Will you vote for Rob Ford again if he runs next Election??

[msog87]

What I find so shocking about this discussion is how many people seem to have blindly accepted "Ford Nation" political/election propaganda as fact. Even when presented with evidence that disproves the propaganda.

Toronto is nowhere close to being bankrupt, and Toronto's municipal tax burden is comparable to or lower than the other large cities in Canada and the US.

For the record, I'm a fiscal conservative and an insurance executive. So please spare me the dimwitted "you're a lazy lefty" frothing at the mouth.

yeah we arnt bankrupt yet, but thats the road we were on. if you look at torontos history compared to say chicago's history, the reason why we are in better shape is bc we havnt had a david miller type or adam vaughn type in power for decades like these other cities who are in worse shape. don;t compare our finances to cities that are on the verge of a bailout.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Here's a really good article by Coren in the Sun. He's right, the punishment doesnt fit the crime.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/30/civic-snobbery-ford-a-populist-done-in-by-leftist-mediocrities

And I can come up with an equally compelling story from Royson James at the Star. Yes, the decision was overly harsh, but Rob Ford really proved to be a self-destructive idiot and author of his own demise, ignoring every piece of advice he was given along the way.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...-ford-refused-to-protect-himself-from-himself

 

[msog87]

the problem with govt is it keeps growing, taxing and spending more allows politicians to buy votes. the is the nature of govt is to grow its a cancer that needs to be contained and if its not controlled it will eventually kill. All govt spending contains waste, fraud, and abuse.

 

[oldjones]

And I can come up with an equally compelling story from Royson James at the Star. Yes, the decision was overly harsh, but Rob Ford really proved to be a self-destructive idiot and author of his own demise, ignoring every piece of advice he was given along the way.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...-ford-refused-to-protect-himself-from-himself

The law recognizes you can't be just a tad pregnant, even if it was entirely unintentional. While it allows for that, and Ford could have gotten off if he'd made the case that it was, he argued the opposite since there was no other way to explain how he spoke about it at length in a Council meeting. His defence required the judge to overlook the law, and the offence, and judge that the money was trivial. Even that he couldn't do, because Ford's \whole defence was that it was 'too much to pay back out of his own pocket'.

The decision was the only one Ford's own defence and the law left available. The remedy for an untrustworthy politician is to get him out of office. And if Ford actually believes that democracy should trump the rule of law, he should simply go and run in the byelection. But if anyone thinks they can draft a law that provides a range of penalties that suit a range of degrees of untrustworthiness, I'd love to read their suggestions.

 

[oldjones]

the problem with govt is it keeps growing, taxing and spending more allows politicians to buy votes. the is the nature of govt is to grow its a cancer that needs to be contained and if its not controlled it will eventually kill. All govt spending contains waste, fraud, and abuse.

And if you remember your history, you'd recall the earliest governments were created by the biggest and most powerful thieves. And it's still often the case. That's why the few ways we do have to ensure even a tad of openness and honesty are so important. There will always be bandits, but we can make sure our bandits obey our rules. The other way is worse.

It says something when the residential suburbs of DC are the wealthiest census tract in the country. Only a dreamer would imagine we can persuade all those folks to vanish, let alone legislate them away.

 

[fijiman]

JT Kirk, this thread between you and I began simply when I corrected MSOG87 when he wrote:

the point is the size of govt under david miller grew around 50%

In response, I corrected him as follows:

Factually untrue. Adjusted for inflation and population growth it was 20%.

You then wrote:

?????
When Chairman Miller took office, the City's budget was 6.5 billion. When he left, it was about 9.2 billion I believe
(9.2-6.5) / 6.5 = 41.5%
Inflation (say 2% per year)
6.5(1.02)^7 = 7.5 billion
Clearly spending under Miller was hugely outpacing inflation.
As to population growth during the reign of Miller - about 0.9%
7.5 b x 1.009 = 7.56 billion
Still doesn't add up.

To which I pointed out that your own numbers confirmed the 20% I had claimed:

From your own numbers, 9.2/7.56=122%. Virtually bang on to my reference to a 20% increase net of inflation/population growth.

Instead of offering a simple "mea culpa", you ignored the topic, and tried to change the subject to a strawman argument:

Negative.
Government spending should not be increasing at a rate faster than inflation, otherwise, it is unsustainable.

I then corrected the factual inaccuracy in your strawman argument:

Factually false. Perhaps you mean "at a rate faster than the the growth in the economy"? That would be the sum of inflation, population growth, and inflation/population adjusted economic growth.

And I then reminded you:

That has not been the topic that began this discussion between you and I. I said that the inflation/population adjusted increase had been 20%. You responded "????" and that my contention of a 20% increase "didn't add up". Once again I point out that your own figures equal the 20% increase I claimed.

Once again you ignored the point at hand, and turned to a new strawman argument including defending your quoted rate of inflation (which I had never disputed):

For the love of Pete, I linked to a CBC article about how population growth in Toronto proper was AVERAGING 0.9% over the period in question which roughly paralleled Miller's time in office. To do a 100 percent accurate take off, I would need population data for the exact years Miller was in office which I could not easily find with my quick google search. Never the less, the fact of the matter is that the population of Toronto proper has not been increasing dramatically in the last decade. This is an empirical fact. You seem incredibly fixated on the fact that the dates of the link that I posted do no correlate 100% to Miller’s time in office

Furthermore, my statistic of 2% for inflation (on average) could be slightly less or slightly more each year. Don’t know, don’t care. On average it is in the ball park and my math is correct. When applied to the City of Toronto’s Operating budget during the period of time when Miller was first elected and taken to the point where he left office, you cannot rationalize the amount to which the Operating Budget increased.

In summary, the topic has solely been whether Toronto's budget increased by 20% net of inflation/population. That is what I said, and that is what your own quoted numbers confirm. Yet you denied that 20%, and have continued to try to change the subject avoid saying simply that you were wrong/misread the post/etc.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

The law recognizes you can't be just a tad pregnant, even if it was entirely unintentional. While it allows for that, and Ford could have gotten off if he'd made the case that it was, he argued the opposite since there was no other way to explain how he spoke about it at length in a Council meeting. His defence required the judge to overlook the law, and the offence, and judge that the money was trivial. Even that he couldn't do, because Ford's \whole defence was that it was 'too much to pay back out of his own pocket'.

The decision was the only one Ford's own defence and the law left available. The remedy for an untrustworthy politician is to get him out of office. And if Ford actually believes that democracy should trump the rule of law, he should simply go and run in the byelection. But if anyone thinks they can draft a law that provides a range of penalties that suit a range of degrees of untrustworthiness, I'd love to read their suggestions.

Nice narrative, but apparently not entirely true:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...be-were-the-ones-who-owe-rob-ford-an-apology/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...judge-took-nuclear-option-in-rob-ford-ruling/

Again, I believe Ford was totally in the wrong, but the punishment did not fit the crime and worse, this incident will help turn him into a martyr and galvanize Ford Nation.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

And I can come up with an equally compelling story from Royson James at the Star. Yes, the decision was overly harsh, but Rob Ford really proved to be a self-destructive idiot and author of his own demise, ignoring every piece of advice he was given along the way.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...-ford-refused-to-protect-himself-from-himself

I dont think anyone is disagreeing with the fact Ford fucked up.

Its just the punishment thats too severe

 

[fijiman]

Nice narrative, but apparently not entirely true:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...be-were-the-ones-who-owe-rob-ford-an-apology/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...judge-took-nuclear-option-in-rob-ford-ruling/

Again, I believe Ford was totally in the wrong, but the punishment did not fit the crime and worse, this incident will help turn him into a martyr and galvanize Ford Nation.

The opinions of two anonymous and unpaid lawyers? Seems a little odd. Why wouldn't these lawyers want their names associated with their analysis, if they believe so strongly as to volunteer their analysis unrequested to these journalists.

 

[fuji]

Again, I believe Ford was totally in the wrong, but the punishment did not fit the crime and worse, this incident will help turn him into a martyr and galvanize Ford Nation.

It did, however, fit the law, and it was not entirely unfair to Ford. He had no less than four opportunities to acknowledge his error and change has behavior before it got to a trial.

He thought he was above the law.

 

[fmahovalich]

The poor lefties.

LOVED this Judge, and hid behind the law, espousing about Rob Ford and how he broke the law.

Claimed this was never about politics...that the Judge got it right and that Rob should be found guilty!!

The Judge got it perfect they said!!!


So now they are in a bind. This perfect Judge, with the great conviction, now says Ford can run again.


The lefties are in a bind. This Judge was soooo sooooo perfect.

How can they now claim he is wrong about Ford running, and still claim it WAS NOT about politics.

I laugh heartily!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The poor lefties.

LOVED this Judge, and hid behind the law, espousing about Rob Ford and how he broke the law.

Claimed this was never about politics...that the Judge got it right and that Rob should be found guilty!!

The Judge got it perfect they said!!!


So now they are in a bind. This perfect Judge, with the great conviction, now says Ford can run again.


The lefties are in a bind. This Judge was soooo sooooo perfect.

How can they now claim he is wrong about Ford running, and still claim it WAS NOT about politics.

I laugh heartily!

Wait, can you run this by me again

 

[fmahovalich]

(Slowly)

the left said....it WAS NOT ABOUT POLITICS.

The great decider Judge did a good job, finding Rob guilty.

now they are befuddled on the left....cause the Judge also has NOW said Robby can run again!

funny how tables turned.

Rob is likely the happiest guy on Toronto council right now!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

(Slowly)

the left said....it WAS NOT ABOUT POLITICS.

The great decider Judge did a good job, finding Rob guilty.

now they are befuddled on the left....cause the Judge also has NOW said Robby can run again!

funny how tables turned.

Rob is likely the happiest guy on Toronto council right now!

Nah, I think the judge ruled Ford can run in by-election just so he wouldnt appear to be nuthugging the Left too much.

Ford will have a hard time winning I think, maybe Holyday or Doug Ford is a better bet

 

[fmahovalich]

I could care less...I'm not even in Toronto.

but I would vote Ford.

just cause I can't stand the weasily downtown elitist left.

who cares about Fords antics. He has a good budget Chief in place...money is being saved...all good.

 

[KBear]

Ford will have a hard time winning I think, maybe Holyday or Doug Ford is a better bet

If there is a by-election, will be interesting to see if anyone on the left is willing to give up their council seat and run against him. If we go into an election and the Ford team is able to show the accomplishments done on behalf of the taxpayers, and that message gets out over all the noise from the unions and the left, then think Ford would win.

Council can also appoint someone as mayor, maybe they will appoint Ford.

Also like Holyday, seems like a reasonable guy.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

It did, however, fit the law, and it was not entirely unfair to Ford. He had no less than four opportunities to acknowledge his error and change has behavior before it got to a trial.

He thought he was above the law.

Once again - with feeling - Rob Ford was in the wrong and acted the fool in this entire debacle...

I simply believe that there was another, better solution than to oust a sitting mayor over $3150 in ill-gotten donations for a charity. As noted in the articles above (plus a few others online) and more importantly, in the MCIA itself, there is some wiggle room. Of course I will defer to the judge's decision in matters of law (even if in my decent understanding of legislation interprets the MCIA differently) but I also believe that common sense can prevail in situations like this.

To throw a city into (further) disarray over this seems both heavy-handed and short-sighted, not to mention fiscally irresponsible. Worse, as I previously mentioned, it makes Rob Ford a martyr and will only help to galvanize "Ford Nation", the same folks who helped sweep him into City Hall by almost 100,000 votes. I believe his (lack of) performance would have been enough to oust him - and council had already turned on him, so this was not a case of a mayor single-handedly tearing apart the city for his own buffoonish, selfish and dogmatic partisan reasons, as was the case early on in his mandate.

Here's hoping the Fords and City Council do the right thing and find a solution that does not force an expensive + useless mayoral by-election that would not result in significant change at City Hall.

 

[fmahovalich]

Somehow...the left will blame Ford..for wanting to RUN in a by election, when they in fact were pushing for his total ouster.

i think the Judge got the conviction, and the sentence correct.

 

[Questor]

Another one of the left wing media hordes joins the left wing conspiracy *sarcasm*, that well known left wing rag, The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/news/ameri...t-are-stuck-gridlock-model-t-ford-breaks-down

In fact, Mr Ford was largely the architect of his own downfall. Although there are no political parties at municipal level, his bombastic, polarising manner has prompted remorseless opposition. The turmoil surrounding him has added to the troubles of Canada’s business capital, a city of 2.6m that is struggling with an unwieldy political structure, financial strain and horrendous transport problems.

The rest of the article provides a very good summary of Fords antics and paints him in a very negative light. He really needs to step aside for the good of the city.

 

[fuji]

Somehow...the left will blame Ford..for wanting to RUN in a by election, when they in fact were pushing for his total ouster.

i think the Judge got the conviction, and the sentence correct.

I wish there were no mandatory sentences. It would have been good enough to require Ford to spend a Saturday afternoon walking the streets wearing a sandwich board sign reading "I thought I was above the law".

Pick a Saturday the football team is playing and forbid Deco from making the sign, lol.