A closer look at our PM

[donnashuggy]

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/malcolm_turnbull

Some really surprising things there

[icyfroth]

very interesting.

[purple_haize]

some things there that I didnt know, very interesting.

[donnashuggy]

https://www.facebook.com/sydneymorningherald/videos/10153749851876264/?fref=nf

[icyfroth]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/sydneymorningherald/videos/10153749851876264/?fref=nf

---

From Donna's link:

"It may be five PMs in five years, but two good things come out of this dastardly Shakespearean play... Shorten is gone and a gaping vacancy emerges on the Right for an honest third Party... a Party that might just have the notional support of 44 Libs who justifiably despise Turnbull and what he stands for.

Let’s face it Abbott was a superb Opposition leader and a hopeless PM, but his legacy will be his loyalty while for Turnbull and Bishop it will be their treachery."

Libs have made themselves just as unelectable as the Labs.

[donnashuggy]

I cant see shorten winning the next election. I could see Abbott losing if he stayed though. We all have to vote for someone.

[monman12]

"interesting" site  DH

I find the description of a "Reps" vote that is along party lines described as:   "Passed by a small majority" or "Not passed by a small majority" as somewhat misleading.

I decided to check (as is my habit!) a topic chosen from the list that alleges Turnbull had: "Voted very strongly against" Namely: Same-sex marriage equality.

That does not equate with the historical facts e.g.

"Turnbull has been a long term vocal supporter of marriage equality, and stated his support for the Liberals to adopt a conscience vote on the issue in the lead-up "

Mr Turnbull has publicly lobbied in favour of same-sex marriage and criticised the decision to prevent a free vote now.

The US Supreme Court ruling gay marriage legal everywhere in the country "clearly" adds to the momentum for a law change in Australia, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull believes.

And for the OS news trawlers:
NYT
"Other prominent Liberal politicians were dismayed by the move. Malcolm Turnbull, a cabinet minister often mentioned as a potential party leader, said he would have voted for the marriage bill if a conscience vote had been allowed."

Another entry covering what Turnbull has supposedly "Voted very strongly against"  lists: "Tobacco plain packaging"
Nonsense, that is only apropos  a  very minor technical amendment vote, and the bill was bipartisan.

Another check of Turnbull's "Voted very strongly against" list produced: " Increasing restrictions on gambling"  This also appears to have no sound foundation !

"A spokesperson for Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull told The New Daily that the Australian government took concerns about problem gambling “very seriously”

"In a video tribute from anti-gambling advocate Tim Costello posted on Mr Turnbull's website, Mr Costello praises Mr Turnbull for his "leadership" in backing tough reforms on problem gambling."

An "interesting" site, but based upon a cursory read, like here,  one I would not quote verbatim sans checking.

[icyfroth]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

I cant see shorten winning the next election. I could see Abbott losing if he stayed though. We all have to vote for someone.

---

This could be a golden opportunity for the rise of a minority party.

[donnashuggy]

I decided to check (as is my habit!) a topic chosen from the list that alleges Turnbull had: "Voted very strongly against" Namely: Same-sex marriage equality.

That does not equate with the historical facts e.g.

I thought that was odd too so did some research and found it was correct. People are allowed to change their mind on things, even politicians. Anyway - here's a mug for you:

[monman12]

"I decided to check (as is my habit!) a topic chosen from the list that alleges Turnbull had: "Voted very strongly against" Namely: Same-sex marriage equality.

That does not equate with the historical facts .......".

I thought that was odd too so did some research and found it was correct. People are allowed to change their mind on things, even politicians.

Being unable to accept a past "chuckle" from elsewhere e.g.:  "I don't feel I have to "prove " anything to anyone as I already know..." ,  it would be enlightening DH to read what you found "was correct", as I do delight in credible supporting evidence.

Meanwhile,  I am still "suspicious" of these entries from your link apropos Turnbull's supposed past voting record:

"Voted very strongly against"   "Tobacco plain packaging"

"Voted very strongly against"  " Increasing restrictions on gambling"