National - FFS!

[Joshuatree]

Nicky Hager: Five reasons why Judith Collins won’t be prime minister

1. Personal ambition is not enough
2. Attack politics are unpopular
3. Collins wasn’t ‘cleared’ of Dirty Politics
4. Many of her own colleagues don’t like her
5. Judith Collins is not Donald Trump

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20...rime-minister/

Aint that the truth.Some people around here cant handle the truth.

[Zaphod]

Their history in government maybe? nine years of doing nothing on the rma..

Then by your own criteria, Labour don't want to do anything either.

Repealing or even reforming the RMA is going to be highly complicated and take a least one full term, probably more.

[jonu]

So I had a look to see Cultural Marxism for what it is.
A conspiracy theory, propaganda, a fantasy, a fairy tale.
'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim
The theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right.
The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west, to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.
They invoke the spectre of “cultural Marxism” to account for things they disapprove of – things like Islamic immigrant communities, feminism, and say it promotes and even enforces ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism.

Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.
The fairytale of cultural Marxism provided a post-communist adversary located specifically in the cultural realm – academics, Hollywood, journalists, civil rights activists and feminists. It has been a mainstay of conservative activism and rhetoric ever since.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lay-the-victim

Really Moka? You went to a column in a left leaning broadsheet from leftie Jason "working class shirt" Wilson for your definition of Cultural Marxism?

He bothered to get this bit mostly right

[I]t begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.

Advertisement

Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.
[/I]



From there on he sets about trying to attach it to a bunch of extremist Right Wingers. It is a problem that extremists will launch against it....but that doesn't take away the original problem.

The Marxist thinkers not only saw the failure of Economic Communism to spread outside then Russia, they saw Lenin, Trotsky and Stalins slaughtering to enforce it. They were arrogant enough to assume the Soviet would prove to be an outlier and so tried the Cultural Route. The "Long March Through The Institutions" is bearing fruit 100 years later.

If the Democrats manage to lose against Trump (they are capable of it!) the USA is in for a very bumpy ride. The teeth gnashing was bad enough after Hillary failed. They have only themselves to blame.

I was genuinely surprised how nasty some of the expressed disappointment was from people I knew when John Key won his last term in office. Labour thought they had that election in the bag....much as the Dems think they have Trump on the ropes.

[dobby41]

Then by your own criteria, Labour don't want to do anything either.

Repealing or even reforming the RMA is going to be highly complicated and take a least one full term, probably more.

So the 'plan' National come up with is really just Labours plan anyway.

[tipsy]

Can't be dick pics. Apparently pics are not of him, so unless the owner of the dick has tattooed his name on his member* then they ain't dick-pics.

*not to be confused with member of parliament.

Fair enough, I put 2 n 2 together and came up with 5.

[Bjauck]

Obviously you need a bit of a history lesson & I mean that in a helpful way.
George Washington the first President of the US served only 2 terms when he was so revered he could have served many more. Why?
Because the US had just separated from England & the contemporary way of ruling at that time in England & much of Europe was monarchy's which at that time were all powerful & anything but democratic.
He wanted to return power to the people in the new Republic & so by setting this precedent of limited terms, would avoid the possibility of the establishment of an undemocratic monarchy in the US.
If you consider for a moment the situation in Russia & China at the moment where both current leaders have changed their constitutions to allow themselves to become lifelong leaders with few checks on their power, which is dangerous & anything but democratic.
Hope this helps.

Thanks for the condescending post. It was no help.

The proscription on more than two terms occurred much later than Washington. It may well have been his choice not to stand, it was not constitutional compunction.
You omitted a discussion on FDR. Why?

The 22nd amendment came after FDR and was passed in 1947. This made compulsory a tradition that some Presidents had voluntarily accepted. So from 1947 Presidents could not seek a third term and the people were denied the ability to vote in a person for a third term.

So the constitutional amendment was paternalist as those who drafted it did not think that the people's vote could be trusted?

Why wouldn't the impeachment process not be sufficient?

[Blue Skies]

Thanks for the condescending post. It was no help.

The proscription on more than two terms occurred much later than Washington. It may well have been his choice not to stand, it was not constitutional compunction.
You omitted a discussion on FDR. Why?

The 22nd amendment came after FDR and was passed in 1947. This made compulsory a tradition that some Presidents had voluntarily accepted. So from 1947 Presidents could not seek a third term and the people were denied the ability to vote in a person for a third term.

So the constitutional amendment was paternalist as those who drafted it did not think that the people's vote could be trusted?

Why wouldn't the impeachment process not be sufficient?

I wasn't being condescending, but can see you've obviously spent some time this morning researching the topic.

Just pointing out I said Washington set a 'precedent' & chose that word because it's the correct word for what he did & wanted others to follow.

As for the impeachment process & why it may not be sufficient. If you need to ask, maybe after you go & live in the US preferably DC, for a few years you'ld understand.

[Bjauck]

I wasn't being condescending, but can see you've obviously spent some time this morning researching the topic.

Just pointing out I said Washington set a 'precedent' & chose that word because it's the correct word for what he did & wanted others to follow.

As for the impeachment process & why it may not be sufficient. If you need to ask, maybe after you go & live in the US preferably DC, for a few years you'ld understand.

Well no actually I just had to check on the year. Surely there are other checks and balances?

I do query the relevant lessons in the details in current constitutional democracy that still can be gleaned from all the ideas of slave owning C18th American colonists who railed against imperial taxation.

The incredibly amounts of money, and the influence and favour that may bring, needing to be raised for presidential campaigns should perhaps be a greater concern in a democracy than limiting the number of four year terms.

[Panda-NZ-]

Collins 'believes'. interesting.

[Blue Skies]

Well no actually I just had to check on the year. Surely there are other checks and balances?

I do query the relevant lessons in the details in current constitutional democracy that still can be gleaned from all the ideas of slave owning C18th American colonists who railed against imperial taxation.

The incredibly amounts of money, and the influence and favour that may bring, needing to be raised for presidential campaigns should perhaps be a greater concern in a democracy than limiting the number of four year terms.

Yes agree with you.