@theOGTaipan@JEChalmers Do you remember how labor wanted better controls for the jobkeeper handouts? $90b sent to companies with no accountability - handouts that only saved about 20% of the jobs that received money - potentially 70b wasted? They didn't want more spending, they wanted different spending
@ManDownUnder76@JohnRuddick2 Labor argued they weren't going far enough to protect vulnerable populations - instead they gave it to execs. This means they wanted it spent differently.
@ManDownUnder76@JohnRuddick2 Labor didn't want more spending, they wanted it spent differently. Are you happy with the $30b+ that was sent to companies that never made any losses? Jobkeeper, as the name implies, was supposed to help workers but it ended up going to the pockets of executives instead.
@AvidCommentator@DanielH16577898 This just seems incredibly selective, choosing a rule that conveniently happens to exclusively benefit 1 party.
Explain to me why its fair to attribute less tax revenue (from a gfc) to a particular party. Alternatively, what policy did Rudd introduce that triggered the gfc?
@dL_DadBris@DHughesy Exactly, 56% of the surcharge costs have already been absorbed by businesses and they will exclusively be better off. Realistically of the other 44%, some will absorb the cost, some will try to meet the cost and anyone raising their coffees cost by 10% is just being spiteful.
@mrobert87@Leigha_Sapienti The argument is, there are a bunch of inconsistencies with the original argument and the new definite statement so Miz should file a 2nd amended definite statement and if that fails again - dismiss. And his reasoning of how most statements are false is just circular reasoning…
@DiabetoClips You need a legal justification if you want to subpoena a random person on the internet. You can't just "get" their information because you dont like them. Violent motion has no reason to respond.
@Ragetear_X@HJensen10566@cliplug The order in the court doc is very clearly asking for all defamatory statements. The case as a whole is going to trial because there are accusations of a sexual nature but nothing else has been said about any specific statements.
@DiabetoClips If this is obviously a lie why didn't miz include this statement in his court case? Why does he only talk about this online? He had the perfect opportunity to add it to his more definite statement...
@GabeXCXI@Leigha_Sapienti Yes, it would be very easy to come out with a video of Mizkifs lies with his own contradictions and this time no one has to make up half truths. It's also interesting that nothing he mentioned in his "Emiru lied" video actually shows up in this court doc, I wonder why...
@MaxValkyric@Leigha_Sapienti His argument is literally "no one could of said anything bad about me because I've never done anything wrong" (in the context provided). Not only is that full of holes but you can't accuse someone of defamation based off of supposed events that you don't know, didn't occur.