vickbeep

@johnkonrad @goodfoodgal Honestly TLDR, I stopped when you demonstrated you don’t understand the civil and criminal standard of proof.

Something is really bothering me about the Ben Roberts-Smith case. Nobody likes being a hypocrite. Unlike most, I actually go for a walk when I suspect myself of being one. On one hand, this prosecution stinks of liberal bias. Out of thousands of potential war crimes cases the social justice warrior police chief could have pursued, she picked THE most decorated soldier on the entire continent. That isn’t justice. That’s a public humiliation ritual. On the other hand, I do believe actual war criminals should stand trial regardless of rank or honors. And I know what’s coming: “John, Roberts-Smith already lost the 2023 defamation case. Justice Besanko found he committed the murders.” Yes. On the balance of probabilities. 51 percent. That’s the civil standard. Criminal conviction requires 99 percent. The same fragile evidence that barely cleared a coin flip is now supposed to send a man to prison for life. Here’s why my post is not hypocrisy. When the school got hit in Iran weeks ago, I said mistakes aren’t war crimes, but if it was intentional or grossly negligent, someone should be court-martialed. That strike is recent. Physical. Investigable. The Roberts-Smith allegations are 20 years old. And here’s what the Brereton Inquiry, for all its 510 witnesses & four years of work, could never get: No crime scene access. The Taliban didn’t let investigators into Uruzgan. No Afghan witnesses interviewed. No secured scene. No blood-spatter analysis. No DNA No autopsies. No recovered bodies. No weapons tied to victims. The investigators themselves admitted they “lacked access to Afghan crime scenes and were missing the physical evidence that would normally anchor a murder prosecution.” So what’s left? Memory. Twenty-year-old memory from men in the fog of war. The science is unambiguous. Countless research studies confirms memory is reconstructive: later suggestion, media exposure, and repeated questioning distort it. This is the textbook misinformation effect. Confidence and accuracy decouple within months, let alone decades. Studies on soldiers who suffer PTSD show the gaps get even larger. I admittedly don’t know 🇦🇺 law but US courts admit decades-old testimony but warn juries it is inherently fragile, not scientific proof. Australia is treating it as load-bearing concrete. The media says “20 former soldiers testified against him.” Fine. Was all their testimony actually against him? How clear was it? Did 20 people watch him murder a civilian in broad daylight? And even if they did, you still have to prove the dead man wasn’t Taliban. In Uruzgan. In 2009. Without a body. Some will say I’m being pedantic. Yes. I. Am. Because Ben Roberts-Smith was charged with murder, and under war-crimes law the same act can be framed as murder, willful killing, or killing a person hors de combat depending on the framing. How it gets framed sets precedent for every future war. And here’s the question nobody in Canberra wants asked: Why is the trigger-puller in the dock while the officers who wrote the rules of engagement, approved the missions, and signed the after-action reports keep their pensions? The Victoria Cross winner hangs. The chain of command walks. Past “War crime” cases with more hard evidence remain “unsolved” That isn’t accountability. That’s a scapegoat ritual. You do not get a Victoria Cross just for killing. You get it for extraordinary gallantry, valour, self-sacrifice & devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. And here is what Australia just told every soldier watching: the reward for a VC is fame which will make you a target for future show trials built on 20-year-old memories, prosecuted by a police chief with no combat but more ribbons on her uniform than you. If murder can be proven without hard evidence decades later. That isn’t justice even if he is guilty. Proof of guilt matters. That’s a Marxist humiliation ceremony leading to national strategic disarmament by lawfare.

@BrentHodgson The irony is that this blind support for an alleged war criminal actually disparages other adf personnel. The ones that came forward and spoke about what they witnessed, effectively calling them all liars.

No, champ. This is how Australia investigates & charges them as war criminals when faced with credible allegations they’ve killed unarmed guys, disarmed prisoners, and/or civilians. This isn’t the targeting of soldiers. He’s charged because good soldiers themselves spoke up. Meanwhile the far-right thinks licensing war crimes strengthens nations.

@MAGATruthX @EricTrump How’s this a history lesson? It shows trump has no idea of history. The answer is pretty obvious as to why Japan didn’t tell him about pearl Harbour. Trump is just deflecting to avoid answering a question. Weird you think this is a clever retort, it makes him look stupid.

🤣🔥 Absolute CLASSIC Trump clapback! When a reporter tries to corner him, Donald Trump hits back harder than a history lesson. 🦅 Pearl Harbor reference? ICONIC. Shows you can’t lecture America on surprises — we’ve seen them before, and we don’t forget. 💥 This is why the world respects strength and wit over weak questions. MAGA energy at its finest. 🇺🇸💪

🤣🤣 One of the great responses to a reporter in history! JAPANESE REPORTER: Why didn't you tell Japan before the Iran war? PRESIDENT TRUMP: "Why didn't you tell ME about PEARL HARBOR?!" "You believe in surprise much more-so than US!"

@RoadknightThe He is smart enough to know “we can’t mince with words”.

The ABC always practises the politics of envy. Angus Taylor is a Rhodes scholar. That's no mean achievement and reserved for the smartest of the smart who also excel at sport. Other recipients include Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Hawke and Kim Beazley. I bet the ABC had no problem with the latter three. In any case, why would you not want your Prime Minister to be the smartest guy in the room?

@burkylie12 Because whilst Australian parliamentary rules prohibit the use of props or theatrical displays in the chamber, the rules don’t prevent a person from wearing garments worn as genuine identity or solidarity.

Faruqi needs to be banned from parliament for wearing this terrorist rag!

@Lisa9Sophia Because Australian parliamentary rules prohibit the use of props or theatrical displays in the chamber.

Why is it Pauline Hanson can’t wear a full face burqa yet women are forced to? Why is it you can’t proudly drape an Australian flag over your shoulders Why is it Lidia Thorpe can rip up papers throw them at Hanson, and give the middle finger while storming out, yelling “You are a convicted racist!”

@FreedomHAV @DrewPavlou It’s not bold. It’s idiotic. It makes no sense - this stunt completely contradicts her position.

People may call it a stunt but there is no shame in this. It’s a bold move by Senator Hanson. The burqa is a symbol of Islamic fundamentalism (and oppression) and something we could well do without in Australia. The burqa should be banned. Even Tajikistan (with a 98% Muslim population) has banned it. Some ‘useful idiots’ in the West would do well to investigate why Tajikistan has implemented the ban, along with other legislation to counteract Islamic fundamentalism.

Australian right wing populist leader Pauline Hanson decided to wear a burqa into the Australian Senate today Strangely enough this is actually the second time she has done this in her career She’s polling at nearly 20% of the national vote, mainly because the Labor government is insistent on running the largest migration program in our national history. They have given her a big boost.

@rtsclement @therealrukshan What IS her point? I don’t get it. Can you please explain it to me?

@therealrukshan Doesn’t this actually just completely prove her point?

Breaking: The Senate has been suspended after One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson entered the chamber wearing a burqa and refused to remove it despite objections from multiple senators and the President of the Senate. Pauline Hanson remained defiant, refusing to comply with the President's request to remove the burqa after she stated that it was inappropriate to wear in Parliament as it could cause religious offence. *Offical cameras in the chamber were obscured to hide Pauline Hanson from view.

@TruthFairy131 I don’t understand the point that is being made by PH wearing a burka. Can someone please expand it???

Pauline Hanson has worn a burqa into the Senate chamber on Monday afternoon, the second time in her parliamentary career she has performed the stunt. Sadly, our Government didn’t get the message last time Pauline stated her case to ban it. Aussies do not feel safe around people covered head to toe in an oppressive foreign garment. Let’s say we are in a shopping centre & there is someone in a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet walking around, you immediately feel uneasy & afraid. This is no different. Anyone could be hiding under a burka & could be hiding weapons etc.. This is Australia, not an Islamic country. We don’t want this crap in our country. BAN THE BURKA 🙅🏼‍♀️ @PaulineHansonOz @OneNationAus

@FoxNews Ah so Leavitt is now confirming Trump knew Epstein was a pedophile?

NEW: Karoline Leavitt responds after Democrats release emails detailing previously undisclosed communications from Jeffrey Epstein about President Trump. “These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.” “What President Trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach, and so was Jeffrey Epstein.” “Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile, and he was a creep.”

@kevinbonham @JimThom90458694 Agree with Kevin preferential voting is very simple and ensures every vote counts. Also if you want the party who you want to vote for to tell you how to vote then grab their how to vote card.

Preferential voting is actually extremely simple. Follow the instructions on the ballot. Put the candidates in order from those you prefer the most to those you like least. If you above all else don't want a given party to win then put it last. That party can never get your vote. The "call" of the result on election night is an unofficial prediction by analysts and broadcasters. The AEC process to formally detemine the results takes weeks. It is possible for analysts to know who will win quickly in a non-close election because of patterns in vote shares between votes of different kinds and especially because of the two-party preferred figures for votes counted. Preferential voting is a great Australian innovation to provide fairness to parties and voters. If you don't support it you are not a patriot.

Only 8 seats were won outright by a labor candidate. The other 86 seats were won on preferences. .. Rosita Diaz@RosiDaz48 Before our last election I rang the Party I wanted to vote and asked how I should vote alas the answer was unfortunately we can’t tell you how to vote I explained I don’t understand Preferential Voting and want to make sure Labor do not win still would not explain Who on earth can explain as not many of us understand Preferential Voting and should be outlawed Labor was called winner after 20 minutes of booths closing with WA still voting How is this possible At the moment we are doing everything possible to get rid of Labor and nothing is working Rallies No Confidence Petition so much hatred towards a Government that I’ve never seen in my lifetime We have no Opposition no GG no Media to support us Albo is laughing at us doing whatever he wants knowing we can’t get rid of him Unite to Restore Australia

@eduardradureal youtu.be/XUSiCEx3e-0?si…

🇺🇲🇷🇴 U.S. Vice President, JD Vance: "You don't have shared values if you cancel elections because you don't like the result, and that happened in Romania!"

@ChrisDJackson Hilarious. A Boeing (so American plane) gifted from Qatar. Did the importation of that plane attract a tariff?

This is the most materialistic, superficial human to ever walk the Earth. Every situation—every single one—turns into a grift. And this is no different. Just listen to him. He’s not talking about security, policy, or the American people—he’s whining that other countries have newer planes than him. Wake up, people. He doesn’t care about you. He never has.

@colonelhogans Amazeballz

How fucking orgasmic would it be if Zoey Daniels beats Freedom Boy Tim Wilson and bring that weasel crashing back to earth in a pile of his own shit!

@RogersTim_2206 @Court1066408 @BernardKeane That weighting issue is an interesting point. But it is part of what I like about the preferential system. It means that just cos I don’t happen to vote the same as enough of my neighbors I still get to have say in who represents me.

@vickbeep @Court1066408 @BernardKeane So in both Canada and the UK they have investigated Preferential voting, but decided that it’s too complex and confusing and not representative. So they have stuck with FPTP. The concept of weighting say 3rd round preference with a 1st preference is a nonsense.

The Australian is now blaming preferential voting for the Coalition losing

@Dallas62130926 @LadySappho @BernardKeane I take from this comment what you mean is if you put a “right wing party” first and they don’t get up, then your preference should flow to another “right wing party”. Have I understood you correctly?

@LadySappho @vickbeep @BernardKeane A better slogan would have been vote for the right wing parties first, then the left wing parties last.

@Court1066408 @RogersTim_2206 @BernardKeane That does sounds pretty whack. But FPTP also can throw up this sort of result. I guess the idea with FPTP is your vote might not count if you don’t vote for someone “competitive” but then that just seems to favor major parties and incumbents and the previous second place.

@vickbeep @RogersTim_2206 @BernardKeane 90+ seats with 34% of the vote.

@RogersTim_2206 @Court1066408 @BernardKeane Maybe some crazy hybrid. First TWO or THREE (depending on number of candidates) past the post then the votes that didn’t go anywhere distributed to those two/three based on preferences [not a fully thought through idea, just a thought bubble].

@RogersTim_2206 @Court1066408 @BernardKeane Thanks for your reply Tim. Bit confused your comment was that preferential was redundant and past use by date. But you think we should go by an even older method (I think UK is first past post) to honor Westminster system. Is it that your view is FPTP is an oldie but a goodie?

@Court1066408 @RogersTim_2206 @BernardKeane I was also curious as to why you didn’t like preferential system. Not sure if you have a view on that.

@vickbeep @RogersTim_2206 @BernardKeane You asked for my opinion. It works fine in other countries.

@Court1066408 @RogersTim_2206 @BernardKeane Yeah appreciate the reply. Just expressing my opinion.