Voice referendum

[Bullpit]

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.

I clearly am not intelligent enough - would be great if you could let me know where my argument fails. Thanks

 

[Wahesh]

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

Don't waste your time on them Boosty, they're just stubborn.

 

[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.
Correct.

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.
Nope. You just made that up.

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 you put forward something real then just made something up. This is how conspiracies work. Best lies are with a sprinkling of truth.

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.

As above. Having a go at misinformation are we? And I noticed this morning that all the first nations No advocates are, at the 11th hour, putting forward alternatives to try save face with their own people. Appears you and Lydia Thorpe are on the same train. Well done.

 

[Bullpit]

As above. Having a go at misinformation are we? And I noticed this morning that all the first nations No advocates are, at the 11th hour, putting forward alternatives to try save face with their own people. Appears you and Lydia Thorpe are on the same train. Well done.

Umm … I was genuinely hoping for a response from you with some substance and I would have admitted I was wrong if the points would have been valid. Rather, you have come back with nothing specific - just high level statements of irrelevance and negativity adding absolutely nothing to the debate. I don’t know what this is called - strawman, gas lighting, whatever …. But appreciate if you could come back with specifically why you thought my post was inaccurate so we can have a sensible discussion. If not, we can only assume you can’t back up your arguments.

 

[Doogie]

Umm … I was genuinely hoping for a response from you with some substance and I would have admitted I was wrong if the points would have been valid. Rather, you have come back with nothing specific - just high level statements of irrelevance and negativity adding absolutely nothing to the debate. I don’t know what this is called - strawman, gas lighting, whatever …. But appreciate if you could come back with specifically why you thought my post was inaccurate so we can have a sensible discussion. If not, we can only assume you can’t back up your arguments.

They were in your post. Didn't read that?

And if you did, could spend my entire life arguing with someone's imagination. What's the point?

 

[Bullpit]

They were in your post. Didn't read that?

And if you did, could spend my entire life arguing with someone's imagination. What's the point?

As mentioned previously, I can’t see it in my post. I ask a second time - please tell me specifically where I am wrong. And I request in advance that you don’t reply with a generic, emotive, wide ranging statement and, rather, revert with a constructive and substantive response. Thanks

 

[Blue_boost]

Umm … I was genuinely hoping for a response from you with some substance and I would have admitted I was wrong if the points would have been valid. Rather, you have come back with nothing specific - just high level statements of irrelevance and negativity adding absolutely nothing to the debate. I don’t know what this is called - strawman, gas lighting, whatever …. But appreciate if you could come back with specifically why you thought my post was inaccurate so we can have a sensible discussion. If not, we can only assume you can’t back up your arguments.

you wont get much sense out of @Doogie , he just attacks you personally rather than addressing the issue, he is a defeated man, cornered.

Just tell him to go have a bubblebath with his dangerous dogs chihuahuas, that usually bursts his balloons

 

[Blue_boost]

by the way @Doogie @wendog33 , I voted this morning so your propaganda efforts to fool people were unsuccessful.

At the polling booth there was 100 yes signs everywhere and one NO sign and yet the NO side will get up in a landslide.. LOL

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I clearly am not intelligent enough - would be great if you could let me know where my argument fails. Thanks

Happy to help:

"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"

I haven't seen anyone argue that it should be in the constitution to avoid significant changes. The argument has always been that the Constitutional element prevents future governments from throwing it away on a whim.

Your argument point is a Strawman. "they want this but they also want this which conflicts"

There's no conflict. It's in the constitution so it can't be easily thrown away. But parliament can change most aspects of the Voice.

 

[Doogie]

by the way @Doogie @wendog33 , I voted this morning so your propaganda efforts to fool people were unsuccessful.

At the polling booth there was 100 yes signs everywhere and one NO sign and yet the NO side will get up in a landslide.. LOL

I hear ya. 100 people actually own pitties yet one pretends to and it gets credibility. Amazing stuff.

 

[Doogie]

As mentioned previously, I can’t see it in my post. I ask a second time - please tell me specifically where I am wrong. And I request in advance that you don’t reply with a generic, emotive, wide ranging statement and, rather, revert with a constructive and substantive response. Thanks

I have. Multiple times. And you just repost the same misinformation a week later.

So whats the point?

 

[Wahesh]

Happy to help:

"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"

I haven't seen anyone argue that it should be in the constitution to avoid significant changes. The argument has always been that the Constitutional element prevents future governments from throwing it away on a whim.

Your argument point is a Strawman. "they want this but they also want this which conflicts"

There's no conflict. It's in the constitution so it can't be easily thrown away. But parliament can change most aspects of the Voice.

...and that's what the Yes campaigners don't seem to understand.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

...and that's what the Yes campaigners don't seem to understand.

Which part?

I think most understand that it can be changed by parliament. It just can't be abolished.

 

[BootS]

Quote

PS where the fuck you been bro? Welcome back!

Cheers mate. i pop in and out every now and then

 

[wendog33]

by the way @Doogie @wendog33 , I voted this morning so your propaganda efforts to fool people were unsuccessful.

At the polling booth there was 100 yes signs everywhere and one NO sign and yet the NO side will get up in a landslide.. LOL

You are a manipulative lying fool. I like to post thought provoking views on current topics of interest. Stop trying to include me in your hysterics and baiting agenda. As if I care how you voted. That's your business.

 

[Doogie]

You are a manipulative lying fool who is conning people to buy i30s. I like to post thought provoking views on current topics of interest. Stop trying to include me in your hysterics and baiting agenda. As if I care how you voted. That's your business.

Fixed it

 

[Philistine]

The argument has always been that the Constitutional element prevents future governments from throwing it away on a whim.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. When has any Australian government ever done anything on a whim? Most people are frustrated by the glacial speed at which governments move. If an incoming government doesn't like The Voice, it will (based on past precedents) leave it alone anyway - unless it is an absolute horror show! The golden rule of politics - doing something is more likely to cost you votes than doing nothing!

Talking of horror shows - the Hawke Labor government introduced ATSIC, and the Keating Labor government that succeeded it left it alone (to nobody's surprise). An interested spectator would have thought that the Howard Liberal government would pull the pin on its first day of office, but it survived nine years of the Liberals, before being disbanded in the Libs fifth term in 2005. So much for acting on a whim.

 

[wendog33]

Here's someone else's perspective of the current issue concerning us.... to broaden the views presented on TK (for both sides).

Anyone can read it and disagree or feel a little more informed about why things happen the way they do. The Kennel is a little microcosm of "the way it is". Arguments, and the loudest voices domineering threads trying to shout down others valid views, but thankfully not everyone agreeing or even bothering to respond. Be true to your own beliefs whatever they are regardless.

 

[Bullpit]

Happy to help:

"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"

I haven't seen anyone argue that it should be in the constitution to avoid significant changes. The argument has always been that the Constitutional element prevents future governments from throwing it away on a whim.

Your argument point is a Strawman. "they want this but they also want this which conflicts"

There's no conflict. It's in the constitution so it can't be easily thrown away. But parliament can change most aspects of the Voice.

Thanks for clarifying, but I disagree. Do you agree that, despite being part of the Constitution, any future government can make the Voice a toothless tiger by diluting its power, scope, etc etc to a point of making it completely ineffective?

 

[Bullpit]

I have. Multiple times. And you just repost the same misinformation a week later.

So whats the point?

You would have spent less time answering the question rather than substantiating why you haven’t answered the question.

Just saying …..