So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.
At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it. Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.
You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.
So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget {No1 says: Yo, that’s an ad hominem}). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.
Umm, you’ve quoted nothing. Does that make your ‘points’ less than nothing? Nobody is stopping you from providing evidence, articles or scientific studies.
Also, does just saying something make it your own? Or does talking about something make it a great idea and a fabulous achievement, but if it’s rubbish idea and goes tits up, it’s somebody else’s fault?
At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it.
Wait, what? Where did I say that?
Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.
Evidence?
You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant
Yep, that is an ad hominem. You attribute my motives/actions for something without entirely any evidence.
for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.
Whoa! And you just ad hominem’d your ad hominem. And throwing the ‘trumpism’ in is arguably a whataboutism.
You said he “influenced” them so much that they got rid of him. You’re implying that his stance wasn’t conducive to their ideology so they removed him as their leader. He lost the party room because he tried to introduce the NEG, he refused to butcher the policy by funding coal fired plants. He didn’t succeed, but he did the best any liberal leader could amongst one of the most aggressively right wing eras in Australian politics.
What are you expecting me to quote on SH 2.0, you’ve claimed it was worse than the NBN but haven’t backed up legitimate reasons why? Because it’s expensive and went over budget? The original NBN quote was expensive, and you’d be to be highly optimistic if it stayed on budget and was delivered in time, it’s a government project afterall.
You said he “influenced” them so much that they got rid of him. You’re implying that his stance wasn’t conducive to their ideology so they removed him as their leader. He lost the party room because he tried to introduce the NEG, he refused to butcher the policy by funding coal fired plants. He didn’t succeed, but he did the best any liberal leader could amongst one of the most aggressively right wing eras in Australian politics.
Evidence?
What are you expecting me to quote on SH 2.0, you’ve claimed it was worse than the NBN but haven’t backed up legitimate reasons why?
No, I never said it was worse than NBN. I said it would be criminal (and I just mean that colloquially, ie that it would be funny in the saddest way) if it turned out worse than the NBN.
Because it’s expensive and went over budget? The original NBN quote was expensive, and you’d be to be highly optimistic if it stayed on budget and was delivered in time, it’s a government project afterall.
Original claimed FTTP NBN seemed crazy expensive even though it seems low now. But are you claiming the mixed-tech NBN was a success vs the originally planned FTTP? It was claimed to be cheaper and be implemented faster. And well, it was neither… and we’re still gonna have to pay to basically convert to FTTP anyways…
You can look into the NZ FTTP with reducing costs as rollout occurred as a counterpoint. Happy to look at your source.
Do you need links?
Have you got a link? Any link? You haven’t given one so far. For anything you’ve claimed. Or that Turnbull has claimed.
BTW: I upvote you bro. Anyone downvoting shouldn’t be, and should join the discussion. We all learn something and see others perspectives! Respect!
That being said a lot of what I’ve discussed is covered in both Turnbull’s unauthorised biography and his memoirs, but I can’t expect you to go and read those. But that link touches a bit on just what sort of battle he was facing even in cabinet. Without Turnbull, the NEG would have included 5 billion investment in coal fired plants. Sometimes it’s about what you don’t do that easily gets overlooked.
I won’t touch the LNP NBN roll out as that’s not what I was referring to and we don’t need another tangent.
So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.
At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it. Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.
You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.
Umm, you’ve quoted nothing. Does that make your ‘points’ less than nothing? Nobody is stopping you from providing evidence, articles or scientific studies.
Also, does just saying something make it your own? Or does talking about something make it a great idea and a fabulous achievement, but if it’s rubbish idea and goes tits up, it’s somebody else’s fault?
Wait, what? Where did I say that?
Evidence?
Yep, that is an ad hominem. You attribute my motives/actions for something without entirely any evidence.
Whoa! And you just ad hominem’d your ad hominem. And throwing the ‘trumpism’ in is arguably a whataboutism.
C’mon bro, you can address the point:
TURNBULL + ENVIRONMENT + EVIDENCE = POSITIVE RESULTS
Show me the way!
You said he “influenced” them so much that they got rid of him. You’re implying that his stance wasn’t conducive to their ideology so they removed him as their leader. He lost the party room because he tried to introduce the NEG, he refused to butcher the policy by funding coal fired plants. He didn’t succeed, but he did the best any liberal leader could amongst one of the most aggressively right wing eras in Australian politics.
What are you expecting me to quote on SH 2.0, you’ve claimed it was worse than the NBN but haven’t backed up legitimate reasons why? Because it’s expensive and went over budget? The original NBN quote was expensive, and you’d be to be highly optimistic if it stayed on budget and was delivered in time, it’s a government project afterall.
Do you need links?
Evidence?
No, I never said it was worse than NBN. I said it would be criminal (and I just mean that colloquially, ie that it would be funny in the saddest way) if it turned out worse than the NBN.
Original claimed FTTP NBN seemed crazy expensive even though it seems low now. But are you claiming the mixed-tech NBN was a success vs the originally planned FTTP? It was claimed to be cheaper and be implemented faster. And well, it was neither… and we’re still gonna have to pay to basically convert to FTTP anyways…
You can look into the NZ FTTP with reducing costs as rollout occurred as a counterpoint. Happy to look at your source.
Have you got a link? Any link? You haven’t given one so far. For anything you’ve claimed. Or that Turnbull has claimed.
BTW: I upvote you bro. Anyone downvoting shouldn’t be, and should join the discussion. We all learn something and see others perspectives! Respect!
This link speaks a bit to what I’ve been saying.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbull-says-his-biggest-leadership-failure-was-on-climate-change-83289/
That being said a lot of what I’ve discussed is covered in both Turnbull’s unauthorised biography and his memoirs, but I can’t expect you to go and read those. But that link touches a bit on just what sort of battle he was facing even in cabinet. Without Turnbull, the NEG would have included 5 billion investment in coal fired plants. Sometimes it’s about what you don’t do that easily gets overlooked.
I won’t touch the LNP NBN roll out as that’s not what I was referring to and we don’t need another tangent.