Jerry_Atrick

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.

I am really don't understand what risk you are referring to.. Seriously... Just saying we are running the risk means nothing to me.. And I work in risk management.

Can you pls elaborate the reasons for the urgency? I seriously fail to understand it

Whoa! It looks like NSW is looking at extending hate speech to include vilification, which is abusively disparaging writing or speech.. or thereabouts. It is, as far as I can tell, in NSW only, and it is not yet law, So, from a legal perspective, unless they make it retrospective, there would appear to be little legal risk. There appears to be little factually incorrect with Gareth's opening post in terms of the numbers of recent terrorist incidents and the background of the majority of perpetrators; at least from what I could find out through researching the web.. over a short period of time. There has been Hindu terrorism and a recognised Hindu terrorist organisation in India, but the numbers of attributed attacks are low, in comparison so as not to make a material difference. But in those facts are also omissions that we need to bring to light.. The first is context. i.e. where are those terrorist attacks occuring.The vast majority are in Northern Africa, Middle East, and Northen Asia (Pakistan). Outside of these areas, there is comparatively few terrorist attacks, and in the US, UK, etc. the number of terrorist attacks by Islam v non-Islam is a little more even, but at least, from the reports, the more extreme ones are generally take more casualties than non-Islam terrorist attacks (I say, generally). In fact US agencies, and I think ASIO and MI-5, not exactly woke, seem to be more worried about white supremacist and non-Islam foreign backed terrorism on their respective shores than they are Islam And interestingly, from this article, https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism: "The situational characteristics of the crimes, including whether the acts were premeditated or spontaneous, involved co-conspirators, or were committed while under the influence of drugs and alcohol." Again, by all accounts, cannot fault this as fact. But, like the above, it is out of context, For the sake of brevity, I have been through that context in many other posts. But, before the late Yenn posted about his thoughts on Israel when the UAE was normalising its relations with Israel, I pretty well went along with the above. His comments sparked a curiosity in which the context has changed my mind on Israel and the conflict. Of course it's a tragedy that innocent civilians are losing their lives.. My point is there are difficult subjects, but without the ability to express one's views and debate the merits of it, suppressing it just takes it underground and forments even more hatred and polarisation. If we can't debate civilly, and are truly worried out words here would spark riots or incite crime, then, the world has become a bad place, but suppressing that speech will make it worse Look at how the far right is growing. Trump, anyone?

Is this the report?: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-04/man-dies-in-hospital-after-boulder-kalgoorlie-home-invasion/104683322 Can you point to me where this is stated or even implied: The article seemed to be quoting people, not offering an opinion. Do you know if the the victim or their family were prepared to quote for the article, or if the victim was even in a position to quote? While the article did quote from the perpetrator;s family and didn't quote from the victim's family, this assessment seems a couple of hundred thousand miles away from a balanced assessment. BTW, I am not saying your assessment is necessarily wrong, but it doesn't quite pass the pub test (and I am writing from the pub).

And @pmccarthy - compare the economic performance of the Trump administration to that of Biden, who was handed by Trump comparatively worse performing economy resulting from Covid.. I am not sure where you get sure info from. But this time, like last time, Trump has been handed a better economy than last time. Let's see where it is in 4 years.

The Jackaroo (Isuzu Trooper) came in two main engine variants.. From memory it was a 3l turbo diesel and a 3.2lt v6 petrol. I had a 1996 or 1999 3.2l petrol for a couple of years.. And it was a very good car and moderately capable 4x4. It was an auto and it could haul a load and tow capable. The diesels, I believe we're not great at all.. but I would rank the petrol version I had as one of the better cars I have owned for its tome and money. Only sold it because I moved back to the UK

That is my point

In any non fully proportional voting system, you are going to get skewed results. In Australia at the last election, the ALP won goverment, albeit by one seat, with onlly slightly more than 30% the primary vote. The Greens onlu picked up 4 seats with c. 14% of the primary vote. Hardly really a vote of confidence in forming a government outright, but the electoral boundaries and preferences meant that they got in. In the UK, which is first past the post per electorate (or more accurately, those with the highest vote count in an electorate), with 33.7% of the vote, Labour scored 412 seats in the house of commons out of c. 650 seats; With 22% of the vote, Conservatives scored 121 seats (so, about right), but the Lib Dems, with 12.2% of the vote scored 72 seats (again, about right), and Nigel Farage's party, Reform, with 14.3% of the national vote, scored only 5 seats. So 2% more votes, and less that 1% of the seats in total and less than 10% of the seats the Lib Dems won. To put that further into perspective, those parties or groups that won more seats: Independents won 6 seats with 2% of votes Sinn Fein won 7 seats with 0.7% of the votes Scottish National Party won 9 seats with 2.5% of the vote We will alway find anomolies in voting systems. Based on that, it may not have been a popular vote landslide, but in accordance with the US voting system, Trump won c. 86 more electoral college votes, and passed the 270 required very comfortably; He won 31 of the 50 states, he won both houses, and he narrowly won the popular vote. On all of these measures, most presidents had narrower gaps, although even Chat GPT couldn't tell me how many elections have resulted in the "triple". On these measures, it if isn't a landslide, it is a comprehensive electoral win.. And regardless, he has the majority of the house, the senate, and is the president, so, assuming the bulk of the Republican representatives/senators are loyal, he has more scpe to push his agenda than he did last time. It also gives other powerbrokers in the Republicans to push their agenda, too. Agreed.. and so would a proper functioning of the 4th pillar of democracy - the press - free, fearless, and unbiased. Alas, a the oligarchy controls it.

Indeed, even in autocracies and dicatorships, that hard power only goes so far, too. If you don't enjoy the confidence of the heads of the military, for example, then your hard power will only go so far. If you don't negotiate and compromise with others that weild power, your power base will be diminished. Here is a thesis that talks to, with the abstract saying it is rare that a dictator can rally against their powerful elite and survive: Looks like the bluster on Tarrifs is being delayed: https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/global-markets-trump-instant-view-2025-01-20/ and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-20/trump-seen-sparing-china-targeted-tariffs-on-day-one-of-new-term Now, I would have thought a candidate would bring to the electorate well researched policies. Who would have thought he meant he would immedately implement research to see if tarrifs is the right way to go?

I think a lot of lawyers from other jurisdtictions based on the English legal system will be doing their NY and DC bar exams.. Lot's of money to be made..

He obviously has something, as of the prosecutions that mattered, everything took a very long time, and for some reason, they think a presidential candiate (not president) has special dispensation from having the law applied to him. Even the biased supreme court ruling only counted for while he was president, and only at the state level. To be honest, the US exemplifies what a veil of a democracy and rule of law is..

🙄 Whn you proffer up ceredible evidence climate change is a myth or economic indicators that in the mid - longer term climate change is not a myth or doesn't offer better returns, I'll stop rolling my eyes. In bond origination > 15 years (which is very common for commerical debt), try and get reasonabel rate finance on a leveraged new fossil fuel project.. Most firms I know ar sying away from this lending because the financial risks are to high and expected returns, in the absence of discriminatory regulation (oh, wouldn't that be ironic) from fossil fuels are looking quite a bit lower. Want to grow an economy? Get it to invest. What needs mass investment? Renewables.. Want a wealthier nation with lower operating costs (forgetting the other benefits), fossil fuel really doesn't add up. I suppose when they eventually stop insuring your house and you have to hold all the risk, as did happen to many in LA, you may change your tune.. I have worked in both government and private enterprise in both Australia and the UK.. and my anecdotal observation is pretty this is much the same across both in similar proportions. The difference is, even at my level, which is currently middle management, I am held accountable for cost and economic management, risk management, and functional output in a way that the civil/public service isn't, even when the public service claim to be. But, I think it is a good thing that reviews of and improvemennt to performance and efficiency are conducted - such as DOGE.. It is the execution in this case that worries me. The people conducting such reviews had costs associated with the regulation. I agree regulation should be implemente on a risk based approach - just look at the over regulation of GA in Europe for no safety gain. But those appointed in charge of DOGE have a definite conflict of interest - regulation costs them.. and affects their profits. Therefore, they have an incentive, in their optimisation of the government services to nobble regulators to make them ineffective under the guise of efficiencies and reducing the cost of government. Also, public bodies have a very different function to private enterprise... and it owuld be better to appoint an independent head and hear evidence from different stakeholders in determining the right way to move forward, balancing the objectives of different stakeholders. Althogh in theory that is the same for private enterprise (after all, if you don't have happy customers,who are stakeholders, they won't buy), in practice, many large corporate companies have shown they can ignore a set of their stakeholders, have lots of waste, and still survive, if not thrive. And their bosses that cause this seem immune to the consequences. Anyone care to see how tough Joyce is doing at the moment? And this is the issue with Trump. No doubt, he will get some good done.. some situations respond well to his ways.. but on the whole, the way he has arranged his henchmen this time does not bode well for a balanced improvement..

And he'll throw in an eyeful of a tower to boot.

I am sure people don't want to drive as far these days as we used to, but the niche I am targeting is probably not so concerned about a 2 or 3 hour drive. For me, the business is more accomodation, with some food and drink, as well as integrated activities.