Jump to content

Why has the CBC has been struggling to find "the election question"?


myata

Recommended Posts

CBC has been struggling to find "the election question". We understand, it's a very difficult challenge, and we're here to help, with a simple and direct single world candidate: Why?

Why the st()d election was even made in the first place? Who asked for it? And who needed it? Just like in the classical sleuth story ask yourself these simple questions and it's nowhere near a mind-bending mystery.

Why was it necessary (to who?) to spend more hundreds of millions of taxpayer's money (does anybody even count them anymore?) in the middle of the pandemic's most dangerous variant wave to send millions of dutiful voters to the poll stations exposing them to horrible droplets and aerosols?

To think of it, would-be PM calling for mandatory this and require that with a single brief walk creates the most massive pandemic gathering event in years (how many millions?) across the country, to achieve: what? What can it, and would do for us? (sure it could upgrade the power status of one party-corporation from virtually monarch-like to formally such, but would it do anything for us?).

And no matter how many times asked, at rallies, debates or informally have you heard a clear and intelligible answer: why? Did you hear it, even once?

Edited by Greg
To add context to the topic title
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dystopia of doctors assisting mentally ill people to commit suicide, constant attacks on Canada for “colonialism”, elderly locked away in homes without visitors, endless restrictions on behaviour and required proof of vaccination to enjoy basic freedoms, encouragement of uncertain children to undergo gender transition surgery on demand, continued legislation of abortion up to the day before expected day of birth, race-based funding of businesses and employment programs, continued curtailing of free speech on campuses, massive increases in immigration and refugee entry without parliamentary debate, continued looking the other way on the burning of churches and blockading of railroads, throwing taxpayer dollars at pipelines and introducing regulations that make them impossible to build, profligate overspending on whimsical pet projects…Am I missing anything?

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Greg changed the title to Why has the CBC has been struggling to find "the election question"?

Here's another hopefully objective not so partisan take. It follows from the question, why political system exists in the first place?

You have an accountant to manage financial matters. Over the years they grown lazy and entitled (both) and demand a little bit more here and there on any occasion, with a little less actual and useful work (for you) every time. Then after a while, you invest in a laptop with an accounting program. You figure it out, and arrive to the conclusion that it will take you about 10 minutes to 1/2 hour each month to keep track of your financial matters. Would you still keep the accountant, and pay them, salaries, benefits, entitlements and allowances etc with automatic annual raises (at the rate they calculate for themselves)?

See, in this picture political system exists only and entirely as much at it operates for the society and provides a useful function roughly speaking, real work. And there's no others, simply none, reasons for it to exists.

But this isn't the only point of view of course. In a different take, the system is owned by a certain class that sees it as its rightful given and entitlement (and why not hereditary some may ask?) And in that picture the episode above is completely and totally wrong. No no! You absolutely cannot do without that accountant. In the best case it just not going to work, and in the worst the accountant is the cause and reason for the very existence of the society (see "Baron Munchausen" for a concise and fun illustration, "We think so you are"; see also "100 million Canada" story). And from that viewpoint the answer cannot be simpler: because we thought so; because it's our game and we own it, while your duty is to walk to the polls wherever we decide to blow the whistle, and for whatever reasons. Because we need it and we made it so. Got it, at last?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's to do with Justin in particular. Hospitals is one huge group of examples, as discussed in another thread. Here's another one. How much would you think a municipal manager, project manager, lawyer etc. together take away in a year, with all benefits and overheads? In a local park there's a small bridge looked like a quick job for several guys, 10K or 20 total? Three years on, boards broken, had to be closed for months, repaired plus who knows how much more $$. On the balance we paid those hard to number costs to the overhead to have the bridge, there's no bridge and every few years we have to shell out more to keep it going. Sure due to increased Covid traffic. How familiar would be the story?

What direction are we heading in, sure its the right one, not with Lebanon as the destination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, myata said:

I'm not sure it's to do with Justin in particular.

Justin is only an image on a poster. Removing him is like taking down the fascia from fascism. So what, 'tis but simple enough to put up a new covering and new, poster-boy.

It's like,

drinking old wine

but in new skins.

New skins

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you thought it was only an exaggeration. Think about the picture of Canadian democracy in your mind or the nice picture book versus as it is in the reality.

"She paints a picture of a controlling PMO that won't even allow ministers to meet together without their chiefs of staff, who are often appointed by the PMO, and where unelected PMO staff instruct cabinet ministers to overhaul policies they are drafting."

"Wilson-Raybould also recounts how the Liberal Party itself reaches into ministerial offices, expecting cabinet ministers to travel the country to raise money and support, including forcing her to attend a fundraising event that she had initially declined when she learned that the guests were likely to include people applying to be named judges".

"I also hated that my political staff – all of them – were told they had to donate to the party and do phone-banking during by-elections and that every chief of staff was expected to become a member of the Laurier Club."

Wilson-Raybould, SNC-Lavalin affair

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 10:18 AM, Zeitgeist said:

The CBC moderator in the English debate was so clearly left-wing biased.  The CBC is losing credibility at lightening speed.  

Huh ?  She cut off Trudeau in the very first exchange.  I thought this person was poorly equipped to do this.

And she's not a CBC moderator "Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute," so you're wrong on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Huh ?  She cut off Trudeau in the very first exchange.  I thought this person was poorly equipped to do this.

And she's not a CBC moderator "Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute," so you're wrong on that one.

You won.  The fact that I thought she worked for the CBC says it all.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our accountants are not elected, they are an army of useless tits hired to actually run our affairs.  The problem is, there is no candidate out there who has the brains nor balls to stop the runaway bureaucracy from continuing to bloat.   IMHO, we as an ignorant electorate should be pressing for government to cut the bloat.  There is simply no way government should EVER have the authority to decide on spending of any kind that raises a deficit of any kind without direct democracy allowing it (i.e. a plebicite).  

This country is badly broken and it is not just the LPC that is breaking it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the time to face an obvious question: do lockdowns; mask chases; vaccination marches do something in the reality; or are they things in their own right and for their own sake?

One could tell clearly where masks can be useful and ask for voluntary compliance;

One could show how vaccines help in preventing severe cases especially for the vulnerable and ask for voluntary participation. Why mandating? Why marching and drumming? Why making an issue, a glorious struggle where it's not clear that the problem exists?

Or do they exist, and have been crated to distract from and cover something? Like what? What about an inefficient and entrenched system at capacity with a host of problems even before the pandemic that couldn't stand to any serious challenge, while the bureaucracy in two decades from the previous warning spent countless public billions on just keeping itself while promising to fix it for a generation?

Which option makes most sense? Or at least any sense?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 6:39 PM, myata said:

CBC has been struggling to find "the election question". We understand, it's a very difficult challenge, and we're here to help, with a simple and direct single world candidate: Why?

Why the st()d election was even made in the first place? Who asked for it? And who needed it? Just like in the classical sleuth story ask yourself these simple questions and it's nowhere near a mind-bending mystery.

.....

Myata, it seems to me that you are asking two questions:

1. Why are we having a federal question?

2. Why does the CBC exist?

=====

1. Our PM, Justin Trudeau, has the power to create the election. (Harper said to Obama that even a US federal president with majorities in Congress has less power/control than a Canadian federal PM in a minority government.)

2. If the federal government stopped funding the CBC, it would have to stop funding Radio-Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada costs about $1.3 billion per year.

English Canada doesn't listen/watch the CBC. It's like NPR.

French Canada watches and even listens to R-C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

(Harper said to Obama that even a US federal president with majorities in Congress has less power/control than a Canadian federal PM in a minority government.)

If he didn't say that, our eyes just told us that this is very true. The question is, can it still be called a democracy? Do elections make a democracy? In China and Russia there are elections. OK they may not be what we call "fair" though from at least some points it can be relative. Is $50K to register and hundreds of thousands to run a campaign so that only monstrous party-corporation can handle that, "fair"?

But imagine there were two CPC, red and blue one, would it make China a democracy with the world's best 9.5 out of 10 rating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myata,

Democracy? My simple definition has two requirements:

1) It is possible to change State power without death.

2) The State power is given to an opponent/enemy.

=====

Who gets the power? I don't care.

Most votes? Don't care.

Random draw? Fine with me. 

====

Make no mistake: When John Adams resigned in 1801, he established an important precedent.

Look it up! 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Myata,

Democracy? (I'd more correctly call this a civilised society.) My simple definition has two requirements:

1) It is possible to change State power without death.

2) The State power is given to an opponent/enemy.

=====

Who gets the power? I don't care.

Most votes? Don't care.

Random draw? Fine with me. 

====

Make no mistake: When John Adams resigned in 1801, he established an important precedent.

Look it up! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When has the transfer of State power in China or Russia ever occurred except that:

Someone died.

The guy agreed with the next guy.

=====

In all of Chinese and Russian history, it has never happened that anyone alive gave State power to another guy, an opponent, an enemy.

Heck, even in the UK and Sweden, they prefer to transfer "official" State power by death.

=====

For better or worse, India's federal election of 1977 was significant. But I think its election of 1996 moreso.

Link to comment
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 Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...