Jerry_Atrick

Blah Blah Blah... What policies? Again, fluff but nothing else.. Just happened to prove my you're not coming up with anything.. well except that, speaking of right wing.. hasn't Trump moved to remove anyone in office that disagrees or criticises him? Who's assasinating whom when people oppose their thinking?

Oh, I have given up, asking... He's unlikely to come up with anything

What is this extreme left you speak of? The Democrats? Based on their policies and what they implemented in office, what was extreme left? What was even really left? What they put in was progressive and sustainabkle capitalism to keep the country running. You talk of extreme left, but what is the evidence you have to substantiate. The Inflation Reduction Act? Largest infrastructure development by private enterprise - hardly left wing, is it? Transitioning to renewables is not left wing. It makes good, financial sense to secure future energy efficeintly and growas the capitalist economy. Did they make all food free; all medical services free? Did they allow trans to use other sexes toilets? Did they turn the country vegan? What on eaqrth is this extreme left wing agenda you speak of, because saying it is extreme left does not make it extreme left... or does it? Noww, let's look at the more extreme right wing gvernments in place and their record of success of delviering a "balance" as you speak. When you can substantiate, I will re-engage.. Saying things are, like saying night is day, is, well, you can work it out.

Sorry.. what are you talking about? What "far left" are you talking about? Name me one far left government in power in the western world - or has been? And can you define what yoiu mean by far left, anyway? I think you mean centrist when you say far left, which means brining in the far right to move things right, well, is not equilibrium. The lesson that the Democrats should learn is that culture politics doesn't resonate as much as a message reinforcing they had better economic management policies to maintain and improve their voters' standard of living, for which they had runs on the board, and Trump's last innings was in deficit. Well into the deficit, actually. Sad to say, but it required the Democrats to perform open heart surgery on the economy to save it.. and they, unlike Trump, did it. Trump has inherited an economy far better than he left it.. let's see what he does with it./ This is clearly BS.. you live in an alternate universe where unicorns and dragons frolic. See above. I do agree with this.. the pronlem is the eight is being allowed and facilitated to move to the extreme.. Eveythign you say above this sentence flies in the face of this sentence. You have had the offer to live in the USA. I suggest you try it out.. properly.. I have... Although I love the US and it hasd a lot of great things, there are far better places to live.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.. Sorry.. have to compose myself.. Yeah - the world is quaking in its boots at Trump. So far full of hot air and backs down at the first shop of reistance.. He'll show 'em - shaking the world.. I am no fan of Albo, but if he is shaking his... then Trump is going full lather with both hands on his..

Thankfully

Look, you all know my position on Israel v Palestinians, but even for me, that is a cochamanie (however that is spelt) and totally absurd thing to come up with.. Viva Las Palestine, eh? Or maybe viva Lost Palestine. Even if he said, hold em in camps for 2 years while we rebuild and make sure no Hamas people came back or we will obliterate them all is a better option. He is either the most totally arogant sociopathic SOB, or just plain batpoop crazy.. or both.. Of course he will change his tune.. He has not raised the ire of probably the most dependeable Arabic/Islam/Muslim country, being Saudi. Why would you piss off an almost dependable ally, and a volatile one at that, if you intentionally want to get them on side for fixing the Palestinaian issue. Let me see.. if you are the Sheikh, would you not now be thingking, WTF? Even if he changes his mind, what is stopping him changing it back? And if his plan proceeds, then, yeah, he you can expect WWIII, because all of the Arab nations, plus their allies (Russia, China, etc) are sure to get in the game - too much money at stake, otherwise. Personally, I think the fella has watched too many Die Hard movies. I am getting yet another bucket of popcorm. If Bibi put him up to it, and by tomorrow some else will speak to him and he will change his mind.. Well.. what sort of piss weak leader is he.. Well, he isn't a piss weak leader because if that is the case, he isn't a leader... just a follower.

Entertaining.. definitely.. Great is up for debate (at least IMHO). His opponents will do what they did last itme.. adjust.. and get the better of him and the USA. That isn't my definition of great. Scores so far: Trudeau: 1; Trump 0

Dependas on the crash.. if it was more or less uniifrom across the board, then probably as the outstandig value of shares is usually the biggest "permanent" asset on earth -it would be very rare someone has all their money in cash. Although Berkshire Hathawa has been hoarding the stuff for a while. If it were a sector crash, such as tech, then no, but that wouldn't mean his is no longer a very wealthy fellow. And while you can look ata point in time, as long as he has no covenants requiring him to top up cash, say for some debt or margin, then he only has to hold onto those shares typically for about 6 - 12 months after a crash and he will be wealther than at the time of the crash. At the least, he owns outright the proportion of Tesla assets correlating to the proportion of shares he owns in Tesla and through any options he currently holds, even though they have not vested yet (you can guarantee their strike price is slo low, he will exercise them - f he doesn't, then Telsa is probably worthless at that time), and don't forget, SpaceX and Starlink are private companies and not traded on the stock exchange - so he owns the assets of those companies in propoption to the shares he holds in them, too. Assets includes estimated future cash flows, and importantly, estimated future profits; that is what guides a company's valuation.

Valuation and wealth deserve a topic on their own. You may not be able to transfer the value of your CTP, for example, and there are examples of many investments that cannot be transferred (some private placements, which is effectively debt offered to a select group of investors, cannot be transferred from investors unless the investor goes broke). However, the commercial value of the CTP can be transferred in two ways. Firstly, the original inderwriter may use a different underwriter and transfer the monetary value and risk to. Secondly, assuming the portfolio of insurance creates a balance sheet surplus and profit, by buying/selling the shares of that underwriter, you can transfer the benefits of the portfolio. On the topic of valuations in general, there are two sides to the market - the demand and supply side. And value is driven by both. For example, I have many times been the only one interested in a house for sale. I have put an offer in well below aasking price, but not too stupid, to get the negotiations going and have met with complete silence. The reason, unless there is a distressed sale, the item has value to the seller too, under which they are not willing to trade. All you have is, in a period of time, no market for the product. You may be surprised to know the vast majority of share trading volume is not executed on the exchange. They are effectively private negoitiations, after which, the trades are reported to the exchnage (usually real time). Banks and other instirutions have their own trading "venues"; mini exchanges - these can be dark pools or lit pools.. Consequently, on exchange, the top of the "market" (a market being an individual share or other instrument), is usually shown for some time, before there is a trade on the exchange. The top of the market is the best bid and best offer.. Often, on very liquid insturments, there is a cent between them. Valuing stock is somewhat subjective, but it is based on the future earings of the company. Also the individual stock price is meaningless; one has to look at the market capitalisation and the capital structure, as well as certain rations - IMHO one of the more important ones is the free cash flows. And the other is the net asset valuation: market capitalisation. And, even then, you have to be careful, because how are the company's assets valued - historical or current , and if current, how is that valuation arrived at. In reality, for most shares people know of, buying and selling is easy and there is a liquid market.

Yes.. Left centre - is not left.. Other organisations rate them as centre: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/deutsche-welle-media-bias Either way, in terms of bias, with centre in their rating, it does tend to mean relatively unbiased - or at least cautious in their bias. Unlike many of the sources you quote for climate change (and of which the evidence usually flys in the face of).

Maybe, but a quick search indicates it has more legs than sensationalism: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/epa-fired-email-employment-b2691315.html Of course, many news outlets do fall into the trap of echoing a single source from another outlet; this time, the NY Times, which is not known to be a rag paper.

Is it likely to have been tried before? I am not so sure, as it is usually up to a country to protect its own borders; not rely on other countries. I would wager it is more unlikely than likely that they have been asked, and a smarter administration would ask the other country to use their own border control force, because that is what they have been trained to do. The military haven't - at least in a civilian context. Even if they were asked nicely before, they weren't asked nicely by Trump; given his record they may well have responded positively if Trump asked. Instead, he just came out like a bully with all guns blazing. When Canada hit back knowing it would cost themselves, but still deal the USA a blow, my guess it was a little unexpected.. Trump and his motley crew probably through Canada and Mexico would grovel at their feet and do anything to avoid a trade war. Well, they called his bluff, and he squealed, like all bullies do. I am surprised we didn't se him suck his thumb. Why pick on Canada and Mexico. Yeah, they have a trade surplus with the US, but compared to China, it is pittance. Was it to try and let the Chinese know they were serious? Well, they aint that serious, are they.. China is chuckling now. Many economists and commentators are starting to see these tarris not as trade wars, but was ways of raising revenue to pay for the existing and planned tax cuts for the really wealthy - so the middle classes and minor rich and of course the poor, pick up the tab to funnel more money to the billionaires and the like, After all, why then threaten countries thatr they have a trade surplus with as well? You can make all sorts of excuses, but a probably isn't fact, and the facts that we do know do not support anything than him being a bully with poor judgement. He will no doubt cause short term damage to the US, and already the BRICS block is being courted by other nations to join. In addition, allies will start looking to wean themselves of the teat of the US as a result, and with that will come even smaller exports and a smaller economy as a result.

Hmm I wouldn't quite call it everyone jumping out of their skin. Let's face it, deploying troops to one's own border is fairly easy, and most commentators are saying all it would have taken is for him to ask nicely. This looks more like a saving face move , after climbing down from a stupid position in the first place. Trudeau (sp?) was the big winner from this.. his balanced response made it clear Canada wasn't going to be bullied. And, I am guessing Musk got in on the act when the governor of Ontario, I think it was, threatened to pull $100mn contract to Starlink. Here is what a local writer has to say about it: https://www.theage.com.au/business/markets/trump-fired-his-biggest-weapon-and-he-missed-20250204-p5l9c4.html All he had to do, if he was real about the drug and immigrant issue is ask both Canada and Mexico for their support - they would have probably acceded to his request. Instead, he has sewn division and, at least he realised he went down the wrong path and back tracked (or someone realised for him). I generally will support Trump for some of his belligerent approaches with regimes less than cooperative (though he does like to suck up to their leaders), but taking aim at Canada and Mexico was taking a gun and aiming it at his own feet.

No one is saying abandon fossil fuuels early.. it's about transitioning, not running off a cliff. If that is what you mean by prematurely, then we will never come off fossil fuels as Dutton's plan won't result in any.. So, the environment may make the decision for us.. Or dog.. .Looks like someone needs to build an ark in FNQ

I would worry (and am worried) a lot more about both parties' other policies - the chances of Albo running the Voice again in the next parliament are about the same as you winning Tatslotto (or whatever it is called today). In fact, I would wager that even is he were re-elected, he won't see out a second term. But, hey, if the "threat" of another Voice referendum outweighs voting for the pollies who are more likely to leave you better off (financially, socially, and in ways liek the environment, prospects, security, education, etc for your kids and theirs and theirs, etc).. then, well, that's your choice. I am not saying the LNP are any worse - you have to make that call based on what their policies, their plan for implementing the policies, and the leadership.

Their energy policy is designed to keep fossil fuels still burning..

Sadly, the media has been shooting from the hip many times over and for a long time, with aviation accidents, and reporting in general. The MSM is as about as reliable as social media these days. In fact, for Aussie least biased opinion, I tend to follow a few youtubers: Swollen Pickles, Knights in Shining Llama, and latterly, Punter Politics. They seem to look at the facts and then apply opinion. I still watch Friendly Jordies as he does some hard hitting and courageous reporting, even though I find him too biased to the ALP on many things. Obviously, even though I don't agree with all of his opnions, Michael West is a go to for me, too. And of course, fugitive journalist, Shane Downing is also one I keep any eye on and he gets a few £ per month, as do the first two, to help keep them going. There are others I follow, too... including a few that lean differently to me, so see what they say.. The problem is, as the world is more polarised, and I think Trump being elected is a product of it, not creating it, less and less people are willing to hear the other side, and importantly try and see it from the other side's view. Take immigration.. it is a real problem here in the UK. I think it is more perceived because of the way the press report it, which means the real issues don't get dealt with, as pollies have a habit of thinking about thenext election and will do what will win votes in the immediate term rather than fix the issue. Everything is about the "boat people" coming in, but they only make up 10% of the total net migration take (and thereefore, around 3% of the immigration numbers). If overcrowing, which is one of the main reasons being cited is an issue, the focus surely should be on the other 97% of immigrants and making sure, on the whole, a more manageable number is being allowed in though legal routes.. surely? That is not to say drop the ball on boat people, but the press is pushing an agenda that makes it hard for pollies to react to the real issues.

The problem is, at early stages, all sorts of reports and claims come out - on MSM and social media - it is hard to work out what is going on. This talks to OME's point about responsible journalism. There is nothing wrong with a news organisation saying something like "there has been a fatal accident.. What we do know about it is... <what it is they know about it>; Authorities are investigating the cause and when there is an update, you will be the first to hear." But, the ptoblem is there is a pressure to be the first to report groundbreaking news and info about news for both MSM and social media commentators, because that brings eyeballs, and with eyeballs comes advertising revenue. While that happens, anyone that sounds authoritative will get some air time. If they get it wrong, and the real facts come out some time later, the old reporting has faded from people's minds anyway, so they rarely even think about going back and admitting they were wrong in the first place, anyway. No matter how much distress it causes the close family and friends of those, in this case, who have died. I also heard that the helicopter as 150' higher than it shoudl have been. Could still be the case, but that is some fairly tightly controlled airspace.

Air traffic control along with all other government functions will be delivered by AI using some Musk company

Er.. I think you will find there was one side that was always agreeing to a compromise, and not the other. Bill Maher trained as a historian. What he also doesn't mention, as I guess this is a TV slot, is that after the 67 war, Israel handed back the Sinai in return for peace, but Egypt and others invaded again. And lost... again. Israel would probably compromis again today, but on much stricter terms about guaranteeing peace. At the moment, there is one side that is still about wiping jews off the map.. I would recommend watching this video and then asking who has not been willing to compromise, and then ask, if you were in Israel's shoes, would you want a two state solution as it was originally proposed?

The government didn't start "interfering". They react to people exerting their rights and then making a determination of which way the laws should change. First of all, in what way did they interfere. The general rule of British legal systems is that if something is not proscribed, it is allowed. Gender re-assignment surgery was never proscribed, for example, then people could get it free of government interference. Sports rules and who can play what are within the gambit of the sports regulatory bodies - not the government. Even who gets to go to what toilet is still outside the rules of the government. (except for government buildings, parks and public toilets). The ones in sports stadiums, pools, end the like are governed by those who operate the premises. You will have seen the high profile cases go to court over access - the courts are hearing a private dispute between the TG person and the organisation being sued for access. The courts apply the law - which was the law before TG became an issue - to determine access. Often, then have avoided the issue of gender and treated it as part of equality laws between men and women - can the man - regardless of how he identified - be granted access based on equality laws. The latest case I have seen, not TG related, was whether a bloke who pays the same admission fee as a woman to some art gallery have access to a woman's only exhibition, where it is alleged the better art artifacts were exhibited. Sometimes, the courts have to adjudicate whether or not a man or woman purporting to be the other gender filt within the definition of the other gender. Here, the government has stepped in. In NSW, an Equality Bill was passed that requires a sex affirmation procedure (medical) to change one's gender: https://www.nsw.gov.au/family-and-relationships/name-changes-and-corrections/change-of-sex Until that happens, they remain legally, and the courts are bound to interpret them as their original gender - that is about as much as the government has "interfered".. Transgenderism seems to date prior to 200 years.. Society has just become more progressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history My point in showing those two phots and asking the question of which dunny they should be able to go into is to show the issue isn't black and white. There are many things to be settled, including the impact on biologival women who are still women - the vast majority of women. But like most socially vexing issues, the press only portray the more extremes, and people seem not to be wired to be able to look beyond a binary (no pun intended) vie of the world.

And, did you know, dogs are secretly conspiring to overthrow the human race since training techniques went from negative punishment to positive reinforcement..