Again, I don't necessarily agree with that last part because every candidate and branch may (or may not) be different. Frankly, I don't really care who is being preferenced in Victoria when I'm voting in South Australia. But yes, I absolutely agree that Fusion as a concept has a major issue in that it's values and policy positions are so broad that it makes it very difficult for me as a voter to determine which aspects of the party platform are core, where influence lies and why my candidate is running under the party banner. I like a lot about Fusion but I expect that I'm actually a minority in that regard and that people are probably more likely to be attracted by specific elements of the party, which is a problem for stability and transparency. I am fortunate to have a lower house Fusion candidate in my seat but I can't preference him above The Greens guy because it's not at all clear why he is running or what he stands for.
Ilandar
This is only from Victoria, it doesn't mean necessarily mean that your local candidate or branch is the same (depending on where you live). Fusion is a micro party that attracts a very wide range of people, so I don't think painting them all with the same brush is a particularly smart or helpful thing to do.
The irony is that some on the left also think Speers and the ABC are biased against their side of politics.
HMD are doing everything better than fair phone now with their latest models.
How much are the factory workers paid? Where are the raw materials sourced? What percentage is recycled? What work is HMD doing to change the industry?
Better to get an older phone and hold onto it.
That's sort of how they've marketed their phones over the years. Fairphone exists as a fairer alternative to brand new phones, but the company has always been quite clear that the most environmentally friendly phone you have is your current one and that you should keep it for as long as realistically possible.
Do you really think they'll make one?
im still not sure the whole business thing is a just a greenwashing scam or not.
What does "greenwashing" actually mean to you? None of your criticisms are related to the environment.
I actually thought Albanese won this one pretty clearly. Dutton got absolutely shit on by Speers on nuclear and climate change and all the international relations/foreign affairs stuff played right into Labor's hands, which is bizarre considering it's one of Dutton's favourite topics and supposed strengths. Imagine having to actually apologise for an IR blunder during the live debate where you are trying to portray yourself as a strong leader on the global stage.
The word hasn't seen widespread use as a "disability slur" for a very long time. The great irony of this very vocal online minority continuing to fake offence and turn it into a political left vs right thing is that they are actually trying to take us back to the world in which the word has real power. If they were genuinely concerned about the word then they would just shut the fuck up and let it exist as the generic insult it has become.
"I...am Steve (Jobs)."
Using major parties like Labor, or even popular third parties like The Greens, as an example misses the point. The reason they are more trustworthy is because their candidates are screened more intensely. There is a much stronger connection between the party and the candidate, and the actions of one can often be an insight into the other.
On the other hand, it is quite normal for micro-parties to be a confusing clusterfuck, and for that reason you can't assume a local candidate is good or bad based on how the broader party is operating in other areas. Micro-parties are not organisations/institutions in the same way as larger parties, they are ultimately just collections of individuals who share some kind of common sentiment and that makes them much more volatile.