Comment on Albanese's politics of patience: Democracy needs mature leadership
Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days agoWhy do people think criticising Labor for entirely valid reasons is a both sides are the same argument? It isn’t, it’s valid and necessary. Both sides do sometimes agree on things, but it isn’t me saying they’re the same… I never said they are the same, I never even mentioned the LNP.
Unwavering support for corrupt politicians needs to die because it actually does legitimise harm and makes corruption and incompetence seem less bad. You’re literally trying to justify corruption because they’re not the LNP.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 days ago
You suggest both sides are the same when you say winning is less important than acting symbolically on principle. Principles give you a coalition government. A flagrantly corrupt, shamefully incompetent government, one that will not just do nothing to stop America from owning us but actively seek that out, one that undermines the unions and willfully cheers on extinction, one that’s just recently come out with the policy of scrapping net zero.
You may suggest the Greens, but the Greens would 100% lose 9/10 elections if Labor disappeared tomorrow. And the Greens are the actual horrible people. They blocked the HAAF not to save people from homelessness, but from housing stress, because they wanted to pick up renters as a voting block. I remember Adam Bandt visibly seething in rage at having parliamentary rules explained to him, because he is a narcissist who wants everyone to know that he’s a good and infallible person because he acts on his principles.
Acting on principles is the easy thing to do, but it’s also dereliction of duty as prime minister, because it gets you the job title of “former prime minister”. Whitlam and Rudd acted on principle, they lasted 3 years and were proceeded by a decade of Liberals. We cannot afford another decade of Liberals.