Bill Clinton did the same re-splitting the atom, btw.
Does rather piss me off that people who are statistically likely to die within 5 years are the ones voting to screw the planet for my daughter’s generation. Not sure how long I’ve got, but probably not a heck of a lot longer.
But climate change is just not even being discussed, so it can’t exist, right? It’s not even a political discussion. And I think we’re at 1.5 now right?
Eh. F it. Phoenix better win something on the next 4 years or it’s gunna be a complete downer.
So 10 million illegals ( criminals amongst them) flood into the country, putting housing, jobs, health on the line for US citizens. Any country without secure boarders will never be OK. The government of the day are the only ones that should allow people to enter their country. Common sense really.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Ten million is less than 3% of their population and a good chunk of them are transient who cross into the US temporarily for low cost seasonal labour and then return home in the off season.
Rather than being a burden on the system, the illegal immigrants are a net benefit as they contribute through taxation but are too scared to use state provided services.
All stats say that immigrant communities have lower levels of criminology than non immigrants.
Saying all that, of course they should minimise illegal immigration and create legal pathways, it's just not the political issue or anywhere near the problem that Trumps people say it is.
So 10 million illegals ( criminals amongst them) flood into the country, putting housing, jobs, health on the line for US citizens. Any country without secure boarders will never be OK. The government of the day are the only ones that should allow people to enter their country. Common sense really.
Already seeing the economic impacts of Trump's policy. People aren't showing up to work because they fear deportation meaning food is going unharvested and starting to rot. Factories are unable to run because of the same labour shortage.
Nasdaq had a huge drop, partially because of Chinese AI parity with the US but also partially because most of the large tech stocks rely on TSMC in Taiwan to manufacture their chips and Trump has announced a 100% tarrif. It's not simply a matter of building foundries in the US either, these things take years and cost billions to build (TSMC is building a 65 billion dollar facility in Arizona) and TSMC is multiple generations ahead of the competition in their node process.
Trump threatened tarrifs on Columbia but had to back down because of the projected cost increase in coffee and flowers (just before Valentine's day) so will be interesting if he backs down on chips.
We'll see what the impact on the freeze of benefits does, but no doubt it will cause huge economic issues as well as simply being cruel.
Not sure what the latest data is but in 2022, illegal immigrants contributed $2.2 trillion dollars (8% of GDP or almost the entire Canadian GDP) to the American economy. This was through local and state taxes, contributions to the labour force and spending. Much like kiwis in Australia, it's better for their economy if there are more of them. No illegals, you go broke.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Yet Trump got a record % of the Latino vote last year for a Republican candidate. Big numbers of legal Latino Americans (some who arrived as illegals), don't want their compatriots crossing the Rio Grande.
Why not have a type of legal seasonal work scheme like NZ's RSE? Sure far from perfect, but a better longer term solution than paying a scumbag human trafficker your life savings, and putting your life at risk to cross the border.
From Aussie and 'stop the boats', to local Sth Africans murdering Zimbabwean street vendors in Joburg, to Peruvians beating up Venezuelans on a Lima train, to Hungary and a border wall - uncontrolled illegal migration pisses off the locals and leads to hate.
Yet Trump got a record % of the Latino vote last year for a Republican candidate. Big numbers of legal Latino Americans (some who arrived as illegals), don't want their compatriots crossing the Rio Grande.
Why not have a type of legal seasonal work scheme like NZ's RSE? Sure far from perfect, but a better longer term solution than paying a scumbag human trafficker your life savings, and putting your life at risk to cross the border.
From Aussie and 'stop the boats', to local Sth Africans murdering Zimbabwean street vendors in Joburg, to Peruvians beating up Venezuelans on a Lima train, to Hungary and a border wall - uncontrolled illegal migration pisses off the locals and leads to hate.
So you're saying we should give it back to the indigenous people pakeha took it off as the solution? I'm with ya.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Nation State politics is reaching it's lowest point, and coming to an end. Very similar to the corruption and general state of the church right before church and state were separated. Technology is at the point where the centralisation of the administration of state services is mostly no longer required. What "DOGE" is doing right now will spread. Ignore partisan headlines that are for or against it, the simple premise of using easily available technology to make government spending and performance truly transparent will spread like wildfire. People will start to truly understand how their tax is being used, and see the total waste and corruption, from both sides of the aisle, and they will rightly demand better. This is not support for Musk or Trump or any politician, I hate them all, both sides, and their days are all numbered. Government administration will reduce drastically from here, until governments actually do what they say on the tin: Administer actual necessary services, and ask their bosses (us) for the right amount of money they need to do it. Instead of forcibly taking way more than necessary, and wasting it on the things that give them good PR and will win them the next election. We are moving to a world of sovereign individuality, and thanks to Bitcoin, we will not require nation-state level violence to protect our property, and nation-state level violence will not be able to steal that property from others. It may take some time, but a peaceful, prosperous, fair, world is on its way. Be optimistic.
Wot? I mean what is sovereign individuality? Is that to do with sovereign citizens movement? (Coz they can fudge right off) Also why will it bring about a harmonious transition to a new world?
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
What doge is doing is the opposite of transparency, the buearacracy and governance that they're breaking up is what provides the transparency.
The CFPB that DOGE is trying to close makes money for the government and has helped 200 million Americans. There is no reason to shut it based on "efficiency" it is however a department that regulates Musk...
I don't think people want to live in anarchist and objectavist societies, you need scale to invest in infrastructure and to tackle big problems like climate change.
Wot? I mean what is sovereign individuality? Is that to do with sovereign citizens movement? (Coz they can fudge right off) Also why will it bring about a harmonious transition to a new world?
No. It is not a movement, and it is not part of any movement. It is the natural trend of technology over time towards the enablement of complete decentralisation, and therefore full freedom and protection for the world's smallest minority: the individual. It does not require involvement in politics, it does not require revolution, it does not require anyone's permission, it cares not about any of our opinions, it is simply inevitable. It has been happening for thousands of years and is now accelerating with the advent of AI and proper sound money becoming accessible to the individual.
What doge is doing is the opposite of transparency, the buearacracy and governance that they're breaking up is what provides the transparency.
The CFPB that DOGE is trying to close makes money for the government and has helped 200 million Americans. There is no reason to shut it based on "efficiency" it is however a company that regulates Musk...
I don't think people want to live in anarchist and objectavist societies, you need scale to invest in infrastructure and to tackle big problems like climate change.
I am not claiming that Musk or Trump are good, I am not saying that "DOGE" is good, or USAID is bad. I simply do not care, that is all part of the next round of political posturing. Even if it is good, it will turn bad. If it is bad, it will not turn good. Nothing politically run ever stays good, or changes to good from bad. It is simply a new thing, showing us that modern technology can be used to sort data and show it to the public, thus allowing decision-making, which demonstrates that the government is not needed to do that any longer. We can see for ourselves. Like Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door, demonstrating to the people they no longer need to have the priest telling them what the bible says and what it means. He showed them that it could now be printed, translated, read, interpreted and debated by the individual, no matter his standing in society. What actions we take with that information is the political argument I am not making, and am not interested in. It is simply the evidence of what technology now makes possible. I am however somewhat amused when arguments are made that we need centralisation of government to fight climate change, and other big concerns of that nature. Where is the track record of success? Why do we think government is the one for this job? Climate change activism spends so much time and money on lobbying government, and getting nowhere, whilst at the same time decrying large companies for their behaviour, for being the supposed perpetrators. Government is simply a company, the biggest company of all, with a full monopoly, no bottom line and therefore no accountability. To think that they are going to make a difference to our climate through regulation is crazy to me, when they have gotten absolutely nowhere. When a climate change protest is happening, members of government literally join it. Who are they protesting, themselves? It is an absurd act, a PR exercise for the next election. When a majority of people agree on something strongly, they will act on an individual level. If they are empowered to act i.e. not constrained by regulation, lack of choice, lack of autonomy and resource, or people in influential positions with bad incentives, then they will do so. They will not need coercion, or threat, just their own belief and conviction, and no one who is able to prevent them from making their personal moral decisions.
There's a saying, "regulations are written in blood". We have regulation for a reason. As a Wellingtonian, who lives in an earthquake prone city, I'm glad we have strong building regulations - yet property developers decry them for creating unnecessary cost and burden. The vast majority of regulations are there for a reason, and in a lot of cases they're there because if they weren't there lives would be lost.
The free market is good at some things, government is good at other things, either extreme is dangerous.
The government has a lot of accountability, it's held to account by its own safeguards and balance of power (which DOGE and Trump are dismantling in the case of the US) and with the ultimate accountability every three years (in the case of NZ, or four years in the US).
The issue is people thinking a government needs to be run like a business, in a hybrid model (like what most of the west runs) the government is there to help constrain the worst parts of capitalism through regulation and providing services.
What I think we'll find is that what's happening in the US is the rapid decline in the worldview and dismantling of alliances that has kept the world at unprecedented peace and prosperity for almost a century. Or, there will be a big backlash by the US voters (who hate the idea of the emerging oligarchy, having billionaires in government is only supported by 13% of people) and a return to the type of government which has been so successful.
I hate debating partisan politics, I have no side, so it's rather difficult to engage when the other person is living on one side of a binary that I am not in. So to repeat again, I do not like Trump or the right, I despise all sides of all aisles. I am not sure if you are aware, but more money and billionaires are behind the democratic party than the republican party. It's quite odd watching the likes of Sanders and Warren scream from the rooftops about trump and republicans being influenced by rich entities when they themselves are some of the largest recipients of donations from the pharmaceutical industry etc. Worse than that is what we're seeing now, when billionaires are simply switching to the winning camp - Bezos, Zuckerberg, many others, have switched their funding and ideology from left to right in the last few months. It's all the same game. And I do not think that history and evidence supports the idea that we've had a century of peace that will be destroyed by Trump. The largest, most violent wars in human history occurred in that so-called century of peace. They were initiated by governments, and worsened and lengthened by governments. And the second half of it was punctuated by proxy wars, a new development, where wars are basically fought for the sake of it. Long, drawn out conflicts where the result doesn't matter, only their existence does. Ironically the most peaceful US presidency since the 2nd world war was Trump's first term. Multiple wars have taken and are taking place that 99% of humans do not think should be happening. So if that 99% was empowered to decide if they should happen, what would that mean? Incentive for war is a political one for nation states. Funding for war is a political action, through the endless creation of un-sound money, by nation states. If we, the people, people like every person in this thread, were to be able to make the decision on whether to go to war, and how it should be funded, we would simply not go to war, and we wouldn't fund it. For my admittedly utopian view of the future, nothing needs to be done, argued, promoted, or enacted. The technology brings stronger and more ethical incentives, it's a natural evolution. We are all caught in a "normalcy bias" where we think that the current democratic nation state structure is the way its always been, and will always be. It's not always been this way, and it won't always be this way. To think that this is it, that we've found that optimum way to be, the optimum type of centralisation of authority, and the optimum method of the transfer and storage of value, is understandable, but wrong.
Who said anything about sides or partisanship? In fact I took a purely centrist approach by saying there is a pragmatic middle ground.
I don't know how anyone can look at what is happening in social media and say direct democracy would be a positive thing. Curation is important and trusting expertise is important and in a direct democracy model driven by technology and consensus there is a diminishing of trust in expertise. We've seen a lie from a grifter is more trusted than the truth from an expert and there is no recourse. The lie and the truth sit at the same level, and what becomes the belief is driven by popularity.
I thought like you until about five years ago (in fact, I used to be a contributor to a direct democracy codebase), however the mess were in currently can be laid firmly at the feet of technology. We've seen that algorithms are immoral and will, unchecked, manipulate people to get the most engagement and outrage, just like capitalism unchecked is an all consuming beast.
Anarchism, objectavism, communism, etc, are all extremes and my view is extremes don't work. The model where government reigns in the worst parts of capitalism and fills in the gap where capitalism cannot meet the outcomes for society, has been a very successful model and has brought billions of people out of poverty and has been the model which could very well have prosided over the peak of human civilisation.
There's definitely advantages and efficiencies to leveraging technology, the use of a decentralised ledger like a blockchain for open and transparent elections or the real time auditability of government finances, for instance. But it shouldn't come at the expense of expertise and that's what direct democracy does.
For sure. We should trust the experts and trusted news sources, and deplatform conspiracy theorists who spread disinformation like the Wuhan lab leak and Hunter Biden's laptop.
I hate debating partisan politics, I have no side, so it's rather difficult to engage when the other person is living on one side of a binary that I am not in. So to repeat again, I do not like Trump or the right, I despise all sides of all aisles. I am not sure if you are aware, but more money and billionaires are behind the democratic party than the republican party. It's quite odd watching the likes of Sanders and Warren scream from the rooftops about trump and republicans being influenced by rich entities when they themselves are some of the largest recipients of donations from the pharmaceutical industry etc. Worse than that is what we're seeing now, when billionaires are simply switching to the winning camp - Bezos, Zuckerberg, many others, have switched their funding and ideology from left to right in the last few months. It's all the same game. And I do not think that history and evidence supports the idea that we've had a century of peace that will be destroyed by Trump. The largest, most violent wars in human history occurred in that so-called century of peace. They were initiated by governments, and worsened and lengthened by governments. And the second half of it was punctuated by proxy wars, a new development, where wars are basically fought for the sake of it. Long, drawn out conflicts where the result doesn't matter, only their existence does. Ironically the most peaceful US presidency since the 2nd world war was Trump's first term. Multiple wars have taken and are taking place that 99% of humans do not think should be happening. So if that 99% was empowered to decide if they should happen, what would that mean? Incentive for war is a political one for nation states. Funding for war is a political action, through the endless creation of un-sound money, by nation states. If we, the people, people like every person in this thread, were to be able to make the decision on whether to go to war, and how it should be funded, we would simply not go to war, and we wouldn't fund it. For my admittedly utopian view of the future, nothing needs to be done, argued, promoted, or enacted. The technology brings stronger and more ethical incentives, it's a natural evolution. We are all caught in a "normalcy bias" where we think that the current democratic nation state structure is the way its always been, and will always be. It's not always been this way, and it won't always be this way. To think that this is it, that we've found that optimum way to be, the optimum type of centralisation of authority, and the optimum method of the transfer and storage of value, is understandable, but wrong.
for supposedly being against partisan politics you sure seem to spew a lot of disinformation and propaganda
One of the better distinctions I saw comparing dems to GOP is dems are corporatists (want rule of law, consistency etc. to facilitate trade and business) and GOP are oligarchs (wealth is power and influences policy)
Trump has banned travel from a dozen countries incl. Iran - who have already qualified for the WC
"US President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning the nationals of 12 countries from entering the United States, saying the move was needed to protect against "foreign terrorists" and other security threats." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/563152/donald-trump-bans-travel-to-us-from-12-countries-citing-security-concerns
Edit: a bit more looking into this and there are dispensations for athletes, coaches and support staff, and direct family members. This potentially impacting not only WC but Olympics as well. No fans or wider family.
What I wonder about is what will happen with the USA when Trump's term finishes. He's 79, and will be 82 in 2028. The consitution doesn't allow him a 3rd term anyway. Maybe a shooter will finally find their target.
I don't follow their politics closely enough to know if he has a near clone, waiting to battle for the Republican nomination in 3 years.
But I heavily suspect not. I think (maybe optimistically) that alot of the more unhinged, unpleasant stuff will be rewound even if it is again another 4 year Republican presidency from 2028-2032. A conservative Reagan or Bush like figure maybe, but I just think currently it is US politics at it's most extreme and far right.
Politics are like a pendulum, It went from central to the extreme left and now it's swinging back to the extreme right. Neither directions are good. Bring it back into the middle and jam the mechanism.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
Clarke? I promise you the labour party is not 'extreme left' 😂
Yes. But that's not what the right wingers would have you believe.
Am actually starting to wonder if the NZ public might have appetite for a National Labour coalition. Get some bipartisan agreement happening on infrastructure, health and education. Make for some long term centralist planning. Won't make everyone happy, but ping pong politics is ruining this country. Do away with the more extreme ideology we see from both sides of the spectrum.
I think we should make a rule that if you want to be leader of a party/prime minister then it instantly rules you out from being the leader of the party/prime minister. It will be chaos while we get used to it but I think it'll work better than the current setup in the long run.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Clarke? I promise you the labour party is not 'extreme left' 😂
Yes. But that's not what the right wingers would have you believe.
Am actually starting to wonder if the NZ public might have appetite for a National Labour coalition. Get some bipartisan agreement happening on infrastructure, health and education. Make for some long term centralist planning. Won't make everyone happy, but ping pong politics is ruining this country. Do away with the more extreme ideology we see from both sides of the spectrum.
Modern day Germany operates a bit like that.
Personally I think if Western European countries can somehow stop illegal immigration, alot of the hard right ideology will fade away. But easier said than done. Same the US with it's long Mexican border.
If say 10,000 illegals (predominantly single men) entered NZ over a couple of years, there would be a myriad of issues arise. And some hard right populist would emerge, out of Timaru or somewhere. Luckily Aotearoa is a hard to get to, couple of isolated islands.
Oh and Ardern was of course elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. There have been more centralist political bodies.
Clarke? I promise you the labour party is not 'extreme left' 😂
Yes. But that's not what the right wingers would have you believe.
Am actually starting to wonder if the NZ public might have appetite for a National Labour coalition. Get some bipartisan agreement happening on infrastructure, health and education. Make for some long term centralist planning. Won't make everyone happy, but ping pong politics is ruining this country. Do away with the more extreme ideology we see from both sides of the spectrum.
there is some issues that Nats and Labs do actually come to the table and agree to pass and not change should governments change - true bipartisanism. Ive often said a National/Labour coalition government would be unstoppable. Nats running the books and spending, Labour taking care of the social issues. Neither party being dragged left or right as their traditional partners want.
Clarke? I promise you the labour party is not 'extreme left' 😂
Yes. But that's not what the right wingers would have you believe.
Am actually starting to wonder if the NZ public might have appetite for a National Labour coalition. Get some bipartisan agreement happening on infrastructure, health and education. Make for some long term centralist planning. Won't make everyone happy, but ping pong politics is ruining this country. Do away with the more extreme ideology we see from both sides of the spectrum.
Modern day Germany operates a bit like that.
Personally I think if Western European countries can somehow stop illegal immigration, alot of the hard right ideology will fade away. But easier said than done. Same the US with it's long Mexican border.
If say 10,000 illegals (predominantly single men) entered NZ over a couple of years, there would be a myriad of issues arise. And some hard right populist would emerge, out of Timaru or somewhere. Luckily Aotearoa is a hard to get to, couple of isolated islands.
Oh and Ardern was of course elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. There have been more centralist political bodies.
Just to push back, most of the immigration is legal immigration. There is very little illegal immigration. Seeking asylum is legal. There are no illegal routes to a country when seeking asylum. Right wing grifters love to appropriate blame onto "others" for any of societies ills - often seeing powerless and marginalised groups being the target of their vitriol.
Yes but a significant of the immigrants looking to enter Europe from West Africa especially are clearly 'economic refugees'. In 2023, 55% of immigrants to the EU were men, many young without any children or dependents.
Been plenty of documentaries tracing young guys leaving a poverty stricken West African village on the hazardous journey to Europe, to find a better life. They are not genuine asylum seekers.
Not only from North Africa across the Med to Italy/Spain, but to the Canary Islands in the Atlantic from Senegal and Mauritania.
Should a 19 yr old poverty stricken guy from Ghana just be allowed to cross the English Channel by raft after paying some scum bag trafficker $5K? All the while whilst a Yazidi widow who was a sex slave of ISIS, waits 5 years in a Syrian refugee camp with her kids before she gets a legimate visa to live in the UK. Western Europe can't take in every unfortunate. There are tradeoffs if you let in those who queue jump.
More than 180,000 people have arrived by small boats into the UK since figures were first recorded in 2018. It ain't an insignificant number. Chuck in those who hide in lorries or even the Eurostar. And this is why Les Smith a roofer from Warrington gets a bit worked up, and becames a Reform UK voter. Les's family are not descendents of Cecil Rhodes or the East India Company owners. Colonialism didn't really add alot of wealth to the Smith family balance sheet. He's a white CIS male, but still not a lot of guilt there.
Again it would be interesting how NZ society would handle a similar large influx of immigrants (a disproportionate amount as young men). It would be naive to think it would all be warm welcomes and hugs. Though might end the 'man drought' calls!
Dame Jacinda also worked for Tony Blair, a man that Dame Maggie took credit for!
Her leadership was a lot of excellent crisis management, but changed little in terms of our economic or democratic fundamentals. This current government is a lurch to the right in the way it is passing laws under urgency with minimal community involvement and the way it has cut back voting registration and run roughshod over conventions of parliament on occasion, but in others it has just continued a transfer of wealth to a property owning oligarchy at a much faster rate, from public property and those less fortunate.
But left and right are less useful labels. We have a leader in the US who favours authoritarian tactics, but also likes protectionist tariffs. I’d say there are maybe 2 or 3 politicians in the NZ parliament who would question the orthodoxy here that free trade is good.
Politics aside, I hope you all did your local body voting. I believe the postal votes ceased after today. Here's a chance to make a difference in your local council "make up". The price of a democracy - we can choose who we want by voting.
Unlike the "General Election" that has party lists where even people whom lose their seats on votes because Voters didn't want them, yet still get in sadly.
So Happy voting and good luck to all the candidates that put their names up for scrutiny.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
Politics aside, I hope you all did your local body voting. I believe the postal votes ceased after today. Here's a chance to make a difference in your local council "make up". The price of a democracy - we can choose who we want by voting.
Unlike the "General Election" that has party lists where even people whom lose their seats on votes because Voters didn't want them, yet still get in sadly.
So Happy voting and good luck to all the candidates that put their names up for scrutiny.
I hope you didn't do a postal vote today. The cut off for postal votes was 7 Oct, so it arrives in time, and closer to the date to drop off votes at designated areas.
Politics aside, I hope you all did your local body voting. I believe the postal votes ceased after today. Here's a chance to make a difference in your local council "make up". The price of a democracy - we can choose who we want by voting.
Unlike the "General Election" that has party lists where even people whom lose their seats on votes because Voters didn't want them, yet still get in sadly.
So Happy voting and good luck to all the candidates that put their names up for scrutiny.
I hope you didn't do a postal vote today. The cut off for postal votes was 7 Oct, so it arrives in time, and closer to the date to drop off votes at designated areas.
Hand delivered mine on Thursday. Upper Hutt Council buildings.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
