Auspol March: Trump for Prime Minister, Clive Palmer for Deputy

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March: Trump for Prime Minister, Clive Palmer for Deputy

«‹›3 »

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Auspol March - A sad story and it wasn�t of much interest to me

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 01:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:04

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Anidav posted:

I dont understand why that Luke guy is still opposition leader.

Nobody does, he should have never got the job in the first place.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 04:38

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Amethyst posted:

I doubt a little kit could test for every dangerous impurity. That plan sounds like a great way to get sued.

Those pill testing kits are intended to detect things made accidentally instead of MDMA (because it's a complex chemical process and is easy to gently caress up), or might be deliberately substituted for cost reasons (speed, sugar, etc). It covers the basics pretty well.

E: You can't test concentration with them, which is one big problem.

Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Mar 1, 2016

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 07:00

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

It goes beyond them just liking bitcoin; the blockchain is an inherent part of the proposal.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 09:49

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Amethyst posted:

Blockchain has proven to be an excellent method for distributed authentication.

What does that add to the political process though?

The whole thing is techno-utopianism. Take their first point

quote:

Empower Specialists
Politicians are middle men between specialists and policy, and by cutting them out of the picture we enable specialists to create the best policy they can, unmolested by external political interests.

How do specialists fit in at all? Everyone has the same opportunity to vote, and the idea that people will only vote on things they understand demonstrates a failure to understand basic human nature.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 10:13

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Amethyst posted:

If you read the plan closely, they have an idea to recruit specialists to craft policy proposals. People vote on the policies proposed by the specialists.

It's vaguely implied by what they've said, perhaps. It should be explicitly stated given how important it is. How the experts are selected is an obvious issue.

It also doesn't really answer the point. Their MPs aren't going to be voting solely on their own policy, and on everything else their position will be inherently populist, not solved by "those who are particularly well suited to solve that problem". You can have a technocracy or a direct democracy, not both.

quote:

It's worth it to satisfy intellectual curiosity, at the very least.

I've got nothing against the idea of a party whose platform is decided directly by the members, it's the idea that the blockchain is the missing ingredient is the bit I find dumb.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Good riddance Joe Bullock

Good.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 10:39

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Louise Pratt is standing for the casual vacancy left by Bollocks' retirement.

Also Andrew Bolt is wanting to pretend he didn't support Pell.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2016 14:03

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Optional preferential BTL votes were added to the list of Senate voting reforms :toot:

Antony Green posted:

The brief inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) has released its report into the Senate electoral law changes included in the government's Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.

The report recommends, and the the government has agreed to, amend the legislation to allow optional preferential voting below the line.

The ballot paper instructions will now state that voters must complete at least six preferences above the line, or at least 12 preferences below the line. Voters will be free to continue numbering as many preferences as they like beyond the minimum number specified.

A savings provision will allow ballot papers with at least 6 below the line preferences to be formal, catering for people who confuse the above and below the line instructions.

The amendment makes the legislation much fairer in allowing ballot papers marked below the line to be treated equally with above the line votes under formality rules. A 1-6 vote above the line corresponds to at least 12 preferences below the line, which will be the proposed instructions for a formal below the line vote.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 03:52

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Amoeba102 posted:

What happens to your vote if you preference micro parties only? Does it slip off into the void?

Yup. Your vote is interpreted as saying "I prefer these people and if I don't get them then they're all equally good / bad".

quote:

How does this affect the allocation of the final seats - will it be , get above the quota and the excess runs off, then first past the post once preferences are exhausted?

By the end you need less than a quota to get in.

Tasmania has Hare-Clark with optional preferential voting, if you want a practical example.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 04:08

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Amoeba102 posted:

Right so, I guess they keep eliminating parties at the bottom and preference or chuck out votes depending on the ballot being exhausted or not, and the last X people remaining get the X remaining seats. Makes sense.

That's a concise summary of the system, yeah.

Amoeba102 posted:

Speaking of quotas, how do they decide what to do with the excess votes? Assuming below the line voting, where your first preference got a quota, but the second preference is maybe someone in a different party.

There are several different ways of handling the overflow. Broadly speaking, the lower preferences still transfer but make less of an impact, by only redistributing some of the votes and / or by weighting them less.

Antony Green posted:

Whenever a candidate is declared elected, any votes in excess of the quota are distributed as preferences. The problem is, how do you decide which votes are part of the quota and so remain with the candidate, and which are surplus and distributed as preferences?

Consider the case of Bass at the 2010 election. On the first count Liberal candidate Michael Ferguson had 15,911 votes. The quota was 10,617 votes, which meant that Ferguson had a surplus of 5,294 votes. Which votes were to be distributed and which were to remain with Ferguson as part of his quota?

In Hare's original scheme, used for the Senate until 1983, and still in use for the New South Wales Legislative Council, a random sample of 5,294 ballot papers would have been selected from Ferguson's total and distributed as preferences. 10,617 ballot papers would have been set aside as Ferguson's quota and 5,294 distributed as preferences.

Tasmania's system is known as Hare-Clark because Andrew Inglis Clark adopted a more accurate method of distributing the surplus. Under Hare-Clark, all of Ferguson's 15,911 ballot papers were distributed as preferences, but the ballot papers were distributed at a reduced value, known as the Transfer Value. The Transfer Value is defined by the following formula.
code:
Transfer Value = (Surplus Vote) divided by (Last Ballot Papers Received)
In Ferguson's case, the last ballot papers received were the 15,911 first preferences. The surplus vote is the total vote of the candidates minus the quota. So here the Transfer Value is [(15911 - 10617) / 15911] = 0.332726.

(Note that in a Hare-Clark count a Vote is equal to a Ballot Paper times its Transfer Value, so a total of Votes is a total of Ballot Papers times the Transfer Value.

All of Ferguson's ballot papers are examined to determine the next preferences, and a tally made of next preferences by candidate. The ballot papers are then transferred to the next candidate, but the value of those ballot papers as votes is equal to the number of ballot papers times the Transfer Value.

11,110 of Ferguson's ballot papers had second preference for Gutwein, so he received 11,110 ballot papers times the transfer value, that is 3,696 votes. The same calculation applies for every bundle of Ferguson's next preferences.

This method is formally called the 'Gregory Method', but more commonly the 'Last Bundle method', as only the last bundle of votes that put the candidate over the quota are examined to calculate the transfer value and determine preference flows. This is best explained with reference to Peter Gutwein, whose total was put over the quota on the distribution of Ferguson's surplus.

Gutwein had 9,060 first preferences, but these are not re-examined when Gutwein reached his quota. The only ballot papers examined are the 11,110 ballot papers (3,696 votes) received from Ferguson that put Gutwein over the quota. Gutwein's surplus was 2,139 votes, so the transfer value on his surplus is this value divided by the last bundle of ballot papers received. That is (2,139 / 11,110). The only votes distributed as part of Gutwein's surplus are the last bundle received, which is ballot papers that began with the sequence 1 Ferguson, 2 Gutwein.

In applying Transfer Values, some fractions of votes are created. These are ignored by the count, added to a balancing value in the count called "Loss by Fraction". Later in the count the loss by fraction total may fall as bundles of votes at equal transfer value are amalgamated.

A difference between a Hare-Clark count and the Senate should be noted here. The Senate system does not use the Last Bundle method. In the Senate all ballot papers held by a candidate at the point they reach a quota are examined to calculate transfer value and distributed preferences.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 04:31

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

open24hours posted:

They should have made below the line voting and numbering all boxes mandatory.

That's a really good idea if you want the number of informal ballots to skyrocket.

Amoeba102 posted:

Okay, they actually do something smart with it.

STV / Hare-Clark is a really good system, if a little complex on the backend. I'll do a write-up of it some time in the next few days unless someone else (eg QM) does one first.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 04:51

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

open24hours posted:

If you can't vote you can't vote, I guess.

People make mistakes, and the more boxes they need to number, the more likely they are to make one. Roughly one third of BtL votes are informal simply due to numbering errors, and that's from a group of voters who probably care more about the system than they average voter does. Forcing everyone to do it would turn the election into a farce.

quote:

They could have a system where you fill it out on a screen and it can warn you if it's invalid before you print it.

How much voters should be encouraged (or forced) to vote formally is a bit of an open question.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 05:08

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

thatfatkid posted:

A DD election with the new senate voting method would be the best possible chance for some of the fringe parties to get in. I'd happily trade Ricky for HEMP, SEX and BULLET TRAINS.

Yeah, it's part of the reason they won't have a DD.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 05:59

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Endman posted:

This country needs better political education before compulsory numbering below the line will work properly, otherwise you're disenfranchising people.

It's not about political education, it's that numbering hundreds of boxes is something that is easy to gently caress up because of human fallibility.

It's also not necessary to get a representative parliament.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 06:11

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/BevanShields/status/704868956356481024

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 06:52

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

tithin posted:

what article?

~~Joint Strike Fighter~~ Greg Sheridan published an article ([behind the Aus' paywall) that claimed Turnbull was delaying the construction of new submarines by a decade, and backed it up with evidence from a leaked draft of the defence white paper. The story also had comments from Abbott about how shameful it was.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 07:25

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Auspol March: Cherrypicking for Dummies

# ¿ Mar 3, 2016 05:04

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/GuardianAus/status/705244150753595392
The government stepped back from a challenge? I am shocked.

E: also I was wrong earlier; they do have another DD trigger related to Fair Work (see the link).

Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Mar 3, 2016

# ¿ Mar 3, 2016 07:52

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/David_Speers/status/705544569144737792

Tax. TAX. tax. tax. TaX. TAX. tax. Tax!

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 02:06

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

thatbastardken posted:

I have no house, wealth, super, or job I'm in good shape under the new tax regime.

You are made of carbon though...

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 02:20

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Doctor Spaceman posted:

STV / Hare-Clark is a really good system, if a little complex on the backend. I'll do a write-up of it some time in the next few days unless someone else (eg QM) does one first.

Since Senate Reform has been in the news recently, let's have a look at how Hare-Clark votes (also known as Single Transferable Vote or STV ballots) are counted. I'll try and keep it a relatively general explanation while still mentioning the specifics used in the Senate. There are a lot of fiddly details with STV, and it's easy to get bogged down in them.

We'll start with a refresher on the much simpler preferential voting (also known as Instant-Runoff Voting, or IRV), familiar to everyone as the system used in the House of Representatives and many other lower houses.

How does preferential voting work?
Voters rank candidates in order of preference. There is generally the requirement for all candidates to receive a preference, but Optional Preferential Voting (OPV) exists in some areas.

The count proceeds as follows:

The candidate with the lowest number of preferences is excluded
Their ballots are distributed according to the next preference
- If OPV is used, and the voter has expressed no further preferences, the ballot is exhausted and no longer contributes to the count
This continues until one candidate has more than 50% of the preferences

It's got flaws (it is literally mathematically impossible for a voting system not to), but it's pretty good.

How could it be improved? For starters, if a Labor candidate wins 60-40% against their Liberal opponent then 40% of the electorate still got a candidate they didn't like. There's not much you can do about that if you only elect one person, but what if you could elect more? 2 Labor candidates and 1 Liberal might more accurately reflect the views of that electorate.

How does STV voting work?
Since we are trying to elect candidates who represent only portions of the electorate, it makes sense to reduce the number of preferences candidates require to be elected. This number is called the quota, and is best expressed as a fraction of the total votes. The common approach is to set the quota at 1/(number of positions + 1). For a normal Senate election with 6 senators the quota 1/7th of the vote (around 14%), and for a DD election (with 12 senators) the quota is 1/13 (around 8%).

In fact, preferential voting is STV where you are trying to elect only one candidate (and hence the quota is 1/(1+1) = 50%).

This leads to a problem: once a candidate is elected, what should be done with their ballots? It's easy to imagine a system where a candidate receives far more than a quota, but you can't elect the same person twice (as much as Nick Xenophon would like). There are multiple options for what to do with these surplus votes, with the common theme being that winning candidate's ballots are less significant, either because only some are reallocated or (as in the Senate) because the reallocated ballots are weighed to reduce their value. In the event that a ballot would be reallocated to another successful candidate it's easiest just to ignore that and continue looking at lower preferences (as happens for the Senate), but other options exist.

This process continues until none of the remaining candidates have more than a quota. The next step is to start excluding candidates, and this follows broadly the same pattern as for the Reps: the least popular candidate is excluded, and their ballots are reallocated according to their next preference.

So here's how it works:

Candidates with more than the quota are elected
Their ballots are redistributed
The candidate with the lowest number of preferences is excluded
Their ballots are distributed according to the next preference
The procedure restarts unless all positions are filled

This sounds complex!
From a counting perspective, it is. It's much better handled by computers. Some of the variants exist to make things easier by hand (at the cost of some randomness or the theoretical possibility of strategic voting), while others allow or require recounting at basically every step (which is impractical unless done electronically).

From the point of view of a voter, it isn't. You rank your preferences, then the system takes over. Popular people get elected, unpopular ones get excluded, less popular ones get elected, less unpopular ones get excluded, etc, etc.

So how does optional preferential voting work?
Exhausted ballots drop out of the count. In some systems (eg Tasmania) this means that the final candidate(s) will be elected with less than a quota. Other systems dynamically update the quota to reflect exhausted votes (and other factors).

What are Group Voting Tickets?
Group Voting Tickets (GVT) are a complete list of preferences as determined by a political party. Currently a voter who votes 1 Above the Line (AtL) is agreeing to distribute their preferences according to the wishes of that party.

What do the proposed changes mean?
The big change is replacing GVTs with OPV. Your vote will go to a party only if you explicitly vote for them; there is no potential for you to vote for the Anti-Skub Party but inadvertently elect the Pro-Skub Party. Parties that exist to make preference deals will no longer exist, and parties that get elected based only on preference deals will no longer get elected.

The other voting change is that Below the Line voting is now OPV, which means it's no longer a ridiculous counting exercise. AtL voting is pretty much redundant now, but it's sticking around because of political inertia.

The changes to party registration and ballot paper logos don't affect voting, but like the AtL changes are designed to make voters more aware of where their votes are going, and more able to decide where they should go.

What about a system like MMP or Party Lists?
You tell me. I'm not familiar enough with them to do a write-up.

What about First-Past-the-Post?
:frogout:

What about <issue>?
Ask away.

You got something wrong
It happens. Give me a yell and I'll fix it.

Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Mar 4, 2016

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 06:32

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Endman posted:

Doesn't the UK still use FPTP?

The US, the UK, Canada, India and some other countries do. The UK recently had a referendum about switching to a less poo poo system but it was defeated.

Most of Europe and NZ use other forms of proportional representation (generally with party lists).

Ireland is one of the only other countries that uses STV heavily.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 07:37

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Senor Tron posted:

With the proposed changes does it actually stop someone potentially getting elected with a tiny fraction of the vote?

It doesn't stop it in theory, but it reduces the likelihood it can happen, and means when it does happen it's more a reflection of what the voting public wants.

The elimination of GVTs weakens party control of preferences (it becomes like how-to-vote stuff currently is in the Reps; they can recommend an order but not enforce one), and the introduction of OPV means that most votes will exhaust before having to decide how the various microparties should be ranked. The changes remove the incentive for ~~David Leyonhjelm~~ someone to register multiple parties and funnel preferences around internally, as well as removing lots of bizarre, counterintuitive preference deals. If the election depends on the fact that Party A was preferenced over Party B somewhere in the 80th preferences, it'll be because lots of people decided to vote that way, not because the parties made an agreement.

To take the example of Ricky Muir, what would have happened is that after Jacinta Collins was elected (on count 5) a lot more ballots would have exhausted (rather than flowing through various minor parties to Muir), and the 6th spot would have probably gone to the 3rd Liberal.

quote:

I'm imagining a situation where the 5 parties that win seats do it on a primary vote only just above that needed for a quota. If you then had 100 parties sharing the last 1/6 of the vote how is it resolved?

One of those tiny parties would be elected.

Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Mar 4, 2016

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 09:26

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Zenithe posted:

I'd only heard about this in the context of it being bad, so I googled it.

Why anyone thinks this is good and fair is beyond me. It seems entirely indefensible as a concept.

It's very simple to explain and count, and that's not a useless advantage. If everyone's broadly happy with any outcome or the actual outcome doesn't matter much, then it's good enough (think of a group of friends picking a movie to watch, and asking for a show of hands). It's also the kind of system you'd develop if you haven't got an understanding of voting theory, possibly because it's the 18th Century.

In the Reps the first preference candidate (who would be elected under FPTP) is the eventual winner about 90% of the time. It's fine as a first approximation, but not as a serious electoral system.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 12:56

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/GrogsGamut/status/705689322503049217

# ¿ Mar 4, 2016 13:03

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Why is it only this morning that I learned that Savva was a former adviser to Howard and Costello. No wonder she's gotten a NewsCorp job and probably hates Abbott with a passion. As much as Abbott is a turd clinging on to the toilet of political relevance a lot of this seems like a beat up.

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/706644986977062912

Savva gets a lot of inside info and gossip because of her background, but you're right that anything she says should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Mar 7, 2016

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 02:19

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Amoeba102 posted:

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 05:44

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Big Daddy Keynes posted:

f22 would be more sensible due to the fact that it can reach indonesia (yes i know we probably wont be at war with them but if the nation is militarily threatened it will be coming from the north and the f35 doesnt have the range while maintaining stealth-ness) also single engined fighters are a bad choice for australia due to the emptiness we end up defending.

The US isn't going to let anybody else operate F22s, so it's a moot point really.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 09:50

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

# ¿ Mar 8, 2016 00:34

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Mr Chips posted:

The continued existence of the AFR baffles me. You can get better journalism and technical anaylsis from other sources, and don't have to put up with all the shilling for rent-seekers

It's got good writers (eg Chenowith and Tingle), but for-profit-print-journalism is going to die, yeah.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2016 04:11

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

You don't have to be gay to support marriage equality, but in his case it probably helped.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2016 23:35

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Was it Jones who changed his mind on marriage equality when he got a hard on when he met a transwoman? I guess good on him, I suppose.

That was Warren Entsch, and I don't think it was that it changed his mind so much as gave him a reason to actually think about it consciously.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 00:14

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Bogan King posted:

Extra special shoutout to QuantumMechanic on this one

https://twitter.com/DamienCWalker/status/707367102236090369

I expect to get blocked by her for retweeting that.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 02:40

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Bogan King posted:

I went to go mock Van Bad Ham but she's blocked me. I've literally never interacted with her or dropped criticism on her. I guess this is what change from within feels like.

She name searches, and probably just blocks by association.

It's bizarre how much she seeks out criticism solely so she can to over-react to it.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 05:36

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/707474889075204096

I knew Sheehan was a terrible journalist / person, but there were so many specifics I had never heard before.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 10:03

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/707668310330974209

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 22:30

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Blocked by Bad, after retweeting three non-@ tweets about her.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 23:20

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

gay picnic defence posted:

Does she google tweets that mention her name or something?

Almost certainly.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 23:42

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Windsor has confirmed he's running for the seat of New England.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2016 00:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:04

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

fiery_valkyrie posted:

Dutton has started showing off his economic credentials

He's preparing to take over the role of shitspewer when Joyce loses.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2016 07:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March: Trump for Prime Minister, Clive Palmer for Deputy

«‹›3 »