The 2017 Election Thread

[mashman]

yeah....... nah

rather go for a ride

Fine plan.

You are involved with the mana party?
Well, that explains quite a lot.

No. I ran in the Mana electorate.

[Katman]

You are involved with the mana party?

What a fucking moron.

[husaberg]

No. I ran in the Mana electorate.

0.5% of the votes suggests more a slow crawl.....
The breakdown of the voter stats suggest your support base is predominately made up of retired paranoid anti semites, plus Taupo based neo Nazis constantly begging for oral sex.
Have you considered that maybe your views did not gain popular support as they were neither popular or credible.

Quite simply put, I am the best candidate for the Mana electorate. If you visit my facebook page, (https://www.facebook.com/Gordon4ManaMP2017/), you'll be able to see why for yourself.

Maybe the suggestion of having multi-story tinny houses on the motorway overpasses wasn't the most well thought out plan.

[mashman]

What a fucking moron.

I got in touch with a candidate from up norf somewhere, a so called logic party, to see if they fancied a chat about a few things. I got exactly the same response. One of the things I did learn during the run, is that those who are running for office are doing so with their own "policy". Not unsurprising as I did similar myself. The primary difference was that I was willing to talk about the issues and discuss them further to see if we could help each other in regards to raising awareness of each others existence. As you have maybe gathered, I couldn't even get through the door without the same ignorant reaction. Similar can be said when trying to engage with the "known" candidates. They simply don't want to know about anything that is outwith that which they know. This was highlighted at a meet the candidates thing down the road. A lady stood up and started going semi postal at the candidates for not really answering the questions... although she singled me out at the start of the tirade as I had already answered her questions with plenty of detail. Speaks volumes regarding the mindset of candidates when it comes to actually answering the questions. As such, we end up with an entire parliament full of people who do nothing but tow the party line, and despite people obviously being sick of it, they go ahead and vote for who they think the winner will be.

Another lesson was that of not being a part of a party. As an independent candidate, you only get to sign up at the end of August. This sees one miss out on 3/4 months of invites to events. I had to invite myself to 2 local events as the invites had been sent out before I could register and therefore be found to be contacted. So if you wish to be a part of the larger picture, you need to be a member of a registered party. A couple of TOP supporters asked me why I wasn't running for TOP. So I briefly explained the contradiction of a couple of TOP's policies in around about 30 seconds. You know, the all important UBI that's the antithesis of a successful environmental policy. With such glaring contradictions in policy v's outcome, it wasn't hard to destroy the claimed logic, reason and common sense being offered as a way forwards. Their faces were a picture though. Such a shame the process doesn't allow for independent candidates to register at the same time as the parties.

[eldog]

Similar can be said when trying to engage with the "known" candidates. They simply don't want to know about anything that is outwith that which they know. As such, we end up with an entire parliament full of people who do nothing but tow the party line, and despite people obviously being sick of it, they go ahead and vote for who they think the winner will be.

Another lesson was that of not being a part of a party. As an independent candidate, you only get to sign up at the end of August. This sees one miss out on 3/4 months of invites to events. I had to invite myself to 2 local events as the invites had been sent out before I could register and therefore be found to be contacted. So if you wish to be a part of the larger picture, you need to be a member of a registered party. A couple of TOP supporters asked me why I wasn't running for TOP. So I briefly explained the contradiction of a couple of TOP's policies in around about 30 seconds. You know, the all important UBI that's the antithesis of a successful environmental policy. With such glaring contradictions in policy v's outcome, it wasn't hard to destroy the claimed logic, reason and common sense being offered as a way forwards. Their faces were a picture though. Such a shame the process doesn't allow for independent candidates to register at the same time as the parties.

No surprises about candidates towing the party line.
some party lines are deliberately vague.... see recent election.

might have been a good ideal to include your reasoning about why TOP policies are contradictory.

i can’t see why independents are registered at a different time to parties.

politics are really a closed shop with the door slightly ajar the light spilling out of the pub door, onto the public stage

[husaberg]

I got in touch with a candidate from up norf somewhere, a so called logic party, to see if they fancied a chat about a few things. I got exactly the same response. One of the things I did learn during the run, is that those who are running for office are doing so with their own "policy". Not unsurprising as I did similar myself. The primary difference was that I was willing to talk about the issues and discuss them further to see if we could help each other in regards to raising awareness of each others existence. As you have maybe gathered, I couldn't even get through the door without the same ignorant reaction. Similar can be said when trying to engage with the "known" candidates. They simply don't want to know about anything that is outwith that which they know. This was highlighted at a meet the candidates thing down the road. A lady stood up and started going semi postal at the candidates for not really answering the questions... although she singled me out at the start of the tirade as I had already answered her questions with plenty of detail. Speaks volumes regarding the mindset of candidates when it comes to actually answering the questions. As such, we end up with an entire parliament full of people who do nothing but tow the party line, and despite people obviously being sick of it, they go ahead and vote for who they think the winner will be.

Another lesson was that of not being a part of a party. As an independent candidate, you only get to sign up at the end of August. This sees one miss out on 3/4 months of invites to events. I had to invite myself to 2 local events as the invites had been sent out before I could register and therefore be found to be contacted. So if you wish to be a part of the larger picture, you need to be a member of a registered party. A couple of TOP supporters asked me why I wasn't running for TOP. So I briefly explained the contradiction of a couple of TOP's policies in around about 30 seconds. You know, the all important UBI that's the antithesis of a successful environmental policy. With such glaring contradictions in policy v's outcome, it wasn't hard to destroy the claimed logic, reason and common sense being offered as a way forwards. Their faces were a picture though. Such a shame the process doesn't allow for independent candidates to register at the same time as the parties.

Yet you stood with the backing of a party (The money free party)in the 2016 Local body elections with the same result............
You only got 337 votes..........or 1.8% only of the votes
Odd because you also said this

Marshall said the campaign was "an eye-opener in many different ways" and was gearing up to present alternative ideas for the Money Free Party in next year's general election.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...he-bright-side

Not only that

Money Free Party NZ is led by Richard Osmaston, who founded the party. Osmaston had stood for the mayor of Nelson in 2013
before founding the party in 2014.

The party did not gain enough members to register for the 2014 general election. It stood five electorate candidates, but none were successful. Party members stood for multiple mayoralties in the 2016 local elections, such as Richard Osmaston in Nelson, Gordon Marshall in Porirua and Ted Howard in Kaikoura. As of January 2017 the party's website states that they "expect to have a major presence" in the 2017 general election.

Could it be that you had to stand as an independant as your party that you belong to could not actually get the required 500 members signitures to meet the NZ election standard.......

[Graystone]

Yet you stood with the backing of a party (The money free party)in the 2016 Local body elections with the same result............
You only got 337 votes..........or 1.8% only of the votes
Odd because you also said this


Not only that

Could it be that you had to stand as an independant as your party that you belong to could not actually get the required 500 members signitures to meet the NZ election standard.......

While I may agree with the technical accuracy of that which you post, since he is continuing to attempt to make changes it is surely worth giving him the benefit of the doubt that his real life persona is much less arrogant than his online one.

[mashman]

No surprises about candidates towing the party line.
some party lines are deliberately vague.... see recent election.

might have been a good ideal to include your reasoning about why TOP policies are contradictory.

i can’t see why independents are registered at a different time to parties.

politics are really a closed shop with the door slightly ajar the light spilling out of the pub door, onto the public stage

Yeah, seems like people are noticing it too... if they ever haven't that is.

I included the reasoning when I spoke to the ladies who asked. Simply put, if you're giving people more money to spend outwith that which they currently have, then you are supporting business as usual, which is proven to lead to pollution, poverty etc... All TOP supporters really seemed to care about was that his policy was different and looked good on paper compared to the policies of the other colours. As soon as you give it any form of real critique, it falls apart. Too much reliance on experts

I can see why independents are registered at different times to parties. There are a few reasons, but the primary reason is because the independent can actually be independent in their opinion of any given thing and can therefore answer a question directly without being deliberately vague. It's not in their best interest to allow that sort of thing build up over 5 months. They might lose their advantage

lmao. Nice analogy.

[mashman]

While I may agree with the technical accuracy of that which you post, since he is continuing to attempt to make changes it is surely worth giving him the benefit of the doubt that his real life persona is much less arrogant than his online one.

I don't read his posts. He's 1 of 3 I don't bother with. They lack the ability to understand 1 simple truth. There is no digital persona. There are only words on the screen that lack intonation. I know what I know. That anyone should claim arrogance from a digital persona is ridiculous based on words on paper. The Parable of the Pub showed me what was wrong. Since then. Meh.

In brief, The Parable of the Pub is 5 people sitting outside a pub having a beer. A social issue comes up in conversation and there's a Resource Based Economy advocate there who offers a different way of solving/mitigating the issue. The conversation lasts for about an hour. Each have their input. But there is one who monopolises the questions and judgements... and really refuses to listen to the answers. This is underlined as at the end of the hour, it starts to rain. The "intelligent" one with all of the questions stands up and states something along the lines of. Thank god for that, I'm fed up with listening to this negative bullshit. 2 others turn and instantly state that what they have heard is positive. The fourth knows my views and his default position is that he doesn't know if we would do it or not. I'm of the same mind, but slightly more positive than he is.

NOW. They all heard the same answers to the same questions, yet 1 declared the interaction as me being negative. So to be fair, eve with intonation an arsehole will always consider you to be an arsehole because they don't understand what you're saying. Or indeed choose not to coz funnin' like.

Arrogance. Nah. You choose to read what you choose to read... and ironically, prove your own arrogance. Fun thing to watch. Frustrating thing to not be able to do anything about. But also fun to play with, which negates most of the frustration. That or people simply ignoring the truth because they've been programmed to .

Love n hugs

Gordon

[Graystone]

All TOP supporters really seemed to care about was that his policy was different and looked good on paper compared to the policies of the other colours. As soon as you give it any form of real critique, it falls apart. Too much reliance on experts

I disagree, TOP policy was forward thinking and robust, with a large focus on the environment and future generations. Their housing policy was difficult for some people to grasp due favoring rent over ownership, but this does fit well with their UBI idea.

[mashman]

I disagree, TOP policy was forward thinking and robust, with a large focus on the environment and future generations. Their housing policy was difficult for some people to grasp due favoring rent over ownership, but this does go well with their UBI idea.

I know what he was trying to achieve. But he had no Tech Unemployment policy. Nor Tech Employment policy for that matter. No one knows what to do with it coz free market. If you haven't read it, consider this. But also note that this is a mitigation. Technology will catch it up within about 10 years. And 10 years is lots of wasted resources. Morgan was rearranging the deckchairs i.e. where money gets invested. Anyhoo, time to get the kids.

[Graystone]

I know what he was trying to achieve. But he had no Tech Unemployment policy. Nor Tech Employment policy for that matter. No one knows what to do with it coz free market. If you haven't read it, consider this. But also note that this is a mitigation. Technology will catch it up within about 10 years. And 10 years is lots of wasted resources. Morgan was rearranging the deckchairs i.e. where money gets invested. Anyhoo, time to get the kids.

The UBI is a policy covering all types of unemployment, what would the point of a specific tech unemployment policy be? Tech employment is taken care of via the free market. What is the problem those two policies would be required for? Your linked post does not address this either.

[husaberg]

While I may agree with the technical accuracy of that which you post, since he is continuing to attempt to make changes it is surely worth giving him the benefit of the doubt that his real life persona is much less arrogant than his online one.

It could be true........But sincerly i have my doubts.
I would suggest he would be one to avoid at parties as he would bore you with endless conspiracy theories (mostly regarding Jews.)
One of those that think every opinion of theirs is the absolute only valid opinion.
I do agree and somewhat respect that he has put himself and his policy out there. But making piss poor excueses as to why they fail gain voter support is trite.
As for Gordon not reading my posts, its pretty clear he does, hence his need to make excuses for his poor number of votes.
His threads are alas only a vehicle for "blackslaping circle jerking" green rep sessions with him and Axzlel Oldie and Katman...............

[mashman]

The UBI is a policy covering all types of unemployment, what would the point of a specific tech unemployment policy be? Tech employment is taken care of via the free market. What is the problem those two policies would be required for? Your linked post does not address this either.

The UBI is funded by a tax base of people earning $. Tech Unemployment will replace more jobs than it will create and it will take over entire industries as companies come to the realisation that if they don't efficientise via technology, then they'll lose their market to someone who will. This sees the tax base shrink somewhat as disposable income goes out of the system and the government, who will be paying a UBI, end up paying for an ever increasing number of unemployed people and with a shrinking tax base. That'll kill the economy. That's why it needs to be taken into account. The future of business is going to be tech based. That's not an opinion. There's plenty of journalists exploring these issues and wondering how to deal with them. One of, what I would call the foremost minds regarding any form of UBI, is Anthony Painter of the RSA... or at least he was writing for the RSA when I was reading him. He clearly states, as do those who have designed and undertaken the Finnish UBI experiment, that a UBI is not affordable. Did you see Morgans number regarding a UBI? 10,400 per person per year. Say that the average weekly rent in NZ is $200 per week. That $10,400 on rent alone. Whilst he states he can pay for it, which he did in the video that outlined how he was going to pay for it, what he doesn't state is that it actually can't be afforded as people need food, electricity, transport, clothing etc... too. Disingenuous at best and completely ignoring the fact that the tens of thousands of people that will lose their government jobs during such a rationalisation of the system are someone else's customers. Or at least will be until they're unemployed. The link offers a cost neutral, government interference free and completely optional approach to mitigating Tech Unemployment. However, as mentioned earlier, the approach has a shelf life. The free market cannot and will not handle Tech Unemployment. It isn't equipped for it from a financial perspective. No customers = no need to produce stuff = failing economy. And so on and so forth. The link is not an exhaustive list of answers to questions that everyone will have. So whilst you may not think the link addresses anything regarding your questions, I'm here to tell you it does, and so much more should you be of a mind to understand such things as well as I do.

[Graystone]

The UBI is funded by a tax base of people earning $. Tech Unemployment will replace more jobs than it will create and it will take over entire industries as companies come to the realisation that if they don't efficientise via technology, then they'll lose their market to someone who will. This sees the tax base shrink somewhat as disposable income goes out of the system and the government, who will be paying a UBI, end up paying for an ever increasing number of unemployed people and with a shrinking tax base. That'll kill the economy. That's why it needs to be taken into account. The future of business is going to be tech based. That's not an opinion. There's plenty of journalists exploring these issues and wondering how to deal with them. One of, what I would call the foremost minds regarding any form of UBI, is Anthony Painter of the RSA... or at least he was writing for the RSA when I was reading him. He clearly states, as do those who have designed and undertaken the Finnish UBI experiment, that a UBI is not affordable. Did you see Morgans number regarding a UBI? 10,400 per person per year. Say that the average weekly rent in NZ is $200 per week. That $10,400 on rent alone. Whilst he states he can pay for it, which he did in the video that outlined how he was going to pay for it, what he doesn't state is that it actually can't be afforded as people need food, electricity, transport, clothing etc... too. Disingenuous at best and completely ignoring the fact that the tens of thousands of people that will lose their government jobs during such a rationalisation of the system are someone else's customers. Or at least will be until they're unemployed. The link offers a cost neutral, government interference free and completely optional approach to mitigating Tech Unemployment. However, as mentioned earlier, the approach has a shelf life. The free market cannot and will not handle Tech Unemployment. It isn't equipped for it from a financial perspective. No customers = no need to produce stuff = failing economy. And so on and so forth. The link is not an exhaustive list of answers to questions that everyone will have. So whilst you may not think the link addresses anything regarding your questions, I'm here to tell you it does, and so much more should you be of a mind to understand such things as well as I do.

Tech also decreases cost of goods, while allowing a new tax source, or at least making the remaining tax sources generate more in tax. It won't kill the economy but does require risks to be managed. After all, production and consumption are still trivial to balance in a tech centric economy.

Rent is commonly available for $100, the UBI is a Basic income, you can live on it, but it greatly incentivises not doing that.

The free market handles Tech re-employment.

You post in the link was very focused on a few specific examples with a massive amount of ambiguity in how the system would actually work, and I don't feel like being berated for not being a mind reader again so how about you reiterate its points as to how it relates to our discussion now.