|
PT6A posted:EDIT: I think I'm going to avoid this thread from now on. Grats on making it six minutes. Sounds like you had a great time and picked up some fun new values from the phillipines.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Ikantski posted:Grats on making it six minutes. Sounds like you had a great time and picked up some fun new values from the phillipines. I was going to set up a paypal for "thank you" donations...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Grats on making it six minutes. Sounds like you had a great time and picked up some fun new values from the phillipines. I'm addicted, withdrawal from posting is hard. Really, though, I don't know why everyone's acting like I'm anti-drug all of a sudden. I'm a big fan of the legal availability of all drugs, and I'm fond of using certain intoxicants and/or addictive substances. Drug use, even drug sales, should not be considered a criminal issue. The dumb or illegal poo poo you do while on drugs, on the other hand, shouldn't not be considered criminal or anti-social just because you were under the influence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
I just scrolled through all those pitsixa posts because lol why should I read that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I just scrolled through all those pitsixa posts because lol why should I read that poo poo You did the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I just scrolled through all those pitsixa posts because lol why should I read that poo poo Allow me to summarize https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx5WJjXmuQI
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
PT6A where did you get the wifebeating and criminality idea from? The original post you responded to didn't mention anything of the sort and yet you suddenly jumped in and accused the thread as a whole of defending that when literally no one had said anything about it except you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:PT6A where did you get the wifebeating and criminality idea from? The original post you responded to didn't mention anything of the sort and yet you suddenly jumped in and accused the thread as a whole of defending that when literally no one had said anything about it except you. No, the original post was relating the current fentanyl epidemic with the collapse of oil, and I'm sick of hearing the economic downturn in Alberta blamed for everyone's problems (including, from multiple sources, the reported increase in petty crime, and an increase in the incidence of spousal abuse). These things may indeed be correlated, but the assholes doing them are still responsible. Mainly I'm just pissed off at being back in Calgary where I have to put up with this whiny nonsense all the time every goddamn day. And more drugged-out panhandlers every loving time you want to go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
I think you and the druggie deserve each other. Maybe if we're lucky you'll end up one and stop posting here!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:These things may indeed be correlated, but the assholes doing them are still responsible. Okay? No one here is stating the otherwise? What people are talking about are ways to fix ot prevent that from happening, and the better way of prevention isn't jerking off on being "hard on crime" and trying to deter a loving addiction somehow, but instead trying to stop it before it happens. Literally no one here is claiming that people who do crime aren't personally responsible. You are just yelling at clouds now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Wynne non-committal on ending cash-for-access fundraising posted:Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne is refusing to ban cash-for-access fundraising immediately amid mounting criticism over the controversial practice. Take-away points: 1. Wynne and the OLP are hopelessly corrupt 2. Ontario doesn't have a public registry of lobbyist meetings
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Guys, guys, when PT6A says he's leaving, you let him go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:36
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Rust Martialis posted:Maybe if we're lucky you'll end up one and stop posting here! Someone could buy said fentanyl junkie an account. He'd probably a lot more cheerful than most of these dour fucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
jfood posted:Someone could buy said fentanyl junkie an account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:Take-away points: As much as I'm loathe to defend Wynne, this poo poo is as old as politics itself. Media trying to hang it all on her just sound hysterical frankly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
quote:Ms. Wynne promised on Thursday that her party would not exploit a loophole in the current campaign finance law that would allow donors to give double their regular annual contribution during an upcoming by-election campaign in the Scarborough-Rouge River riding. Are they just talking about how you can donate up to the max during a writ period without it counting towards your cap for the year? Because that applies to every election, not just by-elections, and never struck me as a loophole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Are they just talking about how you can donate up to the max during a writ period without it counting towards your cap for the year? Because that applies to every election, not just by-elections, and never struck me as a loophole. I think the key is that it allows them to raise many times the spending limit of the by-elections. This seems A-ok to you? quote:The Ontario Liberal Party used a loophole in the province's campaign finance laws to amass a whopping $1.6 million during a byelection campaign in which the spending limit was $142,000, CBC News has learned. PK loving SUBBAN posted:As much as I'm loathe to defend Wynne, this poo poo is as old as politics itself. Media trying to hang it all on her just sound hysterical frankly. I'm inclined to believe that's true but try as I might, I can't find much about Stephen Harper's gang engaging in it. As soon as the Liberals took power, they hit the ground running. quote:Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is calling on Parliament to bring in tougher fundraising laws that would address cases of ministers selling access for party donations. E: Oh I forgot the glue. PM Justin Trudeau was campaigning in person at the Ontario by-election thing. Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:As much as I'm loathe to defend Wynne, this poo poo is as old as politics itself. Media trying to hang it all on her just sound hysterical frankly. It's as old as it is despicable, which is why responsible jurisdictions have mechanisms to prevent or minimize it. Ethics commissioners with teeth, for example. At the federal level, donations are capped at a relatively low amount ($1525/yr), there is a publicly accessible list of all lobbying contacts (including meetings, correspondence, and phone calls), and there are heavy penalties for individuals who violate these restrictions. quote:Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne should step down as Premier and call an election in the wake of new evidence of corruption at the highest levels, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union says. For a real laugh, do a linkedin search of Toronto executives who were once OLP staffers. There is an astronomical number of them who transitioned immediately from their staffer job to a high-paying executive gig in a direct stakeholder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Hmmmm this bad poster seems to post more when I quote and reply to them. drat I'm mad at their bad posting, better reply to everything they say! Ignore list, or just ignore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
On Wednesday, the OLP launched their byelection. Who made the announcement? Not the Elections Ontario, not the Lieutenant Governor, and not the Government itself. It was announced via an press-release to party supporters by the OLP campaign team in Scarborough-Rouge River.NDP files complaint with Elections Ontario over Liberals' byelection launch posted:The NDP have filed a complaint with Elections Ontario about the way the Liberal government launched a byelection this week in Scarborough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Pretty sure the OLP have a huge campaign warchest compared to the Conservatives and ODNP and are doing everything they can to make sure they never lose that advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Friendly reminder that Doug Ford is the campaign manager for Raymond Cho. PCs will probably win because it's a byelection, and we can expect very much crowing from Mr. Ford until 2018. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
What's really striking about the Ontario Liberals is how effectively they've managed to bring both the private sector and a substantial chunk of labour into the same big tent of corruption and graft. The Working Families Coalition -- a sort of union funded political action committee that routinely spends as much in any election as any of the major parties -- is effectively just another arm of the OLP. Whether this is a good deal for the unions regular members is questionable at best given the Liberal's love of austerity and privatization, but union members are scared shitless of a conservative victory and therefore look the other way while their leaders throw millions of membership fees toward repeatedly reelecting Liberals. And businesses, for their part, show no appetite for setting up a rival PAC to help the conservatives -- either out of fear of retribution, or because they're already getting everything they want, or some mixture of those two reasons, both the unions and most politically active businesses seem to have made their peace with the Liberal government. Sure they'll donate to the other parties, but you don't see the kind of urgent mobilization that happened in the early 90s when businesses were desperate to get rid of Bob Rae. It's a bizarre situation and a testament to Canadian mediocrity that the OLP can so effectively triangulate between these vastly differently interest groups while stitching together a large enough electoral coalition to consistently win elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What's really striking about the Ontario Liberals is how effectively they've managed to bring both the private sector and a substantial chunk of labour into the same big tent of corruption and graft. The Working Families Coalition -- a sort of union funded political action committee that routinely spends as much in any election as any of the major parties -- is effectively just another arm of the OLP. Whether this is a good deal for the unions regular members is questionable at best given the Liberal's love of austerity and privatization, but union members are scared shitless of a conservative victory and therefore look the other way while their leaders throw millions of membership fees toward repeatedly reelecting Liberals. And businesses, for their part, show no appetite for setting up a rival PAC to help the conservatives -- either out of fear of retribution, or because they're already getting everything they want, or some mixture of those two reasons, both the unions and most politically active businesses seem to have made their peace with the Liberal government. Sure they'll donate to the other parties, but you don't see the kind of urgent mobilization that happened in the early 90s when businesses were desperate to get rid of Bob Rae. FWIW, I don't think that Big Business (esp Bay Street) is really the traditional ally of the PCs; their historical constituency is small towns, suburbs, and small business owners. Bay street has long been an OLP ally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:therefore look the other way while their leaders throw millions of membership fees toward repeatedly reelecting Liberals The Liberals secretly paid teacher unions millions in negotiating expenses, something dues usually cover, membership doesn't need to be worry about that. I agree with the rest except I would have ended with a sardonic wish for the appearance of a true captain of democracy who would eliminate corporate and union donations to political parties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Which would just end up routing donations through connected individuals and their families.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The Liberals secretly paid teacher unions millions in negotiating expenses, something dues usually cover, membership doesn't need to be worry about that. I agree with the rest except I would have ended with a sardonic wish for the appearance of a true captain of democracy who would eliminate corporate and union donations to political parties. The smartest thing the next party to take office can do is to adopt a political financing scheme that is equal or more restrictive than what we have at the federal level. Even if they accomplish nothing else, it would be the most noteworthy contribution to the health of Ontario's democracy in decades. infernal machines posted:Which would just end up routing donations through connected individuals and their families. Not with a significantly reduced annual cap on political contributions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Which would just end up routing donations through connected individuals and their families. Oh yeah okay nevermind, what a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
I'm saying it's not a panacea. It's been done before and all it does, practically speaking, is help obscure the money trail. We've done it here in Toronto and it hasn't prevented developers and their families making maxed out contributions to councillors whose wards they have projects in. It just comes from them personally, rather than their business. Fluffy Chainsaw posted:The smartest thing the next party to take office can do is to adopt a political financing scheme that is equal or more restrictive than what we have at the federal level. Even if they accomplish nothing else, it would be the most noteworthy contribution to the health of Ontario's democracy in decades. Yes, I'm sure you'll find a political party willing to completely hamstring their own ability to fund raise. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I'm saying it's not a panacea. It's been done before and all it does, practically speaking, is help obscure the money trail. In fact, yes. quote:In 2006, the new Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper passed the Federal Accountability Act, instituting a number of significant reforms regarding the operation of government and the conduct of political officials. In regard to campaign finance, the Act set out new rules for political donations, a ban on candidates accepting gifts that might be seen as influencing them, and a ban on transferring trust-fund money to candidates or political parties. One of the best things that the CPC did, and a real legacy piece.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What's really striking about the Ontario Liberals is how effectively they've managed to bring both the private sector and a substantial chunk of labour into the same big tent of corruption and graft. The Working Families Coalition -- a sort of union funded political action committee that routinely spends as much in any election as any of the major parties -- is effectively just another arm of the OLP. Whether this is a good deal for the unions regular members is questionable at best given the Liberal's love of austerity and privatization, but union members are scared shitless of a conservative victory and therefore look the other way while their leaders throw millions of membership fees toward repeatedly reelecting Liberals. And businesses, for their part, show no appetite for setting up a rival PAC to help the conservatives -- either out of fear of retribution, or because they're already getting everything they want, or some mixture of those two reasons, both the unions and most politically active businesses seem to have made their peace with the Liberal government. Sure they'll donate to the other parties, but you don't see the kind of urgent mobilization that happened in the early 90s when businesses were desperate to get rid of Bob Rae. I think W.A.C. Bennett pulled off a similar thing in B.C. during his 20 year reign. He seemed to be able to get support from both labour and captial by promising to protect each side from the other, all while fighting the amorphous socialist/communist boogieman and nationalizing things like B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro. His cut and pave approach to development certainly kept a lot of labour happy. Is nationalizing the right word? It's been so long I'm not sure what the opposite of privatizing is anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:In fact, yes. Oh, yes, the law the CPC passed to gut funding for the opposition because they had a broad base of individual contributors at the time and the others did not. The one where they also killed funding for marginal parties by removing the per-vote subsidy, ensuring that your vote for anyone but the front-runner became literally worthless. Definitely a legacy piece.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Oh, yes, the law the CPC passed to gut funding for the opposition because they had a broad base of individual contributors at the time and the others did not. The one where they also killed funding for marginal parties by removing the per-vote subsidy, ensuring that your vote for anyone but the front-runner became literally worthless. You're conflating. The per-vote-subsidy was eliminated in 2011, a whole 5 years after the thing that I'm talking about. As a reminder, the lower contribution limits were brought about because Joe Volpe accepted $16,000 from literal children. And since you brought it up, if a political party can't raise money from individual Canadians, it deserves exactly what it gets, which is zero dollars. Fluffy Chainsaw fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:And since you brought it up, if a political party can't raise money from individual Canadians, it deserves exactly what it gets, which is zero dollars. Glad to hear you openly admit that poor people don't deserve political representation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:You're conflating. The per-vote-subsidy was eliminated in 2011, a whole 5 years after the thing that I'm talking about. I apologize, I had mixed those two. vyelkin posted:Glad to hear you openly admit that poor people don't deserve political representation. And approve of political parties that openly sell themselves because they have no other way to generate the funding needed to mount a campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:FWIW, I don't think that Big Business (esp Bay Street) is really the traditional ally of the PCs; their historical constituency is small towns, suburbs, and small business owners. Bay street has long been an OLP ally. It's worth keeping in mind that prior to the 1980s the Conservatives governed Ontario continuously for forty years. When he was elected Mike Harris was an outsider who was kept out of cabinet by the more elitist Red Tory leadership. He won the leadership after the Progressive Conservatives changed to a one-member-one-vote system which allowed the more conservative base of the party to over ride the wishes of the political grandees who had, until then, controlled the party. And Harris's chances in the 1995 election looked so grim that many Conservative MPPs and senior figures left the party, giving Harris a particularly free hand to select candidates and policies. When he unexpectedly won in 1995 and then again in 1999 he dramatically reshaped the party in his own image, turning it into an American-style neoconservative entity that it had never really been before. As I've said before, traditional Canadian conservatism was markedly different from the more American-inspired variation that figures like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein popularized in the 1990s. I recount this little canned history lesson to emphasize that once upon a time the Tory's and their "Big Blue Machine" dominated the province in a way that even the contemporary Liberals could only dream of (in fact the NDP was the official opposition for part of this period, which should emphasize just how weak the traditional OLP was). Ontario's tendency has always been to elect provincial conservatives and federal liberals, often from the same ridings. So while it's true that the federal Liberal party has always been very friendly with Bay Street, the recent success of the OLP in straddling that fuzzy, graft-ridden middle ground of provincial politics is a comparatively recent phenomenon that was only made possible after the NDP and Conservatives managed to blow themselves up in rapid succession during the 1990s (again worth emphasizing: had the 1999 provincial election happened 6 months later than it did then Harris would have been a one term premier, his administration was basically a suicide bombing against the Ontario welfare and regulatory state and by the time he was done he'd destroyed his party's future electoral prospects for a generation). Ontario politics is weird. You can't make sense of where we are right now without accounting for all the poo poo that happened in the 1990s. Which partially explains why Mike Harris still gets brought up in every election even though he hasn't been in office since 2002. Ikantski posted:The Liberals secretly paid teacher unions millions in negotiating expenses, something dues usually cover, membership doesn't need to be worry about that. I agree with the rest except I would have ended with a sardonic wish for the appearance of a true captain of democracy who would eliminate corporate and union donations to political parties. The teachers certainly garner benefits from their close relationship with the Liberals but it's worth emphasizing that the initiative here mostly seems to come from the union leadership rather than the rank and file, correctly or incorrectly, think they're being mistreated by the government. Hexigrammus posted:I think W.A.C. Bennett pulled off a similar thing in B.C. during his 20 year reign. He seemed to be able to get support from both labour and captial by promising to protect each side from the other, all while fighting the amorphous socialist/communist boogieman and nationalizing things like B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro. His cut and pave approach to development certainly kept a lot of labour happy. It's actually a pretty typical arrangement for post-war decolonized countries where instead of having competitive elections there's a one party state, with various interest groups competing within the party for influence. Obviously I'm exaggerating but at times it almost feels as though Canada's political structures have as much in common with those third world countries and as it does with proper first world nation states. We're lucky we're located on a relative island of stability because you could imagine our political structures breaking down really fast if they were confronted with the kind of stresses that other countries routinely face. Fluffy Chainsaw posted:In fact, yes. In his job immediately before joining the Conservative party, as leader of the National Citizens Coalition, Harper repeatedly condemned and campaigned against contribution limits on political parties. The only reason he switched courses was because it would harm the opposition. There was literally no motivation behind that move other than naked self interest on the Conservatives' part and implying that it was a noble sacrifice is either dishonest or naive. Anyway, the idea that middle class and wealthy individuals should be all that matters in fundraising -- which is implicitly what you're advocating, however you try to spin it -- is idiotic. The people who fund parties are the people who get the most political attention from those parties, and if there's one thing this country doesn't need more of right now it's more catering to the interests of the top 10% or 15% of income earners. Any policy which expands the pool of people that the parties have to appeal to in order to win would be good and your bizarre fetish for a first-past-the-post electoral system funded exclusively by the wealthiest members of society is just a recipe for an even more dysfunctional and ineffective government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Glad to hear you openly admit that poor people don't deserve political representation. Is there a Poor Party that can't get off the ground because it has to fundraise that I'm not aware of? infernal machines posted:And approve of political parties that openly sell themselves because they have no other way to generate the funding needed to mount a campaign. Why is it that you're upset about parties selling themselves here, but defended the OLP inaction of campaign finance reform vis-a-vis their $10,000-a-plate dinners upthread? Helsing posted:In his job immediately before joining the Conservative party, as leader of the National Citizens Coalition, Harper repeatedly condemned and campaigned against contribution limits on political parties. The only reason he switched courses was because it would harm the opposition. There was literally no motivation behind that move other than naked self interest on the Conservatives' part and implying that it was a noble sacrifice is either dishonest or naive. Whether it was done for cynical reasons or not, removing big money from political fundraising was the right choice. As can be seen by recent fundraising numbers, the parties haven't been significantly impacted in the medium term, and it's prevented the outright buying of favour that plagued federal politics pre-2006 (again, see Volpe and Apotex). Fluffy Chainsaw fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:Is there a Poor Party that can't get off the ground because it has to fundraise that I'm not aware of? If we pretend that this was a question asked in good faith then your underlying query would be something along the lines of: "Does my proposed system of party financing place large barriers in front of the participation of low-income individuals in politics?" and the answer would be a clear and resounding yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:Why is it that you're upset about parties selling themselves here, but defended the OLP inaction of campaign finance reform vis-a-vis their $10,000-a-plate dinners upthread? Could you show me where I did that? I must have missed it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Helsing posted:If we pretend that this was a question asked in good faith then your underlying query would be something along the lines of: "Does my proposed system of party financing place large barriers in front of the participation of low-income individuals in politics?" and the answer would be a clear and resounding yes. Please elaborate on how eliminating the $1.73 a political party receives from the vote of a low-income individual prevents said low-income person from participating in politics. infernal machines posted:Which would just end up routing donations through connected individuals and their families. What else could your "eliminating the ability of corporations and unions to donate won't make a difference because the money will flow through people instead so let's not bother to change anything" assertion be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:43
|
|