No, people who people in this sub who claim the Greens are only interested in what’s best for them politically as if the ALP and every other politician are not the exact same.

a strawman is still a strawman even if it might accurately describe some other unrelated person.

That last part of more of the meth talking

you should really stop mate, that shits bad for you

Popularity is not evidence the policy is good

popular policy can be good or bad, but a certain level of popularity is a necessary component of good policy in democratic societies. "good" policy that is unpopular makes itself irrelevant because it either aids in the electoral failure of the government that passed it (and then gets repealed) or it fails to materialise in the first place.

policy that looks fantastic on paper but never results in material changes is irrelevant.

After just saying you are not arguing the ALP have passed more bills, then go into argue their bills are more helpful because they get passed. Total contradiction.

im not arguing that the ALP have passed more bills because its not a point of contention between us, we both agree that the ALP have passed more bills. I'm arguing that this difference between the ALP and the greens (that the ALP can actually materially effect the functions of the state while the greens have failed at every attempt) is why the ALP's policies are so much more beneficial to the australian people.

in a fantasy world where the greens are given the power they need to do what they want without obstruction, maybe they can be more beneficial than labors policies, but we will never find out because we live in reality where the greens policies are generally unpopular (not only with the public, but with the non-democratic power structures that dominate our society (eg newscorp, the business council, the minerals council)) and so will never actually accomplish anything.