David Leyonhjelm watch...

Remove this Banner Ad

Gus Poyet

Gus Poyet

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 1, 2012
9,253
4,056
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
For those who follow or are interested in a more Libertarian view of the world and politics I thought it would be interesting fo follow his efforts while in the senate.



He seems to have formed a mini block with Bob Day of FF. Doesn't seem to keen on Clive Palmer.

I think his humility will be an asset for him going forward.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Gough said:
Could be a pretty short thread. If there's a DD he's not going to luck that spot on a ballot paper a second time.
Click to expand...

If all the minor parties see what the Major parties are trying to do by shutting them out perhaps he'll get even more preferences a second time around.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
ClokesShankedIt said:
Said that racking up a few hundred billion in debt was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, racking up billions in debt is a good thing. How could we all not appreciate that. :drunk:
 
ClokesShankedIt said:
He also thinks that gay marriage isn't the single most important issue facing the planet. Can you believe that?
Click to expand...

Shocked to be honest. However I think you'll find he would support it whole heartedly if it came to a vote.

He was openly honest and realistic about what he can actually achieve as a senator. Which going by his words probably isn't much other than hopefully making people aware there are options to the 3 major parties and the way they act.
 
What an idiot.

He spends most of the time complaining about potential senate voting changes as "undemocratic". I mean how dare we make it easy for the voters to decide where their preferences go. The horror! I'm sure the fact that he's one of the ones likely to be hurt by actually making the system properly democratic (you know, the ones where the actual voters choose their preferences) is merely a coincidence.

I also like his characterisation of gun restrictions as people banning something "they don't like". I don't like the absurd fetish for kale and quinoa. I don't like ignorant people who claim they know everything. And I don't like eggs (don't ask). But I don't want any of these banned. I don't want certain guns banned because I don't like them, I want them banned because I recognise they're hugely dangerous if put in the hands of somebody who wants to use them on humans. There's just a slight difference.

Oh actually I've changed my mind. I want a weapon for self defence but I want to make sure it works. So I'm going to buy a nuclear warhead to protect myself from intruders. I don't expect any complaints from David. I expect he'll defend my right to own one against those silly people who just don't like them.
 
David Leyonhjelm essentially stands for 3 things:

1) Greater individual freedoms
2) Lower taxes
3) Smaller government
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Footy Smarts said:
What an idiot.
He spends most of the time complaining about potential senate voting changes as "undemocratic". I mean how dare we make it easy for the voters to decide where their preferences go. The horror! I'm sure the fact that he's one of the ones likely to be hurt by actually making the system properly democratic (you know, the ones where the actual voters choose their preferences) is merely a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I see where you're confused. You think that people are all stupid and none of them check to see where their party will send their prefences. I know I check.

Imagine if the 25% who voted for none of the 3 major parties were the ones who actually did that.

I mean lets not pretend the big 3s followers do that, they already know where there's is going. That's why their parties want to take everyone else out of the equation. and you support that. Bully for you.


I also like his characterisation of gun restrictions as people banning something "they don't like". I don't like the absurd fetish for kale and quinoa. I don't like ignorant people who claim they know everything. And I don't like eggs (don't ask). But I don't want any of these banned. I don't want certain guns banned because I don't like them, I want them banned because I recognise they're hugely dangerous if put in the hands of somebody who wants to use them on humans. There's just a slight difference.
Click to expand...

No there's not. If you were that concerned about dangerous things to society you'd be pushing for bans on things like alcohol. I mean you should know alcohol is a far bigger issue in our society than guns ever were.

But you probably drink so your own self interest would see you never call for a ban on alcohol despite the problems and deaths its causes.

That's where your hypocrisy comes into the picture.

Oh actually I've changed my mind. I want a weapon for self defence but I want to make sure it works. So I'm going to buy a nuclear warhead to protect myself from intruders. I don't expect any complaints from David. I expect he'll defend my right to own one against those silly people who just don't like them.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being a bellend.
 
Gough said:
I find his alignment with Bob Day odd, a libertarian and a fundy sky pilot wouldn't have a lot in common politically.
Click to expand...

Probably because Day isn't a fundy sky pilot like a lot of his fellow FF members. It's obvious why they have found some common ground. He tells you that in the video.
 
Docker Clint said:
Comes across as a gun nut. Wouldn't be shocked if he's a prepper with a bunker somewhere.

Apart from that I do agree with some of his points.
Click to expand...

To responsbile gun owners rabid anti-gun people come across as city dwelling fascists. Which is just an observation as none of them seem to know anything about gun ownership or guns.
 
Gus Poyet said:
To responsbile gun owners rabid anti-gun people come across as city dwelling fascists. Which is just an observation as none of them seem to know anything about gun ownership or guns.
Click to expand...

I'm always concerned about anyone who is keen on guns. They're all 'responsible' I guess.

Just like all drivers are safe drivers and can handle their vehicle.
 
Docker Clint said:
I'm always concerned about anyone who is keen on guns. They're all 'responsible' I guess.

Just like all drivers are safe drivers and can handle their vehicle.
Click to expand...

Well how many registered gun owners have been in the news for killing someone for the last 10 years?
 
Gus Poyet said:
Now you're just being a bellend.
Click to expand...

Good. So we've discovered you're just like me in that you think certain weapons should be illegal since they cause too much damage. Clearly for you guns are ok but nuclear bombs are not. So where is the line? Automatic weapons? Rocket launcher? A tank?

See there are 2 differences between us on this issue. Firstly we have different opinions on where the line should be drawn. The second is that you hypocritically complain about people trying to limit your "freedom" to own a gun and pretend you're consistently defending "freedom" while you won't defend my freedom to own a nuclear weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ferball
David Mcbride's trial started today.
Replies
24
Views
1K
Gralin
Gralin
campbell
David Littleproud
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Gough
Gough

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top