Tame contrasted Albanese’s historical advocacy for Palestine and critique of Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war with his current position on Iran, alleging as a “relatively defenceless Pacific middle power, Australia cannot afford to cut its military ties with the US and Israel”.
“We’re in a geopolitical chokehold,” she said.
“To Albanese, I am difficult because I am both aware of this reality and unafraid to scream it at the top of my lungs, much to his obvious chagrin.
I’ve only recently, really looked deeply into politics, and I may be back propagating my current understanding in an inconsistent manner, but I can’t identify a single entity who has elevated to the level of candidate and is worthy of voting for.
The state of politics in Australia has become so thoroughly polluted that one must intrinsically be irreconcilably compromised to participate, which leaves the only justifiable path being to vote for the least bad option, if one can be gleaned in time.
Hmm, for a bit of fun i’m gona do a list of names that i think are pretty uncompromised that you mightn’t have thought of, I’ll try to think of people across the political spectrum, see what you think,
Theres probably others. As I say, i might not agree with much of what these people say, but i generally listen when they speak because they’re coming in with some fairly consistent positions where you can see their own ideologies at work instead of being led there by others. But I haven’t read that book, so maybe i’m misinterpreting what is caught in the definitional use of the term compromised.
I suppose those in leadership positions i’m giving a somewhat looser reign, namely Jim Chalmers, because leadership over such a complicated entity as Treasurer of a Nation I think is inherently compromising having to weigh up so many competing interests.