politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
First and foremost, I'll be voting yes.
The problem with our referendum is that it appears to burn a lot of political capital for the sake of gesture politics that is unlikely to change anything of substance. The voice has no teeth and almost everything about it will be determined by the courts at the time.
Now, it's better than nothing, and I don't expect it'll come at the expense of the lack of better alternatives on the horizon, but it's frustrating we can't do something more meaningful.
A reminder: it's what the First Nation Council asked for. It's a decade of work that has been approved and agreed upon by everyone involved.
That is, what you're complaining about are features, not bugs.
Edit: also, for it to have teeth in the future, Australia needs to get more Greens or other suitable 3rd parties into power which support The Voice.
While hopefully Australia will get The Voice, which will mean it won't be able to be easily removed - what's important (as always) is voting for the future of Australia and not coal.
Exactly. A voice shouldnt have teeth either, but id like it to have some reasonable powers of compelling testimony as well as an ability to formally ask for records but that's just me personally.
Vote yes!!