A blanket ban over-values the manifesto’s influence on white supremacists, they will find inspiration where they need to,
I think you may be mistaken - people tending towards contemplating crimes, but not yet finding sufficient conviction to, may be more susceptible to the suggestions of someone who has demonstrated action and hopes to path the way by example.
As time goes by I am depressed to see many people do think they are. While I groan at every utterance of "Leader of the free world" quite a few people do seem to see the world in terms of a U.S led alliance they are citizens of.
And it seems to me in their minds it is a Anglo-Saxon alliance that has moral right to lead.
Glad I didn't now. Cannot believe how stupid the Republicans have been in 2016.
We do try to keep first-time 18 year-old defendants out of prison where possible.
The question is whether we treat all 18 year old first-time defendants the same. What is needed is statistics to compare suspicions against.
Has anyone compiled the facts required (incidence of imprisonment for a first time offence for aggravated assault aggregated by race / age etc)?
All the stuff about inaccurate reporting and thereby ill applied responses aside, with regards to this...
The sentencing seemed utterly unremarkable.
...what does it seem when you weigh the sentencing in light of the true facts?
I infer that if it seemed unremarkable for a lesser charge then it may seem remarkable in some way for a more severe charge?
MY favourite 'swear' in exasperation is "Expletive deleted!"
Had the TPP looked different, and given the US more of what it wanted, I'm convinced it wouldn't have become a political football in the Presidential race.
I have always agreed with the argument you quoted above that the TPP was all about investing others in U.S interests by use of IP and other regulations and not about expanding trade in goods (why I've always maintained it was never in NZ's interest).
Which makes the idea that it could have looked different a non-starter, it was what it was and looked like itself. So it was, by it's nature, always going to be a potential football in an argument over nativitism (personally I'm not convinced a stake is in it's heart, the hypocrisy we all know people are capable of leaves plenty of room for it to be re-invigorated after elections).
How could it have differed so that it wouldn't be a handy football? More openness in trade in goods? But that's the very target it has painted on it.
Stronger benefits for U.S investment and IP regulation? That's the stuff being ignored for the political point scoring. If it can turn heads and change opinions it's already there to do it (and as I write I fear may yet).
The TPP isn't being dissed on it's own merits but it's symbolism now that there's a present strong voice of nativist protectionism out and about. That's either going to fade as economies strengthen or persist if they keep limping.
I'd like to think the current trend is the first, but I've a foreboding deep in my heart (probably from my Presbyterian upbringing) there's yet a shoe to drop from the Great Recession.
I don't think that all makes much sense in light of the realisation
American hypocrisy on trade matters is nothing new
But for that hypocrisy and the greater importance issues like the TPP have for horse trading and influence peddling in the U.S Congress the TPP would be supported - it is after all in the greater interest of the U.S.
If the theory it couldn't satisfy anyone so might be vetoed by anyone were true then (apart from begging the question if it couldn't satisfy anyone why wasn't it vetoed by everyone) it wouldn't have needed the U.S Congressional and Presidential Elections popularist pressures to have it vetoed and it would never have reached a general agreement for that to become it's final hurdle.
This reads like post hoc reasoning, even if it does give me warm fuzzies for basically agreeing with my personal objections to the TPP. It never seemed to convince many in the past.
I think the merits and problems with the TPP have sweet f'all to do with it's failure. It seems to me it's a hostage to bigger political currents .
That 37% of the incoming net tax is paid by a group of people who earn 30% of the income in New Zealand (from English’s table) and hold 60% of the wealth (according to Statistics New Zealand).
This is a sentence opposition parties should want in the headlines or near the top of news stories - it's a digestible, bite sized, counter. I think getting that done is the job of opposition media representatives and spokespeople, yet I don't recall seeing it, or anything like it, even in sources thought friendly to the opposition.
The first is about timing – this is the right time...
I disagree. The time for this was years ago and the bad blood between Labour and the Greens has been an example of Labour incompetence and inability to form a government in the MMP environment.
And it doesn't mean anything until we see one party concede policy to the other and/or both assert who from either party will speak for portfolios and an active demonstration of how the two will combine and cooperate as an opposition asking to be government.
Without that it will be a meaningless stunt that only highlights persisting division and inability to govern rather than suggest it's absence.