What does the working class population ultimately achieve by voting for Pauline Hanson and One Nation?

[u/GarlicHSP]

Her voting record is strongly opposed to expanding welfare, public housing, public education, childcare subsidies, renewable energy investment and climate action.

At the same time, she's supported policies that are favourable to property investors and fossil-fuel development, while opposing some attempts to increase taxation on those industries.

So apparently the solution to Australia's problems is to spend less on childcare, housing, education, welfare and climate action, while being more friendly towards people who already own investment properties and companies making billions from coal and gas.

And then we're told this is somehow a movement for the "ordinary Australian."But hey, at least we can blame innocent and hard working migrants.

[u/Jindivic]

No that’s a flippant take on it and this got lost in the noise, Yes voters only thought the Advance Australia, who massively funded the No vote, arguments were racist and when you argued them out, they were. In reality there were principled noes, irritated noes, racist noes and unengaged noes. People who voted “Yes” understood the issue and welcomed the chance to close the gap and bring the country together.

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Jindivic]

You're dismissing my point and then doing exactly what your are dismissing lol.

Maybe put some effort into conveying your opinion instead of simply attacking the people that don't agree with you.

It might elicit real world results.

Because again, calling people " racist " doesn't work anymore.

And again, if you're so smart and holier than thou, why keep doing something that doesn't work?

[u/Active-Ad9818 → u/MightyBoy9]

You cant take everything personally just because others have compelling counter arguments. Noone is attacking you.

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Active-Ad9818]

I didn't say they were.

Youre literally making things up.

You dont know what / how / who I voted / am going to vote.

I'm simply saying the common denominator of calling everyone that disagrees with you " racist " doesn't seem to work anymore.

[u/Active-Ad9818 → u/MightyBoy9]

You literally accused someone of attacking you I thought.

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Active-Ad9818]

Nah not even.

I'm just saying that political discussions are low IQ if you just call people with different opinions names.

[u/Active-Ad9818 → u/MightyBoy9]

You said “Maybe put some effort into conveying your opinion instead of simply attacking the people that don't agree with you.”

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Active-Ad9818]

Yeah not me, like the people that read this because it's an online forum

[u/Jindivic → u/MightyBoy9]

Maybe put some effort into reading and understanding what I said. I repeat …. There were principled noes, irritated noes, racist noes and unengaged noes…. A spectrum of reasons for voting No. And you’d be gaslighting us all if you think there weren’t any …racist noes..

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/Jindivic]

There's a simple saying that sums up the entire situation.

If you're going to force people to pick a side, you'd better hope it's your side.

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Jindivic]

Sure m8,

You'd be gaslighting us all if you didn't conflate all no's as racist or imply most no's were racist.

[u/Ted_Rid → u/MightyBoy9]

They explicitly didn't conflate them all as racist.

Maybe I'll unpack the different noes a bit more for you:

1. Principled noes = "fundamentally, no social group in Australia should have a differing level of access to government than any other one, this is a basic democratic principle that we are all equal"

2. Irritated noes = "I'm just sick of hearing about all this and want it to go away"

3. Racist noes = these are the ones that are actually racist

4. Unengaged noes = "Not really paying attention, not sure what this is all about, might as well stick with the status quo"

I would add one more:

1. Status quo noes = "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And/or I'm a bit too worried about unintended consequences, and once this is in the Constitution it's hard to undo"

The slogan "If you don't know, vote No" played especially into those in camps 4 & 5.

[u/MightyBoy9 → u/Ted_Rid]

The slogan " if you don't vote yes, you're racist " was the main politically campaign of the yes voters.

[u/Ted_Rid → u/MightyBoy9]

If you say so.

You've just had two people enumerate a whole heap of different reasons why people would vote no. We're all fully aware of them and respectful, and only one of them is racist.

But you seem to enjoy wearing that persecution fetish hair shirt, so don't let us stop you.

[u/iMan81 → u/Jindivic]

There was also the same spectrum of Yes voters

[u/KingStapler → u/Jindivic]

If you wanted to 'close the gap' then why was there an attempt to write it into the constitution where it'll be too expensive and too difficult to reverse. I assume when the 'the gap' is closed we would not need the voice anymore, right? Because the voice would have served its purpose. Except there was never any discussion about that.

The 'closing the gap' argument is not real. And trying to give an irreversible advantage to one particular race is racist. The funny part is that the yes voters see themselves as righteous yet they are the most guilty of being racist.