No, I’m pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.

I’m not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn’t an important issue for Australians based on that.

If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn’t care or supported genocide instead.

It’s not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.

Yes, based on many. However, that implies that people don’t care about the genocide, which is what ive repeatedly said.

If you want to be more precise, they cared about everything else more, which is a different way of saying they don’t care about it.

No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.

On a GendARM

Irans response is pretty clever so far. Proportional and restrained, with warnings. I don’t doubt that’s more because they know the USA Israel wants a war and trump is foolish enough to be led into one. Of the repercussions were less and they matched equally, they’d have done more. I wonder if next is spread into Qatar, UAE and Saudi. All the regimes playing proxy wars are now having them come home to roost.

That’s what China see,Ed to do too.

Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.

So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn’t important.

Sticking to principles is the opposite of flip plop. I agree, they are not pragmatic, though. However, no other party with a chance at a seat was anti genocide. If they did the same or better, the argument could be made that aussies care. They did worse nationally. Aussies don’t care.

Yet, the greens received less votes and were the only party with an anti genocide agenda. Like America, Australia was uncaring at best.

The country gets the representation it voted for.

It certainly should. Of course they shouldn’t shoot themselves in the foot, like Trump is, but it’s like play chess with a pigeon. It’s not about normal tactics.

I don’t disagree that they should have responded when Crimea was invaded, a decade ago, or Georgia 15 or 20 years ago.

I think Ukraine deserved protection based on those agreements, which were made with world interest at heart.

The crux of the matter is that the USA can’t be trusted to uphold any agreement with Trump at the helm. The UK is providing assistance but insufficient on their own.

Ukraine is not part of NATO, so there was not the same clear line of action and response.

Whether Russia was bark or bite is irrelevant when you send your own citizens to die in a war, protecting a different country. You need the political will and popular will to do that.

Those red lines Moscow made have incrementally dropped, without escalation outside ukrainez which sucks for Ukraine but is what the other allies would want, short of peace.

Putin is a violent demagogue and the only response is to destabilise him, which means being the war and sanctions to all Russians so that he doesn’t have the political will not support to continue.

Appeasing him by allowing Crimea to be annexed will only mean he tries again there, or somewhere else in the future.

But Ukraine is not part of nato, so although nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The point of nato is that Russia risks it by doing the opposite. And it only works if they aren’t bluffing.

They should be tariffing us services.

I thought a bunch left the diplomatic core over the last number of years?

Same in Australia. It’s just that lots of zombie companies continued to operate through Covid and can’t manage now that costs have increased while the temporary relief and rule laxation cease.

While reframing the conversation.

He also doesn’t know anything about a lot.

Well, Putin was worried their mercenaries might. Then the leader blinked and is now dead.

So your middle ground is to not give passports to trans people that allows them safe passage. Literally, what passports were designed to do.

If their passport doesn’t match their appearance, would that be safe for travel in less welcoming countries? Would it allow them to travel at all, if it didn’t match their presentation? Isn’t that the whole point of a passport? There is no reason for this kind of legal ruling apart from offering a way for bigots to practice bigotry. Nobody will be safer, but trans people will be more at risk.