Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Syncretic Party - New political group


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SyncreticParty said:

We were hoping for more members to challenge and question us. 

 

Step one; stop trying to be all things to all people, there is already a party which tries that, they are called the NDP, if I wish to vote for fairy's and unicorns, I've got Jagmeet Singh for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Same shit different pile...Lots of promises no meat.....want to impress me tell me how your going to mange all of this.......did you discover the magic pill, or maybe the magic weed.....How are you su

I have a few questions. Nice web site. Grats on at least putting your thoughts and policies out there vs a lot of hazy babblethought from most parties. Syncretic means neither political left nor

It seems they want to do better by being even more involved in their vision of micro-managing the economy taking the "best" from the New Democrats and nationalizing industries and the "best" from the

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Step one; stop trying to be all things to all people, there is already a party which tries that, they are called the NDP, if I wish to vote for fairy's and unicorns, I've got Jagmeet Singh for that.

We may have some similarities but much of our platform is very different from the NDP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SyncreticParty said:

We may have some similarities but much of our platform is very different from the NDP. 

Platform schmatform, a platform is tactics not strategy.  Strategically, you have to find a niche, one is that not being serviced by the other parties, a gap in the market, a power vacuum which can be filled.  Your platform is just platitudes, right off the bat Army Guy is calling bullshit on you from the ranks, can't kid the troops, don't even try.

You need to find the niche, and then make that into a brand, which is not going to be "Syncretic", which is fallacious babble, nobody votes for a paradox.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to be a "fusion", what that is has to be laid out in clear in simple terms as a brand, like Conservative Democratic Party, or Democratic Freedom Party, etcetera

Everything you need to know about the Nazis is at a glance in the branding; National Socialism.

The post scarcity utopia promised by the socialists, but only for the Germans,

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Platform schmatform, a platform is tactics not strategy.  Strategically, you have to find a niche, one is that not being serviced by the other parties, a gap in the market, a power vacuum which can be filled.  Your platform is just platitudes, right off the bat Army Guy is calling bullshit on you from the ranks, can't kid the troops, don't even try.

You need to find the niche, and then make that into a brand, which is not going to be "Syncretic", which is fallacious babble, nobody votes for a paradox.

 

Our platform includes the following:

-We need to ramp up oil production and exports;

-Nuclear power technology is the solution to climate change, not *only* renewables and carbon tax;

-Immigration is a symptom. Our focus is on why immigration is necessary and to fix what causes that. Other parties just care about immigration itself;

-Significantly increase military funding and overhaul the procurement process;

-Ban foreign ownership of residential real estate;

-Increased awareness and support for men;

-Less government regulation;

-Planning for the North West Passage and Arctic Sovereignty; and

-Dental coverage in healthcare.

 

We don't see any of the other parties pushing for any of the aforementioned. We feel we are sufficiently niche. 

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

-Ban foreign ownership of residential real estate; 

Why? What's the justification for this? If the concern is about housing affordability, I suggest that the issue is too much regulation and not enough job opportunities. Municipal zoning laws and restrictions on the construction of new houses prevents the supply of housing to adequately increase, causing unnecessarily high prices. In addition, a business unfriendly environment due to high taxes and certain governments wanting to impose their social justice agenda on businesses (such as requiring that businesses satisfy the "intersectionality of gender and other identity factors") reduce job opportunities and the ability of people to afford housing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Why? What's the justification for this? If the concern is about housing affordability, I suggest that the issue is too much regulation and not enough job opportunities. Municipal zoning laws and restrictions on the construction of new houses prevents the supply of housing to adequately increase, causing unnecessarily high prices. In addition, a business unfriendly environment due to high taxes and certain governments wanting to impose their social justice agenda on businesses (such as requiring that businesses satisfy the "intersectionality of gender and other identity factors") reduce job opportunities and the ability of people to afford housing.

https://www.syncretic.ca/important-issues-housing

" A number of reasons exist for why real estate prices are so high: very low interest rates and high credit, supply, demand, foreign interest, and speculation. One of the reasons for the increase in housing value is due to foreign nationals interested in parking their investments, tax-free, in Canadian residential real estate.

[...] An increased population has also skewed the supply and demand of the real estate market, further driving up prices. Provinces, municipalities and cities have much more influence on housing prices than the Federal government, by controlling the amount and type of residential real estate that is built in addition to the amount of red tape required to approve and construct real estate. The problem is multi-faceted but lies mostly in the hands of provinces, municipalities, and cities.

[...] Many countries in the world have restrictions on non-citizens purchasing residential real estate. We believe it is time for Canada to adopt a similar stance on housing. The Syncretic party proposes that only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can purchase residential real estate. In addition, those that wish to purchase residential real estate must be declared Canadian tax residents. "

This would help combat real estate money laundering as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SyncreticParty said:

[...] Many countries in the world have restrictions on non-citizens purchasing residential real estate. We believe it is time for Canada to adopt a similar stance on housing. The Syncretic party proposes that only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can purchase residential real estate. In addition, those that wish to purchase residential real estate must be declared Canadian tax residents.

 

If foreigners want to come to our country, buy our goods, or invest here, then we should welcome that.

 

If foreigners want to buy real estate here, let them and tax it. That will generate tax revenue to pay for services.

 

Requiring that foreigners have to become Canadian tax residents will cause them to have to pay taxes to two countries. That's too extreme and will cause too many to flee. I think that you will be well on the wrong side of the laffer curve at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

If foreigners want to come to our country, buy our goods, or invest here, then we should welcome that.

 

If foreigners want to buy real estate here, let them and tax it. That will generate tax revenue to pay for services.

 

Requiring that foreigners have to become Canadian tax residents will cause them to have to pay taxes to two countries. That's too extreme and will cause too many to flee. I think that you will be well on the wrong side of the laffer curve at that point.

Canadians buying real estate will also generate tax revenue. Our interest is on banning residential real estate owned by foreigners. Not all real estate. Other than high interest rates and high credit, etc - foreign buyers and speculation has driven up pricing. Permanent residents and Canadian citizens should be given priority when it comes to housing. Canadians not being burdened by debt means they are more capable of spending money to stimulate the economy, being healthier, and having families. That is much more important to us than generating some tax revenue by foreign nationals purchasing homes. We take issue with Canadians renting apartments in homes owned by foreign nationals. If foreigners need to stay in Canada, they can rent from Canadians.

We want Canadians to be home owners, not renters. What will happen to renters when the increased mortgage (due to the increasing tax rates) that home owners have to deal with will be passed on to them?

In addition, this tax resident measure will ensure that money laundering is not possible since tax residents can be investigated by the CRA.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3773729/richmond-incomes-downtown-eastside/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4675402/money-laundering-tip-portal/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4149818/vancouver-cautionary-tale-money-laundering-drugs/

The foreigners that wish to stay can become permanent residents and eventually Canadian citizens.

If we can discover a better method of dealing with these issues, we will go that way. Until then, we feel this is the best course of action.


We really do appreciate your feedback. If you'd like to go in more detail regarding your point or argue our retort, that would be welcomed.

Edited by SyncreticParty
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SyncreticParty said:

Canadians buying real estate will also generate tax revenue. Our interest is on banning residential real estate owned by foreigners.

 

That's silly though. You effectively want Canada to turn down free money.

 

44 minutes ago, SyncreticParty said:

being healthier, and having families. That is much more important to us than generating some tax revenue by foreign nationals purchasing homes.

 

This is is sort of creepy... the obsession with how much people breed. Are gay people considered undesirable in your world view since they tend not to breed as much? The government should get out of people's bedrooms!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

That's silly though. You effectively want Canada to turn down free money.

 

 

This is is sort of creepy... the obsession with how much people breed. Are gay people considered undesirable in your world view since they tend not to breed as much? The government should get out of people's bedrooms!

There is no such thing as free money:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-money-laundering-problem-may-be-much-worse-than-imagined/

 

If you can take a minute to read this:

https://www.syncretic.ca/important-issues-declining-populati

it will explain why reproduction is important for a nation. It's actually the reason immigration is being pushed so strongly by governments in modern societies. It's also the reason Japan recently relaxed its stance on immigration. We're not interested in being in people's bedrooms. We just want to create an environment where Canadians can have a normal life, which includes being able to have a family.

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

Did we get an answer to the $150B to nationalize telcos ?

Seems to be this:

We would not be nationalizing the telecom companies. We would nationalize the infrastructure. We would begin building a modern and nationalized telecom infrastructure, paid for through city/municipal bonds and sourced with Canadian only parts and labor.

But... what is a telecommunications company? It's 'infrastructure' and people. So if you nationalize the infrastructure and not the people then the people are all unemployed. But you can't maintain the infrastructure without people. So you'd have to hire at least some of the people. And what's left? Customer service people? I don't think they're worth much in terms of the value of the company in a sale...Then the telco would have to presumably pay you to use what used to be their infrastructure... I'm really not sure how the economics of this play out. But I don't think the cost of 'nationalizing' the infrastructure would be much less than just nationalizing the companies.  And it actually sounds like an enormous cost and effort for very little return. If you're worried about the security of the infrastructure then you simply proscribe foreign players and insist on certain security upgrades and presto. Same effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argus said:

Seems to be this:

 

 

But... what is a telecommunications company? It's 'infrastructure' and people. So if you nationalize the infrastructure and not the people then the people are all unemployed. But you can't maintain the infrastructure without people. So you'd have to hire at least some of the people. And what's left? Customer service people? I don't think they're worth much in terms of the value of the company in a sale...Then the telco would have to presumably pay you to use what used to be their infrastructure... I'm really not sure how the economics of this play out. But I don't think the cost of 'nationalizing' the infrastructure would be much less than just nationalizing the companies.  And it actually sounds like an enormous cost and effort for very little return. If you're worried about the security of the infrastructure then you simply proscribe foreign players and insist on certain security upgrades and presto. Same effect.

Who owns the roads and highways? The governments do. Who repairs, maintains, upgrades, constructs, and services them? Private construction companies. It's the same concept. Would you argue they aren't construction companies because they don't own buildings and infrastructure? No. There is specialized knowledge and service there. A telecom company is more than just service.

Competing in telecom right now means you need to own your infrastructure or lease it from a company. Telecom infrastructure costs millions.  There is no way to innovate. Leasing from the government would be much more affordable and allows people to set up a company really quickly. This would even allow foreign competition.

Also, companies that want to participate in our telecom industry need to lease bandwidth anyway - so leasing infrastructure wouldn't really change much:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did we get an answer to the $150B to nationalize telcos ?

https://www.syncretic.ca/telecom-reduced-rates

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Seems like nationalization.  It's a different idea, but not a new one.  

 

Instead of seizing the assets of innovation, why not set up the rules to reward it ?  

https://www.syncretic.ca/economy-diversification

How do you innovate an industry that has an extremely costly barrier of entry and is very regulated? Competing in telecom right now means you need to own your infrastructure or lease it from a company. Telecom infrastructure costs millions.  There is no way to innovate.

https://www.syncretic.ca/economy-diversification

Edited by SyncreticParty
Posted incorrect information.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, Dougie93 said:

Lighten up, Francis.  

This is what democracy looks like, it's not a panacea, merely a peaceful transfer of power.

And stop trying to bring the morale down,  Ducimus.

Democracy is flawed, just not as flawed as other systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PIK said:

Democracy is flawed, just not as flawed as other systems.

Exactly, least worse option, the other option being force, which is civil war, which is not fun, nor profitable.

Hence, we keep this 1688 thing going, for as long as we possibly can, Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy, our nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting ideas and I agree with most of them, though I’m not sure most of these topics are front and centre in people’s lives.  The major issue that I think governments aren’t considering that actually impacts most people in our cities and towns is commute/delivery times.  We have no high speed rail and not nearly enough subways, heavy or light rail.  I also think we need underground toll highways in our major cities, probably coupled with rail tunnels.  Addressing commute/delivery times would give working people more time for family and friends, creative pursuits, as well as work.  It increases productivity as people, goods, and services are moved more quickly and efficiently. It improves air quality and lowers greenhouse gas emissions.  Such measures would transform our quality of life. Any government that takes big measures In transportation has my vote.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 10:16 PM, SyncreticParty said:

 

"The Syncretic party believes the following is required to jump start the Canadian economy:

  1. Aggressively enforce existing policies and laws instead of turning a blind eye to oligopolies;

  2. Remove protectionist policies that limit competition;

  3. Streamline regulatory process;

  4. Assess which markets can be safely opened to foreign competition and open them;

  5. Markets which can’t be safely opened to foreign competition will have the infrastructure nationalized and companies will compete on service;

  6. Reward innovation and entrepreneurship;

  7. Increase trade with countries other than the U.S.;

  8. Diversify the Canadian economy, with a focus on developing new technology;

  9. Provide incentives for companies to hire Canadian employees; and

  10. Change the business culture to reward investing in employees and thinking long term instead of short term."

Yes we have considered this and we are still working on our costing plan.


Military:

The founder spent some time in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve.
We ideally would purchase locally but we need to ensure that the equipment procured works as intended.

 

Our goal on climate change is to introduce more nuclear power
 

Sorry I just got around to this thread. I was busy preparing my own new political party which I will explain another day.

In regards to 1: which laws and policies?

In regards to 2: what protectionist policies?..By the way do you intend to offset this  by protecting Canadian businesses being endangered by price dumping from China or other countries which is why we have tarrifs? Care to explain how your doing away with these alleged policies, laws won't enable foreign companies to then flood our markets putting our businesses out of business in Canada then once monopolizing the supply of the products or services they sell us, upping the price after achieving this monopoly and having no competition? Here let me put it in simpler terms, if you want Canadians to roll over and have China stick it up our collective buttocks do you intend to guarantee China won't have a monopoly on the hemmeroid lotion we will then need to buy?

In regards to 3: Every  aging fat  man tells his 22 year old mistress  says he intends to go on a diet. Go on then finish the thought.. which fat do you start with and do your really intend to shut down MacDonalds?

In regards to 4: Which economic forecasting tool do you need to tell you that in 2017 Canada exported 390.1 billion of which 300 of that went to the US, 15.8 to China and 12 or so went to the UK?  Safe foreign markets? Get serious. We have one overwhelming market we trade with and we have made zero effort to diversify. We also have a trade deficit but not with the US... In 2017 we actually came out about 17 billion ahead with them. It's with China. Do you really need to be told Chinese price dumping policies are our biggest concern? You need to do a test to tell you when you pee too much? Really?

In regards to 5: that makes zero sense and cents and contradicts 2.

In regards to 6: All politicians say that and claim they will give tax incentives to do that and yet we do not invent   For that matter Israel with less than 6 million people leads the entire world in terms of patents, trademarks, industrial designs, inventions, intellectual property and the Israeli government taxes everyone to death because of the constant security threat requiring a constant military cost. Canada has had zero military threat since WW2. It has had no military since WW2. It chose to close down its car and air industries and allow the US to shut down anything in Canada  remotely close to competing with US sectors including the latest attack on aluminum. Go on explain how you intend to deal with the US tarriff on aluminum and get Canadians to invent things with tax incentives. Good luck. You think the hundreds of thousands of illegals we are welcoming to Canada will be cutting edge researchers and scientists? How about our education system? You intend to explain how you intend to have the next generation think without a cell phone telling them how to breath?

In regards to 7: How do you increase trade with other countries if they won't trade with you? Its easy to say what you did. We had a PM, Jean Chretiens who made all these business junkets around the world claiming to generate trade with different countries. Nothing happened. It was an excuse to travel and pay off his sycophants with hotel stays and tours of foreign countries. In fact as much as I hate the Liberals they are trying. They have entered into a free trade agreement with the EU and proactive in world trade agreements. So were the Tories. Neither has deliberately ignored diversifying trade its a matter of you explaining to any government of the day how do they deal with the choke hold the US and China have on world markets we would like to enter. That said we do  have free trade with South Korea, Chile, Mexico. We have tried to expand trade with Asia, Japan. Its been difficult. WE run head on into a collision with China and the US for the same potential markets. As well it doesn't help when our Prime Minister is a large douche bag when it comes to understanding foreign policy and thinks if he goes uninvited to India and prances about in pajamas and has his family pose like little trained circus monkeys this will increase trade.

In regards to 8: More buzz words like diversify trade, increase trade, reward new technology....sounds very nice  but no specifics, you smile with no teeth and tell people to practice good dental hygiene...kind of shallow...

In regards to 9: they already exist, its called immigration law and citizenship- now of course if you do not want refugees, illegal immigrants. permanent residents, foreign workers in Canada, say so, stop couching your words.

In regards to 10: Yah, yah  many women and gay men  have told me they think long term not short term in their relationships and I do not mean time. I  always say/// hey come on now, length is not everything. You seem to have some naive notion that a politician who is voted in every 4 years is going to worry long term. Nah. Its like being a prostitute in Japan or China. Its not realistic although I am sure every now and then someone with a long term plan shows up.

Your comment...." Yes we have considered this and are working on a costing plan."...reminds me of a prostitute as well...you know they are about to phack you but  come on you want to know for how much. Usually if a prostitute (politician same thing) can't tell you how much they will  cost its a bad sign. I believe in proper foreplay myself. I check to see the price and I look under the hood. You can never be too careful these days. Politicians are known for hiding things. Me I tell people, never turn your  back on a politician and trust me, they are all hard to swallow.

In regards to the military if you were in the reserve you would know we shut down our ability to make fighter jets or our own military equipment after WW2. If you want to rebuild our military industrial complex good luck. I would start with building a navy. Good luck undoing the vice grip of the US military industrial complex on our federal government.

Finally in regards to climate change, I love you love nuclear. Yep no pollution to the climate from nuclear now is there. Go visit Chernobyl and Japan. Get back to me once your teeth and hair fall out. For God's sakes man, do some research on what is happening in Japan and Eastern Europe or with radioactive waste. Nuclear technology is no panacea.

 

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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...