Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Nationals MP says 'we need' to give Voice to Parliament 'a go'" video.

Yes it’s a beautiful thing as the National party supposed policy on the Voice crumbles as one after another state and federal members support it and disagree with Littleprouds decision.
1
You misunderstand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. You quite rightly highlight one Senator as opposing a voice and then discount the other 10 indigenous politicians that totally support a voice. If ten doctors tell you you have cancer do you believe the one that doesn’t?
1
@PJRayment Yes, because you don't understand the difference either. Cancer is cancer and what a doctors ideology is has no effect on their ability to diagnose a cancer. What a ridiculous analogy.
1
All is forgiven Phil, we just beat Denmark, whatever silly statements you come up with I’ll agree to cause we are into the rd of 16. Yahoooo!!!!!!!!
1
@PJRayment Phil if you don't understand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition, that is your problem, and I have no idea why or what you are talking about gender dysphoria. I made a simple analogy about concenus. It doesn't mean the 10 doctors who diagnose cancer are correct and the one who doesn't isn't it just means the chances are they 10 are correct, and I don't believe you are that simple that this needs explaining to you.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 I'm not sure why you are yelling, but your reply is just nonsensical ranting. Have you anything sensible to contribute?
1
@PJRayment Right so here we go. Andrew Gee is talking about a voice in the constitution, that is a clause or an amendment in the document that forms the National identity. That is constitutional recognition. It has nothing to do with electing anyone to parliament. The original comment was then about the 11 elected parliamentarians saying this gives them a voice. It doesn’t it gives them a voice it gives them political representation in parliament it doesn’t give them constitutional recognition. The original comment equates a voice with political representation and they are not the same thing at all, but I doubt you will understand this difference because you say you do but display a clear inability to show it.
1
@PJRayment No, No, No, and No. You are making and argument for and against constitutional recognition and the original comment made a misinformed comment equating a voice to political representation. That was wrong and I corrected him on it. The rest of whatever you said was irrelevant. 10 members of Regional Indigenous groups from across the country came out today and declared Ms Price does not speak for us or any of our people. This has been widely reported in the conservative media.
1
@PJRayment You said you understand the difference between constitutional recognition and political representation and then immediately confuse the two by suggesting elected indigenous members provide a constitutional voice. Which clearly any constitutional lawyer will tell you is wrong. On numerous occasions you have claimed to understand the difference and yet display no understanding of this concept at all and this is abundantly clear from your responses. You remain wilfully ignorant.
1
@PJRayment No No No and No. constitutional recognition is not equivalent or similar to political representation. The are completely separate and different fundamentally and your inability to understand this in your repeated responses proves this.
1