Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by mmm....shiney!, May 18, 2016.
He is a politician. Maybe he is lying too?
I will be voting ALA in the Senate. The LDP is blissfully unaware of Islamic doctrine which provides devout Muslims the text book for terror.
Good point, maybe you should write to him and ask him how we know he is not lying as well.
I paid $10 for that advert
Tried to convince my family that both the main parties are crooks but they were already aware of it, but still considering voting for one of them anyway.
Next step is to promote this mob as being one of the least offensive alternatives.
Before I used to vote for who had the best policies based on finances and such. Now I will be voting on which party has the toughest asylum seeker policy.
LDP will give you access to firearms...not sure that is a good idea
The specific LDP policies that would address any debate related to your concerns would be those on immigration and refugees and religion.
See here: http://ldp.org.au/policy/
Liberty of the individual is fundamental to the libertarian ethos and in fact is the defining feature of what it means to be fully human ie what distinguishes us from animals or oppressed people. As such, libertarians argue that we have a responsibility to enure that the freedom of others is enhanced. One way to achieve this is to not discourage others from seeking freedom by throwing up insurmountable barriers to the free flow of people across State borders.
Subject to guidelines as laid out in their policy as linked above, their belief is that we should not deny the opportunity to anyone to fulfill their life by attempting to emigrate to Australia. They would argue that the same values, freedoms and benefits that we already are endowed with through the good fortune of simply having been born in this country or having made a choice to move here and fulfilled whatever criteria applied at the time should be made available to those who would choose to prove themselves capable of also accepting.
I saw this comment when he voted in favor of yet another government department to suck up more tax payer funds:
What was that in relation to?
Don't make me do reading!
If Immigration is not means tested we will have a ton of poor people coming into the country. We already have plenty of poor people.
Sounds like a one sided deal to me, we get to feel good about how nice we are, they get to come in and what?
Do we have any requirements for them?
Any goals they need to achieve?
Any criteria they need to fulfill?
Any fail safes to get rid of them if they turn out to be dicks?
If you are poor in your home country it may well be due to lack of opportunities, if you come to another country you are going to have plenty of opportunities but if you don't speak the language, don't understand the culture and you have only very basic schooling then you are not going to get very far here either, unless you are working outside of the sort of job a career adviser could legally recommend.
Under the LDP immigration is means tested. This won't take you long to read:
At the time Turnbull was playing his silly games to get a pretext for a double dissolutions, and Leyonhjelm voted in favor of introducing yet another expensive government agency (that is superfluous), the ABCC.
I'm reading between the lines a bit here (and basing it on discussions I've had with various federal members over the past 6 months).
First: The LDP is not an open borders party. It is not a free radical muslim immigration party. It is primarily a Classical Liberal party which means that the policies are about balancing the freedoms of the individuals along with the stability of the liberal democracy itself.
Second: Looking at the policies you could interpret them the following way:
1. People immigrating to/from countries of a broadly similar size with a similar culture have significant priority over any other possible countries. This means New Zealand (who we already have a free immigration agreement with I believe), the UK, Canada, Ireland and Singapore. It does not mean the USA due to its substantially larger size. (I note that Japan and the Netherlands have been added on the website but I hadn't heard anyone talk about them before.)
2. For the priority countries, negotiate free immigration agreements.
3. For all other countries, place a price on entering Australia to better reflect the cost of accessing infrastructure and institutions paid for by previous and existing citizens. People or groups can choose to pay the fee and take responsibility for the migrants like they can in Canada.
4. Reduce or cut all welfare. This effectively stops all of the welfare migrants that Europe has been experiencing. Coupled with (3) this means that only people actually keen to come and work in Australia or are self-funded will want to come.
5. Make citizenship tests tougher. This will help to weed out the unwanted, non-integrating people.
IMO the combination of these policies will essentially address the concerns of people like Mintaka and Skyrocket (and others) whilst also not creating unnecessary barriers to the migrants that are beneficial.
It's a good ad, though I wish they would campaign harder on the "End the Nanny State" angle which I personally think is likely to get a lot more traction with the general population.
I've already had a few arguements with family over the LDP vs ALA question. Liberal voters who are disenchanted will most likely choose one or the other. The ALA will get some decent votes because while many of thier policies are broad based conservative platform, they are campaigning primarily on an anti-Islam issue which to me will likely see them demonised and debunked by the mainstream media (wait until Waleed Aly gets hold of them!) and probably eventually torn apart in a similar fashion to One Nation.
So, while I am sympathetic to the broader ALA policies I consider a vote for ALA to be a wasted vote because I don't think they have a credible future. The LDP atleast is promoting freedom and liberty and is not engaging in hate-based politics or identity politics. If they got a decent stake in the senate they could potentially be a great foil for the majors and "Keep the bastards honest" a bit like the old Democrats used to try to do (before they sold out and imploded)
The new voting changes mean that single issue parties are going to struggle. So all those who used to vote for the Sex Party, Legalise Marijuana, Outdoor Recreation, Shooters....all those people, need to come together under 1 banner. In essence they all want the same thing - to be able to be free to do what they want without government intrusion or regulation.
I see this election coming down to a choice of establishment politics (Liberal, Labor) or a couple of emerging alternatives. I reckon the growing number of anti-establishment voters will gravitate to 3 broad based alternatives. The far left will go to the Greens, the far right will go to the ALA and the non-extremists will (hopefully) go to the LDP.
It's going to be interesting and I hope we get to see a few more good ads from the LDP. Please keep posting them up!
The ABCC bill. <Redacted because SilverPete kindly pointed out my errors> In contrast the Greens voted to not vote on their own marriage equality bill with Richard Di Natale saying "his party always supports marriage equality just not today" (or similar).
Bullshit. Four crossbenchers voted in favor of the bill -- Bob Day, Nick Xenophon, Dio Wang and David Leyonhjelm .
And his "notable amendments" was a single amendment to add a sunset clause.
Spin that crap about "oh, big government is about law and justice" but really its about more waste and wealth transfer.
This blind trust in politicians is spectacularly retarded.
What is the LDP's policy on the TPP and the bail in legislation? Very important issues IMO but mostly ignored by most as they revert to the old battlegrounds of health,education, national security and economy.
Here are some Questions that all parties wont want to discuss.
1. Will the F35's be a valuable fighter for our air force? If yes, when will they be operational..Will they cancel the order like Canada.. What is the cost of each fighter?
2. Will they tell the Australian people what happens if the banks go bankrupt...Will the $250k money back rule still apply?
3. On combating climate change...What is the priority in Northern Queensland, saving the reef or expanding the cattle industry.. Landcare (green army) is planting trees and cattle farmers are knocking them down to grow grass. Double standards?
4. Our banks borrow short term from America, lend long term for housing. With the US economy the way it is, where will the banks then get the borrowings from to keep our banks afloat.?
Most Australians as Bob Menzies used to say, vote through own pocket but alas in the end this arrangement while good in the short term will come and bite them in the ass.
Well I wonder if any political party will address the issues that are real important to the future of Australia.
Regards Errol 43
Sorry. My bad. You are completely correct. I must of been remembering the first reading.
I didn't say anything about big government and am fully against it. I was referring to probably the most important role of government in Australia. But hey, if you think our justice system is all sunshine and roses then I would respectfully disagree. I am not especially interested in or knowledgeable of the specific details of the underlying issues driving the desire for reinstating the ABCC but from my understanding it (a) seemed to worked (b) is probably more of a stop gap required because of other crappy legislation such as the FWA (nothing like introducing legislation to counter the unintended side effects of the first legislation ).
Separate names with a comma.