Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Noitall]

It’s actually not. That’s an enormous cop out. Look at the media and information that’s been consumed for the last 50years, individualism, “girl boss” , delay having kids, focus on your career.

Now add that to emasculation that is CREATING toxic masculinity. Chivalry and gender based roles wasn’t toxic but incels certainly are.

Did you grow up around your old man? You said you had a solo mum?

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Here’s another story time cause I’m in the mood. I was at the forefront of women in the infantry push in the Australian military. I welcomed the push because I am sadistic fuck and I wanted to see more people suffer the misery that is an infantryman’s life. It was an unmitigated disaster. Woman are generally not physiologically, or mentally built for that type of work.

Eventually they all left the units, injured, broken, or with PTSD, like many men do but just at a higher rate. You’ll notice there isn’t much of push for women in combat roles anymore. It was kinda swept under the rug.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Did you grow up around your old man? You said you had a solo mum?

Never knew him. Why you think I ran with gangs at 14

 

[MrFrankWhite]

it’s an olden day view that women stay home have/raise kids while the man goes out and earns.

there’s nothing to say anyone has to have kids or stay home or get a job or even fucking provide anymore as we’ve seen plenty of.

female couples?
solo mothers on a benefit?

plenty of good people come from homes with no male role model, but 100% agreed no good male role model is a common childhood theme in grown up shitbags

i’m sure we don’t need a mum to raise us while dad goes to work.


also, where’s the graph for the pile of absolute fucking dropkick grown mean trying to staunch out a 55kg indian seccy at winz lower hutt i see as i drive past some days. a lot of patches, not much decorum. i can see why some women don’t want men in their lives.

This is a great post. And I what I was saying doesn’t preclude adoption or same sex couples. I’ll give more nuance after my run.

 

[Worried2Death]

Here’s another story time cause I’m in the mood. I was at the forefront of women in the infantry push in the Australian military. I welcomed the push because I am sadistic fuck and I wanted to see more people suffer the misery that is an infantry men’s life. It was an unmitigated disaster. Woman are generally not physiologically, or mentally built for that type of work.

Eventually they all left the units, injured, broken, or with PTSD, like many men do but just at a higher rate. You’ll notice there isn’t much of push for women in combat roles anymore. It was kinda swept under the rug.

What's the moral of that story, the military screws most people up for life?

 

[marv.]

Woman are generally not physiologically, or mentally built for that type of work.

fuck, haha. i would think most men aren’t either.

 

[Worried2Death]

Do we even need this many men in society anymore since we cause most of the problems? Why not just go full China and kill 9/10 male babies, keep a few men around for breeding and build a matriarchal utopia?

I suppose that's just what our enemies in the CCP want is it, no one left in the military to defend us when they invade. I'm going off this idea now.

 

[Noitall]

Do we even need this many men in society anymore since we cause most of the problems? Why not just go full China and kill 9/10 male babies, keep a few men around for breeding and build a matriarchal utopia?

I suppose that's just what our enemies in the CCP want is it, no one left in the military to defend us when they invade. I'm going off this idea now.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dQVR4ZX-to


This show was a hard case about exactly what you’re saying

 

[Juno]

Why do you think, back in 1996 when New Zealand First was in Government with National, some media referred to shots of the New Zealand First Bigwigs walking down corridors in Parliament as "like the poster for Reservoir Dogs"?

Winston knows it's clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right and here I am, sunshine, stuck in the middle with you.

Taking the anology further: There's no Mr Orange in New Zealand First.

My memories of wee winnie go back even further. Wellington in the late 60s but mostly early 70s. Wee willie winnie's late nights in Cuba Street wining and dining with whoever at Carmen's, drinking and smoking like there's no tomorrow, wearing his 3-piece suits like a wannabe upperclass future John Travolta. It was his MO then and still is, he just disguises it well for his (same age) deluded followers.
Gotta give it to the guy, he's the consummate politician - but he don't give a **** about anyone except for his own perceived status as a mixer and shaker. People still fall for it lol. He was a wee Willie, oops, wee Winnie, then and now. Crafty alright, but then that's what you have to be when you're a little fella in a big man's world.

 

[Worried2Death]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dQVR4ZX-to


This show was a hard case about exactly what you’re saying

Started watching that show, couldn't handle the bad acting.

 

[Noitall]

Started watching that show, couldn't handle the bad acting.

Jay Ryan’s the man

 

[Noitall]

My memories of wee winnie go back even further. Wellington in the late 60s but mostly early 70s. Wee willie winnie's late nights in Cuba Street wining and dining with whoever at Carmen's, drinking and smoking like there's no tomorrow, wearing his 3-piece suits like a wannabe upperclass future John Travolta. It was his MO then and still is, he just disguises it well for his (same age) deluded followers.
Gotta give it to the guy, he's the consummate politician - but he don't give a **** about anyone except for his own perceived status as a mixer and shaker. People still fall for it lol. He was a wee Willie, oops, wee Winnie, then and now. Crafty alright, but then that's what you have to be when you're a little fella in a big man's world.

My ex wife’s sister was married to his cousin. They’ve all got that look and height

 

[Juno]

My ex wife’s sister was married to his cousin. They’ve all got that look and height

Know heaps of little Maori fellas, have some in my own whanau. Always funny, punch above their height/ size, and rely on their smarts to get the upperhand.
Big chip on their shoulders a lot of the time too - hard when you're looked on as the runt of the pack because you're small. BUT most of them roll with it and don't let it change who they are or minimise their roots. Sorry, but Winnie seems to think he has to do that...

 

[Noitall]

Know heaps of little Maori fellas, have some in my own whanau. Always funny, punch above their height/ size, and rely on their smarts to get the upperhand.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked him. Passed on now unfortunately. Was a bit of a ratbag in his younger years apparently and liked a drink but I never met him until later in his life in which he’d given it away

 

[MrFrankWhite]

it’s an olden day view that women stay home have/raise kids while the man goes out and earns.

Look at nature. Roles are split. Can’t leave the child in the nest alone. Generally.

there’s nothing to say anyone has to have kids or stay home or get a job or even fucking provide anymore as we’ve seen plenty of.

Of course not. People are free to do what they want.

female couples?
solo mothers on a benefit?

Both of those are outliers. What matters is one person stays in the workforce to maximise earnings and one person reduces childcare costs

also, where’s the graph for the pile of absolute fucking dropkick grown men trying to staunch out a 55kg indian seccy at winz lower hutt i see as i drive past some days. a lot of patches, not much decorum.
i can see why some women don’t want men in their lives.

Of course. Men have the unenviable task of being masculine, which a lot fail at.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Because no one is addressing poverty in a meaningful way.
Labour did some good things (lunches in school, minimum wage increases, minor increases to benefits), but not nearly enough. Housing, food and utility costs all remain high.

Distribution and Labour has been proven a failure to address poverty. We have the data. If you really cared about those in poverty you would vote National. Really read these stats with an open mind and challenge your world view.:


Two shocking stats were released last week.

After six years of Labour, the number of children in material hardship is higher than when Labour came to office. The total number of people on Jobseeker has reached 189,000.

These statistics decide the economic debate: Is the way to lift people out of poverty to redistribute wealth or is it to have a strong economy?

Labour engaged in massive wealth redistribution. Labour collected record tax revenues by letting inflation take taxpayers into a higher tax bracket. Labour then redistributed using the welfare system.

Max Rashbrooke, senior research fellow at Victoria University, says, “the previous Labour-led government poured an extra $16.5 billion into welfare, carefully delivered in instalments so as not to alarm the middle classes. The core unemployment benefit rose from $215 a week to $340. Even after adjusting for inflation and higher rents, the average beneficiary’s income grew by 43 per cent”.

The result is more children in material hardship.

Using the same statistical measure under National in the four years before Labour took office, 60,000 children were lifted out of material hardship.

Christopher Luxon is correct. The best way to reduce poverty is to have a strong economy. A rising tide lifts all boats. We will never eliminate poverty by making increasing numbers dependent on the state.

The left is claiming that Labour did not redistribute enough. If a future government was to confiscate all the wealth of our few billionaires, assuming they stayed to be robbed, it would only fund the government for a few weeks.

The Australian Labor Party is the most successful Labour party in the world. After the crushing 1975 defeat, its advice to the Labour caucus I belonged to in 1975 was Labour would never be elected government until we had economic credibility. It is still good advice.

Just as Labour could not out-promise Social Credit who pledged to print money, Labour cannot out-promise the Greens and Te Pāti Māori who say the rich will pay.

Today, no possible wealth tax enables the 2,297,000 in fulltime employment and the 525,000 part-timers to carry the 378,711 on benefits plus the 880,000 on superannuation.

Richard Prebble: The shocking statistics confronting the new Government

Is the best way to get people out of poverty redistributing wealth or a strong economy?

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Distribution and Labour has been proven a failure to address poverty. We have the data. If you really cared about those in poverty you would vote National. Really read these stats with sn open mind and challenge your world view.:


Two shocking stats were released last week.

After six years of Labour, the number of children in material hardship is higher than when Labour came to office. The total number of people on Jobseeker has reached 189,000.

These statistics decide the economic debate: Is the way to lift people out of poverty to redistribute wealth or is it to have a strong economy?

Labour engaged in massive wealth redistribution. Labour collected record tax revenues by letting inflation take taxpayers into a higher tax bracket. Labour then redistributed using the welfare system.

Max Rashbrooke, senior research fellow at Victoria University, says, “the previous Labour-led government poured an extra $16.5 billion into welfare, carefully delivered in instalments so as not to alarm the middle classes. The core unemployment benefit rose from $215 a week to $340. Even after adjusting for inflation and higher rents, the average beneficiary’s income grew by 43 per cent”.

The result is more children in material hardship.

Using the same statistical measure under National in the four years before Labour took office, 60,000 children were lifted out of material hardship.

Christopher Luxon is correct. The best way to reduce poverty is to have a strong economy. A rising tide lifts all boats. We will never eliminate poverty by making increasing numbers dependent on the state.

The left is claiming that Labour did not redistribute enough. If a future government was to confiscate all the wealth of our few billionaires, assuming they stayed to be robbed, it would only fund the government for a few weeks.

The Australian Labor Party is the most successful Labour party in the world. After the crushing 1975 defeat, its advice to the Labour caucus I belonged to in 1975 was Labour would never be elected government until we had economic credibility. It is still good advice.

Just as Labour could not out-promise Social Credit who pledged to print money, Labour cannot out-promise the Greens and Te Pāti Māori who say the rich will pay.

Today, no possible wealth tax enables the 2,297,000 in fulltime employment and the 525,000 part-timers to carry the 378,711 on benefits plus the 880,000 on superannuation.

Richard Prebble: The shocking statistics confronting the new Government

Is the best way to get people out of poverty redistributing wealth or a strong economy?

www.nzherald.co.nz

Settles it for me. Anyone that proposes wealth distibution, bigger govt, wealth taxes, CGT, etc, has no credibility and just wants more people to suffer.

The left redistribution experiment has been proven a massive failure.

Fix poverty through more money - failed
Forcing minimum wages without productivity gain - failed
Huge tax take/ big govt - failed
Tax the productive without impacting the economy - failed

We will never eliminate poverty by making increasing numbers dependent on the state.

Prove me wrong!

 

[marv.]

Look at nature. Roles are split. Can’t leave the child in the nest alone. Generally.

Of course not. People are free to do what they want.

Both of those are outliers. What matters is one person stays in the workforce to maximise earnings and one person reduces childcare costs

Of course. Men have the unenviable task of being masculine, which a lot fail at.

i wonder if there is any kind of study on outcomes in children with good male role model vs poor male role model vs no male role model and youth crime/crime/gangs etc.

and if no male role model is infact better than a poor male role model?
that would be interesting.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Distribution and Labour has been proven a failure to address poverty. We have the data. If you really cared about those in poverty you would vote National. Really read these stats with an open mind and challenge your world view.:


Two shocking stats were released last week.

After six years of Labour, the number of children in material hardship is higher than when Labour came to office. The total number of people on Jobseeker has reached 189,000.

These statistics decide the economic debate: Is the way to lift people out of poverty to redistribute wealth or is it to have a strong economy?

Labour engaged in massive wealth redistribution. Labour collected record tax revenues by letting inflation take taxpayers into a higher tax bracket. Labour then redistributed using the welfare system.

Max Rashbrooke, senior research fellow at Victoria University, says, “the previous Labour-led government poured an extra $16.5 billion into welfare, carefully delivered in instalments so as not to alarm the middle classes. The core unemployment benefit rose from $215 a week to $340. Even after adjusting for inflation and higher rents, the average beneficiary’s income grew by 43 per cent”.

The result is more children in material hardship.

Using the same statistical measure under National in the four years before Labour took office, 60,000 children were lifted out of material hardship.

Christopher Luxon is correct. The best way to reduce poverty is to have a strong economy. A rising tide lifts all boats. We will never eliminate poverty by making increasing numbers dependent on the state.

The left is claiming that Labour did not redistribute enough. If a future government was to confiscate all the wealth of our few billionaires, assuming they stayed to be robbed, it would only fund the government for a few weeks.

The Australian Labor Party is the most successful Labour party in the world. After the crushing 1975 defeat, its advice to the Labour caucus I belonged to in 1975 was Labour would never be elected government until we had economic credibility. It is still good advice.

Just as Labour could not out-promise Social Credit who pledged to print money, Labour cannot out-promise the Greens and Te Pāti Māori who say the rich will pay.

Today, no possible wealth tax enables the 2,297,000 in fulltime employment and the 525,000 part-timers to carry the 378,711 on benefits plus the 880,000 on superannuation.

Richard Prebble: The shocking statistics confronting the new Government

Is the best way to get people out of poverty redistributing wealth or a strong economy?

www.nzherald.co.nz

Except NZ has never had a strong economy. It’s a giant tourist town, with shit wages, and no secondary or tertiary value add.

Most former and failed politicians should be widely ignored. They either lied or lacked the courage to fix things during their tenure.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Except NZ has never had a strong economy. It’s a giant tourist town, with shit wages, and no secondary or tertiary value add.

Most former and failed politicians should be widely ignored. They either lied or lacked the courage to fix things during their tenure.

50 years ago NZ was world leading and statistically the economy was better than Australia.

Then Britain ditched us, we ramped up immigration without matching economic growth; globalisation exposed us, etc

We stagnated and our politics reflected our laid back attitude. We prioritised clean and green before productivity. This current govt has proposed good things to grow us and the media and even posters on here shows that to many NZers are happy being mediocre.