Once you learn that the Liberal Party was founded explicitly to oppose the Labor Party in Australia, and they (LNP) are heavily supported by our Billionaire media barons - it’s not hard to understand why Labor achievements are rarely widely publicised.
Thanks to the US Supreme Court, Trump rules the US like a sovereign monarch, and one hastily chosen word about him could cause him to inflict real economic pain on Australia through tariffs or other measures. With the Australian press being what it is, the voters would squarely blame Albo for job losses or inflation and sweep a Trumpist hard-right government into power at the next election. It would be far more prudent to flatter him as much as necessary, whilst channeling your disgust into quietly reducing dependency on the US by developing closer relationships with other “middle powers”.
As Will Rogers put it, diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” until you can find a rock.
Firstly, I acknowledge that you’re correct of course. Thankfully I’m not the PM and just some guy shooting the shit on social media so I can engage in this kind of reckless discourse. I’m frustrated and angry at the amount of harm people all over the world are enduring.
I don’t want to diminish the suffering of the epstein victims, because they surely deserve to be acknowledged and they deserve justice, but sadly their suffering is infinitessimal to that caused by the current crisis. Billions of people are going to endure severe financial hardship. The fertilizer shortage has a good likelihood of causing famine. It’s exasperating to point out the obvious things that everyone already knows and yet no one is willing to lay them at the feet of the buffoon that caused them.
My point is, that surely there’s a point at which the repercussions we might face become worth it, just to be on the right side of history and refuse to enable Trump any longer.
Perhaps it’s fanciful thinking but I’d like to see the middle powers take a combined stand on this.
Everyone votes and everyone votes in their perceived best interests. Which could look like anything across the political spectrum. For those of us who can agree with your sentiment, we need to recognise that there are those that perceive or recognise correctly these repercussions as insurmountable.
So a combined stance is just yielding ground to whoever isn’t a part of that stance.
That said given how much ground Labor took last election, I don’t think they would be yielding that much. But who knows, maybe most people were only 51/49 for Labor.
Actually I don’t think that people do vote in their perceived best interests at all.
My parents are elderly conservative voters. I honestly believe that if you had an earnest conversation with them about their voting habits they would ultimately concede that the left is more likely to provide better health care or better pensions for them, but God wants them to vote conservative because the left eats babies or something.
I think most people would tell you that they vote for the party or leader that has the best chance at creating what they believe to be a utopia.
Exactly, I very much meant perception and their own.
Not weather it’s founded in outcomes or not.
I think outcomes argue better that any reasoning about perception.
I voted for him but will probably vote further left in future.
I think this is a great result personally, thanks Albo! Labor pushing voters further left can only be a good thing (though I do wish they themselves would do more good while in power)
Some positives are being achieved but he is not getting the message through in a way that people see him as Labor leader in a positive way.
Once you learn that the Liberal Party was founded explicitly to oppose the Labor Party in Australia, and they (LNP) are heavily supported by our Billionaire media barons - it’s not hard to understand why Labor achievements are rarely widely publicised.
People don’t blame the media enough.
I voted for him but will probably vote further left in future.
This term Albo has moved Labor further right, trying to occupy the centre.
They’re far too supportive of israel.
They won’t say anything negative about Trump like: " he’s made catastrophic strategic error that everyone roll bear the consequences for.
Thanks to the US Supreme Court, Trump rules the US like a sovereign monarch, and one hastily chosen word about him could cause him to inflict real economic pain on Australia through tariffs or other measures. With the Australian press being what it is, the voters would squarely blame Albo for job losses or inflation and sweep a Trumpist hard-right government into power at the next election. It would be far more prudent to flatter him as much as necessary, whilst channeling your disgust into quietly reducing dependency on the US by developing closer relationships with other “middle powers”.
As Will Rogers put it, diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” until you can find a rock.
Firstly, I acknowledge that you’re correct of course. Thankfully I’m not the PM and just some guy shooting the shit on social media so I can engage in this kind of reckless discourse. I’m frustrated and angry at the amount of harm people all over the world are enduring.
I don’t want to diminish the suffering of the epstein victims, because they surely deserve to be acknowledged and they deserve justice, but sadly their suffering is infinitessimal to that caused by the current crisis. Billions of people are going to endure severe financial hardship. The fertilizer shortage has a good likelihood of causing famine. It’s exasperating to point out the obvious things that everyone already knows and yet no one is willing to lay them at the feet of the buffoon that caused them.
My point is, that surely there’s a point at which the repercussions we might face become worth it, just to be on the right side of history and refuse to enable Trump any longer.
Perhaps it’s fanciful thinking but I’d like to see the middle powers take a combined stand on this.
Everyone votes and everyone votes in their perceived best interests. Which could look like anything across the political spectrum. For those of us who can agree with your sentiment, we need to recognise that there are those that perceive or recognise correctly these repercussions as insurmountable. So a combined stance is just yielding ground to whoever isn’t a part of that stance. That said given how much ground Labor took last election, I don’t think they would be yielding that much. But who knows, maybe most people were only 51/49 for Labor.
Actually I don’t think that people do vote in their perceived best interests at all.
My parents are elderly conservative voters. I honestly believe that if you had an earnest conversation with them about their voting habits they would ultimately concede that the left is more likely to provide better health care or better pensions for them, but God wants them to vote conservative because the left eats babies or something.
I think most people would tell you that they vote for the party or leader that has the best chance at creating what they believe to be a utopia.
Exactly, I very much meant perception and their own. Not weather it’s founded in outcomes or not. I think outcomes argue better that any reasoning about perception.
I think this is a great result personally, thanks Albo! Labor pushing voters further left can only be a good thing (though I do wish they themselves would do more good while in power)
So, labor hasn’t pushed me to the left, they have moved to the centre. They’re no longer progressive.
Only an idiot would think this is good for the left.