But were they here when the English claimed Terra Nullius?Originally Posted by BPunter76
‘No’ vote wins 60-40. It’s over
But were they here when the English claimed Terra Nullius?
I'm sure you're taking the piss, as I think everyone knows that some lobby groups are more equal than others.
Meh, what a waste of time. All this energy spent on debating, to come up with essentially nothing. Time to move on...
Respect your opinion
I humbly have the opposing view
$450 million could have employed 450 Special Needs Teachers for an entire decade
It's amazing how wasted taxpayers money of millions of dollars can be seen by some as not a lot of money. Every dollar wasted is a dollar not spent on food for disadvantaged indigenous children, or money that could be spent on indigenous teachers or nurses or welfare workers
Albo's $450m referendum delivered 4 things;
no information, misinformation, disinformation, & fuck all..... the cunt has to go.
We have 26 and a bit million people, roughly 50/50 male and female spit. Sorry girls, I know some of you punt too, just for argument sake, let’s just talk about the dicks on this occasion.
So 13 million males, say the sexually active ages are between 18 and 68 give and take , are around 50% of the population = 6.5 million. One third of them are punters = 3 million.
So that $450 million can give each punter one RnT session of a cheap fuck for 30 min - in balls part, punt intended…… haha
Wonder what the horny chicks will say about that ?
Cheers
In a more serious note, I think Jacinta Price has stood up during this Voice campaign and a breath of fresh air. Let’s hope when the Coalition returns to government she will take over the ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and do some real good things for her people.
Cheers
haha bro you really thought that one through, do you keep an excel sheet too ?
Ever considered leading the country Ahlungor. You have a very balanced view of the world
There's a bigger problem you are failing to see.
The planet has 8 billion inhabitants.
Covid has killed an estimated 6 million people across the planet.
$14 trillion USD was spent worldwide to deal with this man made virus.
And what do we have to show for the $14 trillion?.....Fuck All!
Never ever blindly believe what Governments, education, media, science, religions, lobby groups, world health organisations, politicians etc etc tell you! They are the modern day pied pipers and the people are the rats.
Question everything (use the 7 Why's analysis) and evenyually you'll get to the truth, and when you find the truth... it'll be ugly.
Agree. With this referendum, the Australian public did not accept what they were being told.
Australians took notice of what a first term PM sincerely felt, but they weren't sure about what Voice structure they were creating with a Yes vote.
There should have been a seeking of common ground between parties, a considered and not rushed Constitution Convention consulting widely with an entire country that wants a closure of the Gap
Instead the PM has to wear this result - six of six states voting No is a damning defeat
Australians are fair minded but not easily persuaded by empty gestures. Australians want substance after decades of challenges closing the gap
Appealing to "The vibe" just doesn't work
Let's enact the Voice by legislation, and see if it works and has no unintended consequences such as challenges to the High Court and disruptions to the Executive government doing it's work
The whole referendum was a farce from the beginning, the government arrogantly misread public sentiment from indigenous communities and middle class Australia....people have been disenfranchised, struggling to put food on the table and paying bills and the government is going off on a wild goose chase, frivolously throwing away money like there's no fucken tomorrow.
The only reason some large corporates (eg qantas et al) got behind the YEP campaign was because they were returning the favour after being propped by the government during Covid or wanted to be seen as being socially responsible.
As far as I'm concerned pied piper Albo and his Qantas mate Joyce can both go and get fucked; one for fucking up Qantas and the other for dividing Australia.
https://modernenquirer.substack.com/...a-wake-up-call
In a resounding defeat, the Voice to Parliament referendum has spoken loudly, and its message cannot be ignored.
While celebrities and Fortune 500 companies expected this initiative to be embraced with open arms, it became clear that the vision of inner-city elites was not as universally appealing as they assumed.
The referendum's outcome served as a stark reminder that the voices of indigenous Australians will not be used as ideological tools in a perverted culture war.
Inner-city progressives, have for too long, dominated the conversation around indigenous issues in Australia, perpetuating a self-righteous stance that portrays Aboriginals as pawns to be used against their political adversaries.
The prevalence of virtue signaling and the exploitation of social or political issues for personal gain has regrettably become a prevailing norm in Australian discourse, casting a shadow over sincere endeavors to tackle the complex and enduring challenges confronting indigenous communities.
Many individuals, corporations, and politicians found it more convenient to publicly align themselves with the Voice, including those related to indigenous rights, by moralising to the Australian public, without making any substantial contributions to real solutions.
In their quest for political correctness and public approval, these moralists reduced the complex, multifaceted challenges to simplistic, ideological narratives that divided the country. They portrayed indigenous Australians as passive victims who need to be rescued, rather than acknowledging their agency and resilience.
This oversimplification objectified indigenous people, treating them as instruments to advance personal or political agendas, rather than as individuals with their own diverse experiences, voices, and needs.
The manipulation of these issues for political gain diluted the authenticity of the discourse and fostered deep skepticism among the Yes campaign. Indigenous communities, who have long been marginalized and disenfranchised, refused to be caught in the crossfire of these political battles.
The "Yes" campaign's relentless pursuit of a positive outcome, while simultaneously stigmatising those with opposing views as racists, undeniably played a pivotal role in its ultimate failure. This approach proved detrimental in several ways.
Firstly, by characterizing dissenters as inherently racist, the campaign oversimplified a multifaceted and deeply rooted issue. It failed to acknowledge that genuine concerns, cultural differences, and diverse perspectives exist within the debate. In doing so, it alienated potential allies who might have supported the cause had their concerns been genuinely heard and addressed.
Secondly, the reductionist rhetoric created a climate of fear and intimidation, discouraging open and honest discussions. Many individuals were hesitant to express their reservations or seek clarification, fearing social or professional backlash. This environment stifled the free exchange of ideas and hindered the campaign's ability to address the concerns and questions of those who might have been receptive to a "Yes" vote with a more nuanced approach.
The campaign's divisive tactics led to a polarization of the debate. It framed the issue as a stark "Us vs. Them" scenario, contributing to heightened tensions and resistance to compromise. As a result, meaningful dialogue and the exploration of potential common ground were obstructed.
The "Yes" campaign's strategy of branding dissenting voices as racist not only oversimplified a complex issue but also created a hostile atmosphere, stifled constructive dialogue, and deepened divisions. These factors significantly contributed to the campaign's ultimate failure to secure its objective, underscoring the importance of a more inclusive and nuanced approach when addressing complex societal issues.
The 'Voice' proposition, which was presented as a panacea for indigenous issues, proved to be misleading and tone-deaf to the real plight of indigenous communities.
The rejection from regions with the largest indigenous populations is a testament to this fact.
Child abuse, a pressing issue in indigenous communities, remains a harsh and unfortunate reality. This problem extends far beyond just the physical abuse; it encompasses neglect, emotional abuse, and a lack of resources for affected children. The Voice to Parliament referendum offered no concrete measures to combat child abuse, leaving indigenous children vulnerable and unheard.
Squalid living conditions are another major concern that the 'Yes' campaign seemed to downplay. In some communities, indigenous families live in overcrowded, inadequate housing, with limited access to clean water and proper sanitation. Instead of focusing on addressing these immediate needs, the referendum appeared more interested in creating a bureaucratic entity fuelled by ideological division.
Rape and sexual violence have plagued many indigenous communities for far too long. The 'Voice' proposal failed to address the need for increased law enforcement presence and resources to combat these issues effectively. Indigenous women and girls deserve better than lip service; they need genuine support and protection from these heinous crimes.
Malnourishment and poverty are pervasive problems in indigenous communities, and they have dire consequences for health and well-being. The referendum's defeat is a testament to the inadequacy of the proposed solution to tackle these fundamental issues. What indigenous Australians need are initiatives focused on providing nutritious food, better education, and employment opportunities, not an abstract 'Voice' to Parliament.
The relationship between poverty and crime is undeniable, and indigenous communities are not exempt from this harsh reality. While urban progressives were busy championing their vision of a utopia, they seemed to overlook the fact that economic opportunities are the most effective way to reduce crime rates.
Rather than focusing on creating yet another bureaucratic layer, genuine support should be directed towards helping indigenous Australians access education and employment.
The 'Yes' campaign's pitch was centered on the notion that the Voice to Parliament would bring forth sweeping change, yet it failed to address the immediate and pressing issues that indigenous Australians grapple with every day. How can an elaborate, and highly confusing, bureaucratic structure solve the crises of child abuse, rape, malnourishment, and poverty that continue to plague indigenous communities? The answer is, it cannot.
Indigenous Australians are not interested in lofty, idealistic rhetoric; they need practical solutions. They need action on the ground, resources to improve living conditions, and targeted support for healthcare and education. They need meaningful economic opportunities that can uplift them from the cycle of poverty and crime. While inner-city progressives championed the Voice to Parliament, they have shown themselves to be out of touch with reality.
The rejection of the referendum does not signify a lack of support for indigenous voices; rather, it underscores the rejection of an ineffective, top-down approach built on racial segregation that fails to address the root causes of indigenous suffering.
The defeat of the referendum is a wake-up call for inner-city progressives to realign their moral compasses and start engaging with reality.
====
Would be interesting to see the actual number of Yes or No votes instead of by electorate. Anybody know where I can find that stat?
Yes voters should take solace. You can’t achieve a 61% to 39% split without being the beneficiary of a vast amount of collective wisdom of literally millions of reasonable people. Except for the hard casers, Yes voters will come to realise that.
It comes down to “hands off our fucking constitution.” For good reasons have Australians over the past hundred years have had to be mightily convinced to change it. It is nothing to do with being influenced by the US, we already put a great value on our constitution.
To quote an expression:
“Trouble is, some people won’t take NO for an answer”.
I must admit, I am completely confused with how this referendum works. I even do not understand how the media coverage works.
I know that, for it to pass, it needs a "double majority", ie. a National Majority which is a simple count of Yes / No votes nationally regardless of electorate, and a majority of states to have voted for one way or another.
So 2 questions come to mind:
1. Why is the media coverage going on and on about the results by electorate, as if it was an election? Is it not a National count?
2. With an even number of states, what would've happened if there was a tie? That's highly likely with an even number of states.
Genuinely curious about how referendums work in this country because this is actually the first time I'm participating in one.
I’m guessing places like Newtown, Marrickville etc voted Yes
I’d like to see the suburban breakdown.
You wouldn't be too far off. Take a look at this article, doesn't go by suburb, but Sydney metro area is majority Yes:
https://www.news.com.au/national/pol...7f8aa3e8cfac54
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|