Jump to content

Democracy


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Most people understand the difference between giving $50M to a community and giving $900M to a criminal entity to make propaganda for you and to funnel millions of dollars back to your family. Of course you don't understand it, but that's par for the course.

Most people also understand the difference between Hitler and Trudeau.  WTF is wrong with you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Trudeau offered WE taxpayer money to host events and his mom was paid about $18,000 per event (incl expenses) to speak at them:

OK now: how does that compare to the real, hardcore third world stuff? Where's the difference? Does it exist in this reality, or only because a pet ombudsman parody of independent oversight said so (because they can, say, pretty much anything), all is rosy and great as always?

The problem is not even that it looks and quacks like third world. But can we even tell anymore? Pet media, quack, quack all is good now, business as usual.

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

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Most people also understand the difference between Hitler and Trudeau.  WTF is wrong with you?

Of course there are differences between Hitler and Trudeau.

There are also differences between Hitler and Pol Pot.

There are differences between Hitler and The Young Turks.

There are differences between Hitler and islamic state.

There are differences between Hitler and Yahya Khan.

There are differences between Hitler and Chairman Mao.

There are differences between Hitler and Stalin. In fact, those two committed some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, murdering millions of the exact same people at the exact same time, but they hated each other so much that they fought one of the nastiest wars in European history against each other. 

Winston Churchill and Stalin have some glaring similarities: they were two of the most powerful influencers in the history of the world, they bought fought their guts out against Hitler and they were both sovereign leaders of European countries at the same time. No one makes comparisons between those two though because their most meaningful characteristics are diametrically opposite to one another. 

 

The things that make Hitler somewhat unique among western leaders, and which make him utterly repugnant (his defining characteristics), are the ones that matter the most when we talk about Hitler. In those ways he was quite similar to Stalin, even though they were the worst of enemies. In those same ways, he is quite similar to Trudeau, even though Trudeau's supporters will claim to dislike fascism.

Similarity: Trudeau and Hitler both illegally seized the bank accounts of people for no other reason than they were political dissidents.  

Similarity: Hitler and Trudeau both used mass media for fear mongering and hate mongering against people that he merely didn't like, for his own reasons, which were completely unfounded. 

Similarity: Hitler and Trudeau both falsely accused groups of decent, lawful people of being "unclean", and enacted strict government measures to discriminate against them in the most meaningful ways imaginable. 

Similarity: Hitler and Trudeau both jailed people for political reasons, and supported violence against them. 

Similarity: Hitler and Trudeau both illegally used the police to beat people up in order to quell dissent.

Similarity: Trudeau and Hitler both put strict controls of the flow of information within their countries, and enforced disinformation and hate mongering.

Yes, there are inconsequential differences between Hitler and Trudeau, the 'stache for example, and Hitler might have hated Trudeau as much as he hated Stalin if he knew him, but there are important similarities between Hitler and Trudeau which shouldn't be ignored, because they're ominous signs for our democracy. If we elected a conservative who did the same kind of hate-mongering, enforced the spread of his own disinformation, seized the bank accounts of dissidents, enforced the ostracization and economic devastation of a random group of people for fake medical reasons, etc, you'd be appalled, so would I. I wouldn't biotch out like you and pretend not to see it, and I definitely wouldn't support it.  

Sure, Hitler did more damage, the most he possibly could, which was a lot in the wake of WWI and the Great Depression, with a generation of people who lived through years of trench warfare. Trudeau also inflicted the most damage he possibly could, but he did it in a time of peace when everyone was fat and happy. It would have been impossible for him to build enough resolve in Canadians to kill their own family members just for not vaxing, but he got people to the point where they were openly applauding the deaths of unvaxed people on their social media accounts. 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy is not the be all and end all of everything.  It gave many immoral laws and policies.  However it is a reflection of the decadence of society in general.

"1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."   Psalm 2:1-4 KJV

The difficulty is how does one be respect those in authority, which we are called to do, while at the same time disagreeing with ungodly laws and policies that they advance?  I think of many things such as questionable ethics, abortion on demand, medical assistance in dying, and other things.  This would seem to be a difficult problem for a Bible believer.

I think the answer is in Romans ch13.  “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”  Romans 13:1 KJV

We are required to be subject, be respectful, and follow the laws.  That does not mean we have to agree with everything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

How funny you are.

Your point is nonsensical and you just don't have a face saving way out LOL

My way out of what point exactly? You've never made it clear that you even understand what it is. You said something about procurement and writing letters to your MP but trust me that's not it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is clearly whitewashing glaring conflicts of interest and its become a normal, regular practice, which lap "ombudsfolk" routinely shrug off (as if they could do anything meaningful in any case). When I take from public pocket and give it, through my buddy, back to me (or mine) this is plain, obvious third world stuff.

No it's not enough to invoke obscure "prerogatives", reclusions and exclusions arms length bs. Nothing less than a clear, documented and published transparently proof that giving public funds to an individual had nothing to do with their relations to officials in power will do, in a modern functional democracy. And what would be such proof in case of someone like mother or brother of the sitting PM? Like what would be (any) other virtues they're known for, except those letters in the passport?

Nonsense, affront, a scandal in any real democracy. But we barely noticed, shrugged it off as a commonplace, the election writes everything off the slate is clean again.

NO, wrong: no conflict assumed unless proven otherwise, its what the self-loving public elites like and massaged into the mind of the society for generations. But it has to be exactly the opposite: a conflict of interest has to be presumed if there are sufficient grounds (like beneficiary of public funds paying to a direct relative of an official) unless proven otherwise, by the official and to a sufficient standard of confidence of the society. No Caesar's wives in the democracy except some obscure and remote versions thereof. Only full transparency and complete accountability, and not an inch less would do. That is, in a real working democracy, not a pretty imitation cartoon.

And this is why the country cannot be a modern, functional democracy.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"trust me" = Never, because you talk in circles, deflect too much and, do not answer the questions.

If I have to talk in circles it's to keep coming back to a point you were only interested in avoiding. I'm not going to answer any questions that help you do that.

If you're trying to say the word of a politician or lobbyist is all that's required to check and balance everyone's interest just say so. Pretending to misunderstand a simple concept like a public domain or interest or acting as if there are no rules around lobbying to protect our stake is what's dishonest.

  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all western nations are 'liberal democracies'. Not so for places like Russia or North Korea. Democracies can be seen as governments run by the people directly or by elected representatives. Some associate it with unlimited majority rule. While democracies are more likely than most other forms of government to encourage liberty (though far from certain), Liberal democracies are democracies that are constitutionally restrained especially in respect to minority and individual rights (as an added safeguard). And that's where you want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, suds said:

Some associate it with unlimited majority rule.

The small print matters, and it can make essential difference, or all the difference. If the will of the majority is restricted or channeled carefully, the legitimacy of the majority mandate can be questioned. And if the populace couldn't care who they elect as representatives (at the same time, employees of the Central Committee - in some democracies) and how they could be up to a surprise, finding something quite different from what they expected, but still with a good, pretty label. Democracy is not a free lunch, that's for sure.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, myata said:

1. If the will of the majority is restricted or channeled carefully, the legitimacy of the majority mandate can be questioned.

2. And if the populace couldn't care who they elect as representatives (at the same time, employees of the Central Committee - in some democracies) and how they could be up to a surprise, finding something quite different from what they expected, but still with a good, pretty label.  

1. The hard left has said this for decades.  If you want to open the discussion up, though, you're fighting against group think, tribalism, and the inability of the average person to fathom impossibly abstract ideas in some cases.  And for the last one, balance that with the inability of the intellectual class to talk plain sense.

2. That's because our communication culture is primarily built on advertising.  Which means labels and simplification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And for the last one, balance that with the inability of the intellectual class to talk plain sense.

And more to the point (primarily?) self-interest. Why open if you may not? It's safer more fun (in some way) and brings more juice. In Norway, MP salary is 2.5 of the median. Here, the factor doubles. Only a factual illustration: empty democratic facade -> great chatting about democracy for generations -> closeness and obscurity of the system -> more juice for the beneficiaries (and the society.. well, somewhere they have high speed trains..  have had, for half of a century)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, myata said:

1. And more to the point (primarily?) self-interest.

2. Why open if you may not? It's safer more fun (in some way) and brings more juice. In Norway, MP salary is 2.5 of the median. Here, the factor doubles. Only a factual illustration: empty democratic facade -> great chatting about democracy for generations -> closeness and obscurity of the system -> more juice for the beneficiaries (and the society.. well, somewhere they have high speed trains..  have had, for half of a century)

1. Everybody has self-interest, no human does not. The question is whether they're being honest or not.

2. I find it very hard to figure out what you're talking about here. As for politicians' compensation, I prefer them to be well paid rather than bribed by lobbyists.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Everybody has self-interest, no human does not.

The problem arises whenever it goes out of balance and control. Quite obviously.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I prefer them to be well paid rather than

You tend to be thinking in binary terms. What if neither is a great option?

Plus p.1: how well is "enough"? Is there enough in this case, who defines it? A pig at an infinite and bottomless trough will define it for themselves, when it's enough to stop gobbling? Because if not that then has to be the anarchy, right? Because nothing else existed from the time of Adam (and can be imagined, ever)? Would it be a brief yet complete description of the entitled political philosophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, myata said:

 

1. You tend to be thinking in binary terms. What if neither is a great option?

 

1. Ok, good point.  I don't think neither is much better, as it's a big sacrifice to run for office firstly.  And secondly there should be a reason to avoid corruption, ie. losing the security of office.

 

MP salary with housing allowance is about $200K. Not a low amount I grant you l but also not exorbitant, especially if the MP works as much as their constituents would expect.

 

And it's a drop in the bucket of our national budget.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Average backbencher salary is $190K (from taxpayers fed site), about what the CAO of a small sawmill would make.

The idea that paying them less would make things better is as stupid as electing a billionaire thinking he'd be there to help the common worker.

Here in NB 36 k a year is the average wage, 190 k would be hard to relate to, and what makes you think person making 190 k would make you more interested in the common guy. 

But if it would attract a better quality of MP, then i would agree to pay them way more, as for the PM on par with some of the highest CEO in the private sector, would be reasonable provided your getting quality, and not just some run of the mill politician like we have across all our parties.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average wage is somewhat pulled down by the minimum wage. $15/hr is 31,2K a year. If you go by wages that people can live on and would work at it wouldn't be so skewed. $190K is damn nice, but not that great for more senior management positions. I did date a woman who walked away from her job cuz they wouldn't go over $130 and she knew well the guy she replaced was getting $175K and that was 15 years ago.

I wish I'd ever earned anywhere near that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

but also not exorbitant, especially

And again, the question is what is the gauge of "exorbitant" and "enough". Where is it and who defines it and how? Let's see yes we can see it. In one of those funny terse statements on MP remuneration you can find at your fingertips, there's a comparison to a hockey player salary. Do you see where the aspiration, the standard is set? Or should we be interested in the median income instead, that half of the population in the country are living below? Who decides that, where's the balance, what is enough - you cannot answer this because you don't like it, the answer. None, nobody, nothing. Pigs run their own trough.

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

MP salary with housing allowance is about $200K.

You forgot the lifetime pension right, oh so easy to slip out.. for the majority of our population. For a rookie MP with unknown qualifications and nothing to do (objectively) but to look into the mouth of their Great Leader and clap, and cheer. Could energetic and enthusiastic 10 year old do that? I've no doubt some of a "better quality" ones (below) would do great. And why shouldnt' we try, like what's there to lose?

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

if it would attract a better quality of MP

 

Big if... and you already know the answer, check the back of your mind. Why would it? Has it? Where's the more enough?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And it's a drop in the bucket of our national budget.

What kind of an "argument" is that? Let's make a bonfire with a few million cash, a lot smaller drop and at least some fun. Lets launch a small rocket to Mars and watch the cosmos in real time cool.  Or we could give a half of it away in an annual national lottery. So many great ideas for just drops in budget.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Contrarian said:

They pay their politicians very high, however the penalties for corruption are high also.

This is so typical Canada one is really torn between what a great joke, genuine amazement and a deeply tired yawn. But of course one has to compare to Singapore and primarily by the salary like why would we looking at the results aren't politicians in Singapore (median household income over $110,000 - not that far from your MP, notice but half of the families make that or more) paid just for being, making it and sitting there like you know.

Edited by myata
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.
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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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