sharetrader
Page 1542 of 1550 FirstFirst ... 5421042144214921532153815391540154115421543154415451546 ... LastLast
Results 15,411 to 15,420 of 15498
  1. #15411
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    7,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Then again there are plenty who would vote for him because of those things too.
    Absolutely - but not enough :
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  2. #15412
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    7,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    We don't know how competent National will be with so many changes since they last governed.
    We do know Labour are totally incompetent.
    None of the minor parties are likely to gain enough to be a major influence in the next term.
    So your only hope is to take a punt on National.
    To be fair ... I am not aware that there is a limit on the measure of incompetence ... and while I agree that Labour is pretty incompetent in doing what they said they wanted to do ... they did so far ok-ish in dealing with the virus. I could imagine still more incompetent governments than the current bunch - ie. I recon we need to see what National comes up with before we try to assess who is the least competent bunch.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  3. #15413
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    To be fair ... I am not aware that there is a limit on the measure of incompetence ... and while I agree that Labour is pretty incompetent in doing what they said they wanted to do ... they did so far ok-ish in dealing with the virus. I could imagine still more incompetent governments than the current bunch - ie. I recon we need to see what National comes up with before we try to assess who is the least competent bunch.
    National do not have a Twyford, a Parker, a Williams, a Davis, Jackson and some of the others who are so forgettable I can't remember them! There is no chance they will be as hopeless.

  4. #15414
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    I vote for parties that believe in private property rights, individual freedoms, the maintenance of law and order, and the limiting of state intrusion in peoples lives.

    I cannot in good conscience vote for parties that believe in ever increasing socialism and state control & the undermining of the current system, as that eventually leads to revolution, anarchy, and the implementation of totalitarian regimes.

    Therefore I have no other option than to vote as I do, and I can't see that changing. I equate 'swinging voters' with people who are unsure as to what their views and opinions are and who are constantly vacillating on what they stand for and who they support. 'Swinging' is probably the right name for them, as it is word redolendent with free and easy people of questionable morals who can't decide what they support.


    You sound like a fun sort of a guy! Get invited out a lot?
    You'd get on well with Ted Cruz.
    Just joking, sounds a bit earnest.

  5. #15415
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    7,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logen Ninefingers View Post
    I vote for parties that believe in private property rights, individual freedoms, the maintenance of law and order, and the limiting of state intrusion in peoples lives.

    I cannot in good conscience vote for parties that believe in ever increasing socialism and state control & the undermining of the current system, as that eventually leads to revolution, anarchy, and the implementation of totalitarian regimes.

    Therefore I have no other option than to vote as I do, and I can't see that changing. I equate 'swinging voters' with people who are unsure as to what their views and opinions are and who are constantly vacillating on what they stand for and who they support. 'Swinging' is probably the right name for them, as it is word redolendent with free and easy people of questionable morals who can't decide what they support.
    You sound like a very one dimensional person ... is this really what you are?

    Most people are multidimensional - and life certainly is.

    Sure - most people stand on a certain place in the left - right spectrum, and I assume this is for most voters one of the factors influencing which party they vote for, but at least for me there are as well some other very important criteria to assess. Some examples would be:

    How do the parties propose to protect the environment. No point in voting for a party which might support my selfish desire to maximise my capital if this results in a destruction of our planet, is it?

    Are the people standing for the party decent, honorable people or do I know already that they are character-less liars? No point in voting for a liar who tells me what I want to hear, isn't it ... even if I like his (or her) story.

    Are the people standing for election competent to do what they need to do in order to achieve the goals they promised?

    Are the values of the parties compatible with my values (and this is a show stopper - I could not bring myself to ever vote for a party which supported (just an overseas example) e.g. a liar like Trump?

    If I could choose I would pick a centre-right government which humanistic principles using a science based approach which really cares about the environment and the planet. It needs to be run by honest and decent people I can respect.

    No party in NZ fits this bill ... which means I need to check every time which of the available choices comes closest to my requirements.

    If this makes me a swing voter, then so be it ... without us democracy would not work because politicians would not have a need to perform.

    While I realise that some voters would vote for any sheep as long as its wool is died in the right colour ... I don't think that this is the best approach to make democracy work.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  6. #15416
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    855

    Default

    The two people who responded to me are obviously 'swinging voters' and that's ok. By the same token, someone who backs their political philosophy is not automatically 'earnest' or 'not fun at parties'. My take is that I don't jump like a flea from dog to dog: in years when my side of the divide is clearly going to lose they still need my vote to bulwark their numbers and ensure strong opposition. I can't stand the people that chop and change and are so weak that they always have to align themselves with the 'winning' side, but that's just my take. We have people regularly commenting on here about politics, day in and day out (including the 'swinging voters') and apparently that doesn't make them earnest individuals. I'm sure their would be many that would argue otherwise.

  7. #15417
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    7,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    National do not have a Twyford, a Parker, a Williams, a Davis, Jackson and some of the others who are so forgettable I can't remember them! There is no chance they will be as hopeless.
    Well, of the top of my head I can think of many questionable National candidates and staffers (many quite recent) - lets see: Andrew Falloon, Jake Bezzant, Michelle Boag, Judith Collins, Jamie-Lee Ross, Roger McClay - and I am sure that there are plenty more.

    Lets face it - Nationals candidate selection is a shambles, and neither character not leadership skills seem to be relevant in the selection as long as Mr Goodfellow likes them for some reason.

    While I agree with you that Labours record in picking decent and competent staff is not very impressive - I doubt National is standing in that regard on moral high ground.

    Just another pick out of a bad bunch ...
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  8. #15418
    Senior Member justakiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    1,079

    Default

    I said I will consider them. No party is perfect. None of them. I will make my decision at election time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda-NZ- View Post
    A bit contradictory to your previous stance on the importance of vaccines.

  9. #15419
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hastings, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 777 View Post
    Bridges has confirmed he is standing. So very little change to the polls if he succeeds.
    "bugger the pollsters" as Jim Bolger famously said.

    Which way will the pendulum swing this time?

  10. #15420
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hastings, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Getty View Post
    "bugger the pollsters" as Jim Bolger famously said.

    Which way will the pendulum swing this time?
    Remember 'Ms 2%' as John Banks used to refer to Helen Clark, going on to become PM?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •