Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
?Impact

Doug Ford - leader of Ontario PCs

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Slick said:

Seems like an obvious claim to me. The same side that tends to support the pro-life position also tends to be against the programs that help to break the cycle of poverty. Welfare, mat leave, healthcare, pharmacare, daycare, education grants, etc. 

It would seem that way to a socialist. It's one of the core ideological differences between socialists and left-leaning Liberals vs. Conservatives and more traditional Liberals. The Left includes anyone who they consider "economically challenged" in their poverty industry - constantly using the Low Income Cutoff as their minimum benchmark - even when Stats Canada warns them not to do so. Age 15 to 21 and trying to make a few bucks in your first job? You are poor. Can't afford all the cable channels? You're poor. Elder seniors living on their own - no need for new clothes, commuting or the like but under the LICO - you're poor. My Mom is one of those - and she's having a heckova good time.

The cycle of true poverty can never be completely broken - there will always be people who fall between the cracks - or choose to fall between the cracks. But the cycle can be "managed" and the damage minimized - by concentrating our efforts and funding towards those who are truly in need. No one should suffer by not having a roof over their heads or food in their belly or clothes on their back. True poverty is a terrible thing and a compassionate society has no place for it. Socialism's huge net wastes funds on those who don't really need it and some who don't deserve it - at the expense of those who do. There is nothing wrong with working a second job, or sharing an apartment, or living at home a bit longer and having the responsibility and pride to support themselves.

So yes - it would be an obvious claim to you, Slick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Spoken like a true socialist. It's wrong unless it affects you. Can you honestly say that if you had a 13 year old daughter - you would not want to share in her decision to have a child? 

This has nothing to do with socialism or being wrong if it affects me. Your simplistic comparisons make you look simplistic.

If I had a 13 year old daughter who was pregnant, I would be very proud of her for having the independence and strength to deal with the situation herself. If God says she's old enough to be pregnant, she's old enough to decide for herself what she wants to do about it.

I would hope she would abort it, but if she chose not to, I would support that decision too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

This has nothing to do with socialism or being wrong if it affects me. Your simplistic comparisons make you look simplistic.

If I had a 13 year old daughter who was pregnant, I would be very proud of her for having the independence and strength to deal with the situation herself. If God says she's old enough to be pregnant, she's old enough to decide for herself what she wants to do about it.

I would hope she would abort it, but if she chose not to, I would support that decision too.

Parents raise their kids in different ways so it's not right to judge your way. I personally think it's important that the decision be up to the child - because it's a decision they have to live with for the rest of their life, one way or the other. 13, 14 or 15 is too young to have the perspective that so-called grown-ups have but I think as parents, it's up to us to provide as much perspective as we can to help in their decision - the various pros and cons of having - or not having a child. It would be just as heart breaking to hear your finally-grown-up child say "Daddy (or Mommy) - why didn't you tell me?". Seems to me that's what Doug Ford was trying to say - and that's why I agree with him. But you have to admit - that seemingly rational approach is being judged and criticized by the usual suspects - instead of being respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposing to take away someone's personal choice should be judged and criticized. The teenager should and would likely be consulting their parents in this situation. They are likely not consulted only in instances where they would try to impose their will. The proposal is overbearing, unnecessary, and should certainly not be respected.

I guess that's just typical "socialist" talk though. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Proposing to take away someone's personal choice should be judged and criticized. The teenager should and would likely be consulting their parents in this situation. They are likely not consulted only in instances where they would try to impose their will. The proposal is overbearing, unnecessary, and should certainly not be respected.

I guess that's just typical "socialist" talk though. :rolleyes:

Socialist talk or not - it's your opinion and it should be respected. Your parent/child relationship may be strong enough to lead to a successful outcome - but in many cases, children are "afraid" to tell their parents because they'll be perceived as being "bad". Early teens have such a small world that such a profound trauma can drive them into isolation. Not all parents wish to "impose their will". Third party facilitators can play a role in gauging the situation and doing what's best for the child. But in order for that to happen, a government has to have aspirations to provide easy access to these facilitators with the goal of involving the parents where it makes sense to do so. As with every issue, there is no one-size-fits-all policy but with this one - it's trying to do what's best for the child - not to stand back and put the decision on a teenager under the simplistic guise of a woman's right to choose or right to privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your concern about children being afraid to tell their parents is resolved by legally requiring them to do so? You say facilitators need to involve parents when it makes sense to do so, so they should therefore be legally required to always do so? I'm not saying the teenager should not be offered counseling in making the decision, but ultimately that decision is the teenager's and not the parent's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Your concern about children being afraid to tell their parents is resolved by legally requiring them to do so? You say facilitators need to involve parents when it makes sense to do so, so they should therefore be legally required to always do so? I'm not saying the teenager should not be offered counseling in making the decision, but ultimately that decision is the teenager's and not the parent's.

Almost all western countries have found a way to do so. They had mature discussions and have developed legislation (call it Abortion Law if you have to) that provides a compromise between a woman's right to choose and society's aversion to later term abortions - but also the trauma that younger people can carry for the rest of their lives and the consultation that could help mitigate that. Could be that doctors have the mandatory responsibility to have children under 16 meet with a counsellor who can protect their privacy but provide them with the calm. rational introspection that they need. I don't pretend to have the whole solution - I just know there is an issue that should eventually be addressed.

Edited by Centerpiece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 7:23 AM, Michael Hardner said:

These examples are all socialist programs and yet goes against "it's wrong unless it affects you".  I thought the plaint against Socialism was that it cared too much about helping the downtrodden ?

The complaint against Socialism is that it's wholly unrealistic in its refusal to pay any attention to human economic motivation, and, in fact, entirely uncaring about economics at all, believing those who DO care are less moral than Socialists. Socialists only care about PEOPLE, you see. Of course, all its socialist plans to help people depend upon a good economy... else there's no money for them to redistribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

1) The complaint against Socialism is that it's wholly unrealistic in its refusal to pay any attention to human economic motivation, and, in fact, entirely uncaring about economics at all, believing those who DO care are less moral than Socialists.

2) Socialists only care about PEOPLE, you see. Of course, all its socialist plans to help people depend upon a good economy... else there's no money for them to redistribute.

1) Kind of a difficult sentence to read, but I got through it... and YES your definition rings familiar, if not true, about socialism and perceptions thereof.  So you're backing me up here, effectively in that your definition is quite familiar to me.

2) Right.  The most glaring example (which is despised by populists of left AND right) is the drop in absolute poverty that has occurred globally, thanks to global trade and globalism.  The left hates that capitalism address economic problems far better than charity does, and the right hates that we have to compete with and engage with people outside our borders.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Kind of a difficult sentence to read, but I got through it... and YES your definition rings familiar, if not true, about socialism and perceptions thereof.  So you're backing me up here, effectively in that your definition is quite familiar to me.

2) Right.  The most glaring example (which is despised by populists of left AND right) is the drop in absolute poverty that has occurred globally, thanks to global trade and globalism.  The left hates that capitalism address economic problems far better than charity does, and the right hates that we have to compete with and engage with people outside our borders.  

 

Darn - you were doing so well and then you stepped in it. I can understand why the populist Left would despise poverty dropping - because it takes away one of their hand-wringing issues - but why would the Right despise the drop? I'm on the Center/Right and I think it's good news even though more can be done. As for why it's dropping - there are a variety of factors - technology, education and a lessening need to have huge families in poorer countries to name just a few. As for Global trade - the Right has always advocated trading relationships outside our borders - Mulroney on Free Trade, Harper with numerous bi-lateral agreements and the groundwork for the TPP. Quite obviously, it's trade unions on the Left that are loathe to "compete and engage with people outside our borders".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 3:37 PM, betsy said:

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4192820/doug-ford-ontario-pc-lead-polls-ipsos/

 

 

I know that some conservative folks just don't like Ford.  He may be a bitter pill to swallow (for some), but I think he's the one who'll win over Wynn.

Be carfull what you wish for.  Let's not forget how Trudea on the federal level was going to change things.  Ford is a politician and that's it. He was looking at selling greenbelt land to developers and when the blacklash came, he backed down. That's about as dirty as selling Hydro One to private interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

1) why would the Right despise the drop?

2) As for Global trade - the Right has always advocated trading relationships outside our borders 

1) I don't know.  The new right seems to think of trade as zero game.

2) That ended with the 2016 US election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Kind of a difficult sentence to read, but I got through it..

Why?

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Right.  The most glaring example (which is despised by populists of left AND right) is the drop in absolute poverty that has occurred globally, thanks to global trade and globalism.  The left hates that capitalism address economic problems far better than charity does, and the right hates that we have to compete with and engage with people outside our borders.  

The Right has generally been the side in favour of trade. It was the Left which opposed Free trade with the US, and Nafta, and TPP. At least traditionally. Now Trump is against trade but Trump is hardly a representative of conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Darn - you were doing so well and then you stepped in it. I can understand why the populist Left would despise poverty dropping - because it takes away one of their hand-wringing issues - but why would the Right despise the drop?

The Left does not despise a drop in poverty. They simply don't credit Capitalism as being responsible, and don't favour policies which 'favor' business, even if, theoretically (and in reality) a more favorable business climate leads to more investment in business and thus more jobs. It doesn't accept the reality of this, and prefers policies which help the poor directly (usually lower taxes or handouts), even though these are often at the expense of business and damaging the investment climate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Be carfull what you wish for.  Let's not forget how Trudea on the federal level was going to change things.  Ford is a politician and that's it. He was looking at selling greenbelt land to developers and when the blacklash came, he backed down. That's about as dirty as selling Hydro One to private interests.

Has he backed down on letting the market decide what Ontario's pot policy will be?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 5:56 AM, scribblet said:

Talking about Doug Ford, I am now seeing Liberal attack ads saying Ford will take away abortion rights or something similar...   I guess they are relying on people not knowing that abortion is a federal issue, MPPs cannot take away that right.   Sure they could take away funding and close clinics I guess but they won't do that and he's never said he would do that.  Talk about a fear and smear campaign.

Get ready for the lies and attacks that will be implemented by the lying and fake Canadian liberal media. Lies like Ford is anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-women or even a racist will be thrown about. Never mind whether it is all lies. And the sad part is that their are plenty of non-thinking people out there who will listen to and believe those lies and they will take the lying liberal media for their word without checking facts out first as to whether it is true or not for themselves. The liberal lying media will look for a word somewhere that Ford has said or written that appeared to be one of those anti things I mentioned above. Why? Because that is what they do best. Try and make your opponent look like Genghis Khan. Liberals are such classless thingys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are lies only wrong if they are being used in a cause you don't agree with ?  It seems so.  Those who decry lies on here the most will unabashedly post untruths about Angela Merkel, for example.  But that is ok because they are being used to promote 'the cause'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the PCs will release a platform before the election, or even an explanation of how they will pay for the many expensive promises. Is it really enough to do nothing and say nothing in the hopes that their Trumpy leader will stay quiet and sneak in on the back of Wynne's unpopularity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

...their Trumpy leader...

You've got the wrong country. Trump isn't running in this provincial election.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, capricorn said:

You've got the wrong country. Trump isn't running in this provincial election.

You'd think he was by the very Trumpy candidate the PCs put forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You'd think he was by the very Trumpy candidate the PCs put forward.

He is Doug Ford and he has his own form of stupid. Very unique compared to Trump. They are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

He is Doug Ford and he has his own form of stupid. Very unique compared to Trump. They are not the same.

He is a perfect example of Trumpism. A fake grassroots populist without an actual platform utilizing my-team-versus-your-team politics to eke out a win by convincing idiots that voting for him is a vote against "libruls".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

  A fake grassroots populist without an actual platform utilizing my-team-versus-your-team politics to eke out a win by convincing idiots that voting for him is a vote against "libruls".

That sounds about right.

If Trump's extemporaneous trade war against China kills jobs in the heartland, they will not be the wiser as to their buffoon-in-chief's role in that and will still vote for him.  As such, the masses have overtaken the public and democracy can now be iterated to the next level... I suggest making a rule that says you can't vote if you live in the country... or in a city of less than one million population.

Edited by Michael Hardner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

He is a perfect example of Trumpism. A fake grassroots populist without an actual platform utilizing my-team-versus-your-team politics to eke out a win by convincing idiots that voting for him is a vote against "libruls".

You've just described 95% of politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

You've just described 95% of politicians.

No, they pretty much always have a platform, often a very detailed one. Neither Ford nor Trump offer much in terms of policy and nothing in terms of how they would pay for it without raising taxes or going into debt. 

And 95% of politicians aren't right-wing populists. That's ridiculous.

And few politicians try to use the MSM as a symbol of their oppression like Ford and Trump do too. They are very much cut of the same clothe and they appeal to exactly the same limited demographic in the same way.

Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...