News   Nov 13, 2024
Fitzrovia and Hazelview Continue to Remake Bloor & Dufferin
 129     0 
News   Nov 13, 2024
Historic Tivoli Theatre to be Demolished for Hamilton High-Rise Proposal
 334     1 
News   Nov 13, 2024
Mattamy and QuadReal Launch The Clove, Pioneering Cloverdale's Transformation
 595     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
adma said:
Except that as I see it, even ScarEtob don't deserve a Ford. To cut them loose from any sane politics is cruel, in a "sure, do what you want, you're dum-dums anyway" way...
Click to expand...

But they elected Ford, so surely they deserve him; Old Toronto clearly doesn't. We have to do what's practical, and if that means cutting them loose to save this city (what's left to save), then surely that has to be considered. I don't see why we should have to suffer through their experiment with politics-of-division, screw the elites, populist democracy. We already know it doesn't work for us; if it's not going to work in their best interests over the long term let them come to that conclusion on their own and act accordingly. The relationship now between the "two cities" is utterly dysfunctional and serves neither well.
 
We need to revisit de-amalgamation. It's the only way out of this horrible predicament
Click to expand...

Nah...it's a little too late for that now. We've spent the last 50+ years integrating the various parts of Toronto, and I'd say it's been a mostly successful venture. It's worth continuing.

What we need to do is reverse the terrible divisiveness that has reared its ugly head...it never used to be like that. We need a co-operative council, led by a mayor who can inspire and lead the city to be greater than it is....not destroy everything that has been built. Ford's biggest failure was not his stupid, hollow promises, or his disregard for the process....it's how he broke the city apart with his hateful, wilful, divisive attitude. His words and actions were criminally shocking.


If it's not Ford screwing up this city and its aspirations then it's Mammoloti, or Minnan-Wong or fill-in-the-troglodyte.
Click to expand...

Yea...Ford, Ford & Mammoliti are like the trifecta of moronic. How this many obviously brain dead dolts can get elected is disturbing. It is a bit scary.


There was Pantalone, who was a viable alternative to the likes of Smitherman and Ford.
Click to expand...

Pantalone has to be least inspiring person on earth. He's just doesn't have enough savvy to be mayor....he should be running a variety store.

A lot of people keep wincing on about Tory. He would have been a huge mistake. I could go on about why, but I don't need to say much more than he supported Ford. That should be enough right there.

It's too bad Giambrone jumped off a cliff. If there ever was a golden boy, it was him. He's the kind of young. progressive leader who could get city hall humming again. What a jackass....so you cheated on your girlfriend. Personally, I think a young, virile, horny mayor getting laid a lot is a positive. It's not like our current mayor is the poster boy for domestic bliss. Between his marital problems and that giant gut, I bet that part of his anatomy hasn't had any action in a long time. No wonder he's so cranky.

Toronto requires a non-conservative, highly progressive mayor, with a council that has enough "mushy middles" to reign in any possible left-wing excesses.
 
Irishmonk said:
We need to revisit de-amalgamation. It's the only way out of this horrible predicament, at least until the inner city's population growth tilts the balance (which may not happen for another 20 - 30 years.) If it's not Ford screwing up this city and its aspirations then it's Mammoloti, or Minnan-Wong or fill-in-the-troglodyte.
Click to expand...

No need to de-amalgamate. The former municipalities within the Toronto Megacity logically should operate as a single unit. Could you imagine the political chaos if the current City of Toronto had six different mayors.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Nah...it's a little too late for that now. We've spent the last 50+ years integrating the various parts of Toronto, and I'd say it's been a mostly successful venture. It's worth continuing.

What we need to do is reverse the terrible divisiveness that has reared its ugly head...it never used to be like that. We need a co-operative council, led by a mayor who can inspire and lead the city to be greater than it is....not destroy everything that has been built. Ford's biggest failure was not his stupid, hollow promises, or his disregard for the process....it's how he broke the city apart with his hateful, wilful, divisive attitude. His words and actions were criminally shocking.
Click to expand...

the downtown vs. suburbs divide has definitely been exploited by a few members of council, it's pathetic and doesn't help anyone. cllr. perks addressed it in a speech at the last meeting but I expect it fell upon deaf ears.

most of all I can't understand why people who choose to live in the suburbs expect the same services as those who live downtown. if I live in the city centre I don't expect a quiet backyard and a nice lawn, similarly you shouldn't expect high order transit if you live outside the core.
 
most of all I can't understand why people who choose to live in the suburbs expect the same services as those who live downtown. if I live in the city centre I don't expect a quiet backyard and a nice lawn, similarly you shouldn't expect high order transit if you live outside the core.
Click to expand...

Well, I won't go so far to say the transit file is back on track, but at the very least, it's back in the realm of reality.

The new transit boss is trying his best to stay out of hot water, but even he is already talking about the reality that has to be faced regarding a DRL. Hey...we're all pro-subways, but we have to prioritize. I was very encouraged to hear him not poo-poo the Sheppard subway idea outright so as not to make himself an instant enemy of the mayor, but in the same breath he talked about the necessity to start the dialogue on the DRL. Smooth move.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Yea...Ford, Ford & Mammoliti are like the trifecta of moronic. How this many obviously brain dead dolts can get elected is disturbing. It is a bit scary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Fords and Mammoliti are to be singled out. But I wouldn't include the original-quote example of Minnan-Wong; he may be firmly on the right, but not the ignorant-tinpot-dictator right. Which brings us to...

A lot of people keep wincing on about Tory. He would have been a huge mistake. I could go on about why, but I don't need to say much more than he supported Ford. That should be enough right there.
Click to expand...

Well...not in an absolute sense. More that Ford would have supported him in 2003. And on political-partisan grounds and for lack of credible alternative: yes, Tory would have supported either Ford for council, and would also have given benefit-of-the-doubt/heart-in-the-right-place support to the Ford mayoralty. Whaddaya expect from a former provincial PC leader? After all, Randy Hillier was elected under his leadership.

Though actually, there's a left-of-centre argument that yes, Tory would have been a "huge mistake" in the same way that Smitherman would have been a bigger "mistake" than Ford--that is, that he'd actually be competent as a power broker and everything. IOW it'd be a mayoralty that'd privilege the solider-stuff Minnan-Wongs over the tinpot Fords or Mammolitis...
 
yes, Tory would have supported either Ford for council, and would also have given benefit-of-the-doubt/heart-in-the-right-place support to the Ford mayoralty. Whaddaya expect from a former provincial PC leader?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "would have"? He did. Party loyalty has its limits, and Ford proved himself during the campaign (actually, during his decade on council) that he was well outside those limits. Jumping on his bandwagon was a sign of ethical bankruptcy on the part of Tory, because he's not stupid enough to believe his policies had any merit. But Tory would destroy this city every bit as much as Ford would....he would just be far more insidious about going about trying.

It's kind of a moot point, as anyone knows, it isn't possible for Tory to win an election.


Yeah, the Fords and Mammoliti are to be singled out. But I wouldn't include the original-quote example of Minnan-Wong; he may be firmly on the right, but not the ignorant-tinpot-dictator right. Which brings us to...
Click to expand...

And that's just another in a long line of disadvantages....they are so mondo-beyondo, that they make garden variety nutjobs like Minnan-Wong seem palatable. The bar's been set so low, we don't really remember where it used to be.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
den:

The question is, "which" people?

AoD
Click to expand...

On the bright side, Ford's term may actually encourage a stronger voter turnout the next time around. Frankly anyone else, especially someone who has a viable vision to advance the interests for the better of Toronto as a whole, will be the next mayor.
 
The next time Ford or any councillor mentions Scarborough, I wish they'd be told that Scarborough, Etobicoke, et al no longer exist. Why hasn't someone shouted this across the council floor yet?

There isn't some magic divide in municipal needs or expectations between a family living at Victoria Park and Eglinton and one living at Warden and Eglinton.
 
The next time Ford or any councillor mentions Scarborough, I wish they'd be told that Scarborough, Etobicoke, et al no longer exist. Why hasn't someone shouted this across the council floor yet?
Click to expand...

A: There's bigger fish to fry than these semantics.
B: A community doesn't just cease to exist because the clock struck midnight on legislation that says it doesn't.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
I honestly don't know anymore. I would say the 47% but the majority that did not vote are just as guilty.
Click to expand...

One of our problems is that not everyone votes. A large number of voters didn't even go to the polling stations.

The other problem is our first past the post voting, where just the candidate with the most votes wins. Even with less than 50% of vote. With ranked voting, the voter ranks the candidates you support (first is best). If you don't support a candidate at all, don't rank that candidate. Ranking a second choice can't hurt the chances of your first choice, and ranking a third choice can't hurt the chances of either your first or second choice. All the ballots are counted toward their highest eligible ranking. If no candidate has a majority (50% + 1) of the counted votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and is no longer eligible to receive votes. The ballots are re-counted. This process continues until a candidate gets a majority.

San Francisco has such a voting system. You can do away with strategic voting, but just not ranking or ignoring the candidates you do not want to win. You just vote for the candidates you prefer to win or are okay with.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top