by Booney » Thu May 19, 2016 9:52 am
by Corona Man » Thu May 19, 2016 10:01 am
Booney wrote:How do you see political advertising?
by Magellan » Thu May 19, 2016 10:11 am
by Dogwatcher » Thu May 19, 2016 10:27 am
by stan » Thu May 19, 2016 10:31 am
Magellan wrote:Reckon political advertising should be banned. By that I mean ads on the telly and the like. I'm OK with signs on stobie poles saying 'vote for X.'
There's plenty of political advertising that goes on every day in the news and media, and on the election trail. If you need a 30 second ad laced with spin to help you work out which party best aligns with your values, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.
by Corona Man » Thu May 19, 2016 10:38 am
by Jimmy_041 » Thu May 19, 2016 10:57 am
Dogwatcher wrote:Funnily enough, I wrote an editorial seeking some election gravy from our local candidates two weeks ago, at the conclusion, I asked them to, if nothing else, promise a ban on corflutes for electioneering.
Lo and behold, this week one of our local candidates has suggested they should be banned:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 8240eaee66
I'm glad someone's listening.
by Dogwatcher » Thu May 19, 2016 11:30 am
Jimmy_041 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Funnily enough, I wrote an editorial seeking some election gravy from our local candidates two weeks ago, at the conclusion, I asked them to, if nothing else, promise a ban on corflutes for electioneering.
Lo and behold, this week one of our local candidates has suggested they should be banned:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 8240eaee66
I'm glad someone's listening.
He's still putting them up though
Just like Mark Butler writing to the State Govt saying Transforming Health is a crock to appease his voters. It achieved a lot, didn't it......
by Booney » Thu May 19, 2016 11:37 am
by Jimmy_041 » Thu May 19, 2016 11:55 am
Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!
by Booney » Thu May 19, 2016 12:11 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!
We need a quote from Peter Dutton about this......
by Dogwatcher » Thu May 19, 2016 12:12 pm
Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!
by Booney » Thu May 19, 2016 12:13 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!
Sadly, I think its reflective of voters across the nation.
Bet if I duck down to the Far Canal shopping centre, you'd get much of the same.
by Q. » Thu May 19, 2016 12:48 pm
by Gozu » Thu May 19, 2016 3:24 pm
Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.
by Booney » Thu May 19, 2016 3:55 pm
Gozu wrote:Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.
No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.
It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.
by Q. » Thu May 19, 2016 4:00 pm
Gozu wrote:Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.
No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.
It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.
by Gozu » Thu May 19, 2016 4:41 pm
Q. wrote:
Uh no.
If people don't give a ****, why should they be made to vote?
by Psyber » Sun May 22, 2016 7:08 pm
Q. wrote:Gozu wrote:Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.
No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.
It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.
Uh no.
If people don't give a ****, why should they be made to vote?
by Booney » Mon May 23, 2016 3:25 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |