Thread: Australia's Negative Political Climate

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Absolute Cods Wallop Culldav!!! If the electorates wanted a national they would have voted for the nationals.....They simply didn't. It doesn't matter what labors vote was. Oakshott and Windsor were voted in as Independents, which means they have no allegiance to any party otherwise they would have represented the nationals!! The Nationals are obviously on the nose, especially due to the fact they couldn't pick up these seats in these electorates!!Their electorate voted for the representative who they thought would best represent them in parliament. Their electorates have benefited as a consequence, which suggests they voted for the right people despite your negative and outright ignorant opinion. Anyone in their right or left mind would not have sided with Abbott and his sleazy appeals to get him over the line. What a heap of absolute sour graped crap!!! You lost and that's it! Your feelings are hurt, well too bad! You didn't get your own way this time around, get over it!

The truth is never “cods wallop” and allowing the people their democratic voice is not “sour grape”. Maybe only to fanatics who cannot see past their own blind agendas.

If the people in these Independents electorates wanted an ALP Government, they also could have voted for the ALP candidates in their electorate, but they didn’t - so there goes your theory out the window!

Yes. The people voted for Independent candidates, not major political parties, because the people in those electorate wanted to be represented in Parliament by candidates Independent of any major political party. But “bum fingers Oakeshott” and “no nuts Winsor” didn’t stay Independent for too long, did they? What these cretins did, was sold their electorates votes to the troll queen for bribes (a hand-full of beans).

If both these sleazy Independents were “true” Independents, they would have given their constituents their democratic rights, and called for another election regardless of bribes from either major party.

Remember how “bum fingers” was so enthralled with the media attention and spotlight that it took him thirty minutes to say something that it would take a normal person to say in thirty seconds.

You want to believe all the lies and con job, then that your prerogative.

Originally Posted by culldav

The truth is never “cods wallop” and allowing the people their democratic voice is not “sour grape”. Maybe only to fanatics who cannot see past their own blind agendas.

If the people in these Independents electorates wanted an ALP Government, they also could have voted for the ALP candidates in their electorate, but they didn’t - so there goes your theory out the window!

Yes. The people voted for Independent candidates, not major political parties, because the people in those electorate wanted to be represented in Parliament by candidates Independent of any major political party. But “bum fingers Oakeshott” and “no nuts Winsor” didn’t stay Independent for too long, did they? What these cretins did, was sold their electorates votes to the troll queen for bribes (a hand-full of beans).

If both these sleazy Independents were “true” Independents, they would have given their constituents their democratic rights, and called for another election regardless of bribes from either major party.

Remember how “bum fingers” was so enthralled with the media attention and spotlight that it took him thirty minutes to say something that it would take a normal person to say in thirty seconds.

You want to believe all the lies and con job, then that your prerogative.

The Liberals and the Nationals are opposite sides of conservatism and the voters of those electorates voted independent because they didn't want to be stuck to a Liberal Program...

The Nationals [earlier of course the Farmers Party] are freetraders while the Liberal Party is a party supposed to represent small business, from the Liberal Protectionists...

Labor on the other hand was divided by the strong right wing influence of the AWU and the SDA and NSW Labor right, who conspired to get rid of Rudd...

Originally Posted by culldav

The truth is never “cods wallop” and allowing the people their democratic voice is not “sour grape”. Maybe only to fanatics who cannot see past their own blind agendas.

If the people in these Independents electorates wanted an ALP Government, they also could have voted for the ALP candidates in their electorate, but they didn’t - so there goes your theory out the window!

Yes. The people voted for Independent candidates, not major political parties, because the people in those electorate wanted to be represented in Parliament by candidates Independent of any major political party. But “bum fingers Oakeshott” and “no nuts Winsor” didn’t stay Independent for too long, did they? What these cretins did, was sold their electorates votes to the troll queen for bribes (a hand-full of beans).

If both these sleazy Independents were “true” Independents, they would have given their constituents their democratic rights, and called for another election regardless of bribes from either major party.

Remember how “bum fingers” was so enthralled with the media attention and spotlight that it took him thirty minutes to say something that it would take a normal person to say in thirty seconds.

You want to believe all the lies and con job, then that your prerogative.

But going back to another election at the time would most likely of ended up with the same result, therefore a waste of tax payers dollars and still in the same predicament. Windsor actually spoke about the sleazy win at any cost politics of Abbott, which helped him make up his mind. Windsor is obviously a conservative, but obviously had no faith in Abbott at all, which speaks volumes about who Abbott really is. The current leadership of Abbott, Pyne and bishop are liabilities to the coalition. They are just too negative. Hockey, seemed to be a fairly decent politician until he became hopeful of the coalitions chances due to a sudden decline in the polls for labor, therefore knew his bread would potentially be buttered by Abbott and subsequently emulated his style of politics. They were obviously caught between a rock and a hard place. The best of both evils were labor and gillard, not coalition and Abbott.

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

But going back to another election at the time would most likely of ended up with the same result, therefore a waste of tax payers dollars and still in the same predicament. Windsor actually spoke about the sleazy win at any cost politics of Abbott, which helped him make up his mind. Windsor is obviously a conservative, but obviously had no faith in Abbott at all, which speaks volumes about who Abbott really is. The current leadership of Abbott, Pyne and bishop are liabilities to the coalition. They are just too negative. Hockey, seemed to be a fairly decent politician until he became hopeful of the coalitions chances due to a sudden decline in the polls for labor, therefore knew his bread would potentially be buttered by Abbott and subsequently emulated his style of politics. They were obviously caught between a rock and a hard place. The best of both evils were labor and gillard, not coalition and Abbott.

These scabby politicians have been known to blow upwards of $50million each on advertisement campaigns for re-election, and it doesn’t bother them in the least about squandering that amount of tax payer money, but ask these same scabs to spend money giving the people their democratic voice in holding another election, and suddenly they cry “poor-mouth” and advocate they don’t have the money. What a load of croc!!

These two scum-bag, morally bankrupt Independents, knew they should not have “personally” made a deal with either major political party to Govern - that’s not what the people wanted. These two Independent took away the democratic right of over 800,000 Australians and replaced that with their own two personal votes for bribes, and who knows what other personal financial gain they got as a reward. Those actions are not diplomatic, nor is it democracy; its what happens when two scabby Independents without morals, ethics or principal sell their constituents votes for person gain.

They should never have taken it upon themselves to take such a sanctimonious action as wanting to make a “deal” with one of two “devils” - they should have made the conscious decision to make sure the Government was a good one for “all” the people, or hold another election and let ’all” the people decide.

The troll queen is a pathological liar and an incompetent leader, and Manager, and Abbott is no better, but “bum fingers” Oakeshott and “no-nut” Winsor are still standing right behind the troll queen advocating she has their full confidence - what does that tell you about these cretins character.

As trustworthy as a black snake picked up by the tail!!

Originally Posted by culldav

These scabby politicians have been known to blow upwards of $50million each on advertisement campaigns for re-election, and it doesn’t bother them in the least about squandering that amount of tax payer money, but ask these same scabs to spend money giving the people their democratic voice in holding another election, and suddenly they cry “poor-mouth” and advocate they don’t have the money. What a load of croc!!

These two scum-bag, morally bankrupt Independents, knew they should not have “personally” made a deal with either major political party to Govern - that’s not what the people wanted. These two Independent took away the democratic right of over 800,000 Australians and replaced that with their own two personal votes for bribes, and who knows what other personal financial gain they got as a reward. Those actions are not diplomatic, nor is it democracy; its what happens when two scabby Independents without morals, ethics or principal sell their constituents votes for person gain.

They should never have taken it upon themselves to take such a sanctimonious action as wanting to make a “deal” with one of two “devils” - they should have made the conscious decision to make sure the Government was a good one for “all” the people, or hold another election and let ’all” the people decide.

The troll queen is a pathological liar and an incompetent leader, and Manager, and Abbott is no better, but “bum fingers” Oakeshott and “no-nut” Winsor are still standing right behind the troll queen advocating she has their full confidence - what does that tell you about these cretins character.

As trustworthy as a black snake picked up by the tail!!

Who are you suggesting would have been the government for all people. At that time the vote would never have changed and therefore would still have been a hung parliament. You don't seem to be keen on either party, so don't know what your issue really is with the independents. They had to make a decision or waste every bodies time and money for what most likely would have been the same result. Would you have been as vehement towards these guys had they sided with the coalition?

The conservatives can never rule without an uneasy alliance between the Liberals and the Nationals... Two parties more different than American Republicans and Democrats...

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Who are you suggesting would have been the government for all people. At that time the vote would never have changed and therefore would still have been a hung parliament. You don't seem to be keen on either party, so don't know what your issue really is with the independents. They had to make a decision or waste every bodies time and money for what most likely would have been the same result. Would you have been as vehement towards these guys had they sided with the coalition?

The “Government for all the people” is a Government which “all” the people have a say voting in; not just two Independents.

These sleazy, grubby, self-serving Independents realised that if they allowed the people their democratic voice by holding another election, then there was a high probability the people would changed their votes, realising if they didn’t, the same situation would occur. Therefore knowing this, these so-called grubby sanctimonious Independents also knew they wouldn't have a snow-balls chance in hell of getting re-elected, and that’s the “real” reason why they accepted the hand full of beans at the constituents democratic expense.

The recourse to betraying their constituents confidence and trust, has now permanently tarnished and seriously damaged the name ‘Independent Candidate’. Why would anyone now vote for an Independent when they can betray you, and sell your vote to anyone for their personal glorification and financial gain.

You seem to be “hung-up” on wasting money, but I don’t consider money is ever wasted in giving the people their democratic voice in the way they wish to be Governed and by who.

I did not want the Independents to sell or offer their constituents votes to either major party, because that morally and ethically was not their democratic right to do if they truly respected the people in their electorates. It was the peoples democratic right to vote in which political party “they” wanted - not just two Independents, and the people should have been allowed the second chance to accomplish this without their democracy taken away from them like they were incompetent.

Originally Posted by culldav

The “Government for all the people” is a Government which “all” the people have a say voting in; not just two Independents.

It's constitutional. If the coalition got in, I would never have complained about their constitutional rights, but who they sided with. This is where your argument is a little suspicious.

Originally Posted by culldav

These sleazy, grubby, self-serving Independents realised that if they allowed the people their democratic voice by holding another election, then there was a high probability the people would changed their votes, realising if they didn’t, the same situation would occur.

What a silly analysis, if people change their votes, how is everyone to know whether voters change from libs to labor or labor to libs to get someone across the line. That's just an outright silly statement.

Originally Posted by culldav

Therefore knowing this, these so-called grubby sanctimonious Independents also knew they wouldn't have a snow-balls chance in hell of getting re-elected, and that’s the “real” reason why they accepted the hand full of beans at the constituents democratic expense.

What I think you are trying to say is that their electorates would have voted nationals had there been another election. In this instance if they were so self indulged they would have simply sided with the coalition and still held the balance of power and ensured they had constituent votes at next election. By holding the fortunate and constitutional balance of power they were able to negotiate greater outcomes for their communities above what would have been without balance of power. You can't begrudge them of this, they found themselves in a lucky position. Again, they weren't looking to indulge on this advantage but still had national interest at heart. If they wanted to indulge they would have sided with Abbott who was promising truck loads of beans to sway their votes. They are true heroes of Australian politics. I think you will find that there will be a major shift in how people vote and it won't be major parties. You'll find that there will be an increase in independants and minor parties, which will be great for Australian politics.

Originally Posted by culldav

The recourse to betraying their constituents confidence and trust, has now permanently tarnished and seriously damaged the name ‘Independent Candidate’. Why would anyone now vote for an Independent when they can betray you, and sell your vote to anyone for their personal glorification and financial gain.

Pleassse Culldav, they put their constituents, via the fortunes of a hung parliament in a really strong position.

Originally Posted by culldav

You seem to be “hung-up” on wasting money, but I don’t consider money is ever wasted in giving the people their democratic voice in the way they wish to be Governed and by who.

For essentially the same result....yes, it would be a waste of money!

Originally Posted by culldav

I did not want the Independents to sell or offer their constituents votes to either major party, because that morally and ethically was not their democratic right to do if they truly respected the people in their electorates. It was the peoples democratic right to vote in which political party “they” wanted - not just two Independents, and the people should have been allowed the second chance to accomplish this without their democracy taken away from them like they were incompetent.

It was their constitutional right, and again was one that gave their constituents a greater voice, however you see it. They were fortunate electorates! It was still democratic and got who they wanted, which were the 2 independants who you constantly hammer. They were entrusted to vote in parliament, but happen to be handed the extra responsibility of choosing a government.

The reason the Nationals are unpopular in seats like Tamworth is because of their loyalty to the Liberal Party program which dominates the coalition...
Neither the Nationals or the Liberals could rule in their own right in any state except Queensland...
So any conservative govt is an undemocratic compromise..??? If rural electorates wanted a Liberal Govt they'd vote Liberal...

Originally Posted by tok3z

The reason the Nationals are unpopular in seats like Tamworth is because of their loyalty to the Liberal Party program which dominates the coalition...
Neither the Nationals or the Liberals could rule in their own right in any state except Queensland...
So any conservative govt is an undemocratic compromise..??? If rural electorates wanted a Liberal Govt they'd vote Liberal...

It would only be undemocratic if it was formed after an election and was united to hold office and the said parties ran as opposing entities in that election. If they ran under a coalition banner and the voter was well aware of the status of their relationship before voting it would be democratic, as the voter was fully informed prior to polling.