whenever he’s genuinely challenged he falls to bits and starts lashing out in random directions with immature insults instead of actually addressing points.
Scarily, that may well be a selling point for some of his supporters.
Were the following governments ineffectual
This doesn’t negate the point that personality shouldn’t be allowed to trump policy. Did any of these examples rely solely on personality? Whether or not you agree with their policies, they also had clear goals for their vision of society, established over a long political career -- none of them were parachuted into politics through backroom deals to be a figurehead. (Another argument against the primacy of personality cults is that several of these examples were arguably hampered by their personality. I would say Kennedy, Lange, Obama, Clark all underachieved relative to their -- lofty -- goals.)
You can go back and edit your posts on this site (within a 15-minute window), rather than multiplying them.
As you say -- do your homework...
“Let them eat steak”, eh?
+1. I for one am getting tired of playing Troll Bingo.
[Sigh: see below. More gratuitous, irrelevant ad hominems. Grow up already, dude.]
their current right to vote in NZ elections only exists because of where we happened to draw the voting line in the past
And your right to vote only exists because of where we (re)drew the line in 1893. Even agreeing that voting rights aren’t fundamentally inalienable, that doesn’t make it OK to remove them arbitrarily.
people on home detention, can they vote?
the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 disqualified people sentenced to any term of imprisonment after the Act’s commencement from enrolling or voting. Prisoners on remand were still entitled to vote, as were those sentenced to home detention.
But that was from the top of the tin, hence not bottom-feeding.
requiring people to demonstrate that they actually have a direct interest in NZ before being allowed to vote
I really strongly disagree with any such plan: I feel that the fewer barriers there are to voting, the better. If extra requirements are brought in, there’s too much scope for voter apathy, and for arbitrary exclusion of eligible voters (looking at the US as a case in point).
I'm sure I'd pass any "direct interest" test ( I've made sure I've kept up the visiting requirement) but I don't want my eligibility as a voter to be up to anyone else's judgement.
Only very bad people go to hell.
Canon fodder, by definition.
a gradual devolution of power towards polling the public on questions of morality and conscience, and towards experts on questions of fact
I’d like that to be right – but, have you got a mechanism for that to come about? ’Cos questions of fact don’t exactly seem a strong priority for most of our politicians, nor for most of our media, as they’re currently configured.
Education has to be a large part of the (long-term, gradual) solution here – but even that is being increasingly deregulated and fragmented to a point where its potential for societal change is limited. Compare the discussion on the other thread dealing with religious instruction vs. more general ethics/ morality instruction.
As things stand ... on the one hand, we can’t take it for granted that minority rights will be upheld in a general referendum (which surely suggests a limit to how far any such devolution is possible?); and on the other, we have a government that shops round for the expert advice most commensurate with their own biases.