|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted: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? Provably true, and completely unrelated to cash-for-access fundraisers? It doesn't prevent those corporations and unions from donating at the municipal level, it just obscures where the donations are coming from. I suppose the federal level could be a different beast entirely simply due to scale, but it's not preventing contributions from being made, just changing whose name is on them. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/04/09/corporate-and-union-campaign-donations-still-loom-large-at-city-hall.html infernal machines fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Aug 5, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:
You cited it as an example of a party sacrificing its own fundraising capacity for noble and principled reasons, when it was actually just a reflection of the conservatives having been smart enough to invest in good voter database software earlier than the Liberals. It was naked self interest. That doesn't mean the policy had no merits but let's be open about that. If anything, the real sacrifice was the reforms Chretien passed just before leaving office -- which many speculate were a little landmine he left behind to blow up Paul Martin. I also don't know why you'd claim it avoided outright buying of favors. How would you know that? Most back-scratching in Ottawa happens behind closed doors. Did you miss the fact that the federal Liberals are currently holding closed door fundraisers where people shell out thousands of dollars to get special access to the finance minister or other senior government officials? Are you totally blind to the tendency for former politicians to take up jobs in the private sector shortly after leaving positions of authority over those same industries? etc. You're massively overselling this policy and its efficacy, and doing it in the most bizarre kind of elitist way. Your posts all feel like they're coming from the height of the end of history mania in the early 1990s when people thought that all that was left in politics was technocratic adjustments. Did you just miss the last twenty plus years where we've been viscerally reminded again and again that elite technocrats have provided the worst governance of the entire post-war era? Fluffy Chainsaw posted: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. You're asking me why a policy which makes parties exclusively rely on money that overwhelmingly comes from middle class and wealthy individuals might somehow make those parties less receptive to the needs or desires of the poor? What exactly do you need elaborated here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:Please elaborate on how eliminating the $1.73 a political party receives from the vote of a low-income individual prevents said low-income person from participating in politics. Back when I was a minimum wage slave the first thing on my mind when I was living paycheque to paycheque making 1400$ a month was donating to the political party of my choice, things like rent and food are overrated anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Provably true? It doesn't prevent those corporations and unions from donating at the municipal level, it just obscures where the donations are coming from. I suppose the federal level could be a different beast entirely simply due to scale, but it's not preventing contributions from being made, just changing whose name is on them. This is an easy loophole to address if the government of the day has a good-faith interest in eliminating corporate money. Banning corporate and union donations and loans in conjunction with enacting a low individual limit (sub $1000) on donations is an effective way to deal with the problem. Will a group still be able to direct money? Yes, but in a volume small enough that it's impossible to curry favour because contributions will no-longer dwarf those made by regular Susans and Joes. The problem with money in politics right now is this: quote:Individuals would be able to contribute a total of $7,750 to each party and its candidates and riding associations in an election year, or about $6,200 in non-election years. quote:The contribution limits for the 2014 to 2018 calendar years are:
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Back when I was a minimum wage slave the first thing on my mind when I was living paycheque to paycheque making 1400$ a month was donating to the political party of my choice, things like rent and food are overrated anyway There are plenty of ways to get involved in politics beyond a financial contribution, and all of them will afford you more influence in a political party than will a passive $1.73 every four years. Helsing posted:You cited it as an example of a party sacrificing its own fundraising capacity for noble and principled reasons, when it was actually just a reflection of the conservatives having been smart enough to invest in good voter database software earlier than the Liberals. It was naked self interest. That doesn't mean the policy had no merits but let's be open about that. If anything, the real sacrifice was the reforms Chretien passed just before leaving office -- which many speculate were a little landmine he left behind to blow up Paul Martin. No I didn't. I cited it as a party sacrificing its fundraising capacity full stop. Nowhere did I say it was done for reasons of principle. My exact words were "In fact, yes." Helsing posted:I also don't know why you'd claim it avoided outright buying of favors. How would you know that? Most back-scratching in Ottawa happens behind closed doors. Did you miss the fact that the federal Liberals are currently holding closed door fundraisers where people shell out thousands of dollars to get special access to the finance minister or other senior government officials? Are you totally blind to the tendency for former politicians to take up jobs in the private sector shortly after leaving positions of authority over those same industries? etc. You're massively overselling this policy and its efficacy, and doing it in the most bizarre kind of elitist way. I explicitly called out politicians and staffers doing exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:No I didn't. I cited it as a party sacrificing its fundraising capacity full stop. Nowhere did I say it was done for reasons of principle. My exact words were "In fact, yes." The point of the comment you replied to was that they didn't hamstring their own ability to raise funds, they were completely insulated from the effects of that legislation because that wasn't how they were getting their money to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
I guess if you're naive enough -- or if you've cultivated a kind of willful stupidity about politics that allows you to maintain your current asinine beliefs -- then you can just totally ignore the much deeper ways in which political influence is felt and exclusively fixate on cash donations. It's a nice, clean little technocratic problem that can be targeted with legislation and you can play around with the numbers and treat it like a neat little puzzle. Sure you're ignoring the fluid movement between board rooms and political parties or the role of the media or all kinds of other important factors that are totally absent from your analysis but hey, it lets you pretend that you've really thought things through and you can turn a major and intractable political problem into a neat little puzzle to chew on. I guess this is about what we should expect from someone who thinks that the only relevant factor in explaining a countries politics is whether they have proportional representation or first past the post.Fluffy Chainsaw posted:There are plenty of ways to get involved in politics beyond a financial contribution, and all of them will afford you more influence in a political party than will a passive $1.73 every four years. Except the same barriers that stop people from contributing also limit their ability to get involved in these other ways. Besides which, the fact is that parties need money, and that by giving them the ability to raise this money through appealing to a larger pool of voters you level the playing field. You create a systemic reason for all parties to cater to the needs and interests of the broader majority. The $1.73 per vote matters specifically because of the scale on which it's implemented, something that no number of individuals committed to volunteering more often are in a position to replicate at this moment. quote:No I didn't. I cited it as a party sacrificing its fundraising capacity full stop. Nowhere did I say it was done for reasons of principle. My exact words were "In fact, yes." Are you really unaware of all the connotations that the choice of the term "sacrifice" carries? When you do something that hurts your enemies way more than it hurts you, and which actually will put you at a greater fundraising advantage than the one you previously enjoyed, then most conventional English speakers probably wouldn't call such a move a "sacrifice". You're calling it out while adhering to an analysis -- and a proposed solution -- which completely ignores the problem. This is kind of like how PT6A pretends to have moral outrage about domestic abuse when in fact his only proposed solutions would make the problem much worse by mainstreaming the availability of addictive drugs and his general political orientation is toward parties and policies that further hurt the people he's pretending to care about. Grandstanding is cheap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're calling it out while adhering to an analysis -- and a proposed solution -- which completely ignores the problem. This is kind of like how PT6A pretends to have moral outrage about domestic abuse when in fact his only proposed solutions would make the problem much worse by mainstreaming the availability of addictive drugs and his general political orientation is toward parties and policies that further hurt the people he's pretending to care about. Grandstanding is cheap. I certainly did not propose a solution to the quagmire that is political financing in Ontario, no. Let's get back on track. What do you think of the current political financing system in Ontario? Should corporate and union donations be banned? Is the current $6200 annual contribution limit for individuals too high? What do you think should be done about the ease with which OLP staffers move from ministries to cushy executive gigs? Fluffy Chainsaw fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're calling it out while adhering to an analysis -- and a proposed solution -- which completely ignores the problem. This is kind of like how PT6A pretends to have moral outrage about domestic abuse when in fact his only proposed solutions would make the problem much worse by mainstreaming the availability of addictive drugs and his general political orientation is toward parties and policies that further hurt the people he's pretending to care about. Grandstanding is cheap. Again, blaming substance abuse for spousal abuse is stupid. It's not the beer's fault if you beat your wife, any more than it's beer's fault that you drive drunk. Substances don't have agency, the people who use those substances do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:I certainly did not propose a solution to the quagmire that is political financing in Ontario, no. Where'd you get $6,200? quote:In each year, any person, corporation or trade union may contribute up to $9,975 to Ontario Liberal Party. Also, you may contribute up to $1,330 to any of our constituency associations, but the total contribution to all Ontario Liberal constituency associations must not exceed $6,650. This means the maximum annual political contribution allowed in a non-election year is $16,625 to each registered party and its constituency associations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Again, blaming substance abuse for spousal abuse is stupid. It's not the beer's fault if you beat your wife, any more than it's beer's fault that you drive drunk. Substances don't have agency, the people who use those substances do. It's not the gun's fault if I kill someone, but it sure as hell helps
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Guns are bad, substance abuse is bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Raise taxes, criminalize political donations of all kinds, enact a per vote subsidy. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:It's not the gun's fault if I kill someone, but it sure as hell helps A gun is a tool that you use to kill something. Assuming you don't commit physical abuse with actual full beer cans, it's not really comparable. Being drunk doesn't "help" you do domestic violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:I certainly did not propose a solution to the quagmire that is political financing in Ontario, no. Your solution is premised on the idea that the federal system is particularly effective at preventing influence peddling. quote:Let's get back on track. What do you think of the current political financing system in Ontario? Should corporate and union donations be banned? Is the current $6200 annual contribution limit for individuals too high? What do you think should be done about the ease with which OLP staffers move from ministries to cushy executive gigs? I believe that you're over emphasizing legislation and ignoring the underlying structural conditions which dictate who exercises power and how they exercise it. The current system of political financing in Ontario is a mess and there's some room to talk about technocratic fixes to those problems, such as adjusting contribution limits or regulating which kinds of entities and fund-raise or contribute to parties. I would say that on the technocratic side of things you're sort of overlooking the importance of third party groups like the Working Families Coalition, which theoretically isn't affiliated with any party but which in practice is an arm of the OLP's campaign team. However, my basic point here is that your focus is off. The deeper issue here is the organization of society itself into various interest groups, classes, demographics, whatever one chooses to call them. Changes over the last several decades have dramatically shifted the balance of power within society. There used to be all kinds of formal and informal mechanisms through which middle and even working class people could influence governmental policy. Describing this set of arrangements would take more time and effort than I can give right now (though I'm happy to revisit this later) but the take away here is that our imperfect political system, deeply flawed though it was, was somewhat amendable to pressure from below. And that pressure didn't come from a diffuse, atomized society of individual citizens, it came from organizing those citizens into politically mobilized pressure groups or special interests or whatever you choose to call them. In recent decades, again due to a variety of factors that it would be difficult to list in a short post, the influence of all but a very narrow collection of special interests has been muted or removed altogether. This is the real dislocating issue at the centre of our politics: there isn't some quick legislative fix we can make because its a much deeper problem that has to do with large parts of society being dis-empowered and shut out of whatever modest political influence they once had. In the mid to long term what is needed is a renewed political mobilization from the bottom up, which will in turn need to either rehabilitate old institutions or construct new institutions which can articulate and then fight for the interests of people outside the top 10% to 15% of income earners and the organizational vehicles (of which corporations are the most obvious, but hardly the only, example) that these individuals use to advance their interests. That will require a combination of organizing, skill and a huge amount of luck. What it doesn't particularly rest on is this or that minor technical fix to a system which is broken for reasons that go way beyond some technical glitch. PT6A posted:Again, blaming substance abuse for spousal abuse is stupid. It's not the beer's fault if you beat your wife, any more than it's beer's fault that you drive drunk. Substances don't have agency, the people who use those substances do. I'm glad you have developed a rationalization for your views that means you can feel self righteous even as you advocate policies that would hurt the people you're pretending to care about. I also find it interesting that it never appears to have even crossed your mind that a bad job market often traps abused partners by removing any economic option for them to leave their abuser. Perhaps because acknowledging that kind of nuance would take away the giddy thrill you get from publicly jerking off over how tough minded you are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Substances chemically affect your brain, often affecting your decision making process and "help"ing you make decisions that you would not otherwise make. You're not bludgeoning someone with your fentanyl, the fentanyl is affecting your brain chemistry to the point that you think bludgeoning someone is an acceptable choice. Different mechanism, similar outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I also find it interesting that it never appears to have even crossed your mind that a bad job market often traps abused partners by removing any economic option for them to leave their abuser. This is a good point, I hadn't considered that. Maybe you should've led with that. ChickenWing posted:Substances chemically affect your brain, often affecting your decision making process and "help"ing you make decisions that you would not otherwise make. You're not bludgeoning someone with your fentanyl, the fentanyl is affecting your brain chemistry to the point that you think bludgeoning someone is an acceptable choice. Different mechanism, similar outcome. No, the chemical dependancy on opiates causes you to do irrational things in order to avoid withdrawal, something that would be unnecessary if we permitted addicts to access the substance they're addicted to legally and affordably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Where'd you get $6,200? That's the proposed limit. The current limits are much higher. Helsing posted:Your solution is premised on the idea that the federal system is particularly effective at preventing influence peddling. It might not be perfect at preventing influence peddling, but it is a drat sight better than what currently exists in Ontario. Helsing posted:I believe that you're over emphasizing legislation and ignoring the underlying structural conditions which dictate who exercises power and how they exercise it. The current system of political financing in Ontario is a mess and there's some room to talk about technocratic fixes to those problems, such as adjusting contribution limits or regulating which kinds of entities and fund-raise or contribute to parties. I would say that on the technocratic side of things you're sort of overlooking the importance of third party groups like the Working Families Coalition, which theoretically isn't affiliated with any party but which in practice is an arm of the OLP's campaign team. However, my basic point here is that your focus is off. There are federal limits to third-party groups as well - in a more effective regime, they should be lower. As an interesting point, the WFC spent roughly one-third as much as the top ten spending third parties at the federal level. Helsing posted:The deeper issue here is the organization of society itself into various interest groups, classes, demographics, whatever one chooses to call them. Changes over the last several decades have dramatically shifted the balance of power within society. There used to be all kinds of formal and informal mechanisms through which middle and even working class people could influence governmental policy. Describing this set of arrangements would take more time and effort than I can give right now (though I'm happy to revisit this later) but the take away here is that our imperfect political system, deeply flawed though it was, was somewhat amendable to pressure from below. And that pressure didn't come from a diffuse, atomized society of individual citizens, it came from organizing those citizens into politically mobilized pressure groups or special interests or whatever you choose to call them. I think that you raise some interesting points, but at the same time, a complete overhaul of Canadian identity and our social structures and their political engagement to eliminate corruption, influence-peddling, and vote selling is not a thing that's going to happen. The reason I focused on legislative solutions is because that's a tangible, concrete tool we have at our disposal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, the chemical dependancy on opiates causes you to do irrational things in order to avoid withdrawal, something that would be unnecessary if we permitted addicts to access the substance they're addicted to legally and affordably. If we made wife beating legal, nobody would be illegally beating their wives anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:If we made wife beating legal, nobody would be illegally beating their wives anymore. If beating your wife weren't in and of itself a bad thing that negatively affects another person, then, yes, this would be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Christ I wish we had a tax on bad posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Physically assaulting someone against their wishes is and should be a criminal act, because it affects another person in a way that they do not consent to. Taking substances should not be a criminal act because it affects the person taking the substance themselves, not someone else. If they negatively affect someone else as a result of actions while they take while on the substances, that should possibly be a criminal issue. I can't believe so many people believe we shouldn't have the right to do what we like to our own bodies just because some people can't handle it without doing things that are already criminalized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
I can't believe you had to make that ridiculous reply to a clearly false equivalence from a poster whose stock in trade is ironic false equivalences
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
If you think the only way addicts brains are impacted is their desire for the next fix from drug and alcohol addiction you're naive and have never had any sort of close association with someone with substance addiction problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I'm sorry for restarting that conversation on substance abuse. Fluffy Chainsaw posted:
This is undeniable. Notwithstanding that I just downplayed the role of technocratic fixes, I will confess that one thing I find paritcularly jarring about Ontario is how little transparency there is. I've actually looked into the Working Families Coalition in the past and they're under almost no obligation to publish anything about their activities outside of election periods. quote:There are federal limits to third-party groups as well - in a more effective regime, they should be lower. As an interesting point, the WFC spent roughly one-third as much as the top ten spending third parties at the federal level. This is fair enough and I will admit that in the last six months or year I've stopped posting so much on the structural conditions I was outlining there because it's so apparent that in the short term they are almost impossible to fix. I do think, however, that some kind of big picture view of the problem is sorely lacking right now. While there's a need to have some practical short term goals such as reforming campaign finance, I think that a truly balanced approach also requires some kind of longer term view which allows us to recognize the limits of purely legislative solutions to what is in large part a structural problem. This is also why I think that the per-vote subsidy was highly useful. Because it places a guaranteed floor of funding under every party that can garner votes, regardless of whether they're catering to the interests of people who have the time and resources to significantly contribute to political parties. I would also emphasize that my reasoning here is pragmatic rather than ethical. I'm not saying "Oh these poor people deserve a voice, we're morally obligated to give subsidize the parties they vote for". Rather I'm making a more straight forward argument that the entire system functions better when policies are in place which create incentives for parties to cater to people who might not otherwise have very much influence. This is why, despite mostly avoiding detailed policy talk, I'm willing to support that specific policy and even to say it should be strengthened: because it's one of the rare contemporary examples of a policy that actually does, in an admittedly modest way, refocus some political attention onto groups that otherwise lack representation. PT6A posted:This is a good point, I hadn't considered that. Maybe you should've led with that. Look, I don't want to get into an extended discussion here because it would be pointless and just sap all the energy out of the thread. I'm just going to suggest that if this completely obvious fact -- which is widely commented upon and totally obvious to anyone who has ever taken an interest in this issue -- somehow escape you, then maybe you should just practice a bit more self restraint about posting on this topic. If you're not going to do some basic thinking on your own before developing opinions then maybe don't come into the thread with both barrels blazing? I mean Christ dude, imagine somebody who doesn't know poo poo about programming suddenly unloading on you with a bunch of opinions about poo poo that you've actually spent time mastering. It's extremely obnoxious, even more so when people started telling you that they had been personally impacted by this issue and you replied with the most condescending and disingenuous "sorry you're offended, now allow me to keep running my mouth" kind of answer. That is hopefully my final word on the subject. Again, to the rest of the thread, I'm sorry I'm too weak to not just shut my mouth and avoid engaging on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
flashman posted:If you think the only way addicts brains are impacted is their desire for the next fix from drug and alcohol addiction you're naive and have never had any sort of close association with someone with substance addiction problems. I have, in fact. I know a recovered cocaine addict, as well as several active alcoholics, some of whom are also lovely people who do lovely things in addition to being dependent on alcohol, and some of whom are not. I also have a lot of experience with alcohol myself, although no experience with physical dependency obviously, and I can tell you that it doesn't make me do anything I would otherwise find morally abhorrent, even if it lowers inhibitions to the point that you demonstrate questionable judgement in many circumstances. I think we certainly need to increase the amount of help available to addicts who wish to recover, but that doesn't mean the substances themselves are the problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Raise taxes, criminalize political donations of all kinds, enact a per vote subsidy. Or a flat amount per qualifying party. Then all we need to do is to reduce the subsidy until parties can't afford to advertise and I know my quality of life will be improved. Seeing as we subsidize donations by treating them like charitable contributions, we probably wouldn't even need to raise taxes by very much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is also why I think that the per-vote subsidy was highly useful. Because it places a guaranteed floor of funding under every party that can garner votes, regardless of whether they're catering to the interests of people who have the time and resources to significantly contribute to political parties. I would also emphasize that my reasoning here is pragmatic rather than ethical. I'm not saying "Oh these poor people deserve a voice, we're morally obligated to give subsidize the parties they vote for". Rather I'm making a more straight forward argument that the entire system functions better when policies are in place which create incentives for parties to cater to people who might not otherwise have very much influence. This is why, despite mostly avoiding detailed policy talk, I'm willing to support that specific policy and even to say it should be strengthened: because it's one of the rare contemporary examples of a policy that actually does, in an admittedly modest way, refocus some political attention onto groups that otherwise lack representation. From my own admittedly unrealistic perspective, I'd like to see Canada and the provinces go about it from the other direction. Witnessing the atrocity that is big money in American politics, I think the best thing that could be done would be to lower the ceiling on campaign finance even more. At the federal level, as an example, a reduction on the annual [individual] contribution limit (from $1,525 + $25/yr) + contributions to ridings + contributions to leadership contestants to a flat $500 (indexed to CPI) per party, with no other sources of funding (other than bank loans at commercial interest rates). Nothing is as big a boost to the centralization of party power in Canadian politics as big money. Edit: While we're on the subject, I think that extending the FAA's existing bans on Lobbying from 5 to 7 years, doubling the "non-compete clause" from 1 to 2 years (and from 2 to 4 years in the case of Ministers), and extending the definition of "public office holder" to include those who have worked for a parliamentary leader in the last two years, regardless of whether that individual was a leader at the time would also be a great start. Fluffy Chainsaw fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Raise taxes, criminalize political donations of all kinds, enact a per vote subsidy. This won't stop influence peddling but it's still probably the best plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The deeper issue here is the organization of society itself into various interest groups, classes, demographics, whatever one chooses to call them. Changes over the last several decades have dramatically shifted the balance of power within society. There used to be all kinds of formal and informal mechanisms through which middle and even working class people could influence governmental policy. Describing this set of arrangements would take more time and effort than I can give right now (though I'm happy to revisit this later) but the take away here is that our imperfect political system, deeply flawed though it was, was somewhat amendable to pressure from below. And that pressure didn't come from a diffuse, atomized society of individual citizens, it came from organizing those citizens into politically mobilized pressure groups or special interests or whatever you choose to call them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
a primate posted:This won't stop influence peddling but it's still probably the best plan. This has the unfortunate side-effect of crystallizing the current political landscape. If funding only comes from the government and you can't raise funds in the community, you can't very well start a new political party, because you can't build political infrastructure without money, and you can't get money without votes, and you can't get votes without an established infrastructure that gets your message out to Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I think a canadian forces military junta would be the best solution
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
lmao j/k can you imagine some loving retard from royal roads running this country
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:lmao j/k can you imagine some loving retard from royal roads running this country Chris Hadfield for Prime Minister!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
limit every party to a election spending cap equal to the maximum amount raised by the party that raised the least in the previous election also abolish lawn/roadside political signage
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Limit all elections to pubically funded debates and ban all other forms of advertising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
jesus gently caress NASA really lowered the bar to let hadfield into space didn't they? a loving engineering degree split between royal roads and RMC??? what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:jesus gently caress NASA really lowered the bar to let hadfield into space didn't they?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I think a canadian forces military junta would be the best solution I'll admit this one made me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:02
|
|