Voice referendum

[Brendan7]

Oh you mean the legislation. You see, you actually conned yourself. You've made yourself believe that something really simple is complicated. When it actually is really simple. You'd know this if you looked up the details.

And as for the whinge - nah. You see I've become comfortable with societies collective stupidity over the years. I start from the base of this stupidity and try to work upwards. Sometimes though, it goes nowhere. Oh well. Onto the next opportunity to take the piss out of the idiots.

Conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies. When something is simple but you think its complicated - conspiracy all day every day. Lol.

if you want a permanent change you require details. Similarly I wouldn’t sign for a house or property until I saw the full contract and went through it with my lawyer to ensure nothing is incorrect. I wouldn’t take the word of the seller. This is exactly the same principle, you keep going with the “she’ll be right it’s just N advisory, I swear nothing can go wrong”. This is all despite how terribly untrustworthy any politician is and does anything for a vote.

Alternatively legislate it and put it in place for 2 years before taking it to a referendum. At least then we can see it in place. It’s at best an ego grab by the PM who wanted to take this to the next election

 

[Blue_boost]

if you want a permanent change you require details. Similarly I wouldn’t sign for a house or property until I saw the full contract and went through it with my lawyer to ensure nothing is incorrect. I wouldn’t take the word of the seller. This is exactly the same principle, you keep going with the “she’ll be right it’s just N advisory, I swear nothing can go wrong”. This is all despite how terribly untrustworthy any politician is and does anything for a vote.

Alternatively legislate it and put it in place for 2 years before taking it to a referendum. At least then we can see it in place. It’s at best an ego grab by the PM who wanted to take this to the next election

You’re absolutely correct.. you want to see it warts and all before it should even be considered.

it’s the very gullible people that vote yes. If someone tried to sell even a sandwich, the first question is what’s in it? But they don’t want to tell you.. the yes voters see albo at Uluṟu with the crocodile tears and buy the rotten mouldy stale sandwich hook line and sinker.

some even bought 3 chihuahuas to go with it as well @Doogie

 

[Brendan7]

You’re absolutely correct.. you want to see it warts and all before it should even be considered.

it’s the very gullible people that vote yes. If someone tried to sell even a sandwich, the first question is what’s in it? But they don’t want to tell you.. the yes voters see albo at Uluṟu with the crocodile tears and bought the rotten mouldy stale sandwich hook line and sinker.

some even bought 3 chihuahuas as well @Doogie

Exactly if someone is leaving out what it is or how something is being done that is a huge red flag. I wouldn’t go to a cafe and say you know what give me whatever I’d order the exact coffee I want and the barista would ask how I’d like it. Yet voters are so gullible and are happy to go with the first option, it’s ridiculous. Show the details via legislation and putting it in practice OR tell us every single detail simple

 

[Doogie]

if you want a permanent change you require details. Similarly I wouldn’t sign for a house or property until I saw the full contract and went through it with my lawyer to ensure nothing is incorrect. I wouldn’t take the word of the seller. This is exactly the same principle, you keep going with the “she’ll be right it’s just N advisory, I swear nothing can go wrong”. This is all despite how terribly untrustworthy any politician is and does anything for a vote.

Alternatively legislate it and put it in place for 2 years before taking it to a referendum. At least then we can see it in place. It’s at best an ego grab by the PM who wanted to take this to the next election

Would you take it to a lawyer if your local council asked ratepayers for their yes/no for a new set of lights at an intersection? Do you want traffic flow statistics, sequencing details, who is being paid for construction etc? Or is it just as simple as a new set of traffic lights. Oh - but its the constitution not a set of traffic lights - maybe if you want details - look up what the constitution is and does. Good starting point.

You have the yes campaign laying it out straight. You have 99% of experts telling you there is no downside. The Uluru statement had 3 things, this is #1. Made it clear that's what they want. Spelt out in very simple terms.

You have the no campaign with proven fallacy after fallacy. The 1% of experts you can always find if you pay the cash. And the first nations no campaigners just want to bypass #1 and go straight to #2. Except Price - she just gets floated around to say random stuff. And yet - people buy this stuff. Average Joe, nazi lovers, communists and the doomsday preppers. Good to know this is so bad that even the absolute fringe crackers of society are on your side.

One thing the pandemic taught me, easier to complicate something than to simplify it. Conspiracies lol....

 

[Doogie]

Exactly if someone is leaving out what it is or how something is being done that is a huge red flag. I wouldn’t go to a cafe and say you know what give me whatever I’d order the exact coffee I want and the barista would ask how I’d like it. Yet voters are so gullible and are happy to go with the first option, it’s ridiculous. Show the details via legislation and putting it in practice OR tell us every single detail simple

Gullible because we don't believe the conspiracy?

Cannot script this stuff. Have fun with your self imposed mind fck.

 

[Brendan7]

Would you take it to a lawyer if your local council asked ratepayers for their yes/no for a new set of lights at an intersection? Do you want traffic flow statistics, sequencing details, who is being paid for construction etc? Or is it just as simple as a new set of traffic lights. Oh - but its the constitution not a set of traffic lights - maybe if you want details - look up what the constitution is and does. Good starting point.

You have the yes campaign laying it out straight. You have 99% of experts telling you there is no downside. The Uluru statement had 3 things, this is #1. Made it clear that's what they want. Spelt out in very simple terms.

You have the no campaign with proven fallacy after fallacy. The 1% of experts you can always find if you pay the cash. And the first nations no campaigners just want to bypass #1 and go straight to #2. Except Price - she just gets floated around to say random stuff. And yet - people buy this stuff. Average Joe, nazi lovers, communists and the doomsday preppers. Good to know this is so bad that even the absolute fringe crackers of society are on your side.

One thing the pandemic taught me, easier to complicate something than to simplify it. Conspiracies lol....

There is a key difference which you keep forgetting whether it be local or federal if you don’t like what they are doing you can vote them out. I sure as anything want details if this isn’t the case there is a higher burden of proof to explain what I’m saying yes to otherwise thanks but no thanks. Hopefully the vote fails miserably it’s what it deserves.

 

[Brendan7]

Gullible because we don't believe the conspiracy?

Cannot script this stuff. Have fun with your self imposed mind fck.

I’m not the one who is going to be whinging when it fails on Saturday

Vote fails and hopefully have a good day on the punt perfect

 

[Memberberries]

Just watched Mundines podcast with lebo memes.
It’s on YouTube.
Eye opening. Definitely voting no now for sure

you were going to vote yes to make yourself a second class refugee?

 

[Doogie]

There is a key difference which you keep forgetting whether it be local or federal if you don’t like what they are doing you can vote them out. I sure as anything want details if this isn’t the case there is a higher burden of proof to explain what I’m saying yes to otherwise thanks but no thanks. Hopefully the vote fails miserably it’s what it deserves.

And this just shows you see more into this than what it is. If its no downside in the constitutional amendment, you don't need to vote someone out. The legislation could be anything, so yes, you get to vote them out for that but you can change it if need be. Its so simple its laughable.

But this is what conspiracists do. 116 pages of debunking, and still spouting the same waffle as page 1. CVD thread 2.0.

Why would I whinge? I'm not first nations, I recognise this is no downside, I own 3 dogs that are not chi chis and I do not have an I30. I have zero skin in this game. So sorry to disappoint. As I've said before, come to accept that conspiracy creation is a thing. CVD 2.0.

Btw - you know horse racing is fixed right? Lol.....

 

[N4TE]

Oooooooooh, we're all someone's daughter
We're all some! ones! Sonnnnnnnn

How long can we fight with each other On a shitty Bulldogs forummmmmm

You're the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear

Just Vote how you want to, Vooooote how you want toooo.

This thread with my post has now officially jumped the shark.

 

[Memberberries]

And this just shows you see more into this than what it is. If its no downside in the constitutional amendment, you don't need to vote someone out. The legislation could be anything, so yes, you get to vote them out for that but you can change it if need be. Its so simple its laughable.

But this is what conspiracists do. 116 pages of debunking, and still spouting the same waffle as page 1. CVD thread 2.0.

Why would I whinge? I'm not first nations, I recognise this is no downside, I own 3 dogs that are not chi chis and I do not have an I30. I have zero skin in this game. So sorry to disappoint. As I've said before, come to accept that conspiracy creation is a thing. CVD 2.0.

Btw - you know horse racing is fixed right? Lol.....

so is the NRL but it doesn’t stop you guys from tuning in every week going grey and getting a weak heart because of how shit the bulldogs are!

 

[Doogie]

Oooooooooh, we're all someone's daughter
We're all some! ones! Sonnnnnnnn

How long can we fight with each other On a shitty Bulldogs forummmmmm

You're the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear

Just Vote how you want to, Vooooote how you want toooo.

This thread with my post has now officially jumped the shark.

I thought it was "if you don't know, then why the fck are you voting on something you don't know about?"

2210 bro - cannot help myself

 

[Brendan7]

And this just shows you see more into this than what it is. If its no downside in the constitutional amendment, you don't need to vote someone out. The legislation could be anything, so yes, you get to vote them out for that but you can change it if need be. Its so simple its laughable.

But this is what conspiracists do. 116 pages of debunking, and still spouting the same waffle as page 1. CVD thread 2.0.

Why would I whinge? I'm not first nations, I recognise this is no downside, I own 3 dogs that are not chi chis and I do not have an I30. I have zero skin in this game. So sorry to disappoint. As I've said before, come to accept that conspiracy creation is a thing. CVD 2.0.

Btw - you know horse racing is fixed right? Lol.....

you just answered why it’s failing you know…”the legislation could be anything”…well there’s the vagueness many aren’t liking and why it will fail. It’s much harder to change a constitution than a PM or whatever. It’s also why people are asking for absolute details not a Hail Mary and hope for the best. I’d possibly vote yes if I’d actually seen the details in black and white and how it will be implemented but I want details not airy fairy maybes.

don’t Care too much about the racing but love a punt on Saturday with a quaddie

 

[ouwet]

Interestingly, I know a Kiwi conservative who has gone from the right to central to central left in retirement after working his life as a business owner!

No doubt... But Overall he is an exception.

You always have a token older person sitting on the roads in some vegan protest!

 

[Doogie]

you just answered why it’s failing you know…”the legislation could be anything”…well there’s the vagueness many aren’t liking and why it will fail. It’s much harder to change a constitution than a PM or whatever. It’s also why people are asking for absolute details not a Hail Mary and hope for the best. I’d possibly vote yes if I’d actually seen the details in black and white and how it will be implemented but I want details not airy fairy maybes.

don’t Care too much about the racing but love a punt on Saturday with a quaddie

All you are voting on is whether or not there will be legislation. There won't be any until we are somewhere close to the next election if this got up. And you get to vote on which party puts that forward to your liking. You've seen the details in black and white and have convinced yourself that you haven't. No one can give you something that doesn't exist.

Except another conspiracy. Lol.

 

[Memberberries]

you just answered why it’s failing you know…”the legislation could be anything”…well there’s the vagueness many aren’t liking and why it will fail. It’s much harder to change a constitution than a PM or whatever. It’s also why people are asking for absolute details not a Hail Mary and hope for the best. I’d possibly vote yes if I’d actually seen the details in black and white and how it will be implemented but I want details not airy fairy maybes.

don’t Care too much about the racing but love a punt on Saturday with a quaddie

one of the hardest sports to rig is golf.
You actually have to play decent shots or people will ask questions?

rugby league have an annoying pipsqueak referee who always wants to be the centre of attention who conveniently blows the whistle every 5 seconds.

what instructions do the referees receive?
Whenever the Broncos,Panthers,Roosters,South’s and Storm have the ball give them a penalty?

That’s why league is such a shit game.
The referees make too many blatant shit decisions which rob teams!

thanks to the so called best ref the game has ever seen, the Bulldogs got robbed of possibly competing in the 1991 grand final!

 

[Bullpit]

The legislation could be anything, so yes, you get to vote them out for that but you can change it if need be.

Lol.....

On one hand, one of the main factors the Yes campaign puts forward to support a permanent change to the Constitution rather than legislating the Voice is that, if legislated, the Voice can be disbanded or significantly changed in form and purpose in future.

On the other hand, one of the main defences to No voter concerns about permanency that Yes voters put forward is that being in the Constitution does not preclude the Voice from being changed in form and purpose in future.

The Yes campaign can’t have it both ways. So, it is clear that the Voice CAN be changed in form, substance and purpose in future both if legislated as well as if enshrined in the Constitution. So, there is no down side on this front.

So, why not legislate it? This way we can all see how effectively it operates and whether it is successful and, if necessary, have a more informed referendum at a future point in time.

 

[Memberberries]

Btw the polls are closing in

13 votes for yes
33 votes for no.

I’ll go ahead and say it.
Wow I really thought we were passed all this bullshit since America had a black president once?

 

[wendog33]

Saw this.

https://fb.watch/nCPGKLfjpZ/?mibextid=9R9pXO

 

[Doogie]

On one hand, one of the main factors the Yes campaign puts forward to support a permanent change to the Constitution rather than legislating the Voice is that, if legislated, the Voice can be disbanded or significantly changed in form and purpose in future.

On the other hand, one of the main defences to No voter concerns about permanency that Yes voters put forward is that being in the Constitution does not preclude the Voice from being changed in form and purpose in future.

The Yes campaign can’t have it both ways. So, it is clear that the Voice CAN be changed in form, substance and purpose in future both if legislated as well as if enshrined in the Constitution. So, there is no down side on this front.

So, why not legislate it? This way we can all see how effectively it operates and whether it is successful and, if necessary, have a more informed referendum at a future point in time.

Just read through your own argument. Fairly confident you're smart enough to work out where your argument fails and save me typing the same stuff for the 20th time.