|
It's a fairly pertinent question when you're talking about China. How many countries have been able to go through industrialization and modernization without exploitation and human rights abuses?
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Certainly not this one, and China in particular would be quite right in pointing that out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
None, for sure, but that doesn't mean the mistakes of the past have to be repeated. Human rights is a little bit like the environment where you can treat it as a casualty of economic progress for a long time but eventually the cumulative costs become very real, and the benefits of respecting human rights can be small in the present but great in the long term. The lack of an independent civil society in China is going to be a real problem when the CCP starts to fall apart. It's a little bit like thinking that slavery is a necessary precondition of a prosperous democracy because that's how we did it, or that you have to have people ending up in processed food for someone to write a book about it and make it better. Learn from the mistakes of people who went before!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:"Do you think development will be possible with such protections?" is the reason I'm not a journalist. What the gently caress did you just loving say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Chinese Military, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on chinese farmers, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire Chinese armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the gently caress out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my loving words. You think you can get away with saying that poo poo to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across China and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re loving dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Chinese military and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable rear end off the face of the continent, you little poo poo. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your loving tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will poo poo fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re loving dead, kiddo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Stop scaring off the Chinese real estate investors
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
No, don't. Edit: This post contains ghosts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Please scare off the Chinese real estate investors. Please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure if there are many examples of a rich, powerful country under no threat of foreign invasion eagerly cutting its own throat in the way Canada is currently doing with it's trade with places like China. Yes, let's mimic the economic trajectory of African colonies, and let foreign nationals extract our resources for us at dime store prices, that's always worked out well in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:Please scare off the Chinese real estate investors. Please. 4!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not sure if there are many examples of a rich, powerful country under no threat of foreign invasion eagerly cutting its own throat in the way Canada is currently doing with it's trade with places like China. Yes, let's mimic the economic trajectory of African colonies, and let foreign nationals extract our resources for us at dime store prices, that's always worked out well in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Newfie posted:Newfoundland politics, so corrupt that they get their own vice article to untangle in bullshit: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/balls-to-the-wall-newfoundland-premier-could-be-exiled-over-payout-scandal My buddy and I have been talking about this a lot lately. We've both come to the conclusion that Ed Martin and the board essentially bamboozled Dwight Ball, and there's gently caress all he can do about it at this point. The board had the authority to authorize Martin's severance anyway, so whatever Ball did or didn't say before hand doesn't mean squat. I'm pretty sure at this point that Ed Martin is going to end up with all his money and moving far, far away from Newfoundland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Yes and 1488 to you too
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:It works out just dandy when you're part of an imperial hegemony. Canada will never be equivalent to African colonies for that reason. You're stuck in a pre-1991 mindset. The cold war is over. Gangster capitalism such as you see in Russia or Mexico or Brazil is the long term future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Yes and 1488 to you too Congrats on the name change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
We must secure an existence for our people and a future for white picket fences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Chair In A Basket posted:Congrats on the name change. I don't recognize this world anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
brucio posted:I'm looking forward to the Tories being sidelined forever. Is there any system that would be good for them other than FPTP? Ranked Ballots. At a glance the Australian Senate is dominated by two main centrist parties, and ranked ballots are used to elect that part of government. If Canada switched to Ranked Ballots I'm pretty sure there'd be no real change, with Canadian governments continuing to alternate between Liberal and Conservative majorities. The NDP and other smaller parties are the main losers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Ranked Ballots. With the Canadian system as it is, ranked ballots benefits the Liberal Party. There is significant overlap between Liberal/NDP and Liberal/Conservative but very little overlap between NDP/Conservative, Bloc/Conservative, or Green/Conservative. Now of course it's naive to say that everything in politics will stay the same forever, but without any major shifts in the Canadian political landscape or ideological makeup ranked ballots guarantees perpetual centrist rule, and in Canada that doesn't mean the Conservative Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:With the Canadian system as it is, ranked ballots benefits the Liberal Party. There is significant overlap between Liberal/NDP and Liberal/Conservative but very little overlap between NDP/Conservative, Bloc/Conservative, or Green/Conservative. This is only true as long as Canadians continue to believe the Liberals are a centrist party and not just a faction of the Conservative party that learned to sugar coat their evil to make it easy for the masses to swallow. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
According to CBC this afternoon, the NDP and Greens prefer proportional representation, the Liberals prefer ranked ballot, and the Cons and Bloc prefer the status quo. Most of those make sense but I would have thought the Bloc would want PR because that would give them the slim possibility of getting a cabinet seat in a coalition government. And despite being a regional part they are still underrepresented in the HoC (2.96% of the seats, 4.67% of the popular vote). Is there some kind of sovereigntist argument here or are they worried about a 5% threshold or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
A friend of mine used to work for a vehicle registry. When bored, they used to assign plates with a bunch of 4s to Asian applicants. Her plate contains the number 888, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Chicken posted:According to CBC this afternoon, the NDP and Greens prefer proportional representation, the Liberals prefer ranked ballot, and the Cons and Bloc prefer the status quo. Most of those make sense but I would have thought the Bloc would want PR because that would give them the slim possibility of getting a cabinet seat in a coalition government. And despite being a regional part they are still underrepresented in the HoC (2.96% of the seats, 4.67% of the popular vote). Is there some kind of sovereigntist argument here or are they worried about a 5% threshold or something? Historically, when the Bloc has performed well they've been overrepresented thanks to FPTP, recent failures notwithstanding. In 2008 and 2006 they got 16% of the seats with 10% of the vote, in 2004 they got 18% of the seats with 12% of the vote, in 2000 they got 13% of the seats with 11% of the vote, in 1997 they got 15% of the seats with 11% of the vote, and in 1993 they got 18% of the seats with 14% of the vote. FPTP tends to benefit regional parties like the Bloc (or the Reform Party), which get enough support within their region to win seats, therefore shutting out the voters within their region that voted against them, while penalizing broad parties like the NDP or the Greens that tend to have some level of support everywhere but not necessarily enough to actually win a plurality in very many ridings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Historically, when the Bloc has performed well they've been overrepresented thanks to FPTP, recent failures notwithstanding. In 2008 and 2006 they got 16% of the seats with 10% of the vote, in 2004 they got 18% of the seats with 12% of the vote, in 2000 they got 13% of the seats with 11% of the vote, in 1997 they got 15% of the seats with 11% of the vote, and in 1993 they got 18% of the seats with 14% of the vote. That makes sense. I only looked at the most recent election and had kind of forgotten they'd ever had that many seats or been the official opposition. Still, in the last several elections, the winning party has gotten about 40% of the popular vote and if that held up with the introduction of proportional representation, it would put the Greens and the BQ in the enviable position of being prime coalition candidates for the winning party without having to form a coalition with the other two big parties. I suppose it's all academic until somebody figures out how to give each province it's constitutionally mandated number of seats under a PR system if PR is chosen at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Chicken posted:That makes sense. I only looked at the most recent election and had kind of forgotten they'd ever had that many seats or been the official opposition. Still, in the last several elections, the winning party has gotten about 40% of the popular vote and if that held up with the introduction of proportional representation, it would put the Greens and the BQ in the enviable position of being prime coalition candidates for the winning party without having to form a coalition with the other two big parties. I suppose it's all academic until somebody figures out how to give each province it's constitutionally mandated number of seats under a PR system if PR is chosen at all. That's not actually too difficult. There are already two systems that have been discussed in the Canadian context that could be used for it. Under Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) you hold FPTP elections in a number of ridings (but a smaller number than we currently have), then top up the elected MPs until each party attains roughly the right proportion of seats. So say we go down to 200 ridings and top up with the remaining 138 seats (the fewer ridings and more top-up seats, the more proportional it gets--but conversely, the less locally representative it gets). If you win a plurality in one of those 200 ridings, you go to Parliament. The top-ups then either come from party lists (the bad way) or from the riding runner-up candidates who come the closest to winning (the better way). The easy way to get provincial representation here is to have the needed number of ridings for each province, like to have 4 of those 200 ridings be in PEI. Makes it slightly less regionally proportional and still distorts how much each person's vote is worth but doesn't require mucking with the constitution. Alternatively, you can use a Multi-Member-District system where you still have ridings but they're much bigger and you elect multiple candidates per riding. This could even be done on a provincial level, i.e. each province is one big riding and each party sets a list of the members they're running in that province. Then you would get to set how many seats each province gets and thereby stay within the constitution. I think the only system that could violate the constitutionally mandated seat requirements is pure nation-wide PR, and I don't think any major Canadian parties are actually advocating that. Even then you could probably get around it with quotas for provincial inclusion in party lists, but that seems like a lot of trouble when you could just implement MMP instead, which in my opinion is a better system anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Straight PR and the cabinet is formed from top to bottom with the candidates that received the highest percentage of votes in their riding on down until their allotment of seats are filled. Yes this may mean that someone gets stuck in a riding where their MP didn't do well but it's not like this whole 'the member represents is riding' nonsense is ever actually put in to practice. Members march lock step with their party probably at least 90% of the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Straight PR and the cabinet is formed from top to bottom with the candidates that received the highest percentage of votes in their riding on down until their allotment of seats are filled. This doesn't really make sense. Straight PR doesn't have ridings. And the point of ridings these days isn't necessarily for geographical representation influencing how an MP votes on bills. That's a very narrow interpretation of how being geographically tied to a riding affects an MP or a parliamentary candidate. Ridings fill two important functions. First, they give people in that riding a point of first contact for interactions with the government. This may seem like a meaningless thing to cynics like us, and to be sure some of the functions that provides are purely ceremonial these days, like writing a letter to your MP won't actually affect how they vote on bills. But in everyday activities that don't involve influencing legislation, local MPs actually do play roles, whether it's by interacting with their community on a regular basis or by acting as an advocate for local people when it comes to things like getting grant funding for local businesses or local nonprofits, or raising constituents' concerns in the House of Commons, or even really small things like high school kids writing letters to their MP asking for information on some government-related topic for a school project, and the MP writing back with enclosed material. You see a hell of a lot of this kind of mundane interaction if you ever look through an MP's mail, and it actually does play an important role both symbolically in providing specific representation for a location and functionally in the MP providing services that fall short of changing how they vote on bills but do have an impact on people's lives. Second, ridings force MPs to be bound to a specific electoral race. This means candidates have to actually run a campaign of some sort, rather than relying on their position at the top of a party list to get them elected. It means they need a bare minimum of people skills for attending events and a bare minimum of organizational skills for playing some part in their campaign organization. And, more importantly, it gives voters the chance to get rid of a candidate if they're deeply unpopular. If someone is a slimy weasel Ted Cruz-type that everyone hates, but they're a party insider who goes straight to the top of the party list, voters have no way of ever getting rid of that person. But if they're tied to a specific riding and a specific campaign, voters can voice their displeasure by not voting for that specific individual and therefore get rid of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
I think you glazed over me saying that the party list should be arranged by a potential MP's performance in their local race. If someone is vastly unpopular they'll receive a small number of votes end up towards the bottom of the list and have no chance of being an MP unless the party overall wins a massive victory. t's not like extremely contemptible people don't get elected all the time under the current system. People will vote for their preferred party even if their local candidate is a monster just to keep the seat out of the hands of the party they don't prefer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I think you glazed over me saying that the party list should be arranged by a potential MP's performance in their local race. If someone is vastly unpopular they'll receive a small number of votes end up towards the bottom of the list and have no chance of being an MP unless the party overall wins a massive victory. Wait, so you want the parties to still have ridings and riding nominating contests to determine who ends up on the party lists, but then have straight nationwide PR that doesn't use those ridings in any way? What would prevent parties from just stopping doing riding nominating contests, or gerrymandering their ridings, or whatever? The only reason that doesn't happen now is because the ridings are actually tied to an official electoral function. If you get rid of that formal tie there's nothing stopping parties from remaking the way they nominate candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:With the Canadian system as it is, ranked ballots benefits the Liberal Party. There is significant overlap between Liberal/NDP and Liberal/Conservative but very little overlap between NDP/Conservative, Bloc/Conservative, or Green/Conservative. It's interesting to think of the scenario where we have an unpopular incumbent Liberal party with voters having a look around elsewhere. Do we have right leaning Liberals switch their 1 and 2 spots to put Conservatives at #1? Do we have Liberals put the NDP #1 but keep the Liberals at #2 which softens a potential Liberal defeat or maybe even helps an incumbent power stay on with a minority government? I find a scenario of Liberal voters switching to NDP at #1 and a NDP government result unlikely. I think there's a fair amount of competitive ridings where you wouldn't need too many disillusioned Liberals voting Conservative to produce a Conservative win. As the Conservatives abandon the social conservative elements of their platform and start having a look at a more reasonable stance on the environment and climate change, it could become even easier for Liberal voters to mark Conservative as #2 or #1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
oh man why the gently caress is everyone calling BC's serial fentanyl overdoses a crisis it's not like you half die from fentanyl overdoses and end up costing the health care system a ton of money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:oh man why the gently caress is everyone calling BC's serial fentanyl overdoses a crisis Somehow most people got it in their head that people dying is an inherently bad thing. I'm not convinced, but on my less truculent days I can kind of see their point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:oh man why the gently caress is everyone calling BC's serial fentanyl overdoses a crisis If it killed Prince its a crisis
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alex-radita-diabetes-rodica-emil-murder-trial-1.3603540quote:But the family failed to show up for an appointment in July 2008 and an investigation was launched. Alex was found to have been withdrawn from school and the family couldn't be found. best example of interprovincial barriers ever. we need to ringfence our children's services you guys. i mean, if they start sharing information it could mean lost jobs. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/radita-alex-rodica-emil-murder-trial-medical-examiner-1.3612913 quote:Died of bacterial sepsis to make an omlette you gotta break a few eggs am i right
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Jesus loving christ he weighed less at 15 than he did at 6.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alex-radita-diabetes-rodica-emil-murder-trial-1.3603540 Or worse, a vaguely-worded privacy concern from people who fear a big, useful gubmint
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Deaths from overdose are up 88% YoY in BC. That's why they're calling it a crisis. Reince Penis fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
If there's anything I've learned from the "health care stories" thread (other than "use a flared base for butt stuff") is that fentanyl is some nasty poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Who loving cares?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Who loving cares? Relax. Butt stuff is pretty fun, CI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:21
|
|