Monthly Archives: February 2017

Updated February 15, 2017 15:15:55

One Nation candidates in the WA election are threatening to disobey their own party on the controversial preference deal struck with the Liberal Party.

"I feel like I have just received a kick in the fangs by our own party," one candidate said in an email seen by 7.30.

"The party is selling me and the constituents out."

Now some of the party's candidates are openly defying the head office directive and threatening to give their own instructions of directing preferences.

Dane Sorensen and David Miller are two candidates who were prepared to go on the record for 7.30.

When they decided to run for One Nation in Western Australia, they did not expect to become bargaining chips.

But that is what the pair, who come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, believe they have become under the controversial deal between Pauline Hanson's One Nation party and the WA Liberals.

Under the deal, the Liberals will preference One Nation in all but one of the Upper House seats and in return will One Nation will preference the Liberals in all the lower house seats it is contesting.

Mr Sorensen, a former mining executive, and Mr Miller, an electrical fitter and traditional Labor voter, are big supporters of Ms Hanson but are united in their opposition to the backroom deal.

"I wasn't told I found out about it in the Sunday Times and reading social media," Mr Miller, candidate for the seat of Collie-Preston, told 7.30.

"How it looks to me, [the deal] is to get people into the Upper House at the expense of people in the Lower House.

"[I'm] less than impressed."

Mr Sorensen, who is running in the seat of North West Central, says they should have been consulted.

"People are perceiving that One Nation are purely trying to get the Liberal Party re-elected and that's not what I joined the party for and it's certainly not what I stand for," he said.

A big point of contention for the Lower House One Nation candidates who are opposed to the deal is the fact that they are funding their own campaigns.

Mr Sorensen estimates his will cost up to $15,000. It's understood the party has agreed to refund 75 per cent of advertising costs after the election.

"I don't mind funding my own campaign as long as I'm not being dictated to as to how I will proceed with that campaign," he said.

"Why would we preference, on a blanket basis, the party that has done an abysmal job of running the state?"

In an email to other disgruntled One Nation candidates, Mr Sorensen said the One Nation party had provided total disorganisation and stupid directives.

"We, the scum, are just cannon fodder. To say I'm not impressed, is an understatement," he said.

"It amazes me that this 'party' expects us to all fund our own campaigns and then find out that they are manipulating us behind the scenes."

Mr Sorensen then goes on to advise the other candidates to do their own "how to vote" cards, a sentiment endorsed by Mr Miller.

"This deal is shambolic," he told other One Nation candidates in an email.

"I, for one, will decide who I preference."

Forty-five candidates are running for One Nation at the March 11 poll.

The WA One Nation leader, Colin Tincknell, declined to be interviewed by 7.30 but in an email he said that the how to vote card is only a recommendation and that the One Nation has always encouraged voters to make up their minds on preferences.

Topics: government-and-politics, elections, state-parliament, one-nation, states-and-territories, bullying, wa

First posted February 15, 2017 13:31:04

Go here to see the original:

One Nation candidates David Miller and Dane Sorensen furious over WA Liberal preference deal - ABC Online

Updated February 15, 2017 14:52:17

A call by a Tasmanian young Liberal supporter group to rid the state of poker machines has won rare praise from an arch political rival but also a distancing from the Liberal Party.

The Tasmania University Liberal Club (TULC), which calls itself the state's "largest right-wing youth organisation", said poker machines should be banished from Tasmania, including in the state's two casinos.

The TULC's statement that it was "time to see these bad machines out of our state" was welcomed by the Tasmanian Young Greens and comes at the end of the first week of hearings of the parliamentary inquiry into gambling in the state.

TULC president Blake Young said the group which he said was not officially affiliated with the Liberal Party had taken a "hard-line" approach over the issue.

"As a centre right group, freedom and personal choice is something we do value but at the end of the day the people being damaged by pokies are the most vulnerable in our community," Mr Young said.

"They have very little money to live on and far too many are feeding everything they have into these addictive machines."

Mr Young said the money spent on machines, estimated to be about $200 million, could be better spent elsewhere.

"Are we comfortable with the fact that our economy is underwritten by poker machines? I don't think we are.

"It is a hard-line view compared to what any policy outcome might be from the current inquiry, but we definitely think our state would be a better place if poker machines weren't here."

Mr Young said there was a rare opportunity for young Liberals, young Greens and young Labor members to "speak in unison" on the issue.

Today, the state director of the Tasmanian Liberal Party, Sam McQuestin, tweeted "all Lib members entitled to their views, but please note no formal link/affiliation between Lib party and tas uni (sic) Libs".

Young Greens convenor Holly Ewin congratulated Mr Young and the TULC on its position.

"The Young Greens support the removal of pokies from pubs and clubs, and it's my personal view that they have no place in the community at all," she said.

Ms Ewin said all three "young" parties could agree and it would send a strong message to politicians.

She said the Young Greens did not have a formal position on the removal of pokies from casinos, but there was "strong support".

Young Labor has been contacted for comment.

Topics: gambling, political-parties, tas

First posted February 15, 2017 13:23:11

Go here to read the rest:

Anti-pokie stance from Tasmania young Liberal supporters welcomed by Greens - ABC Online

Declaring someone mentally ill so you could get rid of him certainly was a common strategy in communist countries. Its reflected, too, in a recent comment by Andrew Sullivan, as the journalist advised the media to make hay out of President Trumps mental health. A person would have to be wacko to oppose the Establishment, right?

As CNN reported Monday, To have such an unstable figure, incapable of accepting reality, at the center of the world, is an extremely dangerous thing, Sullivan said in an interview for Sundays Reliable Sources on CNN.

Sullivan's view is that the president is exhibiting bonkers behavior and that if they tip toe around it, journalists are doing the public a disservice, CNN continued.

This left Trump friend and Newsmax Media CEO Chris Ruddy questioning Sullivan's mental state. He called the journalists assessment over the top. As CNN also informed, Are you guys really connected to reality? Ruddy asked CNNs Brian Stelter on Reliable Sources.

Sullivans problem (one of them, anyway) is, he states, that Trump tells lies that are direct refutations of reality; this lies in stark contrast to Bill Clinton, opines the journalist, whose prevarications paid some deference to the truth. Yet Sullivans gripe appears to be, in part, that Trump simply isnt slick enough for his tastes.

Among other things, the journalist cites Trumps claim that the murder rate is the highest it has been in 45 to 47 years. While we could wonder if the president questions the accuracy of todays crime stats for example, Baltimore police have simply stopped arresting many criminals under Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake it is true that one cant credibly claim the highest murder rate in four decades.

Yet Sullivan, and CNN, exhibited their own dislocation from reality when speaking of Trumps supposedly bogus claims about rampant voter fraud. This claim is bogus itself fake news.

I do tire of having to repeat simple facts:

A Democrat election commissioner was caught on video admitting theres a lot of vote fraud.

A Democrat operative was caught on video planning it, speaking of its prevalence, and admitting that his side has been rigging elections for 50 years.

Actual cases of vote fraud occur and are documented repeatedly.

A vote-fraud monitoring group claimed last year that three million non-citizens voted in past presidential elections. This is close to what Trump claimed and is no doubt where he got his figure.

Yet Trump didnt even go that far. He spoke of three million illegal votes, not three million illegals voting theres a big difference. There are many ways of stealing votes.

I dont claim myself to know the precise figure relating to this. How could we know illegal activitys exact magnitude when little effort is made to address the problem? But I have reported on it here, here, here, here, here, here, and here but hear nothing but crickets.

The point is that the Fake News (mainstream) Media live in an alternate, Alice in Wonderland universe. One should ask Mr. Sullivan: Are you mentally unbalanced, sir? Or are you just so uninformed that you dont know of a major threat to our electoral system?

Certainly, its the medias job to be a watchdog. Yet it has become a dishonest attack dog going after the underdog. Trump certainly is eccentric, given to grandiose statements and hyperbole. Leaders are seldom, however, just the average bloke. And where was Sullivan et al. on our stranger-than-fiction leftist politicians?

Consider that in 2015 an NSA analyst claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers President Obama to be literally mentally unwell, reported InfoWars at the time.

The same year, Fox News pundit Bill OReilly and Congressman Allen Westswebsite both asked if Obama was delusional. This was followed by veteran journalist Sharyl Attkisson revealing that sources told her Obama preserved his delusions by refusing to even look at intelligence contradicting his leftist world view. Where was Sullivan?

How about an inflated sense of self? National Review reported in 2009 that Obama told someone he was interviewing in 2007 for the job of his political director: I think that Im a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And Ill tell you right now that Im gonna think Im a better political director than my political director.

Then theres Hillary Clinton. She was filmed collapsing on different occasions and needing help getting up stairs. Many, including Secret Service agents, attested that she was well neither physically nor mentally; were told she was given to bouts of depression and fits of rage. Again, where was Sullivan?

We could also mention her husband, the Wizard of Is. Perhaps nothing epitomized him better than his transitioning from laughter to fake tears, after seeing a camera, while exiting the memorial service for late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown in 1996 (video below, narrated by radio host Rush Limbaugh).

What would an honest psychiatrist say about such behavior? Could it be described as sociopathic?

CNN writes that Sullivans overarching point is that democratic debates require a common set of facts. True enough, but has the deceitful mainstream media helped in this regard? How about when NBC doctored George Zimmermans 911 call to make him appear racist? When the media peddled the Hands up, dont shoot! lie, call vote fraud virtually nonexistent, and generally suppress truths and spread lies in service to a leftist agenda, are they seeking facts?

Theres a reason CNN critics dubbed it the Counterfeit News Network and have said that it IS Fake News. And theres a reason Americans trust Trump more than the media.

Radio host Michael Savage famously wrote a book years ago titled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, and liberals have also diagnosed conservatives as mentally ill. This is no surprise: The chasm between liberals and conservatives approaches Grand Canyon proportions.

But Sullivan is half right: Fruitful debates dont need a common set of facts they require a common acknowledgementof the facts. This is impossible when one side, disconnected from Truth, exists in an alternate universe where sanity appears as sickness.

Continued here:

Liberal Journalist: Media Should Talk About Trump Being Mentally Unstable - The New American

Failing to woo a liberal this Valentines Day? Its not just you. For some liberals in the United States, the presidential election results have been a total turn-off.

Normally in the first month of the year, the dating site Match.com sees an uptick in the number of active users on the site. January, after all, is a popular month for singles to get back out there.

But this January, Match.com noticed something surprising: a decrease in activity among the sites more liberal users. In January, people who call themselves liberals were far less likely to sign up with Match and werent contacting potential matches or checking out new profiles as much, says Helen Fisher, the companys science adviser.

Meanwhile, conservatives flocked to find new partners in droves. Users in counties that voted for Donald Trump seem to be more interested in dating than users in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton.

Match was curious about why, as the site didnt see conservatives drop out of the game after Barack Obamas reelection in 2012. So in the past few weeks, Match randomly polled 1,800 of its users. The sample included roughly the same number of Trump and Clinton voters (38 percent voted for Trump, 40 voted for Clinton) and slightly more men than women (54 percent of the sample were men).

The results suggested the election really did have an effect on users self-reported dating drive: 29 percent of liberals said they felt less like dating since Trump won. Among conservatives, that figure is 14.2 percent.

Why? Match is not so sure. Fisher, a biological anthropologist by training, suggests a simple answer: Theyre depressed. (A political loss could depress the drive to mate. Or it could be that liberals are generally feeling downtrodden and arent yet ready to let joy back into their lives.)

Whats more, conservatives reported a greater willingness than liberals to reach out across the aisle in their love lives post-election. Around 60 percent of the liberals responded they are less likely to date a conservative than two years ago. Meanwhile, around 56 percent of conservatives said the same.

Of course, a poll of Match users isnt representative of all of Americans. But it illustrates a trend other social scientists have picked up on. As Ezra Klein has written, its now more common for Americans to discriminate based on politics than it is to discriminate based on race.

The more partisanship becomes a social identity and I think this is as true today as it's been in modern American politics the more we should expect people to engage in in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination," political scientist Danny Hayes told Klein. So its not surprising that in the aftermath of a hostile election cycle, partisans are feeling less warmly toward one another, and less likely to date the other side.

We tend to fall in love with somebody who has the same values as we do, Fisher says. And this is a time when the values are very polarized, and very personalized.

Which is perhaps concerning. People who have more social interactions with members of other political parties tend to have warmer feelings about them, Pew Research finds. Fully 62% of Republicans with just a few or no Democratic friends feel very coldly toward Democrats, Pew reported in June 2016. That compares with just 30% of Republicans who have at least some Democratic friends.

As the political shockwave of the 2016 election continues to set in, people are still figuring out how to deal with it on a personal level. A recent Reuters poll finds the number of people who reported getting into arguments with family or friends increased 6 points from December to January (from 33 to 39). Thirteen percent told Reuters they had ended a relationship with a family member or friend due to the election.

But if Republicans and Democrats cant get together over awkward first-date drinks, how will the parties ever get along?

Read more here:

Liberals on Match.com aren't in the mood since the election of Donald Trump - Vox

Conservatives are staking out opposing positions on a Liberal motion to condemnIslamophobia, with oneleadership candidatesupporting the bid to denounce systemic racism and others opposingit onthe grounds it could impede free speech or single out one religion for special protections.

MPs will begin debate onmotion M-103, which calls on the government to "recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear," at 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday.

Leadership contender Michael Chong said Tuesday he will support M-103, the motion tabled by Mississauga, Ont., Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that was tabled last fall but will be debated tomorrow in theaftermath of last month's mass shooting at a Quebec City mosque.

He rejected claims that M-103 singles out Muslims for special treatment, noting the House of Commons has denouncedhatred against other groups, including Jews, Yazidis and Egyptian Coptic Christians.

Chong also rejected claims widely circulated through social media and online petitions that M-103 will infringe on free speech and set Canada on course toward Shariahlaw.

Conservative Party MP and leadership candidate Michael Chong supports the motion and says it is important to debate Islamophobia in the wake of last month's mosque shooting. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

"In light of the mass shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City last month, where six Muslims were killed and 19 injured while they prayed in their mosque, it is appropriate and important that Canadian parliamentarians study the issue of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic prejudice and discrimination," he said in a statement.

Chong said a bigger threat to free speech is the existing Section 319 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to wilfully promote or publicly incite hatred against any identifiable group.

He wants to repeal that section, arguing the bar must be set very high on free speech in a democratic society, with even odious ideas debated publicly to be countered by the "disinfectant" of free speech.

"The right way to counteract hate speech is free speech, not the Criminal Code," he said in a statement to CBC News. "Section 319 of the Criminal Code is too expansive an interpretation of the harm principle. In addition, Section 319 risks putting a chill on debate, forcing these debates underground where they can fester and create real resentment."

Calling himself a "strong defender of free speech and religious freedom," another Conservative leadership contender, ErinO'Toole, has pitched amendments to the motion to its sponsor. He believes his proposed changes would "address valid concerns about limiting free speech" while ensuring proper debate in the House of Commons.

"These would remove any ambiguity with respect to free speech being limited, including criticism of radical Islam or even criticizing the faith or its practices like any other faith," he said in a statement to CBC News. "As a courtesy, I raised my concerns and specific changes to the MP. We had a good discussion and she said she would consider my proposed amendments."

MPs begin debate Wednesday on the motion from MP Iqra Khalid that calls on the government to condemn Islamophobia. (CBC)

Khalid has declined interview requests from CBC News.

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeauspoke in defence of the motion. NDP MPs also support it.

Conservatives will discuss M-103 during a caucus meeting Wednesday. A spokesman for interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose said she will not support the motion unless there is an amendment, but would not specify what amendment might change her position.

At least one MP in the party's leadershiprace, PierreLemieux, has been issuing fundraising letters warning thatM-103is "an attack on free speech" and that it "advocates special protections for one religion."

In a Facebook post Sunday, Conservative leadership contender Maxime Bernier said he will vote against M-103 unless it is amended to remove the word "Islamophobia."

"Is this motion a first step towards restricting our right to criticize Islam? Given the international situation, and the fact that jihadi terrorism is today the most important threat to our security, I think this is a serious concern we have to take into account," he wrote. "Free speech is a fundamental Canadian value. We should reaffirm everyone's right to believe in and criticize whatever belief they want, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, atheism, or any other."

Last month, fellow Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch tweeted her opposition to the motion.

Lisa Raitt, another leadership contender, won't support it either.

"M-103 is focused on a controversial term Islamophobia which I don't believe is appropriate and as such I do not support this motion," she said in a statement.

Last week 74 Canadian Muslim organizations, individuals and community groups signed a joint letter calling for support for M-103. But other faith organizations are also weighing in.

ShimonFogel, CEO Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has been in touch with Khalidto discuss amendments, including defining Islamophobia to ensure the motion delivers its intended purpose of condemning anti-Muslim hate in Canada.

"It is vital that such statements serve this intended purpose and are not hijacked by those with an alternate agenda to stifle honest and legitimate civil discourse," Fogel said in a statement to CBC.

"Can criticism of Islam be hateful and anti-Muslim? Absolutely. Is all criticism Islamophobic? Certainly not. The Jewish community wants to demonstrate its support and solidarity with a Muslim community that feels under siege, but this cannot come at the cost of a constructive conversation about those elements or manifestations of Islam that are not only antithetical to Canadian values, but have been the basis of hatred toward and attacks on Jewish communities around the world."

The text of the motion also asks the government to:

Original post:

Conservatives wrestle over Liberal MP's anti-Islamophobia motion - CBC.ca