BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

[…]

It wasn't legislation, it was a change to our Constitution, the legislation was going to be figure out "later".

Whatever, point still stands though.

Not really, this is would have been a change that required another expensive referendum and a double majority to undo, not just within parliament.  This wasn't something that is like say banning guns or recognising indigenous Australians as people rather than fauna. This was something that needed pretty clear details other than "if you vote no you're a racist". That's ultimately why it failed

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I wonder why people would think that native americans would need an extra apparatus in the first place.

OK, so you're racist.

very racist

Dilbert_X wrote:

The problem was it was a lot more than an "advisory body"

Advisory bodies can be tacked onto anything without legislation, to change the constitution to insert an "advisory body" was colossal overkill which really suggested it wasn't an advisory body at all.

Try this:

"Lets change the American constitution so congress must consult with a native american advisory body on all matters."

What would that mean in practice? Any idea? This is what we asked to vote for with no detail beyond that.

"Trust us, we'll tell you the detail later, it'll be fine, if you don't you're a racist"

60% said No.

it can be anything parliament wants, whcih parliament can already do and there's nothing preventing that.

it can be as much as "let aboroginals run the shop" to "here's one guy thats gonna talk to the PM, house of reps, and senate for 3 minutes every 10 years".

I thought that was a compliment in aus

If there had been a sensible proposal and a coherent argument it would have gone through.

As it was there was literally nothing and it got 40% of the vote

Makes you think.

Well then the inane and passive catchphrase would have lost.

But really, the PMs lifelong project "You should vote for it because, uh, yeah"

So anyway, why doesn't the US govt have a mandatory advisory body of native americans they have to run everything past?

It wasn't so much the campaign as there was just nothing there.

"Vote yes and we'll work out the rest of it later"

Dilbert_X wrote:

So anyway, why doesn't the US govt have a mandatory advisory body of native americans they have to run everything past?

We have all kinds of advisory councils on stuff. Though apparently, they could use more potency since we can still run any leaky, toxic pipeline through their lands we want.

People will say that they get to have casinos where casinos probably wouldn't be allowed, so not only is racism over but it's racism in their favor. I'd think most would rather have their people's land back, but we have to work with what's actionable y'know! More token gestures, and more water-table-poisoning pipelines it is.

Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion. Less interested if they're overly short, rhyme, and fit on a button.

Oversimplifying it, they have a form of limited sovereignty. Less simplified, it's complex and changes. (Side note: Indian government itself influenced US government despite how people like to imagine it stemming purely from Greek philosophers or whatever.)

The formation of Australia and USA took place under different atmospheres anyway. Overly comparing the two should be backed up.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion. Less interested if they're overly short, rhyme, and fit on a button.

why shouldn't it? a native american council that will have a constitutional right to advocate on the behalf of all native americans to both congress and the president. would the americans support it?

Last edited by Cybargs (2023-10-22 04:38:55)

Cybargs wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion. Less interested if they're overly short, rhyme, and fit on a button.

why shouldn't it? a native american council that will have a constitutional right to advocate on the behalf of all native americans to both congress and the president. would the americans support it?

I'm not sure what smirking gotcha angle, if any, you and dilbert are aiming for.

The whole argument dilbert has of "well why not give Blacks their own branch of government" is a little apples to oranges. Such a thing with its more clearly racial overtones (pfft, as if the us government doesn't have a history of that) probably shouldn't be considered the same way as indigenous polities.

As opposed to a country just doing whatever it appallingly pleases with the indigenous, the idea of a constitutionally reinforced entities such as advisories and arms in legislature is on the surface an attractive one and maybe should be trialed and hashed out if current representations and councils are insufficient.

If a proposal isn't well fleshed-out or a Bad Idea, opposition should at the very least articulate why with the same energy as they output their one-line catchphrase.

But that's just like, my opinion man.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-10-22 11:22:40)

abc seems to put it succinctly here:

It was an emphatic No from Australians who were unconvinced by an ineffectual Yes campaign and a simplistic but persuasive No campaign which ran rings around its opponent online.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/ … /102977272

in unrelated, antivax australian politics:


Failed Senate candidate and anti-vaccine protester denies assaulting police officer
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-17/ … /102985502

huh.