Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Tucker]

The real world. You should come and visit.

So who were all those mask wearing individuals who set about smashing and burning cities in protest when Trump took office? They identified themselves as belonging to a group called antifa.
Why dont they exist?

 

[Magpie_Magic]

As presented before, Hitler signed the Pact with Stalin. So just that fact would support my statement that Hitler remained on the left, even after 1930s, as he did not sign a similar pact with FDR or Chamberlain, even as "socialism/communism" was the world's trend in 1930s, e.g. FDR's the New deal. FDR sent delegations to Italy and Germany to learn from the "horse's mouth" about their methods/policies, the UK's elites were impressed with Stalin and were his supporters.
Note that even after the WW2 this trend remained, as the most Soviet's spies were recruited from their elites' (the Cambridge Spy Ring, Portland Spy Ring, Philby, Oppenheimer? etc.).
Another common interest was their "anti-imperialism", and Stalin trusted Hitler even as he received verifiable warnings through the Soviet's spy network (e.g. Sorge) that the attack was imminent. Stalin perceived the "imperialists" as the biggest threat, and he focused on elimination of his top generals and party members (e.g. Trotsky) who he perceived as "traitors", "counterrevolutionaries" and "imperialists' spies").
And the old "revolution devours its children" rhymes, if not repeats. The "useful idiots" (VI Lenin's term for the "wests' intelligencia") were the first to go. So Stalin (through NKVD- Beria, Yagoda, and their tool Kominterna) continued with elimination of any perceived opposition (the authentic communists) in many countries - e.g. Germany, Austria, Poland, Yugoslavia, France, Spain, Greece, Albania etc.

I agree with with your general assertion that the NAZIS appropriated many elements from communism and agree with many of the events mentioned as well as a strong possibility that initially at least they spawned from the left but they had few ideological connections with the communists after the early 30s.

Remember too that few in the world until at least after WW2 outside Anglophone nations had much love for capitalism.....hardly anyone owned anything of value or even had much franchise. So the communists had much appeal. They offered a "one world" solution a type of supranational concept above nation, identity and religious values. Both communists and NAZIS saw the Anglophone imperialists as a common enemy for this reason.

The far right was a reaction to this ostensibly to defend nation and cultural identity and to allow for a period of national protection until a native merchant class evolved in scale and people were encouraged to share in wealth following the breakdown of empires.

All of Europe in the 30s were run by far right governments bar France and Czechoslovakia which did have democracies with authoritarian tendencies.

Probably free and fair elections in most European countries in that period may have yielded quite a few communist victories.

Today too, the U.S. installs and "mid wifes" numerous coups and military juntas the same way where it sees a threat that many in those nations prefer hard left or communism setting up imperialism on the cheap.

Apologies for typos or poor composition as I wrote many a long essay back in the day on these type of topics but still am a one finger typer lol.

 

[earl]

Me too movement has a lot to answer for and believing people solely based upon gender is idiotic.

I'm not sure the Me Too movement created this but I completely agree with your point. It's the social/political system but as you stated previously Lisa Wilkinson and her dolt husband pushed this amongst others.

It's the same with Depp/Heard. She was just if not more abusive than he was. She completely played a game to the court system.

We need to view people as human beings and not men are bad women are good. Women can be just as abusive as men.

One thing Im not hearing anyone say about this case is that this bloke may be innocent and if he is his name has been dragged through the mud. He has been labelled guilty by large sections of the media and public without trial, lost his job and now because the trial was aborted without verdict, he is yet to prove innocence which means he carries this stain forever.
I dont begrudge him going the civil route.

Maybe he has too. He needs a big payout and to go somewhere and just disappear.

She is claiming $3M for accusing someone of rape, not proving it and getting all depressed. Thats crazy.

I don't know what her claim was. I thought she said it was for not providing a safe workplace. This to me is completely and utterly ridiculous.

To be fair she was played by people who were playing a game. When the court case was abandoned (I don't know the right word) and she made a political speech that showed to me where her and her team were coming from. Her lawyers come across as feminists playing a political game.

She should sue them and anyone who encouraged her including Fitzsimmons and Wilkinson.

Here is the bad part - if she was raped it's horrific. That is the thing that really sucks about this.

 

[earl]

So who were all those mask wearing individuals who set about smashing and burning cities in protest when Trump took office? They identified themselves as belonging to a group called antifa.
Why dont they exist?

Show me them ? How do they compare to the Jan 6th riots ?

I put money on it they are 1% at best of the Trumpists and therein lies the issue.

On top of that I believe that there are real issues to be discussed. Putin invading Ukraine, the Higgins case etc.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

No it wouldn’t support that at all. Hitler and Stalin signed the pact because it was mutually beneficial to both countries. Germany wanted to avoid fighting the Soviets in 1939 because they were unprepared to do so. The pact enabled Germany to invade Poland without the threat of Soviet military opposition. Likewise the Soviets avoided a war they felt unprepared for and were able to take half of Poland with minimal effort. This mutually agreeable understanding is in no way a tacit endorsement of each other’s political beliefs.

There was no corresponding agreement with the US because there was no reason to do so. Hitler wasn’t interested in conflict with the USA and Germany did not see an immediate threat. No pact with Chamberlain? There was a big conference and agreement in Munich after the Czechoslovakian crisis. Hitler thought the British were his natural allies. When it became clear England would go to war over Germany invading Poland, Germany did what it needed to do to buy time.

The Ribbentrop Molotov pact didn't buy any time for Germany as far as England is concerned. Hitler still believed that the British would not go to war over Poland until the allied declaration of war against Germany. Hitler was remarked as saying to Goering "what now".

But the Germans didn't really believe that Poland should exist as a nation and Stalin thought it would give him a buffer......a mistake really as it moved the Soviet military forward of their supplies and fortifications.

Stalin didn’t think or didn’t want to believe Germany would invade. Again I don’t think this was because they shared political views, he was shitscared of the German army and didn’t want to provoke them. He knew the threat was there but he was also trying to buy as much time as possible.

Communism is not the same as socialism in the same way conservatism is not the same as fascism.

Stalin forced Trotsky out because he was the biggest threat to his position. He no doubt didn’t like Trotsky’s politics but Trotsky was a more pure Marxist than Stalin. As with his approach to various communist groups post-war, his interests were driven by who he could manipulate rather than political.

Agree with all of this during the period in consideration except re Poland's invasion.

 

[earl]

Opinion​

Don’t judge the legal system for sorry saga of the Lehrmann trial​

Steve Boland​

Barrister
Updated December 5, 2022 — 3.35pm,first published at 3.30pm





The events surrounding the criminal allegations made by Brittany Higgins against Bruce Lehrmann are a lamentable example of what happens to the justice system when the principles of prudence, discretion and sobriety of judgment are set aside in favour of publicity, politics and rank ideology.
From the start of this sorry affair, people who should have known better have inserted themselves into the fray, usually to the great detriment of both parties. You would hope that with the conclusion of proceedings against Lehrmann, who has always maintained his innocence, this practice would have slowed. If anything, it has quickened. All the while, Higgins has suffered a serious decline in her mental health in circumstances that can only be described as tragic.

Bruce Lehrmann denied raping Brittany Higgins in a minister’s office at Parliament House in March 2019.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen
Consider the remarks of ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold, SC. On announcing the charge against Lehrmann was to be dropped, Drumgold praised the “bravery, grace and dignity” of Higgins, and asked that she be given time “to heal” after facing “a level of personal attack that I’ve not seen in over 20 years of doing this work”.
While this may be true, there is a serious question as to whether it is appropriate for a DDP, who has a duty to the administration of justice rather than to individual complainants, to make public remarks of this kind. Drumgold said nothing of the presumption of innocence or whether Lehrmann may also need time “to heal”. Nor should he have. And that is the point.

And what of the substance of Drumgold’s observations? Has he ever seen a sexual assault complainant consciously eschew the protection of anonymity that is legally available to every sexual assault complainant in ACT criminal proceedings? If the answer is “no”, or “only on a very limited number of occasions”, Drumgold’s placement of Higgins’ experience on a spectrum of 20 years of practice is meaningless.

Related Article​

Opinion​

Lehrmann trial​

Attacks on Higgins outside court were something new. Inside it, not so much​

Julia Quilter​

Legal academic
The fact is there was nothing normal about the Lehrmann trial, which occurred under a glare of unceasing publicity. Such matters are invariably tried in conditions of anonymity, which is a statutory right afforded to the complainant.
There have been other public servants whose conduct in relation to these matters has been questionable. Scott Morrison’s notorious parliamentary apology to Higgins plumbed a new depth. Whatever political advantage Morrison perceived, the potential prejudice that could have been occasioned to a fair trial by a person of the prime minister’s stature in making a comment of this kind, before a jury was even empanelled, is impossible to miss.
This occurred against the backdrop of alleged “political interference” in the investigation stage of the Lehrmann case, according to the ACT police manager of criminal investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller (who says he would not have charged Lehrmann, but the decision was apparently taken out of his hands). This chilling allegation by a senior AFP officer warrants a full accounting of the “political interference” being referred to, particularly given the implicitly political context in which the trial unfolded.

And what of Tanya Plibersek? On the day of Drumgold’s announcement, she published the following comment on social media: “Survivors of sexual assault know that convicting perpetrators is the exception, not the rule. This has to change.”

Related Article​

Opinion​

Lehrmann trial​

Women are furious about the Lehrmann trial outcome. Men should be too​

Jenna Price​

Columnist and academic
There is enough plausible deniability in this comment to avoid the imputation that she was referring directly to Higgins and Lehrmann, but only just. And there is enough ambiguity in the comment to delight a receptive crowd without the inconvenience of condescending to a serious policy discussion.
Is she calling for law reform? If so, what precisely is she suggesting given the strong procedural protections that are now offered to sexual assault complainants in criminal prosecutions? Perhaps an erosion of the criminal standard of proof which has been the cornerstone of civilised society for centuries? As a minister of the Crown, Plibersek might humour the public by explaining exactly what she meant.
Perhaps at the same time she might also use her public reach to explain that, aside from the legal availability of anonymity to all sexual assault complainants, such persons may never need to set foot in a courtroom at all – as a statutory starting point, such evidence is given from a remote witness facility.

And before we grant an audience to ambiguous calls for “change”, the public ought to be reminded that Higgins’ experience is not the experience of sexual assault complainants generally. This is not to suggest that Higgins wasn’t perfectly entitled to take the course she took, but the public must be informed that Higgins’ name was only ever published because she specifically chose to approach the media with her allegation.
The broader point is this – superficial public utterances by persons in high office do not advance the administration of justice in any respect, and usually have the opposite effect. They do not set a foundation for legitimate discussions of law reform, which has occurred in this area by quantum leaps over recent decades in any event. Instead, they perpetuate outmoded stereotypes of our justice system and perhaps deter victims from coming forward. And there is apparently no consequence to any of it.

ACT DPP Shane Drumgold announced the re-trial of Bruce Lehrmann would not go ahead.Credit:Rhett Wyman
Lisa Wilkinson puts at risk a criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court – and what institutional consequence have we seen for her?
Drumgold lauds the “bravery” of a person whose allegation remains unproven, immediately following the execution of his duty as a detached Crown prosecutor – and what becomes of that?

Higgins delivers a speech on the courthouse steps impugning the criminal justice system while a prosecution is on foot in which she is the complainant – who makes the decision as to whether she will be prosecuted for contempt; Drumgold?
Morrison uses parliamentary privilege ahead of a highly publicised criminal trial – where is the consequence for that?
And cabinet minister Plibersek speaks of “survivors” and “perpetrators” before the din of Drumgold’s press conference has even died down.
A rot has taken hold at the core of our institutions. But it has nothing to do with the state of the law, and everything to do with the fealty of our public officials to the time-honoured principles upon which our society was built. Worse, there appears to be a total lack of consequence and accountability when there may be cause to investigate whether those principles have been hung out to dry. If you want to talk about change, that would be an excellent place to start.

 

[Yossarian]

The Ribbentrop Molotov pact didn't buy any time for Germany as far as England is concerned. Hitler still believed that the British would not go to war over Poland until tne allied declaration of war against Germany. Hitler was remarked as saying to Goering "what now".

But the Germans didn't really believe that Poland should exist as a nation and Stalin thought it would give him a buffer......a mistake really as it moved the Soviet military forward of their supplies and fortifications.

Agree with all of this during the period in consideration except re Poland's invasion.

Bought time re fighting the USSR. But I agree with your other assessments. The attitude of Poland’s neighbours to their independence has been pretty ambivalent over the centuries. I don’t think the Germans thought Britain would actually go to war over Poland.

 

[earl]

I just read that article. It sums up my thoughts on this trial. It was farcical.

There are lot of interesting points in that article but two that stand out to me:-

1. Detective Superintendent Scott Moller apparently said he wouldn't have laid charges against Lehrmann but the decision was taken out of his hands.
2. Higgins could have remained anonymous and instead choose to go to the media.

I'm astounded there hasn't been an up cry against this whole case and people aren't made accountable.

 

[Tucker]

Show me them ? How do they compare to the Jan 6th riots ?

I put money on it they are 1% at best of the Trumpists and therein lies the issue.

On top of that I believe that there are real issues to be discussed. Putin invading Ukraine, the Higgins case etc.

You can do your own research, its not hard to find.
Very similar to the Jan riot people but even more cowardly as they totally hide their identities.

 

[Tucker]

I just read that article. It sums up my thoughts on this trial. It was farcical.

There are lot of interesting points in that article but two that stand out to me:-

1. Detective Superintendent Scott Moller apparently said he wouldn't have laid charges against Lehrmann but the decision was taken out of his hands.
2. Higgins could have remained anonymous and instead choose to go to the media.

I'm astounded there hasn't been an up cry against this whole case and people aren't made accountable.

You and I agree on this case.
This woman has been championed as a brave survivor of a hideous sexual assault. She has been invited to speak at the press club as well as other gabfests. She has become a mini celebrity, milking this for all its worth, all the while continually stating this guy is 100% guilty. Even when she failed to have him convicted, she cried on the steps of the courthouse, again stating he did it.
She chose to go public with it. She signed a tell all book deal. She did the interview. There was even some mention that the ACT Government was fast tracking amendments to video recorded testimonials to be used for the retrial, thus preventing Higgins from having to testify again.
All of this stuff has resulted in nothing.
Now we have to give her space as she recovers from mental health issues that her own actions certainly didn't help and likely exacerbated.

On the other side of the coin, Lehrman has not only said allegations of rape are false, he didn't even have sex with her. That barely rates a mention apparently.

 

[Tucker]

I hope it is the same for your child, else they may end up writing about flat earth and the like, and I trust that you will accurately inform of his/her heritage.

Why would they write about flat earth and the like?
Its far more likely they will be forced to write papers on why white people are evil and transgender women are real women.
Additionally, how dare you assume to lecture me on how to raise my child and explain his heritage? Who the hell do you think you are? Take a step back pal.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Despite many bombastic statements often filled with some BS Trump done more for the marginal in the U.S. than anybody else except for JFK.

Nothing like opportunity, a strong economy and peace to encourage tolerance and self respect leading to wider acceptance .

Trump to a certain respect broke the shackles of American deep state and neo conservatives upending to a large degree a cycle of sponsoring foreign coups, wars declared or otherwise.

For this he deserves some credit.

On the other hand I can't think of any single useful policy achievement from the Biden administration.

His foreign policy warmongering and brinkmanship is actually quite pathetic.

Foreign policy aside, can you please point to the policy and legislation that the Trump government passed that decidely changed the economic direction of the country from that of his forbear in the office, as I cannot recall one? That includes the USMCA and deregulation.

Pretty well everything that I have seen basically shows rising performance that was equal or better in the foundation created under Obama for the marginal. That said, some of the earlier decisions under his administration were poor.

Have never stated that the US wasn't performing during his term, as it was, just not because of Trump, rather that, apart from the disproportionate tax cuts to the wealthy and buybacks under the same legislation, his basically doing nothing substantial allowed it to continue to prosper.

Along with the nation's debt on the back of those cuts, the trade defecit gap also soared to highs back in the Bush day's, even if he reduced the China portion of it.

I would argue that the child tax credit policy under Biden is something that made huge change, lifting so many of the marginal from poverty. Such a tragedy that the more fossil fuel and pharmaceutical (alleged nepotism) company minded Joe Manchin originally only allowed it for six months and then scuttled it's extension.

 

[earl]

Even when she failed to have him convicted, she cried on the steps of the courthouse, again stating he did it.

It's even worse than what you are stating. She didn't just do this. She made a political spiel. She was backed up by all and sundry. I don't want to hang more crap on Morrison and I don't want to crucify him for this because the pressure was intense and he is a politician but he apologized to her.

What if she lied ?
Why did she make herself a public figure ?
Why are people saying the system doesn't work and arguing it should be easier to convict men of sexual crimes ? Should we just lock people up based on calling them a witch or something equally medieval.
Why was the DPP praising Higgins ?

I'm seriously astounded by this one.

 

[earl]

can you please point to the policy and legislation that the Trump government passed that decidely changed the economic direction of the country from that of his forbear in the office

He can't have been serious in his comments. There have been very few leaders of western democracies that have made a big difference to the country they govern. It's just not the way it works.

The economy does what it does and that impacts people the most.

I'd argue Trump was and is one of the worst politicians I've ever seen in a western democracy.

Let's be clear though and this is another line from Charles Barkley. It won't impact my life at all whoever is in government. Trump actually was so bad because he did impact people's lives but he did it negatively.

 

[Tim Sheens]

The reality is both your and in @InBenjiWeTrust posts re this topic are accurate at different times during the development and subsequent democratically elected ascent to power of the NAZI party.

And as for murdering minorities, weakening unions and working with private industrialists the same is true for far left regimes.

Can agree with most of that.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Just put the trolls on ignore. There's some respectful intelligent posters on either side of politics on here. Then there's the shitposter cohort...

Rule 3 of the far lefty playbook

 

[Winston Churchill]

And that's the issue. I've tried to engage in rational debate but they're not interested. It's not even the viewpoints that bother me, it's the constant childish trolling and name-calling.

This guy never lets up. The shame and embarrassment of being so transparently fake. Imagine going through life being this delusional.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I certainly won't be taking any cues from an arrogant, racist snob like you.
You have a god damned hide you disgusting piece of filth.

Hahahahaha, basically the totally opposite response from all that I encounter, but unsurprised from someone that leads with "pal".

 

[Winston Churchill]

It's hilarious especially when they have the same opinion on basically every issue.

They've created this system that is out to get them and it's everywhere they look.

I stated for instance and we can disagree on the court system. My view on climate change isn't that the world is ending and we are dying but I also believe climate change is real. We can have nuanced viewpoints but they don't seem to have nuanced viewpoints.

The echo chamber you live in is called an echo chamber.

 

[Winston Churchill]

If women are getting raped in the Ukraine via Russian soldiers is that something you would consider wrong ?

If the Russians are killing civilians do you believe that is wrong ?

If this was happening would you change your viewpoint ?

Take your time prior to responding to this because if you believe these acts are wrong then you are in a dilemma. You would have to admit that the sources of your information are wrong and probably Russian propaganda.

I'm actually right in this instance and you are wrong. That is the facts.

Just to be clear you are supportive of a dictatorial regime who invades another country without a good reason and is killing and raping civilians. I really hope you are delusional because if you aren't then you are a bad human being.

3 pages ago you were saying Higgins personal testimony wasn't enough. But now we see because these videos support your extreme far left views 'believe all women'

The pure definition of the lefty double standard and hypocrisy on full display for all to see.

This is the part where if i could be bothered id attach all those claims from you and your lefty comrades of wanting a fair and honest discussion, just to rub it in a little more.