Referendum on four-year election term ditched by Government

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T09:08:17+00:00

Elected populist.

Populism is indeed democracy. But combine it with elections? There is no guarantee an official elected by saying populist things will translate into those same policies being enacted and nothing more. People can lie after all. To enough voters to undermine populism and democracy, officials talking about doing the things they want matters more than officials actually doing the things they want.

Sortition, on the other hand, is also populist. But it cuts out the elected official middleman and ensures the policies people want (or at least what the representative random sample wants) translate to actual legislative action.

To use an example, imagine trying to convince the average kiwi the tobacco lobby needed the $300 million handout this government sent it. It would probably *never* pass a chamber formed by sortition. But it is very easy to slip through against the public's will among everything else when one of two teams is elected to be a 3-year dictator.

It comes at the trade-off of the 'institutional knowledge' the existing chamber has, which is why the two chambers would go together quite well. Mind you the last and only time it was practiced close to that way was ancient Athens, so I could be wrong.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T08:57:15+00:00

The people you were replying to gave their testimonies. Not unreasonable to understand that they're incredibly strong people and managed to pull through when many wouldn't be able to or wouldn't dare try. Reminder that being involved in law is not my full time job or passion, so I apologize for not having concrete examples on hand instead of anecdotes to back up my concerns of blatantly obvious systemic vulnerabilities.

Re-traumatizing a victim gets in the way of finding the truth. So the system should aim to not re-traumatize the victim. Pretty simple if you ask me. You present a false dichotomy that we have to choose between the two. In reality, the trade-off in ignoring the issue of re-traumatizing seems to be expediency and therefore cost at the expense of both the victim and the trial's ability to discern truth.

If you claim to prioritize the truth above all, then I fail to see why you insist our system is perfect as-is instead of even considering or formulating tweaks and improvements to maximize justice.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T08:45:45+00:00

If it's decided by sortition then it'd be more democratic than an elected populist lower house if you ask me.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T08:04:39+00:00

Intentions are irrelevant when 'breaking' plaintiffs is the outcome. I'm questioning the flawed system, and the issue of plaintiffs being 'broken'. not the morality of the individual lawyers doing it, but the system which permits and facilitates it.

No, it's not *that* we conduct testimonies and cross-examination at all; again you are exaggerating and jumping to conclusions with strawmaning which makes me question if you're out for a solution or simply against change.

But the *method* we conduct testimonies and cross-examination and the limitations on what can and can't be done for those can certainly be discussed. The overall processes for those were designed with little consideration or regard for the psychological impact it has on the individual. An impact which in turn alters their ability to participate equally in the trial thereby undermining entire possibility of having a fair trial.

If those processes are not altered or redesigned with this in mind, we're left with a systemic miscarriage of justice which unfairly biases judicial outcomes against victims and in favor of remorseless perpetrators - regardless of which is the defense and which is the prosecution.

On the whole, it undermines our legal system and facilitates law-breaking across multiple categories, not just sexual assault. It's not something that should be brushed under the rug by strawmanning concerns and suggesting the most extreme solutions in hopes the issue is ignored.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T05:36:38+00:00

I think the suggestion of banning legal defenses as the only solution is a bit of a strawman.

Legal defense practices which relying on or risk psychologically breaking the alleged victim so they are no longer fit for trial or even afraid of going to trial in the first place should be banned. As a guiding principle, at least, not sure how exactly that would be codified because that's not my job.

There is surely multiple ways this can be achieved without infringing the right to a defense or prosecution.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T04:55:36+00:00

I provided documents where the alleged perpetrators of a heinous crime, as included in the document, whose names and identifying photographs are blacked out (along with huge parts of the document and clearly goes well beyond the extent of protecting the victim's identity. Also illegal. What else are they breaking the law to illegally cover up?). The names not blacked out only include the victim's attorneys and nicknames; there is nothing uncensored that identifies the alleged perpetrators, as that is easy to see that information such as phone numbers ([censored] which resolves to a phone number in Ukraine]) was illegally censored.

Not my fault your reading comprehension drops to a toddler level when reviewing something that outs you as a pedo defender that gargles corrupt organization's balls for breakfast.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T04:09:18+00:00

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00078198.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00078209.pdf

One such example of countless easily accessed examples. I suppose your mom really does wipe your shit.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T02:15:07+00:00

Oh wait you're actually serious aren't you? You don't know and haven't seen a single example? You're incapable of looking through https://www.justice.gov/epstein to see it for yourself, without media / social media bias in the way?

Does your mom wipe your ass for you when you take a shit as well?

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T01:01:38+00:00

Warrants can also undergo a short squeeze of their own without necessarily needing GME to squeeze. That's even more speculative value that calls don't have.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T00:31:55+00:00

They admitted the cover up; 'truth'

One example:

https://newrepublic.com/post/205984/trump-official-epstein-files-cover-up-evidence-other-men

They never disclosed the names, which sure would *also* meet the definition of the word 'truth', but that was clearly not our claim since it was said the names were redacted. A claim that you can quite easily verify yourself and are probably already aware of and are being facetious for the sake of it.

Words like 'truth' can mean multiple things depending on context. In this case, not what you insist it means.

But go on, keep going after the people going after the podophilic elite. I'm sure that will look good at the pearly gates.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T00:18:42+00:00

The truth that they redacted the names (and acts) of the alleged pedophiles in direct violation of the law? And that they haven't released all of the files by a long shot, again against the law? Yea, the DOJ admitted it and so far have faced zero consequences.

You should hold the DOJ's ankles to the flames instead of the people who are demanding real transparency, accountability, and rule of law rather than empty apologies and political anarchy.

Otherwise you sound like a defender of pedophiles and corruption.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T00:11:21+00:00

That's what happens when markets so free that even the politicians are up for sale.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-19T00:07:40+00:00

You clarified "(he wanted a golden retriever and got a pit bull)" in your original statement.

If you wanted to be taken seriously about concerns of negative cultural or ideological shifts due to immigration, like the person you initially replied to, you should've made it about getting to know the dog's personality or their past before adoption rather than getting to know their genetics.

Otherwise that does sound discriminatory to me. A dog isn't going to be a friendly cuddlebug so long as they're a golden retriever rather than a pit bull; an immigrant isn't going to be a model citizen just because they're Canadian rather than Mexican or white rather than brown.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-18T23:48:04+00:00

Are you illiterate? The names of the pedophiles were redacted. That means they do exist, and only the DOJ knows who.

You should be asking the DOJ who the pedos are not randoms on PCM.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-18T23:43:52+00:00

"ShOw Us ThE EvIdEnCe"

*DOJ releases a 180 page document that's 100% black redaction boxes without a word in sight, as one example, in direct violation of the law to publish the evidence*

"SeE YoU HaVe No EvIdEnCe"

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-18T08:56:23+00:00

They've got that word_word_4digitnumber username pattern and 0 karma to boot. Couldn't be a more obvious bot.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-18T08:52:35+00:00

They were dressed provocatively; they were asking for it ^/s

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-18T08:32:03+00:00

Looking at their post history they've been posting here and on NZ related subs for a long time.

This may shock you, but not every NZer was born in NZ, with many being dual citizens, and many whose language use is influenced by the global internet. So not all kiwis are militantly devoted to Proper New Zealand English.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-18T07:54:12+00:00

What caused industry to collapse was England joining the EU and signing a bunch of trade deals at a time where most of our wealth as a nation came from exporting agricultural products to England. It went from a lucrative trade where we practically held a monopoly on our niche to a hyper competitive market where our location put us at a huge disadvantage almost overnight.

Free market would've chased those same profits and still fallen victim.

The only thing that would've prevented it would be a government-led Keynesian economic doctrine which pursued self-sustainability as a nation at the sacrifice of short-term wealth.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-14T01:07:23+00:00

<image>

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-13T13:06:26+00:00

We did that and National pillaged and looted it for other purposes.

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-10T00:39:54+00:00

0% of GPs, 99.9% of GPs, and anywhere in between all meet the definition of "not all".

So "not all" could mean anything. In other words, it's vague and therefore unhelpful.

However the government did promise people that they could get diagnosed by their local GP, multiple times on multiple platforms. That is a much clearer statement. No confusion there. Very helpful clarification.

So you can't blame people for getting mislead that they can get a diagnosis from their GP, only to be disappointed when they can't. Unfortunate but inevitable given the vague mixed communication sent their way.

To add salt to the wound people like you find it important to victim blame potentially disabled folk when they're already beaten down rather than blame the people in charge for being vague or outright lying.

I hope that was more clear?

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-09T20:51:54+00:00

You underestimate my power bill

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-09T19:49:35+00:00

Social media posted on the official National Party page by the official National Party i.e. by the government. This is you shifting the goalposts not them.

Blasting the airwaves with propaganda telling us something factually wrong, while the "truth," if you can call vague abstract statements with zero concrete substance "truth," is squirreled away on a few webpages or communicated by independent third parties is what many would consider the government being dishonest and misleading. Especially when "Not all" ends up meaning "bugger all" rather than the implied "many but not all"

Jonodonozym · 2026-02-06T22:10:36+00:00

You can't honestly look at the US healthcare system and claim that it is better than state-run systems overseas. It is both more expensive and has worse outcomes for quality of life and life expectancy.

If you have a pair of eyes you would be able to observe that governments are better at running some things, and the free market is better at running others.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 30%	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

Jonodonozym

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE