Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
0
Comments
155
Joined
8 mo. ago

  • Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies and balanced the state budget. And keep in mind this was in Queensland, the most conservative state in the country.

    Rudd ... there is so much I could say. One of Gillard's first acts after replacing Rudd was to drop the taxes on mining, she then put in a carbon tax that even an idiot could come up with a scare campaign against, said carbon tax only lasted a few years and permanently poisoned the idea of a price on carbon. This is not even mentioning the CIA cables discussing whether they should replace Rudd with Gillard because Rudd didn't want to automatically join America in a war for Taiwan.

  • No further reading. Naturally though people find threats more important to know about than a news article saying "everything is fine, better than you think even, you don't need to worry".

    Though doom scrolling does help keep people's minds numb by flipping them between cat videos and RFK Junior endlessly. This is why doom scrolling is so good at making time disappear and some people want that.

    EDIT: Actually, there's probably a contingent of Guardian readers that do want to be outraged. They want to blame someone else for their uselessness.

  • A government can only go against lobbyist interests (and especially American interests) if they have the opposition on-side. Labor, to this day, has a long history of being couped and they've learned cowardice as a result.

    Whitlam, Rudd, Fyles, Palaszczuk.

  • I voted against the Greens because their behavior voting against the HAFF was straight-up psychotic. They were throwing the homeless under the bus for headlines and renters.

  • They don't want to be outraged, they just feel anything that outrages them is important whereas anything that doesn't is not. So any news that's positive about Labor is unimportant to the audience and suppressed by the media, even if it's true.

  • Per the article, without a "no religion" option people will pick the religion of their parents even if they're now atheist. This inflates the christian numbers.

  • It's pretty damaging to your reputation to sue a rape victim for defamation. Or at least it should be.

  • You suggest both sides are the same when you say winning is less important than acting symbolically on principle. Principles give you a coalition government. A flagrantly corrupt, shamefully incompetent government, one that will not just do nothing to stop America from owning us but actively seek that out, one that undermines the unions and willfully cheers on extinction, one that's just recently come out with the policy of scrapping net zero.

    You may suggest the Greens, but the Greens would 100% lose 9/10 elections if Labor disappeared tomorrow. And the Greens are the actual horrible people. They blocked the HAAF not to save people from homelessness, but from housing stress, because they wanted to pick up renters as a voting block. I remember Adam Bandt visibly seething in rage at having parliamentary rules explained to him, because he is a narcissist who wants everyone to know that he's a good and infallible person because he acts on his principles.

    Acting on principles is the easy thing to do, but it's also dereliction of duty as prime minister, because it gets you the job title of "former prime minister". Whitlam and Rudd acted on principle, they lasted 3 years and were proceeded by a decade of Liberals. We cannot afford another decade of Liberals.

  • The prime ministers that didn't play the game didn't last more than 3 years. Then we got the LNP who actually actively strengthen the neoliberal system. This whole "both sides are the same" argument needs to die, firstly because the LNP is corrupt and much more incompetent, but also because it makes the corruption and incompetence seem less bad when people say (or imply) that.

  • What is he doing that's getting people killed?

  • Putting lives before an elections means you lose both, if he even has sacrificed lives by being cautious.

    Cutting arms shipments to Israel would be merely symbolic and would get Albanese immediately couped like Whitlam and Rudd (if he would even be able to do it in the first place), the HAAF was meant to solve homelessness rather than housing stress and it was delayed by a few years by the Greens, and climate change requires policy maintained over multiple elections cycles to address on a domestic level.

  • All the things people are saying he needs to be bold and aggressive on, Labor has done so in the past and it's lost them election.

    The fact is we're all too immersed in the American social media ecosystem and so we expect bold action to solve American problems that would only be vote-winners in a non-compulsory voting system where elections are fought on turnout (usually as a centrist vs. nutjobs race). Albanese knows the Australian political system well, that being that nobody really cares about politics here and if Labor wants to win they need to stay out of the press because it's run by private school kids who hate him (at best).

  • Albanese is considered to be on the left-wing of the Labor party. He's extremely cautious and with good reason. Culture wars, tax reform, and defying America are all election losers.

    If you want to see someone who has no values look at Gillard. She couped Rudd by offering to drop the taxes on mining corpos, governed based on spectacle rather than long-term outcomes, and now spends her days campaigning on behalf of Israel last I checked.

  • At some point, Netanyahu really needs to consider the possibility that he's the one who's the problem.

  • What he said to France, Canada, and the UK is far more boiler-plate and less emotive than what he's said about Albanese.

  • Given his reaction, I take that to mean Australia's recognition of Palestine is actually a REALLY big deal. He didn't say this about France and Mexico (two much more powerful countries). I don't get how Australia in particular is so important though.

    It's worth noting recognizing Palestine comes with a lot of political risk. Labor prime ministers have been couped twice, and the LNP made a joke of any efforts they tried to improve the country in the following years. These coups both happened for defying US foreign policy.