Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament won’t give Indigenous Australians a voice: David Littleproud" video.

Actually there are numerous racist comments
1
@blackprince4074 No I have read numerous racist comments that have nothing to do with an argument about a voice in the constitution.
1
You misunderstand political representation with constitutional recognition. A voice has no financial delegation. It can’t by allocate monies to anything. You are factually and demonstrably wrong.
1
285 indigenous elders from every part of the country, region, and groups signed the Uluṟu statement. Approximately 12 refused to and walked out, mostly because in their opinion the voice didn’t go far enough. You are factually and demonstrably wrong.
1
@mtscott Yes it did, it went immediately to the heart of your central point, and you are demonstrably wrong. The other points you made I did not necessarily disagree with but are opinion and that’s fine, you are entitled to them, but facts you are not. There was an extensive consultation process that went for years before the signing of the Uluṟu statement and your ignorance of this process clouds your opinion.
1
@mtscott I have no issue at all with your opinion and you are entirely free to vote “no” and obviously will, but it is based on a demonstrably lie and I suspect some other hidden agenda of which I have no idea.
1
@mtscott Fake nonsensical rubbish from yourself. Sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127, are all explicitly racist. Some have been removed, some amended, some remain. These original clause enabled a racist white Australia policy. A constitutional voice actually provides real equality. Your argument is emotional nonsensical rubbish.
1
@mtscott No the 1901 Australian constitution was explicitly racist. I have no understanding why you would wish for it to remain so.
1
Have you read the detail attached to the Uluṟu statement? It is all explained. Read it and learn
1
Nobody is door knocking
1
Factually incorrect. The constitution has a mechanism by which it can be amended and amendments removed. You are just wrong on this point. Any legislation that is enacted by the parliament can be nullified or amended as required to repair any faults. You are factually wrong on this point too. As for the rest of your comments all you do is describe how democracy works, if somewhat in a cynical manner. The voice however is far more expansive than your strawman fallacious description of it as it specifically includes all regions and groups until the final group of approximately 24 members who voice to the parliament.
1
@grabbag3307 Well I haven’t read or seen one argument that suggests if you are against a voice you are racist. I have had plenty tell me I’m racist for wanting one. As explained in my earlier comment your argument is irrational and stupid and as you point technically just wrong, but it isn’t racist.
1