|
anyway i'm obviously upsetting some people who don't believe in constructive criticism so i'll stop trying to have discussions on how the greens can improve thing and let them stay the course.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:hmm this is an interesting and somewhat new (to me) theory. This is anecdotal from members who were in the same branch as her when this all went down. Chances are they're blowing poo poo out of proportion and her dad may have just been a club manager whose club relied on pokies revenue to stay afloat. Which is a bit more defensible, but seeing first hand how evil the pokies (and greyhounds) industry is in the ACT and how underhanded they'll fight, I have limited sympathy. (obviously solidarity with clubs workers who are even shafted by their "union" Hospitality United who recruit them and doesn't offer them industrial protection and is pretty much just a donation poaching scam ANYWAY)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
on van badham im not finding much on her parents ownership of clubs. did the policy changes really have that big of an affect on club profitability?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Kafka Syrup posted:This is anecdotal from members who were in the same branch as her when this all went down. Chances are they're blowing poo poo out of proportion and her dad may have just been a club manager whose club relied on pokies revenue to stay afloat. Which is a bit more defensible, but seeing first hand how evil the pokies (and greyhounds) industry is in the ACT and how underhanded they'll fight, I have limited sympathy. oh okay hmm. yeah i agree i have no sympathy for either industry either
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:anyway i'm obviously upsetting some people who don't believe in constructive criticism so i'll stop trying to have discussions on how the greens can improve thing and let them stay the course. nice meltdown
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Would be nice if there was greater public pressure on the Queensland Police about the DV-enabling cop but I guess we are just used to this kind of thing now
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:on van badham im not finding much on her parents ownership of clubs. I mean supporting a pokies ban and phase-out would impact the profitability of a LOT of pubs and clubs, especially those who ... whatever the opposite of diversify is ... and made their clubs almost entirely reliant on pokies revenue. This is doubly true of "chain" pubs owned by ALH and Spirit who homogenised the look, menu and entertainment options at their clubs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Kafka Syrup posted:I mean supporting a pokies ban and phase-out would impact the profitability of a LOT of pubs and clubs, especially those who ... whatever the opposite of diversify is ... and made their clubs almost entirely reliant on pokies revenue. This is doubly true of "chain" pubs owned by ALH and Spirit who homogenised the look, menu and entertainment options at their clubs. oh yeah i misread something. nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Labor need to rebrand to get away from the "union thugs" imageKafka Syrup posted:I mean supporting a pokies ban and phase-out would impact the profitability of a LOT of pubs and clubs, especially those who ... whatever the opposite of diversify is ... and made their clubs almost entirely reliant on pokies revenue. This is doubly true of "chain" pubs owned by ALH and Spirit who homogenised the look, menu and entertainment options at their clubs. Though really, if the only way you can stay in business is by exploiting people's gambling addictions you don't actually deserve to
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:I don't know; perhaps they should sell their preferences more dearly though. ALP benefit doubly by throwing rocks at them publicly and doing deals in the back room, don't imagine the electorate can't see that. If you listened to the current Buzzfeed political podcast, the narrative from the big parties is, don't cozy up to them, they'll steal your primary vote, and that's absolutely true because they're supposed to. The biggest issue with this is that the primary desire for the average Greens voter is to see the Liberals out of government (preferably loaded into the nearest guillotine, but I digress), and get some senators up. Beyond that, any seats that we actually win are just the cherry on top. So moving preferences around is going to damage our primary vote severely, because people will just play it safe by voting straight ALP. Also, all it takes is for one of those minor parties to do something hosed up (See: Wikileaks circa 2013) and that poo poo splashes all over us. I agree that it's not fair that the ALP get to slander us with impunity and still get our preferences; but the alternative is to risk them filtering through to the libs, or some kind of pro-rape brony party. Or worse, the Libdems. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Box of Bunnies posted:Labor need to rebrand to get away from the "union thugs" image The talk about rebranding is interesting because I was living in Denmark when the Danish equivalent of the Greens is split into three different parties - none of which have Greens in the name. The Rhiannonites are Enhedslisten, an alliance of communists and ecosocialists. The "mainstream Left" are part of Socialistisk Folkeparti, the democratic socialist party. The RDN technocrats created a new party Alternativet - literally "The Alternative" - which is kinda like a ramped-up version of the Arts Party, the Science Party and Reason. There isn't really a party for the deep greens like Tassie. Between the three they account for roughly 16% of the seats in a pretty proportionate system. Which if our electoral systems were the same, the Greens here would hold. Don Dongington posted:The biggest issue with this is that the primary desire for the average Greens voter is to see the Liberals out of government (preferably loaded into the nearest guillotine, but I digress), and get some senators up. Beyond that, any seats that we actually win are just the cherry on top. So moving preferences around is going to damage our primary vote severely, because people will just play it safe by voting straight ALP. Also, all it takes is for one of those minor parties to do something hosed up (See: Wikileaks circa 2013) and that poo poo splashes all over us. This is the problem every non-extremist party has in a majoritarian system - even more heavily proportional or coalition-oriented ones. You're always gonna have to pick a "big sibling" when it comes time to form government, and 9/10 you're gonna back the centre-left option (unless you're Germany and your centre-left option is crazy racist and you're also pretty cooked in other ways) And ultimately, in most systems, left-wing parties will get between 10% and 20% of the vote, between them. The Greens in Australia are a bit lower than that which is a problem, but we're still in the band. I'm personally happy with the party polling between 10% and 15% if we're consistent and vocal. We can push Labor left, we get a few Senators in and maybe an MP or two, and we occasionally get BOP and can get some direct policy asks - while at the same time not having to compromise our values or the influence of our members. Kafka Syrup fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:I agree that it's not fair that the ALP get to slander us with impunity and still get our preferences; but the alternative is to risk them filtering through to the libs, or some kind of pro-rape brony party. Or worse, the Libdems. Ugh. I agree with you post, but holy loving lol at the bolded part if you think that doesn't go both/all ways in politics. But yeah your response is essentially the point of my question - the way I see it is that it's more an issue with a lack of real leftist options. Those other minor parties that ewe2 is referring to, at least in Perth, included (off the top of my head) the Lib Dems, the Animal Justice Party, and the Australian Christians. Being the best of a heap of bad options doesn't necessarily make the ALP a great choice for first preferences for the Greens, but realistically, what other is there? Here's my hot take prediction: I could honestly envisage the Greens going the way of the Australian Democrats within the next 30 years, especially if either some new leftwing party came about, or existing members can't be retained and new ones can't be recruited. I guess it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't in some ways - if the party stays or becomes more centrist, the existing membership is going to be pissed off and leave. If it goes more left, a whole heap of people won't even realistically consider voting Greens in the first place. Imo one of the biggest problems for the Greens is a rise in challenger third parties, like One Nation. For a while the Greens have been able to hold their place pretty solidly as the majority on the cross bench and just use numbers to refuse to negotiate, thus enabling them to get better policy or legislation. That's a good tactic when you are the majority and have the numbers to hold out, but refusing to deal on principle is going to start costing when other parties and independents also have the numbers but not the same principles (which has arguably already happened). You can either nobly refuse to deal and wind up with a poo poo result, or pragmatically agree in the hopes of getting a less-than poo poo result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:I agree that it's not fair that the ALP get to slander us with impunity and still get our preferences; but the alternative is to risk them filtering through to the libs, or some kind of pro-rape brony party. Or worse, the Libdems. Ugh. That's the Stockholm syndrome speaking. You can't prove what was never tested. We already know where the road ends, remember the Democrats. If the Greens want to avoid that, they'll have to get creative, and that's the problem I'm having with them. I don't see the creativity. It's not enough to complain that the bad guys get all the good issues like the devil gets the best music. If changing Greens preferences changes the primary vote, guess what? They weren't really Greens voters, just voters looking for an alternative to the ALP. And that's not enough to sustain a party, you may as well stay in the "other" column. I think the electorate is shifting away from the majors permanently, but the majors can still play divide and conquer if a minor party retains the mindset of being an "alternative". I'm not saying there's a sure-fire solution to all this, because probably it's really down to what the electorate thinks on an election-by-election basis, but I do know that a good chunk of support is just disaffected Labor voters and they have to find a way of turning that into real Greens voters. edit: I see Whitlam and I are in furious agreement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Imo one of the biggest problems for the Greens is a rise in challenger third parties, like One Nation. For a while the Greens have been able to hold their place pretty solidly as the majority on the cross bench and just use numbers to refuse to negotiate, thus enabling them to get better policy or legislation. That's a good tactic when you are the majority and have the numbers to hold out, but refusing to deal on principle is going to start costing when other parties and independents also have the numbers but not the same principles (which has arguably already happened). You can either nobly refuse to deal and wind up with a poo poo result, or pragmatically agree in the hopes of getting a less-than poo poo result. I think this is mostly a problem only under Liberal Governments and will flip when Labor gets in. PHON and on certain issues KAP, UAP and AC will refuse to even engage on and won't negotiate, whereas the Greens can take a more radical position but negotiate with a Labor Government to pass something through. CA is the weirdest one since they're the closed to the old school Australian Democrats as technocratic centrists with no real ideology so could negotiate to the right of Labor - but that's also contingent on them surviving the next federal election. ewe2 posted:If changing Greens preferences changes the primary vote, guess what? They weren't really Greens voters, just voters looking for an alternative to the ALP. And that's not enough to sustain a party, you may as well stay in the "other" column. I think the electorate is shifting away from the majors permanently, but the majors can still play divide and conquer if a minor party retains the mindset of being an "alternative". I'm not saying there's a sure-fire solution to all this, because probably it's really down to what the electorate thinks on an election-by-election basis, but I do know that a good chunk of support is just disaffected Labor voters and they have to find a way of turning that into real Greens voters. But this is what the Greens strategy has been since 2013..? Building up at subnational levels, slowly trying to secure local council majorities or coalitions and working up to state-level coalitions. Building the Greens as a distinct political force with it's own management style. As much as I hate the idea of the Greens having Ministries any time soon, demostrating a distinct Ministerial style and relationship with the "machinery of government" might embed the party in the electorate in ways other third parties in Australia haven't been. Kafka Syrup fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Kafka Syrup posted:But this is what the Greens strategy has been since 2013..? Building up at subnational levels, slowly trying to secure local council majorities or coalitions and working up to state-level coalitions. Building the Greens as a distinct political force with it's own management style. As much as I hate the idea of the Greens having Ministries any time soon, demostrating a distinct Ministerial style and relationship with the "machinery of government" might embed the party in the electorate in ways other third parties in Australia haven't been. I don't think the electorate sees it that way, that's the problem. With councils, the majors at state level get to dump all the thorny problems on them and plays that up as failures at election time. In my electorate for example, the parties see council as the dumping ground for its has-beens and no-loving-ways. I'm not disparaging local government: it's valuable political experience for the party but for the actual politician, it rarely translates upwards, at least not around here. And the fact is, the general electorate don't really care how parties organize themselves. It's been one of those perennial stupidities for me that every party seems to think telling the electorate how they're organized is a win vs other parties, it's not. No one believes a word of the Liberals "broad church" or "no factions", no one doubts the caucus makes the captains calls in Labor, no one cares how democratic the Greens are internally except other Greens and the occasional idiot Labor politician who thinks they score a point by whining about it to a bored Canberra journo who's only there for the couple of paras to put the cycle to bed for the day. So for the Greens to sell themselves on the basis of their internal organization just wastes valuable time the electorates attention. If the journos can be bothered listening to the shadow Green for whatever, and you know they can't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Honest question beet: if the greens rebranded, how many votes do you think they’d gain
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
I suddenly feel very sporty. In a specifically coat hanger then kick in the balls while down way. Maybe a casual headbut while whistling 'Hey Mr DJ'.Anidav posted:I want to rebrand into a good poster Simultaneously guarantees immediate quality perception while removing one of the main problems with your current brand. You don't even have to stop watching Kiss X Sis. I mean it's still a cartoon isn't it? making GBS threads in a hole in your yard may even be a step up for you. Which leads me to the big hole in the beet rebrand the greens plan. Unless the new brand has an immediate impact or usurps someone else's credibility it HAS to be a step back. Meanwhile I think a bunch of posters here should be rebranded on a continuous basis until they die from 3rd degree burns. -/- Know what a 'gin jockey' is? Better find out before engaging in debate with the indigenous community: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-23/trevor-noah-facing-backlash-after-comments-on-aboriginal-women/10025424 And obviously an apology is out of the question..
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:I don't think the electorate sees it that way, that's the problem. With councils, the majors at state level get to dump all the thorny problems on them and plays that up as failures at election time. In my electorate for example, the parties see council as the dumping ground for its has-beens and no-loving-ways. I'm not disparaging local government: it's valuable political experience for the party but for the actual politician, it rarely translates upwards, at least not around here. The comeback to that though is, generally, the electorate doesn't pay attention to politics at all. A huge proportion of the electorate would struggle to identify any political issue in the media. Heck I've doorknocked people who still think Howard's PM. There's so much political journalism and so little political engagement, that the usual punter will have the most surface level understanding of what's going on, and make a decision on who to vote for based on a mixture of preconceptions, their material reality, whatever opinion mouthpieces they do listen to (whether that's in the media or in the meatspace), and the feeling of backing a winning horse. It's not just internal party poo poo that doesn't get noticed, it's policies and politics. There just isn't space for it in most people's heads. (and the local council point is true - which is why I'm pro council amalgamations and professionalisation. Say what you like about Brisbane City Council, having a salary, full-time position and staff reduces corruption and improves quality of councilllors). BBJoey posted:Honest question beet: if the greens rebranded, how many votes do you think they’d gain And what would they rebrand to? Leftist parties do equally poorly (often worse) in other, more proportionate systems, and noone likes centrist technocrats even when there's no competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
I would prefer an ALP where the unions donate but don't get a controlling say in party leadership/policy. Union members vote for union leaders, party members vote for party leaders. That's how it should be IMO, unions are great in theory but Australian Unions in practice can definitely suck (shoppies anyone?) I like parties that vote in blocs, it would just be good if the bloc was a bit less worried about people who aren't working class
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Honest question beet: if the greens rebranded, how many votes do you think they’d gain Exactly 3
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
bell jar posted:I would prefer an ALP where the unions donate but don't get a controlling say in party leadership/policy. Union members vote for union leaders, party members vote for party leaders. That's how it should be IMO, unions are great in theory but Australian Unions in practice can definitely suck (shoppies anyone?) The alternative to that is an ALP without a membership at all, and everything was filtered through union membership (although that would create conflicts of interest for unionists who are members of other political parties). The main issue is the hybrid model where power in the ALP is split between grassroots members/branches, union, factions, party room and the national officebearers, without any clear accountabilities. Beetphyxious posted:Exactly 3 *RDN's office scrambles a poo poo rebrand to win these three votes, loses 1000 in the process, blames internal democracy*
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:
Bzzzt wrong. I know you're an expert on holes, but in my imaginary world rebranding will afford the greens quicker growth as they are more readily able to overcome opposition to their brand, that already exists and they waste time on fighting it, because that brand is no longer used. anyway i was kinda departing from the conversation because it bores me how wrong some people are and was onto the interesting origin stories as to van badham's burning hatred for the greens
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
i'm rebranding to green standard conure
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:actually I've always been interested in what turned van badhams so hostile against the greens. the venom is more than just derived form policy and ideology. I'd say its a branding thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
but i can't help myselfKafka Syrup posted:The comeback to that though is, generally, the electorate doesn't pay attention to politics at all. A huge proportion of the electorate would struggle to identify any political issue in the media. Heck I've doorknocked people who still think Howard's PM. There's so much political journalism and so little political engagement, that the usual punter will have the most surface level understanding of what's going on, and make a decision on who to vote for based on a mixture of preconceptions, their material reality, whatever opinion mouthpieces they do listen to (whether that's in the media or in the meatspace), and the feeling of backing a winning horse. i really feel we are overplaying the media's effect these days, i really think there's diminishing returns with the traditional outlets and their agendas. it's not 2010 anymore, people are aware of fake news & political op eds, onp didn't go gang busters like everyone thought and the abc is the most trusted media outlet according to ~70% of australians. hambeet fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:i'm rebranding to green standard conure *gsc's approval rating drops from 9% to 8.7%*
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:Bzzzt wrong. I know you're an expert on holes, Pfffft
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
TheMightyHandful posted:I'd say its a branding thing i like the cut of your jib
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Kafka Syrup posted:The comeback to that though is, generally, the electorate doesn't pay attention to politics at all. A huge proportion of the electorate would struggle to identify any political issue in the media. Heck I've doorknocked people who still think Howard's PM. There's so much political journalism and so little political engagement, that the usual punter will have the most surface level understanding of what's going on, and make a decision on who to vote for based on a mixture of preconceptions, their material reality, whatever opinion mouthpieces they do listen to (whether that's in the media or in the meatspace), and the feeling of backing a winning horse. True enough, and they're not exactly keen to educate the electorate either. But that's dangerous, it's why the ON's and LDP's of the world get traction: from people who don't understand the process and just want to lash out. If you want to see the future, it's probably the political process that led to Brexit. quote:(and the local council point is true - which is why I'm pro council amalgamations and professionalisation. Say what you like about Brisbane City Council, having a salary, full-time position and staff reduces corruption and improves quality of councilllors). BCC is very, very different to most councils, and amalgamation is an uncertain path to the goal you imagine it achieves. BCC amalgamated in 1925 at a fraction of the size of the city even when I still lived there in the 80's. It will be more difficult, expensive and take a long long time to match that institutional knowledge for a council today. It's no quick fix. More professionalism, yes, Bendigo Council has paid staff, full-time positions too: it's still a dumping-ground for the parties and even the fringe parties. You can't invent a new culture, is what I'm getting at. State governments rarely care about this kind of thing unless there's a bottom line or a political point to score, and I have a dim memory of Kennett doing precisely that years ago. quote:And what would they rebrand to? Leftist parties do equally poorly (often worse) in other, more proportionate systems, and noone likes centrist technocrats even when there's no competition. All-New Greens. The Now Greens. Fresh In Our Memory Greens. Crispy Greens. My Greens. Your Greens. The Go Greens. Future Of The Left Greens. Hot Greens. Individual Flood-Preventer Greens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Rename the Greens to the Australian Democrats 2.0 IMO
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:
you forgot nu labour
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Foreign Correspondent doing a program on violence against white South African farmers tonight http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/south-african-farm-murders/10013298 The article begins by describing farm murders. Mentions Dutton and the South African government's position that the violence isn't race-driven. It talks about poverty and violence, and lastly points the finger at contemporary SA politics
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:09
|
|
My first car was a stick
|
There's nothing wrong with greens policy: many in this thread have seen (and mentioned) studies that show most Australians are on board with a clean beach and a welfare system that lets them live there. As for negative press: the ALP have managed ok for the past x years with negative press. The problem is their strategy. The fallacy is the greens idea that "It's obvious, it's the best, duh" and that eventually everywhere will go green. Look at the qld state election: for some reason the greens strategy said they had a good chance of unseating a deputy premier (in sth bris). Deputy premiers don't get voted out in qld. The idea was that the gabba "stronghold" would tentacle green votes out into the surrounding areas. This is so dumb and also runs counter to the greens pillar that grassroots wins out. They started with a Top 5 seats to win. Then it dropped to four. Then eventually one (sth bris). Deputy premier kept her seat (like was always going to happen) and the candidate from extremely-wealthy Moggill became the first qld greens MP. Bit of a drive from Gabba to Moggill. Another example is Vic greens running on adani. What a joke. Vic greens running on adani while the qld greens senator visits Melbourne during world environment day. Victorians care about Victoria. People in Melbourne don't vote for qld senators. If the greens got over this "green tide" idea and could stomach supporting seats not in the inner city then the vote would increase. Greens can't compete with the mega political brands elsewhere in the country: not just because they aren't as rich (greens are still rich) but because their whole political brand is anti-political-brand. People want their green to be a local fighter with an unhealthy dislike of politicians, not some inner city wannabe with one ear and both eyes to Melbourne (unless you live in Melbourne then that should be the main priority of your local green, not qld).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:van beetham the beet report
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Kafka Syrup posted:CA is the weirdest one since they're the closed to the old school Australian Democrats as technocratic centrists with no real ideology so could negotiate to the right of Labor - but that's also contingent on them surviving the next federal election. Sharkie will stay in - whether as CA or an independent is anyone's guess. Labor and Greens both don't have a prayer in her electorate and based on the by-election Mayo aren't going to vote for a born to rule Downer dynasty shithead
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:but i can't help myself While everything you've said since returning to this thread is remarkably wrong, this is definitely the MOST wrong you have been so far. There is nothing wrong with the Greens policies, or the brand, and everything wrong with the way the media in Western English speaking countries currently works to manipulate politics by selective messaging. You idiot. You absolute moron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Hey, has anybody renewed a passport recently? Mine's up for renewal and according to the website you need to present it so it can be "physically cancelled." It's the passport I had all through my 20s and has all my visa stickers and stuff in it so I want to keep it as a souvenir, if "physically cancelled" means they destroy it then I'll just apply for a completely new one. But I imagine that's more expensive so I thought I'd check.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Hey, has anybody renewed a passport recently? Mine's up for renewal and according to the website you need to present it so it can be "physically cancelled." It's the passport I had all through my 20s and has all my visa stickers and stuff in it so I want to keep it as a souvenir, if "physically cancelled" means they destroy it then I'll just apply for a completely new one. But I imagine that's more expensive so I thought I'd check. I recently did mine through the embassy in the US and they just chopped part of the front page off. I was able to ask to keep it, but it did have my visa in it...
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Hey, has anybody renewed a passport recently? Mine's up for renewal and according to the website you need to present it so it can be "physically cancelled." It's the passport I had all through my 20s and has all my visa stickers and stuff in it so I want to keep it as a souvenir, if "physically cancelled" means they destroy it then I'll just apply for a completely new one. But I imagine that's more expensive so I thought I'd check. They just cut the chip out and slice it so it can’t be presented at all to a migration point, here or elsewhere. It’s fine dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
simmyb posted:the beet report 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:48
|
|