Open Mike 11/10/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 11th, 2016 - 86 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

86 comments on “Open Mike 11/10/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Morrissey 1
    11 October 2016 at 7:18 am

    It may interest readers to note that this moral colossus, Harvey Weinstein, is one of the most vicious and brutal denouncers of Kim Dotcom…..

    Harvey Weinstein Urged Clinton Campaign
    to Silence Sanders’s Black Lives Matter Message
    by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept, Oct. 8 2016

    HACKED EMAILS SHOW that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a longtime ally of Hillary Clinton and a major fundraiser for her 2016 campaign, urged her campaign team to silence rival Bernie Sanders’s message against police shootings of African-Americans. He suggested countering it with “the Sandy Hook issue” — a reference to Sanders’s opposition to lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

    The emails were released by the group DCLeaks, which in the past has shared hacked emails from U.S. political and military figures. The U.S. Intelligence Community announced Friday that it is “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails” that were made public “on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.”

    The Weinstein emails were among a large number of messages DCLeaks made public on Thursday, from the gmail account of Capricia Marshall, a close Clinton confidant who worked for her in the White House and the State Department, and worked on her 2008 campaign.

    In an April 10 email sent to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, just days before the New York primary, Weinstein invited Mook to meet up. He pointed to a Sanders ad featuring Erica Garner — the daughter of Eric Garner, who was killed by New York City police officers — as well as growing support for Sanders among Latino activist leaders. “I’m probably telling you what you know already, but that needs to be silenced, probably with the Sandy Hook issue,” he wrote…..

    Read more….
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/harvey-weinstein-urged-clinton-campaign-to-silence-sanderss-black-lives-matter-message/

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/harvey-weinstein-urged-clinton-campaign-to-silence-sanderss-black-lives-matter-message/

    • save nz 1.1
      11 October 2016 at 9:26 am

      +1 Morrissey

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      11 October 2016 at 9:38 am

      The U.S. Intelligence Community announced Friday that it is “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails” that were made public “on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.”

      But is who released them really of more concern than what the emails said?

      And they obviously don’t have proof else they’d provide it so this amounts proclaiming guilt without a trial and in such a way as to influence politics which I’m pretty sure that the intelligence services aren’t supposed to do.

  2. marty mars 2
    11 October 2016 at 7:52 am

    A native woman’s view of trump (before the last debate) –

    “During his presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly referred to Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas.” Apparently, he is so ill informed, as are the vast majority of Americans, that he did not know that the myth of Pocahontas is just that, a myth. Pocahontas was not a grown woman who threw herself on a rock to protect the “noble” John Smith. In fact, she was a twelve-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped, forced into marriage and Christianity, who died well before the age of twenty…

    …As a Native woman, enrolled with the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of Washington, I have been told I was a “squaw,” a “dirty Indian,” and “thin skinned” when I spoke up against racism and sexism. It’s a formula response to accuse people of color of being “too sensitive” or “too PC” when we speak up for ourselves. However, as the racists and bigots who bay at the moon for Trump become more vocal, there are more and more women, particularly those of color, who find themselves being triggered and experiencing greater levels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder simply on the basis of Trump’s terrible words and the rabid support from the “Trumpette’s…”

    http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/star-can-anything-want-ugly-truths-donald-trump/

    This is a voice not often heard – listen.

    • weka 2.1
      11 October 2016 at 9:07 am

      That’s a very good article, thanks. And a kind of antidote to some of the pro-Trump rape apologist lines being run by some ts commenters.

      This stood out for me,

      “The best outcome of Trump’s ugly comments and Billy Bush’s “yuck, yuck, yuck” response would be a national dialogue on the value of people of color, women, and children.”

      One of the more disturbing pro-Trump arguments I have heard, and not just from the apologists but from otherwise compassionate progressive men, is that Trump is a better choice than Clinton because of all the women that will be killed overseas if Clinton becomes president. Thus if one supported women’s rights one would choose Trump. This is juxtaposed against the idea that one shouldn’t vote for Clinton based on gender. And you know, it’s just those privileged white women who would do that anyway. So good then to have space to listen to a non-white, woman’s voice. You are right about them not being often heard.

      • RedLogix 2.1.1
        11 October 2016 at 9:53 am

        Well my horse in the race, Sanders, was nobbled early. I’m left looking on this absolute farce of an election with a sinking heart.

        Roughly 15-20% of voters are going to be firmly in Clinton’s camp. Liberal, left-leaning and deeply aware of exactly the issues you advocate for so very well. For you Trump is irredeemably goddamn awful, and I fully respect why.

        Equally there is another 15-20% of voters firmly in Trump’s camp, who are hearing him articulate what they cannot; that the establishment is no longer just ordinarily corrupt … but as CV forcefully argues … is rapidly heading into terminal decadence.

        And this leaves another 60% or so who are ambivalent, contradictory even. Which to choose? One candidate proposing to extend an already compromised Obamacare program, or another promising to scrap it and start afresh?

        One candidate with a lot of public office baggage, or another with way too little?

        An alpha-male blow-hard making vulgar derogatory sexist comments, or a deeply establishment operator who seem fully intent on a hot confrontation with Russia?

        is that Trump is a better choice than Clinton because of all the women that will be killed overseas if Clinton becomes president.

        Indeed. What if it did come down to a nuclear confrontation? What if the worst happened and she was responsible for the deaths of few billion humans? Is this better or worse than Trump’s ugly trash talk?

        I’m absolutely not defending or apologising for Trump here. First Dog on the Moon skewers the noxious, throwback old windbag beautifully. Along with a frankly lunatic GOP which enabled him.

        We can rail on about how shit it all is; the fact is within a few weeks millions of Americans will have to make a choice … and the best we can do from this distance is have some sympathy for how unpleasant a task this will be for many.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          11 October 2016 at 10:13 am

          I don’t actually care about the voter polls in the US Red. I’m not even really talking about the election itself. I’m talking about the culture of the election, esp in the NZ left. Which is why I appreciated marty’s link to a voice that’s not being heard.

          What if it did come down to a nuclear confrontation? What if the worst happened and she was responsible for the deaths of few billion humans? Is this better or worse than Trump’s ugly trash talk?

          Leaving aside the issue of whether Trump supporters are being incredibly naive to think that Trump won’t be a warmonger, I utterly reject the notion that it’s politically valid or viable to say raping women or cementing in a white supremacy state is better than killing a few billion humans (not suggesting that you are saying that, so much as the that appears to be the general argument). I’m sure you did this for hyperbolic effect, but describing the problem with Trump as his ugly trash talk contributes to that. See, I would describe him as a rapist, active misogynist and active racist. By active, I mean not just that he has done things in the past, but that he wants the world to be like this going forward. And no, for anyone else reading, that doesn’t meant I support Clinton and it’s not an invitation to respond with a whole bunch of Clinton bashing in order to excuse Trump.

          That is the actual problem here. That the debate culture has ended up framing this debate as a false dichotomy and then some are using that to promote some pretty vile politics because it suits their political agenda. I think there are more choices than that, and it’s telling that this is what is happening on ts (haven’t followed the Trump threads recently though tbf). We should be having posts like the one marty just linked to, and the reasons why we are not are a micro reflection of the problem at large.

          Until those unheard voices are heard (and that requires active listening on our part), then we will continue down the path of the hellhole that is US politics. Fortunately in NZ, we are somewhat better at listening, but I would say NZ is better than ts, which is a sad indictment.

          The best we can do is so much better than what we are doing now.

          • RedLogix 2.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2016 at 10:31 am

            That the debate culture has ended up framing this debate as a false dichotomy

            True, but this doesn’t wish the fact of the election away. In a sane world Clinton will almost certainly win it, but this does not come without it’s own consequences.

            Based purely on what was said in yesterday’s debate there is no question Clinton is far more hawkish on a hot military confrontation with the Russians in Syria than Trump. She pretty much stated she would use military assets to attack Assad’s forces. At that awful point all we need is a handful of US Navy ships in the Mediterranean to be sunk by Russian missiles and it’s all on.

            The risk of this cannot be hand-waved off. To my mind Hillary Clinton is as unfit for the office of President as is Donald Trump in his own quite different manner. They isn’t an equivalence, it’s simply a fact.

            Imagine you had to elect a Chair to the local Community Childcare Centre, and it turned out you had a choice between a pedophile and someone who secretly wanted to sell the place to his sister in law? Absolutely not equivalent, but both equally unacceptable in their own way.

            Which to my mind means we need to keep an active conversation about why both are so unacceptable; without always assuming that criticizing one implies an automatic support for the other.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2016 at 10:40 am

              Sorry, but I’m not interested in yesterdays debate, nor in furthering the false dichotomy (and here, again, I’m not talking about Clinton/Trump, I’m talking about the left culture in NZ) that continues to refuse to listen to voices that are directly impacted by what is going on.

              I understand reasonably well what you are arguing (as others have argued). But I’m not willing to glide past the argument I just made around what happens when we say it’s ok to harm these people so long as these other people don’t get harmed. I probably haven’t expressed it very well, will think more on this.

              I agree with your last comment. I can see ways to discuss the complexity of the situation, including people’s fears about what Clinton will do, without it being about promotion of fascism and rape culture. But like I said, that’s not what is happening, and I’m not ok with supporting that.

              • RedLogix …
                11 October 2016 at 10:46 am

                Yes I get what you are saying here and don’t have any quibble with it.

                These are tough conversations for everyone.

                • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster …
                  11 October 2016 at 11:25 am

                  The lesser of two evils – is still an evil!

                  Oh how I wish the yanks would turn en masse to Jill Stein – and give the whole world some hope!

                  • UncookedSelachimorpha …
                    11 October 2016 at 2:56 pm

                    I agree regarding Stein (or Sanders!), and I’m no admirer of HRC…but to paraphrase Chomsky – with the lesser evil – you get less evil. And that seems to be a comparatively good thing.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 October 2016 at 3:16 pm

                      Yep.
                      Sanders was pretty good as a candidate and senator, and under Clinton will hopefully have some sort of role. Silver linings on turd clouds, lol.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1.2
              11 October 2016 at 12:46 pm

              True, but this doesn’t wish the fact of the election away. In a sane world Clinton will almost certainly win it, but this does not come without it’s own consequences.

              In a sane world, in a sane establishment, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would be POTUS.

          • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1.2
            11 October 2016 at 10:44 am

            If I was in the USA I couldn’t vote for either of them, they are despicable people though for different reasons but if you were in the USA would you vote for one of them?

            • Andre 2.1.1.1.2.1
              11 October 2016 at 10:47 am

              Puckish, honest curiosity. What are your objections to Hillary?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                11 October 2016 at 11:06 am

                The Benghazi attack is one of them and the other is, unfortunately a no smoke without fire type of thing.

                If there were one or two allegations of against Bill Clinton then I could dismiss (anyone can allege anything but you need proof)it but like Bill Cosby the sheer amount of allegations is starting to become to many to ignore

                You then throw in the allegations of Hillary hounding the same women and her claims of being a feminist and supporter of women doesn’t stack up

                All politicians lie, they have to so they can get into power but its the little lies Hillary makes that make look at her and go what else are you lying about

                I mean the being under sniper fire in Bosina or claiming to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary and you then find out shes deleted tens of thousands of emails from her personal email server and we’re supposed to believe its ok because she says so

                Clinton represents political business as usual, the establishment, whatever is wrong with the American government it won’t change under Clinton one iota (won’t change under Trump either)

                • Andre …
                  11 October 2016 at 11:26 am

                  Thanks. With the Benghazi thing, what are your thoughts on there having been eight congressional investigations into Benghazi, led by people with investigative and prosecutorial expertise and an interest in putting the worst possible interpretation on any findings, that didn’t come up with anything to really pin on her?

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    11 October 2016 at 11:37 am

                    Well she took responsibility for it so the buck stops with her so maybe not a bad thing but on top of the other issues its just another reason to not vote for her

                    You throw in Whitewater and the issues around the Clinton foundation and while it may not be proven in a court of law it still adds up to someone involved in some shady dealing

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    11 October 2016 at 12:25 pm

                    …eight congressional investigations into Benghazi, led by people with investigative and prosecutorial expertise and an interest in putting the worst possible interpretation on any findings, that didn’t come up with anything…

                    That’s just Benghazi. We’re coming up on a quarter-century of well-funded and very extensive attempts to find dirt on Hillary Clinton that will stick, for a net result of 0. Puckish Rogue files that under “no smoke without fire,” but I file it under “tried and tested,” with a see-also reference to “wow, right-wing Americans really, really hate this woman.” I’d vote for her on that last count alone.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      11 October 2016 at 12:29 pm

                      and that’s fair enough, I’d vote for neither

                    • Andre …
                      11 October 2016 at 12:46 pm

                      “tried and tested” with a see-also reference to “wow, right-wing Americans really, really hate this woman.”

                      Thanks for getting to the heart of it in a tenth the words I’d need.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      11 October 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      For what its worth my objection to her has nothing to do with her gender

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      11 October 2016 at 1:55 pm

                      Sorry, I didn’t intend to imply that. But I think her gender goes a long way to explain why so many American right-wingers hate her so much.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      11 October 2016 at 2:51 pm

                      That’s cool and I think you’re right to a degree.

                    • Siobhan …
                      11 October 2016 at 3:43 pm

                      Re your comment “But I think her gender goes a long way to explain why so many American right-wingers hate her so much”

                      “As a whole, women support Clinton over Trump and Sanders, but 49% of women from across the political spectrum give her an unfavorable rating”- Guardian

                      So, maybe not just a right wing thing.

                      Hence the ability of a sexist orange orangutan to make her work so hard for a fairly average win, and her desperate need for a good number of ‘anyone but Trump’ votes.
                      This may be the first time in American history that someone is voted into the most important position in the country, not on their own ‘merit’, but simply to avoid the horror of their opponent winning.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.2.2
              11 October 2016 at 10:54 am

              It depends on the state one lives in. Some states a vote for Stein isn’t going to increase Trump’s chances for getting in, so in that case I would easily vote Stein. In marginal states, I would vote Clinton. I’m a pragmatic voter and so it’s nothing to do with them being despicable people or not. Nothing.

              Having said that, I haven’t followed close enough, and I might end up voting Stein anyway, because at some point you have to give up on one election in order to make bigger changes and an increase in the Green vote is something that will pay off over time. I don’t know what’s happening to the ex-Sanders voters either. There are more important things going on than this one election.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.2
          11 October 2016 at 11:22 am

          Equally there is another 15-20% of voters firmly in Trump’s camp, who are hearing him articulate what they cannot; that the establishment is no longer just ordinarily corrupt … but as CV forcefully argues … is rapidly heading into terminal decadence.

          Except that I don’t think he is articulating that it’s heading into terminal decadence.

          He’s saying it’s corrupt, and he’ll return the country to its former glory, and he’ll do other things too, like cut taxes for everyone, build a wall and pull out of trade agreements that will hurt their economy far more than it’ll help. The people in small town USA somehow believe that when he is president, their lives will change for the better, when it’s more likely there’ll be no change, or they’ll be worse off.

          If Trump were actually campaigning about getting rid of corruption, and had policies that actually supported that view point and could make a difference, then I’d support him and agree with you.

          But he’s not.

          Sanders came a lot closer of course, but his policies seemed to involve a lot of magical thinking too.

          • Morrissey 2.1.1.2.1
            11 October 2016 at 11:30 am

            “Sanders came a lot closer of course, but his policies seemed to involve a lot of magical thinking too.”

            Could you explain what you mean by that extraordinary allegation. I think you’ve been listening uncritically to right wing opinionistas again, but please go ahead disabuse me of that sinking feeling.

              • Morrissey …
                11 October 2016 at 12:17 pm

                You’ve simply pointed me to three right wing opinion pieces, including one from the notorious, treacherous anti-journalism Washington Post. That’s not an argument, that’s a lazy substitute for argument.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  11 October 2016 at 12:27 pm

                  “that’s a lazy substitute for argument”

                  coming from the guy that just dismissed three links because he doesn’t like the message

                • Lanthanide …
                  11 October 2016 at 1:05 pm

                  The first two are by Paul Krugman. This is what Wikipedia says about Paul Krugman:

                  Krugman describes himself as liberal, and has explained that he views the term “liberal” in the American context to mean “more or less what social democratic means in Europe.”[105] In a 2009 Newsweek article, Evan Thomas described Krugman as having “all the credentials of a ranking member of the East coast liberal establishment” but also as someone who is anti-establishment, a “scourge of the Bush administration”, and a critic of the Obama administration.[123] In 1996, Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh remarked, “Say this for Krugman: though an unabashed liberal … he’s ideologically colorblind. He savages the supply-siders of the Reagan-Bush era with the same glee as he does the ‘strategic traders’ of the Clinton administration.”

                  The Washington Post article has the input of many experts in their fields. Are they all rightwing? I don’t know, I’m not going to bother looking up the credentials of all of them. At least some of them are leftwing people however.

                  One of the key themes in the Washington Post article is that Sanders is trying to apply Scandinavian economics to the US, but the countries are so different culturally and historically that it’s unlikely the plans would work as he expected. Simply saying “it works for them, lets apply it here” isn’t good enough, and that’s basically what Sanders was doing – magical thinking.

                  All of this is further ignoring the point, that even if Sanders had a democratically controlled house and senate (which he wouldn’t), he wouldn’t be able to get all of his changes through anyway.

  3. Puckish Rogue 3
    11 October 2016 at 8:09 am

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/another-labour-spin-doctor-bites-the-dust-2016101015

    “Another Labour Party press secretary has quit the party, the fourth to do so in just three months”

    Is it really such a bad place to work?

    • ianmac 3.1
      11 October 2016 at 9:48 am

      Could be that Andrew has set a very high bar and from here on in, the staff have to be able to handle it. If you are uncertain leave now.
      That seems to be OK to me.
      By the way Puck, the PM has a PR staff of hundreds. How many leave each year? One a week perhaps?

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1
        11 October 2016 at 9:58 am

        Sounds like theres a problem with the hiring going on if they can’t find someone to stay

        “By the way Puck, the PM has a PR staff of hundreds. How many leave each year? One a week perhaps?”

        Evidence please

      • Cinny 3.1.2
        11 October 2016 at 10:00 am

        Was thinking the same Ianmac.

      • Chuck 3.1.3
        12 October 2016 at 8:32 am

        “Could be that Andrew has set a very high bar and from here on in, the staff have to be able to handle it.”

        Sounds like a job for the local union rep to have a wee peek at Mr. Littles workplace practices then.

  4. Cinny 4
    11 October 2016 at 9:29 am

    The outgoing PM is to do a cabinet ‘reshuffle’ before next election. We need a change of government not a ‘reshuffle’.

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-signals-cabinet-reshuffle-new-year-b-195290

    I predict that ‘Nickoff’ will be a gone burger, gone from the Nelson seat would be my ideal. Will be doing my best to make that a reality. 🙂

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      11 October 2016 at 9:44 am

      Labour would do well to take note of Nationals ability to remove the dead wood (not all the dead wood unfortunately) and present a fresher line up plus the return of Judith Collins!

      • Cinny 4.1.1
        11 October 2016 at 9:57 am

        I wonder if Judith will have any questions to answer today, after all she is responsible for contracting Serco to Mt Eden, what a disaster that is.

        Judith and her husband, dang, they’re just as crooked as the Clintons. How’s Oravida Water doing? Jenny Shipley would know. Got any loop holes to exploit? Don’t worry Judiths husband is already on to it.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2
        11 October 2016 at 10:19 am

        National is nothing but deadwood. Comes from wanting policies best suited to the 15th century.

    • Bearded Git 4.2
      11 October 2016 at 11:10 am

      That’s easy…get rid of Joyce, English, Bennett, Smith, Parata, Bridges….you get the picture

      • Puckish Rogue 4.2.1
        11 October 2016 at 11:18 am

        Well sure if I wanted the left to gain power then I’d agree with you but of that list I’d remove Joyce and Smith

        • Cinny 4.2.1.1
          11 October 2016 at 12:11 pm

          Dude, be honest, you would add Parata to your list.

          I feel sorry for Bill, he just looks so ‘over it’, he would be so much happier out of parliament me thinks, he looks beaten and worn. The type of worn out that only a change in career would fix.

          • Puckish Rogue 4.2.1.1.1
            11 October 2016 at 12:18 pm

            Why would I get rid of Parata?

            • Cinny 4.2.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2016 at 1:14 pm

              For reals? Where to start…

              Lack of funding
              Failed charter schools
              Wrap around services failing students, teachers, families
              Salisbury School
              School pools
              Failing special education
              Lack of support from teachers towards the minister
              Failing schools
              Rotting schools

              She’s completely out of touch, I’m surprised the outgoing PM gave her another chance.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                11 October 2016 at 1:29 pm

                Its damn impressive that Parata is responsible for all that mess

                • mpledger …
                  11 October 2016 at 2:48 pm

                  Well, Peter Hughes managed to keep a lid on things while he was there but once he left for better things Parata’s been coming out with all sorts of tripe again – most of it already failed policy in other countries.

              • save nz …
                11 October 2016 at 4:50 pm

                +1 Cinny

  5. Stuart Munro 5
    11 October 2016 at 9:29 am

    a message from our sponsor RT

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    11 October 2016 at 9:48 am

    John Key hits back at UN report on child poverty in NZ

    “Isn’t the point to say, ‘Look, everybody accepts these at-risk kids need support’. And we’re doing that.

    Except for the fact that he isn’t. In fact, he’s been actively making it worse.

    “It’s not the Government’s intention to have a single definition of poverty,” Mr Key told the Paul Henry programme on Monday.

    “You could spend years debating about who’s in and who’s out, what’s the right measure or what’s not,” he said.

    If you don’t define it you can’t know what’s causing it and thus you can’t actually address it. This does appear to be what National want because we all know, deep in our hearts, what’s the cause of all this poverty. Just look at the increasing poverty of the last thirty years under the hyper-capitalism that’s been introduced.

  7. Pasupial 7
    11 October 2016 at 10:02 am

    There was a double length episode of Last Week Tonight yesterday – aired just after, but recorded before, the debate. The first bit was about the Trump tape (and was appropriately scathing of “Bushy”), but this section was a worthwhile change of topic:

  10. weka 10
    11 October 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Situations like this were entirely predictable (and I think some of us did indeed predict them when the policy came out),

    A woman who took up the Government’s relocation grant to move to Hamilton, says she’s now doing everything she can to get back to Auckland.

    Teri Standen said she wanted a fresh start with the $5000 grant – and moved south at the start of July.

    But she said she hates her life in Hamilton.

    She said the local school isn’t what she expected, and there are gang members living on the street she’s been housed on.

    Standen’s warning people to do their own research before jumping on the offer – as she simply trusted Housing New Zealand to disclose “relevant” information.

    She said going to check out the option first-hand prior to relocating was not an option for her due to petrol costs and childcare commitments.

    Her advice to others tempting by the chance of a fresh start and a bit of cash: “Anyone who’s going to take the relocation grant, research where you’re going to thoroughly, if you can, and be very wary about where they’re putting you.”

    A spokeswoman for Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said she would not comment as it was an operational matter.

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/winz-relocation-a-disappointment-aucklander-wants-to-come-home/

    • Cinny 10.1
      11 October 2016 at 12:15 pm

      “A spokeswoman for Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said she would not comment as it was an operational matter.”

      WTF kind of excuse is that? Dang I wonder how many others ‘relocation’ is not working out for. Sounds like another failed plan by the government, dismissed as an operational matter to shut down any further questions.

  11. Morrissey 11
    11 October 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Al Jazeera intones gravely about “Vladimir Putin’s controversial visit to Paris.”
    Sadly, Qatar’s official TV outlet is nothing but a relentless propaganda unit.
    Al Jazeera News, 12 noon (NZ time), Tuesday 11 October 2016

    I’ve just heard an Al Qaeda newsreader dutifully droning about how the French government is getting ready for “Vladimir Putin’s controversial visit to Paris.” Then, from Paris, one Natacha Butler explains with a straight face and a steady voice: “And that’s because of Russia’s involvement in SYRIA, particularly the bombing of ALEPPO.”

    Perhaps there are some Standardisti out there who can supply an example, but I cannot recall a single time that Al Jazeera, the official television station of the Qatari dictatorship, has described a visit anywhere by Barack Obama, who has for eight years presided over the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria as “controversial.”

    More shameful propaganda masquerading as news on Al Jazeera….
    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22102015/#comment-1085331

    • Psycho Milt 11.1
      11 October 2016 at 12:35 pm

      …I cannot recall a single time that Al Jazeera, the official television station of the Qatari dictatorship, has described a visit anywhere by Barack Obama, who has for eight years presided over the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria as “controversial.”

      Oh, I expect that if Obama was carrying out indiscriminate, large-scale bombing of urban neighbourhoods in any country, he’d be at risk of people throwing shoes at him on his overseas visits – hopefully Putin will cope one right in the mush. Obama’s predecessor had quite a few “controversial” visits for similar reasons to Putin’s visit being “controversial” – the reason Obama doesn’t get the same treatment is that he doesn’t pull the same shit, not because Al Jazeera is a propaganda site.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        11 October 2016 at 12:56 pm

        Oh, I expect that if Obama was carrying out indiscriminate, large-scale bombing of urban neighbourhoods in any country,

        The US has been supporting the Saudi bombing of Yemen with munitions, intelligence and other military support for over a year now.

        In the most recent attack, a Saudi-led airstrike on a Sana’a community hall funeral service killed 150 or more people and wounded a further 500+.

        • Psycho Milt 11.1.1.1
          11 October 2016 at 1:02 pm

          … the Saudi bombing of Yemen…

          I expect that a visit by King Salman would also be pretty controversial right now. Less so on Al Jazeera, granted.

          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2016 at 1:27 pm

            The War Nerd: A Brief History of the Yemen Clusterf*ck

            https://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/

            “The people of the south know very little about Yemeni politics and do not really understand the Saudi political approach toward Yemen. All they know is that a threat has emerged in Yemen.” The Houthi are being bombed now by the Saudi AF, which is in a way the sincerest form of Saudi flattery. The Saudis are afraid of these Shia Yemeni. One of the reasons that “…people of the [Saudi] South know very little about Yemeni politics” is that the Saudi rulers make sure they don’t get any information. The last thing the Saudi authorities want is for the Shia of SW Saudi Arabia to remember that they were once part of a huge, powerful Shia kingdom that stretched south to the Indian Ocean. Najran was once part of that kingdom. It’s only been Saudi territory since 1934, when the Saud family leased the province from Yemen on a 20-year term. They kept it when the term expired, because by that time Saudi Arabia was rich and closely allied with the US and Britain, while Yemen was weak and poor.

            The Saudis, with sleazy friends in Langley and unlimited cash to throw around, have incredible control over world media. They do such a good job of suppressing news about their long war with the Shia of Yemen that, until I lived there and got the story first hand, I didn’t even know that the Shia of Najran had actually risen up in armed rebellion in 2000. And it was an incredible story of a glorious, though doomed, rebellion.

      • One Two 11.1.2
        11 October 2016 at 1:34 pm

        Oh Milt you really are such a low rent commentator

  12. joe90 12
    11 October 2016 at 1:02 pm

    Mr Jones, Colonial Viper’s go to source –

    Imagine how bad she smells, man? I’m told her and Obama, just stink, stink, stink, stink. You can’t wash that evil off, man. Told there’s a rotten smell around Hillary. I’m not kidding, people say, they say — folks, I’ve been told this by high up folks. They say listen, Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur. I never said this because the media will go crazy with it, but I’ve talked to people that are in protective details, they’re scared of her. And they say listen, she’s a frickin’ demon and she stinks and so does Obama. I go, like what? Sulfur. They smell like Hell.

    https://youtu.be/2Ll4wXS2PIo?t=4m

  14. joe90 14
    11 October 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Indeed, point proven by this cartoon from Trump supporter Sean Delonas making light of the tiny fingered fuckwit’s sexual assault of women.

    http://media.cagle.com/226/2016/10/09/185810_600.jpg

    (warning, it ain’t nice)

  15. Cinny 15
    11 October 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Why would the outgoing government be wanting to curb immigration?
    Was it because of their internal polling?

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1610/S00142/national-panicked-by-polls-on-immigration.htm

    • alwyn 15.1
      11 October 2016 at 3:34 pm

      Come, come.
      You don’t really consider a press release from Winston Peters or his mob as being evidence of anything do you?
      The man is a charlatan.

      • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1
        11 October 2016 at 5:03 pm

        I trust him far more than I trust National.

      • Cinny 15.1.2
        11 October 2016 at 5:31 pm

        Alwyn, the only charlatan in the house is the outgoing PM.

      • Nick 15.1.3
        11 October 2016 at 5:57 pm

        ShonKey is the epitome of charlatan.

        • alwyn 15.1.3.1
          11 October 2016 at 7:18 pm

          Do you remember what Abe Lincoln is supposed to have said?
          “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”.

          The “You” he was talking about was someone like Winston..
          Nick, Cinny and DTB are clearly in the group of “some of the people”.
          90% of the population saw through Winston’s bluster ages ago.

  16. joe90 16
    11 October 2016 at 4:08 pm

    So, one of those game changing details in the leaked emails was actually a copy and pasted portion of an opinion piece.

    Stupid pricks.
    //

    Russian gov manipulates email to @johnpodesta. Publishes disinformation. Takes it down. Trump recites false info. https://t.co/1d5qvU01Yi— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) October 11, 2016

    In an email titled “The Truth” from Hillary’s top confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the adviser writing to undisclosed recipients said that “one important point that has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable” in what may turn out to be the big October surprise from the WikiLeaks released of emails hacked from the account of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta.Then came the money quote: “Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate,” said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton’s management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote..

    http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635