Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

I would attend public meetings of the municipal council.

But this is a law that effect the entire country.  You would have to gather support in Provinces and districts throughout Canada, not just your local municipal council.  That requires money to hire people and coordinate activities. What about ads on TV to encourage other voters to support your views. 

 Does Canada allow lobbyists - experts who know the government officials and know how to set up meetings with them to express your complaints and gain their support?  How do you pay these people?  Not being able to use money limits your ability to express yourself politically.  You're stuck with the status quo. Money allows political debate to expand greatly.  And it balances off as both sides gear up to spend money.  Democrats here used to be against funding because Republicans were able to get more campaign money.  Now Democrats get more money than Republicans, so their complaints have died down.

Of course, there are opportunities for corruption.  But on balance, the Constitution's requirement for free political speech includes spending money which appears the way we like to do it.

[Alan Klein]

An interesting podcast from NPR's fresh Air gives details re the Jan 6th riot, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108558773/investigating-the-far-right-militia-groups-of-jan-6.

Blurb from the page: "New York Times journalist Alan Feuer says some members of Trump's inner circle have close ties to the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, whose leaders have been charged with seditious conspiracy."

The NY Times also said that Trump appeared to have colluded with the Russians.  Then , the NY Times before the 2020 election said that the Biden laptop was a BS thing.  Now, after Biden got elected, they agree that the NY Post was right in their claims about Biden's son and the laptop.

Why would anyone believe the Times?  They are so politically biased, their news is BS.  Unfortunately, they have the creds so people keep believing them. "All the news not fit to print."

[Robert Roaldi]

... But that's different than the federal government picking winners and losers. 
...

No, it's not.

Besides which, the things that you call "picking winners and losers", for example investing in solar energy generation, is decidedly NOT picking, it's incubating new tech. It happened with oil, with automobiles, with just about everything we've ever done. You're just wilfully closing your eyes to evidence you don't like because you're spouting an ideology. Lose the cult, think for yourself.

...States compete with one another to induce businesses to come to their state and create jobs and pay state taxes....

Do you think that's a valid public policy? Getting citizens in different jurisdictions to fight one another in a race to the bottom to benefit large corporate players who don't need the investment help in the first place? Why should citizens subsidize any one commerce over another? Shouldn't government strive to be neutral?

One of the problems that you see with democracy is that groups can grab enough power to get themselves advantages that other don't have. You have presented this in the context of unions in the past. I find that to be such a bogus position given how completely corporate power has taken over government and how weak union movements have become. You should update your reading.

...It's no different if Canada lowers income taxes for new foreign companies to convince them to open up businesses there.

Yes, countries do lots of things to induce investment. Some might be useful, some not. I'm not qualified to say whether they serve any useful purpose in the long run. Aside from the usual problem with government participation, the seeming lack of sunset plans, i.e., they don't know when to stop, any one measure is so intertwined with hundreds of others, I don't see how it's possible to arrive at a valid judgement about the actions. This might be a case where realpolitik trumps political philosophy. Other countries do it, so we have to. That's really just a measure of how loony we have become in ceding power to large corporations over that of citizens. I.e., money talks, even when it talks shit.

[Alan Klein]

Why doesn't the government, then, increase it's "means?"

• Institute a wealth tax on any and all assets of the wealthy.
• Adjust income tax brackets so those with 7 or 8 figure incomes pay more.
• Fully fund the IRS so it is able to go after individual and corporate tax cheats.
• Revoke the depletion allowance that is, in effect, a subsidy of the oil industry.
• Make hedge fund managers pay income tax rather than capital gains tax on their earnings.

I hardly need say that the GOP is against all of these.

Additional taxes don’t help.  They just spend more anyway so the deficit doesn’t go away, only increases.  So, then the Fed has to print to make up the difference or borrow selling US Bonds putting us further into debt. No one wants to reduce spending the cause of the problem, not too low taxes.

By the way, I blame Republicans almost as much as Democrats.  They too aren’t reducing the deficit.  Neither side wants to be accused of taking money away from people in Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and other social programs for fear of losing the vote. 
So, the American public gets their "free stuff" while complaining about inflation and higher prices caused by our own greed.  We refuse to give up anything.  So, the higher prices and upcoming recession is basically our fault.  We get the people we vote for and they’re glad to keep printing to make us happy.

[Robert Roaldi]

The NY Times also said that Trump appeared to have colluded with the Russians.  Then , the NY Times before the 2020 election said that the Biden laptop was a BS thing.  Now, after Biden got elected, they agree that the NY Post was right in their claims about Biden's son and the laptop.

Why would anyone believe the Times?  They are so politically biased, their news is BS.  Unfortunately, they have the creds so people keep believing them. "All the news not fit to print."

This type of response is an insult to our intelligence. You moronically decide that the NY Times is bad so you don't listen to the facts presented to you. The reason you do that is because you have decided beforehand that you don't want to hear anything about Jan 6 because you're worried it might Trump look bad. You're the one who is closing your eyes because of bias.

Lose the cult. Think for yourself.

And stop mentioning the Russian thing. The evidence is there, they screwed with social media. We know that Trump was not at the spigot controlling the output, but we also know that the online bullshit was put there to favour him. I don't know why you keep harping about them trying to find dirt, that's their job, to look for dirt. You can't possibly be trying to portray that idiot Trump as having been maligned, can you, not after everything else we know about his behaviour and actions. Or do you actually believe he won the election?

Seriously, stop spouting this crap, it's getting old.

[Robert Roaldi]

 Does Canada allow lobbyists -

Answered above.

[Alan Klein]

Federally, Canada has a system of registered lobbyists in place. My sister-in-law used to work in the department that looks after their registration. The info about them is freely available online. I don't know how onerous the fees and disclosure obligations are to become a registered lobbyist but all that info is also freely available online. I have no idea if something similar exists at the provincial level.

Constituency offices for both provincial and federal representatives exist in every riding, of course. From what I can tell reading the news, there is no shortage of groups making presentations to the sitting governments at various levels.

How do Candian lobbyists and others who organize to make their complaints known to the government get paid?  What if you had a complaint?  Could you hire people with your own money?  Could you find other interest parties and use their money to help get your desires out to the government and the public?  Could you pay for ads on  TV to get public support? 

You see where I'm going with this.  If the government prevents you from spending money on political speech, you've lost most of your rights regarding it.  You're just another face in the crowd with no power.  Without the ability to spend money, your speech is limited, maybe silenced.  You're left with having to use trucks to block bridges and roads to make your point heard. Is that better?

[digitaldog]

Lose the cult. Think for yourself.

It's more likely he'll solve the Goldbach Conjecture than undertake that suggestion.
“There's Insanity on Both Sides of the Debate When You Argue with an Idiot”. - Ernie J Zelinski

[Robert Roaldi]

...
You see where I'm going with this.  If the government prevents you from spending money on political speech,...

What are you talking about? You've just invented a bunch of government restrictions in your own head. You can do the online research about election funding and lobbying rules as well as I.

As was stated above, and as usual you never seem to read or understand what you're told so I have to assume it's deliberate, there is no shortage of public discussions on any number of topics at all levels of jurisdiction. So, honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Move on please.

[Alan Klein]

What are you talking about? You've just invented a bunch of government restrictions in your own head. You can do the online research about election funding and lobbying rules as well as I.

As was stated above, and as usual you never seem to read or understand what you're told so I have to assume it's deliberate, there is no shortage of public discussions on any number of topics at all levels of jurisdiction. So, honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Move on please.

you and Peter didn't answer my questions about funding political speech in Canada. 

Peter made the claim that it was very limited. So I'm asking, how do you get around that to make your political speech known? It's up to him and you to nswer the question not me to do your research

[Alan Klein]

Since you refuse to provide the answers, I can only conclude that Americans have more free speech when it comes to political positions then Canadians do. Control of your spending, silences much Canadian political speech. Everyone has to take to trucks to block the roads to get their point heard.

[Alan Klein]

This type of response is an insult to our intelligence. You moronically decide that the NY Times is bad so you don't listen to the facts presented to you. The reason you do that is because you have decided beforehand that you don't want to hear anything about Jan 6 because you're worried it might Trump look bad. You're the one who is closing your eyes because of bias.

Lose the cult. Think for yourself.

And stop mentioning the Russian thing. The evidence is there, they screwed with social media. We know that Trump was not at the spigot controlling the output, but we also know that the online bullshit was put there to favour him. I don't know why you keep harping about them trying to find dirt, that's their job, to look for dirt. You can't possibly be trying to portray that idiot Trump as having been maligned, can you, not after everything else we know about his behaviour and actions. Or do you actually believe he won the election?

Seriously, stop spouting this crap, it's getting old.

Russians using political social media is totally different than Trump colluding with them. You know that. The Mueller investigation had to do with collusion.

[Robert Roaldi]

Russians using political social media is totally different than Trump colluding with them. You know that. The Mueller investigation had to do with collusion.

Oh FFS this is becoming insufferable. YOU are the only person obsessed with collusion, hardly anyone else here ever mentions it. Mueller didn't find anything that was indictable, but he did find a lot and all of was presented and discussed in many places at the time and none of it made Trump and Co. look good. Not being about to indict might have been a blow to the people who wanted Trump behind bars, that's their problem, but it should have been enough to cause some shit to stick to Trump, but the cult was faithful. History will judge that. I can't say I care much one way or the other. But it would have been enough for me to NOT vote him in the future, were I in a position to vote in the US.

[Robert Roaldi]

Since you refuse to provide the answers, I can only conclude that Americans have more free speech when it comes to political positions then Canadians do. Control of your spending, silences much Canadian political speech. Everyone has to take to trucks to block the roads to get their point heard.

Quite a bizarre conclusion to come to. And pretty damn stupid too.

The answers to your questions are all available online. Electoral and lobbying rules are probably voluminous and I can see why no one wants to spend their time doing your research for you when in the end, on form, you will misunderstand it all anyway and come to your own false conclusions.

So ok, have it your way. Despite ample examples of all kinds of free speech in Canada, you manage to come to the imbecilic conclusion that we don't have any. Cool with me. Believe what you will. The US is the most free place on earth then, and all other countries leave something to be desired. I have forgotten what point you're trying to make anyway.

[TechTalk]

Oh FFS this is becoming insufferable...

The whole idea is to sucker you in with a false premise to get you stuck in verbal quicksand. The broad outline of this phony framework waves the word "collusion" around and mixes it with Trump and Mueller and everyone and everything else that can be dumped into the pile in order to drown you in as many distractions as possible from the facts.

The facts are Russia became engaged in influencing the U.S. 2016 election in a manner and to an extent that was unprecedented. They did so on behalf of Trump. Russia has interposed itself in the elections of other countries, particularly its neighbors, with the same kind of nakedly hostile action, but the U.S. had never experienced that level of aggressive election interference from Russia. Trump, and those close to him, blatantly lied regarding their ties with Russia.

That is what triggered a federal investigation, as anyone not blinded by ideology would expect. The investigation found loads of "collusion" between Trump associates and campaign officials and the Russian efforts to assist Trump's election chances. Collusion, however, is not a crime. Despite that fact, there were a variety of individuals charged with crimes and prosecutions that resulted in convictions among Trump's inner circle.

The phony rants just toss everything but the kitchen sink in a never ending blender that spews out one mixed-up variation after another of their false narratives. The goal is to drown you in distractions, deflections, and then drag you thru a series of conspiratorial rabbit holes. Then the process is simply repeated without end.

It is exactly how you described it — insufferable.

[Peter McLennan]

But this is a law that effect the entire country. You would have to gather support in Provinces and districts throughout Canada, not just your local municipal council.  That requires money to hire people and coordinate activities. What about ads on TV to encourage other voters to support your views. 

You specifically asked what I would do to influence the government regulation that was prohibiting installation of a pool on my property.  That is a municipal jurisdiction.

 

[Peter McLennan]

Additional taxes don’t help.

And decreasing taxes on corporations and high net worth individuals (mostly by Republicans) is working really well, too.  /s

As is the progressive de-funding and immobilizing of the IRS by the same political group.

[Alan Klein]

The whole idea is to sucker you in with a false premise to get you stuck in verbal quicksand. The broad outline of this phony framework waves the word "collusion" around and mixes it with Trump and Mueller and everyone and everything else that can be dumped into the pile in order to drown you in as many distractions as possible from the facts.

The facts are Russia became engaged in influencing the U.S. 2016 election in a manner and to an extent that was unprecedented. They did so on behalf of Trump. Russia has interposed itself in the elections of other countries, particularly its neighbors, with the same kind of nakedly hostile action, but the U.S. had never experienced that level of aggressive election interference from Russia. Trump, and those close to him, blatantly lied regarding their ties with Russia.

That is what triggered a federal investigation, as anyone not blinded by ideology would expect. The investigation found loads of "collusion" between Trump associates and campaign officials and the Russian efforts to assist Trump's election chances. Collusion, however, is not a crime. Despite that fact, there were a variety of individuals charged with crimes and prosecutions that resulted in convictions among Trump's inner circle.

The phony rants just toss everything but the kitchen sink in a never ending blender that spews out one mixed-up variation after another of their false narratives. The goal is to drown you in distractions, deflections, and then drag you thru a series of conspiratorial rabbit holes. Then the process is simply repeated without end.

It is exactly how you described it — insufferable.

Mueller found no evidence of collusion.

[Peter McLennan]

you and Peter didn't answer my questions about funding political speech in Canada. 

Peter made the claim that it was very limited. So I'm asking, how do you get around that to make your political speech known? It's up to him and you to nswer the question not me to do your research

We gave you links. What else would you like?  Have us read them out to you over Zoom?

FFS, Alan, your posts are blatant trolling, nothing else.  You have precisely zero interest in learning (or discussing) anything.

You really need to get yourself a hobby.

[TechTalk]

Mueller found no evidence of collusion.