The two party preferred polling rarely exceeds like 4 percentage points difference between ALP/Coalition, if only 10% of home owners notice a difference and shift their vote it's back towards a likely ALP victory.
Okay, so the first thing to recognise is that terminology in left wing theory can be super confusing and the same words can be used to mean different things at different times or in different places, or sometimes in the same place at the same time.
Communism however in modern usage is fairly straightforward as it is used almost exclusively as it is defined in conventional Marxist doctrine(and yes there are many branches of Marxism).
That said big C Communism means a state of being that is achieved as the end point of societal evolution where there is no state, the means of production is controlled by the community and the needs of all are met.
In conventional Marxist thought the way of achieving this is through a transitional stage of socialism where the means of production is controlled by a "Vanguard" state. Many states in history have claimed to be communist in ideology(they are working towards this stateless utopia) but none have claimed to have achieved communism, only to be in the process of transitioning to it.
To all the leftist theory heads out there, don't at me, I know this is a huge oversimplification, it is deliberate for someone who is obviously new to this.
Not the question asked, but relevant: When each individual enterprise considers its own transport needs, road transport is usually cheaper. However, when looking at the collective needs of an entire economy, rail is usually a way more efficient and cost-effective option.
Private rail companies will only invest where there are epic amounts of cargo or passengers to move, which when left to the private sector leads to massive under investment and over-reliance on road transport. There is no coherent argument against having extensive government investment in rail.
I'm not aware of any that are acid, usually they're strong alkaline, NaOH or KOH which is extremely corrosive, but there are some that are enzymatic that are supposed to break down organic material, not very well in my experience.
The observation I found most interesting here is obvious but hadn't occurred to me. That is that the RBA is going to find it increasingly difficult to justify not reducing interest rates going into the election. As much as that has almost nothing to do with the government if voters are feeling economic pressures lifting and the ALP can get some media traction with it they've got a chance.
The Socratic method is used extensively in medical training to the point that I think most doctors wouldn't think of it as the Socratic method but rather just as the way you speak to students and trainees.
I can't imagine how it could work in a lecture hall, it's best used one on one or at most small groups.
Someone told this to workers at a cafe I go to occasionally. They don't usually have a particularly long wait which makes it seem insincere and a little ridiculous.
To be clear it has become popular as a substitute for (or adjunct to) smoking. As a quitting aid it isn't especially effective, even if slightly more effective than NRT.
I must say in my practice I haven't seen anyone quit using vapes, it just becomes a substitute.
Thankyou, I have been relying on an article I read several years ago, which in my memory was Cochrane also, I may be able to track it down. Turns out I'm out of date on that stat.
I stand by it having uncertain long term consequences when other forms of NRT are proven safe.
The criminal prosecution of the wrongdoers is one thing but denying the democratic rights of union members to choose their own leadership and firing effective organisers who had nothing to do with the corruption is a blatant attack on the rights of workers.
While those of us on the progressive side of politics have been disappointed by the rightward drift of the Labor party for decades the anti-CFMEU legislation represents a profound abandonment of its historic mission to stand with the working class and trade unions.
While I think that legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, for personal use is probably the right policy decision I agree with Elton to a degree.
Currently there is a fairly well established cultural belief at least in English speaking countries that marijuana is not addictive, not dangerous to health, and not problematic at all.
The belief that marijuana is largely harmless persists despite the fact that we all know people who smoke excessively to the point of making their lives worse and if they come to this realisation they find it incredibly difficult to stop.
Criminalisation of marijuana, especially combined with over policing of specific communities as occurred in the USA, is a disaster. But not recognising the very real harms that marijuana does to some peoples lives is also a disaster.
It's an interesting idea, I honestly don't think there is an easy solution here though. Balancing freedom of speech with controlling false and misleading information is a supremely difficult and as yet unsolved problem.
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, I don't feel that you've actually addressed the issue at hand.
Specifically the event where Murdoch papers took payment from the fossil fuel lobby and in return ran front page stories pushing specifically their line that increased natural gas is necessary. This was made technically legal by small print on the next page.
The longstanding convention is that when presented as such a story has been written by a journalist to create the content and not pursue promotion, 'advertorials', while problematic in themselves, have always had a note, often small print, directly adjacent to the story.
The event reported here was deliberate misdirection intended to escape the notice of the reader.
The issue isn't the freedom of the fourth estate, it isn't even advertising or opinion in the press, it is that it should be clear to the reader what is news, what is opinion and what is advertising. There already exist laws that protect this separation. The Murdoch papers have found a loophole and have deliberately exploited it to deliberately mislead their readers. It is difficult to interpret it any other way and it is this specifically which should be made illegal by clarifying existing laws to close this loophole.
I'm sincerely sorry if I sound angry. I was trying to be concise. I am genuinely interested in hearing why you think outlawing this kind of deception would not be appropriate. I am quite certain we would disagree but I am always interested in hearing opposing opinions.
Really, please expand on this, I will try to respond with kindness and understanding despite any disagreement.
Never been a mod before, I'm on most days and I think fairly sensible and reasonable. I'd be willing to help out.