Sydney votes NO to SSM

[Phil Allison]

Hi,

the national vote in the SSM survey was close to predicted.

But nobody predicted that Sydney would be the exception.

17 federal electorates out of 150 in Australia voted NO, 12 of them in Sydney including the top 7 with no votes between 62% and 74%.

9 of the 12 are Labor held seats however nearly all the sitting members have indicated they voted YES.

The seat of Benelong voted NO by a small margin (50.2%)

The seat of Blaxland ( Milperra and surrounds ) voted an amazing 74% NO.

I have not tallied the actual votes for every Sydney seat, but it must be damn close to an overall NO vote.

Who woulda thunk.....




.... Phil

[Jeßus]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:29:42 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>the national vote in the SSM survey was close to predicted.
>
>But nobody predicted that Sydney would be the exception.
>
>17 federal electorates out of 150 in Australia voted NO, 12 of them in Sydney including the top 7 with no votes between 62% and 74%.
>
>9 of the 12 are Labor held seats however nearly all the sitting members have indicated they voted YES.
>
>The seat of Benelong voted NO by a small margin (50.2%)
>
>The seat of Blaxland ( Milperra and surrounds ) voted an amazing 74% NO.

Muslims and old-school eastern Europeans is why.

>I have not tallied the actual votes for every Sydney seat, but it must be damn close to an overall NO vote.
>
>Who woulda thunk.....

Yes, a surprise to me too.

I'd like to see the Tassie results out of sheer curiosity.

[Peter Jason]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:29:42 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

Lawyers will be the great beneficiaries in all the divorces to be.

[Pelican]

So, you can say "I told you so!"

[Max]

79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.

Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
majority.

I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.

[Pelican]

On 15/11/2017 13:08, Max wrote:
>
>
> I think


Another Max lie.

[jonz@ nowhere.com]

Many sensible ppl in Blaxland!.

[Max]

That is surprising. What it might mean is that Sydney people think for
themselves and are not jumping on the trendy bandwagon.

[news16]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:40:11 +0700, Jeßus wrote:


>
> I'd like to see the Tassie results out of sheer curiosity.

Here you go.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-
ssm/9145636

[news16]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:46:14 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:


> Lawyers will be the great beneficiaries in all the divorces to be.

Well, they did say it would lead to an economic boom in "weddings".
Naturally, they will follow.

[news16]

I(f you didn't vote, then you don't care about the result. Tough.

FFS, what is so difficult about taking a biro or pencil andf ticking No
or Yes, then putting it into the replied paid envelope(?) and then into a
post box.

[news16]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:16:09 +1100, Max wrote:

>
> That is surprising. What it might mean is that Sydney people think for
> themselves and are not jumping on the trendy bandwagon.

Naah, lots of religious nutters. SMH did an article recently on the rise
of religion based schools and there are electorates thet seen quiet a few
start up. So they don't think for themselves.

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

--------------------

** This item from the Telegraph gives a partial explanation:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/samesex-marriage-results-show-how-out-of-touch-politicians-are-with-constituents/news-story/fd23bbeea1356d6f26d21256bb9ac583





..... Phil

[Rod Speed]

"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:oug7jb$l10$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>
> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
> majority.

> I think

Obvious lie. You actually troll.

[Rod Speed]

"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:oug818$l9m$2...@gioia.aioe.org...

Much more likely to just be lots more recent immigrants
with more conservative values on stuff like that.

[Rod Speed]

"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:517n0dhblv2bb2q0p...@4ax.com...

> Lawyers will be the great beneficiaries in all the divorces to be.

Its less clear how many bother to get a lawyer involved in divorce anymore.

[Rod Speed]

"news16" <new...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:oug8e9$6am$8...@dont-email.me...

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:08:44 +1100, Max wrote:
>
>> 79.5% of people voted. 61.6% of them voted Yes.
>>
>> Therefore only 48.9% of the population voted Yes. That is less than a
>> majority.
>>
>> I think therefore it shouldn't go ahead.
>
> I(f you didn't vote, then you don't care about the result.

Or you decided that you vote is completely irrelevant to
the result, which every single individual's vote always is.

> Tough.

> FFS, what is so difficult about taking a biro or pencil andf ticking No
> or Yes, then putting it into the replied paid envelope(?) and then into a
> post box.

Not difficult, just pointless.

[Pelican]

In a simple divorce, lawyers are not necessary. Where there is a
dispute about children, they might be necessary. Where there is a
dispute over property, they probably will be necessary.

Sensible people who are capable of making sensible decisions don't need
a lawyer, but there are situations where the legislation requires in the
default setting that one or both parties have legal advice.

[Rod Speed]

"Phil Allison" <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:afef11ac-6b90-4cde...@googlegroups.com...

Subscription only. Shows where the toaster molester gets its news tho.

[Rod Speed]

"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message
news:ougeki$s81$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 15/11/2017 15:02, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
>> news:517n0dhblv2bb2q0p...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:29:42 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
>>> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the national vote in the SSM survey was close to predicted.
>>>>
>>>> But nobody predicted that Sydney would be the exception.
>>>>
>>>> 17 federal electorates out of 150 in Australia voted NO, 12 of them in
>>>> Sydney including the top 7 with no votes between 62% and 74%.
>>>>
>>>> 9 of the 12 are Labor held seats however nearly all the sitting members
>>>> have indicated they voted YES.
>>>>
>>>> The seat of Benelong voted NO by a small margin (50.2%)
>>>>
>>>> The seat of Blaxland ( Milperra and surrounds ) voted an amazing 74%
>>>> NO.
>>>>
>>>> I have not tallied the actual votes for every Sydney seat, but it must
>>>> be damn close to an overall NO vote.
>>>>
>>>> Who woulda thunk.....
>>
>>> Lawyers will be the great beneficiaries in all the divorces to be.
>>
>> Its less clear how many bother to get a lawyer involved in divorce
>> anymore.

> In a simple divorce, lawyers are not necessary.

Duh. And there is no reason why a same sex divorce
should be more complicated than a normal one. In
fact its much more likely to be simple because its
much less likely to involve any kids.

> Where there is a dispute about children,

Which is much less likely with same sex divorces.

> they might be necessary.

Not necessarily, the system handles those divorces fine without
any lawyers employed by those getting the divorce.

> Where there is a dispute over property,

There usually isnt, and there is no reason why that
would be more likely with same sex divorces.

> they probably will be necessary.

Nope.

> Sensible people who are capable of making sensible decisions don't need a
> lawyer, but there are situations where the legislation requires in the
> default setting that one or both parties have legal advice.

There are in fact fuck all of those and in fact fewer of them with same sex
divorces.

[news16]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:06:16 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

>>
> ** This item from the Telegraph gives a partial explanation:
>
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/samesex-marriage-results-show-
how-out-of-touch-politicians-are-with-constituents/news-story/
fd23bbeea1356d6f26d21256bb9ac583

Is says SFA. Silly toser pays for the daily terror.

[Pelican]

Don't look now, fuckwit, but I was agreeing with you.

Duh!!

[news16]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:29:42 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the national vote in the SSM survey was close to predicted.
>
> But nobody predicted that Sydney would be the exception.
>
> 17 federal electorates out of 150 in Australia voted NO, 12 of them in
> Sydney including the top 7 with no votes between 62% and 74%.

Here you are. The top map will show you how out of touch "Sydney"
basically is with the rest of the country.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/australia-says-yes-
to-same-sex-marriage-in-historic-postal-survey
>

[Phil Allison]

Some idiot TROLL called news16 wrote:

------------------------------------

>
> >>
> > ** This item from the Telegraph gives a partial explanation:
> >
> > http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/samesex-marriage-results-show-
> how-out-of-touch-politicians-are-with-constituents/news-story/
> fd23bbeea1356d6f26d21256bb9ac583
>
> Is says SFA. Silly toser pays for the daily terror.

** Never paid one cent for news.

The Tele site has always been free.




.... Phil

[Ned Latham]

news16 wrote:

> Phil Allison wrote:
> >
> > the national vote in the SSM survey was close to predicted.
> >
> > But nobody predicted that Sydney would be the exception.
> >
> > 17 federal electorates out of 150 in Australia voted NO, 12 of them in
> > Sydney including the top 7 with no votes between 62% and 74%.
>
> Here you are. The top map will show you how out of touch "Sydney"
> basically is with the rest of the country.
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/
> australia-says-yes-to-same-sex-marriage-in-historic-postal-survey

Wow. Do you see how well organized the yessers were? Where the fuck fif
all that money come from?

[news16]

I don'r know what lurk you use, but it always asks me to subs.
>
>

[Rod Speed]

"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message

news:oughdk$5vv$2...@dont-email.me...

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

[Rod Speed]

"news16" <new...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:ougii2$6am$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:29:42 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the national vote in the SSM survey was close to predicted.
>>
>> But nobody predicted that Sydney would be the exception.
>>
>> 17 federal electorates out of 150 in Australia voted NO, 12 of them in
>> Sydney including the top 7 with no votes between 62% and 74%.
>
> Here you are. The top map will show you how out of
> touch "Sydney" basically is with the rest of the country.

All it actually shows is where the most recent immigrants 'live'

> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/australia-says-yes-to-same-sex-marriage-in-historic-postal-survey