Random Politics

[_indigo1]

Perhaps this is why their country is named as such. Bloody turkeys!

[Lightspeed]

Republican meltdowns when they lose are the best:

https://www.businessinsider.com/madi...rk-maga-2022-5

[Ab]

Entertaining but terrifying, those are familiar sentiments...

"time for the rise of the new right, it's time for Dark MAGA to truly take command."

"We have an enemy to defeat, but we will never be able to defeat them until we defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party," he wrote. "Their days are numbered. We are coming."

[The Edge]

Here comes the propaganda.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...2020-election/

[DrTiTus]

FYI, this current "monkey pox pandemic" was wargamed in November 2021.

https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploa...-TTX_Final.pdf

If you're dumb enough to fall for it this time, then oh my lord.

[DrTiTus]

Oh March 2021. The paper is from November 2021, as a result. Even better.

[Lightspeed]

This is an interesting one:

Seven years later, still no trial for Texas AG Ken Paxton

Corruption in the US gets more and more bald-faced.

[Ab]

Another school shooting in the USA, 18 dead so far.

Thoughts and prayers!

[Lightspeed]

"It needs to stop!" It won't.

"Enough is enough!" It's not.

The violence hasn't come close to peaking.

[Ab]

Agreed 100%.

[Cyberbob]

If Sandy Hook didn't change anything, this sure as heck won't.

[DrTiTus]

Auckland had 7 shootings last night.

Shall we repeal our right to .. no wait, let's make it a crime to... we need a register of... damn colonizers always spoiling it for people 150 years into the future!

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

If Sandy Hook didn't change anything, this sure as heck won't.

Well this is the 202nd mass shooting in the USA for the year so far - not a typo, two hundred and second - so... yeah.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Auckland had 7 shootings last night.

Shall we repeal our right to .. no wait, let's make it a crime to... we need a register of... damn colonizers always spoiling it for people 150 years into the future!

Anyone recall me predicted these circumstances occurring around about this time? As a consequence of National's social policies?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Anyone recall me predicted these circumstances occurring around about this time? As a consequence of National's social policies?

Yeah, it's time we voted out the National government we've had since the 2017 election

[Lightspeed]

Would it have taken minutes, hours or days for Labour to find all the people who missed out on care, all the clinicians who left the industry, once they entered power in 2017?

ACC sex-abuse claims down by 36% (2012)

An independent review of ACC, the second in 18 months, has found the number of sex-abuse claims lodged has fallen by 36% since 2008.

The review also found that only 3.6% of sensitive claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% in 2008, when National took office.

[Lightspeed]

If it takes an hour to burn a house down, it would only take an hour to rebuild it? And once the house is rebuilt, the consequences of being homeless would be wiped away?

[Lightspeed]

A growing emergency: Why are cops looking after mental health patients in crisis? (2017)

What an easy problem to solve, what have Labour been doing?!?11?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Auckland had 7 shootings last night.

Shall we repeal our right to .. no wait, let's make it a crime to... we need a register of... damn colonizers always spoiling it for people 150 years into the future!

The shootings are already illegal.

What laws would you like to introduce?

[DrTiTus]

Cliff's Notes: The ellipsis indicates a pause in the statement, representing a thought process - a light bulb moment as the poster realises that the solution offered is redundant because it is already in place and has failed to prevent such an event from taking place. Finally the poster resorts to placing blame on an unrelated but often-used boogeyman, which serves as a "catch-all" for problems in society that seem too hard to solve. This is in contrast to America's seemingly "obvious" solution of either removing guns from society - which is a Constitutional cluster-fuck - or passing similar laws. The comparison is made to demonstrate that legal tweaks do not prevent unlawful actions. Laws are not commandments that are adhered to strictly, or restrictions on actions. They are only offences which are punishable once committed.

[Lightspeed]

The Texas governor is suggesting that mental health is behind the shootings, not guns (he is talking at the NRA conference on Friday.) He might well be right. But like in New Zealand, mental health resources in the US have been undermined in recent decades. In this case by the very same people who say guns aren't the problem and refuse the legislate background checks.

With the struggles with inequality and impunity that exist in the US I'm actually surprised we don't see more. But we will.

Even if tomorrow the US government threw everything it had at resourcing mental health services, it would take decades for the results to fully manifest.

[Ab]

I imagine that growing up in a place where you were at risk of violent bloody death even in your school classroom would have negative mental health outcomes.

[StN]

I've heard you can get prescribed opiates for that...

[Lightspeed]

So many new accounts on Reddit shilling for National right now.

[Ab]

Speaking of reddit, this is full of awful:

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/co...ading_the_job/

[Lightspeed]

It's their job to protect and serve (the wealthy and their assets.)

[Ab]

God bless America

[Ab]

Child poverty at worst levels in 18 years - KidsCan

https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/05/27/c...years-kidscan/

[DrTiTus]

Choices have consequences.

Having kids is a choice.

I won't let anyone forget this. People are a bunch of cunts, and I will use their arguments against them.

Therefore, child poverty is a bad choice, that people need to live with.

[Lightspeed]

Reproducing is a biological imperative. Sexual reproduction is a compulsion, not a choice. It takes insight and resources to avoid having children.

I appreciate that incels would find this puzzling.

Originally Posted by Ab

Child poverty at worst levels in 18 years - KidsCan

https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/05/27/c...years-kidscan/

Which is why there's such pressure for those struggling to try and identify oneself as one of the few the community deems worthy of offering help to.

[DrTiTus]

The guy who is anti-rape is saying that sex is a compulsion.

Please be consistent. Either m0f0s have to control themselves, or it's just simple biology that we all do once we have white wees.

[Lightspeed]

Anyone here fuck?

I get it's real easy for some people to avoid pregnancy. The easiest thing in the world.

Anyone here raise kids?

Want to talk about the effort required instilling self-control in your children? Or do parents have no role to play in that regard? Either your kid is born with self-control or isn't?

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It takes insight

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

effort required

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Therefore, child poverty is a bad choice, that people need to live with.

QED.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, we choose child poverty when we funnel resources into the hands of the few. And we need to live with the consequences of that. Indeed, we're seeing a lot of those consequences in the news lately.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Which is why there's such pressure for those struggling to try and identify oneself as one of the few the community deems worthy of offering help to.

If what you're saying is that in times of hardship it's easier to swap to being on the winning team than to put up a fight, I might be inclined to agree with you.

[Lightspeed]

It doesn't have to be so starkly delineated. Some people have only known hardship and will always be unconsciously aligning themselves with whatever they think might give them some relief. Fighting against what they can't align with.

And it's not like we don't know this. Those in the position to do so set things up to compel people to align with what serves and maintains that position best.

[fixed_truth]

Having kids should only be a privilege for the rich?!

Oh the Stockholm syndrome. It's a big club, and you ain't in it.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Yeah, we choose child poverty when we funnel resources into the hands of the few. And we need to live with the consequences of that. Indeed, we're seeing a lot of those consequences in the news lately.

"We" (as a country) choose /wealth inequality/ when we don't have leadership that prevents house prices from getting out of control. I will agree that this is a problem. We have provided incentives for people to treat housing as a "get rich slowly" scheme, and slowly the inequality grew. I will not dispute it's a shitty way to make money, and is causing problems.

However, "we" (as a country) also provide the ability for people to have children they realistically can't afford if they CHOOSE to, with the "comfort" of knowing they will receive some support. There are approximately 350 000 families receiving WFF (based on income), and a further 66 000 parents on Sole Parent benefits (because they have to be the caregiver, and can't earn income). The Sole parents have an average of 2 children (bad decision? You already had no job or partner, although I accept the partner leaving can leave you a sole parent - bad decision to have children in a terrible relationship), and if we assume this 2 kids average to be true for the WFF families, which is fairly typical, we have roughly 800k children out of 1M in the country (a massive 80%) in a family receiving some sort of benefit because they don't earn enough INCOME (their spending is still their choice). There are also accommodation supplements to offset the "landlord effect".

Yet 156k of children (~1 in 6) are classed as "in poverty" (below some fudged median of disposable income) BEFORE housing costs. That's not landlords. Including housing costs raises this to 237k. (~1 in 4). The difference can be blamed on landlords, granted.

It is fair to assume that all of the children in poverty are in families with benefits, so [based on the average of 2 children] we can assume that 1 in 12 families/parents are in poverty BEFORE housing. Not landlords. 1 in 8 families/parents are in poverty AFTER housing.

Terrible numbers - or are they? 4 out of 5 families receive money from the state to raise their children. Celebrate! We happily look after 4 out of 5 families, and the other family doesn't need it anyway. We've chosen, as a society, not to make having children a privilege of the rich, as fixed_truth alludes to, and something I never said or suggested.

But that still means 1 in 8 families, or 12%, are making bad decisions (because there's an average of 2 children - what's wrong with one child? Or no children? Or spending less by making different decisions?). 1 in 12 (8%) are making TERRIBLE decisions that landlords have nothing to do with.

7 out of 8 families are doing "just fine" (for some definition of fine) in the same economy with the same cost of housing, being topped up to the same amount of minimum income (WFF).

Obviously there is something different about the 1 in 8 families that are not fine. We've addressed it at a state/collective level as best we can - we're giving the same amount of money to every family that needs it. It's calculated per child, so the number of children is not necessarily a bad decision. If there's a cap on number of kids - it's obviously a bad decision to keep going. How they CHOOSE to spend their money is their RESPONSIBILITY.

But, the fact that there is an average of TWO children per family receiving benefits implies they made at least one bad choice (to have children without sufficient means, but OK, we offer that as an option, and they took it), and then CONTINUE TO MAKE BAD CHOICES (spending) that keep them in poverty while others (7 out of 8, don't forget), in the same country with the same opportunities, same income, same cost of housing - are not. Sure, these families might not be living like the Kardashians - but they must have known children were expensive before they had them, otherwise bad decision.

There's only so much we can blame on landlords, or on society not doing enough, before we have to admit that EVERY family is provided the same base safety net, and a minority (1 in 12) just can't fucking manage their lives.

Some people are in poverty with the exact same resources in the same country. That's a spending problem, and not one that can be blamed on landlords. What more can we do if we don't even acknowledge the problem is individual choices?

[Lightspeed]

Of course, I realise I'm making an assumption. It's only people having hetero sex that would understand that getting pregnant isn't a simple choice. My bad.

[xor]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Having kids should only be a privilege for the rich?!

Oh the Stockholm syndrome. It's a big club, and you ain't in it.

What do you mean when you say 'for the rich', specifically?