Australian Politics Forum - Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #90 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:29pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Quote:

Mandate? What percent of the vote gives him a mandate...

He was elected on that Policy. Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy. They have a mandate to pursue that Policy. Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance... not a poofteenth of the vote.

Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power. Grin

True. People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy. If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy.

Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation. What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda.

Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well.

Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of:

"There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together.

you understand even less what a mandate is than the average. a MANDATE is something granted by achieiving a SIZABLE majority on the back of a specific well-known policy position. a mandate is not something given to you by a small group of like-minded people but by the large majority of people you affect.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #91 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:30pm

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

cods wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Quote:

Mandate? What percent of the vote gives him a mandate...

He was elected on that Policy. Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy. They have a mandate to pursue that Policy. Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance... not a poofteenth of the vote.

Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power. Grin

True. People vote for a local candidate based on their Policy. If they win, they have not only a mandate, they have a fiduciary obligation to pursue that very Policy.

Clive and the PUP Senators have said obligation. What is pissing Grendel off is not that.....it is that those Senators have been delivered (through a democratic process) capacity to push that mandate, and it does not suit his agenda.

Exactly the same democratic process handed three MHRs fundamental power to push their mandates as well.

Hence, Gillard was confronted with a dilemma, and on the other side of that coin was why we never heard the end of:

"There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead," one she never anticipated she would have to give ground to other mandates to put together.

The Coalition blocked the ETS in the Senate twice during Rudd's term. If the mandate argument had any weight, they would have passed it because Rudd had a mandate to implement an ETS. In fact, an ETS was also Coalition policy, so by blocking the ETS, they ignored their own mandate to implement this policy.

So it is really unconvincing for any Coalition supporter to make the "mandate" argument given their own party's conduct.

REALLY...

why is it a lefty always forgets to mention

that the

GREENS

also voted it down...

I wonder WHY???? seeing as how they wanted it so badly!

the libs have never pretended to like it..

Howards policy was far different from big kevs.. kevin rubbished it.. he wanted a 60% reduction by 2050... Roll Eyes

he claimed Howards way would never go anywhere near that... Roll Eyes

dont forget it wasnt Abbott policy..

are we on track btw?

Ah .. but the Greens and their supporters don't bang on endlessly about mandates while disrepecting the mandates of others.

The Coalition are hypocrites.

like when the greens voted AGAINST the ETS that you claim Rudd has a mandate for?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #92 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:34pm

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:00pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Quote:

Mandate? What percent of the vote gives him a mandate...

He was elected on that Policy. Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy. They have a mandate to pursue that Policy. Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance... not a poofteenth of the vote.

Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power. Grin

So how do you disagree with me?
Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything?

Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it?

Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work.

The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate.

The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate.

The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament.

This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate.

And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

complete rubbish - and the reason you don't get mandates is because they are not legal or parliamentary devices. They are moral and ethical ones. It is why the coalition voted to repeal workchoices despite supporting the legislation. they did it because the voters (remember them )clearly rejected it. the voters clearly rejected the carbon tax too. the trouble is there is simply no way you would ever think there is a mandate for legislation you don't like - because the ethical position is not something you seem to understand.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #93 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:38pm Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm: The Libs allowed it, did they? My first question for you is ~ Who controlled the Senate after the 2007 Election, Grendel? the coalition and the conservative indies Xenophon and family first. it NOT labor and greens.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #94 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:41pm

Bam wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

So far as I can tell PUP did not run in South Australia. In Tasmania they polled 5.0% of the vote, which is similar to what they polled nationally at the Federal election. They are a chance to win the last seat in Braddon.

The Nationals ran in both states, apparently for comedy. In Tasmania they polled 0.8% of the vote and in South Australia they polled 0.1%.

the nats have always been small in SA but they committed suicide here some years ago when the sole nat sided with labor to form govt in return for a cabinet position of course. they have since all but disappeared.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #95 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:00pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Quote:

Mandate? What percent of the vote gives him a mandate...

He was elected on that Policy. Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy. They have a mandate to pursue that Policy. Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance... not a poofteenth of the vote.

Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power. Grin

So how do you disagree with me?
Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything?

Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it?

Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work.

The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate.

The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate.

The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament.

This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate.

And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

complete rubbish - and the reason you don't get mandates is because they are not legal or parliamentary devices. They are moral and ethical ones. It is why the coalition voted to repeal workchoices despite supporting the legislation. they did it because the voters (remember them )clearly rejected it. the voters clearly rejected the carbon tax too. the trouble is there is simply no way you would ever think there is a mandate for legislation you don't like - because the ethical position is not something you seem to understand.

Your post is complete rubbish. As usual, you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your waffle.

Ethics? Morality? Do you even know what these are? How dare you preach about ethics and morality when the Liberals are trying to force the arts to accept tobacco sponsorship?

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38799 Gender:	Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators Reply #96 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:47pm melielongtime...answer me this. If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the *sole* platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed?
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #97 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:58pm

Bam wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:29am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:00pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Quote:

Mandate? What percent of the vote gives him a mandate...

He was elected on that Policy. Two PUP Senators were elected on that Policy. They have a mandate to pursue that Policy. Anything else would be be a betrayal of the people who voted for them.

A mandate is accompanied by a clear majority and governance... not a poofteenth of the vote.

Funny how opinions of mandates change according to which party is in power. Grin

So how do you disagree with me?
Do you think Clive has a mandate to do anything?

Did Rudd have a mandate to implement an ETS in 2009? Did the Coalition or Greens have a mandate to block it?

Here's the thing with mandates. Here's how they really work.

The Senate is free to vote as it wishes on legislation. The government has a mechanism that can be used to get the legislation through: if the Senate fails to pass the bills twice at least three months apart, the government can call a double dissolution election, can win a mandate for the blocked bills at that election, and then can put the bills to a joint sitting of Parliament. The joint sitting has only been invoked once to overcome a particularly recalcitrant Senate.

The possibility of a double dissolution election is the mechanism that drives the mandate.

The possibility of losing a double dissolution election is why the mandate is not invoked often. It's not realistic to assert the existence of a mandate on any piece of legislation. The Senate is free to vote as it wishes. It's not there to rubber-stamp legislation! Mandates only really exist on legislation that is eligible to be put before a joint sitting of Parliament. Any other legislation has to be approved by the Parliament (not the Government) in the usual manner. All legislation - regardless of the mechanism - has to be approved by the whole Parliament.

This is why Rudd's government did not have a mandate for the ETS in 2009 and early 2010. The Parliament did not approve the legislation. But Rudd could have sought a double-dissolution election on the ETS to win a legitimate mandate.

And this is why Abbott's government does not have a legitimate mandate to repeal the carbon tax, repeal the mining tax, etc. The Parliament has to approve these bills, not the Government. Abbott can take his chances on a double dissolution to win a mandate for the contested bills, or accept the decision of the Parliament. But he cannot go around saying "I have a mandate" without doing the hard yards that actually bring a mandate: he has to win a double dissolution election with the contested bills.

complete rubbish - and the reason you don't get mandates is because they are not legal or parliamentary devices. They are moral and ethical ones. It is why the coalition voted to repeal workchoices despite supporting the legislation. they did it because the voters (remember them )clearly rejected it. the voters clearly rejected the carbon tax too. the trouble is there is simply no way you would ever think there is a mandate for legislation you don't like - because the ethical position is not something you seem to understand.

Your post is complete rubbish. As usual, you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your waffle.

Ethics? Morality? Do you even know what these are? How dare you preach about ethics and morality when the Liberals are trying to force the arts to accept tobacco sponsorship?

nice deflection (which isn't even true) and proves yet again how little you understand of ethics and morality and why therefore a 'mandate' is like a discussion of quantum physics to you: way over your head.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #98 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:05pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

melielongtime...answer me this. If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed?

and because this is an ethical consideration then the circumstances that occur define the action. if you are out-voted then your vote is meaningless and while voting against the national mood is poor-form, it is no-harm no fail. but say YOUR vote is the one that determines the outcome, by virtue of the quirky electoral system which as we know makes parliamentary representation at best a moderate barometer of national wishes. do you vote for YOUR opinion which serves the possible wishes of one electorate or do you serve the wishes of the 150 who have voted the other way? do you use your position that is given to you by accident or do you consider the wishes of the significant majority?

that is why it is an ethical and moral question. Maybe your legal upbringing has given you that lowest-common-denominator opinion on behaviour - if it is legal then that's the only consideration. But there are some who understand that right and wrong are higher concepts than legality.

Why should you vote, garnered on the back of very few people and won by a slim majority (or by preferences alone) allow you to overrule the clear wishes of the majority.

I look forward to your explanation of power vs responsibility.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #99 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:25pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

melielongtime...answer me this. If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed?

and because this is an ethical consideration then the circumstances that occur define the action. if you are out-voted then your vote is meaningless and while voting against the national mood is poor-form, it is no-harm no fail. but say YOUR vote is the one that determines the outcome, by virtue of the quirky electoral system which as we know makes parliamentary representation at best a moderate barometer of national wishes. do you vote for YOUR opinion which serves the possible wishes of one electorate or do you serve the wishes of the 150 who have voted the other way? do you use your position that is given to you by accident or do you consider the wishes of the significant majority?

that is why it is an ethical and moral question. Maybe your legal upbringing has given you that lowest-common-denominator opinion on behaviour - if it is legal then that's the only consideration. But there are some who understand that right and wrong are higher concepts than legality.

Why should you vote, garnered on the back of very few people and won by a slim majority (or by preferences alone) allow you to overrule the clear wishes of the majority.

I look forward to your explanation of power vs responsibility.

You know the answer to that question. It is exactly why Gillard had to compromise on the carbon tax because some independants wanted it, and they forced her hand, and all power to them for doing so.

In case you don't know............as the elected candidate for a specific electorate, I have an ethical, moral, fiduciary and mandated obligation to act precisely as I promised I would to those who elected me, whether that be by way of overwhelming first preference count, or via preference distribution.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #100 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:41pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 5:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

melielongtime...answer me this. If I stand as an independant candidate in a Federal election on the sole platform of repealing the carbon tax, and I am elected ~ do I not have a mandate (as well as a fiduciary obligation) to do everything I can to see the carbon tax repealed?

and because this is an ethical consideration then the circumstances that occur define the action. if you are out-voted then your vote is meaningless and while voting against the national mood is poor-form, it is no-harm no fail. but say YOUR vote is the one that determines the outcome, by virtue of the quirky electoral system which as we know makes parliamentary representation at best a moderate barometer of national wishes. do you vote for YOUR opinion which serves the possible wishes of one electorate or do you serve the wishes of the 150 who have voted the other way? do you use your position that is given to you by accident or do you consider the wishes of the significant majority?

that is why it is an ethical and moral question. Maybe your legal upbringing has given you that lowest-common-denominator opinion on behaviour - if it is legal then that's the only consideration. But there are some who understand that right and wrong are higher concepts than legality.

Why should you vote, garnered on the back of very few people and won by a slim majority (or by preferences alone) allow you to overrule the clear wishes of the majority.

I look forward to your explanation of power vs responsibility.

You know the answer to that question. It is exactly why Gillard had to compromise on the carbon tax because some independants wanted it, and they forced her hand, and all power to them for doing so.

In case you don't know............as the elected candidate for a specific electorate, I have an ethical, moral, fiduciary and mandated obligation to act precisely as I promised I would to those who elected me, whether that be by way of overwhelming first preference count, or via preference distribution.

but in the circumstance outlined above you are being asked to make a decision for EVERYONE when the majority want the opposite of what you want. yes it is a conflict and one that is resolved by resorting to ethics and morality.

do you choose to over-ride everyones wishes because an accident gives you the legal power to do so? or do you act with EVERYONES interest in mind.

I wait for your next excuse for why your wishes trumps everyones at any time and any place.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #101 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:00pm

It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is. If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote. The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate. I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.'

I would truly 'represent' those who elected me.

(Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform. Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.)

If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians, and even then, a person who was elected after campaigning 'I will repeal the carbon tax,' would stay that course.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:19pm by Aussie »

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #102 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is. If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote. The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate. I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.'

I would truly 'represent' those who elected me.

(Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform. Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.)

If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians.

you are more than clever enough to understand the argument but clearly lack the ethical foundation to be able to understand it.

the question was all about when a single person is given the POWER to over-ride the wishes of the signifcant majority of the entire country then what should they do.

I understand your reluctance to answer the question. it is truly the Devils alternative for you. If you do only what you want you clearly have no regard for anyone else and if you listen to the vast majority you are suddenly in the world of moral and ethical decision-making, something you learned as lawyer to avoid.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38799
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #103 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:24pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is. If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote. The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate. I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.'

I would truly 'represent' those who elected me.

(Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform. Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.)

If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians.

you are more than clever enough to understand the argument but clearly lack the ethical foundation to be able to understand it.

the question was all about when a single person is given the POWER to over-ride the wishes of the signifcant majority of the entire country then what should they do.

I understand your reluctance to answer the question. it is truly the Devils alternative for you. If you do only what you want you clearly have no regard for anyone else and if you listen to the vast majority you are suddenly in the world of moral and ethical decision-making, something you learned as lawyer to avoid.

I know I have already answered your question. I'd vote to repeal the carbon tax, and I would not give any regard to anyone other than those who voted for me because I made a 'promise' to them. Simple stuff.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Clive Palmer hopeful of 2 more senators
Reply #104 - Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:28pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

It is really simple melielongtime, and to suit your own agenda, you want to make it far more complicated than it is. If I said, 'Elect me, and I will repeal the carbon tax,' and I am elected....those who elected expect to see me do what I said I'd do which attracted their vote. The Australian population do not get to vote for me......only the people in my electorate. I owe and am obligated to them, not 'Australia.'

I would truly 'represent' those who elected me.

(Funny..............I did run as an Independant in a Qld. State election on a very specific platform. Did not win......but the AEC did send me a very handsome cheque.)

If your absurd concept was correct, we'd not have local electorates..................every candidate would be elected by all Australians.

you are more than clever enough to understand the argument but clearly lack the ethical foundation to be able to understand it.

the question was all about when a single person is given the POWER to over-ride the wishes of the signifcant majority of the entire country then what should they do.

I understand your reluctance to answer the question. it is truly the Devils alternative for you. If you do only what you want you clearly have no regard for anyone else and if you listen to the vast majority you are suddenly in the world of moral and ethical decision-making, something you learned as lawyer to avoid.

I know I have already answered your question. I'd vote to repeal the carbon tax, and I would not give any regard to anyone other than those who voted for me because I made a 'promise' to them. Simple stuff.

the amoral position. I expected nothing more. do they teach you in law school how to put morality into a bank deposit box and hope it is still alive when you retire and try and retrieve it?

no wonder PUP appeals to you. an angry self-obsessed sociopath seeking to get his own way and trample on anyone who gets in his way. the inevitable heart-attack he will get is probably australias best hope.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged