-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Famous NZ lady
- Thread starter MemeFan
- Start date
That's not all she's doing. She's also going to be working with Prince William, as a trustee of his climate change charity, the Earthshot Prize.Our favourite infamous ZN-lady has found new job:
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Don't worry, I'm certain she will find new stuff to ban.
All this is unpaid apparently, she's a volunteer now.
I'm surprised she didn't to straight to the UN like Helen Clark. I bet she'll end up there soon though.
I have been assuming she'll follow a similar track to our previous Labour prime minister, Helen Clark. She moved straight to a high up role at the UN, and has continued to move up in that organisation for the last decade. I expect when the NZ political establishment finally declares independence from the monarchy (as they've been preparing to do for years), they'll bring Helen Clark back as our first president.
But a commenter on another site pointed out that the fact that both the jobs she's been given are unpaid indicates this is a very different situation. It suggests that the UN and the WEF might not want her. She might be volunteering anywhere that will have her out of desperation, then will disappear into irrelevance, living off the riches she's mysteriously acquired while Prime Minister.
The difference is that Helen Clark, much as I dislike her politics, was actually a capable leader, and is moving up through her career due to merit. While Ardern has been a figurehead who achieved nothing of value and appears to have little ability of her own.
This could go both ways. It's hard to predict.
But a commenter on another site pointed out that the fact that both the jobs she's been given are unpaid indicates this is a very different situation. It suggests that the UN and the WEF might not want her. She might be volunteering anywhere that will have her out of desperation, then will disappear into irrelevance, living off the riches she's mysteriously acquired while Prime Minister.
The difference is that Helen Clark, much as I dislike her politics, was actually a capable leader, and is moving up through her career due to merit. While Ardern has been a figurehead who achieved nothing of value and appears to have little ability of her own.
This could go both ways. It's hard to predict.
I sadly know very little about NZ politics. I guess I could look this up on wikipedia or something, but is there any type of conservative movement or conservative political party of any size. Kind of how the US has the Republican party vs. the more progressive/liberal Democratic party?
We have two major parties @NBTX11, National and Labour. National is our nominally "right-wing" party and is roughly equivalent to your Democrats - basically centre-left. Labour is nominally a left-wing socialist party - but actually very similar to National, only slightly further left. Just like in the USA, these two function as a uniparty, pretending to oppose each other but in reality supporting most of the same policies.
We also have some minor parties in parliament. The Greens (left-wing social revolutionaries who greenwash their messaging to buy votes but actually focus on social issues more than the environment), the Maori party (brown racists) and ACT (fake libertarians, roughly similar to your Republicans). Each has a few seats only, and aligns themselves with one of the major parties.
And then we have a load of other minor parties outside of parliament. Among these are several semi-decent conservative parties. And that's the problem - there are several of them, none of which will work with each other. So nobody knows which to support, ensuring votes are divided and most never get into parliament (except for the most wishy-washy one, NZFirst, which sometimes gets seats and sometimes doesn't).
Also, we have a serious problem in that we have a single-chamber parliament, with no checks and balances. There is no upper house / senate, and the head of state by convention just signs into law everything parliament passes. So the above parties truly have total control.
It's rather depressing actually!
We also have some minor parties in parliament. The Greens (left-wing social revolutionaries who greenwash their messaging to buy votes but actually focus on social issues more than the environment), the Maori party (brown racists) and ACT (fake libertarians, roughly similar to your Republicans). Each has a few seats only, and aligns themselves with one of the major parties.
And then we have a load of other minor parties outside of parliament. Among these are several semi-decent conservative parties. And that's the problem - there are several of them, none of which will work with each other. So nobody knows which to support, ensuring votes are divided and most never get into parliament (except for the most wishy-washy one, NZFirst, which sometimes gets seats and sometimes doesn't).
Also, we have a serious problem in that we have a single-chamber parliament, with no checks and balances. There is no upper house / senate, and the head of state by convention just signs into law everything parliament passes. So the above parties truly have total control.
It's rather depressing actually!
Very depressing!
But Jesus and His followers lived in a worse political environment. The same God still reigns over all.
Thanks for the information. It was very thorough. So basically, the government can force through any left wing laws and agenda with ease. About what I thought. The USA has a good system of checks and balances in government. Even if the president and both houses of congress are of the same party, the Supreme Court is a check against blatant unconstitutional laws, and currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. A reason Democrats want to pack the court (add more judges) to get more judges that align with their philosophy, even though the court has been at 9 justices for over 150 years.
The US system is better as it's a copy of the tried and tested UK system, modified to be democratic at all levels rather than having a hereditary upper house and head of state. But that very democratic nature is its downfall, as it allows a single political party to take control of all three branches, removing the checks. This is harder to do than in a single chamber parliament, so better than that, but still in principle a less stable system than the original. The heridatary house of lords and monarchy in the UK in theory provide a conservative check on the dangers of democracy, while the democratic house of commons provides a check on the power of the monarch and the lords. This should, in theory, give the best of both worlds. Obviously the UK has deteriorated socially just like the USA, so this is not foolproof either. But it's better than NZ, which is a backwater ignored by the monarch allowing the democrats to run amok.
Time for inflitration tactics.
I don't know that the USA has deteriorated anywhere near as much as other Western countries. The trans agenda gets a lot of news publicity, but there are still a lot of conservatives in the US. A whole lot. Probably more than anywhere on earth. The Republicans control the House of Representatives right now. Which essentially means Joe Biden and the Dems can't pass %$#@ without Republican support. Also the Senate has filibuster rules, which means even if the democrats control 51 seats, they can't pass %$#@ without Republican support, or at least 9 Republicans voting with them. 60 votes are needed.
Then you have Supreme Court, which can and will strike down any blatantly unconstitutional laws, at least for now, since it is 6-3 conservatives.
Then you have the individual states, which in about half the states or more, are FAR more conservative than the federal gov't. I believe about 25 or 26 states now have constitutional carry, for example, including Texas, where I live. I am thankful for the freedoms we still have here.
Last edited:
It's not secret. That's the system. The monarch has the right to veto anything in the UK, and their representative in NZ (the governor-general) has the right to veto anything in NZ, either on their own account or under instruction from the monarch. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work to provide checks and balances to both. The monarch cannot seize control, as they aren't even allowed to write a law - parliament writes laws. But parliament can't seize control either, as everything they do must be signed off by the monarch (given the "royal assent"), and is not law until the monarch has signed it - which he can refuse to do. It's a great system.
The problem is that it isn't actually used. Everything parliament does is automatically signed into law without question. So we effectively have an autocratic parliament, which is almost as bad as an autocratic monarch.
Significantly better than evil monarch. At least representives can fight among themselves. There is no such "house divided" in mind of evil monarch.
No, every revolutionary / communist state has formed a single-chamber parliament at some stage, and in each case the result is more oppressive than the supposedly evil monarch they deposed, going by the bodycount. The French Revolution being the classic example.
The problem is that an evil monarch is one person, while an evil parliament is at least a hundred people. An evil monarch thinks of less evil than 100 evil people can come up with, just as one corrupt monarch can physically steal less than 100 corrupt politicians.
It's also much easier to get people to rebel against an evil monarch than evil "democratically elected" representatives.
Your comments are after they get total control. That is harder in democracy. Getting supermajority is hard, often requiring alliance forming. Then members of ruling party can get in fight, courts need to be subdued. Evil monarch has easier time.
In Croatia ruling party couldn't even get all it's members in parlament to vote for covid passport.
But much easier in a single-chamber parliament. Hence why the US system is far better, and ours is dangerous.
I was talking about seizing total control of state including all it's branches. Off course, that is easier in single-chamber parliament.
Althought Communist Yugoslavia was recorder with chamber's number.