Skip to main content

THE VIRUS 2020 - the good, the bad, and the ugly

Interesting post Dystopia! If Peta Credlin was the Premier of Victoria do you think she'd be handling the pandemic situation better than Dan Andrews?

I'm not an Alan Jones fan but this is interesting!

Alan Jones: "Well to the lady whom you all tell me should vacate the deluxe chair and run the joint. I'll tell you what, with Peta Credlin in charge we wouldn't be enduring this sort of nonsense. She's one of our political hopes of the future. The near future I hope at that..."

Thanks Beach, I had seen this before and now watched it again. I admit, I still can't figure out what either of them is actually trying to say.
Alan Jones has said things in the past I agree with and I appreciate when individuals have the courage to go against the mainstream. In his position though, courage has never been the issue because he simply could afford to swim up-stream... in fact, as a shock-jock he has always been expected to. My problem with him is his gung ho attitude.
Saying that "She's one of our political hopes of the future. The near future I hope at that..." is nothing but a platitude, the kind you would frequently read in the 'comments' section of Youtube channels that deal with alternative views on politics.

Would Credlin handle the pandemic better than Andrews? She might, if she had all the figures and numbers she complains are not available to us, at her fingertips. But let's not forget who she is! She is a commentator and closet activist, not a politician.
Being Chief od Staff, even if you're a good one, doesn't automatically qualify you to be a politician.

At this stage I'm afraid, not even a change in leadership would make a difference in regards to the pandemic. The virus doesn't take breaks and won't pause for our politicians to sort themselves out and catch up with reality. To legislate takes time, especially in a Democracy.
 
I see Peta Credlin being more of a Grima Wormtongue persona in politics rather than showing any actual leadership.
 
Trendline is starting to look like a peak.

One annoying thing (I learnt about on The Project) about the way they do these figures is that cases are assigned to the day the results are reported and due to the nature of "procedures" the reporting can get bunched up and that adds to the apparent volatility of the daily numbers. I'm guessing every test would be timestamped so they should be able to plot the daily cases against the actual test date.
You "learnt" something on The Project? How on earth did you manage that?
 
I would like to see Rita Panahi as a regular co-host. Who do you think would win in a debate between her and Waleed?
Help me out here lol. I am well versed in 'Waleedism' but I haven't got a clue who Rita Panahi is... any links where I can read what she has to say?
 
Oh yes, thanks. I just watched another video with her. I like this one better lol. I like the subject matter here. She does a good job in collecting, putting together and presenting the issues and also has a pleasant diction which I personally find is very important to be convincing in any environment.
But... let's not forget that she reads from a teleprompter here - this doesn't necessarily equip her for debates.

We could use Obama as an example. Left or Right, we have to admit that he is a good orator. Apparently he wrote many (if not all) of his speeches himself. But he is a lousy debater.

So until we have seen Panahi in a real debate, I'd suggest we watch and listen to Kayleigh McEnany and go on the search for someone like her locally.
 
I'm horrible at judging.
Hahahahahaaaaa.... you only just realised that?!

But seriously. This is not about judging and no doubt different people would get different impressions. It's about what makes sense to you. A debater who finds it necessary to continuously interrupt, talk over the 'opponent', reverts to shouting and accusations is never the winner in any debate.

I don't know if you are familiar with the famous Peterson - Newman interview. Cathy Newman kept putting words into Jordan Peterson's mouth - practically accusing him of having said such and such. In the end, Peterson won the debate (interview) because he had his facts right without relying on prompts and notes. That's just one example, there are plenty examples closer to home.
 
Hahahahahaaaaa.... you only just realised that?!

But seriously. This is not about judging and no doubt different people would get different impressions. It's about what makes sense to you. A debater who finds it necessary to continuously interrupt, talk over the 'opponent', reverts to shouting and accusations is never the winner in any debate.

I don't know if you are familiar with the famous Peterson - Newman interview. Cathy Newman kept putting words into Jordan Peterson's mouth - practically accusing him of having said such and such. In the end, Peterson won the debate (interview) because he had his facts right without relying on prompts and notes. That's just one example, there are plenty examples closer to home.

No, I've always known that. The only thing I'm good at judging is my taste in media and music.
 
Oh yes, thanks. I just watched another video with her. I like this one better lol. I like the subject matter here. She does a good job in collecting, putting together and presenting the issues and also has a pleasant diction which I personally find is very important to be convincing in any environment.
But... let's not forget that she reads from a teleprompter here - this doesn't necessarily equip her for debates.

We could use Obama as an example. Left or Right, we have to admit that he is a good orator. Apparently he wrote many (if not all) of his speeches himself. But he is a lousy debater.

So until we have seen Panahi in a real debate, I'd suggest we watch and listen to Kayleigh McEnany and go on the search for someone like her locally.

It's an old video but here is Rita in a debate on climate change.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top