Conquer Club

Baron Von PWN wrote:If anyone else understands french, this is a really great speech by Giles Ducepe,

I do ... but what language is he speaking?

It sounds like fake French from a Looney Tunes cartoon.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The main problem is that the election process primarily endows legitimacy, and not that much afterwards. The ruling political power with whichever corporations are wielding whichever influences will still be making the shots. No citizens vote on whether or not we should go to war, so the federal government doesn't have to be that responsiveness to the actual needs and wants of its citizens.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The entire system depends on the politicians to be honest and actually work for what is best for the citizens. But people (as individuals or small groups) are corrupt; especially once they gain power.

So, given that we have this Internet thingy, doesn't it make sense that a system be put in place that allows citizens to actually vote on important issues, independent of their political party influences? We all have a Social Insurance Number (a unique number for each Canadian citizen), so the next step would just be to distribute a password or a PIN to everyone. Then put the system in place - probably on a secure Web page for easy access (i.e. there is no need to create special software, just use a browser-based solution). I would couple this with some type of qualification process (to weed out the uneducated, misinformed, illogical votes).

This system could be used for any number of votes on important issues. Once in place, the actual cost to take a vote would be quite low.

Timminz wrote:

TheProwler wrote:

Timminz wrote:

TheProwler wrote:...I'm not criticizing anyone...

The thought of an apathetic non-voter, criticizing someone for showing interest, is laughable.

Yeah, so is a duck walking down the street in a tuxedo smoking a cigar and squawking "Who wants to tickle my feathers?", but that`s not really relevant to what`s being said.

Right. The fact that you felt the need to mention that you were not criticizing anyone, is a somewhat ridiculous statement because of what I mentioned above.

Slightly akin to saying, "Now, I'm not criticizing anyone for choosing to eat healthily, but I only eat poutine with foie gras." Of course you're not going to criticize anyone! That would be retarded, and backwards.

Well, not really. Eating healthily has easily identifiable benefits.

Being concerned over politics has arguably few, if any, benefits. I can certainly identify some of the harmful effects such as frustration, disappointment, anger, fear, etc..

So, if I had wanted to criticize people for showing interest in what is arguably a futile effort, I certainly could have. But I'm not really interested in arguing with someone who is going to type "I'm a smiley happy person because I follow politics closely!" just before they turn around and scream at their wife "Holy crap!! Did you see what those boneheads in Ottawa did now??!?!?! We're so screwed!! I hate my life!!!" It's too easy for people to misrepresent the truth here.

TheProwler wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The main problem is that the election process primarily endows legitimacy, and not that much afterwards. The ruling political power with whichever corporations are wielding whichever influences will still be making the shots. No citizens vote on whether or not we should go to war, so the federal government doesn't have to be that responsiveness to the actual needs and wants of its citizens.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The entire system depends on the politicians to be honest and actually work for what is best for the citizens. But people (as individuals or small groups) are corrupt; especially once they gain power.

So, given that we have this Internet thingy, doesn't it make sense that a system be put in place that allows citizens to actually vote on important issues, independent of their political party influences? We all have a Social Insurance Number (a unique number for each Canadian citizen), so the next step would just be to distribute a password or a PIN to everyone. Then put the system in place - probably on a secure Web page for easy access (i.e. there is no need to create special software, just use a browser-based solution). I would couple this with some type of qualification process (to weed out the uneducated, misinformed, illogical votes).

This system could be used for any number of votes on important issues. Once in place, the actual cost to take a vote would be quite low.

I agree that the technology used for our elections is extremely outdated and should be updated.

But if people were allowed to voluntarily opt out of Social Security programs or other federally mandated programs, then how else will the government take your money? Those politicians really need your money to fund projects, which tend to be mostly for their benefit at your expense.

At least keep the concerns of the poor, poor federal government in mind.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How many government elections (parliamentary or presidential) have there been in the past 7 years? [Yeah, I don't know how it works up there. =P ]

And what's the financial/economic situation in Canada?

this is the 4th in the last 7 years. For a little contemporary Canadian political history, back in 2000 ish there was a major scandal involving the then Governing Liberal party, they had been in power with a majority for 13 years or so, which ended that streak but they still got re-elected with a minority government (meaning if the opposition parties teamed up they could force an election at any time). Things continued to go poorly for them and they eventually lost confidence of the house, that election led to a conservative minority, fast forward a year or so, another election with a stronger conservative minority to the current election.


Economically we've been doing pretty good all things considered. We weren't very badly affected by the global recession and the economy has been seeing some growth and unemployment is at a decent level (around 7.5-8%). Which is probably why the Cons have as much support as they do.

Financially its more of a mixed bag, allot of Canadians have allot of personal debt, our Provinces have high debt loads (they are the ones who actualy provide most of Canada's governmental services though they get money from the federal gov) but our federal debt level is pretty low as a portion of GDP (34% http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managin ... 0010_10010 though probably a bit higher now) although they have been posting deficits pretty much since the conservatives took power, the last one was the largest in Canadian history.

Due to the fact they hd to pump a tonne of money into the economy to weather the storm with the global economic crisis.

The Conservatives have been doing a pretty good job running the country.
However, they are a greasy pack of shits.

The best result of the upcomming election would be a slightly reduced conservative majority to remind them not to be such arrogant pricks.

However, Iggy is unsuited for leadership. Jack will spend us into American like debt, and that fucking Bloc traitor should be shot.

Calling an election with the polls the way they were is a waste of time and money. The staus quo will prevail, with Iggy resigning.

JR

I agree with you Prowler but at least throw your vote away and place an X beside the Green Candidate in your riding or something.

I think it's criminal that they no longer count spoiled ballets. That should be a right also for people that are so dissapointed in the choices that they take the time to write in.

I will have to vote for the best cadidate for MP in my opinion in my riding. I think it's futile but I'm thankfull for the right to do it.

Canada's a country

saxitoxin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:If anyone else understands french, this is a really great speech by Giles Ducepe,

I do ... but what language is he speaking?

It sounds like fake French from a Looney Tunes cartoon.

I guess it would be more accurate to say he's speaking Quebecois. Though really joile wasn't that bad.

patsfan12 wrote:Canada's a country

very good, have this light bulb .

2dimes wrote:I agree with you Prowler but at least throw your vote away and place an X beside the Green Candidate in your riding or something.

I think it's criminal that they no longer count spoiled ballets. That should be a right also for people that are so dissapointed in the choices that they take the time to write in.

I will have to vote for the best cadidate for MP in my opinion in my riding. I think it's futile but I'm thankfull for the right to do it.

Something the Russians did that i thought was pretty neat, back in the 90's they used to have a "none of the above" option on their ballots. Would you be in support of such a thing?

patsfan12 wrote:Canada's a country

That joke gets better and better every time I see it...

So what do people think of Harpers proposed tax cut?

The Conservative pitch (fun game how many pictures of Harper can you find on the homepage?). http://www.conservative.ca/press/news_r ... ly_tax_cut

A criticism on the Globe and mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1960063/

Baron Von PWN wrote:

2dimes wrote:I agree with you Prowler but at least throw your vote away and place an X beside the Green Candidate in your riding or something.

I think it's criminal that they no longer count spoiled ballets. That should be a right also for people that are so dissapointed in the choices that they take the time to write in.

I will have to vote for the best cadidate for MP in my opinion in my riding. I think it's futile but I'm thankfull for the right to do it.

Something the Russians did that i thought was pretty neat, back in the 90's they used to have a "none of the above" option on their ballots. Would you be in support of such a thing?

What a great marketing question for them!

"Oh, they don't want these guys! Let's get them someone who's athletic, looks real tough, talks big, and was ex-KGB. Heh heh, ex-KGB, sounds like a winner, da?"

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

2dimes wrote:I agree with you Prowler but at least throw your vote away and place an X beside the Green Candidate in your riding or something.

I think it's criminal that they no longer count spoiled ballets. That should be a right also for people that are so dissapointed in the choices that they take the time to write in.

I will have to vote for the best cadidate for MP in my opinion in my riding. I think it's futile but I'm thankfull for the right to do it.

Something the Russians did that i thought was pretty neat, back in the 90's they used to have a "none of the above" option on their ballots. Would you be in support of such a thing?

What a great marketing question for them!

"Oh, they don't want these guys! Let's get them someone who's athletic, looks real tough, talks big, and was ex-KGB. Heh heh, ex-KGB, sounds like a winner, da?"

They actually got rid of it after the first election or so. Long before Putin was on the national radar. I think the results were too embarrassing.

Back on topic.

The NDP have promised to impose caps on credit card rates.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... s-954.html

The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

So far so good on the Conservative platform...like what I see

Baron Von PWN wrote:Harpers proposed tax cut?

The Conservative pitch (fun game how many pictures of Harper can you find on the homepage?). http://www.conservative.ca/press/news_r ... ly_tax_cut

A criticism on the Globe and mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1960063/

An absolutely-nothing, kind of promise. Benefit the upper-earning families, and even then, only projected to start in 2015.

Baron Von PWN wrote:The NDP have promised to impose caps on credit card rates.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... s-954.html

Stupid, but possibly effective pandering.

Baron Von PWN wrote:The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

This is just retarded, in almost every way.

Timminz wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

This is just retarded, in almost every way.

Care to elaborate? I agree with you on the other two but I kind of liked this idea. What's wrong with it?

Baron Von PWN wrote:
The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

Ignatieff must be afraid the 18-22 year olds are going to bolt NDP/Green. Easy to shore up a needed demographic by handing out cash. As long as you do it after the election it's not bribery.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

This is just retarded, in almost every way.

Care to elaborate? I agree with you on the other two but I kind of liked this idea. What's wrong with it?

I think I may have over-reacted to that one due to thinking, at first glance, that I might benefit from it, only to realize that I, as a current university student (working, paying my way), would not stand to claim the credit, and perhaps being a little bitter about it. I realize, though, that overall it might encourage more people to attend university, and in some ways that would be beneficial to the country if they actually followed through, and it was a long-term change.

But, which demographic are they aiming for with that? How likely is it to be a successful pitch?

saxitoxin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

Ignatieff must be afraid the 18-22 year olds are going to bolt NDP/Green. Easy to shore up a needed demographic by handing out cash. As long as you do it after the election it's not bribery.

It's actually, apparently aimed at 15-17 year-olds. The credit would apply to high school students going on to university, only. Since they can't vote yet, I can only assume it's actually aimed at the parents of that age of children, who are already planning (or close to being able) to pay for their child's university.

Timminz wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

Ignatieff must be afraid the 18-22 year olds are going to bolt NDP/Green. Easy to shore up a needed demographic by handing out cash. As long as you do it after the election it's not bribery.

It's actually, apparently aimed at 15-17 year-olds. The credit would apply to high school students going on to university, only. Since they can't vote yet, I can only assume it's actually aimed at the parents of that age of children, who are already planning (or close to being able) to pay for their child's university.

Well that makes zero sense then.

What exactly would $1000 buy? It would be a savvy political move to offer it to current university students on the pretense of even $1000 is beneficial for books and supplies and all that crap but with the students themselves knowing they were going to spend it doing body shots off Mexican whores in Cancun.

saxitoxin wrote:

Timminz wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

Ignatieff must be afraid the 18-22 year olds are going to bolt NDP/Green. Easy to shore up a needed demographic by handing out cash. As long as you do it after the election it's not bribery.

It's actually, apparently aimed at 15-17 year-olds. The credit would apply to high school students going on to university, only. Since they can't vote yet, I can only assume it's actually aimed at the parents of that age of children, who are already planning (or close to being able) to pay for their child's university.

Well that makes zero sense then.

What exactly would $1000 buy? It would be a savvy political move to offer it to current university students on the pretense of even $1000 is beneficial for books and supplies and all that crap but with the students themselves knowing they were going to spend it doing body shots off Mexican whores in Cancun.

well speaking as a student quite a bit! I've got tons of friends in school for whom that would pay for nearly a semesters worth of rent, or a good chunk of their food budget, a fifth of their actual tuition ect. to a student a grand is allot of money that can go a long way. Sure some will be morons and piss it away, but the same can be said of student loans and so forth.

Timminz wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The Liberals propose an education stipend which would amount to giving students 1000$ tax free a year for four years, and 1,500$ tax free a year for low income students.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-4.html

This is just retarded, in almost every way.

Care to elaborate? I agree with you on the other two but I kind of liked this idea. What's wrong with it?

I think I may have over-reacted to that one due to thinking, at first glance, that I might benefit from it, only to realize that I, as a current university student (working, paying my way), would not stand to claim the credit, and perhaps being a little bitter about it. I realize, though, that overall it might encourage more people to attend university, and in some ways that would be beneficial to the country if they actually followed through, and it was a long-term change.

But, which demographic are they aiming for with that? How likely is it to be a successful pitch?

I'm in the same boat, finishing my degree this semester. However I know how much help such a stipend would have been. I would guess they are aiming at middle class to lower income families as well as university students who could appreciate the value of such a program. Though expanding it to currently enrolled students would have seemingly made sense. I think that failure to extend it to currently enrolled students will stop this proposition from reaching its full potential. Though it wouldn't surprise me if in coming days the liberals "clarify" that this will apply to current students.

CBC reality check on the plan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav ... -away.html

apparently the plan would include rolling back some other existing tax credits.

Elizebeth May from the the Green party has been excluded from this year's debate, which some people aren't happy about. I think it's perfectly reasonable though since the Green Party doesn't have an MP in parliament this year (in 2008 they did, for a very short time). If they start letting parties with no MPs join in the debate, what about all the rest of the fringe parties who also have no MPs? Besides, this will allow more time for Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff. Gille Duceppe always spends his time arguing for Quebec and Jack Layton always promises the world to anyone who votes for him, so I don't really care about them.

Also as an update, Bev Oda was found not in contempt of parliament. Still seems like something weird was going on though...I'm quite disappointed they couldn't get this cleared up much sooner. As another update, I was reading more about the F-35 costs and what the different parties are saying about it, and I guess the Liberals are saying they do want the jets (good! since they were the ones who started the ball rolling originally back in Paul Martin's era, anyway), but they want a more competitive bid to take place before jumping to accept a contract. Seems pretty reasonable to me. However if they did get in power I'd be worried about them going back on their word and pulling another stunt like they did in 90s when they scrapped our new helicopters, leaving us with our 50-year-old kamikaze Sea Kings...

Oh and hey, that political compass test for Canadian parties is pretty sweet! I've already recommended it to some friends.

Also, if you haven't checked out some of Rick Mercer's videos on Canadian politics, you're seriously missing out!

• Canada Explained
• The Green party of Canada
• Sleepover with the Harpers at 24 Sussex
• Helping Ignatieff Move into Stornoway
• Election Kids

Baron Von PWN wrote:Something the Russians did that i thought was pretty neat, back in the 90's they used to have a "none of the above" option on their ballots. Would you be in support of such a thing?

I thought that we could go to a polling station with our credentials and announce something to the effect of "I am exercising my right not to vote because I do not support any of the parties." and that is classified/recorded in some way. Effectively it is a "none of the above" vote.

I know there was a guy who ran for some radical party a while ago in my area who said he would prefer that you do this, but if you were too shy to make that statement, just vote for him. I was too shy, so I just voted for him.

saxitoxin wrote:Well that makes zero sense then.

What exactly would $1000 buy? It would be a savvy political move to offer it to current university students on the pretense of even $1000 is beneficial for books and supplies and all that crap but with the students themselves knowing they were going to spend it doing body shots off Mexican whores in Cancun.

Maybe they could somehow regulate that it could only be spent in Canada on Canadian whores....

You know, as long as the $1000 was considered when determining the amount of the student loans. In other words, student loan amounts should decrease by $1000.

I'm not up to date on the whole student loan process in Canada, but when I was a student, I know the government was handing out way more money than what was required. I live in Kitchener where we have the University of Waterloo, Wilfred Laurier University, and Conestoga College (a large college with university-level programs). I know students have an excess of spending money which is spent every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights at local bars. I suppose it helps the local economy in the short term (and the Provincial and Federal through the taxes on alcohol), but doesn't the over-spending by the students, and the debt with which they graduate, eventually hurt the Canadian economy in the bigger picture?

In my simple little world, I also see a problem with Canadians taking all their discretionary income and spending it on trips to Mexico and Cuba. I know those countries have to survive too...but I don't think too much of the money we spend there ends up feeding the impoverished of those countries; I think it ends up going to the wealthy people of those nations. So maybe our governments should somehow apply higher taxes to vacation packages to those nations whose citizens do not vacation in Canada. My own personal choice has been to only vacation in Canada and USA (I know a lot of Americans spend their vacation dollars in Canada). My last two major vacations were to PEI and New York City. For the same money, I could have spent 4 times as much time on a beach in Cuba. But I think my choices were better for Canada. (Plus, PEI is wonderfully relaxing and I Love New York!). I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.

The Greens want equal party access to debates and other campaign benefits that the parties with elected MP's want. That's not going to happen until they elect someone. I am tired of hearing Ms. May and her supporters complain about it already...

keiths31 wrote:The Greens want equal party access to debates and other campaign benefits that the parties with elected MP's want. That's not going to happen until they elect someone. I am tired of hearing Ms. May and her supporters complain about it already...

They've received well over a million votes across Canada, but since they were spread out over allot of ridings they don't get to be in on the debates. I dunno seems wrong to stop a party getting so many votes from participating.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

keiths31 wrote:The Greens want equal party access to debates and other campaign benefits that the parties with elected MP's want. That's not going to happen until they elect someone. I am tired of hearing Ms. May and her supporters complain about it already...

They've received well over a million votes across Canada, but since they were spread out over allot of ridings they don't get to be in on the debates. I dunno seems wrong to stop a party getting so many votes from participating.

Yes it does seem wrong...but that is the way the rules are set up. Once they get a few elected (which I fear is just a matter of time) they will be welcomed to the national debates. The same rules applied to the Reform Party back in it's infancy until they got an elected MP. Can't bend the rules because May demands it.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

keiths31 wrote:The Greens want equal party access to debates and other campaign benefits that the parties with elected MP's want. That's not going to happen until they elect someone. I am tired of hearing Ms. May and her supporters complain about it already...

They've received well over a million votes across Canada, but since they were spread out over allot of ridings they don't get to be in on the debates. I dunno seems wrong to stop a party getting so many votes from participating.

Actually if you check it out on infallipedia you'll see that the Greens received under a million votes in the last election. Same difference though...