Michael Hardner

Let me think a bit.

Or you could just take the sign off...

Imagine if you went to a restaurant and there wasn't a lady with triangle t1ts and a dude with a rectangley torso on the doors ... what would happen ?

Missed one. Who to engage with ? People who accept that politics is a legitimate way to make change. People who accept that politics is built on dialogue, and principles including our national values and COMPROMISE. When you get people who refuse to refrain from insults, or state that they won't go along with solutions of any kind because they don't agree, then they are leeches on democracy. Foster dialogue by leaving the anti-democrats out of the process of dialogue. Will they get power anyway ? Sure, they have already. But they won't get far if they refuse to compromise. We will have a strong middle who makes up their minds.

Ok - I will answer per bloc as it's more conversational. Back to you, C. Maybe it's because "the" public (nod to Michael Warner) can't figure out what's going on and they have to cling to some past skeletons rather than leap into the future. I can't predict the future, but if you press me I will go with polls and say Biden will win. Conservatism literally means a person who holds traditional values, such as respect for religious rights, our institutions and laws and our values. Those values include a social safety net of some kind. The world has moved right, but that's not my fault. Ike, Nixon, and Regan would all be considered communists by these people if you described their policies and didn't tell them the name of the proponent. We have always had reactionary politics and social conservatives. I reject the idea that things are altogether different today, except for the media that we use to discuss problems. If you whisper through a bullhorn, then, it sounds like yelling. As I said, I value traditions so let's go back to the politics as they were designed and see if they can be salvaged. In terms of traditionalist vs reactionary viewpoints - you are basically calling me a conservative here and on that I agree. Let's use the traditions of talking to each other to resolve problems. The media is not reporting in a way that facilitates collaboration and actual politics, and people should see that. I don't know that they will need to implement UBI, or whether work will change as it did after the arrival of the WWW. What are the factory worker types of 50 years ago doing now ? Some of them are working in lower paying jobs, and some are doing home renovations. There is a spectrum of new jobs and not just software. Something like that will have to happen. I don't have any ideas about UBI beyond that - targeted UBI may refer to the fact that I doubt UBI would be universal if it did come in, unless we're in the Star Trek world or something. How can there be a middle ground if people state that it does not exist ? What would satisfy them ? I expect only doing nothing would. And we've been doing close to that so this minority has succeeded in getting what they want. Fostering constructive dialogue is something that needs to be done across the strata of government issues. We ask far too much of "the" public IMO. It's not a matter of intelligence, but time. How could you expect to spend the time to update yourself on all that we're concerned with today ? So either educate people and send the entire public through a 1-year diploma course on public affairs, or rejig the system so people can connect with it meaningfully. I think Canadians respond to populists much as our American cousins do. They vote for them, then they tire of them and get rid of them. O'Toole suffered from impatience on the part of the Conservatives IMO. Trudeau could win again, yes. He isn't that far behind. It's very difficult to assess the validity of 'intelligence'. We believed WMD, the Steele Dossier - who can say ? I do think that China is trying to influence the government, that's not surprising. I believe CSIS more than politicians, as they are charged foremost with protecting Canada, but I don't know on which issue you're commenting specifically. I like the Canadian system but I think all countries are challenged by new media populism in a way beyond what an 'official opposition' would attempt. Ethically ? I suppose it's ethical enough. But I don't see Canada being at the point where we need this so much. There is a rich ecosystem of political discussion rising now, though, and you could capitalize on that. Maybe start a brainstorming thread and see what we can come up with. I hope this was good enough for you, cheers.

Just tag me in the post and I will answer... it's on here right ? Not centrism.ca ?

Yeah, great. Once again you compliment me - no idea if you are joking about anything or not. Go ahead, I will answer the questions and you should answer mine too, in turn. That's how a discussion works, right ? If I'm such a heavyweight, why am I absolutely unknown off this board ? Here's the reason: I am just another average person with opinions, no more no less. You like to read me, well.. nice that's good to hear. But don't confuse your opinion about me for my opinion about myself. There are lots of greats out there, and I'm not interested in selling myself, period.

1. Which ones now ? 2. That's perspektiv, not me. 3. I just searched and have at least 50 posts there but ok. 4. Did you search my posts on economics ? My position is nuanced. 5. Maybe ask your questions in that thread. I don't always see every reply, or have an answer for everything sorry.

1. Hmmm. The goodness or badness of something is likely innate, whether or not you can know it. "Language" can describe things, but can't capture all qualities of anything. In Orwell's 1984, the government of the day language was reduced, ie. words eliminated, to limit the ability to express ideas. I don't know what you mean by upgrades coming. 2. To 'prevent' people from listening ? Okaaaaay.... Are my ideas THAT bad ? 3. "well" not "good". Please purchase the adverb upgrade for your tool. 4. Why do you think *I* know it all about politics ? And yet you feel that *YOU* know so much that you're openly saying you need to prevent people from LISTENING to me ? So so strange... 5. Why do you think I'm special ? I certainly don't. I spend so much time on your ideas, trying to understand what you are saying... certainly a special person has better things to do. 6. Yes. You don't want me to compete, it seems. --- Your pattern of insulting me, apologizing, praising me, then insulting me again is most strange. Pardon me for not understanding. Again, I would put you on IGNORE but you're being polite and interesting too.

What a non story...

Liberal and Communist are opposites. Downvote...

1. " That is the main point of what I am saying, so people don't listen to old socialists like you " You can't have two main points. 2. Your main point #1 conflicts with your main point #3 here. Look - you need to decide whether you want to listen to all points of view, to disregard politicians, or to ignore socialistic ideas including those of conservatives. My patience is wearing thin on this as you are continuing to mischaracterize me while hectoring me at the same time. 3. I am using my language to explain how the system has worked for about 240 years without issue. 4. Accepted.

1. Ok, so you are saying people shouldn't listen to me ? Democracy means listen to ideas presented in good faith. 2. Why not listen to real conservatives, assuming you think I am not one. 3. Instead of presuming that I am an arrogant dictator of ideas, maybe respond to the points I am making ? 4. You accuse me of saying others can't lead because they're not qualified and yet: - You say I am biased because I have been so successful ? And yet you have no proof of that. - You say your main point is so people don't listen to old socialists like me ? Who is the dictator here ? 5. Non-political forces are dealt with via non-politics, ie. "force". MAGA Chuds are associated with a political force, though some have tried to go around politics and are now dealing with the results in jail or worse. Also - I have asked you and will ask you again to stop saying how good I have had it. It's not accurate, and none of your business in a discussion. It would be like me saying you're unqualified to talk about Canada because you're an immigrant. --- The rest of your post is more of a slag against my privilege, of which you have no idea. I'm not going to block you, but I'm at the point of not responding to this nonsense that is personal about me Anyway. What you are talking about is the "rabble" and they can be very good at organizing and getting politics to work for them. As individuals, they are throwing wrenches into the machine of democracy, but they have gained political power and forced everyone who is against them to vote against inferior candidates just to stop them. I won't ignore them, I can't. I am forced to post about their stupidity constantly on here. But Democracy isn't designed for the mob, woke or MAGA. It's designed for a "public" - individuals with principles, opinions, and ideas who come to a public space to engage politically. If you come to the table with an agenda to end democracy, to elect a final president to end elections, to suppress the rights of others then you're not a conservative, you're a radical. I don't have to engage with you if you act like a ****.

1. No. You have to use discretion to determine what works and what doesn't. 2. I, we, are talking about the mechanics of democracy. It isn't about socialism or such. 3. This is a recurring theme with you. But you don't know me and don't know my situation, so it's actually insulting and arrogant to say my opinions are biased due to my success. I suggest you look at history, and learn how the public sphere is designed to work. That is where my opinions on the topic come from. Read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. 4. I was talking about how the system was DESIGNED. It's not being used as prescribed...

1. Sorry, it was an honest mistake. 2. 3. You have to believe that I didn't understand what you meant, and somewhat still don't. You're saying that a significant number of people don't accept our culture. Ok. Given that I somewhat disparaged our culture, though, to begin with do you agree with me that this could be a good thing? 4. I am interested. Especially because your take is nuanced enough that it went right over my head. Please rest assured that I am indeed interested.

1. I think socially unacceptable ideas are a mainstay of any culture, I would guess. 2. I assume this is because of state number one, ok.

I am starting to think that we actually don't have a good idea about "our" culture. Not sure what you mean by half of people rejecting freedom, but it sounds wrong to me. I wish stand by what I said about freedom, hedonism and nihilism in the meantime.

Isn't the American military program just a giant make work plan? How many military jobs in Mitch McConnell's district?

I noticed also that the word logic is used, as though those who demonize lgbtq+, call them groomers and predators, refer to their choices as ideology are being logical. The only logic I can see is the power brokers like DeSantis who understand that manipulating people's natural ignorance is a way to gain power. Now that's a logical approach, for someone who doesn't care about harming others.

I hear people saying that their ideas aren't shared by society in general. Fair enough. But you can't assume that the masses are being brainwashed somehow. We have created the culture that we want. Freedom, hedonism, and nihilism are the core values. Family, responsibility to the community and sacrifice (!) are not values anymore.

You mean this ? It's appropriate for those grades, those are middle school. One stat I saw said 30% of kids 13-16 are sexually active so this range puts them within 0-4 years of that timeframe.

A system that is as cynical as you seem to be saying it is has no chance of succeeding. The system is built for people with good sense and good faith to work together, even as the cynical mingle in between the good actors.

Yeah, and as I said it doesn't say anything about gay sex being taught in elementary school. I'm not going to go on about this for a long time and give you a chance to explain to me why relationships equal sex, but if you have an additional point to make that involves clarifying this for me I would appreciate it.

1a. Hey, I'm not arguing with you silly 😜. I'm trying to help you find out about ridiculous left-wing programs that got rolled back out of proposal stage. Universality meant that if somebody got a check, such as a poor person getting welfare check, everybody would get a check I'll be at for a smaller amount if you are wealthy. That wouldn't eliminate poor people feeling shame about getting government assistance because everyone would be getting the check. 2a. Exactly. Nobody has a monopoly on bad ideas.

Okay I missed this one. The link doesn't say anything about gay sex being taught in elementary school. I think you misunderstood.