Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[Marty_d]

Don't worry Spacey, it's entirely likely that the lies and dirty tricks from the No camp will fool enough people so this truly heinous change that would forever change our great nation in unimaginably horrible ways will be defeated. 

 

Yay for Peter Dutton!

Yay for Sky News!

Yay for Pauline Hanson!

Yay for Tony Abbott!

Yay for Peta Credlin!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

No, no a thousand times no.

[spacesailor]

And the " loser's " will wail .

Divisive 

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Jerry 

If the ' referendum ' IS passed . It will-Not & cannot be changed. 

There will not be another ' referendum ' to revert ' our ' constitution to something else. .

The country Will be divided by one party losing. 

And one Winner .

That the loser does not Want,  ' whatever the outcome .

Blacktown was given to the Aboriginals. 

But

They are not going to put a ' land claim in , for their traditional lands ! .

 

In England Your King is sitting in a Scottish castle .

And , since James the first , has been King of England. 

would you mind them taking over 'Their ' government in London. 

spacesailor

 

Huh?

Referendum has chanbged before and it can change again. And even if it didn't, the constitutional amendment allows the Voice to be rendered useless.. so it doesn't matter if it the constuttion can't be changed.

 

What has Charlie got to do with anything? And he is the King ofd the United (becoming less so) Kingdom.. not England. (oh, and he is the King of Australia, too - and Canada, I think, and possibly New Zealand)..

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

34 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

And the " loser's " will wail .

Divisive 

spacesailor

 

The real losers will the the ATSIs (not that a Voice guarantees them a "win".

 

Sadly, all the verifiable BS from the No campaign is divisive as they are lying it up just to stop it from happening.. because they don't want to. So yes, I will call them divisive whichever way the vote goes. I wouldn't call them divisise if they were honest with their opposition and put forward honest arguments - that is totally different.  But they're not and they even admit it.

 

Dutton then goes and says if he gets into government he will allow a referendum - on exactly the same thing! Not divisive, eh? OK, then call it weaponising.

 

That does not excuse the poor approach that Albanese took knowing (or ought to have known) what he was up against, which if I were an ATSI would hold him at fault for.

 

This may give further explanation of the divisive no , and why the Yes need to up their game: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/why-the-no-side-is-winning-and-how-yes-could-respond-20230913-p5e4hb.html

Edited September 15, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

Well said Jerry. 

Oh, and just in case anyone was confused,  my previous post was ironic.  (I know some people take things very literally.)

[old man emu]

30 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

just in case anyone was confused,  my previous post was ironic. 

It's getting that way here that comments are taken to be ironic until shown to be otherwise. 😁

[old man emu]

I don't know if it has been mentioned here earlier, but the LIberal's "If you don't know, vote NO" slogan is going to create several own-goals for Labor and the Greens in the next election. But I suppose that the Libs will scream breach of copyright if anyone tries to use vit against them.

[spacesailor]

In Queensland  , there. Is $ 15,000 to fund " yes " events ! .

Is there any money for Anyone putting on an event without that propaganda. 

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

You're clutching at straws, Spacey: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/revealed-the-elite-money-behind-the-no-campaign-20230913-p5e4eh.html

[nomadpete]

I am at  loss to understand  why the 'no' campaign is spending up on misinformation.

What are they collectively protecting?  

 

I do not see any great benefit from the 'voice', and I do not fully agree with much of the 'yes' argument.

 

However, I am suspicious of 'no' motives. I suspect the moneyed people listed behind the 'no' campaign would not be throwing money into their campaign unless  they fear the 'voice' will somehow put a bigger dent in their finances.

 

In my opinion, the 'no' campaign seems desperate - to the point that their noise is enough to make me want to vote 'yes' simply because of my personal feelings about most of the 'no' noise makers.

[octave]

There is a whole lot of Conservative  Christian money going into the no-campaign.

 

Indigenous voice: no campaign’s deep links to conservative Christian politics revealed

 

The lobby groups campaigning to sink the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum have deep links to a number of conservative Christian organisations and consultancies, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

The no campaign is working with companies that appear to specialise in conservative Christian campaigning, including a US-headquartered marketing and fundraising firm that aims to help Christian nonprofit ministries “fulfill their mission”. Our investigation also shows links between the no campaign and the failed conservative push to defeat the marriage equality postal survey in 2017.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF I was voting NO I'd be concerned to be aligned with some of those very Questionable Organisations who are of much more concern than The  Voice to Parliament could ever be. . It's very informative to get to know who they are particularly when misinformation is one of their tactics as is being shown.   Nev

[pmccarthy]

There is no stigma in voting yes or voting no. That is what the referendum requires. Either way you are not aligning with anyone. Democracy in action.

[facthunter]

Knowing WHO is the power behind the NO campaign is essential knowledge to vote in an informed way. It's secret ballot also  so no one would know unless the voter made it public. .  Democracy depends on voters being informed of facts not confused deliberately by misinformation.  Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF I was voting NO I'd be concerned to be aligned with some of those very Questionable Organisations who are of much more concern than The  Voice to Parliament could ever be. . It's very informative to get to know who they are particularly when misinformation is one of their tactics as is being shown.   Nev

Thanks Nev.

That's what I tried to say .

[nomadpete]

There seems to be no coherent and believable motive behind the questionable 'no' argument. That is what makes me suspect there is a motive that they would rather not explain. I can think of several believable 'no' arguments that they don't use. But instead they use debunkable BS. Is it possible that they actually want the 'yes' to win but don't want to be seen to agree with anything Labor says?

 

So I am torn - I cannot see any great long tem benefit materialising from the 'voice'. It is unlikely to achieve it's  claimed goals.

 

But I am more concerned by possible hidden agendas behind the 'no' campaign.

[pmccarthy]

Ignore the campaigns on both sides! Make your own decision.

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

There is no stigma in voting yes or voting no. That is what the referendum requires. Either way you are not aligning with anyone. Democracy in action.

I agree with this in principle, but sadly, I don't thing the practice = principle as many people seem to be voting according to what they hear and see on media (social and mainstream); and to say that either of these channels has been dominated by misinformation would be an understatement. So, to me, it is the deficincies in which we administer democracy in action.

 

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Ignore the campaigns on both sides! Make your own decision.

Agree 100% and would add understand the facts and not the hyperbole; and use your values applied to the facts. BT

 

I was airignally very scepticcal of the Voice being enshrined in the constitution. As I learned about it and discusse it on this forum, I changed my mind. I know the real drawbacks of it (well, all that I could work out, because the No campaign aren't stating any real ones), and applying my values led me to change my mind. It doesn't mean that someone who sees the real drawbacks as justiifcation to vote No is wrong any more than it means I am right for supporting it. And I have to admit, the real drawbacks do make me understand and respect why, for example,  Lydiia Thorpe is against it - but her views are very different to Jacinta Price's and Warren Mundine's reasons.

 

Julian Hill is a pollie I respect, although I don't agree with everythign he says. He puts it well here (and yes, it is a speech for Yes, but the first part of his speech is what I am referring to):

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

As there is a ' Full complement ' of civil servants administering to the TS&A people .

With huge cost to the government ! .

Why do 90 % of the population NOT GET A VOICE to parliament? .

It doesn't matter which continent you Are from or what color you are , You  Not getting a ' voice to parliament ' .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Why do 90 % of the population NOT GET A VOICE to parliament? .

What 90% don't have a voice? Our political system is based 100% on European/British culture and representation of those except who lived here for over 60 millenia and didn't even recognise them as peopel fo Australia until the 60s.. and everythign that has been done for them has been done through the lenses of European culture, which has miserably failed.. yet, those of European culture and who have arrived since from other cultures that you would expect to adopt the ways of their new country have innate representation via our current constitutional system. All the Vouce does is enusre 100% of the country has representation.

 

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

It doesn't matter which continent you Are from or what color you are , You  Not getting a ' voice to parliament ' .

See above.

 

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

With huge cost to the government ! .

And we don't cost the government anything? Your new hip was not cheap, I bet.

 

BTW, you should read this: https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/Consolidated-Financial-Statements-202122.pdf

 

At a glance - the table at the bottom of page 1 - The government spent on expenses $643.7bn in 2022 (2023 figures aren't out yet)... And you're worried about how much? Dive into those expenses to see the waste.. oh and not to mention the 28.9bn deficit that could easily be plugged without zero taxing multi-nationals.. Are you OK that billios of dollars of what should be paid in tazes by foreign corporations is effectively gifted to them; that $2.6bn is gifted to QANTAS and they are nice and profitable; Are you happy with corporate welfare running at an all time high? And you think maintaining a Voice is expensive?

Edited September 16, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Why do 90 % of the population NOT GET A VOICE to parliament?

Sorry Spacey but I just gotta bite.

 

What do you think parliament is presently filled with?

 

It is filled with representatives  elected by 90% of everybody! (Regardless of race, which is my point).

 

I write letters to voice my opinions to our elected representatives (again, regardless of racial backgrounds). You can too.

Edited September 16, 2023 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

everythign that has been done for them has been done through the lenses of European culture, which has miserably failed.

Sorry but not everything. In recent decades indigenous groups have served as advisors to parliament. Yes their 'voices' have failed.  If the new 'voice' is not backed up by transparent anticorruption laws and fair public information,  it too will fail to close the gaps.

 

So far I cannot see the anticorruption laws having any teeth, nor any hints of proposed legislation that is essential to make the voice work.

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

corporate welfare

How many times do we hear politicians state that small business is the biggest employer in Australia? Look around your local area and tell me what percentage of businesses there are those of the "corporates". We'll leave out the supermarkets, fast food franchises and the likes of Bunnings and Mitre 10.

 

And what welfare packages does government hand out to small business? Sweet F.A. Small business is lumbered with so many administrative and compliance costs that eat into the income that could be used to introduce new techniques, or even to give employment to one or two more people. And when have you ever heard of a small business being able to arrange its finances so that it does not pay a dollar in tax? 

 

And one cannot say that the largesse to the corporations is only granted by the Conservatives. 16 months ago the allegedly "socialist" Party gained power. Have we heard a jot about that mob going after the biggest tax evaders in our Economy? But if the self-employed person, eking a living from their own efforts misses a BAS report, the whole weight of the ATO comes riding in like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, with the Valkyries backing them up. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Misinformation? I reckon the "yes " side has come up with a lot of that. Like how we should be ashamed of the "stolen generation".

I never even heard about the stolen generation until recent years, and I certainly would have known all about them as a kid if there were any around Alice Springs in the 1950's.

I honestly don't believe it is racist to expect all people to work at their jobs properly even if their skin is a bit black. 

So I am intending to vote "no" even though I sure don't like the company there on the "no" side. Then I will go back to supporting Albanese.