Voice referendum

[Doogie]

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

Just saying …..

And u called me out for not answering a question which I did but apparently you couldn't read it.

Just saying....

 

[SexBomb]

Gullible because we don't believe the conspiracy?

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

Can you honestly assert humans have never ever made mistakes?
Even if we assume best intent, is it not better to be cautious and conservative to ensure fewer issues?
Don't we have enough issues in the world to deal with, without creating more?
I rather avoid mistakes if at all possible.
This referendum has not convinced me that the room for errors has been removed to the fullest reasonable extent, thus it leaves me with no choice but to vote no!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

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.

"scraping the bottom of the barrel"

I never said that the government would throw it out on a whim or anything like that. I said that the argument Yes voters make is that the government could throw it out on a whim.

Try to read the whole conversation before butting in.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Thanks for clarifying, but I disagree.

If you can provide sufficient evidence to back up your claim, then I'll agree that it wasn't a strawman. Until you provide that, I'm going to assume that you were just posting misinformation in an attempt to claim misinformation by the Yes side.

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?

More than it already is?

It's already a toothless tiger. It has no power beyond providing advice.

There's some things they could do to make it pretty useless. They could legislate it into a 1 person panel. But it wouldn't change the power of the Voice as (and I'm not sure why this needs to be said for the 10,000th time) the Voice is an advisory group. They have no power.

Parliament could give them power. But they could also take it away again. And none of that would be any different to normal legislation.

The important thing is that the Voice couldn't just be removed.

 

[Doogie]

If you can provide sufficient evidence to back up your claim, then I'll agree that it wasn't a strawman. Until you provide that, I'm going to assume that you were just posting misinformation in an attempt to claim misinformation by the Yes side.



More than it already is?

It's already a toothless tiger. It has no power beyond providing advice.

There's some things they could do to make it pretty useless. They could legislate it into a 1 person panel. But it wouldn't change the power of the Voice as (and I'm not sure why this needs to be said for the 10,000th time) the Voice is an advisory group. They have no power.

Parliament could give them power. But they could also take it away again. And none of that would be any different to normal legislation.

The important thing is that the Voice couldn't just be removed.

Cvd wack a mole v2.0

 

[Bullpit]

And u called me out for not answering a question which I did but apparently you couldn't read it.

Just saying....

But you didn’t answer the question …

 

[Bullpit]

If you can provide sufficient evidence to back up your claim, then I'll agree that it wasn't a strawman. Until you provide that, I'm going to assume that you were just posting misinformation in an attempt to claim misinformation by the Yes side.



More than it already is?

It's already a toothless tiger. It has no power beyond providing advice.

There's some things they could do to make it pretty useless. They could legislate it into a 1 person panel. But it wouldn't change the power of the Voice as (and I'm not sure why this needs to be said for the 10,000th time) the Voice is an advisory group. They have no power.

Parliament could give them power. But they could also take it away again. And none of that would be any different to normal legislation.

The important thing is that the Voice couldn't just be removed.

Exactly … so why not just legislate it as a first step, see how it goes and then have a referendum once we have all seen how it operates, etc etc?

 

[Philistine]

"scraping the bottom of the barrel"

I never said that the government would throw it out on a whim or anything like that. I said that the argument Yes voters make is that the government could throw it out on a whim.

Try to read the whole conversation before butting in.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted your sentence verbatim. Are you now saying that that wasn't your view and that you were just informing the Kennel of the views of unspecified YES voters? If that is so, then clearly it is not you scraping the bottom of the barrel, but these anonymous YES voters, and I apologize without reservation for any distress I might have caused you..

 

[Doogie]

Exactly … so why not just legislate it as a first step, see how it goes and then have a referendum once we have all seen how it operates, etc etc?

Because..... see 118 pages above.

 

[Blue_boost]

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.

If you didn’t care how anyone voted why are posting your propaganda.

the yes supporter claws are coming out when they are now being held to account for this reckless use of public taxpayer money.

 

[Blue_boost]

Because..... see 118 pages above.

By reading the 118 pages above you would be no clearer in the yes point of view.. I would in fact encourage a swinging voter to read the 118 pages and if they don’t come out more confused than when they started..

If the yes campaign cannot sell their story well it’s a No!

 

[Doogie]

If a Pittie owner cannot produce a photo well it’s No Pittie!

Fixed it.

#BullshitPittie

 

[Blue_boost]

Can you honestly assert humans have never ever made mistakes?
Even if we assume best intent, is it not better to be cautious and conservative to ensure fewer issues?
Don't we have enough issues in the world to deal with, without creating more?
I rather avoid mistakes if at all possible.
This referendum has not convinced me that the room for errors has been removed to the fullest reasonable extent, thus it leaves me with no choice but to vote no!

sorry @Doogie but you lost another voter above with your confusing devoid of a valid point dribble.

its human nature to slow down if your not sure what’s ahead or if driving through foggy conditions.. that’s why people vote No.

First we check the depth of a lake before we dive in or if there are crocodiles in there, maybe even the temperature... but the yes team dive head first straight into murky waters. They are Lemmings!

 

[Bullpit]

If you can provide sufficient evidence to back up your claim, then I'll agree that it wasn't a strawman. Until you provide that, I'm going to assume that you were just posting misinformation in an attempt to claim misinformation by the Yes side.



.

I am not claiming misinformation - I am discussing a fundamental point in this debate.

What I’m saying is this -
1) subsequent governments can, in substance through whatever form they want, make the Voice ineffective (by amending its scope, representation, etc).
2) a primary Yes argument is that entrenching the Voice in our Constitution ensures it exists forever and no future government can get rid of it.
3) if (1) is true, which it is, then the effectiveness of the Voice can be completely diluted by any future government, rendering it to be completely ineffective. And it might as well not exist.

The point is - it’s the same practical result under both within Legislation vs within the Constitution in terms of longevity and effectiveness of the Voice. So, the Yes argument that entrenching the Voice in our Constitution ensures it exists forever and no future government can get rid of it is not convincing to me.

Within Legislation - No Voice
IS THE SAME AS
Within Constitution - a very ineffective, but existent, Voice
OR
Within Legislation - an effective Voice
IS THE SAME AS
Within Constitution - an effective Voice

So, why not legislate it as a first step?

 

[Bullpit]

Because..... see 118 pages above.

There you go again …… hehe

 

[wendog33]

If you didn’t care how anyone voted why are posting your propaganda.

the yes supporter claws are coming out when they are now being held to account for this reckless use of public taxpayer money.

The only propaganda posted here is your total takeover of the thread.

Just stop tagging me. I have no interest in interacting with your bigotted ideas.

 

[Blue_boost]

I have no interest in interacting with your bigotted ideas.

See… that’s what they label the No voters. But dont offer sensible retorts

I’ll vote NO if you continue! (Or if you dont continue)

 

[wendog33]

See… that’s what they label the No voters. But dont offer sensible retorts

I’ll vote NO if you continue!

Your posts are bigotted. Anyone can see that whether a Yes Or No voter.

Voters can hold a view contrary to yours and either be a Yes or No voter..if they want to evaluate facts based ideas...not batsheet ideas you put up here with your targetted baiting and trolling, for relevance.

Now bugger off.

Vote No if you want. Not a problem.

 

[Wahesh]

Which part?

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

Both bold bits.

You see a lot of the Yes campaigners are young and sheepish and don't understand how this all works.

 

[Blue_boost]

Your posts are bigotted. Anyone can see that whether a Yes Or No voter.

Voters can hold a view contrary to yours and either be a Yes or No voter..if they want to evaluate facts based ideas...not batsheet ideas you put up here with your targetted baiting and trolling, for relevance.

Now bugger off.

Vote No if you want. Not a problem.

lets See on Sunday which side gets up.. the bigotts (according to you) or the gullible

I think my posts cut through the foggy message of the yes campaign and express what most are thinking, tell me why I should support this? Support has Vaporated away from the yes campaign as after months and months still nothing tangible to see

also you did come after me in this thread not the other way round..and then didn’t like it when I disassemble your argument… you have back-pedalled, now claws are out when cornered

reread the first 20 pages to see how smug the yes campaign were? Since then it’s jenga!