Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Michael Hardner

Spam Cop
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 1. Like business ? 2. The NDP would outright legislate green policy, would raise taxes much higher etc. 3. The NDP would also put in proportional representation
  2. 1. Sorry, I jumbled my thoughts. MPs keeping in touch with the riding would take more time, though, because I'm pretty sure they barely do that now and not on the full spectrum of possible policies. But my comment is that overhauling policy is problematic: a prohibitively complex process. 2. That sounds right. 3. Checking in is more effective, and maybe more cost effective. But you probably want to phase this idea in. Start with something easy: MPs set up local forums to discuss issues, STRONGLY moderated with only verified citizens of voting age allowed to participate. Start with that, it's already a revolutionary idea.
  3. 1. Moderating a true public discussion would take an organizational change and culture change. 2.The benefits are obvious to me, and I'm sure the costs in terms of exposure and changing hwo they work are terrifying to them. 3. I think that you would have expediency issues as well as uncertainty of overall policy if you had to check in a lot, not to speak of overhauling the whole parliamentary process
  4. Can you explain how you pay money to Toronto, who has roughly the same GDP as Alberta?
  5. You are making up s***, and I am quoting from the curriculum directly.
  6. I'm thinking that you haven't been a lot of places. We have it pretty good, show some gratitude for what our ancestors have given us.
  7. We keep hearing of this doom... Maybe the people saying it... themselves aren't doing so great? I do feel bad for them.
  8. I can not recall anybody in my city making a disparaging remark about the rest of Canada. Psychiatrists call this habit of yours projection.
  9. 1. Exactly. We accept 'lies' from politicians just as we accept them from advertisers and maybe lovers. "I will make the economy better" "This is the best coffee in town" "You are the only one for me" 2. Is he holding to that ? I don't doubt that it was dirty but I didn't follow enough to see if he was caught red handed. Didn't he just throw his Chief of Staff onto the pyre ?
  10. Still baffled why people would harbour hostility towards another *province*... so strange. Many of my best friends came from Alberta and BC...
  11. 1. You're right. My statement was hyperbolic and I retract it. 2. How many outright lies are there ? Is it lying when you set it in the context of advertising ? 3. Did he get caught in an actual lie or was it 'fumbled communication' as per various assistance that he can toss in front of him to take the cannonball ? 4. Generally agree. 5. Right. That's why I would prefer people to generally and slowly phase out the puffery and engage with intelligent citizens rather than pander to those who follow politics for entertainment.
  12. 1. True, that, however people's expectations and self-focus are also both too high. Folks are surrounded with people who think just like them so if you propose any kind of moral, economic compromise it sounds absolutely repulsive to them because it's not in their direct interests. The effect of social media and forums like this is to magnify the degree of difference between unreasonable people - especially those with no previous interest in politics, or interest in areas outside their sphere of concern. 2. I think this is kind of a plebian perspective. I happen to think that BOTH politicians are overpaid, undertasked and ivory towerish AS WELL AS they are not to blame for this situation that evolved due to political/economic/media forces over decades. I agree that the system is dishonest and lacks integrity at this point, it's a pure advertising model and getting worse. There is no 'public' anymore, there is only a market for political candidates and tastes. 3. That's unworkable, because lies are defined by lawyerspeak and all of the people at the top are lawyers. I don't think honest government is practical, but I think a government that favours pragmatism and doesn't puff up their messages would succeed. That means - delivering bad news, and appealing to the few intelligent voters who remain out there.
  13. 1. Great example. 2. Fair enough. 3. Fair enough.
  14. This is how warfare is fought today. Don't try talking to those guys though, because in a perfect Alice-through-the-looking-glass moment they will post [Russian supplied] disinformation on how you are following a conspiracy theory.
  15. 1. If you think that we squander money, it may be that you don't see value in what we're spending on. If there are a lot of people who agree with you then that means we have a broken 'public' 2. This is unclear to me - what are you saying, that our new economics of debt isn't grounded in common sense ?
  16. The courtiers have the most to lose in this. And when they go it will be quickly, but I doubt it will be spectacular. Just as puritan culture slowly dies out over decades, the retribalization and despecialization will play out over a century or more.
  17. And everything is terrible so move to Haiti. I understand completely.
  18. 1. 2. I am most definitely against that. 3. I think what has changed is what some people think is 'outrageous'. People have always been upset over things. But liberalism is on the wane. 4. It doesn't matter if they're well-meaning or not. Racists, anti-semites and misogynists are entitled to different points of view. We don't have to say anything about the value of such statements when considering their rights to be said in public. 5. Interesting that you talk about 'religious fervor' because that flavour of outrage is tolerated and even protected in the constitution. I'm in favour of that too. 6. Like abortion or white supremacy. People get upset about things, who can say why... Edited to add: The mere existence of death threats and maniacs doesn't invalidate the position of being pro-trans rights but that should be obvious.
  19. 1. She has a right to state her opinion. I don't know her position in general, but it has something (I think) with saying trans women aren't "women". At least I'm assuming. I am fine with thinking of and referring to my trans friends as women but there's nothing to force others to do that. 2. People are boycotting her, which is also their right. I don't feel shocked by her opinion and as such wouldn't "attack" her, but several are morally outraged. My take on it is that we should have social customs to deal with moral objections to public statements and policy. We have some and they aren't perfect: protest, boycott, angry letters and tweets. I think that we have economic and other challenges that need more attention than the Culture War. If we can't resolve the issues, then they will persist but I would prefer for us to move forward to other issues now. We certainly seem to have moved past same-sex marriage and abortion. They are still protested, of course, and boycotted and so on but they're not really on the docket for public debate on a continuous basis as this issue is.
  20. No, you have either misunderstood or not read enough on my takes. No, you are misrepresenting me. Please don't state opinions on my behalf and then argue your version of what I think. Also, my opinions (unlike yours) change. So ... you know you can just ask me, or respond to my points on here.
  21. They just don't want trans people to exist. A large male-looking trans woman is wanted in no washroom by such people. I propose we let them pee on the hoods of the cars in the parking lot with MAGA stickers. Problem solved.
  22. Yeah, so you ignored the fact that from 2000 to 2001 salaries were restructured and - despite my pointing it out at least twice. This tells me that you are indeed behaving hypocritically. So ... as the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" You decry MPs for slinging bullshit and here you show up... all bright and sparkling in your stinking bullshit suit. -> Ignore List <-
  23. You can simultaneously say the salaries are too high, and maintain the reality that increases have followed inflation since 2001. If you did that, then nobody could accuse you of grandstanding and exaggerating and therefore joining in on the hysterical hypocrisy wagon like the people you criticize with such ritual sanctimony. The numbers might even be wrong, but you have to do at least as much work as I did in looking them up. Or you can be lazy and preachy and throw your white gloves down in the sand, repeatedly declaring "HOW DARE YOU SIR ?" 😂
  24. Will you come down off your grandstand and address the numbers ? Or not ?
  • Create New...