Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | ... | 268

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081942 31-Aug-2018 15:39

6FIEND:

@tdgeek Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying :-)

per GV27's comment... It's a National Party issue because it was National Party information that was leaked. However it hasn't yet been established that "these are actually not leading the country. (Leaker)"

So far the only "evidence" to suggest that the leaker is in the National caucus is the leaker's say so. I'm keeping an open mind about it at this stage.

Very true.

Pluralsight

Learn cloud, mobile, security, data and web technologies with Pluralsight (affiliate link).

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2083062 3-Sep-2018 10:31

I saw this over the weekend and thought it worth sharing.

Tweet with Ardern Video

It neatly captures the inconsistency of Ardern's governance.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76381 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2083067 3-Sep-2018 10:37

She says all views are allowed to be expressed. She's proud some views are not shared by the country. There's no inconsistency here.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2083078 3-Sep-2018 10:52

You are correct, but I think it depends a bit on how prepared you are to read between the lines.

I don't think it's unreasonable to infer from the statement "we are hostile to their views" along with a repeated "there were no grounds to block them" that Ardern would have liked to say, "We would have blocked them if we had the opportunity"

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76381 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2083088 3-Sep-2018 11:14

6FIEND:

You are correct, but I think it depends a bit on how prepared you are to read between the lines.

I don't think it's unreasonable to infer from the statement "we are hostile to their views" along with a repeated "there were no grounds to block them" that Ardern would have liked to say, "We would have blocked them if we had the opportunity"

No one can make decisions or assume things based on words that were not spoken.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2083115 3-Sep-2018 11:51

freitasm:

No one can make decisions or assume things based on words that were not spoken.

Perhaps you'd like to consider re-framing that position? People make assumptions all the time. People (particularly politicians) make decisions based on words that were not spoken as a matter of course. It's International Diplomacy 101, and equally applicable to domestic politics.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76381 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2083116 3-Sep-2018 11:56

Yes, I know. The result is a lot of misunderstanding though. Assumptions are pretty crappy when it comes to real world - YOUR bias is the one governing the assumptions and the outcomes, not the sender's views.

A good example is on the link above. She says something and I assume she's happy they can speak in NZ if they want to but the people have shown their views are not welcome. The person editing the video assumed she was a raging censorship-supporting person.

Different views from the same words...

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2083198 3-Sep-2018 13:06

We agree on the ambiguity.

Though I personally can't make the mental leap from, "We are hostile to their views" and "their views are not those that are shared by this country, and I'm quite proud of that" to "she's happy they can speak in NZ if they want to" in the way that you have.

I guess that's why politics is so interesting. (and at the same time, so divisive)

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2083202 3-Sep-2018 13:16

networkn:
Fred99:

networkn:

I am quite torn on the conviction thing. People make mistakes, people say and do things in their youth they learn from and become decent human beings.

My beliefs when I was 15, 20, 25 and 30 sometimes bear no resemblence to those I hold today. As I get older, I learn things, accept other perspectives, compromise in ways I wouldn't have thought possible at 20.

Yup. I was thinking about crimes committed when in office - not before.

The older I get, the less sure I am about basically everything.

Yeah, fair enough. I agree though I believe conviction of ANY crime whilst in Parliament should preclude you from remaining as a minister.

It almost does. Many MPs have resigned for far lesser reasons, merely being suspected without being charged is enough.

Or even being charged and acquitted is sufficient to end a career.

There's no legal compulsion to go, but the fickle nature of politics and public voice is generally enough to ensure they go.

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2083548 4-Sep-2018 09:05

So 80K to take Jacinda to Nauru. What a waste of money. This soley because her baby is too young to have innoculations. She could have and should have sent someone else. I don't think for a second her presence is likely to be so significant to anyone that it warrants an extra 80K.

If John Key had pulled this there would have been riots.

You know you are walking a tight rope politically when Barry Soper an unapologetic Labour cheer squad is questioning it.

The Aussie PM Isn't going. Arguably it's more important he is there than she.

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2083554 4-Sep-2018 09:11

I questioned that too. But as it happens the 757 has to be flitting around anyway as it cant stay in Nauru as no room, so it would flit off to Marshall Islands for something to do then go back anyway, so cost wise it doesnt really make any difference. I dunno why they have a passenger jet for this stuff, should get a Learjet. You dont hire a bus to drive to town, you hire a car

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2083556 4-Sep-2018 09:13

I agree that the leader of our country whomever it is, should have our own plane.

I am not sure I take what she said about the 757 *needing* to be flown around. Even if that is true, surely there are better uses of money like training, or transporting supplies or something.

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#2083562 4-Sep-2018 09:21

freitasm:

No one can make decisions or assume things based on words that were not spoken.

Tell that to a social scientist, or anyone else engaged in 'discourse analysis'.

Mike

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2083565 4-Sep-2018 09:22

networkn:

I agree that the leader of our country whomever it is, should have our own plane.

I am not sure I take what she said about the 757 *needing* to be flown around. Even if that is true, surely there are better uses of money like training, or transporting supplies or something.

What she means is that it can't stay in Nauru. She asked what the extra cost would be. It has to leave Nauru no matter what. If they all went as one trip, the plane has to leave, and it will go and do other things and come back. As they are 5.5 hours away the other things are literally just other things to fill in time. I agree with your sentiments, and a great story, but the fact is financially it doesn't matter

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2083568 4-Sep-2018 09:24

Related, who pays for her hubby to go with her as he has done various times? Rare to see that for past PM's

1 | ... | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | ... | 268