Donald Chump

So Bernie is in with a red hot shot at it. But so, unfortunately is Cruz, I think might even be worse than Trump.

Wow, no shit. RIP

Lol, some of the blokes I served with shouldn't have had gats even when they were IN the army, let alone now! Australia has a huge amount of '3rd parties', some of them very influential, to the point that the current govt is a coalition of conservative and the 'farmers party'. We have a thing called the preferential system; the party that wins 50% +1 of the votes gets to form govt. However, quite often no party gets that much of the vote first time around. So instead of having a second vote, the smaller parties get to 'sell' their votes and they way they do that is by saying to the major parties "if you adopt policies X, Y and Z we will give you our votes".These preferences are made clear well before the election takes place so when you vote for a smaller party you are well aware that you are essentially voting for one of the major parties as well. This way a votes for a smaller party still counts as they may not get in to power but they get to influence the policies of the big two parties in a considerable way. Only problem is that most Australians don't understand that this is how they system works.

In your view is that a good or bad thing? Not my view in particular but an interesting one none the less: Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the art of the next best.

Yeah, that was a pretty dumb move, from the little bit I know of it. I'm not so sure that Hillary will be 4 more years of Obama, I think it might be simplifying things a little too much. There are some pretty fundamental differences: Younger black male - older white female Single term new-comer - former first lady and secretary of state Straight away their fundamental differences reduce the likelihood that they will view and approach the same issues in the same ways. They haven't always agreed on policy either, which suggests that there is daylight between them on particular issues as well. I think Hillary would be a bit more of a deal maker than Barry was and I think she would probably be a little more decisive and active than he was in some areas as well - mostly regarding foreign policy. I get the feeling that Hillary would listen more to her advisers on strategic matters than Barry was known to have done. To be honest, this is not well researched or learned opinion, bit more gut than head, but it's the way I'm leaning on that issue.

Agreed that Hilary is just another career politician and that's not often a good thing. But hey, Trump isn't a career politician and he's a fucking clown. It would be interesting to see what a Trump presidency would look like, just to find out what he would actually do. Remember how Obama said he'd pull US troops out of the Mid East, how he'd shut down Gitmo, etc. etc. Yeah, well, all leaders are constrained by reality when they have to put their money where their mouth is and be responsible for the decisions. It's too easy making grandiose statements and unreasonable promises from the stump, when they're in office things usually drop back a few notches in terms of their toughness and resoluteness to bring about change. He'd probably just blame an uncooperative congress and obstructionist this and that.... I actually don't know much of Bernie, I guess I haven't paid attention as I feel that Hilary will get the nom...., for better or for worse.

Seems he's keen to confirm what his personal appearance suggests.

Yeah, nothing worth looking at on the Reps side. I'd like to see Hilary in because of her Asia-focus and simply because she's a wooza. I don't mind conservatism in regards to small govt and free markets but that's about it. So anything that weakens social conservatism is a good thing in my books. Lastly, Hilary has foreign policy experience and when compared with most others that's a massive benefit, especially at a time of serious strategic challenges (Mid East/Iran/IS, Russia, China, etc...).

cenno dosh....., my pay!

I think I might be keen on Symbols :hearteyes:

we are

Was in a pub in a town called Malacoota over Xmas. Heard a local say to a mate "Merry fucking Christmas, ya cunt". Dude had a shaved head at the front with scraggly collar length hair at the back, messed up teeth and was wearing a flanno with lowes-level jeans and dessert boots. He became known to us as Old Mate Coota. Saw a chick that was about 20, bunch of tatts, a beanie, flanno tied up to show off her muffin top that was hanging above jeans 2 sizes too small for her fat arse. She became known to us as the Malacoota Roota. We caught a few flathead, which are now called Mallacoota river lizards. It was impossible to get a decent coffee anywhere there, we suffered from the Mallacoota curse. It was a very Aussie Xmas. Yesterday, I mowed the lawn in my thongs. Today I go to the beach to lounge around in a small, cheap blow-up boat. I am Australian.

You know I'm born to lose, and gambling's for fools But that's the way I like it baby, I don't wanna live forever Rock In Peace

That'll do it.

THere is an ad at the top of this page for manhole covers. whatthefuck12ozrussianbitchdownaholetrip?

That's not a bogan ute, that's just a ute. Gotta have a "no fat chicks" or "fuck off, we're full" sticker, in the minimum, to be bogan.

I'm going to paint more. Not on some getting up trip but I've spent 2015 working two jobs and one volunteer role and whilst not having the time to sketch and paint I've stocked up on the cans. Today is my last day at one of the jobs and next year I'll have time back in my life to use the paint I've got. Secondly, I want to do 2500km minimum on the mountain bike. I copped some injuries this year, which destroyed that goal, 2016 is my year. Lastly, I want to get published a bit more. I do a weekly TV spot on a cable network (no, I'm not telling you which one) discussing geopol and international security but I've published very little in writing. 2016 will see that change.

Love this [stolened]

Keep calm and BERSERKER!!!!

yo

Little spot next to my fave food truck

Sounds fair and reasonable to me. Let's do it.

Yeah and conservatism overlaps somewhat here - correlation rather than cause and not a very strong one either, I guess. Plus, given the occurrence in Calimasacre this week I think that the ease of access to guns issue dramatically overlaps with the problem regarding religious extremism now too. As Barry O. has said, you can be on a no fly list but still buy a machine gun. ludicrously bizarre from a security perspective.

No, but I don't see people planning drunken massive attacks in cars that kill large amounts of people in a single hit, either. Also, alcohol is heavily regulated, driving drunk is illegal and there are strong attempts to stop it. We know it's a problem so you're not allowed to do it. It may not but it sure as hell makes me SAFER. He can't kill me from a distance, he can't mow me and my family down in seconds and he can't stab me through a door. Sure, he could make a bomb but that requires far more effort, knowledge and risk to him (in many ways) and it's not something he can do in a fit of rage as it takes time and planning to bomb but takes seconds to grab the gun and pull the trigger. Yep, reduce the means and you reduce the problem, right? Of course you still have to address radicalisation, marginalisation, alcohol issues, domestic violence in general, psychological issues, etc. etc. However there is one great constant and dominating factor in the recent mass killings - guns. Difficult to ignore that glaring point. Sure, but that's happened how many times? Once. How many times have mass shootings occurred? How many gun related deaths are there a day in the US? Hijacking a plane and terrorism in general is illegal and a lot of effort goes in to combating it. IT takes a lot of effort and planning to successfully hijack/bomb a plane (in the West at least). It takes no effort at all to grab a gun and a poo-load of mags and cut down a shopping centre or restaurant. The comparison between hijacking a plane and shooting up the public seems a but redundant to be honest. Nope, it wouldn't and as I said up the page it's only part of the solution - and extremism isn't the core issue with guns, it's only the most prominent one right now. Sandy Hook, Colombine, etc. was not due to radicalisation and extremism, it was easy access to efficient and easy to use killing machines. Regards to radicalism and extremism, there are many, many things to be addressed and the whole of the problem is far from fully understood. And with that in mind, it would be awesome if these people that exist could get the means to waste us so easily! Much easier to detect people making bombs than it is some one acquiring a gun and some bullets. Anyway, look forward to your response but I'll probably leave my side there. If I lived the states I'd definitely have my house armed, but that's because most of the places I've spent time in over there I saw guns everywhere and I'd have to level the playing field a bit - but I'd hate the fact I had to arm myself to feel safer. In Aust, I just don't have that need. Guns are few and far between and I do not at all feel threatened. We come from different realities on this front and the gun debate will likely go on past our lifetimes given the polarised nature of the discussion. Didn't really want this to turn in to a gun control discussion as we've had that on these pages many times and no one has really shifted their position. I think we can all agree that guns a great fun but it sucks that arseholes use them in ways that reduce everyone's quality of life. Back to hating on terrorists and Putin.

Yeah, so why would you give them guns? If people kill people why would you want to make it easier for them to do so? I say that as a former competition shooter and marksman. I love shooting but am happy to not have an AR/AK to know that he dude next door doesn't have one either.