"It is an unverified and unverifiable fact unless you can show actual evidence that the individuals in the poll had done exactly that." 1. It is supported by the article I referenced. 2. It was is supported by the numbers. Unless you think the 3% the ...
"You just asserted a ‘fact’. " Actually two facts. Fact 1: "In the latest poll, support has shifted from Labour to the Greens." Proof: https://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/news/political-polls/ Fact 2: "Those people who sifted did so KNOWING Metiria committed ...
"So tell why me the situation is any different. " Slavery was the brutal and murderous subjugation of a section oft he population based solely on their colour. Metiria lived(s) in a country which provides money to people who find themselves in difficulty, ...
That's not the point. There could be other reasons, but anyone who shifted their support must be comfortable with potentially voting for a self confessed fraudster and benefit cheat.
Bill it's not idiocy, it's reading behaviour. In the latest poll, support has shifted from Labour to the Greens. That is a simple fact. Those people who sifted did so KNOWING Metiria committed fraud. That is a simple fact. How else can you interpret that? ...
But have they? The people who shifted their voting preference did so knowing Metiria committed fraud. That speaks volumes.
So you're comparing a welfare cheat with slaves? Gee you have swallowed the whole martyr complex thing. Hey look I'd swallow it too, if Metiria had fessed up years ago and paid the money back. But 20 years too late? Nah.
"You are obviously wrong." About what? "...given the election is what they are being measured against." EXACTLY. And my comparisons were of the two CB polls immediately before the last election. It is the election that determines accuracy, which is why I ...
LPrent. The post included the following comment: “Colmar Brunton tends to do the following: Over-poll National". That comment makes my response entirely reasonable. I'd suggest you pull your head out your own arse and read the comments before jumping in. [...
Tacit = 'understood or implied'. "Green co-leader Metiria Turei says she's heard from people all over the country who felt they had to lie to WINZ in their past and people who are currently doing so. But she won't condemn them." http://www.newshub.co.nz/...
"And what has that got to do with “those who support criminal activity” that you claimed existed and that you claimed were shifting their support from NZ Labour to the Greens?" Support has shifted from Labour to the Greens since Metiria confessed to fraud....
Support has shifted from Labour to the Greens since Metiria confessed to fraud.
"The Greens don’t support criminal activity..." Yes, they do. There has been no condemnation from them about Metiria's criminal past, indeed Metiria herself has tacitly condoned current beneficiaries rorting the system. You might support their stance, but ...
[deleted] [lprent: read my comment further up. ]
You'd have to look. I would have thought the two immediately prior to an election would be a good guide to how accurate the polling is, given the election is what they are being measured against. [lprent: You are obviously wrong. Perhaps you should pull ...
“Not according to the OED. What dictionary do you use?” It’s not about a dictionary definition, it’s about what the expression ‘universal basic income means’. “If you think “to everyone without exception” means that it still maintains exceptions, you’re a ...
The previous CB poll (6–10 September 2014) had National 46, Labour 25, Greens 14, NZF 7. Again, National understated.
"The discrimination was passed into law ..." ...and is being reviewed as a result of having been found. Hence the AG's comments.
"Colmar Brunton tends to do the following: Over-poll National. Under-poll Labour. Slightly under-poll the Greens. Very slightly under-poll New Zealand First." Good try, but no. CM poll taken 13 - 17 September 2014: National 45%, Labour 25%, Greens 12, NZF ...
"It’s called a “dictionary”…" Again, you flounder. Some refer to a UBI yet exclude children. 'Universal' can mean 'for everyone', yet still maintain exceptions. "Well, no, because you’ve repeatedly said that you’re “agnostic” about actually universal basic...
"We can’t dress this up – the Meteria move hasn’t motivated non-voters, it’s simply damaged Labour." Of course it has. Labour has bled support from those who support criminal activity to the Greens, just as they are bleeding their traditional voter base to...
“Then they’re not fucking universal, are they.” Yet they are called ‘Universal’. Meaning there needs to be a discussion about what ‘Universal’ actually means. Meaning that discussion is what I’ve been referring to. Meaning you are resorting to foul ...
“Quote the “government response” from the link I posted that “proves me wrong”” Gladly: “Mr Finlayson finds the discrimination cannot be justified under provisions of the Act which allow reasonable limits on particular rights or freedoms if they serve an ...
That's just one article explaining what is happening. Nissan have produced an electric truck since 2012. Electric milk trucks have been used in the UK for at least a decade. Electric rubbish trucks were deployed in Beijing from 2008, France since 2011. The...
"No, it’s not." Yes it is. Virtually all UBI discussion takes some constitutionality as a given (in the form of the exclusion of children). "A discussion about “defining elements of a basic income” is a discussion about a basic income, not a discussion ...
"You asked for evidence of “systemic” discrimination at 4.14." Which you haven't provided. If the discrimination was 'systemic, the government would support the discrimination and further enshrine it in law. The government response in your own reference ...
I said: "The law was at fault, but they were not to know that." You said: "Bollocks." I said: "You have no evidence whatsoever WINZ staff knowingly broke the law. None." To which you replied: "The fact that the law breaches the Bill of Rights means they do...
You've confused two separate sentences as being one. No wonder you're confused.
"The argument that you think I did not understand is not the argument that you actually managed to write down." Yes, it is. "but of course the UBI debate is about..." ...defining elements of a basic income. Including universality. Or not.
"Except that I’m not backtracking." Of course you are. You confused the subject completely.
Seems not to be an issue, and they've been around for a while. Pick-up's, semis, tractors, milk trucks etc etc. One of the most advanced in terms of commercial use is rubbish trucks. Here's an article about what's happening in California, including road ...
Recent Comments