|
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 | ||
|
dusty posted:Are you suggesting we don't judge a government on it's record? Key has maintained these spending commitments; they are policy of this government. He's also Tory enough to literally call Working For Families communism. dusty posted:Seems kind of silly to be upset with a politician because they are good at politics. But really - look around at the other conservative leaders in the anglosphere - I think we've got the best by far. Definitely the most left wing conservative leader.
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
A government should be credited with it's record: WFF may be good/bad/indifferent, but pretending that it's not policy of Nat-V because it was introduced by Lab-V is absurd. This is why Parliament votes on a budget annually.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Once I pissed off Matthew Hooten by asking him who he supported politically
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Its record is not repealing "reckless" and "expensive" policies like interest-free student loans while the economy stalled and we went into deficit.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Murder every politician and make the political positions jobs not popularity contests. Yeah, the only way to do that is to dismantle democracy. Or magic people into not being dumb cunts who vote for people they take a liking to. Dismantling democracy is far easier.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
What do you suggest we replace democracy with?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
A human heart posted:What do you suggest we replace democracy with? The burning bones of the damned.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
there's actually a lot of sense in that classic Churchill quote
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
A human heart posted:What do you suggest we replace democracy with? Hold politicians to account for each and every lie they tell. Make them apologise in front of a crowd who hold rotten vegetables, after 20 lies they can no longer be a politician and their retirement benefits are cut. Also, in the event they die young their bodies are stuffed and left around the beehive. Weight votes based on if the voter actually understands the issue, rather than being a parrot of talking points. This was anyone who votes that gay marriage should be illegal based on the word of god is rightly ignored. Also put them in the stocks or something, I don't know. Vote Bush. Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 11:50 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:Hold politicians to account for each and every lie they tell. Make them apologise in front of a crowd who hold rotten vegetables, after 20 lies they can no longer be a politician and their retirement benefits are cut. Also in the event they die young their bodies are stuffed and left around the beehive. Goddamn I wish this was practical.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Goddamn I wish this was practical. Is it any less practical than the god-awful system we have now? Vote Bush. Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 11:53 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
I propose some sort of feedback system wherein the public is educated as to the efficacy of the government so that they can make informed democratic decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Wouldn't some kind of state funded integrity based journalism thing do the job? Independently run with a focus on balanced reporting, not profit driven. I mean at the end of the day regardless, a democracy is only as effective as it's citizens are informed, and even if that information is available they still need to watch it or not. I mean my Dad wouldn't never not vote for National anyway, it's not about policies. He likes JK because he looks and talks like a politician
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I propose some sort of feedback system wherein the public is educated as to the efficacy of the government so that they can make informed democratic decisions. Sorry we have no money for education due to the deficit
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I propose some sort of feedback system wherein the public is educated as to the efficacy of the government so that they can make informed democratic decisions. No matter how educated the public becomes, they will still -without fail- elect exactly the right people to screw them in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:Is it any less practical than the god-awful system we have now? Yeah, determining ones knowledge on a subject in order to weight the vote bloody impossible. So its slightly less practical than the system we have now. I am not entirely convinced that our current system is fundamentally god-awful to be honest. Like any system, it can be subverted, and I think we can claw back control.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
What if we had someone stay in power for more than three years so they could actually get things done rather than being forever on a loop of "lie, get elected, fail to deliver, repeat" Also we should murder the rich. That's really important.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:eat the rich. That's really important.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Not their brains though. That's how you get kuru.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:there's actually a lot of sense in that classic Churchill quote are we talking about the one where he says something racist or the one where he calls a woman ugly
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes." - Winston Churchill
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
puchu posted:are we talking about the one where he says something racist or the one where he calls a woman ugly the drunk/ugly one
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
A human heart posted:What do you suggest we replace democracy with? I honestly don't know. The problem is that even if you somehow find a way to keep politicians accountable, and a tangible way of measuring whether or not they've enacted their policies effectively, there would be no way to keep the regulatory body free from corruption and bribery. Humans are fundamentally unfit to govern ourselves and we really need some sort of external mechanism to tell us what to not to do and enforce the rules. This takes the form of the state, the police and the legal system for 90% of people but, paradoxically, is least effective on the people with the most power/wealth. High ranking police and government officials have basically no incentive to comply with the laws and structures of society that keep everyone else in line; they're essentially working based on an honour system. klen dool posted:Yeah, determining ones knowledge on a subject in order to weight the vote bloody impossible. So its slightly less practical than the system we have now. I think our system is pretty decent. In theory. But so is communism and a bunch of other things. The fundamental issue is that people are cunts and behave like cunts. Any system where people are allowed to govern other people is doomed to failure from the start because humans are fallible, I think. Legal and political systems require a mechanical perfection to function properly and people just don't have the consistency of judgement and character to keep them running properly. If everyone in a position of power was an incorruptible batman then what we have would work swimmingly and we'd live in a global utopia, but we don't, because they aren't, because people as a whole generally aren't. awesmoe posted:If your goal is to kill a shitload of people and you don't have to worry about making sure those people don't do it back to you, gas is pretty good (just ask himmler) Nah. Gas is both tactically and strategically almost completely ineffective and has been since WW1. The fact that the Nazis used it to wipe out millions of people is a symptom of the regime's fundamental dysfunction and inefficiency.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
in hindsight, possibly NSFW: (via https://twitter.com/Vegrandis/status/603105396501319680 ) voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 23:25 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Yeah, determining ones knowledge on a subject in order to weight the vote bloody impossible. So its slightly less practical than the system we have now. Nah it's easy, just include a multi-choice questionnaire with the voting form. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I wasn't thinking a literacy test, those are dumb. I've nothing against the illiterate, though I guess it would take someone reading the options to them but that's okay. More like: Circle which of the numbers you see to be true: 1) God says homosexuality is a sin 2) Gay marriage is just a means to concert people to homosexuality 3) Gay marriage would negatively affect our children 4) Gay marriage should be allowed because people deserve equality 5) etc  Not like this. Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:I wasn't thinking a literacy test, those are dumb. I've nothing against the illiterate, though I guess it would take someone reading the options to them but that's okay.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Still a salient question - should women be allowed to drive? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSr93HMUKCk
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:It's a lot cheaper and more effective to just throw out the ballots of the people voting for the party you don't support That is not what I'm saying, my friend. I'm saying if someone disagrees with reality which we derive from statistics and scientific consensus then their opinion is worth as much because it is ill informed. My vote would be weighted less as well if I fell into that category. I get what you're saying, I suggested this ages ago and had someone call me a loving idiot who just wants to throw out all votes that don't agree with my opinion. It wouldn't be my opinion though, it would be that of scientists and statisticians, if I voted based off ignorance my vote wouldn't count for poo poo either. There is a big problem in that not all issues can easily be reduced in such a way but it would help with some topics, at least. Issues on fluoride, gay marriage, climate change and the war on drugs would have been solved ages ago with this method. I'm also not saying it would be a perfect system but I think it would be better than the current one. I also really want politicians put in the stocks and also stuffed and put on display, but I could accept losing that in negotiations. Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 02:54 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:That is not what I'm saying, my friend. I'm saying if someone disagrees with reality which we derive from statistics and scientific consensus then their opinion is worth as much because it is ill informed. My vote would be weighted less as well if I fell into that category. e: in fact, it's a good way to promote actively under-educating people who wouldn't vote for you
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:This is a good way to disenfranchise the uneducated lower class Isn't that based off the idea that it is just the lower class that is ignorant in these areas? It's all classes of New Zealanders that are ignorant of basic science and statistics, that is the problem. Also being in the lower class doesn't necessarily mean you are unable to think critically, though you're right in that it would be a problem of proportions due to a lack of education and support. In any case I don't see what benefit there is to giving people who actively despise facts an equal say. I know that is a cornerstone of democracy but if history has proved anything it is that democracy, in its current form, does not work. I would never think of targeting people based off race and sexuality but I draw the line at stupidity. Can I ask you what benefit you see to allowing, lets say, creationists a vote on scientific education in areas when they outnumber those who aren't actively idiotic? How would the result of a standard democratic vote be, in any way, a win for mankind? Also regarding the promoting under-educating the supporters I would refer you to my previous point where deceptive politicians are put in the stocks and forced to make a public apology and/or are fired out of a cannon, into the sun.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
It's not subjectively correct to be objectively correct.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:It's not subjectively correct to be objectively correct. And why should we place so much value on the opinions of those with no interest objective truth to the point where they actively harm thousands, millions of people?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Depends on your perspective I guess. Do those millions of people deserve to not be harmed? What is the harm? What benefit does the harm bring to billions?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
I'm sorry but if you're going to say things like "democracy does not work" I'm just not going to really effortpost in reply 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Depends on your perspective I guess. Do those millions of people deserve to not be harmed? What is the harm? What benefit does the harm bring to billions? Well let's use climate change first: The way it works now most major governments such as China or the U.S don't give a gently caress about the truth, they deny and commit to course of action that will eventually hurt millions, potentially billions of people. Those who will suffer the most are those in the third world, these people do not deserve this harm. The harm could be anywhere from the destruction of their homes to death from other climate change phenomena. The benefit is for those who have remained in power, and those who have made billions of dollars through the ease of polluting, rather than proper disposal or care. In the system I propose these people would be put in the stock, or shot out of a cannon. Let's look at the war on drugs: The way it works now is that through misinformation, half-truths and outright lies millions of people are arrested, their families are broken up and their lives are ruined. Money goes to gangs and those who need help are viewed as criminals. These people do not deserve to be harmed through this massive ignorance of the history and efficacy of the war on drugs, but they are. The benefits are, again, politicians who stay in power as well as the for-profit prison system and those who attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground. In the system I propose these laws would be reexamined from a position of science of statistics which has shown, decades ago, that not only does the system not work but it is also based off lies and good old fashion family racism. Again, the stocks or a cannon. e: awesmoe posted:I'm sorry but if you're going to say things like "democracy does not work" I'm just not going to really effortpost in reply You're right in that is an oversimplification. What I should have said is democracy only works when the majority of people are either educated enough to resort to facts in complicated issues (they often aren't or are far too slow and in the time it takes for them to get their collective poo poo together millions of people could get hurt), or aren't so apathetic as to avoid participating (they are). Double e: Would disenfranchisement really be the right word? They still get to vote and their ignorance on one subject wouldn't invalidate an informed vote on another subject. Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 04:05 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
dusty posted:Still a salient question - should women be allowed to drive? Another brilliantly observed piece of Bob Jones comedy. Like that time he got chucked off an aircraft for his spot-on impression of a brass-necked property magnate.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
awesmoe posted:I'm sorry but if you're going to say things like "democracy does not work" I'm just not going to really effortpost in reply Democracy doesn't work, but neither does any other political system developed thus far AFAIK.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:08
|
|