4,429 comments posted · 10 followers · following 0
Yes. Are you really that dumb? Really? Are you really so dumb that you cannot figure out the reason for that?
Thinking about it some more, I don't think there should be an overall cap, just an individual cap, whether it's per vote or per individual (and I've already described why I think that the vote subsidy is wrong, so that makes it per individual).
If a party has a large number of individuals that wish to contribute, then the party should be able to reap the benefits.
And I like the fact that you saved a paragraph for the capital's political reporters, who spent a large amount of time talking about themselves, mostly complaining and whining, and spent the rest of the time publishing highly misleading stories and headlines. In the end, it was shown that their influence is limited, the Canadian public knows how to judge things for themselves.
Overall, there have been only a handful of post-mortems of the election that have done well relating to the events to plausible explanations, and this account is one of them.
I think we opened up the breach in a way against Harper and against what he stands for, and someone else surged through and benefited,
What? Harper increased his support! In English Canada, he surged to a massive 48% support!
and at that point maybe the attack ads had an impact on my capacity to capitalize on a longing for change.
Still with the excuses. He needs to read Wells articles.
There was a longing for change that I think we played an honourable part in creating
Change? If he means change from a Conservative minority to a Conservative a majority, then yes. And yes, he helped deliver that. This guy remains a partisan.
He led the Liberals to their worst showing ever, and he's trying to take credit for the NDP surge! What an arrogant twit. Good riddance.
Only when it's a Liberal professor. When it's someone they don't like, they don't mind the character assassination. The character assassinations of Manning, Day and Harper far exceed anything done to Ignatieff, in part because the media were participating in it when it was a Conservative. Even this campaign, a large slice of the journalists out there (a couple of them write for Maclean's) were doing their outright best to attack the characters of politicians, primarily Conservative politicians.
I suppose that means I am somewhat ambivalent to the caps issue and the undue influence issue. I am not averse to the current system of caps on donations, but I think the caps should be higher.
However, the one issue I feel strongly about is party subsidies. And I am especially strongly opposed to the vote subsidy, because it ties a legitimate and beneficial act of voting, which should not be tied to anything else, to the act of handing over tax dollars to parties, which is NOT in any way the proper use of taxpayer money. There are also all sorts of distortions in that subsidy, such as the act of favouring the incumbent, and the act of subsidizing parties today based on their performance prior to the last election.
I am also opposed to the party subsidies that occur in all other forms. Taxes should not be used to fund parties, I feel it is wrong.
I simply don't buy the argument that people should not be allowed to spend too much because they'll have undue influence. That's only true in a world of corruption and kickbacks.