On 22/05/2022 8:39 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
>>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>
>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>
>>> **ALL of us.
>>
>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
>> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>
>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>
>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>
>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
>> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>> *don't* want it to go).
>>
>>
>>
>
> voters control their preferences
>
>

<snigger> He's the donkey voting :-)

lindsay wrote:
>On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>>> How good is that?
>>>
>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>
>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that there
>> was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but with a
>> reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken for
>> granted anymore.
>
>Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
>actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around. Just
>for something to do, mind you.
>
>My only concerns are
>
>1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)

The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>
>2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
>party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still hear
>Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate chop in
>the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us defenceless.

We're already way behind on defence (no armed drones, no long range
missiles, etc) which isn't likely to change anytime soon.
>
>3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
>offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear powered
>subs?

Labor supports AUKUS however we'd be getting nuclear subs much sooner
if the Happy Clapper had stuck with the French who could've supplied
same. The real problem is that all parties (including the Libs) have
a ban on Australian based nuclear power. The difference being the
AUKUS subs' reactors are supposed to last the life of the sub.
>
>Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?

Rubber band guns probably! But who gives an FF since they're unlikely
to be able to form any sort of alliance with Labor after the last
experience with the Ranga.
>
>As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
>the rest of the crap is moot.

Stated Lib policy was to *increase* it to 2% of GST if re-elected.
USA spends 3.5%, Russia spends 4%.
>
>I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
>I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)

Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
Happy Clapper shafted. Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .
>
>I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine. Fair chance
>Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
>Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
>Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so will
>we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're next.
>It will all end in tears.. :-)

Your paranoia is showing. China isn't likely to invade anyone now
they've seen what's happening to Putrid in Ukraine. What China mainly
wants is economic superiority over the US, which also requires a
superior military capability. Hopefully neither will use it.

The imminent threat is Russia and in terms of history repeating itself
it's now 1938. Putrid has to stopped, the world can't afford
otherwise. Obummer blew the opportunity when the little green men
invaded Crimea.

--
John H

On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
> lindsay wrote:

>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>
> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
> shred of credible evidence (then or now).

I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)

All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.

The Chinese government getting their knickers in a twist over it just
shows the world what a morally corrupt bunch of turds they really are.

>> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
>> I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>> asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>> you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)
>
> Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
> Happy Clapper shafted. Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .

I always thought Garath Evans was half reasonable. When he wasn't
choc-a-bloc up Cheryl Kernot that is :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Daryl wrote:
>On 22/5/2022 8:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 5:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 22/5/2022 5:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Spare me the bleeding heart bullshit Trevor. We are not the world's
>>>> gathering point for every wannabee "refugee" who simply just wants to
>>>> live in a nicer country than their own.
>>>
>>> I've not really followed their story closely but if the Biloela
>>> community are happy to support them then I don't have a problem with
>>> them staying.
>>
>> So let the Biloela community support them :)
>
> From what I've read that's exactly what they are doing.
>Lots of small towns are desperate for workers so I doubt that they will
>have any trouble getting jobs.

The husband had a job and his employer has indicated it's still open.
Same applies to housing. Wife was active in the community as well as
raising two kids. Model citizens IOW, of which we could do with lots
more.

--
John H

Noddy wrote:
>On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>
>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>
>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>
>I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)

It's called selective perception. :)
>
>All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
>investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
>interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
>again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
>economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.

Trump was first, Morrison promptly followed. China retaliated against
both.

Morrison was up Trump's arse at every opportunity (happy snaps
abound). Even tried to get the head happy clapper an invite to one of
Trump's parties... and then lied about when word got out.

--
John H

On 23/05/2022 8:48 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>>> lindsay wrote:
>>
>>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>>
>>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>>
>> I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)
>
> It's called selective perception. :)

Right. On who's part? Yours or mine? :)

>> All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
>> investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
>> interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
>> again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
>> economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.
>
> Trump was first, Morrison promptly followed. China retaliated against
> both.

I don't recall Morrison mentioning the "China Virus", or making any kind
of defamatory or racist comments along the lines of Trump's mental
rants. All I ever saw Morrison state was that there should be an
investigation into the origins of the virus so we can learn from it.

If that's all China needed to react in the way they did then they were
just waiting for any excuse....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 22/05/2022 10:48 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy.
>>>>>> It's why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>>
>>>> **ALL of us.
>>>
>>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
>>> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>>
>>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
>>>>
>>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
>>> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>>
>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>>> *don't* want it to go).
>>
>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>
> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.

Then you get the politicians that you deserve, not the ones you need.

> Even if a reasonable number of people allocate their own preferences its
> not going to make much difference if the majority vote following a how
> to vote card.

Do they?

On 22/05/2022 11:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
>>> *don't* want it to go).
>>
>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>
> Yes you can, and I always do, but most candidates hand out "how to vote"
> pamphlets with people blindly following their preference "advice"
> without knowing too much about it other than who they put at "number 1".
>
> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where they
> want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out until
> polling day.

Only if you're stupid. Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards
and make up my own mind.

On 22/05/2022 11:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 10:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 8:21 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 5:24 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 1:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> *The Tamil family, who've been persecuted by the Libs for years, will
>>>>>> return to Biloela.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I couldn't care less if they get sent straight back to Sri
>>>>> Lanka. They weren't bona fide refugees, and have been very
>>>>> successful at playing the media off to their advantage.
>>>>
>>>> They are the sort of people that we need, they're far better that a
>>>> whole bunch that get in legally.
>>>
>>> Why's that?
>>
>> Before Spud spent $24M to put them in prison, they had integrated into
>> a country community and were doing useful work.
>
> That may be so, but it doesn't answer the question as to why you think
> they're "far better than a whole bunch that get in legally" which was
> what I was actually asking you.

Most hole up in ghettos of their own making in the major cities, where
they aren't really needed.

On 23/05/2022 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 11:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where
>>>> they *don't* want it to go).
>>>
>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>>
>> Yes you can, and I always do, but most candidates hand out "how to
>> vote" pamphlets with people blindly following their preference
>> "advice" without knowing too much about it other than who they put at
>> "number 1".
>>
>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where they
>> want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out until
>> polling day.
>
> Only if you're stupid.

That would probably include 85% of the population.

> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.

I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge an
absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit, and
have done for years.

The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
the process.

Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to be
not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first plat
the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way we
avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled the
most votes doesn't get elected.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 23/05/2022 9:34 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 11:13 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> That may be so, but it doesn't answer the question as to why you think
>> they're "far better than a whole bunch that get in legally" which was
>> what I was actually asking you.
>
> Most hole up in ghettos of their own making in the major cities, where
> they aren't really needed.

Is that so, Herr Gruppenführer?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 20:18:54 UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
> >>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
> >>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
> >>
> >> Us, don't you mean you?
> >
> > **ALL of us.
> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have failed
> you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
> >> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
> >
> > **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>
> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they *don't*
> want it to go).
> >> Hint it wasn't Labor who came third behind the "others".
> >> Of course that has nothing to do with the result but what it does tell
> >> is more peoples first choice was Liberal so the majority disagree with
> >> you.
> >
> > **Liberal? Or Liberal AND Nationals? It's not one party you know. It's a
> > coalition of two parties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not for much longer I`d reckon....Time will tell!.

> So what?
> --
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
> lindsay wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 12:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 22/5/2022 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> How good is that?
>>>> Not all good, it's the moderate Libs that have gone, the party will
>>>> move to the right probably with "Spud" Dutton as leader.
>>> Agree not a good result overall but good in my electorate in that there
>>> was a 2.8% swing to the Liberals, Labor still won the seat but with a
>>> reduced margin which has to be a good thing, we won't be taken for
>>> granted anymore.
>> Same here in Issacs.. 4.5% swing away from Mr Photo-op Dreyfus? May
>> actually have to do *something* to earn his keep next time around. Just
>> for something to do, mind you.
>>
>> My only concerns are
>>
>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt light
>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a pic
>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got trolled bad
>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>> 2: will the purchase of nuclear powered subs go ahead, if the Labor
>> party needs the Green vote to move forward. (shudder: I can still hear
>> Juliar spouting that..."Moving forward..." and doing her Karate chop in
>> the press gallery) I would imagine the Greens would leave us defenceless.
> We're already way behind on defence (no armed drones, no long range
> missiles, etc) which isn't likely to change anytime soon.
>> 3: I've yet to see what Labours defence policy looks like. Did they
>> offer bipartisan support for AUKUS, and the purchase of nuclear powered
>> subs?
> Labor supports AUKUS however we'd be getting nuclear subs much sooner
> if the Happy Clapper had stuck with the French who could've supplied
> same. The real problem is that all parties (including the Libs) have
> a ban on Australian based nuclear power. The difference being the
> AUKUS subs' reactors are supposed to last the life of the sub.
>> Or the Greens defence policy, for that matter. Trev?
> Rubber band guns probably! But who gives an FF since they're unlikely
> to be able to form any sort of alliance with Labor after the last
> experience with the Ranga.
>> As you can see Australia's defence means a lot to me, coz without it,
>> the rest of the crap is moot.
> Stated Lib policy was to *increase* it to 2% of GST if re-elected.
> USA spends 3.5%, Russia spends 4%.
>> I'm not interested in female quotas in politics, I'm not interested
>> foreign ministers who says " I'd make a great foreign minister, because
>> I have cred" (in debate with Marise Payne) apparently because she's of
>> asian decent gives her that "cred" , because I'm fucked if i know how
>> you get "cred" as a *shadow* foreign minister doing fuck all ...!)
> Last Liberal Foreign Minister with cred was Julie Bishop whom the
> Happy Clapper shafted. Arguably the best since Doc Evatt .
>> I'm only interested in things that matter to me and mine. Fair chance
>> Australia will be at war with china within 10 years, if not earlier.
>> Depending if Albo and Wong turfs our alliance with USA. He does that?
>> Were sitting ducks. If china invade Taiwan, and USA backs them, so will
>> we, as the terms of our alliance. We dont? No alliance, and we're next.
>> It will all end in tears.. :-)
> Your paranoia is showing. China isn't likely to invade anyone now
> they've seen what's happening to Putrid in Ukraine. What China mainly
> wants is economic superiority over the US, which also requires a
> superior military capability. Hopefully neither will use it.
>
> The imminent threat is Russia and in terms of history repeating itself
> it's now 1938. Putrid has to stopped, the world can't afford
> otherwise. Obummer blew the opportunity when the little green men
> invaded Crimea.
>

agree with all that

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 23/05/2022 8:56 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 8:48 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 7:28 am, John_H wrote:
>>>> lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1: Can albo handle the chinese (lower case). Granted scomo didnt
>>>>> light
>>>>> the world on fire, what with demanding some cunt in china remove a
>>>>> pic
>>>>> of an aus solider preparing to slit a childs throat. He got
>>>>> trolled bad
>>>>> there and reacted poorly... But he did stick to his guns when china
>>>>> handed a list of 14 things we would have to to to be friends with a
>>>>> bunch of bat eating cunts... As I cough my guts out again...)
>>>>
>>>> The Happy Clapper upset China when he sided with the Pussy Grabber in
>>>> demanding an enquiry into Covid's origins, based on the conspiracy
>>>> theory that it was released deliberately, for which there's not a
>>>> shred of credible evidence (then or now).
>>>
>>> I never saw that mentioned anywhere :)
>>
>> It's called selective perception.  :)
>
> Right. On who's part? Yours or mine? :)
>
>>> All I ever saw was Morrison suggest that there should be an
>>> investigation to try to determine the source of the outbreak in the
>>> interests of learning from it and helping to prevent it from happening
>>> again, and given the effect it had on the entire world both in terms of
>>> economic and human loss he was well within his rights to ask.
>>
>> Trump was first, Morrison promptly followed.  China retaliated against
>> both.
>
> I don't recall Morrison mentioning the "China Virus",

he did

> or making any kind of defamatory or racist comments along the lines of
> Trump's mental rants. All I ever saw Morrison state was that there
> should be an investigation into the origins of the virus so we can
> learn from it.
>
> If that's all China needed to react in the way they did then they were
> just waiting for any excuse....
>
>
>
>
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 11:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where
>>>>> they *don't* want it to go).
>>>>
>>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>>>
>>> Yes you can, and I always do, but most candidates hand out "how to
>>> vote" pamphlets with people blindly following their preference
>>> "advice" without knowing too much about it other than who they put at
>>> "number 1".
>>>
>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out
>>> until polling day.
>>
>> Only if you're stupid.
>
> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>
>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>
> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge an
> absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit, and
> have done for years.
>
> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
> the process.

At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.

> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to be
> not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first plat
> the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way we
> avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled the
> most votes doesn't get elected.

That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is by
electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has exactly
the same number of voters, there will always be a difference. The most
extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the post,
Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable electorates.

There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for instance,
you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result is
determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is needed.

On 23/05/2022 10:08 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 9:34 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 11:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> That may be so, but it doesn't answer the question as to why you
>>> think they're "far better than a whole bunch that get in legally"
>>> which was what I was actually asking you.
>>
>> Most hole up in ghettos of their own making in the major cities, where
>> they aren't really needed.
>
> Is that so, Herr Gruppenführer?

Ya mein Fuhrer.

On 23/05/2022 9:30 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 10:48 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy.
>>>>>>> It's why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Us, don't you mean you?
>>>>>
>>>>> **ALL of us.
>>>>
>>>> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
>>>> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
>>>>
>>>>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary
>>>>>> votes?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets
>>>> the most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
>>>>
>>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where
>>>> they *don't* want it to go).
>>>
>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>>
>> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.
>
> Then you get the politicians that you deserve, not the ones you need.
>
>> Even if a reasonable number of people allocate their own preferences
>> its not going to make much difference if the majority vote following
>> a how to vote card.
>
> Do they?
>
>

yes

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 22:48:35 UTC+10, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >> On 22/05/2022 7:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>> On 22/05/2022 4:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> will learn that, when they fail us, they lose their job. Easy. It's
> >>>>> why Scummo lost his. He failed us.
> >>>>
> >>>> Us, don't you mean you?
> >>>
> >>> **ALL of us.
> >>
> >> You don't speak for anyone but yourself here Trevor. He may have
> >> failed you, but there are no doubt others who had no problem with him.
> >>
> >>>> Did you happen to notice which party received the most primary votes?
> >>>
> >>> **Doesn't matter. That's not how our electoral system works.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, and that's a problem. The person/party that gets the
> >> most votes doesn't necessarily win. Grouse, huh?
> >>
> >> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
> >> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
> >> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their vote
> >> may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where they
> >> *don't* want it to go).
> >
> > You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Anyone that wants their vote to be allocated *exactly* as they want!. Too many treat voting as something they *have* to do, then grizzle about preference allocation. :(.
Only got themselves to blame!.

> Even if a reasonable number of people allocate their own preferences its
> not going to make much difference if the majority vote following a how
> to vote card.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, *that* attitude!. The *sheeple* approach......
>
> --
> Daryl

On 23/05/2022 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 11:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where
>>>> they *don't* want it to go).
>>>
>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>>
>> Yes you can, and I always do, but most candidates hand out "how to
>> vote" pamphlets with people blindly following their preference
>> "advice" without knowing too much about it other than who they put at
>> "number 1".
>>
>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out
>> until polling day.
>
> Only if you're stupid.

99% of the population must be stupid then

> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>

so you're so knowledgeable about politics that you're well aware of who
all the candidates are, and their polices, that you have no need to look
at how to vote cards? congratulations, you're exceptional.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 23/05/2022 11:16 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 22:48:35 UTC+10, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/5/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:

>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you
>>> want.
>> True but who wants to spend the time working it all out.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Anyone that wants their vote to be allocated
> *exactly* as they want!. Too many treat voting as something they
> *have* to do, then grizzle about preference allocation. :(. Only got
> themselves to blame!.

That *is* the old saying, isn't it? "People get the government they
deserve".

For the most part I think that's largely true, but then the system is
stacked in favour of the politicians rather than the people. You're
compelled to vote by law, then you're handed a card telling you *how* to
vote, but then your vote may end up electing someone you never wanted to
see in office in the first place.

In a country where apathy reigns supreme, it is the *perfect* system to
permit the politicians to control the people....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 23/05/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:

>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out
>>>> until polling day.
>>>
>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>
>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>
>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>>
>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge
>> an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit,
>> and have done for years.
>>
>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
>> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
>> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
>> the process.
>
> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.

That may be so, but I can't say I've ever taken the time to take any
notice of such things. Some people may take all the cards so as not to
reveal their allegiance in public but vote along party lines once they
get up and draw the curtain.

Who knows. The point is that *all* candidates have a preference
selection that they want you to follow, which is why they hand out the
cards in the first place, and I would imagine a fair portion of the
public follow that advice without fully appreciating why they're doing it.

>> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to
>> be not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first
>> plat the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way
>> we avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled
>> the most votes doesn't get elected.
>
> That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is by
> electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has exactly
> the same number of voters, there will always be a difference.

I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make. The
winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the highest
number of votes.

The most
> extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the post,
> Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable electorates.

Fortunately we're not the US.

> There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for instance,
> you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result is
> determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is needed.

I think ruling out compulsory voting and having IQ tests for those that
bother turning up on the day will see the country's fate decided by 10
people.

The solution, I think, is easier than most people realise. Just have a
vote for each candidate and drop the preferences. The candidate in each
electorate with the greatest number of votes is declared the winner
regardless of whatever the percentage of the vote total that number is,
and they then go on to take a seat in the house.

True democracy, as opposed to the silly "forced results" we have now.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 23/5/2022 10:08 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 9:34 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 11:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> That may be so, but it doesn't answer the question as to why you
>>> think they're "far better than a whole bunch that get in legally"
>>> which was what I was actually asking you.
>>
>> Most hole up in ghettos of their own making in the major cities, where
>> they aren't really needed.
>
> Is that so, Herr Gruppenführer?
>
>
>
That is exactly so! Think of Springvale, Footscray, Nth Richmond,
Mitcham. What do all these suburbs have in common, apart from high
concentrations of migrants of particular ethnicities. That's right,
proximity to migrant centres where, for instance, the Vietnamese
refugees were first settled. It is, however, cyclical. Those migrants
followed waves of Italians, Greeks, Maltese and general WWII refugees.
Now you're getting suburbs like Nth Dandenong filling up with *Indian*
migrants and Box Hill with *Chinese* migrants.
My own wife is a migrant but, because she was married to me, she
directly integrated into Aussie communities aided and abetted by the
kinds of work she undertook. Did I mention, unlike a lot of Aussies, she
has never been *unemployed* in this country, even when the unemployment
rate was high. Thus far she has spent a total of 55 years in the
fulltime workforce, both here and in her home country.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 23/5/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 11:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2022 10:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 22/05/2022 8:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There needs to be a major change to electoral regulations so a
>>>>>> candidate's preferences are *clearly* made known on every bit of
>>>>>> advertising they release. So people will clearly know where their
>>>>>> vote may possibly end up going (and which may be precisely where
>>>>>> they *don't* want it to go).
>>>>>
>>>>> You put the preferences not them, you can put them any way you want.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you can, and I always do, but most candidates hand out "how to
>>>> vote" pamphlets with people blindly following their preference
>>>> "advice" without knowing too much about it other than who they put
>>>> at "number 1".
>>>>
>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that out
>>>> until polling day.
>>>
>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>
>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>
>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>>
>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge
>> an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit,
>> and have done for years.
>>
>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
>> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
>> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
>> the process.
>
> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.
>
>> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to
>> be not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a first
>> plat the post system like most of the rest of the world uses. That way
>> we avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party that polled
>> the most votes doesn't get elected.
>
> That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is by
> electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has exactly
> the same number of voters, there will always be a difference. The most
> extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the post,
> Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable electorates.
>
> There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for instance,
> you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result is
> determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is needed.
>
You mean Darren would lose his voting rights?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 23/5/2022 12:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 11:13 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 10:06 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>>> The numbers they put on the pamphlets aren't random. That's where
>>>>> they want your preferences to go, but you don't get to find that
>>>>> out until polling day.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you're stupid.
>>>
>>> That would probably include 85% of the population.
>>>
>>>> Personally, I refuse all the how to vote cards and make up my own mind.
>>>
>>> I don't even go to the polling booths on election day. I always lodge
>>> an absentee vote by mail so I avoid all the dickheads and bullshit,
>>> and have done for years.
>>>
>>> The point remains however, that there would be a fair portion of the
>>> voting public who blindly follow the "how to vote" advice of their
>>> particular candidate without fully appreciating what they're doing in
>>> the process.
>>
>> At the booth that we went to maybe 40-50% were accepting how to vote
>> cards, but a lot of those were accepting several.
>
> That may be so, but I can't say I've ever taken the time to take any
> notice of such things. Some people may take all the cards so as not to
> reveal their allegiance in public but vote along party lines once they
> get up and draw the curtain.

HTF do you know that if, as you say, they *draw the curtain*. You, as
always, are making huge assumptions.
>
> Who knows. The point is that *all* candidates have a preference
> selection that they want you to follow, which is why they hand out the
> cards in the first place, and I would imagine a fair portion of the
> public follow that advice without fully appreciating why they're doing it.
>
>>> Personally I think the preferential voting system has shown itself to
>>> be not all it's cracked up to be, and it's time we reverted to a
>>> first plat the post system like most of the rest of the world uses.
>>> That way we avoid situations like we're seeing now where the party
>>> that polled the most votes doesn't get elected.
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily follow, the composition of the parliament is
>> by electorates not by number of votes, unless each electorate has
>> exactly the same number of voters, there will always be a difference.
>
> I don't see what difference the size of each electorate would make. The
> winner in each one should be the candidate that polled the highest
> number of votes.
>
>  The most
>> extreme case is US presidential elections which are first past the
>> post, Clinton way out polled Trump but he won the most valuable
>> electorates.
>
> Fortunately we're not the US.
>
>> There is no easy answer, if you make voting non compulsory for
>> instance, you cut out those who don't give a shit, but then the result
>> is determined by the fanatics. Maybe an IQ test for voter is what is
>> needed.
>
> I think ruling out compulsory voting and having IQ tests for those that
> bother turning up on the day will see the country's fate decided by 10
> people.
>
> The solution, I think, is easier than most people realise. Just have a
> vote for each candidate and drop the preferences. The candidate in each
> electorate with the greatest number of votes is declared the winner
> regardless of whatever the percentage of the vote total that number is,
> and they then go on to take a seat in the house.
>
> True democracy, as opposed to the silly "forced results" we have now.
>
>
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 23/05/2022 11:15 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 10:08 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 9:34 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 11:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> That may be so, but it doesn't answer the question as to why you
>>>> think they're "far better than a whole bunch that get in legally"
>>>> which was what I was actually asking you.
>>>
>>> Most hole up in ghettos of their own making in the major cities,
>>> where they aren't really needed.
>>
>> Is that so, Herr Gruppenführer?
>
> Ya mein Fuhrer.

Well then, what are you doing wasting time in here? If they're such a
burden on society you should be rounding them up and gassing them.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.