Winston. Kingmaker? Could Well Be.

Forums › Politics › Winston. Kingmaker? Could Well Be.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1824311 18-Jul-2017 12:19

Rikkitic:

I think Trump is a dangerous and despicable human being and I was shocked and appalled at his election. I think as long as he is in office he will do real damage to America and the world, but I don't think the world will end unless he starts a nuclear war and I don't think that will happen. He represents a giant step backwards but the system of checks and balances is curbing his excesses so he will probably end up more of an embarrassment than a disaster. So no, as much as I regret his election, I don't think the sky will fall because of it.

Some of our politicians in NZ are far worse.

At least the US gets to elect their president. Here in NZ we did not even elect our current PM (Thank goodness he is turning out OK, Winston, who knows?).

MikeAqua

5385 posts

Uber Geek

# 1824461 18-Jul-2017 15:16

Wiggum:

Rikkitic:

I think Trump is a dangerous and despicable human being and I was shocked and appalled at his election .....

Some of our politicians in NZ are far worse ...

I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

Mike

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
10849 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1824541 18-Jul-2017 16:23

MikeAqua:

I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

I'm surprised it took so long for that to come up. No doubt it will be used over and over again to hammer a whole segment of society for something that doesn't have anything to do with progressive politics. I think it is a cheap shot and I am not impressed. If you want to argue politics, then argue politics. This kind of thing doesn't go anywhere.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

frankv

3002 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1824586 18-Jul-2017 16:48

MikeAqua:

I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

Yeah... the correct thing to do would have been to publicly state that some people can't (legally) survive on the benefit. Oh wait... that's already been said for the last 50 years and largely ignored. Nevertheless, I do agree that it's a political expediency to confess now.

I doubt that there is a single beneficiary in the country who hasn't broken some law or other. Partly because the benefit laws don't adequately provide for all people in all circumstances, and partly because the laws themselves are ridiculously draconian to try to combat benefit fraud.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21111 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1824636 18-Jul-2017 17:45

MikeAqua:

Wiggum:

Rikkitic:

I think Trump is a dangerous and despicable human being and I was shocked and appalled at his election .....

Some of our politicians in NZ are far worse ...

I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

And is anything going to happen as a result? Same thing in NZ and US. What's the difference.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

JimmyH

2644 posts

Uber Geek

# 1824694 18-Jul-2017 18:47

2 people support this post

MikeB4:

I also do not agree with all the Green Party policies, I do believe in enough of them to believe they have a place in Parliament so they can bring green policies into Government. I have never understood the hostility people have to green policies nd environmental protection, looking after the only home we have is logical and vital.

I think you may be conflating disliking the Greens with not caring about the environment.

I care about the environment. I like clean air, clean water and not having the beach covered in rubbish. I have no issue with even stringent (providing they are sensible) regulations and government policies to achieve that. If there was a good environmental party I might even give them money and vote for them.

However the Greens don't fit that bill. They aren't really and environmental party, more of a watermelon party - green on the surface, but red all the way through. What I can't abide is their hard-left "social justice" clap trap, their apparent view that the State can and should solve every problem, mania for high taxes and big government, and their frankly infantile grasp of basic economic principles. Thinking that they can raise real wages for everyone with the stroke of a pen rather than by increasing productivity, stating that the Government should print money if it doesn't have enough, and an inability to distinguish an accounting balance from a cash-flow balance when reading a budget.

I can live with National or Labour or (at a pinch) NZ First, United Future or Act. And I will vote tactically for any one of those if it will minimise the chance of the watermelon party being at the Cabinet table.

tdgeek

18351 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1824741 18-Jul-2017 20:16

Wiggum:

Rikkitic:

I think Trump is a dangerous and despicable human being and I was shocked and appalled at his election. I think as long as he is in office he will do real damage to America and the world, but I don't think the world will end unless he starts a nuclear war and I don't think that will happen. He represents a giant step backwards but the system of checks and balances is curbing his excesses so he will probably end up more of an embarrassment than a disaster. So no, as much as I regret his election, I don't think the sky will fall because of it.

Some of our politicians in NZ are far worse.

At least the US gets to elect their president. Here in NZ we did not even elect our current PM (Thank goodness he is turning out OK, Winston, who knows?).

Ok, I can only assume this is a bot response not a comment. I thought my Apple gear was able to combat that, seemingly not.

tdgeek

18351 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1824757 18-Jul-2017 20:29

JimmyH:

MikeB4:

I also do not agree with all the Green Party policies, I do believe in enough of them to believe they have a place in Parliament so they can bring green policies into Government. I have never understood the hostility people have to green policies nd environmental protection, looking after the only home we have is logical and vital.

I think you may be conflating disliking the Greens with not caring about the environment.

I care about the environment. I like clean air, clean water and not having the beach covered in rubbish. I have no issue with even stringent (providing they are sensible) regulations and government policies to achieve that. If there was a good environmental party I might even give them money and vote for them.

However the Greens don't fit that bill. They aren't really and environmental party, more of a watermelon party - green on the surface, but red all the way through. What I can't abide is their hard-left "social justice" clap trap, their apparent view that the State can and should solve every problem, mania for high taxes and big government, and their frankly infantile grasp of basic economic principles. Thinking that they can raise real wages for everyone with the stroke of a pen rather than by increasing productivity, stating that the Government should print money if it doesn't have enough, and an inability to distinguish an accounting balance from a cash-flow balance when reading a budget.

I can live with National or Labour or (at a pinch) NZ First, United Future or Act. And I will vote tactically for any one of those if it will minimise the chance of the watermelon party being at the Cabinet table.

Can you give references to the 3 quotes?

I recall every year we got a wage adjustment. Others may chime in to say if that was statute or not

I'm keen to see the second bold, printing money.

Thats my skill, very keen to see where they mix and accounting balance (I dunno what that really means, EBITDA?) from cashflow

Dratsab

3469 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1824764 18-Jul-2017 20:47

One person supports this post

Rikkitic:

MikeAqua: I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

I'm surprised it took so long for that to come up. No doubt it will be used over and over again to hammer a whole segment of society for something that doesn't have anything to do with progressive politics. I think it is a cheap shot and I am not impressed. If you want to argue politics, then argue politics. This kind of thing doesn't go anywhere.

It is arguing politics. As Mike points out, it was a politically expedient thing for her to do - it's an obvious ploy to get beneficiaries on-side and voting for the Greens.

I know a chap who claimed the benefit for 6 months after getting employment. He voluntarily fessed up (which is when I first heard about it) 6 or 7 years later and was charged with benefit fraud a few weeks later. He cooperated fully, offered to pay back all monies but WINZ weren't interested and took him to court. He plead guilty straight away and was sentenced to 6 weeks in prison - 1 week for each month. I don't see any reason at all why this person in a position of high 'responsibility' should be treated any differently or how they can try and claim, or even be proffered, any sort of moral high-ground over a deliberate fraud.

As for Peters - to me he comes across as an exceptionally arrogant sh!tstirrer. Instead of answering questions he gets highly argumentative and aggressive with interviewers, a very 70's style of politics which, in my view, has no place in today's world where we're trying to get more transparency and demand at least some honesty from those that deign to represent us.

networkn

21440 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1824765 18-Jul-2017 20:50

frankv:

MikeAqua:

I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

Yeah... the correct thing to do would have been to publicly state that some people can't (legally) survive on the benefit. Oh wait... that's already been said for the last 50 years and largely ignored. Nevertheless, I do agree that it's a political expediency to confess now.

I doubt that there is a single beneficiary in the country who hasn't broken some law or other. Partly because the benefit laws don't adequately provide for all people in all circumstances, and partly because the laws themselves are ridiculously draconian to try to combat benefit fraud.

Why would someone who has admitted to a crime, not now be punished for it, and that would make her ineligible for election anyway?

tdgeek

18351 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1824774 18-Jul-2017 21:03

Dratsab:

Rikkitic:

MikeAqua: I even heard about one who publicly confessed to benefit fraud... but only when it was politically expedient to do so.

I'm surprised it took so long for that to come up. No doubt it will be used over and over again to hammer a whole segment of society for something that doesn't have anything to do with progressive politics. I think it is a cheap shot and I am not impressed. If you want to argue politics, then argue politics. This kind of thing doesn't go anywhere.

It is arguing politics. As Mike points out, it was a politically expedient thing for her to do - it's an obvious ploy to get beneficiaries on-side and voting for the Greens.

I know a chap who claimed the benefit for 6 months after getting employment. He voluntarily fessed up (which is when I first heard about it) 6 or 7 years later and was charged with benefit fraud a few weeks later. He cooperated fully, offered to pay back all monies but WINZ weren't interested and took him to court. He plead guilty straight away and was sentenced to 6 weeks in prison - 1 week for each month. I don't see any reason at all why this person in a position of high 'responsibility' should be treated any differently or how they can try and claim, or even be proffered, any sort of moral high-ground over a deliberate fraud.

As for Peters - to me he comes across as an exceptionally arrogant sh!tstirrer. Instead of answering questions he gets highly argumentative and aggressive with interviewers, a very 70's style of politics which, in my view, has no place in today's world where we're trying to get more transparency and demand at least some honesty from those that deign to represent us.

I get that. But today, what do we have? Gets asked a detailed question, politicians reply is lengthy and no substance. Thats what I expect on every hard question, never disappointed. Exception is "I don't recall that"

mm1352000

1138 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1824784 18-Jul-2017 21:16

mattwnz: I think the Greens need to stick to environmental policies...

A party that only focuses on one subject domain will never get my vote.

From my perspective governments are responsible for shaping the development of societies. Societal issues are very often multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary rather than one-dimensional. Therefore multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary solutions are required. From that perspective, how could a party that constrains itself to one subject domain have a hope of creating effective solutions/policy?

SaltyNZ

5090 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1824786 18-Jul-2017 21:18

networkn:

Why would someone who has admitted to a crime, not now be punished for it, and that would make her ineligible for election anyway?

Statute of limitations?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

networkn

21440 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1824793 18-Jul-2017 21:37

SaltyNZ:

networkn:

Why would someone who has admitted to a crime, not now be punished for it, and that would make her ineligible for election anyway?

Statute of limitations?

Possibly, however, morally she should stand down.

Wait, sorry I just forgot for a second that she is a politician and has no morals.

tdgeek

18351 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1824799 18-Jul-2017 21:44

One person supports this post

mm1352000:

mattwnz: I think the Greens need to stick to environmental policies...

A party that only focuses on one subject domain will never get my vote.

From my perspective governments are responsible for shaping the development of societies. Societal issues are very often multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary rather than one-dimensional. Therefore multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary solutions are required. From that perspective, how could a party that constrains itself to one subject domain have a hope of creating effective solutions/policy?

The issue is the party in power bribes. The party not in power opposes for the sake of it. If a party had a narrow focus on something as important as green policies, thats good enough for me (TM Tom Petty). The Greens, despite their other policies, have no hope of being elected into unbridled power, we all know that. So, should they wangle their way in as a mini king maker, they can enact changes by way of that agreement.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11