All Activity

Pete - Never forget, Russian spies are everywhere! Even in the deepest South of the Apple Isle!!

But - When Chat GPT is found out to be just a subtle manifestation of Microsofts aim to conquer Google, and rule the world with an iron fist, and make everyone pay for it, what then? 😢

Chat GPT is aware of the wide scope of citizen's backgrounds and demographics. Chat GPT has none of those pesky human weaknesses. It is pragmatic, purely running logic. Dispense with state and fed governments (esp their expense accounts and fringe benefits) - look at the instant boost to the national economy. Dispense with elections - none needed (except the occassional software upgrades). Chat GPT for E-President of the new Republic!

I used to blame the greedy telcos, but now I know it's part of the nasty Russian cyberwar. McCarthy was right all along.

They must be very selective. Mine was fine!

I know you're coming from an enlightened place here - so if the best people were a mix of women and cultural minorities, with not a single middle-aged white man in view, you'd be fine with that. That's admirable and in that respect I agree with you. There's a "but" coming. Please bear with me a little as I try to elucidate my thoughts. Firstly I think that a mix of differences in life experience is hugely important in any senior role, especially government. Just like you don't want all Labor politicians to be ex-trade union bosses, and you don't want all Liberal politicians to be ex-IPA, I would argue that EVEN if the "best" candidate (and what does that mean for government?) happened to be, in every electorate, a middle-aged white man, it would not be a good thing for the government to be compiled of them. With the best will and intentions in the world, a group of men cannot make the best decisions regarding the welfare of women, for example. And the reverse is true. They simply do not have the lived experience of the gender to inform their decision-making. Something they consider a good policy, having considered its impact on the other gender, may in fact turn out to have a subtle component which is negative in the long term for the other gender. If there was someone of the other gender on the team they may pick up on it immediately and say "Hey - but what about..." Obviously the same goes for gay/lesbian (not saying you have to have a transgender person in government - but at least someone who knows what it's like to be in that non-traditional bucket), immigrants, cultural background, religion (including lack of). Secondly is visible representation. Australia is a multicultural society. We say that, but I think for many people they still think of Australia as a mainly white "christian" country. According to Wikipedia, northern European accounts for between 55 and 70% (the 15% who put "Australian" in the ancestry census question are probably mostly white). So at least 1/3 of the population is ethnically diverse. As for religion, as at 2021 "Christianity" was 44%, followed closely by "No religion" at 39%, then around 3% each for "Islam" and "Hinduism" and about 2.5 for "Buddhism". (I think I read somewhere that "No religion" had actually overtaken "Christianity" in a later census). Now obviously it would be almost impossible for the government to be a true representation of every ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and religion. There are only so many seats in each house for a start. But, I would argue that if 50% of the population (women) look at the major parties and saw 0 women in cabinet positions, they would probably think that politics is not a healthy place for ambitious women. Same for ethnicity/religion (and disability). If you see only white people in government, no hijabs (not including Pauline), no Jews, no Asian/Indian/Arab/Indigenous faces - then you would probably feel somewhere deep inside that you're not truly being represented. The (relatively) recent same-sex marriage laws would probably not have happened if there weren't gay people in Parliament who initiated, pushed for or supported bills. Of course you have internal fights and factional plotting. You mentioned Plibersek - pushed out because Albo doesn't like her (I think more likely, he correctly sees her as a threat). Same with the Libs. After a series of disastrous leaders (Abbott, Morrison, Dutton) they finally choose their first female leader who was probably the best of a bad lot, only to tear her down in 6 months and put up another useless twat whose biggest claim to fame was posting an applauding comment to his own Facebook page. Anyway - the point is, I think there are subtle benefits to having a variety of personal attributes and backgrounds in leadership groups. Sorry it took such a long post to say this!

Yeah , exactly what l was thinking. Matter a fact the Alphagan Leaders words when the yanks went home, rang n my ears when Rump started this. He said the Americans have all the fancy weapons, but we have time, 100s of yrs if needed. Same thing again here l'd say.

I can't think of a single place the US has gone in to to protect their interests where they have been successful. Korea, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan to name a few. The CIA has been involved in overthrows of democratically elected (mostly socialist) governments causing major problems resulting in chaos & confusion with thousands killed when before the US got involved everything was working except those countries shunned the US. Trump managed to pull off the capture of the Venezuelan leader ostensible to get control of their oil under the guise of stopping the drug trade, but the country is still run by the original regime and their military is intact. We have been pulled in to all the American wars due to treaty obligations. If it isn't in Trumps interest would the US come to our aid in a local conflict? Given his rhetoric, threats to pull out of treaties and threats to others I think the answer is a definitive No.

But how much input did you have on the Party's national platform? You role seems to have been to select the person who was most closely aligned to that platform.

The USA has been screwing up Iran since 1953. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of Iran, from the Mosaddegh coup of 1953 to the present day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

Damn those Russians! The very nerve of them. My internet went out yesterday, too. That war has got to stop!

Is that a good example of not endorsing or voting for a candidate?

How exactly did Iran's evil become any different than it has been for the last decade?

This thread feels like an echo chamber. I think attacking Iran is the best good thing Trump has done. In all wars, the outcome cannot be predicted and you just have to act against evil when it's manifestation becomes unbearable.

I have never been married 😉

Also I was a casual polling clerk at a polling booth.. All votes are then sent to the electoral office where they are recounted. so with ballots with other markings than the actual voting, they may take a different view on their eligibility. I hasten to add, I wasn't a member of a political party at the time.

If you can clearrly discern the voter intention (i.e. the numbers are clear and legible) and it would othrwise be valid (minimum numbers next to names, etc), it is a valid vote. Nothing wriong with writing on the top, or bottom or back of the ballot anything.. At least that's how it was when I was a polling clerk. Sometimes a scrutineer would argue with us about whether it was spoiled or not, in which cae the returning officer would review and sometimes separate them out for the central vote counting team to deal with. That was in Vic but was the same for the federal elections as well.

Jerry, I'm a bit confused here. I though if you write on a ballot paper it's marked down as informal. ie: you fill out the ballot correctly then write a message on it = informal vote.

I can only go by Australia and according to Chat GPT, teh average long term percentage of spoiled or informal votes is 4% in the lower house and 6% in the senate. I would argue that is too statistically small given a 100% poll. Of course, you can write messages on valid ballots as well. I can only go on my experience as a polling clerk in Kensington, Mlebourne in the 90s - so still a lower income area by and large - with I recall a larger Vietnamese population, but still a strong non-immigrant population. I recall most of the ballots that had more than the numbers marked or were informal were in descending order, drawings (some almost adacemic quality) of human genatalia of both genders, and any written messages were expletive laden expressions of general dissatisfaction with politics, and not constructive or specific issues. So, I am not sure of what statistical value the parties would make of it. I am sure at other polling booths and in the central count, they would have better quality of comments.

Given I have lived in mandatory and optional voting jurisdictions, chances are yes 😉 In the UK, I vote regularly.. But not always. I have voted predominantly for the side of the divide that aligns with my values, but have swung.. less chance these days because of the way the parties have moved. I don't need to divulge much more than that unless you really want to know (if you haven't worked it out). Remember, as a youngster I was a member of one of the major parties in Australia; Was the president of my branch, a national conference delegate, and on the public office selection committee for the electorate of my branch. I consider myself pretty well politically engaged. The assumption you are making is deciding not to vote is inaction, and not a purposeful action. I agree, a lot of people who don't vote are likely to be disengaged, but a lot also are engaged - have looked at the options and decided none are for them. It does not make it inaction. It is an action to say what on offer is not what they want. I can't see what is wrong with that. I don't accept that it is better to vote for the one that won't serve your interests, but somehow is deserving your endorsement to be elected. If you feel neither of them would be good public servants. Uf you saw a bunch of plumbers to do some long term work and none of them were competent, would you retain them? I agree.. Deciding not to vote, however, isn't necessarily accompanied by whinging. Nor does it mean that someone doesn't try other ways to achieve outcomes. Or maybe they are just apathetic and don't care and don't whinge. Excpt for the whinge that neither is good.. Then yes, let your parties know they are putting up to you who are unelectable. I don't know the answer to your question. But the question I feel wrong. If only 10% of people voted, has the public given them a mandate to carry out their manifesto/policies? I would argue no (or at least, with such a low turnout, not without a huge risk to their next election chances). If I were just elected with such a low turnout (assuming an average of around 65% turnout in the UK), I would be very careful what I did in government, lest my time would be vry short. Also, parliamentary governments means that their leadership would be very weak and susceptible to takeover, so they would have to tread very carefullly. I am not sure where this comes from. There seems to be an assumption that where someone fails to vote because no one is going to doeverything that the viter wants. I can't speak for other people, bujt that has not factored into my decision not to vote. And while you can assume a certain percentage may have that approach, I would suggest that most who don't vote and aren't apathetic would not expect perfection and if there was a candidate that was likely to change things for the better for them, they wouild vote. We have seen this in the UK before with Tony Blair in 1997 that had the largest voter turnout in years, and with the previous election where people felt neither were really appropriate, where the voter turnout was the lowest since the early 1900s in the low 50%. I think this is evidence it is a ppositive action. Fair enough. I consider that every vote counts, so I take my vote and my decision not to vote equally seriously. The times I have decided not to vote have been considered choices bases on the candidates and parties' offerings at the time. If there are people se disengaged that they don't want to vote, then I don't want them to as they donot consider what they are voting for (some will decide to take interest) and will jujst follow whatever it is or do the donkey vote - as useless as not voting in that situation. And in fact can send the wrong message to someone who gets elected that they have a mandate when they don't. I consier this much more dangerous to democracy than a population of people deciding not to vote no matter their motivations. To use your 10% turnout scenario, there is clearly no mandate with such a turnout in free and fair elections. But if voting is complusory, and 90% didn't want to vote, there are two options: 1 - they spol the vote. Clearly again, no mandate so why bother turning up. Second option is a donkeyed vote. Well, the message could be interpreted as there being a mandate, as they took the time to endorse the first person on the list. That is much more dangerous to democracy to me than not turning up to vote.

It's important to the comrades and that's why they have a quota system. They love their social engineering.

Good article. Let’s hope the US and Israel don’t start hitting Iran’s water supplies and hospitals. I don’t think the US would go that far because Trump couldn’t afford the political consequences, but I wouldn’t put it past Israel.

Hooray! Pity you don't represent the majority.

The KC-135 wreckage has apparently now been found, and the U.S. military are stating there were 6 on board (not 5 as previously advised), and 4 have been confirmed as deceased. There is no word of any survivors, and I expect the reason is simply because the military still haven't found or identified, the remaining 2 crew members. I fully expect they will eventually be reported as deceased, too. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0dz5ql17vo