Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry Kelce. Thanks for being polite about it. My bad. Reply button..... I thought i did. What about the struggles of the rest of us? Can you afford air conditioning this summer?
 
I find myself in no position to help the Idigenious. Im not Musk, or Gates, Facebook guy or that Amazon guy. But there are those that can. The Elite. Why do they need you and me?
 
twentyforty said:
Your‘e not stupid, you just like many people…haven’t thought this idea of the voice through impartially with an open mind.
Click to expand...

This comment is ridiculous when it comes to me. I think I understand the whole thing really well.

twentyforty said:
Who stands to benefit from this permanent change to our constitution?

Aboriginals?
Self determination has never been successful on previous attempts regardless of the level of listening and money.
The ones who mostly need the support live on the west side of the aptly named Great Dividing Range.

99.9% of Australians?
As the activists and PM have consistently explained, we will have a warm fuzzy if we vote with our heart.

Labor & Greens hard left?
This would be a gift from heaven. All their dreams come true.
This is the Black Throated Finch on bloody steroids.
Every bit of legislation presented by a conservative government could be tied up waiting for a high court decision.
What we do know is the Black Thoated Finch is limited to only 2 smallish habitats in QLD.

Think about it?
Click to expand...

I've thought about it in detail.

Indigenous people have put this forward for themselves.

I have no idea who the hard left are but I like them a lot more than the alt-right.

I'll add that when people use the word activists as some sort of put down it sounds really stupid to me. It's like when people say the word woke. It comes across as not having the ability to make a coherent rational argument.

If anyone can make a logical rational argument I'm happy to listen but at this stage I haven't heard a logical rational reason to vote no. I just haven't.

The one logical response is that this should have been done via parliament and not through the constitution but that is only because I and I bet a lot of other people are sick of hearing about this issue.
 
AmericanHistoryX said:
Sorry Kelce. Thanks for being polite about it. My bad. Reply button..... I thought i did. What about the struggles of the rest of us? Can you afford air conditioning this summer?
Click to expand...
The fact that there are so many other pressing issues that many people are concerned about, housing and everyday cost of living being amongst them, have obviously put a sour taste in the mouth of those being told that this is more pressing or important, no doubt.

They are a separate issue though and we'd be wise not to entangle them as it's not one or the other need addressing, but rather both need addressing; just separately.
 
earl said:
This comment is ridiculous when it comes to me. I think I understand the whole thing really well.



I've thought about it in detail.

Indigenous people have put this forward for themselves.

I have no idea who the hard left are but I like them a lot more than the alt-right.

I'll add that when people use the word activists as some sort of put down it sounds really stupid to me. It's like when people say the word woke. It comes across as not having the ability to make a coherent rational argument.

If anyone can make a logical rational argument I'm happy to listen but at this stage I haven't heard a logical rational reason to vote no. I just haven't.

The one logical response is that this should have been done via parliament and not through the constitution but that is only because I and I bet a lot of other people are sick of hearing about this issue.
Click to expand...
Haha, earl my friend, careful here...

'Hard Left' refers to the Australian or British version of the 'far left' in other, western countries. It tends to be moving towards the extreme or radical end of the left side of politics. Think large government intervention, heavy regulation, socialist even communistic-leaning in nature. We've seen the way those types of leaders go in the past. In the extreme, think of Lenin, Stalin, etc.

'Alt Right' is a modern, urban term, which differs entirely in definition to 'Far Right' (think Hitler). Alt right refers moreso to voices on the right who clearly maintain a foothold in classic conservative thinking, but whose discourse has not drifted left over the last 15 years like the rest of the spectrum. Examples in this crowd that are commonly mentioned are Russell Brand, Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson.

The former is a firm, political (even if it's antiquated) description of strong, even extreme, classically left-leaning beliefs, where as the latter is more used as a pejorative term to group non-progressive voices in popular culture as a way to undermine their viewpoints.

Dunno about you, but I'd rather Jordan Peterson over for a roast dinner than Stalin haha.
 
balmain boy said:
A pretty fair post, however you seem to be over-thinking this. It's fine and sensible to consider a variety of view points, but where one sources the data to create these viewpoints is paramount.

Here's a video from the Liberal Party's former Minister of Indigenous Australians, explaining why we need this change in order to better understand the issues facing Indigenous Australians. One of the most qualified people in the country, and a former Liberal MP spells it's out succinctly. How do No Voters counter what Ken said?

https://x.com/KenWyattAM/status/1708796256120877247?s=20

It's not a political request as the Liberals have tried to make it out to be, using their Trumpian tactics of fake news. "Albo's voice" etc is shamefully inaccurate and misleading. Indigenous Australians have asked for this to help bridge the gap, Labor is letting the public vote on the matter. Adding politics to a question about recognition, communication and human decency is disgraceful.

Almost 75% of all Federal MPs in Australian parliament are in Favour of the Voice. Labor, Liberal, Greens and Independents. That's pretty much bi-lateral support, it's just sad Dutton is struggling so badly that he uses this as a means to try make himself more relevant, at the expense of others.

It is a simple request. The no voters are using the "it's so complicated and if you don't understand it then you should vote no" as a shield to deter people who can't be bothered listening/reading those who explain it. The No campaign uses a myriad of hypothetical scenarios to drown people in a sea of doubt, despite many of these hypotheticals being preposterous and already debunked by fact checking.

The voice will get involved in matters they feel impacts them, not with any and all legislation, unless they feel it impacts the lives of Indigenous Australians. It's not about money, power or revenge, it's about formalising the communication channels between Indigenous Australians and the government (who can still choose to disregard the advice they're given).
Click to expand...
If that is all it’s about, it’s a waste of money and time.
The channels exist, the requests are heard and the funds are budgeted. Many times over.
The breakdown is occurring AFTER the Government is involved in most cases.
 
earl said:
This comment is ridiculous when it comes to me. I think I understand the whole thing really well.



I've thought about it in detail.

Indigenous people have put this forward for themselves.

I have no idea who the hard left are but I like them a lot more than the alt-right.

I'll add that when people use the word activists as some sort of put down it sounds really stupid to me. It's like when people say the word woke. It comes across as not having the ability to make a coherent rational argument.

If anyone can make a logical rational argument I'm happy to listen but at this stage I haven't heard a logical rational reason to vote no. I just haven't.

The one logical response is that this should have been done via parliament and not through the constitution but that is only because I and I bet a lot of other people are sick of hearing about this issue.
Click to expand...
Finally making some sense with your last paragraph instead of all your woke feelings
 
earl said:
If anyone can make a logical rational argument I'm happy to listen but at this stage I haven't heard a logical rational reason to vote no. I just haven't.
Click to expand...
Because you have most people who dont agree with you on ignore....dont you Earl? Dont you? Can you hear me? Your happy to listen arent you?

earl said:
The one logical response is that this should have been done via parliament and not through the constitution but that is only because I and I bet a lot of other people are sick of hearing about this issue.
Click to expand...
But you are still voting yes...well thought out Earl....in detail.
 
Tucker said:
Half my tree are Aboriginal, the other half can be traced back as convicts.
Both groups were persecuted in different ways…those histories have not held me back in any way. They have not provided barriers I couldn’t get past.
It’s possible I have a healthy dislike for Poms more than most…not a hatred mind you, but a dislike for sure lol.

The truth is, you can sit on your arse whining about the bad hand you got dealt or you can use it as motivation to succeed. There are plenty of Aboriginal people in this country who have chosen the second path - including some of these activists who cry victimhood.
Click to expand...
Well if your other half was convicts most likely you could pull out on special occasions the fact the the British for almost 400 years where slaves the women raped men killed denied religious freedom all by the Romans that could be a very special victims card or like most people grow a backbone and take some responsibility like other People.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,013 (members: 50, guests: 963)
Back
Top