@Carnot please explain to me what Identity politics is and whilst you are at it name an example where freedom of speech has been curtailed in the US or Australia. No because there isn't one. Just because some pushes back on bigoted rhetoric does not mean your freedom of speech is curtailed.
Michael

A good interview here with Francis Fukayama on Identity Politics and how it is undermining democracy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/09/18/identity-politics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7ad63ca08115

Professor Richard Dawkins got de-platformed by a Berkeley Radio station.  All because of a Tweet he wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/24/richard-dawkins-event-cancelled-over-his-abusive-speech-against-islam

And Germaine Greer gets a hard time in the UK as well:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/lehmann-greer-and-the-no-platforming-scourge/6887576

And it's a growing problem in Australia with universities routinely banning or de-platforming those with opinions that differ from the all-powerful "Department of Grievance Studies".

Do you want proof of tribalism and how it's infected American politics?  Here:

I believe your cherry picking your sources to support your rather thin argument. For instance Fukayama seems to change his mind after being caught out making outrageous statements. I would describe him as a Neo-conservative and a member of that right wing think tank the Rand Organisation. Like most conservatives (or reactionaries would be a better description) they seem to mull over a past society that probably never existed in the form they imagine.

Dawkins thinks all religions are dangerous except the Church of England which he has a soft spot for. Sometimes if you want to get your message out to a wider audience then you have to be a little diplomatic. I think a lot of Muslims are OK but misguided.

Well Greer is Greer and some of her latest rants have been bizarre to say the least. I think people are just no longer listening to her as she has passed her used by date.

In regard to the other examples you quote to support your opinion, then again these are all opinion pieces short on fact.

What is it with these right wing lunatics and conspiracy theories. They are also social bullies making unsupported outrageous statements and then cry foul when some critic with an obvious superior intellect pulls them up. Then they cry like little babies.

Do you really think the Parrot was not being a bully when he threatened to have the job of the Sydney Opera House CEO when she refused to accede to the scungy racing industry demands to spray advertising for a banal horse race over the iconic Opera House sails. The Parrot went one as though his freedom of speech had been curtailed.

Arrr, the politics of Outrage & Offence" hey!  It's always comforting and smug for the Left to say "I have a superior intellect".

As for the Opera House - leave it as a Secular shrine all bright and shiny in white, and forget about using it is a giant billboard (yes, I disagree with both ScoMo, the Parrot, Gladys B, those that projected the rainbow flag on it etc etc).  What is it with projecting colors on everything that doesn't move (i.e. the circus that is White Night or Vivid etc)?  

As for universities - why is it that ideas aren't being debated?  Why are they turning into giant echo chambers?  Is it any wonder Trump is so popular with his anti-PC politics?

I think both The Chaser and Richard Dawkins have a point:

Didn't Richard Dawkins get dumped from a speaking engagement because of that Tweet? Goes to show how sensitive people are now-days.

Didn't Richard Dawkins get dumped from a speaking engagement because of that Tweet? Goes to show how sensitive people are now-days.

Not that one.  He made a tweet critical of Islam.

Didn't Richard Dawkins get dumped from a speaking engagement because of that Tweet? Goes to show how sensitive people are now-days.

Not that one.  He made a tweet critical of Islam.

He's a long standing critic of Islam but then again he hates all religions equally.

What's interesting is the breakaway movement that seems to be taking hold on the US west coast. The US Constitution doesn't actually mention whether States can leave the Union. Maybe Abe Lincoln should have allowed the 7 states to bugger off back in 1861.There has been some discussion about how a breakup of the United States would look.  Best case scenario if this did happen would be something like the amicable Czech/Slovak split in 1993, worst case more like the former Yugoslavia:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/what_the_united_states_can_learn_from_yugoslavias_breakup.htmlHello All,

Messrs ParkesHub and Carnot are incorrect in this interpretation of the US Constitution , as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Preamble to the Constitution means that once a State or Territory has acceded to join the Union that there is no option to thereafter leave , which is why Puerto Rico has NOT become a State of the Union , as many past and current Congressmen are of the opinion that Puerto Rico may, at some future point , seek independence.

It should also be pointed out that the 1860 - 1865 Civil War was fought by the Union against the rebel Confederacy on the basis that the Confederate States, by leaving the Union, were in contempt of the Constitution.

( http://constitutionus.com/?t=Preample%20to%20the%20Constitution#preamble  )

Regards, Radioman.

Far from making it impossible, that ruling actually makes a very clear definition of the threshold for the successful passing of that decision: agreement of 38 states to make the appropriate amendment to the constitution.

I believe your cherry picking your sources to support your rather thin argument. For instance Fukayama seems to change his mind after being caught out making outrageous statements. I would describe him as a Neo-conservative and a member of that right wing think tank the Rand Organisation. Like most conservatives (or reactionaries would be a better description) they seem to mull over a past society that probably never existed in the form they imagine.

I read his book some years ago ("End of History") and even before the advent of War on Terror it seemed very unlikely that mass consumerism would overcome anything and everything.

One of the problems that I think he overlooked was the fact that poverty and imperialism in any form creates civil unrest or war and added to that poverty is the ideal breeding ground for things like Al Qaeda and Hamas.

@DonDunstan Yes there are checks and balances and Kavanagh can go against Trump. In theory yes. You do not honestly believe that is how it is going to play out do you? The whole point was to get a Conservative judge in. Abortion rights will be severely curtailed. And the Republicans calling the Dems partisan. What absolute hypocrites. They Blocked Merrick Garland from his seat.

Michael

Hello All,

with reference to "justapassenger" comment re the need for a minimum of 38 States to agree to a US Constitutional change that allows for the break up of the US , and bearing in mind the likely opposition of the national populace ( as opposed to certain segments of that populace ) I think it highly unlikely for that to occur.

It is true that some "white aryan nation" type groups have made this argument , but realistically , it is highly unlikely that a majority of potential electors who would vote on this question would go anywhere near enough to achieve a majority vote in 38 States. ( The USA does not have compulsory voting. )

One of my reasons for saying this is the ERA / Equal Rights Amendment Campaign , 1972 - 1977 , after 5 years only just reached 35 agreeing States , and thereafter ran out of steam . A proposal to break up the US is , in my view , highly unlikely to  even reach 35 States , let alone 38 or more States to ratify it.

On a related matter , in the 1970s there was a half serious proposal for Canada to become the 51st State in the event of Quebec becoming independent , which seemed a good idea until someone pointed out that Canada ( 10 Provinces and 3 Territories ) ( less Quebec ) would actually become the 51st to 62nd States , which would be a major political realignment for the expanded to 62 ( from 50 ) States. Needless to say, that idea died a quiet death.

I also think that , despite some commentary to the contrary , the US is generally both a proud nationalist and a very resilient democratic Republic , so despite the current " noise and uproar " it is unlikely that the US will break up any time soon , if ever . It should also be understood that the Civil War still has a resonance , its terrible cost still being a feature of school curriculums.

Regards, Radioman.

Hello All,

with reference to "justapassenger" comment re the need for a minimum of 38 States to agree to a US Constitutional change that allows for the break up of the US , and bearing in mind the likely opposition of the national populace ( as opposed to certain segments of that populace ) I think it highly unlikely for that to occur...

I read the other day that there was no mechanism for the 8 southern states to exit the Union - if there had been there may not have been a civil war. Lincoln wasn't going to the let South exit anyway, they would have been an (another) industrial and military rival at time when the US was just starting to build a navy and their own colonisation/territorial expansion (ie Alaska).

Oh please. It's on the record that she raised this with her family years ago. This is how it generally plays out with plaintiffs. Stop victim blaming. She's been married since 2002 with 2 children so she doesn't appear to be "unhappy" or "divorced".

With respect to sex abuse? It's the same across the board. With sex abuse in an institutional sense? Let me tell you that there's not this magical "ton of evidence". I know this better than you ever will (which is probably good for you). Sexual assault is just that right across society.

In respect of Kavanaugh, the FBI were constrained by the Senate as to whom they could interview and produce in evidence. It was a setup by McConnell.

.....What really sank her case was her fear of flying and claustrophobia which supposedly came about as a result of the sexual assault. Her own lawyers said she was too afraid to fly to Washington D.C. to testify but then it turns out she's actually a rather frequently flyer but had suddenly developed a case of "afraid to fly".....

I can't locate anything about this 'too afraid to fly' stuff. Would like to though. Can you please post a link?

Kavanaugh is on the bench now, he can do the exact opposite of what he told Trump he'd do and there's not a damn thing the President can do about it. Despite the hysteria there are in fact checks and balances in the United States government that keep the Executive and the Judiciary somewhat at arm's length from each other.

Your vigorous support of any of Thump's decisions is to be expected. It's a huge victory for one side of US politics.

It always comes back to the bottom line, so ask yourself
- Why does the Republican Party (or The Conservatives, or The Liberal Party) exist
- Who are its principle benefactors and why
- What is their legislative history, both what they supported and what they opposed

Scorpion and frog, seems you'll believe the scorpion every time.

Your vigorous support of any of Thump's decisions is to be expected. It's a huge victory for one side of US politics.

Hey, you love the ALP to bits and what have they ever done for anyone other than themselves? And here's a tip for you - Shorten will be the Prime Minister who presides over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

I can't locate anything about this 'too afraid to fly' stuff. Would like to though. Can you please post a link?

This is fading into history already - I don't have a link but I'll tell you what I read. Christine Blasey Ford's lawyers told the court that she was too afraid to fly because of the Kavanaugh incident. But then it turns out she was a frequent flyer and had never, ever demonstrated problems with getting on a plane until she made the sexual abuse public. But even then she managed to get onto a plane and fly across the United States to testify.

Your vigorous support of any of Thump's decisions is to be expected. It's a huge victory for one side of US politics.

Hey, you love the ALP to bits and what have they ever done for anyone other than themselves? And here's a tip for you - Shorten will be the Prime Minister who presides over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Don. You are just really trolling now. Unfortunately Labor always seems to be the preferred party when the economic extravaganza presided over by the reactionaries starts to come unstuck. It took Labor to prevent a complete economic collapse after the GFC via a little Keynesian pump priming.

But did Labor receive any thanks? Not on your Nelly as the reactionaries blamed them for every death associated with capitalists installing roof insulation on the cheap. Reminds me of the old Bob Dylan song 'The pumps don't work because the vandals stole the handles'.

And what are the NSW reactionaries doing about anything in particular? Getting into bed with the parasitic horse cruelty industry to desecrate the Opera House. Seems like the dying days of the Roman Empire are close.

Hello All,

not quite sure why the controversy over turning the Sydney Opera House into an illuminated billboard ended up in the "Welcome to Trump Town" thread , but here goes !

The late John Clarke and Co could have written this saga as a comedy on Sydney , but instead we have real people creating the absurdity of a Horse Racing and Betting promotion coinciding with the NSW Government's Gambling Awareness Week Campaign , with a State Premier seen to be bowing to the demands of a rude, arrogant, and loudmouthed racing horse owner , at the expense of a senior Public Servant trying to uphold State Government Policy.

And to top it of, this particular race horse owning radio shock jock, after verbally abusing, and threatening to have the said Public Servant sacked for trying to maintain Government Policy, makes an apology to his radio audience to the effect that he did not like his own commentary, but neglecting to apologise the recipient of his verbal abuse !

We also have a State Premier, who is not only seen to cave into a radio commentator, but refusing to accept a Public Petition signed by 290,000 people , whereas the race horse owning radio commentator has an estimated audience of 100,000 ; whose opinions clearly have more influence than 290,000 petitioners !

( The fact that you receive a Petition does not mean you have to agree with it , and the Premier is clearly indicating that she is more afraid of potentially offending an estimated 100,000 radio listeners than she is of actually offending 290,000 petitioners who submitted the petition. )

When it comes to satire, real life has trumped it again.

Regards, Radioman.

Your vigorous support of any of Thump's decisions is to be expected. It's a huge victory for one side of US politics.

Hey, you love the ALP to bits and what have they ever done for anyone other than themselves? And here's a tip for you - Shorten will be the Prime Minister who presides over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Just because you have this obsessive need to "hate" Labor and in this thread the Democrats, it doesn’t mean I have to "love" them
I’m simply pointing out for all your concern about the poor, the side you "hate" far less is counterintuitive; unless you believe in trickle-down economics, Medicare and welfare are socialist, private is always better than public and things like worker, consumer and environmental protection don’t matter.
As for your running the country broke hysterics, I don’t lose sleep over deficits. Thump doesn't give a rats. Even the current mob here have adopted a more fluid stance and now it's all about 'forward estimates'.

I can't locate anything about this 'too afraid to fly' stuff. Would like to though. Can you please post a link?

This is fading into history already - I don't have a link but I'll tell you what I read. Christine Blasey Ford's lawyers told the court that she was too afraid to fly because of the Kavanaugh incident. But then it turns out she was a frequent flyer and had never, ever demonstrated problems with getting on a plane until she made the sexual abuse public. But even then she managed to get onto a plane and fly across the United States to testify.

Here is a link: https://qz.com/1405027/kavanaugh-hearing-christine-blasey-fords-fear-of-flying-probed/

You can be afraid to fly and yet still fly when needed.

Edit: AND the actual video of what was asked and was answered:


https://youtu.be/Zd5t8m_-SS0

Your vigorous support of any of Thump's decisions is to be expected. It's a huge victory for one side of US politics.

Hey, you love the ALP to bits and what have they ever done for anyone other than themselves? And here's a tip for you - Shorten will be the Prime Minister who presides over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Just because you have this obsessive need to "hate" Labor and in this thread the Democrats, it doesn’t mean I have to "love" them
I’m simply pointing out for all your concern about the poor, the side you "hate" far less is counterintuitive; unless you believe in trickle-down economics, Medicare and welfare are socialist, private is always better than public and things like worker, consumer and environmental protection don’t matter.As for your running the country broke hysterics, I don’t lose sleep over deficits. Thump doesn't give a rats. Even the current mob here have adopted a more fluid stance and now it's all about 'forward estimates'.

Social Democrat, Not socialist. Socialism is about ridding the World of capitalism. Social democrats build up welfare states to soften the impact of capitalism

Your vigorous support of any of Thump's decisions is to be expected. It's a huge victory for one side of US politics.

Hey, you love the ALP to bits and what have they ever done for anyone other than themselves? And here's a tip for you - Shorten will be the Prime Minister who presides over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Just because you have this obsessive need to "hate" Labor and in this thread the Democrats, it doesn’t mean I have to "love" them
I’m simply pointing out for all your concern about the poor, the side you "hate" far less is counterintuitive; unless you believe in trickle-down economics, Medicare and welfare are socialist, private is always better than public and things like worker, consumer and environmental protection don’t matter.
As for your running the country broke hysterics, I don’t lose sleep over deficits. Thump doesn't give a rats. Even the current mob here have adopted a more fluid stance and now it's all about 'forward estimates'.

G'day all,

No government should run a surplus. Break even, yes. If you have $20 billion surplus you have removed this sum of money out of the economy and put it into the treasury bank where it will do the country no good.

Regards,

You can be afraid to fly and yet still fly when needed.

So flying on overseas holidays doesn't count as voluntary - that's "needed". Good to know.

You can be afraid to fly and yet still fly when needed.

So flying on overseas holidays doesn't count as voluntary - that's "needed". Good to know.

Twisting my words and Sarcasm aside. Yes you can "need" to fly when going on vacation.

This is being blown up to make her look unreliable. Plenty of people are nervous or afraid of flying but still fly, even on vacation. I know quite a few. She said she was afraid of flying but still flew - so what? - what possible bearing does this have on the matter at hand.

You can be afraid to fly and yet still fly when needed.

So flying on overseas holidays doesn't count as voluntary - that's "needed". Good to know.

This is the full extent of Mitchell questioning Blasey Ford in respect of flying:-



Mitchell also drilled into Ford’s reported fear of flying, with the apparent implication that because she professed a fear of flying and has yet often flown for work or pleasure, she may not be entirely trustworthy in her claims.

“When you were here back in August, end of July, August, how did you get here?” Mitchell asked Ford.
“Also by airplane,” she said. “I come here once a year during the summer to visit my family.”
“In fact, you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you have had to fly for your work,” Mitchell continued. “Is that true?”
“Correct, unfortunately,” Ford said.
“I also saw you talked about Hawaii, Polynesian islands. Have you been to all of those places?” Mitchell said.
“Correct,” Ford said.

Sounds like no support for your contention: "...But then it turns out she was a frequent flyer and had never, ever demonstrated problems with getting on a plane until she made the sexual abuse public...."

Sounds like no support for your contention: "...But then it turns out she was a frequent flyer and had never, ever demonstrated problems with getting on a plane until she made the sexual abuse public...."

Twisting my words and Sarcasm aside. Yes you can "need" to fly when going on vacation. This is being blown up to make her look unreliable. Plenty of people are nervous or afraid of flying but still fly, even on vacation. I know quite a few. She said she was afraid of flying but still flew - so what? - what possible bearing does this have on the matter at hand.

You both look ridiculous. Someone can have a fear of flying but they still fly frequently? It's not exactly a disabling condition when it doesn't really affect your behavior... at all.

Sounds like no support for your contention: "...But then it turns out she was a frequent flyer and had never, ever demonstrated problems with getting on a plane until she made the sexual abuse public...."

Twisting my words and Sarcasm aside. Yes you can "need" to fly when going on vacation. This is being blown up to make her look unreliable. Plenty of people are nervous or afraid of flying but still fly, even on vacation. I know quite a few. She said she was afraid of flying but still flew - so what? - what possible bearing does this have on the matter at hand.

You both look ridiculous. Someone can have a fear of flying but they still fly frequently? It's not exactly a disabling condition when it doesn't really affect your behavior... at all.

I will give you a personal example. I have a fear of speaking in public, I do it semi regularly - why? because it allows me opportunities I would not otherwise have. The benefits outweigh the cost in stress. If I had not done it, it would have somewhat debilitated my career and ability to support my family.

You cant have the job and interests she has and not travel, for sure some of the travel is discretionary, but again many people who fear flying, fly, - they overcome it. get it?

I will give you a personal example. I have a fear of speaking in public, I do it semi regularly - why? because it allows me opportunities I would not otherwise have. The benefits outweigh the cost in stress. If I had not done it, it would have somewhat debilitated my career and ability to support my family.

You cant have the job and interests she has and not travel, for sure some of the travel is discretionary, but again many people who fear flying, fly, - they overcome it. get it?

No - not equivalent. In this case what was being said was that the person had suffered a disability as a result of a trauma - only the disability was proven to be pretty much not at all disabling.

It's like saying "I'm allergic to peanuts and if I eat one I'll die. So I only eat them occasionally".