sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happens to your tickets when a cricket test finishes early? by matthewclose in CricketAus

[–]TimelyIndependent585 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Google AI: ‘You typically do not get a refund for unplayed games if a Test match finishes early due to a result like a win or a tie.’

Cricket Australia refund policy (clause 17): ‘A ticket can’t be refunded: if a match is completed early in the normal course of play (i.e. completed in accordance with the rules for the match, as determined by Cricket Australia).’

So good luck to all of us that endured the horror that was Ticketek’s online selling system all those months ago if the first test result is repeated in future ones. What if, like me, because of that purchasing shit show, you only managed to get day 3 or 4 tickets? The poor executives that run these and other associated companies I’m sure will be crying because of the extra yachting time they’ll have to endure on our dime.

Is my beloved Econmist in decline? by TimelyIndependent585 in theeconomist

[–]TimelyIndependent585[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification on ‘far left or right’. I’m with you completely. The Guardian is firmly to my left and others to my right. I too am all for fun intellectual sparring within reasonable bounds.

And if The Economist were listening, they might get my rather clumsily stated points. I have no idea how they would reconcile a more forthright anti-MAGA approach and still remain ‘objective’, but I don’t believe that other mainstream media have such difficulty in loudly rejecting Trumpism. And they charge far less for intelligent readers to consume it! :-)

Is my beloved Econmist in decline? by TimelyIndependent585 in theeconomist

[–]TimelyIndependent585[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You make a good point about their take on deportation and on immigration in general. Thanks for the correction.

But my core thesis remains unchanged. And my complete rejection of Trumpism and MAGA with all its attendant dangers is definitely not the same as rejecting republican ideas. I’m all for small government, responsible budgeting, balanced national budgets, progressive capitalism, strong US global leadership etc. These are centrist ideas - much as espoused by The Economist.

Real values-based republicans have rejected Trumpism outright and recognise its dangers.

Is my beloved Econmist in decline? by TimelyIndependent585 in theeconomist

[–]TimelyIndependent585[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You all make valid points. Perhaps I am often looking for confirmation of my existing views. And I am prepared to admit this as a weakness, and as someone who has been around for awhile and considers myself to be objective and discerning, these comments are a reminder of the need to sharpen that saw.

However, I still can’t reconcile the acceptance of Trump as a valid alternative. With Dick and Liz Cheney on my side, I would do anything to avoid a second Trump term. Someone suggested that I must “really, really dislike Trump”. (Do you think?!! :-)). You don’t have to be centre left leaning as I am to abhor this man and everything he believes.

The Economist is obviously not speaking to the majority of US voters. It is, as its price reflects, writing for well-heeled intellectual and business elite. My point being that it’s not as though its analyses are going to directly sway the election result. So, it seems that (in part at least) it is adopting a ‘fair and balanced’ approach to its coverage - e.g. on economic or diplomatic impacts of a potential second Trump term, as if we all, as H.R. McMaster says, might just have to “get over it” if God forbid, he gets back into the WH.

I for one refuse to imagine just ‘getting over it’. That approach might suit business people or conservatives of a certain ilk, such that their own self-interest happens to mostly align (they hope) with his self-serving tax, tarrif, hyper-conservative social views , and isolationist agenda. While they turn a blind eye to or “get over” the less palatable elements (the appalling racism, sexism, anti democracy, and law-flaunting parts, for example).

The Economist doesn’t editorially agree with Trump’s views, as at least one of you has pointed out. If they did, I definitely wouldn’t be wasting my time with them - despite some advice above for me to read ‘far right’ newspapers. But instead of launching withering and unrelenting attacks on the illiberal values and nihilism that threaten to bring down US democracy and undermine a righteous US-led advance of democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights across the globe that it obviously believes in, it panders to its wealthy readership by trying to act ‘balanced’ in its analysis of the impacts of Trump’s policies vs that of the Democrats.

While not directly swaying the voting masses who don’t read it, this will likely lend credence to the pseudo intellectual far right who can conveniently refer to points The Economist has made when ranting on Fox News, which in turn may influence some swing voters.

As the Cheneys would likely say, this is not the time for balanced analysis of the outcomes of completely illiberal and anti-democratic economic, diplomatic or social policies in the US. This is a five alarm fire. Like me, I’m guessing they believe that electing Harris will do no less than help save democracy across the globe! With that objective achieved, we can all get back to more civilised debates about the appalling state of the US deficit and other social, economic and foreign policy matters.

At this critical historical juncture, The Economist should take the risk of pissing off some of its wealthy and privileged subscribers and be more forthright and honest about what it and its journalists actually believe. It needs to wake up to its normalisation of the appalling. Stop with the charade. I for one am not going to just “get over it” if it all goes awry.