Australian Politics Forum - The Aboriginal Voice referendum

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1230 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:22pm

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:16pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

So. You want more detail but don't know what detail you want. You could change your mind with more detail, you just don't know what such detail would make you change your vote.
Sad, kangaroo, sad. Typical of you but still sad.

Yes, like you, I expect SK doesn't know:

''It's the economy, stupid".

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1231 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:35pm

Hang on - 'government money' isn't the same as 'taxpayer's money'?

So in your eyes government is separate and thus may exercise whatever powers it wishes without so much as a consultation with or notification to the people, and has this reservoir of money set aside for its exclusive use outside the treasury?

Are they planning to pay for it out of the $230Bn stolen Future fund or something?

Government of the People, by the People, and for the People....

Have you just dropped in from Medieval Feudal Europe or something? Truly you make some startling connections....

Government stands alone and above the people..... not here, sonny.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19926
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1232 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:44pm

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:14pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

So. You want more detail but don't know what detail you want. You could change your mind with more detail, you just don't know what such detail would make you change your vote.
Sad, kangaroo, sad. Typical of you but still sad.

No, I gave you the answer your question deserved.

I already explained it in the post you replied to.

You want to play silly buggers I can do that too.

We only had the draft wording of the changes to the constitution. Before the question is put to the people, they have to finalise the changes and release that final wording.

Upon that release and the analysis from those who understand the law far better than I do, it is at this point that I will form my opinion and decide if I'll be voting yes in the referendum.

I don't understand this need to make uninformed decisions you so desperately seem to want me to commit to.

There is far too much anti-intellectualism at the best of times, but it's just getting worse and worse.

It is ok to reserve judgment until one is informed, in fact, it SHOULD BE LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1233 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:47pm

"a yes vote won't in itself help much in releasing more government money; while the latter are simply satisfied that the gap cannot be closed....because....."poverty is always with us/is the fault of its victims"."

Nobody here has ever said that except you..... thus far EVERYONE on the NO side has said no voice will change anything and that OTHER AND BETTER WAYS NEED TO BE SOUGHT AND IMPLEMENTED.

Where DO you get your ideas from? Amazing assumption on your part.......

Not only that - but you've been shown over and over that countless billions have been thrown at these 'problems' for no valid result - and yet your only answer is to keep throwing money at them.

When are you heading out to persuade the Aborigines of their need to apply themselves to a job five days a week under a Job Guarantee? What you - and Noel Pearson the Well-Heeled, actually mean is "paper job for which you get paid even when there is nothing to do".

That is NOT a 'job guarantee'.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 51444
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1234 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 1:21pm

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:14pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

So. You want more detail but don't know what detail you want. You could change your mind with more detail, you just don't know what such detail would make you change your vote.
Sad, kangaroo, sad. Typical of you but still sad.

No, I gave you the answer your question deserved.

I already explained it in the post you replied to.

You want to play silly buggers I can do that too.

We only had the draft wording of the changes to the constitution. Before the question is put to the people, they have to finalise the changes and release that final wording.

Upon that release and the analysis from those who understand the law far better than I do, it is at this point that I will form my opinion and decide if I'll be voting yes in the referendum.

I don't understand this need to make uninformed decisions you so desperately seem to want me to commit to.

There is far too much anti-intellectualism at the best of times, but it's just getting worse and worse.

It is ok to reserve judgment until one is informed, in fact, it SHOULD BE LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME!!!

You most certainly did not explain what details or clarifications would change your vote. All you repeated was that there are no details:

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

You have not explained what detail, now missing, would make you vote YES. Nor have you explained what dangers you see in the current format and lack of details even though you support the idea of the Voice.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1235 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 1:22pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:35pm:

Hang on - 'government money' isn't the same as 'taxpayer's money'?

Ok, given the current ancient monetary orthodoxy in which only private bankers have the privilege of creating money (when they lend it to - hopefully - credit worthy customers), the government TOO has to go begging for "taxpayer money" ie via taxes and borrowing.

This is the evil system that needs to be overthrown.

Quote:

So in your eyes government is separate and thus may exercise whatever powers it wishes without so much as a consultation with or notification to the people, and has this reservoir of money set aside for its exclusive use outside the treasury?

.

Yes, the public sector (government), as opposed to the private sector (non-government sector) SHOULD be separate when it comes to money creation, because a currency-issuing government should be concerned with a nation's mobilization of its resources, while the private sector should be concerned with incentive and reward of private sector players in the private market.

Quote:

Are they planning to pay for it out of the $230Bn stolen Future fund or something?

Addressed above; indeed Labor's proposals for funding affordable housing' and Oz industry are ridiculous, relying as they do on investments in stock markets and bonds.

Quote:

Government of the People, by the People, and for the People....

Indeed, with the people informing the nation's Treasury re the people's spending choices, rather than the people being held to ransom by unelected "independent" central bankers serving the interests of commercial bankers.

Quote:

Have you just dropped in from Medieval Feudal Europe or something? Truly you make some startling connections....

Gosh Graps you sure do get it back to front: the current bankers' sole privilege of creating money IS a relic of mediaeval Europe.

Quote:

Government stands alone and above the people..... not here, sonny.

refuted above; "independent", unelected central bankers, not the people, are indeed running the show.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 20^th, 2023 at 1:28pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 19926
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1236 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 2:35pm

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 1:21pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:44pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 12:14pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:45am:

Frank wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 11:33am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 20^th, 2023 at 10:27am:

Frank wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 18^th, 2023 at 10:58am:

As it stands I would vote no, but that may change once more details come out.

On the basis of available info, what makes you vote NO ?

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

Constitutional change is a big deal.

It can have wide-ranging impacts if not done properly and left open to interpretation by the courts.

The notion of constitutional recognition and the voice to parliament is something I support, but if it can't be implemented properly I can't vote Yes.

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

Right now it's a no by default, but I would like to be able to change that to a Yes.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to justify their current stance, especially without having to resort to misinformation, lies, distractions, and flat-out calls for genocide, which before I took a break from these brown walls was the norm for the No folk.

I was wondering if that's changed, is there any considered stances against, or is it just more of the same?

Given the reaction, it seems more of the same. 78 pages of that is a lot, and for my own mental health, I don't really want to subject myself to what is mostly to be a lot of toxic rhetoric that's become the norm in the No camp.

Hence why I was asking, other than fear and racially motivated misinformation or prejudice, has there been any growth in the reasoning why those against the Voice would not support it?

This apparently is too much to ask...

What additional detail would change your vote to YES?

What detail is currently available?

So. You want more detail but don't know what detail you want. You could change your mind with more detail, you just don't know what such detail would make you change your vote.
Sad, kangaroo, sad. Typical of you but still sad.

No, I gave you the answer your question deserved.

I already explained it in the post you replied to.

You want to play silly buggers I can do that too.

We only had the draft wording of the changes to the constitution. Before the question is put to the people, they have to finalise the changes and release that final wording.

Upon that release and the analysis from those who understand the law far better than I do, it is at this point that I will form my opinion and decide if I'll be voting yes in the referendum.

I don't understand this need to make uninformed decisions you so desperately seem to want me to commit to.

There is far too much anti-intellectualism at the best of times, but it's just getting worse and worse.

It is ok to reserve judgment until one is informed, in fact, it SHOULD BE LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME!!!

You most certainly did not explain what details or clarifications would change your vote. All you repeated was that there are no details:

As it stands today we don't have enough detail to support a yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, but I support the ideas behind it.

Once that detail has been released and smarter people than I who understand the law better can provide some analysis, then a yes or no stance can be considered.

You have not explained what detail, now missing, would make you vote YES. Nor have you explained what dangers you see in the current format and lack of details even though you support the idea of the Voice.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand dear.

Until we know the final wording of their proposed changes to the constitution we can't form an opinion of it...

You act as if you'd be ok with people making their minds up about who you're going to vote for in an election before they've seen the candidates or party's policy platform...

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1237 - Mar 20^th, 2023 at 3:03pm

I doubt any further explanation at this point will change my vote. Enough has been said to clearly show the duplicity involved in this YES campaign and the true intent of this 'voice'.

Every lobby group is funded by its own people/members.... I see no need for a second Shadow(sic) Government of yet another bureaucracy piled on what we already endure - given some of the things those faceless public servants do now without accountability .... such a voice would be even less accountable.

If that last bit alone doesn't seal the deal for you - you are a lost cause.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 44327	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1238 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 10:47am Labor and the Coalition strike deal on management of Voice to Parliament referendum
Back to top	It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1239 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 12:36pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 10:47am:

Labor and the Coalition strike deal on management of Voice to Parliament referendum Smiley

"Labor has made a concession in allowing an official pamphlet to be distributed across the country, outlining the respective yes and no cases.

But it has not agreed to the Coalition's demands for equal Commonwealth funding for both sides of the debate."

"The deal effectively sidelines the Greens and Senate crossbenchers, who had also been proposing amendments to the machinery bill."

That's very nice of them considering they are supposed to present both sides of a referendum idea.

No equal funding for the NO case? Thanks for telling us we have no right to hear it.... I'll stick with NO then.

The trick is in that last bit - sidelining the Independents.... but mind you - this is ONLY in regard to presenting the Final Solution to the Parliament by the working group - who will continue to pull their mega-salaries etc for doing pharkall.

It is not the final presentation ....

I can't wait to dissect the Final Solution of this nonsense....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13884
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1240 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 12:40pm

Apparently the yes vote polling has slipped from 63% to 59% in the last month or so.

An interesting case study: it seems like the more people learn about the proposed constitutional change, the less they are inclined to vote yes.

In parliament today, Simon Birmingham said a yes vote is a form of "positive discrimination".

The change to the constitution we SHOULD be voting on is: "the government shall eradicate systemic poverty".....

No "positive discrimination", there.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 87675 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1241 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 3:19pm I'll bet it's far lower than that.... nobody says they are voting yes.... not in public anyway...
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 44327	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1242 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 5:16pm Parliament has decided on how the Voice referendum will work. Here's what to expect
Back to top	It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 87675 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1243 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 5:49pm Brian Ross wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 5:16pm: Parliament has decided on how the Voice referendum will work. Here's what to expect Misleading headline and story - we do NOT know how it will work... we only hear how they plan to run the vote... hardly the same thing. The ABC must think we are all morons out here.
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1244 - Mar 22^nd, 2023 at 5:58pm

Now then - you twits have got the idea sorted out - both sides must be heard etc - and now you've sort of worked out how to actually do the vote.... now......

What exactly is this voice,
how will it work in reality,
how much will it cost to set up,
what powers will it have,
how many layers of government will it have influence over,
how many 'local areas' and 'regions' and such will be added to the cost of a single over-riding body,
how will 'empire building' within it be prevented with an ever-increasing number of 'jobs for the mates only',
what guarantees are there that it will not become even a Third House in ANY way,
what guarantees are there that it will not develop powers as it goes along,
given that it's developers say a purely advisory body will be a 'paper tiger', what guarantees are there that it will be such and remains so, as laid out,
who will be elected to it,
how will they be elected,
where is the funding coming from and how much is this 'voice' anticipated to cost,
what kinds of salaries and benefits will accrue to these 'advisors',
and what clear benefits will it offer to Australia, the Indigenous population and the Rest Of Australia????????

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Will the referendum be voted in?
* This poll has now closed *
No 42 (75.0%) Yes 14 (25.0%) Total votes: 56 « Last Modified by: Redmond Neck on: Feb 25^th, 2023 at 11:17am »