The 2017 Election Thread

[sidecar bob]

The PM has his own band.

Great to see he got himself all tidied up for his distinguished guest. Much respect.
I reckon I would have learned the words first . . . . . .at primary school.
When was the last time you saw Maoris using a word sheet in a welcome? How about a bit of pride there fellas.

5:17am. Damn this jet lag. Lol.

[Graystone]

Is she a shit pm or not? Simply playing Santa Claus with taxpayer money doesn't make her a good P.M the same as buying your children gifts every day doesn't make you a good parent.
Now we have some feral Labour MP stood down on full pay because she can't control her temper, or keep her hands to herself.https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/polit...ult-allegation
She was however overjoyed on TV last night, that some Iwi or another had weaseled another substantial payout from the taxpayer coffers for an imagined historic grievance I couldn't be bothered following the ins & outs of.
And re the aircraft, if you can be bothered doing the maths at the cost per capita between what trump wastes on air travel & this wee debacle, I'm pretty sure I can guess who spent the most.
But her position as PM is as safe as houses with Labour supporters refusing to accept she can do any wrong, just like Hitler in 1933, absolutely flavour of the month.

Obviously trump spends the most, what's your point?

[sidecar bob]

Obviously trump spends the most, what's your point?

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

[husaberg]

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

If its only about cost per capita why are National not getting hammered by you Carbon ,Ocean and Jason about spending far far more per year then +25%?....
Okay, thats right, it must be because its not about cost per capitia its about something else..........

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

Id be keen to see the maths on that as Air force one costs $200,000+ USD to Fly per hour. thats times two as there are two that fly together.
Plus the tankers as well to refuel them.
4.6 -5,8 billion USD to replace as well. thats not including the heicopters the small planes the fighter escort the beast limos etc.
Trump just spend $32 milion usd on fridges on the planes that will be replaced soon.
Not to mentions his wifes frequent trips to NY. plus his weeks flights to play golf.
Plus NZ does not have a dedicated vip plane for the pm only one thats been used on this occasion.
They normally fly Air NZ same as everyone else.
Jacindas Travel costs for the first 3 months in office were $37,000 NZD thats limos air travel and everything.........

[jasonu]

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

But but but that doesn’t fit my agenda.

[Ocean1]

If its only about cost per capita why are National not getting hammered by you Carbon ,Ocean and Jason about spending far far more per year then +25%?....
Okay, thats right, it must be because its not about cost per capitia its about something else..........

Can't speak for the others, but it's got a lot to do with what it's being spent on. You know all this, we've discussed it numerous times, it's not labour I'm hammering, it's their union-driven socialist policies.

So yeah, it is about something else, it's about not expecting a nanny state's taxpayers to pay for my choices, I don't expect them to pay for my house, to chose an example completely at random.

So you can, and will see me bag labour AND national for "redistributing" my hard earned money to people that simply didn't put in the yards to earn it themselves.

That, and any spending that's simply pointless, or thoughtless of the people that actually earned what they're spending.

[Woodman]

I wonder how much jacindas child will end up costing the tax payer when compared to just one offspring of some no hoping baby machine after winz, cypfs, various other state departments and eventually the prison service have been involved. At least she is trying to look after the kid.

[Voltaire]

Its good the chattering classes have an outlet to squeek on
Why is all the people who could run the country better are not involved in politics.

[sidecar bob]

Its good the chattering classes have an outlet to squeek on
Why is all the people who could run the country better are not involved in politics.

Not sure about a country, but if I'd run my business as if money grew on trees I'd be broke now, not retired.

[Graystone]

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

And it is still obvious trump spends more per that metric, so I'll ask again, what's your point?

[sidecar bob]

Jacindas Travel costs for the first 3 months in office were $37,000 NZD thats limos air travel and everything.........

So aprox $142,000 per year. That's an absolute bargain, the woman needs to be a bit kinder to herself. Nuthin's too good for our girl.

[sidecar bob]

And it is still obvious trump spends more per that metric, so I'll ask again, what's your point?

I don't know anymore. Just think one up that fits your agenda & dosent vilify your current do no evil favourite communists & we should get along fine.

[husaberg]

Can't speak for the others, but it's got a lot to do with what it's being spent on. You know all this, we've discussed it numerous times, it's not labour I'm hammering, it's their union-driven socialist policies.

So yeah, it is about something else, it's about not expecting a nanny state's taxpayers to pay for my choices, I don't expect them to pay for my house, to chose an example completely at random.

So you can, and will see me bag labour AND national for "redistributing" my hard earned money to people that simply didn't put in the yards to earn it themselves.

That, and any spending that's simply pointless, or thoughtless of the people that actually earned what they're spending.

The facts and figures of what you are saying dont back up your stated opinions though now do they?in fact quite the reverse.
The other thing is you dont bag national at all ever ,you just go on attempting to shift blame onto Labour for what was Nationals non actions.

Comprehension I guess
I said cost per capita. California alone has over ten times the population of NZ
Never mind. Its easy to spend when you dont have to earn it.

I don't know anymore. Just think one up that fits your agenda & dosent vilify your current do no evil favourite communists & we should get along fine.

So aprox $142,000 per year. That's an absolute bargain, the woman needs to be a bit kinder to herself. Nuthin's too good for our girl.

Come on you made the statement that trump spends less on travel per capitia than the NZ PM
Do the figures to prove it or admit this is not the case at all. then explain why you were not moaning about nationals 25% higher costs for travel or fess up its nothing to do with costs anyway but to do with the lack of Y chromosomes and open door unprotected reproductive policy the PM has.

[Ocean1]

The facts and figures of what you are saying dont back up your stated opinions though now do they?in fact quite the reverse.
The other thing is you dont bag national at all ever ,you just go on attempting to shift blame onto Labour for what was Nationals non actions.

And yet they do. You simply reinterpret anything I say to "national good, labour bad", pluck some historical anti-national rhetoric from google and and construct some spurious "but national" argument around that.

Again, it shouldn't be surprising that labour features prominently in any bagging of re-distributive govt policy, it's their core tenet, driven by their union owners.

And yet again you mistake criticism of policy for criticism of the party. As far as I'm concerned outside of infrastructure, basic healthcare and education any policy that interferes with what should be a free market is inerventionist bullshit, usually clad in tattered and ineffective social justice clothing. My expectation of national was for them to simply dismantle the monopolies that damaged the market in the first place. They failed. I don't hold out any hope that labour will do it either, for them, a free market concept simply doesn't compute, their primary response so far has been to blamestorm about "elitism" and "inequality" which demonstrates that they're not interested in how to fix it, they're more interested in blaming all dem "advantaged" rich pricks.

Both "sides" walk a careful path between their ideals and their polling. Neither of which is likely to produce effective policy, because often the two are somewhat contradictory.

For example: Labour's redistribution of earnings by paying for the first year of tertiary education, ('cause affordability was the reason "disadvantaged" kids didn't go to uni) was a spectacular example of their ideologically driven policies resulting in not only a waste of taxpayers money but having the complete opposite of the effect intended. Fuck all "disadvantaged" kids took up the offer, but on the other hand the wealthier kids who were going to uni anyway couldn't sign up fast enough.

On the other hand I struggle with national's socially conservative elements, why can't we have rational, effective financial governance without the 18th century social constructs?

I hate it that apparently, in order to get some environmentally responsible govt you have to be both rabidly communist and support scientifically nonsensical environmental policies.

I hate it that ACT, the party that should represent most of what I want in govt departed rapidly from their libertarian roots to the populist, reactive bullshit they became.

So you can't, by any stretch of the imagination paint me any sort of party hack, for any of them.

[husaberg]

And yet they do. You simply reinterpret anything I say to "national good, labour bad", pluck some historical anti-national rhetoric from google and and construct some spurious "but national" argument around that.

Again, it shouldn't be surprising that labour features prominently in any bagging of re-distributive govt policy, it's their core tenet, driven by their union owners.

And yet again you mistake criticism of policy for criticism of the party. As far as I'm concerned outside of infrastructure, basic healthcare and education any policy that interferes with what should be a free market is inerventionist bullshit, usually clad in tattered and ineffective social justice clothing. My expectation of national was for them to simply dismantle the monopolies that damaged the market in the first place. They failed. I don't hold out any hope that labour will do it either, for them, a free market concept simply doesn't compute, their primary response so far has been to blamestorm about "elitism" and "inequality" which demonstrates that they're not interested in how to fix it, they're more interested in blaming all dem "advantaged" rich pricks.

Both "sides" walk a careful path between their ideals and their polling. Neither of which is likely to produce effective policy, because often the two are somewhat contradictory.

For example: Labour's redistribution of earnings by paying for the first year of tertiary education, ('cause affordability was the reason "disadvantaged" kids didn't go to uni) was a spectacular example of their ideologically driven policies resulting in not only a waste of taxpayers money but having the complete opposite of the effect intended. Fuck all "disadvantaged" kids took up the offer, but on the other hand the wealthier kids who were going to uni anyway couldn't sign up fast enough.

On the other hand I struggle with national's socially conservative elements, why can't we have rational, effective financial governance without the 18th century social constructs?

I hate it that apparently, in order to get some environmentally responsible govt you have to be both rabidly communist and support scientifically nonsensical environmental policies.

I hate it that ACT, the party that should represent most of what I want in govt departed rapidly from their libertarian roots to the populist, reactive bullshit they became.

So you can't, by any stretch of the imagination paint me any sort of party hack, for any of them.

You choose to make statements that are not backed by actual facts, you cant refute the facts i posted as unlike your biased opinion you offer, my replies had the actual facts, These were 100% contary to what your opinion stated so you seek to minimise and then you change the subject. Why is it you cant show the posts where you have ever bagged National if you are really so bipartisan.
As for me not being able to paint you as a party hack I believe i can.