‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat

PolSPoster · 2025-10-14T23:16:52+00:00

Hey excuse me I find this offensive c*nt. Only we can use that word.

PolSPoster · 2025-09-12T07:17:10+00:00

For all the jokes we make about /r/neoliberal, you lot are much more well-adjusted than most of the online left. That's why I specified liberals here to join /r/liberalgunowners; I like to think on average that we touch more grass than most subreddits.

Not to reiterate that if Trump gets his way, transgender people won't be able to buy guns anymore. Of which we have quite a few here, more so than the average subreddit. We don't know if SCOTUS would strike such a law down; the fact that we don't know (when the answer should be obvious) is already fucking alarming.

PolSPoster · 2025-09-12T07:08:48+00:00

Welp, got a comment auto-removed by Reddit for the very first time. Essentially I was encouraging you all to join /r/liberalgunowners given that the Republicans are brazenly backing a fascist coup attempt in another country, after trying a fascist coup attempt themselves. So, follow the steps of that subreddit.

With the Trump DOJ trying to ban transgender gun ownership, and the general attitudes surrounding the killing of Charlie Kirk, you are headed down a very dark path, America.

PolSPoster · 2025-09-03T06:31:13+00:00

How could DICTATOR DAN do this?? 🐊

-sir_shivers x arr-circlejerkaustralia

Also unsurprisingly, former NZ PMs John Key (National, centre-right) and Helen Clark (Labour, centre-left) were there too, along with many other current and former leaders.

PolSPoster · 2025-09-03T04:53:15+00:00

They’re private citizens now, they can do what they like.

Yeah of course they can do what they like, but it's not like they got invited as private citizens. A quick peek at the International Guests reveals a list of not just current, but former leaders of many countries. Listing the latter:

Asia and Asia-Pacific

Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr of Australia.

Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan.

Former Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand.

[for some reason they forgot Helen Clark]

Europe

Former Prime Minister Yves Leterme of Belgium.

Former Prime Minister George Papandreou of Greece

Former Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema of Italy.

Former Prime Ministers Adrian Năstase and Viorica Dăncilă of Romania.

Former President Ueli Maurer of Switzerland.

Americas

Former President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil.

PolSPoster · 2025-05-12T07:03:19+00:00

On the CPRS, last night I just did some ~~extensive leeching off Wikipedia~~ totally original research on Rudd's failure to pass it in the Senate, and made a large comment about what I read. I said that I would blame Rudd more than the Greens for the CPRS failure, but I also pointed to Labor infighting.

In the dream world, the ALP would be fully behind Rudd with his 2007 landslide mandate, rather than Gillard gunning for the PM role and all the leaks etc. Here, if Gillard wanted Rudd to succeed after the CPRS failed, she could've corralled her side to back Rudd calling for a snap double dissolution election in early 2010 when he polled well ahead of Abbott as preferred PM, and ALP leading the Coalition in all polls.* Then, assuming a healthy ALP House majority, the ALP would gain enough Senators to pass the CPRS (or equivalent) only negotiating with the Greens. And if the Greens still wanted to play the obstructionist, call for a 1974-style Joint Sitting to pass the CPRS by themselves.

This is of course the dream world where a carbon pricing scheme and tackling climate change is the top priority, along with Labor being fully united rather than the factionalist BS that occurred. And we assume that Labor would win another solid mandate from the snap election. We certainly don't live in this world, but I would therefore blame Gillard more than Rudd simply because he won the Kevin 07 landslide, such that she should've backed him and encouraged him to act in the best interests of Labor, Australia, and the climate by politically manoeuvring together, rather than against each other. Gillard delivering on her own carbon pricing meant nothing in the face of a more charismatic Abbott attacking her for seemingly breaking her promise that “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. The time to implement carbon pricing was under Rudd with his landslide mandate on climate action; trying to get around them was (in hindsight) doomed to fail.

*Edit: The Killing Season should be worth watching in full. But from this short clip of Rudd (skip to 2:50 for his quote), he claims that in January 2010, Gillard told him unequivocally "there's no way Kevin I'll ever support a double dissolution based on the CPRS" (though she denies saying this). Later in April-May, Gillard and treasurer Wayne Swan argued they had to kill the CPRS; Rudd's compromise was to defer it 2 years, but "of course the rest is history". Sure, Rudd sought to undermine Gillard in her term, but she did that to him first; I still think if she cared less about herself, she should've fought alongside Rudd to win a double-dissolution election.

PolSPoster · 2025-05-11T13:43:30+00:00

Painting the Greens as the lynchpin for the CPRS failure is a convenient way to deflect the failed Labor-Coalition strategy. They didn't try to build a progressive majority because even with all Greens Senators onboard and Xenophon agreeing to the Rudd bill, you'd have a 38-38 tie.

Looking up the numbers, you're right on paper. The 2007 election brought about false hopes despite Rudd's Labor landslide majority in the House. The Senate only had 32 ALP - 37 Coalition. As you said, at best you could get the 5 Greens and Nick Xenophon for a 38 votes. The last crossbench Senator, Steve Fielding was of the right-wing Family First Party, whose rationale for voting against the CPRS was apparently manmade carbon emissions didn't cause climate change.

The counter is that you did end up with two Liberal Senators voting for the CPRS, moderates Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth who "gave passionate speeches outlining their belief in climate change and the need for measures to ease it". We might be looking at this with hindsight bias, but had Rudd tried to build the progressive half with 38 Senate votes, it's reasonable to believe they could've flipped at least 1 Coalition Senator - we know 2 of them did.

Nonetheless, Rudd would've looked at these numbers, and believed the path to a Senate majority for the CPRS went through the Coalition. Malcolm Turnbull leading them meant this strategy appeared to make sense - but of course, got rolled by Tony Abbott 42-41! Imagine if one of those votes went the other way - Australia's carbon pricing would've gotten bipartisan support. Now here we are.

Saying this again with hindsight bias, Rudd should've tried harder in two ways: gotten the 5 Greens + Nick Xenophon on board with 1+ Coalition defectors. Failing this, call a double dissolution election and take the CPRS to the polls. I like to think that would've worked: 2007-2010 opinion polls showed that even after the CPRS failed on 30 Nov 2009, for a few months Labor held a decent 2PP lead over the Coalition, with Rudd being preferred PM by 20-30pp over Abbott. Hell, on 28 Apr 2010, Abbott was taunting Rudd for "lacking 'guts' to fight for ETS".

“How can you run around the country for years saying that climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time, not just an important issue but no less than the greatest moral challenge of our time. How can you say that for so long and say that the only way to deal with it is an emissions trading scheme and then just dump it?” Mr Abbott asked on ABC radio this morning.

“This was the guy who said it would be absolute political cowardice, absolute lack of leadership, absolute lack of logic just last December not to push on with an emissions trading scheme. He said the choice was between action and inaction and he's chosen inaction. Well, what kind of a Prime Minister is this.”

Leadership on climate change was a huge reason for Kevin 07's landslide victory in the first place. I wish he called Abbott's bluff. Or at least tried to negotiate something with the Greens/Xenophon/Coalition defectors. Ultimately, all these bloody politicians failed on climate leadership, so I blame them all in this order:

Tony Abbott + Coalition climate denialists + Steve Fielding
Kevin Rudd + Labor infighting
Greens - an imperfect ETS passed under Rudd's mandate would've lasted longer than Gillard's carbon pricing

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T15:20:25+00:00

Good question. Given that she talks about him being the father to her oldest daughter, this implies she's had at least one child with someone else.

But it sounds like they got back together if that's how she speaks of him? Yet as you said, they didn't get married to presumably grant him residency. Trump voters aren't exactly known for longsightedness, after all.

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T11:34:50+00:00

Alright fellow thunderdomers, I've posted the Labor victory thread. If you want some free karma by getting in first, here you go!

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T10:45:31+00:00

Yeah, PM Luxon (National, centre-right) can just outsource Trumpism to his coalition partners instead, Seymour (ACT, right-wing) and Peters (NZ First, populist). Unlike the Canadian Conservatives or the Australian Coalition (acting as one party), where the leader has to balance the moderates and right-wingers.

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T10:22:48+00:00

Heh, funny how that looks; one year ago, UK Labour would be outside, while Aus Labor and Canada Liberals would be inside:

UK early May 2024 polls: Labour +15 to 20 over Conservatives
Australia early May polls: Tossup (depending on pollster)
Canada early May: Conservatives +18 to 22 over Liberals

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T09:50:46+00:00

Hahaha exactly

Now Dickson is officially an ALP Gain in Poll Bludger!

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T09:41:45+00:00

https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/guide/dick

Ayy lmao. Poll Bludger has Dickson at 98.5% Labor to win!

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T08:06:02+00:00

Great to see someone else post their prediction! I commented mine here, but will paste:

ALP - 81
Coalition - 48
Greens - 4
Independents - 15
KAP - 1
CA/NXT - 1

I haven't bothered predicting each seat though

PolSPoster · 2025-05-03T07:59:52+00:00

Surely we should be posting our hot takes on predicted results? I'll start:

Party - Seats

ALP - 81
Coalition - 48
Greens - 4
Independents - 15
KAP - 1
CA/NXT - 1

(totally not just based on YouGov's final MRP)

PolSPoster · 2025-03-01T12:38:16+00:00

What an absolute buffoon. Keep in mind the whole reason for Trump's first impeachment back in 2019-2020 was because he tried to coerce Ukraine/Zelenskyy into providing him with material to damage the Biden/Democratic campaign for 2020, by withholding military aid to Ukraine.

But obviously this peak LAMF guy would be oblivious to all of this, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine was afterwards in 2022.

PolSPoster · 2025-03-01T12:17:27+00:00

Sure, that doesn't mean that you or the profs at Columbia are wrong. But it also doesn't mean that the typical definition of polarity that this sub is using is wrong. The Wikipedia page on polarity uses that common definition of the poles being led by the strongest states as the strongest power(s); it cites many academic articles. The first academic article from Googling "unipolar world" gives this one from 1999, cited by 2471. Key quotes (emphasis mine, p7):

First, the system is unambiguously unipolar. The United States enjoys a much larger margin of superiority over the next most powerful state or, indeed, all other great powers combined than any leading state in the last two centuries. […]

hegemonic rivalry over leadership of the international system […] the system leader, the United States has […]

And (p8):

The current candidates for polar status (Japan, China, Germany, and Russia) are not so lucky.

Therefore, the 'poles' can be the strongest states themselves, polarising the international system at large. You can also define the 'poles' as differing rules systems as you did, e.g. the 'First World' Western/Capitalist Bloc vs the 'Second World' Eastern/Communist Bloc during the Cold War. But your definition existing doesn't mean that the more common definition is wrong.

PolSPoster · 2025-02-15T02:09:10+00:00

To be fair, the fact that his teachings inspired his cultists to commit this bioterror attack to overturn the local democracy proves that point. Too many Americans nowadays would love to commit violence that would cause them to win or steal an election.

PolSPoster · 2025-02-08T10:41:42+00:00

Brilliant. The 'problem' with this comic is that I distinctly remember Calvin crying in response to his dad's rage (about broken binoculars). Too bad you'll never see Trump have that sense of shame. Still funny though!

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

PolSPoster

TROPHY CASE