That should put paid to the myth that Trump is ‘the antidote to all the wars’.

I always thought that the argument ‘no wars were started during his presidency’ was bullshit.

He was educated. Didn’t make him smart.

I’d say the entire Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison trifecta was terrible.

Abbott was definitely out of his depth as PM, he never stopped being the leader of the opposition and was always pugilistic, impulsive and didn’t think things through. He promised stable leadership but didn’t have his party under enough control to ensure it - probably because he sort of skated into the role because those who the party actually wanted didn’t make it. He got into power on the back of a campaign focused on debt and deficit, but had no policies to address it and I don’t think he ever intended to. He played his pet issues but was aggressively ineffective at everything else.

Turnbull was a devastating disappointment. Hated by his own party, only used as a more popular and sensible replacement for the ousted Abbott, but never having any party backing for his agenda. I’d say he flamed out, but he was never even on fire. Reneged on his promises and ambitions for fear of reprisals from his party - a spineless creature whose years in power were an absolute waste and a net loss for the country.

And then of course Morrison. A sociopath who bradbury’d into the role because enough people in the party room had the self-awareness to realise Dutton as party leader would be a disaster. Obviously Morrison schemed his way through that entire leadership crisis and lied whenever he opened his mouth, not least when professing his support for the embattled Turnbull. He was probably the most useless PM, out of the country in times of crisis and actively refusing to show leadership. Not to mention the shameful mishandling of the pandemic.

Collectively these three set back social, economic and political development in this country back by at least a decade. We’re all worse off thanks to the nine years of having these three clowns in power.

Howard was to Australia what Thatcher was to the UK and Reagan to the US. He ushered in neoliberalism and set the Liberal Party on an accelerated course towards right wing christian fundamentalism.

That’s nice, but how does that help people who, to this day, can’t get any ‘NBN’ other than satellite?

Lucky Number Slevin

Man On Fire

Syriana

Equilibrium

And for some solid Australian cinema: Mystery Road

Because he has no plan to address the causes of crime, only a plan for harsher punishments. So he has no realistic way of reducing victim numbers.

No surprises here.

It still means that fewer young people commit crimes than what used to be the case. It’s not like people stopped having children. And if the youths who used to commit crimes are now adults who commit crimes, they no longer class as youth crimes.

If the Libs win, I hope they go full Newman again and get kicked out after one term. I’m not exactly enamoured with QLD Labor but bloody hell anything is better than the toxic Libs in this state.

If only you could see the ‘newspapers’ in Queensland, every other front page has ‘young crims’ scaremongering and they make it sound like Townsville and such are hellholes where people are terrorised by young criminals day and night without reprieve.

Weird how the LNP’s only answer to this is ‘adult crime, adult time’. Like, literally, zero policies on how to prevent youth crime, how to help children with better education and more perspectives for their future. Nothing. Just harsher punishments.

If a woman seeks abortion at that stage, it is almost guaranteed to be due to a condition that would seriously endanger her, the baby, or both, if the pregnancy was carried to term. Nobody just decides after 27 weeks that they simply don’t want the baby. In these cases, inducing to deliver the baby will likely not help the baby and it could still seriously harm the mother.

What this guy proposes would be, in most cases, indistinguishable from an abortion, but way more harmful for everyone involved. It’s telling that it is usually men who try to push these kinds of law.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with it being an interest-free loan, if it serves to keep a business over water and saves jobs. To me that’s an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. I’m all for taxpayer subsidies if they are balance-positive to the taxpayer, i.e. jobs are preserved and the subsidies result in meaningful economic activity.

What’s bad is when otherwise profitable businesses use threats of job cuts and closures to obtain taxpayer bailouts so they can keep paying big bonuses and shareholder dividends. A lot of that happened through COVID, and the taxpayer threw billions at big business for very little in return. So maybe restrictions on layoffs and such would need to be written into a system like that. The punitive aspects need to incentivise the intended behaviour and strongly disincentivise the wrong behaviour.

Isn’t that pretty much the short version of what I said?

Big corporations begging taxpayer bailouts and then using them on bonuses and dividends. It’s a humongous waste of money that does nothing but enrich the wealthy. Most of the time it doesn’t even save jobs.

If, as a large corporate, you want a bailout from the taxpayer, then the government/state will take a portion of your shares in escrow, equivalent in value to the amount of money you’re asking for or getting. Those shares (in case of publicly traded companies) are withdrawn from the stock market, become non-voting shares and are frozen at their price at that time. Within a to-be-determined time period (five years maybe) the corporation, if it gets profitable again, can buy back all or part of the shares from the government at that price per share - thus returning money to the taxpayer. Anything that’s left after five years, the government can do with as it sees fit - sell them at market price (thus recovering the spent money), or keep them use them to vote/control the company.

There probably is a lot wrong with this proposal. But something needs to be done to discourage big business from hoovering up taxpayer money like it’s going out of fashion. Most of the time the taxpayer is getting absolutely no value from that spend.

Ask that question again when it’s a site that you need to use.

I watched the first one and know a lot of people who did. I even know people who went to see the second one.

No conspiracy detected here.

It would be more compelling if some US states weren’t also openly and unabashedly engaged in active voter suppression.

Both can be true. He can be an idiot who got paid to destroy Twitter.

The fact that this is the new (liberal) governments first priority speaks volumes. Their approach to crime is all about punishment and retaliation, not about prevention and mitigation.

Treating ten year old children like adults when they mess up is going to do them a world of harm.