Not to put too fine a point on it, If Labor legislated it in, Dutton would kill it off on a change of government.
No, as it was a topic I was discussing with IFocus, I know exactly what the topic was, where the error was made was by you trying to change the topic to percentage of voters, only you were talking about percentage of voters when you rudely interrupted and took the quote out of context.Given the topic was about the percentage of voters needed for a yes vote to pass, and had nothing to do with if anything was explained or not, I can see why your posts are a confusing mess.
So the indigenous are pleading for people in authority and politicians to come to the communities and explain the voice to them.Why?
The AEC does not post out information until closer to the voting date.
In the meantime we get racist tropes, lies, deception, conspiracy theories and misinformation from proponents of the no vote. So if there is a failure here it rests largely with dishonesty and feeble mindedness becoming more and more prevalent in society.
Just wait a sec
Hey Albo, is the voice a means into entering a treaty?
Albo: No, it's not.
Highly unlikely.
1. Dutton would a. have to be leader and b. convince his party and the Greens and the Teals to kill the Voice.
2. The political and international optics of killing the Voice would be profound unless there was a good reason for doing so.
3. If there was a good reason for doing so then the Voice should be abolished so it would be up to the Voice to not give him a good reason.
I can't see the LNP having a majority for a long time. The Teals have done to them what the Greens did to Labor. To repeal a legislated Voice would mean convincing either the Teals or Greens, perhaps both. That would be very difficult unless the was misbehaviour or corruption of the VoiceAfraid not the Coalition (Liberals and Nats ) have been very ardent the Voice is a non starter unless its at a local level where it wont have any effect, lots of local organizations already but have zero sway federally as reported by the productivity commission.
I can't see the LNP having a majority for a long time. The Teals have done to them what the Greens did to Labor. To repeal a legislated Voice would mean convincing either the Teals or Greens, perhaps both. That would be very difficult unless the was misbehaviour or corruption of the Voice
So you haven't read the Uluru statement then?
Hint, the Voice is one proposal a treaty another...
You do not seem to understand - for the umteenth time - that your idea would make this legislation Labor policy and thereby internal to Australia, with no international focus, so killing it off would have no optics issue as it would be based on Coalition Party policy. Indeed, Dutton could claim a mandate if he were to be elected.Highly unlikely.
1. Dutton would a. have to be leader and b. convince his party and the Greens andthe Teals to kill the Voice.
2. The political and international optics of killing the Voice would be profound unless there was a good reason for doing so.
3. If there was a good reason for doing so then the Voice should be abolished so it would be up to the Voice to not give him a good reason.
If you took the time to educate yourself on this topic you might say something sensible, as the point of enshrinement was to prevent changing governments from doing exactly as you proposed.
Your point was about how explaining the Voice to indigenous people would apparently make a difference. The obvious rebuttal is that 3% of the population are almost inconsequential to the 97% that will also vote.No, as it was a topic I was discussing with IFocus, I know exactly what the topic was, where the error was made was by you trying to change the topic to percentage of voters, only you were talking about percentage of voters when you rudely interrupted and took the quote out of context.
That's not how referendums work. I think you are relying on the media to warp you view of reality.So the indigenous are pleading for people in authority and politicians to come to the communities and explain the voice to them.
The process for the Voice has been going on for many years, and you have no idea how much is known. Furthermore, you are assuming that nothing is in place from the campaigners, and you would be wrong.But you ask WHY? The AEC does not post out information until closer to the voting date.
How racist and demeaning is that, of those poor indigenous who continually plead for information and your answer to them is WHY.
So you agree that legislating the Voice would be pointless, as I have stated many times.That is the point of governments to reflect public opinion, and changing circumstances.
Just wait a sec
Hey Albo, is the voice a means into entering a treaty?
Albo: No, it's not.
So you agree that legislating the Voice would be pointless,
There's a video out there, where Teale Reid says we need to get back to our "radical communist roots"', in the mid 1900s we had a Communist party that tried all of this separatist BS, it's nothing new but it will be bad news for Australia. You only need to go as far as NZ and see some of the agro land takeovers. I don't think Australia will take this sitting down and it won't be forgotten in a hurry either, the economy is loitering on the edge of a recession and the labor govt tries to pull a stunt off like this.Albo really stood on his dick with that one and then saying he meant nothing by wearing the Midnight Oil t-shirt with Voice, Treaty, Truth on it was just rubbish. It's on his personal website that I posted up earlier - he's committed to the Uluru Statement in full. The yes vote trying to distance themselves from Comrade Mayo is another joke. He's an architect of the Voice and will most likely be sitting on it in Canberra. They were all quite happy getting in group photo hugs with him after the Uluru statement. Albo has had him on stage with him numerous times including when he announced the referendum question. Perhaps some of his links to Communism and digging up some of his old militant quotes made them dial back the association.
You showed it to be the case as Coalition policy tosses it out, irrespective of whether or not it works.No I don't think a legislated voice is pointless.
But you won't vote for it! Because you are full of excuses that don't make sense.As I have stated many times, an indigenous representative body is fine if it works.
Actually your analogy is false. You cannot show, and never have been able to, that the concept of first nations people is temporary.You want a guaranteed Lotto win, well that just doesn't happen.
I do enjoy seeing people who cannot sustain an argument resort to continuous distractions and scaremongering.There's a video out there, where Teale Reid says we need to get back to our "radical communist roots"', in the mid 1900s we had a Communist party that tried all of this separatist BS, it's nothing new but it will be bad news for Australia. You only need to go as far as NZ and see some of the agro land takeovers. I don't think Australia will take this sitting down and it won't be forgotten in a hurry either, the economy is loitering on the edge of a recession and the labor govt tries to pull a stunt off like this.
You showed it to be the case as Coalition policy tosses it out, irrespective of whether or not it works.
I do enjoy seeing people who cannot sustain an argument resort to continuous distractions and scaremongering.
It's the denialist's playbook in groundhog day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?