LosLobo

To qualify for Age Pension you must have been an Australian resident for a minimum of 10 years in total. Additionally, for at least 5 of these years, there should be no break in your residence. The 35-year rule for the Australian Age Pension refers to the Australian Working Life Residence (AWLR) requirement. To receive the full pension rate while living overseas, you must have been an Australian resident for at least 35 years between the ages of 16 and pension age. However, it's important to clarify that this does not require you to have been working during those 35 years; it only requires that you were physically present in Australia as a resident during that time. If you have fewer than 35 years of AWLR, your pension rate is proportional to the time you spent as an Australian resident during your working life. For example, if you were a resident for 20 years, you would receive about 20/35ths of the full pension rate if living overseas. Residence rules for Age Pension - Age Pension - Services Australia

In my case, I was not eligible at 67 because I did not meet the DSS criteria for a returning resident, as I lacked the intention to stay in Australia indefinitely or for two years. A pension claim can be made by a former resident who has resumed living in Australia if there is clear evidence of an intention to stay permanently. According to the Social Security Act subsection 7(2), someone planning to return for a specific period, like two years, would not meet the definition of an 'Australian resident.' When I returned at age 70 with the intention to live permanently, I became eligible for the pension. After two years, I gained portability, allowing me to take the pension abroad. This two-year rule prevents individuals from returning solely to claim the pension and then leaving. In summary, while the standard eligibility age is 67, the intention to reside permanently is a key factor that can affect the timing of eligibility. 7.1.4 Requirements for former residents of Australia receiving a portable pension | Social Security Guide (dss.gov.au)

Interestingly, your story and the song remind me of the French colloquialism for orgasm, 'la petite mort,' meaning 'the little death'.

Your post has stirred some cherished memories for me. I've made the same journey from Victoria Station to Corfu, only in reverse, after a two-month adventure in the Cyclades and Dodecanese in my thirties. On another note, I recently watched Phoenix Movie a film about a WWII German couple, and the lead actress performed a haunting melody that sparked a long-forgotten childhood memory. https://youtu.be/HdxYBGHcxSY It was a song my mother often sang when I was around six to ten years old. The tune was originally from 'One Touch of Venus,' a movie released in 1948, around the time she married my father.

Western District of Michigan | Thief Ordered to Pay Back Gun Lake Casino Over $80,000 in Stolen Funds | United States Department of Justice

You seem to be confused maybe you got some bad stuff. The word 'Socialist' in "National Socialist" is a misnomer and does not represent the party or Hitler, who sent Marxists, Jews, and homosexuals to concentration camps. Nazism was a blend of far-right nationalism, racism, homophobia and authoritarianism, just like MAGA.

By your posts, the stuff you are already using seems to be working fine.

God warned Trump in a dream before Arizona Rally last week.

Right! A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases (bbc.com) Donald Trump Dealt Court Blow Over 'Perverted' Sex Acts Claim - Newsweek

Yes, I think so. But I cannot find a link on line, I would call Centrelink to confirm.

I became eligible at 70 on the day when I returned with the intention of becoming a resident, after being a non-resident for many years. I then had to remain a resident for two years to gain portability.

No necessary to live in Australia for two years prior only necessary to live for two years after, to get portability.

Substance? What substance are you smoking?

Trump was likely munching KFC while watching this on TV ..... 'The mayor of Springfield, Ohio, said a bomb threat Thursday that led to the evacuation of City Hall and numerous buildings “used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community.' Springfield bomb threat used ‘hateful’ language toward migrants, mayor says - The Washington Post (archive.md)

Interestingly, this morning Fox News is doing somersaults trying to normalize Trump's indefensible cat eating Haitian conspiracy theory. 'The Haitian rumor is only the latest example of the Trump campaign stoking racial divides'. Anatomy of a racist smear: How false claims of pet-eating immigrants caught on - The Washington Post (archive.md)

Right! Pot kettle black!

Yet Trump in his deposition for the E J Carroll rape case said. " I’ve been in the public eye for a long time. I’m very rich. I’m very famous. I think people like me. I think that’s why I get away with things." Seems you do not have any moral compass like your master who has flipped flopped on everything from electric cars to abortion to suit his narrative.

At the WH, Trump struggled with reading notes at briefings and could only understand charts or drawings, possibly a literacy disability. Obviously, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree---- would you like me to draw you a picture?

As the prophet Jeremiah (5:21) said: 'Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.' The modern-day idiom 'There are none so blind as those who cannot see' refers to a figurative blindness—a refusal to accept the truth, even when it’s clear, a trait so indicative of TrumpWorld.

Sky Australia is another publication owned by Murdoch. Didn't Murdoch admit in court that his journalists lie, then settle on a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, with additional cases still pending?

I just noticed that, seems to be a bot who suddenly emerged three weeks ago with no genuine purpose except for the sole reason of trolling for Trump.

My imagination pales in comparison to the creativity needed to pen your usual fairy tales.

Your latest argument introduces several more logical fallacies: Non sequitur: You claim that because Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016, he now wants Kamala Harris in power, and China supposedly supports her for the purpose of invading Taiwan. These conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. There’s no clear connection between Harris and China’s geopolitical ambitions in Taiwan, nor any evidence that either Putin or China would back her presidency for that reason. Hasty Generalization: The statement "China wants Kamala so they can invade Taiwan" is a sweeping and unsupported claim. Complex geopolitical actions like an invasion aren't determined by who is in the White House alone, and there’s no clear evidence that China’s actions hinge on Kamala Harris becoming president. False Dilemma: You're presenting the situation as if the U.S. only has two options—Trump’s leadership to prevent disaster or Kamala’s presidency leading to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This oversimplifies international relations and ignores the broader strategies that countries like China and the U.S. use to interact on the global stage. Appeal to Fear: You’re invoking the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without offering credible evidence, likely to provoke fear. Using scare tactics like this doesn’t make for a rational argument, as it’s not grounded in facts or realistic assessments of the geopolitical landscape. On top of these fallacies, let's be real: Trump's performance in debates was abysmal, often relying on half-baked claims and empty bravado. Unfortunately, your argument here isn't much different—full of speculation and lacking substance. Let’s stick to facts rather than unfounded scenarios when discussing serious topics like election interference and international relations.

My logic? Your argument lacks any reasoning and is a word salad of logical fallacies: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause): You claim "Putin has been winning since Democrats took power" as if Democrats are the cause of Putin's success. Just because these events happened in sequence doesn’t mean one caused the other. Putin's "winning" is influenced by a variety of factors, not simply which party controls the U.S. government. Oversimplification: You’re reducing a complex geopolitical situation to a simple claim without evidence. Putin’s success in various areas isn’t a direct result of Democrats being in power but rather his own long-term strategies and the exploitation of international opportunities. Strawman Fallacy: You’re focusing on Democrats supposedly helping Putin, which isn’t the issue we’re discussing. The key point is Putin’s interference in U.S. elections to benefit Trump, which continues regardless of who holds power. You’re misrepresenting the argument to shift focus away from Russian disinformation and its role in the 2016 and 2020 elections. By focusing on these fallacies, your logic diverts from the original discussion: Putin has consistently interfered in U.S. elections to sow division and support Trump.

Trump, at the Helsinki summit in 2018, when asked about election interference, famously said, "I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia." Since then, Trump and many of his supporters continue to echo narratives that align with Russian disinformation. Putin, who has praised Kamala Harris while still clearly supporting Trump through election interference, thrives on creating confusion. This is classic propaganda — sending mixed signals to muddy the truth. The main goal of such tactics is to make it hard to discern fact from fiction. Sadly, this strategy seems to be working on those who accept these narratives without question, hook, line, and sinker.