Post history

History for james dean

Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread

Back to topic

Current version

Posted August 09, 2017 22:44 · last edited August 09, 2017 22:46

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

I find it odd that people who are green voters are still supporting her when she has pretty much torpedoed the Green party vote at this election by effectively misrepresenting her own circumstances.  It's probably one of the worst pieces of politics in the last 20 years

The Green's have been campaigning for years on their compassion towards those struggling. You would expect many Green voters to have that compassion and understanding for a single mum in her early 20s making decisions to help her daughter and herself get out of poverty. She still maintains her financial independence, so not sure how else she is misrepresenting her own circumstances: 

Because she presented her decision as being a stark one between feeding her child and breaking the law.  

What is becoming apparent is that both she and the child had significant family support meaning that (a) the "choice" was not as she described it and (b) her eligibility for the particular benefit she was on (the DPB) was severely compromised.  Radio NZ was contacted by members of her "extended family" who were upset at what they felt was a misrepresentation of the level of support she was getting form the family.  And that's not surprising, she has implied that she was getting no support from the family on the father of the child's side, which when you consider that she was supposedly in extreme poverty would be very cold hearted considering they had significant means to do so!

I agree that she is trying to advocate for beneficiaries and there is a good story to tell, but fundamentally she's completely cocked this whole thing up!!

In her initial speech she talked about the support she received from family and friends, as she again said in the interview on Checkpoint, and that she rented out rooms to help alleviate her financial situation while on the dpb (not sure what she would have been getting but have seen that the maximum possible accommodation supplement in 1993 was $50pw  https://twitter.com/GraemeEdgeler/status/886879940183904256). I don't think anyone has any concrete evidence to suggest she was not financially independent. 

I think it's fair to assume that was coming given she had categorically denied she was going to resign earlier that day.  If she was getting financial support from family then she would not have been eligible for the DPB.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited August 09, 2017 22:46
Bullion wrote:
james dean wrote:
Bullion wrote:
james dean wrote:

I find it odd that people who are green voters are still supporting her when she has pretty much torpedoed the Green party vote at this election by effectively misrepresenting her own circumstances.  It's probably one of the worst pieces of politics in the last 20 years

The Green's have been campaigning for years on their compassion towards those struggling. You would expect many Green voters to have that compassion and understanding for a single mum in her early 20s making decisions to help her daughter and herself get out of poverty. She still maintains her financial independence, so not sure how else she is misrepresenting her own circumstances: <iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rmvELokgC5E?start=315" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Because she presented her decision as being a stark one between feeding her child and breaking the law.  

What is becoming apparent is that both she and the child had significant family support meaning that (a) the "choice" was not as she described it and (b) her eligibility for the particular benefit she was on (the DPB) was severely compromised.  Radio NZ was contacted by members of her "extended family" who were upset at what they felt was a misrepresentation of the level of support she was getting form the family.  And that's not surprising, she has implied that she was getting no support from the family on the father of the child's side, which when you consider that she was supposedly in extreme poverty would be very cold hearted considering they had significant means to do so!

I agree that she is trying to advocate for beneficiaries and there is a good story to tell, but fundamentally she's completely cocked this whole thing up!!

In her initial speech she talked about the support she received from family and friends, as she again said in the interview on Checkpoint, and that she rented out rooms to help alleviate her financial situation while on the dpb (not sure what she would have been getting but have seen that the maximum possible accommodation supplement in 1993 was $50pw  https://twitter.com/GraemeEdgeler/status/886879940183904256). I don't think anyone has any concrete evidence to suggest she was not financially independent. 

I think it's fair to assume that was coming given she had categorically denied she was going to resign earlier that day