First Kerekere, then Ghahraman, then Tana and now Genter. The Greens' uncompromising posture creates an awful pressure, one that recent events suggest is untenable.
Its hard not to wonder if they’re also held to a different standard; there’s no way a Green candidate who beat the shit out of a younger kid with a bed leg and was credibly accused of being a bully later in life would be allowed to stand for election.
I think most National supporters would think Uffindell was a mistake though.
Why would you think that given how they vote? It’s clear that most National supporters would have no problems with what he did and would do it themselves if they thought they could get away with it.
By the same logic, Green voters are also OK with Marama’s blatant racism, and Labour voters are all OK with the dumb ideas they came out with in the run up to the last election.
It is a good point though, how much do you excuse the “bad” parts to get the few “good” policies that you want?
Do you stomach the Davidson’s and Uffindell’s of the party to get the ideas that you want in power? How far do you go?
If you have tied your identity to the party (similar to what is happening in USA); thus whatever the party does has to be fine because it is part of your identity.
What is much better is to divorce any part of your identity from politics. Look with unbiased eyes, look to policy and actual outcomes last time they were in power.
That’s what I at least try to do, and so far I’ve ended up voting for either Labour or National. There’s a lot of people in this thread making excuses for the greens, which is quite surprising.
By the same logic, Green voters are also OK with Marama’s blatant racism,
Here is the thing. Only your types think Marama is racist or that the green party is racist. It’s a line you guys pushed in the run up the election.
Labour voters are all OK with the dumb ideas they came out with in the run up to the last election.
Yes they were. That’s why they voted for them. You think those ideas are dumb because you are a right wing nutter but they think those ideas were sensible.
Even Hipkins acknowledges they had some pretty crummy ideas leading up to the election, why do you think they’ve dropped no GST on fresh fruit as a policy?
And how is singling out one ethnic group for causing violence in the world not racist?
Even Hipkins acknowledges they had some pretty crummy ideas leading up to the election, why do you think they’ve dropped no GST on fresh fruit as a policy?
They dropped the policy because the businesses pushed back against it. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good policy.
And how is singling out one ethnic group for causing violence in the world not racist?
She didn’t do that though. Ironically this is a perfect illustration of the phrase “white fragility”. Your fragile ego broke when your identity was criticised. Identity politics in action right here.
Its hard not to wonder if they’re also held to a different standard; there’s no way a Green candidate who beat the shit out of a younger kid with a bed leg and was credibly accused of being a bully later in life would be allowed to stand for election.
Old boy’s club finds old boys club antics okay.
The party itself definitely holds it’s candidates to a higher standard, no argument there.
I think most National supporters would think Uffindell was a mistake though.
Why would you think that given how they vote? It’s clear that most National supporters would have no problems with what he did and would do it themselves if they thought they could get away with it.
How is it clear? What evidence do you have to back this up?
My evidence is the result of the last election and the actions of the National party in this regard.
By the same logic, Green voters are also OK with Marama’s blatant racism, and Labour voters are all OK with the dumb ideas they came out with in the run up to the last election.
Interesting way of thinking.
It is a good point though, how much do you excuse the “bad” parts to get the few “good” policies that you want?
Do you stomach the Davidson’s and Uffindell’s of the party to get the ideas that you want in power? How far do you go?
If you have tied your identity to the party (similar to what is happening in USA); thus whatever the party does has to be fine because it is part of your identity.
What is much better is to divorce any part of your identity from politics. Look with unbiased eyes, look to policy and actual outcomes last time they were in power.
That’s what I at least try to do, and so far I’ve ended up voting for either Labour or National. There’s a lot of people in this thread making excuses for the greens, which is quite surprising.
Here is the thing. Only your types think Marama is racist or that the green party is racist. It’s a line you guys pushed in the run up the election.
Yes they were. That’s why they voted for them. You think those ideas are dumb because you are a right wing nutter but they think those ideas were sensible.
Oh, you poor thing.
Even Hipkins acknowledges they had some pretty crummy ideas leading up to the election, why do you think they’ve dropped no GST on fresh fruit as a policy?
And how is singling out one ethnic group for causing violence in the world not racist?
They dropped the policy because the businesses pushed back against it. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good policy.
She didn’t do that though. Ironically this is a perfect illustration of the phrase “white fragility”. Your fragile ego broke when your identity was criticised. Identity politics in action right here.
It’s definitely double standards and the press should be ashamed to be perpetuating this nonsense.
Yeah definitely a different standard, but as the article points out, they try and hold their own MPs to that standard.