Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
IMG_1262.jpeg
 
SA ‘critical’ to Voice outcome

A date for the Voice to parliament referendum is likely to be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Adelaide tomorrow, with Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson saying South Australia is at the epicentre of the campaign.

nd-Noel-Pearson-the-Voice-Adelaide--e1693273354640.jpg

SA at "the epicentre" of The Voice vote. Rachel Perkins (left), Kyam Maher and Noel Pearson at Adelaide Railway Station this morning. Photo: supplied

Pearson, along with state Attorney-General Kyam Maher and film maker Rachel Perkins, were at Adelaide Railway Station this morning talking to commuters about the referendum.

“I’m excited about the prospect of the Prime Minister announcing the date tomorrow for the referendum, this has been a long journey, I’m so happy to be in Adelaide, the epicentre of this campaign,” Pearson said.

“SA is absolutely critical to this referendum as it always has been to any progressive reform in this country.

“SA led the nation in women’s suffrage, and there was another campaign back then, SA led the country toward federation. South Australians always deliver.”

The referendum will ask Australians to vote on whether the Voice should be added to the Constitution.

It would involve establishing a committee made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across the country, with a diverse range of backgrounds, ages, and ideas, to provide informed advice to government on issues that affect Indigenous Australians.

The Voice would not make new laws, control funding or sit in the houses of Parliament.

Pearson said he was “anxious and excited” about the date for the referendum vote being named and for the following six weeks, where there would be conversations with Australians about the “reform and the opportunity it represents for all of us”.

He believed the “mood is shifting” across the nation. Polling shows Pearson’s home state of Queensland is likely to vote no to the referendum, with reports showing SA and Tasmania are shaping up as key swing states.

Maher said in support of the ‘yes vote’ that there had been 44 questions put to the Australian people in referendums since 1901 and only eight had been successful.

He asked South Australians to consider voting yes, saying it was crucial to the nation.

“An advisory body that will help governments do better, quite simply the voice that this referendum proposes is about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people having more of a say about the decisions that affect their lives, nothing more, nothing less, there literally is nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting yes in the upcoming election,” Maher said.

“How we vote at this referendum will shape how we see ourselves and how others see us. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution, in the birth certificate of a national, is a crucial step in us developing as a country.”

Perkins – the daughter of Charlie Perkins, an Aboriginal activist and key figure in advocating for a yes vote in the 1967 referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution – said “the important thing to remember” is that more than 80 per cent have asked Australians to “stand with us”.

The Liberal Party is backing a ‘no vote’ campaign with key spokesperson and Senator Jacinta Price arguing that the plan was dividing the nation on the lines of race.

indaily.com.au

SA ‘critical’ to Voice outcome

A date for The Voice referendum is likely to be announced by the Prime Minister tomorrow as SA emerges as key to the campaign.
indaily.com.au indaily.com.au
Click to expand...
 
IFocus said:
I am aware of the No voters beliefs and ability to predict the future better than a gipsy fortune teller particularly on this thread. You would surely think picking lotto numbers wouldn't be a problem.... such is their distain of Aboriginals, they believe firmly that Aboriginals do not deserve any more than they already get.

The issue I have with the No vote proponents is that they fail at every turn to address the current issues. So when the No vote wins as the polls are telling us what then? Maybe Queensland is leading the way suspend human rights and lockup more kids who will end up on the scrap heap instead of addressing the family disfunction.
Click to expand...

key spokesperson and Senator Jacinta Price arguing that the plan was dividing the nation on the lines of race.
 
Hang on, is it SA or WA that is crucial?

Voice 'a reasonable ask', PM tells West Australians
Western Australia was central in securing last year’s federal election for Labor but it is shaping as one of the toughest states for the Yes campaign. Support for the voice in WA has fallen sharply in recent months, in part driven by the botched implementation of the new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act by the state government.​

SA ‘critical’ to Voice outcome
A date for the Voice to parliament referendum is likely to be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Adelaide tomorrow, with Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson saying South Australia is at the epicentre of the campaign.​


Voice 'a reasonable ask', PM tells West Australians

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has urged West Australians to embrace the Indigenous voice to parliament, drawing a parallel between the voice and his own efforts to listen to the needs of West Australians.

Speaking at a breakfast event in Perth on Tuesday, Mr Albanese said people would see that the voice question was “a reasonable ask” and a “very simple proposition”.

The ability to listen to Indigenous people through a voice, he said, would deliver better outcomes.
“If you want to know what's happening in Western Australia, ask people in Western Australia. That's what I've been here 15 times, because when you talk to people directly, you get that direct feedback,” he said.

“And if you look at the programs that are making a difference to people's lives, justice reinvestment that involve that indigenous ownership and input directly, the Indigenous rangers program has great success providing employment, caring for country and seas and waterways. If you look at the community health programs that have been most successful, they've been the ones that have directly involved Indigenous Australians.”

Western Australia was central in securing last year’s federal election for Labor but it is shaping as one of the toughest states for the Yes campaign. Support for the voice in WA has fallen sharply in recent months, in part driven by the botched implementation of the new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act by the state government.

Liberal leader Libby Mettam recently backflipped on her support for the voice, while the opposition Nationals party at the weekend formally reversed its support for the constitutional change.

Mr Albanese said it was unfortunate that politics had got in the way of what he felt should not be a party political issue, noting that former Coalition governments had played key roles in paving the way for the voice proposal.

“Tony Abbott established the referendum process, it came up with the First Nations constitutional convention of 2017. And indeed, when you go back further, John Howard committed to constitutional recognition,” he said.

“So one of the things I say is If not now, when? When are we going to get around to doing what every other country that was a former colony in the world has done?”

He said Australians could not expect a different outcome on Indigenous issues without doing anything different.

“[A voice] will give Indigenous Australians that respect, basic respect. It will give all Australians the opportunity to feel better about ourselves, the fact that we can acknowledge the fullness and richness of our history. But it will also say that the world that we are a mature nation that has come to terms with that as well,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Meta executives have distanced themselves from RMIT’s FactLab after it recently came under fire for slapping a “false information” label on Sky News Australia host Peta Credlin’s reports posted on Facebook that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not a single-page document but is 26 pages long.​

I can't comment too much because I don't watch Sky News, but this does seem to be a significant issue.

Meta ends partnership with RMIT FactLab amid voice referendum bias claims

Tech giant Meta has suspended its partnership with RMIT’s fact checking program “effective immediately” after receiving complaints about bias and unfairness relating to the upcoming voice to parliament referendum.
Meta executives have distanced themselves from RMIT’s FactLab after it recently came under fire for slapping a “false information” label on Sky News Australia host Peta Credlin’s reports posted on Facebook that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not a single-page document but is 26 pages long.

The FactLab’s failure to have a current certification by the International Fact-Checking Network was also blamed for Meta’s decision to cut ties with FactLab.

The FactLab – which said itself that it works “hand-in-hand” with RMIT ABC Fact Check – claimed this month that Credlin’s reporting and commentary about the Uluru Statement’s length were incorrect, despite Credlin, who is also a columnist at The Australian, receiving a response to a Freedom of Information request from the National Indigenous Australians Agency confirming its length as 26 pages.

Meta’s regional director of policy, Mia Garlick, responded on Tuesday to an inquiry sent by Senator James Paterson that was revealed in The Australian this week, questioning the FactLab’s conduct.

“We have recently become aware that one of our Australian fact-checking partners – RMIT – did not have current IFCN accreditation and that there have been complaints made to the IFCN about possible bias or unfairness in some of the fact checks being applied by RMIT with respect to content relating to the upcoming referendum on the Voice to parliament,” she said in the correspondence.

“In light of these allegations and the upcoming vote on the Voice referendum, we are suspending RMIT as a partner in our fact checking program, effective immediately.”

Just last month Ms Garlick wrote that the tech giant was preparing to combat misinformation in the voice referendum and was providing a “one-off funding boost to our Australian fact-checkers”.

At the time RMIT FactLab CrossCheck director Anne Kruger said she was “grateful” for the support to deal with voice to Parliament “narratives” to help educate the “publicly safely and calmly”.

Senator Paterson wrote to Meta, the owner of Facebook, last Thursday and asked for a full explanation over its conduct which described as a “private company interfering with the free speech of Australians”.

“The decision of a foreign headquartered social media platform to interfere with legitimate public discourse during a referendum to change the Australian Constitution is particularly egregious and cannot go unaccounted,” he said.

In Ms Garlick’s response, she said fact checker organisations must be certified by the IFCN which “requires participating organisations to demonstrate a commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness”.

Ms Garlick said once the IFCN has determined whether RMIT FactLab’s expired certification is to be reinstated, Meta will reconsider their participation with the fact-checking program.

Sky News last week revealed the RMIT’s certification with the IFCN expired in December.

Despite this, on Tuesday RMIT FactLab still said on its website that it “works in partnership with Meta as third-party fact-checkers, debunking problematic posts on Facebook and Instagram to help slow the spread of harmful information”.

“As third-party fact-checkers we also receive funding from Meta,” the site said.

It also claims FactLab is “transparent, independent and fully accountable”.

ABC Media Watch host Paul Barry on his program last week questioned the conduct of Meta and the FactLab and said a “disputed” label on Credlin’s editorial about the Uluru Statement’s length about being silenced would have been more appropriate.

“The Uluru Statement is expressed on one page, but there are many more pages of notes and background … where matters like a treaty and reparations are raised,” Barry said.

“And given that there may be some point in what Credlin is saying, we think a disputed label would be more appropriate.”

RMIT FactLab and ABC FactCHeck and both run by director Russell Skelton, an ABC veteran who has reported numerous tweets in favour of the voice referendum.

The ABC’s head of communications Nick Leys last week wrote to The Australian asking that Credlin’s column about the public broadcaster’s links with the fact-checking units be corrected after he said she made “incorrect statements about RMIT ABC Fact Check and should be corrected”.

The ABC was asked to provide an explanation of the difference between the two groups of fact checkers, the RMIT FactLab and RMIT ABC FactCheck but The Australian received no response.

RMIT FactLab has since then completely overhauled its website, removing ties on its homepage to the ABC and also removing the biographies written about its staff members.

SOPHIE ELSWORTH MEDIA WRITER
Click to expand...
 
JohnDe said:
Hang on, is it SA or WA that is crucial?

Voice 'a reasonable ask', PM tells West Australians
Western Australia was central in securing last year’s federal election for Labor but it is shaping as one of the toughest states for the Yes campaign. Support for the voice in WA has fallen sharply in recent months, in part driven by the botched implementation of the new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act by the state government.​
Click to expand...
How was it botched, people didn't like it and it was redacted, that isn't botched it is reacting to public opinion.

Funny how the media reacts, when people don't follow the narrative to the letter.
 
I travelled to the Capital and found myself in a Taxi yesterday. The driver looked as if his ancestors had been on the continent of Australia for something just north of 200 years. His red, drawn face was peppered with sun cancers. His arms had worked in construction I surmised, and so it was as he told me he was a retired crane-driver and owned some taxis.

He, unbidden, told me that he has been running a book on the Voice and the No Vote is ahead of the Yes Vote by 99% to 1% in his dual powered vehicle.

Perhaps he only picks up No Voters. Or is the true result going to be a complete whitewash for Mr. Albanese and his well remunerated mob.

There may be a homegrown Australian anti-Swamp element to the vote, I believe.

gg
 
The date has been called - October 14.

Anthony Albanese’s Indigenous voice to parliament referendum announcement in full

My fellow Australians
For many years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have advocated for Constitutional Recognition through a voice.

Our Government – along with every single State and Territory Government – has committed to it.

Legal experts have endorsed it.

People on all sides of the parliament have backed it.

Faith groups and sporting codes and local councils and businesses and unions have embraced it.

An army of volunteers from every part of this great nation are throwing all their energy behind it.

Now, my fellow Australians, you can vote for it.

The idea for a voice came from the people – and it will be decided by the people.

Today, I announce that Referendum day will be the 14th of October.

On that day every Australian will have a once-in-a-generation chance to bring our country together and to change it for the better.

To vote for Recognition, Listening and Better Results.

And I ask all Australians to vote Yes.

Referendums come around much less often than elections – this will be the first one this century – and they are very different.

Because on October 14th, you are not being asked to vote for a political party or for a person.

You’re being asked to vote for an idea.

To say Yes to an idea whose time has come.

To say Yes to an invitation that comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves.

A proposal thousands of elders and leaders and communities all over our country have worked on for over a decade.

A change supported by more than 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians: Constitutional Recognition through a voice.

A way for all of us to recognise Indigenous Australians and their history in our Constitution and a form of recognition that will importantly make a positive difference to their lives and their futures.

A practical way of dealing with issues that, despite all the good intentions in this world, no Australian Government has been able to get right before.

The voice will be a committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, local representatives from every state and territory, the regions, remote communities as well as the Torres Strait Islands.

A committee of Indigenous Australians, chosen by Indigenous Australians, giving advice to Government so that we can get better results for Indigenous Australians.

The voice is about advice.

The parliament and Government that Australians vote for in the normal way every three years will still be responsible for decisions and laws and funding.

Just as it always has been.

With a voice though, we’ll be able to hear directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about the challenges they face in health and education, in jobs and housing, and we’ll be able to learn about the things are working in local areas, so we can replicate them and make them work right around the country.

Learning from communities in Arnhem Land where the parents and teachers co-operate to make sure children are going to school and aiming high.

Or the health services employing Indigenous nurses to deliver health checks and immunisations in remote communities.

Or Indigenous Rangers caring for our environment, with knowledge built up over tens of thousands of years.

There are local success stories out there – just imagine the progress we could make with a voice connecting the regions with the nation.

And giving locals a say, of course, means that we save money too.

Because we’ll be making sure the funding actually reaches the people on the ground.

No more waste – better results where they are needed.

My fellow Australians

What Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want for their children is what you want for yours.

Staying healthy, doing well at school, finding a job they love.

Being safe and leading fulfilling lives.

That’s what they are asking you to say Yes to at this referendum.

The same opportunity for their children to make a good life for themselves.

In the words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

“When we have power over our destiny, our children will flourish.”

That’s the change that we, as Australians, can make happen.

Of course, voting Yes won’t fix everything overnight.

We’re talking about challenges built up over generations – and they will take time to address.

But Voting Yes means we will finally have the right approach in place, so we can start finding the solutions.


We can make this change together – and then we will make it work together.

With a voice that’s independent from day-to-day politics, so that it can plan for the long term.

And let’s be very clear about the alternative.

Because Voting No leads nowhere. It means nothing changes.

Voting No closes the door on this opportunity to move forward.

I say today, don’t close the door on Constitutional Recognition.

Don’t close the door on listening to communities to get better results.

Don’t close the door on an idea that came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves.

And don’t close the door on the next generation of Indigenous Australians.

Vote Yes.

Vote Yes for Recognition.

Vote Yes for Listening.

Vote Yes for Better Results.

Voting Yes is a change for the better that all of us can make together.

We all get one vote and we all get an equal say.

And if something is unclear to you, or you haven’t even had a chance to think about this yet, I encourage you, ask questions.

Because if you’re unsure, it’s easy to find out more.

Have a listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and elders like Noel Pearson and Aunty Pat Anderson, Megan Davis and Marcia Langton and Tanya Hosch and Tom Calma – trailblazers working with the next generation like Evonne Goolagong or Eddie Betts or Johnathan Thurston, or respected Liberals like Premier Jeremy Rockcliff, Ken Wyatt, Kate Carnell, Sean Gordon, Bridget Archer, Julian Leeser and Fred Chaney.

Have a read of the Uluru Statement from the Heart – just one page, full of grace and generosity, inviting all Australians to walk together to a better future.

Have a chat to the Yes campaign volunteers at your train station or shopping centre.

And have a look, importantly, at the words of the question – and the words to be added to the Constitution.

They are not long.

The Question is:

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Straightforward. Clear.

As are the provisions.

It’s the advantage of working on it for so long.

First, the recognition. It says this:

“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:”

That is what it says. Simple. Clear. Straightforward.

Then the what.

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice;

Again, straightforward. Clear.

The second provision:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice may make representations to the parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

That is the what, what will it do. That is what it will do.

Straightforward. Clear. Unambiguous.

Then, the how, including a clear declaration of the primacy of our parliament. It says this:

The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Again, pretty clear and pretty straightforward.

Recognition. Listening to advice. Parliament continuing as decision-maker.

That is the clear, positive and practical request from Indigenous Australians.

That is the hand out asking us, non-Indigenous Australia, to just grasp that hand of friendship.

And that’s what we can vote Yes for.

My fellow Australians

Our Australian story goes back 65,000 years. And what a privilege we have of sharing this continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth.

But our story is not finished yet.

It’s up to all of us to write the next chapter together.

And we can start by writing one word – Yes.

In the history of our great nation, the wonderful acts of national progress and the great advances in fairness have always required hard work.

There were arguments here, when South Australia, something they are very proud of and should be, led the world in giving women the right to vote.

There were arguments made against Federation and the minimum wage, Medicare and multiculturalism.

And before the 1967 referendum, before Vincent Lingiari, before Mabo, before the Apology.

But the great story of our country, through the generations, is that Australians come together to answer these calls for change.

We rise to the moment.

Like the Kangaroo and the Emu on our coat of arms.

They never go backwards – they just go forwards.

And so do we.

And when it’s done, when we see the joy and the celebration, when we see the difference it makes to people’s lives, the only question we ever ask ourselves when these changes occur is:

“Why didn’t we do it earlier?”

And it will be the same this time, when we come together and vote Yes.

Because we will have a way forward, together.

On October 14, there is nothing for us to lose.

And there is so much for Australia to gain.

There is no downside here. Only upside.

Friends

Many times when I’ve spoken about this change, I’ve asked: “If not now, when?”

This is it.

October 14 is our time.

It’s our chance.

It’s a moment calling-out to the best of our Australian character.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this has been a marathon.

For all of us, it is now a sprint.

And across the finish line is a more unified, more reconciled Australia, with greater opportunity for all.

That’s why thousands of people have volunteered already, many of whom have never worked on any kind of campaign before.

This is a once-in-a-generation chance – and Australians from across the generations are working together to make it happen.

I say to all those volunteers, keep knocking on doors, making phone calls – and keep having those conversations.

With your colleagues in workplaces across the land. Because this change is supported by employers and unions alike.

With your teammates in every local sporting club. Because this is a cause backed by every single sporting code.

With your fellow worshippers in every faith, because all faiths have given their support to this proposal.

With multicultural communities, because they know what it means to celebrate and recognise tradition and culture.

Have those conversations with your family and friends, your parents and grandparents.

Because with your energy and enthusiasm, this referendum can be won.

And when Yes wins, all Australians will win.

So, in a spirit of generosity and optimism – Vote Yes.

In recognition of 65,000 years of history – Vote Yes.

With hope for a better future – Vote Yes.

Vote Yes on October 14.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I travelled to the Capital and found myself in a Taxi yesterday. The driver looked as if his ancestors had been on the continent of Australia for something just north of 200 years. His red, drawn face was peppered with sun cancers. His arms had worked in construction I surmised, and so it was as he told me he was a retired crane-driver and owned some taxis.

He, unbidden, told me that he has been running a book on the Voice and the No Vote is ahead of the Yes Vote by 99% to 1% in his dual powered vehicle.

Perhaps he only picks up No Voters. Or is the true result going to be a complete whitewash for Mr. Albanese and his well remunerated mob.

There may be a homegrown Australian anti-Swamp element to the vote, I believe.

gg
Click to expand...
Not sure.

I find it hard to find a Dan Andrews voter yet they won in a landslide a year ago.

Will be a tough ride for the No campaign
 
"They" are trying to fix this via psyops and/or gaslighting.

Considering the Marxist Pope, I'm not surprised get the current iteration of Catholicism is pushing this UN communist inspired agenda.

www.2gb.com

‘Influence your parents’: Voice brainwashing in schools

A concerned mother has shared an extraordinary story of her daughter being subjected to YES campaigning for the Voice in school. This included discussions about how voting YES would stop racism and the encouragement to bring this information home to influence their parents. Hear more highlights...
www.2gb.com www.2gb.com
 
JohnDe said:
Click to expand...

I have huge respect for John Anderson, but I think he is wrong even in his promotion of recognition of Aboriginal Australians in the preamble to the constitution, instead of the current proposal for a voice to Parliament.

It's still creates a separate category of human. While I certainly accept Aboriginal culture is something that they can and should embrace as their own, in a political and legal sense making such a differentiation can only lead to division.

Vis a vis, this is a job for culture within the people concerned. I am happy for our government to promote an understanding between our cultures, but this should happen at a community level, rather than enforced by the ideology of one or the other side of politics.

While I am a strong defender of our own judeo/christian culture, I am very happy to interact with others, so long as there is goodwill from all those involved. I have made great friends this way without compromising my own cultural imperatives, nor they compromising theirs.

So, I push back strongly on John's message here, not in intent, but in the political ramifications. We don't need legislation or constitutional changes to achieve we are trying to do. These serve only to harden attitudes and promote division rather than reconciliation and harmony.

This is obvious in this very thread.
 
wayneL said:
"They" are trying to fix this via psyops and/or gaslighting.

Considering the Marxist Pope, I'm not surprised get the current iteration of Catholicism is pushing this UN communist inspired agenda.

www.2gb.com

‘Influence your parents’: Voice brainwashing in schools

A concerned mother has shared an extraordinary story of her daughter being subjected to YES campaigning for the Voice in school. This included discussions about how voting YES would stop racism and the encouragement to bring this information home to influence their parents. Hear more highlights...
www.2gb.com www.2gb.com
Click to expand...

Teacher unions have taken control.
 
wayneL said:
I have huge respect for John Anderson, but I think he is wrong even in his promotion of recognition of Aboriginal Australians in the preamble to the constitution, instead of the current proposal for a voice to Parliament.

It's still creates a separate category of human. While I certainly accept Aboriginal culture is something that they can and should embrace as their own, in a political and legal sense making such a differentiation can only lead to division.

Vis a vis, this is a job for culture within the people concerned. I am happy for our government to promote an understanding between our cultures, but this should happen at a community level, rather than enforced by the ideology of one or the other side of politics.

While I am a strong defender of our own judeo/christian culture, I am very happy to interact with others, so long as there is goodwill from all those involved. I have made great friends this way without compromising my own cultural imperatives, nor they compromising theirs.

So, I push back strongly on John's message here, not in intent, but in the political ramifications. We don't need legislation or constitutional changes to achieve we are trying to do. These serve only to harden attitudes and promote division rather than reconciliation and harmony.

This is obvious in this very thread.
Click to expand...
I h ave no objection to an acknowledgement in the Constitution that aboriginals were here first as long as that has no legal implications for land rights or reparations, and no objection to a representative body as long as its not in the Constitution.
 
A construct on the yes no voters

Introduction We do not enter this arena out of lack of concern for continuing Indigenous community disadvantage. It may be that the voice referendum, if it succeeds, will help and if this is the case so much the better. Rather, our entry is motivated by concerns about the way in which the Government and other voice advocates have pressed their case.

However, we offer a different explanation, backed up by our, and others’, analysis of the opinion polls. This argues that most No voters (a majority of whom are non-graduates) have quite rational reasons for their stance, based on their nationalistic values.

 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top