[Luckyus]

The fact that "Her education ended at age 15" shows every time she opens her mouth. she is so ignorant!!!

No more ignorant than many of her political colleagues?

 

[Clancieblue]

The fact that "Her education ended at age 15" shows every time she opens her mouth. she is so ignorant!!!

That is an ignorant statement.

 

[Knackers]

The fact that "Her education ended at age 15" shows every time she opens her mouth. she is so ignorant!!!

Really...???....You call yourself "GoodEnough"? I think that you have VASTLY OVERATED yourself! A more appropriate moniker would be "GoodNuffNuff"! With ALL your "edgacashion", you OBVIOUSLY are ENTITLED to demean others who have not experienced your privileged life! People like you with ZERO compassion.....are AT BEST....oxygen thieves. POS.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Well, Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes had a Degree in Neurosurgery and a Masters in Nuclear Medicine and he "knew nothing"!

 

[Sherril54]

I like the way of her plain speaking and she doesn’t try to belittle anyone the way she was. Men just can’t handle a woman that’s plain speaking so they try to put her down. Some men have used her for their own advantage and that’s because they can’t handle that she is a force to be reckoned with. Pauline might not have the support from the other parties but they have to admit that they need her support. She has had a hard life but come through so much and it can be hard and hard, but it’s made pauline who she is. I wish her well and can just say Keep on going pauline you can and are doing it

 

[Sherril54]

Pauline is just one absolutely survivor. This shows in her complete cause to save Australia with her unashamed, true & determined beliefs. Pauline speaks on how everything is, plain & simple.

With the absolute "Strife" which Australia is in, Pauline will acquire more & more votes as we all get deeper in trouble with how the federal gov't., is ruining us.

You only have to look at the absolute fools of Albo, Wong, Burke & Bowen on what they say & are doing unimpeded.

Stand high, strong & tall, Pauline Hanson.

Pauline did acquire our votes in the last fed., elections.

 

[Sherril54]

No shock, but it’s the determination to get up and survive, she did it for her kids, now she is still doing it for Australians and Australia since her first maiden speech to now she is still fighting for all Australians, fighting against corrupt politicians who are more concerned about themselves than the country and the people they supposedly represent.. she is one hell of a woman and deserves the support she is getting now.. time for Australia to stand behind her and listen because everything she has been saying all these years is now coming true.

 

[Knackers]

Yeah, someone who left school at 15 to be PM. Not while I have a say. She is as dumb as a bucket of bricks.

Tell us all....pray-tell.... WHAT SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS you have contributed to our once magnificent country! COME ON....I've got 10 seconds! Your "bucket" would be as EMPTY AS YOUR HEAD SPACE. POS.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Where is her statement condemning Zionist Israel bombing and burning Gaza, 300,000+ children under 5?

Explain this away, numbskull!

At least 65,283 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip since October 2023, the enclave’s Health Ministry said on Sunday.
So where did the imaginary 300000+ children come from?

Muslim propaganda, that's where! Come back when you can state FACTS!

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/gaza-death-toll-nears-65-300-as-israel-continues-genocidal-war-against-palestinians/3693958

 

[Knell]

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation isn’t the voice of the “ordinary Aussie.” It’s the voice of resentment wrapped in a hi-vis vest, offering chaos instead of solutions — and we’re all worse off for it.
They claim to fight for everyday people. But ,their leader has no formal qualifications, yet rejects expert advice on climate, education, and public health.
They rail against “Canberra elites” while being embroiled in funding scandals and running a party so dysfunctional even Mark Latham walked out.
They bang on about “free speech” but spend their platform attacking minorities, educators, and science — stoking division to stay in the headlines.
One Nation isn’t offering “common sense” — they’re offering simplified answers to complex problems, with no workable plans. It’s a performance, not policies and let’s face it - they are only there to prop up the Lib/Nats far right - a vote for One Nation is a vote for far right Lib/Nats.
One Nation’s appeal, like Trump’s, thrives where critical thinking gets replaced by gut feeling. It’s not (necessarily) stupidity — it’s politics designed for people who prefer outrage to nuance, and blame to solutions. Simple slogans feel good, but they rarely fix complex problems — they just inflame them.

 

[Joydie]

Nothing in this article addresses, let alone attempts to explain or even simply cover Hanson's racism, xenophobia, victimising and manipulation of the disenfranchised, warmongering, privatisation pushing, union bashing, anti-environmental stance and general divisiveness, and slavish support for corporates and the billionaire sector. It even has an ad for the CPAC club, that loathsome recent import from the USA where the likes of the dreadful Abbott and Morrison fester.

Please give examples of her 'racism, xenophobia, victimising and manipulation of the disenfranchised, warmongering, privatisation pushing, union bashing, anti-environmental stance and general divisiveness, and slavish support for corporates and the billionaire sector.' Just one example of each will suffice.

The thing is, anyone can throw epithets and insults around with no proof to verify the claims. So many people believe everything they read and allegations like this are damaging and divisive. For example, I could say that you're a raving lunatic with communistic tendencies, who has absolutely no idea how the average man in the street thinks. I could say all of that, but I wouldn't, because I don't know you from a hole in the wall. However, I do believe your adjectives are over the top and I wonder what's making you so angry.

 

[Polly.L]

Yes, Pauline for Prime Minster. What a change that would make to Aussie life.

Not unlike what Americans are going through at the moment probably. Wouldn't that be fun?

 

[Joydie]

The fact that "Her education ended at age 15" shows every time she opens her mouth. she is so ignorant!!!

Elitist, much? I have two degrees, teaching and nursing, and I'm here to tell you that every deadset idiot I've ever met has a uni degree. You only have to look at the idiots currently stuffing up Australia to know that the uni educated, elitist lawyers don't have a clue. Give me a down to earth person who's had a few struggles in life every time.

 

[Knell]

Please give examples of her 'racism, xenophobia, victimising and manipulation of the disenfranchised, warmongering, privatisation pushing, union bashing, anti-environmental stance and general divisiveness, and slavish support for corporates and the billionaire sector.' Just one example of each will suffice.

The thing is, anyone can throw epithets and insults around with no proof to verify the claims. So many people believe everything they read and allegations like this are damaging and divisive. For example, I could say that you're a raving lunatic with communistic tendencies, who has absolutely no idea how the average man in the street thinks. I could say all of that, but I wouldn't, because I don't know you from a hole in the wall. However, I do believe your adjectives are over the top and I wonder what's making you so angry.

Ah! I am keen to answer you on the matter of Pauline Hanson. Yes, it’s important to separate opinion from fact, so here are clear, real-world examples to support each point that was made. Not based on “throwing around epithets” — these are from Hanson’s public record, speeches, and policies (I do like to keep an eye on her (and others haha):-
Racism
In her first speech to Parliament (1996), Pauline Hanson infamously said Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians.”
Hansard: Sept 10, 1996
Xenophobia
She called for a ban on Muslim immigration and advocated for a royal commission into Islam — targeting an entire religion.
ABC News, 2016
Manipulating the disenfranchised
Hanson blames migrants for housing, jobs and cost-of-living pressures — redirecting real economic frustration toward scapegoats instead of root causes.
The Guardian, 2022
Warmongering
She’s called for Australia to “arm itself to the teeth” and pushed ultra-nationalist defence spending rhetoric.
One Nation policy archive
Privatisation support
She backed the privatisation of Telstra and supported LNP outsourcing of public services.
SMH, 1998
Union bashing
One Nation supported anti-union laws like the ABCC — legislation designed to weaken workers’ rights and union influence.
The Conversation, 2017
Anti-environmental stance
She denies climate science, opposes emissions targets, and mocked school climate strikers as “brainwashed.”
ABC News, 2019
Divisiveness
The burqa stunt in the Senate (2017) wasn’t policy — it was pure provocation, widely condemned across the political spectrum.
The Guardian, 2017
Support for corporate interests
Despite her “Aussie battler” image, Hanson backed the Coalition’s corporate tax cuts in 2018 — which favoured big business.
ABC News, 2018

Can provide more if needed? It’s worth pointing out, these aren’t obscure or buried facts. They’re part of her brand. Calling them out isn’t about anger or ideology — it’s about recognising what’s being normalised in our political discourse.

Appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points - glad you asked!

 

[MariaG]

Through all my working life I was surrounded by a bunch of over paid, highly educated idiots.
The workers on the front line did all the work, made the important decisions, and, pretty much kept the place going. The educated hot shots took all the credit.
Also, I was one of a few females in a male dominated work place, so, that was another couple of rungs down the ladder.
No matter how much education you have, you can still act like a right Wally.
I do admire Pauline because she speaks out when things need to be said and is a survivor.
Regardless of what the political party stands for, or does, I like the person.

 

[Sherril54]

Pauline is just one absolutely survivor. This shows in her complete cause to save Australia with her unashamed, true & determined beliefs. Pauline speaks on how everything is, plain & simple.

With the absolute "Strife" which Australia is in, Pauline will acquire more & more votes as we all get deeper in trouble with how the federal gov't., is ruining us.

You only have to look at the absolute fools of Albo, Wong, Burke & Bowen on what they say & are doing unimpeded.

Stand high, strong & tall, Pauline Hanson.

Pauline did acquire our votes in the last fed., elections.

 

[Sherril54]

Ah! I am keen to answer you on the matter of Pauline Hanson. Yes, it’s important to separate opinion from fact, so here are clear, real-world examples to support each point that was made. Not based on “throwing around epithets” — these are from Hanson’s public record, speeches, and policies (I do like to keep an eye on her (and others haha):-
Racism
In her first speech to Parliament (1996), Pauline Hanson infamously said Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians.”
Hansard: Sept 10, 1996
Xenophobia
She called for a ban on Muslim immigration and advocated for a royal commission into Islam — targeting an entire religion.
ABC News, 2016
Manipulating the disenfranchised
Hanson blames migrants for housing, jobs and cost-of-living pressures — redirecting real economic frustration toward scapegoats instead of root causes.
The Guardian, 2022
Warmongering
She’s called for Australia to “arm itself to the teeth” and pushed ultra-nationalist defence spending rhetoric.
One Nation policy archive
Privatisation support
She backed the privatisation of Telstra and supported LNP outsourcing of public services.
SMH, 1998
Union bashing
One Nation supported anti-union laws like the ABCC — legislation designed to weaken workers’ rights and union influence.
The Conversation, 2017
Anti-environmental stance
She denies climate science, opposes emissions targets, and mocked school climate strikers as “brainwashed.”
ABC News, 2019
Divisiveness
The burqa stunt in the Senate (2017) wasn’t policy — it was pure provocation, widely condemned across the political spectrum.
The Guardian, 2017
Support for corporate interests
Despite her “Aussie battler” image, Hanson backed the Coalition’s corporate tax cuts in 2018 — which favoured big business.
ABC News, 2018

Can provide more if needed? It’s worth pointing out, these aren’t obscure or buried facts. They’re part of her brand. Calling them out isn’t about anger or ideology — it’s about recognising what’s being normalised in our political discourse.

Appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points - glad you asked!

 

[Knell]

Elitist, much? I have two degrees, teaching and nursing, and I'm here to tell you that every deadset idiot I've ever met has a uni degree. You only have to look at the idiots currently stuffing up Australia to know that the uni educated, elitist lawyers don't have a clue. Give me a down to earth person who's had a few struggles in life every time.

Ah yes, the classic "I have two degrees, so I’m uniquely qualified to tell you how useless degrees are" take. Always amusing when someone tries to discredit tertiary education while simultaneously using their own tertiary education to lend themselves credibility.
No one said all educated people are geniuses, but dismissing education altogether in favour of folksy ignorance is hardly a winning argument either. Struggles in life can build character, sure, but they don’t automatically equip someone to make policy decisions or understand complex social issues.
And really, defending Pauline Hanson's repeated displays of ignorance by calling everyone else an “elitist” doesn’t make her any more informed. It just makes the bar laughably low.
But hey, if ranting against "elitist lawyers" makes people feel better about politicians who can barely string a coherent sentence together, I guess that's where we're at.

 

[Joydie]

Ah! I am keen to answer you on the matter of Pauline Hanson. Yes, it’s important to separate opinion from fact, so here are clear, real-world examples to support each point that was made. Not based on “throwing around epithets” — these are from Hanson’s public record, speeches, and policies (I do like to keep an eye on her (and others haha):-
Racism
In her first speech to Parliament (1996), Pauline Hanson infamously said Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians.”
Hansard: Sept 10, 1996
Xenophobia
She called for a ban on Muslim immigration and advocated for a royal commission into Islam — targeting an entire religion.
ABC News, 2016
Manipulating the disenfranchised
Hanson blames migrants for housing, jobs and cost-of-living pressures — redirecting real economic frustration toward scapegoats instead of root causes.
The Guardian, 2022
Warmongering
She’s called for Australia to “arm itself to the teeth” and pushed ultra-nationalist defence spending rhetoric.
One Nation policy archive
Privatisation support
She backed the privatisation of Telstra and supported LNP outsourcing of public services.
SMH, 1998
Union bashing
One Nation supported anti-union laws like the ABCC — legislation designed to weaken workers’ rights and union influence.
The Conversation, 2017
Anti-environmental stance
She denies climate science, opposes emissions targets, and mocked school climate strikers as “brainwashed.”
ABC News, 2019
Divisiveness
The burqa stunt in the Senate (2017) wasn’t policy — it was pure provocation, widely condemned across the political spectrum.
The Guardian, 2017
Support for corporate interests
Despite her “Aussie battler” image, Hanson backed the Coalition’s corporate tax cuts in 2018 — which favoured big business.
ABC News, 2018

Can provide more if needed? It’s worth pointing out, these aren’t obscure or buried facts. They’re part of her brand. Calling them out isn’t about anger or ideology — it’s about recognising what’s being normalised in our political discourse.

Appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points - glad you asked!

Now, I wonder if you've read her maiden speech in its entirety. I have and I agree that the 'swamped by Asians' was a very poor choice of words. It displayed a fear of the unknown, because I do believe she'd led a very insular life, in a stratum of society with little desire to learn about other cultures.

As to her 'xenophobic' comments regarding Islam, I'm in complete agreement. Have you read the Koran? Are you in agreement with subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, 'honour killings' and the directives to lie to the 'infidel'? You may be of the view that these views are held by a small minority of Muslims. This is simply not true. A simple YouTube search will yield umpteen videos of Islamic preachers calling for death to all Jews - now that's xenophobia - and the subjugation of the entire world to Islam. As a nurse in the emergency ward of a large Sydney teaching hospital, I had many, many interactions with Muslim men who treated me and all female staff like dirt.

What you see as 'manipulation of the disenfranchised', I see as telling the truth. Every European country which opened its arms to the influx of young men of fighting age from North Africa and the Middle East, is now doing their best to totally stop new arrivals and in fact, are taking steps to deport as many as they can. A classic example is the NHS in the UK. They are so stretched, both financially and personnel wise, that the entire system is in danger of collapse. Albanese is importing thousands of migrants who add to the critical housing shortage, particularly in Sydney. It's simply a fact that we don't have the infrastructure to support our level of immigration.

Saying that Australia should 'arm itself to the teeth' is simply common sense in view of the situations in China and the Middle East. To me, she's talking about having the ability to defend ourselves adequately, which we can't do now. 'Warmongering' implies attacking other countries, and that's not what she's suggesting.

As far as privatisation is concerned, I agree with your assessment. I can't think of a single entity that was improved by privatisation.

The union question is a dicey subject. Having been union members during our 40+ years of employment, my husband and I have little time for unions these days. They've become too greedy and I believe for the most part, they're more interested in lining their pockets than they are in their members.

For at least 10 years I've been writing that the myth of anthropogenic climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Prior to 2016, I was a staunch believer in this nonsense, but I decided to investigate the other side of the debate and after reading and listening to people like Ian Plimer and Judith Curry, I realised that the earth has been much hotter and colder than it is now, long before the industrial revolution allegedly turned us all into environmental vandals. The thing that annoys me most about the climate change debate is the effect it's having on our children. Left wing social commentators are constantly blaming climate change for the fact that there's a huge increase in the number of kids with mental health issues. They're being bombarded with doom and gloom at school and at home. It's not the place of teachers to influence children on topics like this, and our kid's are being 'brainwashed'. This campaign has nothing whatever to do with the environment. It's about controlling the supply of electricity and gas. Control energy and you control the people. Simple as that.

Of course the 'burqa stunt' was designed to provoke, and it worked. I simply cannot conceive of any situation in which it's necessary for a person to be able to be identified, where it's permissible to have your identity hidden. Banks, courts and many other public places have a right to know who they're dealing with. And if you're unaware of situations where men have worn burqas to hide their identities, again, plenty of videos available online.

I think it's important to bear in mind that large corporations are our major employers. They pump billions of dollars into the economy, and while I take your point, looking critically from both sides of the debate, I have to say I'm on the fence with this one.

In conclusion, I note that the sources you quote are all left of centre. I grew up in a home where the Sydney Morning Herald was the only newspaper we read. I regard The Guardian as a sensationalist rag and give them little credence. I was raised in a home where the ABC was the only radio station and later television station that was listened to and watched. When we married in 1968, the only media outlet that we watched outside the ABC was the local channel for the local news and the Rugby League once a week. We both voted Labor for over 50 years, but no longer. In our view, the ABC is nothing more or less than the propaganda arm of Labor and the Greens. I guess you and I will never see eye to eye, but I totally respect your right to your opinion.

 

[Ivory]

Pauline Hanson did it tough having two babies and being a single mother by 21. The Pauline I see portrayed in the media is on of pride in her country and a dogged determination to improve Australia for Australians. Many people do not agree with her but i would suggest it would be worth taking the time to compare speeches by Pauline Hanson versus the rhetoric from other parteis