TheObserver

I can always count on this site to give me a big dose of reality when my optimism about humanity gets too high

@taipan168 I will say it’s also incredibly funny you claim to stop engaging with people who don’t know what they’re talking about when if anything you were proven to be the moron here

@taipan168 Imagine being proven wrong and then running way because you disagree with someone’s feed because you’re too stick up to admit you’re wrong

Well mate, if you voted One Nation at a South Australian state level because the level of migration is your main concern, there's one word for you. MORON! abc.net.au/news/2026-03-2…

@taipan168 Federal sets number allocations States set the criteria against which those numbers are assessed (and donteven have to use all spots) States thus have an element of authority over local immigration, voters prioritising immigration are thus not morons when looking state level

@0bserver123 Fine, if you want to play wordies, whatever. But states still do not set migration policy, which is why anybody voting One Nation if that is their main priority is a moron.

@taipan168 A) they can’t continue to be here if they don’t get the Visa B) the mere fact that they are pushed to another pathway proves my point. They are pushed to that pathway because of a STATE’s decision. States have some control and authority over migration.

@0bserver123 No, because a) the people are already here and b) if they didn't get a state-sponsored visa, they'd apply for PR under another pathway.

@taipan168 So what? You said my claim was wrong but home affairs clearly shows I’m right and that states have some level of control and authority over migration

@0bserver123 Except that those visa subclasses only make up about 20% of total PR grants.

@taipan168 Home affairs disagrees with you, it clearly lays out how states have authority to “assess applicants against criteria unique to their jurisdictions”. Ie how those numbers are allocated are controlled by state requirements

@0bserver123 It is not correct that "the state determines how those numbers are allocated and how many of them are used". It's 20% at most that are sponsored by the states to become PRs.

@taipan168 What part of my statement isn’t correct

@0bserver123 That is not correct.

@taipan168 Correct but as shown SA does have a say in migration policy. It gets allocated the numbers from federal but the state determines how those numbers are allocated and how many of those are used. But thanks for confirming you’ve misunderstood what state does and what Federal does.

@0bserver123 No, the point of the topic is that state governments do not determine migration policy.

@taipan168 Which is correct but is still not the point of the topic

@0bserver123 As I said, only a small minority of PR visas are granted through the state sponsored pathway.

@taipan168 Not the point in the sense that doesn’t matter if they’re already here, (in the case of SA sponsored visas) if they don’t get the visa they have to leave meaning control of those migrants rests at the state level not federal

@taipan168 Again not the point

@taipan168 Quantity was not the point, the point was who controls the quantity/general distinction between state and federal involvement. A distinction which you yourself have not adequately understood despite calling others “Morons” for the same reason

@0bserver123 Only a small number of permanent residence visas are state sponsored.

@arch_engels @TrueSlazac @xswl2099 This is no different from what apartheid apologists said about sanctions against South Africa

@TrueSlazac @xswl2099 Our sanctions cause far more suffering to the Cuban population than to the regime. The suffering that we are causing is also evil and it is immoral to support it

how about you don’t punish Cuba with sanctions and let them be

@mel_wright123 @taipan168 States still have an element of control over nominations and allocations so if SA ON voters looked at it from that perspective they’d be bang on

@taipan168 Migration is mainly a federal responsibility. Not sure SA’s ON voters are across all the details.

@HairyJohns6652 @seamus_coughlin Just answer the question man, are you challenging a point made in his post or the post in its entirety

@0bserver123 @seamus_coughlin Everything Seamus stands for. Is that clear for you?

Democrats: We don't *hate* white people Me: Good, hating white people is bad Democrats: literal nazi rhetoric

@HairyJohns6652 @seamus_coughlin So are you challenging a point made or the conversation itself?

@0bserver123 @seamus_coughlin What? His made up conversation?

@HairyJohns6652 @seamus_coughlin Wow none of the stuff you mentioned relates to the point he made above so again which point from above are you even wanting to challenge?

@0bserver123 @seamus_coughlin I was watching some of his old podcasts yesterday and he was pushing some pretty dogshit medical conspiracies about birthcontrol so that would be a good place to start. He also regurgitates incel talking points. All things to challenge

@RMckwei @PalmyrPar Because if you already have two bad guys why on earth do you want to strengthen a third bad guy right on your door step?

@0bserver123 @PalmyrPar That’s what America did with China, why not Cuba? And all these sanctions just have the effect of creating eternal enemies and making it so they have to work with China and Russia

People of means voluntarily choosing to give aid purchased from private businesses under no pressure of coercion or state force? Individual freedoms and the market system win again, I guess! Great on you fellows - show Cuba what they’re missing out on.

@RMckwei @NegativeN11926 @totally_not_ace @PalmyrPar wow and what does that have to do with the fact they still get those things from Russia and China?

@0bserver123 @NegativeN11926 @totally_not_ace @PalmyrPar Ngga they were getting oil from Venezuela and then America forced them to stop 💀