NZ Politics General Discussion Thread

Thread Rating: 8 votes, 5.00 average.
(8 votes)
Results 13,101 to 13,125 of 13235

  1. Post
    and that is my problem , if she can justify breaking the law due to moral reasons, why would i possibly trust her to make the right moral or lawful decisions? Sure sure some of you will chime and say the party or the bureaucracy will adjust etc. But no i refuse to believe that that individual responsibility should be excused for the group think .

  2. Post
    Thought this was pretty clever.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0103.JPG 
Views:	84 
Size:	128.3 KB 
ID:	218628

  3. Post
    Well the Greens had one more decision to make so of course they chose the worst possible option. Rather than accept Kennedy Graham back and try to heal the rift they chose to continue to exclude him.

    No wonder the party stood by Turei -the entire party can't admit when they're wrong either...
    Last edited by brand; 13th August 2017 at 1:38 am.

  4. Post
    Blue Vein CHEESE wrote:
    And that's where the narrative falls apart.

    Wrong does not mean Illegal, and illegal does not mean wrong.

    She has admitted that she broke the law, but she has not admitted any moral wrongdoing.
    Err... yes that was the problem. She would not apologise or show remorse for what she did.

  5. Post
    NUMBERS TO DATE IN 2017

    The latest Electoral Commission numbers show enrolments to the end of July at:

    18-24 year olds, 63.59 per cent.

    25-29 year olds, 71.84 per cent

    30-43 year olds, 81.48 per cent

    35-39 year olds, 90.26 per cent

    40-44 year olds, 92.44 per cent

    45-49 year olds, 93.98 per cent

    50-54 year olds, 95.16 per cent

    The age groups from 55-plus are all in the 96 per cents.
    LINK

    Baby boomer Status quo looks assured unless the young register

  6. Post
    David Clendon and Kennedy Graham were by some accounts dead wood.

    I'm 27/m/akl, if I'm the target audience for the Greens then the person who's going to swing me round is Chloe Swarbrick, not these ancient white males I have literally never heard of.

  7. Post
    brand wrote:
    Err... yes that was the problem. She would not apologise or show remorse for what she did.
    She had to make a tough choice to feed her family.

    One could also argue that her public, unforced admission of what she did is a form of contrition. But National voters probably wouldn't accept that.

  8. Post
    Blue Vein CHEESE wrote:
    She had to make a tough choice to feed her family.
    No she didn't

    1) She lived with her mother, the child's grandmother
    2) She still had contact with the father of the child
    3) The father's parents still had contact too

    All three would not have allowed her child to starve.

    She knew how to 'milk' the system and get the most money she could by lying about her accomodation circumstances.

  9. Post
    4) Deliberately withheld the fathers name so that he would not have to pay child support.
    So it comes down to calculated fraud.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	metiria-turei-fraud-tattoo.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	180.2 KB 
ID:	218633

  10. Post
    ^ at least now she will have multiple job offers to reject

  11. Post
    Oh man, Turei getting devas8ed in here

  12. Post
    Blue Vein CHEESE wrote:
    One could also argue that her public, unforced admission of what she did is a form of contrition. But National voters probably wouldn't accept that.
    No one with a brain would accept that as a form of contrition...

  13. Post
    Blue Vein CHEESE wrote:
    She had to make a tough choice to feed her family.

    One could also argue that her public, unforced admission of what she did is a form of contrition. But National voters probably wouldn't accept that.
    See above, plus her own family were unhappy as it sounds like they were throwing her a lot of support at the time.

  14. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    See above, plus her own family were unhappy as it sounds like they were throwing her a lot of support at the time.
    Correct - https://twitter.com/CheckpointRNZ/st...3%2Findex.html

  15. Post
    Interdesting info from your link Kiwi

    Here’s what Bill English did. As an opposition MP before the end of 2008 and then as a cabinet minister he lived in Wellington. His wife had her medical practice there and his kids went to school there. But he told Parliamentary Services he lived in Dipton, in Southland, which allowed him to claim an accommodation allowance of $24,000 a year. When he became minister, he was eligible for more generous help, provided he did not own the home he lived in. English’s home was owned by a family trust – his own family trust. This allowed him to claim $900 a week “rental” (that’s $46,800 a year), plus other costs.
    John Key enrolled to vote in the Helensville electorate in 2002, which he sought to represent. He owned a house there but he did not, then or ever, live in it. Key, like English, had legal advice telling him he could do this. He says he originally intended the house to be a weekend home, and that the Electoral Commission told him he could do it.

    As the Herald implies though doesn’t actually say, this looks like a clear breach of the Electoral Act. Further, it’s different from the situation of students living away from home, because the law allows them to remain enrolled at a place they regard as home, provided they have previously lived there. Key didn’t qualify under that provision.
    Those wacky Nats and their harebrained schemes. But it's all run by a lawyer first so

  16. Post
    tbf I don't trust english at all, he's one of those "how do you know when he's lying types..."

  17. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Interdesting info from your link Kiwi





    Those wacky Nats and their harebrained schemes. But it's all run by a lawyer first so
    It's not great when your yardstick for what is acceptable behaviour is that of other slippery politicians.

  18. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    tbf I don't trust english at all, he's one of those "how do you know when he's lying types..."
    I'll help. He's usually lying to the point you should assume everything is a lie for this country's safety.

  19. Post
    Been thinking about who to vote. It's nice to actually have a potentially meaningful choice for once.

    I was simply going to vote for Labour/Ardern to keep National out but voting purely from a policy standpoint getting TOP to 5% so that they can push their tax policy through would be hugely beneficial to NZ, as well as some other policies. They don't actually have a cat policy, for the record.

  20. Post
    DW wrote:
    It's not great when your yardstick for what is acceptable behaviour is that of other slippery politicians.
    I can't really judge any of that behaviour, but saying one party is worse than the other is a bit of folly.

  21. Post
    bradc wrote:
    I can't really judge any of that behaviour, but saying one party is worse than the other is a bit of folly.
    Is somebody here saying that? We don't have to choose between Metiria Turei or Bill English, we have other choices and disapproving of either's actions doesn't mean you are OK with the other's. They can both be shit.

  22. Post
    Viilai wrote:
    I'll help. He's usually lying to the point you should assume everything is a lie for this country's safety.
    you failed.

    How do you know he's lying? His lips are moving

  23. Post
    They really should have online voting -that's the way to get more young people involved. The concept of having to go to a particular place on a set day is just a little old fashioned...

  24. Post
    brand wrote:
    They really should have online voting -that's the way to get more young people involved. The concept of having to go to a particular place on a set day is just a little old fashioned...
    I'm all for online voting (or any step to make it easier), but the challenge of definitively protecting against hackers or some sort of interference seems almost insurmountable.

  25. Post
    brand wrote:
    They really should have online voting -that's the way to get more young people involved. The concept of having to go to a particular place on a set day is just a little old fashioned...
    Even then its doubtful. Last election I was living directly across the road from a voting station. 2 out of 6 of flatmates bothered to vote.