Talking Politics

[Sintiger]

Combined with making it simpler with less brackets, such as the NZ tax system. As well as this, in NZ the top tax bracket is lower (so less progressive), but on the flip side they eliminate most of the complex web of tax deductions that are overwhelmingly used by those on higher incomes in our system.

Yes, simpler and lower with less deductions, agree

 

[Giardiasis]

We need to not fall for the rhetoric.

Yeah such as the ALP is better than the LNP and vice versa. Both are high taxing, high borrowing, high spending, high regulating leviathans that lie, steal, kill and deprive people of basic liberties.

 

[DavidSSS]

So modern day politics seems to be trawling through the opponents social media looking for a controversy. What a time to be alive.

Yeah it isn't great, but really, who would be dumb enough to not anticipate this? Furthermore, you show prejudice about a large religious group or migrants from one region, you make jokes about rape, well you get what you get and you can suck it up as far as I'm concerned. Don't make s**tful statements in the first place.

Is it really too much to ask that those who wish to represent us in parliament not be numbskulls who think it is ok to judge people by their race/religion or who think it is ok to make a joke about a violent act which impacts upon way too many women?

DS

 

[Sintiger]

Yeah such as the ALP is better than the LNP and vice versa. Both are high taxing, high borrowing, high spending, high regulating leviathans that lie, steal, kill and deprive people of basic liberties.

I made an internal bet with myself about how long it would take for you to post something like this and I won

This is not what the debate is about, nor was it what my post was about. We have an election and one of the two will be in Government

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Yeah it isn't great, but really, who would be dumb enough to not anticipate this? Furthermore, you show prejudice about a large religious group or migrants from one region, you make jokes about rape, well you get what you get and you can suck it up as far as I'm concerned. Don't make s**tful statements in the first place.

Is it really too much to ask that those who wish to represent us in parliament not be numbskulls who think it is ok to judge people by their race/religion or who think it is ok to make a joke about a violent act which impacts upon way too many women?

DS

I don’t disagree David.

However on your point, “Is it really too much to ask that those who wish to represent us in parliament not be numbskulls who think it is ok to judge people by their race/religion or who think it is ok to make a joke about a violent act which impacts upon way too many women?”

Judging people on what they are seems unacceptable in some instances, but not in others. For example, i’m seeing it increasingly common for a younger candidate in an election - particularly a young female - to argue against people voting for their opponent, on the basis that their opponent is, “pale, male & stale” (basically an older gent who is white, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon, perhaps of Christian heritage). Basically vote for me because i’m young and female (the inference being, i’m More virtuous simply because I’m young and born female). If that isn’t judging someone for their race and/or religion, I don’t know what is. Not to mention, age. Can you imagine a candidate making equivalent remarks about an opponent who was of any other racial (or religious) grouping being accepted as reasonable?

Another example. Progressive voters will vote for a candidate specifically because they are female, a different ethnicity than “white”, perhaps gay etc, because these elements in themselves make a candidate more virtuous than a candidate with different racial/gender/sexuality traits. People are commonly judging by these types of traits, but some assumptions and judgments are just more fashionable than others.

 

[IanG]

Judging people on what they are seems unacceptable in some instances, but not in others. For example, i’m seeing it increasingly common for a younger candidate in an election - particularly a young female - to argue against people voting for their opponent, on the basis that their opponent is, “pale, male & stale” (basically an older gent who is white, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon, perhaps of Christian heritage). Basically vote for me because i’m young and female (the inference being, i’m More virtuous simply because I’m young and born female). If that isn’t judging someone for their race and/or religion, I don’t know what is. Not to mention, age. Can you imagine a candidate making equivalent remarks about an opponent who was of any other racial (or religious) grouping being accepted as reasonable?

You don't think candidates on all sides are doing similar things? Using or inventing characteristics about their opponents which they can then criticise.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

You don't think candidates on all sides are doing similar things? Using or inventing characteristics about their opponents which they can then criticise.

That’s exactly what I was saying Ian. I think you missed the meaning of my post. We are in agreement.

What I was pointing out though is that it seems, certain prejudices are trendier and more acceptable to hold than others.

 

[Giardiasis]

I made an internal bet with myself about how long it would take for you to post something like this and I won

This is not what the debate is about, nor was it what my post was about. We have an election and one of the two will be in Government

Make sure to give yourself a pat on the back. The debate is the issue. We keep going around in circles pretending there is a material difference between the ALP and the LNP, a notion that you perpetuate. I am challenging you on that, you choose to ignore it because why exactly?

 

[Sintiger]

Make sure to give yourself a pat on the back. The debate is the issue. We keep going around in circles pretending there is a material difference between the ALP and the LNP, a notion that you perpetuate. I am challenging you on that, you choose to ignore it because why exactly?

No need for a pat on the back because it was Winx odds.

I was not perpetuating or ignoring anything because my comment was about the lie in the campaign that the ALP was the high taxing party and the LNP isn't. I certainly didn't say there was any material difference but actually what is material and non material is subjective anyway. The numbers are there, some will say they are material others won't, depends on what is important to you. There is an election going on and this is the political thread. I hate lies in election campaigns, I hated the Mediscare lies last election and I hate the tax lies this time.

My objections to the LNP as a party actually have far more to do with social policy than economic policy

I won't debate it because it's a never ending circle that I can't be bothered with. Doesn't mean I am not interested in the subject, just not in the debate when I have seen your views already. I don't see the point.

 

[Giardiasis]

No need for a pat on the back because it was Winx odds.

I was not perpetuating or ignoring anything because my comment was about the lie in the campaign that the ALP was the high taxing party and the LNP isn't. I certainly didn't say there was any material difference but actually what is material and non material is subjective anyway. The numbers are there, some will say they are material others won't, depends on what is important to you. There is an election going on and this is the political thread. I hate lies in election campaigns, I hated the Mediscare lies last election and I hate the tax lies this time.

My objections to the LNP as a party actually have far more to do with social policy than economic policy

I won't debate it because it's a never ending circle that I can't be bothered with. Doesn't mean I am not interested in the subject, just not in the debate when I have seen your views already. I don't see the point.

If it wasn't remarkable then why the need to gloat about it?

Ok that seems reasonable, except the bit about you not perpetuating the idea that the ALP is much different from the LNP given you said you don't support one but definitely don't support the other.

You might have seen my views but I haven't seen yours. What is your take on why people should care about the election?

 

[tigerman]

The Libs/Nats haven't got much to hang their hat on going into the election

Next to no wages growth the last 6 years.
New cars sales fell in 2018, and are plummeting 2019.
Business confidence continues to fall.
The housing market is in free fall.

The Libs get did one bit of luck with the price of Iron ore more than doubling.

Like the election just before the GFC, this might be a good election to lose.

 

[Sintiger]

Ok that seems reasonable, except the bit about you not perpetuating the idea that the ALP is much different from the LNP given you said you don't support one but definitely don't support the other.

I already explained that when I said in my post that my issues with the LNP were far more about social policy than than economic policy

 

[K3]

No need for a pat on the back because it was Winx odds.

I was not perpetuating or ignoring anything because my comment was about the lie in the campaign that the ALP was the high taxing party and the LNP isn't. I certainly didn't say there was any material difference but actually what is material and non material is subjective anyway. The numbers are there, some will say they are material others won't, depends on what is important to you. There is an election going on and this is the political thread. I hate lies in election campaigns, I hated the Mediscare lies last election and I hate the tax lies this time.

My objections to the LNP as a party actually have far more to do with social policy than economic policy

I won't debate it because it's a never ending circle that I can't be bothered with. Doesn't mean I am not interested in the subject, just not in the debate when I have seen your views already. I don't see the point.

As the not-so-old adage goes Sin... Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Giardiasis]

I already explained that when I said in my post that my issues with the LNP were far more about social policy than than economic policy

Why is social policy exempt from what is materially different? Perhaps you can explain how they are that different socially?

 

[Giardiasis]

As the not-so-old adage goes Sin... Don't feed the trolls.

Do you have an argument to make or just a glib slur to add?

 

[Sintiger]

Why is social policy exempt from what is materially different? Perhaps you can explain how they are that different socially?

I think you have lost track of the discussion, I keep on answering your questions and you keep on changing the subject

It was you who said that I stated there was a material difference between the ALP And the LNP in regards to tax and fiscal policy. I didn’t say that.

It was then you who said that because I said I was not an ALP supporter but definitely not an LNP one I must see a material difference. I then said my main issue with the LNP over labor was social policy not economic policy

I have given you answers. If you don’t choose to accept them then so be it.

This is way off the topic I was posting about which was the misinformation in the election about one of the key LNP sloguns.

 

[Giardiasis]

I think you have lost track of the discussion, I keep on answering your questions and you keep on changing the subject

It was you who said that I stated there was a material difference between the ALP And the LNP in regards to tax and fiscal policy. I didn’t say that.

It was then you who said that because I said I was not an ALP supporter but definitely not an LNP one I must see a material difference. I then said my main issue with the LNP over labor was social policy not economic policy

I have given you answers. If you don’t choose to accept them then so be it.

This is way off the topic I was posting about which was the misinformation in the election about one of the key LNP sloguns.

Actually it is you that has lost track here. I never said you stated there was a material difference in regards in tax and fiscal policy. I even accepted you hadn’t. But you did insinuate there was a material difference when you said you don’t support the ALP but definitely not the LNP. You haven’t denied this. You’ve suggested there is a material difference between them on social policy, I have not received an answer on that. There is nothing to choose to accept you haven’t presented anything.

 

[22nd Man]

I don’t disagree David.

However on your point, “Is it really too much to ask that those who wish to represent us in parliament not be numbskulls who think it is ok to judge people by their race/religion or who think it is ok to make a joke about a violent act which impacts upon way too many women?”

Judging people on what they are seems unacceptable in some instances, but not in others. For example, i’m seeing it increasingly common for a younger candidate in an election - particularly a young female - to argue against people voting for their opponent, on the basis that their opponent is, “pale, male & stale” (basically an older gent who is white, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon, perhaps of Christian heritage). Basically vote for me because i’m young and female (the inference being, i’m More virtuous simply because I’m young and born female). If that isn’t judging someone for their race and/or religion, I don’t know what is. Not to mention, age. Can you imagine a candidate making equivalent remarks about an opponent who was of any other racial (or religious) grouping being accepted as reasonable?

Another example. Progressive voters will vote for a candidate specifically because they are female, a different ethnicity than “white”, perhaps gay etc, because these elements in themselves make a candidate more virtuous than a candidate with different racial/gender/sexuality traits. People are commonly judging by these types of traits, but some assumptions and judgments are just more fashionable than others.

Case in point tonight Wongs statement "small men, small minds". ... If any male had said something along those lines about female politicians all hell would have broken loose.
Not that I am against the line per Se, just that as you say certain types of stereotyping are permissible, others not much different are taboo.
In my electorate we have two Chinese migrants up for the main parties. Presumably they have renounced their firmer citizenships. Actually good to have people of all backgrounds in parliament. Trouble is one is a solicitor ...an over represented and entitled profession we need less of in the community let alone parliament.

 

[easy_tiger]

Yeah such as the ALP is better than the LNP and vice versa. Both are high taxing, high borrowing, high spending, high regulating leviathans that lie, steal, kill and deprive people of basic liberties.

Clive palmer cuts out the middlemen.

He deprives his employees of pay

 

[MD Jazz]

Case in point tonight Wongs statement "small men, small minds". ... If any male had said something along those lines about female politicians all hell would have broken loose.
Not that I am against the line per Se, just that as you say certain types of stereotyping are permissible, others not much different are taboo.
In my electorate we have two Chinese migrants up for the main parties. Presumably they have renounced their firmer citizenships. Actually good to have people of all backgrounds in parliament. Trouble is one is a solicitor ...an over represented and entitled profession we need less of in the community let alone parliament.

Does she mean small in stature? Is their something wrong with being small?

Agree with PT's post and what you say above.