Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Sacha,
Gustafson, hardly a screaming leftie, mentions the attempts by moneyed Aucklanders to hijack the party over the years.
Sorry, but what the fuck does this have to do with ACT? I know Barry reasonably well, and I don't think he's quite accepted -- let alone wrapped his head around -- the realities of MMP. The punditocracy still seem trapped in the idea that minor parties are just National and Labour's tame bitches, when the reality is ever so slightly more complex.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Tom Semmens,
Don Brash is seventy. John Banks is sixty five. Roger Douglas is seventy five. Paul Holmes is sixty one. I pretty sure John Armstrong and Audrey Young long ago bid farewell to fifty.
Too right – carousel for all the stupid smelly old people! Renew! Renew!
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to BenWilson,
Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that both Brash and Banks could be making such bold moves without even the slightest consultation with National, given that both have been very senior Nats in their time.
You've got to be extracting the urine. Do you know anyone involved with ACT, or are they the Higgs boson in your model of the political universe?
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Sacha,
That it was merely a matter of ‘procedure’ before then shows what really counts and where power lies in that shady cesspit that has lain beneath both National and Act for years.
Oh, for God's sake... Seriously. Perhaps I've been living in some Fringe-like alternate universe, but Hide's performance -- and ACT's dismal polling and election results -- have been criticised for years. Not helped by the perk-buster being outed as a trougher. And ACT being what it is, nobody's been particularly shy about saying so.
I know this might come as a dreadful shock, but I'm not actually surprised that your "shadowy backers" (funny how right-wing parties have that, while the left have sector groups and donors) noticed that members were not happy. I'd love to know who commissioned this "poll", but does the discussion have to take on the tone of one of Donald Trump's birther rants?
Having been one of National's "shadowy backers", do you want to know something? Jim Bolger wasn't fucked by a shadowy cabal; he signed his death warrant by signing a coalition agreement with a pathological bigot that went down with a LOT of grassroots members like a douche-bucket of vomit. I know this because I was one of them. He also lost the confidence of a majority of caucus.
And I'm really finding the concern trolling about Rodney Hide's new career as a knife block delightful.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Paul Williams,
To me, Brash remains the bloke who dissembled on the EBs and lectured Clark about marriage while conducting extra-marital affairs. I am deeply mistrusting.
Um, Paul -- do we really need to go there? It's weird (and blackly comic) enough that we have a party whose presumptive leader isn't even a member yet. (And as I understand ACT's constitution, the executive Board can tell Brash and Hide to bog off. Which would raise a whole other freak flag.)
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Alex Coleman,
…I do think it’s only fair that the country knows what sort of position an extremist would be likely to hold in any future government.
That’s actually a perfectly reasonable question, but I really don’t think it’s one that can be made with much confidence. Those tiresome elections lay waste to the best laid plans of backroom boys and pundits.
Still, it’s one I’d love to see Key and Goff pressed on. Especially the chap who hasn’t ruled out another round of zombie love with Winston Peters.
So are you saying that if he had of won a parliamentary majority then that would mean he had the assent of Maori to abolish the seats? Or that such an assent is unnecessary?
Unnecessary and rather meaningless.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Alex Coleman,
So if Brash had won in 05 and abolished the seats, how would have that been with Maori leave?
First, Brash couldn’t have abolished a damn thing without the assent of a majority of Parliament. I might not have liked everything the Fifth Labour Government did – certainly never voted for it – but it’s just stupid pretending they were somehow illegitimate.
You might also want to be extremely careful about acting as if Maori are some hive mind on any subject. It’s out of order to say that’s “racist”, but it’s damn sure more than a little patronising.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Mikaere Curtis,
Instead, Craig, Brash and others would rather get out the Stick of Paternal Coercion and remove them without some much as a “by your leave”. Why convince when you can override ?
Oh, go away and stop drama queening. You know that the Maori seats can only be abolished by Act of Parliament, which a pretty substantive “by your leave”. And that “Stick of Parental Coercion” dog-whistle was well out of order.
You’ve pulled this on me before, so I won’t bother asking for an apology and retraction. But it would nice if you’d think a little about respect being a two way street and snidely dog-whistling that people you disagree with are like child abusers isn't even close.
-
Will flat tax, welfare cuts and asset sales fix that?
No, and neither will screaming “racist” at anyone who suggests that the Maori seat may just have outlived their usefulness. You know, like we somehow managed to get past the idea that only property owners over the age of twenty-one with penises were competent to vote.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to BlairMacca,
. Which scares me. He could tap the racist vote very easily.
Oh, and remind me who’s not ruling out getting back in bed with WInston Peters if that zombie apocalypse happens? Hint: It’s not Key. Throw in the visceral hatred a good chunk of Labour has for the Maori Party, and I predict we’re going to be hearing a lot more high-pitch brown-necking from Shane Jones while Goff goes pandering to Waitakare Man. It’s not as if Labour has anything to lose.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 307 308 309 310 311 … 1235 Older→ First