When you say you're against mandatory vaccination, vaccine passports and no healthcare to those who have chosen to not get vaccinated, would you agree that, in light of the data we now have access to from the last 20 months confirming that COVID is a virus that has a ridiculously low impact on the health of the vast majority that that sets some bad precedents? So when you ask me to explain the 'agenda' that is what I'm talking about.
Do you think that, as you say "GOVT has been seduced by their Medical Advisors ( who are basking with their time in the sun), into believing we are still in a Pandemic, and GOVT has not had the courage to challenge them, given the Italian death rates did not persist" is acceptable? Almost 20 months of it, no less? I mean 'govt hasn't had the courage to tell them' doesn't really cut it, does it? Can you understand why there is pushback from anyone who isn't a halfwit?(look to the threads on the AFL, GD and SRP boards for some genuine halfwit examples. They are overrun with them)
Agree that 'voters have the ultimate discretion to arbitrate on over reach' but the discretionary powers that govt has given themselves are not contingent on them being in power. Those powers remain if voted out, unless the newly voted in govt repeals them. And why would they repeal them when the majority of the voting public has effectively endorsed them? This is a problem. History also confirms that this is par for the course - they don't tend to be rolled back in a hurry, if ever. Again, when you ask me to explain the 'agenda' that is what I'm talking about. Nothing to do with a conspiracy.
And this is the thing, you're all about debunking the conspiracies, but it doesn't actually matter if it's a conspiracy or an agenda or just a monumental ****-up of epic proportions(my choice), because the outcome is the same - more govt overreach, more govt control, less wiggle room and more sh*t sangas for Joey Joe Public.
I agree it’s a monumental **** up.
If as you say the voting Public endorse the new laws - that would be unfortunate, but that’s Democracy at work.
Equally if Mathew Guys goes to an election promising to repeal them, than that would suggest his research sees it as strategic pivot that could win him office.
Either way it’s the voters who’ll decide, and rightly so.
Last edited: