The SA Politics Thread

[abc]

Who is doing that? There's a dictionary meaning for extreme. I would say that if someone is on the wing of a party that's the furthest, either right or left, then it falls within the meaning of extreme as per the dictionary. Were we to trawl back through posts on this forum, I bet that someone has labelled people in the left faction of the Labor Party as extreme too. With nobody crying crocodile tears.

You are doing that.

Neither Rubberman nor I called Antic "extremist". I said he was at the "extreme right" of SA federal politicians. You have not demonstrated anyone else is further right, nor demonstrated Antic is centrist. Being re-/mis-interpreted is tiring. No wonder others have given up.

Rubberman knew exactly what he was doing as he used extreme right wing as a slur to make his argument as to why he thought the Liberals lost a by-election.

[SBD]

You are doing that.

Neither Rubberman nor I called Antic "extremist". I said he was at the "extreme right" of SA federal politicians. You have not demonstrated anyone else is further right, nor demonstrated Antic is centrist. Being re-/mis-interpreted is tiring. No wonder others have given up.

Rubberman knew exactly what he was doing as he used extreme right wing as a slur to make his argument as to why he thought the Liberals lost a by-election.

Perhaps they are all Lefties, just some more than others. Are there any right-wing members of the SA Parliament (since it's the SA Politics forum)? We have One Nation represented there.

[rubberman]

You are doing that.

Neither Rubberman nor I called Antic "extremist". I said he was at the "extreme right" of SA federal politicians. You have not demonstrated anyone else is further right, nor demonstrated Antic is centrist. Being re-/mis-interpreted is tiring. No wonder others have given up.

Rubberman knew exactly what he was doing as he used extreme right wing as a slur to make his argument as to why he thought the Liberals lost a by-election.

And?

I raised it as a possibility. You are free to disagree without making a circus about it. Perhaps even put up your own theory as to the reasons for the poor performance by the Liberals. I think that a lot of people see Antic as an extremist, and that could affect their vote. How is that even controversial? Are we to ignore the possibility, and just scratch our heads?

[rev]

Who is doing that? There's a dictionary meaning for extreme. I would say that if someone is on the wing of a party that's the furthest, either right or left, then it falls within the meaning of extreme as per the dictionary. Were we to trawl back through posts on this forum, I bet that someone has labelled people in the left faction of the Labor Party as extreme too. With nobody crying crocodile tears.

You are doing that.

Neither Rubberman nor I called Antic "extremist". I said he was at the "extreme right" of SA federal politicians. You have not demonstrated anyone else is further right, nor demonstrated Antic is centrist. Being re-/mis-interpreted is tiring. No wonder others have given up.

Yeh sorry SBD, but abc has a point here.
Rubberman called Alex Antic extreme right wing. More then once.
And then when abc was riled up and it was obvious, he back tracked and just made reference to "ring wing party".

This is the sort of shit that goes on in this forum, by people like rubberman and a couple others, who go out of their way to target individuals who openly hold differing opinions/POV.
Not defending abc, I got him on block too. But he may post controversial things often, but that doesn't excuse the bullshit from trolls like rubberman.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

To then try and further antagonize abc by referring to the nuclear power announcement by Dutton, and raising questions over Antic taking a senate seat, and try and connect that to the by-election that happened over the weekend, is trolling 101 from rubberman. Knowing full well he's gone full tilt against abc in the electricity infrastructure thread on the nuclear/renewables topic, and he's just had it out with him over Alex Antic's politics.

Enough's enough of this bullshit, everywhere abc posts he is stalked by these guys and they soon turn every thread into a slanging match.
If they disagree with him that much, just put him on block.

[mattblack]

I have and you're right, the forum is much better for it. Took me a bit ov time to figure that out though. Maybe the mods can ban certain people from eachother to have some civility back.

[rubberman]

You are doing that.

Neither Rubberman nor I called Antic "extremist". I said he was at the "extreme right" of SA federal politicians. You have not demonstrated anyone else is further right, nor demonstrated Antic is centrist. Being re-/mis-interpreted is tiring. No wonder others have given up.

Yeh sorry SBD, but abc has a point here.
Rubberman called Alex Antic extreme right wing. More then once.
And then when abc was riled up and it was obvious, he back tracked and just made reference to "ring wing party".

This is the sort of shit that goes on in this forum, by people like rubberman and a couple others, who go out of their way to target individuals who openly hold differing opinions/POV.
Not defending abc, I got him on block too. But he may post controversial things often, but that doesn't excuse the bullshit from trolls like rubberman.

Example 1
rubberbrains1.JPG

Example 2
rubberbrains2.JPG

Example 3
rubberbrains3.JPG


To then try and further antagonize abc by referring to the nuclear power announcement by Dutton, and raising questions over Antic taking a senate seat, and try and connect that to the by-election that happened over the weekend, is trolling 101 from rubberman. Knowing full well he's gone full tilt against abc in the electricity infrastructure thread on the nuclear/renewables topic, and he's just had it out with him over Alex Antic's politics.

Enough's enough of this bullshit, everywhere abc posts he is stalked by these guys and they soon turn every thread into a slanging match.
If they disagree with him that much, just put him on block.

All of those matters were actually raised during the election campaign by the various parties.

Nuclear was raised by Dutton and Spiers. The political leanings of Antic were discussed in the media.

Apparently, if someone brings that up, it's illegitimate?

Please provide a rationale for trying to shut down discussion about things broughtup during the election campaign by the politicians themselves. Because if you cannot, then you need to explain why you are trying to shut down what is legitimate discussion.

[abc]

I have and you're right, the forum is much better for it. Took me a bit ov time to figure that out though. Maybe the mods can ban certain people from eachother to have some civility back.

or maybe just people take responsibility for their own actions and be civil

[SBD]

I have and you're right, the forum is much better for it. Took me a bit ov time to figure that out though. Maybe the mods can ban certain people from eachother to have some civility back.

or maybe just people take responsibility for their own actions and be civil

I'm clearly not on the Left-Right Spectrum - I agree with abc here.

This is the SA Politics thread at the Pub. It's the only forum (apart from the Federal politics forum) this discussion should be on, not spilling to all the others.

[rubberman]

I have and you're right, the forum is much better for it. Took me a bit ov time to figure that out though. Maybe the mods can ban certain people from eachother to have some civility back.

or maybe just people take responsibility for their own actions and be civil

I'm clearly not on the Left-Right Spectrum - I agree with abc here.

This is the SA Politics thread at the Pub. It's the only forum (apart from the Federal politics forum) this discussion should be on, not spilling to all the others.

Sure. It's hard to disagree with those words.

But I'm not sure that there was any incivility in this discussion. A couple of people seemed to take offence at me saying that Antic was on the extreme right of his party. He's actually a member of the party's rightmost faction, so it ought to be up for discussion in a political forum. That's because whether or not Antic is seen as extreme is a possible explanation of why people voted the way they did. If, apparently, we cannot say this without someone being offended, then how is it possible to conduct a political discussion?

Now, if we get to that point, we have to stop political discussions completely. I'd be quite happy with that.

[abc]

or maybe just people take responsibility for their own actions and be civil

I'm clearly not on the Left-Right Spectrum - I agree with abc here.

This is the SA Politics thread at the Pub. It's the only forum (apart from the Federal politics forum) this discussion should be on, not spilling to all the others.

Sure. It's hard to disagree with those words.

But I'm not sure that there was any incivility in this discussion. A couple of people seemed to take offence at me saying that Antic was on the extreme right of his party. He's actually a member of the party's rightmost faction, so it ought to be up for discussion in a political forum. That's because whether or not Antic is seen as extreme is a possible explanation of why people voted the way they did. If, apparently, we cannot say this without someone being offended, then how is it possible to conduct a political discussion?

Now, if we get to that point, we have to stop political discussions completely. I'd be quite happy with that.

This is what you said...

Antic, like Bernardi, is on the extreme right wing. While rusted on supporters might hold their noses and vote Liberal if it moves in that direction, many others are turned off by it.

I wasn't offended personally, however this kind of rhetoric which has been mainstreamed by the left is destructive to civil discourse in this country and marginalises people who hold reasonable positions.
Such terminology should be reserved for neo-nazis or nazis.

[rubberman]

I'm clearly not on the Left-Right Spectrum - I agree with abc here.

This is the SA Politics thread at the Pub. It's the only forum (apart from the Federal politics forum) this discussion should be on, not spilling to all the others.

Sure. It's hard to disagree with those words.

But I'm not sure that there was any incivility in this discussion. A couple of people seemed to take offence at me saying that Antic was on the extreme right of his party. He's actually a member of the party's rightmost faction, so it ought to be up for discussion in a political forum. That's because whether or not Antic is seen as extreme is a possible explanation of why people voted the way they did. If, apparently, we cannot say this without someone being offended, then how is it possible to conduct a political discussion?

Now, if we get to that point, we have to stop political discussions completely. I'd be quite happy with that.

This is what you said...

Antic, like Bernardi, is on the extreme right wing. While rusted on supporters might hold their noses and vote Liberal if it moves in that direction, many others are turned off by it.

I wasn't offended personally, however this kind of rhetoric which has been mainstreamed by the left is destructive to civil discourse in this country and marginalises people who hold reasonable positions.
Such terminology should be reserved for neo-nazis or nazis.

That quote was not my first quote. My originalquote was as I said. You objected to that original quote.

As for the use of that term, it may well be as you say, but the reality is that many people in the Liberal Party think exactly that. The Liberal Party has been feuding bitterly since the days of Steele Hall, and to ignore the fact that potential and actual Liberal Party voters think it to be true renders analysis of the election results futile. You may as well just pack up and go home if it is not possible to discuss what voters think. Oh, and if you think that's the worst instance of name calling in the Liberal Party, boy are you in for a shock.

[SBD]

I'm clearly not on the Left-Right Spectrum - I agree with abc here.

This is the SA Politics thread at the Pub. It's the only forum (apart from the Federal politics forum) this discussion should be on, not spilling to all the others.

Sure. It's hard to disagree with those words.

But I'm not sure that there was any incivility in this discussion. A couple of people seemed to take offence at me saying that Antic was on the extreme right of his party. He's actually a member of the party's rightmost faction, so it ought to be up for discussion in a political forum. That's because whether or not Antic is seen as extreme is a possible explanation of why people voted the way they did. If, apparently, we cannot say this without someone being offended, then how is it possible to conduct a political discussion?

Now, if we get to that point, we have to stop political discussions completely. I'd be quite happy with that.

This is what you said...

Antic, like Bernardi, is on the extreme right wing. While rusted on supporters might hold their noses and vote Liberal if it moves in that direction, many others are turned off by it.

I wasn't offended personally, however this kind of rhetoric which has been mainstreamed by the left is destructive to civil discourse in this country and marginalises people who hold reasonable positions.
Such terminology should be reserved for neo-nazis or nazis.

ABC, you say you weren't offended, but you have clearly been triggered by the comments. The quoted comment does not say extremist, it says like Bernardi, is on the extreme right wing. That also gives a qualitative comparison "like Bernardi", not "like Hitler". It is the "extreme right wing" end of the Liberal party. The problem is no more "mainstreamed by the left" than by the right. It comes from the dumbing down of political discourse into a single left-right spectrum and projecting everyone's complex position down to that one line. Bernardi and Antic can be identified because they are the outliers. Perhaps they wouldn't be called "extreme right" if they were in One Nation or Palmer United, because they aren't as far from the centre of those parties.

I have sympathies with parts of the policy platform of several parties (on both sides of centre) that I would be highly unlikely to vote for, because I strongly disagree with other parts of their platforms.

[abc]

Sure. It's hard to disagree with those words.

But I'm not sure that there was any incivility in this discussion. A couple of people seemed to take offence at me saying that Antic was on the extreme right of his party. He's actually a member of the party's rightmost faction, so it ought to be up for discussion in a political forum. That's because whether or not Antic is seen as extreme is a possible explanation of why people voted the way they did. If, apparently, we cannot say this without someone being offended, then how is it possible to conduct a political discussion?

Now, if we get to that point, we have to stop political discussions completely. I'd be quite happy with that.

This is what you said...

Antic, like Bernardi, is on the extreme right wing. While rusted on supporters might hold their noses and vote Liberal if it moves in that direction, many others are turned off by it.

I wasn't offended personally, however this kind of rhetoric which has been mainstreamed by the left is destructive to civil discourse in this country and marginalises people who hold reasonable positions.
Such terminology should be reserved for neo-nazis or nazis.

That quote was not my first quote. My originalquote was as I said. You objected to that original quote.

As for the use of that term, it may well be as you say, but the reality is that many people in the Liberal Party think exactly that. The Liberal Party has been feuding bitterly since the days of Steele Hall, and to ignore the fact that potential and actual Liberal Party voters think it to be true renders analysis of the election results futile. You may as well just pack up and go home if it is not possible to discuss what voters think. Oh, and if you think that's the worst instance of name calling in the Liberal Party, boy are you in for a shock.

It would help if you were honest rather than being economical with the truth...
here is the original quote and my response to it...
viewtopic.php?p=216010#p216010

As you can see it's not an objection nor offense taken, but a question which you have still failed to answer.

[rubberman]

This is what you said...



I wasn't offended personally, however this kind of rhetoric which has been mainstreamed by the left is destructive to civil discourse in this country and marginalises people who hold reasonable positions.
Such terminology should be reserved for neo-nazis or nazis.

That quote was not my first quote. My originalquote was as I said. You objected to that original quote.

As for the use of that term, it may well be as you say, but the reality is that many people in the Liberal Party think exactly that. The Liberal Party has been feuding bitterly since the days of Steele Hall, and to ignore the fact that potential and actual Liberal Party voters think it to be true renders analysis of the election results futile. You may as well just pack up and go home if it is not possible to discuss what voters think. Oh, and if you think that's the worst instance of name calling in the Liberal Party, boy are you in for a shock.

It would help if you were honest rather than being economical with the truth...
here is the original quote and my response to it...
viewtopic.php?p=216010#p216010

As you can see it's not an objection nor offense taken, but a question which you have still failed to answer.

How was that question relevant? You can ask all the questions you want, but unless there's some relevance to the topic, what reason is there to answer.

It's irrelevant because whether or not you or I agree/disagree on it, it doesn't affect what Liberal or potential Liberal voters think. What Liberal Party voters or potential voters think was the issue, because that feeds directly into the discussion of why the Party did so badly last Saturday. That was the subject of my post.

If you want to start a thread on whether or not you think Antic is this or that, go right ahead. But don’t complain if I refuse to cooperate with your discussion derail.

The Liberal Party has had bitter internal factional brawls since Steele Hall, the latest rounds being Cregan's coup over the Speakership (backed by Antic publicly) then McBride's defection from the Party after the last election (Antic again). Given Stephen Marshall's anger over all of this (and I imagine Spiers ain't too happy either), plus it's Marshall's former electorate, "extreme" is probably the mildest thing that's been said.

[rev]

Labor maintains lead in tight Dunstan by-election as count continues
More than half of the early and postal votes in Saturday’s Dunstan by-election were for Liberal candidate Anna Finizio, but Labor’s Cressida O’Hanlon maintains the lead as the count continues.

The Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) started counting early and postal votes on Monday afternoon, with its website saying that more than half of the declaration votes counted were for Liberal candidate Anna Finizio.

The Liberal candidate maintains the largest share of total first preference votes in Dunstan at 42 per cent, but when preferences are taken into account Labor’s O’Hanlon maintains a lead of 644 votes.

ECSA resumed counting declaration ballots at 9am this morning. No party is yet to make a formal declaration of victory in Dunstan, but on Saturday night Liberal leader David Speirs said the result “was not looking that promising” for his party.

Of the 2467 formal declaration votes, Finizio was the first preference of 52.3 per cent of voters (1290 votes). O’Hanlon has 31.2 per cent of the first preference share for declaration votes, while Greens candidate Katie McCusker managed to secure 10.7 per cent of first preference early and postal votes.

On a two-candidate preferred basis accounting for preferences, Finizio leads with 57.7 per cent of the early and postal vote count, and O’Hanlon has 42.3 per cent.

InDaily approached both the Labor and Liberal parties for comment, and both said they were awaiting the final result before making any statement.

O’Hanlon still leads overall in the by-election for the state’s most marginal seat which which went up for grabs when former state Premier Steven Marshall resigned earlier this year after serving 14 years.

Yesterday, Opposition Leader David Speirs declared he would not step down as leader of the state Liberal party.

“I’ll be staying in this job,” he told ABC Radio Adelaide.

“I canvassed many of my colleagues over the last 48 hours since what is clearly not a good result in the Dunstan by-election for our party, and my colleagues were firmly in support of me continuing in this role.”

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/adelaid ... -continues


If Labor wins this as its looking it will, what does that do in terms of government passing things through parliament? If someone with a deep understanding of this could respond.