??? ??????? ????????, ?????? ???????????, ??????????? ? ????????? ??? ?? ???????????? ???????? ???? ? ??????????? ?????? ? ?????? ??.

Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and integrity is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the first place hear themselves?


In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed electoral reforms that the major parties look set to come together to support.

The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals can donate, caps on the amount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arms race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually less than the major parties currently spend.


The proposed new laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing the transparency of who makes political donations in the first place.

So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity while using their cash to influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can use their wealth at all will be limited.

The bill will further improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency that disclosures of donations need to be made.

At present we have the absurd situation in which donations get made - but you only find out the details of who has given what to whom many months later, well after elections are won and lost.

In other words, what is broadly being proposed will result in much greater transparency and far less big money being injected into campaigning by the wealthy.




Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running scared' with the policy and warned the reform would 'not stop the rot' 











Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot - saying if it serves only the major parties 'it's a rort, not reform'. Teal independent ACT senator David Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up'

Anyone donating more than $1,000 to a political party, as opposed to $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having done so. And how much they can donate will be capped.

Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the proposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'. 

They have lost their collective minds after finding out that Labor's proposal just might secure the support of the opposition.

I had to double check who was criticising what exactly before even starting to write this column.

Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency measures stamping out the influence of the wealthy must have been proposed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer to accountability.


More fool me.

The bill, designed to clean up a rotten system, is being put forward by Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal of crossbenchers.

It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protest too much on this issue.




Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major political donors such as Clive Palmer





Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes à Court





The Greens have taken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator Mehreen Faruqi are pictured)

The major parties have long complained about the influence the likes of Simon Holmes à Court wields behind the scenes amongst the Teals. 

And we know the Greens have taken massive donations from the wealthy in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules.

Now that tangible change has been proposed, these bastions of virtue are running a mile from reforms that will curtail dark art of political donations.

The Labor government isn't even seeking for these transparency rules to take effect immediately, by the way. It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next election designed to catch the crossbench out.

They are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone enough time to absorb and understand the changes before preparing for them.

Don't get me wrong, no deal has yet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagine the opposition want to go over the laws with a fine tooth comb.

As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable of taking advantage of, therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally in the years to come.


But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to get these proposed laws implemented, the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to what is being advocated for.

They might even be able to offer something worthwhile that could be incorporated in the package.

To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary about being in politics to 'clean things up'.

Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and integrity is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the first place hear themselves?


In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed electoral reforms that the major parties look set to come together to support.

The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals can donate, caps on the amount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arms race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually less than the major parties currently spend.


The proposed new laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing the transparency of who makes political donations in the first place.

So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymity while using their cash to influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can use their wealth at all will be limited.

The bill will further improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency that disclosures of donations need to be made.

At present we have the absurd situation in which donations get made - but you only find out the details of who has given what to whom many months later, well after elections are won and lost.

In other words, what is broadly being proposed will result in much greater transparency and far less big money being injected into campaigning by the wealthy.




Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running scared' with the policy and warned the reform would 'not stop the rot' 











Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot - saying if it serves only the major parties 'it's a rort, not reform'. Teal independent ACT senator David Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up'

Anyone donating more than $1,000 to a political party, as opposed to $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having done so. And how much they can donate will be capped.

Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the proposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'. 

They have lost their collective minds after finding out that Labor's proposal just might secure the support of the opposition.

I had to double check who was criticising what exactly before even starting to write this column.

Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency measures stamping out the influence of the wealthy must have been proposed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer to accountability.


More fool me.

The bill, designed to clean up a rotten system, is being put forward by Labor and is opposed by a growing cabal of crossbenchers.

It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protest too much on this issue.




Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major political donors such as Clive Palmer





Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes à Court





The Greens have taken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator Mehreen Faruqi are pictured)

The major parties have long complained about the influence the likes of Simon Holmes à Court wields behind the scenes amongst the Teals. 

And we know the Greens have taken massive donations from the wealthy in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules.

Now that tangible change has been proposed, these bastions of virtue are running a mile from reforms that will curtail dark art of political donations.

The Labor government isn't even seeking for these transparency rules to take effect immediately, by the way. It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next election designed to catch the crossbench out.

They are aiming for implementation by 2026, giving everyone enough time to absorb and understand the changes before preparing for them.

Don't get me wrong, no deal has yet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagine the opposition want to go over the laws with a fine tooth comb.

As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable of taking advantage of, therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally in the years to come.


But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to get these proposed laws implemented, the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to what is being advocated for.

They might even be able to offer something worthwhile that could be incorporated in the package.

To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary about being in politics to 'clean things up'.

https://whatsapp.selly.store sells high quality whatsapp hash channels and whatsapp accounts; ALl whatsapp accounts are fresh and active and you can view our store to get more whatsapp marketing softwares.

Amid tepid returns at the box office for Joker: Folie à Deux, a number of fans of the sequel took to social media over the weekend in defense of the sequel to Todd Phillips' 2019 motion picture.


The film, which sees Joaquin Phoenix return to the lead role of The Joker/Arthur Fleck, debuted to a paltry $40 million at the domestic box office, good enough for the weekend's top spot, but less than projections, and half that of its predecessor.

Amid the early returns, a number of fans took up for the movie and its cinematic depth, in breaking away from the cookie cutter nature of sequels to introduce a musical element not present in the first film, with Lady Gaga joining the franchise.

'Joker 2 was ***,' one user said, adding that it was '100% as divisive as people are making it out to be. I love that the film didn't try to be a traditional sequel, and fully committed to the storytelling they presented. It never deviated to be a film full of Easter eggs or any other crowd pleasing aspects.'

Another user said, 'I kinda loved Joker 2. I loved how it was structured as a meta-exploration of the first film's fandom and the musical elements were a lot of fun.'




Amid tepid returns at the box office for Joker: Folie à Deux, a number of fans of the sequel took to social media over the weekend in defense of the sequel to Todd Phillips' 2019 motion picture, starring Joaquin Phoenix

One user marveled that Joker 2 is 'getting universal hate despite being more interesting and creative than anything marvel has done in years is expected.'

A user said that 'Joker 2 is genuinely such a clever movie which carries the character study format of the first movie into the second in a way which, surprisingly, will floor you by the end. I'm astounded reception is this bad because this is SUCH a clever movie'



Read More

Lady Gaga reflects on the ups and downs of her career... as Joker flops at box office


Some users said that the bad word-of-mouth the film was suffering from was impacting the opinions of moviegoers.

'The Joker 2 hate is so forced like did we watched the same movie????????' one user said, while another said the hate for the film is 'so unjustified.'

One fan predicted that the motion picture with stand the test of time with audiences.

'I may be one of ten people who genuinely liked the Joker 2. Remember me when society circles back to it in 10 years and says its a masterpiece,' said the user. 'The world just wasn't ready for it yet.'

Said one user: 'I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. If you don't like musicals or 'art house' style films you probably won't like it because it's not made for you. The dynamic between Harley and Joker was brilliant and showcased the 'obsession' that is key to that duo.' 

The movie's box office collapse was swift and has many in the industry wondering: How did the highly anticipated sequel to an Oscar-winning, billion-dollar film with the same creative team go wrong? Just three weeks ago, tracking services pegged the movie for a $70 million debut, which would still have been down a fair amount from Joker's record-breaking $96.2 million launch in October 2019. 




































A number of fans took to social media to defend the controversial sequel





Amid the early returns, a number of fans took up for the movie and its cinematic depth, in breaking away from the cookie cutter nature of sequels to introduce a musical element not present in the first film, with Lady Gaga joining the franchise 

Reviews were mixed out of the Venice Film Festival, where it premiered in competition like the first movie and even got a 12-minute standing ovation.

But the homecoming glow was short-lived, and the fragile foundation would crumble in the coming weeks with its Rotten Tomatoes score dropping from 63 percent at Venice to 33 percent by its first weekend in theaters. Perhaps even more surprising were the audience reviews: Ticket buyers polled on opening night gave the film a deadly D CinemaScore.
Exit polls from PostTrak weren't any better. It got a meager half star out of five possible.

'That´s a double whammy that´s very difficult to recover from,' said Paul Dergarabedian, the senior media analyst for Comscore. 'The biggest issue of all is the reported budget. A $40 or $50 million opening for a less expensive movie would be a solid debut.'

Joker: Folie à Deux cost at least twice as much as the first film to produce, though reported figures vary at exactly how pricey it was to make. Phillips told Variety that it was less than the reported $200 million; Others have it pegged at $190 million. Warner Bros.
released the film in 4,102 locations in North America. About 12.5 percent of its domestic total came from 415 IMAX screens.

Internationally, it's earned $81.1 million from 25,788 screens, bringing its total global earnings estimate to $121.1 million. In the next two weeks, Joker 2 will also open in Japan and China.

Second place went to Universal and DreamWorks Animation's The Wild Robot, which added $18.7 million in its second weekend, bringing its domestic total to nearly $64 million. Globally, it's made over $100 million. Warner Bros.' Beetlejuice Beetlejuice  took third place in weekend five, Paramount's Transformers One landed in fourth and Universal and Blumhouse's Speak No Evil rounded out the top five.


The other big new release of the weekend, Lionsgate's White Bird, flopped with just $1.5 million from just over 1,000 locations, despite an A+ CinemaScore.

Overall, the weekend is up from the same frame last year, but Joker's start is an unwelcome twist for theater owners hoping to narrow the box office deficit.









The sequel has already been the subject of many think pieces, some who posit that it was deliberately alienating fans of the first movie

Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix have said they aspired to make something as 'audacious' as the first film. The sequel added Lady Gaga into the fold , as a Joker superfan, and delved further into the mind of Arthur Fleck, imprisoned at Arkham and awaiting trial for the murders he committed in the first.

It´s also a musical, with elaborately imagined song and dance numbers to old standards. Gaga even released a companion album called ''Harlequin,' alongside the film.

The sequel has already been the subject of many think pieces, some who posit that it was deliberately alienating fans of the first movie. In cruder terms, it´s been called a 'middle finger.' But fans often ignore the advice of critics, especially when it comes to opening their wallets to see revered comic book characters on the big screen.

'They took a swing for the fences,' Dergarabedian said. 'But except for a couple of outliers, audiences in 2024 seem to want to know what they´re getting when they´re going to the theater. They want the tried and true, the familiar.' 

Deadline editor Anthony D´Alessandro thinks the problem started with the idea to make the Joker sequel a musical. 'No fan of the original movie wanted to see a musical sequel,' he wrote on Saturday.

The first film was also divisive and the subject of much discourse, then about whether it might send the wrong message to the wrong type of person. And yet people still flocked to see what the fuss was about. Joker went on to pick up 11 Oscar nominations, including best picture and best director, and three wins.
It also made over $1 billion and was the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time, until this summer when Marvel's Deadpool & Wolverine took the crown.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore. Final domestic figures will be released Monday. 


Joaquin PhoenixLady Gaga