red baron wrote on May 19^th, 2018 at 3:52pm:


Throttled with cliches as usual but it's nice to see you know that Turnbull wants to give those same Banks a share in an $B80 windfall.

Malcolm has allowed the same policies in our Banks  that caused the 2008  GFC from which we still suffer to this day:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit...


Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 By Barry Nielsen | Updated March 19, 2018 — 6:00 AM EDT


When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage security meltdown. This contributed to a general credit crisis, which evolved into a worldwide financial crisis. Many critics have held the United States Congress - and its unwillingness to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - responsible for the credit crisis. In this article, we'll examine the extent to which Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their allies in Congress contributed to the largest financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. (For background reading, see What Caused The Great Depression?)

red baron wrote on May 19^th, 2018 at 3:52pm:

Of course Turnbull knew. He was involved. Remember the Royal Commission into the collapse of HIH? Turnbull was forced to appear at that Royal Commission and confess to his dubious conduct.

As for an "unsavoury past", that's pretty common among politicians. Turnbull's misconduct that contributed to the collapse of HIH. Bishop's unsavoury career as a lawyer litigating asbestos victims to death. A few have been jailed. It's hardly compelling when so many have a dubious past.

red baron wrote on May 19^th, 2018 at 3:52pm:

We know the government is tainted by association with corporations. The damning findings of the Banking Royal Commission isn't all. They are fighting tooth and nail against the introduction of an anti-corruption commission, which Shorten has pledged to introduce as a National Integrity Commission. What does the government know and are trying to hide?

Asserting that a Shorten government "is likely to throw the doors wide open to Country Shoppers" is baseless speculation.

On corporate misconduct and corruption, which would you prefer: a government that gets tough on it, or a government that tacitly allows it with a business-as-usual approach?

Its time wrote on May 19^th, 2018 at 5:08pm:


What if you find out that the Labor member you are choosing to vote for was a contemporary of Eddie Obeid, and offered both moral and physical support to that slimy crook?

Still good with it?

I used to be mates with a guy who was very high up in the Victorian Liberal Party, and he was a good bloke. He used to have numerous meetings with Mathew (not really a nice) Guy, where he was incessantly lied to, to maintain his support.
My second hand experience makes me believe him to be absolutely disingenuous, self absorbed, and basically a bit of an arse.

Another Liberal I know is a decent, honest, well intentioned man, serving with honour, and personal integrity intact, in Canberra.

I could happily vote for the latter, but not for either of the former options.

I would suggest finding out about your candidate before committing
to them 100%.

Surely if we want to see better results from our pollies, we need to make sure that we only support decent ones, wherever they may arise.

Bam wrote on May 20^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:



So if being forced to appear at a Royal Commission was a cause for debarments from politics; Labor would be leading?

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2018 at 3:58pm:


But it isn't is it mate....How about you comment on the Coalition opposing what has become an embarrassment for the banks and the Coalition???