Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
homeowner | 39 | 22.41% | |
renter | 69 | 39.66% | |
stupid peace of poo poo | 66 | 37.93% | |
Total: | 174 votes |
|
Here's his speech this morning at the AGM: https://www.greens.org.nz/news/speeches/james-shaw-speech-2015-green-agmquote:Hi. I’m James.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 03:32 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 16:38 |
|
I like him
|
# ? May 31, 2015 03:55 |
I don't think there was any question of him not being a free marketeer, but he's still a continuation of the de-radicalisation of the Greens (i.e. let's work entirely within this capitalist framework to solve problems that are caused and exacerbated by capitalism)
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 05:23 |
Also last year I caught his eye when he was leafleting in Welly, and his hands fumbled so much that he had to jog backwards to give one to me. Unimpressive
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 05:25 |
|
Cheese rolls. There is no other finer kiwi snack.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 05:31 |
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Also last year I caught his eye when he was leafleting in Welly, and his hands fumbled so much that he had to jog backwards to give one to me. Doesn't sound like someone you could have a beer with imo
|
# ? May 31, 2015 05:34 |
|
Free market capitalism is dead, says the very wealthy consultant. Oh, I'm sure poor people will be so glad to hear that.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 05:37 |
|
fong posted:Free market capitalism is dead, says the very wealthy consultant. Oh, I'm sure poor people will be so glad to hear that. Kind of him to call it as at 2007/2008 too. Before then there was no corruption and the poors were happy and content.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 05:44 |
I'd love to see what a politician that meets this thread's nitpicky benchmarks looks like. Wait, that's an oxymoron. Smash democracy.
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 06:13 |
|
He certainly knows what words will make people think he cares about the situation.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 06:15 |
|
fong posted:Free market capitalism is dead, says the very wealthy consultant. Oh, I'm sure poor people will be so glad to hear that. As a big four consultant, their pay ain't that great till you reach the upper echelons.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 06:40 |
|
lol social investment bonds
|
# ? May 31, 2015 07:06 |
|
Slavvy posted:I'd love to see what a politician that meets this thread's nitpicky benchmarks looks like.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 07:06 |
|
Slavvy posted:I'd love to see what a politician that meets this thread's nitpicky benchmarks looks like. actually democracy is cool and good
|
# ? May 31, 2015 07:14 |
|
It's better than the other forms of govt. But Social democracy kicks all kinds of rear end.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 08:16 |
|
The Rabbi T. White posted:As a big four consultant, their pay ain't that great till you reach the upper echelons. My friend who works for BCG started on 90k out of uni, I think she's on 150k now after 4 years. Not exactly at the harsh end of things.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 08:58 |
|
fong posted:My friend who works for BCG started on 90k out of uni, I think she's on 150k now after 4 years. Not exactly at the harsh end of things. I never said they make you destitute - your friend is certainly on the higher side of what they pay, by the way - but it's not like you're entirely breaking the bank on low 6 figures.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 09:03 |
|
Exclamation Marx posted:I don't think there was any question of him not being a free marketeer, but he's still a continuation of the de-radicalisation of the Greens (i.e. let's work entirely within this capitalist framework to solve problems that are caused and exacerbated by capitalism) I'm pretty sure any time the Green Party gets seats they are working within the capitalist framework to solve problems that are caused and exacerbated by capitalism
|
# ? May 31, 2015 09:14 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 09:17 |
|
fong posted:My friend who works for BCG started on 90k out of uni, I think she's on 150k now after 4 years. Not exactly at the harsh end of things. BCG pays shittons more than the big 4 (accounting firms: PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, EY). Those firms I think start you out on something like $35k.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 09:21 |
|
Exclamation Marx posted:I don't think there was any question of him not being a free marketeer, but he's still a continuation of the de-radicalisation of the Greens (i.e. let's work entirely within this capitalist framework to solve problems that are caused and exacerbated by capitalism)
|
# ? May 31, 2015 09:47 |
|
Ghostlight posted:The Master's tools cannot dismantle the Master's house, which is exactly why I advocate for violent Marxist revolution of the proletariat instead of participating in society to make it better. If anything, I actively try to make society worse so that others can realise the only real option for change is not by democratic participation but through armed and violent resistance followed by systemic purges of the upper class. Come now we all know, as citizens of the country that embraced Thatcherism with open arms, that society doesn't exist.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 10:07 |
|
Lancelot posted:BCG pays shittons more than the big 4 (accounting firms: PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, EY). Those firms I think start you out on something like $35k. Sounds about right.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 10:07 |
|
Winston can't melt steel beams
|
# ? May 31, 2015 10:08 |
swampland posted:I'm pretty sure any time the Green Party gets seats they are working within the capitalist framework to solve problems that are caused and exacerbated by capitalism What? I'm talking about the leadership's ideological shift in the past decade towards capitalism with a human face. Not at all hypocritical to work with parliamentary democracy (except arguably for Metiria, who claims to be an anarchist )
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 10:13 |
|
Ghostlight posted:The Master's tools cannot dismantle the Master's house, which is exactly why I advocate for violent Marxist revolution of the proletariat instead of participating in society to make it better. If anything, I actively try to make society worse so that others can realise the only real option for change is not by democratic participation but through armed and violent resistance followed by systemic purges of the upper class. This is all correct.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 10:14 |
|
Ghostlight posted:The Master's tools cannot dismantle the Master's house, which is exactly why I advocate for violent Marxist revolution of the proletariat instead of participating in society to make it better. If anything, I actively try to make society worse so that others can realise the only real option for change is not by democratic participation but through armed and violent resistance followed by systemic purges of the upper class.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 10:52 |
|
Exclamation Marx posted:What? I'm talking about the leadership's ideological shift in the past decade towards capitalism with a human face. Not at all hypocritical to work with parliamentary democracy (except arguably for Metiria, who claims to be an anarchist ) i think in principle most green parties have anarchist leanings with their push for direct democracy and political decentralisation / municiplism
|
# ? May 31, 2015 11:17 |
|
It's so much easier to argue for violence from a privileged position that has never truly experienced it.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 11:18 |
|
Ghostlight posted:The Master's tools cannot dismantle the Master's house, which is exactly why I advocate for violent Marxist revolution of the proletariat instead of participating in society to make it better. If anything, I actively try to make society worse so that others can realise the only real option for change is not by democratic participation but through armed and violent resistance followed by systemic purges of the upper class. and them we kill all the jews, right?
|
# ? May 31, 2015 12:28 |
|
Ghostlight posted:It's so much easier to argue for violence from a privileged position that has never truly experienced it. Really? I mean there's definitely a group of super ideological privileged kids who are all for a violent socialist revolution, but otherwise a lot of the people who advocate violence are the ones who experience it themselves. It's not an automatically privileged position
|
# ? May 31, 2015 12:45 |
|
That was in response to SurreptitiousMuffin's question about a very specific demographic of people one would meet at Wellington parties that happen to be bespectacled white kids who would agree with the assertion that not only should you advocate violent revolution, but actively strive to make the underclass suffer in order to provoke it, and therefore I would expect them to fall under your group of super ideological privileged kids who are all for a violent socialist revolution and are, by "privileged" being part of the categorisation, are speaking from a privileged position and also I have not been entirely sincere about calling for violent socialist revolution or actively harming the underclass so definitely yes but no not really. Does that answer your question?
|
# ? May 31, 2015 14:50 |
|
I think it's more that whiny nerds tend not to realise that once you get a political party into power via murder and bloodshed (No matter how justified) it becomes rather difficult for the killing to stop.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 15:05 |
Something I've never understood that maybe this thread might be able to answer/make fun of me for: We nominally live in a democracy, as do many other countries with drastically different yet nonetheless theoretically democratic systems. Democracy is, AFAIK, a method for making decisions based on popular consensus rather than dictatorial randomness or whatever. The only way to do this thus far has been to elect people who (again, theoretically) stand for the policies that most closely fit popular consensus, which IMO is an incredibly crude method of modelling actual consensus but whatever. If that's the case, why do heads of state/prime ministers/chancellors etc exist? How can one individual possibly represent the interests of everyone fairly? Why do we not have a ruling cabal of elected officials who work things out among themselves without having someone of higher rank in charge? Whether it be the head of the party with the most seats, or the presidential candidate with the most internal votes or whatever. Why do we still have a structure that ends with one guy/girl right at the top of a pyramid instead of a group of people? It makes no sense to me.
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 20:45 |
|
While the fellow at the top isn't all-powerful, having twelve or so fellows at the top with equal power and authority kinda kills the ability to make timely political decisions. You'd basically have a Cold War security council, with one half veto-ing the other half and accomplishing jack poo poo for the most part. Since those at the top are people, with all the vested interests that implies, more or less no decisions regarding executive governance would be made.
|
# ? May 31, 2015 23:45 |
|
Slavvy posted:Something I've never understood that maybe this thread might be able to answer/make fun of me for: Why not go further? Why not just get rid of the idea of top ruler AND ruling council altogether, and have a direct democracy?
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 02:27 |
|
I would imagine it's too much paperwork and would flood the citizenry with a lot of pointless choices. See the current Flag BS. Government of any size need some executive ability to make some decisions quickly. A ruling council would be a fair compromise to the current executive and greatly soften Face based politics. The concern with it is that decisions made might worse as they will be by function compromises exacerbated by dilution of individual responsibility. One of the things I would like to see is having politicians come under actual threat to their jobs like any other. The fuckers are virtually unfireable.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 02:57 |
|
What if we had a patrician
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 03:47 |
|
Benevolent Dictator John Key.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 03:49 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 16:38 |
The prime minister isn't supposed to be a president/king position. He's the lead/organising minister of a group but it tends to regress back to a quasi ruler due to laziness and stupidity.
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 05:37 |