Jacinda Ardern is a badass MF and I want her for Shah of the U.S.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20334]

Seriously, how does New Zealand, with fewer than 5 million people, end up with a much more capable leader than the U.S., with 330 million?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-shooting-emotion-politics.html

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

They are educated and they vote.

[TexArcher 37414]

Does New Zealand have Fox News?

[retread 2951]

Our 40% is educated with FW:FW:FW, Facebook, and Fox.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Ask her about their immigration laws.  

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

58 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Does New Zealand have Fox News?

I don't think their citizenry has enough ignorance, fear, and hate to make that business model profitable. 

[NowThis 931]

NZ and Australians are exceedingly polite. Their society is like a time capsule of what perhaps UK was 150 years ago, the rest of the world changed, while in their isolation NZ stayed the same.  I've seen some Youtube debates between their politicians, nothing but niceness between all parties.  People are offended at the slightest accusation of being rude which is a huge social taboo. Here in the US, rudeness and surliness are celebrated as strength traits. 

[Parliament 14086]

Here in the US, rudeness and surliness are celebrated as strength traits. 

Yeah fuck you.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Does New Zealand have Fox News?

Actually didn’t they ban Sky News or something akin to Fox in the wake of the attacks because they were pushing propaganda and garbage?

[EMAWesome 101]

Yes, what a wonderful leader.  Her government has an official position called Chief Censor.  Her government is threatening anyone with the shooter's manifesto on their hard drive with ten years in prison.  Her government is threatening anyone who posts the manifesto on the internet with fourteen years in prison.  Just last year her government was promoting legislation forcing visitors to New Zealand to give their cell phone passwords to customs officials as a condition to enter the country.  She just finished taking guns out of thousands of gun owners hands who had done nothing illegal with them simply because one nut job did something illegal with theirs.  What a wonderful beacon for individual freedom and freedom of expression.   You jackasses deserve the dictator you are begging for.  None of you leftists understand that the more power you give government the more ability you give government to misuse and abuse that power and the less power you have to do anything about it.

[Prepuce of Doom 20954]

11 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Just last year her government was promoting legislation forcing visitors to New Zealand to give their cell phone passwords to customs officials as a condition to enter the country. 

Do you know what other country also does that shit, often to its own citizens? 

[EMAWesome 101]

I'm sure you are insinuating the U.S. and I don't like it here either.  Again, the more power you give to government the more ability you give the government to abuse and misuse that power and the less power you have to do anything about it.  If they make it illegal today to possess or post the shooter's manifesto what is to keep the following scenario from happening on down the road.  Say some one in New Zealand writes an opinion piece critical of the New Zealand government that gets published online.  Given the precedent set what why wouldn't the New Zealand government then have the ability to declare that in the name of public safety and to prevent potential domestic terrorism anyone found to be in possession of that article will be sentenced to ten years in prison and anyone who posts that article on the internet will be sentenced to fourteen years in prison.  It's the same thought pattern and the same principle.

Edited March 30, 2019 by EMAWesome

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20334]

26 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Yes, what a wonderful leader.  Her government has an official position called Chief Censor.  Her government is threatening anyone with the shooter's manifesto on their hard drive with ten years in prison.  Her government is threatening anyone who posts the manifesto on the internet with fourteen years in prison.  Just last year her government was promoting legislation forcing visitors to New Zealand to give their cell phone passwords to customs officials as a condition to enter the country.  

 

She wouldn't have any of those things in the United States. 

Thanks for the stupid fucking strawman, though. 

[EMAWesome 101]

31 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

She wouldn't have any of those things in the United States. 

Thanks for the stupid fucking strawman, though. 

Luckily for us.  If you don't think the left wouldn't try to ban speech opposing them on grounds of hate speech if they could you haven't been paying attention to this country's political landscape.  If there was an ingredient label on a box of totalitarianism the first two ingredients would be suppression of speech and disarming of the public.  That is exactly what New Zealand has done in the last month.  I don't want a leader of this country to be unable to do these things because the leaders of the country 240 plus years ago understood the tendencies of government.  I want a leader of this country to be unable to do these things because they understand the tendencies of government.

[hobbes2702 12769]

How do you feel about Trumps national emergency?

[EMAWesome 101]

I feel it's a legitimate emergency but I still feel that controlling the purse strings is part of the authority of Congress.  I think he could legitimately send troops to the border on a short-term basis or shut the border down if he feels it is necessary but I don't think he has the authority to fund the wall.  I'm relatively neutral on the wall.  There are worse ideas and things the government could be spending money on (following the Paris accord for example) but there are also better ones (including applying it against the national debt).  All I wanted Trump to do on the border was let the Border Patrol and ICE do their jobs without bureaucratic interference and enforce the actual laws that are on the books.  The problem with the whole situation is that the writers of the Constitution did not include a guide on what to do when something in the auspices of the Constitution falls into the hands of Congress and Congress instead uses those hands to pick their asses with instead of doing anything.

[ChiTownDoc 21071]

OP:  New Zealand's leader is awesome

Dipshit who isn't awesome:  Her country's laws suck

Um...

[hobbes2702 12769]

 

5 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I feel it's a legitimate emergency but I still feel that controlling the purse strings is part of the authority of Congress.  I think he could legitimately send troops to the border on a short-term basis or shut the border down if he feels it is necessary but I don't think he has the authority to fund the wall.  I'm relatively neutral on the wall.  There are worse ideas and things the government could be spending money on (following the Paris accord for example) but there are also better ones (including applying it against the national debt).  All I wanted Trump to do on the border was let the Border Patrol and ICE do their jobs without bureaucratic interference and enforce the actual laws that are on the books.  The problem with the whole situation is that the writers of the Constitution did not include a guide on what to do when something in the auspices of the Constitution falls into the hands of Congress and Congress instead uses those hands to pick their asses with instead of doing anything.

So you excuse Trump acting like a totalitarian and usurping power because Congress doesn’t do what you want?

So you’re ok with your kind of totalitarian but not theirs. 

[ChiTownDoc 21071]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

 

So you excuse Trump acting like a totalitarian and usurping power because Congress doesn’t do what you want?

So you’re ok with your kind of totalitarian but not theirs. 

Of course he is.  Probably a good Christian too...

[EMAWesome 101]

Where did I excuse Trump?  I don't agree with him on this.  I don't agree with him on his position with tariffs.  You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever, going to find one politician that you are in agreement with 100% of the time.  I'm okay with one that gets most of the stuff right as long as the stuff he doesn't get right doesn't lead to mushroom clouds or suppression of my rights.

[hobbes2702 12769]

Your last sentence. The problem with...

No the problem is the president wants to usurp the power of congress.

How about Trump allowing a middle Eastern dictator to murder and a journalist for an American newspaper? How about calling the press an enemy of the people? How about closing the government to get what he wants? How about siding with foreign dictators instead of our intelligence and giving a pass to the country that interfered in our most basic process?

You have no issue with your own leader behaving like a totalitarian so why do you take issue with another country doing it?

[EMAWesome 101]

The reason why he wanted to usurp the power of Congress was because Congress was not using their power.  This country has needed immigration reform since the 1980s.  Every term Congress kicked the can down the road to the next term of Congress.  His point has always been that Congress should have been fixing this decades ago.  If Congress does their job then there is no reason for him to try to do their job.  I'm not saying he should do their job.  I'm saying they should do their job.

[hobbes2702 12769]

That’s an excuse. You’re making excuses for his action instead of saying “the president doesn’t have to authority and he shouldn’t attempt to ursurp congress.” This isn’t hard.

There is a very good reason for him not to do their job, it’s called the constitution and separation of powers. The voters are their boss. Their voters aren’t upset enough about immigration reform for them to do anything about it. Sucks but that’s how it works. Again you are perfectly fine with your team being totalitarian so forgive me if no gives a fuck about your complaints about someone else.

Edited March 31, 2019 by hobbes2702

[RayDog 682]

12 hours ago, NowThis said:

NZ and Australians are exceedingly polite. Their society is like a time capsule of what perhaps UK was 150 years ago, the rest of the world changed, while in their isolation NZ stayed the same.  I've seen some Youtube debates between their politicians, nothing but niceness between all parties.  People are offended at the slightest accusation of being rude which is a huge social taboo. Here in the US, rudeness and surliness are celebrated as strength traits. 

This sounds nothing like the Australians I encounter on a daily basis in the Philippines.

[Js1 84995]

5 hours ago, RayDog said:

This sounds nothing like the Australians I encounter on a daily basis in the Philippines.

Australians are prolific assholes as soon as you get them out of Australia. 

[RayDog 682]

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Australians are prolific assholes as soon as you get them out of Australia. 

In my experience being an asshole is not location dependant.

The typical Aussie I see has bad tats, wears a wifebeater, chain smokes, is an alcoholic prone to black out drinking and fighting, a misogynist, lies to girls about having a wife, supports Trump, and is a flat earther and lunar landing denier.

[Skyline 325]

Quote

 Her government is threatening anyone with the shooter's manifesto on their hard drive with ten years in prison.  Her government is threatening anyone who posts the manifesto on the internet with fourteen years in prison.

Yeah... They're preventing the shooter from being a martyr and spreading his extremist message to other far-right groups. It's the ideal thing to do. Along with not mentioning the shooter's name or giving him notoriety. 

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

Australians are prolific assholes as soon as you get them out of Australia. 

Crowded House seems like a nice bunch of guys. 

[workswithseed 2028]

2 hours ago, Skyline said:

Yeah... They're preventing the shooter from being a martyr and spreading his extremist message to other far-right groups. It's the ideal thing to do. Along with not mentioning the shooter's name or giving him notoriety. 

Yeah, who care about free speech. You can't even go over his thoughts and debunk his loony ass. Hey you should see if they let people look at other shooters work, the answer is they do.

[Gatorubet 30023]

20 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

The reason why he wanted to usurp the power of Congress was because Congress was not using their power.  This country has needed immigration reform since the 1980s.  Every term Congress kicked the can down the road to the next term of Congress.  His point has always been that Congress should have been fixing this decades ago.  If Congress does their job then there is no reason for him to try to do their job.  I'm not saying he should do their job.  I'm saying they should do their job.

EMA seems to be for Democratic POTUS declared Emergency Universal Healthcare.  

[Skyline 325]

35 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, who care about free speech. You can't even go over his thoughts and debunk his loony ass. Hey you should see if they let people look at other shooters work, the answer is they do.

But you know some people will still sift through and say: "Look, what he did was terrible but he had the right idea about [insert nazi thing]." Just by posting his manifesto, you're giving room for interpretation on his vile thoughts and letting it all out. There's already widespread condemnation in their media of the shooter and his attack. It's not like people need to read the manifesto to understand the shooter is an extremist. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

New Zealand is a much stronger democracy than ours, if their people want free speech protections for crazy Nazi fucks, they could make that happen. 

[EMAWesome 101]

3 hours ago, Skyline said:

Yeah... They're preventing the shooter from being a martyr and spreading his extremist message to other far-right groups. It's the ideal thing to do. Along with not mentioning the shooter's name or giving him notoriety. 

I'm okay with not mentioning the shooter's name (hence why I haven't).  I'm not okay with burying what he wrote.  How do you understand and fight Marxism if you are not allowed to read Marx?  How do you defeat cancer if you are not allowed to look at cancer cells?  How do you defeat terrorism without studying terrorists?  Information is power.  This guy gave us a volume of information on what made him tick.  Why shouldn't we use that information?

[workswithseed 2028]

1 hour ago, Skyline said:

But you know some people will still sift through and say: "Look, what he did was terrible but he had the right idea about [insert nazi thing]." Just by posting his manifesto, you're giving room for interpretation on his vile thoughts and letting it all out. There's already widespread condemnation in their media of the shooter and his attack. It's not like people need to read the manifesto to understand the shooter is an extremist. 

That seems very weird, so if media says it's bad then it must be bad? That seems very 1984ish. Why can't someone go look, not everything he said wrong? If you don't let them talk about they'll bottle it u0, amd that wond do any good.

[Skyline 325]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

That seems very weird, so if media says it's bad then it must be bad? That seems very 1984ish. Why can't someone go look, not everything he said wrong? If you don't let them talk about they'll bottle it u0, amd that wond do any good.

Your concern was over media not being able to critique the manifesto. Don't try to shift what I'm saying. Once again, most people don't need to see that manifesto because they can already interpret that his actions are vile. The concern of the NZ govt was over this manifesto inspiring other extremists. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be censored and everyone would agree that the shooting was bad. If you let the manifesto circulate, you're giving him exactly what he wants. 

We should also be considerate of the population that the manifesto is attacking. They may not want the shooter's ideas and thoughts circulating, considering how racist its contents were. I disagree with your last point. If other extremists see it and try to copy then the govt has even more problems to deal with. 

[workswithseed 2028]

22 minutes ago, Skyline said:

Your concern was over media not being able to critique the manifesto. Don't try to shift what I'm saying. Once again, most people don't need to see that manifesto because they can already interpret that his actions are vile. The concern of the NZ govt was over this manifesto inspiring other extremists. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be censored and everyone would agree that the shooting was bad. If you let the manifesto circulate, you're giving him exactly what he wants. 

We should also be considerate of the population that the manifesto is attacking. They may not want the shooter's ideas and thoughts circulating, considering how racist its contents were. I disagree with your last point. If other extremists see it and try to copy then the govt has even more problems to deal with. 

I never said anything about media.

We should take down the twin tower videos and the night club videos, or Charlestown videos, but we don't come ause they are educational and they are something that happened. You can't just get rid of something like that.

If you try to get rid of it, next thing people forget about the victims and the Armenians can attest to that.

Edited March 31, 2019 by workswithseed

[Skyline 325]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I never said anything about media.

We should take down the twin tower videos and the night club videos, or Charlestown videos, but we don't come ause they are educational and they are something that happened. You can't just get rid of something like that.

If you try to get rid of it, next thing people forget about the victims and the Armenians can attest to that.

I never said I wanted to wipe mention of the atrocity or try to hide. I didn't even mention wanting to deny it like Turkey does with the Armenian genocide. The shooting is a horrific thing that happened, and dealing with it will require nuance. My only concern was to not let the manifesto circulate because it could potentially inspire other extremists. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

10 hours ago, RayDog said:

In my experience being an asshole is not location dependant.

The typical Aussie I see has bad tats, wears a wifebeater, chain smokes, is an alcoholic prone to black out drinking and fighting, a misogynist, lies to girls about having a wife, supports Trump, and is a flat earther and lunar landing denier.

So they are Irishmen who live in East Texas?

[atomheartbevo 89304]

On 3/30/2019 at 4:23 PM, EMAWesome said:

Just last year her government was promoting legislation forcing visitors to New Zealand to give their cell phone passwords to customs officials as a condition to enter the country. 

Travel abroad with a smartphone, tablet, and laptop.  When you come back to the US, and United States Customs or Border Patrol ask for you to hand over the devices and the passwords, tell them to go fuck themselves.   Tell them you don’t recognize their authority to search your devices   

Let us know how it goes.  

[UTDD 362]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:44 PM, EMAWesome said:

The reason why he wanted to usurp the power of Congress was because Congress was not using their power.  This country has needed immigration reform since the 1980s.  Every term Congress kicked the can down the road to the next term of Congress.  His point has always been that Congress should have been fixing this decades ago.  If Congress does their job then there is no reason for him to try to do their job.  I'm not saying he should do their job.  I'm saying they should do their job.

The President should never have a need to try and do their job no matter what because it's precisely THEIR job and not the executive branch.  The need to avoid executive overreach is far more important than any single issue - whether immigration reform or anything else - and no matter what the issue, I can't support any President from either party attempting to usurp a system designed over two centuries ago to try and prevent the inklings of things and arguments you are now seeing in this present generation of politicians.  It's FAR better to have a completely broken immigration or say health care system or anything else "failing to be addressed in Congress" than a President actually fixing the problem but through overreach of their powers as down the road that truly is a scary slippery slope.   The system was rightly designed so that one person cannot easily override a much larger group of people attempting to reach consensus on specific legislative powers/issues.  If they can't agree and something remains "broken" or not addressed, that is a good design of the system versus lawmaking/policies by fiat/one person.  This bedrock principle of separation of powers applies to both the Obamas and the Trumps of the world but I am now seeing a lot of justifying arguments to let things slide, etc.  Presidents from the prior generation in both parties were mostly quite different than Obama and Trump if you look at how they viewed their role in terms of executive power.   

[TornACL 7666]

Some of you assholes need to learn how to use fucking paragraphs. 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

On 3/30/2019 at 4:23 PM, EMAWesome said:

Just last year her government was promoting legislation forcing visitors to New Zealand to give their cell phone passwords to customs officials as a condition to enter the country.  

About that.  This is ‘Murica

https://www.fastcompany.com/90328929/aclu-apple-employee-was-illegally-harassed-by-customs-over-company-devices

Quote

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California filed a complaint Tuesday on behalf of top Apple employee Andreas Gal, who says he was illegally harassed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials when he asked to speak to a lawyer before they could search his company devices.

Gal, who was previously CTO at Mozilla and the CEO and founder of Silk Labs, an AI startup acquired by Apple, was reportedly asked by Customs officers about his work and his advocacy for online privacy. Then, according to the complaint, officers asked for the passwords to his Apple-issued phone and computer, and he asked to speak to his employer or a lawyer before doing so, since the contents were covered by a nondisclosure agreement.

Quote

They declined to let him speak to a lawyer and threatened him with prosecution, according to the complaint.

“Critically, Dr. Gal never refused to provide the passcodes to access the electronic devices in his possession; he only asked that he be allowed to consult with an attorney to ensure that he would not violate nondisclosure agreements with his employer,” according to the complaint. “In the interactions with CBP officers, Dr. Gal repeated many times that he would comply with any legal requirement, but that he needed to consult with an attorney to understand his rights before he could do so.”

Quote

“CBP’s baseless detention and intrusive interrogation of Andreas Gal and the attempted search of his devices violated his Fourth Amendment rights,” said William Freeman, ACLU of Northern California senior counsel, in a statement. “Furthermore, CBP’s policies lack protections for First Amendment rights by allowing interrogation and device searches that may be based on a traveler’s political beliefs, activism, nation of origin, or identity.”

Searches of electronic devices at the border have risen in recent years, amid legal challenges seeking to curb what data authorities can access without a warrant.

Again, I would like you to travel abroad, and when you come back to the US, when asked for your passcodes, tell CBP to go fuck themselves.  

[Mo Horn 8779]

 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

About that.  This is ‘Murica

https://www.fastcompany.com/90328929/aclu-apple-employee-was-illegally-harassed-by-customs-over-company-devices

Again, I would like you to travel abroad, and when you come back to the US, when asked for your passcodes, tell CBP to go fuck themselves.  

There is a difference between obnoxious and unlawful shit that CBP does in violation of the 4th Amendment and New Zealand passing a law that makes it routine and authorized (and where there is no 4th Amendment, but only an ad hoc "equivalent").

[Brisketexan 104226]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a difference between obnoxious and unlawful shit that CBP does in violation of the 4th Amendment and New Zealand passing a law that makes it routine and authorized (and where there is no 4th Amendment, but only an ad hoc "equivalent").

Actually, the problem is -- there isn't any difference.

The 4th Amendment, and any constitutional provision, are only as valid as the desire of the people and the courts to uphold them.  Our "sacred, inviolable" rights can be -- and in many cases, have been -- erased by idiots. And it's almost ALWAYS in the name of fear.  Gotta be tough on crime and all that.  I smell the distinct odor of marijuana, and therefore I am going to search your car and person and detain you for 6 hours while I do so.

The Rule of Law is fragile as hell, and can disappear in a flash.  

[SquishMitten 10381]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:44 PM, EMAWesome said:

The reason why he wanted to usurp the power of Congress was because Congress was not using their power.  This country has needed immigration reform since the 1980s.  Every term Congress kicked the can down the road to the next term of Congress.  His point has always been that Congress should have been fixing this decades ago.  If Congress does their job then there is no reason for him to try to do their job.  I'm not saying he should do their job.  I'm saying they should do their job.

There’s a pretty big fallacy in your point. Congress also has the right to NOT do something. They represent the interests of their constituents. If said constituents aren’t demanding action, then they are doing their job properly by doing nothing. Now, if the majority of those constituents wanted the border closed, if Congress refused to act, and there was an actual emergency, you may have a point. But none of those things are true.

You’re setting aside the reality of the situation and excusing the totalitarian actions of Trump because it aligns with your specific beliefs on the subject. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but our country is founded on broader principles than the individual. You seem to acknowledge as much in your posts, but you’re not holding yourself to the same expectations you imply everyone else should.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, the problem is -- there isn't any difference.

The 4th Amendment, and any constitutional provision, are only as valid as the desire of the people and the courts to uphold them.  Our "sacred, inviolable" rights can be -- and in many cases, have been -- erased by idiots. And it's almost ALWAYS in the name of fear.  Gotta be tough on crime and all that.  I smell the distinct odor of marijuana, and therefore I am going to search your car and person and detain you for 6 hours while I do so.

The Rule of Law is fragile as hell, and can disappear in a flash.  

Well, in the US, such a law stands a reasonable chance of getting knocked out under the 4th Amendment (subject, as you note, to faithfulness to the Constitution).   I don't believe that under the Commonwealth system, anything other than specific challenges to specific actions under that law would ever be entertained in their courts.

The point being that in Commonwealth countries, like the UK, there is no codified constitution and no bill of rights, and their civil rights lie on an even shakier foundation than ours, shaky as it may be.

It's interesting, and I think partly due to French and US influence, but Canada tends to be a more classically liberal democracy, at least more US-style, than Australia and New Zealand.

Edited April 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104226]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in the US, such a law stands a reasonable chance of getting knocked out under the 4th Amendment (subject, as you note, to faithfulness to the Constitution).   I don't believe that under the Commonwealth system, anything other than specific challenges to specific actions under that law would ever be entertained in their courts.

The point being that in Commonwealth countries, like the UK, there is no codified constitution and no bill of rights, and their civil rights lie on an even shakier foundation than ours, shaky as it may be.

It's interesting, and I think partly due to French and US influence, but Canada tends to be a more classically liberal democracy, at least more US-style, than Australia and New Zealand.

Oh, I agree that there is a difference, but I think reality instructs us that the difference is a lot thinner than we'd like to think or admit.  Unwritten constitution vs. written constitution, we still got Korematsu.  We still ended up with a 4th amendment where the "exceptions" have swallowed the rule.  In terms of shakiness, you're arguing the difference between a 7.5 and a 7.6 quake -- the difference doesn't matter, your house is falling down.

[elfenix 34161]

are we talking the same CBP that's allowed to put checkpoints on I-10 and stop people who haven't crossed an international border?  somewhere VAPA is laughing and crying all at once.

[Brisketexan 104226]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

are we talking the same CBP that's allowed to put checkpoints on I-10 and stop people who haven't crossed an international border?  somewhere VAPA is laughing and crying all at once.

Yes.  And the one that can search ALL of your devices within 100 miles of a port of entry.  That CBP.

The irony is that 99% of the "strict constitutionalist!" yahoos out there are JUST FINE with "law and order" that completely obliterates core constitutional rights.  Because, you know, they "BACK THE BLUE!" and...."those people" have it coming.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Brisketexan