Open Forum – Sunday

17 December 2017

Forum

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria.

Free speech is an important principle here but some people who might pose a risk to the site will have to keep going through moderation due to abuses by a small number of malicious people.

34 Comments

  1. David

     /  December 17, 2017

    Great news from the US, Trumps approval rating has risen to 41% according Gallup and the lovely Melania is at 54%.
    If this trend continues Trump could well end up the most popular leader in the G7. May Merkel and Macron can only look on with envy, even our own awesome Ardern is struggling at 38% preferred PM.

  2. High Flying Duck

     /  December 17, 2017

    He’s taken his time, but reasserting the US world dominance may start paying dividends…

    US President Donald Trump’s “hard-line” stance on North Korea will force the dictatorship to make compromises next year, a South Korean think tank has predicted.

    Because Trump has reacted with such fury to the Stalinist state’s missile and nuclear tests, North Korea may have to concede ground over fears the US will “execute a military strike”.

    Anxieties about US power could combine with a crippled economy and the loss of China and Russia as allies to force the belligerent autocracy to cool down its nuclear programme, reports Daily Mail.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11961337

    • lurcher1948

       /  December 17, 2017

      The USA have never won a war they started and China said they will back NK if the USA attacks and i think Russia with a border with NK will support them(NK) as the USA has been spitting in Russia’s face for years and humiliating them, and looking at the odds i would say the USA might have its butt kicked. FAT predicable and drug ravished the USA are fading away… just saying

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 17, 2017

        Drug ravaged ?

        I hope that old Velvet-ears Red is standing up to the heat all right. Did you look up the book about Red, the Lurcher ? You could have bought him a copy for Christmas.

  3. High Flying Duck

     /  December 17, 2017

    Meanwhile, texts that look incriminating regarding the Clinton investigation by the FBI are perfectly innocuous and we should all move on because they just show “human foibles”.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/99929168/fbi-officials-text-messages-about-hillary-clinton-a-cover-story-for-romantic-affair

    The Trump ‘evidence’ though, however circumstantial and nebulous is basically a smoking gun – without the gun.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 17, 2017

      Should have posted in World Watch sorry – was mislead by the posts above…

  4. robertguyton

     /  December 17, 2017

    My “Mrs Grundy” comment disappeared, Pete. Your latest venture into TS territory produced this curiously insightful comment from SPC (in case you missed it):

    “SPC …
    17 December 2017 at 4:12 pm
    Not an idiot.

    Just a centrist with little relevance to those on the right or left and their debates/issues. Like all centrists, not just above the fray but a little self-righteous as a neutral commentator about the left and right.

    It is not so much that he cannot be reasoned with, but that he is not someone who is going to be swayed to a leftist or rightist point of view, his pride is in being independent of both.”

    • It should have shown as deleted, it wasn’t appropriate in general chat. It’s fine here.

      Some interesting reactions on that thread. A number of people seem blind to the fact that they are proving a point.

      Here’s the thread: https://thestandard.org.nz/tory-translation-service/#comment-1427198

      SPC is sort of right, but I don’t see myself as a ‘centrist’. I’m not aligned to any specific part of the political spectrum. I agree with and disagree with policies and actions across the spectrum.

      It’s more a type of pragmatic politics as opposed to aligned politics. It’s not knew, it is largely what the Lange Government was, reacting to a dire emergency, over reacting a bit.

      And it’s largely what we have seen with the Clark and Key/English governments, with signs that Ardern will continue along similar lines (very blurred lines).

      • robertguyton

         /  December 17, 2017

        As a matter of interest (genuine) Pete, can you see why people get irritated by your comments? I, for balance, know just why my various comments here annoy?

        • Sometimes yes – people don’t like being proven wrong or having their ‘my shit doesn’t stink’ syndrome pointed out.

          But that’s usually only a small number of people. And a few regulars aren’t irritated, they try and irritate and inflame whenever I comment there to try and shut down discussion or different opinions. You seem to support dirty blogging – you even join in the pile ons some times.

          I’d perhaps be irritated if I was the Labour party or the green party and saw supporters carrying on with that sort of nonsense. It reflects poorly on the parties.

          • Ha! So that’s a “no” then 🙂

            • Gezza

               /  December 17, 2017

              Pete’s audience includes a select few who aren’t ferociously tribal & loyal to a fault to the foibles of their own left or right Parties or viewpoints. Such people in my experience are usually painful in the extreme to chat to in social situations & are best avoided like the plague unless they have the sort of sense of humour where they can have a laff at themselves.

              Seems to me you only come here to stir, Robert. And when you feel you have to even stir up political mud in a Social Chat page, you make that obvious. I think you’re one of those people best not invited to social gatherings unless it’s a knees up where they’re all Greenies & can all moan & take potshots at their agreed “enemies of the people” in unison.

              I’m open to persuasion otherwise though?

            • It wasn’t a no Robert. But it’s complex. For example you’re one of those who join in pile ons at The Standard, but it doesn’t seem to be because of irritation, you seem to be playing a game of deliberate disruption with people whose opinions you want to shut down and discredit. It’s a shutdown tactic. So a form of dirty politics, like others at TS.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 18, 2017

              Gezza – “includes a select few” – might be fair comment: how “few” do you count? 2? Yes, using the “social chat” page was a mistake; I’ll take more care from now on. I’m attracted to bland statements that are harmful when swallowed. I like to try to tease them out, expose the pale fibres and reweave a decent cord. Likely as not, my time is wasted, but it’s generally an enjoyable pursuit. Pete, like Keeping Stock, before him, styles himself as reasonable but can’t, in my view, see the wood for his trees. I expect I’m the same in some ways – we all try to help each other see the world more clearly. At social events, I’m good company, I’m told.

  5. “Dirty politics” pffffffffffftttt!
    Dirty politics is what Key, English, Joyce, Eagleson, Slater, Farrar et al. did/do, Pete.
    Get real.

  6. robertguyton

     /  December 18, 2017

    ““National’s central role in orchestrating DP from the ninth floor in the Beehive”
    Now you’re expecting commenters at TS to provide you with evidence, Pete?
    Pffffffffffffft!
    Are you for real?
    Jason Ede’s a great bloke? Nothing to see here? Key never dunit?
    Pete!

    • You’re misrepresenting what I said Robert. Actually, you’re lying. Ede has been disgraced. I didn’t say anything like ‘nothing to see here’, I asked for more facts and more exposure, the opposite.

      Are you just stirring again, or do you believe your own misconstrued claims?

      Yes, I do prefer to base what I say on evidence. I think there is a lack of evidence on levels of complicity in DP by the PM’s office, and it is important to know to what extent isn’t it? Unless you’re a lazy partisan.

      I think that it’s certain that the PM’s office was not involved in all of WO’s agendas, some of which have been dirty against the PM and National MPs.

      • Blazer

         /  December 18, 2017

        I agree. ..not all. .

      • robertguyton

         /  December 18, 2017

        The investigative work of Pete George, or that of Nicky Hager? George or Hager? Hager or George? What a way to start the day!

      • Blazer

         /  December 18, 2017

        What are these ‘levels ‘…of complicity?

  7. robertguyton

     /  December 18, 2017

    Now now, Pete, accusing a commenter of lying; please be clear; what was my lie? A direct quote would seal it, thanks.

    • You said:

      Jason Ede’s a great bloke? Nothing to see here? Key never dunit?
      Pete!

      That clearly implies it is what I said. It is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. Was that deliberate? If so that would be lying. Or did you make wild assumptions without reading properly?

      • robertguyton

         /  December 18, 2017

        Pffffft. Come on Pete, convention has it, and I follow convention when I write, that when quoting someone, quotation marks must be used. For someone who says he’s posted under pseudonyms on more than one blog, has been banned for purposefully inflaming other commenters, has received numerous calls to leave a thread only yesterday, you sure are keen to make accusations here in your home paddock!

        • Come on Robert, you’re intentionally implying things that are false representations, it’s lame to effectively deny it by claiming quotation marks matter.

          And you have misrepresented me again with “For someone who says he’s posted under pseudonyms on more than one blog”nand “has been banned for purposefully inflaming other commenters”.

          I don’t purposefully try to inflame others. Some act like they have been , but that’s usually disingenuous and making excuses for their own flaming.

          In fact it’s because I don’t inflame or burst into flames that seems to annoy some people, because that’s what they try to manufacture. Including you.

          Can you please quote in context what I actually said, rather than weasel your way out with saying it wasn’t a quote.

          • robertguyton

             /  December 18, 2017

            “For fun” then, same as I do 🙂

            • No, you’re making things up about me again. What’s up with your misrepresentations Robert?

            • Gezza

               /  December 18, 2017

              🤔 Hmm. Might be an element of truth in that. PG does seem to like poking a stick at the hornets nest over at TS on the odd occasion.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 18, 2017

              Pete George said:
              “I’ve openly identified myself in commenting under my own name for quite a few years now. Apart from a couple of little bits of fun using a pseudonym a long time ago (one here, one on Redbaiter’s blog) I have only posted or commented under my name.”:

  8. robertguyton

     /  December 18, 2017

    OAB said, of Pete just now…
    “So you don’t understand what the post is about. Or you’re being deliberately dishonest. I think it’s the latter.”

    Slow down a little, Pete, breathe with your abdomen.