OT: Sens Lounge XCX: Posted to the limit, one more time edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

FolignoQuantumLeap

Don't Hold The Door
Mar 16, 2009
31,084
7,399
Ottawa
Ridiculous ideological garbage is the fastest way to becoming the next Venezuela, but thanks for that. It would be nice to grow other industries, but it would also be nice if your tap provided free beer on demand. Yes BC didn't help with the pipeline, but Trudeau, who tweeted he would shut down Trans Mountain in 2014, is a tree hugger who put people out of work and built the debt in otherwise economic growth period because he doesn't care about future generations carrying the a debt, as long as things look rosy while he is in power.

Look, I've got my pile through my own industriousness, this stuff doesn't affect me, but people with good paying jobs out west are getting locked out because the environmentalists are being played like a violin by the American Rockerfellers, and idealists who believe the fuel that runs their houses and cars is evil if domestically produced somehow. It's beyond stupid, and meanwhile, the ideologists have turned Ontario into the most indebted per capita sub-district in the entire world. More interest paid annually than on healthcare, and when the lenders start to flee, it will be these kinds of decisions that leave the area broke and loaded up with dysfunctional windmills and not much else.
If only Trudeau was "a tree hugger". This version of the government has failed on its promises to help combat climate change and will be judged harshly for it in the upcoming election and by history.

My biggest disappointment in Trudeau's government is that and their failure to implement any electoral reform. God we need a new system terribly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouGotAStuGoing

YouGotAStuGoing

Registered User
Mar 26, 2010
19,339
4,913
Ottawa, Ontario
If only Trudeau was "a tree hugger". This version of the government has failed on its promises to help combat climate change and will be judged harshly for it in the upcoming election and by history.

My biggest disappointment in Trudeau's government is that and their failure to implement any electoral reform. God we need a new system terribly.
The biggest bummer is that electoral reform is something everyone likes until they have the numbers to win a vote, then they don't want to fix the broken system that put them in power.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
The biggest bummer is that electoral reform is something everyone likes until they have the numbers to win a vote, then they don't want to fix the broken system that put them in power.

That's what politics has come down to lately, hasn't it? Just bandwagoning on the winning team.
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,904
I don't even particularly want electoral reform (I don't think FTP is that bad) and I was very disappointed that they just gave up at the first opportunity. I do believe that the issues people have with 21st century governance, I say issues because I wouldn't say the system is fundamentally broken, go deeper than the way we elect governments. Nice little example: compare the powers of Canada's Prime Minister to the United States President. Our PMs have way more power over their party than the US President does.

I want governments that have a vision. Even if I disagree with it, I want to feel like we are going places. Stagnation is dreadful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stylizer1

Sensmileletsgo

Registered User
Oct 22, 2018
5,100
4,307
I can believe that government backed cryptos have a future, and will someday be the way all national currencies are implemented.

BUT -- I don't see how investing in Bitcoin or anything like that today leads you to making money when that outcome presents itself.
A lot of people believe that crytpos will find value/purpose outside of government control. Investing in the right crypto that goes on to have a useful purpose is where you would make money.

*These cryptos could also go on to have no purpose at all and become useless one day and end up[ being a terrible investment.
 

MakeOttawaGreatAgain

Illest guy in town!
Feb 28, 2007
4,054
268
A thought I've always had for electoral reform is why not simply have scheduled referendums, that have a centralized platform on which each candidate/party/movement can simply present their proposals, specify how much a policy they want is going to cost, how much it would cost as a tax, how much it would cost as crowdfund type structure, ect. One of the (many) frustrating things I find about politics is that you can't vote for specific policies, instead you are stuck having to pick which party is going to cause the least amount of damage. It is too much about the party, and not enough about the country. Why can't someone just make a suggestion, post it, provide support, be transparent, present the exact costs, present the exact time frame, and just leave it up to us to decide whether we think it is a good idea or not? Instead of having that pointless parliamentary debate structure we currently have (it is so embarrassing to watch these people. Almost all of them seem incompetent.). Just post your argument, people can criticize it, then you can go back and refine your argument or it is simply rejected. This to me seems beautiful.

We have the technology to innovate our democratic process. I don't think we need to rely on the dogmatic nature of parties and party politics in order to create progress. I'm not saying to get rid of elected officials, I just think that the whole party-system is ineffective, and there's potential for direct involvement. We would probably need a whole new constitution to do this, so I don't see it ever realistically happening..
 

FolignoQuantumLeap

Don't Hold The Door
Mar 16, 2009
31,084
7,399
Ottawa
A thought I've always had for electoral reform is why not simply have scheduled referendums, that have a centralized platform on which each candidate/party/movement can simply present their proposals, specify how much a policy they want is going to cost, how much it would cost as a tax, how much it would cost as crowdfund type structure, ect. One of the (many) frustrating things I find about politics is that you can't vote for specific policies, instead you are stuck having to pick which party is going to cause the least amount of damage. It is too much about the party, and not enough about the country. Why can't someone just make a suggestion, post it, provide support, be transparent, present the exact costs, present the exact time frame, and just leave it up to us to decide whether we think it is a good idea or not? Instead of having that pointless parliamentary debate structure we currently have (it is so embarrassing to watch these people. Almost all of them seem incompetent.). Just post your argument, people can criticize it, then you can go back and refine your argument or it is simply rejected. This to me seems beautiful.

We have the technology to innovate our democratic process. I don't think we need to rely on the dogmatic nature of parties and party politics in order to create progress. I'm not saying to get rid of elected officials, I just think that the whole party-system is ineffective, and there's potential for direct involvement. We would probably need a whole new constitution to do this, so I don't see it ever realistically happening..
I think proportional representation would facilitate this better than referendums tbh. If we had to have more minority and/or coalition governments, you'd probably see more popular policies implemented and the less popular ones disappear. Much easier to hold politicians accountable when they can't hold all the power with 35% of the vote.

More cross party negotiations and healthier debate would be required to pass legislation. That's what we need instead of the unelected PMO dictating everything to the majority party.
 

MakeOttawaGreatAgain

Illest guy in town!
Feb 28, 2007
4,054
268
I think proportional representation would facilitate this better than referendums tbh. If we had to have more minority and/or coalition governments, you'd probably see more popular policies implemented and the less popular ones disappear. Much easier to hold politicians accountable when they can't hold all the power with 35% of the vote.

More cross party negotiations and healthier debate would be required to pass legislation. That's what we need instead of the unelected PMO dictating everything to the majority party.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from. I agree that proportional representation is probably better than the system we have now, but I really like the concept of referendums and crowd funding potential infrastructure projects (This already happens to an extent, but accessibility and a uniform platform are lacking).
 

FolignoQuantumLeap

Don't Hold The Door
Mar 16, 2009
31,084
7,399
Ottawa
I mean, I can see where you're coming from. I agree that proportional representation is probably better than the system we have now, but I really like the concept of referendums and crowd funding potential infrastructure projects (This already happens to an extent, but accessibility and a uniform platform are lacking).
Crowd funding infrastructure? You mean taxes. That's what taxes are.

I just but elections kinda are referendums. I'm for more referendums like they do on election day in the states though. It's not a bad idea. We can do both.
 

MakeOttawaGreatAgain

Illest guy in town!
Feb 28, 2007
4,054
268
Crowd funding infrastructure? You mean taxes. That's what taxes are.

Well, not exactly. Taxes are mandatory, while crowd funding is voluntary. Crowd funding allows people to pay what they can, based on their own assessment of where they are financially, as opposed to the assessment of a third party.

EDIT - I am not saying to remove taxes, I am saying why not popularize an extra method of funding.
 

DrakeAndJosh

Intangibles
Jun 19, 2010
11,863
1,781
Kanata
Every time I watch Fallon I find it amazing that he has The Roots as his house band. They just did a bunch of improv songs and they were so brilliant.
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,904
Well, not exactly. Taxes are mandatory, while crowd funding is voluntary. Crowd funding allows people to pay what they can, based on their own assessment of where they are financially, as opposed to the assessment of a third party.

EDIT - I am not saying to remove taxes, I am saying why not popularize an extra method of funding.

What you are advocating kind of already exists in the form of charities. Government run charities doesn't sound like an easy sell ;)

I do like the idea though: Canada would be a better place if more people gave to charities (which requires more disposable income as well, not trying to say we don't care). It always amazes me that Americans give way more to charities, on average, than we do. There are a lot of reasons as to why that is (tax breaks!) but I still find that interesting.
 
Last edited:

PoutineSp00nZ

Electricity is really just organized lightning.
Jul 21, 2009
20,046
5,653
Ottawa
Yep.

He lost me the day he reneged on that promise. And it was one of the PILLARS of his campaign! What an absolute, two-faced lie that was.

Yup. Same thing happens every election at every level. They promise the moon and deliver a couple of moon rocks.

The system is broken and has been for a long time.
 

DrEasy

Out rumptackling
Oct 3, 2010
10,911
6,569
Stützville
A thought I've always had for electoral reform is why not simply have scheduled referendums, that have a centralized platform on which each candidate/party/movement can simply present their proposals, specify how much a policy they want is going to cost, how much it would cost as a tax, how much it would cost as crowdfund type structure, ect. One of the (many) frustrating things I find about politics is that you can't vote for specific policies, instead you are stuck having to pick which party is going to cause the least amount of damage. It is too much about the party, and not enough about the country. Why can't someone just make a suggestion, post it, provide support, be transparent, present the exact costs, present the exact time frame, and just leave it up to us to decide whether we think it is a good idea or not? Instead of having that pointless parliamentary debate structure we currently have (it is so embarrassing to watch these people. Almost all of them seem incompetent.). Just post your argument, people can criticize it, then you can go back and refine your argument or it is simply rejected. This to me seems beautiful.

We have the technology to innovate our democratic process. I don't think we need to rely on the dogmatic nature of parties and party politics in order to create progress. I'm not saying to get rid of elected officials, I just think that the whole party-system is ineffective, and there's potential for direct involvement. We would probably need a whole new constitution to do this, so I don't see it ever realistically happening..
The problem is that it's easy for people to get on board for popular/populist policies without considering the costs. We all want free healthcare and education and we all hate taxes. So what gives? That's why we have parties, who can present a coherent vision where cost and benefit are balanced. Mind you, these days it seems parties have also sold out in that they give the people what they want and they leave the debt to the next elections.

Also, I agree with FQL that proportional elections would help in that there would be more parties and therefore more visions represented. Currently what's on offer is still very much rooted in Cold War-era politics. The rise of "gilets jaunes" in France, the "podemos" in Spain, etc is a symptom that people don't find representation that corresponds to what they want. We see it in how Macron got elected without having any specific party behind him. We see it in how some people who would have voted for Bernie Sanders ended up voting for Trump rather than Hillary.

I follow European politics more closely than Canadian politics, and I sense that many people want to vote for a party that would be anti-globalization (and anti-EU) and yet pro-social policies. You can see it in best-selling books in France by opinion-makers and pseudo-philosophers. Unfortunately the closest political offer ends up coming from the far right, and that's why it's rising. For example, why is there an anti-Brexit wing of the Tories but no pro-Brexit wing of Labour in the UK?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: saskriders

saskriders

Can't Hold Leads
Sep 11, 2010
25,064
1,599
Calgary
I am also highly skeptical of referendums because I think the electorate isn't informed enough to make a good decision. And I am not saying people are dumb, I am saying that issues are highly complex and that people don't have enough time to become informed enough. With representative democracy we are making it someone's job to get informed and vote on our behalf. And when they are part of a party it gives them access to a team of professionals that can study the issues and get expert opinions. Another thing I dislike about referendums is that the canpaigns will inevitably use half truths and fear as tools and that will do the opposite of properly informing the electorate.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
A lot of people believe that crytpos will find value/purpose outside of government control. Investing in the right crypto that goes on to have a useful purpose is where you would make money.

*These cryptos could also go on to have no purpose at all and become useless one day and end up[ being a terrible investment.

That's the part I don't get. How can any type of currency actually have value without some form of government control? It doesn't seem possible (or legitimate). Just too many ways a backdoor founder or company can seriously manipulate a market like that. At least with government there's some sort of accountability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sensmileletsgo

Fandlauer

Registered User
Apr 23, 2013
6,714
3,903
Ottawa unless it becomes a disaster
First past the post is underrated. It has put us in a pretty good spot. I'm totally fine with parties representing the lunatic fringe remaining irrelevant. Also, I have no clue how anyone bought Trudeau's "2015 will be the last election under first past the post." It was painfully obvious it was a promise he couldn't deliver and he was just trying to syphon some naive dipper votes.
 

Caeldan

Whippet Whisperer
Jun 21, 2008
15,459
1,046
I agree that we definitely need electoral reform at all levels. Always has annoyed me that any referendum on the subject has always been to vote for a specific type rather than to scrap first past the post.

Different levels of government (municipal through federal) benefit differently. For municipal, a simple run off/ranked ballot would be fine. At federal, mixed member proportional would be ideal imo. Provincial would be somewhere in between as I think a full mmr system would be too much overhead at provincial level, but irv would still be too binary of a result.

Also, public referendums on most policy issues would lead to zero coherence between adjacent policies and really, you have to consider that we typically only see 30-40% voter turnout to begin with.
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,904
First past the post is underrated. It has put us in a pretty good spot. I'm totally fine with parties representing the lunatic fringe remaining irrelevant.

This is why I'm worried about PR.

To those here who really want PR, how do you view that worry?
 

MakeOttawaGreatAgain

Illest guy in town!
Feb 28, 2007
4,054
268



Re: referendum issues, I agree with everything you guys say, and there is a lot of potential for total mismanagement, populism, short-sightedness, ect. Many, if not most, policies rely on each other for cohesive implementation and funding. Not only that, as we can see with unimportant topics such as bike lanes and gendered bathrooms, people get very emotional about things that probably do not affect them all too much, neither through direct interaction nor through taxation/funding. One thing to note, however, is that although a party system does indeed provide a vision and a sort of professional assurance, as we have seen this last decade (and perhaps in previous decades, I may just be too young to remember), it seems like every administrative change focuses on completely overhauling everything, removing policies that the previous administration worked their entire term towards, and can very easily be influenced by populism. You see this from all sides of the political spectrum, and there is a trend towards people primarily informing their voting habits out of ideology ("I am an X-party supporter, the other major party is always bad"), or simply "The current government is terrible, let's completely undo everything."

If you add to that the actual discourse between the parties in the House, where everything that they say are gross generalizations, misrepresentations, or simply a back and forth that goes like:
"Mr. Prime Minister, your party is bad, and you don't care about X."
"Mr. Speaker, your party was worse and we were voted by the people for the people."
"Mr. Prime Minister, no we were great, your party is bad."
"Mr. Speaker, then what about Y?" Booing ensues. Settle down everyone, one person speaks at a time or else it is time out for all of you, please continue. "Our party was voted in by the people for the people."

Why am I paying money for this? Perhaps you guys are right, and a referendum system is far-fetched and unlikely to produce cohesive results, but I am sincerely frustrated by this Kindergarten-style government that we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy

Sensmileletsgo

Registered User
Oct 22, 2018
5,100
4,307
That's the part I don't get. How can any type of currency actually have value without some form of government control? It doesn't seem possible (or legitimate). Just too many ways a backdoor founder or company can seriously manipulate a market like that. At least with government there's some sort of accountability.
I'm no expert, but there are a few reasons that I am aware of:
1) If it can serve a purpose. Something like Ethereum has smart contracts which means it could be programmed which could have third parties eliminated. Imagine using something like Uber that's basically a program owned by it's users and not a company. Ride sharing would become a lot cheaper. Same goes for car insurance. Tough to say at this time if that's realistic though, and how far away we are from that.
2) A lot of people live in countries with unstable governments/currencies and dont have access to banks. These people would probably be more likely to be first adopters to a cryptocurrency.

There's a long list of other reasons. Personally i started a business last year and am blown away at how expensive it is to transact online with credit card fees, poor exchange rates, and wire payment costs. Thousands and thousands of dollars sucked up by banks and large companies and I own a small business. That's what sparked my interest and gives me hope for crypto.
 

PeterSidorkiewicz

HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Apr 30, 2004
32,442
9,701
Lansing, MI
That's the part I don't get. How can any type of currency actually have value without some form of government control? It doesn't seem possible (or legitimate). Just too many ways a backdoor founder or company can seriously manipulate a market like that. At least with government there's some sort of accountability.

I find it quite funny that to invest something like bitcoin and make it actually have value for currency trading it needs government backing to be legitimized. The one thing that bitcoin is supposed to work around.

Oh well another libertarian fantasy down the drain as usual. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->