Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Australians warned not to be ‘fooled’ by Voice Yes advocates change of strategy" video.

  1. That’s a big claim. Firstly there are many conservatives politicians who have expressed support for a yes vote and some polling I read suggested indigenous people support a yes vote at about 83%, are you suggesting 83% of indigenous people a leftists, seems a bit ludicrous to me.
    2
  2. Nope the US deals with it all the time, between state and federal. It complicated but works. Do some reading.
    2
  3.  @ricochet2977  Factually incorrect. At no stage during the process to Federate our states or construct our constitution were Aboriginals consulted. In fact three sections of our original constitution were explicitly racist. 25, 51(xxiv), and 127. You need to learn some Australian history. Factually incorrect again. The US has a federal constitution and the states also have constitutions. Learn US history as well.
    2
  4. Yeah those transportable kidney machines the NIAA payed for, completely wasted. No point trying to improve the quality of life of remote indigenous people.
    1
  5.  @Col-P1z  You don’t really understand how the AEC conducts federal elections or referendums do you.
    1
  6. You don’t know much about English law do you. If hypothetically the British had declared war and then victory over the Aboriginal peoples a whole host of laws would have come into effect. There were National codes of war in 1788. Treaties would need to have been signed.
    1
  7.  @mj_aussie_coaster_travels8310  A voice as structured according to the submissions presented to the previous LNP government explicitly prevent a situation as you described, so I have no idea where you are getting your information from. Instagram probably. A constitutional voice whether you agree with its ability to provide a better outcome for indigenous people is irrelevant. A voice is what the indigenous community asked for. Of course you know what’s better for the indigenous community more than the indigenous people itself.
    1
  8.  @jujumaccas  Actually a couple of polls show support for a voice amongst indigenous people to be above 80%. 812728 people identified as being indigenous at the last census. Yes that amount of people over 6 states and territories will not be able influence the referendum and I never suggested it could. What I suggested was the claim that over 80% of indigenous people are leftist. That to me sounds a little silly.
    1
  9. Factually incorrect. Your DNA is exactly the same as mine and every other homo sapien on the planet. Your genealogy may very well be different. You need to use the correct terminology. Factually wrong again. An advisory body in the constitution is not political representation. They are completely separate and do not provide the same function. I understand you will vote no, and that is your choice, good luck to you, just beware it clearly comes of a position of utter ignorance on your part. It’s a real shame that with a better education you may have been better informed on what the “voice” is. I have no idea at all why you think it is racist.
    1
  10.  @sandrajohn9837  explain to me why an advisory body needs to be democratically elected. Non of the multiple other advisory bodies to parliament/government are elected. The chief of the ADF isn’t elected. The chairperson of the productivity commission was just appointed by the government. Your argument is fallacious nonsense. Surely it is plain out and out bigotry to only appoint the a military officer to the chief of the Defence force. Give someone else a go.
    1
  11. Why not? The US did it.
    1
  12. OMG another RWNJ conspiracy theorist. Provide one piece of evidence of voter fraud by the AEC.
    1
  13.  @MichaelIrwin-j3m  Such utter ignorance on display is truly breathtaking. Our own High Court established through English common law that indigenous groups can successfully establish land ownership. It was called the “Mabo” decision and it initiated government legislation called “native title”. You are factually and demonstratively wrong in your entire comment. It is as if you have no proof of ever being educated.
    1
  14.  @goldenautumn3073  You provide no evidence of your nonsensical rant. Just emotive rhetoric. I provided factual data in the form of High court decisions on our constitution and federal legislation regarding land ownership. All you provided was childish foot stamping amounting to I don’t like it. Tough it’s the law.
    1
  15. OMG what institute of lunacy did you get your bush lawyer qualification from?
    1
  16.  @jemzargo  I’m glad you realise that.
    1
  17. How can an advisory body with no veto power, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation be considered any sort of parliament? You’re no spreading misinformation just sheer stupidity. Your idiocy has been completely rejected by the Solicitor General, three High Court judges, and numerous constitutional experts and academics. There is no need to fact check the ridiculous.
    1