I’d like an overlay with media diversity data thrown in and analysed as well.
In any case, many want a different approach. I hope that the majority want an approach that is not to continue with the status quo, and to create a strong representation of the indigenous population within our system.
In any case, many want a different approach. I hope that the majority want an approach that is not to continue with the status quo, and to create a strong representation of the indigenous population within our system.
Not going to happen.
The people who voted “no” while pretending the vote didn’t live up to their standards are not going to suddenly start financing and supporting one that does because.
The standard was created with the intention that nothing will ever live up to it.
What rubbish. The voice was a virtue signalling nothing-sauce for indigenous people. It was so inner city white lefties can feel smug about themselves for beating racism while not actually doing anything of meaning.
The standard is “not putting useless shit in the constitution”.
Okay, what’s your solution that isn’t “virtue signalling nothing-sauce”? It wouldn’t happen to be “do nothing” would it?
No, it wouldn’t. Make an indigenous government board and give them protected senate seats, like 10 of them so they have actual real power. Have them handle all indigenous related government projects, and fund them to be able to make real change. Actually give them the power and money to make change, not just give them a “seat at the table” but then no power to be able to do anything at the table other than be ignored until they all quit. How does that sound?
Most people don’t want nothing done, but they don’t want to do something that the best thing even the most ardent supporters can say for it is “maybe, maybe, it might lead to something good one day?”. If we’re going to change the constitution, something that happens very very rarely, let’s actually add something worthwhile into it!
A standard that’s apparently very important to people who can’t name a single thing that’s actually in the constitution.
Make an indigenous government board and give them protected senate seats, like 10 of them so they have actual real power.
Cool sounds good. Pitch it to the “no” vote groups. They spent millions of dollars pushing the no vote, so if you’re correct about their motivations, I’m sure they’ll be eager to support it and shake off any accusations they might have just astro-turfed over bigotry.
Or is this more of a Liberal Party election promise kind of thing?
What are you basing this on?
I am basing this on asking every no voter I met face to face to tell me a single thing in the constitution. The one outside the polling place, wearing a “no” shirt and handing out “no” flyers, said “freedom of speech”.
Cool sounds good. Pitch it to the “no” vote groups. They spent millions of dollars pushing the no vote, so if you’re correct about their motivations, I’m sure they’ll be eager to support it and shake off any accusations they might have just astro-turfed over bigotry.
Or is this more of a Liberal Party election promise kind of thing?
That’s not my job, it’s the governments. They thought this “voice” would be a better idea than mine, which goes to show you their motivations - virtue signalling. They don’t want real change, they just want to keep lining their own pockets without doing anything to help indigenous people.
FYI I’ve literally never voted LNP. Likely never will. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor in the last 20 years. Good try on making me out to be a stuck in the mud LNP voter though. Keep attacking the people you need on your side though, look how well it worked for you for this referendum. Keep calling people racist and abusing them, they’ll definitely come around. We all know that’s the way to change peoples minds.
To me, you’re the conservative one. You’re the one that was happy to just do as little as possible.
Gotcha, its only your job to advocate against votes, not for them.
Keep attacking the people you need on your side though, look how well it worked for you for this referendum.
Weren’t you supposed to be insisting that the “no” vote was a noble, pure of heart endeavour by highly moral people such as yourself?
Because that sounds a lot like “I will throw people under the bus out of spite unless they’re nicer to me”.
Actually, not even to you, to groups you’ve decided are you, like the people who flock to discussions on domestic violence and abuse to insist “not all men” because they feel personally attacked by the mere discussion.
Keep calling people racist and abusing them, they’ll definitely come around.
You deciding that every comment is about you is not my problem and people not immediately fellating you and your opinions doesn’t constitute “abuse”.
To me, you’re the conservative one. You’re the one that was happy to just do as little as possible.
Nothing says “conservative” like staunchly insisting that no gesture towards a minority group, however small, is to be carried out without your rubber stamp of approval.
Maybe next election, you can work with mining and oil companies to undermine any climate change promises because you don’t think it goes far enough, since it almost certainly won’t.
I’ve never advocated for people to vote no. People can vote however they want. It’s not my job to make policies for the government. If they want to hire me to do it they know where to find me. I certainly wouldn’t have suggested the referendum they did because it was a loser from day 1. It was too vague and was of questionable benefit at best.
I never attacked anyone for their vote, unlike the vocal Yes side. A huge portion of the No voters absolutely want more help for indigenous people than the virtue signalling yes voters.
Who exactly did I throw under the bus?
If you think that that was me “making every comment about me” then your reading and interpretation skills are sorely lacking. I’m commenting on the common theme of yes voters to call every no voter a racist, and how it is a flawed and stupid strategy that literally never works.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s just bizarre. Again - greens voter here. Im the one wanting actual change. I’m the person that wanted a full fibre NBN while people like you would go “hell yes I’ll take a nation wide ADSL2 network! That’s better than ADSL and it might one day maybe lead to something better”.
I’d like an overlay with media diversity data thrown in and analysed as well.
In any case, many want a different approach. I hope that the majority want an approach that is not to continue with the status quo, and to create a strong representation of the indigenous population within our system.
Not going to happen.
The people who voted “no” while pretending the vote didn’t live up to their standards are not going to suddenly start financing and supporting one that does because.
The standard was created with the intention that nothing will ever live up to it.
What rubbish. The voice was a virtue signalling nothing-sauce for indigenous people. It was so inner city white lefties can feel smug about themselves for beating racism while not actually doing anything of meaning.
The standard is “not putting useless shit in the constitution”.
Okay, what’s your solution that isn’t “virtue signalling nothing-sauce”? It wouldn’t happen to be “do nothing” would it?
A standard that’s apparently very important to people who can’t name a single thing that’s actually in the constitution.
No, it wouldn’t. Make an indigenous government board and give them protected senate seats, like 10 of them so they have actual real power. Have them handle all indigenous related government projects, and fund them to be able to make real change. Actually give them the power and money to make change, not just give them a “seat at the table” but then no power to be able to do anything at the table other than be ignored until they all quit. How does that sound?
Most people don’t want nothing done, but they don’t want to do something that the best thing even the most ardent supporters can say for it is “maybe, maybe, it might lead to something good one day?”. If we’re going to change the constitution, something that happens very very rarely, let’s actually add something worthwhile into it!
What are you basing this on?
Cool sounds good. Pitch it to the “no” vote groups. They spent millions of dollars pushing the no vote, so if you’re correct about their motivations, I’m sure they’ll be eager to support it and shake off any accusations they might have just astro-turfed over bigotry.
Or is this more of a Liberal Party election promise kind of thing?
I am basing this on asking every no voter I met face to face to tell me a single thing in the constitution. The one outside the polling place, wearing a “no” shirt and handing out “no” flyers, said “freedom of speech”.
That’s not my job, it’s the governments. They thought this “voice” would be a better idea than mine, which goes to show you their motivations - virtue signalling. They don’t want real change, they just want to keep lining their own pockets without doing anything to help indigenous people.
FYI I’ve literally never voted LNP. Likely never will. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor in the last 20 years. Good try on making me out to be a stuck in the mud LNP voter though. Keep attacking the people you need on your side though, look how well it worked for you for this referendum. Keep calling people racist and abusing them, they’ll definitely come around. We all know that’s the way to change peoples minds.
To me, you’re the conservative one. You’re the one that was happy to just do as little as possible.
Gotcha, its only your job to advocate against votes, not for them.
Weren’t you supposed to be insisting that the “no” vote was a noble, pure of heart endeavour by highly moral people such as yourself?
Because that sounds a lot like “I will throw people under the bus out of spite unless they’re nicer to me”.
Actually, not even to you, to groups you’ve decided are you, like the people who flock to discussions on domestic violence and abuse to insist “not all men” because they feel personally attacked by the mere discussion.
You deciding that every comment is about you is not my problem and people not immediately fellating you and your opinions doesn’t constitute “abuse”.
Nothing says “conservative” like staunchly insisting that no gesture towards a minority group, however small, is to be carried out without your rubber stamp of approval.
Maybe next election, you can work with mining and oil companies to undermine any climate change promises because you don’t think it goes far enough, since it almost certainly won’t.
I’ve never advocated for people to vote no. People can vote however they want. It’s not my job to make policies for the government. If they want to hire me to do it they know where to find me. I certainly wouldn’t have suggested the referendum they did because it was a loser from day 1. It was too vague and was of questionable benefit at best.
I never attacked anyone for their vote, unlike the vocal Yes side. A huge portion of the No voters absolutely want more help for indigenous people than the virtue signalling yes voters.
Who exactly did I throw under the bus?
If you think that that was me “making every comment about me” then your reading and interpretation skills are sorely lacking. I’m commenting on the common theme of yes voters to call every no voter a racist, and how it is a flawed and stupid strategy that literally never works.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s just bizarre. Again - greens voter here. Im the one wanting actual change. I’m the person that wanted a full fibre NBN while people like you would go “hell yes I’ll take a nation wide ADSL2 network! That’s better than ADSL and it might one day maybe lead to something better”.
Wait, what? We actually have some media diversity?