MHLoppy

See also: The Shovel: Inner-city leftie in panic after finding herself siding with Murdoch

you madlad

Unfortunately it's also the monkeys holding the money here ):

Her voting record (again with the disclaimer that we're relying on this one source for that information) is thankfully on the short side. If excluding anything that's only "believe in climate change and that queer people exist" (and not the much larger "social and environmental issues" scope), the majority still looks overall progressive to me.

Very non-exhaustive examples:

• [for] Increasing access to subsidised childcare
• [for] Increasing housing affordability
• [for] Ending immigration detention on Nauru
• [for] Reducing tax on lowest income bracket
• [for] The territories being able to legalise euthanasia
• [against] Reducing tax concessions for high socio-economic status

She then does have the stuff that Frog alluded to:

• [against] Criminalising wage theft
• [against] Improving pay and conditions for gig workers
• [mixed] Increasing workplace protections
• [mixed] Increasing workplace protections for women

But even mixed-tending-against can be a sliver more progressive than status quo in a policy area, since status quo typically means voting against all changes.

I've come back to this because of how cute the art is *_*

If the majority of her voting positions* don't align with "big L liberals" then it seems an inaccurate way to classify her, even if she's not voting progressively on some key things like workers rights etc. Social and environmental issues (which is a significantly expanded scope compared to the previously stated subsets of just [climate change + queer people existing]!) covers a lot of important policy areas.

Given that her voting record seems to be unambiguously and substantially more progressive than any of the LNP members I glanced at, it would be more accurate to describe her record as broadly-progressive-except-in-X.

* relying on this source - I don't know whether this generalizes accurately to her actual voting or not, but I'm assuming it's at least decently accurate

Daily reminder for what this independent stands for. She is a big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist.

I'm not sure I can agree - using your own source, here are the people which her votes most closely aligned with, in descending order:

Slightly below that are 95% of current/former ALP members ranging from 62% to 42% in one almost-contiguous block, with 95% of current/former LNP members below that at 40% to 18% in another almost-contiguous block. If her voting record was just LNP + [climate change / queer people existing] then these numbers don't make sense.

There look to be (based on this source) several other policy areas that aren't in the bucket of [climate change / queer people existing] where she's voted progressively. I don't think judging based on a single policy is the right way to accurately classify political leanings here.

edit: softened language slightly because I was just broody about something unrelated to this thread when I first replied

Thanks for letting us know that your conviction is just performative shoe-pissing.

Okay, in do-or-die wartime I can accept some suppression of the truth.

If you genuinely believe the situation in the US is so bad and analogous to wartime that it's worth spreading and supporting lies for the sake of "winning" then you need to stop wasting your time commenting on nottheonion posts and go figure out how to win. At the very least don't waste time talking to people like me who spend time on truth, set up an automated posting farm and flood the entire internet with anti-Trump propaganda with no attention wasted on what's true or otherwise ethical or moral.

If it's not that bad and you can afford to piss away time here then you can still afford the truth.

Pick a consistent position and take actions that align with whatever you pick, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too, it just comes across as hypocrisy to the rest of us. I hope to either see you around or not see you for a few years -- and nothing in-between.

The short paragraphs thing predates smartphones and the collapse of print newspapers (here's a paper from 1996 that does it), so fwiw I don't think it's that. I assume it's some sort of stylistic / presentation thing that's just normalized in news reporting. Maybe it's an outdated holdover from print media somehow (where presumably more spacing = more expensive, so it presumably wasn't a financial motivation) but I think orgs would've moved on by now if it was purely done for unnecessary legacy reasons.

Accepting whatever makes "the other side" look bad instead of fighting for the truth is the reason we're in this thread talking about that dipshit [Trump]. I'm not sure I'll ever understand why the fuck people in this thread fighting against that so hard

Trump is a convicted felon, promoted beans at the resolute desk, received millions of dollars in inauguration fundraising from big tech, has his own cryptocurrency which he promoted by promising presidential access, and is being called a madman by economists for the least stable US economic policy since Bretton Woods.

Trump is not like "other country leaders". Historically the above would be disqualifying for "other country leaders". You can't cover news about him like "other country leaders". I almost can't believe that you're saying that you can.