We don't have a Trump or Le Pen to lead us to victory but we can make a start in un-cucking our country.
I propose we all vote Family First (FFP) in the lower house and Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) in the senate.
If enough of us do this we can shake things up a bit.
At the very least we can cause some serious leftist butthurt. Imagine the sweet leftist tears when the numbers show a serious swing to FFP and ALA.
>>66637788
Think of the Q&A episode the Monday morning after the election if we do this. All those leftist females on the panel trying to explain how FFP and ALA did so well. Tony just like "i'll take that as a comment"
The Q&A thread will be glorious!
Legit considering just for the keks.
Doesn't it interest you that a new 400 square metre lot in a new subdivision sets you back $250,000 when just 15 years ago a quarter-acre lot was less than $100,000?
There is no shortage whatsoever of land surrounding any Australian city. Australian cities arguably has the least land constrains of any large cities in the entire world. So why does a truly meagre, tiny block of land in a new subdivision cost so much?
It costs only about $40,000 to supply infrastructure to even a relatively large lot, so this is already priced in. In a lot of modern cities like Houston, Atlanta, even cities in Germany, a big new lot doesn't get above about $80,000.
The reason is planning laws that make it illegal to subdivide and develop land without an extremely lengthy approval process. The amount of land actually zoned to be able to be subdivided is extremely small, so all the developers have to bid on this tiny amount of land, hugely driving up the cost.
Interestingly, both sides of politics have pursued these anti-greenfield development planning and zoning laws, using the justification that they defeat "urban sprawl". But we now know that they simply drive up the cost of housing beyond what families can afford.
VOTE FAMILY FIRST, THE ONLY PARTY WHO WILL DEAL WITH THIS EVIL!
>>66638144
The government's changing the voting laws so it's harder to get minor parties elected for exactly this reason.
>>66640271
good, less poo flingers, religio tards and general idiots
>>66640916
Commit suicide.
>>66640939
pray harder, like really mean it this time
God is listening....probably
>>66641017
I am praying as hard as I can. You will suffer badly, and so will your family.
>>66641075
Whatever happened to 'turn the other cheek' ?
>>66637788
Australian is going to be sweden 2.0 in 10 years, fucking makes me sick.
>>66641165
We will never have women as pretty as Swedish women.
Based Tones return when?
I wish we had a truly nationalist party.
I'm fucking done with chinks buying our shit.
>tfw chinks buy all the land and farms.
Sure it's cool now but in 50 years we're going to deeply regret selling our farms to fucking chinks, why can't we just lease the land?
>>66641403
It's not "our" shit. It belongs to a property owner and they should be able to sell it to whoever the fuck they want to. You dumb socialist fucks have already made it illegal to essentially do anything with your own land (cut down trees, build homes, etc) now you want to make it illegal to sell it too.
>>66641165
>>66641211
gonna be fun to bash lefties and kebabs though
>>66641403
>why can't we just lease the land?
That's how it is done, most rural land is leased off the govt in some way or another.
>>66641532
You do realize that the ''People'' buying that land is the literal State of china? It's not a private owner, fucking china is buying our farms.
Go ahead try to buy some land in china oh wait glorious capitalism has failed you, retarded nigger in 50 years we're going to be buying our food from chinks.
>>66642225
The land doesn't float away when they buy it. If we want it back we just take it.
>>66642417
>we can just take it
okay kid, time to go sleep, you have school tomorrow.
Tell me more about your glorious revolution tomorrow.
>>66642668
He's right though, we have their money and they can't exactly just up and cart the whole farm back to beijing now can they
>>66643273
no but they will send their 1000,0000,000 chinese fuckers to fuck our shit up
>>66643273
You call me a socialist and then sperg out full commie bullshit.
Are you retarded m8?
No, we will never take by force private land, A lot of other stuff will happen before that, sadly straya would have to go into legit mayhem before we can get that land back by force.
am i allowed to post here
>>66643573
I'm as capitalist as they come but you need to understand that our fucked up governments take people's land every day. In NSW the Native Vegetation Act literally nationalised all the trees and vegetation on everyone's property with absolutely NO compensation. Land owners who had planted forrests to log in the future as their retirement had their land values and livelihoods destroyed.
Aus govts don't care much for private property. A simple council decision can make it illegal to even farm your land, and that could be done to Chinese-owned land too.
>>66643573
calm your farm son, I wasn't calling anyone any names....well not intentionally.
The point is, if we really REALLY needed that land back....its still physically connected to us
and as far as China sending actual troops....possible but does their military have the logistics capability to project a significant land force this far ?
>>66643809
>implying our chinese overlords would admit such a thing.
nigga, try harder.
>>66643937
Admit what?
>>66637788
I think Family First is full of legit retards, but maybe they'll keep the bastards honest
>>66644104
nah bro, they do back-room deals to get more gibsmedats for their religious schools and churches, that's all they want.
>>66644254
Research bob Day, he's a pretty switched on guy.
>>66641075
How very Christian of you
>>66642417
>If we want it back we just take it.
you're a fucking idiot
>>66644352
Wiki says that he's a monarchist.....I'm sick of being England junior we need to move out of home
>>66644604
What if a law were to be passed at parlimentary level that decree'd all land now become imperial property of Australia and previous ownership claims are null and void.
>>66644881
then we'd get fucking nuked
>>66644946
Then no one would be able to grow crops....so probably they wouldnt nuke it.
>>66644946
Mmm likely but that is a huge assumption. Which is why we should ensure nuclear capabilities before we enact that one.
>>66644983
So? If they can't have it then why would they care.
>>66645024
>Australia
>Nuclear capabilities
you don't know much do you?
pic related
Is ALA Geert Wilders party?
>>66645167
What's so unfeasable about it? We actually had a deal with the U.S in the 50's and 60' to gain nuclear capabilities for allowing them to test here. That was never fulfilled but we still do a have a nuclear reactor in sydney that has capabilities to produce military grade uranium.
>>66645320
we got rid of our F-111s because they were seen as too aggressive in the region and you're talking about nuclear weapons. more than half the population is scared of nuclear power let alone weapons. we also have laws against nuclear stuff.
you truly have no idea what you're talking about
>>66645167
They would likely view it as a roundeye shakedown of the honest chinaman and either pay us a bit more money or maybe go looking somewhere in Africa instead.
>>66645669
china wouldn't be embarrassed like that. you can't just take back billions of dollars worth of land and have no consequences
>>66645624
Your posts consist solely of shit mixed with insults.
Stop posting on /pol/. Go back to /lgbt/, Reddit, or wherever it is you're from.
>>66645800
You're right, they would not take it lying down but I reckon they would try stuff like taking us to international court or putting import tariffs on aus goods to china before they escalate to military action
>>66645624
So you are saying we should stay reliant on the U.S.A as their lapdog. I see how it is
>>66645850
>australia will have nuclear weapons
anyone who believes this knows absolutely nothing about this country. btw, this has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter, I think australia should be more militarised but this is a matter of fact.
>>66645941
>putting import tariffs on aus goods to china
yeah, probably. we would be fucked in the ass with that though, say goodbye to australia
>>66646017
no I didn't say that, see above
>>66646062
>australia will have nuclear weapons
Hypothetically speaking, if the legal & social issues were not a barrier, how long would it take us to get a deployable nuclear weapon ?
>>66646062
Enlighten me then on why we cannot militarise ourselves more? From my understanding it was because we had the U.S as our #1 backer so it means we could get away with spending less on military. We need to move away from last centuries views and start to face the fact we need to back ourselves first and foremost.
>>66646295
If we could get US or UK help we'd have it within a year. If not, three years.
>>66646346
We can't militarise us more because people care more about their welfare payments than they do about how much money our military gets, sadly.
>>66646570
Yeah, I've seen papers bitching about the new subs we bought. People need to understand the quote "don't quote laws to men who have swords"
>>66646295
Well we'd most likely get the tech from USA if they allowed it. Seeing as how they allow the UK access to Tridents I see no reason why they wouldn't allow us to have similar tech.
For ICBMs, the US uses Minuteman III except they haven't been built since 1978 and I don't see them giving us any of theirs. So essentially a new ICBM has to be designed or production restarted which might not be feasible given it's been 40 years since. At the most maybe they could use existing Minuteman III designs and modify them to use modern production techniques and parts, however that would still be a long process taking many years. They then have to be built and the warheads have to be built, silos built, crews trained etc. So I'd say for full deployment probably minimum 5-10 years.
>>66646346
This has nothing to do with the point I was making about nuclear weapons by the way. We don't militarise more because frankly the government doesn't see a need and the budget is tight enough. If we had a military build up it would threaten relations with Indonesia and other Northern neighbours. With the current relations as they are, a non escalating position seems to be the best position from the government's point of view.
>>66646540
>>66646570
You have no idea.
>>66647072
You are the dumbest cunt on /pol/ and an air thief.
>>66643692
its ok britbong friend you are not alone
>>66647327
You should not be proud of ignorance
Evangelicals and christian fundies are as bad as SJW and islamists. All they do is scare people away from the right. They need to be purged from politics.
The only reason they're less annoying is because it's politically correct to revile them unlike the other two extremist groups.
>>66646295
Why would you want to put yourself on the list of countries eligible for nuclear exchange?
Also, when you say legal and social are you talking about international pressure as well, or simply internal objections?
Also, are you talking about just a warhead or a complete delivery system?
>>66648651
>Put ourselves on the nuclear exchange list.
Then what exactly is our situation now, avoid all conflict with countries who have nuclear capabilities and bend the knee whenever pressured or else risk destruction?
>Legal and social implications
I imagine it was factoring in all aspects. I would imagine international pressure would be the overriding force at play here.
>A warhead or complete delivery system?
I would imagine the complete delivery system
