If we're so concerned about the South China Sea, we can give Taiwan or Japan diesel subs. It's not like the nuclear subs would be of much use to us anyway if they're on the other side of Indonesia.
Although I can't imagine an Internal Combusion Engine sub being at all stealthy, so I'd hope there's some kind of third option.
I think, given the (presumed) widespread perception that the Greens are arrogant, they ought to publicly air that reflection. If I'm speaking purely strategically, that would be more likely to win votes from me than what they ended up doing. I think the reason they don't is because they're incapable of such reflection. The only policy changes I recall them making are to support increased defense spending following Trump's win, and to oppose IRV and support PR after Bandt lost his seat (I BTW, support going the opposite direction with Condorcet).
As for Chandler-Mather, I think the other MP's complaining is more to do with them not seeing him as an adult than the severity of his treatment. Given how he went on the radio to complain about the treatment, I'd say they were right to.
I can't speak much to your anecdote, as you said. I can easily imagine the Greens apologising for using the wrong pronoun or mocking disability. I'm not sure where the exact line would be (in my almost entirely imagined idea of the Greens). The idea that their decisions are any less than perfect seems to be a sore spot for them, the only public self-reflection they've done regarding the last term is that "Labor ran an effective campaign on us blocking the HAAF for a year" IIRC.
I think they're a lot more sensitive regarding the Greens political party than they are individually. They are also sensitive individually when they're speaking on behalf of the Greens publicly (see my earlier example with Bandt, and Max Chandler-Mather's comments about other politicians being mean). You could instead say they're sensitive to humiliation, but that wouldn't fit my (entirely imagined) narrative of the Greens being racist so I'll put that theory aside.
Also maybe changing your vote because you thought an individual action by someone was stupid is a childish way of thinking about politics?
I didn't change my vote because of that. I became open to reconsidering my views after that. Although I'm not even sure if that was the exact snowball that started this.
I think people on the hard left or hard racist are more likely to specifically feel angry when criticized because the specific association of "makes me uncomfortable = evil" is much more likely. In the left's case, they're in the child prodigy "I'm too smart to be emotional" camp. In the hard right's case it's because the possibility that their gut instinct should maybe be interrogated is unfathomable to them.
In other words I think both One Nation and the Greens are made up of people with low EQ.
I'd say the Greens are the most likely to be racist. They're the kinds of people who could never even conceive of the possibility that they are not completely virtuous ("they' as in themselves, not POC. I'm not claiming some reverse racism BS).
I cannot imagine them being called racist and them not feeling angry at the accusation. I cannot imagine them admitting to fault. And I cannot imagine them growing as a result.
It took a while, but the trigger for me switching my vote from the Greens to Labor was when Bandt asked Albanese something in question time and was absolutely seething in anger when the (Labor) speaker said his question was against the rules. The Greens (or at least Bandt) are people who consider anything that makes them uncomfortable to be absolute evil.
They couped Whitlam and Rudd for trying to tax the mining corpos, can you imagine if Albanese tried to shut down Pine Gap.
Neither will I, but honestly if I remember I don't think the biosecurity rules around imported beef here are that important (that isn't to say biosecurity itself isn't important). Neither are exports to America though. TBH these trade talks don't seem to matter at all.
He probably arranged for this himself. Wouldn't put it past him.
The accounting newsletter my uni made me sign up to had an article criticizing this from the SMSF association.
Their key complaint is "unrealized capital gains" which is ... real estate basically. You can tax shares and they can just sell a few, "unrealized capital gains" only makes sense if you're using your super fund to evade income tax as a property investor. These elites, even the obscure accounting newsletter elites, know full-well what they're doing.
I should really buy some long pants.
Sure, privatize the railroads. That going well is the norm, not the exception. /s
That phrasing comes from a channel that calls the Teals "not-shit". The imported narrative that "both sides are the same" gives license to the conservative working class to vote against their economic interests, but frankly speaking the Labor party is broadly made up of people who genuinely care but are faced with a corrupt system operating under American global dominance.
We have it quite good in Australia, for the most part. It could be SO much worse.