TRUMP
- Thread starter Kooka30
- Start date
You do realise that Australia could top half those charts with a simple relaxation of legislation and regulation.Take a close look
How many times does the USA Flag show up ?
Mmm, maybe a reason why the USA ( TRUMP ) is looking at Venezuela & Greenland that are rich in ( untapped ) Resources/Minerals
View attachment 15687
Its no coincidence that some of the biggest producers have authoritarian/corrupt regimes who can push through anything for personal gain
The " Green Movement " has a near strangle hold on AUS politics'/legislation that has retarded the grow of AUS Industry for decades.
The amount of AUS that is locked away for environmental/cultural/flora/fauna & because some ancient spirt is believed to inhabit an area is insane.
I example in my own area was that a " Buried Pipeline " had to divert, at the cost of Millions $ because an indigenous group said it was " culturally significant " ground.
They were just going to dig a trench, lay a pipe & cover it back up !! Instead Millions $ extra spent & significant delays.
U often hear of whole projects abandoned because these types of issues make the projects unviable.
Insanity for the cult of Gia/Mother Earth.
If our society is to Live & Thrive, we need resources, bottom line. Just needs to be done in a responsible manner on both sides.
It's not about Access.
The Indigenous Community says that the land Has " Cultural Significance " & can't be disturbed.
It's nearly impossible to argue against this as the is no definition of " Cultural Significance ".
They don't occupy the land directly.
It's vacant Public Land, but the indigenous community want's no "disturbance " of the said land.
SKULLIt's not about Access.
The Indigenous Community says that the land Has " Cultural Significance " & can't be disturbed.
It's nearly impossible to argue against this as the is no definition of " Cultural Significance ".
They don't occupy the land directly.
It's vacant Public Land, but the indigenous community want's no "disturbance " of the said land.
You're right that political agendas can sometimes intersect with Indigenous issues in ways that spark debate.
In Australia, groups like the Greens have advocated for environmental protections that align with Indigenous land rights, but critics argue this can sometimes prioritize broader political goals over specific community needs. For context, Indigenous Australians comprise diverse groups with over 250 distinct language groups and cultural traditions, as recognized by organizations like the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS).
Historically, there have been instances of inter-group conflicts, much like in many societies worldwide, but there's also a rich history of trade, alliances, and shared Dreamtime stories that connect communities across the continent.It's important to distinguish between traditional custodians who maintain deep, ongoing connections to their Country—often through native title claims under the Native Title Act 1993, which has granted rights to over 40% of Australia's landmass as of recent reports—and urban or politically active Indigenous leaders who may have mixed ancestry.
Many prominent Indigenous figures, such as politicians in Parliament, proudly represent their heritage while advocating for systemic change, and Australian law defines Aboriginality based on descent, community acceptance, and self-identification (as per the 1983 High Court definition).
However, tensions can arise when external influences or internal divisions affect how these issues are framed.Ultimately, history shows that cultures and borders evolve—empires rise and fall, migrations occur, and societies adapt.
In Australia, this includes the impacts of colonization since 1788, ongoing reconciliation efforts like the Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017), and modern challenges such as climate change affecting traditional lands. Respecting Indigenous sovereignty while navigating these changes is key to a shared future.
Apparently the Dutch discovered Australia before Britain in the 1600's, and the Spanish were in the area searching for new land. I often wonder how things would've been for indigenous Australians if the British didn't colonise. It's almost guaranteed that Australia would've been taken over regardless. The Dutch were known for their brutality during that time period and enslaving indigenous populations with a focus on trade. The Spanish were conquerers and seemingly more brutal. It quite likely Britain colonising Australia was the best outcome for indigenous Australians.
Trump's latest tariff threat to Europe includes the UK and Switzerland. The threat reported covers all goods - no exemptions. If no TACO and they actually follow through, that means gold or silver from LBMA/Swiss refineries get tariffed. This could kill the LBMA (USA bullion banks won't ship COMEX metal [silver specifically] to London).
the funny part about Tariffs, its a self imposed tax, so he is just taxing Americans more, he is just adding to their cost of living, putting Tarrifs on everything including shit you cant make your self is just cutting off your nose to spite your own face, honestly If I was a world leader, id let him do it, I wouldnt return fire with Tarrifs, and let Americans have more expensive goods Because that is really who will suffer, if he puts the same tarrifs on every one, well the play field is level so wont really work that well, I mean Tarrifs helped worsen the great depression, he is an idiot who doesnt know hisotry clearly. so let him be the one who makes costs of goods more expensive in a global economy. It is interesting how people seem to think the people who are paying these tariffs are the country these goods are coming from, and not the Americans who are buying it ahaha, Imagine putting a tariff on products you cant even make in your own country, that is silly shit.
Lets be honest here, his tarrifs are really about revenue raising for the government, He is simply taxing his own for more revenue, and what fucken planet are tarrifs considered conservative policy? I mean they have always been a left wing trade unionist policy, and here the conservatives who would typically attack Tariffs are now supporting it, and the socialist trade unionist Left who typically love Tarrifs are opposing it, its a backwards world where Left are wanting less tax and the right are wanting more ahaha, put that in your head for a second and try and compute that reversed insanity. lol
tarrifs are about as left wing of a policy as you can get and American conservative consumers are being tobe taxed more via tariffs for a revenue raising government in loads of debt lol, and the excuse they accepting is for no other reason than to stick a middle finger up at a bunch of allied countries, lol Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Hilarious, again this is another example showing how stupid the right have become and how similar they are to the left now with stupidity
Last edited: