Australian 2013 Federal Election Megathread

[vox nihili]

Yes, media is biased.  Pretty much all media at the moment will be biased either left or right, but you'll see more people making a fuss about right biased news because it is much more overt.

And potentially because it's a lot more prevalent during this campaign. It kind of makes sense. The industry heavies controlling newspapers aren't typically going to be die hard commies...

[simpak]

And potentially because it's a lot more prevalent during this campaign. It kind of makes sense. The industry heavies controlling newspapers aren't typically going to be die hard commies...

I guess so, but as a Liberal voter I think it's easier for me to notice when a newspaper article is leaning left perhaps.
Like it tends to annoy me so I notice it, but I can see if it aligned with your views you would potentially overlook it?
Not that I'm saying everyone is unobservant haha, I'm sure the same would happen if I read an article leaning right almost subtextually but such things don't tend to exist as often because if something leans right it definitely makes it clear that it leans right.  Plus, you can kind of group every single Murdoch paper into one category pretty quickly.

[slothpomba]

Yes, media is biased.  Pretty much all media at the moment will be biased either left or right, but you'll see more people making a fuss about right biased news because it is much more overt.

[simpak]

Australia needs free mini jar of nutella.

[slothpomba]

Australia needs free mini jar of nutella.

I'm going to lay some amazing knowledge on you. If you put those minipacks (the plastic ones) in the freezer, they solidify into a solid block and you can eat it like you would chocolate. It's hazel-nutty and chocolate-y on a ridiculous level. Use the knowledge wisely.

[simpak]

I'm going to lay some amazing knowledge on you. If you put those minipacks (the plastic ones) in the freezer, they solidify into a solid block and you can eat it like you would chocolate. It's hazel-nutty and chocolate-y on a ridiculous level. Use the knowledge wisely.

Wait but they don't really freeze right?  Like is there any crystallisation?  Because I feel like that would be gross.

[Guest]

This is the point in time when media is so biased that we lose faith in everything but Nutella.

[Shenz0r]

The pastor's stare is going to kill Rudd.

[Professor Polonsky]

As an economically right wing person

I still weep everytime

I would still say Clive Palmer is far less insane than Christine Milne. She is setting us up to welcome, accept and house refugees to an extent where we eventually have to give them the "cold shoulder" and try send them back to where they came from. Assuredly, anyone in their right mind will know that this is not plausible.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I also detest how she links climate change as a threat to global security. Frankly, it is falsely philosophical to establish a link between both.

Climate change is by far the biggest danger to global security, with perhaps the exception of nuclear terrorism.

Imagine a future where children perceive same-sex marriage as righteous.

You mean, the present?

This would even lead to conflict within religions.

Conflict within a religion is not a sufficient reason to categorically deny equality under the law to a group without any other state interest to do so.

Company satisfaction is paramount for reasons of employment and to reduce workers striking. Abbot's plan on tightening the laws to prevent workers from striking are effectively the same as preventing workers from striking entirely. Do not support him on this as that is simply limiting the freedom that workers have.

Surely, if you're interested in workers' rights, you'd support Labor? (Or the Greens, but you seem to have some personal beef with them.)

[Guest]

I still weep everytime
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Climate change is by far the biggest danger to global security, with perhaps the exception of nuclear terrorism.
You mean, the present?
Conflict within a religion is not a sufficient reason to categorically deny equality under the law to a group without any other state interest to do so.
Surely, if you're interested in workers' rights, you'd support Labor? (Or the Greens, but you seem to have some personal beef with them.)

I still weep at the state of the country as it is.

How do you identify Climate Change as the biggest danger to global security? I'm not a firm believer in Climate Change, so I might be mistaken on what you may perceive as reality.

Although I accept that same-sex marriage is considered morally correct today, many children have not realized this yet. If it is legalized, they will see it just as righteous as we see marriage between people from different races. This will inevitably be in the future.

It is a mistake to say that I would "surely support Labor" based on one policy. According to the results from votecompass that I posted earlier, you will see that I am not entirely one sided. I doubt you (or anyone else) hold 100% support on a single side, whether it be ALP, LNP or Greens.
I would argue that even politicians are bipartisan. They need to integrate their belief on more policies to gain voters' support. It's politics. Hence why people grow out of it.

[vox nihili]

I still weep at the state of the country as it is.

How do you identify Climate Change as the biggest danger to global security? I'm not a firm believer in Climate Change, so I might be mistaken on what you may perceive as reality.

Although I accept that same-sex marriage is considered morally correct today, many children have not realized this yet. If it is legalized, they will see it just as righteous as we see marriage between people from different races. This will inevitably be in the future.

It is a mistake to say that I would "surely support Labor" based on one policy. According to the results from votecompass that I posted earlier, you will see that I am not entirely one sided. I doubt you (or anyone else) hold 100% support on a single side, whether it be ALP, LNP or Greens.
I would argue that even politicians are bipartisan. They need to integrate their belief on more policies to gain voters' support. It's politics. Hence why people grow out of it.

Climate change is the biggest danger to global security because it has the potential to exterminate large proportions, if not all, of the human population. Particularly when coupled with our exponential population growth, it provides a massive and ever present danger.
Saying you don't believe in climate change is kind of like rejecting gravity...





Well said Polonium (Y)

[Guest]

Climate change is the biggest danger to global security because it has the potential to exterminate large proportions, if not all, of the human population. Particularly when coupled with our exponential population growth, it provides a massive and ever present danger.
Saying you don't believe in climate change is kind of like rejecting gravity...





Well said Polonium (Y)

I said "I'm not a firm believer in climate change, although I am a firm believer in gravity, LOL. There are many misconceptions about climate change making it always unclear of what people have in their mind when they talk of this matter. I would rather refer to the notion of climate change as "Climate Shift", although they aren't exactly identical. Climate change is more-so the long term effects of Climate Shift. With that being said, Climate Shift is necessary. It is partly what's responsible for the weather change in seasons. It is also partly the reason why the weather in Melbourne can be so abrupt in changing. The Greens aim of tackling long term effects of climate shift (climate change) may not be sustainable; at least in my point of view. As exclaimed in the media before, such changes are rushed and unnecessary.

[Russ]

Climate change is the biggest danger to global security because it has the potential to exterminate large proportions, if not all, of the human population. Particularly when coupled with our exponential population growth, it provides a massive and ever present danger.
Saying you don't believe in climate change is kind of like rejecting gravity...

More so because it has a lot of flow on effects on individual populations that lead to conflict and instability on a regional level, that subsequent have their own flow on effects into destabilizing wider areas. It's not just a long term thing that'll get us. And climate change is a much more debatable topic than gravity (tbf I'm not much of a physicist so it might actually be more complicated than this but lol)

[simpak]

Yes but the problem with that attitude is the problem with every kind of voting attitude ever.  That is, immediacy v. foresight.  Unfortunately it's difficult to force people to vote based on future outcomes rather than immediate outcomes.  It's like 'if I vote for this party today I will get my education reform/tax cut/road build tomorrow' cf. 'if I vote for this party the human race might not die in x years for which I will not even be alive'.  Most voters will just vote based on immediacy and their own interests and money at the end of the day.

Also, the way the mass media paints climate change is more what I just stated above or what t-rav said (ie: human race doesn't die) rather than the point Russ was making which is a more immediate threat than the human race seeing drastic negative impact on survival.

What point am I trying to make here?  I don't even know I THINK WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS: you can't dismiss something just because you don't think it's happening /right now/ because it's still relevant and sometimes it has ramifications that are less obvious and that are going to happen right now.  Bed...would be a good place to go.

[alondouek]

I am not against the fact that when Climate Change is truly occurring, our Nation and it's people will be at danger. I am against the proposal that climate change is occurring NOW. It's only Climate Shift that we are witnessing. People like to term it with it's long term implications to perhaps draw more attention from the public.

I've studied a bit of climate change science - climate change is always happening; it always has and always will. Climate by nature is not a stable thing. The issue here is that industrialisation, population growth and demand expedites the long-term effect of climate change which poses immediate risk due to vulnerabilities in fragile ecosystems and in poorer countries will lower-quality infrastructure and social stability.

Even if climate change was not "occurring NOW", it's still happening. As a generation, we need to limit artificial contribution to the phenomenon.

Also, the fact that climate change is used as a political issue is depressing. Politics, stop co-opting scientific issues