The All Things Political Topic - All people love themselves too much to be changed by something as simple as love.

[Chairchucker]

34 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Great way to start the week with my favorite hottie on the right, nothing like humor to make political points. Their facial expressions and imitations of accents  is a huge part  of the humor, like  when they both say " a hung parliament " 

You can see the obvious problem with the Oz political system, you guys  need to get more candidates like them in your system !!!

I see they work for the Juice Media and the girls are both actors amongst other skills  , https://www.thejuicemedia.com/about/

Small company but making some good points 

 

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with our political system is our voters, sadly. We have, somehow, managed to avoid the majority of the voter suppression nonsense that goes on in the USA, and we've got a somewhat more robust election system that should mean the two major parties don't have the overwhelming stranglehold on all sections of Government that is the case in the USA, the main problem is that many voters just ignore the smaller parties on principle.

 

Anyway, hoping for Liberal and Labor (the latter of whom shamefully spells their name the American way) both lose a bunch of seats to more progressive candidates, but I honestly think Liberal will probably stay in power.

 

 

EDIT: Re: the insurrection/terrorists thing, I think one of the 'goals' was to terrorise Pence into 'doing the right thing' and exercising his political power that he didn't actually have I think, and declaring Trump God Emperor for another 12 years.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Chairchucker

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

It doesn't have anything to do with another 'G'?

 Nah. We almost never discuss politics. She has very little interest it. 

[BruceVC]

36 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 Nah. We almost never discuss politics. She has very little interest it. 

She sounds wise GD, definitely a keeper 

[Amentep]

On 1/8/2022 at 7:15 AM, BruceVC said:

So when you  ask "how I can say this  " I know you will read what I have to say and if you disagree you  may post  a link or explain why you disagree. Also another consideration is  about the question "can you call  January 6 an insurrection " its not unequivocal or defined  and their interesting opinions that say it is and some who say it isnt

But the point was that you made a statement about semantics; the meaning of the word "insurrection" is clearly defined and the January 6 event fits that definition from any objective measure.  Subjectively, you can say a shade of green is blue -  it doesn't change the definition of blue, though.

On 1/8/2022 at 7:15 AM, BruceVC said:

FOX will always raise the " some of the protestors were just patriot Americans and committed no violence "or say " why is the Biden\Democrats government  and FBI only focusing on arresting people involved in this protest but they fine with violence and attacks on police in BLM and ANTIFA  protests " 

This is simple "whataboutism", not a valid argument.  You're not even comparing equal jurisdiction where you can argue two groups are being treated differently by the same entity (the summer protests would be the local municipality's responsibility; the Capitol attack is not.  Its a bit like saying "why isn't Idaho fixing the non-native animal releases that plague the Everglades' delicate eco-balance in Florida?")

On 1/8/2022 at 7:15 AM, BruceVC said:

For me it had certain components of your typical insurrection but surely an insurrection has to have an objective that can be achieved? If you consider the deeply spurious views of almost all the protesters is that they like Trump didnt accept  that Biden had won the election and their was no real vote rigging or cheating...they chose to believe fake news and misinformation about something as old and successful as the legitimacy of the US elections 

The whole 6 January event  at the Capitol is normally ceremonial as far as  I know, so in other words lets say the worse outcomes of what some of the mob was chanting was realized and they had killed Pence, Nancy Pelosi and other prominent politicians would  that negate that Biden was president? It would delay the process but Biden would still be president because he won the election with the votes of more Americans than Trump got 

Achievement is irrelevant if you are making a semantical argument, since achievement is not part of the definition for insurrection.  However, if you want achievement there was at the time a well publicized belief (I heard it from talk radio talking heads) about a deadline to confirm the vote that if unmet would cause the decision for president to be kicked to the House of Representatives where the states would make votes for President which, IIRC, turned out to not be the proper interpretation of the Electoral Count Act, but as it was being touted by various sources, it should still be considered as a 'goal' for Jan 6.  That said, disruption itself can be considered a goal.  Or allowing Trump to declare martial law.  Or wanting to see the QAnon Shaman rocking his outfit on the floor of the House.

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, Amentep said:

But the point was that you made a statement about semantics; the meaning of the word "insurrection" is clearly defined and the January 6 event fits that definition from any objective measure.  Subjectively, you can say a shade of green is blue -  it doesn't change the definition of blue, though.

This is simple "whataboutism", not a valid argument.  You're not even comparing equal jurisdiction where you can argue two groups are being treated differently by the same entity (the summer protests would be the local municipality's responsibility; the Capitol attack is not.  Its a bit like saying "why isn't Idaho fixing the non-native animal releases that plague the Everglades' delicate eco-balance in Florida?")

Achievement is irrelevant if you are making a semantical argument, since achievement is not part of the definition for insurrection.  However, if you want achievement there was at the time a well publicized belief (I heard it from talk radio talking heads) about a deadline to confirm the vote that if unmet would cause the decision for president to be kicked to the House of Representatives where the states would make votes for President which, IIRC, turned out to not be the proper interpretation of the Electoral Count Act, but as it was being touted by various sources, it should still be considered as a 'goal' for Jan 6.  That said, disruption itself can be considered a goal.  Or allowing Trump to declare martial law.  Or wanting to see the QAnon Shaman rocking his outfit on the floor of the House.

You make some good points and some are convincing, I need time to think about 

[BruceVC]

https://www.newsweek.com/police-pepper-spray-novak-djokovic-supporters-chaotic-scenes-tennis-australian-open-1667389

@Gorth and @Chairchucker

I can only imagine how outraged you guys must be with this egregious excessive force used by the Oz police...they used pepper spray to subdue innocent and peaceful protestors !!!

Will you guys be protesting everyday  to demand these police are arrested 

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, Amentep said:

But the point was that you made a statement about semantics; the meaning of the word "insurrection" is clearly defined and the January 6 event fits that definition from any objective measure.  Subjectively, you can say a shade of green is blue -  it doesn't change the definition of blue, though.

My conjecture is that the Republican party/Fox News is trying to spin the word because of Section 3 of the 14th amendment, which could, in theory, prevent their defeated President from running again in 2024.

Quote

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

If the Dems are going to play this card, they may do so just prior to the Republicans selecting their candidate. That would maximize the uncertainty and risk factor.

[Malcador]

53 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.newsweek.com/police-pepper-spray-novak-djokovic-supporters-chaotic-scenes-tennis-australian-open-1667389

@Gorth and @Chairchucker

I can only imagine how outraged you guys must be with this egregious excessive force used by the Oz police...they used pepper spray to subdue innocent and peaceful protestors !!!

Will you guys be protesting everyday  to demand these police are arrested 

So, these people are cultists for this guy, but then throw bottles at and jump on a car they think was holding him ?

[Chairchucker]

The Djokavic situation is interesting, not because there's anything remotely sympathetic about Novak's plight, screw that guy, I hope he gets kicked out, but because his detention at the same place a bunch of people have been detained for like a decade for the crime of trying to not get murdered in their home country has highlighted their plight. A bunch of his fans went down to protest on his behalf and realised his plight was not the biggest deal.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I dunno, I've been sporadically hearing about Australia's horrible refugee detention camps for years now and interest seems to die down after a bit with no real changes. Right now I'm betting Djokavic goes home soon and the focus on the camps die down. Hope I'm wrong and it changes for the better.

[Gfted1]

Wait, didnt the Obs think tank determine that they shall be referred to as concentration camps?

[Chairchucker]

7 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Wait, didnt the Obs think tank determine that they shall be referred to as concentration camps?

There's probs a few different ways to accurately describe them.

[Gromnir]

13 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

There's probs a few different ways to accurately describe them.

concentration is an accurate description, but people understandably immediate think o' nazi death camps when they hear o' a concentration camp. the cyprus detention camps post ww2 were most assured concentration camps, but given the temporal proximity to the holocaust, people were made uncomfortable with the label.

'course qq over the label is deflection. 'stead o' focusing on whatever wrongs might be happening, the current purveyors o' grievance politics rage 'bout the manifest unfairness o' the label. the real injustice is that some honest mom & pop refugee detention operation is being treated unfair as the "concentration" language used by academics and the liberal media makes refugees take their business elsewheres.

no?

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, KP on top of ZA WARUDO said:

I dunno, I've been sporadically hearing about Australia's horrible refugee detention camps for years now and interest seems to die down after a bit with no real changes.

In order to have real changes you'd need some sort of attitudinal sea change in Australian politics where currently being hard on refugees is seen as a badge of honour by both major parties. Practically, that's very hard to see while Murdoch still controls most of the media because Labor would be the party to shift attitudes, and as soon as they show any signs of doing so the Murdoch media declares open season on them.

Status quo also has a lot of inertia due to the involvement of various private prison/ security contractors like Serco, Paladin and friends who are making bank off of them.

[Chairchucker]

Yeah, Australian politics really would improve immeasurably if someone sprinkled holy water on Rupert's coffin.

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Malcador said:

So, these people are cultists for this guy, but then throw bottles at and jump on a car they think was holding him ?

Malc did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning, why you so mad?

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

There's probs a few different ways to accurately describe them.

We have had this debate before around what should we  call the Oz immigrant detention camps but you weren't online at the time, as far as I remember, so your opinion would be appreciated. I am one of those people who has a problem when societies use words to describe things in the wrong way or context, I feel the correct definition should be used to describe things because it reduces hyperbole and grandstanding when we discuss these events and reflect on them. But I am sometimes wrong in these debates, for example after reading Amenteps post about 6 January violence I did some further research and realized I was wrong. It can be called an insurrection and I will make a specific post about this 

But back to this debate, I dont think its accurate to refer to the Oz detention camps concentration camps anymore than its correct to call the ICE immigrant detention camps in the US concentration camps. This is the definition of a concentration camp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment and to quote from the link 

The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differ in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic is that inmates are held outside the rule of law.[6] Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose is killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".

But this is what the Oz immigrant detention camps are ( Im just using wiki for convenience )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities

Do you really believe the Oz detention camps operate completely outside the rule of law because only people trying to enter Oz illegally get detained, isn't that using the rule of law in the first place ?

Edited January 11, 2022 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

Iirc, the term used here is “offshore detention camps”. The idea behind them being, anyone trying to force their way into Australia (I.e. it’s really aimed at boats and the people smugglers who used to operate them) will forever be banned from getting access to Australia. You can still apply for asylum and refugee status as long as you do it overseas. The moment you set a foot on the ground uninvited, you’re disqualified.

 

Edit: People get sent offshore, get processed and either returned to country of origin or if that country doesn't want them back, offered to be repatriated to places like Papua New-Guinea (i.e. making it non attractive for economic migrants)

 

[Chairchucker]

Honestly I'd never heard that specific requirement to qualify as a 'concentration camp'. It seems kinda dumb and arbitrary. Nazi death camps probably followed German law at the time. I remember reading at some point that it was the Nazis who referred to theirs as 'concentration camps', to conceal the fact that they were frequently death camps. I would've just used the criteria, "Are they cramming a bunch of people into an uncomfortably small living space? Cool that's a high concentration of people, hence 'concentration camp'."

 

That said I'm not aware that, generally speaking, any of the inmates of these detention centres have been charged with anything, so the rest of the definition that Dan Stone has offered seems to fit.

 

A later definition offered in that same article is, "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable." Yep, they're cramped, they haven't been charged with anything, the conditions are harsh enough that a number of suicide attempts have occurred, the government frequently hides behind the shield of 'they could be terrorists' so the 'identified as dangerous or undesirable' fits.

 

I know some object to the use of the term 'concentration camp' because of the most infamous examples being the Nazi Death Camps, and so it might seem like an 'emotionally charged' term or something like that. I kind of understand that, but on the other hand we have people who have been held without charge for a decade, we have people on our offshore detainment centres in particular who have been physically and sexually abused, we have people who have tried to take their own life because of how bad the situation is, so frankly my position is to use the emotionally charged term, and if someone's issue with the whole situation is that we're using a term that is 'too emotionally charged', immediately stop caring about that person's opinion.

 

EDIT: Side note, politicians on both sides frequently refer to harsh measures taken against refugees as a 'deterrent'. My personal position is that if you see people getting into a leaky boat to escape a horrible situation, and your policy is 'let's treat them badly enough to make people prefer the awful situation they're trying to escape', maybe you're just a wretched human being.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Chairchucker

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Honestly I'd never heard that specific requirement to qualify as a 'concentration camp'. It seems kinda dumb and arbitrary. Nazi death camps probably followed German law at the time. I remember reading at some point that it was the Nazis who referred to theirs as 'concentration camps', to conceal the fact that they were frequently death camps. I would've just used the criteria, "Are they cramming a bunch of people into an uncomfortably small living space? Cool that's a high concentration of people, hence 'concentration camp'."

 

That said I'm not aware that, generally speaking, any of the inmates of these detention centres have been charged with anything, so the rest of the definition that Dan Stone has offered seems to fit.

 

A later definition offered in that same article is, "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable." Yep, they're cramped, they haven't been charged with anything, the conditions are harsh enough that a number of suicide attempts have occurred, the government frequently hides behind the shield of 'they could be terrorists' so the 'identified as dangerous or undesirable' fits.

 

I know some object to the use of the term 'concentration camp' because of the most infamous examples being the Nazi Death Camps, and so it might seem like an 'emotionally charged' term or something like that. I kind of understand that, but on the other hand we have people who have been held without charge for a decade, we have people on our offshore detainment centres in particular who have been physically and sexually abused, we have people who have tried to take their own life because of how bad the situation is, so frankly my position is to use the emotionally charged term, and if someone's issue with the whole situation is that we're using a term that is 'too emotionally charged', immediately stop caring about that person's opinion.

 

EDIT: Side note, politicians on both sides frequently refer to harsh measures taken against refugees as a 'deterrent'. My personal position is that if you see people getting into a leaky boat to escape a horrible situation, and your policy is 'let's treat them badly enough to make people prefer the awful situation they're trying to escape', maybe you're just a wretched human being.

Thanks, you made some good points and I will think about them 

[BruceVC]

13 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Iirc, the term used here is “offshore detention camps”. The idea behind them being, anyone trying to force their way into Australia (I.e. it’s really aimed at boats and the people smugglers who used to operate them) will forever be banned from getting access to Australia. You can still apply for asylum and refugee status as long as you do it overseas. The moment you set a foot on the ground uninvited, you’re disqualified.

 

Edit: People get sent offshore, get processed and either returned to country of origin or if that country doesn't want them back, offered to be repatriated to places like Papua New-Guinea (i.e. making it non attractive for economic migrants)

 

But that sounds perfectly reasonable,that is exactly what I have always thought was why people get detained. You dont get detained if you have papers and enter legally ?

[Gorth]

9 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But that sounds perfectly reasonable,that is exactly what I have always thought was why people get detained. You dont get detained if you have papers and enter legally ?

The problem (as far as I see it) is the quality of the camps and the staff... private security is the runt of the litter so to speak. People get abused, killed etc. in the camps. When locals attacked one of the camps, the guards turned tail and left the detainees to be attacked (and killed) by angry local mobs. It's one thing to make it an unattractive option to arrive illegally, it's another to cause the death of people.

[Gromnir]

52 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Honestly I'd never heard that specific requirement to qualify as a 'concentration camp'. It seems kinda dumb and arbitrary. Nazi death camps probably followed German law at the time.

am only following half o' this, but if a class o' persons (race, religion, immigration status, political party) is deprived o' same access to the laws o' a State as is the rest o' the body citizen, and that class is the concentrated population o' your camps, is most assured gonna fall w/i the definition o' a concentration camp. the fact germany made it legal to detain jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc., does not preclude the application o' concentration camp label.  arbitrary denial o' access to legal remedies o' a class o' people is precise one o' the qualities triggering concentration camp label. is more than a little self-serving for a ww2 era german judge to identify the offending nation's deprivation o' legal remedies via legislation, judicial orders or executive action as somehow justifying the denial o' those legal remedies, thus precluding the concentration camp label. no different if australian magistrates proclaim they is following australian law.

am understanding why people is repulsed by the near reflexive conflating o' concentration camps with death camps, but a nation's efforts to create obstacles to a class' access to a legal remedy, or in many cases removing altogether meaningful legal recourse such as would be available to the nation's citizenry, is gonna qualify for concentration camp status. 

identify those in camps as not citizens who have engaged in illegal immigration fails to justify the application o' a different and less protective rule of law. no doubt you will hear people reflexive intone, but its "illegal" immigration. so what? everyday there is at least a few people in australia who is accused o' committing crimes and there is a process which protects those australians from australia-- the rule of law. if refugees, as a class, is getting less consideration from the australian justice system, then is a violation o' rule o' law. if the folks in the class being deprived o' legal remedies is being detained together, the facility will be identified (denotative) as a concentration camp.

HA! Good Fun!

edit:

ps is perhaps not obvious, so am gonna mention, but there is indeed a legit argument for australia refusing to grant immigrants full protection of the law. may feel offensive to some to suggest immigrants don't deserve justice or legal remedies, but as a practical matter, it may not be possible to provide same legal protection to all immigrants. am having no idea what is the current burden the australian Courts face daily trying to grant remedies to its citizens. in the US, there is never enough judges, lawyers and time to grant relief to those seeking justice or civil relief. the current backlog o' immigration cases in many jurisdictions is stretching to near five years. Years. the conditions in US ice facilities need be improved, but the fact is it is currently impossible to provide all those non-citizens who cross borders at non-designated points o' entry or the actual more numerous group who overstay visas or whatever, a day in court anytime soon. hire more judges. hire more lawyers. build more courthouses. these are not practical solutions. like it or not, for the foreseeable future, those non citizens seeking legal remedies to their immigration is not gonna get the full protection o' the rule o' law, and is not necessarily 'cause America is Evhul. however, like it or not, when you house the same class o' people together in the same facilities, particular if conditions is unhealthy, or even inhumane, then concentration camp is gonna be appropriate.

don't like the label? solution is to fix the freaking problem. 'course, given the realities, maybe you can live with the problems? ok, but that don't mean the labels is unjustified.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Gromnir

[Chairchucker]

Yeah, you've touched on something there relevant to our own system. People have been in our system for, as I understand it, as long as 12 years. Perhaps it really is impossible to extradite their legal cases or whatever it is quicker than that. If that is really the case, it then becomes our responsibility to not place people in lodgings where they start to see suicide as a preferable alternative. Especially when we put them in off shore detention so that we can then claim that since they're not on Australian soil when human rights abuses get committed against them, it's not Australia's problem.

 

Also, fun fact, it would be cheaper to just build houses and feed them in Australia. We're paying extra for the bonus of torturing them.

[Gfted1]

20 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Will you guys be protesting everyday  to demand these police are arrested 

I think you mean to say "roaming death squads". Do the police roam around areas? Yep! Have they caused death? Yep! Are they sometimes in a group? Yep!

Roaming Death Squads confirmed.