Given I can and have agreed with the greens, one nation and the "democratic liberals" on a number of occasions. My comment on this thread and occasion, tells nobody nothing about me!

Save that when I have views, they're based on logic's rites, and an informed view! Which I have no trouble sharing!

Which nonetheless can still be changed by a more informed view!

Which rarely includes information gleaned from this arse end of a conversation mostly missed by silly selective subjected syllogism, sourced from sententious senators, slumbering seloquosely?

Eh? What? Where am I? And who are you sir/madam? Water? Yes. Throw it in me face not all over it, you clumsy clodhopper! Where do they get these people from?
Alan B.

Is mise,

<<All politicians are not the same, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MP's don't lie, don't cheat and they represent the interests of their members, first and foremost.>>

That's exactly the problem. Politicians represent their membership and loyal supporters! I would argue all politicians do that. It could hardly be argued these people are thinking of Australia as a whole when they vote on legislation.

So why are the Greens and One Nation being singled out?

Dear Is Mise,

Some people have the best intentions when they enter politics, but as soon as they get elected they are bound to be corrupted - first because they accept our stolen tax-money in salary and perks, so they come to depend on it; and second, due to the bad company. As they spend most of their time with other politicians, they cannot help being infected.

Without lying and cheating, no politician can survive
(unfortunately the same is also true of most other workplaces, especially white-collar/office-work).

---

Dear Nathan,

While democracy is a farce, according to democratic theory, representatives are there to represent their voters (well, what a joke!), so if you, the voter, have the interest of "Australia as a whole" at heart, then you would elect a representative who shares those feelings with you.

In practice however, the typical voter votes for whichever party is expected to end them with more $$'s in their bank account. If one for example is employed by a streamlined industry, then they are more likely to vote Labor; and the self-employed are more likely to vote Liberals. You could for example enthusiastically share Green ideology, but once you learn that your uncle who loves you very much has won the lottery and has cancer, you just wouldn't continue voting for the Greens (who propose death taxes). The fact is that it is much more convenient to be a millionaire and to pay for your advanced medication out of pocket than to campaign hard to include it one day in the PBS. Once you already received your inheritance, then of course you may resume voting for the Greens and consider yourself a righteous person - that's called "human nature"!

Yuyutsu,

Just give me one example where the SF&F Party MsP have lied.

Nathan,

The SF&F MsP were elected to represent their members' interests first and foremost and they sincerely believe that their members' interests are also in Australias' best interests.

Dear Is Mise,

I admit that I haven't looked into this particular party because its very name puts me off.

It is true that murder is currently the norm and over 90% of humans practice it, of all political persuasions, but isn't proudly declaring it as desirable a bit tasteless? Hardly sensible if this party wants to attract vegetarians like myself.

In a way it can be rare and refreshing when a politician states openly and honestly: "I like to kill", "I like to rape [small children]", "I am here to dig into your pockets", "I am here because I like to have control and power over you", "I am here to turn you into cannon-fodder", etc.

However, that is not a sufficient reason to vote for them.

Now I do find it right and proper for a party to represent its voters' interests, even more so when they do so openly and honestly, but when someone speaks of "Australia's best interests", they must be either deluded or lying, because no such thing exists. For the benefit of the doubt, I would like to believe that it's the former.

Yuyutsu,

"It is true that murder is currently the norm and over 90% of humans practice it, of all political persuasions, but isn't proudly declaring it as desirable a bit tasteless? Hardly sensible if this party wants to attract vegetarians like myself"

Isn't it a bit tasteless to attribute a desire to murder where there is absolutely no evidence on which to base such a statement?