Referendum 2023

[Kaito]

Rich man wins.
You too Kaito. Beautiful human. Thank You for having an open mind.

You too mate, thanks. You're a good man 👍🏼

 

[Tiger-ferret]

Bullshit, absolute bullshit.

The referendum is a simple question, so as a person with a basic understanding the English language, you are either deceived or a deceiver if you state otherwise.

You still didn’t answer my question. How and why? I’m not deceived. I’m asking basic questions.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I know it's a cop-out but I'm still registered at
my old address in Double Bay. The whole thing
has been a bit acrimonious & draining TBH

You still didn’t answer my question. How and why? I’m not deceived. I’m asking basic questions.

It doesn't matter. You have no power. Nor does he. That's how we fell apart. We became divided not united

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

They got us by the boo boo

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

They need us. Because we said Yes to whatever they want to do they we don't know about

 

[Kaito]

They got us by the boo boo

Better by the boo-boo than the Yogi bear haha

 

[Tim Sheens]

What, specifically, do you mean by recognition in the constitution?

Are you referring to a specific passage that outlines that indigenous Australians were the first inhabitants of this land? Or are you referring to a Voice to Parliament being a form of recognition in and of itself?

This word has been prevalent, but I'm yet to hear exactly what people mean by it in this context.

I will answer in good faith, assuming that you missed the word "and" that separated the two in my post that you are referring to, and confirm it was the former.

The text of the new section, if adopted next Saturday, addresses such in the introduction.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

But not in knowledge

 

[Kelce68]

I will answer in good faith, assuming that you missed the word "and" that separated the two in my post that you are referring to, and confirm it was the former.

The text of the new section, if adopted next Saturday, addresses such in the introduction.

I think from my posts on this thread you can glean that I have asked questions I deem necessary to move the discussion forward, in good faith.

Though I don't understand what you mean by 'missed the word and', you mentioned recognition and a voice to parliament, but I was seeking clarification on what you mean by recognition, considering you used an 'and', indicating that it was in addition to the second thing you mentioned, being the voice itself.

Re: the text in the new section, I'm actually not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to your original post that I replied to?

Edit: you're referring to the question itself and the use of that word.

So, the act of 'recognition' is a byproduct that would occur by default if the referendum is successful. Correct?

Do you believe that is an appropriate word to use? (the implication being that Indigenous Australians are currently not recognised..)

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Hence. No one knows what's happening. Just vote yes. We got you.

 

[earl]

I fully understand. A person who prefers to listen with their heart is easily persuaded. Those who listen with their heart do so with a wealth of personal experience and may not need very much information before making a decision.
OTOH, those who make a choice based on logic have an open mind and need facts before a decision is made.

I am only thinking logically. That is it. Calm, rational, logical and clear arguments.

I can articulate why I am voting yes if that will help.

I am voting yes because Indigenous people have requested a voice and I can see absolutely no issue with providing this to them. It is simply an advisory body but hopefully this leads to better value out of spend and worst case this should lead to greater accountability to Indigenous people in relation to how this money is spent as well.

I am definitely not emotional or illogical or irrational. If you are voting no because of some future issue that you've made up and cannot provide any proof for that is irrational.

If you are worried about a treaty that is irrational. I would be pro-treaty. I see no problem with confronting this directly.

If you use words like activist and woke then you don't have an argument. If you are arguing for a no vote you are in fact an activist.

 

[earl]

The hide to say yes voters dont understand or
are too emotional is preposterous & morally
wrong.

It's really bizarre and completely hypocritical. I'm a yes voter and I don't have to make broad vague statements about how this will lead to something scary or something.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Nor will it lead to something that makes it better for the people. Thats the sad thing.

 

[earl]

Hence. No one knows what's happening. Just vote yes. We got you.

It's not really that hard. I saw Ray Martin has copped it for saying the same thing but the little I read about what he said was correct.

The no voters who are stating if you don't know vote no appear a little uneducated. It's not that complex.

The voice is actually really simple.

I think some people are worried about a treaty and that is cool but the voice isn't a treaty. It's one step in relation to 3 steps/ideas that were listed in the Uluru statement.

Those were:-
1. The Voice
2. A treaty
3. Truth telling.

This referendum is part 1.

Vote however you want but I don't understand the drama.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

You will in time.

 

[earl]

Nor will it lead to something that makes it better for the people. Thats the sad thing.

This is life though. You can't magic people into better lives. You can live a good life yourself and try to be a good human being.

That is really why I vote yes. I can see no problems and I'd like to be supportive.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Do what you have to do. They voted yes for Barabas.

 

[Kelce68]

I am only thinking logically. That is it. Calm, rational, logical and clear arguments.

I can articulate why I am voting yes if that will help.

I am voting yes because Indigenous people have requested a voice and I can see absolutely no issue with providing this to them. It is simply an advisory body but hopefully this leads to better value out of spend and worst case this should lead to greater accountability to Indigenous people in relation to how this money is spent as well.

I am definitely not emotional or illogical or irrational. If you are voting no because of some future issue that you've made up and cannot provide any proof for that is irrational.

If you are worried about a treaty that is irrational. I would be pro-treaty. I see no problem with confronting this directly.

If you use words like activist and woke then you don't have an argument. If you are arguing for a no vote you are in fact an activist.

That's a fair point I haven't heard articulated enough.

 

[earl]

You will in time.

I'll never get the drama about this issue. We spend $5bn per year on Indigenous issues. That is less than 1% of the total budget.

The voice will simply provide input into parliament in relation to this spend.

I do think this will lead towards a treaty but I think that will happen anyway.

I've accepted that this will be a no vote and I'll be fine.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Articulate all you want. You dont get the last word. That is a fair point is it not? They do what they want to do. Like they always have. But you are doing your best from your position. Total respect brother.