One Nation, what a bitches brew party....

Your apparently limited exposure to fundamental liberalism and socialism, is not my problem. But it is highly indicative of just how far the Left has fallen.

We once fought people like you, you know. Imagine that.

 

Yes, we defeated fascism and everything that white nationalism now wants to resurrect.

Rest assured we will defeat it again if the need arises.

 

We fought the sneering elitist bourgeoisie, who held the unwashed and rustic (of thought and politics) working classes in utter contempt. We fought intolerance of ideas. We fought political orthodoxy. We fought authoritarian ideology. We fought the overt capitalism of the Welfare State. Even our music condemned such things .. particularly the Welfare State.

You've learned to live with a 21stC Leftism which is a complete inversion (and betrayal, and mockery) of the fundamentals. And with being more conservative than a 20thC Right winger. I'm guessing you sleep okay.

 

Was there supposed to be a cogent point somewhere in that meaningless turgid diatribe?

Because it came across as the kind of bizarre ranting that the Unabomber would have included in his manifesto.

 

You have made this claim before so

https://votecompass.abc.net.au/

 

Which confirms your almost complete ignorance of what the Left once stood for. We truly are lost.

And reveals your discomfort at having been spotlighted. Lost, for sure.

 

Made this claim? I also claim I'm a human female. Would you like to send me a compass thingy to make sure it's true?

 

Ironic PROJECTION of your own shortcomings duly noted for the record and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

High five

 

Anyhow, back to the topic.

Not pointing just presenting the topic from the premise.

I have become increasingly discouraged when people want to discuss the priorities and try vilify others over their own belief of what is right and wrong.

I have noticed that many continue to point the finger at opposing parties trying to suggest this and that. But if we go back over the years we see people generally complain that the Coalition wont spend the money the way they think it should, pointing to the gap between the rich and poor while pretending their own party perspectives are better for humanity reasons. I note the people point the finger at the ALP complaining that they cannot manage money and just spend to buy votes… the Greens… well no need to say more.

But when it comes to one nation we see the points above in the premise of the thread. First their racist then they are bigots. I have to wonder, with such support to have them elected to government with much the same margin as the greens, one has to wonder just how seriously can Australian’s deny the truth of what represented.

For me, they don’t represent anything I believe but they do have one point. Here we see, a foreign media organisation, creating a situation where they could catch members acting indecently and against the Australian belief then presenting it at the most damaging time possible. If this was made public when it happened, no issues and the party could have faded into obscurity it deserves. BUT here we have foreign intervention in the Australian political system designed to damage party not report facts. Trump had his Russian interference Australia now has it’s. Is foreign interference acceptable while some agree with it???

But I have noticed, in the last 20 years in Australian politics, people oppose the coalition count the money, while people who oppose the parties who claim to be the humanitarian social policy parties count the bodies… Go figure.

 

Yeap,
go shoot the messenger. The best the right can do....
Although I have to agree on the timing.....
Reg.

 

I am not sure what you think I am, but the problem with the entire issue is the messenger. Had they been up front at the time there could be no issue and One Nation could be rebuked and discarded as they deserve. However, this action by the organisation has detracted from that message and actually garnered some of the fading support to give them another boost.

So, while you think your denigration is warranted, the point is the motive of the messenger not the message. Again I oppose just about everything One Nation stands for and I do believe their only support is from the populist policy and commentary One Nation make. But the point is that the messenger has made their journalism political, not made political journalism.

 

It looks like you are more interested in the messengers timing than in the message itself.
It is the same with wikileaks, isn't it? You are either for the truth or against Assange, people can't have it both ways.
While I do agree that the timing (One Nation issue) raises question, the more important one should remain the lies, deceit and misconception of their top candidates....
Reg.

 

The usual rot so as to appear always right. Sheesh

 

Yes, I am more interested in the messengers than the message. Due entirely of the fact the messengers made the decision to interfere in Australian politics. If these messages were presented when they were made then I do feel the party would have lost considerably more support but now due to the intervention has garnered support.



As for Assange, trying to assert that Assange is for truth is factually incorrect. Assange had every chance to clear his name in the first instance but decided he was above the initial laws he was being pursued for. He chose to run in the first instance so he did not have to provide evidence of his truths and then tried to fight extradition on those truths… That is nothing to do with truth or the secrecy he claims to be open too.



Wikileaks… My concern has always been the lack of consideration to the possible lives endangered by their actions. I have always maintained the reckless actions are the issue…


And last, the lies and deceit has always been a problem. Nothing new there but the reason it becomes problematic is that the media organisation decided to make their journalistic integrity, political. This becomes a problem all over, the type of reporting the fact they targeted one party. Questions get raised about what other influences around the world does this group have??? We often talk of media bias and who supports what, but the fact is when you have foreign bodies trying to slant elections in any way often the people martyred get far more support than deserving.


There are huge questions to be asked and answered, but as far as the party goes: we now have possibly another 10yrs of these maleficence more than we should have.

 

I see you got nothing so you decide to inject your hatred anyway...Good one.

By the way, what strawman did you want to build today???

 

Thank you

 

Isn't the media there to uncover the truth?
If this One Nation's guy had behaved (sticking his fingers under the bra of his missis) and not seeking dirty money from the NRA (to weaken our own gun laws), all would be good. However, that is not what happened.
We should be thankful to the media, don't you think?
Reg.

 

You know, I do have to wonder…

We often talk about racism, bigotry, depravity and trolls, yet clearly people don’t understand what that means. Here we see, an ALP proponent who has resorted to trolling threads and posters trying to illicit emotive response because they cannot address the topic. I know, they have been offended previously complaining I (along with others) made them look foolish, but again clearly does not believe or accept any accountability for their own comments.

Anyway, Shorten has announced strong policy on internet Trolling… But I am guessing these trolls don’t believe they are trolling. They think that simply posting insults and trying to illicit emotive responses is just mischievous and all in good fun. I noted the supposed point on another thread of experience of Christianity… We see the bulling and trolling of youth who take their own lives and try to make emotive ignorant stories up to pretend they are more than they are.

So yes, Trolling is serious subject, people have died from these useless depraved morons, but it is funny to see they support the very parties that claim (and I use that term sparingly) to oppose and wish to hold those to account trolling…
As I say, I just wonder about the hypocrisy these people show…

 

Yes, and while I don't condemn them for their methods they did hold onto the truth to serve it up at the most damaging time. That is unconscionable interference into Australia’s electoral process.


Just on the truth, I have no doubt that the exposure made is far less than the reality of these people.

I do not deny the reports, in fact I welcome them. I did consider Hanson was poorly done by originally over several things, but since found these acts are just the surface of the iceberg. BUT you will always have those who consider these things are ok for some reason they alone can justify and those who don’t like the fact the journalists injected their decisions on who, what and when people should know. I still don’t support her and will not in the future, but yes it should never have happened.

Should we be thankful??? As I say, their decision to hang on this and put it out at the most damaging time will, I guarantee you, make One Nation stay as some force in Australian politics for another decade. God and imagine if they actually get some semblance of intellect, they could garner more support… Be thankful… I hate them for that… If they just reported I believe this could have haunted them to extinction… You decide should we pat them on the back or condemn them for making an active choice to interfere in Australian politics.
.

 

Seriously?

Are you suggesting that journalists CONTROL what people should know about and furthermore which people and when they should know it?

Because if that is the case your subject matter knowledge of how journalism works leaves a great deal to be desired.

Journalists are assigned to different coverage areas like crime, sports, arts & entertainment, business and politics.

If the media organization is large enough it will assign journalists to specific parties but that is the exception. Most political journalists cover all parties because of staff limitations at whichever media organization they work for.

Media organizations are IN COMPETITION with each other!

I know this is a strange concept to anyone who misperceives the media as a MONOLITH but that is how it works in reality.

When a journalist learns about a story that politician H has done something that is newsworthy they will immediately contact the editor at their media organization who will arrange the appropriate place for that headline to appear. As soon as the story is received it is proofread and published. Sitting on a story means that another media organization could scoop them with the story so it usually goes out with the next edition. Exceptions only apply if there is a need to obtain verification or clearance for some reason but that is rare.

Yes, journalists do get their stories wrong from time to time but then retractions and/or corrections are published.

So where is your evidence that journalists are able to arbitrarily decide what gets published and when and who will read it?

 

Well now, how interesting.


To answer your last question first, this entire debacle is evidence of how the journalist made their reporting political and not made political reporting. Since I did not state they “arbitrarily decide what gets published and when and who will read it” I’ll leave that one to yourself to answer…

Since you wish to discuss the way this journalism was carried out and like to use generalised assessment of how journalism works, might I suggest you consider the fact that the situation was created BY the media group to create a sting, catch these politicians in a suspicious or negative situation. Thus, consideration could be made that they are creating the media. Since they did not report said facts in timely manner, yes they are tainting the journalism. Since it is of political nature to be doing both these things, I am sorry, but your insistence has no merit…


Just because we agree with the outcome, we should not allow people to just fly by on such. But as I say, this action by this media group has actually bolstered the support for One nation and will be seen as the bias media trying to influence the support for this minor party…

 

Ironic given that it was YOUR own extremist rightwing Rupert Murdoch who pioneered the concept of "ambush journalism" in the first place and now you have a problem when it comes back to bite you!

Only a very small subset of journalists engage in that (mal)practice but you see fit to paint ALL journalists with the same tainted brush.

That alone says volumes.

 

Interesting. How do you think you will you deal with an authoritarian government?

 

I think it was more a factor of relevance, I would publish stories based on
1:Relevance: What is relevant to the readers, the current political situation or of importance in some way to a majority of it's readers.
2: Our reader's desires, different publications appeal to different groups of readers, like for example, the environment. It's specialisation. The major media cover the "McDonald's" news while the other more focused media provide individual tastes.
3: Economics: It is no good doing anything if it sends you broke.
4: To give conspiracy theorists ammunition.