Sensational-Adelaide.com

rev wrote:I'd rather put my trust in a hooker on grand junction road telling me that I can slam her safely without a rubber, then put any trust in the Greens by voting for them.

On what do you base this mistrust?

monotonehell wrote:Having said that, Xenophon's candidates will be getting my preferences above Labor and Liberal and just below the Greens.

And what exactly are Xenophons and the Greens plans for funding the programs they want in place?-or the governments programs they want removed? In fact what are Xenephons or the Green alternative plans as a viable government. Parties should receive our votes on their ability to govern, not just protest the current setup.You bag the Liberals for just throwing mud and not being a viable alternative, but then put up the Greens and Xenophon as an alternative??? Please.

claybro wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Having said that, Xenophon's candidates will be getting my preferences above Labor and Liberal and just below the Greens.

And what exactly are Xenophons and the Greens plans for funding the programs they want in place?-or the governments programs they want removed? In fact what are Xenephons or the Green alternative plans as a viable government. Parties should receive our votes on their ability to govern, not just protest the current setup.You bag the Liberals for just throwing mud and not being a viable alternative, but then put up the Greens and Xenophon as an alternative??? Please.

Like Rev you've just fallen on old patterns and emoted empty rhetoric. Things have changed in the past 20 years.

Here's a start for you. Compare these:
http://www.saliberal.org.au/StatePolicies.aspx
https://sa.alp.org.au/policies/policies
http://greens.org.au/sa/policies

Not one of the above outline "funding the programs they want in place". Seriously, when has an election campaign ever done this? All election campaigns are full of budget holes as oppositions gleefully spell out every election.

The only one who has a comprehensive raft of policies is the Greens. Granted they read like motherhood statements, but at least they spell out what they are about. Labor has a list of seven vague points. While the Libs just have an archive of press releases.

Voting for the Greens is not a protest vote - it's a vote for reason and evidence based government. Without being beholden to financial interests pulling the strings in their own favour.

monotonehell wrote:Voting for the Greens is not a protest vote - it's a vote for reason and evidence based government. Without being beholden to financial interests pulling the strings in their own favour.

Like it or not, "those" pulling the strings are who finances what governments do. The trick in politics is getting the string pullers over to your way of thinking, and of that the Greens have no hope. The number 1 thing that could quickly pull SA out of the mire is a nuclear industry. It ticks all the boxes. Scientific, high skilled and low skilled all get a look in. I cant see the Greens actively pushing that barrow.

claybro wrote: The number 1 thing that could quickly pull SA out of the mire is a nuclear industry. It ticks all the boxes. Scientific, high skilled and low skilled all get a look in. I cant see the Greens actively pushing that barrow.

Odd that you would say that, as I can see the Greens being more likely to push for it than either of the major parties. The major parties worry first about what the electorate will think, because they are more concerned with staying in power than doing what they think is the right thing to do. The Greens don't seem to think that way. They are far more likely to stick to their guns, (or negotiate a deal with a major party in order to get something they want), and put forward reasons for why the electorate should be thinking the way they do. And nuclear power is a relatively green industry, unless something goes wrong ....

rhino wrote:

claybro wrote: The number 1 thing that could quickly pull SA out of the mire is a nuclear industry. It ticks all the boxes. Scientific, high skilled and low skilled all get a look in. I cant see the Greens actively pushing that barrow.

Odd that you would say that, as I can see the Greens being more likely to push for it than either of the major parties. The major parties worry first about what the electorate will think, because they are more concerned with staying in power than doing what they think is the right thing to do. The Greens don't seem to think that way. They are far more likely to stick to their guns, (or negotiate a deal with a major party in order to get something they want), and put forward reasons for why the electorate should be thinking the way they do. And nuclear power is a relatively green industry, unless something goes wrong ....

The Green are very definitely ANTI nuclear. And therein lies their problem with credibility in the electorate. They are all for low/zero emissions technology, but then oppose the number 1 thing that can get us there until other technologies are better adapted.

monotonehell wrote:

claybro wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Having said that, Xenophon's candidates will be getting my preferences above Labor and Liberal and just below the Greens.

And what exactly are Xenophons and the Greens plans for funding the programs they want in place?-or the governments programs they want removed? In fact what are Xenephons or the Green alternative plans as a viable government. Parties should receive our votes on their ability to govern, not just protest the current setup.You bag the Liberals for just throwing mud and not being a viable alternative, but then put up the Greens and Xenophon as an alternative??? Please.

Like Rev you've just fallen on old patterns and emoted empty rhetoric. Things have changed in the past 20 years.

Here's a start for you. Compare these:
http://www.saliberal.org.au/StatePolicies.aspx
https://sa.alp.org.au/policies/policies
http://greens.org.au/sa/policies

Not one of the above outline "funding the programs they want in place". Seriously, when has an election campaign ever done this? All election campaigns are full of budget holes as oppositions gleefully spell out every election.

The only one who has a comprehensive raft of policies is the Greens. Granted they read like motherhood statements, but at least they spell out what they are about. Labor has a list of seven vague points. While the Libs just have an archive of press releases.

Voting for the Greens is not a protest vote - it's a vote for reason and evidence based government. Without being beholden to financial interests pulling the strings in their own favour.

Mono do you actually believe the Greens are independent?
They are part of a global movement, just like Labor and Liberal.
They are all for the globalization that's destroyed our manufacturing, etc.

They are just a different side of the same cloth..

claybro wrote:The Green are very definitely ANTI nuclear. And therein lies their problem with credibility in the electorate. They are all for low/zero emissions technology, but then oppose the number 1 thing that can get us there until other technologies are better adapted.

They are somewhat anti-nuclear, because of the economic evidence. The only places where nuclear power has made any headway is where it has been heavily subsidised by government / military. It's a money sink, not an economic marvel. Also while better than fossil fuels, it's far from Green - there's a costly/polluting supply and disposal chain on either end of it.

Greens are focusing on renewables while keeping an eye on the externalities.

rev wrote:Mono do you actually believe the Greens are independent?
They are part of a global movement, just like Labor and Liberal.
They are all for the globalization that's destroyed our manufacturing, etc.

They are just a different side of the same cloth..

Greens = globalisation?

Rev? Really?

Globalisation is and has always been championed by multinationals looking for competitive advantage.

Where did you pick up this conspiracy garbage? How about some evidence for your assertion?

Carn Mono..

They are part of Global Greens, a world wide ideological movement of "Greenies".
https://www.globalgreens.org/

Globalization = worldwide integration and development

These global political and social ideologies are just that. Globalization.
Just because they aren't of the same political breed as the main stream major parties, doesn't mean they aren't part of globalization.
Globalization isn't just the shifting of manufacturing jobs to the third world were the work can be done for slave wages to reap corporations bigger profits.
The very things the Greens are interested in and are pushing, like renewables, that too, is a major part of globalization and our globalized world view.

Come on, you even pointed us in the direction of their policies as stated on their site..

Here's a quote from their economics page..

A global economic system that promotes environmental sustainability, human rights and a decent standard of living for all.

You still think they are against globalization?

Like I said, the Greens are just another side of the same cloth as Labor and Liberal.

The sooner people wake up and stop falling for the nonsense that the Greens present a viable alternative the sooner votes can stop being wasted.


Here's their top two economic aims as listed..

A global economic system that promotes environmental sustainability, human rights and a decent standard of living for all.

Completely agree with the underlined part.
But the first part, will result in them destroying economies and standards of living in order to achieve their aim of environmental sustainability.

International financial institutions that are democratic and that promote sustainable trade and development. This would require reform and democratisation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO), or failing that, their replacement.

In other words, everyone jump in bed with China and their new international investment bank. Ooops, we already have, too late.
You ready for the big switcheroo?

Globalization = worldwide integration and development

Yes, I concede that point of definition. We're arguing at cross purposes because I stupidly took a narrow definition of globalisation.

I was thinking of only the aspects of economic globalisation which we have seen implemented in the past 30 years or so. Not the general natural globalisation brought on by transport and communications technology, which is happening no matter how hard you rail against it.

So all parties have accepted that globalisation has happened, the difference is the approach on how to handle it. Close all borders and rail against it? Allow the multinationals to shift all work overseas? The first is not an option, look at the history of all the countries that have tried that. The second has happened and is happening.

Greens are about having this process not screw us all over, about "human rights and a decent standard of living for all" as you underlined and agreed with.

The sooner people wake up and stop falling for the nonsense that the Greens present a viable alternative the sooner votes can stop being wasted.

Again, not a wasted vote. The Greens are an increasingly important voice in Parliament, one which Labor has failed to provide in recent years. The only wasted votes are those who donkey. You advocated Xenophon's crew, how do they "present a viable alternative" where the Greens do not?

...But the first part, will result in them destroying economies and standards of living in order to achieve their aim of environmental sustainability.

As opposed to where we are heading now which will result in the destruction of economies and standards of living as people fight over resources?

I cant trust a party that flip flops between which major party to support based on which way the political winds are blowing at the time.
They may have a set of policies posted on their website, but that doesn't make them trustworthy if they are going to be willing to compromise with the major parties in order to gain more political power/standing.

If they were a party that stood on it's own, against the major parties, then sure, I can see the merit in giving them my vote.
But why vote for Greens when they'll just side with which ever major party offers them the best deal? Just vote for the most likely major party to win, same thing at the end of the day.

I'm not suggesting voting for Xenophon or any of his candidates because they present a viable alternative or because of their policies.
I'm going to vote for them, because Xenophon has a history of standing up for the little guy, making noise, and helping people have their voices heard.
He is the best chance South Australia has of having some form of viable opposition to the government that can hold the government accountable and pressure them.
The Greens wont, because they'll just get in bed with them in a convenient deal for them.

The major parties want to sink Xenophon and his NXT party because of this. Not because he's a threat to their positions as governments, but because he is popular enough to gain enough votes for them to be put under pressure, for issues that matter to everyday Australian's to be pushed into the limelight by him and his party, and put pressure on major party governments to act.

The Liberals in this state have failed as an opposition, I don't even want to contemplate what a disaster it would be if they were government.
We need an alternative in this state.

Latest polling has NXT at 24% primary, Labor 28% and Liberal 33%.

Truly a three way race now.

[Shuz] wrote:Latest polling has NXT at 24% primary, Labor 28% and Liberal 33%.

Truly a three way race now.

That's good news

Does anyone know NXT's position on the Nuclear industry? I haven't been able to find anything

rev wrote:I cant trust a party that flip flops between which major party to support based on which way the political winds are blowing at the time.
They may have a set of policies posted on their website, but that doesn't make them trustworthy if they are going to be willing to compromise with the major parties in order to gain more political power/standing.

If they were a party that stood on it's own, against the major parties, then sure, I can see the merit in giving them my vote.
But why vote for Greens when they'll just side with which ever major party offers them the best deal? Just vote for the most likely major party to win, same thing at the end of the day.

But you can trust them. Instead of choosing a team right or wrong, they look at what is being proposed on that day.

In other words they look at the evidence and vote for, side with, or negotiate for the best outcome for the electorate.

That's a far better policy than just choosing a team and supporting them no matter what bills that team produce.

Look at the recent tax transparency bill. The Greens negotiated up from zero to most companies needing to publish how much tax they pay. The choices were to vote for the bill and have no companies' tax published OR reject the bill and have no companies' tax published. The Greens instead negotiated an amendment which means most companies' tax paid is reported. That way it will be simpler to extend the bill later.

Don't believe the anti-Green spin that the desperate Labor machine pumps out. Two misinformation campaigns come to mind recently; the tax transparency above and the pensioner scare over the pension bill from last year. The Labor memes were pumped out and people simply believe it - and still do. Labor should be cooperating with the Greens, but instead they are scared of losing votes so are waging a misinformation campaign.

I'm not suggesting voting for Xenophon or any of his candidates because they present a viable alternative or because of their policies.
I'm going to vote for them, because Xenophon has a history of standing up for the little guy, making noise, and helping people have their voices heard. He is the best chance South Australia has of having some form of viable opposition to the government that can hold the government accountable and pressure them. The Greens wont, because they'll just get in bed with them in a convenient deal for them.

See above.

Greens make just as much noise if not more, actually negotiate useful amendments to bills, and at a federal level are a constant source of important questions at senate estimates. The Coalition hate that because the Greens are constantly pointing out what they would rather keep quiet. Hence why I support both Greens and NXT.

The Liberals in this state have failed as an opposition, I don't even want to contemplate what a disaster it would be if they were government. We need an alternative in this state.

Agreed.