Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Bullet Train-Sex-Future-Flux Coalition when

[Edmus]

to be fair by the two party comments at the end maybe he was talking about the lower house?

Yeah true; do you even refer to senate places as seats?
If not that's my bad.
edit: the answer is yes, apparently.
-
Can we all come together in appreciation for how happy Bill is?

[DG]

There's never been a more exciting time to be a crossbencher!

[MarcAFK]

I'm rather shocked the greens and other independants didn't get more seats, I thought more people see dismayed at the ineptitude of the libels and the belaborers.
That Medicare bullshit will bite labour in the ass come the next election.

[Jimmy]

As someone who works in healthcare, don't be so fast to dismiss it. The PBS is slowly being eroded to nothing already, and I doubt Medicare will last long either. An ageing population and increasing life expectancy means big costs in the future for healthcare.

[DG]

I think Labor's medicare bullshit, as you put it, was much less bullshit than the Coalition's negative gearing bullshit. I think Turnbull will regret his tantrum about calling the police.

==========

Edit: This is great

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/lotr:-the-battle-for-middle-ground/7565108

[MarcAFK]

I expect Labour to be just as complacent as the lib-Nats when the final
Nail gets rammed into medicares coffin. Sadly.

[feelotraveller]

I'm rather shocked the greens and other independants didn't get more seats, I thought more people see dismayed at the ineptitude of the libels and the belaborers.
That Medicare bullshit will bite labour in the ass come the next election.

"Nearly a quarter of Australians have given their first preference to parties other than Labor and the Coalition, a trend that has been in the making since the 2007 election and was hinted at during the 1998 election."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election-results-historical-comparison/7560888

The way the electoral system is rigged we will not see 1 in 4 lower house seats going to candidates outside of the red and blue teams.

Whilst the medicare issue was classic mudslinging it bit because although not as extreme as the puppet MT has already instigated big cuts (or axed already slated increases) to health.  For example coag funding to the tune of about 5 billion dollars (over the next three years).  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/has-the-federal-government-cut-health-funding/7284138  And he would have cut more except for the outcries from the australian public.  Oh yeah, and then there was the influence of trying to look good for the election campaign. 


-on the law and order tantrum
Political advertising is specifically exempted from the 'truth in advertising' legislation.  Just another media stunt.

[martinuzz]

In the first 4 days since Duterte has been inaugurated as the new pesident of the Phillipines, already 45 drug users have been killed.
Most have been found with gunshot wounds, but there were also a few people hung from a bridge, their faces sealed off with ductape, wearing a custom print T-shirt saying "don't follow my example, I am a dealer".

Where a few weeks ago he had already told the people that they were allowed to kill any drug dealer, in his inauguration speech, Duterte called upon the people to kill all drug users too.

He said "these suns of whores destroy our children. I warn you, do not take that road, not even if you are a policeman, because I will really kill you .... And if you know any addicts, please go ahead and kill them, because it would be really painful if we would need to make their own parents kill them. So do it for them."

Duterte also repeated one of his campaign slogans: "I advise the people to go work in the undertaking business, because there will be good money to be made there. I assure you, you will not go bankrupt. If business is bad, I will just instruct the police to work harder, so you can make money."

How did this psychopat rise that high I wonder.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/al-45-moorden-in-eerste-vier-drugsoorlog-dagen-van-filipijnse-president~a4333649/

[Sheb]

I wonder if it'll work as a way to seriously curb drug use.

[Jimmy]

It's a good time to be a drug dealer. Problems with cops? Shoot them, plant some drugs on the corpse, boom! Instant justification for their execution.

[majikero]

From what I gather, the other choices were a ivory tower technocrat, a horribly inexperienced politician and a horribly corrupt politician. So he was somehow the least bad option.

[Helgoland]

I wonder if it'll work as a way to seriously curb drug use.

Probably. Hell, even prohibition in the US worked - alcohol consumption rates fell sharply.

Under a less narrow definition of 'work' it certainly won't though.

[TheDarkStar]

It's surprising that he could get elected. How long has it been since an actual head of state (note: does not count terrorists or prospective heads of state) called for extermination of a specific group - a decade?

[Reelya]

I wonder if it'll work as a way to seriously curb drug use.

Probably. Hell, even prohibition in the US worked - alcohol consumption rates fell sharply.

#Citation Needed

A quick google says the opposite.

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records. Consumption by women and children increased dramatically

There was a steady downward trend of alcohol deaths from 1916 to 1920, which was the year that prohibition started. But from 1920-1923 the death rate from alcohol bounced back to almost the 1917 levels, then stayed there for the next decade. So while "total alcohol consumption" perhaps might have declined by some measures, deaths related to alcohol either tripled or quadrupled depending on whether you go by the 1919 or 1920 levels as the baseline.

So any "decline" attributed to prohibition lasted less than 1 year before people brought stills online. By 1921 more people were dying from alcohol than in 1919, the year before prohibition. And it's actually questionable whether you'd attribute the declines in 1920 to prohibition itself: they came at the tail end of a 75% plummet in alcohol-related deaths over the 5 years prior, and 1920 marked the end of any declines whatsoever. My guess is that prohibition only dented alcohol supply by a few months at best.