Acts is not racist. The only extremists i see is labor. Do you think having two governments will make anything better? Do you think it's acceptable for be treated differently due to you race?
@TuiPolitics so why do we have two different elections than ? And guess what separates them race . Do you enjoy being asked your race on government documents? Do you think it's fair to receive different health care due to your race?
We dont have 2 different elections. Are you referring to the Maori electorates? A system that is almost as old as democracy in NZ, initially used to oppress minorities but now it gives Maori confirmed representation in parliament. These do not give an unfair advantage to Maori as they can vote in that electorate instead of their local elactate, no extra vote given. And for decades Maori have had worse health outcomes from our system, I have no issue trying a new system that gives them more equitable healthcare
@TuiPolitics the different vote is new and as for representation by race only makes us different Zealanders are one as a nation no need for the dived in politics one nation one people one vote and help to all that need it 😀 equally for all
I'll try to make a good faith argument against this notion without bringing up 'oh but X said this' or 'X are this not ACT' that others have. I don't think you even once touched whether it was a joke or not, at all. Does it go a little far? Maybe, but that's just a matter of taste, really. Might be a little bit of anecdotal and political bias on my part, but if someone were to say 'In my fantasy we'd send someone named Guy Fawkes to David Seymour's headquarters but we'd have to be a bit more formal than that', I genuinely wouldn't be all that phased by it, because it's so absurd, hyperbolic, and sarcastic that I'd immiediately register it as exactly what it is, a joke that a sorta radical left-wing New Zealander might make. Heck, given the kind of language you used to represent like at least 45% of the New Zealand voting population nearing the end of the video, I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of joke were included in one of your vlogs (not to say that'd necessarily be a bad thing, I'm defending that kind of a joke here, just that the language you're willing to use and the language you'd likely be willing to defend would fit the kind of language David used). What isn't as much a matter of taste is how well we can evaluate based on the knowledge we have, whether or not something said is a joke. It also seems as though whether you choose to face the possibility that a comment is a joke is clearly based on political allegiances. You accepted Waititi's comment as a joke, which it clearly was. But when pretty much every article and story about David's comment talks about him saying it was a joke, even the tweet you included at the start of the video, suddenly it's not worth discussing once. Given all of this, the tone, the situation, the person, the commentary, etc, I think it was either a major misunderstanding on your part, or more likely that you deliberately chose not to confront David's seriousness in this video in order to make it seem more persuasive. Again, the joke might be going a bit far, but in my opinion not far enough to bother making an 8 minute rant about it without confronting the possiblity that it's a joke. As much as his positions on the Treaty and Co-Governance and abolishing 'demographic ministries' and tax cuts for the rich may have you believe, (which, to demistify any notion that I'm one of the 'disgusting' 12% of ACT or 35% of National supporters, let me just say clearly that I don't support these policies) I really don't think you can act (hehe) as though he would genuinely wish violence on a government department and make it known as an experienced politican for like 9 years now on a recorded radio show. Really, I think what's more wrong is telling 45% of the NZ voting population, very seriously, that they're just disgusting and should be 'fuck you'd'. That's just rude, hyperbolic, assumptive, etc, etc. Your comments about criminality don't really make sense given that the examples you gave were all in the party's past and don't apply to them now. It just seems as though you wanted more fuel to put on the fire than what you could think of that was relevent to the situation. Look, I love your documentries, your one about ACT especially, you do a great job of being balanced and rational there, but sometimes your vlogs can get immensly hyperbolic and that reputation you built from that is disproven.
I think it very clearly was a joke. I do not think he is actively calling for violence. But he must recognize that he is a public person, who has thousands of people who nod and agree to the things he says. He made an active choice to be hyperbolic and aggressive towards public servants who are just doing their jobs. I think he is aware that it is irresponsible but doesn't care if it will be politicly helpful. And I do strongly believe what he has done should tarnish any reputation he has. To be fair I think I added a lot in this that I had already thought about the party, their bad policies and their questionable history (which Seymour defends in the interview I have with him on my channel). I agree that I may have layed it on a bit thick in the moment saying fuck you to Nat supporters. I judge Luxion for not condemning it more, what you can’t really blame a Nat voter for that. I admit that. But if someone chooses to vote for a party with the policies of ACT and with a leader who would say the things he said... I said what I said and a stand by it
Apartheid refers to a social system that segregates and treats people based on their race. Labour worked with the racist Maori party. Their members have said equally disgusting things. I don't like Act's policies, but I'm going for National.
Show me where the labour party has worked with the Maori party? Its seems to me that they have been in the frost benches doing nothing. Watch my interview with John Tamahere, where he said the Maori party offered to enter coalition talks in 2020 and labour refused
And you understand that a vote for national is a vote for 10% plus of nationals cabinet to be filled with ACT members and the government passing act policies as an exchange for support right? So you dont like act but you support a government that will pass their policies?
Srry what David Seymour said was a bit over the line but you can not be talking about this with out mentioning Jacinda bad mouthing Seymour last year. and the fact you bring up criminals in the act party not bringing up alot of the things that labor mps are doing/have done. and tbh I think you might be over reacting a bit at the end.
Didn't jacinda just call him a prick? Hardly comparable right? And I dont think its over reacting, ACT cannot just call for violance and just laugh it off. Statements like that should not be in a civilized democracy
@@TuiPolitics even though a agree with you that Seymour took it to far I think shaming ppl for voting for who they want to vote for is a bad thing. I think all partys are riddled with controversy especially becuase its eletion year and everyone is getting ready for october. the thing is that its all opinion baised when it comes down to things I dislike the green party as a whole but I dont go around shaming ppl for it.
I think a vote for national is fine if that's your cup of tea, but as long as Seymour is their leader I will always associate this statement with act and I will mention it in every video. I would call this out for any other major party, and you wait for my history of my Maori party video and I will be mentioning their bad statements as well if you think I'm biased
its a jump to say that's a call for violence, its an expression on how he feels about the department and its policies. And how do we know that his 'fantasy for sending guy fawkes' is because of 'race' rather than because he thinks some departments are pulling the country away from his ideal of an egalitarian county with 'bottom up' decision making as opposed to a racially categorized 'top down' country. You are more familiar with nz politics than me so I could be uninformed but judging on the contents in the video, it feels like your just misrepresenting him as a violent racist. I don't see it. If someone is critical of a political movement, its a leap to say 'its because of race/class when it could instead be because of a disagreement with their philosophy/theory.
I am more partial to the Green party, but I have a lot of disagreement with them, mostly in how they give into labour too much. On policy I am in agreement with them most of the time
Party vote act
Why the profanity?
Oh fantastic there has been an update!
Acts is not racist. The only extremists i see is labor. Do you think having two governments will make anything better? Do you think it's acceptable for be treated differently due to you race?
No one is proposing 2 separate governments mate
@TuiPolitics so why do we have two different elections than ? And guess what separates them race .
Do you enjoy being asked your race on government documents?
Do you think it's fair to receive different health care due to your race?
We dont have 2 different elections. Are you referring to the Maori electorates? A system that is almost as old as democracy in NZ, initially used to oppress minorities but now it gives Maori confirmed representation in parliament. These do not give an unfair advantage to Maori as they can vote in that electorate instead of their local elactate, no extra vote given.
And for decades Maori have had worse health outcomes from our system, I have no issue trying a new system that gives them more equitable healthcare
@TuiPolitics the different vote is new and as for representation by race only makes us different Zealanders are one as a nation no need for the dived in politics one nation one people one vote and help to all that need it 😀 equally for all
all the liberals seething in this comment section worshipping their leader
I'll try to make a good faith argument against this notion without bringing up 'oh but X said this' or 'X are this not ACT' that others have. I don't think you even once touched whether it was a joke or not, at all. Does it go a little far? Maybe, but that's just a matter of taste, really.
Might be a little bit of anecdotal and political bias on my part, but if someone were to say 'In my fantasy we'd send someone named Guy Fawkes to David Seymour's headquarters but we'd have to be a bit more formal than that', I genuinely wouldn't be all that phased by it, because it's so absurd, hyperbolic, and sarcastic that I'd immiediately register it as exactly what it is, a joke that a sorta radical left-wing New Zealander might make. Heck, given the kind of language you used to represent like at least 45% of the New Zealand voting population nearing the end of the video, I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of joke were included in one of your vlogs (not to say that'd necessarily be a bad thing, I'm defending that kind of a joke here, just that the language you're willing to use and the language you'd likely be willing to defend would fit the kind of language David used).
What isn't as much a matter of taste is how well we can evaluate based on the knowledge we have, whether or not something said is a joke.
It also seems as though whether you choose to face the possibility that a comment is a joke is clearly based on political allegiances. You accepted Waititi's comment as a joke, which it clearly was. But when pretty much every article and story about David's comment talks about him saying it was a joke, even the tweet you included at the start of the video, suddenly it's not worth discussing once.
Given all of this, the tone, the situation, the person, the commentary, etc, I think it was either a major misunderstanding on your part, or more likely that you deliberately chose not to confront David's seriousness in this video in order to make it seem more persuasive.
Again, the joke might be going a bit far, but in my opinion not far enough to bother making an 8 minute rant about it without confronting the possiblity that it's a joke.
As much as his positions on the Treaty and Co-Governance and abolishing 'demographic ministries' and tax cuts for the rich may have you believe, (which, to demistify any notion that I'm one of the 'disgusting' 12% of ACT or 35% of National supporters, let me just say clearly that I don't support these policies) I really don't think you can act (hehe) as though he would genuinely wish violence on a government department and make it known as an experienced politican for like 9 years now on a recorded radio show.
Really, I think what's more wrong is telling 45% of the NZ voting population, very seriously, that they're just disgusting and should be 'fuck you'd'. That's just rude, hyperbolic, assumptive, etc, etc.
Your comments about criminality don't really make sense given that the examples you gave were all in the party's past and don't apply to them now. It just seems as though you wanted more fuel to put on the fire than what you could think of that was relevent to the situation.
Look, I love your documentries, your one about ACT especially, you do a great job of being balanced and rational there, but sometimes your vlogs can get immensly hyperbolic and that reputation you built from that is disproven.
I think it very clearly was a joke. I do not think he is actively calling for violence. But he must recognize that he is a public person, who has thousands of people who nod and agree to the things he says. He made an active choice to be hyperbolic and aggressive towards public servants who are just doing their jobs. I think he is aware that it is irresponsible but doesn't care if it will be politicly helpful.
And I do strongly believe what he has done should tarnish any reputation he has. To be fair I think I added a lot in this that I had already thought about the party, their bad policies and their questionable history (which Seymour defends in the interview I have with him on my channel).
I agree that I may have layed it on a bit thick in the moment saying fuck you to Nat supporters. I judge Luxion for not condemning it more, what you can’t really blame a Nat voter for that. I admit that. But if someone chooses to vote for a party with the policies of ACT and with a leader who would say the things he said... I said what I said and a stand by it
good take, Calamity :)
Apartheid refers to a social system that segregates and treats people based on their race.
Labour worked with the racist Maori party. Their members have said equally disgusting things.
I don't like Act's policies, but I'm going for National.
Show me where the labour party has worked with the Maori party? Its seems to me that they have been in the frost benches doing nothing. Watch my interview with John Tamahere, where he said the Maori party offered to enter coalition talks in 2020 and labour refused
And you understand that a vote for national is a vote for 10% plus of nationals cabinet to be filled with ACT members and the government passing act policies as an exchange for support right? So you dont like act but you support a government that will pass their policies?
can you not call him the future deputy prime minister, some of us are still coping thanks very much
Srry what David Seymour said was a bit over the line but you can not be talking about this with out mentioning Jacinda bad mouthing Seymour last year. and the fact you bring up criminals in the act party not bringing up alot of the things that labor mps are doing/have done. and tbh I think you might be over reacting a bit at the end.
Didn't jacinda just call him a prick? Hardly comparable right?
And I dont think its over reacting, ACT cannot just call for violance and just laugh it off. Statements like that should not be in a civilized democracy
@@TuiPolitics even though a agree with you that Seymour took it to far I think shaming ppl for voting for who they want to vote for is a bad thing. I think all partys are riddled with controversy especially becuase its eletion year and everyone is getting ready for october. the thing is that its all opinion baised when it comes down to things I dislike the green party as a whole but I dont go around shaming ppl for it.
I think a vote for national is fine if that's your cup of tea, but as long as Seymour is their leader I will always associate this statement with act and I will mention it in every video.
I would call this out for any other major party, and you wait for my history of my Maori party video and I will be mentioning their bad statements as well if you think I'm biased
its a jump to say that's a call for violence, its an expression on how he feels about the department and its policies. And how do we know that his 'fantasy for sending guy fawkes' is because of 'race' rather than because he thinks some departments are pulling the country away from his ideal of an egalitarian county with 'bottom up' decision making as opposed to a racially categorized 'top down' country. You are more familiar with nz politics than me so I could be uninformed but judging on the contents in the video, it feels like your just misrepresenting him as a violent racist. I don't see it. If someone is critical of a political movement, its a leap to say 'its because of race/class when it could instead be because of a disagreement with their philosophy/theory.
Tui politics , who do you support?
I am more partial to the Green party, but I have a lot of disagreement with them, mostly in how they give into labour too much. On policy I am in agreement with them most of the time
Your lost if you support greens , marama Davidson is a terrible person.
Why? Because she ones said something about white men right after being hit by a bike? And it was no death threat like Seymour
I said nothing about race, I watch a Q&A with her on it and she looked like a joke honestly .
I think shes fine and proposes policy that I like, climate first policy, fairer taxation, workers rights, the list goes on
Did you do something with your hair?
Was just out of the shower lol
@@TuiPolitics were you trying to scrub the stupid off?
nah just trying the hitl.. look