Good explanation

Not that I think he should have. I'm just saying he had theoretically unlimited power and he chose to protect his family above all else.

Black coffee. Nothing better than a smooth, fresh Americano in the morning.

Yep. Look for things to start to look shaky just as he leaves office and then continue to degrade for the following 15 years as the sell off of the world's future in favour of 2026s Q4 results starts taking people's lives.

Shawn Fain is such a charismatic speaker, the contrast between Trump and Fain is night and day.

Me too

Who is Vaush and how did they explain a cooperative in such a way that it radicalised you?

I also genuinely thought this was an AI image.

You can guess which will get more attention once in power, neo liberal economic changes or immigration and climate change.

I find that interesting because that is at odds with the Australian Government's view of where it's sovereignty stems from.

In Australia we have two competing claims to sovereignty by right of heredity over the continent: that of the Crown and of Indigenous peoples.

But what you're suggesting is essentially 'might makes right.' I control this land therefore I am sovereign.

In Arnhem Land and other locations, where Indigenous people only came into contact with Europeans in the 20th century, their law remains the predominant legal system.

Those pockets of uninterrupted continuity of law and culture have enabled Indigenous peoples Australia-wide to refuse to be erased, despite the weight the nation has thrown behind the elimination of their culture.

You're right that the Australian state’s legitimacy does not rest upon a treaty with First Nations. In a constitutional monarchy, both the Crown and the parliament borrow their authority from a combination of heredity and the people: the Crown by consent and heredity, and the parliament through the electoral process.

First Nations are not recognised as nation states under international law. But that legal system was authored by those same nation states whose invading colonies are founded on Indigenous lands and now draw their authority from them.

The phrase "sovereignty was never ceded" might sound like a rabble-rousing protest line, but it's deeper than that. White Australia landed on top of black Australia and then either ignored the laws of the land or purposefully tried to destroy it depending on the mood, it's refusal to reconcile with the first people of the land is what has landed is where we are today.

If sovereignty comes by right of heredity, then we need to strike an accord between the two competing claims. If sovereignty come by way of 'might makes right' then the oppressed claimants should violently revolt, we will have a war in the streets and one will be left standing. Or we could revolutionise our understanding of sovereignty, reject heredity all together and recognise that sovereignty stems from the people alone. The only other option is that we try and muddle through, each make some concessions to each other.