The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

[plague]

And I'm with the good Member on the money issue.
Now they want to save $160m
Now?
Ok great now that we are so fiscally frugal let's look at the billions we are spending on subs or the NBN or welfare or middle class subsidies.

Oh wait, we good with blowing whatever there.

But gosh darn it that $160m is a deal breaker.

[The Dunster]

And I'm with the good Member on the money issue.
Now they want to save $160m
Now?
Ok great now that we are so fiscally frugal let's look at the billions we are spending on subs or the NBN or welfare or middle class subsidies.

Oh wait, we good with blowing whatever there.

But gosh darn it that $160m is a deal breaker.

The money spent becomes earned income for the non-government sectors of the economy. It's never a question of affordability in any modern economy.
The only thing that is questionable is the distribution of the income when it is spent.
As I think you are trying to point out governments choose to call anything against their ideologies wasteful and anything that supports their ideologies to be a worthwhile investment.

[hawk]

A
Ok great now that we are so fiscally frugal let's look at the billions we are spending on subs or the NBN or welfare or middle class subsidies.

Too right. We could smash multiple cancers, have free health care and give everyone houses but noooooo lets lest beat our chests over a false security of useless underwater bathtubs.

NBN is important but.

[GazFish35]

what I don't get is a plebiscite anyway - its not binding, save the cash and ask the question at an election.

the issue is ridiculous though.

I get religious groups see it as "union of blah blah" so let churches decide who they marry, but my marriage is a legal document registered with the state, not the church. so should anyone else's if they so choose. why do I get that right, but others don't, a church had zero to do with my marriage, why should a religious view stop others from being married in the eyes of the state too.

you hear some bang on about protectin the sanctity of marriage!!!! **** me. you can win a wedding in a tv show, us straight folk have destroyed the sanctity of marriage a long time ago.

[pv4]

you hear some bang on about protectin the sanctity of marriage!!!! **** me. you can win a wedding in a tv show, us straight folk have destroyed the sanctity of marriage a long time ago.

Truthbomb right there.

I don't understand why political parties are so against legalizing gay marriage (if they are at all) - it creates so, so many jobs.

[pv4]

Why didn't they just add another tickbox to the Census we all recently did (or are still doing) and asked us to put yes/no on whether we wanted to legalize gay marriage or not. Would have been so simple and cost bugger all extra - and we know all if not most of Australians would have had to answer it.

[q-money]

imagine if the government told the member what he could and couldn't do

[plague]

what I don't get is a plebiscite anyway - its not binding, save the cash and ask the question at an election.

the issue is ridiculous though.

I get religious groups see it as "union of blah blah" so let churches decide who they marry, but my marriage is a legal document registered with the state, not the church. so should anyone else's if they so choose. why do I get that right, but others don't, a church had zero to do with my marriage, why should a religious view stop others from being married in the eyes of the state too.

you hear some bang on about protectin the sanctity of marriage!!!! **** me. you can win a wedding in a tv show, us straight folk have destroyed the sanctity of marriage a long time ago.

Plenty of people think the same about going to war.
And tax reform.
And crime and punishment
And the environment.

We elect put officials to govern these issues in the best interests of society.

Sometimes that clashes with what individuals think.

The best you can hope for is that your local official carries through on the policy they took to the last election.

That's why the plebiscite is actually way more than just a vote on marriage equality.

[plague]

imagine if the government told the member what he could and couldn't do

To be fair the good Member sounds like the type of bloke that would LOVE to own a massive arsenal of guns and a backyard full of exotic animals like tigers and spitting cobras.

Big Gubmint is already holding our boy back.

[Macca]

Dunster, I seem to recall you have some expertise in economics - couple of things I'm a bit curious about. Does the concept of trickle down economics have merit either in current implementation or in theory? On face value it seems counter intuitive but I have heard some good arguments for it.

Also am I correct in being frustrated that the current political preference with regards to the the economy is to "get the budget under control" and get a surplus happening ASAP. It seems to me a very primitive thing to try and push through, presumably with the aim of popularity rather than actual economic benefit. Am I wrong here?

Be interested to hear your thoughts

[The Dunster]

Dunster, I seem to recall you have some expertise in economics - couple of things I'm a bit curious about. Does the concept of trickle down economics have merit either in current implementation or in theory? On face value it seems counter intuitive but I have heard some good arguments for it.

Also am I correct in being frustrated that the current political preference with regards to the the economy is to "get the budget under control" and get a surplus happening ASAP. It seems to me a very primitive thing to try and push through, presumably with the aim of popularity rather than actual economic benefit. Am I wrong here?

Be interested to hear your thoughts

It's called trickle down economics for a reason. The income trickles down rather than flows. Does it have any merit ? Well, in the short term it places incomes in fewer hands which is obviously great of you are one of a select few.

In the long run it's not so great because it takes spending power away from those with the highest propensity to spend and gives it to those with the lowest propensity to spend [the rich].
The only way such a system is sustainable is via credit creation - namely, you force people to spend more than they earn by offering them access to credit at a scale never before witnessed throughout history. This allows for the financial capitalist to have their cake and eat it as well.

Eventually, though the average Joe gets to a point where they cannot service the debt - and that's where it all turns to shit.
Why. Because spending decreases, then income decreases, then investment decreases because entrepreneurs expect sales to decrease... which leads to unemployment... and hence the vicious cycle continues.

With respect to the budget it is what it is - a snapshot of the governments accounts at a point in time.

If the governments budget is in surplus then the non-governments accounts are in deficit [ rules of double entry accounting].

This would make sense when an economy is running beyond it's capacity but absolutely none in reality where few if any modern economies are running beyond their economic capacities.

The group that benefits most from a government running surpluses in the short term is those that either hold interest bearing alternatives to money or those that offer credit to those looking to spend more than they earn [which is the majority of people].

It's a brilliant plan to because when households can no longer service the debt the Government / Central bank steps in and props up the Banking / Finance industry with massive handouts to keep them from going under.:gent:

What you also end up with is a falling wages share of income and a rising profits share of income. The only way this can be sustained is through financial engineering such as providing easy credit to households that really can't afford it - but have little choice.

Without the credit spending, spending falls....and so on like I explained above.

[GazFish35]

That's why the plebiscite is actually way more than just a vote on marriage equality.

So its important because the Libs said they'd hold a plebiscite?
Sweet, I get that, its important because its an election promise and they should be held to it.

I suppose Labor can claim their trying to keep an election promise by opposing it - but they didn't win the election, so they should really let it happen.

It's all ****ing vote grabbing anyway - and that's what really shits me.

Libs promise to hold a plebiscite (that they don't need to listen to the result of anyway) - so they can appease one side of the voters without pissing off the others too much
and the Labor mob beat their chest saying they support the act being amended - so they can appease the other side of voters




Sometimes that clashes with what individuals think.


fair enough - but this issue is one being impacted by religious beliefs, and last I checked I thought we were a secular society.

[hawk]

To be fair the good Member sounds like the type of bloke that would LOVE to own a massive arsenal of guns and a backyard full of exotic animals like tigers and spitting cobras.

Big Gubmint is already holding our boy back.
rof

I think this is more Q than member.

Member's Left Conservatives want a slow peaceful society where, change is comfortable, the money comes in, national finances are in control, crime is low, beer is cheap, sports are winners and and we can have a job where we only have to work hard sometimes. major changes are a hassle. Reckon i could go this

[The Dunster]

So its important because the Libs said they'd hold a plebiscite?
Sweet, I get that, its important because its an election promise and they should be held to it.

I suppose Labor can claim their trying to keep an election promise by opposing it - but they didn't win the election, so they should really let it happen.

It's all ****ing vote grabbing anyway - and that's what really shits me.

Libs promise to hold a plebiscite (that they don't need to listen to the result of anyway) - so they can appease one side of the voters without pissing off the others too much
and the Labor mob beat their chest saying they support the act being amended - so they can appease the other side of voters




fair enough - but this issue is one being impacted by religious beliefs, and last I checked I thought we were a secular society.

I don't even think it's a vote grabbing. It's more a case of divide and conquer.

[The Dunster]

https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/fredgraph1.jpg

This is the situation for the USA but the situation for other developed modern economies such as Australia is pretty much the same.
People are now borrowing / using credit to fund what in the past they used to be able to save for simply because their wages as a share of total income have fallen.

[plague]

So its important because the Libs said they'd hold a plebiscite?
Sweet, I get that, its important because its an election promise and they should be held to it.

I suppose Labor can claim their trying to keep an election promise by opposing it - but they didn't win the election, so they should really let it happen.

It's all ****ing vote grabbing anyway - and that's what really shits me.

Libs promise to hold a plebiscite (that they don't need to listen to the result of anyway) - so they can appease one side of the voters without pissing off the others too much
and the Labor mob beat their chest saying they support the act being amended - so they can appease the other side of voters




fair enough - but this issue is one being impacted by religious beliefs, and last I checked I thought we were a secular society.

Everything you said there is spot on.
That's why it's happening the way it is.
We can make the most of it and get the vote as high as possible for your team in order to leave the pollies no choice or we as a nation can throw up our hands and give in.

As for your last comment.
Church and state are supposed to be seperate yeah?
Because this morning all the pollies are at the traditional multi faith pre parliament service, and get sworn in using their favourite religious text.

Plenty of God squaders on the left too. Don't be fooled into thinking a pollie vote will come up roses once the blowtorch is turned on them (see: Wong. Penny,)

[plague]

People are now borrowing / using credit to fund what in the past they used to be able to save for simply because their wages as a share of total income have fallen.

{generalising I know}

But

Aren't economies like Hong Kong built around the fact they can provide credit as a % of capitol at a greater rate than other countries can.

Thought I read Oz was like 4 x what they held vs something like 12 x for HK.

Think about that, an entire countries economy built on thin air.

Utterly fantastic.

[Macca]

Jeez those graph labels are a mouthful. I'm sure I'm going to be missing some of the finer points but essentially blue line = % of total country's income that is paid out as wages to people, red line is % of total country's income that is profit to companies. Isn't the profit either going to be reinvested or get skimmed by some head honcho anyway (which would put it in the other category?) or is the point to show the difference between the sum total of population and the 0.1%ers that own big companies

[MFKS]

So can someone explain to me exactly what Adam and Steve will actually get out of being married that the EXISTING civil union process doesn't currently offer them ???

Second question how exactly is this going to create jobs and money into the economy??
Nothing stopping Adam and Steve blowing 30k on matching frocks and an elaborate civil union ceremony already

[plague]

So can someone explain to me exactly what Adam and Steve will actually get out of being married that the EXISTING civil union process doesn't currently offer them ???

Second question how exactly is this going to create jobs and money into the economy??
Nothing stopping Adam and Steve blowing 30k on matching frocks and an elaborate civil union ceremony already

I think they get the secret key code so they can get through the pearly gates without Peter giving them the Mutumbo finger wag.



Or something like that.

[hawk]

So can someone explain to me exactly what Adam and Steve will actually get out of being married that the EXISTING civil union process doesn't currently offer them ???

Second question how exactly is this going to create jobs and money into the economy??
Nothing stopping Adam and Steve blowing 30k on matching frocks and an elaborate civil union ceremony already

Situations where theres immediate family only eg hospital visits. And having rights and freedoms that doesnt really hurt the community. Its a big cultural change for our current society. Soon it will be taken for granted by nearly everyone.

Bit like leaguies actually respecting soccer. Only generational death will make it complete.

[plague]

Second question how exactly is this going to create jobs and money into the economy??


Well it will grow one certain part of the economy and if people are too stupid to fall for it then good on the people singing that song.

But it shouldn't be passed based on money otherwise we'll be storing everyone's nuclear waste out in the desert for a few roubles.

Nowt wrong with treating people like equals.

[plague]

I mean come on weren't you moaning a few months back about trying to get your lady friend a visa complaining that people from her country get treated differently than ones from say the UK etc?

[pv4]

But it shouldn't be passed based on money otherwise we'll be storing everyone's nuclear waste out in the desert for a few roubles.

I agree wholeheartedly but I just don't understand why the pollys etc aren't hammering home how many extra jobs it'd create, to put an even more (and arguably practical) spin on it.

[GazFish35]

So can someone explain to me exactly what Adam and Steve will actually get out of being married that the EXISTING civil union process doesn't currently offer them ???



http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters/

“Civil union” is a generic term that includes a registered partnership, a civil partnership, and all other formally-recognised personal union. However, civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits as marriage, even when the law says they should. This is because they are not as widely understood or respected. Several recent reports into the operation of civil schemes in Europe and North America confirm that civil unions are not always recognised by hospitals, schools, insurers and even government officials.

Lack of recognition is also a problem when civil union partners travel inter-state or internationally. But even if a solution can be found to these practical problems, legal unions other than marriage do not give same-sex couples the same social and cultural recognition that comes with marriage. In the words of American marriage equality advocate, Beth Robinson, “nobody writes songs about civil unions”.

Worse, according to the reports mentioned above civil unions may actually encourage discrimination against same-sex partners and downgrade the status of their relationships by entrenching a second-class status .

Civil rights historians like Barbara Cox have drawn the parallel between civil unions and former “Jim Crow laws” in the American south.

“…restricting same-sex couples to civil unions is reminiscent of the racism that relegated African-Americans to separate railroad cars and separate schools. Our society’s experiences with ‘separate and equal’ have shown that separation can never result in equality because the separation is based on a belief that a distance needs to be maintained between those in the privileged position and those placed in the inferior position.”

Civil unions have not only not fulfilled their promise of equal rights and respect for same-sex couples, they appear to have made matters worse. Instead of eliminating discrimination they have entrenched it. Instead of removing stigma they have inflamed it. Instead of being a step towards full equality they are a step away.

This is probably why same-sex couples consistently show they prefer marriage to other forms of legal recognition. In US states where both marriage and civil unions are available to same-sex couples the result is always a higher take-up rate for marriage.[xi]

This is consistent with Australian research which shows that only 25.6% of same-sex de facto partners would chose to be in a civil union, and only 17.7% would remain as de factos. Of those currently in a state same-sex civil union 78.3% would prefer to be married under Australian law.

Alternatives to marriage are important for providing legal security and/or formal recognition for those partners who do not wish to marry. In Australia we are lucky to have strong legal protections for cohabiting de facto couples and some of the best state civil union schemes in the world. But there is one piece missing from the jigsaw of legal options available to Australian couples. That piece is marriage for same-sex partners.

References:
[xi] “Marriage, registration and dissolution by same-sex couples in the U.S.”, The Williams Institute, July 2008, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/marriage-and-couples-rights/marriage-registration-and-dissolution-by-same-sex-couples-in-the-u-s/

[pv4]

^ so in essence, a fair bit

[plague]

I agree wholeheartedly but I just don't understand why the pollys etc aren't hammering home how many extra jobs it'd create, to put an even more (and arguably practical) spin on it.

Because it's not 'really' true.
Sure, gay people will spend more money in the 'wedding industry', but they aren't going to automatically have more disposable income because of the legislation.
The money they spend on weddings will just come from some other part of their lifestyle. So in effect whatever that industry is will be affected.

And this whole thing about 'gay tourists flocking here to celebrate' etc would have a minuscule effect on the tourism industry compared to fluctuating Aussie dollar, airline fuel prices etc.

At the core of everyone's decision on this should be of they think it's right or not.

[The Dunster]

Jeez those graph labels are a mouthful. I'm sure I'm going to be missing some of the finer points but essentially blue line = % of total country's income that is paid out as wages to people, red line is % of total country's income that is profit to companies. Isn't the profit either going to be reinvested or get skimmed by some head honcho anyway (which would put it in the other category?) or is the point to show the difference between the sum total of population and the 0.1%ers that own big companies

It's unlikely that businesses want to re-invest their profits if the returns on interest bearing alternatives to money [ bonds, derivatives and so on] is greater ?

The graph shouldn't be read into too deeply all it is showing is that the capitalist share of income is growing faster than the workers share of income.

[MFKS]

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters/

“Civil union” is a generic term that includes a registered partnership, a civil partnership, and all other formally-recognised personal union. However, civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits as marriage, even when the law says they should. This is because they are not as widely understood or respected. Several recent reports into the operation of civil schemes in Europe and North America confirm that civil unions are not always recognised by hospitals, schools, insurers and even government officials.

Lack of recognition is also a problem when civil union partners travel inter-state or internationally. But even if a solution can be found to these practical problems, legal unions other than marriage do not give same-sex couples the same social and cultural recognition that comes with marriage. In the words of American marriage equality advocate, Beth Robinson, “nobody writes songs about civil unions”.

Worse, according to the reports mentioned above civil unions may actually encourage discrimination against same-sex partners and downgrade the status of their relationships by entrenching a second-class status .

Civil rights historians like Barbara Cox have drawn the parallel between civil unions and former “Jim Crow laws” in the American south.

“…restricting same-sex couples to civil unions is reminiscent of the racism that relegated African-Americans to separate railroad cars and separate schools. Our society’s experiences with ‘separate and equal’ have shown that separation can never result in equality because the separation is based on a belief that a distance needs to be maintained between those in the privileged position and those placed in the inferior position.”

Civil unions have not only not fulfilled their promise of equal rights and respect for same-sex couples, they appear to have made matters worse. Instead of eliminating discrimination they have entrenched it. Instead of removing stigma they have inflamed it. Instead of being a step towards full equality they are a step away.

This is probably why same-sex couples consistently show they prefer marriage to other forms of legal recognition. In US states where both marriage and civil unions are available to same-sex couples the result is always a higher take-up rate for marriage.[xi]

This is consistent with Australian research which shows that only 25.6% of same-sex de facto partners would chose to be in a civil union, and only 17.7% would remain as de factos. Of those currently in a state same-sex civil union 78.3% would prefer to be married under Australian law.

Alternatives to marriage are important for providing legal security and/or formal recognition for those partners who do not wish to marry. In Australia we are lucky to have strong legal protections for cohabiting de facto couples and some of the best state civil union schemes in the world. But there is one piece missing from the jigsaw of legal options available to Australian couples. That piece is marriage for same-sex partners.

References:
[xi] “Marriage, registration and dissolution by same-sex couples in the U.S.”, The Williams Institute, July 2008, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/marriage-and-couples-rights/marriage-registration-and-dissolution-by-same-sex-couples-in-the-u-s/

So you think that based on being able to be married the social stigma and discrimination against homosexual people will magically disappear??

I am not thinking it will.

People will always hate on others whom are different to them. It is a hardwired into our DNA

As for the rest of the dribble from the atheist leftist propaganda i just read far too many generalisations about how this Marriage stuff will benefit Adam and Steve rather than clear examples of where they will be better off

[MFKS]

I think they get the secret key code so they can get through the pearly gates without Peter giving them the Mutumbo finger wag.



Or something like that.

You obviously not paying attention.

They are all sinners buddy.

They be spending eternity in a hot fiery place and won't be going through the pearly gates

[q-money]

jeez if you're there count me out :rof:

[hawk]

You obviously not paying attention.

They are all sinners buddy.

They be spending eternity in a hot fiery place and won't be going through the pearly gates

depends on the belief. repent on the death bed, head north

[plague]

You obviously not paying attention.

They are all sinners buddy.

They be spending eternity in a hot fiery place and won't be going through the pearly gates

Yeah look I can't speak for any of them but as a gambling man id say they would take their chances against your little scary demon and his pits of fire*



*i don't believe in little scary demons or pits of fire. I believe in Griff, and his son Stu who He brought to earth to win us a title.

[plague]

What I did find brilliant today was that the Islamic folk, the Christians and the Jews are all getting together to lobby against the plebiscite.

I mean sure, we'll bomb the hell out of each other and fight for 1000 years but God damnit WE ARE ALL BROTHERS WHEN DEM POOFS ARE AROUND!!!!!!

What a bunch of wankers.

[The Dunster]

Ya gotta feel sorry though for the gay and lesbians players if gay marriage gets given the nod. In the past they could say "I'd love to get married but unfortunately the law won't allow it - end of conversation". Now, the poor bastards have no escape clause. This is a big issue.

[MFKS]

What I did find brilliant today was that the Islamic folk, the Christians and the Jews are all getting together to lobby against the plebiscite.

I mean sure, we'll bomb the hell out of each other and fight for 1000 years but God damnit WE ARE ALL BROTHERS WHEN DEM POOFS ARE AROUND!!!!!!

What a bunch of wankers.

So what is your point??

All these religion are against homosexual activity.

I would be surprised if one of them bucked their beliefs to jump on the Adam and Steve bandwagon.

Fighting for 1000 years??

Last I looked the Christians and Jews had a great deal of tolerance towards one another.

[Bon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM

[furns]

I think you will find a lot of your moderate Christians are in the pro-SSM camp anyway. Its only your hardcore frothers led by Lyle Shelton and Corey Bernardi that see it as an affront to their narrow view of the world.

And at the end of the day - why should it make a difference what the religious folk think of it?

[Bremsstrahlung]

So what is your point??

All these religion are against homosexual activity.

I would be surprised if one of them bucked their beliefs to jump on the Adam and Steve bandwagon.

Fighting for 1000 years??

Last I looked the Christians and Jews had a great deal of tolerance towards one another.

Despite, you know, when the Jews killed the founder/leader/massive advocate of Christianity in Jesus.

[plague]

I think you will find a lot of your moderate Christians are in the pro-SSM camp anyway. Its only your hardcore frothers led by Lyle Shelton and Corey Bernardi that see it as an affront to their narrow view of the world.

And at the end of the day - why should it make a difference what the religious folk think of it?

when an openly gay Member doesn't vote in support of the issue, or when an immigration spokesperson refuses to vote on an immigration policy, or when a sitting atheist PM votes against marriage equality (all of a sudden she had 'beliefs') then i wouldn't trust any of them to do the 'right' thing.

id just love to see every pollie walk into the vote and say "bugger what i personally think, here is what my constituents think" and vote accordingly.
id also love to see the return of Griff.

[plague]

So what is your point??

All these religion are against homosexual activity.

I would be surprised if one of them bucked their beliefs to jump on the Adam and Steve bandwagon.

Fighting for 1000 years??

Last I looked the Christians and Jews had a great deal of tolerance towards one another.

what I'm saying is that you all are cool with killing each other in the name of your designated 'God' but when the Homos come to town you all link arms and sing fight songs.


so if the plebiscite is defeated do you then go back to the killing people who don't believe in your homeboy?


i mean, why aren't you all just hanging back knowing that the gays will be sorted out in the afterlife anyway? shouldn't you defer all that rage for God to sort out?
he's the ultimate badass right?

or are the religious folk so righteous that they are doing the gayboys a favour by saving them from themselves?

[MFKS]

what I'm saying is that you all are cool with killing each other in the name of your designated 'God' but when the Homos come to town you all link arms and sing fight songs.


so if the plebiscite is defeated do you then go back to the killing people who don't believe in your homeboy?


i mean, why aren't you all just hanging back knowing that the gays will be sorted out in the afterlife anyway? shouldn't you defer all that rage for God to sort out?
he's the ultimate badass right?

or are the religious folk so righteous that they are doing the gayboys a favour by saving them from themselves?
Killing each other in the name of God??

What you on about??

Don't say anything in my book about killing being allowed

One of the other religions though has a few verses condoning it though.
What they do has nothing to do with us

[The Dunster]

Killing each other in the name of God??

What you on about??

Don't say anything in my book about killing being allowed



Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.

Your lot were killing anything and everything in the name of God.

/thread.

[plague]

Don't say anything in my book about killing being allowed

One of the other religions though has a few verses condoning it though.
What they do has nothing to do with us

plenty of abortion clinics got shot up in the name of religious beliefs back in the day. Was just watching a David Koresh doco the other night. He didn't have any dramas killing some coppers and kiddies to profess his love for the big fella.

Anyway I'm actually of the opinion that 99% of religious folk (across all types) are pretty cool people who don't get all shooty and massacary.

Which is why I think they'll be fine once the homos get to marry their BFF's.

Life will go on, your God will still love you, and if anything there will be more room on the roads up in Heaven without all those sissy's hogging the outside lane.

[MFKS]

Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.

Your lot were killing anything and everything in the name of God.

/thread.
That's a far stretch your drawing there.

One culture driving out outsiders to their culture more like it.


That being said they did deal with Sodomites in no uncertain terms.

[The Dunster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

[furns]

Killing each other in the name of God??

What you on about??

Don't say anything in my book about killing being allowed

One of the other religions though has a few verses condoning it though.
What they do has nothing to do with us
Really? Hasnt stopped mass killings in the name of Christianity though. I am pretty sure i have brought up all the christian terrorist groups who have carried out mass killings in this thread before.

[GazFish35]

So you think that based on being able to be married the social stigma and discrimination against homosexual people will magically disappear??

I am not thinking it will.

People will always hate on others whom are different to them. It is a hardwired into our DNA

As for the rest of the dribble from the atheist leftist propaganda i just read far too many generalisations about how this Marriage stuff will benefit Adam and Steve rather than clear examples of where they will be better off

No. And nothing in that post suggested as such. But keep reverting to your old tricks of putting arguments in other people's mouths that aren't actually there so you can make a point that we all probably already agree on. This change won't stop close minded homophobic bigots from being close minded homophobic bigots and no one is suggesting it will.


SSM will afford every married couple the same rights.

Why does one group in our community need to prove to anyone they would benefit by a law change so they are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. They're not wanting special treatment, they don't want more rights. They want their relationships to have same rights as everyone else's

But just for you, one example...
A same sex partner can present at an emergency department to by his husbands side after a car accident and not be treated any differently to how my wife would be.

I've a mate who's partner wasn't allowed to visit him in a hospital as the "family only" rules were in place. He had to wait outside the ward until his partner's Dad arrived, the staff shift changed and they had to pretend that he was a brother.

At the same time other heterosexual patients had their partners let in without question.



The only arguments against it that I see are right wing bigoted propaganda. What real life examples exist of how this proposed change would make people worse off?

[lquiquer]

Really? Hasnt stopped mass killings in the name of Christianity though. I am pretty sure i have brought up all the christian terrorist groups who have carried out mass killings in this thread before.

3.30am !! Couldn't sleep Furns?

[pv4]

Don't say anything in my book about killing being allowed


Doesn't God kill everyone multiple times in your book? Like the story of Noah for eg.

[pv4]

I think you will find a lot of your moderate Christians are in the pro-SSM camp anyway. Its only your hardcore frothers led by Lyle Shelton and Corey Bernardi that see it as an affront to their narrow view of the world.

And at the end of the day - why should it make a difference what the religious folk think of it?

Honestly, I know bugger all Christians who are pro-SSM. They are so few & far between. I feel like you're way off the mark here.

Absolutely agree with the last bit though.

[plague]

The only arguments against it that I see are right wing bigoted propaganda.

So you're calling Rudd, Gillard and Wong 'right wing bigots'?

Legit question. They voted the same way as Abbott and Bernardi, but people seem reluctant to label them the same.

[plague]

Honestly, I know bugger all Christians who are pro-SSM. They are so few & far between. I feel like you're way off the mark here.

Absolutely agree with the last bit though.

I swear I've seen polling research that suggests a majority of everyday God believing peeps are cool with it.

[The Dunster]

So you're calling Rudd, Gillard and Wong 'right wing bigots'?

Legit question. They voted the same way as Abbott and Bernardi, but people seem reluctant to label them the same.

Rudd, Gillard, and Wong are most definitely right wing as far as economics and political ideology is concerned.

On top of that they are each fundamentalists who's actions and beliefs are dictated by ideology rather than careful consideration of facts.

We can throw Nick Xenophon and the Greens in with that lot as well - in fact all politicians will comfortably fit under that banner.

[The Dunster]

I swear I've seen polling research that suggests a majority of everyday God believing peeps are cool with it.

They are also cool with building structures so they can talk to imaginary friends on mass every Sunday - so you could hardly take their responses to any questionnaire seriously.

[plague]

Rudd, Gillard, and Wong are most definitely right wing as far as economics and political ideology is concerned.

On top of that they are each fundamentalists who's actions and beliefs are dictated by ideology rather than careful consideration of facts.

We can throw Nick Xenophon and the Greens in with that lot as well - in fact all politicians will comfortably fit under that banner.

Yeah that's my point.

The term 'right wing' (in my opinion) is fairly lazy to label the type of people who are against this.

[plague]

They are also cool with building structures so they can talk to imaginary friends on mass every Sunday - so you could hardly take their responses to any questionnaire seriously.

I mean, yeah, that's the only point anyone really needs to make isn't it.

[q-money]

Rudd, Gillard, and Wong are most definitely right wing as far as economics and political ideology is concerned.

On top of that they are each fundamentalists who's actions and beliefs are dictated by ideology rather than careful consideration of facts.

We can throw Nick Xenophon and the Greens in with that lot as well - in fact all politicians will comfortably fit under that banner.

hey dunst - can you name your top 5 'strayan treasurers in the last 50 years? would be interested to see

[GazFish35]

So you're calling Rudd, Gillard and Wong 'right wing bigots'?

Legit question. They voted the same way as Abbott and Bernardi, but people seem reluctant to label them the same.

no.
I used the term to demonstrate how the good member's labelling all arguments for the change as "atheist leftist propaganda" is off the mark too.

[The Dunster]

hey dunst - can you name your top 5 'strayan treasurers in the last 50 years? would be interested to see

That's like asking Boz to name his top five Gypos.

It's a token position Dr Q. All they need to do is keep the level of spending in the economy compatible to the level required to generate full employment.

Unfortunately, every treasurer over the past 50 years has either been clueless like Hockey and McMahon or ideologically biased like Keating, Costello, Cormann, Morrison... and everyone else.

[snake]

atheist leftist scientist here. so smarter than your average xtian etc

let them marry. if they want. no ****s given. easy. they're ppl too. no reason not to let them.

religious marriage is only a recent event anyway, compared to christianity. was legal in straya until johnny battler changed the rules w/out the help of strayan public.

[boz-monaut]

That's like asking Boz to name his top five Gypos.

Laurie McKinna
that chick who used to let me touch her boobs
the railway employee who sent my bag to me after I got so drunk I left it on the platform at Gosford station
pv4
Paul Okon

see, not that hard

[la bazzle]

Hi Snake

[idontwannaplaywithhowey]

let them marry. if they want. no ****s given. easy. they're ppl too. no reason not to let them.



This

[snake]

Doesn't God kill everyone multiple times in your book? Like the story of Noah for eg.

what about that time god sent those bears to maul those kids who mocked that bald **** for being bald. seems fair.

[snake]

h
Hi Snake

hej man

[snake]

Laurie McKinna
that chick who used to let me touch her boobs
the railway employee who sent my bag to me after I got so drunk I left it on the platform at Gosford station
pv4
Paul Okon

see, not that hard

no <3 for pieface? :'(

[The Dunster]

Laurie McKinna
that chick who used to let me touch her boobs
the railway employee who sent my bag to me after I got so drunk I left it on the platform at Gosford station
pv4
Paul Okon

see, not that hard

Ok.

Harold Holt
Leslie Bury
Billy Snedden
Gough Whitlam
Frank Crean

For no reason other than they were the last treasurers of the past 50 years that held the positon when full employment was still regarded as a policy objective.

[plague]

Man I thought the question was Dunsters top 5 'treasures' and I just expected 5 pics of Delvene Delaney.


So anywell, Dunster can you pls name your top 5 Aussie Treasures.

Cheers,
Plague.

[plague]

no.
I used the term to demonstrate how the good member's labelling all arguments for the change as "atheist leftist propaganda" is off the mark too.

Two wrongs don't make a right Mr Fish.

Besides, even Captain Obvious seems tired of pointing out the good Members silliness, I just assumed we were all like that now.

[hawk]

Rudd, Gillard, and Wong are most definitely right wing as far as economics and political ideology is concerned.

On top of that they are each fundamentalists who's actions and beliefs are dictated by ideology rather than careful consideration of facts.

We can throw Nick Xenophon and the Greens in with that lot as well - in fact all politicians will comfortably fit under that banner.

Glad you broke that down. social lefts are the ones that mkfs cant tolerate.

can we just keep solid benefits for health and ejkashion speshially tertiary for all. fk the gap, bulk bills for everyone

[furns]

atheist leftist scientist here. so smarter than your average xtian etc

let them marry. if they want. no ****s given. easy. they're ppl too. no reason not to let them.

religious marriage is only a recent event anyway, compared to christianity. was legal in straya until johnny battler changed the rules w/out the help of strayan public.
succinctly put Monsieur Snake
Basically encapsulates my views on the whole affair.

[MFKS]

No. And nothing in that post suggested as such. But keep reverting to your old tricks of putting arguments in other people's mouths that aren't actually there so you can make a point that we all probably already agree on. This change won't stop close minded homophobic bigots from being close minded homophobic bigots and no one is suggesting it will.


SSM will afford every married couple the same rights.

Why does one group in our community need to prove to anyone they would benefit by a law change so they are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. They're not wanting special treatment, they don't want more rights. They want their relationships to have same rights as everyone else's

But just for you, one example...
A same sex partner can present at an emergency department to by his husbands side after a car accident and not be treated any differently to how my wife would be.

I've a mate who's partner wasn't allowed to visit him in a hospital as the "family only" rules were in place. He had to wait outside the ward until his partner's Dad arrived, the staff shift changed and they had to pretend that he was a brother.

At the same time other heterosexual patients had their partners let in without question.



The only arguments against it that I see are right wing bigoted propaganda. What real life examples exist of how this proposed change would make people worse off?
For a start i asked a question.

What rights will Adam and Steve get if they are allowed to be married.

You quoted my post and cut and pasted some generalised propaganda from pro SSM

What exactly is it that makes you think I want Adam and Steve to prove how they will benefit

The same sex marriage bandwagon keep offering up the phrase "same rights as heterosexuals" which is once again a generalised remark.
So far you have offered up the scenario of Adam getting into hospital to see Steve instead of being refused.
Ok
That's one you can name.

The SSM bandwagon should be able to name heaps of these not actually struggle to answer a simple question with a general statement to avoid the actual question.

There should be heaps of examples as to how Adam and Steve will be better off so show me some more

[MFKS]

what about that time god sent those bears to maul those kids who mocked that bald **** for being bald. seems fair.
Simple message there.

Dont mock bald blokes unless you want to fight bears

[GazFish35]

What exactly is it that makes you think I want Adam and Steve to prove how they will benefit


Prove / give examples of...

Tomato tomatoe.


What "rights" will they get?

Umm, the right to get married.

It's a major social institution in the country, why should one group be excluded from it, based on a factor that the anti-dicsrimantion act says is illegal to use to discriminate against someone?

It's an issue beyond needing to demonstrate real life scenarios of where the practical benefits exist. It's an issue that causes many in our community to feel they are seen as, and are treated as lesser citizens, that their relationships are less legitimate, that they are second class citizens. This has real life impacts on their mental health and physical health.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AME-fact-health.pdf


Got any examples how the rest of the community would be worse off?

[MFKS]

Prove / give examples of...

Tomato tomatoe.


What "rights" will they get?

Umm, the right to get married.

It's a major social institution in the country, why should one group be excluded from it, based on a factor that the anti-dicsrimantion act says is illegal to use to discriminate against someone?

It's an issue beyond needing to demonstrate real life scenarios of where the practical benefits exist. It's an issue that causes many in our community to feel they are seen as, and are treated as lesser citizens, that their relationships are less legitimate, that they are second class citizens. This has real life impacts on their mental health and physical health.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AME-fact-health.pdf


Got any examples how the rest of the community would be worse off?

So basically you are either dodging my question like a politician as you don't know the answer or you are unable to provide an answer as all you can trot out are cliches and generalisations like a politician and then try throwing a question back at me to avoid the fact you haven't answered my question

No problem.

It really shouldn't be hard to come up with a long list of examples of how Adam and Steve will be better off under SSM but apparently it is so all supporters can do is offer up cliches and generalisations without offering legitimate examples but apparently it is

Go figure




Watering down of acceptable social values that have been part of human culture for centuries as this behaviour has been unacceptable for centuries now an it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

There you go i answered your question

[plague]

What rights will Adam and Steve get if they are allowed to be married.


The same rights as everyone else.

Which part are you not understanding in this?

Help me out I feel you need some guidance.

Actually legit question: should we even have marriage for anyone if it doesn't seem so important to people's 'rights'?

[plague]

Simple message there.

Dont mock bald blokes unless you want to fight bears

This is a fantastic post and it made me laugh.

Well in sir.

[The Dunster]

it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

You do more to destroy Christianity than any atheist I have ever met or known. Great work.

[MFKS]

The same rights as everyone else.

Which part are you not understanding in this?

Help me out I feel you need some guidance.

Actually legit question: should we even have marriage for anyone if it doesn't seem so important to people's 'rights'?

So how about I phrase this differently then

What rights do Adam and Steve currently not have that normal heterosexuals have??

[plague]

So how about I phrase this differently then

What rights do Adam and Steve currently not have that normal heterosexuals have??

The tokenism of saying they are 'married' instead of 'butt buddies' or something.

So if it's just tokenism why be so ****ing protective of it?

[GazFish35]

So basically you are either dodging my question like a politician as you don't know the answer or you are unable to provide an answer as all you can trot out are cliches and generalisations like a politician and then try throwing a question back at me to avoid the fact you haven't answered my question

No problem.

It really shouldn't be hard to come up with a long list of examples of how Adam and Steve will be better off under SSM but apparently it is so all supporters can do is offer up cliches and generalisations without offering legitimate examples but apparently it is

Go figure




Watering down of acceptable social values that have been part of human culture for centuries as this behaviour has been unacceptable for centuries now an it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

There you go i answered your question

Dodging your question? I provided you a link to a document outlining the direct (not generalised) health benefits of the change. But hey, if providing answers backed up by per reviewed medical research isn't answering your question I'm not sure what you want.

Answered my question? No you didn't.

How is "legitimising their sinning" and making it "acceptable to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour" (you must be kidding) going to negatively impact on the community.

If anything, your answer only serves to demonstrate the discrimination and prejudice they face. A change in the Act will help to continue the work done to remove these prejudices and discrimination from a wider part of society and have positive impact on the health status of the group in our community. See the link in the answer previous.

[MFKS]

The tokenism of saying they are 'married' instead of 'butt buddies' or something.

So if it's just tokenism why be so ****ing protective of it?
And if all that it is is a tokenism gesture at 160 million $$$ of taxpayer money then our government should be finding better things than spending money on than a tokenism gesture that allows Adam and Steve to "feel better" about their Sins

[Jetmaster]

Will be interesting to see how many of the buff ones let themselves go once they get married, like their female counterparts.

[plague]

Will be interesting to see how many of the buff ones let themselves go once they get married, like their female counterparts.

hashtagsocialimpact

[boz-monaut]

right, I'm cleaning up this crap and issuing bannings

[pv4]

There should be heaps of examples as to how Adam and Steve will be better off so show me some more

There should be heaps of examples as to how Adam and Steve won't be better off by allowing them the same rights as every other human in the world but the anti-SSM people can't offer a single one, apart from an outdated tradition which isn't even close to an actual reason. I liken it to innocent until proven guilty - unless there are specific, legitimate reasons why Adam&Steve shouldn't be afforded equal rights to other human beings, they should be free to do what they want.

:rof: at your bald bears comment. The funniest thing is what started the Noah/Bears example was you saying "my book doesn't condone killing blokes" and even after bringing up specific examples from "your book" of "your god" killing blokes and you not even arguing against the fact it happened, you'll probably again in future use the same "we don't condone killing blokes" line again which is just insanely hypocritical.

Far out, imagine MFKFC being brought up in the women-have-no-rights, black-people-at-the-back-of-the-bus, slavery-was-legit eras. The ingrained system/tradition would rule above all I bet :rof: :oops:

[Bon]

So basically you are either dodging my question like a politician as you don't know the answer or you are unable to provide an answer as all you can trot out are cliches and generalisations like a politician and then try throwing a question back at me to avoid the fact you haven't answered my question

No problem.

It really shouldn't be hard to come up with a long list of examples of how Adam and Steve will be better off under SSM but apparently it is so all supporters can do is offer up cliches and generalisations without offering legitimate examples but apparently it is

Go figure




Watering down of acceptable social values that have been part of human culture for centuries as this behaviour has been unacceptable for centuries now an it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

There you go i answered your question

Seriously.. What the fvck..

[boz-monaut]

this ban will be permanent if any multis or pseudonyms appear

[skippy]

Seriously.. What the fvck..

Lol what about the sins of all the priests diddling kids? If that's not watering down of social values than I don't know what is.

Far worse than gays getting married.

[pv4]

Watering down of acceptable social values

For those reading at home I just want to comment by saying "acceptable social values" is such an interesting comment for an anti-SSM bloke to bring up. Dare I use the word evolution in a religious context but "acceptable social values" has to be one of the most evolving things ever. Go back to the aforementioned womens rights, racism, etc and previously socially accepted values we look back at now and are disgusted that it ever was accepted.

Things change, and it seems to me like the large majority of society is willing or attempting to accept SSM so doesn't that mean that the anti-SSM are fighting against the "acceptable social values" now?

[plague]

And if all that it is is a tokenism gesture at 160 million $$$ of taxpayer money then our government should be finding better things than spending money on than a tokenism gesture that allows Adam and Steve to "feel better" about their Sins

So now we're back to the money?
Religious organisations are taxed differently to companies aren't they?

Doesn't seem to be much care about taxpayers money there old bean.

I don't really ever remember seeing so many people who's lives will be unaffected by a decision so adamant that the decision is wrong.

This is like soccer fans going mental because the obstruction rule in rugby league has changed. Ain't your problem, who cares.

(And don't say God).

[lquiquer]

right, I'm cleaning up this crap and issuing bannings

What happened to Freedom of Speech?

[boz-monaut]

hate speech isn't freedom of speech

[The Dunster]

Government spending equals non government income. So to investigate the issue of legalising gay marriage the government is essentially giving us $160m. Anyone that would whinge about being given $160m is beyond help.

[pv4]

hate speech isn't freedom of speech

fwiw as much as I strongly disagreed with basically all of MFKFCs views over the past couple of days on this, I don't really get where he stepped over the line tbh. His only real crime was not accepting the countless amount of people proving him wrong or making his argument invalid rather than doing anything abnormally ban-worthy for this foz imo.

[plague]

I think as well some people think that the Govt is going to get a big $160m pile of cash and set fire to it in the middle of Oxford st.

The money will go to wages for polling booth staff, ad companies and a lot will be 'internal' spending between govt departments which no cash ever physically changes hands.

Essentially just re-routing a stimulus package.

[lquiquer]

hate speech isn't freedom of speech

So hate of the CCM is acceptable?....thank god or if we were all ban for it, PV4 would feel lonely on the foz :grin:
....And I agree with PV4's post

[Macca]

I think as well some people think that the Govt is going to get a big $160m pile of cash and set fire to it in the middle of Oxford st.



Wait this isn't happening?

On a somewhat related note, one of my mates who prefers the company of men was saying he actually doesn't want it to happen because he has had a lot of hetero mates get screwed over by de-facto partners leaving and "taking half", and feels that if SSM comes through then it opens up the possibility of this happening to same sex couples where currently it doesn't.

[Jetmaster]

Wait this isn't happening?

On a somewhat related note, one of my mates who prefers the company of men was saying he actually doesn't want it to happen because he has had a lot of hetero mates get screwed over by de-facto partners leaving and "taking half", and feels that if SSM comes through then it opens up the possibility of this happening to same sex couples where currently it doesn't.

This is a little something I alluded to earlier - the cost of hetero marriage to the economy is huge. There will be a flood of weddings no doubt but as time passes there will be the added cost of broken SSMs - divorce costs, welfare, domestic violence, child support, custody battles etc etc. Need to weigh up the rough with the smooth. Legal battles overseas are already underway including those from kids who feel they weren't brought up in a "normal" environment.

I fully support SS relationships but am not keen on the marriage aspect, just so my position is clear.

[pv4]

This is a little something I alluded to earlier - the cost of hetero marriage to the economy is huge. There will be a flood of weddings no doubt but as time passes there will be the added cost of broken SSMs - divorce costs, welfare, domestic violence, child support, custody battles etc etc. Need to weigh up the rough with the smooth. Legal battles overseas are already underway including those from kids who feel they weren't brought up in a "normal" environment.

I fully support SS relationships but am not keen on the marriage aspect, just so my position is clear.

All those costs potentially involved with SSM though - isn't that doing "good" for the economy in that it keeps the money circulating?

I'm insanely naive when it comes to economics but I was under the impression that people spending on money, on whatever, was better than them sockdraw-ing their money.

[plague]

This is a little something I alluded to earlier - the cost of hetero marriage to the economy is huge. There will be a flood of weddings no doubt but as time passes there will be the added cost of broken SSMs - divorce costs, welfare, domestic violence, child support, custody battles etc etc. Need to weigh up the rough with the smooth. Legal battles overseas are already underway including those from kids who feel they weren't brought up in a "normal" environment.

I fully support SS relationships but am not keen on the marriage aspect, just so my position is clear.

Hold up a minute.
Are you inferring that Hetros are so much better at marriage than gays?

Why would the divorce rate be any different?

As for kids being brought up in a 'normal' environment, so alcoholic parents, parents who abandon kids, parents who beat kids, what the hell is 'normal' anyway?

Besides, contrary to popular belief, teaching kids what is 'normal' is on you, the parent. Your prejudices are the only ones passed down homie.

If we Hetros are all better at parenting then that stigma goes away pretty quick.

[The Dunster]

The money will go to wages for polling booth staff, ad companies and a lot will be 'internal' spending between govt departments which no cash ever physically changes hands.

Essentially just re-routing a stimulus package.

Spot on.

[furns]

fwiw as much as I strongly disagreed with basically all of MFKFCs views over the past couple of days on this, I don't really get where he stepped over the line tbh. His only real crime was not accepting the countless amount of people proving him wrong or making his argument invalid rather than doing anything abnormally ban-worthy for this foz imo.
Unfortunately his post this morning saying if we legalise SSM why don't we legalise pedophilia & bestiality pushed him over the line. I was prepared to let him continue to post his narrow view on this topic because it was clear others were doing a great job of countering the bullshit RW rhetoric, but unfortunately he pushed it too far.

[lquiquer]

Unfortunately his post this morning saying if we legalise SSM why don't we legalise pedophilia & bestiality pushed him over the line. I was prepared to let him continue to post his narrow view on this topic because it was clear others were doing a great job of countering the bullshit RW rhetoric, but unfortunately he pushed it too far.

I could see more sarcasm than hate in his post

[The Dunster]

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

[GazFish35]

http://www.newcastlefootball.net/forum/announcement.php?f=2

pretty easy to see he stepped over the mark for points 1 and 2.

I was enjoying his continual self-foot-shooting, and am all for people with different views being able to express them, (id rather them expressed and argued against, than hidden away and left to fester) but instead of trying to make his point with logical reasoned arguments he decided to escalate this discussion to a point where his comments were too far wide of acceptable social standards and we wouldn't want those standards watered down.

[GazFish35]

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

tried sticking some plastic eyes on your helmet?

[The Dunster]

tried sticking some plastic eyes on your helmet?

Cheers. I'll give it a go

[plague]

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

Get a car Dunster ya hippy.

[The Dunster]

Get a car Dunster ya hippy.

I might need driving lessons and a licence as well.

[pv4]

Unfortunately his post this morning saying if we legalise SSM why don't we legalise pedophilia & bestiality pushed him over the line. I was prepared to let him continue to post his narrow view on this topic because it was clear others were doing a great job of countering the bullshit RW rhetoric, but unfortunately he pushed it too far.

Flare enough to you & Gaz.

Hopefully he returns before the start of the AL season, feeling refreshed. The season won't be nearly as fun without his rants.

[lquiquer]

Flare enough to you & Gaz.

Hopefully he returns before the start of the AL season, feeling refreshed. The season won't be nearly as fun without his rants.

I've already lost interest

[plague]

yeah listen man i love the member as much as anyone but I'm pretty sure the silly bugger got banned for exactly the same comments last time the debate went this way.
I'm always fascinated hearing points of view i have absolutely no idea of (especially religion).
but man, its gotta stay above a certain line.
So member if you are reading this. chill. we want your thoughts, we don't 'need' the other stuff.


anyway back on topic, why doesn't Dunster have a car?

[hawk]

Actually legit question: should we even have marriage for anyone if it doesn't seem so important to people's 'rights'?

Marriage is an outdated "right" anyway. Just leads to rich solicitors. Just hang together till shit hits the fan and do us part.

[hawk]

anyway back on topic, why doesn't Dunster have a car?

probs. Needs to give mfks a lift to oakvale

[The Dunster]

probs. Needs to give mfks a lift to oakvale

http://techhp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/funny-car.jpg

[WolfMan]

Cheers. I'll give it a go

Hot tip

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVcq4SKGvo0d9NHbl_d0pNeqWUxLYTR lmCSRxPbs9TDPgLnHC6H5WZB0ha

[The Dunster]

Hot tip

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVcq4SKGvo0d9NHbl_d0pNeqWUxLYTR lmCSRxPbs9TDPgLnHC6H5WZB0ha

Cheers.

[belchardo]

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

CSIRO on to this already.

https://blog.csiro.au/you-make-me-wanna-swoop-dispelling-magpie-myths/

[The Dunster]

CSIRO on to this already.

https://blog.csiro.au/you-make-me-wanna-swoop-dispelling-magpie-myths/

Great article.

[parksey]

damn, missed a good debate in here.

[plague]

damn, missed a good debate in here.

There's still time to weigh in on Dunsters lack of car.

[snake]

good on him. cars are for fat ppl.

if I didn't have to take the dogs to the beach I'd probably have no need ever for a car.

[q-money]

do you even have a licence?

[snake]

green peas :rof:

[The Dunster]

There's still time to weigh in on Dunsters lack of car.

I've never really needed a car or licence as I usually ride, skate, run, or walk everywhere. When I was a student and when I worked I always found the train or bus a better option as I could read and do work on the way.
Moreover,the missus is always willing to drive me places [usually to buy guitars and amps] so I got that working for me as well.

[The Dunster]

Someone else got attacked by the magpies on Aberglasslyn rd.

http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/4136778/magpie-mike-causes-mayhem-for-rider/?cs=171

This bloke obviously didn't have the bike to outrun them.

[plague]

I have no time for Hilary Clinton but this is pretty funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q

[The Dunster]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.jpg

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/30/us/30BILLTRUMPjp/30BILLTRUMPjp-master675-v2.jpg


Wake up America.

[plague]

i find it amazing that people think that one of them is any less of a **** than the other.

[The Dunster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

I look forward to Trump making this speech.

[The Dunster]

I thought Trump did well today in the debate. Hillary though came across as an emotional female easily unsettled and not fit to run a PTA meeting let alone the worlds largest economy.

Trump's last 20mins were not his strongest but mission accomplished as far as batting away anything Hillary had to say and reminding people of how Hillary has had plenty of time to get things right and yet has failed.

[The Dunster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfW2TiPAKsw

To the mattresses Bobby.

[belchardo]

so, who's gunna win - trump or Clinton?

[furns]

Fingers crossed it won't be another Brexit-type result

[plague]

Anyone not cheering for chaos today is a bum.

[plague]

Also (getting my nerd on last night) a LOT of pundits were saying that the way the US govt is set up, the only way any real policy will get through is if Trump gets in.
Clinton is a lame duck from day 1 due to the stranglehold Republicans have on the system.

America is well and truly in a whole heap of drama no matter who wins.

[Bremsstrahlung]

Fingers crossed it won't be another Brexit-type result

Trumpit :brrr:

[q-money]

over 200m USD matched on Betfair, crazy

[plague]

$1.38 for Clinton last week at the height of the email investigation.
She dropped to $1.18 as soon as she was cleared.
Plague and the boys may have loaded up at the $1.38.

[q-money]

as soon as she drifts slightly (1.21 to 1.24) she gets absolutely slammed back in. enthralling watch

[q-money]

massive go to 1.08 now woweee

[furns]

Trumpit :brrr:
:roflz:

[plague]

massive go to 1.08 now woweee

And the flip side was if all it took was a few grand of our punters club to get Trump elected I'd happily pay for that jinx.

(and don't laugh 24hrs after we load up on Dale Steyn to be leading wicket taker he blows a shoulder. The Plague gonna get ya with his cash somehow).

[q-money]

back on the drift again to 1.28, is there a late jockey change to johan victoire on Clinton?

[plague]

Oh and the bet is for 'who will be the next US President' which means she has to survive til January's inauguration without being jailed for being a corrupt **** of a thing.

Gambling is so good I love it.

[q-money]

:rof:

[hawk]

Fingers crossed it won't be another Brexit-type result

save the sob story. anarchy!!

[q-money]

trump into 2.6, RIP

[plague]

trump into 2.6, RIP

Yeah they are thinking he's got Florida which is massive. If she got that it was all over early.

[The Dunster]

Also (getting my nerd on last night) a LOT of pundits were saying that the way the US govt is set up, the only way any real policy will get through is if Trump gets in.
Clinton is a lame duck from day 1 due to the stranglehold Republicans have on the system.

America is well and truly in a whole heap of drama no matter who wins.

The American system is a Two Party Dictatorship and Wall Street owns them both.

That aside would love to see Trump win.

[Bon]

WTF is going on here..

[belchardo]

well, there is this...

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/widget/chart.do?asxCode=XJO&type=INDEX&popup=true

[plague]

I'm not going to jinx it I'm not going to jinx it I'm not going to jinx it.......

[DonPablo]

If Trump tried this 20 years ago, in Colombia, he'd end up dead.

[Macca]

I just don't get how Trump is even a possible candidate, wtf happened that it got to this stage? It just boggles my mind.

[plague]

I just don't get how Trump is even a possible candidate, wtf happened that it got to this stage? It just boggles my mind.

There are quite a few reasons why.

One good one is that the world is a much bigger place than Facebook, Twitter and Hollywood.

Plenty of positives can come out of this, let's hope some lessons are learned and the whole system resets.

[q-money]

also fuming i didn't have a crack at the 10s on offer for trump at 10am ffs

[belchardo]

everybody apparently wants to move to Canada

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-09/canada-immigration-website-crashing/8009988

[plague]

hey plague, you'll like this one.

most sobering thing i've read all day and it's from 2004 (c. richard cooke)

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

The Donald gonna fix all that bizness.

[q-money]

ah jeez went to edit the post and deleted it instead

unbelievable stuff hey

what a can of worms though now, lots of promises from big don, i.e. manufacturing, tariffs, TPP, military spending...may just end up the same as the old boss

what i don't understand is the rampant protectionism being pushed matching up with the spending on never ending war

[plague]

everybody apparently wants to move to Canada

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-09/canada-immigration-website-crashing/8009988


and here's a great reason why Hillary lost.
Those outspoken 'celebrities' won't do jack shit.
They are social media activists.
Cowards and band wagoners.

Yet Clinton fought for their approval rather than the grassroot voters.


Reminds me of U2 back at the height of their "damn the rich let's heal the world by taking the rich people's money oh wait you guys found our tax haven status lolz whoops never mind"

[plague]

what i don't understand is the rampant protectionism being pushed matching up with the spending on never ending war

My understanding is that military spending will be more about elevating pensions for veterans (admirable) and not endlessly funding overseas bases (countries like Japan/Korea and Oz chipping in to pay the yanks to look after us - something which I think Rudd(?) rejected when Bush tried it).

If he carries out the threat then it may actually decrease Americas military presence overseas which may lead to less conflict rather than more.

I honestly reackon that some of these policies will actually have silver linings but probably more to do with good luck rather than good planning.

[plague]

As for the 'wall' i mean there's gonna be a lot of surprised people when they realise there's already a kind of a wall there but Trump just gonna enforce it better.

[The Dunster]

The majority of people I have spoken to about the election over the past few months said they were voting for Trump. Hardly anyone said they would vote for Hillary because they feared it would be more of the same as in mass unemployment and uncertainty. Let's hope Trump is more successful playing politics than he was in the movie business.

[plague]

Best indicator will be who comes next for the Dems. An actual real human with a brain and a conscience or another career politician.

I also hope the ALP is watching this really really closely.

[The Dunster]

Best indicator will be who comes next for the Dems. An actual real human with a brain and a conscience or another career politician.

I also hope the ALP is watching this really really closely.

The ALP are beyond saving. They stand for nothing. At least the conservatives aren't afraid to say they hate the poor.

Are they taking bets on KANYE for 2020 ?

[steve136]

There are quite a few reasons why.

One good one is that the world is a much bigger place than Facebook, Twitter and Hollywood.

Plenty of positives can come out of this, let's hope some lessons are learned and the whole system resets.

There are no positives to come out of this. Trump is not trying to "reset" the system, he is trying to systematically whitewash America. The only lesson to be learned out of this is that ignorant, bigoted fools will support anyone who sprouts populist sh*t even if its baseless in terms of policy.

[steve136]

As for the 'wall' i mean there's gonna be a lot of surprised people when they realise there's already a kind of a wall there but Trump just gonna enforce it better.

Enforce it better with money they don't have?

[hawk]

The majority of people I have spoken to about the election over the past few months said they were voting for Trump. Hardly anyone said they would vote for Hillary because they feared it would be more of the same as in mass unemployment and uncertainty. Let's hope Trump is more successful playing politics than he was in the movie business.

Q. How is trump gonna improve employment? .......A. reduce wages? work without safety? more hoars? isolationist? we want answers

but imagine losing the unlosable election, what a putz. Thank fk I dont have to hear Hillary's whiny, grating voice ever again.
also sick of trump already

[The Dunster]

Enforce it better with money they don't have?

The only limit to the US governments ability to spend is politically imposed . Economically, they have no spending constraint in terms of the US dollar.

The best thing that could happen in America is for Trump to spend up and spend up big. Because a lack of spending is precisely why their economy has been in the shit for so many years.

[The Dunster]

How is trump gonna improve employment? reduce wages? work without safety? more hoars? isolationist? we want answers

but imagine losing the unlosable election, what a putz. Thank fk I dont have to hear Hillary's whiny, grating voice ever again.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/09/02/1226463/466099-paddle-steamer.jpg

[hawk]

http://liberalamerica.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Screen-shot-2014-08-20-at-8.33.08-PM.png

[steve136]

The only limit to the US governments ability to spend is politically imposed . Economically, they have no spending constraint in terms of the US dollar.

The best thing that could happen in America is for Trump to spend up and spend up big. Because a lack of spending is precisely why their economy has been in the shit for so many years.

Spending up big is the worst thing that could happen in America. The idea that the US doesn't have to repay its debts is absurd and dangerous. Such an idea would see interest rates soar and certainly set off a global recession.

[hawk]

Spending up big is the worst thing that could happen in America. The idea that the US doesn't have to repay its debts is absurd and dangerous. Such an idea would see interest rates soar and certainly set off a global recession.

He could employ 50 thou on a big brick wall.

[plague]

There are no positives to come out of this. Trump is not trying to "reset" the system, he is trying to systematically whitewash America. The only lesson to be learned out of this is that ignorant, bigoted fools will support anyone who sprouts populist sh*t even if its baseless in terms of policy.

Get off Facebook and Twitter my brother.
There's a big wide world out there and today it said enough is enough.

Of course you loved Obamas policy laden campaign back in '08 didn't you..........what was it Hope and Change or Change and Hope I forget?

[steve136]

Get off Facebook and Twitter my brother.
There's a big wide world out there and today it said enough is enough.

Of course you loved Obamas policy laden campaign back in '08 didn't you..........what was it Hope and Change or Change and Hope I forget?

I have been disappointed by Obama's centrist policies and lack of progressivism from the Democratic Party over the last 8 years. But I also acknowledge the incredibly hypocrisy of conservatives pointing their finger at Obama for America's issues when they've controlled the house, Senate and Supreme Court for the past 4 years. They're upset about where the country is heading but their hands are all over the wheel.

I wish a journalist had asked Trump - "how does a bill get passed?" You know what? He'd have no idea at all, and this man is about to become President of the United States. This level of ineptitude and inexperience is unprecedented. I mean come on, the man can barely string a sentence together let alone comprehend complex issues like healthcare, immigration, trade and foreign policy.

And I don't need facebook or twitter to know that climate change isn't a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and that bragging of sexual assault makes one unqualified for office.

[steve136]

He could employ 50 thou on a big brick wall.

He'll certainly have to employ a few engineers to work out how he's going to build the wall through the many rivers that cross the border, because he's provided no answers to that so far.

[plague]

hypocrisy of conservatives pointing their finger at Obama for America's issues when they've controlled the house, Senate and Supreme Court for the past 4 years.

I wish a journalist had asked Trump - "how does a bill get passed?" You know what? He'd have no idea at all, and this man is about to become President of the United States. This level of ineptitude and inexperience is unprecedented. I mean come on, the man can barely string a sentence together let alone comprehend complex issues like healthcare, immigration, trade and foreign policy.


aaaahhhh the old "republicans controlled the house chestnut. I love that one. Did it ever occur that the Republicans got control in the mid terms because of the ineffective nature of the Obama administration for the first 4 years when he had control of everything?

As for the intricacies of legislation? Geez mate id bet good money the bloke has never laid a brick in his life but he gets some pretty big buildings made.
You think any major leader knows the ins and out of parliamentary business? No, thats why the likes of 'The Fixer' Pyne and Snot nosed Burke are called "leaders of Govt/opposition business" in the house. Its called delegation, leaders lead, then they delegate. Its how shit gets done. Plenty of well paid boffins on the hill will be more than ready to show the Donald they way through.


oh, and I don't know you, but Trump is richer, more educated and has better hair than you. deal with it.

[plague]

Spending up big is the worst thing that could happen in America. The idea that the US doesn't have to repay its debts is absurd and dangerous. Such an idea would see interest rates soar and certainly set off a global recession.


yeah im here for all the chats in the world and have love everyone on the foz but unless you want a sermon from the book of Dunster id get in the bunker and arm up my breh before throwing out these comments.


imma step aside on this.

[q-money]

this whole thing and the last 10 years of the internet age of politics really reinforces that people will believe any bullshit you put in front of them.

you have the keys now, you f*cken drive

[steve136]

aaaahhhh the old "republicans controlled the house chestnut. I love that one. Did it ever occur that the Republicans got control in the mid terms because of the ineffective nature of the Obama administration for the first 4 years when he had control of everything?

As for the intricacies of legislation? Geez mate id bet good money the bloke has never laid a brick in his life but he gets some pretty big buildings made.
You think any major leader knows the ins and out of parliamentary business? No, thats why the likes of 'The Fixer' Pyne and Snot nosed Burke are called "leaders of Govt/opposition business" in the house. Its called delegation, leaders lead, then they delegate. Its how shit gets done. Plenty of well paid boffins on the hill will be more than ready to show the Donald they way through.


oh, and I don't know you, but Trump is richer, more educated and has better hair than you. deal with it.

There's definitely an element of Obama dissatisfaction (and rightfully so) about that. Did it occur to you that the Republicans mainly control the house because of the outrageous gerrymandering that the GOP has executed in recent years?

As for the "experts" he'll defer to to lead effectively, I point to his response when asked who will advise him on foreign policy - "My primary consultant is myself." The man is a narcissist of the highest order, and seems incapable of listening to others. Everything Trump has done so far indicates that even if he were able to identify the most knowledgeable people in the world on any subject, he probably wouldn’t listen to them anyway.

As for being richer and having better hair - no doubt. But a BS from Wharton University...please :lol:

[steve136]

yeah im here for all the chats in the world and have love everyone on the foz but unless you want a sermon from the book of Dunster id get in the bunker and arm up my breh before throwing out these comments.


imma step aside on this.

Would love to hear his rationale. Unlike Trump supporters, I'm happy to listen to logical evidence and use that to update my position on any subject. Not just get worked into a frenzy over a stupid four world slogan.

[parksey]

Trump's plan to get rid of America's enormous debt:

1. Spend billions on the military
2. Spend billions on infrastructure
3. Deport thousands of people
4. ???
5. Profit

He knows what he's doing though, right? He's a successful businessman. Oh and he's not Hillary!

[plague]

Trump's plan to get rid of America's enormous debt:

1. Spend billions on the military
2. Spend billions on infrastructure
3. Deport thousands of people
4. ???
5. Profit

He knows what he's doing though, right? He's a successful businessman. Oh and he's not Hillary!

To be fair the last bloke didn't do much better.
Also expect the Trump sympathisers to read from the Jets playbook, "I inherited a bad economy/squad" etc.

Plus in that whole god damned 2 year campaign national debt commanded what seemed like 1% of the oxygen on both sides. They both argued they'd do it by growing the economy, but had no detail.

A lot has to be learned from how Hillary blew this. The most qualified person ever to run got whipped by the least qualified. Simply astonishing.

[plague]

I point to his response when asked who will advise him on foreign policy - "My primary consultant is myself." The man is a narcissist of the highest order, and seems incapable of listening to others.


Yeah look one thing we all have to remember about any public figure is that regardless of what we assume, we really don't know them and have no idea what these people are really like.
Your opinion is derived from consuming whichever brand of media and information you choose to believe about them.
And that's fine, but it doesn't make it so.

[Wilso8948]

This is straight out of that Will Ferrell Zach Galifianakis movie The Campaign. Time to make America great again.

"Because it's a mess"

[Wilso8948]

I'm happy to listen to logical evidence and use that to update my position on any subject.

This is something that should be adopted by everyone.

[plague]

This is straight out of that Will Ferrell Zach Galifianakis movie The Campaign. Time to make America great again.

"Because it's a mess"

Such an underrated, funny movie.
Will Ferrell is exactly what Hillary Clinton looked like to a lot of people.

[hawk]

The most qualified person ever to run got whipped by the least qualified. Simply astonishing.

surprised? happens every day. qualifications and job success rarely meet. Its jobs for the girls/boys everywhere.

bye dillary, hello disaster

[q-money]

looking forward to the wacky capers of Chief Justice Peter Thiel

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/95/956cf0ff2f57f02dff931907dda2df751a5dda52869b21b961 bc6033f49dcf24.jpg

[The Dunster]

Spending up big is the worst thing that could happen in America. The idea that the US doesn't have to repay its debts is absurd and dangerous. Such an idea would see interest rates soar and certainly set off a global recession.

1. Interest rates are endogenously determined by the central bank. The Fed / Government can choose any rate it desires and then increase or decrease liquidity in the system by buying or selling interest bearing alternatives to money [Bonds, Repos, and so on].
2. Government spending puts downward pressure on interest rates because it increases liquidity in the exchange settlement accounts held by private banks at the Central Bank / Fed.

The system you think is in place is called the loanable funds framework - but the reality is that it is a textbook model which does not apply to how the banking sector actually works.
The reality is and endogenously determined money supply which tracks economic activity, and exogenously determined rate of interest, and a floating exchange rate.

Not trying to run you down here but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the idea that deficit spending increases interest rates - in fact the reverse is more likely.

Japan as an example, have been running much larger deficits as a percentage of GDP than Australia or the USA for a very long time and their interest rate is essentially zero.

THe myth is that governments function like households - nothing could be further from the truth.

Where people come unstuck is they look at examples such as Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, or Brazil which simply do not apply for reasons such as reparations, fixed exchange rates, no excess capacity, agrarian rather than commercial economy... and so on

http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/S/9/d/6/trump-last-president.jpg

[Jetmaster]

Tell you what....the last 24 hours has confirmed my theory that social media represents the vocal minority.

No matter what you think...the fact remains "The Land of the Free" has democratically elected a new leader, who the majority support.

[The Dunster]

Get off Facebook and Twitter my brother.
There's a big wide world out there and today it said enough is enough.

Of course you loved Obamas policy laden campaign back in '08 didn't you..........what was it Hope and Change or Change and Hope I forget?

Yes we can!!! - turned out to be no we can't.

Trump will do fine as long as the banking sector doesn't get complete control over congress. If that happens then he's dead in the water like everyone before him back to 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window.

The banking sector / Wall Street needs households to hold high levels of debt to maintain it's business. If government takes on more debt then households effectively hold less and the banking sector becomes less relevant / liquid.

This is the reason why the banking owned media crap on so much about bringing budgets back to surplus - they want households in deficit so they can make more money off them.

The level of marketing on this bullshit is insane and even filters down to primary school curriculum - to the point whereby group think tanks over.

[q-money]

Tell you what....the last 24 hours has confirmed my theory that social media represents the vocal minority.

No matter what you think...the fact remains "The Land of the Free" has democratically elected a new leader, who the majority support.

It only represents what circles you roll in, this was a ripper take I read the other day and I'm inclined to agree with it

"Blame Facebook for creating a massive reality-distortion field; for allowing its more than 200 million active North American users to dwell in a fever swamp of misinformation and ridiculous falsehood."

Although not broadcasting it from the rooftops like the vocal minority on either side, the amount of absolute nonsense and outright lies on Facebook that is swallowed up by the silent mass in the middle definitely has an effect.

Fair-dos to the Reps and the Trump campaign for exploiting it as well, people lapped up the Clinton narrative that was whipped up on the Internet, primarily through re-posts on Facebook. The Internet is an amazing leveller, where an article from Infowars can look just as convincing as something from the NYT if you want to believe the narrative. Twitter is overstated in it's effect for mine, but FB is the single biggest media outlet on the planet these days.

What will be interesting now is the legitimising of the Get Clinton rhetoric, where these right-wing pundits take the positions in the mainstream media that they so reportedly despise.

[q-money]

That being said social media is an amplifying echo chamber for the Left as well. In the end everyone who shows up vote counts and Trump absolutely nailed the states he had to win. Hats off.

[plague]

but FB is the single biggest media outlet on the planet these days.


Agreed, and with the Wikileaks exposure of a huge percentage of mainstream media actively campaigning for and working with the Dems it legitimised that suspicion even more.

Now all of a sudden Alex Jones and the New York Times are just as credible as each other.

What a time to be alive.

[plague]

That being said social media is an amplifying echo chamber for the Left as well.

A great example of this has been the hippies reaction to Julian Assange. 12 months ago he was a 'freedom fighter deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize' now he's a 'filthy Russian sympathiser and a traitor who is trying to influence an election'.

Blimey.

[steve136]

1. Interest rates are endogenously determined by the central bank. The Fed / Government can choose any rate it desires and then increase or decrease liquidity in the system by buying or selling interest bearing alternatives to money [Bonds, Repos, and so on].
2. Government spending puts downward pressure on interest rates because it increases liquidity in the exchange settlement accounts held by private banks at the Central Bank / Fed.

The system you think is in place is called the loanable funds framework - but the reality is that it is a textbook model which does not apply to how the banking sector actually works.
The reality is and endogenously determined money supply which tracks economic activity, and exogenously determined rate of interest, and a floating exchange rate.

Not trying to run you down here but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the idea that deficit spending increases interest rates - in fact the reverse is more likely.

Japan as an example, have been running much larger deficits as a percentage of GDP than Australia or the USA for a very long time and their interest rate is essentially zero.

THe myth is that governments function like households - nothing could be further from the truth.

Where people come unstuck is they look at examples such as Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, or Brazil which simply do not apply for reasons such as reparations, fixed exchange rates, no excess capacity, agrarian rather than commercial economy... and so on


My logic was based around the idea that due to how safe an investment US debt is perceived to be, the idea that investors would receive less then they were promised by the US government would trigger huge consequences throughout the economy. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this, which seems much more informed then mine. I will take time to think about this more closely and understand it better.

[steve136]

If there's anything comforting to see today, it's that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Yet another president who didn't win the popular vote...
Not saying the popular vote is the way to go necessarily, but surely they could explore the possibility of preferential voting or abolishing the archaic electoral college.

[The Dunster]

It only represents what circles you roll in, this was a ripper take I read the other day and I'm inclined to agree with it

"Blame Facebook for creating a massive reality-distortion field; for allowing its more than 200 million active North American users to dwell in a fever swamp of misinformation and ridiculous falsehood."

Although not broadcasting it from the rooftops like the vocal minority on either side, the amount of absolute nonsense and outright lies on Facebook that is swallowed up by the silent mass in the middle definitely has an effect.

Fair-dos to the Reps and the Trump campaign for exploiting it as well, people lapped up the Clinton narrative that was whipped up on the Internet, primarily through re-posts on Facebook. The Internet is an amazing leveller, where an article from Infowars can look just as convincing as something from the NYT if you want to believe the narrative. Twitter is overstated in it's effect for mine, but FB is the single biggest media outlet on the planet these days.

What will be interesting now is the legitimising of the Get Clinton rhetoric, where these right-wing pundits take the positions in the mainstream media that they so reportedly despise.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvypn0UWYAABl7X.jpg:large

This is the real reason why Clinton lost the election and it didn't take facebook or even a graph for them to realise they needed to look at another option. The group think driving the media is beyond laughable when you look at the data - and if you are someone in that bottom 90% your lack of work / life balance is proof enough.

The next piece of the puzzle is to get people to understand how government spending really functions and the role the banking sector plays in the media groupthink debacle. This won't be easy though because the Democrat / Republican Two party dictatorship is ultimately in bed with each other here.

[pv4]

Tell you what....the last 24 hours has confirmed my theory that social media represents the vocal minority.

No matter what you think...the fact remains "The Land of the Free" has democratically elected a new leader, who the majority support.

I've never overly thought this before, until now (except, you know, social media is the vocal majority for jerks wanting e&c - sup porksey).

Before yesterday around lunch time, I'd barely heard of anyone actually supporting or believing in Trump. All reports I'd heard/read/etc were all the Hillary would win in a landslide and there weren't any sane people who would vote for Trump.

Fast forward to last night & this morning and everyone is all "I knew it was coming, was always going to happen, 3 or 4 swing states were always going to be Hillary's demise, I knew Florida was the worry, knew i should have gotten on Trump at $10, etc". I hadn't heard a single person say any of this shit until yesterday.

But there you have it, a democratic system & the majority have voted in the "71%-29% underdog".

[q-money]

Hey, no doubt Dunster - that data - and the grim reality, fostered with effective, rapid-fire means of communicating it and spreading the dissatisfaction about it got big Donny home imo.

Where does the don go from here? because seriously I still have absolutely zero idea what he is actually going to do

[plague]

If there's anything comforting to see today, it's that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Yet another president who didn't win the popular vote...
Not saying the popular vote is the way to go necessarily, but surely they could explore the possibility of preferential voting or abolishing the archaic electoral college.

granted there is no perfect system, and preferential voting opens up a whole other bunch of problems, but from what I read Clinton won the popular vote due to big wins in traditional high population Dem states New York and California. They swing the result as Texas does for the GOP.

Clinton lost key Obama held states and now everyone is pointing out how her team put little to no effort in holding them.

That's on her and her team, not the system.

Again, she lost to Donald ****ing Trump, how unlikable must she be?

[steve136]

granted there is no perfect system, and preferential voting opens up a whole other bunch of problems, but from what I read Clinton won the popular vote due to big wins in traditional high population Dem states New York and California. They swing the result as Texas does for the GOP.

Clinton lost key Obama held states and now everyone is pointing out how her team put little to no effort in holding them.

That's on her and her team, not the system.

Again, she lost to Donald ****ing Trump, how unlikable must she be?

In Wyoming, there is 143 000 people per electoral college vote.
In California, there is 508 000 people per electoral college vote.

It's a crazy difference in the power of a single vote per state. Agree about her poor campaigning and lack of foresight though - even moreso, the lack of foresight by the Democratic party to elect an establishment candidate when 2016 clearly wasn't the time for that.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that could have possibly lost to Donald Trump, and they gave that to him on a platter.

[plague]

I've never overly thought this before, until now (except, you know, social media is the vocal majority for jerks wanting e&c - sup porksey).

Before yesterday around lunch time, I'd barely heard of anyone actually supporting or believing in Trump. All reports I'd heard/read/etc were all the Hillary would win in a landslide and there weren't any sane people who would vote for Trump.

Fast forward to last night & this morning and everyone is all "I knew it was coming, was always going to happen, 3 or 4 swing states were always going to be Hillary's demise, I knew Florida was the worry, knew i should have gotten on Trump at $10, etc". I hadn't heard a single person say any of this shit until yesterday.

But there you have it, a democratic system & the majority have voted in the "71%-29% underdog".

I did hear and read quite a few people adamant that Trump would win, one boffin had tipped every president for 100 years or something and he tipped Trump.
Ross Cameron and Mark Latham on Sky News were tipping him but I always believed it was them shit stirring rather than an informed decision.

Granted though your man on the street etc was no where near it.

I bet hard cash on Hillary and was confident right up until Ohio got called. Then I just laughed.

The Griff works in mysterious ways man.

[plague]

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that could have possibly lost to Donald Trump, and they gave that to him on a platter.

Yeah it's been a good debate whether Sanders would have beat Trump. I don't reackon he would have.
Not sure how socialism would have gone down in middle America.

[steve136]

Yeah it's been a good debate whether Sanders would have beat Trump. I don't reackon he would have.
Not sure how socialism would have gone down in middle America.

At least Sanders was ranting about the things that the middle class were upset about, like crippling student loan debt and trade deals that hadn't worked out for the average joe. Also, it looks like Clinton lost because of low turnout (even Trump got 2 million votes less than Romney). I believe that Sanders would have mobilised and inspired more young voters to get out and vote, and despite the rejection of the notion of democratic socialism from the right (because apparently they don't realise America already is a democratic socialist nation), Sanders could not have inspired the same levels of hatred that have been building towards Clinton for 30 years.

[The Dunster]

Yeah it's been a good debate whether Sanders would have beat Trump. I don't reackon he would have.
Not sure how socialism would have gone down in middle America.

The fact that people assume Sanders is a socialist is the reason why he would have lost. Nothing could be further from the truth and yet because the media labeled Sanders as a socialist the mud stuck.

The reality is that on economic policy Trump and Sanders are pretty much on the same page - and Hillary is on another.

Where Trump and Sanders differ is with respect to Race, Religion, the environment, Xenophobia... and so on.

But when it comes to mobilizing idle resources be they human and non-human they share a lot of common ground.

[pv4]

Have heard a few people say they didn't want Sanders as the Democractic representative because he was "too old". The dude is only like 4 years older than Trump :rof:

[steve136]

Damn Sanders just really gets it. Love the shot at the tax-dodging Trump.

“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics, and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes, and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids — all while the very rich become much richer.

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic, and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

[plague]

Oh don't worry I don't think Sanders is a classic commie socialist either, but that's what the media painted him as, so he had to wear it (as Trump was a sexist pig and Clinton was dodgy).

The smartest thing Trump could do is immediately stick Sanders somewhere in cabinet to show how 'inclusive' he intends to be while still giving double middle fingers to the Dems.

[plague]

I do admire Trumps comeback whenever the 'tax dodging' stuff comes up.
He simply explains that he's utilising the system that the Govt implemented. And he's correct, and the argument then ends.


Now, the test will be whether he now changes that system.

[plague]

Oh, and just as an aside, this is good Foz at the moment. Points of view, opinion, debate, but no stupidity. Cheers guys.

[steve136]

I do admire Trumps comeback whenever the 'tax dodging' stuff comes up.
He simply explains that he's utilising the system that the Govt implemented. And he's correct, and the argument then ends.


Now, the test will be whether he now changes that system.

Yeah it was an extremely clever way to deal with it - the system is broken because politicians set it up, and as a businessman I know what the loopholes are so I can close them if I'm elected.

[Macca]

Yeah those corrupt politicians always getting everything wrong. Trump will shake the system up and fix it.

The whole thing reeks a bit of the "fizzy drink in the bubblers" school captain bit. I'll concede that my view of him has been influenced heavily by media and is therefore biased or possibly outright incorrect (not that they made up his quotes), but as was said, noone here can really claim to have any idea what sort of bloke he is. He could be an ignorant dumbass or a genius who's played out the game 3 moves ahead of everyone.

I'm thinking there could be a few options for how it plays out -
Puppet/figurehead president with well assembled staff etc and everything goes better than expected
The Trump presented by media is legit and runs a sort of dictatorship doing whatever he wants.
Very little to nothing changes and he's reined in by whoever it is that normally pulls the strings, the party or the banks or illuminati, whatever.

As long as he doesn't **** the world over it should be interesting to see how it pans out though.

[pv4]

Something that sparked my interest about Trump's promises was how he didn't like the trade agreements USA has with China and will "definitely renegotiate them". What that says to me, and note I have an extremely naive view of all of this, is USA will end up exporting less to China and that gives Australia the chance to pick up the scraps as it were. Feel free, and please do, correct me if I'm wrong but as I said, naive view of it all. So with my naive view, I've googled and found this page instantly:

http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/what-america-exports-to-china/


The Top 10 US Exports to China

1. Soybeans: $15 billion
2. Civilian aircraft: $8.4 billion
3. Cotton: $3.4 billion
4. Copper materials: $3 billion
5. Passenger vehicles (small engines): $3 billion
6. Aluminum materials: $2.4 billion
7. Passenger vehicles (large engines): $2.2 billion
8. Electronic integrated circuits: $1.7 billion
9. Corn: $1.3 billion
10. Coal: $1.2 billion

There seems like a fair bit there to me, number 10 sparking my particular interest, that Australia can 100% fill the void IMO.

[q-money]

I think it's the other way round, he wants to put a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.

Maybe Duns can correct me here but the manufacturing jobs that used to be in the Rust Belt (i.e. cars, machines, steel) haven't necessarily gone to China, but to Mexico and Latin America. The Yanks have never made the computers/consoles, phones, televisions etc themselves in high volume for years, but own the companies and make the high-tech parts i.e. circuits at home and ship them off to Asia for final manufacturing.

Their own companies, i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler etc have sold them out for cheaper labour closer to home, not necessarily the Chinese?

[plague]

Mexico is the world’s eighth car, truck, part and component producer. It’s main export market is still the United States, even when in recent years, several markets, such as many Latin American countries, have increased their share in Mexican exports.

http://www.automotivemeetings.com/mexico/images/cartes/plantas-vehiculos_ligeros.jpg

[Jetmaster]

Hopefully, tensions will cool down over Christmas and they will just let him get down to business in January and then see how it goes from there.

It is interesting trawling some past articles on the possibility of the US becoming so divided that the people could turn on each other...a couple of examples below (one opinion, one fiction). Scary stuff as if there is one country in the free world that is capable of getting stuck into each other it is the USA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-susan-k-smith/the-coming-of-americas-civil-war_b_9501120.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/civil-war-2016-us-582/

[hawk]

Hopefully, tensions will cool down over Christmas and they will just let him get down to business in January and then see how it goes from there.

It is interesting trawling some past articles on the possibility of the US becoming so divided that the people could turn on each other...a couple of examples below (one opinion, one fiction). Scary stuff as if there is one country in the free world that is capable of getting stuck into each other it is the USA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-susan-k-smith/the-coming-of-americas-civil-war_b_9501120.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/civil-war-2016-us-582/

Why not, pockets of civil war in many countries over the last 25 yrs.

Its all a big beat up sook fest from the demos cause their baby didnt win. The sky didnt fall today and wont tomorrow. Relations will probs improve with mekiko due to Trump shady deals

[steve136]

Why not, pockets of civil war in many countries over the last 25 yrs.

Its all a big beat up sook fest from the demos cause their baby didnt win. The sky didnt fall today and wont tomorrow. Relations will probs improve with mekiko due to Trump shady deals

I think you'll find a lot of the people that are scared of a Trump presidency aren't actually "democrats" per se. They're immigrants, people of colour, women who have been sexually assaulted, people who care about the environment, people who need access to healthcare because they can't afford it. It's not hyperbolic to say people will die because of Obamacare being dismantled - have you looked at the prices of healthcare in the US lately? I was lucky enough to have private health insurance while in the States and it still cost me a damn fortune for the simplest of things - god help those that aren't as fortunate as I am.

[plague]

By the way Paul Keating is still keeping it real going on a good rant that who gives a **** what the USA does we should focus on Asia. He's been a (public) leader of this his entire career so bless him there's still a bit of fire in the belly.

[steve136]

Interesting discussion between David Axelrod (Chief Strategist for Obama's presidential campaigns) and Jon Stewart a few months back. Provide an interesting framing of the election and the candidates.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut8C_IOqEtU

[The Dunster]

It's difficult to say America was ever great based on their history of mass slavery, using an Atomic bomb on women and children - twice, and essentially inventing biological warfare when they handed Native Americans blankets laced with small pox.

Sure they have done some remarkable things as well like the Moon Landings and breast implants. But over all the bad will always outweigh the good.

[plague]

like STAGED the Moon Landings.

Fixed.


plus they invented Las Vegas and that place is dope.


hashtagstaywoke

[q-money]

I truly hope the Americans enjoy the creation of their new slave class, serving the robots which will drive their new age of manufacturing dominance

[furns]

I think you'll find a lot of the people that are scared of a Trump presidency aren't actually "democrats" per se. They're immigrants, people of colour, women who have been sexually assaulted, people who care about the environment, people who need access to healthcare because they can't afford it. It's not hyperbolic to say people will die because of Obamacare being dismantled - have you looked at the prices of healthcare in the US lately? I was lucky enough to have private health insurance while in the States and it still cost me a damn fortune for the simplest of things - god help those that aren't as fortunate as I am.
Not to mention the LBTQI community

[plague]

Not to mention the LBTQI community

I think you'll find Trump is quite supportive of gay rights.

His running mate errrrr, not so much.

[The Dunster]

I think you'll find Trump is quite supportive of gay rights.

His running mate errrrr, not so much.

Mike Spence is a nutter. He wants to put the US back on the gold standard and wants the sole focus of fiscal policy to be price stability and for the goal of full employment to be abandoned.

Pence also has no understanding of how spending equals income and has proposed that the minimum wage is too high. That either makes him an idiot who doesn't understand the role of consumption spending in creating income, or it makes him that understands that by restricting net spending in aggregate you can force the non-government sector [business and households] to spend more than the earn - creating the demand for credit / borrowing from banks.

If Trump doesn't get rid of this bloke - nothing will ever get done.

[plague]

I saw the Pence thing as a really weird appointment.

Not sure what sort of weirdos he was going to appeal to that Trump hadn't already secured.

[steve136]

I think you'll find Trump is quite supportive of gay rights.

His running mate errrrr, not so much.

You've got that right. In 2013, Pence signed a bill that would put gay people in jail just for applying for a marriage license...

He also advocated for diverting taxpayer dollars to a so-called "gay conversion" therapy, which involved the use of electroshock therapy to electrocute gay children into heterosexual behaviour.

[plague]

You've got that right. In 2013, Pence signed a bill that would put gay people in jail just for applying for a marriage license...

He also advocated for diverting taxpayer dollars to a so-called "gay conversion" therapy, which involved the use of electroshock therapy to electrocute gay children into heterosexual behaviour.

yeah i read that shit and legit wondered how the hell these people even exist in 2016.
not that i think Trump will listen to many people anyway but this ****tard gonna be given the valet parking job or something.

[furns]

Trump apparently supports gay rights but would also, according to Pence during the campaign, be repealing SSM if he won office.
So again, not so much.

[steve136]

Trump apparently supports gay rights but would also, according to Pence during the campaign, be repealing SSM if he won office.
So again, not so much.

Fortunately, Trump can't do much about SSM, as the president can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision by himself...although he could of course appoint more conservative justices. Even then, the chance that the high court would reverse itself is very small, especially given that same-sex marriage has steadily gained in public approval.

Trump could try to reverse some Obama administration rulings that favoured same-sex couples on issues such as federal benefits. He hasn’t suggested that he would. And if he did, his decisions could be challenged in court.

[plague]

Trump apparently supports gay rights but would also, according to Pence during the campaign, be repealing SSM if he won office.
So again, not so much.

same behaviour as Wong, Gillard, Rudd etc back in the day.

they weren't quite monsters.

id bet really really good money Trump leaves SSM right where it is.

edit: Pence aint getting a say in anything here. Trump is now one of the most powerful people in the world, he aint getting dictated to by some hick that no one voted for.

[plague]

oh, just by the way if you're wondering why Clinton got the ass and why Gillard was so despised.

From 2006-14 The Australian government (using taxpayer dollars) contributed over $430m to the Clinton foundation and affiliated endeavours.
Whilst PM Gillard wrote them a cheque for $300m for their 'Global Partnership for Education'.

Well guess who is now the chairman for the 'Global Partnership for Education'?


go on


go on please have a guess.


yep, Julia Gillard.


You guys still all blaming Tony Abbott looking at his watch for her getting shafted?

She is a crook just like the rest of them.

Equality at work my friends.

[plague]

Fortunately, Trump can't do much about SSM, as the president can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision by himself...although he could of course appoint more conservative justices. Even then, the chance that the high court would reverse itself is very small, especially given that same-sex marriage has steadily gained in public approval.

Trump could try to reverse some Obama administration rulings that favoured same-sex couples on issues such as federal benefits. He hasn’t suggested that he would. And if he did, his decisions could be challenged in court.

Yeah i tend to agree here. He's got 2 years to get in and get the bills passed that he campaigned on whilst they have control of the system.
Hes not that dumb that he's going to pick unnecessary fights, especially on social issues like that.

People want to hate on pollies for discrimination, look no further than Shorten for blocking the plebiscite.

[hawk]

Trump wont beat the NRA or is he their leader already

[plague]

Trump wont beat the NRA or is he their leader already

Gun control wasn't an issue during the election. Some states passed bills on Election Day but until there's a national policy it's pointless.

The Donald will skate on this one, and the NRA can save their bribe money.

And that's a win-win folks (well, except for all those murdered school kiddies etc)

[parksey]

Gun control wasn't an issue during the election. Some states passed bills on Election Day but until there's a national policy it's pointless.

The Donald will skate on this one, and the NRA can save their bribe money.

And that's a win-win folks (well, except for all those murdered school kiddies etc)

Huh? Guns were a big issue for Trump, he brought it up at most rallies and said he would do everything in his power to preserve the second amendment. He also pledged to rip up Obama's executive orders, some of which were put in place to foreshadow legislation to change gun laws.

[parksey]

On reflection, you've got to agree that there is to be a lot more to this result than just racism and fear mongering - although that undoubtedly played a big role for many voters.

The points about people being fed up with the political class are totally correct. This rejection is happening all over the world. Mind you, it is often led by and lapped up by middle-aged white people who don't like the increasingly progressive world we are living in.

Those who speak about the silent majority, the group we often laugh off as being non-existent, are probably on the money. The majority of Americans, Brits and Australians are white, middle-aged people, who have a problem with the world changing from the one they grew up in. It's totally understandable, looking at it from their perspective.

Large sections of the media are filled with younger, forward-thinking people and there is a deep mistrust of the mainstream media in the States. So much of the rhetoric around the election on social media was literally made up by some conspiracy theorist in a dark room, but the people lapped it up.

America has always been a very insular nation. Although it has global ambitions, at the end of the day its people only really care about themselves and their country. It's also a very religious, conservative and contrasting nation, especially in regards to wealth and most importantly education.

All credible reports show that 'real America', the one you don't see on the postcards and in your Instagram feed, is hurting. The people wanted a change and saw Hillary as more of the same, even though the president has little power over what's effecting them most.

Now whether Donald Trump is the man for the job is a totally different story. In my opinion, he is a disaster and will undoubtedly drop nearly all of his 'policies' within weeks of taking office because most of them are impossible to put into action. The fact he won is still almost unimaginable.

The people who say that anyone would be better than Hillary really need to give their head a wobble.

[plague]

Yeah sorry Parksey I meant to say that gun control wasn't an issue between the two candidates.
Both defended the 2nd amendment. Hillary said some shit on twitter but never really had an alternate policy.

I didn't articulate my point that well.

I also agree on your second post, especially the part about him not bringing in too many of his more radical policies. I think he'all be better than expected (yes, with expectations being pretty damned low).

[The Dunster]

On reflection, you've got to agree that there is to be a lot more to this result than just racism and fear mongering - although that undoubtedly played a big role for many voters.

The points about people being fed up with the political class are totally correct. This rejection is happening all over the world. Mind you, it is often led by and lapped up by middle-aged white people who don't like the increasingly progressive world we are living in.

Those who speak about the silent majority, the group we often laugh off as being non-existent, are probably on the money. The majority of Americans, Brits and Australians are white, middle-aged people, who have a problem with the world changing from the one they grew up in. It's totally understandable, looking at it from their perspective.

Large sections of the media are filled with younger, forward-thinking people and there is a deep mistrust of the mainstream media in the States. So much of the rhetoric around the election on social media was literally made up by some conspiracy theorist in a dark room, but the people lapped it up.

America has always been a very insular nation. Although it has global ambitions, at the end of the day its people only really care about themselves and their country. It's also a very religious, conservative and contrasting nation, especially in regards to wealth and most importantly education.

All credible reports show that 'real America', the one you don't see on the postcards and in your Instagram feed, is hurting. The people wanted a change and saw Hillary as more of the same, even though the president has little power over what's effecting them most.

Now whether Donald Trump is the man for the job is a totally different story. In my opinion, he is a disaster and will undoubtedly drop nearly all of his 'policies' within weeks of taking office because most of them are impossible to put into action. The fact he won is still almost unimaginable.

The people who say that anyone would be better than Hillary really need to give their head a wobble.

Hillary is a joke Parksey. She is absolutely clueless when it comes to jobs - and that's what America needs - Jobs and lots of them.
Trump came to the table with a job creation plan - Hillary didn't - it's that simple.
The deficit doves won't let Trump do what he wants for fear of upsetting the Wall Street Illuminati - but at least he had a go I guess.

[steve136]

Hillary is a joke Parksey. She is absolutely clueless when it comes to jobs - and that's what America needs - Jobs and lots of them.
Trump came to the table with a job creation plan - Hillary didn't - it's that simple.
The deficit doves won't let Trump do what he wants for fear of upsetting the Wall Street Illuminati - but at least he had a go I guess.

Yeah because Trump is going to bring back the manufacturing industry to the US :rof::rof::rof:

I half agree with you though - Trump did identify an issue (job creation) that resonated with voters, while Clinton did not. Trump has not proposed any meaningful solutions in my eyes though. Sure, he can put his 45% tariff on imports from China, but good luck explaining to all his Trumpeters in Texas why it costs 3 times as much to buy a tv now. Additionally, his proposed cut on the H1B visa to create more jobs for Americans is ridiculous - Americans don't have the skills to step into these jobs (think tech companies, Silicon Valley et al)

[hawk]

lol, no wonder the jets are fkd. The leftard mentality on here still making lgbti the major issue which a flick of a pen could fix btw.

NRA, guns, employment, poverty, organised crime, DV, effective world leadership just might need an intiatial overhaul but what would I know. Ill just get the striped paint im sure your brushes are ready.

[pv4]

lol, no wonder the jets are fkd. The leftard mentality on here still making lgbti the major issue which a flick of a pen could fix btw.

NRA, guns, employment, poverty, organised crime, DV, effective world leadership just might need an intiatial overhaul but what would I know. Ill just get the striped paint im sure your brushes are ready.

The funniest thing is the pen has already been flicked in Murica

[hawk]

The funniest thing is the pen has already been flicked in Murica

yep

[parksey]

Hillary is a joke Parksey. She is absolutely clueless when it comes to jobs - and that's what America needs - Jobs and lots of them.
Trump came to the table with a job creation plan - Hillary didn't - it's that simple.
The deficit doves won't let Trump do what he wants for fear of upsetting the Wall Street Illuminati - but at least he had a go I guess.

What is his plan? I've barely heard anything about his policies. He said he wants to rebuild infrastructure and bring back manufacturing; well where is the money going to come from? And manufacturing is gone, can't bring it back when people have been replaced by robots.

If Hillary is a joke then I don't know what that makes Trump.