Daily review 25/07/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, July 25th, 2019 - 71 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

 

Daily review is also your post.

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 …

71 comments on “Daily review 25/07/2019”

  1. adam 1

    Oh look another swing and a miss-  Muller back peddled even more. 

    The problem with believing in conspiracy theories, when there is no evidence – you look like a loony. 



    • Andre 1.1

      Wow, that vid is really making the rounds of convergence moonbats, second-option bias fantasists, and Repugs. Already been inflicted on today’s Open Mike.

      • adam 1.1.1

        Your conspiracy theory devotion keeps rolling on I see Andre.

        You really are in wingnut terrority.  

    • Anne 1.2

      That's your interpretation Adam.

      The big deal for me is: Meuller said it loud and clear:

      He did not exonerate Donald Trump in his report.

      Another nail in the coffin, which will inevitably lead to his ultimate impeachment or prosecution. In the second case it has to wait until he is no longer president.

      Mind you, when the crunch does come, we can expect the madman to start a major war by way of a side-show.

      • adam 1.2.1

        What impeachment, where is that coming from? There is nothing solid to impeach him on. 

        Bloody hell, Anne.

        trump is a nightmare, and clinging to fantasies and conspiracy theories helps no one. This is a guy totally out of control and these fantasies and conspiracy theories just help him and his base. 

        If we talked about the concentration camps he has expanded,  the stealing of children, the corruption and the kiddy f*&^%$s that are his friends. Then we take down the scum bag. 

        • McFlock 1.2.1.1

          If we talked about the concentration camps he has expanded,  the stealing of children, the corruption and the kiddy f*&^%$s that are his friends. Then we take down the scum bag. 

          How? How, specifically, do the people "take down" POTUS?

          Because I only know of impeachment, him losing the election/term limits, or the constitutional amendment relating to incapacity.

          The trouble is that the actual impeachment trial will be in the repug-majority senate, so those fuckers won't convict. But the impeachment investigation by Congress will bring a lot of details into the sunlight. Which might help with the state and federal investigations after dolt45 is out of office. Because not even the camps will shock or embarrass his legion of deplorables into voting for anyone else.

          • adam 1.2.1.1.1

            What trial? FFS there will be no trial – stop the  fantasies, it's no different from the whole FEMA camp crap that came from the right. 

            Fight him in a election which is next year, with a candidate that can win.  Fight him in the real world over real issue, rather than this fantasy B.S. 

            • McFlock 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Focus, Adam. I went through the three ways a US president can be legally removed from office.

              So apparently your method to "take down" dolt45 is to win the next election.

              OK, let's look at that: no impeachment investigation in congress, dolt45 claims exoneration and there's the end of it. If there is an impeachment investigation, the public sees everything from his tax returns to yes, even Russia. Which helps his opponent in 2020.

              Yes, the Dems should elect their best candidate. But everything matters, not just whatever you're interested in.

              • Sam

                I do not believe that would work because Trump is utizing zero percent or even negative percent interest rates. Exposing the American public to Trumps mastery over filling out paper work would likely improve his electoral position.

                • McFlock

                  So you want him to release his tax returns, too, then?

                  • Sam

                    I don't think Trump will release his taxes. There's nothing that could possibly compel him to do so. And even if he did it wouldn't be damaging to his reelection campaign for the reason I believe above. Trump could slaughter some kittens, burry them while they're still breathing, live streamed on Twitter and he still may very well get reelected. And I still don't think he was the most evil candidate.

                    • McFlock

                      If it would likely improve his electoral position, why wouldn't he release them?

                    • Sam

                      For the theatre of course. You're talking about Trump. Lmao. If he had of followed the morally virtuoso and acceptable way other presidents got elected we'd have a different president right now. LMFAO. Say what you will about Trump but the macro indicators say the U.S economy is doing good. My only concern was how serious Trump was around lifting wages and now there's a $15p/h minimum wage bill on the federal docket. Y'know the dems got beat.

                    • McFlock

                      Well, we could argue about the macro indicators but you will neither present nor accept actual evidence, so whatevs. He's not improving his electoral position because "theatre".

                    • Sam

                      So are you assuming Trumps defeat is eminent? Any minute now? Secound? Milli secound? Micro secound? 

                    • McFlock

                      Dolt45 has a number of opportunities for defeat, as do the dems.

                      Initially, the courts can determine that he has to release his NY tax returns to congress, in accordance to congressional will and New York state legislation. That would defeat his "theatre".

                      Disclosures about dolt45 could occur in the current Epstein case. We know they partied together. what else did they get up to?

                      Congress could launch an impeachment investigation that goes through his entire financial history, starting with the Stormy Daniels payment and what he might or might not have known about it.

                      Any number of things could happen.

                      And on the dem side, they might nominate a grey nothing who runs a solid campaign but has no depth of character or popular connection with the people.

                    • Sam

                      IDK. Epstien hurts Clinton way more. Y'know the economy is going good and the radical leftists keep trying to tell people how they should feel about the economy and Trump. Sorry my dude, the democratics are just not going to fire with these poor excuses for neoliberalism, austerity and globalization. Y'know if the American public are going to get fucked up the ass then they're going to take the elites down with them. It's just that simple. #Trump #Brexit 

                    • McFlock

                      Last I heard Clinton ain't running.  lol

          • Sam 1.2.1.1.2

            When the DNC stole Sanders Presidential nomination all notions of beating Trump in a fair straight up electoral victory vanished. Believe it or not Trump was not the most evil Presedintial Candidate.

      • Sam 1.2.2

        Its amazing Anne, you don't have to be woke all the time because there is absolutely no reason to impeach a president for some low level business deal to have a hotel built. Y'know you're meant to impeach of the democratic process is subverted and everyone comes out to protest. The report was to investigate collusion with Russia, that was a total lie made up by Clinton herself. Literally Trumo is innocent of a smear campaign. The FBI CIA and DoJ have all been committing treason against the president of the United States with total impunity which just shows how powerful the deepstae really is.

        • Gabby 1.2.2.1

          Wakey wokey Samby womby, Chumpie's been takin all the help he can get from wherever, he's about as innocent as you. Where the fuck's JasonEvil these days?

          • Sam 1.2.2.1.1

            Youre really laying it on thick for the woke today aren't you my lovely. LMFAO

        • adam 1.2.2.2

          Sheesh Sam your conspiracy theory claptrap, is not much different than the whole russia gate conspiracy theory claptrap. 

        • Anne 1.2.2.3

          What the hell is this dammed "woke" you love to use. Get off whatever planet you currently inhabit and come back to Earth. The flowers have a nice smell. Other than that, all I can say is:

          Anyone who thinks Trump is innocent and Clinton dreamed up the saga (all on her little lonesome) re-Trump's connection to the Russian interference is stark raving bonkers. 

          And btw, the deep state garbage is a figment of the impaired imagination of all you stark raving bonkers types.

          • Sam 1.2.2.3.1

            Why are you bullying me? What did I do to deserve such scorn. You broke my heart. 

          • McFlock 1.2.2.3.2

            He's dick-signalling to his fellow trumpeters. "Woke" is a darn pc-liberal term for people who are aware that their actions and words can unintentionally alienate or upset other people.

            As used in this police documentary.

            • Sam 1.2.2.3.2.1

              Being "woke" is some one with a concern for themselves, their family and the community they live in. It's just an awareness. But being woke de woke de or people who falsey claim skills and talent have the opposite of self awareness.

              • McFlock

                people who falsey claim skills and talent have the opposite of self awareness.

                You have clearly demonstrated the concept of the Dunning–Kruger effect, thankyou.

                • Sam

                  Nope. It's either virtue signalling or a behavioural disorder. Which is it?

                  • Rapunzel

                    It's immature and a mistaken way to divert an argument or debate, "woke" will have short shelf-life – run it by someone experienced with words and they will say its a fad. It is an embarrassment hearing supposedly experienced broadcasters use it so frequently now, anyone who does shows little imagination.

                    • Sam

                      Broadcasters!!! LMFAO!!!

                      In find it absolutely hilarious that broadcasters would be saying what I was saying years ago. I mean who was that down graded Mainstream Media into Commercial Media with the rest of the scummy middle managers anyway? It's a fucking mystery not even the Scooby Doo squad could crack 😂😜😹😁😋🖕🏾😌 

                    • marty mars

                      lol sam yeah and you invented toasted muffins too eh sam

                    • Sam

                      On a more serious note I think the Scooby Doo squad could crack the secrets of the Craby Patty.

                  • McFlock:  "You have clearly demonstrated the concept of the Dunning–Kruger effect…"

                    Sam: "Nope. It's either virtue signalling or a behavioural disorder. Which is it?"

                    Oh, it's very, very clearly a behavioural disorder.  Seriously.  

          • xanthe 1.2.2.3.3

            "Anyone who thinks Trump is innocent and Clinton dreamed up the saga (all on her little lonesome) re-Trump's connection to the Russian interference is stark raving bonkers. "

            actually Anne thats what i do think re russian interference , but clinton probably didnt think it all up by herself

            and I am not bonkers, for all his faults Sam is right here ! !!, russiagate will hand the 2020 election to Trump if the dems cant let it go.

            • Macro 1.2.2.3.3.1

               russiagate will hand the 2020 election to Trump if the dems cant let it go.

              Russia will hand the 2020 election to Trump again because the Repugs  continue to make it so.

              Following Robert Mueller's testimony and warnings about Russia's continued attempts to interfere in U.S. elections, Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure. Democrats attempted to pass two bills by unanimous consent on Wednesday that would require campaigns to notify the FBI and the FEC if they receive offers of assistance from foreign governments. The other bill would let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for the personal devices and accounts of lawmakers and their staff. Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith blocked all three of the bills without giving any reason for her objections or indicating whether she blocked the bills on behalf of herself or the GOP caucus. Mueller testified yesterday that "The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious" and that "it wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign."

              https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony

              • xanthe

                What a shameless piece of point scoring headline seeking political theater . and a pointless bit of ill thought out legislation that would have been .

                watch the video! see what the democratic congressman was actually asking congress to do! 

                Do you have no consideration for process or transparency?

                it’s just sad!

                • Macro

                  So I gather you are a closet repugnant then. Quite happy for foreign governments and individuals to mess in other countries elections, if it is to your advantage. Figures.

                  • xanthe

                    you dont "gather" anything you just spew crap, YOU HELPED PUT TRUMP IN AS POTUS .. and YOU will keep him there in 2020.  and YOU will continue to blame everyone but YOURSELF. 

                    the rest of us care about the truth .

                    The truth is both the US and USSR interfere in other countries elections this is just business as usual.

                    The most alarming thing is that for that piece of political grandstanding to work requires a complicit media. The congressman would not have pulled that stunt unless he was confident that it would be misrepresented.   He needs dickheads like yourself to make that work…  and you do..  and we all lose

                    I assume you did not witch the video to see what this was actually about!

                    • joe90

                      this is just business as usual.

                      But elected Russian representatives don't aid and abet the opposition.by blocking election security legislation.

                      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell squashed two bills intended to ensure voting security on Thursday, just one day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned that Russians were attempting to sabotage the 2020 presidential elections "as we sit here."

                      McConnell said he wouldn't allow a vote on the bills because they were "so partisan," but, as previously reported, earlier this year McConnell received a slew of donations from four of the top voting machine lobbyists in the country.

                      "Clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law. Clearly something so partisan that it only received one single solitary Republican vote in the House is not going to travel through the Senate by unanimous consent," said McConnell on the Senate floor.'

                      https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-robert-mueller-election-security-russia-1451361

  2. A 2

    We have bigger problems to worry about than the US freakshow   #ihumatao

  3. joe90 3

    The UK's newly minted Foreign Secretary is an idiot.

    James O'Brien Takes Apart Dominic Raab's Comments One-By-One.

  4. joe90 4

    People power.

  5. CHCoff 5

    The media does not have it, but hopefully there are enough NZ entrepreneurial business operators who do, in the ‘added value’ collective approach for the strongest prosperity, dynanism and sustainability for their NZ place in the world.

    https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/why-gdp-is-no-longer-the-most-effective-measure-of-economic-success

  6. alwyn 6

    Well, so much for the claims that Labour, and their idiot Health Minister "Dr" Clark were going to improve the system.

    At least with National if you were promised an operation it happened. Now look at how it works. Cancelled no less than 5 times for an operation that had her on the waiting list a year ago.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/114502426/invercargill-womans-hip-replacement-surgery-cancelled-for-fifth-time

    Well, I suppose we can only ask what we should expect? We have a PM whose main interest seems to be to coerce Businesses who sponsor netball into coughing up more money so that the PM can get her photo shown on TV next to the Silver Ferns. How much of her own money did the PM toss in?

    • Incognito 6.1

      At least with National if you were promised an operation it happened.

      Why are you spreading misinformation? The stats for operations under National were abysmal.

      • alwyn 6.1.1

        Do you have any evidence for your claim of "abysmal"?

        What were the stat"s for 2017, under National, as compared to 2019, under the CoL?

        • Incognito 6.1.1.1

          Moving the goal posts?

          You said:

          At least with National if you were promised an operation it happened.

          This is absolutely incorrect and you know it. But to show that you are willingly and knowingly spreading misinformation, here’s one quick example:

          The number of patients getting elective surgery has steadily increased over the past decade – especially after it was made a national health target in 2007. Since National came to power in 2008, the number of operations has lifted from 118,000 to 162,000 a year.

          However, data released under the Official Information Act shows the proportion of patients on waiting lists who were leaving hospital untreated was also rising over the same period. As many as 30 per cent on waiting lists in some regions had their operation delayed or cancelled.

          At Auckland District Health Board, there was a waiting list of 27,200 people for elective surgery last year. Of that number, 4558 patients – nearly 20 per cent – were admitted but left hospital without treatment. Last year up to November, 3822 patients out of 22,346 left untreated.

          https://www.insurenz.co.nz/elective-surgery-patients-miss-out-on-treatment/

          • alwyn 6.1.1.1.1

            Did you see this bit of that article you linked to?

            "The Ministry of Health said the figures did not necessarily reflect a health system under pressure. Many patients had their operations postponed because they were unfit for surgery.

            “All it means is that the patient is not clinically appropriate for surgery or personally ready for surgery at that particular time,” a ministry spokesperson said."

            They aren't going to go ahead with an operation if you are likely to die on the operating table.  Unfortunately, with so many of these operations being required by the elderly there is quite a good chance that you may be in that situation.

            They won't go ahead if you aren't going to get any benefit from the Op, or are going to die during it. Is that unreasonable?

            Under the Clark Government they were quite happy to put everyone on the waiting list. Unfortunately it didn't mean anything. In order to keep up the lie that no-one was on the waiting list for more than 6 months they would simply remove you from the waiting list and send you back to your GP at the end of the 6 months. Then you started over again.

            Under National, in general, if you got on the waiting list you got the Op. If you weren't going to get it they didn't put you on the list. At least you knew the truth and you could consider going private. Sure, not every Op goes ahead. Would you really want to be one of those of whom it was said "The operation was successful but the patient died"?

            • Incognito 6.1.1.1.1.1

              You said:

              At least with National if you were promised an operation it happened.

              This is evidently inaccurate and incorrect, which is disappointing from somebody who prides himself on the accuracy of his comments notwithstanding his tendency for unsubstantiated and biased rants.

              Now you are backtracking with:

              Under National, in general, if you got on the waiting list you got the Op. [my bold]

              Of course, patients were not operated on for medical reasons. The Ministry’s response was that many (not all) patients were unfit for surgery at the time. This happens all the time. Please do not insult my intelligence by appealing to being ‘reasonable’; you willingly and knowingly spread a falsehood.

              Did you read the last three sentences of the piece I linked to? Remember, this applied to when National was in charge with Dr Coleman the Minister of Health. As I said, that link came from a very quick search but I can’t be bothered to do anymore to show that you are demonstrably wrong and frankly I shouldn’t have to. However, you have the temerity to ask others for evidence to back up their claims; the best defense is good offense.

              A New Zealand Medical Journal article published in November showed 36 per cent of people in two DHBs who were considered good candidates for hip or knee operations did not receive surgery.

              These patients at Whangarei Base Hospital and Hawkes Bay Regional Hospital met the clinical threshold for treatment but not the financial threshold.

              Dr Coleman said patients who did not make waiting lists continued to be monitored by their GPs.

              • alwyn

                I won't repeat your final quote but it does not say that they were promised operations. An operation may have been considered to be desirable but that is a different matter. Indeed, when I read the last sentence, I would say that they did not get on the waiting list. It was getting on the waiting list that was the promise of an operation under National.

                With the previous Labour Government being on the waiting list meant absolutely nothing as at the end of 6 months they would simply drop you if no operation had taken place.

                The piece I linked to has two parts on the reason why operations did not take place. The second sentence explains what they were "All it means is that the patient is not clinically appropriate for surgery or personally ready for surgery at that particular time". That the patient was not clinically appropriate for surgery is the first part. They were the ones, the "many" in your wording who were unfit for surgery. The others who did not get operated on were covered by the second part of that sentence. They were the group who were "not ….. personally ready for surgery at that particular time". In other words they chose not to have the surgery at the time it was offered.

                I know of people who were in the position. Indeed I visited one today. She has a grandson getting married and she does not want to have the operation in the immediate future, which has been planned, because she would rather go to his wedding with a walking stick before the operation than on crutches immediately after it.

                I'm afraid that if that is your evidence against National it fails the test. I hardly think that you would insist that the operation schedule should proceed by operating on people who wish to delay it for some reason. You seem to be complaining that it was a failure on the part of the then Government and evidence of their lying to people if they allowed a delay at the behest of a prospective patient. Now really…

                • McFlock

                  "The Ministry of Health said the figures did not necessarily reflect a health system under pressure. Many patients had their operations postponed because they were unfit for surgery.

                  “All it means is that the patient is not clinically appropriate for surgery or personally ready for surgery at that particular time,” a ministry spokesperson said."

                  cf:

                  The piece I linked to has two parts on the reason why operations did not take place. The second sentence explains what they were "All it means is that the patient is not clinically appropriate for surgery or personally ready for surgery at that particular time". That the patient was not clinically appropriate for surgery is the first part. They were the ones, the "many" in your wording who were unfit for surgery. The others who did not get operated on were covered by the second part of that sentence.

                  "Unfit for surgery" means "not clinically appropriate for surgery or personally ready for surgery". "Unfit" does not just mean "not clinically appropriate".

                  So that's the most prominent bit of dissembling in your comment after a cursory read of the entire thing (just to see if you were arguing in good faith for once in your existence).

                • Incognito

                  You seem to be complaining that it was a failure on the part of the then Government and evidence of their lying to people if they allowed a delay at the behest of a prospective patient. Now really…

                  You are disingenuous and you fail McFlock’s test for arguing in good faith. I wasn’t complaining about the National Government of the day lying. I was pointing out that you were lying. Similarly, I didn’t fail any test, as I didn’t have to pass any. On the other hand, you didn’t even take the test, which is an automatic fail.

                  It wasn’t about the previous National Government, the Clark Government before that, or the current one and you know that. It was about you spreading falsehoods here all along.

                  Under National, the waiting lists were long, DHBs were under-resourced, and they still are today, and this led to all sorts of problems ranging from the issues in Middlemore Hospital, for example, to shortages of beds and critical staffing numbers. These were among reasons why people’s surgeries didn’t proceed even after they were admitted to hospital and when there were no medical reasons for cancellation. To say that people could consider private insurance under National shows that you either have been living on a different planet or you have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re spinning a narrative that suits you; this would fit well with your biased anti-Coalition Government rants. The people who relied on the public health system couldn’t afford private insurance so that was never an option.

                  Anyway, just to humour you, here’s another link about critical life-saving surgery: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/335839/surgery-delays-i-was-prepped-three-times-and-bumped

                  A man whose open heart surgery at Dunedin Hospital was delayed three times says he waited a month, and others six weeks, because of the number of traffic accidents the intensive care unit had to deal with.

                  At least three other patients have missed out on life-saving surgery, family members have said, because of a shortage of intensive care beds at the hospital.

                  Merv Telfer's heart bypass surgery had been postponed seven times, his family said, after it was first scheduled in May.

                  DHB chief executive Chris Fleming said the number of intensive care beds had increased from six to eight, and the hospital was set to have two more by August 2018.

                  He said plans to redevelop the hospital were under way but admitted there were still not enough beds.

                  There’s a lot more in that article and another one linked in it, but you’ll get the gist of it or, in your case, maybe not.

    • Stuart Munro. 6.2

      Urology ops in Dunedin were down to one day a month. Not enough acute beds. A car accident sometimes stopped even that. But the wretched, venal, incompetent, Gnats proclaimed that it wasn't a problem. They have no friends, and no credibility in Dunedin.

      • alwyn 6.2.1

        Evidence please? It is easy to claim things but some proof would be nice. After all, aren't the residents of Dunedin happy that National were providing them with a new Hospital, even if the CoL seem to be stuffing up the planned development?

    • marty mars 6.3

      engage rant mode – "Well, I suppose we can only ask what we should expect? We have a PM whose main interest seems to be to coerce Businesses who sponsor netball into coughing up more money so that the PM can get her photo shown on TV next to the Silver Ferns. How much of her own money did the PM toss in?" – disengage rant mode. disengage. Disengage damn you. Help, DISENGAGE!!! Arrrgggggwwwwhhhhhhhoooooooooooooo…

      • alwyn 6.3.1

        Oh dear.

        Will someone please get this poor fellow some help. He has been trying for the last 18 months to try and persuade himself that the current lot in the CoL are actually capable of doing something useful and now the obvious difference between reality and what he has been claiming has caused his poor little brain to explode.

        • Stuart Munro. 6.3.1.1

          The Coalition are doing something useful – keeping the thieving Gnats out. Even Twyford's relatively meagre result on housing represents a massive improvement on those thieving bastards, who were selling off housing corp stock as fast as they could manage.

  7. tc 7

    The level of gnat and trump apologists is bringing it down to knuckle dragging territory.

    job done tr@lls.

    • Incognito 7.1

      Have you read the policy /policy/?

      Similarly if you act like a machine (ie a troll) you will be treated as one – a form of spambot. A troll is generally defined on this site as someone who clearly isn’t bothering to engage their brain when commenting. The standard is that the troll could be replaced with a dictionary of lines and phrases, and no-one would know the difference. Typically trolls do not interact with other commentators as they either ignore what others say in reply or write a reply that ignores what they said. In either case it is ignorant, anti-social, annoying to read, and will often result in a banning so that others don’t have to read the comments of someone living with their sense organs turned off.

Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago