Daily Review 06/10/2016

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, October 6th, 2016 - 58 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

helen-clark-phil-goff

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

58 comments on “Daily Review 06/10/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    6 October 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Today, Trump held 2 rallies in Nevada. Reno (attracted a 4,000 strong crowd) and Henderson (a 7,000+ crowd).

    What kind of crowds did Hillary Clinton pull today? Where?

    • Andre 1.1
      6 October 2016 at 6:51 pm

      About those rallies, he may have been better off not doing them…

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nevada-donald-trump-229217

      I really don’t care enough to look up what Hillary is doing, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she’s doing debate prep again. Y’know, so she doesn’t make a fool of herself in front of maybe 70million voters on national TV.

      • ianmac 1.1.1
        6 October 2016 at 7:04 pm

        But I wonder if we the voters really care about the endless cliches and empty ordered promises? Maybe there are many who say Bullshit to those professional politicians and are searching for a pot of gold elsewhere.
        I mean who believes the speeches of Key or Joyce?

        Test: Name 3 things that Clinton promised during the last debate. (Without going back to look it up!)

        • Andre 1.1.1.1
          6 October 2016 at 7:28 pm

          Seems that most voters don’t care about the details. But from the way the polls have shifted since the last debate, it seems they do notice when someone shows himself to be utterly clueless and completely out of his depth.

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1
            6 October 2016 at 9:58 pm

            The polls shifted? You mean by about +2.5% to Hillary?

            Shit man talk about grasping at straws. The MSM was trying to tell us that their focus groups concluded that it was a 4 to 1 win in the debates for Hillary.

            Wrong again.

  2. Anne 2
    6 October 2016 at 7:00 pm

    Re the photo:
    That hippie on the right with the thick curly hair and the thin moustache is guess who? Phil Goff. It was around 1973/74 and from memory one of the first anti-sporting contacts with Sth. Africa marches.

    • joe90 2.1
      6 October 2016 at 7:05 pm

      Helen on the left, too.

      • ianmac 2.1.1
        6 October 2016 at 7:15 pm

        Long way in lifetime for Helen and Phil. Colourful.

        • b waghorn 2.1.1.1
          6 October 2016 at 7:32 pm

          Along way for phil from their to getting $150 k anonymous donors, although i suspect most of the hippies would hate who they’ve become if they meet their future selves.

          • left for dead 2.1.1.1.1
            6 October 2016 at 8:04 pm

            He’s always had his hand in is pocket and others when it suits. Never a good look, you see it all the time theses days polie’s, biz people, suits etc, no work ethic.

      • Anne 2.1.2
        6 October 2016 at 7:30 pm

        I wasn’t 100% sure so decided not to mention it. Exactly how I remember her too – fresh open face with a head of dark brown thick curls. I was quite jealous of her beautiful hair.

        Y’know joe90, I suspect I might have known you in a bygone era.

    • mickysavage 2.2
      6 October 2016 at 7:30 pm

      Yep Phil tweeted it today and I thought it had to be used …

  3. joe90 3
    6 October 2016 at 7:03 pm

    The ads write themselves.

    • Paul 3.1
      6 October 2016 at 7:20 pm

      You appear to be a advert for Clinton, joe.

      • joe90 3.1.1
        6 October 2016 at 7:24 pm

        Anybody but this arse.

        Trump earlier at Hispanic round table in Vegas: "We're going to do a major repeal of Dodd-Frank & we're going to get things back on track." pic.twitter.com/V2U2y1nOrH— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) October 5, 2016

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.1
          6 October 2016 at 7:36 pm

          Yep a 2008 quote from David Sedaris is doing the rounds:

          “I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

          To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

          To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

          I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?”

    • miravox 3.2
      6 October 2016 at 7:25 pm

      I’m not sure they wrote themselves, although the material was pretty easy to get… that was very clever politics from the Democrats.

  4. adam 4
    6 October 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Well I’m glad the joke democracy has been proven to be the joke it is.

    Local body elections.

    Seems Auckland could be as low as 37%, that is not apathy. That’s open disgust with a system which is corrupt and broken.

    I don’t know what was worse, people thinking voting for a Tory troll like Goff was an option, or those who will celebrate his victory as a victory for the left. Because news flash, the only people I know who voted Goff are Tory through and through.

    So we have no democracy left in Auckland, and without a real plan and a real break from the corruption that created this mess, we won’t see it again in my life time.

    Oh and to the people who say it was apathy – you tossers, belt way smugness is on display , what’s the bet you smell your own farts as well.

    The system is broken – poor people and people of colour don’t want part of a system which never listens and never gives a dam.

    No doubt some people here will moan, or high five because their people won. But the reality is, if participation drops below 100% we all lost. And at 37%, we not only just lost, but democracy is dead.

    • Richard Rawshark 4.1
      6 October 2016 at 8:05 pm

      Sadly I said the same, sorry to say without the rant yesterday mate.

      So election polls are all good, but is the question will you bother to vote there.?

    • Sabine 4.2
      6 October 2016 at 8:33 pm

      I would really worry if the participation goes above 100% or is an exact 100%.

      but i don’t worry if it is below 100%.

      there are a few things in play.

      a. low voter participation cause frankly why bother?
      b. people in akl move every 6 – 12 month or so, it is quite hard to keep your data updated and priorities might be elsewhere – like finding a new place to live
      c. many many of the houses that should be lived in are not, they are empty. Empty houses don’t vote.
      d. many many people of Auckland don’t vote at all as they have yet to gain residency and the right to vote.
      e. many many people of Auckland don’t have a stake in the City considering that they have been systematically shut out of the housing market by our current do fuck all National Party led Government
      f. many many people of Auckland are now not living in Auckland anymore cause they have been priced out of a market and they are now voting elsewhere

      At 37% you may assume that the transient of AKL don’t vote, or that the tenants of AKL don’t vote or that may are the ones voting. 🙂

  5. James Thrace 5
    6 October 2016 at 8:43 pm

    Someone with some skill probably needs to start taking video interviews that are uploaded online by TV3, scraping them, and putting them on youtube for posterity.

    Went to re-watch Sam Lotu-Liga’s interview with Lisa Owen on the Nation in May 2015 about Serco, and to generally have a good laugh at him getting chewed up alive by a journalist that had done their homework, only to find the video has been mysteriously “archived”.

    Not good enough. For something that uses public money (NZ On Air) surely it is appropriate that such interviews should be kept available online for posterity?

  7. McFlock 7
    6 October 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Interesting milieu of alliances. On the us side there’s nato and some southeast Asian alliances looking for local leverage, and us pivots toward India because Pakistan has a few different games playing.

    not quite guns of august yet, but still….

  8. aerobubble 8
    7 October 2016 at 11:43 am

    Cycling. Police do not enforce bans on cycling on footpaths. Why? Waste of resources, not a nuisance, or just a bad law to be banning kids from using footpath. I mean what does it say to kids, you can skate, board, scoot but not bike

    • McFlock 8.1
      7 October 2016 at 12:03 pm

      police don’t enforce dine&dash restaurant customers in Auckland. Obviously paying for a meal is a bad law.

    • mpledger 8.2
      7 October 2016 at 10:56 pm

      My daughter got ridden into from behind by a young cyclist while she was walking along the footpath (I was walking with her). The cyclist was too young to be riding – his brother was riding with him but the latter ran the former out of space and the former didn’t think to brake or stop in some other way. The perceived safety of the footpath fools people into thinking that incompetent riders are going to be ok.

      So, I’m not in favour of bikes being ridden on footpaths – it’s too dangerous for pedestrians and because footpaths aren’t long between intersections, cyclist don’t stop and look properly when crossing so it adds another layer of complexity to already complicated intersections – car have to look for bikes riding on the road crossing the intersection and bikes coming off the footpath and crossing the intersections – it’s just really messy. Bikes are for the road.

      • McFlock 8.2.1
        7 October 2016 at 11:18 pm

        Mate of mine had a couple of teeth knocked this year by a uni student cycling on the footpath.

        • aerobubble 8.2.1.1
          10 October 2016 at 2:11 pm

          After decades car users are having to learn how to deal with cyclists as more apear onthe roads, this undoubtly has led to dead cyclists. A family out cycling in Rotorua comes to mind. The problem aint that accidents happen, its that a fair commsense approach would contextualize why the rate payers should fund pavements but be denied access. You have yet to deliver on reason, since your fear that cyclists are causing accidents has already cime to pass, that bad law is ignored and a better way forward would be to enforce a pedestrian right of way. Given the prevalence of cameras now, and of course bedding in the reality of the interction… ..it would work like in Japan. And should it became common for you to break a leg everytime you used the public footpath, i’d be the first to your side. I just dont see it happening, students are a menace, if it aint bikes…

          • McFlock 8.2.1.1.1
            10 October 2016 at 2:27 pm

            Some people do actually observe the law. They don’t expect me to “share” the risk they choose by their transport choice. By obeying the law, they choose to not put me in danger.

            I don’t want it to become “common” for me to break a leg walking on the footpath – uncommon is too common.

            I don’t want you to be the first to my side. I don’t want to need anyone to rush to my assistance. Keep away from me, especially on your bike.

            I don’t care about Japan – their busses run on time too, and we can’t manage that, either.

            You get cycle lanes. I get the footpath. Cars get the road. Where there are no cycle lanes, don’t expect me to put my life on the line just because you want to ride a fucking bike.

            • aerobubble 8.2.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2016 at 3:05 pm

              Again we live in a free society where accidents happen, or do we force others to pay for services, pavements they cant us and increase thier risk of death on the roads rather than walking away from a cyclist that unlikely will crash into you personally mcfrovck?

              • McFlock …
                10 October 2016 at 3:13 pm

                You can use a footpath at any time. Walk on it, even run.

                It’s not the cyclist you see that hits you, either.

                If you want to use a silly, unwieldy and unstable form of transport, more power to you. Just don’t endanger other people while doing it – use the road. That’s for vehicles.

  9. aerobubble 9
    7 October 2016 at 11:54 am

    As for the nuisance of cycling on footpaths. Wholely unwarrented to have a father cycle alongside theit kid learning, quite illegally. And then the oh they will crash into lobby, somehow people drive go to extreme to avoid hitting pedestrians when driving in a box on the road, are now likely tant to crash into pedestrians on the foot path, really. But worse, the larger, the faster, the more likely a cyclist is to ride slower on a fotpath, due to driveways, kids on bikes, beause the higher they are, the heavier they are, the harder the fall. So yeah, ban cyclists walking their dog on a leash, or unstabling balance their baby on the rint bars, but there has never been a good reason to ban a free activity because another groups fears over run their common sense. Adults should be able to cycle on footpaths if riding safely, coz they dam well come off mostly worse when hitting concrete head first as opposed to soft fatting humans bumping into each other.

    • McFlock 9.1
      7 October 2016 at 12:51 pm

      so, once again, you’re asking me to assume the risk of your choice of transportation.

      I’m not your personal crashpad.

      Get off the footpath.

      • aerobubble 9.1.1
        7 October 2016 at 1:02 pm

        Freedom isn’t about your fear that people who dont want to crash into you will, it isn’t about your willingness to deny kids a childhood of cycling, or worse four year olds cycling on the road with trucks. Cyclists, sure would prefer to crash into your feeble scaly old frame as it softer than a car backing out of a driveway, but really, do you have no conceptionalization that cyclist hate hitting hard objects and so teain themselves to avoid cars, pavements headfirst, amd yes you. Your fear is not the basis for public freedom. Japan allows cycling on pavement, you idiot.

        • McFlock 9.1.1.1
          7 October 2016 at 1:17 pm

          You just wrote that cyclists prefer hitting people to hitting concrete.

          As a person, I prefer to not be hit by cyclists. And yes, pedestrians have been seriously injured by cyclists on the footpath.

          You can’t have it both ways – either there’s no danger to me as a pedestrian, or you want me to be your crashpad because you want to ride a bike.

          • aerobubble 9.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2016 at 2:19 pm

            Your obviously trolling, since anyone who knows what a bicycle is knows its easy to push a rider over, riders are unstable. The fact that riders are more likely to be harmed, in a more precarious position, and your fear and ignorance of these facts is not justification to remove afreedom these wheeled ratepayers pay for. Now i know your fear dominates yor existance, and your accord with yor fellow man so little, while you try nevertheless to engender our sympathy for your fear and ignorance, but its just unrealistic since its a reality for some that they dont own a car, live in towns and need to get around without dying from car drivers. Why should cyclist fear death so you dont fear a fall because you think falling into a cyclist, and on top, of their lycra clad fat arses would hurt.

            • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2016 at 2:40 pm

              Not trolling.

              When I do risky things, I don’t expect others to take on a portion of that risk just to lessen my own. To do so would be dickish in the extreme.

              You want to ride a bike, ride a fucking bike. Just minimise the risk you expose other people to when you do it. Ride on the road. Because I’m not worried about “falling into a cyclist”, I fear (reasonably, because it has happened recently in my social crowd and led to safety rules at my workplace) some dickhead riding into me or people I like.

              • aerobubble …
                10 October 2016 at 3:10 pm

                When you leave your risky home and take a walk, you already have reduced your risk by denying cyclists us of the service they pay rates for.
                So.. trolling.

                When I do risky things, I don’t expect others to take on a portion of that risk just to lessen my own. To do so would be dickish in the extreme.

                Dickish in the extreme, yeah, thats you.

                • McFlock …
                  10 October 2016 at 3:16 pm

                  When you leave your risky home and take a walk, you already have reduced your risk by denying cyclists us of the service they pay rates for.

                  I don’t walk on rail lines or motorways. I don’t drive on the footpath.

                  Don’t cycle on footpaths. It’s pretty simple.

      • aerobubble 9.1.2
        7 October 2016 at 1:10 pm

        Sharing is something kids learn, well did until the Police told them to get off the pavement and cycle withe the cars.

        • McFlock 9.1.2.1
          7 October 2016 at 1:18 pm

          Please don’t share your cycling-related injuries with me.

          • aerobubble 9.1.2.1.1
            10 October 2016 at 2:27 pm

            Social fascism, so NZ. Share this bud. Cultural foods, cheeses are under attack by govt raising standards of food, on cheese. Hell even NZ meat standards are so high, the ‘fresh’ meat can last twice as long on the shelves, put in coolers every night, tasteless, chalky texture, nasty after taste.

            Its a problem for a free society when stupid arse hecklers dominate the discourse with their pleas to fear and ignorance, finely honed, that turns NZ into a ineffienct privately run politburo, the few ravage us with debt, pollution, lower standards for social ‘goods’ higher for retail ‘bads’.

            You Mr frock are a pathetic example of the creed that has seen NZ falling behind.

            • McFlock 9.1.2.1.1.1
              10 October 2016 at 2:33 pm

              So “cycle on the road” is akin to commun1sm?

              Sounds legit/sarc

              • aerobubble …
                10 October 2016 at 3:18 pm

                yes. Removing he right of an activity, paid for by rates, or rates via rent, is a dictorial practice. The inability of the dictator to justify the removal of a right, is like communism. Cyclists would be more considerate and skilled if they could practice more, have accidents to learn its bad form (better at a young age), so more skiled practice considerate cyclist who feel listened to rather than banned for what even the Japanese allow their own people.

                And consider this. A small pop. density means we spend more per head on infrastructure to cover more ground per head, so why would we then deny access, especially when we all need and kike the ew cycling tourists, who invariable do not know, i.e from Japan, that they cant ride on path less some social fascist has put up a sign for them to permit them to. oh, the hell of riding in the backwoods and finding a fork in the path.

                • McFlock …
                  10 October 2016 at 3:21 pm

                  You’re perfectly entitled to ride a bike. They even make special cycleways for you, and good for you. Use them. And use the road. Walk on the footpath.

                  Saying that a “practising” “learning” cyclist should have their accidents by riding into a pram or an old lady? Yeah, nah. Don’t ride on the footpath. That’s not draconian, it’s courtesy.

                  • aerobubble …
                    17 October 2016 at 11:02 am

                    Obey the law,is that your argument, thats not what we are talking about. Our pavements are a public space, sharing is the rule not the exception. People already cycle on the pavement, posties, legally. Posties use motorized cycles called mopeds to deliever mail, on pavements. Motorized wheelchairs for crying out loud. Its not a problem for people to give way on a cycle to pedestrians for obvious reasons, cyclists are easily knocked off, they get more damage in accidents from falling, the larger higher up and okder the more seroiusly they are harmed. Its bleeding courtsey to do beter than argue its the law when denying a group access to what they fund in taxes.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 October 2016 at 11:18 am

                      Mail needs to be delivered. It’s basic infrastructure (and governed by workplace health & safety legislation to minimise that risk).
                      Wheelchairs are necessary mobility aids.
                      Bikes are a recreational choice.

                      Mail deliverers are individually identifiable and move slowly to minimise any risk to themselves or others. Wheelchairs move at fuck-all speed and stop/turn on a dime. Bikes can travel at 20 or 30kmhr and are often barely controlled. Yes, cyclists get injured when they crash, that’s their choice. Of course they can cycle on pavement. Just not on the footpath, because it endangers others.

                      Minor risk out of necessity is one thing. Increasing that risk, needlessly, and giving it to others is a selfish and arrogant demand.

                    • aerobubble …
                      17 October 2016 at 11:48 am

                      Lie. Cycles are a recreational choice. Again you need to grow up and use commonsense.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 October 2016 at 11:56 am

                      Are you saying that cycles aren’t a recreational choice?
                      Who on earth is forced to ride a bike?

                    • aerobubble …
                      20 October 2016 at 2:32 pm

                      Cycles are used for many purposes. Its a lie to say all cycle use is recreational. But i do agree racing bikes, whose main purpose is speed for recreation, should not be on pavement, not only are they much more unstable than a normal bike. Cyclists are being killed on roads, they will not die on pavements, its not a legal issue its survival.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 October 2016 at 2:53 pm

                      so who is forced to ride a bike?

                      Who, in NZ, totally doesn’t want to ride a bike, but is cruelly forced to endanger their lives by doing so?