion, and some just talk in pretty slogans and have non idea on how to efficiently and responsibly make the principles behind those slogans a reality. Not least because some of them are, in reality, opposed to each other, but that's something which would take time to explain.
As a minor adjunct, though, how do you think the sizeable and increasing Muslim population of Australia would have voted in the SSM survey, had they been forced to?

And please feel free to elaborate. How, exactly, does the SSM debate disprove that most real people aren't afraid of change?
These people who had recently elected a conservative government and then turned out in support of SSM?

The MAGA Christian right is most definitely a very, very dangerous movement embodying the most basic fascists principles.

MAGA, huh. Referencing some amorphous American mob... again.
What fascist principles might those be, and who are MAGA anyway? Who is it, exactly, who are controlling the narrative on who MAGA are, their beliefs as a group, and what they represent?

Seeing as you bought it up, though, Patty Murray? Just what does count as electoral manipulation, anyway?

... judging by your reply to my last post, I'd guess I'm perhaps asking too many questions. If that's the case, please say so and I'll dial it back a bit.

 

[Episode IV]

On a lighter note, I worked on the river Thames in 1990 extending a wharf not far from the London Bridge.

When the tide went out I found a fish splashing in a puddle a good 70/80 metres down the bank. The poms I was with were stunned.

Simply awesome that people have turned thle health of that river around.

Never been there myself, I just read about it a while ago. Uplifting, for sure.

Funny how things work out though.
I was talking about Thatcher, who was undoubtedly a conservative politician. She is both hated and revered in Britain, for various reasons, but one of the more amusing ones is due to the government actions surrounding the UK miners strike in 1984-85.
Reason? Coal mining. The labour unions were actively subsidising the coal industry at the time, but it was a losing and unprofitable industry in the UK. So she decided to shut huge swathes of it down, putting many out of work. The labour unions disagreed, hence the drawn out and angst-riddled affair, conservative government versus labour unions.

...Coal mining.
Now put that in a modern context. Sometimes, you just have to laugh.

 

[Bicco]

People on the left that will not listen, will not compromise, will not apply logic or reason to meet their political goals.

They are happy to put any sense of principle or morals aside to meet their political goals.

They throw words around like fascist, white supremacy, white priviledge, systemic racism, misogyny, swxism, transphobe etc etc to discredit anyone that doesn't fall in line with their narrative.

The divide people and apply post modern maxist ideology to pit people off against each other. I could go on.

Far left to me is Communism. The state owns all entities, all monies from these entities goes to the state which then redistributes the money evenly amongst the workers. To me what you've described is simply the behaviour of individuals of any political persuasion. So seeing as we don't agree on what 'far left' is there's no point in me answering your question.

 

[Bicco]

No

Okay. So we agree that free and fair elections is the foundation of democracy. One person. One vote.
So the next step must be the acceptance of the results of these elections. Do you agree?Yes or no?

 

[BanjoRules]

Okay. So we agree that free and fair elections is the foundation of democracy. One person. One vote.
So the next step must be the acceptance of the results of these elections. Do you agree?Yes or no?

Both sides have a history of not accepting election results particularly the Democrats.

Does it make the people who voted for them cult members, fascists or Hitler types. No.

 

[BanjoRules]

Far left to me is Communism. The state owns all entities, all monies from these entities goes to the state which then redistributes the money evenly amongst the workers. To me what you've described is simply the behaviour of individuals of any political persuasion. So seeing as we don't agree on what 'far left' is there's no point in me answering your question.

Yes, some of those traits can also be attributed to the far right. Agreed.

But, identify politics, cancel culture, name calling (of the type I mentioned previously), pushing victim hood mindset on minorities etc are widely and only used by the far left.

 

[Bicco]

thought I'd made that point clear.
I think that, overall, people really do want to do "the right thing".
The debates and acrimony are, more often than not, the result of opposing views on how or when the right thing is going to be done.

Couldn't agree more. But that's not the point I'm making, which is that the vast majority of environmental safeguards/issues (whatever you want to call them) have been raised and implemented by what some here have called 'w**nker greenies'. Not by those political parties on the conservative side of politics.

I don't think that the European goal is capitalism within a socialist framework, and I certainly don't find the idea appealing.
You're going to have to elaborate on how you formed that opinion.

I describe Europe (and Australia) like this because they are structured to allow businesses to prosper, individuals to create wealth but with strong social safety nets. Things like liveable minimum wages, free healthcare, efficient public transport, maternity leave, paid annual leave, strong public housing policies, well developed refugee intake programs.

As a minor adjunct, though, how do you think the sizeable and increasing Muslim population of Australia would have voted in the SSM survey, had they been forced to?

No idea, I've never thought about it.

And please feel free to elaborate. How, exactly, does the SSM debate disprove that most real people aren't afraid of change?
These people who had recently elected a conservative government and then turned out in support of SSM?

Because the people on the conservative/right of politics were, in general, speaking out against it. Of course you can point to individuals on the right who were pro SSM as well as finding those on the left against. But we're not discussing indivuals here. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia about the subject referencing the Australian parliament
"On 20 September 2012, the Senate also voted down its same-sex marriage legislation, by a vote of 41-26.[29] In both instances, the Liberal/National Coalition honoured their 2010 election commitment to vote as a bloc against any same-sex marriage legislation."

However due to international SSM recognition and a postal survey in Australia, it was clear that the majority of Australians were in favour of SSM. The Liberal/Nationals the (rightly) changed their position to allow a conscience vote. On the whole, the no votes to the change in the marriage act came from the conservative side of the floor.

MAGA, huh. Referencing some amorphous American mob... again.

Yes, again. Just like people referencing 'The far left' or 'BLM' or 'Christian Right '.

Who is it, exactly, who are controlling the narrative on who MAGA are, their beliefs as a group, and what they represent?

Trump in a nutshell.

Seeing as you bought it up, though, Patty Murray? Just what does count as electoral manipulation, anyway?

Who's Patty Murray ?
Electoral manipulation is Gerrymandering, increasing complexity requirements for postal votes and restricting access to voting stations/places, mainly by simply reducing the number of such places.