Jerry_Atrick

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.

Thanks.. under a bit of work stress at the moment

Maybe, but it is based on evidence of out of context reporting time and time again.. which is why, later, I quoted a more reliable source...

I have to agree... sometimes in international diplomacy, especially with Putin and co., a tougher stance is needed. His threatening of implementing much tougher sanctions against Russia is a good start; Biden was afraid of upsetting world oil markets.. which is fair enough in one way, but at some stage, part of being in a society means having to swallow bitter pills for the greater good. Without putting boots on the ground, hard sanctions is a better way to go.. But, while Zelensky is saying Trump has Ukraine's back, I wouldn't count on it. if Trump plays hard man and Putin calls his bliff, or China gets involved, either by helping Russia amelioate the sanctions, or more actively/aggresively, then Trump is likely to change his tune. Like Putin, he can't back down and he certainly doesn't want to commit US troops to the effort. So, in order to extricate himslef and not look to be beaten, he will probably force Ukraine to gice up territory. That will allow Putin to also save face.. He will market it as a success and a win because he has stoped the war. It is like saying to a thief, if you give yourself up I won't prosecute you and you can keep what you stole.

I'm moving to an apartment!

Sorry - not believing crap spat out by Sky New Aus... Maybe a more respectable news organisation can shed some light: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-starts-new-term-with-47-approval-jan-6-pardons-unpopular-reutersipsos-poll-2025-01-21/

We have already had referecnes to his progress against promised made when he was in power last. And guess what, some he kept, some he didn't at all, and some partially; about the same as any other political party/leader. I would also guess, for Australia, it may (or since he has taken office, especially with his empty Gaza of Palestinians for a while) or many not be 50-50.. But to say half the Amercians think Trump is worth having, is probably a misnomer. Voters these days are more focused in voting for the least worst option, or punishing the incumbents than wanting the other side: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-defeated-c80fbd4e667de86fe08aac025b333f95 When Biden was running, there was a lot made about how no one wanted either candidate. Notjing to suggest they all suddenly thought he was worth having.

You're quite right - but look at the video from Swollen Pickles that I posted above. The resemblence to what typifies modern day salutes for facism is very similar... and as Octave has pointed out, the facism/nazism groups are taking it as an endorsement or recognition of their movement.

With all due respect, this is now getting puerile. He is not following any precedents as these interfering figures are a) elected; and b) accountable in ways that a private citizen wit a massive amount of wealth isn't. And, regardless, what's the point? That one wrong is bad, but two wrongs is OK? Doesn't bode well for the future, now, does it? Oh, the other puerile response of how the newsweek article only covered three of the 8 pollies screen grabs of alleged national salutes doesn't change the fact they were all stills and likely to have been taken out of context. To be equally silly, I only searched for the navigation salute of one of those pollies and got three.. so, there! It's clear from your posts that while you claim to dislike political parties, your bias to a political ideology is quite strong. That is your preogatve. It's OK to say you are right wing. These may be your values. Heck, there are things Trump is doing that I agree with, too.. But using BS to justify it? Expect to be challenged.. and quite frankly, and I am not accusing you of this at all, but finding BS (aka propaganda) to justify a view is what those wanting to be radicalised do, isn't it?

Ahhh yes.., photos and not videos.. screen grabs taken out of context to push an agenda.. you believe anything if it fits.. https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-kamala-harris-nazi-salutes-elon-musk-2019092 Quite right about old age and memories

Well, the daughter finished her A Levels (HSC/VCE equivalent) last year. She didn't quite do as well as she expected for one of her subjects, which was her best during the year. In fact, she scored a C (we still use the old letter system here). Bitterly disappointed, her school were fantastic. A little background, the examination boards here are.. privatised.. so any questioning of their results has two impacts - additional cost (less profit) and, if they agree (ie.e conceded, or admit they were wrong), reduced reputation with the government that pays them. She scored a C, and needed a high B or a low A with her other subjects to get into her chosen course. Her teacher was adamant she was at least a low A, and the examination board did concede that they were short staffed (aka didn't pay enough) and for my daughter's region, there was an inexperienced examiner. Our initial "review", which cost us £150 was immediately rejected. So we lodged a formal appeal. I aksed the school if there were others in her class, and she said all of them were poorly marked. I suggested a sort oif class appeal, but because they all got into their chosen courses, or went on to work or for their gap year, no one was interested. So we appealed. It takes some time and was something like £300, with a refind if the appeal is upheld. Designed to keep poorer people from appealing, I guess, we went with the appeal. After reading her paper, and the markers comments, they didn't tally, so I was confident it would get through - just by how much though, and would it be enough? My daughter, rather than travelling and taking a lesser course, decided she would sit a 4th subject. It meant doing a two year subject in one year, but because she was only doing the one subject, it was easy. But, it did cost as it was only available in that format at a private college. She has gone to the first term and then started th second. However, we got the results of her appeal, which I was minded to complain about because it only just took her into the B grade.. And her teacher from the original school is fantastic, called us, and asked if we wanted to challenge the appeal. At this stage, it would go to the local educational authoritym which is the government. My daughter decided to lodge her application for the course she wanted - Law at one of the Russel universities (sort of Ivy leagie of the UK and incudes Oxford and Cambridge - but her chosen university is neither of those). She just got the notice that shed has been accepted unconditionally, and is over the moon, as are all of us! BTW, she cose law all be herself. Both my partner and I agreed to not push or otherwise recommend either child into a vocation/profession - we would advise if they asked. And to top it off, she has just scored herself a temporary job at the local nucelar plant as well (security clearance permitting), paying almost average wage... Good on her.

Let's just remember that.. And quite what the post this came from had to do with What Trump is doing now, I am not sure, so Mods, if you want to split that and this into a separate thread, it wouldn't insult me. But, I feel the post needs come.. ahem.. clarification. What on earth does this mean? I mean, I understand the words, but when I think about the message, I can't work it out. What does integrating or overlappinhg all of the sub-ideoloogies mean? Should, say all the neo-right parties be forced to integrate into the LNP, and the neo-left be forced to integrate into the ALP? What about the indies, the Greens, and Hanson's party? Given the left and the right, as ideologies don't have too much overlap (at least in rabble rousers' minds), isn't this veering towards what you say won't work - a two party system? Maybe I read ideology when I should have read cultures? Even so, what is overlapping and sub cultures, versus competing? Forcing people into one camp or another sounds a little authoritarian to me. The Aussie icon is the larrakin and derivatiives of it. The work ethic of Australia is no different to many, if not most other countries. Ther are leaders, doers, followers, slackers, etc. I agree that the Australian government should, like the US government and many others, lead the way ion terms of facilitating an environment to develop indigenous indiusrty. The AUKUS deal exemplifies us not building our own industries. This is the brain child of the SFM government, and sadly, continued on by the Albo government. There is no reason we cannot set up manufacturing and servicing facilities in Australia and license the tech.. if it is of such strategic rather than commerical importance to the US adn UK, they would have no problems with it. On the GDP thing, GDP is a measure of net income, and I think you are confusing net income with maket capitalisation. Apple, for the end of FY24 year had c. USD$492bn revenue. Microsoft had c. $215bn for their end of FY24 year. Now, a lot of Apple's income relates to production outside of the USA (mainly China), and Microsoft has production in Europe and India. So, for both companies, revenues include an equivalent of imports. But even if we don't take out their "imports" and assume their revenue = net income, they had c. USD$608bn of revenues. In Australia, 2024 GDP is expected to be between USD$1.7tn and USD $1.8TN: That makes Australia abnout 3 times the net income of the gross income of Apple and MS combined. But, remember, California is the 5th largest economy in the workd (and yes, Microsoft is in Washington state). MS and Apple Revenues: https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/msft/revenue/ https://backlinko.com/apple-statistics Don't we already have a non-political head of state? He has the power to dismiss the government and a few other powers that he doesn't even have in the UK (note, under the Aussie constitution, he is the King of Australia, and not the King of England). But, how would the appointment of a president not be political? Who woud do it? Some independent panel? How would that panel be constituted and funded? Elected by the people? Isn't that by definition political, unless they would have to keep shtum and we vote on their looks? And what international stoush has the queen/king got us involved in? I think you will find theyt have all been the PM using his royal prerogative. What you say sounds good in theory, but hardly achievable in practice. I am not sure what the quotes have to do with your point. For some background, I have studied constitutional law both in the UK and Australia, and in both cases, we covered common and civil law jurisdictions, including the US. Australia's constituion is generally regarded to be one of the better ones, where there is a clear delineation of the Judiciary from the executive/legislature. Australia's constitution is similar to many common law countries where there is an overlap between the legislature (parliament) and the executive (ministers and top public servants). However, this is common to civil law jurisdictions as well. By and large, Australia has a fairly safe and democractic constitution, and I would ask you to define where you think it is designed for the pollies rather than the people? And the high court has the power, and does hold both the executive and the legislature to account. The two main criticisms are the one above, and that it is frozen because it is so hard to change. For some reason, that can be also an advantage. Now, compare that to the US constituion, where the executive can appoint judges with little resistance; where the public provide their allegiiance to a political party (you know, the organisations you are against), and a supreme court that can be stacked by political appointees and act beyond the rule of law under the veil of precedent. And tell me which one is better. Yeah, the aussie constituion can be improved - of course it can. But to suggest it is more for the people and less for the pollie is a stretch. WTF? Are you sure you're aware of how the electoral college works? I am relating back to your comment about leaders that are not political. Do you know how electors are selected? Here is how most are selected: "Today, the most common method of choosing electors is by state party convention. Each political party’s state convention nominates a slate of electors, and a vote is held at the convention. In a smaller number of states, electors are chosen by a vote of the state party’s central committee. Either way, political parties usually choose people whom they want to reward for their service to and support of the party. Electors can be elected officials or party leaders in the state, or people who have some kind of personal or professional connection with the party’s candidate. " That doesn't douns too democrtatic to me, if they can override the will of the people, now does it? And it doesn't sound how like the "forefathers" wanted American democracy - or does it? Could it not be that the US constiiution is designed to work for the pollies and not the people? But what you're arguing is that state polticial party nominees should be able to override the will of the people because they want to? This sounds autocratic and, dare I say communism (centrally controlled) to me. If you continue to read the article about faithless electors, a US SC ruleing basically made it illegal, but it is still up to the states; many of which have banned it. But seriously, WTF, for the people, or for putting in people liek Trump, who you clearly suppor regardless of the evidence. Which is fine - that is your freedom.. but don't BS to justify it. BTW, the electors didn't elect Trump because they thought he was better.. they elected him because he won the popular vote in the states that elected him (I am sur some thought he was better and I am sure some thought he wasn't). Quite frankly, I prefer Australia's current system far better than the US.. and I have lived in the US, too.. The US system seems to be what you're pushing... or preferring.. Maybe you should take up your offers and check it out living there and then decide. Be thankful in both the US and Australia, we can speak our mind freely - more or less. I wouldn't want to state which one looks more likely to have that eradicated over time.

I'm not quite sure what the above video has to do with Musk per se. However, Konstantin is a washed up comedian, who is eloquent, but trying to be the UK's Joe Rogan, despite being of Russian descent. His modus operandi, however, is much the same; cherry picking the facts to suit his agenda. I can't find too much on that James O'Broen show, but to be honest, the editing is crap and it looks to me as if it is taken out of context. The Yvette Cooper response is certainly taken out of context, and reviewing the availabiloty and ease of which kids can get hold of knives is certainly a worthy one as part of a fuller package. Yeah, a kid can nick a parent's knives, but a lot of these knives are assault versions, or conealable - not your garden variety carving knife. @Grumpy Old Nasho - for someone who claims to research the facts and bug pollies, you sure do put one side across. But to help you along, here is Yvette Cooper's parliamentary speech after the conviction of Rudakubana, so as not to prejudice the trial.. something the press, and Farage seems to forget about: Clearly a recognition that there were multiple government department failures and launching an inquiry to work out how to fix it.. That, to me, is a responsible, albeit slow response. However, one has to realise, Rudakubana is a Christian who clearly had a mental health issue which went unchecked and was allowed to easily fall prey to islamic fundamentalist radicalistion - alledgedly (just because he says he was, doesn't mean he was). Now, I am going to give Yvette Cooper the benefit of the doubt - she has just inherited the home office after 13 years of Tory demise and stripping of fundiong of the services required, and sending corproate welfare to their donors. BTW, my point with Farage and Konstantin is they are laying the blame on this with Islamic fundamentalism when the perpatrator was not Muslim/Islamic, had violent issues well before he would have ben radicalised (if he was or is not using it as an excuse). This appears to be a failing of the previous govenrment by not only investing more into areas of developing needs of the community - i.e. mental health, but actively reduced funding; they reduced the police force by 20,000 officers and the list goes on. So, yeah, there are issues, but I would not rely on Konstantin, nor Farage, nor Rogan for the answers.. Of course, we can't iognore Islamic fundamentalism.. I am not sure where Konstantin got his 45,000 active suspects under surveillance - last time I read, MI5 didn't have enough funding to surveill much less. I know from an ex GCHQ worker (now long deceased and operative in the 60s and 70s), that the UK and all states have all sorts of terrorists under surveillance at any one time. Yet, Islamic fundamentalism does appear these days to be in the majority. I don't disagree with all of his video.. there has to be a conversation that does not resile from hard truths.. but they have to be truths and not one sided bigotry. Let's get all the facts out, critically asses them, and then make the decisions. [edit] I forgot to mention.. Studies reveal most lone wol terrorists, such as the Lindt Cafe in Sydney are people with mental illnesses - usualy schizophernia, that latch onto anything that will justify their actions.. .

Knows how to work the system and does it deftly? Deinitely.. entrepreneurial? Absolutely. Genius? Only in the prior, I would say. Though, these days, that seems to gain far more traction than actually doing something productive themselves. As I have read so far, his real business success is preying of others, with one exception where we started a stand up night club in universtiy. Like Trump, he had a big leg-up from his super wealthy father, who was quoted once as saying he had so much money he didn't know what to do with it. Paypal was a disaster until his father brought some banking knowledge people in, and got in real programmers. Tesla, SapceX, etc. All started by others, using his father's and then his PayPal money to take over and reclaim as the founder. Let's look at when he has had to reall run a business on his own.. Twitter/X.. How did that go for him.. from the initial offer, to running it, it can only be said to be a disaster. But, that doesn't mean he is stupid, either. He has enough resources to pay people to clean up his constant mess. That's what I initially thought, too.. Except, I hadn't seen Biden and 8 other prominent pollies (BTW, which ones) do it. So I hunted the internet because, you know, even AI generated ones came up.. But none were found. Care to send a link to the vid? I think it is intentional.. it does not mean he is a nazi or a facist.. but as we know, he knows how to work the system.. and at the moment, the system is allowing all this hatred to rise and is doing nothing about it.. He is about getting from the system what he can regardless of its impact, as long as he is OK. He always has been, and he always will..

... or would I have typed, "grown"?

I didn't say political parties.. I said politics

Sorry about typos on last post.. phones and I are not friends.. but fiends

In great American words: dude, stop digging.. How on earth wad Biden's government depotism.. and what does that have to do with socialism.. and remind me who tried to steal the election, which is, if I am not mistaken, an act of depotism? What were the protectors protesting about? The rightful transfer of power after a constitutionally legal election that the one they were supporting lost? And it is somehow a defence that a few shit stirrers started something and they, of their own free will joined in? Forgive me, but you are delusional with this and I don't believe your claimed aversion to both sides iof politics..

I am not saying a free for all.. finding the balance is difficult, but letting the pendulum swing too far either way can be just as damaging. Gareth has stated evidence and opinion drawn from that evidence. I don't agree entirely with his opinion and I think his evidence is flawed in terms of migration to Australia, or having those already in Australia go home. He has also stated that not all Muslims are terrorists or violent. In fact he states most are peaceful. He is saying however the risks of importing terrorism or violent behaviour is high. This is very different to wanton hate speech and vilification. It allows a debate of an issue, perceived or otherwise, based an assertion of on the surface valid facts. Wanting hate, disinformation, and bilufication should have consequences. This does not appear to be one of those posts. Hope that clear it up

Gon.. I think you've gon a little off piste... Remind me of where the constitution bans a socialist government? Remind me what is socialism and how the Biden government is socialism. Remind me where in the constitution it is OK to commit felonies because someone didn't like an election result. And remind me where in the constitution where the government has become unconstitutional before it has taken office after legitimately winning a constitutional election in accordance with the law? And remind me of just how many court cases were taken to mainly republican nominated judges including those appointed by Trump alleging electoral interference in favour of the democrats that weren't thrown out for lack of evidence. Or how many of those lawyers capitulated and agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors when put in fron of a grand jury on conspiracy charges.. or two every high porfile lawyers that lost their licenses for misconduct - all representing Trump and his henchmen in these cases. Or the one person who was taped trying to get the Governor of Georgia to "find" was it 14,000 more votes? Quite, who was trying to become the unconstitutional government, again?

Yes, this is about defunding the ABC, but I would like to get back to the question of why this article is imbalanced based on the assertion that Again, can someone point me to where the dead man's family is angry the innocent party is not being prosecuted? Can someone point to me to where it is clear the innocent family is being muzzled in all this? Just BS to justify a position I call. Although, the article could have mentioned whether or not it contacted the innocent member's family for a comment, I guess.