on 15-09-2015 09:52 AM
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/malcolm_turnbull
Some really surprising things there
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 22-09-2015 07:12 PM
on 15-09-2015 10:57 AM
very interesting.
on 15-09-2015 11:39 AM
some things there that I didnt know, very interesting.
on 15-09-2015 11:48 AM
on 15-09-2015 12:41 PM
@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.
on 15-09-2015 12:45 PM
15-09-2015 02:03 PM - edited 15-09-2015 02:06 PM
"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.
on 15-09-2015 02:16 PM
@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.
on 15-09-2015 02:18 PM
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:
15-09-2015 03:16 PM - edited 15-09-2015 03:17 PM
"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"