Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

What the Liberal-One Nation preference deal could mean at the ballot box – ABC Online

Posted February 12, 2017 19:51:12

The success of the Liberal Party's preference deal with One Nation in WA could be determined by how many support staff are available to hand out how-to-vote cards on the day, according to a political analyst.

"In order to know what you're supposed to do with your preferences, what you need to do is go to someone handing out a how-to-vote card and find the order for this," said Emeritus Professor David Black.

"In the Legislative Council it's completely different. As soon as you vote any party ticket, the preferences will flow in the pre-arranged order, which that party has lodged."

Professor Black said it was likely the Liberal Party, with its larger base of volunteers, would need to help hand out One Nation how-to-vote cards on election day.

"In a difficult election for the Liberal Party, if they can get some kind of deal which works and an adequate number of people available to hand out how-to-vote cards, then it could be a crucial fact in an election which could be very, very tight," he said.

"The impact of preference distribution in the Lower House will be crucially affected by the extent by which the parties can provide the staff at the polling booths to make this happen."

Professor Black said it appeared One Nation could receive a significant primary vote in WA's March election.

"We know that in the previous election when this happened their preferences went against sitting members in the Liberal Party, which suffered," he said.

"In a very difficult election for the Liberal Party this is one obvious way [the Liberals] can see of trying to boost their chances by having a party that's likely to get a pretty strong primary vote more likely to give preferences towards the Liberal Party than against."

"The Labor Party, to win the election, has to probably win 11 to 12 seats or more. If they [the Liberals] can save two, three or four seats, that can make all the difference."

Professor Black described the National party as an election wildcard.

"In the end, what their votes do, how well they do, what happens in places like the Pilbara because of the mining tax and so on, which party benefits is very much up in the air and that just makes it an even more complicated election than we'd otherwise have," he said.

"In order for the Liberals to lose, the Labor Party has to have absolutely everything going right."

Professor Black said the Labor Party appeared to be a in a slightly stronger position, but at the same time they needed to win a lot of seats.

"It's an election that the Liberals, according to the polls, are facing a very, very real prospect of losing," he said.

"But they are confronted by this situation, where for a variety of reasons, One Nation has re-emerged from the clouds and all the opinion polls suggest they're going to get a very substantial portion of the vote."

Professor Black said there could also be some retaliation from the WA Nationals, who could direct their preferences elsewhere.

Topics: elections, liberals, one-nation, polls, wa

More here:
What the Liberal-One Nation preference deal could mean at the ballot box - ABC Online

Voters in TO split between PCs and Liberals: Poll – Toronto Sun


Toronto Sun
Voters in TO split between PCs and Liberals: Poll
Toronto Sun
Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff said the Conservatives in Toronto should really hope for better results against the Liberals than a statistical tie, given Kathleen Wynne's historically low approval, and how many provincial seats are at stake ...

and more »

See original here:
Voters in TO split between PCs and Liberals: Poll - Toronto Sun

WA Liberals confirm deal with One Nation – 9news.com.au

The WA Liberals will preference One Nation ahead of the Nationals in some of the upper house seats at the forthcoming March state election.

The deal is in return for One Nation to preference the party above Labor in the lower house.

Premier Colin Barnett said the deal was a practical, pragmatic decision, and would benefit his government in winning a third term.

"What we're out to do is retain government and there's no doubt, in the Legislative Assembly, in the lower house, One Nation preferences will flow to the Liberal Party," he told reporters on Sunday.

"That will give us a buffer to some of our seats under challenge, so it's to our benefit to win government and beat the Labor party."

However, earlier in February Mr Barnett cautioned people against voting for One Nation, saying it would be hard to govern if the upper house was controlled by a minor party.

Recent polling showed One Nation would be the third most popular party with 13 per cent of the primary vote.

A new Greens poll found 33 per cent of Liberal voters would be less likely to vote for them if they made a deal with One Nation.

The Nationals WA leader Brendon Grylls said his party had sought a direct preference deal with the Liberals, and Mr Barnett had signified it would happen.

"While some political parties believe they own or influence preferences - we believe this shows great disrespect to voters," he said in a statement on Sunday.

"The people of Western Australia will always vote with their hearts and minds, and won't be told how to vote by a piece of paper resulting from a backroom deal."

Mr Grylls said the Nationals had strong support for their policies across the state, and that elections were not won on preferences, but on primary votes.

Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten labelled the deal as a desperate move by a party that had publicly denounced One Nation in the past, and ruled out Labor giving One Nation preferences.

"I think what's turning people off the mainstream parties is when the people of Australia think Turnbull or I are just interested in ripping each other down and not focusing on them," he said.

WA Labor leader Mark McGowan said he was disappointed with the Liberal party and labelled One Nation hypocrites.

"The Liberal party and One Nation have now done a desperate, sneaky, political deal to try and save Mr Barnett's hide," he said.

"One Nation has done a deal with the devil."

Mr McGowan said One Nation were siding with a party that supported the sale of Western Power and foreign jobs, opposite to their own political direction.

Mr Barnett admitted it would be a complex and unusual election.

"There are some unpredictable results to come," he said.

AAP 2017

Auto news:2017 new car sales results - winners and losers - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Revealed: 2018 Holden Commodore Sportswagon. caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Opinion: Stay out of the right lane please. caradvice.com.au

Auto news:The new Kia Stinger will target Holden Commodore buyers - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Daring heist at Jaguar Land Rover plant - caradvice.com.au

See the original post here:
WA Liberals confirm deal with One Nation - 9news.com.au

Intolerant Liberals Tucker FitzGerald Medium

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. IsaacAsimov

So Nicholas Kristof, whom I am fond of, recently wrote an article that argues that Liberals are intolerant because there arent many Christians or conservatives teaching in universities. There is so much to be exhausted about right now, but this article connects too much with several thoughts that have been swirling around in my soul.

They mostly have to do with false equivalency. And relativism. And gas lighting.

Growing up as a conservative Christian, I was warned about secular, liberal relativism. Nothings really bad, who knows, its all relative. We had to be careful about such slippery slopes. After the gays got us to buy into such poor logic, then would come the goats, then the children, then the Satan worship would follow. But it turns out that this sort of relativism is entirely a myth of the right. The only people who ever try to implore relative logic (at this sort of crass level) are conservatives. Trying to play gotcha with liberals. And its exhausting.

I have some difficult news for everyone: Progressives arent interested in diversity. We arent interested in inclusion. We arent interested in tolerance. The progressives I know give exactly zero shits about those things.

We have no interest in everyone getting treated the same. We have no interest in giving all ideas equal airtime. We have no interest in tolerating all beliefs. I dont know where this fairy tale comes from, but its completely disconnected from every experience Ive had with progressive liberal folks in my lifetime.

When conservatives cross their arms and glare and shout Its not fair! Youre supposed to welcome everyone but you arent being nice to me! it stings about as much as if they shouted, Its not fair, youre supposed to be wearing tutus and juggling flaming donuts!

The progressive liberal agenda isnt about being nice. Its about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death. Its about acknowledging the ways systemic power, systemic oppression, systemic evil, work in our world around us. Im not fighting for diversity. Im not fighting for tolerance. Im fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression.

Heres a great example of a liberal relationship to diversity: when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be enough, she answered When there are nine. In response to the collective gasp of every conservative on earth, she elaborated. For most of the countrys history, there were nine and they were all men. Nobody thought that was strange.

Personally Im not interested in a female president for the sake of diversity. Putting a woman in the white house in 2020 wont mean that gender equality has arrived. Weve had 45 presidents. Its going to take 45 women serving as president before we even have a chance to reach parity.

Do you get it now?

If you want to pretend that the racial and gender horror in the world has already been righted, was righted in the 1960s, is almost righted now, or can hope to come close to being righted in your lifetime (45 female presidents), youre not getting the picture. We have a collective buildup of hundreds (thousands) of years of injustice to metabolize.

Take a few facts on race. White America is exhausted of Blacks invoking 200-year-old history as an excuse for their problems. Theyve had it just like whites since the Emancipation Proclamation. Or since MLK. Or since Obama made it into office.

Lets pause on this. I live in Seattle, Washington. A liberal city if there ever was one. Full of cheery whites with Black Lives Matter signs in their windows. But in Seattle, Washington, black residents make less money than white ones. 5% less, 10% less? No. The average black Seattlites income is less than half of the average white Seattleites income.

Less than half.

So, either there are unspoken forces at play that make it twice as hard for black people in Seattle to earn money, or black people are exactly half as intelligent and hard-working as white folks. Take your pick. But be honest about which one youre choosing.

Hows the country as a whole? Well, on average, white families have more wealth than black families. How much more? Is it 200%, like Seattles income disparity? 500%. No. White families in the US, on average have 1700% the wealth of black families.

How much progress have we made on racial equality in America? Well, apparently were 1/17 of the way there. Only 16/17 more to go.

I have a four-year-old white son. A black boy his age, in the same income bracket, same level of education, will live, on-average, 5 years less than him. Half a decade. Mysteriously.

That same black boy has a higher chance of spending time in prison than my son. How much higher? 110% the rate? 150% the rate? Nope, 500% as likely to be imprisoned.

So am I worried that not enough Christian professors are getting hired at universities?

No.

Every single president of this country has been a Christian. Every. Single. President. Barack Obamas presidency now means that its about 20 times easier to become president if youre white than black. But its still infinitely easier to be president of the United States if youre a Christian. 92% of the House and Senate are Christians. Try throwing a rock in either building and not hitting a Christian.

When your religion is represented by every President in history, and 92% of the governing body that rules your land, Id say youre doing okay in the whole representation thing. When conservative politicians have control of the White House, Senate, House, of the country with the most economic and military power in the history of our planet, I think crying persecution of conservatives might be suspect.

But crying persecution is what conservatives do with every single step towards gender equality, racial equality, any movement that seeks to treat all humans with the same dignity currently conferred on white men. The conservatives definition of a war on their rights is that gay people are allowed to get married and Latinx people are allowed to live in the same zip code. The false equivalency of straight white Christian mens feelings with everyone elses lives is absurd.

Poor Nazi soldiers, getting rounded up into prisoner of war camps while those Jewish people are getting let out of prisons by the same Allied soldiers! Jewish people get all the preferential treatment

Furthermore, conservative Christians have allied themselves with racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, mass incarceration, war crimes, death sentences, and gun culture. These Christians work actively to undermine scientific thinking. Anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-intellectual, and anti-factual. None of these line up with the values most universities share.

Yes, its important to intellectual growth to have variety. Its important that unpopular ideas get a hearing. Its important for there to be debate, and changes of heart, and to allow sincere disagreements to continue to wrestle with one another for clarification. I have no interest in our universities being populated by people who think like me. But I do have an interest in them being populated with people who think.

All world views are not inherently equal. Conservative thinking is, by definition, bent on conserving the status quo. It is often regressive. A shrinking, a backward movement, a return to previous points in cultural, political, and intellectual development.

Universities arent bereft of conservatives and Evangelicals because of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Theyre bereft of those people because people committed to those world views so rarely have anything to offer to an open-minded, inquiring, growing community. Universities are lacking in conservatives and fundamentalist Christians because the amount of education that it takes to become a professor is likely to expose Evangelicals and conservatives to enough good ideas that theyre no longer fundamentalist or conservative.

The fact that humanities departments are exceptionally lacking in conservatives and dogmatically religious people highlights this reality. Psychology, poetry, sociology, political science. People who have wrestled with the human condition, the human soul, literature and art, are the least likely to give credence to backwards ideas that are diminishing to human value and human dignity.

When liberals storm the cities streets to protest, rally, and yes, riot, in response to a Trump election, conservatives cry foul. They cry double-standard. Liberals expect conservatives to accept election results they dont like; why wont the liberals accept election results that didnt go in their favor? Why wont the liberals be relativists, like we want them to be, and treat all outcomes as equally valid?

Because all political decisions arent equally right. Arent equally moral. Arent equally recognizing of human dignity and justice and freedom. Because liberals recognize that there are wrong and right decisions, because they parse good and evil, contrary to what my church taught me about them.

Because democracy isnt the only value we hold. We dont accept the 51% enslaving the 49% by popular vote. We believe in human rights. We believe in the Bill of Rights. Because we balance the will of the people with the sanctity of each individual life. And no, your right to not sell flowers doesnt outweigh someone elses right to get married. Because not all rights are equal.

Because Hitler was brought to power by a democratically elected government. Because American slavery was legal.

The Right is also willing to confront the government with action more direct than voting, holing themselves up with assault rifles to maintain unpaid access to grazing on public lands, or just because the government might seize those assault rifles. If the government takes our guns, well have no way of stopping the government from taking our guns!

The Left meanwhile is roaring in the streets about the countless deaths of unarmed black Americans by the people charged with keeping them safe. Roaring in the streets about environmental devastation that the smartest humans among us agree poses a threat to all human life. Roaring in the streets about an admitted sexual predator being appointed as administer over our nations federal law enforcement.

Conservatives not having taken to the streets to riot when Obama was elected doesnt prevent us from taking to the streets to direct as much resistance to Trump as humanly possible. Because Trump and Obama arent equal. Conservatives being deeply outraged and fearful when Obama was elected doesnt negate or somehow counterbalance the outrage and fear on the Left right now. Because the Right was afraid of ridiculous, imagined fantasies of end times persecution and wildly inaccurate information. When the primary source of terror in living under an Obama administration is that hes a Muslim, you dont have one ounce of sympathy from me.

Meanwhile the Left is dealing with Donald Trumps actually announced plans. To commit war crimes. To imprison his political opponents. Compel a religious minority to register themselves. To gut the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Donald Trump is actually appointing white nationalists to top positions. Actually sexually assaulting women. Hes a man who openly admires the most despotic regimes in the world. His vice president has actually worked to jail homosexuals for applying for a marriage license. Actually worked to redirect HIV treatment funding to Pray-The-Gay-Away conversion therapy.

Trump calls Mexicans rapists, liberals call Trump racist. The Right jumps in to defend poor Trump from liberal slanderers. Conservatives want to cry Free speech! Free speech! Forgetting that your right to swing your fist ends at your neighbors nose. Forgetting that shouting Fire! in a crowded theater is both illegal and immoral.

Hillary Clinton thought Trumps supporters were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic. Trump cant believe Clinton would attack, slander, smear, demean those people with those comments. Well, I guess its a deadlock. Theres a 50/50 chance that eithers comments are actually harmful. Or Trump may be bad, but Hillary is bad too, dont forget. She called racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia deplorable. Trump supporters might be racist, but at least they arent calling anyone racist.

Trump says were in the middle of a crime wave! I say crimes the lowest its been in decades. Well darn. Back to that 50/50 chance either of us is right. We may never know.

Trump says undocumented immigrants are dangerous! I say theyre more law-abiding than citizens. Trump says theyre destroying our economy! I say theyre a benefit to our economy.

Well just have to agree to disagree. Because theres no way to establish concrete facts or objective reality. Shucks.

This exactly the shoddy relativistic thinking my church warned me about growing up

Here is the original post:
Intolerant Liberals Tucker FitzGerald Medium

Liberals Are Just as Guilty of Falling for Fake News as Conservatives – Fortune

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with airline executives in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

When the term "fake news" burst onto the scene during the presidential election, most of the examples the media referred to came from right-wing sites and networks, alleging all kinds of horrible things done by Hillary Clinton and/or the left: murders, child sex-abuse rings operating underneath pizza parlors, and more.

If Donald Trump was mentioned in these fake stories, it was usually in a complimentary way, like the one about Pope Francis endorsing his campaign, or one that said he sent his private plane to pick up 200 starving Marines.

But liberal sites and networks are no strangers to fabricated news for the simple reason that the desire to believe something that caters to our existing prejudices isn't restricted by political ideology. And according to an editor who works for the fact-checking site Snopes, liberal versions of fake news are growing in popularity.

Of course, the term "fake news" has also grown to encompass not just outright hoaxes created by dubious websites, but also stories in the mainstream media that turn out to be based on inaccuracies or suffer from extreme ideological spin.

In the latest example, former journalist and Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal wrote an essay in the highly-regarded London Review of Books, in which (among many other things) he described how Donald Trump's father Fred had commissioned a couple of racist TV ads during his run for mayor of New York in 1969.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

Blumenthal talked about how the first ad portrayed a black drug addict terrorizing a neighborhood. But as both the Washington Post and Politico have pointed out , the videos are fakes, created by a husband-and-wife team of videographers as an exercise in social commentary. Also, there's no evidence that Trump's father ever ran for mayor.

Clinton's former aide isn't the only one to fall for this kind of fake related to Trump's father. During the election campaign, an image was circulated on social media that allegedly showed the senior Trump (who was also a New York real estate developer) wearing a Ku Klux Klan robe. That picture is also a fake.

Why were people so quick to believe the photo? Because Fred Trump was once arrested after a KKK rally, and is also said to have held racist views, so the photo seemed to confirm something that was already widely believed by critics of Trump. The same goes for Blumenthal and the videosthey appeared to confirm something that many people already believed was true.

Many of the other "fake news" stories believed and shared by critics of Trump fall into a similar pattern. One that got a lot of play on social media was a New York Times story that claimed Rick Perry didn't really understand the office he was about to assume, after Trump named him Secretary of Energy.

The Times ' story alleged that Perry didn't know the Department of Energy also had responsibility for nuclear weapons. But the only quoted source in the story later said his comments were taken out of context, and a statement was later produced that was signed by Perry in which he appeared to be well aware of the department's nuclear responsibilities.

The New York Times has said that it stands by its reporting on that story, and that it had other sources besides the one named in the piece. But even if it was inaccurate, many people clearly wanted to believe it, because it fit their existing preconceptions about how unfit for office many of Trump's nominees are.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Says Fake News Must Be Tackled

More recently, a story was widely shared on Facebook and other social networks that claimed police officers had burned a camp of indigenous activists protesting the Dakota Access pipeline. The story included a photo that appeared to show hundreds of tipis burning. The story was completely untrue, however, and the picture was from an HBO film from 2007.

The immigration order that President Trump signed blocking travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries also caused a rash of fake stories, including one that showed a 5-year-old in handcuffs at an airport. But the picture was from 2015.

A number of stories shared both during the campaign and after purported to show evidence of racist attacks or abuse as a result of Trump's candidacy, including a student who had her hijab stolen on the subway, and a man who said he was thrown off an airplane after speaking with his mother in Arabic. The woman lied, and the man turned out to be a well-known YouTube prankster.

A Washington Post story that claimed the Russians had hacked into the U.S. electrical grid also turned out to be untrue.

Another story that was widely shared involved a Jewish family that said they had to leave their home and go into hiding after their son asked to be excused from performing in a Christmas nativity play, and they were subjected to abuse. As it turned out, the family had gone on a vacation trip that was previously scheduled.

As Snopes editor Brooke Binkowski noted in her interview with The Atlantic , if a story triggers a strong emotion in you, like rage, "then you probably need to check it against something else," because it may have been deliberately created to have that effect. And that's advice that applies to readers and social-media users across the political spectrum.

Read more here:
Liberals Are Just as Guilty of Falling for Fake News as Conservatives - Fortune