What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Gronk

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,719
strider said:
Yeah fine, courts and judges are always right.

I think its perfectly legit to question why something other than the 2 allowed options are allowed. But hey, its clive, so lets snigger and joke like a bunch of 12 year olds about it.

I would hope its not a significant number of votes anyway. But if they were fair dinkum they would make an effort to ensure there is no ambiguity .... but reality is, that they are fine to word it and be flexible in favour of the outcome they want.
Click to expand...
You do realise that Howard’s referendum in 1999 was under the same rules and it worked just fine.

Invalid votes were 0.86%.

en.m.wikipedia.org

1999 Australian republic referendum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

As for Clive Palmer, he is only doing this as a odd job boy for the LNP. That’s what he does. He rides interference like the proverbial bull in a china shop and will spend small change millions in court just to make people like you think that it’s all a bit sus.

Working, right ?
 
Twizzle

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
153,433
TheRam said:
My home is sacred to me as I'm sure your home is sacred to you.

If we listen to every aboriginal group with their hand out the whole of Australia is their sacred land and you and I are just invaders.
Click to expand...

now you're getting it, it's their country and we are the newbies, they should be voting to give us a voice

I can understand how you don't want to lose your home, don't you think they deserve the same courtesy ?
 
strider

strider

Post Whore
Messages
78,987
Gronk said:
You do realise that Howard’s referendum in 1999 was under the same rules and it worked just fine.

Invalid votes were 0.86%.

en.m.wikipedia.org

1999 Australian republic referendum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

As for Clive Palmer, he is only doing this as a odd job boy for the LNP. That’s what he does. He rides interference like the proverbial bull in a china shop and will spend small change millions in court just to make people like you think that it’s all a bit sus.

Working, right ?
Click to expand...
I never said its just this referendum ..... and I already said I doubt it will be a significant number anyway ........ your 0.86% isn't ticks right? they aren't invalid

look at nearly any legit govt form - decades of nitpicking pedant form boffins have come up with ways of making forms less ambiguous

insult people like me all you want - its stupid that we can't come up with something less ambiguous
 
the phantom menace

the phantom menace

Coach
Messages
11,831
TheRam said:
My home is sacred to me as I'm sure your home is sacred to you.

If we listen to every aboriginal group with their hand out the whole of Australia is their sacred land and you and I are just invaders.
Click to expand...
Oh dear...

digging self destruct GIF
 
B

bazza

Immortal
Messages
30,972
strider said:
Yeah fine, courts and judges are always right.

I think its perfectly legit to question why something other than the 2 allowed options are allowed. But hey, its clive, so lets snigger and joke like a bunch of 12 year olds about it.

I would hope its not a significant number of votes anyway. But if they were fair dinkum they would make an effort to ensure there is no ambiguity .... but reality is, that they are fine to word it and be flexible in favour of the outcome they want.
Click to expand...
it's probably easier for you to just write "no" at the referendum
 
Bandwagon

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
45,036
TheRam said:
This statement is total crap.
Click to expand...

This very accurately sums up most every word that follows in that post.

TheRam said:
No one is denying anything.
Click to expand...

Except merkins who deny history, or choose to re-write it as you are attempting here.

Gary Gutful said:
All I did was point out that your potted summary of history was completely f**ken flawed.
Click to expand...

Flawed is an understatement, I'd go with delusional personally.

TheRam said:
and only a small minority of them are actually classed as poor or living on poverty, just like a small minority of other Australians are too.
Click to expand...

Your arguments would be more convincing if they were based in reality...

2020 numbers, general population 13.4% living under the poverty line.

newsroom.unsw.edu.au

One in eight people in Australia is living in poverty, as cost of living pressures increase

A UNSW Sydney and ACOSS partnership research report shows people in poverty are falling behind the rest of society.
newsroom.unsw.edu.au newsroom.unsw.edu.au

2016 numbers for indigenous peoples 31% living under the poverty line.


TheRam said:
and therefore more power over the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha, you're off your head. there is literally nothing in the proposed amendment that gives ATSI peoples "power over the rest of us".

As an aside, can you reconcile your "one big happy family" mantra with this statements very clear delineation of "them" and "us"?
TheRam said:
If we listen to every aboriginal group with their hand out the whole of Australia is their sacred land and you and I are just invaders.
Click to expand...

........and there it is.

They're coming for you whitey.

Just f**king lolz.
 
Bandwagon

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
45,036
The whole x's it's so unfair argument from the no camp is a f**king laugh-a-thon,

The fact is for the yes vote to carry, there has to be a double majority ( majority of people, and a majority of people in a majority of states ) This is a far higher bar than for the no vote to carry.

What the double majority means is that for yes to carry there has to be an overall vote of 50% + 1 vote, and for there to be a majority in four out of six states ( ACT and NT don't count as states for that purpose )


For the no vote to carry, they need either of 50% + 1 vote, or there to be a majority in three out of the six states.

I've seen various analysis' of the breakdown, but what that bar means is that the likely required vote to achieve the double majority is going to be in the order of 52%.

Yet funny I don't see none of the write no in pen so they don't steal your vote brigade so much as give that decided advantage so much as a mention.
 
B

bazza

Immortal
Messages
30,972
Bandwagon said:
The whole x's it's so unfair argument from the no camp is a f**king laugh-a-thon,

The fact is for the yes vote to carry, there has to be a double majority ( majority of people, and a majority of people in a majority of states ) This is a far higher bar than for the no vote to carry.

What the double majority means is that for yes to carry there has to be an overall vote of 50% + 1 vote, and for there to be a majority in four out of six states ( ACT and NT don't count as states for that purpose )


For the no vote to carry, they need either of 50% + 1 vote, or there to be a majority in three out of the six states.

I've seen various analysis' of the breakdown, but what that bar means is that the likely required vote to achieve the double majority is going to be in the order of 52%.

Yet funny I don't see none of the write no in pen so they don't steal your vote brigade so much as give that decided advantage so much as a mention.
Click to expand...
I think it is just that some people like to play the victim
 
Gronk

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,719
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top