Ollfardh wrote:
Well 2016 had at least two votes that were a lot worse for the world, so let's just give them what they want, even if we think it might go wrong. If they want to pay a price for indepence, let them.
Well, which votes are you talking about? I actually can't remember anything more stupid.
The problem is that spain will pay the price as well, so why not let the full country vote?
That's like saying all of the EU should have voted on the Brexit..
As if that really affects us, what the UK does. Nowhere near as how catalonia affects spain.
1) How does one measure the impact?
2) What is an acceptable impact and what is not?
3) What are your sources for this claim?
Ollfardh wrote:
Well 2016 had at least two votes that were a lot worse for the world, so let's just give them what they want, even if we think it might go wrong. If they want to pay a price for indepence, let them.
Well, which votes are you talking about? I actually can't remember anything more stupid.
The problem is that spain will pay the price as well, so why not let the full country vote?
I assume he means Trump and Brexit.
Ah well, I can understand that. I prefered Trump over Clinton and I think that Brexit is a good long term thing. I would like to have Germany out of the Euro at least, but that will never happen.
Germany will BE Europe once the UK leaves. Who else is going to be funding the EU?
I think my initial prediction that the UK will never actually leave is starting to come true.
The Conservatives are doing a great job of getting the worst deal possible so they have the excuse to put the vote back to the public. The problem was the Brexit voters voted on what was possible from the UK leaving the EU, an independent country controlling it's own borders, making it's own laws and investing it's money into itself rather than paying it all out to Eastern Europe and getting nothing back. The government is deliberately trying to get the worst deal possible so we will never be leaving as a truly independent country. They are even talking about continuing to pay into the EU after we leave. How the bloody hell does that work?
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Paul23 wrote:
The problem is that spain will pay the price as well, so why not let the full country vote?
I'm not an expert on the Spanish economy so am weary of answering this, but from what I know Catalonia know they will have some form of price to pay and so you may be right there (in your other post) - apparently the unionists outnumber the nationalists 60/40 irl but if you were going to vote no and some police started brutally attacking anybody who voted no matter who for you wouldn't make the effort just to vote in an illegal poll just to vote for it to not mean anything
But all of Spain voting isn't the right path either. Think of, using the UKIP agenda, how the EU had to keep Britain because Britain put so much into the EU's economy but didn't take as much. Despite if that is true or not, that sounds great for the EU, so they'd vote Britain in! But Britain, as we saw, voted themselves out.
Catalonia make Spain a lot of money (on our news it said same GDP as Portugal!) so money isn't the issue for them having independence in that they couldn't sustain a country. Spain need them for their money as well as other reasons - not losing the Basque Country to the same situation among them I guess. So having all of Spain vote will probably result in an even more major majority for unionism - I guess. If you got to vote over whether one of your top moneymaking regions gave you money or gave you no money what would you say? I know it isn't that simple but we all know how campaigners on either side of any issue can make things be - it can be simple, too simple, or not even related to the issue at hand (see Australia right now ).
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant." [ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
Paul23 wrote:
The problem is that spain will pay the price as well, so why not let the full country vote?
I'm not an expert on the Spanish economy so am weary of answering this, but from what I know Catalonia know they will have some form of price to pay and so you may be right there (in your other post) - apparently the unionists outnumber the nationalists 60/40 irl but if you were going to vote no and some police started brutally attacking anybody who voted no matter who for you wouldn't make the effort just to vote in an illegal poll just to vote for it to not mean anything
But all of Spain voting isn't the right path either. Think of, using the UKIP agenda, how the EU had to keep Britain because Britain put so much into the EU's economy but didn't take as much. Despite if that is true or not, that sounds great for the EU, so they'd vote Britain in! But Britain, as we saw, voted themselves out.
Catalonia make Spain a lot of money (on our news it said same GDP as Portugal!) so money isn't the issue for them having independence in that they couldn't sustain a country. Spain need them for their money as well as other reasons - not losing the Basque Country to the same situation among them I guess. So having all of Spain vote will probably result in an even more major majority for unionism - I guess. If you got to vote over whether one of your top moneymaking regions gave you money or gave you no money what would you say? I know it isn't that simple but we all know how campaigners on either side of any issue can make things be - it can be simple, too simple, or not even related to the issue at hand (see Australia right now ).
That's what I'm talking about. The vote doesn't really count, but apparently the catalonian (I call it government) told everyone that they will leave, if they vote independence...without any rights to do so.
The police in spain then was sent to end this, because the police in catalonia refused to do so. And then it's basically pretty unclear. It's a mix of police violence and attacks by voters. The police violence was unnecessary, but on the other hand, you should do, what the police tells you and not throw stones at them.(or molotovs, but that's germany and france)
The police used rubber ammonition. Something I wanted the police to use in Hamburg this year. I think it's the right thing, if stuff gets waaaay outta hand, but I don't think they should've used it in spain.
The problem with that: "so money isn't the issue for them having independence in that they couldn't sustain a country"
is that it will become a problem. Companies will move away. Catalonia was lucky that they got all the companies in the first place, but when they are out of the EU, they will probably leave, leaving catalonia to crumble within months.
Ollfardh wrote:
Well 2016 had at least two votes that were a lot worse for the world, so let's just give them what they want, even if we think it might go wrong. If they want to pay a price for indepence, let them.
Well, which votes are you talking about? I actually can't remember anything more stupid.
The problem is that spain will pay the price as well, so why not let the full country vote?
That's like saying all of the EU should have voted on the Brexit..
As if that really affects us, what the UK does. Nowhere near as how catalonia affects spain.
1) How does one measure the impact?
2) What is an acceptable impact and what is not?
3) What are your sources for this claim?
Britain wasn't really 100% invested in the EU anyways, they also didn't have the Euro, so when they leave it will not change to much for us in the EU.
Catalonia is an integral part of Spain. Should they leave spain, they're out of the EU and the Euro. They would need to come up with their own currency pretty quick. Spain already has money problem and those won't be getting bigger, when catalonia leaves.
Leaving an entire currency is different to just leaving the EU. GB is big enough to stand on it's own two feet and Catalonia is not. They are no Switzerland.
Do I need sources for logical thinking?
Well, how do I measure the impact? Well, let's see it that way. Catalonia leaving spain is basically like Germany leaving the Euro and the EU, but also not. You see, without Germany, the Euro would be much cheaper and with that, working better for the other countries. Catalonia has just a small impact on the EU and the Euro. It's too small, so you probably won't notice a thing. The main problem is the impact for spain. Spain basically directly gets money from catalonia, so there's a direct impact, whilst there is not a direct impact in germany or GB(for that case) leaving.
I never talked about an "acceptable impact" or something similar. I'm not the one to measure that. I just think it's a stupid idea to vote about that nonsense. I'm not the judge on that. Neither am I the one in charge.
A same-sex marriage postal survey (not referendum) where the no campaign are going on about things slightly related to the topic, such as religious freedom and giving all kids options to wear all uniforms, which whilst they should be part of the debate is nothing to do with giving all people the right to be married, which is all the survey is about, they aren't voting on a bill saying "disband christianity and everybody has to be gay" which is what the no campaign seem to be trying to imply they will do.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant." [ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
A same-sex marriage postal survey (not referendum) where the no campaign are going on about things slightly related to the topic, such as religious freedom and giving all kids options to wear all uniforms, which whilst they should be part of the debate is nothing to do with giving all people the right to be married, which is all the survey is about, they aren't voting on a bill saying "disband christianity and everybody has to be gay" which is what the no campaign seem to be trying to imply they will do.
Well, same-sex marriage is a difficult topic. I can kinda understand both sides. When you define marriage as a bond between a woman and a man, obviously you're against it, but that doesn't mean you're against gay people and on the other hand, it's a nice thing to allow everything to everyone and not exclude them. I'm against it, but I would never go after someone who's for it. And yes, I can agree that both sides overdo it. For some it's basically hell and for the other side it's basically the best thing in the world.
What I don't get...who's creating those surveys? You should at least ask people directly and not indirect, if you decide to ask them.
A same-sex marriage postal survey (not referendum) where the no campaign are going on about things slightly related to the topic, such as religious freedom and giving all kids options to wear all uniforms, which whilst they should be part of the debate is nothing to do with giving all people the right to be married, which is all the survey is about, they aren't voting on a bill saying "disband christianity and everybody has to be gay" which is what the no campaign seem to be trying to imply they will do.
Well, same-sex marriage is a difficult topic. I can kinda understand both sides. When you define marriage as a bond between a woman and a man, obviously you're against it, but that doesn't mean you're against gay people and on the other hand, it's a nice thing to allow everything to everyone and not exclude them. I'm against it, but I would never go after someone who's for it. And yes, I can agree that both sides overdo it. For some it's basically hell and for the other side it's basically the best thing in the world.
What I don't get...who's creating those surveys? You should at least ask people directly and not indirect, if you decide to ask them.
It's by the government, sort of.
Well I guess we can agree to disagree on that then. The yes campaign I know less about but I think they are trying to focus just on marriage because it's only to gauge support for some form of bill, with religious freedom (which I am against on the scales many want but not my country ) being discussed then. Maybe an actual Aussie can inform us both a bit better on how it's going though
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant." [ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
A same-sex marriage postal survey (not referendum) where the no campaign are going on about things slightly related to the topic, such as religious freedom and giving all kids options to wear all uniforms, which whilst they should be part of the debate is nothing to do with giving all people the right to be married, which is all the survey is about, they aren't voting on a bill saying "disband christianity and everybody has to be gay" which is what the no campaign seem to be trying to imply they will do.
Well, same-sex marriage is a difficult topic. I can kinda understand both sides. When you define marriage as a bond between a woman and a man, obviously you're against it, but that doesn't mean you're against gay people and on the other hand, it's a nice thing to allow everything to everyone and not exclude them. I'm against it, but I would never go after someone who's for it. And yes, I can agree that both sides overdo it. For some it's basically hell and for the other side it's basically the best thing in the world.
What I don't get...who's creating those surveys? You should at least ask people directly and not indirect, if you decide to ask them.
It's by the government, sort of.
Well I guess we can agree to disagree on that then. The yes campaign I know less about but I think they are trying to focus just on marriage because it's only to gauge support for some form of bill, with religious freedom (which I am against on the scales many want but not my country ) being discussed then. Maybe an actual Aussie can inform us both a bit better on how it's going though
A same-sex marriage postal survey (not referendum) where the no campaign are going on about things slightly related to the topic, such as religious freedom and giving all kids options to wear all uniforms, which whilst they should be part of the debate is nothing to do with giving all people the right to be married, which is all the survey is about, they aren't voting on a bill saying "disband christianity and everybody has to be gay" which is what the no campaign seem to be trying to imply they will do.
Well, same-sex marriage is a difficult topic. I can kinda understand both sides. When you define marriage as a bond between a woman and a man, obviously you're against it, but that doesn't mean you're against gay people and on the other hand, it's a nice thing to allow everything to everyone and not exclude them. I'm against it, but I would never go after someone who's for it. And yes, I can agree that both sides overdo it. For some it's basically hell and for the other side it's basically the best thing in the world.
What I don't get...who's creating those surveys? You should at least ask people directly and not indirect, if you decide to ask them.
It's by the government, sort of.
Well I guess we can agree to disagree on that then. The yes campaign I know less about but I think they are trying to focus just on marriage because it's only to gauge support for some form of bill, with religious freedom (which I am against on the scales many want but not my country ) being discussed then. Maybe an actual Aussie can inform us both a bit better on how it's going though
Ok, what do you want to know?
To give you a bit of background, the current government is split between those who are more progressive (like the current PM) and those who are very conservative (the former PM, who is still in parliament and wants his job back). Turnbull is the current leader, but he knows that if he pushes on with progressive policies which he has previously advocated, he will lose the support of his own party. So he's kind of being held to ransom by members of his own team.
There's been a big public push for the past decade to legalise same-sex marriage and for the first time now we have leaders of the two major parties who both support it. The opposition want a "conscience vote" in parliament where people are not bound to vote with their own party's policy, but the conservatives in the government don't want that to happen since it would likely result in same-sex marriage becoming legal immediately. They instead want what happened in Ireland, where there is a national vote (plebiscite) to decide the issue.
That suggestion didn't pass through parliament, partly because it will cost over $100M and will essentially just confirm what we've known for a long time now - there is a majority in favour of changing the law. There are also concerns that the campaigns would lead to more distress for LGBTI people.
So instead, the government are holding a survey. This will still cost over $100M, isn't legally binding in any way, still results in yes/no campaigns where people say hurtful things and won't even be run by the electoral commission. If the majority vote no, then nothing happens. If the majority vote yes, then they will allow the conscience vote. Presumably.
Okay so pretty much what I knew: completely stupid
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant." [ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
jandal7 wrote:
The yes campaign I know less about but I think they are trying to focus just on marriage because it's only to gauge support for some form of bill, with religious freedom (which I am against on the scales many want but not my country ) being discussed then. Maybe an actual Aussie can inform us both a bit better on how it's going though
I'm not in Australia (or ever that politically engaged) so I don't really know what's going on at the moment but from what I've seen the Yes campaign is kinda very just "You're an evil person if you don't vote yes." and "What gives you the right to vote against other people's right to marry?", apparently somebody even got fired for saying that it was okay to vote no. But maybe all the spam on social media has made me jaded.
Honestly I don't care what happens, as long as everybody can get over it as soon as possible.
jandal7 wrote:
The yes campaign I know less about but I think they are trying to focus just on marriage because it's only to gauge support for some form of bill, with religious freedom (which I am against on the scales many want but not my country ) being discussed then. Maybe an actual Aussie can inform us both a bit better on how it's going though
I'm not in Australia (or ever that politically engaged) so I don't really know what's going on at the moment but from what I've seen the Yes campaign is kinda very just "You're an evil person if you don't vote yes." and "What gives you the right to vote against other people's right to marry?", apparently somebody even got fired for saying that it was okay to vote no. But maybe all the spam on social media has made me jaded.
Honestly I don't care what happens, as long as everybody can get over it as soon as possible.
That's kind of over exaggerated (understandable considering you're not actually here, of course). Basically, majority of people are all for marriage equality and thus the yes vote will most likely succeed. The only real support against marriage equality comes from a few certain demographics:
1) Christians/ Catholics
2) Old people
3) Hardcore liberal voters (the kind of people that think climate change is a myth and the Earth is flat(not a stab at liberal voters by the way))
4) People living in rural areas/ the uneducated
5) A combination of the above.
I've erased and re-written this post numerous times already because there's just too much to say about this complete and utter non-issue. The fact there's a vitriolic hardcore Christian-funded campaign against marriage equality that paints homosexuals as being made to look like sexual deviant degenerates who attack children is despicable. Imagine waking up every morning to some bible bashing redneck politician on the Tv telling you you're a second class citizen because his God/party donors said you were a piece of shit because you want to marry Dan instead of Sally. Who fuckin' cares? I'm not gay and admittedly don't know many who are, but why the fuck should it matter to me who they want to be with? It doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. The fact that I get to vote on this (regardless voting yes or no) is disgusting.
jandal7 wrote:
The yes campaign I know less about but I think they are trying to focus just on marriage because it's only to gauge support for some form of bill, with religious freedom (which I am against on the scales many want but not my country ) being discussed then. Maybe an actual Aussie can inform us both a bit better on how it's going though
I'm not in Australia (or ever that politically engaged) so I don't really know what's going on at the moment but from what I've seen the Yes campaign is kinda very just "You're an evil person if you don't vote yes." and "What gives you the right to vote against other people's right to marry?", apparently somebody even got fired for saying that it was okay to vote no. But maybe all the spam on social media has made me jaded.
Honestly I don't care what happens, as long as everybody can get over it as soon as possible.
That's definitely not from the "official" yes campaign, (their ads have been much more focused on the issue of equality and fairness) but that sentiment is certainly around. While I voted yes, I probably wouldn't want to admit it if I was planning to vote no due to the backlash like you mention above. It certainly seems an uncomfortably hostile environment right now and people who are that intolerant of other people's views aren't helping things.
In contrast, the main "no" ads and campaigners are ignoring the main issue and saying that allowing gay marriage will inhibit religious freedoms. Their latest ad features a Canadian guy who says if it passes like in his country, schools will force kids like his Christian children to "celebrate homosexuality" and that it will have far-reaching effects that we can't fathom. There are obviously some who are more tactful in their arguments but it's a clear scare campaign.
All in all, it's starting to get really ugly and we shouldn't just blame one side of the debate whilst ignoring the other side entirely. If anyone must take the blame, it's really the federal parliament because almost nobody wanted this in the first place.
As I said I'm not there so not seeing news, ads, etc. but seeing probably the most extreme stuff on social media, which gets to me because it's so common and generally very closed-minded, even if it's not official. It all means I'm probably a bit biased on how I see what happens because if somebody said No on social media they'd probably be lynched.
So thanks for enlightening me on what's really happening.
I agree with your posts, particularly Eden's final paragraph.
"The fact there's a vitriolic hardcore Christian-funded campaign against marriage equality that paints homosexuals as being made to look like sexual deviant degenerates who attack children is despicable."
wait...what?
Who does such stuff? I mean, like I said, I'm against same-sex marriage, but only because I'm conservative/traditional. It's a bit shocking, that that many people still have something against homosexuals. I mean, obviously, there are slot of stupid people in the world, but still...
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021
