Why is Canada such a mess in so many ways?

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The CPC won the popular vote in the 2019 and 2021 elections.  Liberals have more efficient vote distribution, not necessarily more popular.  The CPC has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 7 elections.

I think both parties have significant problems anyways, ideologically and otherwise.

No, the Liberals won the popular vote...meaning they had the most votes to win the elections.

For sure both parties have significant problems but the Canadian public decided the conservatives had more problems and less solutions and fewer world wide friends. I truly believe Trump would have wiped the floor with PP.

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

AND our society is rich enough to give help to those that need it.

That has been done for years.  How old are you?  Do you not realize the provincial government already does that to a degree?

How far should government go in taking from some people to give to others?

It is easy to be an armchair advisor and think you have the solution, when in fact there are many complexities and the freedom of people could be threatened by government actions.  Wealth redistribution is Communism and stealing and is evil.  What gives anyone the right to just seize what people have worked hard for and saved for their future and their children?

Edited Thursday at 12:35 PM by blackbird

[MDP]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's wrong. I'm taking about when millions of labourers have been laid off by AI and automation in the near future, near enough we should be planning for it now.

And all conservatives want to talk about is their past grievances with the left while insisting AI and automation is no excuse for welfare.

Oh well, I guess there'll be lots of opportunities related to protecting the owners of AI and shaking down unemployed people.

 

Yes. Millions of labourers will lost their jobs by AI and automation. Unfortunately, a large portion of government revenue comes from income tax. The government need to sovle this problem too.

[Barquentine]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

What gives anyone the right to just seize what people have worked hard for

So we shouldn't have any form of taxes? How well do you think that would work?

 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

That has been done for years.  How old are you?  Do you not realize the provincial government already does that to a degree?

Uh hyuk, gosh sir, yer so smrt. I didn't know Canada had social programs. I'm beholden to ya fer helpin' with my edumacation!

P.S. How old are you?

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

So we shouldn't have any form of taxes? How well do you think that would work?

That's not what I said.  Don't try to hide behind the smokescreen by saying it's just normal taxes we want government to take.  Just taxes, ya,  just taxes.

We need some taxes for some government services.  Nobody would deny that we need armed forces, paved streets, sidewalks, fire department, police department, old age pensions, some social services for those who can't look after themselves, and some other things.

But how far do you carry it?   At some point it becomes Socialism or theft, right?   Would you agree?  If the idea is to redistribute the wealth as in Communist or Marxist ideology, then there is a problem.  Why should people who don't want to work expect to have everything that other people who earned it by hard work have?  That is unrealistic.

This has to do with right and wrong and respect for individual human rights and property rights of everyone.  There is no human right that says everyone, even if they don't want to work or educate themselves, should have everything that those who work have.  But such a right is being claimed by Commies, Marxists, and Socialists all the time.

Edited Thursday at 03:34 PM by blackbird

[MDP]

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's not what I said.  Don't try to hide behind the smokescreen by saying it's just normal taxes we want government to take.  Just taxes, ya,  just taxes.

We need some taxes for some government services.  Nobody would deny that we need armed forces, paved streets, sidewalks, fire department, police department, old age pensions, some social services for those who can't look after themselves, and some other things.

But how far do you carry it?   At some point it becomes Socialism or theft, right?   Would you agree?  If the idea is to redistribute the wealth as in Communist or Marxist ideology, then there is a problem.  Why should people who don't want to work expect to have everything that other people who earned it by hard work have?  That is unrealistic.

This has to do with right and wrong and respect for individual human rights and property rights of everyone.  There is no human right that says everyone, even if they don't want to work or educate themselves, should have everything that those who work have.  But such a right is being claimed by Commies, Marxists, and Socialists all the time.

Therefore, the property owners must become the majority of society, not the propertyless.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

He just pointed out the truth that the income gap is growing.

My life has mirrored yours almost exactly, but I believe 2 things can be true at the same time. Everyone should do all they can to support and advance themselves AND our society is rich enough to give help to those that need it.

The income gap is irrelevant unless you can prove that someone getting richer is the reason someone else is getting poorer. And that is absolutely NOT the case

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You keep coming back with reasons that I am not LOL

 

??????  Holy shit kid, are you off your meds again?   LOLOL what are you even talking about now?

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Everyone should do all they can to support and advance themselves AND our society is rich enough to give help to those that need it.

That's the individuals decision. Not "society".

Doing things because "society" has more rights than the individual is what gave us the nazis, who believed that firmly.  It also gave us stalin amusingly enough. 

If our society is wealthy enough to help people then individuals can make that decision and help people, by donating to charity or the like.  Hell i don't even mind if they wanted to be like grocery stores and put on tax forms "check this box to donate an extra 5/10/15 percent to charity" or the like. 

A basic social safety net that prevents absolute disaster has some national benefit to all people but beyond that charity should be a choice. I don't need you pointing a gun at my head demanding how much i can 'afford" to give, any more than you need me pointing a gun at your head telling you what your gender is or who you can marry. 

Sorry. THat's a simple truth. 

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

He just pointed out the truth that the income gap is growing.

My life has mirrored yours almost exactly, but I believe 2 things can be true at the same time. Everyone should do all they can to support and advance themselves AND our society is rich enough to give help to those that need it.

I'm not debating that we should eliminate all welfare programs, what i'm suggesting is placing a time limit you can be on these programs, provide resources like they do now like schooling, etc....to lift this group into the middle class...my beef is with those that have been on these programs for decades, in parts of NB it is generational, they don't want to work , when the government pays the bills...there is no incentive to work hard , get a better education, move to where the work is....the government pays for most of that....so what excuses is left , being to lazy....

those that fell on hard times , by all means put them in one of these programs, everyone needs a helping hand at some point in their lives...but there are thousands upon thousands that take advantage of that... 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

??????  Holy shit kid,...

 

Wow, I did not know my voice in your head, being there rent free is so loud you are compelled to come back with foolish posts again and again LOL

 

 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Wow, I did not know my voice in your head,

LOL whenever you get emotional and start to cry your English goes to hell

Like I said you spend all day fantasizing about me for some reason and I really don't think of you at all. But now you're just kind of coming across as desperate.. "Please Mr Cdnfox,  PLEASE think about me!! I so desperately want you to and i want you to hear me in your head and spend as much time thinking of me as i think of yoooooouuu!"  

It's really getting a little creepy.  If it's any consolation i may not think of you at all but i'm sure you're on SOMEONE'S list somewhere   

[ExFlyer]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL whenever you

point out I live in your head rent free...(a rather small place actually LOL),

you seem to think by posting back you  validate yourself. Trying too hard to validate oneself can stem from low self-esteem, anxiety, or even past experiences like trauma or neglect. It's a natural human tendency to seek approval, but when it becomes excessive, it can lead to negative mental health outcomes

Well. you are wrong LOL 

And a LOSER LOL

 

[Barquentine]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

A basic social safety net that prevents absolute disaster has some national benefit to all people

That's what I'm talkin' bout.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

you seem to think by posting back you  validate yourself. 

No more than watching any mouse run through a maze trying to get his little piece of cheese validates me

I'm having fun watching you having imaginary conversations with yourself about me and daydreaming about me and I'm curious to see how far you go before you completely melt down  As I've told you that best you're entertainment. I mean it's not like anyone here actually thinks your opinion has any value, You're just funny

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

That's what I'm talkin' bout.

We seem to have slightly different ideas about what a basic social net looks like   

I will concede, even if we don't agree on the specifics, that is a net benefit to all citizens to prevent people from severe financial collapse simply due to a moments economic weakness. And things that benefit all citizens can be considered valid uses of money collected from the citizens.

But you go too far and nobody is owed a living. I'm happy to provide for a path back to self-sustenance but I'm not interested in supporting people indefinitely or in the absence of their own efforts to better themselves or their circumstance. Charity should be a choice, not a government mandate

[ExFlyer]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No more ...

LOSER!!!!

In your head and you can't get me out LOL 

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

LOSER!!!!

 

Oh dear... you DO seem upset.    I know these conversations are emotionally difficult for you but myself and others appreciate you suffering such pain and anguish voluntarily just so we can have a good laugh!!   

[ExFlyer]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh dear... you DO seem upset.    I know these conversations are emotionally difficult for you but myself and others appreciate you suffering such pain and anguish voluntarily just so we can have a good laugh!!   

Noipe, not at all.

Just pointing out to all that we have a real LOSER on this forum.

One that wants everyone to pay more for their groceries and necessities because he is so pro tariff LOL

Oh many, I am having so much fun living rent free in your head...making you even stupider than before LOL

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Noipe, not at all.

 

Noipe huh   remember what i said happens when you're emotionally crushed and crying   Way to be convincing little guy  

Look, you're obviously getting over emotional and losing control, did you want to take a break for a bit? Maybe have a nap? And a cookie? did you want a cookie?

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude that is laughable. Every single gov't before harper did exactly the same thing, that is how the system is designed. That has NOTHING to do with bypassing democracy. 

Next you'll be saying that by opposing the gov't the opposition party is opposing democracy or the like.  What you're talking about is a fundimental part of the system and it's there for a reason and every single gov't uses it and all of them use it for that exact purpose on occasion.  That's PART of our system it's not AGAINST our system

There's lots of legit criticisms  of harper but that really isn't one of them. Breaking his word on income trusts? Sure.  The duffy scandal? Sure (tho it's hard to be mad about forcing someone to pay BACK taxpayers).  But proroguing parliment is a legit part of the game. I'Ve never heard of a gov't that DIDN'T use it (unless it lasted like 6 months)

Proroguing Parliament to avoid questions in Question Period on ethics scandals and shutting down committees is anti-democratic.  It doesn't matter if the rules technically allow.  The rules technically allow for Trudeau and Carney to centralize the PM's power the way they have, it doesn't make it ethical or democratic.

Every single party in this country can go eff itself.  Just because sh*t doesn't smell as bad as vomit doesn't mean sh*t doesn't stink.  Whattaboutism isn't an argument.

12 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

No, the Liberals won the popular vote...meaning they had the most votes to win the elections.

Look up the definition of "popular vote" and educate yourself instead of lying and spreading misinformation on this forum because certain facts don't fit your political agenda.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Proroguing Parliament to avoid questions in Question Period on ethics scandals and shutting down committees is anti-democratic. 

No it isn't. It's not like they're not going to go back or there's no such thing as the media.  But if the business of gov't is stalling and they need to move on then it's a reset and that is totally compatible with democracy.  

Quote

It doesn't matter if the rules technically allow.  

Oh but it does. You can argue it doesn't if what they are doing is a perversion of what the intent of the rules is but what you're describing harper doing is exactly what the rules are there to allow for.

Quote

Every single party in this country can go eff itself.  Just because sh*t doesn't smell as bad as vomit doesn't mean sh*t doesn't stink.  Whattaboutism isn't an argument.

So what do you thinking, better to go with a dictatorship?

Our system isn't perfect but it is the best system that exists. But the trick to it is that voters are supposed to punish parties that step over a line. A certain amount of shenanigans are expected because that's just politics but when we get into corruption or you get into deliberately trying to actually subvert democracy or gain an unfair position then voter should be willing to punish that kind of behavior

Voters have not punished that behavior, all of the corruption from Trudeau was in fact fully supported by his supporters and he remained in power. They have continued that tradition by propping up Carney who is identical to Trudeau and has already lied and been dishonest and was still elected

That is the only failure of our system. If voters honestly punished parties for corruption or true misdeeds regardless of their political affiliation we would get much more honest governments

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

A certain amount of shenanigans are expected because that's just politics but when we get into corruption or you get into deliberately trying to actually subvert democracy or gain an unfair position then voter should be willing to punish that kind of behavior.

That is the only failure of our system. If voters honestly punished parties for corruption or true misdeeds regardless of their political affiliation we would get much more honest governments.

The trouble is you need to get everyone to agree to whatever shenanigan and corruption mean. They can be spun, conflated and made to mean anything, especially if it's been years between their occurence and an election.

And what do you mean by political affiliation? An affiliation is an official connection to something, like a political party. It's not the direction the wind is blowing through the public's mind.

The best way to punish bad actors in Parliament's highest echelon is with back benchers. These can be immediate and a lot more effective than a silly x every four - five years.