Jfc. You're a lot better at moving goalposts than showing anything reputable that contradicts decades of research by countless independent groups. Take some of your own advice: grow the fuck up. Have some respect for people other than yourself.
The important thing to note is: Australia has a genuinely solid chance of removing the right-wing nutjobs / spineless centrist two-party system BECAUSE of mandatory voting. Young people in USA have appalling voter turn out. But young people in Australia are seriously turning the tides. See the results by age group for the 2019 election. The boomers are still voting in right-wing nutjobs (Liberal party), most groups have strong centrist representation (Labor), and Gen Z are bringing in a third, non-major, left-aligned party (Greens). It brings so much hope for younger generations and the fact that voting doesn't feel futile.
Whether or not they did anything wrong (and they almost certainly did)
And of course I don't consider people linked to him through victimhood the same as the powerful men I was talking about. No good faith reading of my comment could possibly suggest otherwise.
Don't really know how you can take this in a good faith understanding. You've literally just said that any name appearing in the document almost certainly did the wrong thing. Just acknowledge that there is necessary nuance here - some people named in that document have done nothing wrong.
Obviously, for anyone that underwent business or other dealings with Epstein, while knowing what we was: burn them. But the guillotine should never be indiscriminate.
63% voted for it after one of the strongest, most targeted disinformation campaigns that Australia had ever seen. The right-wing parties have made this issue so incredibly divisive and inflammatory. Anecdotally, some Indigenous people, who did not want to be the target of further abuse from racist Australians, were convinced that the Voice would make the abuse even worse because of the ongoing hate and outrage they have experienced during this entire debate. I can understand why they wouldn't want that experience to solidify constitutionally.
Why not within the constitution? The only distinction is that it can't be removed by the Liberal party, again.
The thing is though, Indigenous Australians ARE distinct from other races in Australia. They are indigenous, and they have been colonised. They have strong justifications to seek the right to determine their own future in this country.
At NO point has there ever been no detail about this. It is an advisory body to Parliament. When Parliament is making decisions, it can seek advice from this Indigenous-focused body. It is that simple. But by having the Murdoch press and Liberal government shovel this "ohhh but but but there's no detail!" line over and over and over again, people started to believe it. For no fucking reason, since the purpose of the Voice has been clear since day 1.