Jerry_Atrick

Yes.. Left centre - is not left.. Other organisations rate them as centre: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/deutsche-welle-media-bias Either way, in terms of bias, with centre in their rating, it does tend to mean relatively unbiased - or at least cautious in their bias. Unlike many of the sources you quote for climate change (and of which the evidence usually flys in the face of).

Maybe, but a quick search indicates it has more legs than sensationalism: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/epa-fired-email-employment-b2691315.html Of course, many news outlets do fall into the trap of echoing a single source from another outlet; this time, the NY Times, which is not known to be a rag paper.

Is it likely to have been tried before? I am not so sure, as it is usually up to a country to protect its own borders; not rely on other countries. I would wager it is more unlikely than likely that they have been asked, and a smarter administration would ask the other country to use their own border control force, because that is what they have been trained to do. The military haven't - at least in a civilian context. Even if they were asked nicely before, they weren't asked nicely by Trump; given his record they may well have responded positively if Trump asked. Instead, he just came out like a bully with all guns blazing. When Canada hit back knowing it would cost themselves, but still deal the USA a blow, my guess it was a little unexpected.. Trump and his motley crew probably through Canada and Mexico would grovel at their feet and do anything to avoid a trade war. Well, they called his bluff, and he squealed, like all bullies do. I am surprised we didn't se him suck his thumb. Why pick on Canada and Mexico. Yeah, they have a trade surplus with the US, but compared to China, it is pittance. Was it to try and let the Chinese know they were serious? Well, they aint that serious, are they.. China is chuckling now. Many economists and commentators are starting to see these tarris not as trade wars, but was ways of raising revenue to pay for the existing and planned tax cuts for the really wealthy - so the middle classes and minor rich and of course the poor, pick up the tab to funnel more money to the billionaires and the like, After all, why then threaten countries thatr they have a trade surplus with as well? You can make all sorts of excuses, but a probably isn't fact, and the facts that we do know do not support anything than him being a bully with poor judgement. He will no doubt cause short term damage to the US, and already the BRICS block is being courted by other nations to join. In addition, allies will start looking to wean themselves of the teat of the US as a result, and with that will come even smaller exports and a smaller economy as a result.

Hmm I wouldn't quite call it everyone jumping out of their skin. Let's face it, deploying troops to one's own border is fairly easy, and most commentators are saying all it would have taken is for him to ask nicely. This looks more like a saving face move , after climbing down from a stupid position in the first place. Trudeau (sp?) was the big winner from this.. his balanced response made it clear Canada wasn't going to be bullied. And, I am guessing Musk got in on the act when the governor of Ontario, I think it was, threatened to pull $100mn contract to Starlink. Here is what a local writer has to say about it: https://www.theage.com.au/business/markets/trump-fired-his-biggest-weapon-and-he-missed-20250204-p5l9c4.html All he had to do, if he was real about the drug and immigrant issue is ask both Canada and Mexico for their support - they would have probably acceded to his request. Instead, he has sewn division and, at least he realised he went down the wrong path and back tracked (or someone realised for him). I generally will support Trump for some of his belligerent approaches with regimes less than cooperative (though he does like to suck up to their leaders), but taking aim at Canada and Mexico was taking a gun and aiming it at his own feet.

No one is saying abandon fossil fuuels early.. it's about transitioning, not running off a cliff. If that is what you mean by prematurely, then we will never come off fossil fuels as Dutton's plan won't result in any.. So, the environment may make the decision for us.. Or dog.. .Looks like someone needs to build an ark in FNQ

I would worry (and am worried) a lot more about both parties' other policies - the chances of Albo running the Voice again in the next parliament are about the same as you winning Tatslotto (or whatever it is called today). In fact, I would wager that even is he were re-elected, he won't see out a second term. But, hey, if the "threat" of another Voice referendum outweighs voting for the pollies who are more likely to leave you better off (financially, socially, and in ways liek the environment, prospects, security, education, etc for your kids and theirs and theirs, etc).. then, well, that's your choice. I am not saying the LNP are any worse - you have to make that call based on what their policies, their plan for implementing the policies, and the leadership.

Their energy policy is designed to keep fossil fuels still burning..

Sadly, the media has been shooting from the hip many times over and for a long time, with aviation accidents, and reporting in general. The MSM is as about as reliable as social media these days. In fact, for Aussie least biased opinion, I tend to follow a few youtubers: Swollen Pickles, Knights in Shining Llama, and latterly, Punter Politics. They seem to look at the facts and then apply opinion. I still watch Friendly Jordies as he does some hard hitting and courageous reporting, even though I find him too biased to the ALP on many things. Obviously, even though I don't agree with all of his opnions, Michael West is a go to for me, too. And of course, fugitive journalist, Shane Downing is also one I keep any eye on and he gets a few £ per month, as do the first two, to help keep them going. There are others I follow, too... including a few that lean differently to me, so see what they say.. The problem is, as the world is more polarised, and I think Trump being elected is a product of it, not creating it, less and less people are willing to hear the other side, and importantly try and see it from the other side's view. Take immigration.. it is a real problem here in the UK. I think it is more perceived because of the way the press report it, which means the real issues don't get dealt with, as pollies have a habit of thinking about thenext election and will do what will win votes in the immediate term rather than fix the issue. Everything is about the "boat people" coming in, but they only make up 10% of the total net migration take (and thereefore, around 3% of the immigration numbers). If overcrowing, which is one of the main reasons being cited is an issue, the focus surely should be on the other 97% of immigrants and making sure, on the whole, a more manageable number is being allowed in though legal routes.. surely? That is not to say drop the ball on boat people, but the press is pushing an agenda that makes it hard for pollies to react to the real issues.

The problem is, at early stages, all sorts of reports and claims come out - on MSM and social media - it is hard to work out what is going on. This talks to OME's point about responsible journalism. There is nothing wrong with a news organisation saying something like "there has been a fatal accident.. What we do know about it is... <what it is they know about it>; Authorities are investigating the cause and when there is an update, you will be the first to hear." But, the ptoblem is there is a pressure to be the first to report groundbreaking news and info about news for both MSM and social media commentators, because that brings eyeballs, and with eyeballs comes advertising revenue. While that happens, anyone that sounds authoritative will get some air time. If they get it wrong, and the real facts come out some time later, the old reporting has faded from people's minds anyway, so they rarely even think about going back and admitting they were wrong in the first place, anyway. No matter how much distress it causes the close family and friends of those, in this case, who have died. I also heard that the helicopter as 150' higher than it shoudl have been. Could still be the case, but that is some fairly tightly controlled airspace.

Air traffic control along with all other government functions will be delivered by AI using some Musk company

Er.. I think you will find there was one side that was always agreeing to a compromise, and not the other. Bill Maher trained as a historian. What he also doesn't mention, as I guess this is a TV slot, is that after the 67 war, Israel handed back the Sinai in return for peace, but Egypt and others invaded again. And lost... again. Israel would probably compromis again today, but on much stricter terms about guaranteeing peace. At the moment, there is one side that is still about wiping jews off the map.. I would recommend watching this video and then asking who has not been willing to compromise, and then ask, if you were in Israel's shoes, would you want a two state solution as it was originally proposed?

The government didn't start "interfering". They react to people exerting their rights and then making a determination of which way the laws should change. First of all, in what way did they interfere. The general rule of British legal systems is that if something is not proscribed, it is allowed. Gender re-assignment surgery was never proscribed, for example, then people could get it free of government interference. Sports rules and who can play what are within the gambit of the sports regulatory bodies - not the government. Even who gets to go to what toilet is still outside the rules of the government. (except for government buildings, parks and public toilets). The ones in sports stadiums, pools, end the like are governed by those who operate the premises. You will have seen the high profile cases go to court over access - the courts are hearing a private dispute between the TG person and the organisation being sued for access. The courts apply the law - which was the law before TG became an issue - to determine access. Often, then have avoided the issue of gender and treated it as part of equality laws between men and women - can the man - regardless of how he identified - be granted access based on equality laws. The latest case I have seen, not TG related, was whether a bloke who pays the same admission fee as a woman to some art gallery have access to a woman's only exhibition, where it is alleged the better art artifacts were exhibited. Sometimes, the courts have to adjudicate whether or not a man or woman purporting to be the other gender filt within the definition of the other gender. Here, the government has stepped in. In NSW, an Equality Bill was passed that requires a sex affirmation procedure (medical) to change one's gender: https://www.nsw.gov.au/family-and-relationships/name-changes-and-corrections/change-of-sex Until that happens, they remain legally, and the courts are bound to interpret them as their original gender - that is about as much as the government has "interfered".. Transgenderism seems to date prior to 200 years.. Society has just become more progressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history My point in showing those two phots and asking the question of which dunny they should be able to go into is to show the issue isn't black and white. There are many things to be settled, including the impact on biologival women who are still women - the vast majority of women. But like most socially vexing issues, the press only portray the more extremes, and people seem not to be wired to be able to look beyond a binary (no pun intended) vie of the world.

And, did you know, dogs are secretly conspiring to overthrow the human race since training techniques went from negative punishment to positive reinforcement..

Obviousy, we wouldn't want this fella in the women's toilet because he identifies as a female: But wait.. under the laws envisaged by trump, that is exactly where this fella will have to go: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/patricio-manuel-the-first-transgender-pro-boxer-represents-everlast.html And of course, we would not want this sheila to be able to go to women's toilet, right: But, under the laws proposed, well, fellas, enjoy your perve: https://intranet.ulc.edu.pe/understanding-the-controversy/exploring-the-world-of-blonde-shemale-tips-reviews-and-insights-for-2024.html (Look tot he bottom of the page). But, she would be sent to the male toilet under the new laws:

Err.. Yes they do.. They can reticulate some of that heat... but a reactor creates a lot of darned heat. In any case, the statement is a little bit like sayn the US has x GDP and Fiji has a tiny fraction of it.. There has to be some context, and in the case of power generation, it is thermal efficiency. And both nuclear and fossils are, on average, very similar: https://www.pcienergysolutions.com/2023/04/17/power-plant-efficiency-coal-natural-gas-nuclear-and-more/ I haven't read the whole article, esp. about "non traditional" generation. Also, there are high efficiency coal plants, and improved nuclear plants, where the efficiency is higher, but they move in lock step more or less

I was playing the ball.. So, I will clarify what I meant: It would appear from 2016 - 2020, the pendulim was way off the scale, after a period of 2020 - 2024 it stabilisng somewhat, but yes, with some kinks.. no doubt.. the start of the Trump presedency has had the pendulum swinging at amplitudes even greater than the last to solve what problems exactly? So much so, the courts seem to think it is going off the scale. Again, I think GON needs to calibrate his pendulum (i.e. the one he is watching), because it doesn't seem to meet reality. (I sort of thought it was obvious given the thread and the wild claims being made as reality).

I think you may need to recalibrate your pendulum

Another reason to celebrate - you didn't pick them off the cost of Spain.. Orcas there have been smashing boats.. apparently for fun: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/killer-whale-spain-play-1.7220869

What chaos exactly - and not vague claims, but causes and effects would be better.. This is the BS that is spited by the media knowing people only look to the headlines. Until it hits them.. then they change their tune very quickly when the consequences of his policies hit home.

I am not sure of you are just trolling; but if not, you are clearly deluded. Trump's pardoning of all of the Capiitol rioters, whilst legal, wasn't exactly, as you quoted, creating stability and allowed many volaitle criminals back into society, some sentenced for over 20 years for their act - by replublican, not democratic judges. And, what is this stability you speak of, exactly - his modus operarndi is turmoil and distraction. For example, his DOGE, which I agree with in principle, is likely to be executed stably if it is well planned and gradual; take a knife and a big slice and holes will be left everywhere. And, of course, he acts within the pillar of the law himself, right.. in personal and professonal duties. Let's forget the historical ones which are well documented. So far a judge has blocked his attempt to illegally unilaterally change the constitution, his illegal attempt to deny human rights to his own citizens in a way that would have imperiled them, his illegal attempt to freeze federal funding that would have left millions of his citizens (remember, undocumented migrants can't get federal government help) starving, and a couple of others.. all based on.. illegalites of his executive orders. Yet, he hires the smartest. Wow... I don't know where you get that from... and let's be honest, isn't that what a right wing contry (i.e. America) has been doing for decades now? With the exception of feeding the poverty stricken, I guess... But I am thinkng you want polarisation and wars, and people to starve - is that correct? Because the above post, osort of leads me to think you are so far from the centre you claim to be, that it would be scary to see wehat your definition of hard right is. Like it or not, we live in a global era brought on by... hang on.. the right wing.. because there was a lot, and still is a lot of money in globalisation.

Let me recap your logic.. The lefties are not a security threat; the righties are... and that is why the voters thought it was wise to elect Trump - to tame the lefties? I believe some of them may already be feeling buyer's remorse.. as they fell for the MSM pushing him.. er.. I meam marketing of him: We'll see how the trend continues.. I read (not in the above) the mass pardons were a particular bugbear on the people.

Whatever what? Many assertions, no answers when questioned.. I've seen it, but you sort of missed my point... "My heart goes out to you.. thank you.." Could me "My heart goes out to you... [mad nutcase right wingers] ... Thank you!" Right wingers align with him and very publicy state, on his own mass (anti) social media platform he endorses them and he is a part of them... And from Elon on this... silence... So.. year.. you're right GON... whatever... I am not saying Musk is one.. but he sure seems to be playing up to them.. And 1930s Germany didn't start with them coming out all guns blazing.. subtle things that were shugged off as "whatever".. And.. remember.. it is not your left wing radicals that are on the security services watch lists...

Isn't this the problem? People making their mind up using an out of context still picture, which, if they had an incling of what was going on around them would have thought, "Hang on, that doesn't seem the right behaviour for these people; I'll check it out a bit more before I make up my mind?", if at all they cared that much.. Yet, you7 have the Roman, or modern day facust salute in a full video, not taken out of context, and no clarification of its meaning or rejection oif facists/nazists alignment with him, and, hey,. it's OK... Inwhat way exactly? Unlike those neo-far right facists that use violence and are considerd a terrorsit threat - never hear of the far left worrying the likes of ASIO, MI5 and the like... You know, they are well within reason, are they? I agree - anyone id is far whatever ideology is out of their mind... But, please, a little balance. Musk hasn't resiled from the alignment stuff. "My Heart goes out to you".. .yeah... to whom? Who's his audience - righties - and many are far right... And he has used a salure they all know, love, and claim.. and don't tell me he doesn't know it. As I have said, it in itself doesn't mean Musk is a facist, nazo, or whatever, but the evidence is he is playing up to them.