Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Yes, your entire country's political system is horrifically corrupt, and getting more corrupt every year.

Thank you...it is a tough job keeping smug Canadians on their pedestal, but somebody has to do it !

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Anyone can create a website. It takes money to get people to look at it.

No it doesn't. To suggest all this money is necessary is to ignore the fact they managed to hold perfectly adequate election campaigns twenty five years ago with a fraction as much. The money is necessary to fight the other guy's money. None of it actually helps anyone. It's more a case that since the other side has it you have to have it too.

That is how the electoral system is and all players engage in these tactics. Look at the union money in the last Ontario election: perfect example of "lying BS ads".

Absolutely! Which is why we should impose the same rules provincially which we use federally.

Edited by Argus

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Thank you...it is a tough job keeping smug Canadians on their pedestal, but somebody has to do it !

And on occasion it's justified.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

You are quite mistaken about the source of campaign funding in U.S. local, state, and federal elections. Peanuts spent in Canada has less to do with election finance law than the actual resources available.

Impose Canadian laws in the US and there'd be no third party financing, no PACs, no union spending, no money from the Koch brothers, environment groups, corporations or anyone else. That would cut US spending to a fraction of what it is now.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

You are quite mistaken about the source of campaign funding in U.S. local, state, and federal elections. Peanuts spent in Canada has less to do with election finance law than the actual resources available.

Oh come on now, dont you think the Canadian version of the Koch bros would be buying and selling elections if they could do it here

Posted

Absolutely! Which is why we should impose the same rules provincially which we use federally.

A good point as made evident by the recent Ontario and BC elections, where unions were heavily involved.

Posted

You are quite mistaken about the source of campaign funding in U.S. local, state, and federal elections. Peanuts spent in Canada has less to do with election finance law than the actual resources available.

No itis because you have no limits and are always in campaign mode. I often wonder how much time your legislators spend actually doing their job when they are constantly having to fund raise and campaign.

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Posted

And on occasion it's justified.

It's always justified....apparently some Canadians would have nothing else to do if not to worry about campaign financing in a foreign country. Maybe all those campaign ads you have to watch while sponging off U.S. television bums them out !

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

A good point as made evident by the recent Ontario and BC elections, where unions were heavily involved.

Maybe but in BC there is a cap on what each party can spend on each of its candidates campaign.

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Posted

No itis because you have no limits and are always in campaign mode. I often wonder how much time your legislators spend actually doing their job when they are constantly having to fund raise and campaign.

Why ? You live in Canada !

Everyday American Joes and Janes also contribute to election campaigns. PACs and Super PACs are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Maybe but in BC there is a cap on what each party can spend on each of its candidates campaign.

I'm speaking to third parties i.e. BCTF's spending of the strike fund on "truth adds" running up to the last election.

Posted (edited)

In Canada the system might not be perfect but I think at least we have some balance between the idea of free speech and the idea that one shouldn't be able to just buy elections by spending your opponents into submission.

-k

Unless you live in British Columbia.........Six Seven years ago, the then Campbell Liberal government tabled Bill 42 to curtail third party advertising, but the various Unions, led by the BCTF, challenged and won in BC Supreme Court on grounds of free speech being curtailed by Bill 42 from preventing them getting "their message out"..........And of course, the Unions outspend, every election, groups that favor the Liberals.......spending the most doesn't always ensure victory on election day mind you....

Edited by Derek 2.0
Posted

And why did you go to those links and not others?

Word of mouth, often from friends.

What you seem to be missing is the ability to post a message is not the same as getting people to read it. It is very hard to get people to read a website and unless someone lucks out with a post that goes viral. Paid advertising is only real option if someone wants a large number of people to read their message.

Of course it isn't, but you're missing the fact that you don't need advertising for something or someone to get large exposure. With any Democrat or Republican candidate in the US, people will know who they are & can easily find out what they stand for without a cent in campaign funding. The media will do much of the work for them.

Not that I'm arguing for zero campaign funding...

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

Gee, does that mean Jeb bush isn't the top pick? Last night, on a radio program out of Ohio, one former US soldier phoned in and said that he didn't want Bush or Clinton and he wanted someone fresh and new. He ran down GW Bush something awful but then again, he was sent over to Iraq by Bush. The former Gov. of N.Y cast his name in the running today.

Posted

Then how did the NDP become the official opposition?

Since when is the NDP the government? And the only way the NDP got as far as they did was to tone down the message on on business and taxes. In provinces where they get elected, NDP policies are mostly indistinguishable from Liberals.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted (edited)

Word of mouth, often from friends.

Getting wide exposure this way is equivalent to winning the lottery.

Of course it isn't, but you're missing the fact that you don't need advertising for something or someone to get large exposure.

You have a logic failure: if you have ideas that you want to get wide exposure then the only way to ensure they get wide exposure is to pay money. This statement does not mean that paying money is the only way to get exposure so arguments that it is possible to get wide exposure without money are irrelevant.

The media will do much of the work for them.

And what about a candidate which the "media" dislikes? Those candidates need to pay for publicity. Edited by TimG
Posted

Getting wide exposure this way is equivalent to winning the lottery.

You have a logic failure: if you have ideas that you want to get wide exposure then the only way to ensure they get wide exposure is to pay money. This statement does not mean that paying money is the only way to get exposure so arguments that it is possible to get wide exposure without money are irrelevant.

That sounds about as convoluted as something Stephen Harper would say.

Posted (edited)

Getting wide exposure this way is equivalent to winning the lottery.

Not for a previously elected politician for the Dems/GOP or former governor etc., which virtually all serious POTUS candidates are these days.

You have a logic failure: if you have ideas that you want to get wide exposure then the only way to ensure they get wide exposure is to pay money. This statement does not mean that paying money is the only way to get exposure so arguments that it is possible to get wide exposure without money are irrelevant.

I'm not the one with the logic failure. Above makes no sense.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted (edited)

Not for a previously elected politician for the Dems/GOP or former governor etc., which virtually all serious POTUS candidates are these days.

So you are saying the only people who should be elected are people who are already famous? Not exactly in the spirit of democracy.

I'm not the one with the logic failure. Above makes no sense.

What is so hard to understand? I never intended to say that money is the only way to get a message widely read - only that someone with ideas which they want to promote does not have a reliable way to ensure their message gets read other than spending money. Word of mouth is great when it works but it is like winning a lottery. Edited by TimG
Posted

PACs and Super PACs are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Only because he Supremes say it does. Change the supremes and you'll get a different interpretation.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Only because he Supremes say it does. Change the supremes and you'll get a different interpretation.

It's ok. Big media is dying, in favour of point-to-point communication. Buying the airwaves won't mean much in 20 years, and we'll be back to talking to each other, rather than listening intently to so many canned messages from afar.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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 Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,914
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MDP
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • MDP earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • MDP earned a badge
      First Post
    • DrewZero earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • BlahTheCanuck went up a rank
      Explorer
    • derek848 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...