"Giulia with a G" runs for Canberra

Jim Jones said :

……..long rant……. foaming at the mouth about political correctness like some sort of retarded shock jock. You might actually learn something.

Geez, Jim, sounds like it’s you who is foaming at the mouth. I never mentioned political correctness, just pointed out your hypocrisy. seeya.

justin heywood said :

Jim Jones said :

How you can argue that the very foundations of an elected representative’s worldview is ‘irrelevant’ really does puzzle me. Perhaps you should have a walk under a bus instead.

So Jim, just so I can clarify your position. Based on your comments at #32, if a Muslim candidate were to stand, you would not vote for her on the basis that she is a Muslim. Somewhere in the abuse I would expect a yes or no answer.

(Or is the Muslim ‘worldview’ somehow more acceptable?)

Where did I state that I would not vote for someone because they were a Christian? My statement is perfectly clear: “Religion is not always irrelevant – in many cases it is highly relevant.”

I’ve voted for Christians in the past, and will probably do so in the future. I wouldn’t have much problem voting for most Muslims either. That said, it’s always possible that there will be instances that a politicians religious views influence their beliefs in ways that I find unacceptable. I wouldn’t vote for Fred Nile, or Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid, should I ever have the chance, for example.

The only person who’s stated that they wouldn’t vote for a Christian is PB – who is hardly a model example of a ‘left liberal’ (I think he’s more of a model example of a ‘sh1t stirrer’).

But do keep banging on with the the ‘political correctness blah blah political correctness’ screed … it’s so entertaining, particularly your constant wild assumptions about people’s “positions”. I mean, honestly, why not try reading what’s been written and debating the issues rationally rather than foaming at the mouth about political correctness like some sort of retarded shock jock. You might actually learn something.

You lot are nuts. She is an unacceptable candidate because she is a woman.

Jim Jones said :

How you can argue that the very foundations of an elected representative’s worldview is ‘irrelevant’ really does puzzle me. Perhaps you should have a walk under a bus instead.

So Jim, just so I can clarify your position. Based on your comments at #32, if a Muslim candidate were to stand, you would not vote for her on the basis that she is a Muslim. Somewhere in the abuse I would expect a yes or no answer.

(Or is the Muslim ‘worldview’ somehow more acceptable?)

I’d suggest joining Australia First – it sounds like you’d get on with them like a cross on fire.

🙂

PM said :

justin heywood said :

Giulia should change her faith. Become a Muslim, and the entire ‘liberal’ left would swing behind her – patting themselves on the back about how progressive and tolerant they are.

Anyone who opposed her on religious grounds would, of course, be an ignorant, spittle-flecked redneck.

+1

Give me an example of where this has happened – just one example.

justin heywood said :

Giulia should change her faith. Become a Muslim, and the entire ‘liberal’ left would swing behind her – patting themselves on the back about how progressive and tolerant they are.

Anyone who opposed her on religious grounds would, of course, be an ignorant, spittle-flecked redneck.

+1

justin heywood said :

Giulia should change her faith. Become a Muslim, and the entire ‘liberal’ left would swing behind her – patting themselves on the back about how progressive and tolerant they are.

Anyone who opposed her on religious grounds would, of course, be an ignorant, spittle-flecked redneck.

Yeah, because the liberal left are all flocking to support the other Muslim candidates like … oh, hang on, there is no example to give, because you’re talking complete crap.

Having a whinge about people being ‘progressive and tolerant’? What’s your point? If you want people to be more backwards and intolerant (as you seem to be suggesting), I’d suggest joining Australia First – it sounds like you’d get on with them like a cross on fire.

Giulia should change her faith. Become a Muslim, and the entire ‘liberal’ left would swing behind her – patting themselves on the back about how progressive and tolerant they are.

Anyone who opposed her on religious grounds would, of course, be an ignorant, spittle-flecked redneck.

bd84 said :

….influencing the governance of the country based on totally irrelevant factors.

As I thought I had articulated pretty well (for me), I don’t base my vote on religion; however it is a pretty good tool used to determine the candidates thoughts on many issues, and that is the only important thing. Other tools which I use are political affiliation, past history of activism (about whatever), past job history, and how close together their eyes are. I don’t usually consider gender, although you may have noticed that there are differences between men and women, (for example only women can bare children, or have an abortion), which may lead me to consider their opinions on certain topics differently.

bd84 said :

Could the people claiming that they won’t vote for someone because of their religious views or because of their gender do us all a favour and walk infront of the bus between now and election day, we don’t need idiots like you influencing the governance of the country based on totally irrelevant factors.

So you’d vote for a Scientologist? What about Stephen Fielding? Perhaps someone like Fred Phelps? What about a follower of Thor, Norse god of thunder?

Religion is not always irrelevant – in many cases it is highly relevant. Tony Abott’s church originated views on abortion, contraception, the role of women in the family, etc. play a very large part in why many women won’t vote for him (or his party).

How you can argue that the very foundations of an elected representative’s worldview is ‘irrelevant’ really does puzzle me. Perhaps you should have a walk under a bus instead.

Pommy bastard said :

I would certainly vote against someone who declared themselves to be a catholic, a “devout” one even more so. Catholicism is the most repulsive of all the mainstream Xstian cults. The catholic cult is responsible for spreading disease in the third world, it is paracitic on the poor and stupid, it colludes with and gives succour to pedophiles, and is fascistic in nature.

DOUGAL: I’ve never met a celebrity before.
TED: You’ve met the Pope.
DOUGAL: Did I?
TED: Don’t you remember? When we were in Rome?
DOUGAL: That was the Pope? That fellow living in the art gallery?
TED: The Vatican, Dougal.
DOUGAL: All the same, I wouldn’t say he’s a celebrity, like in the true sense of the word, you know?
TED: The Pope is God’s representative on earth, Dougal.
DOUGAL: You think he’d be taller.

If you went to a good catholic skool you would have learnt how to spell proper though

To be fair PB, most catholics sit waaaay down on the normal end of the spectrum and tend to regard the Vatican’s ranting as “more of a guideline”. That said, any “devout” god-botherers tend to be self-aggrandising efftards deserving of nothing but derision (mixed with pity).

PS – Having lived in a remote area of Ireland, I can safely say that Father Ted is not in fact a comedy, but a thoughtfully constructed piece of social documentary.

Could the people claiming that they won’t vote for someone because of their religious views or because of their gender do us all a favour and walk infront of the bus between now and election day, we don’t need idiots like you influencing the governance of the country based on totally irrelevant factors.

I would certainly vote against someone who declared themselves to be a catholic, a “devout” one even more so. Catholicism is the most repulsive of all the mainstream Xstian cults. The catholic cult is responsible for spreading disease in the third world, it is paracitic on the poor and stupid, it colludes with and gives succour to pedophiles, and is fascistic in nature.

DOUGAL: I’ve never met a celebrity before.
TED: You’ve met the Pope.
DOUGAL: Did I?
TED: Don’t you remember? When we were in Rome?
DOUGAL: That was the Pope? That fellow living in the art gallery?
TED: The Vatican, Dougal.
DOUGAL: All the same, I wouldn’t say he’s a celebrity, like in the true sense of the word, you know?
TED: The Pope is God’s representative on earth, Dougal.
DOUGAL: You think he’d be taller.

“Having a head does not influence one’s character…”

Hard to have a character without one, but its not character in that sense that I meant

54-11 said :

Just a theory.

No, that’s just a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis subsequently proven through repeated testing and replication of the results so as to be fit to be accepted as fact. The Law of Gravity is therefore a theory.
Just saying… 😛

P1: well argued.

vg said :

And her catholicism has exactly what to do with the intent of the thread….

A persons religion has nothing to do with the way I might vote for them. My vote is not, for example, coloured by the fact that Tony Abbot is a Catholic. However I do base my vote on how I perceive they will act on certain subjects, and by saying she is a “devout Catholic” the OP is suggesting to me that her politics will be in line with the teaching of the Catholic church. Many of which I disagree with. Now to finish my example, I would not vote against someone because of their religion, however I would vote against Tony Abbot because he is opposed to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, stem cell research, climate change action, and it doesn’t seem to be a coincidence that these things are all in line with his Catholic beliefs.

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Bosworth said :

To be fair, Mr Evil, the Catholic Church is a large promoter of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa.

Nonsense, everyone knows that condoms don’t prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS … the Pope said so.

Sure they do. I’m wearing one right now.

You’re wearing a pope?

Well played. But no.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Bosworth said :

To be fair, Mr Evil, the Catholic Church is a large promoter of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa.

Nonsense, everyone knows that condoms don’t prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS … the Pope said so.

Sure they do. I’m wearing one right now.

You’re wearing a pope?

Jim Jones said :

Bosworth said :

To be fair, Mr Evil, the Catholic Church is a large promoter of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa.

Nonsense, everyone knows that condoms don’t prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS … the Pope said so.

Sure they do. I’m wearing one right now.

Bosworth said :

To be fair, Mr Evil, the Catholic Church is a large promoter of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa.

Nonsense, everyone knows that condoms don’t prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS … the Pope said so.

vg said :

And her catholicism has exactly what to do with the intent of the thread….or do you suspect a da Vinci code-esque conspiracy?

No conspiracy necessary. What a person believes necessarily affects their position on political issues and is of interest to electors.

vg said :

I also note she has 2 legs and a head, equally if not more so identifiable parts of her character

Yes, so does almost everyone else, not everyone’s a catholic. Having a head does not influence one’s character…

To be fair, Mr Evil, the Catholic Church is a large promoter of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa.

vg said :

And her catholicism has exactly what to do with the intent of the thread….or do you suspect a da Vinci code-esque conspiracy?

I also note she has 2 legs and a head, equally if not more so identifiable parts of her character

Don’t you know Catholics are the cause of all the problems in the world – animal cruelty, that volcano with the unpronouncable name in Iceland, war, famine, queues outside popular nightclubs, the common cold, terrorism, colic, not being able to remember the name of a person you’ve just been introduced to at a party, influenza, chewing gum stuck to the pavement, AIDS, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux…..to name just a few.

it was certainly reported that way – the count of preferences goes in alphabetical order by booth, there was a surge to Le Couteur later in the alphabet…
It also didn’t help that the CT and other local media really don’t understand how the Hare Clark system works and the way preferences are counted and so tended to go off half-cocked, meaning that they had to keep revising their position. So yes, your recollection is correct, but the final washup was comfortable margin to Le Couteur.
I agree with you analysis of the Greens current performance – insipid to say the least, unlikely that they will retain two seats in Molonglo on their current form.

Thanks jimbo. I remember following the vote on line and my clear recollection was that it was quite a see-sawing battle at the time.

You’re right, it will require quite a change in voter preference. Here’s a theory – the local Greens are not performing as well as their supporters would have liked – Labor is just walking all over them. Therefore, there may be a number of voters that decide that local Greens don’t work, but they might be willing to give them a go federally. Just a theory.

@54-11, Le Couteur actually beat Jones by a fair margin on both first preferences and distributed preferences. Le Couteur’s first preference vote was 3,334 (3.78%) and Jones 2,252 (2.55%). At the final distribution – the point at which Jones was excluded from the count – Le Couteur was at 9,457 and Jones at 8,563 – a comfortable margin at this point of the count.

There are a range of problems with projecting the results of the ACT Election on to a future Federal Election – far better to have some reliable polling done. That said it would take a lot of planets aligning for the Greens to have any shot locally, all scenarios would require them getting ahead of the Libs on first preferences. Highest vote for Greens is the 18.2% in 2004 ACT election in Molonglo, lowest vote for Libs is 31.5% same year.

I think that for the first time for many years, either Libs or Greens actually have a fighting chance in this neck of the woods. And given that Gulia with a G was only just pipped by Caroline le Couteur for the city council, who knows.

I still believe that a good Greens candidate probably will do better, but it just may be a much more open race this time around.

And her catholicism has exactly what to do with the intent of the thread….or do you suspect a da Vinci code-esque conspiracy?

I also note she has 2 legs and a head, equally if not more so identifiable parts of her character

G for Gunghalin is now G for Gowrie or G for Gordon. Although she would start sounding like an exhibit at the War Memorial.

Having met Guilia several times, and run into her on the street when she was campaigning last time, I can say that she is a very thoughtful and hard working person. Importantly, she is an advocate and user of public transport. Apart from Caroline le Couter, i cant think of any other MLA or local political rep who uses public transport.

astrojax said :

Now the party appears to have done a backflip

no it hasn’t!!! can we all work together to remove this from our lexicon??

when one performs this said ‘backflip’, one finishes in precisely the same position in which one started. the media, too fond of this phrase, and other always (as here) seem to use this to indicate, metaphorically, that someone has reversed their position or outlook, so ‘appearing’ to do a u-turn, an about face, or similar – but NOT A BACK-fgggn-FLIP!!!

/rant

LOL
Backflip with twist? 🙂

Well that’s throwing in the towel, isn’t it. I would really like to vote Lib in Canberra as a protest against Rudd but I can’t because they’ve put up a woman as a candidate. The only times the Libs have won the seat is when they’ve had a male candidate (John Haslem 1975-80, Brendan Smyth 1995-96). In future would it be too much to ask that one of the major parties has a male as their candidate?

If she changed her name to Julia Gulia I would probably vote for her.

Now the party appears to have done a backflip

no it hasn’t!!! can we all work together to remove this from our lexicon??

when one performs this said ‘backflip’, one finishes in precisely the same position in which one started. the media, too fond of this phrase, and other always (as here) seem to use this to indicate, metaphorically, that someone has reversed their position or outlook, so ‘appearing’ to do a u-turn, an about face, or similar – but NOT A BACK-fgggn-FLIP!!!

/rant

As I’ve said before, all of the ACT will get far more attention from parties, and less whipping post treatment from the likes of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, if it were to become a collection of marginal seats.

Giulia With a G That Seems To No Longer Stand For Gungahlin will probably give it a fair run – she throws herself into campaigning.

amarooresident3 said :

It must be a bit disheartening to be chosen only because your party couldn’t find anyone better.

I think these people are generally so full of themselves and thick skinned that they aren’t bothered by little things like being the best of a bad lot.

shirty_bear said :

Does it matter? The ALP wins both federal Cbr electorates fullstop. The party couldn’t find anyone better coz everyone better already knows they’ll be losing.

Firstly the seat of Canberra has gone to the Liberals once in the last twenty years (Brendan Smyth in 1995).

Secondly there’s no incumbent, which is a big boost to challengers.

Thirdly a good showing, even if it falls short of the line, sets the challenger up with a public profile for a move on the Legislative Assembly.

So yes, it does matter.

shirty_bear said :

Does it matter? The ALP wins both federal Cbr electorates fullstop. The party couldn’t find anyone better coz everyone better already knows they’ll be losing.

She came close to winning in 2008 – therefore she has more electoral experience than the ALP candidates who as far as I know have never run – so I wouldn’t necessarily believe the Crimes’ source. After all, she may not even be in the running!

It’s still more professional and less dirty than the ALP preselection campaign that was run via the media 🙂

Does it matter? The ALP wins both federal Cbr electorates fullstop. The party couldn’t find anyone better coz everyone better already knows they’ll be losing.

It must be a bit disheartening to be chosen only because your party couldn’t find anyone better.