New ambassador will represent Trump well.

58 comments on “New ambassador will represent Trump well. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gosman 1

   21 April 2017 at 8:59 am

   He seems very moderate on a number of issues including Abortion and Gay marriage. He could have been a nomination from a Democratic President.
   • DoublePlusGood 1.1

     21 April 2017 at 2:38 pm

     The Democrats also lack the standards of decency that New Zealand prides itself on.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       22 April 2017 at 1:17 pm

       The entire US lacks those standards. If we limited trade to countries that maintained standards that we expect of ourselves we wouldn’t trade with the US.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.2

     22 April 2017 at 2:16 pm

     If you support all that is right, except you also support torture, then you are a piece of utter, contemptible trash, not fit for decent company – and shouldn’t be permitted across the NZ border.

     IMHO
2. Wayne 2

   21 April 2017 at 9:30 am

   You have had this item a few weeks ago when his nomination was first mooted. The item back then was also about as ignorant as this one.

   US senators are considered pretty good catches for Ambassadors. The fact that New Zealand will get him actually is a recognition of the overall good quality of the NZ/US relationship.

   The totality of Brown’s record is actually quite impressive.
   • Gosman 2.1

     21 April 2017 at 9:33 am

     Agree Wayne. This seems to be more a case of people on the left refusing to accept any actions from the Trump administration at all. In a sense it is similar to how some on the far right treated Obama. It really makes ugly politics.
     • lprent 2.1.1

       21 April 2017 at 10:19 am

       In a sense it is similar to how some on the far right treated Obama.

       To me, it seems quite pointless to treat people with respect when that is not reciprocated. That is what causes “ugly politics”. Rein in the arseholes in on the right permanently for a few decades, and then talk to me about shifting the balance. As far as I am concerned, this is the world that hypocrites like you invented with implicit condoning of some of the tactics the right has been using over the last couple of decades..

       Just look at our local political scene,

       I have seen most of the local right, including many of their leadership using misogyny as a political tool against the last Labour government.

       On starting this site up, we got regularly attacked by hordes of right wing trolls.

       There have been attempts by their operatives like Cameron Slater to pay to crack into my computers. Along with concerted and coordinated campaigns to smear political enemies from most right sites from kiwiblog to LF.

       When people like Hager release material critical of such practices, they wind up with unwarranted and unlawful search and seizures – apparently for political reasons.

       Despite all that, we on the left are expected by idiots like you to play nice? You really are fucking naive. If you are daft enough to implicitly condone and support these kinds of actions, kindly live with the consequences without whining about it.
       • esoteric pineapples 2.1.1.1

         21 April 2017 at 10:42 am

         I’ve noticed that right wing commentators and trolls rarely present a solid counter argument. Instead they try to water down and therefore weaken the argument put forward by Left commentators. As an example, if someone from the left points out some sort of extraordinary behaviour by Trump, they will say “Well, Obama did this”, pointing some very moderate action by Obama in comparison as if that justifies Trump, or makes Obama just as bad.

         I think the foundation of this is the fact that the Right rarely has a solid logical argument for its actions because its motivation is based on self-interest, rather than the common good. Why doesn’t National do anything about polluted rivers, housing, public transport etc? Not because it is driven by a counter argument that it believes will work better, but because it is doing what serves the interest of those who support it.

         I would concede that some National MPs may believe that helping their cronies will make everyone better off, but don’t expect them to do anything that doesn’t help their friends because it might be better for the country.
         • Gosman 2.1.1.1.1

           21 April 2017 at 12:21 pm

           That seems to have been LPrent’s entire justification for attacking this nomination. The right did it so he will too.
           • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.1

             21 April 2017 at 3:41 pm

             Nope. Read the post. So far I haven’t seen anything that indicates this fuckwit is any better than his boss.

             Be a dickhead elsewhere.
         • Gosman 2.1.1.1.2

           21 April 2017 at 12:23 pm

           Your understanding of the right is severely limited.
       • adam 2.1.1.2

         21 April 2017 at 11:20 am

         Hear, hear.
       • Red 2.1.1.3

         21 April 2017 at 1:51 pm

         Slightly paranoid response I suggest Right Left no better, no worse, don’t like politics stay out of it as most sane people do, barring voting once ever three years and tend to be able to filter the crap, Its only tragics on left and right that really get carried away or overly upset and are so easy to wind up by so called trolls depending on what side of the arguement you are on
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.4

         22 April 2017 at 1:18 pm

         Despite all that, we on the left are expected by idiots like you to play nice? You really are fucking naive. If you are daft enough to implicitly condone and support these kinds of actions, kindly live with the consequences without whining about it.

         QFT
     • Brendon 2.1.2

       21 April 2017 at 3:03 pm

       Why should I give respect for someone who believes torturing another human being is a reasonable thing to do? You fuckwits on the right are always talking about personal responsibility -why don’t you demonstrate some?
   • lprent 2.2

     21 April 2017 at 11:12 am

     The fact that New Zealand will get him actually is a recognition of the overall good quality of the NZ/US relationship.

     As it stands right now, I’d prefer to have less of a relationship with the US.

     A much less crazy G W Bush got the US into a obviously completely unnecessary war i Iraq, and their local flunkies attempted to drag us into what was a rather large war crime.

     Their last president attempted to use what started as a perfectly rational trade agreement as a way to impose a strange and largely unaccountable legal system that only favoured capital investors, and effectively removed local controls on them, upon us. I’m all for freer international trade. But I certainly don’t want to constrain into a straitjacket for local communities. Nor do I see a need that investors may offload all risk on to the taxpayers of those communities.

     And those presidents looked rational. This one looks like a ignorant nutbar with absolutely no understanding of governing. Why would we want to get entangled with that?
     • garibaldi 2.2.1

       21 April 2017 at 4:59 pm

       Sock it to them lprent . Good on you.
   • Matthew Whitehead 2.3

     21 April 2017 at 11:27 am

     If this is what being friends with the US earns us, maybe we should reconsider friendly relations with them. *eyeroll*
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4

     21 April 2017 at 2:00 pm

     Yes, it’s such a shame how supporting torture can cast a shadow over one’s entire reputation. So unfair!
3. stunned mullet 3

   21 April 2017 at 9:37 am

   He certainly doesn’t appear to be as one dimensional as the author suggests.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brown_(politician)#Political_positions
   • joe90 3.1

     21 April 2017 at 12:26 pm

     Yeah nah, the Phony from New Hampshire is a gumboot Republican.

     http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Scott_Brown.htm
     • Gosman 3.1.1

       21 April 2017 at 12:31 pm

       The second link just highlights he is a Republican. Well Duh.
       • joe90 3.1.1.1

         21 April 2017 at 12:44 pm

         One dimensional, even…
         • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1

           21 April 2017 at 12:56 pm

           Not really. He seems to be willing to look at the issues and not dismissing them out of hand.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.2

     22 April 2017 at 2:20 pm

     If “support torture” is a dimension, you don’t need to know about any other ones….
   • Draco T Bastard 3.3

     22 April 2017 at 2:36 pm

     Yep, he’s a multi-dimensional arsehole.

     Still a bloody arsehole though.
4. adam 4

   21 April 2017 at 11:24 am

   But do we need another racist, sexist diplomat in NZ?

   http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/scott_brown_attacks_elizabeth.html

   Personally I’m sick of these people, people who think it OK to be nasty as the possible be. Then when they get a bit of push back, go cry foul!
   • Gosman 4.1

     21 April 2017 at 12:27 pm

     Warren herself raised the matter of her Native American heritage during her campaign. This opens it up for a counterattack along the lines of what happened(i.e. questioning why she was using a potentially tenuous heritage link). I don’t see where sexism comes in to it.
     • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1

       21 April 2017 at 12:35 pm

       Well, he did challenge that Warren was qualified for her former position at Harvard without any good justification, and he had sexual harassment allegations made against him by a fellow conservative over at fox news, so that seems like pretty good grounds for accusations of sexism to me.

       I will agree that Warren mentioning that she’s one sixteenth native american was a bit weird. She could merely have said that she had native american ancestors and she was proud of that and honoured their culture- that would have been much more reasonable, so I don’t think it’s out of bounds to mock the comment, you just have to do so in a way that doesn’t get too close to racism. Scott Brown didn’t really manage that. So even though I arguably agree with you that Warren’s inartful comments opened that door, it didn’t really excuse him damaging the doorframe (framing ethnicity as an issue of blood quantums rather than perception, culture, and heritage) as he barged through, either. 😉
       • Gosman 4.1.1.1

         21 April 2017 at 12:43 pm

         So an accusation is evidence of sexism?
         • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1

           21 April 2017 at 1:34 pm

           That’s how it works in court, fool: witnesses give evidence, which a jury can attach any degree of signifcance to.
           • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1.1

             21 April 2017 at 1:56 pm

             lol
         • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.1.2

           22 April 2017 at 1:13 pm

           Mate if you were looking at hiring someone with an accusation of sexual harrassment on their bio you would be asking serious questions about whether it was appropriate to employ them for a prestigious job. I’m not saying the accusation disqualifies him or counts the same as an actual conviction, I am saying it raises doubts that he knows how to interact appropriately with women in a professional context, something which is pretty critical for an ambassador.

           These were just off the top of my head, too. I’m sure there’s other problems with him if we go and look through his entire record.
     • joe90 4.1.2

       21 April 2017 at 2:33 pm

       questioning why she was using a potentially tenuous heritage link

       Brown questioned Warren’s character because to his eye, she wasn’t brown enough to be who she said she was.

       , I think character is important. … Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color. And as you can see, she’s not.

       https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/noprimarytagmatch/2012/09/20/in-crucial-first-debate-scott-brown-challenges-warrens-native-american-heritage-claim
       • marty mars 4.1.2.1

         22 April 2017 at 2:21 pm

         Yep brown is thick and a bigot – perfect donny the dumptruck material – I doubt brown will last the distance over here – probably go back early imo with “issues”.
5. Skeptic 5

   21 April 2017 at 2:21 pm

   There are certain RWNJ trolls who regularly infect this site. It’s been said by others frequently

   Don’t feed the trolls.

   Please people – take heed- Leave Gosman, Adam & Wayne and others of their ilk to their own devices – hell they can start heir own site if they want to – but here in this site I suggest we do like has been advised on many occasions

   Send them to electronic Coventry. Don’t answer them.
   • adam 5.1

     21 April 2017 at 4:21 pm

     “What seems to be one of the disasters of our time is that we all appear to agree that the nation-state is the norm… Whether the state be Marxist or capitalist, it makes no difference. The dominant ideology is that of sovereignty.”
     ― Jacques Ellul. Anarchy and Christianity

     Your so funny Skeptic, and a ideological dingbat.
     • Doogs 5.1.1

       22 April 2017 at 9:21 am

       That piece from Jacques Ellul is nothing short of pseudo-intellectual bollocks. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

       I think I might listen more to someone who gets their grammar right. ‘you’re’ short for ‘you are’ ffs
       • adam 5.1.1.1

         22 April 2017 at 1:58 pm

         Woohoom a grimmer Nancy (note: a play on words, because god help me from you doing a literal interpretation)

         I could have said “One’s so funny Skeptic”. Or it could be a possessive, that would work too.
6. Brendon 6

   21 April 2017 at 3:07 pm

   Why does this site not eject the trolls completely?
   • lprent 6.1

     21 April 2017 at 3:52 pm

     Ignoring something is not the same as being able to handle them. If you don’t listen to people on the net, then you wind up in a echo chamber that is not useful.

     We eject the people who violate our rules.
     • Brendon Harre 6.1.1

       21 April 2017 at 7:49 pm

       Lprent it is your site your call. I was just expressing my frustration that in general, not so much in this comment stream, trolls frequently ruin a good debate.
       • Pete George 6.1.1.1

         21 April 2017 at 9:00 pm

         A debate is when people disagree and argue their points, not shut out anything they don’t like.

         What’s closer to trolling, adding different opinions, or trying to shut out anything you disagree with?
         • Doogs 6.1.1.1.1

           22 April 2017 at 9:24 am

           Trolls, Mr George, are those who mistake vindictive jibes for reasoned argument. Recognise anything here?
           • Pete George 6.1.1.1.1.1

             22 April 2017 at 9:33 am

             Yes, I recognise quite a lot of mistaking things here. But that’s an odd and narrow way to describe trolls.
             • Doogs …

               22 April 2017 at 10:35 am

               Not really – specific and all-encompassing I would have thought.
7. Wayne 7

   21 April 2017 at 3:49 pm

   Brendon,

   I don’t think I can be fairly described as a troll. I do actually think about my contributions and don’t just trot out mantras.

   Now of course if The Standard only wants comments from the left, it can choose to do so. All it has to do is ban anyone who expresses any view other than left wing orthodoxy, and the variations thereof. Then you you will have a comfortable echo chamber all to yourselves.
   • lprent 7.1

     21 April 2017 at 4:04 pm

     Nope. The policy calls for robust debate.

     That means that Brendon gets to listen to you.

     I think that he has a low limit for disagreement.
   • adam 7.2

     21 April 2017 at 4:30 pm

     I like your comments Wayne, don’t agree with them very much. But I like them.

     I think your chance of getting banned Wayne are pretty low. Muppets who sit in echo chambers and moan, probably a bit higher.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3

     21 April 2017 at 5:25 pm

     After Hit & Run, you need your friends on the Left even more.
   • Brendon Harre 7.4

     21 April 2017 at 7:40 pm

     Wayne I do not have an issue with you. Even if I disagree with you. It is more the serial derailers who maliciously do not address the topic.
     • Gosman 7.4.1

       22 April 2017 at 9:12 am

       Who is not addressing the topic?
       • weka 7.4.1.1

         22 April 2017 at 1:40 pm

         says the serial troller who trolls on topic.
         • adam 7.4.1.1.1

           22 April 2017 at 2:10 pm

           “BURN!”

           Thanks for the good giggle weka.
           • Pete George 7.4.1.1.1.1

             22 April 2017 at 2:26 pm

             Yes, the ambiguity was a bit of a laugh.
         • Gosman 7.4.1.1.2

           22 April 2017 at 3:13 pm

           I think the only people here who have deviated from the topic are the ones bemoaning comments pointing out the new ambassador is not too bad.
   • Anne 7.5

     21 April 2017 at 8:23 pm

     Most people here respect you Wayne even if sometimes it doesn’t seem like it. We argue with you because you are worth arguing with. And that’s meant to be a compliment. I think. 😕
8. mosa 8

   21 April 2017 at 11:26 pm

   The fact that Scott Brown has been involved with the Fox news network and its alleged culture of sexual harassment with a lawsuit pending should have rung alarm bells about his suitability for the role of ambassador.

   The fact that he has in the past supported the use of torture against enemy combatants says a lot about what this guy believes is acceptable.

   By Trumps standard he is the perfect candidate as a foreign ambassador.

   Brown’s appointment in my opinion has got nothing to do with this mythical ” special relationship. ”

   It is a poor choice and we deserve better consideration after all we are at America’s beck and call.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS