@JulianOliver "Q is vocally critical of Greens as extremist, yet has never termed NZF or Act the same."
Which is a big part of why I am suspicious of her. ACT wants to tear up Te Tiriti and nix any regulations that hinder rich people from stomping on any bugs/other people who might inconvenience them. How is that not "extremist"? NZF wants us to leave the WHO, ban trans people and tell all the migrants to go back home where they lie like flatfish. How is that not "extremist"?
What part of the Green Party's agenda is so much worse that it gets the epithet but ACT and NZF are ok?
What principles are Q displaying by saying that people like Peters, Laws and Jones have morally repugnant views to 90% of the population (including, one would have thought, a woman, a person of Asian descent, or even perhaps a woman of Asian descent) but hey totally fine with getting around a table and working with these guys every day for the next three years even though you're never sure whether they're judging you for your dress being too long or too short or too black or not black enough or fantasising about what you're like post sex or wishing you were back in China where you (didn't) come from?
And also, technically, I didn't say the poster was wrong. You *can* stop laws you don't like by sitting on the cross bench.
I said the strategy made no sense, because it means you only stop things you don't like. The other strategy (going left) means you automatically stop all the things you don't like plus you get to do some or all the things you do like.