Australian Politics Forum - An election which will not resolve anything

Grappler Truth Teller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 86578
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: An election which will not resolve anything
Reply #30 - Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:44pm

Now, Grasshoppers... let us expand this argument a further step.. one which I feel has absolute relevance here....

Why should those who stand to benefit most from setting the voting rules be the very ones to make those rules, and to hold the power to alter them? Should not the rules be set by a totally independent, non-partisan body outside of influence by those most set to benefit?

**hear that bell tolling** .. it is loud and clear.....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: An election which will not resolve anything
Reply #31 - Mar 28^th, 2016 at 7:13pm

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power.

Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog.

So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count.

Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties....

You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc....

you might want to try and define 'bad legislation'. If you mean it opposes their political persuasion then that doesnt make it bad at all.

I said if before, but your concept of democracy is quite flawed. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day.

Majority to rule does not mean majority to dictate.. thanks for coming. It is YOUR concept of democracy that is flawed. No mandate, even if accepted to be such, translates to tyranny and dictatorship of the elected majority government.....

To prevent such a thing is precisely why we have democracy......

If it opposes their political persuasion..... they are there at the will of the people according to the rules.... the ONLY question relevant about the current changes is whether or not it accords with the will of the people and renders just and proper democracy through the ballot box. Weighting the voting method so as to ensure you control both houses is an act of some petty Third World dictator.... and is emphatically anti-democratic....

'Whenever we leave principles and clear positive laws we are soon lost in the wild regions of imagination and possibility where arbitrary power sits upon her brazen throne and governs with an iron scepter' .

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws."

- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

then you will need to define tyranny and dictatorship because it simply sounds like you think any rule, decision or ideology you dont like is dictatorship.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 86578
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: An election which will not resolve anything
Reply #32 - Mar 28^th, 2016 at 7:30pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Which ever side of our two-party (one party in disguise) government 'wins' - we the people will be the losers one way or the other, and always will be until a new party with a genuine interest in working for the electors holds power.

Again I will not be voting for either of them, nor for their sellout Greens running dog.

So you'll vote for an inconsequential independent who will serve little or no purpose in a revamped Senate following changes to electoral laws recently passed to negate the power of independents and micro-parties? Great choice - if you want your vote to not count.

Nothing inconsequential about an elected senator....... if one such holds the balance of power and refuses bad legislation... that proves the point of electing independents and minor parties....

You need to break clear of the delusion that rejecting poor governance is somehow a sin on the part of Independents etc....

you might want to try and define 'bad legislation'. If you mean it opposes their political persuasion then that doesnt make it bad at all.

I said if before, but your concept of democracy is quite flawed. democracy is supposed to allow the MAJORITY to rule while you seem to think it is okay for one senator, representing nobody in particular to accept or reject legislation as he feels like on the day.

Majority to rule does not mean majority to dictate.. thanks for coming. It is YOUR concept of democracy that is flawed. No mandate, even if accepted to be such, translates to tyranny and dictatorship of the elected majority government.....

To prevent such a thing is precisely why we have democracy......

If it opposes their political persuasion..... they are there at the will of the people according to the rules.... the ONLY question relevant about the current changes is whether or not it accords with the will of the people and renders just and proper democracy through the ballot box. Weighting the voting method so as to ensure you control both houses is an act of some petty Third World dictator.... and is emphatically anti-democratic....

'Whenever we leave principles and clear positive laws we are soon lost in the wild regions of imagination and possibility where arbitrary power sits upon her brazen throne and governs with an iron scepter' .

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws."

- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

then you will need to define tyranny and dictatorship because it simply sounds like you think any rule, decision or ideology you dont like is dictatorship.

I will refer your issue to El Presidente and the Board of Consigliores... they will advise you on what is tyranny, despotism, and dictatorship.

Meanwhile what is your view on the body set to benefit being the one that makes the rules... is this not a perfect example of each of the above? Certainly it flies in the face of democracy.

Be quick.. Downton Abbey will be on shortly.... the tyranny of reality TV will be broken.... even though they (MKR) seem now to be able to afford theme music from Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park.... must be something to do with the fossils on the show and the dead animals......

"By combining this sheep DNA with a long dead carcasse of a walrus... we can derive.. wait for it.... a shalrus steak!"

"Did he say they've got lamb chops?"

"No.. he said ram cropped.. I think that's.... you know."

"Oh,, balls...."

"No.. the.. longer version!"

Longie - both you and Armchair need to get away from the delusion that holding a majority in the lower House automatically means that you are entitled to have everything you work out passed without comment or question...

Indeed your concept of democracy is severely flawed.... we do not operate on Fuhrerbefehlen here..... now will we..... ever...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged