The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

odd becuase what you just posted is a classic strawman response.

Mate, even TDL knows that is more ad-hominem than Strawman.

[jasonu]

The difference is Ocean feels agreeved that his beloved National did not win the election and get to form a goverment.

You mean like how the Democrats are still blaming everyone and everything except themselves that their hillary couldn't beat the most unpopular POTUS candidate of all time (actually the 2nd most unpopular as it turned out)

[Katman]

All i are reading here is you moaning about how that national never won again. face it.

No you seen here in NZ you clearly don't Not here under MMP which in case you missed it that the system we here in NZ.
So like ocean have so learn to live with it or do something about it or piss off.
But don't bother to reply to my posts if if cant get the simple things correct.
Go back to what ever it is you and TDL are arguing about on the conspiracy thread because trust me no one i have seen reads your two posts there either

Is that even English?

Total utter moron indeed.

[TheDemonLord]

Mate, even TDL knows that is more ad-hominem than Strawman.

I'm highly flattered that at multiple times in the current discussion I've been invoked as some form of Authority.

As for the Fallacy or fallacies - that's actually really interesting, because there are several subjective presuppositions (namely ones views on various political philosophies) and depending on what a priori viewpoints one holds - it could be an Ad Hominem AND a Strawman, it could be either or it could be neither.

Without wishing to wade into the debate - I see Husaberg's point, but I agree with Graystone and Ocean1.

It's the same debate as MMP vs FPP vs the Electoral College etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

What I'm interested to see however, is whether Comrade Cinda will be back at work on Thursday.

[Ocean1]

And this is what a post-election "policy" mash-up gets you:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...a-jumping-bill

Anyone here vote for that shit?

[husaberg]

And this is what a post-election "policy" mash-up gets you:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...a-jumping-bill

Anyone here vote for that shit?

How many voted for Nationals asset sales? You remember the one they said would not occur or would not occur unless they were not cost neutral.
Or how many voted for National to destroy a SOEs profit by making sure that thhe couldn't be changing the power price below aggreed conracted price so national could prop up a Multinationals already huge profit margin.

Or how John Key when wanted to change the flag
He flatly refused a simple yes no referendum and ended up cost NZ 26 Million dollars

At first, Labour supported having a debate on changing the flag.
Politicians from all parties reached agreement on how the referendum should be conducted. But these recommendations were rejected by John Key. He refused to give New Zealanders the basic courtesy of asking if they wanted to change the flag by having the same simple yes/no vote in the first referendum.
He offered his view many times over. In fact he insisted so loudly on a fern that supposedly independent Panel members admitted it influenced them, and they duly chose three fern flags for the final five.
When it became clear that this was about Mr Key, not about what New Zealanders wanted, Labour's withdrew support. Andrew Little.

A Tv reporter asked Winston Peters this morning if he was worried about National (Peters replied without missing a beat) yes but only in a compassionate way.....

[Ocean1]

How many voted for Nationals asset sales? You remember the one they said would not occur or would not occur unless they were not cost neutral.
Or how many voted for National to destroy a SOEs profit by changing the power price to prop up a Multinationals profit margin. Marking sure thaat

Or how John Key when wanted to change the flag
He flatly refused a simple yes no referendum and ended up cost NZ 26 Million dollars

At first, Labour supported having a debate on changing the flag.
Politicians from all parties reached agreement on how the referendum should be conducted. But these recommendations were rejected by John Key. He refused to give New Zealanders the basic courtesy of asking if they wanted to change the flag by having the same simple yes/no vote in the first referendum.
He offered his view many times over. In fact he insisted so loudly on a fern that supposedly independent Panel members admitted it influenced them, and they duly chose three fern flags for the final five.
When it became clear that this was about Mr Key, not about what New Zealanders wanted, Labour's withdrew support. Andrew Little.

A Tv reporter asked Winston Peters this morning if he was worried about National (Peters replied without missing a beat) yes but only in a compassionate way.....

So, outside of the usual anti-National crap that's a no, is it?

[Grumph]

I was amused to watch the reporting of the Nats conference. They're still living in a FPP world.

If anyone in the halls of nat power had any sense they'd be starting another party. Maybe farmer based green as ACT has failed to attract any support.
If you have to work with MMP, at least understand it - and work the system.
If things don't change, I'd agree with Winston - Slimeon Bridges won't last.

[husaberg]

So, outside of the usual anti-National crap that's a no, is it?

As i pointed out to you you only ever post anti Labour crap or pro National propaganda i only reply to your posts to point out your hypocrisy in what you post.
Tell me again why you never complained about the other events i mentioned, which were worse, was it because national was in power then?
If i remember correctly you actually thought they were all good ideas the flag referedum,the bail out of Rio Tinto.
Plus the sale of SOE for no net gain. Against what National had promised prior to elections.

[Ocean1]

As i poited out to you you only ever post anti Labour crap or pro National propaganda i only reply to your posts to point out your hypocrisy in what you post.
Tell me again why you never complained about the other events i mentioned, which were worse, was it because national was in power then?
If i remember correctly you actually thought they were all good ideas the flag referedum,the bail out of Rio Tinto.
Plus the sale of SOE for no net gain. Against what National had promised prior to elections.

That's a no then.

Neither did the select committee supposed to advise parliament on the bill.

[husaberg]

That's a no then.

Neither did the select committee supposed to advise parliament on the bill.

This bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 in order to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system by upholding the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined by electors.

A no to what?
You dont vote on individual bills or amendments you vote in general elections youvote for people to make and pass the bills and amendments and policies.

Your article states it went to the select committee did it not.
The select committee can but not always do recommend that public submissions are made, but its only an option
the only thing Nick is up in arms about is they refused to add the national partys members proposed amendments
Which is their right to do so it was an even vote.
Why are you upset The bill was clearly not nationals The goverment never needed to include Nationals proposed amendments.

The likely reason national likely wanted to add amendments is they wished to delay again the implementation of a bill that has remained them to stay in power and benefited them in the past.
If the bill was so close to national heart maybe they should have introduced it themselves in the last three terms they were in government.

You should watch parliament one day and see how they try and do this at every opportunity forcing votes on amendments they know full well they do not have the votes to make.
Their attempted stalling tactics ss called a filibuster.

IN November
National Opposition had lodged 6254 written questions for government ministers
Numerous journalists weighed in on what appeared to be a Loch Ness sized "fishing expedition" – that is a generalised sweep for information, without knowing what you're looking for, hopeful something useful might come up.
Labour's leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, told media National was "spamming" the Government with trivial requests.
: a private member's bill supported by National introducing voluntary membership of tertiary students' associations was not split up into parts as it was originally drafted, meaning each individual clause had to be debated in the Committee of the Whole House, opening the door for excruciating procedural delays over months by Labour MPs. The bill still ultimately passed, though, with the net effect that Labour lost time for advancing its own members' bills.
Years ago Act's John Boscawenonce nce lodged 700 oral questions to members to delay the final reading of Government's legislation.

Oh look you did vote for this attempted delaying tactic.

National leader Bill English warned "it's not our job to make this place run for a minority government".
English was actually talking specifically about National's significant numbers on select committees, meaning the Government will not get a free ride. The three government parties will have to work together closely to take advantage of their slight overall numerical advantage. National only has to keep its own house in order. But even that threat is overstated – where select committees are likely to be split along partisan lines on flagship government policy such as workplace relations, Hipkins has ensured a government majority. The committees with parity between government and non-government members, such as Maori Affairs or Foreign Affairs and Trade, tend to consider issues that are more bipartisan or have little legislation to deal with.

[Ocean1]

A no to what?
You dont vote on individual bills or amendments you vote in general elections youvote for people to make and pass the bills and amendments and policies.

Your article states it went to the select committee did it not.
The select committee can but not always do recommend that public submissions are made, but its only an option
the only thing Nick is up in arms about is they refused to add the national partys members proposed amendments
Which is their right to do so it was an even vote.
Why are you upset The bill was clearly not nationals The goverment never needed to include Nationals proposed amendments.

The likely reason national likely wanted to add amendments is they wished to delay again the implementation of a bill that has remained them to stay in power and benefited them in the past.
If the bill was so close to national heart maybe they should have introduced it themselves in the last three terms they were in government.

You should watch parliament one day and see how they try and do this at every opportunity forcing votes on amendments they know full well they do not have the votes to make.
Their attempted stalling tactics ss called a filibuster.

IN November
National Opposition had lodged 6254 written questions for government ministers
Numerous journalists weighed in on what appeared to be a Loch Ness sized "fishing expedition" – that is a generalised sweep for information, without knowing what you're looking for, hopeful something useful might come up.
Labour's leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, told media National was "spamming" the Government with trivial requests.
: a private member's bill supported by National introducing voluntary membership of tertiary students' associations was not split up into parts as it was originally drafted, meaning each individual clause had to be debated in the Committee of the Whole House, opening the door for excruciating procedural delays over months by Labour MPs. The bill still ultimately passed, though, with the net effect that Labour lost time for advancing its own members' bills.
Years ago Act's John Boscawenonce nce lodged 700 oral questions to members to delay the final reading of Government's legislation.

Oh look you did vote for this attempted delaying tactic.

My criticism is for the bill, I never suggested it was National's. So why you continue to foam at the mouth at the slightest inference of criticism against the coalition is beyond me. Actually now that I think about it it's not... you're second name doesn't start with Peters does it?

This isn't some supply issue tiff to be haggled over, it's Winston's revenge against his ex NZF mates for jumping his leaky as fuck waka years ago. It's the imposition of party control over elected officials, y'know, the ones supposed to be representing their constituents? It's a serious departure from the principles embodied in a parliamentary democracy, it eliminates accountability for exactly the post election policy blindsides it represents.

And it's obvious that it's Winston's payment for services rendered in that post-election back room deal that bought his votes to Labour. So it's entirely appropriate to point out that not only was this significant reduction in democratic accountability to the voter achieved without any sort of public referendum whatsoever, but that it's designed to transfer yet more control to the party head office and remove it from the electorate?

I can't see how even a rabid socialist could be happy with it to be honest. Especially as it's not yet clear what other power trips Winston demanded for his "support".

[Banditbandit]

A Freudian slip perchance ???


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-paula-benefit

[husaberg]

My criticism is for the bill, I never suggested it was National's. So why you continue to foam at the mouth at the slightest inference of criticism against the coalition is beyond me. Actually now that I think about it it's not... you're second name doesn't start with Peters does it?

This isn't some supply issue tiff to be haggled over, it's Winston's revenge against his ex NZF mates for jumping his leaky as fuck waka years ago. It's the imposition of party control over elected officials, y'know, the ones supposed to be representing their constituents? It's a serious departure from the principles embodied in a parliamentary democracy, it eliminates accountability for exactly the post election policy blindsides it represents.

And it's obvious that it's Winston's payment for services rendered in that post-election back room deal that bought his votes to Labour. So it's entirely appropriate to point out that not only was this significant reduction in democratic accountability to the voter achieved without any sort of public referendum whatsoever, but that it's designed to transfer yet more control to the party head office and remove it from the electorate?

I can't see how even a rabid socialist could be happy with it to be honest. Especially as it's not yet clear what other power trips Winston demanded for his "support".

I am not frothing at the mouth I are only pointing out your hypocrisy
As i pointed out you don't get to vote on bills the bill was entered and has gone through the process.
What you keep over looking it is an Amendment to another bill that has expired
One that despite your ignorance that was not Winston Peters who submitted the original bill but it was Michael Culling who did so.

Waka jumping, New Zealand enacted the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001, which had been introduced by Michael Cullen in 1999.

A party-hopping law came in under the Labour-Alliance coalition in 2001, but had a sunset clause and expired in September 2005. It was re-introduced two months later , but languished on the order paper until National won the 2008 election - when it was dropped altogether.

Also the 2005 Supreme Court decision between the Act Party and former MP Donna Awatere Huata also was a reason to include the additional clause about party rule compliance.
The court ruled that Huata should be removed from Parliament and replaced by an Act list MP, rather than stay on as an independent.

Also it was always spelled part of the 100 day coalition program.
The bill only expels list MP's who wish to jump ship an electorate MP who chose to leave the party he stood for could stand in a by election rather than by expelled as an MP.
If they truly have the backing of an electorate then the electorate will vote them in no mater what party they stand in.
I also Note 12 of the 34 Waka jumpers of the MMP era have lept from National
In fact Four National MPs have jumped wakas to NZF yet none have gone fron NZF to National



If you truly want a referendum go ahead get the 285,000 signatures then
But what good is an referendum or what the people want. It never mattered to National.

The New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009 was held from 31 July to 21 August, and was a citizens-initiated referendum on parental corporal punishment. It asked:^[2]

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Voter turnout was 56.1%. 87.4% of votes answered 'no'. The result of the referendum was non-binding and the New Zealand government did not change the law in response to the outcome.In June 2009, then Prime Minister John Key said that the government would change the law if it was not working, but that he believed the current law was working well

[Ocean1]

I am not frothing at the mouth I are only pointing out your hypocrisy

No, what you're doing is translating what people say into shit that fits your prejudices, and then arguing against that.

Like I said, a walking straw man generator.

So since you've got nothing relevant or even vaguely rational to contribute I'll leave you to it.