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

Remove this Banner Ad

wahooo said:
In case you aren't familiar with the saying 'even a broken clock is right twice a day', let me explain it to you.

It means that even dumb/silly people are sometimes right. My reference to the phrase implies that Trump was right. He was right about that particular point. I'm pretty sure suggesting that Trump was right, is giving him credit.

All that was intended by my comment was to suggest that just because Trump was right about one matter of foreign policy, it doesn't mean that he should be given a 'HD' in it. I was giving credit but not extending that credit as far as you would.

My apologies for trying to have a laugh in the process.
Click to expand...

And the phrase does not give credit, it is more like saying the person is stupid or not capable but even a broken clock (see work broken) can be right twice a day. No one uses that phrase to give credit.
 
If you swipe Trump off the history book the best course of action for the US and the world in regards to economic stability and general prosperity is for the US to become one of the largest oil exporters in the world - as best as it can. Produce, produce, produce. Crash the price.

Pipe it from Canada into the gulf, ship it out. Rain black gold on the world and the losers will be Russia and the middle eastern nations.

The cost of transport, shipping, all the way to food at the shops will come down.

Instead, as with natural gas in Europe, the political class prefer to use these strategic resources to hurt other political class and the regular people are the ones who wear the cost, so far just in money - but if that gets pushed too far as seen with Japan the price is paid in blood too.
 
I've taken time to check on the other side of the coin and there are plenty that have no issue with working with Trump.

General John Kelly talks below about his time as chief of staff with Trump. Couldn't see anything of concern from him.

Have listened to Katleigh MCEnaney, his former press secretary, she speaks very highly of him.

The most telling was Mike Pence, his VP for 4 years. He devoted a whole chapter in his book to his relationship with Trump and whilst he points out there was disagreement he also is proud of their achievements together.

He said they had a close and successful working relationship every day for 4 years sometimes up to 4 hours per day and was his friend, that didn't end well.

Those successes included their foreign policy such as Russia never tried to redraw international borders during their administration. They changed the consensus on China imposing $250 billion in tariffs which still remain today. They made China accountable for intellectual property theft and strengthened military alliances in the region and maintained freedom of navigation in the area.

On the domestic front he talks about how he and Trump cut taxes, created jobs, achieved energy independence, reduced regulation and illegal immigration by 90%.

All of this couldn't have been achieved if Trump was thick, or not hard working or didn't listen and work with his team.

Again, when it comes to this topic some people can't get past an emotional response and prefer to demonize and smear rather than provide credit where credit is due.

Pence believes there are better options for 2024, so do I.

There are plenty of people switching allegiances to Desantis and I'm sure there will be plenty that stay with Trump.

Looking forward to the democratic process unfolding in the primaries...let the people decide.

 

Log in to remove this ad.

BanjoRules said:
I agree with Tony Abbotts comments on what the liberal party should stand for to achieve future success, namely :

As a liberal support lower taxes, small government and great freedom.

As a conservative support the family, small business and the institutions and values that have stood the test of time.

As a patriot acknowledge that Australia is the best country to live on earth and to keep it that way.
Click to expand...
The problem is these aren't actionable goals - it's all just words. "acknowledge Australia is the best country to live on earth" is about as useless as "Make America Great Again". It's just drivel and rest really isn't much better.

The institutions and values that have stood the test of time? Which ones are those? The banks and financial institutions we had a damning royal commission into? The religious institutions that we needed to have a royal commission into their systemic child sexual abuse? Are these the values should be basing our society on? I'd hope if we've learnt anything is that change in these institutions is imperative.

The talk about supporting families doesn't correlate with reality either. Low and middle class families were smashed in Abbott's first budget. And I don't see any difference between what both Labor or Liberals do for small business. Both parties seem focussed almost solely on the big end of town. Morrison declaring Australia should be adopters not innovators was one of the biggest FUs to small business a PM has ever made.

Government debt more than quadrupled under the last Liberal government. Supporters will make excuses but the data doesn't lie, they simply haven't been and aren't great economic managers. This idea of them being for small government is also bollocks. Government spending isn't lower under them. Lowering taxes is a great PR term but if you are serious about fiscal conservatism then the more important part of it is policies to stimulate growth and increase GDP so you can lower taxes and still have the same revenue.

I want their actions and policy to match what they say before I start being optimistic about them being a feasible alternative government.
 
I don't think you'll ever see a government not increase spending. It's too easy to oppose. Running on a policy of tax the rich and give everyone a $5000 payment will win you every election on the planet - you never get enough in tax anyway so it's just funded with more debt.

Try and raise taxes? Burned for it.
Try to reduce spending? Burned for it.

Once that ability to spend from debt was accepted the game was over, spending policy will win by averages.

Give a tax break to married couples with children, there are higher social returns from these families.
Give a tax break to married couples with children where one parent stays home, there are higher social returns from these families.

And I'm not married so I wouldn't benefit from that except in the children my children interact with are more likely to come from homes with stable role models and consistent standards - without parental attention diverted (and therefore modeled) into exploring multiple other ultimately unsuccessful romantic relationships. (refer success rate for first marriages to subsequent ones)

But economically it's better for the nation to have absent parents who both have to work, sending their children to child care that is called school.
 
myfreodom said:
The problem is these aren't actionable goals - it's all just words. "acknowledge Australia is the best country to live on earth" is about as useless as "Make America Great Again". It's just drivel and rest really isn't much better.

The institutions and values that have stood the test of time? Which ones are those? The banks and financial institutions we had a damning royal commission into? The religious institutions that we needed to have a royal commission into their systemic child sexual abuse? Are these the values should be basing our society on? I'd hope if we've learnt anything is that change in these institutions is imperative.

The talk about supporting families doesn't correlate with reality either. Low and middle class families were smashed in Abbott's first budget. And I don't see any difference between what both Labor or Liberals do for small business. Both parties seem focussed almost solely on the big end of town. Morrison declaring Australia should be adopters not innovators was one of the biggest FUs to small business a PM has ever made.

Government debt more than quadrupled under the last Liberal government. Supporters will make excuses but the data doesn't lie, they simply haven't been and aren't great economic managers. This idea of them being for small government is also bollocks. Government spending isn't lower under them. Lowering taxes is a great PR term but if you are serious about fiscal conservatism then the more important part of it is policies to stimulate growth and increase GDP so you can lower taxes and still have the same revenue.

I want their actions and policy to match what they say before I start being optimistic about them being a feasible alternative government.
Click to expand...

myfreodom said:
I want their actions and policy to match what they say before I start being optimistic about them being a feasible alternative government.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get much argument from me there...feel the same way. I think they have lost there way.

myfreodom said:
The banks and financial institutions we had a damning royal commission into? The religious institutions that we needed to have a royal commission into their systemic child sexual abuse? Are these the values should be basing our society on? I'd hope if we've learnt anything is that change in these institutions is imperative.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Totally on your bus with any criticism you level at corruption within the banks and financial institutions as well as the sexual abuse and covering up of that abuse by various churches.

But are you saying these institutions should go or do we reform them and try and put in place checks and balances to ensure they are less likely to happen again ?

Again, there are progressives that are completely onboard with eradicating all religions with perhaps the exception of Islam, from the face of the earth and wont acknowledge any good that religion has been currently or historically.
 
Square Peg said:
Yeah Kelly is a massive fan of Trump

www.msnbc.com

Trump's former chief of staff is no longer holding back

It says a lot about the former president that the man who served at his side for a year and a half seems to hold him in barely contained contempt.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
Click to expand...
That's a fair call...a number of people changed their minds on Trump after the so called insurrection.

Even Pence voted to have him impeached on that issue alone but didn't change his views on their many achievements over the previous 4 years.

There are two sides to the Jan 6 sham trial and many questions remain. Ray Epps ???

Some people are happy wallowing in their disdain for Trump and can't look at things fairly or rationally.
 
37.7B request for war funding Ukraine.

March: 13.6B
May: 40B
Nove Req: 37.7B

91.3B well exceeds Russia's yearly military budget.
Approximately double annual spend on war in Afghanistan.

What is this madness? Country in recession, jobs being scrapped, inflation at 40 year highs, supply issues, debt issues, interest rates hurting families... but yeah let's give them another 37.7B. How much is being siphoned off to special interests that line pollies pockets (both sides)? And why the hell would they do it with no plan to force a negotiation.

Biden is being led by some self interested, country last, greedy fools.

If some Dems and most of the GOP dont vote against this I will be disgusted at the lot of them. Again.
 
BanjoRules said:
You're not going to get much argument from me there...feel the same way. I think they have lost there way.

Absolutely not. Totally on your bus with any criticism you level at corruption within the banks and financial institutions as well as the sexual abuse and covering up of that abuse by various churches.

But are you saying these institutions should go or do we reform them and try and put in place checks and balances to ensure they are less likely to happen again ?

Again, there are progressives that are completely onboard with eradicating all religions with perhaps the exception of Islam, from the face of the earth and wont acknowledge any good that religion has been currently or historically.
Click to expand...
I'm not pushing eradication but I think they need to be held accountable for their past actions and be expected to have to prove they have changed. To date they've had the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Plenty of other organisations have been dissolved for far lesser crimes than what we are talking about with these institutions. They shouldn't be immune like they have been historically because it is pretty clear that protected environment lends itself to fostering criminal elements.

I'm not sure where you are getting this sense of great support for Islam in Australia? There is a movement for accepting people's choice of faith more broadly. But you can support the rights of Muslim women living in Australia for instance whilst simultaneously condemning what is happening in the name of Islam in Iran.

I'm a big supporter of my nearby Parish priest because they do some amazing community work and open their church for other faiths to utilise. But I simultaneously want the institution of the Church to be held liable for their abhorrent crimes. Tax payers shouldn't be propping up any institution that has been guilty of crimes like these. If that means they get replaced by better versions either completely or by changing then we get the outcome we need regardless.
 
myfreodom said:
I'm not pushing eradication but I think they need to be held accountable for their past actions and be expected to have to prove they have changed. To date they've had the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Plenty of other organisations have been dissolved for far lesser crimes than what we are talking about with these institutions. They shouldn't be immune like they have been historically because it is pretty clear that protected environment lends itself to fostering criminal elements.

I'm not sure where you are getting this sense of great support for Islam in Australia? There is a movement for accepting people's choice of faith more broadly. But you can support the rights of Muslim women living in Australia for instance whilst simultaneously condemning what is happening in the name of Islam in Iran.

I'm a big supporter of my nearby Parish priest because they do some amazing community work and open their church for other faiths to utilise. But I simultaneously want the institution of the Church to be held liable for their abhorrent crimes. Tax payers shouldn't be propping up any institution that has been guilty of crimes like these. If that means they get replaced by better versions either completely or by changing then we get the outcome we need regardless.
Click to expand...
Agreed...what reforms has happened from outside and within the church ?

Change needs to happen and a slap on the wrist is unacceptable.

Apologies for subjecting you to a Skynews clip but maybe concentrate on the views from Anglican Deacon Calvin Robinson.

Islam is getting a free ride by progressives at the moment. That is my concern aside from those that wish to remove Christianity from this earth.

Christianity the most 'persecuted religion all around the world'​


 
BanjoRules said:
Agreed...what reforms has happened from outside and within the church ?

Change needs to happen and a slap on the wrist is unacceptable.

Apologies for subjecting you to a Skynews clip but maybe concentrate on the views from Anglican Deacon Calvin Robinson.

Islam is getting a free ride by progressives at the moment. That is my concern aside from those that wish to remove Christianity from this earth.

Christianity the most 'persecuted religion all around the world'​


Click to expand...

Christians are being persecuted in a bunch of countries where christianity isn't the dominant faith but it is misleading to take it out of context and apply those findings to countries like Australia and the US/UK. The persecution is predominantly happening in Afghanistan, North Korea, Somalia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Nigeria etc.

The source is a report that lists 144 countries involving "significant" persecution of Christians. For Muslims it is a list of 142 countries.

Perhaps a little bit of scaremongering that the death of Christianity is coming. But the numbers have only moved from 107 and 96 respectively in 2007. It really hasn't changed that much and I'm not sure the way it has been presented provides any insight regardless.

The biggest threat to Christianity is the Church itself. Its unwillingness and inability to adapt to the changing world will likely lead to its eventual demise. People aren't leaving in droves due to some global conspiracy. An Anglican Deacon playing the victim card seems a strange strategy to try given the history of christianity. They made their own bed to lie in.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

poshman said:
I knew what the phrase meant. Condescending much?
Click to expand...
I apologise, it was condescending. It wasn't an appropriate response and for that am I sorry. However, if you care at all, it was this comment of yours which provoked such a response from me:

poshman said:
You just cant give credit can you.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that you making this comment meant my reaction was justified, I weighed up the options and I chose to be a dick in response (as mentioned above, I apologise).

On multiple occassions you have made statements to the effect that I'm not capable of giving credit to the 'other side' or that I'm more 'aggresive' to the 'other side' because I used different adjectives. I think it's pretty clear that by making comments like this, you're suggesting I'm blinded by my political persuasions (whatever you consider those to be).

Comments like that are unneccessary. Rather than engaging with the issues at hand, these sneaky little jabs of yours are directed at me. You're big on not attacking others. I find that position hard to reconcile with comments such as the above.

I realise my comment about broken clock spotting didn't offer much opportunity for you to engage in a debate about Trump's foreign policy. I didn't really intend for it to spark debate, it was tongue in cheek and I thought it'd be largely ignored. What I never expected it to offer, was a chance for you to make, yet another, snide little comment about me.

Grievances aside, to respond more directly to your comments about Trump's foreign policy. I think it's ludicrous to suggest that anyone who thinks he isn't deserving of a 'HD' in foreign policy is wearing 'ideological glasses'. In fact, I'd suggest the converse is true. I think failing to recognise that people may reasonably form the view that Trump isn't deserving of a 'HD' in foreign policy is wearing 'ideological glasses'.
 
myfreodom said:
Christians are being persecuted in a bunch of countries where christianity isn't the dominant faith but it is misleading to take it out of context and apply those findings to countries like Australia and the US/UK. The persecution is predominantly happening in Afghanistan, North Korea, Somalia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Nigeria etc.

The source is a report that lists 144 countries involving "significant" persecution of Christians. For Muslims it is a list of 142 countries.

Perhaps a little bit of scaremongering that the death of Christianity is coming. But the numbers have only moved from 107 and 96 respectively in 2007. It really hasn't changed that much and I'm not sure the way it has been presented provides any insight regardless.

The biggest threat to Christianity is the Church itself. Its unwillingness and inability to adapt to the changing world will likely lead to its eventual demise. People aren't leaving in droves due to some global conspiracy. An Anglican Deacon playing the victim card seems a strange strategy to try given the history of christianity. They made their own bed to lie in.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you call persecution. Back when I were a lad, religion was fair game. They got torn a new one on TV comedy shows going all the way back to Dave Allen and his ever present glass of Scotch every Friday night - but that was back when such things were permissible and comedy was used to expose social issues while garnering a laugh.
As an aside, Dave Allen was the one, via comedy, who made me realise what "gay" meant before I even hit double digits in age (just Google Dave Allen End of the World video and you'll see what sort of comedy made it to TV in the 1970's, and that was a mild one). In the case of religion, the nun outside the bar joke.

Persecution takes many forms. Some groups like to scream and cry about it though, thus gaining recognition and a suit of social armour protecting them from the same sort of scrutiny the Christians church currently receives. I guarantee you they have just as much to hide, and their histories are just as chequered as the Christians, yet they have an almost protected status in Australia as far as taking the piss is concerned. We still associate slavery with America, for example, but the Islamic world practised (and still do) slavery on a far greater scale the the USA ever did... it's just not widely known or openly acknowledged.
The "Death of Christianity" has been slowly gathering momentum ever since the West started that self-scrutiny, via comedy or otherwise. It's a reason why I believe the current disposition of the West for tolerance and respect has the potential to become very, very dangerous. If we're not permitted to mock or disrespect those opinions we find objectionable to our society, then those opinions and beliefs are given validity, and persist when they might not have otherwise.

But, digression aside, there are a couple of things I'd like to point out.
One being that Christianity is dying - among the Australians with Western European ancestry. Christianity as a percentage of total population has been dropping for a long time, but is being supported largely due to immigration. Currently about a third of Australians were not born here, and India has moved to the top of the list (taking over the UK) as a primary source, along with China. Of those, and among the increasing numbers of immigrants of African descent, significant numbers are Christian, and possess a greater adherence to the faith than the Europeans do, who often do little more than check a box on a census sheet because they always have. I'm speaking generally of course.
Immigrants are also the reason other religions are gaining traction here - there are more people now in Australia of the Islamic faith than there are Aboriginals. Not exactly comparing apples with apples, but think about what that means in terms of social impact. Watch TV advertising, observe which people are being represented and which are not.

Secondly, with reference to your last paragraph, and your note regarding the churches unwillingness to change.
Religion is by its very nature conservative. When belief itself is often expressed as an adherence to one religion or another, and those religions very existence and origins are bound into a single book of rules, from which the tenets of that religion are derived, then change is unlikely to occur because it leads to doubt.
When you've told the folk for two thousand odd years that this book has all the answers and contains all the rules, you can't change them without undermining the very authority from which your particular Church was derived in the first place. There are only so many times church leaders can say "oh, you have to understand the context" or point to a mistranslation before adherents start wondering if the Word of God is final after all, or if the Prophets might have been a bit wrong about some things. And from there, they start wondering if that authority was ever real at all.
Pope Francis's views on same-sex marriage and sexual identity are a huge step, and an admission that Catholicism either changes, or dies. I actually see it as desperation. They know they are losing ground.

This is touching on why Islam is so strong - where Christianity is rather inflexible in interpretation, for the most part, Islam has a tradition of exegesis which enables it to more fluidly "move with the times". Some factions more slowly than others, of course, but a quick study of Exegesis as a tradition of Islam will reveal why Muslims find it so difficult to condemn the actions of other factions.
According to my understanding anyway. I'm not claiming to be an expert.
 
Episode IV said:
When you've told the folk for two thousand odd years that this book has all the answers and contains all the rules, you can't change them without undermining the very authority from which your particular Church was derived in the first place.
Click to expand...
Nah the Bible is chock full of verses that are no longer relevant and are therefore conveniently ignored by the faithful.

I'm pretty sure nobody is thinking they are going to hell for wearing two kinds material in their clothing (Leviticus 19:19).

It's a book written by men for the time they were living in, with their biases at that time. Christians are already ignoring plenty of what it says. Instead priests etc apply what verses still have relevancy in today's world, as they should. They are picking and choosing, which is fine so long as people are aware of that.

But like people have done throughout history, people were and some still are weaponising religious texts for their own benefit. Those manipulations and weak interpretations have led to some of the worst cases of persecution by members of the Church against others. Conveniently taking verses like "man must not lie with man" as gospel from Leviticus so they can oppress LGBTQ+ but not the clothing bit on the same page because that'd inconvenience them personally. And there are shit loads of verses about oppression that Christians like to just ignore when they are telling others they are going to hell because of who they are.

The book of Matthew says that experience should inform how we learn God’s truth. It encourages the evolution of faith - so to adapt to a changing world and to correct misinterpretations of the scripture. Reinterpretation of scripture isn't forbidden, it's encouraged. Self interest is really what is preventing change. Guess they skipped Philippians 2:3 in their studies?
 
myfreodom said:
Nah the Bible is chock full of verses that are no longer relevant and are therefore conveniently ignored by the faithful.

I'm pretty sure nobody is thinking they are going to hell for wearing two kinds material in their clothing (Leviticus 19:19).

It's a book written by men for the time they were living in, with their biases at that time. Christians are already ignoring plenty of what it says. Instead priests etc apply what verses still have relevancy in today's world, as they should. They are picking and choosing, which is fine so long as people are aware of that.

But like people have done throughout history, people were and some still are weaponising religious texts for their own benefit. Those manipulations and weak interpretations have led to some of the worst cases of persecution by members of the Church against others. Conveniently taking verses like "man must not lie with man" as gospel from Leviticus so they can oppress LGBTQ+ but not the clothing bit on the same page because that'd inconvenience them personally. And there are s**t loads of verses about oppression that Christians like to just ignore when they are telling others they are going to hell because of who they are.

The book of Matthew says that experience should inform how we learn God’s truth. It encourages the evolution of faith - so to adapt to a changing world and to correct misinterpretations of the scripture. Reinterpretation of scripture isn't forbidden, it's encouraged. Self interest is really what is preventing change. Guess they skipped Philippians 2:3 in their studies?
Click to expand...
When we say "dying" we're not saying that Christians are leaving the faith (although I suppose many are), it's more that their children are not taking it up or inheriting that faith in the same way they once did. You need to understand the passage of time.

I was giving you some reasons why Christianity is dying, not why those who are already believers remain so.
 
I've got a mad uncle.
Come to think of it, I also am a mad uncle.
The circle of life. It's a privilege to be alive.
 
Lots of Twitter users melting down.

Seeing them I don't have to scratch too far below the surface to come to the conclusion that many of them suffer from the problem of spending too much time on social media and not enough time outside.
 
Reynolds Number said:
Lots of Twitter users melting down.

Seeing them I don't have to scratch too far below the surface to come to the conclusion that many of them suffer from the problem of spending too much time on social media and not enough time outside.
Click to expand...
Unhappy angry people intent on making the world unhappy and angry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top