Open Mike 17/10/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 17th, 2016 - 223 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 …

223 comments on “Open Mike 17/10/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Bill 1.1
      17 October 2016 at 11:51 am

      That piece is about what the establishment can do by way of self preservation. I mean, okay, depending on how you define ‘progressive’ it might contain something by way of a lesson for progressives in NZ.

      Or does it merely just add highlighter pen to what should already have been some pretty obvious writing on the wall for the establishment’s liberal left? That’s what I’d pick it to amount to. A kinda “Gadzooks! This triangulation and third way shit really is dead on its feet. Oh noes, what’s we going to do?”

  2. james 2
    17 October 2016 at 7:59 am

    Its a beautiful morning – lets try to be positive today huh kids?

    • Paul 2.1
      17 October 2016 at 8:08 am

      As your mentor Paul Henry says “welcome to paradise.”

      • james 2.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 8:26 am

        Indeed. Having travelled a lot of the world I can testify that we do indeed live in a beautiful place.

        • vto 2.1.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 8:31 am

          That is a bit of a shallow measure, typical of non-thinkers attracted to shallow right wing soundbites

        • jcuknz 2.1.1.2
          17 October 2016 at 8:49 am

          As one who has lived in paradise 1950 though to paradise 2016 I tend to agree.
          It is just we have different problems to cope with today.
          Remember 6 O’clock closing, Nordies budget, Holyoakes guff, separate traffic cops from regular cops etc etc.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.1
            17 October 2016 at 9:04 am

            separate traffic cops from regular cops etc etc.

            And I was reading an article a year or two back that made the argument that we should split them apart again as they use different skill sets. Although that article seems to be more concerned with improving the image that the police have which I think would come more from them being better police.

            • The Chairman 2.1.1.2.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 9:16 am

              Speaking of improving the image of the police, this doesn’t look good:
              http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/police-shooting-of-dog-traumatises-auckland-family-2016101617

              • left for dead …
                17 October 2016 at 9:36 am

                Disturbing, Did the police know it was fake before the raid, what if it was a toddler running around with a toy gun. with that extra 30 sec’s to a minute to have the dog under control make that much difference, maybe they could have got there earlier if they are in such a hurry or was the young fella legging it over the fence. Not a good look again for the department.

                • The Chairman …
                  17 October 2016 at 11:20 am

                  One would assume the police were initially taking it the gun was real.

                  Going off what was reported, the dog was in a fenced off area. The police claim they were at risk of attack.

                  Therefore, for the dog to put the officers at risk, it must of either got out of the enclosed area (which wasn’t reported) or the police entered into the enclosed area (knowing an irate dog lay within, hence putting themselves at risk) while ignoring pleas by the young girl to allow her to further constrain the dog.

                  • left for dead …
                    17 October 2016 at 2:06 pm

                    Can you keep us updated on this, very sad about the dog and keen to learn more on the so-called fake pistol or was it a rifle, maybe air pistol which are not illegal per say, I know they are using gun (what terminology). Ta

          • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.2.2
            17 October 2016 at 9:08 am

            I’m surprised no political party has mentioned splitting the cops and the traffic cops, I reckon it’d be a vote winner

            • adam 2.1.1.2.2.1
              17 October 2016 at 10:13 am

              /facepalm

              • Puckish Rogue …
                17 October 2016 at 10:27 am

                I mean I am curious as to why no political party has mentioned going back to the old system of having separate, dedicated traffic cops as I don’t think its a good look having police sitting on the side of the road with a speed camera

                I’d much rather see traffic cops patrolling the highways and dealing with traffic offences and let the police deal with everything else

    • YNWA 2.2
      17 October 2016 at 8:27 am

      I’m positive our PM compared working as a junior doctor with working for Merrill lynch this morning on breakfast, similar working conditions, similar stresses…

      • mauī 2.2.1
        17 October 2016 at 9:19 am

        similar motivations for working those long hours too. Love of people vs love of money…

      • save nz 2.2.2
        17 October 2016 at 9:35 am

        Did the doctor also earn 50 million speculating on foreign currency and earn the name “smiling assassin”, for his cheerfulness while putting people out of work like Key’s days at Merrill?

      • Robert Glennie 2.2.3
        17 October 2016 at 4:50 pm

        I doubt Merrill Lynch has saved a life. These doctors on the other hand…

    • Nick 2.3
      17 October 2016 at 8:38 am

      A beautiful day ….. Now which incompetent natz is going to utter some Bullshit and be the first on a Monday to fuck it up?…. ShonKey, Joyce, parata, Smith, collins, English.. … The list seems endless

    • Draco T Bastard 2.4
      17 October 2016 at 8:53 am

      Ah, the Cult of Positivity raises its ugly head.

      • adam 2.4.1
        17 October 2016 at 10:12 am

        Just ask any disabled person about the cult of positivity.

        I mean being positive is not going to magically turn stairs, into a ramp…. No matter how positive you get.

    • adam 2.5
      17 October 2016 at 10:09 am

      Yeah positive feels good.

      I’m positive we have a creepy P.M, and I’m positive we have a government full of incompetent ministers.

      I’m very positive that this type of corporate capitalism is destroying society.

      Yeah, feels good to be positive knowing, the Tories are the scum we know them to be.

      Go being positive!

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    17 October 2016 at 8:19 am

    “Origin and Etymology of huh

    imitative of a grunt”

  4. dv 4
    17 October 2016 at 8:42 am

    From the oh shit files.

    This will help!!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11730063

    Women’s refuges, church agencies and other community groups will soon have to hand over their client details to the Government in return for funding.

    Ministry of Social Development (MSD) deputy chief executive Murray Edridge says all 823 agencies funded by the ministry’s $330 million Community Investment arm will have to provide client details for funding by next July.

    In the herald this am

    • Anne 4.1
      17 October 2016 at 9:12 am

      Well now, wouldn’t Paula Bennett have a ball. Every time someone criticised her she could demand to see their file and publicly discredit them for perceived misdemeanours in the past.

      Apart from that, it’s an insult to all the social groups who have had to pick up the work the government is no longer supporting – turning these organisations into the whipping boys and girls in order to take the heat off themselves?

      • Whispering Kate 4.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 10:41 am

        No surprises here, just more contempt from this Government to make vulnerable people’s lives more shitty. How much more does this Government have to do with its punitive, controlling and vindictive attitude towards unfortunate people, to make themselves feel satisfied and happy? Extermination of them all – would they like that? I see a Police State on the horizon and rights and freedoms removed from the political landscape in the near future. Someone on this site keeps on about a revolution – not us, we are too feeble and ignorant to do anything like that. We are sleepwalking right into misery in this country and the 1% will just love that.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 10:48 am

          We are sleepwalking right into misery in this country and the 1% will just love that.

          Although true I’m pretty sure that they won’t like the inevitable result. And they always act so surprised when they find out that their actions have consequences.

  5. The Chairman 5
    17 October 2016 at 8:42 am

    According to Winston Peters, the two highest categories of immigrants coming into NZ are those that are pre-working age and those aged 55 to 60.

    With our aging population and related fiscal pressure on our superannuation, shouldn’t the emphasis be on the young?

    • save nz 5.1
      17 October 2016 at 9:32 am

      There are few jobs for immigrants as well as locals. We can get migrants here, but we don’t have a decent job for them in our low wage economy. Same for the 1 in 4 Kiwis that have to work overseas. Adding more people just increases the problem.

      So that leaves the elderly and children who want to live here. Not only that, but I think people are coming into NZ and then leaving on other passports. So it appears there are more people here, but NZ or at least Auckland, is emptying again.

      It’s not rocket science, even with all the fake government Stats, migrants and Kiwis need real jobs. If they are not here and with the lack of innovation and diversification, then there is no future and people will relocate for work.

      • The Chairman 5.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 10:20 am

        As with many things, immigration is about getting the balance right.

        We often hear talk of balancing the skills requirement and numbers coming in, but little on the age balance.

        Immigration can be utilized to help offset our aging population.

        I’m with Winston, immigration should only be used as a stop-gap measure. Our skill requirements should be met at home.

        Immigration shouldn’t be used to lower incomes or NZ work practice standards.

        Numbers coming in are currently far too high. Infrastructure is failing to cope.

        And the high number of older immigrants is putting pressure on the health system while putting the sustainability of our superannuation at further risk.

        Therefore, when it comes to immigration, it’s clear to see the Government has got the balance all wrong.

    • Robert Glennie 5.2
      17 October 2016 at 4:57 pm

      Denis O’Rourke introduced a very good N.Z.F. policy of pro rata super where the Government pays super proportionate to the amount of time one spends of their career working in N.Z. If you spent half your 40 years working here then you get 50% of what a New Zealander who did their entire career here.

      • The Chairman 5.2.1
        17 October 2016 at 5:06 pm

        It would save taxpayers a few dollars, but it overlooks the health burden a number pose. Moreover, the emphasis on the young we require.

        • Robert Glennie 5.2.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 5:14 pm

          Have a look at other N.Z.F. policies such as the recently released tertiary education policy. N.Z.F are not exclusively a party for the old any more.

  6. dv 6
    17 October 2016 at 8:44 am

    And from the ODT
    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/migrants-housed-illegally

    Go Bus has been accused of exploitation after it illegally housed migrant workers in an office building at its Dunedin depot early last year.
    The Tramways Union, which represents workers at the site, said the housing of workers, believed to be Filipinos, at the depot was part of a wider problem where Go Bus was employing foreign workers to keep wages low.

    The workers were moved after the Dunedin City Council, which owns the building, informed Go Bus it was illegal under the district plan for people to live in commercial premises “due to fire risk and other safety factors. It would have been unpleasant,” council property manager Kevin Taylor said of the suitability of the building as worker accommodation.

  7. Draco T Bastard 7
    17 October 2016 at 8:49 am

    Jack Tame to John Key: ‘Would you want a junior doctor working on you after 12 days?’

    Apparently conditions have changed over the last 30 or 40 years and young lawyers also work long hours.

    • jcuknz 7.1
      17 October 2016 at 8:57 am

      To those who say this is common practice world wide I say “Multiple wrongs do not make it right” … another field for NZ to lead the world. 12 hour shifts are fine but only as long as one has time to recuperate after three or four days.

      • Wayne 7.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 9:38 am

        I presume you don’t literally mean 3 or 4 days off, rather that a 12 shift is not followed by another the next day. That the next day shift would be a standard 8 hour shift.

        There are plenty of jobs/vocations that require people to do two or three 12 hour days in a row. Seemingly without any serious problems. I have had these type of jobs in the past.

        I appreciate that the default position of Standardnistas is always to support strikers. However, I am a bit surprised at this strike given the shift by the DHB’s in the current negotiations.

        Some years ago Junior doctors (led by Deborah Powell who seems to have been the union leader for about two decades) went on strike to get better conditions and pay. Most people were pretty sympathetic to their cause, since some of the days were very long indeed, way beyond 12 hours. And there was a big increase in pay so that the compulsory residency years in hospital have become quite well paid, around $100,000 a year I think, when all the shift work is taken into account

        At that time the junior doctors essentially got what they wanted, at least as I recall it. Presumably what they got has applied through to the present. So why has this strike arisen?

        Why are the conditions now terrible, but were OK when the junior doctors accepted them, and not so many years ago? Did they think they were hard done by when they accepted the offer of some years ago?

        I do appreciate there have been annual negotiations each year on pay, and presumably conditions.

        Incidentally I suspect not all junior doctors will actually go on strike.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 10:16 am

          OK, firstly hours and conditions creep, especially in highly critical areas that are understaffed: someone stays ten minutes over in an incident, and without careful and bastardy behaviour it can become the norm. Then ten minutes gets stretched, then it gets formalised.

          I’ve done twelve or thirteen hour shifts myself. As an extension to a regular day, they’re bad. On a rotating 24hr roster, they’re fucking murder. I’d say that three calendar days off after a twelve hour night shift should be the minimum, just to teach HR to not do it again.

          Doctors are paid a lot, but your argument reminds me of the ports of auckland bullshit around salaries. Even if doctors didn’t have larger student loans to pay (thanks for that) it should be illegal to sell your good health. We don’t allow it with steriod abuse, we don’t allow people to take cuts in workplace safety in exchange for a pay bump, why do we expect doctors to operate, literally, while fatigued for long hours?

          • Macro 7.1.1.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 11:56 am

            So very very true – and let’s sheet this problem right back to where it starts – consistent underfunding of our DHB’s by central government. There should be no surplus while we cannot employ sufficient staff in our hospitals and pay them adequately. We might also have a look at the obscene levels of renumeration our DHB CEO’s are granting themselves.

        • Reality 7.1.1.2
          17 October 2016 at 10:17 am

          Was your comment that Deborah Powell had been the union leader for 20 odd years meant as a criticism? Perhaps she is dedicated to her cause, just as Helen Kelly had been involved with union concerns for many years. I guess some farmers have been involved with Federated Farmers for years, or pilots with their union, or business people with their “union”.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.3
          17 October 2016 at 10:27 am

          Why are the conditions now terrible, but were OK when the junior doctors accepted them, and not so many years ago?

          You’re assuming that the doctors were OK with them when they accepted them then rather than that they accepted those terms then understanding that they were the best that they were going to get then and that they would ask for more at the next negotiations.

          Hell, if we followed your prescribed logic we’d still have slavery. After all, the slaves were Ok with the conditions then weren’t they?

          Presumably what they got has applied through to the present.

          Have they though? Because from what I’ve been hearing/reading things have been getting worse over the last few years of this governments attacks on public services.

          I do appreciate there have been annual negotiations each year on pay, and presumably conditions.

          No, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t appreciate it at all.

        • Psycho Milt 7.1.1.4
          17 October 2016 at 10:45 am

          Why are the conditions now terrible, but were OK when the junior doctors accepted them, and not so many years ago?

          Yeah, funnily enough, employers also come to the table with demands, even though they accepted the last agreement without those demands in it. What an impenetrable mystery! Actually, I’m sure you don’t find it as mystifying as you make out.

          • Garibaldi 7.1.1.4.1
            17 October 2016 at 11:18 am

            Actually Wayne should thank his lucky stars he’s on the pig’s back and stop sniping at real workers in our society. We should really be looking at stopping ex parliamentarian perks, and spending it somewhere useful.

          • Wayne 7.1.1.4.2
            17 October 2016 at 12:12 pm

            I can understand progressive annual adjustments to agreements.

            However, Deborah Powell negotiated the last junior doctors agreement, which as I noted was not that many years ago.

            She now says how terrible things are, but these terrible conditions are presumably the ones she previously agreed to.

            Now I don’t know the actual details of the agreements, there have been too many claims and counterclaims on the media to know the actual status of the negotiations. Certainly two weeks ago listening to the Morning Report interviews of the DHB rep, and to Deborah Russell, they seemed not to even agree what was actually in dispute, or at least did not agree to a common set of facts.

            But I do know that Deborah Russell always says that all the conditions she has to negotiate are terrible and will lead to deaths. So presumably when she has negotiated in the past, she has agreed to hospital deaths due to the terrible working conditions she has agreed to.

            • rhinocrates 7.1.1.4.2.1
              17 October 2016 at 12:28 pm

              … and we should still be sending children up chimneys because they accepted it in the nineteenth century and change should take place only on geological time scales. So says the fossil.

              • Wayne …
                17 October 2016 at 12:39 pm

                The existing junior doctors agreement was negotiated just a few years ago.

                Probably under the hellhole neo-liberal conditions that were such a prominent feature of the Helen Clark government.

                • rhinocrates …
                  17 October 2016 at 12:47 pm

                  “change should take place only on geological time scales”

                  “Buuut Hilary.”

                  How would you feel about being operated on in A&E by a doctor so sleep-deprived they were hallucinating?

                  Of course in your case it would be a paleontologist.

        • Gangnam Style 7.1.1.5
          17 October 2016 at 12:45 pm

          “I have had these type of jobs in the past.” Are you seriously trying to conflate what you do (office, sitting on your arse, drinking coffee all day) with truck drivers & cleaners & doctors? No wonder you guys don’t take workers rights seriously!

          • rhinocrates 7.1.1.5.1
            17 October 2016 at 1:06 pm

            He takes workers’ rights seriously – he thinks there are far too many of them.

          • Wayne 7.1.1.5.2
            17 October 2016 at 8:54 pm

            Do you think that an office job is the only style of job I have done?

            • fender 7.1.1.5.2.1
              17 October 2016 at 9:58 pm

              Well in the spirit of not trying to better oneself or your conditions why did you ever stop being a paperboy? Didn’t you find the conditions acceptable when you first began under the existing conditions?

  8. The Chairman 8
    17 October 2016 at 8:53 am

    Do we need a Criminal Cases Review Commission?

    In an exclusive interview on The Nation, Justice William Young said courts could benefit from having a Criminal Cases Review Commission, like that established in the UK.

    Despite high-level support, the Government has ruled out a commission in New Zealand.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/calls-for-new-body-to-end-wrongful-convictions-2016101509

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/supreme-court-judge-calls-for-criminal-review-body-2016101510

    • xanthe 8.1
      17 October 2016 at 11:01 am

      Yes we should have a criminal cases review.
      We also need a prosecutorial misconduct review
      And a police misconduct review (that is not the disfunctional one we have now!)

  9. save nz 9
    17 October 2016 at 9:38 am

    Just following on from the Jill Stein, article yesterday. Apparently she is not the only one worried about Clinton starting a war.

    John Pilger: Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump

    https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      17 October 2016 at 10:11 am

      “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump”

      Thanks save nz.

      In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

      It was all fake. He was lying.

      The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president.

      Of course, Obama never had the guts or the werewithal to stand up to the wishes of the Deep State on these issues.

      But I do credit him with holding back a full scale US invasion of Syria which many neocons wanted – and still want.

      • McFlock 9.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 10:28 am

        So pilger also prefers a candidate who wants to make it policy to murder innocent civilians by drone simply because they’re related to suspected terrorists, and wants to throw out the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

        Yeah, nah. He hasn’t thought it through.

        • Bill 9.1.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 10:57 am

          For my money the Jill Stein interview that has elicited the Pilger link was making the very good point that when we’re reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils, then our choices are being made somewhere down the path to hell.

          That was, in my mind, worthy of discussion/debate.

          And it’s a crying fucking shame that it got fucked by a piece of exaggeration (she didn’t actually say a vote for Clinton would result in war with Russia, she said it could result in war with Russia – a reasonable analysis) and a nose dive into the tired old shit about which one of the two despicable presidential candidates was the more despicable, vile and dangerous.

          Neither should be allowed to be in office. One of them will be. We’re about to be in the shit unless unreported, the broader left in the US has got its shit together and is ready to confront whoever becomes El Presidente from day one of their term.

          I just hope to fuck the discussion in the US is a bit more mature than the school yard point scoring nyah, nyah, nyah nyah nyah bullshit that’s been sprayed over this site of late.

          • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 11:07 am

            We’re already in the shit.

            The question is whether Clinton will lead to significantly worse shit than Trump, or whether bother of them are any worse than the current shit we’re in.

            Neither are ideal for office. It’s a question as to whether the office itself should even exist. But the current shitpool we’re in is set to get some different shit in it. It might be better shit (but I doubt it). One of the prospective new shits might look a bit greener than the other, or more orange, but does that make it better shit or worse shit? And will it blend in well with the current shit, or will the two combine to make some really manky shit? Can we keep swimming in the new shit, or will we finally drown in shit?

            I think I might call this The shitpool model of democratic decisionmaking.

            • Bill 9.1.1.1.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 11:21 am

              Let me put it another way.

              How long are we going to stare at shit saying “It’s shit” and arguing over how much worse the shit might become, or not become, before we get bored staring at shit, stating the fucking obvious about shit, how it looks, smells and feels like shit; before we lift our eyes to take in something else and bend our minds to ways in how that something else might be realised? Or give some thought to how we might neutralise or ameliorate the effects of the shit that, yes, we know about but are no longer intently focused on because, I dunno, maybe we’ve grown the fuck up and aren’t so taken by the prospect of dabbling in other peoples’ potties any more?

              • McFlock …
                17 October 2016 at 11:46 am

                Hey, if you can think of a way out of the shit, I’m all ears. But until then, I’d prefer the least stinky shit to swim in that is possible.

                The immediate problem is the incoming bucket of shit – which one will it be? Will it make the pool worse, because for now we’re stuck in it.

                • Bill …
                  17 October 2016 at 12:00 pm

                  Your preference is fine. But seeing as how (presumably) you don’t get to cast a vote in the US elections and (presumably) have no impact on any left activism in the US, then your preference can only be just that. The passive wish of a by stander who hopes to be not too adversely impacted by whatever goes down.

                  Meanwhile, we could have been having more meaningful or productive discussions on what was what US wise, that were situated somewhere beyond the tedious Clinton/Trump flavoured poop throwing contest that the campaign seems to have unleashed on this site.

                  • marty mars …
                    17 October 2016 at 12:13 pm

                    We are all bystanders aren’t we and therefore any discussion on the whys and wherefors of the US is really just for the benefit of our intellectual stimulation isn’t it.

                    • Bill …
                      17 October 2016 at 12:42 pm

                      There has been the potential to springboard into discussions that might have led to a better understandings on a number of fronts, but when everything nosedives into Clinton/Trump shitsmear…

                      Throwaway examples off the top of my head.

                      1.The msm is partisan and would have been against whoever or whatever was positioning itself against the status quo or establishment. It happened with the SNP during the independence campaign, to Corbyn, to Sanders…so Trump is correct to say there’s a bias and whatever. That’s not saying that Trump shouldn’t be hung, drawn and quartered. But it might be questioning what is being glossed over with regards Clinton.

                      2. The reality of abuse and power that’s suddenly in every living room because Trump is a valuable discussion. I’d hate to see it fade after the election but fear it will. Y’know? Trump will be ‘the bad apple’ – the exception to the rule etc and the cozy world of entitlement will get back to it’s default and invisible setting again.

                      3. Policy? Beyond soundbites and bullshit, I can’t say I’ve much of an idea about much actual policy and what its impact might be. Yes, there’s Syria and woefully inadequate action on CC that I get or am aware of.

                      4. The friction between a swathe of the broader left and the liberal establishment left and the utter disconnect of the latter from swathes of the population across western (so-called) social democracies.

                      5. There’s probably a 5 and a 6 and whatever. You get the picture. But it seems all the discussions and debates or disagreements, yeah…potty time.

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.2
            17 October 2016 at 11:22 am

            (she didn’t actually say a vote for Clinton would result in war with Russia, she said it could result in war with Russia – a reasonable analysis)

            Actually Jill Stein said that Clinton’s actions could lead to NUCLEAR war with Russia.

            I thought I was being quite reserved in how I interpreted Stein’s comments.

            • Bill 9.1.1.1.2.1
              17 October 2016 at 11:35 am

              ffs CV. The important word – the one you threw away in your haste to get all wavy armed was could.

              Everybody knows that Clinton has spouted shit about having a no-fly zone. And everybody knows what that’d likely entail…which is why she probably won’t get her way (assuming she hasn’t already changed her mind through taking a reality check).

              And sure, even if there’s no ‘no-fly’ zone, I’m pretty sure a Clinton administration will find 1001 other stupid and highly risky ways to impress on Russia that the US means business and means to rule.

              You weren’t reserved on how you interpretated Steins comments – you misrepresented them, and worse,you obliterated the far more important message she was imparting with all your pointless fucking arm waving.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 October 2016 at 5:29 pm

                Well people could have read past the title of my post to read the exact quotation from Stein which I included for everyone to see.

                But since you raised this point, and have returned to it, I’ve gone back to edit the title of my post to

                “Jill Stein: a Clinton Presidency could mean nuclear war with Russia”

                which exactly reflects what the Green Candidate said. You may think this reflects a great improvement now that it doesn’t “misrepresent” what Stein said.

                Everybody knows that Clinton has spouted shit about having a no-fly zone. And everybody knows what that’d likely entail…which is why she probably won’t get her way (assuming she hasn’t already changed her mind through taking a reality check).

                Pretty sure the US deliberately bombed that Syrian military outpost in Eastern Syria killing over 80 Syrian soldiers (final death toll, initial death toll was ~62) as well as killing a few Russian military advisors (reading between the lines) during up to an hour of aerial bombing.

                So don’t over estimate the level of common sense and cool headedness in the Pentagon at the moment.

                • marty mars …
                  17 October 2016 at 5:55 pm

                  Pretty sure??? Is their evidence you can quote?

                  • McFlock …
                    17 October 2016 at 6:27 pm

                    I’m pretty sure they deliberately bombed the position as well.
                    I just don’t know whether they thought it was an Isis position or a Syrian one when they decided to bomb it.

                • Bill …
                  17 October 2016 at 6:05 pm

                  I’d agree those bombing runs were probably deliberate. And I’d say the risk of dead Syrian army regulars escalating into a confrontation with Russia was about 5/8ths of zero. Totally different ball game to a direct attack on Russian military.

                  And yes, I know Turkey got away with it, but then, if Russia had retaliated militarily, they’d have found themselves at war with NATO. Who knows? Maybe the whole Turkish downing of a Russian bomber was to gauge Russian reactions?

    • aerobubble 9.2
      17 October 2016 at 11:58 am

      US and Russia are working together in Syria, both Asad and Isis are losing every day, and the EU having to deal with a few refugees, like wtf, who cares.

      Lets run it by. Should Asad win, more than half of all Syriams want him gone, or worse. Isis would be gone. So why would the US waste time on Russia, especially since Russia for the most part is stable, and eventually will be a muslim nation, so Putin is just create a legacy, not a good one.

      Syria is what happens when both Asad and Isis are loathed by the world.

      • Garibaldi 9.2.1
        17 October 2016 at 3:12 pm

        The US has never ,in it’s eye’s, wasted time on Russia. It is paranoid on Russia. They have shat on Russia at every opportunity since Roosevelt died.

        • aerobubble 9.2.1.1
          20 October 2016 at 2:44 pm

          USSR was its own karma. AS for post wall. Russia weakness in grafting on the profit motive, meant going straight to a few rent seeking oligarchs, was its own decision. Russia has China, the Artic, Islam and Europe, each requires a different strategy, its past, present and future are all different. So of course the world needs Putin in charge, not only to stablize, or to take potshots at, but to hold back Islam entering Europe, provide a backdoor to moderate China, to burn off oil adventures in the Arctic, the EU helps by being a incentive to keep a militrary up to scratch, Ukraine would be good fit to keep Russia Christian…

          Look Russia needs all the enemies it can get, since nobody wants to invade, climate change will decimate it in a hundred years.

        • Stuart Munro 9.2.1.2
          20 October 2016 at 3:10 pm

          There’s some truth in that, some on the Left anticipated a thawing after the war – but Russia had cheerfully allied with Hitler before WWII – they or at least their leadership were by no means innocent.

          There’s an interesting parallel with the end of the Cold War – when, given the absence of a credible enemy there was some expectation of a universal move to moderate centrism. I imagine the same forces that drove the US remorselessly to the Right are to blame for both events.

          Trump is merely symptomatic of this – the US Right are now so extreme they can no longer find anyone credible to represent them. The pendulum cannot move indefinitely in the same direction.

        • Chuck 9.2.1.3
          20 October 2016 at 4:48 pm

          “They have shat on Russia at every opportunity since Roosevelt died.”

          Winston Churchill could see what was coming, and felt Roosevelt did not fully comprehend that all the West was doing was replacing one madman (Hitler) with another (Stalin).

          Churchill was proven correct.

          To say the US was paranoid with Russia (USSR), you would also have to say Russia (USSR) was paranoid with the USA.

          A question…would you rather that the USSR was the dominant world power or the USA?

          I say the USSR because if they had “won the cold war” there would have been no break up of the USSR…

      • Colonial Viper 9.2.2
        17 October 2016 at 5:35 pm

        Lets run it by. Should Asad win, more than half of all Syriams want him gone, or worse.

        Assad would win any internationally monitored election by a landslide. 60% plus of the votes, at a guess.

        • aerobubble 9.2.2.1
          20 October 2016 at 2:34 pm

          Asad headed a dictatorial state, they always had massive majorities, duh.

          • aerobubble 9.2.2.1.1
            20 October 2016 at 2:51 pm

            So 40% living under a new syria, all with network access gathering intel for the next civil war. No. No nation could survive with such poor weak leadership like Asad. A nation that does not fear ts population isnt long for overthrow. In a time of pre internet the terrorizing dicator held the upper hand. Remember Bush juniors axis of evil, its was just the report of the inevitable overthrow of dictators by network enhanced peoples. Syria was just unfortuae in being a first mover and has to learn how to threaten its elites properly, i.e midle classes rule.

  10. joe90 10
    17 October 2016 at 9:42 am

    Trouble at mill.

    Breaking with Trump, Pence admits it looks like Russia is behind the hacks https://t.co/qyQi6ropPE— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) October 16, 2016

  11. Wayne 11
    17 October 2016 at 9:45 am

    Of course John Pilger would think that.

    He has opposed just about everything the US has done for decades, including opposing the international effort to get Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990. I guess he is also opposed to the anti-ISIS coalition. I suspect Jill Stein would be of the same persuasion. Pilger makes Robert Fisk look like a moderate.

    Now if that is your benchmark, fine, but in my view it does not define Clinton as a warmonger, unless for instance you think resisting ISIS makes one a warmonger. On that basis, most if not all, western and other leaders are warmongers since the anti-ISIS coalition has about 60 countries in it (including Russia).

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      17 October 2016 at 10:13 am

      He has opposed just about everything the US has done for decades, including opposing the international effort to get Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990.

      maybe the US should not have signalled to Saddam that it would look the other way if Iraq moved against Kuwait.

      • Psycho Milt 11.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 10:48 am

        If you think about it real hard, you might be able to figure out why blaming the US for Saddam Hussein ordering the invasion of Kuwait is completely moronic. This may come as a great shock, but not everything bad that happens in the world is the work of the US government.

    • Bill 11.2
      17 October 2016 at 11:10 am

      Wayne. Iraq and Kuwait. You’ve heard of the road to Basra, yes? A huge military and civilian convoy heading out of Kuwait that was bombed to shit for no fucking good reason at all. Oh yeah. And the non-existent babies in incubators that weren’t actually thrown out of hospital windows by Iraqi troops that was used as a pretext to go all gung ho on the situation….

      Syria. ISIS and Al Nusra, or whatever name change either adopts, are being directly funded by both the UK and the US through the ‘white helmets’. The Syrian government, with the aid of Russia (that it requested) is resisting ISIS and AL Nusra. Oddly, ‘our’ media says that makes the Syrian government and Russia the (irredeemable) bad guys. Go figure.

      Same goes for the peoples in Rojava. Branded as terrorists, yet on the front line in the war against religious extremism.

      And Turkey? Who gives save haven to Al Nusra and others while bombing the crap out of any and all Kurds? Good guys.

      Saudi Arabia? Bombing the crap out of Yemen and funding every ‘religious’ lunatic in the middle east? Good guyss.

      Same goes for Qatar. Good guys.

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.1
        17 October 2016 at 11:26 am

        And Bahrain. “US resuming arms sales” Sept 2015

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-resuming-arms-sales-to-bahrains-military-1435618872

      • Poission 11.2.2
        17 October 2016 at 12:38 pm

        Meanwhile in Mosul 1.2 million civilians face death from coalition bombing,a factor of 4 greater then aleppo.

        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37674693

        • Bill 11.2.2.1
          17 October 2016 at 12:46 pm

          This makes sense. A horrible sense, but still.

          Militants have banned civilians from leaving the city have set up checkpoints on outwards roads and have blown up the homes of those who do flee.

          While leaving can mean trekking through minefields and the risk of discovery and punishment by Isis, those who stay know they face airstrikes, street battles, a potential siege by the Iraqi security forces and the grim possibility of being used as human shields by Isis.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/iraqi-forces-begin-assault-on-isis-stronghold-mosul

          Now why the fuck is that same basic understanding not on display in reports about Eastern Aleppo?

          • Poission 11.2.2.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 12:54 pm

            Guess who makes the reports from east aleppo,we have not had such factual reporting since chemical ali.

          • Colonial Viper 11.2.2.1.2
            17 October 2016 at 5:38 pm

            Have you guys figured out why the Americans have given ISIS weeks and weeks of warning about the coming Mosul assault?

            Ans: to convince as many ISIS fighters as possible to leave Mosul before the fighting starts so they can head west to reinforce ISIS in Syria.

            • Paul 11.2.2.1.2.1
              17 October 2016 at 5:41 pm

              Your source ?

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 October 2016 at 5:52 pm

                Just the logic of it. Why else would you advertise all over the corporate mainstream media that you are going to launch a huge offensive on Mosul weeks ahead of time.

                That and the US effort to build a Salafist principality in eastern Syria where they bombed the Syrian military outpost.

                • Bill …
                  17 October 2016 at 5:57 pm

                  ‘cept the city is apparently surrounded and the offensive was announced early on Monday morning …

                  So, notification of some hours, not weeks.

                  sourceGuardian.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 October 2016 at 6:46 pm

                    Read and weep

                    You should know better than to trust The Guardian.

                    Wall St Journal Sept 8, 2016

                    U.S. Gets Ready to Assist Offensive to Retake Key Iraqi City From Islamic State

                    The U.S. is gearing up to assist in an offensive to reclaim the Iraqi city of Mosul from Islamic State, and has sent 400 additional troops to the country in anticipation Iraqi forces will begin the long-delayed battle in October, officials said.

                    BTW I heard about this because Trump has been saying in his speeches that it is total incompetence to let the enemy know in advance what your plans and timing are.

                    http://www.wsj.com/articles/mosul-offensive-to-begin-within-a-month-u-s-general-says-1473339951

                    • Bill …
                      17 October 2016 at 6:51 pm

                      To be fair to the Guardian (not because i think it should be trusted you understand) but the piece said that “The start of the offensive, which has been months in the planning, was announced in an address on state television by Iraq’s prime minister in the early hours of Monday morning.”

                      Stupid me just assumed that was the, well….announcement. Not an announcement in a long trail of announcements 😉

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 October 2016 at 7:08 pm

                      Heh! They coudn’t have telegraphed their plans any louder and further ahead if they had tried (which I believe was the point…but that’s “conspiracy theory” stuff.)

                    • Macro …
                      17 October 2016 at 7:10 pm

                      If you have complete air dominance, and the city is in a state of siege, then please tell me how it is incompetent to let the population of the city know what your plans are? And it would not take a genius to work them out anyway. Besides it is not the US who are the dominant force in this instance.

                      Iraqi government forces have launched a campaign to retake Mosul, the de-facto capital of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group in Iraq.

                      The bid to retake Mosul comes after the military, backed by armed tribes, militias and US-led coalition air strikes, regained much of the territory the fighters seized in 2014 and 2015.

                      “We are proud to stand with you in this historic operation,” Brett McGurk, US envoy to the coalition against ISIL, said on Twitter at the start of the Mosul offensive.

                      Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr, reporting from Khazir, just east of Mosul, said preparations for the offensive had long been under way, with forces amassing around the city where an estimated one million people still live under the control of ISIL, also known as ISIS.

                      “Now that the formal announcement has been made, we are expecting the US-led coalition to carry out air strikes in support of what is expected to be a ground advance from a number of front lines around the city,” she said.

                      The dropping of thousands of leaflets on the city advising the population of the impending offensive I see as a humanitarian gesture not one of incompetence.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 October 2016 at 7:29 pm

                      ISIS got at least 6 weeks warning from the Wall St Journal and other news sources that Americans were sending in extra help for a big push which was going to happen in October.

                      You think that’s a humanitarian move?

                      I do not think that ISIS allowed any significant evacuations from the city.

                    • Bill …
                      17 October 2016 at 7:54 pm

                      And boom. From that sick inducing Guardian feed….

                      The Wall Street Journal has an interesting line – which we cannot confirm – in its piece on the battle for Mosul, suggesting that Isis has decided to give up on the city.

                      A mid-ranking Islamic State commander said in an interview over Facebook that the group has made a tactical decision to partially abandon Mosul, recalling their “human resources” to Syria where they hope to strengthen their foothold. “There will be no big great epic battle in Mosul,” the commander said. “The tactic now is hit-and-run.”

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 October 2016 at 7:57 pm

                      Sounds about right Bill. Why fight a massive US backed Iraqi military assault when you can go west and cause hell for al-Assad instead.

                    • Bill …
                      17 October 2016 at 8:02 pm

                      And why not strike a deal with your enemy’s enemy that will cause your enemy a heap of trouble? Hell, throw in a bit of armament for the inconvenience you’re causing them.
                      And then, hey….do a photo-op Boys Own military advance on….nothing.?
                      And even get to show how you took a city in ‘no time’ with ‘only acceptable’ civilian casualties!

                      And then back to finger pointing and condemning the Russians and the Syrian government…

                    • McFlock …
                      17 October 2016 at 8:06 pm

                      So, basically, while the ISIS leadership would have noticed a massing of something like 45000 troops, telling them the volume (and maybe even overegging the actual numbers) has shifted ISIS from conventional warfare in a city to leaving some smaller forces to hold out forlornly (then asymmetrically), while most ISIS forces leave the city (probably in convoys easily observable from the air if they want to take heavy equipment with them)?

                      Would that be the situation?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 October 2016 at 8:09 pm

                      And even get to show how you took a city in ‘no time’ with ‘only acceptable’ civilian casualties!

                      I love these win-win-win scenarios. The Americans look good. The Baghdad government looks good. And Assad/the Ruskies get heartburn from a few thousand more ISIS fighters.

                      (Shame about those Syrian civilians who will get torn apart.)

                      A great days work at the Pentagon.

      • Psycho Milt 11.2.3
        17 October 2016 at 1:22 pm

        A huge military and civilian convoy heading out of Kuwait that was bombed to shit for no fucking good reason at all.

        Meh. Same thing happened to the retreating German forces at the Falaise pocket – if you have a large force trying to escape along a single route, and the enemy has 100% air superiority, your people are going to die like flies. That’s a given, and it doesn’t happen for “no fucking good reason at all,” it happens because competent military commanders don’t allow the enemy to withdraw intact with their heavy weaponry. It was horrifying to us because we didn’t live through WW2 – in the first half of the 1940s, this kind of thing happened multiple times.

        I visited the junk pile in 2005 – 14 years later there were still wrecked Iraqi military vehicles there being cut up and put into containers for scrap. The Kuwaitis weren’t shedding any tears over it and neither was I.

        Oh yeah. And the non-existent babies in incubators that weren’t actually thrown out of hospital windows by Iraqi troops that was used as a pretext to go all gung ho on the situation…

        Again, meh. First casualty of war is truth, and the Kuwaitis were willing to lie in their propaganda, although probably not to the extent Saddam Hussein was. The fact remains that Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the rest of the world had an obligation to kick the Iraqis back out of the place. Responsibility for any and all ugly shit that resulted lay with the Iraqi government and no-one else.

        • Garibaldi 11.2.3.1
          17 October 2016 at 3:17 pm

          PM ,you conveniently leave out the complete US support Saddam had up until then.
          The whole Middle East cock up since WW1 can be blamed on the West. Their treatment and attitude towards them has been, and still is ,appalling (and that is over and above religious and oil concerns). We have practiced extreme levels of deceit and hypocrisy in our dealings with them.

        • One Two 11.2.3.2
          17 October 2016 at 4:05 pm

          “First casualty of war is truth”

          Yet you karp on about certain issues as if you have ‘truth’

          You don’t, no-one does!

          The flexibility in your comments is comical

    • Paul 11.3
      17 October 2016 at 5:44 pm

      I guess Pilger doesn’t support illegal invasions and coups.
      You I sense have a moral blind spot to US actions, as long as your own world is fine.

    • reason 11.4
      20 October 2016 at 4:57 pm

      Isis came into existasnce in Iraq out of the rubble, destroyed society, and secular cleansing that Bush and Blairs illegal invasion and war brought to that country …..

      Wayne supported this illegal war and alongside ‘get some guts johnny’ urged New Zealand to join it ……….. based on WMD bullshit and lies…….

      Apart from supporting war crimes……. wayne badmapp is the closest NZ has had to an official minister of propaganda ….. when the nutty nats put him in charge of the very important “Political Correctness Eradication” ministry …. http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=mapp%2Bpolitically

      And then he went a bit like this ……….. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.453744.1314603807!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/alg-resize-klu-klux-klan-jpg.jpg

      Wayne cares not for the ethics of a man like John Pilger …. as racist warmongers like him look even worse and more disgusting after watching a Pilger doco

      http://johnpilger.com/videos/paying-the-price-killing-the-children-of-iraq

      http://johnpilger.com/videos/war-by-other-means

  12. Sacha 12
    17 October 2016 at 11:07 am

    I thought someone was going to create a separate Trump thread? Let’s not have the same meandering conversation day after day.

    • weka 12.1
      17 October 2016 at 1:16 pm

      There’s a bit of work involved. I think it’s worth trying I’m just trying to decide if it’s a good use of time, or if I even have the time. Encouragement in the comments makes it more likely to happen 🙂

  15. Manuka AOR 15
    17 October 2016 at 1:49 pm

    “Trump is not running a presidential campaign, he is running a cult.”
    Here are a few signs of a cult:
    Submission: Complete, almost unquestioned trust in leadership.
    Persecution complex: Us against them mentality.
    Control: Manipulate members actions and thinking through repetitive indoctrination.
    Indoctrination: Teachings of the group are repeated and drilled into members.
    Salvation: The belief that what your hopes and dreams can only be accomplished by following this group.
    Cognitive dissonance: Avoidance of critical thinking, maintaining illogical or impossible beliefs, while denying any facts that contradict your beliefs.
    Sunning: Those who are not like us are the enemy. All of that (plus racism, bigotry, fear-mongering, and more) is exactly what Trump has done throughout his campaign.

    Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/donald-trumps-running-cult-not-presidential-campaign/

    • McFlock 16.1
      17 October 2016 at 2:17 pm

      Not really.

      They exclude economic arguments as not being “left wing”. Ok, let’s go with that: what are the non-economic arguments for and against immigration? Not considered, and no explanation as to why “left wing economics” isn’t a thing according to the author.

      The article doesn’t say why the author “changed their mind” on immigration. House prices? It’s not immigrants who are the problem, but more likely foreign absentee owners and years of increasing government mismanagement. Besides, that’s economic. Schools demand? More jobs for teachers. Infrastructure? What, are immigrants the cause of auckland’s traffic woes? Come on.

      Seems to me to be just a bullshit piece that tries to turn dunnokeyo’s flipflops and waffle into a positive factor, rather than the vacancy that results when you substitute apparent amiability for leadership.

      • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 2:25 pm

        Well dimpost isn’t the normal Key cheerleader or has he/she changed recently?

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 2:31 pm

          dunno, don’t read it regularly.

          It just seemed to me that the thing about key was the only firm statement in the post.

      • The Chairman 16.1.2
        17 October 2016 at 3:05 pm

        “It’s not immigrants who are the problem”

        Perhaps not, but immigrants add to infrastructure demand. And with us largely playing catch up, the extra demand does become problematic.

        • McFlock 16.1.2.1
          17 October 2016 at 3:28 pm

          Any system that can’t deal with a 1% increase in demand over a year is already fucked.

          • The Chairman 16.1.2.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 4:27 pm

            Indeed. Hence, it’s problematic encouraging and allowing more to enter.

            Piling on extra demand makes it more difficult to get on top of the problem.

            • McFlock 16.1.2.1.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 4:35 pm

              Bollocks.

              If the system is broken after a 1% increase, it’s probably solidly broken before the 1% increase. And any solution, to be a solution, would have to be able to handle a 1% fluctuation or the system is still broken.

              Our level of immigration doesn’t break infrastucture, or make it more difficult to solve. If it did, an unexpected home semi-final or any particularly rainy day would drive the transport system into dispair. Or an outbreak of gastroenteritis would overflow the sewers.

              Immigration is a distraction, at the current levels. It would have to increase markedly to be an economic or infrastructure problem.

              • The Chairman …
                17 October 2016 at 4:49 pm

                Our current level of immigration does make the problem of our lacking infrastructure more difficult to solve.

                Take housing for example, while immigration isn’t the only factor driving demand, it is still largely adding to it.

                And as you well know, this also drives up the cost of housing.

                Therefore, not only do we need to build more homes to make up for the extra demand, but we are also going to require a larger correction (due to the extra demand further increasing prices) to bring house prices back into line with incomes or increases at the rate of inflation. Making the challenge more difficult.

                • McFlock …
                  17 October 2016 at 5:49 pm

                  Weasel words. 60000 immigrants a year. Same as the birth rate. What rate do you think they increase the pressure on infrastructures by?

                  Stuff all is my bet.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 October 2016 at 6:56 pm

                    While the percentage of immigrants may be low in comparison to the population, new homes being built can’t keep up with the extra demand they add.

                    Moreover, as a number of them may become property investors themselves, it’s difficult to put a percentage on the total impact they have.

                    At 60 odd thousand we are looking at close to the population of New Plymouth entering the country annually.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 October 2016 at 7:57 pm

                      New homes being built can’t keep up with demand without immigrants, and hasn’t for years.

                      And yet the number of vacant homes in Auckland in the 2013 census was 33,000, about 6%, similar to the rest of the main centres (although regions have higher rates), and similar to preceding census.

                      The problem, therefore, isn’t a shortage of homes. It’s a shortage of availability, for whatever reason. And immigrants are too small in number to be that reason.

                      We have plenty of vacant homes, and yet the number of homeless has increased. This points to a sick system, not a problem with immigration.

                    • The Chairman …
                      18 October 2016 at 11:21 am

                      “New homes being built can’t keep up with demand without immigrants, and hasn’t for years”

                      Therefore, adding more immigrants into the mix is akin to pouring fuel onto the fire.

                      We require to get our own house in order before we encourage and allow more immigrants to enter.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 12:29 pm

                      An irrelevant amout of fuel.

                      To the point you’re effectively saying “don’t throw that thimle of fuel on the house fire, it’ll make it worse” while the fire department (government) just stands by and watch the house burn down.

                      Immigration is a distraction when it comes to the inequity and hardship in this country. An historically tried and true distraction, but a distraction nonetheless. We are not in hardship because of immigrants, they don’t make the problem detectably worse compared to normal social fluctuations, and bitching about it does nothing to address the real problems in our society.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 October 2016 at 1:18 pm

                    Immigration isn’t a distraction. I’ve yet to see anyone blaming all our ills on immigration alone.

                    Nonetheless, the high number entering is compounding the problem.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      “Compounding” by what proportion?

                      Unless they occupy homes at six times the rate of those already here, their contribution to any of our problems is indistinguishable from the background noise that is the general systemic clusterfuck in our country at the moment.

                      Their negative impact is unnoticed. An unnoticed impact compounds nothing.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      18 October 2016 at 1:35 pm

                      Their negative impact is unnoticed. An unnoticed impact compounds nothing.

                      Well, that’s where you’re wrong.

                      It is noticed and even if it wasn’t it’s impact would still compound the issues that we have.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 1:42 pm

                      Really? An increase of 1% is noticed by whom? assumed, maybe, but things like transport and electricity use fluctuate many more times than 1% every day, and longer term things like housing and education are significantly worse off than 1%.

                      Logically, yes, an increase of 1% would increase the burden by 1%, give or take some population differences. But no, we don’t notice a 1% increase in discomfort, or even a 1% delay in our typical daily commute. Or are you one of these people who consistently arrives at work in the same level of relaxed punctuality, within a couple of minutes of the same time every single day? Never 5 mins early or even five mins late?

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 October 2016 at 1:38 pm

                    At close to the population of New Plymouth entering the country annually, it’s far from a unnoticed impact.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 1:44 pm

                      But they don’t all go to New Plymouth, do they?

                      Hell, given many are in families you’d be lucky if they could fill up all the vacant homes in Auckland.

                      How have you, personally, been noticably negatively impacted by immigration? Because I sure haven’t.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 October 2016 at 3:34 pm

                    They mostly end up in Auckland.

                    And given the population of New Plymouth also contains families, we’d be looking at requiring around the same number of homes (as New Plymouth) to house them.

                    And yes, I’ve been personally impacted.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 4:11 pm

                      Mostly? Got a source for that?

                      But I suspect about half of permanent and long term migrants settle in auckland these days. If that. Most recent report on regions vs nationally I could find was data 2010.

                      But, yes you’re right, 74,000 people and 31,000-odd dwellings in New Plymouth. 33,000 unoccupied dwellings in Auckland. So everyone in New Plymouth could move to Auckland and fill up the empty houses, while all the 69,000 net migrants can live in New Plymouth and have slightly more vacant dwellings there.

                      So how were you negatively impacted by immigration?

    • save nz 16.2
      17 October 2016 at 2:21 pm

      I agree with Dimpost and Puckish Rogue

      and liked some of the comments too… in particular Setting your moral sights on the globe is a complete non-starter if you can’t keep your own society healthy and flourishing:

  17. Gangnam Style 17
    17 October 2016 at 2:25 pm

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-tweet-storm-that-should-terrify-the-republican-party/503771/

    Some bigwig conservative Marybeth Glenn is outraged at her fellow Republicans, interesting stuff.

    • joe90 17.1
      17 October 2016 at 2:45 pm

      So everything was just fucking peachy when her party was flat out gerrymandering and suppressing voters to disadvantage other communities for their own political gain, attacking African Americans, women’s reproductive rights, WOC, solo mothers,Hispanics, immigrants trade unions, the poor, the working poor, Muslims…..but sexually assaulting in the main wealthy white women was a step too far so she had to speak up……really?.
      //

    • Ad 17.2
      17 October 2016 at 5:18 pm

      Once she’s finished clutching her pearls in shock, she could reflect that the Republicans are fully on track to retain control of both the Senate and Congress.

      The Republican Party is going to do just fine out of this election.

  18. The Chairman 18
    17 October 2016 at 2:28 pm

    “The problem with this approach is that it reduces the incentive for tenants to take good care of the property they rent. It also reduces the landlord’s incentive to have insurance as it lessens tenants’ responsibilities.”

    Hence, the Government is looking at a law change.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/govt-looking-to-change-law-for-renters-2016101510

  19. Stuart Munro 19
    17 October 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Anyone know anything concrete about the Assange death rumours?

  20. joe90 20
    17 October 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Finally.

    Who says Trump hasn't won any newspaper endorsements? Here's one from "The Premier Voice of The White Resistance." https://t.co/Olgy6a5YK1— America's Voice (@AmericasVoice) October 16, 2016

  22. xanthe 22
    17 October 2016 at 8:12 pm

    “As I’ve said to others. Either comment (honestly) on the substance of the post (preferably intelligently) or take yourself away to the fuck somewhere else.”

    you abuse your responsibility and the power it confers
    you accuse the poster of dishonesty…… (honestly)
    you dismiss ad hominum their arguments….. (preferably intelligently)

    you do not hold yourself to the standard you impose on others
    Ironic in thread discussing the abuse of power

    [Happy to oblige you with your call to martyrdom. Two days. Longer if I forget…on second thoughts…] – Bill

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

  23. Colonial Viper 23
    17 October 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Regarding the women groped by Trump, in real life, was the problem there that they didn’t ” set their own limits”?

    What women? The majority of these stories currently exist at the same level of tabloid heresay and have not been established as fact with any independent witnesses or evidence.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      17 October 2016 at 9:35 pm

      Assuming tabloid level allegations against Trump as fact is on topic and relevant, but pointing out that those allegations are at this stage poorly substantiated is off topic and irrelevant???

      • McFlock 23.1.1
        17 October 2016 at 9:51 pm

        Well, he told “bushy” he did it. Was recorded doing so.
        A dozen women have agreed with him, claiming that he assaulted them on separate occasions.

        How many before you believe it about Trump? Three was enough for Bill Clinton. Two is too few for Assange. Your judgementalism seems to be a bit erratic.

        • RedLogix 23.1.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 10:07 pm

          Which is precisely why we need everything everyone does recorded 24/7/365. Then put it all in the public domain. Stop sex crimes absolutely in their tracks.

          • weka 23.1.1.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 10:21 pm

            That wouldn’t stop sex crimes, and its extremely abusive to take away humans’ privacy absolutely.

            • RedLogix 23.1.1.1.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 10:31 pm

              Why not? It would remove all this ‘he said, she said’ malarkey. No abusive court cross-examinations, no faulty memories, no quibble about the facts.

              Here is the thing; in recent days we have seen an avalanche of women telling of their millions of rapes and assaults that happen to them every day. They live in constant fear. But in my daily life I see none of this; so I conclude that all these sex crimes occur in private, when other people are not around to witness them. Removing all privacy would logically immediately stop all sex crimes.

              Besides we really only have a selective privacy for the very wealthy and powerful; the rest of us can have anything we do recorded and made public at any time with complete impunity.

              100% transparency for everyone. Totally fair and even handed.

              • weka …
                17 October 2016 at 10:45 pm

                Rape is not logical. That’s why we have a very powerful man admitting to sexual assault and still being able to become president. It’s in the public domain, and people are still arguing that it didn’t happen or it wasn’t assault. And that’s not even getting to the issues of tech and how criminals can stay ahead of that.

                That you don’t see sexual assault going on is in part to do with you not looking in the right place. Women see it all the time.

                Privacy is an intrinsic human need. It varies culturally, but in generally it exists across all societies. That we have lost a lot of privacy doesn’t make that benign. And even though in limited circumstances we can have things recorded and made public against our will, we are still a long way from the absolute loss of privacy you are advocating.

                • RedLogix …
                  17 October 2016 at 10:54 pm

                  Privacy is an intrinsic human need.

                  Not really. One of the most striking things about the few remaining indigenous hunter-gatherer societies that is noticed by those privileged enough to live with them for a time, is the complete lack of personal privacy.

                  And the complete absence of sex crimes.

                  we are still a long way from the absolute loss of privacy you are advocating.

                  Not really … technology is ensuring that we are losing privacy at a very rapid rate. Within our lifetimes it will, for all practical purposes, be entirely gone.

                  Once everything is recorded, then it becomes a question of what is made public and what remains private … and who does the selecting?

                  • weka …
                    17 October 2016 at 11:31 pm

                    So you are suggesting that humans in general are going to be ok with being recorded having sex or going to the toilet or giving birth or crying and for all of that to be made public?

                    “One of the most striking things about the few remaining indigenous hunter-gatherer societies that is noticed by those privileged enough to live with them for a time, is the complete lack of personal privacy.”

                    I don’t think that’s true. I think you are comparing their cultural privacy with your own and assuming that because theirs looks like no privacy to you, with your cultural lens, that there isn’t any. But there is, it just manifests in ways that work for that culture. That you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

                    “Once everything is recorded, then it becomes a question of what is made public and what remains private … and who does the selecting?”

                    Which brings us neatly back to technology like this won’t solve rape.

                    • RedLogix …
                      18 October 2016 at 4:26 am

                      So you are suggesting that humans in general are going to be ok with being recorded having sex or going to the toilet

                      Well yes. Aaron Smith may not be ok with it, but almost everyone else is. Donald Trump may well regret being recorded, but everyone else can only be grateful his vulgar gloating about his sexual crimes have been revealed.

                      I guess if women have a problem with being recorded having sex, the technology could be enhanced to ensure all females have their faces and bodies automatically pixelated or something.

                      I think you are comparing their cultural privacy with your own and assuming that because theirs looks like no privacy to you, with your cultural lens, that there isn’t any.

                      I don’t really understand this.

                      Which brings us neatly back to technology like this won’t solve rape.

                      Nor this.

              • mauī …
                17 October 2016 at 10:53 pm

                I imagine this naturally turns into all women should wear body cameras. If the case goes to court the defence will say “Why was she not wearing her body camera!”

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.2
          17 October 2016 at 10:10 pm

          Well, he told “bushy” he did it. Was recorded doing so.

          Did what? To whom? Do you imagine that recording of Trump trash talking like a frat boy on an illegally recorded conversation would be any kind of evidence in any kind of court – other than the court of Tabloid journalism?

          A dozen women have agreed with him, claiming that he assaulted them on separate occasions.

          What dozen women? Who are their independent witnesses? What due process has Trump been given to refute their claims, most of which would be totally inadmissable in court without substantially more evidence?

          Three was enough for Bill Clinton. Two is too few for Assange. Your judgementalism seems to be a bit erratic.

          They found semen stains for Clinton. Where are the semen stains from Trump?

          As for Assange – you want to go another round of that here? I’m game if you are. The only parallel Trump has with the Assange case is the insidious political motivation associated with each case.

          • RedLogix 23.1.1.2.1
            17 October 2016 at 10:21 pm

            You know perfectly well that the allegations are quite sufficient for conviction in the court of public opinion. This is all that matters.

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.2.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 10:25 pm

              Quite; my mistake. I thought people on the Left might actually be interested in things like evidence, corroboration, due process, and justice.

              Not just tabloid slander 3 weeks out from an election.

              • marty mars …
                17 October 2016 at 10:32 pm

                You didn’t think that at all – dank mates having a mutual rug – so cute.

                • RedLogix …
                  17 October 2016 at 10:47 pm

                  Actually no I was not being cute at all. Given that 99.9% of sexual allegations are true, Trump is almost certainly a serial rapist. I fully anticipate at least one of these women will put him into prison for the rest of his life.

                  • marty mars …
                    17 October 2016 at 10:51 pm

                    So the court of public opinion ISN’T all that matters – I agree with that.

                  • weka …
                    17 October 2016 at 11:32 pm

                    “I fully anticipate at least one of these women will put him into prison for the rest of his life.”

                    really? I assume that it’s likely that he won’t (for any number of reasons despite guilt).

                    • RedLogix …
                      18 October 2016 at 6:23 am

                      Why not? There would be enormous support for any one of Trump’s many victims to take this through to a conviction.

                      For a start there could be no question of a hostile cross-examination in such a high profile setting. The pressure on the court to ensure the process avoids the usual re-traumatising aspects of these cases would be immense.

                      Taking down Trump with a life-sentence would be massive and powerful message that women were no longer going to tolerate unwanted sexual aggression from men ever again.

              • weka …
                17 October 2016 at 10:32 pm

                When the two of you start agitating for justice for women that have been sexually assaulted (and men and children), then you might gain some credibility on this topic.

          • marty mars 23.1.1.2.2
            17 October 2016 at 10:29 pm

            Pretty basic shit from you cv -discredit the women – soon you’ll have all sorts of backstory and trumpish bullshit from your trump fanboy sites. It is 101 stuff bur still dusgusting, demeaning and diminising but what happens to these women now doesnt bother you does it.

          • McFlock 23.1.1.2.3
            17 October 2016 at 10:59 pm

            For someone making allegations about the evidence against Trump “what women” is a stupid question to ask. It shows that you’re either a blinkered fool or a callous, blinkered fool.

            Similarly, your comment about semen stains shows that you still don’t understand the difference between a allegation of a consensual if unprofessional affair and an allegation of sexual assault. A bit like the NZRFU, I guess.

          • McFlock 23.1.1.2.4
            17 October 2016 at 11:05 pm

            Do you imagine that recording of Trump trash talking like a frat boy on an illegally recorded conversation would be any kind of evidence in any kind of court – other than the court of Tabloid journalism?

            Illegally recorded? they were mic’d up for their own fucking TV appearance!

            And if you think that what they joked about was typical “frat boy” conversation, he wasn’t a fucking frat boy when he said it. And I worry about the people you regularly associate with if you think that was normal conversation and boasting.

            • weka 23.1.1.2.4.1
              17 October 2016 at 11:26 pm

              Apparently Trump was just acting like a man of his age and station.

              Interesting that it’s frat boy though, given that in the US campus rape is a huge issue publicly now. I guess he can’t use locker room now that athletes have come out and said it’s not locker room talk.

      • Bill 23.1.2
        17 October 2016 at 10:27 pm

        No CV. Reasonably assuming that women who are speaking out are being honest is on topic. Suggesting it’s all just tabloid bullshit isn’t.

        That and like many, many others I’m basically just sick and fucking tired of the constant casual misogyny you throw around the threads. Funnily enough, given that your usual line is a variation of ‘men too’, the piece in the posted article you completely missed…This is bigger than us. We know feminism isn’t just for women, but we need to keep saying this aloud until it’s crystal clear. The fortification of the gender binary hurts all of us. It’s about freeing everyone from the expectations and inequalities of each, and creating the freedom to be yourself – despite what society tells you you should be because of your assigned gender.

        I’ll leave you to it now.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.2.1
          17 October 2016 at 10:44 pm

          Nah fuck it Bill, what I am really sick and tired of is the hypocritical Left totally ignoring the stories of all the women who have come forward over DECADES describing how Hillary Clinton knew exactly what Bill Clinton was up to, enabled his predatory behaviour and in some cases organised to threaten and fuck up these womens lives in order to protect Bill.

          While SIMULTANEOUSLY acting all pious about how we have to give strict credence and assign immediate credibility to all the women who have come forward and made lesser allegations against Trump.

          And why this clear and blatant hypocrisy? Because of, as far as I can tell, nothing more than closed minded political tribalism masquerading as moral righteousness.

          Suggesting it’s all just tabloid bullshit isn’t.

          I’ve never said these women are lying. But it seems that independent witnesses, corroborating evidence and due process is too much to ask that the Left wait for nowadays before assuming and assigning guilt.

          • mickysavage 23.1.2.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 10:50 pm

            Well the Donald is certainly guilty and the Hillary you think is guilty of not protesting sufficiently loudly? Strange false equivalence

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.2.1.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 11:02 pm

              No idea what you said there but I will simplify my point:

              -Bill Clinton’s female victims who claimed for years that Hillary enabled/protected Bill’s predatory behaviour while threatening them personally have no credibility with the Left.

              -Donald Trump’s female victims who claimed for a week that they were assaulted and humiliated by Trump have full credibility with the Left.

              You may consider that “false equivalence” but I think its pretty damn obvious tribal hypocrisy.

              • McFlock …
                17 October 2016 at 11:25 pm

                -Bill Clinton’s female victims who claimed for years that Hillary enabled/protected Bill’s predatory behaviour while threatening them personally have no credibility with the Left.

                Actually, can you find any allegation of HRC’s complicity in any of WJC’s sexual misconduct allegations prior to 2016? Link pls.
                And who “in the Left” has said that those allegations against HRC had no credibility?

                Donald Trump’s female victims who claimed for a week that they were assaulted and humiliated by Trump have full credibility with the Left.

                A bit more than a week, but it has snowballed recently, I agree.
                Well, plus the fact that he claimed he did it, on tape. Illegally recorded or not – you’re a fan of wikileaks aren’t you? Oh, and a lawsuit in 1997 filed by jill Harth. But whatever.

                You may consider that “false equivalence” but I think its pretty damn obvious tribal hypocrisy.

                Actually, it seems to be putting the “false” in “false equivalence”.

                • weka …
                  17 October 2016 at 11:53 pm

                  I don’t know who the Left is, but am wondering if we should form a club.

                  Then there is this (note the date)

                  An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing.

                  If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men. Serious journalists have publicly apologized for turning a blind eye to the Cosby accusers for over a decade, notwithstanding the large number of women who had come forward with credible claims. And now history is repeating itself.

                  In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that – unproven, and should be identified that way. (Mr. Trump’s lawyer says the charges are “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated.”) Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted – no, we are obligated — to analyze the case’s viability now.

                  No outsider can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these new rape charges. But we can look at his record, analyze the court filings here, and make a determination as to credibility – whether the allegations are believable enough for us to take them seriously and investigate them, keeping in mind his denial and reporting new facts as they develop.

                  I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.” These allegations are credible. They ought not be ignored. Mainstream media, I’m looking at you.

                  Legal analyst for NBC News and Avvo and attorney Lisa Bloom.

                  CONTENT WARNING FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF RAPE –

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 October 2016 at 11:55 pm

                  Actually, can you find any allegation of HRC’s complicity in any of WJC’s sexual misconduct allegations prior to 2016? Link pls.

                  Seriously? Juanita Broderick speaks here in 2007

                  • weka …
                    18 October 2016 at 12:07 am

                    Leaving aside the weirdness of providing a Fox news reference, who on the left has said this allegation against HRC has no credibility?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 October 2016 at 12:15 am

                      Oh, that would be all the people who refuse to accept that HRC probably knew about, was complicit with, and helped protect Bill Clinton from the consequences of his long term ongoing predatory sexual behaviour.

                      Leaving aside the weirdness of providing a Fox news reference

                      Maybe pretend for a moment that Broderick has credibility as a rape victim despite the Fox News logo, and actually listen to what she says about both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

                    • weka …
                      18 October 2016 at 12:20 am

                      “Oh, that would be all the people who refuse to accept that HRC probably knew about, was complicit with, and helped protect Bill Clinton from the consequences of his long term ongoing predatory sexual behaviour.”

                      Right. All those people that you can’t actually point out.

                      “Maybe pretend for a moment that Broderick has credibility as a rape victim despite the Fox News logo, and actually listen to what she says about both Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

                      I already watched the video and don’t see any reason to not believe her. The comment about Fox was a reflection on you, not her. But interesting that you conflated those two things (my thinking the Fox reference was weird, with my ability or not to listen to and believe someone’s story). Interesting slur-y attempt to undermine me though.

                      I know you struggle with this because you are so caught up in the false binary you have created, but you really are missing the fact that my criticism of your rape apology doesn’t stop me from seeing rape culture elsewhere in the world including with Bill Clinton.

                  • McFlock …
                    18 October 2016 at 12:31 am

                    When Hillary was starting to run for president then. see how that works, by your standards?

                    But thanks for finally providing a link to an actual sexual assault allegation against Bill Clinton. Feel free to focus on that instead of a consensual affair.

                    And yes, I do have reservations about WJC being back in the White House – but at least he’s not president. As for the clip, I believe the incident she described happened. I’ll even go so far as to say the inferred subject was probably implied. Whether that was intended as “threatening them personally” is unclear.

                    Unlike Trump’s tape and the explicit allegations against Trump and WJC.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 October 2016 at 12:44 am

                      When Hillary was starting to run for president then. see how that works, by your standards?

                      Yeah, very early in the Democrats Primaries process, not 4 weeks before the Presidential election to try and throw the election.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 12:49 am

                      lol
                      whatever, dude. She was still campaigning.

                      You really are obsessed with precise timing these days – going full tory, eh…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 October 2016 at 12:55 am

                      I mention the fact so that people know what the timing was, and so that they can check it out for themselves.

                      Furthermore, Broaddrick’s accusations of rape against Bill had been known and examined by many, and for many years by that time.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2016 at 1:00 am

                      I reckon most people here know how electoral cycles work.

                      Broaddrick’s accusations of rape against Bill had been known and examined for many years by that time.

                      1999, ISTR. But the allegation against HRC of “threatening”(your word and attribution of intention ) her? When did that come out?

          • weka 23.1.2.1.2
            17 October 2016 at 10:58 pm

            Your problem there CV is that you think Monica Lewinsky having an affair with Bill Clinton is the same as Donald Trump grabbing women’s crotches. That you don’t understand the difference is a large part of why no-one here takes what you say about the Clintons as meaningful. You are the one creating a false dichotomy, and you are doing it in a sick and manipulative way by conflating different kinds of behaviour of two men and then using that to try and minimise the one that women are most concerned about. And to push a political agenda.

            “I’ve never said those women are lying. But it seems that independent witnesses, corroborating evidence and due process is too much to ask that the Left wait for nowadays before assuming guilt.”

            If you think that justice for men is the most important thing, that makes sense. However women, and many men, want justice for women too. Those of us who have paid attention to rape culture (or who just care) know that the justice system is hugely biased against women who are victims of rape. We also know that rape culture in large part promotes and supports that by say not believing women. Trump will get his day in court and that’s the place where legal guilt or not will be established. Outside of that it’s not longer acceptable for rape culture to enable rape and for women to just put up with that. We’re done with that. You can make out that this is some kind of trial by public, but that’s just you distorting it again to suit your political agenda.

            Of course your other big problem here is that the man who the accusations are being against, has just admitted to the behaviour.

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.2.1.2.1
              17 October 2016 at 11:22 pm

              Your problem there CV is that you think Monica Lewinsky having an affair with Bill Clinton is the same as Donald Trump grabbing women’s crotches. That you don’t understand the difference is a large part of why no-one here takes what you say about the Clintons as meaningful.

              Bill Clinton used the obscene differential in power, financial and experience differential between himself as President of the United States to ply sexual favours from the lowly paid/unpaid young temporary White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

              It’s pretty clear there are direct parallels there with the alleged behaviour of money drunk power drunk billionaire Donald Trump.

              I can see it straight away. You can too.

              • weka …
                17 October 2016 at 11:37 pm

                Even at a straight legal level there are differences between sexual harassment in the workplace, and sexual assault. I don’t know the exact laws in the US, you can look it up seeing as how you are so concerned about justice and due process.

                What you are saying is that you have a problem with how the men are acting, because of how they are acting (is that a moral thing?). I have a problem with how they are acting because of how it affects the people being acted upon. That’s why I can tell the difference between sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual assault. It’s why I can tell the difference between consensual sex and rape. Because I listen to women.

                It’s also why I don’t need to minimise Trump as a sexual predator in order to look at BC and his actions. You on the other hand…

              • McFlock …
                17 October 2016 at 11:37 pm

                My god, man, you can’t even bring up an actual sexual assault allegation against Clinton, you’re so fixated on a consensual affair. And yes, it was consensual. Not even the Republicans at the time alledged otherwise.

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.2.1.2.2
              17 October 2016 at 11:31 pm

              Of course your other big problem here is that the man who the accusations are being against, has just admitted to the behaviour.

              Firstly, it’s not “my problem.”

              Secondly, Trump said a whole bunch of locker room trash talk. That means he’s guilty of having talked crass shit about women.

              It doesn’t mean he confessed to sexually attacking Anderson, Zervos or Leeds, unless it is your position that what he said on that illegal recording is as good as a confession to attacking Anderson, Zervos or Leeds.

              • weka …
                17 October 2016 at 11:40 pm

                Yeah it is your problem. You are arguing that he’s not getting due process. That might have been true had he not said he sexually assaults women. He’s the one that lowered the bar so massively.

                “It doesn’t mean he confessed to sexually attacking Anderson, Zervos or Leeds, unless it is your position that what he said on that illegal recording is as good as a confession to attacking Anderson, Zervos or Leeds.”

                Strawman, I’m not conflating what Trump said with those allegations. I’m saying that for you to argue that Trump’s word that he didn’t sexually assault those women means no-one should be talking about him as if he did has bigger all credibility. The guy is a self-confessed sexual predator, of course people are going to talk about him as such when looking at the accusations.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 October 2016 at 12:09 am

                  I’m saying that for you to argue that Trump’s word that he didn’t sexually assault those women means no-one should be talking about him as if he did has bigger (sic) all credibility.

                  That’s not what I argued. Please don’t lie about what I said or claimed people should do.

              • miravox …
                18 October 2016 at 12:10 am

                Come on CV, why don’t you give this a rest. Trump’s comments and excuses for those comments are defensible. You could argue if it’s frat boy talk or locker room talk (although lots of locker room people have already said its not), if it was confession or boast, whether women are confirming that behaviour or making unfounded allegations, but that’s the past and it’s not affecting his rating, apparently.

                Why don’t you argue on policy – the future, that’s what counts if he becomes president, yes? There’s plenty there – immigration, tax, why the US doesn’t use nukes even though they have them, waterboarding, China as an economic threat, climate change, taking oil from countries that have it…. all things he could do something about – things that would make a difference if he were president.

                Because it seems impossible, given attitudes of the defenders of Trump, to see how attitudes and behaviours could ever change in a way that would make a difference to the well-being of women if he was to become President.

          • One Two 23.1.2.1.3
            17 October 2016 at 11:14 pm

            Probably the clearest comment you have made to illustrate your frustration

            The twisting of positions could be more apparant in the hypocrisy over reaction to the allegations against Trump versus the complete dissonance and denial over Bill Clinton

            Frankly its bizarre

          • One Two 23.1.2.1.4
            17 October 2016 at 11:54 pm

            Probably the clearest expression of your frustration

            The dissonance involved is incredibly high and the bullying is out of control

            Bill v Donald (they are one and the same)

            Some believe there is somehow a difference in what they are and some even perform mental gymnastics in efforts to illustrate a difference

            There is no difference!

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.2.1.4.1
              18 October 2016 at 12:01 am

              Chur

              Although in fact it is Hillary vs Trump

              Trump alleged to have sexually assaulted women
              Hillary who is alleged to have covered up for and enabled Bill’s multiple rapes and affairs over many many years.

              But yeah, the hypocritical political tribalism is fucking rampant.

              • One Two …
                18 October 2016 at 12:13 am

                Well yes there is the ‘covering up’ aspect which the ‘progressives’ disregard at the same rate as the ‘allegations’ against Bill. The abuse involved , is still abuse

                So very limp on self discipline with regards to elementary rationale and reasoning

                Quite why, is the interesting aspect

                Perhaps bullying, denial and hipocrisy are considered ‘tools of empowerment’

            • weka 23.1.2.1.4.2
              18 October 2016 at 12:10 am

              “Some believe there is somehow a difference in what they are”

              Citation needed. Or at least clarify if you are referring to people in this thread. You imply that you are, and if you are then you need to provide a reference. If not, then clarify that.

    • marty mars 23.2
      17 October 2016 at 10:02 pm

      Yep make the women invisible – tried and true tactic for bigots.

      • Colonial Viper 23.2.1
        17 October 2016 at 10:12 pm

        These women have been featured on US TV networks 24/7 in order to slam Trump.

        What do you mean they are “invisible”?

        • marty mars 23.2.1.1
          17 October 2016 at 10:24 pm

          ‘What women’ ring a bell?

          • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.1.1
            17 October 2016 at 10:30 pm

            Oh you mean the women who have made ALLEGATIONS that they were groped by Trump. Yes there are a few of those who have suddenly come out of the woodwork, all at once, and several using the same lawyer.

            • marty mars 23.2.1.1.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 10:44 pm

              Your sneery tone just shows what a right wing hater you are.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 October 2016 at 10:56 pm

                Yep reach for the ad homs, marty mars, it gives you strength and feels good to let the dark side flow.

                • marty mars …
                  17 October 2016 at 11:16 pm

                  So much of what comes from you are just scenes and dialogue from movies – the funny thing is you think you’re being clever but I think you are like a parrot not even comprehending any depth in the syllables escaping your lips like a rapidly deflating balloon. Sunnyside up for me ta.

        • mauī 23.2.1.2
          17 October 2016 at 10:28 pm

          Many havent been visible for decades due to fear of not being believed and threats from going up against powerful figures. Do you not get this?

          • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.2.1
            17 October 2016 at 10:34 pm

            The only person I suspect to have definitively organised against women in this way is Hillary Clinton, in order to protect the political career of her husband, Bill Clinton. Do you not get this?

            • mauī 23.2.1.2.1.1
              17 October 2016 at 11:01 pm

              Ok, you’re baiting and switching now.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 October 2016 at 11:58 pm

                I know, cheap shot but I’m tired of arguing against people who believe Trump’s female accusers in a flat second, while simultaneously utterly dismissing the female accusers of Hillary Clinton who have been speaking out for years.