The Department of Parliamentary Services has also been telling staff that I have been interviewed by the AFP about my security sources. That is absolutely NOT TRUE.
I still haven't heard a single person tell me why it is perfectly okay for the arabs to try and break through the border fence. There are civilians just on the other side whose lives would have been in danger. Or is it just a case of "that's what the jews get for settling there in the first place".
There are civilians just on the other side
Was this intentional or just kind of ingrained in you at this point?
Good, I miss politicians who stand their ground and show some emotion that’s human and relatable. I miss Paul Keating
Albo would need to show me that the 2016 dummy spit over Grayndler was not to be repeated for me to support him as leader.
That childish response required enormous resources to rail in losses even against what was always going to be a bit of a “vegemite” Greens candidate. Repeated on a national stage against a Coalition alternative it would be catastrophic.
It’d go over like a lead balloon in managing a party room dispute as well.
China has committed to buying more US goods. He didn't cave on this, he got exactly what he was aiming for.
Can you link to a description of the IP protections please?
If they can't handle renouncing their citizenship, how can they handle running the country?
Prove the citizenship of your maternal great grandmother and tell me the legal landscape that applied to her citizenship, those of her spouse and children *and* any / all ex post facto changes to those nationality laws during their life times.
This isn't nearly as simple as some here continually like to make out. For many people it would be outright impossible.
For a 200k + shitload for expenses job you better put some fucking effort into. Don't let them get away with 'it's very hard'. Many things in life are hard. Besides, they have staff that can support them with the process.
To be exceedingly blunt, I would have expected better insight than this from you.
It’s not just hard, for a great many people it is impossible to comply with. A broken family link anywhere up to 3 generations back, not to mention modern considerations like IVF / donor conception, can destroy any ability to comply even as a snapshot, let alone against an ever moving backdrop of nationality laws. Many of them retrospective.
A preselected candidate from a major party might have staff available to assist but even in the instance of the ALP we’ve seen that outlay being borne by the candidates. With a minor party or standing as an independent your support is guidelines. That’s it. And this on a subject that can quite quickly necessitate experienced legal advice in multiple jurisdictions and languages.
But the really disappointing thing to see from you is that you seem to think this is some privilege for the few. Every Australian has a right to participate fully in their democracy, including standing for office. That should be on an equal basis for every single one. Section 44 as it stands runs a divide in exercising that right straight down the middle of the country.
What did Wittes do that incensed them?
Wittes takes a pretty dim view of The Intercept’s approach to intelligence issues and their competency in operating within that sphere. Has done for some time and is quite blunt in stating it.
I imagine it rubs their cypherpunk types the wrong way. I’d suggest it might also sit particularly uncomfortably given the increasing degree to which it appears prominent names at The Intercept have been played with over the last several years. Greenwald being an obvious example.
goddamn I find this shit embarrassing for the country. Why are the conservatives such pathetically eager lickspittle for the US every single time? I'm going to find a liberal voter IRL and make them defend this shit
Nah, this isn’t us sucking up to the US, it’s much worse than that.
We’re defending this shit because those at the top, particularly Bishop, actually believe in defending it. Is it so surprising when you consider this government’s disregard for human rights?
Didn't we already do the whole "this isn't unlimited" court cases with the ACCC over shit like this back in the ADSL days?
Moving to a throttling model is very welcome but it's not unlimited.
This is a much stronger endorsement of the campaign than they got from Labor. Sometimes I question why unions still affiliate with the ALP if they don’t get their support back.
It makes some sense with the ALP in power but it’s kind of bemusing to see the unions fight the ALP right and lose on peripheral and social issues when they’ve often been Green policy for years.
With the power structures McManus is currently assembling it’ll be interesting to see how that weight gets thrown around.
Not content with merely being cowards and abstaining, we actually voted no.
Given the lack of respect for human rights we show domestically I guess we shouldn’t be surprised what we’ll provide cover for on the international stage.
There’s an opportunity here for the periphery of the hospitality industry to take a stand on this.
While sites like Rate My Boss are useful, they’re not the first place people go for reviews. Proof of correct pay as a line item, or better yet a requirement for listing, by sites like Zomato and traditional reviewers would be a incredibly helpful.
Giuliani said Trump's lawyers "were told there were two embedded people in the campaign" and that the Times' report "corroborates what people told us off the record."
Giuliani thinks he's digging up, doesn't he?
Terrible headline, important story.
On Wednesday, two more Republicans signed on to a petition that would force an open-ended and unpredictable immigration debate onto the House floor -- a nightmare scenario that the White House and GOP leaders seem, at least at the moment, unable to stop.
The decisions by Republican Reps. John Katko of New York and Dave Trott of Michigan to sign on to the petition came in the wake of private urgings from House Speaker Paul Ryan to his GOP colleagues not to add their names to the list
It's also a reminder and public face of systemic problems within the Liberal Party that stretches down to branch offices.
The barriers to advancement for women within the Liberals are manifold, deeply entrenched in the prevailing (and obvious) culture of the party, and known to be a problem for literally decades.
Yes some women break through those barriers. Yes we should expect them to get torn down from time to time. That's politics.
But the consistent make up of those coming up through the ranks remains a real problem for the Libs and a problem they have been far, far less successful at tackling than the ALP.