The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...)

[Baffle]

@Uzi

By having a healthy economy that ensures the improvement of ‘common people and families’.

Stephen Harper’s party has made some progress here, I will grant. When I got married it was actually a fiscally irresponsible choice, but there have been some improvements here.

@Uzi

When are you up against major corporations? They are run by people, too. But it is why we also have laws.

Our communications monopolies come to mind. Canadians pay a great deal more than comparable countries for Internet and cell phone access. Stephen Harper’s government has worked against the need for common people to access communication technology, by supporting bandwidth limitations for heavy users.

@Uzi

Usually it is major companies that sue the ‘common man’ for downloading stuff they didn’t pay for. What is it? For intellectual property or against your ‘rights’?

The Copyright Modernization Act is “flawed but fixable”. The problem is the concept of a ‘digital lock’, which, if implemented, will infringe on Canadians’ rights.

@that link

The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used - whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices - the lock trumps virtually all other rights. In other words, in the battle between two sets of property rights - those of the intellectual property rights holder and those of the consumer who has purchased the tangible or intangible property - the IP rights holder always wins.

@Uzi

You have essentially free education up until you graduate high school and heavily subsidized education after that. A healthy economy allows you to pay for the internet. Or are you suggesting that we also subsidize computer purchases because one without the other is pretty meaniingless?

We need to invest in broadband access for rural Canadians; there are many places that really don’t have access to the internet. This at the same time that organizations like Ontario’s Independent Learning Center have moved their correspondence courses online. This has seriously hampered rural Canadians’ access to improving their qualifications – which is almost certainly the best way to improve their standard of living.

@Uzi

You can beak off all you want right here. No one is stopping you other than the ‘facist’ moderators. I’m not sure what you mean otherwise, or why it will change now.

There are many local and national examples to convince me to doubt the Conservatives’ commitment to Canadian, Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. Here’s my list:

• Locally, our candidate’s staff tried to shut down polling stations, steal ballot boxes, intimidate voters, and make misleading phone calls. He refused to participate in debates, and when my brother actually did manage to meet the guy, he expressed ignorance about local voting, specifically, he “had no idea” that there was a voting station at a local high school.

• I shouldn’t have to say more than “G20” to convince you of the Conservatives’ attitude towards freedom of speech and assembly. Nine hundred million dollars wasted to send paramilitary forces to attack Canadians and detain them without cause. I personally witnessed the irresponsible behaviour of the police officers, who are supposedly hired to preserve public order, but instead actually created mayhem, panic, and pandemonium as they forced a crowd to stampede in Queen’s Park. It was a terrible, wasteful decision, that turned into a spectacle of political intimidation by the ruling party against dissenters.

• “Bev Oda.” Again, a party that campaigned on openness runs a secretive government, lying to Parliament. You might reply that ‘The Liberals do it too.’ I don’t care. The Conservatives do it now. I don’t support that.

• “The guy who lost the election doesn’t get to run the country.” This misinformation about Parliament shows a great contempt for our Westminster-system ideals, and contempt for Canadians who Stephen Harper clearly thinks are too dumb to know better. By dishonestly framing the debate in these terms, Stephen Harper shows his disregard for open political discourse.

@Uzi

So you did vote Conservative then?

No. I want my Conservative government, not this one.

[CurlyBrow]

@Uzi

By having a healthy economy that ensures the improvement of ‘common people and families’.

You seem to be misguided that the Conservatives have anything to do with a healthy economy. Particularly when they are rubber-stamping the most basic Canadian resource industries over to foreign control.

We are renters in our own home so-to-speak and you equate this with a healthy economy that will ensure the improvement of ‘common people and families’?

When are you up against major corporations? They are run by people, too. But it is why we also have laws.

Telecommunications say allô to you, sir.

You have essentially free education up until you graduate high school and heavily subsidized education after that. A healthy economy allows you to pay for the internet. Or are you suggesting that we also subsidize computer purchases because one without the other is pretty meaniingless?

Lord no. There is no way we have the means to subsidize computer and internet when we need to make room for thirty-billion dollar ‘defence’ plans.

With the deficit skyrocketing and Harper’s ambitious interest in privatization it’s not uncalled for Baffle here to fear that ‘essentially free and highly subsidized’ education will begin to vanish.

You can beak off all you want right here. No one is stopping you other than the ‘facist’ moderators. I’m not sure what you mean otherwise, or why it will change now.

Oh I don’t know, social progress was never much of an ideal for Canadians I suppose. It’s not like we have a reputation for being socially progressive, forward-thinking and freely expressive. =)

Now we have an energized opposition to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, this wouldn’t be all bad if it didn’t extend to our judicial, media, political, and social infrastructure. What on earth makes you think a government that openly declares it should be run solely by people of faith has any interest in preserving the ideals and freedoms of the modern person?

So you did vote Conservative then?

Quite a troll. It seems this theme of parody will continue throughout.

[Uzi]

@CurlyBrow

You seem to be misguided that the Conservatives have anything to do with a healthy economy. Particularly when they are rubber-stamping the most basic Canadian resource industries over to foreign control.

That’s right. Protectionism is the way to go.:rolleyes:

Telecommunications say allô to you, sir.

I’ll agree to this. The telecom industry in Canada sucks. I just signed up for 100Mb/sec internet in HK for about $30CDN/mth. Mobile phone rates are unbelievable in Canada. So, you want protectionism in all other industries other than telecom, right?

Lord no. There is no way we have the means to subsidize computer and internet when we need to make room for thirty-billion dollar ‘defence’ plans.

You’re right again. Lets get rid of the military. No need for it now that Osama is dead.:rolleyes:

With the deficit skyrocketing and Harper’s ambitious interest in privatization it’s not uncalled for Baffle here to fear that ‘essentially free and highly subsidized’ education will begin to vanish.

Yep, the NDP could tell them how to run a balanced budget…No, I can’t say that with any sort of a straight face:)

Now we have an energized opposition to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, this wouldn’t be all bad if it didn’t extend to our judicial, media, political, and social infrastructure.

There has already been an offer of a bet upthread around this. You can always put your money where your mouth is. I personally wouldn’t if I were you because I think you’d lose. Harper isn’t an idiot. If he manages to introduce legislation that stops abortions or SSM, he wouldn’t be able to get elected dog catcher whenever the next election occurs.

[Baffle]

This ‘CurlyBrow’ fellow does not speak for me. You can continue to engage him in his histrionics, but I’d enjoy it more if instead I got to hear what you think of my last post, #1041.

[CurlyBrow]

@Uzi

That’s right. Protectionism is the way to go.:rolleyes:

Opinions, my point wasn’t necessarily to argue over fair trade. I’m more curious where your idea of Harper being a champion for the economy (other than by his own declaration) comes from since he doesn’t know the A-B-C’s of industry.

I’ll agree to this. The telecom industry in Canada sucks. I just signed up for 100Mb/sec internet in HK for about $30CDN/mth. Mobile phone rates are unbelievable in Canada. So, you want protectionism in all other industries other than telecom, right?

No, those can remain Canadian as well. If i’m going to be fucked I’d like it to be by someone I at least know on a first name basis. =D

You’re right again. Lets get rid of the military. No need for it now that Osama is dead.:rolleyes:

Well I’m not sure if you are aware, but F35 fighter jets can’t be used defensively. Perhaps Harper has been in contact with our lord and knows where to strike to prevent any impending acts of terrorism? Most likely.

It’s funny, I’m glad we can both agree to be afraid of incurring their wrath with Harper on the hill. He does have that Bush like flair for it.

Yep, the NDP could tell them how to run a balanced budget…No, I can’t say that with any sort of a straight face:)

Whoa, who said anything about balance? If we are going to blow the roof off with the spending then I would at least like to be in agreement with the majority of the expenditures. Layton certainly has a more attractive plan than some fancy jets. =)

There has already been an offer of a bet upthread around this. You can always put your money where your mouth is. I personally wouldn’t if I were you because I think you’d lose. Harper isn’t an idiot. If he manages to introduce legislation that stops abortions or SSM, he wouldn’t be able to get elected dog catcher whenever the next election occurs.

It’s tempting. I’m aware of what a delicate balance Harper applies to his craft, and he has been quite good at already swinging the pendulum back on or social and political systems with stealthy precision. However if his relentless attack ads are anything to go by, he can’t keep that mean streak from falling on some of the things he feels are unobjectively wrong now that he has his majority.

[CurlyBrow]

@Baffle

This ‘CurlyBrow’ fellow does not speak for me. You can continue to engage him in his histrionics, but I’d enjoy it more if instead I got to hear what you think of my last post, #1041.

Baffle! I thought us good friends! We’ve had such good rapport in these few posts.

I assure you, if appeasing my histrionics I would engage in this attention seeking somewhere other than the SD forums. =)

Perhaps my obvious secularlism divides us from being truly agreeable, as I detect your fear of the UBB recurring puts us in similar social interests. A shame. =/

[Baffle]

You’re right, I shouldn’t be so snarky. I’ll address your points one by one.

@CurlyBrow

You seem to be misguided that the Conservatives have anything to do with a healthy economy. Particularly when they are rubber-stamping the most basic Canadian resource industries over to foreign control.

We are renters in our own home so-to-speak and you equate this with a healthy economy that will ensure the improvement of ‘common people and families’?

These ‘foreign-controlled resource industries’ still need to hire Canadians to get the resources out of the ground and into usable form. And they pay for the privilege. Are some resources being sold and rates too low? Perhaps. But if you change the rates, you change the profitability for the investors, increase the production cost, and now the product is less competitive. The end result? Potential plant closures, and Canadians out of work. Messing around with the resource payments is delicate and should be done with great care. And remember, these ‘foreign-owned’ corporations are usually multi-national, publicly traded, and thus owned by many Canadians as well.

@CurlyBrow

Telecommunications say allô to you, sir.

Here, I’m glad to see, we all agree. There is something wrong.

@CurlyBrow

Lord no. There is no way we have the means to subsidize computer and internet when we need to make room for thirty-billion dollar ‘defence’ plans.

Our national defense has been seriously neglected in the past twenty years. As oil becomes scarcer, exploration in the Arctic will become more viable, and Canadians need to be able to exploit these resources. There are currently several territorial disputes in the Arctic. If we’re unable to show an ability to defend our Arctic waters from intrusion, the international courts will not rule in our favour. These ‘defense’ plans, like the completion of the Dempster Highway, the new arctic deep-water port, and the expansion of our icebreaker fleet, are all necessary Conservative platform planks.

@CurlyBrow

With the deficit skyrocketing and Harper’s ambitious interest in privatization it’s not uncalled for Baffle here to fear that ‘essentially free and highly subsidized’ education will begin to vanish.

Yes, I do worry that a conservative government will start to cut back on student subsidies. But they do have a platform plank (a weak one, though) about tax credits for textbooks. The problem is, non-refundable tax credits really make no difference to the actual lives of poor students, who already aren’t paying taxes. It’s a tax break for people who pay, not one that helps those who can’t afford to. But I’m more concerned about increased connectivity, which, in addition to letting everyone play Minecraft and stream Netflix, is vitally important in helping improve the education levels of lower-income Canadians.

@CurlyBrow

Oh I don’t know, social progress was never much of an ideal for Canadians I suppose. It’s not like we have a reputation for being socially progressive, forward-thinking and freely expressive. =)

Now we have an energized opposition to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, this wouldn’t be all bad if it didn’t extend to our judicial, media, political, and social infrastructure. What on earth makes you think a government that openly declares it should be run solely by people of faith has any interest in preserving the ideals and freedoms of the modern person?

There’s a lot of back-and-forth this election between ‘they’re just the Reform party in disguise!’ and ‘They’re not that stupid!’ I frankly don’t know what to believe, but I fervently hope that there are enough Red Tories in blue seats to balance out the whackjobs.

@CurlyBrow

Quite a troll. It seems this theme of parody will continue throughout.

These are the histrionics I’m concerned about. I’m genuinely curious how Uzi feels about the current Conservatives and their affronts to democracy. It’s a little bewildering to me that it seems to register so low on most people’s radar, but for some reason I’ve always had a soft spot for our historic institutions. And watching the kids in the Middle East fight just for the chance, reminds me to really be vigilant that our own freedoms aren’t being whittled away at the same time.

[Frank]

Astonishing results.

Congratulations to Harper and the Conservatives; it was a hard-fought and well-earned victory.

Congratulations are also due to Jack Layton and the NDP, Quebec, and Elizabeth May.

[Frank]

@Cat_Whisperer

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don’t get why that’s such a terrible thing.

Take a look south of the border and see what unlimited and uncontrolled funding has done to pervert the electoral process.

[Baffle]

@Cat_Whisperer

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don’t get why that’s such a terrible thing.

Missed this the first time.

The problem with this situation is, every political party still has to find money to operate. If the government doesn’t support political parties, then they have to go elsewhere. To the only other group that has money – wealthy people and corporations, and those people have vested interests that are not always aligned with the interests of the poor and middle class working people.

To have a political party that’s not beholden to the rich, who actually speaks for the workers, we need government-funded political parties.

[CarnalK]

@Spoons

Okay, I was able to get confirmation for the Examiner’s claim from the Vancouver Province. Looks like it actually did occur:

Sorry to waste all your researching, but Annie linked the interview and I had listened to it and gave a paraphrasing of it three pages back.

[Northern_Piper]

why is it an either-or: “either gov’t funding or wide-open donations”? there already are strict limits on how much an individual can donate, and bans on corporations and unions donating. If you get rid of the subsidy, and keep those restrictions in place, what’s the problem? parties then would have to depend solely on their individual supporters for funding.

ETA: that’s in reply to Baffle’s post #1050.

[Northern_Piper]

@mnemosyne

Thank you, Northern Piper. As I’ve said, this is clearly something that has really been misunderstood by a lot of people, in the past and now. Facebook/chat discussions show that many of my friends also believed that active campaigning on Election Day was illegal. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it.

You’re welcome!

[Baffle]

@Northern_Piper

why is it an either-or: “either gov’t funding or wide-open donations”? there already are strict limits on how much an individual can donate, and bans on corporations and unions donating. If you get rid of the subsidy, and keep those restrictions in place, what’s the problem? parties then would have to depend solely on their individual supporters for funding.

ETA: that’s in reply to Baffle’s post #1050.

The limit, as I understand it, is $1,100 per person. Yes, you might need to find more donors, and therefore need to court some not-as-wealthy donors, it’s still not an incentive for parties to court the lower classes. As it stands, we have a relatively inexpensive program, the removal of which would be to the detriment of the less fortunate members of our society. That, to me, is a good argument for keeping it.

[CarnalK]

@Northern_Piper

why is it an either-or: “either gov’t funding or wide-open donations”? there already are strict limits on how much an individual can donate, and bans on corporations and unions donating. If you get rid of the subsidy, and keep those restrictions in place, what’s the problem? parties then would have to depend solely on their individual supporters for funding.

ETA: that’s in reply to Baffle’s post #1050.

Well, right NOW it’s not an either-or. I think you missed the thrust of Baffle’s post. If a party was mostly appealing to the poor and down-trodden, then their supporters probably don’t have a lot of money to donate so that party would be at a serious disadvantage when campaigning. So government subsidizing of any party based on it’s election results allows a more inclusive field of candidates.

[Northern_Piper]

this is what I was responding to:

[QUOTE=Baffle]

[QUOTE=Cat Whisperer]

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don’t get why that’s such a terrible thing.
[/QUOTE]

Missed this the first time.

The problem with this situation is, every political party still has to find money to operate. If the government doesn’t support political parties, then they have to go elsewhere. To the only other group that has money – wealthy people and corporations, and those people have vested interests that are not always aligned with the interests of the poor and middle class working people.
[/QUOTE]
(my underlining)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but Baffle seemed to me to be saying that if you get rid of the subsidy, you have to allow parties to seek corporate donations, which is not the case now. Plus, the cap on individual donations applies to all individuals. Wealthier people may have more disposable income, but they’re limited in how much they can donate. Why not keep those restrictions, and drop the subsidy?

[CarnalK]

But even with a $1000 dollar limit, one wealthy person can donate many multiples more than some poor. So ultimately, this skews the field. I don’t think Baffle was suggesting opening up corporate donations, but I’ll let him answer to that.

Why not keep the restrictions AND the subsidies? That way, people can invest in the party they prefer AND we get a more representative field of candidates to choose from. I can understand objections to it, “Why should my tax money support the Marxist-Leninist party?” but I think of it as supporting our democratic system, keeping it a little more secure against our capitalist system.

[Baffle]

@CarnalK

But even with a $1000 dollar limit, one wealthy person can donate many multiples more than some poor. So ultimately, this skews the field. I don’t think Baffle was suggesting opening up corporate donations, but I’ll let him answer to that.

Why not keep the restrictions AND the subsidies? That way, people can invest in the party they prefer AND we get a more representative field of candidates to choose from.

Honestly, I was under the impression we still allowed corporate donations, but a bit of research shows I’m about six or seven years behind the times.

I believe democracy is meant to be executed by living, breathing people. I have little love for the concept of corporate personhood, and have no interest in seeing more democratic privileges extended that way.

I can understand objections to it, “Why should my tax money support the Marxist-Leninist party?” but I think of it as supporting our democratic system, keeping it a little more secure against our capitalist system.

There’s no moral ground in disallowing a politlcal party’s ability to compete. I actually signed the local Communist’s nomination papers, not because I supported his platform, but because I believe in his right to have it.

[Baffle]

double post

[RickJay]

@Frank

Take a look south of the border and see what unlimited and uncontrolled funding has done to pervert the electoral process.

The electoral process south of the border is marked by unlimited SPENDING, not funding. The U.S. has donation limit laws, in fact, but lacks election spending laws.

As to the issue, frankly I can see the point in every direction. On one hand the idea of me being forced to donate to political parties frankly makes my skin crawl. On the other, fairness in elections is worth a couple of bucks. But the in the middle, the old system was simply stupid; it effectively favours whomever won the last election. It’s not a coincidence that the Liberals loved the old system enough to create it when they were the ones getting the most votes.