What has Trump done now?

[facthunter]

Practice HERE is for Parties to make policies and truthfully explain them fully and expect them to be acted on IF they win the election. Teals don't do that and have contested Liberal seats exclusively as far as I know,. Hanson votes NEVER go to Labor. I was sorry to see Nick Minchin go. Rebecca Sharkie is the only one who got a lower house seat out of all that. Nev

[Marty_d]

As far as I recall, Nick Minchin was very pro-coal to the extent of lobbying banks when no-one would finance Abbott Point.  So on his stance on climate change I'm glad to see him go.

I have much more respect for his distant cousin Tim Minchin.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

4. Increase taxes on the extremely wealthy and make their "innovative" accounting and tax-minimisation methods illegal.

5. Limit the size of corporations so they cannot have more wealth than Govts, whereby they can control the Govts accordingly.

 

No 4 is an issue I wrote to politicians about, hand written letters sent by snail mail in those days (70's), talking about "Thin Capitalism" and "Transfer Pricing" in regards to global foreign multinationals mining and value adding our minerals predominately for export - no profit made in Australia, therefore no tax here from any profit. The profits made overseas remained overseas in headquarters accounts and they were cancelled out by large borrowings which kept the Australian plants producing more to sell overseas. The politicians answers were, you guessed it, "They provide employment that outweighs any anomalies in their business models", a Senate inquiry determined, Flo Bejelke Peterson was on it. They are called "Cost-Toll" operations, and the ATO turns which ever direction the political wind is blowing.   

[Marty_d]

Joh Bjelke-Petersen was Australia's Trump.

[red750]

[onetrack]

Trumps dopey decision to can EV's and anything to do with them, is going to hand the global car market on a plate, directly to the Chinese - and destroy all of the U.S car manufacturing industry.

 

If Trump thinks canning EV's and putting huge tariffs on Chinese cars is going to do great things for America and Americans, I've got some news for him.

I wonder how long before U.S. car manufacturers start pulling him aside and saying, "you'd better drop this crazy idea of yours that oil and fossil-fuel powered cars are the future - because they aren't!"

 

https://www.torquenews.com/17995/uss-end-ev-support-will-significantly-strengthen-chinas-aggressive-moves-dominate-ev-industry

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Arguing (two party system) is actually setting a bad example in this day and age. My opinion is that the future won't stand for it.

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.

 

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

One conclusion I've come to is that Australia needs a complete overhaul of politics, integrating or overlapping of all the sub-ideologies, while retaining our main Aussie culture and characteristic Aussie spirit of work ethic that we've always had, but fast losing.

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.

 

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

We find it almost impossible, for various reason, to imagine we can do anything, or make anything for ourselves. Can you name the two US corporations, whose combined worth is nearly three times Australia's total GDP?  ............................ Apple and Microsoft ........... just two US private entities. While it would be a stretch for us to expect to have large firms like that, we hardly even try to make a simple widget.

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

 

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Another: We need in my opinion, to have a non-political president, or a head or state removed from the workings of Parliament, and has the power to keep Australia on track, and on the straight and narrow, and generally encourage politicians and citizens to be Australian first and leave old foreign gripes behind where they first started festering, usually on the other side of the world somewhere, far removed from Australia.

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.

 

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

With all that in mind, we need to draft up a new constitution, one that is more for the people rather than the politicians, which is how it is, still now, given it was conceived by subjects under British rule, and authoritarianism was slyly built into it .... "Democracy must be made safe for the World", English lords thought. In our case, Australia. The thinking was the opposite to President Wilson's, who some years later said: "The World must be made safe for democracy".

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.

 

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

and that's why the Electoral College in the US is able to disregard a popular vote and basically place the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence before all else. In the case of the Presidential contest just gone, they've decided that Donald Trump was the most suitable person to be President,

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).

 

On 25/01/2025 at 5:53 PM, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

We need to make big changes in Australia IMO, and where and when I can, I put forth my suggestions and ideas, for Australia only, and I need to be in Australia to help out. Bring on the Republic, with a non-political President and much less squabbling from politicians - be fair dinkum Aussies.

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.

Edited Sunday at 07:51 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

This discussion about constitutions seems to have a stumbling block in that no one has defined what the word 'constitution' describes. Basically, any constitution is a written instrument embodying the rules of a organization. Recreational Flying Australia has a constitution, as does the Mens Shed organisation. 

 

Although not having Jerry's grasp on the two Constitutions being discussed in this thread, I think that the Australian one is the better. Don't forget that it is the product of over ten years' discussion and debate here in pre-Federation Australia, as well as having been scrutinised by legal experts in the United Kingdom.  The Constitution is a document which was conceived by Australians, drafted by Australians and approved by Australians.

 

A distinct difference between the USA's and Australia's is the distinction between the Parliament and the Executive Government due to the fact that, in Australia, the Prime Minister and the other Government Ministers (who form part of the Executive) must be members of Parliament.  This reflects the principle of responsible government under which Government Ministers (the Executive) must be members of, and accountable to, the Parliament. The difference with the USA is currently being displayed through Trump's appointments.

 

Looking at the process by which either Constitution can be amended, Australia has the more democratic. Firstly, most of the National electorate must approve the amendment, then the wishes of the electorate in each State and Territory are taken into account. This is done by a simple counting of the votes. First past the post wins. The decision does not have to be ratified by State parliaments. The original Constitution has been amended eight times, in 1907 (S.13), 1910 (S.105), 1929 (S.105), 1946 (S.51), 1967 (S.51, S.127), and three amendments in 1977 (S.15, S.72, S.128), so the original version must have been pretty watertight.

[old man emu]

Trump had a TV ratings win with the televising of the inauguration. Actually the prize was for the lowest ratings for an inauguration since 1969 when Nixon was sworn in.

 

The figures were compiled by the ratings agency Nielsen's. An estimated 24.6 million viewers tuned in on Monday, January 20, 2025 to watch the inauguration. That's 7.3% of the total population of the USA, and 10% of the eligible voters. Very interesting is the break-up by age

 

Viewership Across TV Networks

Live plus same day, U.S. audience estimates	Viewing Audience	Rating
Persons 2+	24,589,000	8.0
Households	17,531,000	14.1
Persons 18-34	1,430,000	1.9
Persons 35-54	4,665,000	5.8
Persons 55+	17,397,000	17.4

Source: Nielsen Fast Data, Live+Same-Day.

 

[facthunter]

Not good enough. Nielsens will have to Leave the USA OR the Military will do it forcibly. Don (DO it MY way) Trump.

[Marty_d]

"...we have alternate facts..."

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

15 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Joh Bjelke-Petersen was Australia's Trump.

Yes we know Joh he was somewhat brash and determined to have his way. However I mentioned that his wife Flo was on the Senate committee's inquiry.

[facthunter]

The Fitzgerald enquiry stirred them all up. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

The Fitzgerald enquiry stirred them all up. Nev

 

Quite, yes it did, but the "No profit - No tax" system, continued on merrily.

 

When the Fed politicians took up the issue decades later and tried to get some tax out of the companies, it was only for public consumption, following demands for the companies to pay more tax. There was really nothing they could do. The only way to stop the rort would have been to send them packing, or demand a high percentage of Australian equity in those companies, we're talking about all the large mining companies and value-adding companies that had a finger in the pie of the "No profit - No tax" operations. Also trying to force them to move their headquarters to Australia. I'm not sure how it all panned out in the end, there has been so much hidden from us, it would take a real indepth study by 4Corners to reveal it all to us.

 

Employment provided by these companies has always been the driving factor for the politicians, so it's a waste of time crying "Pay more tax", or "Pay your fair share of tax". If we keep voting (exclude me) in the two major parties, don't complain about "Cost-Toll", no tax operations. It's a issue you'll just have to live with, like a lot of other issues you don't like, but live with. Change your vote if you think "no tax" is wrong.

 

I did my bit years ago, over a span of about 2 years, I don't know how many letters I sent, a fair few I remember. Each answer told me to mind my own business, we know what we're doing Squirt.

[red750]

This topic is about Trump, not Australian politics.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Fair enough

 

Trump's czar Homan has removed hundreds of illegal immigrants in the last few days.

[nomadpete]

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Fair enough

 

Trump's czar Homan has removed hundreds of illegal immigrants in the last few days.

Moved ?

I heard that quite a few moved right back to USA soil. On the same plane!

[octave]

3 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Trump's czar Homan has removed hundreds of illegal immigrants in the last few days.

With mixed results.

 

Trump’s Immigration Threats Are Already Wrecking the Food Industry

ICE Detains US Military Veteran Without Warrant

Trump hits Colombia with tariffs, sanctions after it refuses deportation flights

 

I have no problem with the law being enforced however there seems to be a contradiction between "lazy illegal immigrants sponging off the system" and farmers complaining that their "workforce has suddenly disappeared".  It seems to me that there has to be an intelligent way of allowing people in to do necessary work that US citizens won't do, even if temporarily.

 

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

4 minutes ago, octave said:

It seems to me that there has to be an intelligent way of allowing people in to do necessary work that US citizens won't do, even if temporarily.

US citizens do what ever work they can get. They need the money.

[octave]

Just now, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

US citizens do what ever work they can get. They need the money.

 

Not according to the farmers that employ them on I imagine pretty low wages

 

Farmers Can't Find Enough Workers to Harvest Crops—and Fruits and Vegetables Are Literally Rotting in Fields

 

I am not necessarily against any country enforcing its immigration laws as long as it is done humanely and sensibly.   The veteran who was briefly detained was detained purely because of his ethnicity.  

[ClintonB]

Imagine how much harder this will be now, four years ago they had the Biden administration coming in, now the orange hater is in charge.

[red750]

33 minutes ago, octave said:

there has to be an intelligent way

'You expect an intelligent solution from Trump?

[old man emu]

20 minutes ago, octave said:

the farmers that employ them on I imagine pretty low wages

The treatment of itinerant workers in the food growing areas of California is nothing new. It formed the basis of the 1939 John Steinbeck novel, The Grapes of Wrath.

 

In that novel, the itinerants were tenant farmers who had been driven from their Oklahoma home by drought, economic hardship, agricultural industry changes, and bank foreclosures forcing tenant farmers out of work. Due to their nearly hopeless situation, and in part because they are trapped in the Dust Bowl, the main characters of the novel set out for California on the "mother road", along with thousands of other "Okies" seeking jobs, land, dignity, and a future.

 

When the "Okies" reached California, they found the State oversupplied with labor; wages low, and workers exploited to the point of starvation. The big corporate farmers were in collusion and smaller farmers suffered from collapsing prices. All police and state law enforcement authorities were allied with the big corporate farmers. 

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath

[octave]

I think that Trumpism seeks to present every issue as being the good people against the bad people and has a quick simple and often brutal solution. 

 

I found this short article to be quite interesting. 

 

Immigrant Farmworkers and America's Food Production: 5 Things to Know

[facthunter]

Promote division and  CREATE a cause of ALL the trouble. It's become "These extreme lefties" for a while now. A FAIR GO FOR ALL is not acceptable. It's a THREAT to the OBSCENELY RICH. for whom $hit Loads is never enough, POWER will NOT be shared. The MORE POWER, the More corruption and FORCE required to maintain it. Nothing NEW Here. It's just a lot more BLATANT and SCARY, than normal.  Nev