Voiceposting- introducing the Yessister-in-chief- u/leacorv! [EDIT: EVIDENCE OF BURGER FOREIGN INTERFERENCE WITHIN]

If you clicked on any Reddit link in any voicepost, you have likely read (and no doubt agreed with) the comments of one /u/leacorv. A 4 year old account, xe posts and comments about the Voice so much it makes me look normal. Any Voice thread on any Aussie subreddit, xe will be there.

Some fun facts about /u/leacorv-

• Has a "Liberal Party of Australia" (the chud party) flair on /r/australianpolitics, despite the fact xe hasn't once defended that party (and was openly a Greens supporter before xe adopted that flair). The reason xe has that flair can only be guessed at.

• the last time xe made a post that wasn't about the Voice was two months ago.

Anyway, there really isn't a better way to explain this Yessister's beliefs than to let xe do it ximself. Here are some comments picked pretty much at random-

"Jacinta says to vote No" isn't listening. Not having a Voice reduces listening. Seems like you missed that part.

Yes people who say it came from Indigenous people (true) are doubly listening. They're listening to Indigenous people. And having a Voice further increases listening.

That if we don't vote Yes, the rest of the world will think we are racists. It's an old tactic, a shaming tactic, a false fact.

Yes that article is trying to shame you. But it's a true fact.

Yes doesn't use negative emotions, but if it does that's a good thing.

(someone else) The Yes campaign could easily have overcome the No camp, by providing logically sound, reasonable, evidence-based arguments supporting it's case. If the Yes camp had a solid case, then they might have succeeded.

Instead, the Yes camp resorts to mud-slinging and accusing the No camp of "squalid tactics". You only do that if your "argument" is specious and you know it.

It matters not what the No camp has or has not said or done. The Yes camp failed to make a solid, convincing case. Period.

Lol nice projection.

The case is simple. Indigenous people asked for it in the Uluru Statement, and zero risk since Parliament controls its powers.

What are the valid No arguments, other than screaming that the Voice is racist and falsely accusing Yes people of calling them racist while providing no proof for the false accusations.

The simple reason we are voting no as a country is because Australians do not want to enshrine a special constitutional privilege that only one specific group gets access to.

Lol thanks for proving my point.

Keep screaming that it's racist. Was the extermination of Indigenous people during colonization racist too? Or would the British have killed the original inhabitants regardless of race so it's not racist?

Yes the British's treatment at the time of colonisation was racist.

Great! So because the injustice is racist, we can't redress in injustice because that would be racist.

Don't they understand, after we've taken their lands, we're all equal now!

But I thought the voice wasn't about land :)

Stop changing the subject. It's an advisory body. It can advise on land.

So the government can kill and steal based on race, but now when they ask for redress, nope, can't do that, it racist because we're equal now.

Aka how to entrench injustice and inequality.

Land grabs aren't real but if they are that's a good thing

Finally, to keep burgers' attention-

Warren Mundine is the CPAC Chairman. He literally hosted a racist American far-right conference a month ago.

He also falsely accused the PM of calling No people racists.

No one is more divisive than him.

Not gonna ping this time, this is just a lil post to pass the time till the shops open of a morning