ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[dobby41]

Interesting that David Seymour is against freedom of movement and competition for labour. As a libertarian I would have thought he would encourage this.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...d77726307&ei=7

Both my kids were heading to Aussie before this announcement now more likely they will never come back.

Seymour is just anti - anti anything where he thinks there might be a vote or 2.

[Baa_Baa]

Seymour is just anti - anti anything where he thinks there might be a vote or 2.

Is that worrying for you? ACT are equally happy to criticise the Labour or National party (or any party actually), though knowing that with 13.5% of the voting population supporting ACT on latest polls, that's a heck of a lot of people that you disagree with, that agree with him.

Either way it's shaping up to be an interesting election.

[dobby41]

Is that worrying for you? ACT are equally happy to criticise the Labour or National party (or any party actually), though knowing that with 13.5% of the voting population supporting ACT on latest polls, that's a heck of a lot of people that you disagree with, that agree with him.

Either way it's shaping up to be an interesting election.

Is it worrying for me - no!
I get a bit tired of the dog whistle politics he practices.
It certainly will be an interesting election but, I suspect, one without a lot of substance from any quarter.

[BDL]

ACT is pointing out how NZ need to up it's game so people want to stay here.

A maori takeover by the "special" people will not help the situation....

[Getty]

Is it worrying for me - no!
I get a bit tired of the dog whistle politics he practices.
It certainly will be an interesting election but, I suspect, one without a lot of substance from any quarter.

While l accept posters here, and the wider community, using terms they are comfortable with, l do wish terms such as dog whistling, gas lighting, pork barrel politics etc go out of fashion fast.

They are ambiguous and not self explanatory.

When there are so many other descriptive words that can be used, why do people use such terms?

Beats me how words such as sick, are used to describe something that is very good.
Makes me want to vomit.

[fungus pudding]

While l accept posters here, and the wider community, using terms they are comfortable with, l do wish terms such as dog whistling, gas lighting, pork barrel politics etc go out of fashion fast.

They are ambiguous and not self explanatory.

When there are so many other descriptive words that can be used, why do people use such terms?

Beats me how words such as sick, are used to describe something that is very good.
Makes me want to vomit.

Couldn't agree more.
Who can we reach out to?

[SBQ]

I was watching David Seymour debate about the tax system in NZ:

https://youtu.be/NQX1h4RIWa0

I like what he has to say and despite my neighbour says the National Party is no different to the Labour Party in terms of accepting the WHO and all their policies. I would strongly consider giving ACT the vote - but we all have to see later in the year what each party is campaigning to do.

[jonu]

I was watching David Seymour debate about the tax system in NZ:

https://youtu.be/NQX1h4RIWa0

I like what he has to say and despite my neighbour says the National Party is no different to the Labour Party in terms of accepting the WHO and all their policies. I would strongly consider giving ACT the vote - but we all have to see later in the year what each party is campaigning to do.

NZ's medical sovereignty must be on the electoral agenda. The parties need to declare what their position is on handing power to the WHO. NZers should not tolerate having an unelected incompetent bunch in Geneva dictating what jabs we must have or the need for digital medical passports.

[Aaron]

I was watching David Seymour debate about the tax system in NZ:

https://youtu.be/NQX1h4RIWa0

I like what he has to say and despite my neighbour says the National Party is no different to the Labour Party in terms of accepting the WHO and all their policies. I would strongly consider giving ACT the vote - but we all have to see later in the year what each party is campaigning to do.

I liked that Chloe talks about studies and numbers whereas David generalises and waffles about "attitudes and values". I can't help thinking that he might have a point about more taxpayer dollars not getting much value for money though, but he has an ideology that says less tax and less government will lead to a better society so any facts or figures to the contrary will get dismissed. Good that he worked out that the highly taxed scandinavian countries, the "happiest" in the world apparently would be used to argue for a new tax. Although suggesting their results today are due to low taxes 163 years ago in 1860 seems a bit of a stretch.

[davflaws]

Good that he worked out that the highly taxed scandinavian countries, the "happiest" in the world apparently would be used to argue for a new tax. Although suggesting their results today are due to low taxes 163 years ago in 1860 seems a bit of a stretch.

More than a bit!