I am curious if you guys like DonaldTrump, or do you hate him?
I think the abuse of welfare in Australia has entered a new paradigm.
I think that previously it was a demand side rort ie crew just want to get on the dole and cruise.
Now I think there is also an angle of benefit from the supply side ie cruisers lead away from the dole and onto a disability pension. This makes the employment statistics better for the government.
Maybe this is not a new thing ? All I know is that I am currently aware of many people who are physically able who are receiving a DP. Way more than I’ve known historically, and many of these people aren’t shrewd enough to figure how to game the system without at least some prompting from an outside influence.
Call it anecdotal, call it what you will , but I can name 10 people that I know personally that are in receipt of DP that are in no way physically disabled. Then multiply that by all of their friends. More than a few are on psychiatric pensions. This is the new game in town.
Agree, however I would caveat that it is the 'far' left who believe in borderless societies and should spend time thinking about the inherent good aspects of borders. I think the challenge is that the displacement of humans today is far larger than ever before, so we are faced with a dilemma in that our empathy is stretched ever-wide toward welcoming our fellow humans into a safer society, while at the same time people feel that the sheer volume is overwhelming and will cause lasting damage to our safety and western morals and values, particularly when some minority groups express their resistance to assimilate to fundamental western doctrines. This is echoed everywhere and both responses are valid and in need of addressing. To me its not so much the truth of whether its right or wrong to let in refugees, I'm beginning to see a deeper message where the emotional responses we have must be addressed, we have to appeal to security, and to solving the empathic dilemma while making concessions to other side in appreciation of the validity of half of humanity having a different emotional disposition to ours. We can't force it to be one way or the other without oppression of some sort.
I heard recently the alternative concept of increasing in-country humanitarian aid to the nations where refugees are fleeing. It comes with a huge set of problems but I like how it is perceivably agreeable to both the left and the right, particularly if there is a paralell agreement to tighten national borders.
Welfare- do you see any need for it at all? Does the free market provide everyone equal opportunity to enter the job market no matter what their capacity or incapacity?
@Blob "Fact not gossip: capitalism has made the workers extremely rich."
"CFPB's First National Survey on Financial Well-Being Shows More Than 40 Percent of U.S. Adults Struggle to Make Ends Meet"
"A Quarter Of American Adults Can't Pay All Their Monthly Bills; 44% Have Less Than $400 In Cash"
@Blob "A recent anecdote from the socialist utopia of Venezuela...."when we were capitalists we were wealthy, but when we drank the socialist Swelleft Koolaid our wealth and freedom dissapeared and we are now starving.""
You still have no cloths on Blob, using Venezuela as a example (any South American country for that matter) for left/right arguments is naive at best.
Remember your heroes comment Venezuela = US left destroyed your credibility..............move on try some where else.
"it is the 'far' left who believe in borderless societies and should spend time thinking about the inherent good aspects of borders."
So you're saying the Treaty of Rome 1957, and the subsequent EU were/are a creation of the far left? You're saying CAPITALISM had nothing to do with it?
" I'm beginning to see a deeper message where the emotional responses we have must be addressed, we have to appeal to security"
Re "security"... I take it you will be writing to "sco mo", saying that moving the Israel embassy wont do jack shit EXCEPT make us more of a target for terrorism.
I'm old enough to remember the waves of terrorism in the 1970s when hijacking was the main weapon... Australian passengers were ALWAYS released first, because WE KEPT OUR NOSE out of other peoples wars.
And that takes me to the broader issue of war itself. Who was in power in the USA during Iraq 1?
Who was in power during Iraq 2, and the afghan invasion?
And during those last 2 wars, who was in power in Australia? which party led us into these wars?
The answer to all of these questions is........ The RIGHT...... Bush snr, Bush jr, John Howard.
Abbott also commited us to Syria. And we are currently now supporting Saudi Arabia's proxy war against Iran in Yemen.
So, if you want less refugees, lets cut the bullshit..... War = refugees. But war guarantees middle east oil supplies. Oil is needed for capitalism.
Anyone that tries to dumb this down to a "left v right" situation should be shown the door.
It aint that fuckn simple.
ps - the "left" also made a MASSIVE blunder - Obama and Clinton took out Gadaffi - now Libya is being used as a stepping stone to Europe.
No ones hands are clean
@Blob "If you want to run a forum don't try to have it both ways like a condescending hypocrite."
Hey Blob when you sound like a condescending hypocrite never a good look to start accusing others the same.
"Swelleft's lies are so stupid a simple anecdote is enough to demolish them."
Its like accusing others of lying when the facts are against you or how about "The left are wrong about everything".
Any way "At least I'm not a sook" you have gone close a couple of times but will pay that one.
...Mr paywall socialist not only wants me to pay for his inaccurate surf reports but also for the privilege of helping him to not be so wrong.
You socialist capitalists are certainly rapacious.
I'm hardly a sook if I say so myself.
I'm just calling your act for what it is and you just confirmed my call.
If you can't handle being contradicted then keep your bat and ball and enjoy your greenie echo chamber.
Sorry, I'd really love to be a financial sponsor if not for the fact that your product, like your politics, just isn't a decent value proposition
Tell me then
Has capitalism made Australian teenagers so wealthy they can travel the world pursuing pleasure?
.....and how has hard socialism worked out for Venezuela?.
How am I a hypocrite?.
........meanwhile in the land of the free and the home of the brave, unrestrained capitalism has brought us here.
200 lives a day? Fair price for free enterprise. Preserve us from those with the analytical skills of a kindergartener and the confidence of a man with his nostrils full of cocaine,
What are you Blindboy, some kind of Commie??
That’s unbelievable !
Blowin it is the logical conclusion of totally unregulated capitalism. The ideas that people like Blob regurgitate have been carefully worked out in think tanks funded by the Koch brothers amongst numerous others. They are careful to hide their real agenda and dress up their ideas to have a superficial appeal to the ignorant and ill-educated, of which there is a tragic over-supply in the US. The real agenda as revealed by Charles Koch was to reduce civil rights to a single right ........ the right to own property. To slightly update Hunter S. Thompson's famous claim ....... no matter how paranoid you might be, you cannot possibly imagine the reality of corporate power in the US.
You got a link to anything informative that’s less than a million words and I’ll be all over it , BB.
I will have a look Blowin.
To get the full picture of how corporations fund front groups to influence politicians and public opinion, you need to read Dark Money by Jane Mayer. In brief, what is online about them sounds relatively harmless because they have been careful, over a long period, not to publicly express their real objectives. In brief they want to remove not only laws related to climate change but virtually all environmental law and all laws regulating wages and working conditions. They hide their intentions by funding a network of think tanks and educational institutions that work to undermine public confidence in the areas in which they want change.
I don't think I implied nor said any of that. You did mention "Anyone that tries to dumb this down to a "left v right" situation should be shown the door.
It aint that fuckn simple."
When I re-read your reply to mine, I see you putting 'left' or 'right' labels on historical events. I also see lots of emotion in your response.
So i'm wondering what you mean by that. I don't think I was trying to simplify, I am trying to find some common theme in the current polarisation. From this thread I can see that political history is so complex that it seems futile to try to lay out a matrix of responsibility for historic events without having multiple takes from left or right wing perspectives.
So much of the commentary here is constantly awry because it misses a uuge point.
Trump and The Right are different things.
Don't conflate them unless they fit.
Trump is not a creature of the Republican establishment or of big business generally.
Trump is pro business and pro American worker because he is pro America.
The Koch Bros hate him.
Much of the Republican Party hates him.
Same for big business...
His main constituency is the little guys...many of them democrat.
They want him to 'drain the swamp' and defend the borders, and be a good economic leader.
Big business is with the Left in wanting lax border control.
Also, on foreign policy, Trump will strengthen the military and do what has to be done to protect America's power, but his instinct is not interventionist.
Lumping Trump with the Right, Neo liberals and big business conspiracies is, to degrees, muddying the water.
Lotta mud here.
I agree with what you just said , Blob.
But I differ where you say that Trump is not an interventionist. I think that whilst he may get pedantic over trade deals with Australia and other reliable allies , the big picture is that I believe he would jump in if we were threatened and not entirely out of self interest. Though if the self interest of the USA was completely misaligned with helping us then , yeah , we would probably be on our own.
"To get the full picture of how corporations fund front groups to influence politicians and public opinion, you need to read Dark Money by Jane Mayer."
Seriously alarming book. Even more so when you see how it's actually working. Only gotta read this forum to realise that.
Come on , Stu .
Did you really need to read the book to know that ?
You think the IPA is any different ?
You think that there’s not vested interest left wing think tanks that don’t promulgate concepts and ideas to further their political leanings ?
Ha ha...no, but money begets money and all that. So who do most of the businesses back?
Anyway, it's one thing to know something in an abstract way, dare I say an anecdotal way, and another to read a lengthy, researched book on the topic.
Same result. Different route.
You’re just losing hours of your life getting infuriated reading the book. All those hours that could have been spent getting infuriated on this thread instead.
Not at all the same result, not while the political system moves ever more right, and the tentacles of business grope deeper into our lives. In a world of misinformation, where Twitter posts are considered long form journalism, and big decisions are becoming more emotional, books like that are crucial.
But that's enough self-righteousness for one day.
Blowin, the IPA you refer to is presumably the Institute of Public Affairs which is about as far to the right as Australian politics goes. You don't really think it is left wing do you? Left wing think tanks in Australia? None that I can come up with off the top of my head. What about you?
IPA = Evil empire of Aussie Right.
You’d swear that at least one person running the show there would be wearing a full black outfit including black cape and full faced breathing apparatus AKA Darth Vader .
Left wing organisations- http://www.chifley.org.au/links/
Who do you think comes up with the Left’s hare - brained , strategic conflations ie opposition to unsustainable migration is a form of racism ?
Blowin, that is the official think tank of the Labor Party so slightly left of centre and totally transparent. The real issue is organisations like the IPA who pretend to be neutral and based on academic research when in reality they are pushing a right wing political agenda. This is what happened in the US the Kochs and other funded so many of these organisations that people believed they were independent. They also used various methods of intimidating politicians to vote their way on important issues. They would just threaten them straight up, if they didn't vote that way they would massively fund their opponent at the next election. Toxic behaviour.
There’s a page full of think tanks in that link , BB.
As if there is a single person who is aware of the IPA and doesn’t know what they do .
Funny that we should have so recently had the discussion on the power of money and business controlling the politicians and the direction of governments.
Yet the shining example put forward was centred on overseas experiences.
It also focused on the tendency of the right to lead the abuse. Unfortunately some believed that they were exempt from the influence of power and that their decisions were of their own volition. Obviously,they were alone in their ability to cogitate , whilst the rest of us were mindlessly driven by greater forces to think what were told. How else to explain such wayward thinking ?
This quote was telling : “Seriously alarming book. Even more so when you see how it's actually working. Only gotta read this forum to realise that”
The implication being that those who’s opinions are disagreed with , have been lead by the nose towards what they think . And that their thoughts are inherently erroneous.
Then read this piece :
And tell me who it is has been lead to their thoughts by the influence of power.
Even the assumption that the majority opinion derogatorily referred to as populism is bad isn’t written in stone , despite the contemptuous assurances by some that it is.
You've somewhat skewed my quote to make it fit your comment, yet the point I was making still stands. In brief, there's less money to be made from left wing politics, hence business will tend toward the advancement of right wing think tanks.
Not saying left wing organisations don't exist, not saying people on the left are exempt from influence, just that the influence of corporate-sponsored institutes - which is what the original comments was concerning - will favour the right.
Blowin, your confidence in our ability to think for ourselves in the face of persuasive forces is inspiring .......... but you should tell the advertising industry that they are wasting their time.
My point is Stu , that the left are just as prone to operating in the interests of big business at the behest of big business.
As witnessed in the article I linked to and the continued support for unsustainably high immigration by the left using arguments they’ve had fed to them by power and money.
BB ...I think the difference between you and me is that , whilst we are both confident of our abilities to think for ourselves , I grant that confidence to everyone else but you seem to reserve it for only those who think in a similar manner to yourself.
This is not uncommon, but it’s way more prevalent in those with a leaning towards socialism. The thinking being that WE ie socialist bureaucracy, know what’s best for the people . The people are not to be trusted with knowing what’s in their best interests.
Thus the abhorrence to populism, which is the antithesis of socialism. Despite populism witnessing the power truly resting with the people, as socialists would have you think is their dream. But it’s not. Bureaucracy and elitism without the burden of democracy is the socialist’s real wet dream.
Blowin, so if you grant that to everyone else why is the advertising industry still in business? I mean if people made rational objective decisions all those beautiful young people, pretty scenery, slogans etc would be unnecessary. So assuming people ARE influenced, why do you choose to ignore that fact when it so clearly plays into the hands of the manipulators?
I would say I agree 100% with Stunet re: the left ideal not being as popular to business competitiveness. In fact there's plenty of criticism about the left having a stranglehold in the industry of the arts and Humanities, but perhaps it forms the other half of a delicate balance of powers?
You are touching on a paradox that I am becoming more aware of. I want to add something and I wonder if you will agree:
"Thus the (left's) abhorrence to populism, which is the antithesis of socialism. Despite populism witnessing the power truly resting with the people."
I would add that currently it is real-time examples of individuals within the upper echelons deliberately abusing their power (Trump is front of mind, Drug companies) that encourages the left to distrust capitalist/populist regimes altogether.
"Bureaucracy and elitism without the burden of democracy is the socialist’s real wet dream."
I would say that this is actually not the socialist's wet dream, but it is the continually overlooked problem of Marxist philosophies: There will always be people within society who do have wet dreams about Bureacracy and Elitism, and given that it is simply a state of mind, it cannot be exterminated by shifting to socialism. So handing significant powers to the Government: the hand that feeds (and selects) and the punisher, such governmental power fertilises just as dangerous a breeding ground for abuses of power as in the top 1% of the capitalist/populist society."
Without a well thought-through framework for providing and always retaining equal selective powers to the individual, Marxist ideologies are extremely dangerous, as proven through history at an equal and opposite extent to fascism.
"the greatest spiritual danger facing 21st century democracy is that liberal intellectuals increasingly dismiss the moral right of less-educated people to have opinions that conflict with the consensus wisdom of the expert class" Babones, "the new authoritarianism-Trump, Populism and the tyranny of experts"
I don’t ignore the fact.
I’m just aware of the limitations of influence that advertising faces. Also of the limitations that the influence of money/ power faces.
I like to think that other people are aware of it too.
I like to think that people aren’t generally stupid.
Not saying there’s not stupidity out there , nor that I’m innocent of it, just that in general people are smarter than they are usually given credit for.
Look at the results of every plebiscite that the nation has ever held. They always land on the side of righteousness.
For instance...That old chestnut about aborigines being regarded by plebeian society as inhuman before the referendum to include them in the constitution ..absolute bullshit .
91 percent of people said “fuck , yes “ .
The common man don’t get no respec’.
So over a very long period of time wealthy individuals and corporations have spent literally billions of dollars creating opaque quasi academic think tanks to bend US policies to their interest and have demonstrably succeeded in getting vast numbers to vote for policies that actually make them poorer ......... but we shouldn't raise the issue because it insults the common man? Are we serious about good governance, transparency and fairness or are we prepared to accept the same fate here because, believe me, it's coming.
Mate , it’s already here.
You are on here regularly singing from the IPA song book. Only you think you’ve come to the conclusion yourself.
You talk about good jeopardising good governance....what about the consensus between the only two parties capable of governing to ignore concerns about the unsustainably high levels of immigration ?
Good governance died years ago.
Democracy has been circumvented by business and you’re regularly on here repeating the same bullshit they’ve told you to believe .
The LNP represents Big Business and the ALP represents the ALP .
Ordinary Australians don’t get a look in. Haven’t for years.
Loungelizard, generally speaking I'm ok with the "tyranny of experts", whether those experts are aeronautical engineers, doctors, environmental scientists or political scientists.
Certainly it's important to challenge things but surely there's a point where overwhelming evidence has to be accepted, but it seems that the point of acceptance has been trampled on by both "sides" of the political and social spectrum.
It's very curious and pretty concerning that both the left and the right are increasingly abandoning evidence-based discussions, whether for reasons of fashion, fear, mistrust, greed or some ideology.
Blowin, I think that very few people are just plain stupid across the board; almost everyone is smart in some way.
But I'd say that the percentage of people who can be mislead by the press, advertising, politicians etc is well into the majority.
I think that a lot of people don't know, don't care, are too busy or are too short sighted and focused on the smaller picture.
Doesn't mean they're stupid.
When the "moral right" of people to disagree with experts starts to shoot these same people in the foot as well as bring down the common good (e.g. climate change, the effect of voting for neo-lib parties), well, I'm definitely ok with having a rational conversation about it.
Problem is, as I've said, rationality seems to be going out of style.
"You are on here regularly singing from the IPA song book". Please provide evidence for this assertion. Other than my support for immigration, which as you note is bipartisan, what have you got? If you want to talk about immigration, fine but let's finish the discussion on influence first. I think Andy makes some great points. Not everyone cares!
thanks andym, while you clearly identify of the left, you also seem to have have some independent opinions re population growth etc. it seemed you were having some difficulty reconciling overall "left membership" with these views, how do you find your (generally) fellow travellers react to difference of opinion?
the tyranny of experts i also assume doesnt mean rocket scientists laying down the law re rocket science but assuming a moral rectitude in non fact-based areas
LL, first I think we should make a distinction between the "traditional left" and what is rapidly being coined as the "regressive left" by a growing number of people I talk to.
The regressive left are abandoning evidence-based discussion and are into anti-vax, chem trails, holistic medicine and any number of, ahem, virtue signalling fads.
These people are not my fellow travellers, they peddle and wallow in regressive belief systems which go against hard-won enlightenment values and as I see it, are pretty much looking to introduce new types of religion, which to me really says something about the human condition.
Specifically, these people I'm talking about aggressively dismiss other opinions, which I think is basically the point you're making.
On the other hand, the more scientific types I talk to are very much from the school of "no, you're not entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to what you can argue for".
It seems that the discussion hinges around:
i) what is your moral right, especially when your beliefs and actions are harming others
ii) how do you effectively have discussions with these people and not be the "liberal intellectual expert class" that the right ignores out of greed and the regressive left disparages out of fashion, peer-group pressure and an apparent overall fear of what the modern post-industrial world has delivered us and where it is heading (but only when it suits them).
thanks again andym, so the right disagrees out of greed and those differing on the left out of fear? doesn't leave much scope for discussion... (and it was a genuine question not a "point"! )
LL, big generalisations there and there'd be all sorts of mixes across the board (greedy left, fearful right) but that's primarily the way I see it.
You should hear the discussions I have with the old man, he calls me a communist because I believe in the value of National Parks, I think he's ruthless and self centred because he'd never give a sucker a break and he thinks he should be able to build and develop anywhere he likes as long as he's got the money ;)
Yep, there's stupidity out there and more than any of us generous souls would have ever guessed. Read it and weep.
Trying to get my head around the latest developments in relation to trumps response to the khashoggi murder. It's made me feel physically sick...a bit hopeless to be honest
So I guess behind closed doors trump says to his saudi friends...sure I can ignore the murder of an American citizen...and deal with the fallout until the world moves on...just like every other scandal...you just keep buying our guns and lower the price of oil
We have the devil doing deals with the devil in world politics now
Back to the original post...I am way beyond the hate level now...I dont have a word for it
And sorry if I changed topics...I really haven't read a post on here for a few months
I saw the editor of the Washington post interviewed this morning...he said "I am astonished...even after two years of this trump presidency continually lowering the bar...this has me astonished"
I guess astonished is one word...disgusted...dismayed...appalled...gutted...sickened...i really cant find one...completely devastated maybe
And thats exactly the reason why i feel im getting more cynical as i get older because its all bullshit......money and power rules .
Balance, Trump is only doing in the open what happened behind closed doors.
Make America Great before the rule of law really nothing new here........unfortunately.
An inquiry into treasonous behaviour by the President.
A revolving door of senior positions.
Alienating allies and appeasing enemies.
Evidence of gross sexual misbehaviour.
Incoherent responses to simple questions.
No I focus, no change at all.
“Evidence of gross sexual misbehaviour.”
BB is overheating. You can tell cause the hyperbole tap gets locked open.
Trump said that women consent to being grabbed on the genitalia if you’re powerful enough and now it’s “Evidence of gross sexual misbehaviour.”.
Lucky you weren’t more successful in music , BB. You would have lost your mind witnessing what women will consensually and willingly do for/ to / with famous musicians !
The horror !
Are we in a courthouse or on a forum?
"I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.
I did try and fuck her. She was married.
And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.
Later, referring to Arianne Zucker (whom they were waiting to meet), Trump says:
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
He sounds someone who is aware of his privilege of power and its capacity to overcome women. He sounds like someone who is aware that he can begin to apply intimacy without waiting for consent.
He also sounds like someone who knows that it might be considered inappropriate to do things such as walk up and grab a woman by the pussy, if you aren't rich. But that it is possible to do something out of the normally acceptable conduct because you are rich.
And he also seems to think all women are like that.
Agree he never expressly says that it is OK to actually grab a woman by the pussy, or that he has done anything more than approach a woman and kiss her impulsively (which equates to sexual misconduct in a workplace which operates independent of express or implied consent - ie: the onus is placed on the defendant).
So here's a question: Is it OK to assume that a woman is probably going to approve of you approaching them intimately, and therefore OK to approach them intimately and breach a personal barrier without consent?
If not, then is it wrong to assume that the morals change when you are in power? And I am specifically talking about morals, and not the individual response of women who may indeed be wooed by money and power.