RE: New prime minister was once a partner at Goldman Sachs.
Posted on 09/14/2015 4:48:06 AM PDT by naturalman1975
RE: New prime minister was once a partner at Goldman Sachs.
Ahhh yes, the company that helped Greece to MASK its financial problems via esoteric financial engineering in order for that country to qualify to be part of the Euro.
Who knows what Turnbull has in store for Australia...
What sort of assurances will the Aussies have that will actually take place.
Unless they’re standing on the gangplanks and airport terminal exits they’ll never know how many were imported.
The head of Goldman Sachs (where the new PM was apparently a partner) thinks this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
“EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief”
I’m sure Australia will be exempt from this policy as well /s
Sounds like another good guy is removed and a PC guy fills his office.
What a shame.
I quit dating a while back until all of these sh!t storms passed and now things are beginning to feel like they're back to "normal" again.
Unfortunately, gullible me with the right kinds of distractions, I'm easy pickin's for the wrong kinds of personalities and that "tell" could come in handy.
Might save me from repeating some past mistakes and keep fate from having sport with me again.
With obamaumao’s help during his “visit” in which he treated Abbott like crap and pulled his “the world is burning up” shiite. Y’all remember that, FReepers.
This is the US, once again funding the globalist socialist agenda. Aussies, real ones, know better. This is not good.
So it is a short matter of time before this turnbullshiite is gone.
RE: New prime minister was once a partner at Goldman Sachs.
“Ahhh yes, the company that helped Greece to MASK its financial problems “
And sold billions of sub-prime mortgage “toilet paper” to their clients
Nice folks.
The Major move proved to be an electoral success for the party, but and ideological disaster.
I think this will mean an open door for millions of ‘refugees’ coming Australia’s way. Which is likely the purpose.
Like I wrote before, liberals in the USA came to mean those that wanted a liberal (i.e. "free spending") taxation and spend policy and conservatives wanted less taxes and less spending.
“Replaced?” Doesn’t sound like the result of an election.
Inter party election, I think. Parliamentary system.
Turnbull lives up to his name as a hot tempered lefty.... interesting also is Britain’s Labor just had an election and likewise another far-leftist stunningly won.
IMO what this is shaping up to is making sure the left has power through out the nations so they can push the buttons in agreement to the Globalist Agenda. The world overall is primed for socialism....
Oh, dear. Abbott’s problem was that, like Maggie Thatcher, he was too honest and not sufficiently willing to grovel to the media. Any chance that he will return to office, or is he out, like Maggie was? She was also pushed out by RINO “Conservatives,” who were indistinguishable from the Labour Party.
Not a general election, no.
The Prime Minister is technically chosen by a vote of the House of Representatives (like the US we have a two chamber legislature and we 'borrowed' the American names for those chambers). In practice, this means the Prime Minister is virtually always the leader of the party that has the largest number of seats in the House of Representatives, of which he is one Member.
In this case, that's the Liberal Party - and it's held an internal vote to change its leader, and therefore that also changes the Prime Minister. It's perfectly constitutional and has happened quite a few times in our history.
Technically, Mr Abbott could refuse to resign until the House of Representatives had voted, but there's no point. He'd lose such a vote. So he will resign, and the Governor General will commission Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister.
Yes, exactly. Thank you.
I can't see it happening. It did happen with Labor during their last term in office (Kevin Rudd who won the 2007 election was removed by an internal vote and replaced by Julia Gillard and then later there was another internal vote, and he came back) but I think Abbott is just too unpopular at this point. If Turnbull can't turn the party around, Scott Morrison would be the likely one the conservative wing of the party would likely try to replace him with now - and Morrison would be another genuine conservative, though perhaps not quite to the extent of Abbott. If Turnbull does turn the elecorate around - well, frankly, though Turnbull is a centrist, it's better to have him in power than a Shorten led Labor government - and conservatives will still have a voice under Turnbull in his cabinet.
Not exactly - although it's easy to understand why you might have that impression.
The Liberal and National Party's are virtually identical when it comes to policy. The only reason they are not the same party (and they are in part of the country) is that the Nationals generally represent rural constituencies, and worry that if they merged with the Liberals, the interests of rural voters would become less visible in a city-dominated Liberal-National Party. National voters are probably more conservative on average than Liberal voters but the parties are pretty much the same.
Both parties have a conservative core, but have some members towards the centre. Labor has a generally socialist core, but again, some members towards the centre. The Greens are heavily left, virtually universally. There are other more minor parties that only hold a handful of seats and they are all over the place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.