Trumpet of patriots Palmer's latest stunt party

[facthunter]

The TEALS have Targeted LNP Seats. Menzies introduced a lot of social welfare Legislation, He was an extreme Royalist at a time when that was OK. . He was great with words and quite eloquent.   Called MING and PIG IRON BOB. .  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, octave said:

Is it bipartisan?    I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy"

"I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated."? Don't you mean, it is imagined and exaggerated - certainly when one looks at the facts.

 

Interestingly, the coalition is hard line on immigration, yet they preside over the higher levels of "mass" migration.

 

I find it interesting people get all worked up over migration. It is, and has been a human trait since the dawn of humanity. Europe resulted from a migration from Africa (well, the world's population is thought to have). Modern Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA's population is the result of mass migration from Europe. Yes, some of it was to conquer, but people who came out willingly did so to seek a better life.

 

We talk about migration in a global border context, but when you move from, say Melbourne to Sydney or vice versa, you are migrating. The distance is longer than migrating between some European counties, for example. And even within a country, there can be a clash of cultures. When I grew up in Melbourne, there was nary a rugby ground in the state. Now there's a stadium in the middle of Melbourne.  In Sydney and Brisbane, there are now AFL stadiums where it owuld have been laughed out of the cities in the old days.

 

Also, with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on?  Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Yep, it's going to be migrants.

 

Oh, but the right wing will save is from all that, won't they? Well, look at the numbers when they are in power. They shift massive amounts of wealth from the population to large corporates and high net worth individuals who happen to pay no tax nor any real royalites for the resources they extract. That means there is less money for the younger population to affford houses and chldren, and given the relative state of life expectancy and the shift to urbanisation, there isn't the natural imperative to make kids as there used to be.

 

Yet, if you return the money to the population so they can afford things., which is what a more progressive government is at least philosophically about even if they do not achieve it, then suddenly things become more affordable, they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants.

 

GON - you are right about one thing; progressive politics seems to failed to have delivered on their politics precisely because of the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Taxes, which are largely paid by the middle and lower-miiddle classes are higher and there is a squeeze on disposable income. The public services those taxes are eroding because of their expense (another right-wing thing - privatisation - doesn't seem to work out as good as it promised to be; and remember, it was Hawke and Keating that seemed to preside over the rise on privatisation); they are being disenfranchised and voting right. Often, it is because for them, neither side is offering anything, but "at least Trump (or whoever we are speaking about) does what he says he's gonna do".

 

The fact that what they say they're going to do is going to end up in tears is of little consequence to these people; they are already crying.

 

The ALP in Aus, and Labour here have had a real opportunity to right the wong. They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Those people decide stuff it, it can't be worse. The mentality of the voter has shifted from voting in the one you want to get the job done, to the one you least dislike.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, octave said:

Is it bipartisan?    I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy"

"I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated."? Don't you mean, it is imagined and exaggerated - certainly when one looks at the facts.

 

Interestingly, the coalition is hard line on immigration, yet they preside over the higher levels of "mass" migration.

 

I find it interesting people get all worked up over migration. It is, and has been a human trait since the dawn of humanity. Europe resulted from a migration from Africa (well, the world's population is thought to have). Modern Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA's population is the result of mass migration from Europe. Yes, some of it was to conquer, but people who came out willingly did so to seek a better life.

 

We talk about migration in a global border context, but when you move from, say Melbourne to Sydney or vice versa, you are migrating. The distance is longer than migrating between some European counties, for example. And even within a country, there can be a clash of cultures. When I grew up in Melbourne, there was nary a rugby ground in the state. Now there's a stadium in the middle of Melbourne.  In Sydney and Brisbane, there are now AFL stadiums where it owuld have been laughed out of the cities in the old days.

 

Also, with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on?  Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Yep, it's going to be migrants.

 

Oh, but the right wing will save is from all that, won't they? Well, look at the numbers when they are in power. They shift massive amounts of wealth from the population to large corporates and high net worth individuals who happen to pay no tax nor any real royalites for the resources they extract. That means there is less money for the younger population to affford houses and chldren, and given the relative state of life expectancy and the shift to urbanisation, there isn't the natural imperative to make kids as there used to be.

 

Yet, if you return the money to the population so they can afford things., which is what a more progressive government is at least philosophically about even if they do not achieve it, then suddenly things become more affordable, they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants.

 

GON - you are right about one thing; progressive politics seems to failed to have delivered on their politics precisely because of the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Taxes, which are largely paid by the middle and lower-miiddle classes are higher and there is a squeeze on disposable income. The public services those taxes are eroding because of their expense (another right-wing thing - privatisation - doesn't seem to work out as good as it promised to be; and remember, it was Hawke and Keating that seemed to preside over the rise on privatisation); they are being disenfranchised and voting right. Often, it is because for them, neither side is offering anything, but "at least Trump (or whoever we are speaking about) does what he says he's gonna do".

 

The fact that what they say they're going to do is going to end up in tears is of little consequence to these people; they are already crying.

 

The ALP in Aus, and Labour here have had a real opportunity to right the wong. They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Those people decide stuff it, it can't be worse. The mentality of the voter has shifted from voting in the one you want to get the job done, to the one you least dislike.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, octave said:

Is it bipartisan?    I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy"

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, octave said:

Is it bipartisan?    I think whilst there are areas of agreement there are many differences. You know I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated. Perhaps this is why is "grumpy"

I think a lot of what you say is imagined or exaggerated."? Don't you mean, it is imagined and exaggerated - certainly when one looks at the facts.

 

Interestingly, the coalition is hard line on immigration, yet they preside over the higher levels of "mass" migration.

 

I find it interesting people get all worked up over migration. It is, and has been a human trait since the dawn of humanity. Europe resulted from a migration from Africa (well, the world's population is thought to have). Modern Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA's population is the result of mass migration from Europe. Yes, some of it was to conquer, but people who came out willingly did so to seek a better life.

 

We talk about migration in a global border context, but when you move from, say Melbourne to Sydney or vice versa, you are migrating. The distance is longer than migrating between some European counties, for example. And even within a country, there can be a clash of cultures. When I grew up in Melbourne, there was nary a rugby ground in the state. Now there's a stadium in the middle of Melbourne.  In Sydney and Brisbane, there are now AFL stadiums where it owuld have been laughed out of the cities in the old days.

 

Also, with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on?  Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this? Yep, it's going to be migrants.

 

Oh, but the right wing will save is from all that, won't they? Well, look at the numbers when they are in power. They shift massive amounts of wealth from the population to large corporates and high net worth individuals who happen to pay no tax nor any real royalites for the resources they extract. That means there is less money for the younger population to affford houses and chldren, and given the relative state of life expectancy and the shift to urbanisation, there isn't the natural imperative to make kids as there used to be.

 

Yet, if you return the money to the population so they can afford things., which is what a more progressive government is at least philosophically about even if they do not achieve it, then suddenly things become more affordable, they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants.

 

GON - you are right about one thing; progressive politics seems to failed to have delivered on their politics precisely because of the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics. Taxes, which are largely paid by the middle and lower-miiddle classes are higher and there is a squeeze on disposable income. The public services those taxes are eroding because of their expense (another right-wing thing - privatisation - doesn't seem to work out as good as it promised to be; and remember, it was Hawke and Keating that seemed to preside over the rise on privatisation); they are being disenfranchised and voting right. Often, it is because for them, neither side is offering anything, but "at least Trump (or whoever we are speaking about) does what he says he's gonna do".

 

The fact that what they say they're going to do is going to end up in tears is of little consequence to these people; they are already crying.

 

The ALP in Aus, and Labour here have had a real opportunity to right the wong. They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them. Those people decide stuff it, it can't be worse. The mentality of the voter has shifted from voting in the one you want to get the job done, to the one you least dislike.

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

with the declinign birth rates, who is going to care for you and perform the public and private services we rely on?  Who is going to be working the resources of the land to keep the money flowing to pay for all of this?

Simples

 

Robonurse an robominer will tirelessly fulfill such menial tasks.

 

A.I. is the answer!

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

they can have their kids, and there is less longer-term need for migrants

Aaah.... populate or perish?

 

Haven't I heard that someplace before?

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

the grip that the hidden and concentrated power of money has over democracy - which is an aim of the right-leaning side of politics.

Sad but true 😞

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

They are so heholden to hidden power, they they take tepid steps and people are more disillusioned with them.

Again, sad but true.....

[nomadpete]

Pass me another Wolfie.....

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well, it is lunch time on a Friday and I am working from home. Expecting my mate to join me anytime soon!

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

59 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Robonurse an robominer will tirelessly fulfill such menial tasks.

Will Robonurse do home visits looking like this?

If so, and everything else is a realistic simulation, I will be too old to worry about that fact it will be  living in a virtual world

Edited 18 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

Jerry... Why is your robonurse holding a magnifying glass...?

[old man emu]

Don't know about the stethoscope, but she looks like she'd be a high producing milker with those mammaries.

[facthunter]

You have to be in the Family way to make them work.  Its all very Bio Logical. She would be after your money. What else could you IMAGINE she would be after?