Can someone explain to me why it is a good thing

[donnashuggy]

For the LNP to continue with such an UNPOPULAR leader?

I don't get it at all, they are not really showing support and unity as a party so that cannot be a reason.

Doesn't having an unpopular matter to them?

Is it simply because some of them want to keep their jobs?

Is there an explanation out there that makes sense?

Do they want to lose the next election?

[karliandjacko]

---

@poddster wrote:

In fact Donna, I address you as Donna.

By your own admission you belong to a group who support the left side of politics. The name for that collective group is the Lefties for the want of a better word. 🙂

To recap, I address you as Donna and I address the collective group you belong to as Lefties 🙂

---

Why do you have to group other posters into any collectives?

Is it not enough to have conversations with people without applying labels and allocate groupings to effectively bypass the rules about interpersonal disputes in order to call other posters names, such as lefties?

Does Donna do that to others?

[***super_nova***]

---

@karliandjacko wrote:

---

@poddster wrote:

In fact Donna, I address you as Donna.

By your own admission you belong to a group who support the left side of politics. The name for that collective group is the Lefties for the want of a better word. 🙂

To recap, I address you as Donna and I address the collective group you belong to as Lefties 🙂

---

Why do you have to group other posters into any collectives?

Is it not enough to have conversations with people without applying labels and allocate groupings to effectively bypass the rules about interpersonal disputes in order to call other posters names, such as lefties?

Does Donna do that to others?

---

I noticed that people who start their posts with these labels usually cannot support their arguments.  And more they are proved wrong nastier their name calling gets.

[cherry*135]

mm 12 wrote:

Some history, sorry A3

Could you please refrain from including my ID to multiple posts of yours, when it has no relevance at all to the contents of your posts. Fair enough if you are quoting my posts and commenting on them.

[cherry*135]

---

@poddster wrote:

No, the rich don’t pay a ‘fair share’ of tax. They pay all of it.

• by:ADAM CREIGHTON
• From:The Australian
• March 01, 201412:00AM

Adam Creighton

Economics Correspondent

Sydney

Illustration: Sturt Krygsman. Source: News Corp Australia

THE degree of ignorance about the distribution of tax across households is remarkable, especially given that the truth is so easily and freely accessible. For politicians perhaps it is wilful; the facts suit neither side.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tell us again, your opinions on those who c&p news articles. That one is exceedingly long and the graphic in the original post is too large by the way.. not very considerate to others.

[cherry*135]

---

@karliandjacko wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:
"....but I do believe that iI put my point on any issue over pretty well."

I would not agree with that statement.

The PM does not have the respect of the public (voters). Popularity or not, that is the main issue. Can't be repaired, he has to go.

---

That's about the funniest, furthest from the truth, comment of the day.  

I wonder how name calling and attempting to belittle people could be confused with putting a point across.  

---

I agree, most posts aren't even addressing any specific issues (as you say just name calling, false assumptions about other posters), therefore there are no valid on topic points being made to be put across.

@supernova wrote:

I noticed that people who start their posts with these labels usually cannot support their arguments.  And more they are proved wrong nastier their name calling gets.

That is VERY noticeable