Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

This club has no rules (besides Greg's all-clubs rules of following the law & no porn). The only other rule is no crazy spamming so that we can all actually read the forum properly. Everyone can join. Do or say whatever you want otherwise. Trigger warning: words may offend. If someone's being a meanie or calls you a nasty name, i suggest ignoring it, or defend yourself, or leave, I don't care.

  1. What's new in this club
  2. I voted Monarchy. I have more confidence in a leader chosen by God than in the people who elected Trudeau, Trump and Putin.
  3. 1. That's a revealing choice of words: 'masses'. In fact, you and I grew up in an era of 'mass communication' however this approach would be a throwback to the era of 'publics' wherein an individual opinion mattered and was not just a ticket box or a Neilsen rating. Polling would indeed be part of it but moderated discussion such as we have here (but different obv) would be a much bigger part. We can't really know the full details of how it would work as you would need an aspect of design into this process, and that is done by experts with specialized skills that we can't pretend to have. 2 For sure it would take up resources, but actually asking Canadians what they want would produce a new kind of responsiveness, and value. 3. To be honest, they actually poll behind the scenes much more than anyone talks about. Those phone surveys that call you are all about this. 4. Most MPs are dumber than me, IMO. Yes, they are bullied into taking the party line. They DON'T read the legislation and for something like the TPP they wouldn't even understand it if they did read it. 5. You are getting it. There is a revolution coming, which follows what is happening in business and the first party leader that gets it will go down in history.
  4. Well i'm fine with that but for the masses to participate it would probably be conducted by some kind of online polling, which does mean checking boxes. There's nothing wrong with that, at least it means Canadians have input. Adding a section for comments would be fine too, but also take up resources to plow through the responses if there's tens or even hundreds of thousands if not millions of them. I think we should govern more by nationwide polling. Government should generally not be governing against the wishes of the public in a democracy. Most MP's aren't any smarter than you or I, and are usually bullied into taking their cues from the leadership anyways, so I doubt most MP's even read the legislation they're voting on. Give power back to the people instead of keeping it in the hands of the PM whose party usually only captures 36-39% of the popular vote anyways.
  5. First of all, only a fraction of people will participate and you can facilitate opinion sharing and gathering via online means.
  6. 2. How are you going to get democratic input from all majority-age Canadians in ways other than checking a box. Even opinion polls are checking a box. You're not going to fit tens of millions of Canadians inside a focus group meeting room, and if you only take the opinions of some voters and not all then is it really democratic and representative?
  7. 1. I would *suspect* that standing groups of stakeholders composed of: users, government, and workers that are cultivated to become expert in how things work - and are directed towards specific citizen-problems. There was a study in how this was done for something simple - an infrastructure upgrade in NB I believe and it worked well. 2. Ok, I agree. 'Democratic input' should be deeper than just checking off a box, though, IMO. 2b. Interesting - how about if you elected a specific government group to deal with one large problem, eg. e-Health records, or border crossers ? Another idea I would like to pursue is de-politicizing areas of activity. Canada Post was somewhat de-politicized when it was made a crown corp, for example.
  8. 1. How? This is vague. 2. I am. But simply as one possible solution to my over-arching idea, that somehow we need more democratic input on issues and policy. One of my ideas was to directly elect cabinet posts, or have referendums on general policy direction. We don't need to have total control of very piece of legislation, but we should have some say in the overarching direction of different issues like budget debt, the environment/climate change, immigration, foreign policy etc. Instead we leave it up to these elitist politicians who have a very specific partisan and ideological slant of every piece of policy. 3. Sure.
  9. 1. Ok I wasn't elaborate enough. Information gathering, prioritization, design all need to be done by a collaborative and representative group. 2. I thought you were touting direct democracy. 3. This sounds like direct democracy.
  10. Discussion is good and needed, but discussion is different than actual decision-making. Direct democracy takes a lot of time for voters to educate themselves on every single issue. Direct democracy in the form of referendums on big issues i'm definitely for, but not direct democracy on every single piece of legislation. Why not add referendum questions on an assortment of issues to federal and provincial elections? Why not give us voters actual power instead of only voting to decide who gets to have actual power?
  11. Direct democracy, as in theT rudeau regime triggering the "electoral urgency clause” which I suppose means they aren’t really that interested in democracy. OK.. so… By abusing the "electoral urgency clause", the Liberals have unlimited authority to bypass rules for the nomination of candidates which is obviously a move meant to fast-track 100+ candidates without due process. Apparently they are short on candidates, partly I suppose due to their ethically challenged PMO. 19 Liberal MPs are not running for re-election which is a bit unusual, but also speaks to the shortage of candidates. It appears that they could be sneaking in puppets who only be there to support the PMO and his puppeteer.
  12. You're getting warm - the thing to encourage is more direct democracy. Organizations like IRPP do research on how to consult with publics, but it's more than a one-off vote on a referrendum issue. We need to find groups that are passionate about politics and recruit them to assist with policy discussions through online engagement. Such discussions would/should be longer term than one vote.
  13. Our current democracies in Canada, US, UK, etc gives voters very few choices. We're forced to choose between for 3 or 4 parties who have any chance of power, while in the US voters only have 2 realistic choices at the ballot box. If you are ie: conservative on immigration but left-wing on the environment/climate change you have no valid choice at the ballot box since parties are "catch-all" entities in terms of policy so you have to vote for a party based on which issues you prioritize as most important & match it with the party that agrees with you the most, while other issues fall to the wayside. Wouldn't it be great to vote on actual issues come election time and have more control over our government policies? In the US, local & state referendums on different issues are common & are done the same time as regular elections. Why can't that be done at a country-wide level? Another option is some kind of system where you vote for cabinet ministers. Foreign policy might be run by a politician who is left-leaning while economic/budget issues may be run by someone right-leaning from a different party etc. Politicians/parties running for the minister posts can campaign on each issue, and voters choose who they agree with most. This way, issues that don't typically sway elections are still under control of the population. Obviously there's a lot of issues to work out, but I'm more concerned with the spirit of being able to have more of a say on broad or even specific issues instead elite representatives making those decisions for us. Direct democracy on all issues is unrealistic since people don't have the time to study every piece of legislation.
  14. Just testing to see if i can post profanity here: fuck cunt pussy shit piss bitch
  15. I've added a few more topic headings like "Canadian Politics" etc.
  16. This thread could fall under "Business and Economy" , "Political Philosophy", "Federal Politics" or a number of other forums. I chose this one, as I might have to use profanities and I would hate to get any more demerit points for picking the wrong venue. So here we go....... You must have all wondered about our political systems - socialism, communism, capitalism, monarchies and democracies and what is better for us , and by "us" we often think about the average hard working person. Everyone has their own perception about them but there is one element we cannot deny. All of these systems have used and are still using money. A monetary system supposedly rewards hard work, ingenuity , talent, all those idealistic things we are made to believe are the drivers of progress. And by progress, again one believes this is what makes peoples' lives easier and better. Or maybe this is what makes our civilization go a step further out into space? But how did we get here? Did we not have another trade system before money was devised. Yes, we did. It is known that in the past people exchanged goods and this is how trades were made. Money however has the capacity to hold the value of perishable items, or to store the value of labor or to store the value of all non-perishable items like gold for example. And since this was made possible, it appears money provides the platform for people to amass tremendous amount of "wealth" and control over others. They can now cut down all trees and, given there is a sufficient population increase (new customers) those can be converted into cash. Similarly, all gold can be dug out of the ground and kept by those who have more than enough (although if you ask them what they can do with it, the best answer they can give you is "resell"). They can now sell all land for a profit and again grow their money as long as they grow the human population and the number of customers. Population growth means more wilderness needs to be stolen from the other species and developed to provide habitation to humans. We can call the process "land calcification" since from space, this is what it all looks like. The green spaces, which allowed the planet to breathe and provide oxygen to all living things are now replaced by houses, parking lots, plants, mines and industrial structures and facilities of all sorts. The surface of the paved roads alone will be no doubt impressive. Growing population has a huge impact on areas that are scarcely populated as well. Those areas now serve as material reserves for the billions of people (or should we not call them cockroaches, excuse me the temptation) who live in the big cities. They expect to find products and food in the stores but those do not grow there and have to be delivered to them from the healthy ecosystem that can still produce them. But the healthy ecosystem is becoming less and less, and is being squeezed to the limit by those who believe in "growing the economy" and "making money". many do not realize that the billions or trillions of dollars they have can no longer by them the equivalent in food, because this amount of food cannot be grown on the remaining land. Given the environmental catastrophy we are facing also as a result of our money based economy, I am sure we will eventually come to a point where the cockroaches will not find food in the stores and this will be the final point where it will all collapse. How did we come to this point? We were lead and consistently brainwashed over centuries by some really fat cockroaches who had an easy life and who deceived us in many conceivable and inconceivable ways. They made us to believe that all land belongs to humans and is "crown land". They made us to believe that everything is out there to take and the other species are objects to be eaten, used or killed for sport. It was an easy sell when we had only one or two billion people with many unexplored and uninhabited territories and plenty of wildlife. It was easy when cars were fewer or did not exist and human needs were smaller. It was of course easier when products were not wrapped in plastic and then put into another plastic bag to go into a plastic container. When there were no 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, motor boats and all other toys we have today. It is not that easy now with over 8 billion of us crawling and shitting all over the place. Shit was going to be still fine. But we dig all toxic sludge from kilometers below the surface, convert that into something even deadlier and release it into the thin layer on, below and over the land's surface that is capable of sustaining life and producing food for us! Yes, we are cockroaches, ruled by fatter cockroaches! We prize our smarts and think we are born for great things. But all great inventions by the smartest of us were used for only one purpose - to propagate the human population and allow it to exterminate all other species even faster! And by doing that - pushing ourselves to our own extinction. Yes, we talk about sustainability, planting trees, having an endangered species act and all kinds of other hypocritical rules and measures. The fat cockroaches do not want to tell us the truth, not to create panic that may affect share prices, currency rates, real estate prices and whatever else is keeping this madness still going. But it won't be going for much longer, the writing is on the wall. Below are satellite images from Bujumbura (Burundi), Chicago (USA), London (UK), Toronto (Canada) and the coastal rain forest in BC showing all the clear cuts that are now the norm all over the mountains.
  17. Sir moderators, please stop banning me, I love this site. I know I have made unorthodox questions in the pass but believe me they are nothing more than questions. Give me a chance......
  18. I always find myself rooting for Soldiers of Odin in these fights. There is something detestable about the whole Antifa movement. It's a bunch of rich, entitled college students, and petty criminals.
  19. The Soldiers of Odin are more likely to be working class men who eat meat and use their bodies a lot. ANTIFA are more likely to be bookish college students who eat veggie burgers, play video games and watch TV.
  20. Why are the Soldiers of Odin so fat and the antifa anarchists so skinny? Is there some kind of body mass index reading you have to pass to join? To a much lesser extent, I've noticed a similar characteristic among CPC and Liberals.
  21. Racists are racist largely due to a sense of inadequacy. Why else would someone need to proud of something they had no control over such as their skin colour?


  • Create New...