Grumpy Old Nasho

300 since 2013, many of which were longer than 6 hours. I'm all for alternative green energy, but they have make sure it will be disruption free, otherwise rural folk may as well go off grid. I would do it except the economics for me in my old age is not viable, but for younger folk, it might be.

The answer I received from the power company was obviously a standard letter listing the problems you just explained but you missed one, "wild animals". Their letter came quickly, and everyone complaining probably receives the same letter. They failed to list how many outages were caused by animals, lighting, equipment failure, car crashes, etc, etc. And failed to explain how they are grappling with these problems for future reliability. Hence, mind your own business, we know what we're doing. That's how they came across, and how I took it.

You said what you said, Hitler or no Hitler and the others. The leaders I had little sympathy for but wouldn't have killed, were: Menzies & Co, Johnson, and Nixon, all of whom knew they were killing tens of thousands of people without justification.

It was one side of lefties I didn't think existed, although I've met union delegates who probably wouldn't hesitate, some of them were pretty scary.

You proved what I was thinking, that lefties believe in violent assassinations. Would you pull the trigger?

Another two power outages here on Tuesday, one very brief, the other 1 1/2 hours. No notification, no apology, and no remorse, quite emotionless. It's hard to know what to think anymore. I once wrote a letter about power outages, and as usual got told to mind my own business. Can someone tell me what to say in a letter and how to say it? I've had to mind my own business for the last 45 years. It was extremely disheartening to say the least.

The AEC's FAQ is not a election, they are frequently asked questions ... and that's where the ALP and the Coalition are inserted and named, and they don't give a reason why they did that. That's what I aim to find out.

So the AEC is not impartial after all, that's the point I'm making. Our brainwashed minds categorize parties into "major" and "minor". Enough said.

I'd be happy with an explanation but I already know they are being partial, contrary to their stated regulatory impartiality. The mere mention of the major parties by name in their FAQs influences readers and impresses on their minds that those named parties are perhaps more important than all the other parties. When the AEC accepts the registration of a party, any party, then that party should have equal importance to all the others in terms of AEC procedures and regulations under their banner of impartiality. The AEC gives no justifiable reason why they mentioned the ALP and the Coalition in their FAQs. It's not justifiable for the purpose of voters' preferences allocation, in the FAQs. The only place where it's justifiable to mention party names is in their final results records .. then all parties, independents, etc, get a mention, obviously. They'd have to be taken to court over it, sending feedback emails won't achieve anything. If anything was done, it would be done in secret, keeping it out of the Public's eye. That's happened to me before with the ATO, I asked a question about something on a tax return form. They never replied, but I noticed the next year that the bit on the form that I was questioning about, had disappeared, never to be seen again. They failed to extend to me the courtesy of letting me know I had a good point and they were going to fix it.

All Ordinaries is up +25.00 this morning. Dow Jones is up +167.01

The AEC is supposed to be impartial and neutral. There's no valid reason why they should single out the ALP and the Coalition for special mention in the way that they have. If I was to contact the AEC to complain, I know what they'd say - "Mind your own business Champ" Impartiality and neutrality "Impartiality and neutrality are the cornerstone of the AEC, which ensures the integrity of Australia’s democratic system. Impartiality and neutrality underpins our other regulatory principles, processes and practices, including administrative and legal activities in accordance with the Electoral Act and Referendum Act." https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/our-regulatory-approach/#impartiality

https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/counting.htm#difference https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/counting.htm#majority Don't try and make out they are something they're not.

Here they are again, on the same webpage .. Why is the AEC placing such importance on them and mentioning their names? It doesn't seem be unbiased and impartial to me. Do they own the ALP and the Coalition? "A distribution of preferences takes place in every division and is used to calculate the two party preferred statistics for divisions that have ALP and Coalition as the final two candidates. In divisions that do not have the ALP and Coalition as the final two candidates, a Scrutiny for Information is conducted to determine the two party preferred result. A scrutiny for Information in such cases is a notional distribution of preferences to find the results of preference flows to the ALP and Coalition candidates."

I mean the AEC is favouring the two major parties in their website. The AEC is supposed to be unbiased and impartial, but there they are mentioning those two parties.

No, I know they don't, I said: "in naming and giving preference to the major parties, the "ALP" and the "Coalition", in what is supposed to be an independent, unbiased, and impartial government department website" Let's call it: "favoritism" then.

I'd be silly to, I can see the corruption, it's in naming and giving preference to the major parties, the "ALP" and the "Coalition", in what is supposed to be an independent, unbiased, and impartial government department website.

Rudd and Albanese will be on their hands and knees crawling for an exemption in a few days. Why don't they have some pride, let it be, and say nothing?, if they reckon they are better than Trump. The tariffs won't affect Australia so much as they will affect the foreign multinationals producing aluminium and steel here. We don't buy much of those, so the extra cost will hardly be felt. If imports from China are increased, then we need to worry. The other worry is if the foreign multinationals pack up and leave, something the Greens will be happy about obviously. But our exports of aluminium and steel to the US are not that significant in terms of the global market, or even to the US. Ours are exported to other destinations besides the US.

Oh yes, I know what it's all about. But I'm on about something else though, the AEC should not mention any party by name, except in it's summing up of the results, which is of course after all the votes come in. Pre-emption of any kind by the AEC is simply corrupting the democratic process. And I'm sure they are aware of their own foolish corruption. We are too dumb and gullible to be aware of it.

That comes under "TWO CANDIDATE PREFERRED" - in the AEC's website.

I'd have to hear that from the AEC before I would tend to believe it. Singling out those two parties, the "ALP" and the "Coalition", is in essence, pre-empting, as well as anticipating one or the other will win. No party should get preferential treatment by the AEC in that sense IMO. It's there for all parties, independents, etc. If the ALP and the Coalition always get the most votes, and that is the "reality", why not abandon voting and just let the ALP and the Coalition alternate every three (or four) years, to govern. That would cause a big outcry though, wouldn't it? But probably not from the rusted-on ALP and Coalition voters. I reckon the AEC is corrupt and helping to ensure the two major parties always get to rule Australia, and have tricks up their sleeve to make sure they do. The award part of it is the money-for-votes public funding, $20,000,000 for each major party give or take with the fluctuation of vote numbers. It's another way to keep them in power, and it's more corruption from the AEC, and the ALP and Coalition who voted for public funding. I'm sure they worked it out that since minor parties don't get any where near that amount, they'll always lag behind.

This is what I object to, the AEC giving special treatment to the major parties. AEC The term 'two party preferred' (TPP) refers to a distribution of preferences (votes) between the two major parties – the ALP and the Coalition (Liberal/National parties). This comparison is usually used to try to predict the possibilities of forming a government. It is a tool that examines the proportion of votes that will go to the major parties after all preferences have been taken into consideration.

We're lucky it's not 50% given all the cheek, criticism, and disparaging by Rudd, Albanese, and all their lefty mates and associates.

If you are referring military serving people, then I for one, was a sucker and loser alright, but I can't go back and change things, all I can do is warn younger generations about the nazi concept of conscription. And not to vote for any govt that tries to bring it in again.

No, that doesn't help sorry. I think it's to brainwash constituents into thinking there's only two parties that really matter in our elections, the ALP and the Coalition.

Bluescope shares on the ASX just went up 4%. Bluescope makes more than half it's profits in the US.