If you will be eligible to vote, who do you intend to vote for? (1 Viewer)

[Bob downe]

Probably liberal

 

[kaz1]

 

[Annihilist]

1: Who cares?
2: Who cares?
3: Who cares? Community volunteering is irrelevant to politics.
4: Makes sense for economic policies.
5: Who cares?
6: Fair enough
7: Who cares?
8: An atheist is far superior due to their values and decisions being unaltered by fantastical theological beliefs. An atheist is grounded in reality.
9: ?
10: Supporting someone simply because you are supposed to is naive and stupid. It's not something we should expect from our politicians.
11: Can't comment, I know shit all about economics.
12: "Oh no! Not communism!"
13: ?
14: ?
15: So bigotry and uncompromising single-mindedness is now a virtue? And "real/fake Julia" is bullshit.
16: Policy difference. I don't support "stopping the boats" so not a selling point.
17: Neither was "chosen" to be leader of their respective parties. Gillard was elected in 2010.
18: Who cares?

Most of these are bullshit and the rest are personal preference. I'm not a Gillard supporter but I loathe Tony Abbott.

 

[mirakon]

Gets an economics degree

Criticises economists who said the ETS was more economically sound than his own scheme

 

[Lentern]

I'm loathe to take the bait buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut; when it comes to Tony Abbott never changing his position, first he was in favour of an ETS under the Howard government, then he said he supported a carbon tax (and a consumption based tax at that, not an ETS like the Gillard government has) when the government was trying to pass an ETS and Dr Nelson was opposing it, then he said he supported an ETS under Malcolm Turnbull's leadership, then he said he opposed the ETS after he was offered the backing of the QLD and NSW dry liberals in the leadership ballot against Turnbull and now he tells us he believes in Direct Action. When it comes to Julia Gillard she has always had a clear position on Carbon Pricing since 2005, she opposes a consumption based tax and supports an Emmisions permits purchase scheme.

 

[Riproot]

Also, the whole "His government left $20 billion surplus" thing is a bit stupid. It wasn't really HIS government.

And "Needs Liberal votes to win" is wrong.
Labor got more votes than Liberal in the last federal election.
But the National/Liberal Coalition got more than Labor.
BUT the Labor & Greens got more than the Coalition, and the Greens always side with Labor.

Also, he obviously needed more than Liberal (/Coalition) votes to win because I don't think he's PM atm.

 

[funkshen]

i'm voting for abbot and costello

 

[soloooooo]

When it was initially Abbott vs Rudd and even initially Abbott vs Gillard, most people still wrote off Abbott. I wouldn't say Abbott has gotten better as alternative prime minister it is simply that Gillard has gotten much worse to the point where she (and some would argue the Labor party also) are untenable to lead the nation.

 

[Annihilist]

Both are pretty poor leaders. I've already mentioned before, and I will mention again, that although I hate the Liberal party I would vote for them in an instant if Malcolm Turnbull was leader.

Both major parties are pretty poor. I think we need a third party to step in.

 

[ALwaysSmiling]

eh... Labour made a lot of mistakes, and Julia Gillard hasn't really performed great. But I simply do not like Tony Abbott.

 

[ALwaysSmiling]

community volunteering has always been about bullshit propaganda

 

[soloooooo]

Talk in Canberra that Gillard could be ousted by the end of June now with supporters of hers in the February ballot now moved towards Rudd.

 

[Annihilist]

Talk in Canberra that Gillard could be ousted by the end of June now with supporters of hers in the February ballot now moved towards Rudd.

Should have supported Rudd.

 

[soloooooo]

Too right Labor members should have. Gillard is loathed in the community, half of Labors problem is her and half of it is their policies. Rudd has a better chance of saving marginal seats than Gillard and Labor need to retreat back to him to ensure survival.

 

[alstah]

The Libs have my vote.

Abbott well people may hate him because of his views on social issues, but it's not like he has the power to legislate against them lol. People's social views should not be an issue as long as they don't enforce them on others.

If anyone is considering voting for the Greens - have you gone on their website and read any of their policies? If the Greens ever win an election, I will revoke my Australian citizenship.

Labor have no chance. Abbott will have the largest majority in Australian political history.

 

[Annihilist]

Too right Labor members should have. Gillard is loathed in the community, half of Labors problem is her and half of it is their policies. Rudd has a better chance of saving marginal seats than Gillard and Labor need to retreat back to him to ensure survival.

"Rudd should have been supported because he has a better chance of holding a Labor majority."

...what?

 

[Annihilist]

The Libs have my vote.

Abbott well people may hate him because of his views on social issues, but it's not like he has the power to legislate against them lol. People's social views should not be an issue as long as they don't enforce them on others.

If he gets the power he will do so. He will enforce his ideas on others because that's what governments do.

If anyone is considering voting for the Greens - have you gone on their website and read any of their policies? If the Greens ever win an election, I will revoke my Australian citizenship.

Socially they are by far superior to any major party. Economically they have understandably divided reception. I remember reading their policies and most of them are good. Some of them are great. Others are questionable. But I see them as superior to Labor or Liberal. I don't understand the hate.

 

[Debauchee]

If he gets the power he will do so. He will enforce his ideas on others because that's what governments do.

prime minister =/= entire government

Socially they are by far superior to any major party.

oh dear, you support a one world government?

I don't understand the hate.

You evidently struggle to understand a lot of things.

 

[Lolsmith]

If he gets the power he will do so. He will enforce his ideas on others because that's what governments do.

Socially they are by far superior to any major party. Economically they have understandably divided reception. I remember reading their policies and most of them are good. Some of them are great. Others are questionable. But I see them as superior to Labor or Liberal. I don't understand the hate.

3 letters for you

L
D
P

 

[Annihilist]

prime minister =/= entire government

I am aware of that. Doesn't mean he won't try (and succeed) to get his ideas legislated.

oh dear, you support a one world government?

The problem with the party-representative democracy system is that if you announce you support a party (such as the Greens) then people will immediately assume you support every one of their policies. Which is not true, by the way - I don't blindly follow and support all policies, I merely said they were superior to the major parties - which is not really saying much. I was mostly talking about their pro-choice stance on social issues, their tolerance and acceptance of people who choose different ways to live their life. In some ways they are inferior, but overall they are better than the major parties, in my opinion.

I don't suspect the Greens will ever be in any position to get any leverage on a one world government. I don't support it because there are no benefits - it wont work in the way Bob Brown says it will, and so the negatives outweigh the positives. When people say that it "threatens Australia's sovereignty", however, I have little sympathy for that line of argument. That's not a big issue. Oh and I strongly support an Australian republic.