The 2020 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

And that right there folks, is a perfect example of twisting words to suit ones agenda.

That wasn't what he said at all, but carry on making shit up to suit yourself, you may as well stick with what you're good at

I think the easiest way to address both of these points (since they are broadly the same) is to point to the Mayor's official website:

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2017/0322

"saying something is “part and parcel” now of basically being a big city. It felt rather fatalistic. It struck me as being slightly fatalistic to say that... ...but saying something is “part and parcel” is almost like saying it is rather like bad weather."

Seems I'm not the only one to take the above interpretation as to what was said and the Context in which it was said.

Now, Sadiq points to his follow-up comments about Vigilance as to what is the spirit in which it should be taken. There are two problems with this, one is ignoring the often imported nature of such issues and the second is in relation to his stances on other issues (Inner City Knife Crime for example)

Based on the above, I don't grant him that interpretation, The interpretation that we should just suck it up and accept it and get on with it is in line with other statements he has made on similar issues - namely that certain things that those pesky Gammon are up in arms about should be sacrificed upon the altar of Sadiq's vision of the future.

How do you feel about being misquoted ... ??? you have complained when a full quote was not made of what you posted. There is a big difference between
"First I'll raise Sadiq Kahn, who tells us that Terror attacks are apparently just part of living in a big city these days...." ... implying terror attacks are a regular occurrence in a big city. When was the last one in any big city ... anywhere .. ??

What actually was said being "the threat of terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city". What is the certainty of a terror attack happening in any big city on any given day ... ?? Impossible, possible but unlikely, possible but rare, possible and happens regularly, possible and happens monthly, or possible and happens on a daily basis ... ?? Which of these choices would actually be closest to actual events happening in any big city ...ANYWHERE in the world ... ???

It was clearly a paraphrase, and not that they are a regular occurrence, but that we should accept them as a reality - as above, given other statements Sadiq has made, this is more in line with his ideals than Vigilance.

And as a side note ... In what religion are terror attacks required as part of their religion ... ??

It Is written in the Koran that any Muslim that is killed in the fight for Allah will go to paradise (and get their obligatory 72 virgins -[the actual sex/species of the virgins are unspecified]). No mention of any specific cause of death ... be it being shot/killed by an enemy ... or by a suicide act. But ONLY ... in the fight for Allah.

Kinda answering your own question there... No one is saying Required - but what you've written above would be more than incentive enough for someone to wish to take up arms in the name of Allah.

Add in a few of the spicier passages in the later Hadiths (the ones where Mohammed was a conquering warlord and expects all people to forcible convert to Islam or pay the Fine) and you've got all the words needed to compel some people, And I'm happy to admit that it is a small minority - but still one that exists, to commit acts of terror with the full blessing of their God.

Do you recall when the last terror attack in any big city was ... ???? I can't recall one happening for quite a while ... but I'm old and my memory gives me grief.

It would be the Bombing in Sri Lanka if my memory serves...

[TheDemonLord]

Out of money taken in Tax. To get more tax ... they have to keep the one's working ... working. You dont seem stupid enough to not know that. (Perhaps I was wrong to assume that)

Ah yes, Socialists robbing Peter, to pay Paul - It's always worked flawlessly in history...

The fact that it was (and STILL is) a world wide pandemic that they were trying to contain the spread of ... it wasn't Government Ministers at those places ... telling them who could or could not leave. They had written rules on procedure. Procedure was not followed at those places. Those at the top just failed to ensure the rules were being adhered to. The ones that were at the isolation points didn't do their job. Responsibility at the top. Fault at the bottom.

One could maybe forgive small errors of judgement in the initial stages - however things like:

- Expecting overseas visitors to self-isolate by giving them a pamphlet
- Not testing people when releasing them from isolated.
- Allowing the Pathogen to re-enter the populace.

These aren't mere 'oopsies', this is fundamental failures that start at the top and work their way down.

Are you saying that the stock market crash and devaluation caused 250,000 cancer deaths in the US ... ??

No, I'm not saying it... The Lancet is.

Those that died WERE (supposedly) in safe places ... The "Protections" didn't work. People that weren't tested got exemptions/permission to visit them ... and people died.

Those people that spread it then "got on with their lives" ... and possibly spread it some more ... possibly into areas that didn't have it. Remember the "Bluff wedding" that caused a death ... ??? But that is acceptable as those that spread it get on with their lives.

"Weren't tested", "Got Exemptions".

^^^ There's your problem.

If memory serves, the Bluff wedding, the Death (as tragic as it was) was someone from the at-risk demographic, only one fatality from a party of about 70 people. Linking this back to my original point:

If that one person was in Isolation (properly managed, without allowing exemptions to those untested) and the rest attended the wedding and got sick (but didn't die), seems to me that would be an acceptable (although not preferred) outcome.

How many Ministers of Government (or senior Government officials) were waiting at the airport ... supervising the isolation procedures ... ???

Command Responsibility.

[FJRider]

Ah yes, Socialists robbing Peter, to pay Paul - It's always worked flawlessly in history...

It seems to be working though. If you got any of the money that was "Robbed" ... do we start calling you Paul .. ??

One could maybe forgive small errors of judgement in the initial stages - however things like:

- Expecting overseas visitors to self-isolate by giving them a pamphlet
- Not testing people when releasing them from isolated.
- Allowing the Pathogen to re-enter the populace.

These aren't mere 'oopsies', this is fundamental failures that start at the top and work their way down.

Given the seriousness of the pandemic ... even in the early stages it WAS seen as (and was being reported as) ... being a world wide issue.

But ... NOBODY (except Bloomfield and the PM) in the entire command structure (from the Minister of health down to those in charge of seeing that those arriving ... followed the required procedures) were seen to be taking it seriously. Even in the early stages though ... those visitors found NOT following protocol were removed from the country.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not saying it... The Lancet is.

Ok ... and seeing as you quoted them ... you obviously can believe that a stock market crash (anywhere in the world) ... can cause 250,000 CANCER deaths. Perhaps your gullibility got the better of you. Perhaps "The Lancet" isn't as credible as you imagined. Although it was already known that you do have a vivid imagination.

"Weren't tested", "Got Exemptions".

^^^ There's your problem.

As the saying goes ... No shit Sherlock .. The self centered wankers that spread it knew they weren't tested ... but saw no issue. But ... still took the liberties that were not recommended even then.

If memory serves, the Bluff wedding, the Death (as tragic as it was) was someone from the at-risk demographic, only one fatality from a party of about 70 people. Linking this back to my original point:

If that one person was in Isolation (properly managed, without allowing exemptions to those untested) and the rest attended the wedding and got sick (but didn't die), seems to me that would be an acceptable (although not preferred) outcome.

IF .. ?? you don't know .. and don't really care .. ?? Not a relative of your's ... only one died ... so not an issue. Right .. ??

As I recall ... the person that spread it to the other wedding guests was "Linked to overseas travel" and was not in isolation ... as it was in the very early stages of lockdown. A few did not attend the wedding .. due to concerns of the possible pandemic issues it may cause. However ... even with basic attempts at protection (and obvious failure) ... those that attended were getting on with their lives.

Command Responsibility.

Command responsibility works from the top down. Even on the front line there is the need for some command responsibility. Even with the Clipboard holder at the airport ... handing out the pamphlets.

But even they weren't taking it seriously.

[TheDemonLord]

It seems to be working though. If you got any of the money that was "Robbed" ... do we start calling you Paul .. ??

I'm still waiting for my Cheque from Auntie Cindy, Something tells me I'll be waiting a very long time.

Given the seriousness of the pandemic ... even in the early stages it WAS seen as (and was being reported as) ... being a world wide issue.

But ... NOBODY (except Bloomfield and the PM) in the entire command structure (from the Minister of health down to those in charge of seeing that those arriving ... followed the required procedures) were seen to be taking it seriously. Even in the early stages though ... those visitors found NOT following protocol were removed from the country.

which reinforces my point: If only the PM is taking it seriously and no one else is - that is a clear failure from the top down.

Ok ... and seeing as you quoted them ... you obviously can believe that a stock market crash (anywhere in the world) ... can cause 250,000 CANCER deaths. Perhaps your gullibility got the better of you. Perhaps "The Lancet" isn't as credible as you imagined. Although it was already known that you do have a vivid imagination.

Okay, I'll break it down for you - there are Treatable Cancers (more than a 50% recovery rate) and Untreatable Cancers. Some people who get a Treatable Cancer (due to various circumstances) are going to die, others are going to live.

So, you look at the rates of Treatable Cancer in terms of total number diagnosed and total number dead and you look at each year and you plot the survival rates.

Where the economy comes into it is that treating Cancer requires resources (Money, Staff, Equipment, Drugs etc.) and when everything turns to shit (as it did in the 2008/2009 Economic Crash) those resources aren't available - the net result is a difference in deaths from Cancers deemed treatable between the actual number dead and the estimated number that would have died given the previous several years of metrics - which gives a number to the tune of 250,000.

This is not a case of Vivid imagination, it's the cold hard reality that if you don't have the means to do something, then you have to go without, and in this case the Economic recession had a Human cost that is on par with the human cost of the Pandemic.

Now I should add that a big part of that high number is likely to be due to the non-socialised health care system in the US, namely people who can't afford treatment are the ones that died - but even in countries with socialized health care there are still people that died due to restrictions in Funding because the Economy tanked.

As the saying goes ... No shit Sherlock .. The self centered wankers that spread it knew they weren't tested ... but saw no issue. But ... still took the liberties that were not recommended even then.

And here is the point, if I (who am clearly not a medical professional) can see the glaring hole in the system, what does it say about those in charge?

IF .. ?? you don't know .. and don't really care .. ?? Not a relative of your's ... only one died ... so not an issue. Right .. ??

I'm not loosing any sleep over it if that's what you mean.

As I recall ... the person that spread it to the other wedding guests was "Linked to overseas travel" and was not in isolation ... as it was in the very early stages of lockdown. A few did not attend the wedding .. due to concerns of the possible pandemic issues it may cause. However ... even with basic attempts at protection (and obvious failure) ... those that attended were getting on with their lives.

Yes, but if the person who was in the at-risk group had been Quarantined properly and the Border checks had been a little bit more than a Pamphlet we would have either had a situation of:

1: No entry of the Virus into NZ as the 'linked to overseas travel' would be safe and sound in a Quarantine facility, tested, found to have the Virus and then treated
or
2: They slipped through, but all the people they came into contact with were young enough and without underlying vulnerabilities so they got sick for a couple of weeks, maybe had to go to Hospital, but they didn't die.

Both of which are perfectly acceptable to me.

Command responsibility works from the top down. Even on the front line there is the need for some command responsibility. Even with the Clipboard holder at the airport ... handing out the pamphlets.

But even they weren't taking it seriously.

And I repeat: You, Sir, prove my point for me.

[FJRider]

So, you look at the rates of Treatable Cancer in terms of total number diagnosed and total number dead and you look at each year and you plot the survival rates.

The bit I was pointing out that you missed (actually read your own posts) ... was not about treatment for cancer ... but you quoted the cause of cancer as being the stock market crash in the US. A bit of a stretch of the imagination to claim that. A Vivid imagination I would still say.

I'm not loosing any sleep over it if that's what you mean.

Par for the course ... for you. Getting on with your life I gather.

.. Yes, but

A reasonable response from all those ... "Just getting on with their lives.

... perfectly acceptable to me.

As above ...

And I repeat: You, Sir, prove my point for me.

You have yet to make one.

[TheDemonLord]

The bit I was pointing out that you missed (actually read your own posts) ... was not about treatment for cancer ... but you quoted the cause of cancer as being the stock market crash in the US. A bit of a stretch of the imagination to claim that. A Vivid imagination I would still say.

Nope.

I said it 'Cost', not Cause.

(Actually read my posts )

You have yet to make one.

You've described, multiple times, a chronic failure of Leadership.

If the CEO, PM, General etc. Issues an Order/Directive/Policy and no one takes it seriously - the Fault is always with the Leadership.

[FJRider]

Nope.

I said it 'Cost', not Cause.

(Actually read my posts )

Nope ... ??? : From your own post. Unedited. Post #236 in this thread.

And what is the cost of a stock market crash and devaluation? As above - the last one in the US cost 250,000 lives to Cancer alone

You've described, multiple times, a chronic failure of Leadership.


If the CEO, PM, General etc. Issues an Order/Directive/Policy and no one takes it seriously - the Fault is always with the Leadership.

Not quite ... Responsibility comes with leadership. Fault lies with those not doing the one job they were given. Be it the leaders or the lower ranked staff. Leaders need to ensure staff that CAN do the job, does the job that needs done. That is their responsibility. Not to actually DO the work. And to ensure the job is being done correctly.
And by the way ... the words Bloomfield ACTUALLY said was ...

'I've taken responsibility to make sure that the system is sorted'

which gives an entirely different meaning to the "Bloomfield has taken responsibility for the failure's of quarantine" claim by Clark.

And people wondered about Bloomfields expressions ...

Misquoting is not new. You're good at that.

[pete376403]

Sarah Dowie, Nicky Wagner, David Carter, Maggie Barry, Amy Adams, Ann Tolley and Paula Benefit - rats leaving a sinking ship? (and , apart from David Carter, does this say something about women vis-a-vis Todd Muller & National?)

[TheDemonLord]

Nope ... ??? : From your own post. Unedited. Post #236 in this thread.

See where I said 'Cost', not 'Cause', where you quoted me, unedited? Like I said?

You do know that those 2 words have different meanings. And since we are arguing semantics, Cost in this sense has a post-hoc meaning (as in it happened after the event) whereas cause has a preceeding meaning (as in it happened before, in order to precipitate the event).

I'll eagerly await your retraction.

Not quite ... Responsibility comes with leadership. Fault lies with those not doing the one job they were given. Be it the leaders or the lower ranked staff. Leaders need to ensure staff that CAN do the job, does the job that needs done. That is their responsibility. Not to actually DO the work. And to ensure the job is being done correctly.
And by the way ... the words Bloomfield ACTUALLY said was ...

which gives an entirely different meaning to the "Bloomfield has taken responsibility for the failure's of quarantine" claim by Clark.

And people wondered about Bloomfields expressions ...

Misquoting is not new. You're good at that.

Except I've not quoted Bloomfield or Clark... Can't really misquote someone without quoting them first....

What I have said is that I've observed multiple happenings that are an objective sign of a chronic failure of leadership and that there is a clear pattern emerging.

You could certainly argue that my prejudicial view of this government is clouding my judgement of the events and that should the situation be reversed, I'd be defending the Minister to keep his position.

You could also argue that I hold an unreasonable standard of behavior for the Politicians (although kinda difficult when it's the same standard I adhere to for myself, but you could make that argument)

But diminishing Command responsibility is a fools Errand and claiming I'm misquoting a Government official when I've not even quoted them in the first place is laughably misguided.

[TheDemonLord]

Sarah Dowie, Nicky Wagner, David Carter, Maggie Barry, Amy Adams, Ann Tolley and Paula Benefit - rats leaving a sinking ship? (and , apart from David Carter, does this say something about women vis-a-vis Todd Muller & National?)

Or clearing out Deadwood.... I, for one, am not sad to see the back of Paula Bennett.

[FJRider]

See where I said 'Cost', not 'Cause', where you quoted me, unedited? Like I said?

As quoted you ... Post #236 in this thread. Explain the highlighted bits please ..

And what is the cost of a stock market crash and devaluation? As above - the last one in the US cost 250,000 lives to Cancer alone

Everything else you've claimed is bullshit too ...

[TheDemonLord]

As quoted you ... Post #236 in this thread. Explain the highlighted bits please ..

Yes...

It says Cost....

Not Caused....

With the explanation being that the lack of resources caused due to a Financial Crisis meant that some people weren't able to receive the treatment they needed and thus died when compared to previous years they would have likely lived.

Everything else you've claimed is bullshit too ...

We can evaluate that when you can tell the difference between 'Cost' and 'Cause'

[FJRider]

We can evaluate that when you can tell the difference between 'Cost' and 'Cause'

I evaluate the cause as your lack of knowledge of the proper use of the English language ... what Country are you originally from .. ??

Just curious ... as I am aware ... Black lives matter and I just want to help ...

[TheDemonLord]

I evaluate the cause as your lack of knowledge of the proper use of the English language ... what Country are you originally from .. ??

And that kids, is what we call a post-hoc justification.

The problem with that claim is that you've repeatedly told people to read what I actually wrote, and now you are trying to claim that you are evaluating what I wrote based on some context that you'd previously neglected to raise.

Seems the proper use of the English language remains with her Majesties loyal Citizen - namely me.

Just curious ... as I am aware ... Black lives matter and I just want to help ...

Well, when you say that, what do you mean?

Do you mean the objective statement that individuals have an innate self-worth? Sure, I agree with that, but then the correct formulation of that idea is not 'Black Lives Matter', but rather 'All Lives Matter'.

When you say you want to help - do you think that constantly asking people to notice the differences between Races are going to make people:

A: Less Racist
or
B: More Racist

Surely the ultimate goal of the supposed 'anti-racists' is that we STOP noticing the differences between Races - I'm reminded of a little Speech once "I have a dream that one day people will be judged on the content of their character and not on the colour of their skin"

Or when you say that do you mean that you support a revolutionary Communist organization that wants to overthrow the entirety of the Western, Capitalist, Patriarchal, Racist, Blah Blah Blah SJW Buzzword Blah system?

Cause if you do - then take a good long look at CHAZ/CHOP, for the relative population size, the BLM protesters have managed to murder more BAME people in 2 weeks than the Seattle PD managed in a Year - So ask yourself: Do their words or their actions speak loudest to you?

[Katman]

Seems the proper use of the English language remains with her Majesties loyal Citizen - namely me.

Trust me, yours is no better than his - if your twisting of Sadiq Khan's words are anything to go by.