![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Now Herr Trump has ranted on twitter about his daughter being treated unfairly. Pretty rich talking about treating people unfairly coming from that megalomaniac.
Not only his daughter being treated unfairly but her BUSINESS. The sitting president criticising private companies decisions to deal or not with someone on his immediate family is... telling.
Also, when the White House Press Secretary gets involved and says an "attack" on her is an attack on the President, then you know the shit is really about the money and the President has no scruples.
There's a targeting of her brand and it's her name," Spicer said. "She's not directly running the company. It's still her name on it. There are clearly efforts to undermine that name based on her father's positions on particular policies that he's taken. This is a direct attack on his policies and her name. Her because she is being maligned because they have a problem with his policies."
Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies | Hatch | GoodSync | Backblaze backup
This is creeping towards fascism more and more every day.
DarthKermit:
This is creeping towards fascism more and more every day.
+1
Sideface
Pumpedd:
Have to admit that I dont like MMP either. It seems to favor small parties and the result of an election is all about negotiation after the election..people have no real choice. FPP was purely democratic in my opinion based on your own geographical area.
Although it doesn't really favor small parties, because it is almost impossible for a small party to get in unless they can get an electorate seat. This means the person who has to win the electorate seat will most likely either be well known person or someone who already held the seat and has switched party. Without an electorate seat the party needs at least 5% of the vote, which is very difficult for a new small party, and means that voting for a small party is often a wasted vote. It is quite flawed IMO, and means we don't end up with full presentation, because it is rare for a new party to get in.
FPP is largely what they have got in the US with the Presidents vote, which is nowhere near as fair as MMP IMO. So you can still end up with a party ruling, where the losing party may have still won the popular vote. I believe this occurred in the past, and is why people wanted to get rid of FPP. THe system now is better, as the overall makeup is proportional to the popular vote, but it is also not ideal.
MMP is better than FPP, but still a long way from adequate.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Rikkitic:
MMP is better than FPP, but still a long way from adequate.
Agree. I think STV? is supposed to be better and more representative, and is used by some local councils, where you rank your preferences. But it is more confusing and many people are still confused with how MMP works.
It doesn't have to be confusing. People just rank the candidates they like, as many or as few as they wish. They don't have to rank them all. I think it has not been properly presented because political parties don't like it. With STV you don't actually need political parties at all.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
dafman:
Pumpedd:
Have to admit that I dont like MMP either. It seems to favor small parties and the result of an election is all about negotiation after the election..people have no real choice. FPP was purely democratic in my opinion based on your own geographical area.
There was nothing democratic about FPP. Look no further than the 1984 Labour government and imposition of Rogernomics on the nation without any forewarning or consultation.
And Robert Muldoon's Think Big project.
You vote a party in and you give them mandate. Unlike Obama who also had a mandate but no power as the Senate and Upper House was Republican. Elect a leader and let them lead.
dafman:
MikeAqua:
dafman:
Pumpedd:
Have to admit that I dont like MMP either. It seems to favor small parties and the result of an election is all about negotiation after the election..people have no real choice. FPP was purely democratic in my opinion based on your own geographical area.
There was nothing democratic about FPP. Look no further than the 1984 Labour government and imposition of Rogernomics on the nation without any forewarning or consultation.
FPP is a democratic system, so is MMP.
Things that some people decry as undemocratic have happened under MMP as well. For example, some people would say recent sales of govt assets and NZ signing the TPPA were undemocratic.
In fact people will say any major thing they disagree with is undemocratic. Democracy does not require consultation, just voting. Some mob is elected, they get to make decisions. That is democracy.
Consultative is actually not democratic because there is no voting. It imposes absolutely no limitations on the decision makers (other than a token effort at consultation).
Under MMP, the recent govt asset sales were limited to 49%.
Asset sales under FPP were 100%
That criteria is false. Today, past homosexual convictees have been pardoned and apologised to. Under FFP that wasn't the case. It doesn't mean that FPP was wrong. Apples and Oranges.
But where I feel you are coming from is that under FPP there should be more advice to voters what the party will do,was they have 100% control. Under MMP, its less control, as often they need to create a Govt, which can mean compromises. MMP is less liberal
Rikkitic:
It doesn't have to be confusing. People just rank the candidates they like, as many or as few as they wish. They don't have to rank them all. I think it has not been properly presented because political parties don't like it. With STV you don't actually need political parties at all.
The flag was STV. I wanted the new flag, but thats all good. STV is voting for all or some parties on a weighted basis. Thats pretty fair.
What I don't want is two big parties tied, and Winston or Peter or Kim decide after negotiating their deal.
MikeAqua:
dafman:
Pumpedd:
Have to admit that I dont like MMP either. It seems to favor small parties and the result of an election is all about negotiation after the election..people have no real choice. FPP was purely democratic in my opinion based on your own geographical area.
There was nothing democratic about FPP. Look no further than the 1984 Labour government and imposition of Rogernomics on the nation without any forewarning or consultation.
FPP is a democratic system, so is MMP.
Things that some people decry as undemocratic have happened under MMP as well. For example, some people would say recent sales of govt assets and NZ signing the TPPA were undemocratic.
In fact people will say any major thing they disagree with is undemocratic. Democracy does not require consultation, just voting. Some mob is elected, they get to make decisions. That is democracy.
Consultative is actually not democratic because there is no voting. It imposes absolutely no limitations on the decision makers (other than a token effort at consultation).
What annoys me is that "for example only" National won last election but still cant pass difficult legislation like amendments to Resource Management Act. A lot of difficult legislation doesnt get done in a MMP environment as it becomes too difficult to pass in the house ...even although it may have been an election promise.
freitasm:
Not only his daughter being treated unfairly but her BUSINESS. The sitting president criticising private companies decisions to deal or not with someone on his immediate family is... telling.
Also, when the White House Press Secretary gets involved and says an "attack" on her is an attack on the President, then you know the sh1t is really about the money and the President has no scruples.
There's a targeting of her brand and it's her name," Spicer said. "She's not directly running the company. It's still her name on it. There are clearly efforts to undermine that name based on her father's positions on particular policies that he's taken. This is a direct attack on his policies and her name. Her because she is being maligned because they have a problem with his policies."
tdgeek:
You vote a party in and you give them mandate. Unlike Obama who also had a mandate but no power as the Senate and Upper House was Republican. Elect a leader and let them lead.
You mean like Trump?
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |