http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...mail-address-court-hears-20170920-p4yw0r.html
If this clown doesn't get bounced s 44 clearly means nothing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...mail-address-court-hears-20170920-p4yw0r.html
If this clown doesn't get bounced s 44 clearly means nothing.
Elaugaufein
Member
Given the new information he's out unless they change the rules. The others at least have a novel factor (citizenship via descent) which hasn't been formally decided even if the implications of the prior judgement are clear (if a reasonable belief you had renounced / never had birthright citizenship isn't sufficient for citizenship by birth, it's stretching to claim it is for anything but the most arcane citizenships by descents*)
*Xenophon might maybe have an argument.
bobnowhere
Member
Apparently someone, allegedly a SSM supporter, head-butted Tony Abbott in the last hour as he came out of an event. C'mon people, you're meant to be better than this.
Elaugaufein
Member
Sidestepping the moral questions about battering someone for political positions you don't like... How do you reach the conclusion that this is a constructive thing to do at this exact point in time, when you're literally actualizing the arguments of the No campaign ?
bobnowhere
Member
Sadly it only takes one nutter to ruin it for everyone else. Looks like Abbott has a swollen lip and no other injuries but he will launch an nationwide tour based on this for weeks. Abbott is probably secretly loving it.
While this won't change too many, if any, yes to no votes there is a good chance people who didn't care will get motivated.
Elaugaufein
Member
http://sunshinecoastdaily.us4.list-...f48388da3c4ca73494&id=e528a51bc1&e=f5b76d3be8
News story that hit my inbox. SC Daily is a Murdoch regional paper but it's generally decent.
News story that hit my inbox. SC Daily is a Murdoch regional paper but it's generally decent.
Aarglefarg
Member
Keep it in perspective.
Abbott: "The only damage was a very, very slightly swollen lip."
A few days ago:
But homophobic, biphobic and transphobic attacks are 'dog bites man' stories. Recognise and condemn the 'man bites dog' stories as well but keep it in perspective.
It's going to be another thing to stress over.
Abbott: "The only damage was a very, very slightly swollen lip."
A few days ago:
But homophobic, biphobic and transphobic attacks are 'dog bites man' stories. Recognise and condemn the 'man bites dog' stories as well but keep it in perspective.
It's going to be another thing to stress over.
Aarglefarg
Member
Also George Brandis rejected that there was any link between the alleged headbutter and marriage equality advocates.
you mean to tell me a serial liar lied about something for personal political gain 🤔
Aarglefarg
Member
Abbott's aide or whatever said that guy didn't say anything about marriage equality during the attack also.
D.Lo
Member
Abbot did not lie. He said guy with a Yes badge asked for a handshake and then headbutted him.
shinra-bansho
Member
As if anyone needs SSM as a reason to want to headbutt Tony Abbott.
correct, he didn't technically lie. He just positioned everything to use it in the best possible way for his shitbag campaign.
Ha that guy works at one Hobarts best pubs, I see him around a heap.
Aarglefarg
Member
There's the shirtfront puffery but there's more, for example:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/tony-abbott-joins-the-730-report/2674184
And there's allegedly the time he punched a wall next to Barbara Ramjan's head to intimidate her.
I won't give him much sympathy over a "very, very slightly swollen lip".
Aarglefarg
Member
So there was a "Straight Lives Matter" protest near the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Holocaust Memorial.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/same-sex-...change-verbal-blows-only-20170923-gync1t.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/same-sex-...change-verbal-blows-only-20170923-gync1t.html
bobnowhere
Member
Nick Foulkes is a racist, bigoted lunatic. Supports the Cronulla riots, invaded the Gosford Uniting Church wearing Muslim garb while they were holding a rememberance ceremony for the victims of the Lindt Cafe Killings. Pathetic waste of space just looking for attention.
Elaugaufein
Member
I was thinking about making a post about the Marriage Equality Plebisurveythingy in OT, to remind people who haven't got theirs yet to contact the ABS (they all should have arrived yesterday and you can report missing ones / request new ones today) and those who have to fill out and return it ASAP.
If someone else wants to feel free, I'm having trouble coming up with a functional title / post body anyway (eg I think it's officially referred to as the Australian Same Sex Marriage Survey 2017 but that's likely to get buried in idiot responses by people who don't read the first post).
If someone else wants to feel free, I'm having trouble coming up with a functional title / post body anyway (eg I think it's officially referred to as the Australian Same Sex Marriage Survey 2017 but that's likely to get buried in idiot responses by people who don't read the first post).
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Title: AusGAF: 2017 SSM Marriage Survey |OT| - Let Parliament Hear Your Voice
As for the body, do a preamble about what the survey is, the recent history of the debate and why it's important.
lol expecting people to read past the title
I thinks it's a great idea if we just agree to ignore the drive by idiots.
Elaugaufein
Member
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...ngly-elected-commonwealth/8990398?pfmredir=sm
Apparently the Commonwealth is going to argue that not knowing you're a foreign citizen (both by descent and birthright) is materially different than incorrectly believing you had renounced a foreign citizenship. That's a pretty novel line to draw.
Apparently the Commonwealth is going to argue that not knowing you're a foreign citizen (both by descent and birthright) is materially different than incorrectly believing you had renounced a foreign citizenship. That's a pretty novel line to draw.
I mean, thats how it should be
Elaugaufein
Member
Is it ? These are both possibly reasonable but incorrect beliefs contextually , and Sykes demonstrated that a reasonable belief you weren't a foreign citizen because of believed renunciation is insufficient. I'm not sure how that differs from an equally reasonable incorrect belief you don't have foreign citizenship by virtue of birth. I mean I agree that a reasonable belief that you didn't have foreign citizenship, for whatever reason, should be allowed on good faith grounds as long as it's quickly rectified but that's not the precedent that Sykes laid down.
The whole section 44 is fucked obviously and a relic of a different era, but giving a bunch of sloppy MPs a pass because they coudn't do basic research about their citizenship status is laughable.
Maybe Xenophon and Waters get a pass because they at least made an effort but at any point in his life Joyce could have done five minutes of research and found out he was a Kiwi.
Maybe Xenophon and Waters get a pass because they at least made an effort but at any point in his life Joyce could have done five minutes of research and found out he was a Kiwi.
I just don't understand it.
I mean, I totally understand the perspective that health care isn't a right, I just don't understand a perspective that justifies the American health care system.
I've met heaps of conservatives in my life and the ones that are bona fide usually care about, at the VERY LEAST:
1. Efficacy
2. Individual rights
3. The unforeseen long term implications of policy
4. Efficiency
The American system fills none of those criteria. It's the most costly health care system in the world. It isn't very efficacious, people constantly die needlessly from preventable and treatable illnesses, and often times, due to the cost, delay treatment which actually raises the cost of treatment in totality. It smothers individual rights, the individual mandate forces you to pay insurance companies. Don't get me wrong, Obamacare was absolutely the right step forward. It's still just dogshit.
I love the fact that in Australia you can be diagnosed with cancer, be in surgery within two weeks, get chemotherapy and have consistent 3-6 month check ups over a 5 year period and not pay a FUCKING CENT. Because you know, that's what taxes are for....
That poor 20 year old kid who is over ten thousand dollars out of pocket due to appendicitis...holy jesus fuck. Can't help but feel sorry for him.
Elaugaufein
Member
The American system does have some advantages (though I don't think its worth the costs from a societal perspective) , the US tends to be at the cutting edge when it comes to the best of the best from a staffing , equipment and R&D perspective at the very very top end. That almost certainly couldn't happen without the ability to pretty much force the populous at large to pay for it. It's just like everywhere but that top few percent that it's an utter clusterfuck.
Admittedly there are way more efficient ways of achieving that than the US system , if that was your goal and you were open about it. Just fund it directly , it's not like the current (or pre-Obamacare) system wouldn't collapse in a heap without state support anyway (like Medicaid not being able to use it's market power to negotiate on drug prices, and the state ending up paying for people who can't afford hospital due to bankruptcy anyway).
I'm not really sure I understand the thread of causality here, if there is one. I agree that they're at the cutting edge but I'm not sure if that's a direct result of their health care system. I think it's more due to their amazing universities and because of the companies situated there. I mean I don't know how the R&D centres are benefiting directly. Maybe I've missed your point
Elaugaufein
Member
Healthcare makes massive dollars because it can charge whatever the hell it likes basically. Though yeah, the universities are certainly a big factor. I often wonder if people understand just how much R&D is actually indirectly subsidized by the state through the work of Postgrads/Postdocs too. My supervisor alone is providing something like ~450 000 a year worth of post grads (5 people with 1st / 2A class honours or Masters degrees, in various stages of doctoral completion) doing research for industry and industry pays somewhere between nothing and peanuts.
As an aside, this is rather impressive.
WARNING: BUZZFEED ARTICLE.
Every Government And Opposition Leader In Australia Is Voting Yes On Same-Sex Marriage...Except One
WARNING: BUZZFEED ARTICLE.
Every Government And Opposition Leader In Australia Is Voting Yes On Same-Sex Marriage...Except One
Elaugaufein
Member
BuzzFeed's Australian political journalism at least has been top notch information and research wise, though it often has the typical clickbait style sadly.
Though you have to wonder what the ACT Libs are doing deciding to be lead by someone so conservative, the ACT is hard enough for them to win without shooting their own foot like that.
bobnowhere
Member
It's no surprise that it's Coe, the ACT libs are very conservative at the moment. Though quite why they think going further to the right when they went backwards at the last election with their most moderate leader since Kate Carnell that this strategy will succeed in one of the most progressive electorates in Australia is beyond me.
Luke Foley is another interesting one, pretty sure he could have gone either way, he's super Catholic conservative and I'm pretty sure he ticked the wrong faction box on his form. No way he's from the left. Probably realises if he came out against he'd be rolled pretty quick.
Also HobartGAF, Dennison is no longer, it's now Clarke.
Aarglefarg
Member
Essential: 72% of people who already voted voted yes. http://www.essentialvision.com.au/same-sex-marriage-27
Elaugaufein
Member
I was surprised that Nicholson decided to publically announce a yes position.
Given we likely have an election coming up where PHON is going to emerge as a boil on the already dubious governance of Queensland. And the Queensland LNP aren't exactly supportive generally, Newman's government wound back same sex civil unions despite his personal position.
Even Palazczuk who has a prior public Yes position hasn't been drawing much attention to it. Though I see I missed her clear statement on Saturday.
If the polling propensity of Yes voters being more likely to vote proves true, the result might be a blowout bigger than expected.
Elaugaufein
Member
Oddly even the above sample average No skew of the haven't but definitely will vote is still heavily in favour of SSM.
There's a bunch of undecideds sitting in probably vote who are likely soft or shy Nos. Which means that category is probably No leaning.
For some reason there's a massive bunch opposed who won't vote despite this survey basically being for their benefit. The fuck is up with that group ? Are these people who are personally opposed but don't favor a discriminatory law ? In which case they misunderstood the question.
most likely opposed but also doesnt really care
Essential poll is run by the Guardian. Putting on my right wing commentator hat for a moment, and using only words on the correct shortlist of descriptors, the majority of respondents are of the "latte-sipping elitist inner city intelligentsia etc..."
- Status