Zowpeb Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) I keep reading about how our system is garbage from a lot of people who didn't want the Conservatives in power...they base this on a party forming a government despite 62% of the people not wanting them in power. I suppose they didn't like the Liberals winning some significant majority governments in the 90's with similar popular vote. In fact, since 60's only 3 governments have formed with more then 42% of the popular vote and that was the Conservatives getting 50% in 1984. Also the Liberals in 74 and 80 with 43% and 44% respectively. Smashing Liberal majorities in '93, '97 and 2000 only received 41%, 38.5% and 41% of the vote respectively... http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/popularvote.php The system is working as it always has...never heard much talk about electoral reform in till the Conservatives became a cohesive party again... Edited October 17, 2008 by Zowpeb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 The Liberals are lacking a really strong leader that can pull the party together and excite people again...and no, I don't think Trudeau is that guy...ugh. Maybe we should grant the Terminator his Canadian citizenship... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Maybe we should grant the Terminator his Canadian citizenship... I know you're joking but I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing...and is smart enough to have other people advise them in areas they are weak in. Manley would be an interesting choice for the Liberals...just based on the limited times I've heard him speak. He'd be better then Rae or Ignatieff IMHO. Both Rae and Ignatieff are very smart guys but I don't trust either and that's based entirely on their time in politics. Again, JMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I know you're joking but I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing...and is smart enough to have other people advise them in areas they are weak in. Manley would be an interesting choice for the Liberals...just based on the limited times I've heard him speak. He'd be better then Rae or Ignatieff IMHO. Both Rae and Ignatieff are very smart guys but I don't trust either and that's based entirely on their time in politics. Again, JMHO. The Liberals are probably grooming Justin Trudeau in that role in future. He's already a well-known and popular figure, I'm sure he has strong connections who can help and advise him, and he's a good public speaker. He's actually also a pretty nice guy, I had the chance to briefly exchange a few words with him at the Beaver Club in Montreal (it's a restaurant... and not what it sounds like ). Until then... I honestly don't know all that much about politicians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 The Liberals are probably grooming Justin Trudeau in that role in future. He's already a well-known and popular figure, I'm sure he has strong connections who can help and advise him, and he's a good public speaker. He's actually also a pretty nice guy, I had the chance to briefly exchange a few words with him at the Beaver Club in Montreal (it's a restaurant... and not what it sounds like ). Until then... I honestly don't know all that much about politicians... Oh, you may be right...he would have to go a long way to prove to me that he wouldn't hold similar thoughts on policy as his father...sins of the father and all that. I know a lot of people liked PET but there are also a lot of people who didn't like his policies. My personal opinion is that he single handedly set this country back with the ridiculous amount of debt he left behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 The Liberals are probably grooming Justin Trudeau in that role in future. He's already a well-known and popular figure, I'm sure he has strong connections who can help and advise him, and he's a good public speaker. He's actually also a pretty nice guy, I had the chance to briefly exchange a few words with him at the Beaver Club in Montreal (it's a restaurant... and not what it sounds like ). Until then... I honestly don't know all that much about politicians... My parents named me after him. :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Elections tend to expose how clueless the majority of people really are about politics. Sure, you guys who post in these threads are okay, you seem like you all know your stuff but the majority of people base their decision on one policy, or on which candidate they like more or on a single fact they heard on CNN. e.g. My mom likes the Liberals. Why? Because they're nicer to women. My dad likes the Conservatives. Why? Because they're nicer to Israel. Does that not show you right there how much of a joke it is? I don't pretend to know of a better alternative to democracy (if there even is one) but let's just admit that not every opinion is equal because not every opinion is as well-informed. I wonder what percentage of the votes in federal elections are coming right out of someone's ass. *wonders what he's doing in a politics thread* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Elections tend to expose how clueless the majority of people really are about politics. I voted Conservative because I like the colour Blue much more-so than Red, Green or Orange Bu-bye Dion. It's too bad this boob was ever the leader of the Liberals. They would have had my vote if it weren't for him and I'm sure for the most part that it was him that chased many voters west of Quebec away. On the other hand, how smart of a party are the Liberals if they voted him as their leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 18, 2008 Author Share Posted October 18, 2008 It's too bad this boob was ever the leader of the Liberals. They would have had my vote if it weren't for him and I'm sure for the most part that it was him that chased many voters west of Quebec away. On the other hand, how smart of a party are the Liberals if they voted him as their leader. "This boob" is probably smarter than all of us put together. But we live in the Reality TV Era where people vote for appearances rather than content. So they elect leaders on flaky pretenses and then they whine and wonder why the guys can't do the job right. In democracy you get the leaders you deserve. That's why as soon as I start piling up millions I'm buying a deserted island and getting the Hell out of here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 In democracy you get the leaders you deserve. Yup. Us québécois are a bunch of whiners, thats why we elect a bunch of whiners to represent us in the parliament - the bloc québécois. An immature party for an immature people. Seriously, I'm starting to think the strategy of the Bloc is to whine and whine and whine until the ROC gets sick of it and kick us out of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 "This boob" is probably smarter than all of us put together. I don't doubt for a second that he is ....... BUT he certainly gives the impression that he is not. Perhaps it's either his lack of a grasp on the English language or most of Canada's lack of a grasp on the French language that makes it seem like he's a boob to the majority of people IMO. Where I live our Liberal candidate would have likely gotten 80% of the vote had it not been for Dion as the leader and I don't live too far from Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 My parents named me after him. :S you're back!?!?! i started to think of who is dark_faerie ... then ... i was ... like ... it's been so long!!!! btw - on topic - regardless of all the social/moral issues that tend to define the parties in NA these days (for better or worse), i'm pretty much a pure capitalist and therefore lean to the right on economics & national governance. so, i'm glad the Conservatives won. i wish it had been a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 so, i'm glad the Conservatives won. i wish it had been a majority. well thanks for coming clean. It takes a fair amount of guts to admit to Conservatism. Now get out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 i'm conservative too, if you define ''conservatism'' like this : balanced budgets , no new social programs , tax cuts for the middle class and for small companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 well thanks for coming clean. It takes a fair amount of guts to admit to Conservatism. Now get out. I'm not a conservative, and didn't vote for them (which doesn't really matter because the Bloc gets ~40-45% of the votes in my riding so so with the rest of the votes split in three parties, they win every time... so I actually voted for the party I liked better), but in a way I wish they would have gotten the majority. Parliament will again be more or less stalled for a couple years until we once again need to vote. I like the French system better where they vote until there is a clear winner. As for Stephane Dion being a boob, that's the problem when most people vote for the leader instead of the party. Canadians haven't fallen in love with Conservative values all of a sudden, they elected them because of the negative images of the sponsorship scandal several years ago (like it's such a big surprise that a few politicians pocket/overspend some money and favor their "friends" when they award contracts) and because Dion doesn't look like a country leader; in truth the party leader is mostly a figure head and PR guy, and what really matters are the ideas of the party itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 As for Stephane Dion being a boob, that's the problem when most people vote for the leader instead of the party. Canadians haven't fallen in love with Conservative values all of a sudden, they elected them because of the negative images of the sponsorship scandal several years ago (like it's such a big surprise that a few politicians pocket/overspend some money and favor their "friends" when they award contracts) and because Dion doesn't look like a country leader; in truth the party leader is mostly a figure head and PR guy, and what really matters are the ideas of the party itself. I think Dion is academically very smart but he was not politically smart...and both matter. To downplay issues such as the sponsership scandal only give credence to the corrupt practices of overspending and giving money/contracts to "friends" in return for their contributions...basically we're talking bribery. Chretien should be in jail. The bureaucracy in Canada is corrupt enough and needs cleaned up. If our justice system will not prosecute this effectively the only way people can voice their displeasure is by voting elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 I think Dion is academically very smart but he was not politically smart...and both matter. To downplay issues such as the sponsership scandal only give credence to the corrupt practices of overspending and giving money/contracts to "friends" in return for their contributions...basically we're talking bribery. Chretien should be in jail. The bureaucracy in Canada is corrupt enough and needs cleaned up. If our justice system will not prosecute this effectively the only way people can voice their displeasure is by voting elsewhere. It's not a question of downplaying it - the people who were involved and found guilty should be punished since they have broken the law - however it shouldn't come as a such as huge shocker. In every organization of that magnitude (public or private) where a lot of people have access to this much power, it is almost inevitable that some people, most of whom probably initially had the best intentions, will eventually either become corrupted or make bad decisions. All other party leaders were quick to jump on this opportunity to take down the Liberals... and why wouldn't they... but if we started digging, I'm sure we could find quite a bit of dirt within the NDP, the Bloc, and the Conservatives. It's sad but true... however despite an obvious trust issue, after trimming off most of those corrupt politicians the Liberal Party was probably still the one that best represented the values of Canadians, including quebeckers. Instead we now have the Conservatives on a leash, a party that many people including those who voted for them, don't really trust and suspect to have a hidden agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 i'm conservative too, if you define ''conservatism'' like this : balanced budgets , no new social programs , tax cuts for the middle class and for small companies. Unfortunately, for you, there is much more in this world than a dollar bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Unfortunately, for you, there is much more in this world than a dollar bill.Bully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Unfortunately, for you, there is much more in this world than a dollar bill. Ultimately, good government is predicated by good economics. You can't have good social programs that are inefficient (of which MANY are HIGHLY inefficient as it's seemingly callous to question a social program) and you can't start them without the capital to do so. Both of those things are about good economics. Money is ultimately one of the foundation blocks for economics...unless you consider a barter/trade system. So, while there is certainly more to the world then money...IMO, how the government handles your money should be your first consideration when questioning who will form a good government. My second question is on what types of programs will they fund and what is their general ideological direction. This way, I vote for governments that are fiscally sound and still runs programs that I can agree with... I also think there is a lot of validity to questioning whether we should be taking money from hard-working folks and giving it to people who don't want to work. Question: why is it that as soon as social welfare programs increase we immediately see more people unemployed and using these programs? My personal belief is that this is because the system is structured so that they are often about hand-outs rather then helping people...and they seem to run in an almost endless timeframe so that we've created generational system addicts. Hell, now Vancouver has a tent city in Beacon Hill thanks to BC's Supreme Court entrenching their "right" to be homeless. BTW, that "right" was "won" for all homeless because it was taken to court by a person who considers himself a homeless activest and chooses to be homeless. I'm sure he doesn't use our tax dollars for anything though. Oh, and they have a "right" to get stoned at government facilities. You're right, there is more to life then dollar bills...apparently there is also the theft of your money to support these types of programs. Some might call them taxes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I see your point Zowpeb. I got a story for you. There is this employee of mine, 37 years old, (he does telephone surveys, while I am a supervisor in this firm). This is one of the only job the guy can have, he's an alcoholic with a dope problem as well and pretty much everyone knows it around. He still a good guy by the way. He told me that he had a HUGE dope problem during MANY years (17yo to 30yo), hard drugs, name them, he said. For a while, he was in the streets with friends of his kind. He told me that he somewhat left this crazy pattern with the help of a social program funded by the governments. He is the only one of his group of 4 "friends" in the streets that managed to "stop" taking drugs. He still has an alcohol problem and occasionaly takes cocaine or pot, but at least, he now works around 30 hours a week as an interviewer. Several, SEVERAL times we (the supervisors team) could have fired this guy. Problem is : every 2 weeks, on pay day, he misses the next 3-4 days of work, being drunk as ######. But he comes back after 4-5 days at work and do some 9am to 7:30pm shifts in a row to get his money back and is quite sober for the week and a half remaining before next pay day. Without the programs you seem to hate, this man would still be in the streets or be a theft of our money living on the social well-being (i don't know how to say it in english, in french it is bien-être social). Another story to you. There is that guy who works in the construction with my friends as a carpenter. When he was 18, (he is now 40ish) his family was on the social well-being (lol) and had no money to send him to college or technical school. He said that while his parents and his brother were in the house doing pretty much nothing, he was going to a technical school "illegaly" with one of his friend, who was a legit student there. He was just in the class room with a pen and paper, was taking note of what the teacher was saying. Then for the technical part of the course, the teacher let him do the same as everyone else in the class, with wood, tools, etc. The teacher knew he did not pay to be there but was so happy to see that this guy was just there in the class room taking notes to learn the job, that he decided to pay himself for the material the guy was using. Then, at the end of the course, the teacher used his contacts to get this kid a job in a good company. You know, for the 3-4 stupid people who use a taxi for a 10 minutes walk because taxi is free for them, there is that person who cares about improving his situation and for them, the social welfare programs ARE a good thing. There are those who run the city in the morning to collect the cans and bottles regular people would just put in their garbage, there are those works for these programs too, those who have a voice and the competences to act in the good way. 2 options there : A - Keep as many social programs to help improving the life of a little % of these people. B- Throw in the garbage all the efforts made by social workers and make life of a very high % of them even tougher. I only makes 28K before income taxes and I personnaly don't care if 10% of my taxes go there : I choose option A. And will vote for a governement who chooses option A as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Haven't posted here much since the election and such, but I couldn't agree more with Joe's comments above. We live in a wonderful society that provides assistance to help those who desperately need it. I am more than happy to pay my share of the tax burden to provide money to these programs. I love that my taxes go to struggling artists trying to inject some culture into our civilization (well I should say used to, since "ordinary people don't support the arts" right Steve?). I love that my tax dollars provide assistance to the poor, to the sick, to the needy. I may not live a luxurious life but I live my life knowing that I have it better than some people. I can only hope that they can one day have the same opportunities that I have had. To have a loving family, to have a roof over their heads, to be educated, to simply have a chance. We live in a progressive country, a country one might call a social welfare state and I am incredibly proud to contribute in whatever way to that. I am simply thankful that the CONS weren't able to win a majority as I fear those precepts that I believe to be so important to MY Canada would have been rapidly dismantled. Conservative government is bad for Canada and I think Canadians will begin to see that more and more as the next term of Harpers government starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 22, 2008 Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 I am simply thankful that the CONS weren't able to win a majority The entire country should thank the Quebecois who voted for the Bloc! That's what stopped the Cons to get a majority! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Oh, and they have a "right" to get stoned at government facilities. There is much of your comments that I disagree with Zow but this one stood out for me. This is the type of comment that I find to be typical of conservatives. Addiction is a dangerous thing, it puts the user at risk while also puts the people around that person at increased risk. It is also not a thing that can be fixed overnight. There is no easy fix here. I don't live in BC so I don't have any direct interaction with these facilities. However from my understanding when it comes to intravenous drug users one of the largest concerns is the spread of disease. In a perfect world we wouldn't have drug users, but we don't live in a perfect world. These people are going to use drugs whether you like it or not. Some people may beat it and quit, while others will start, its a sad statement about our society but unfortunately an accurate one. This really is a medical issue. They're going to inject regardless so if that's the case why not provide them with safe needles to help reduce the spread of disease. At the end of the day this decision allows for a reduced burden on the provinces health care system. As a conservative I know I have to speak in money terms to you. By reducing the spread of disease the burden on the health service is thusly reduced as well. Less sick people = less people in hospitals = less money spent on public health care. The entire country should thank the Quebecois who voted for the Bloc! That's what stopped the Cons to get a majority! I hate the fact that this is true... but it certainly is. If it wasn't for Quebec the CONS would surely have attained their majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) I also wanted to add in response to a few previous posters about Conservative fiscal policy. There is this ridiculous misconception in politics (particularly Canadian politics) that conservative (small c not large C) fiscal policy is the most sound, the most responsible. I think though that a simple evaluation of its effects would dispel this myth rather quickly. Canadians need to remember that it was Brian Mulroney who left this country with a 45 billion dollar deficit. When the liberals came to power in the early 90s they had a huge mess to clean up. However with Martin as finance minister the government made some very painful but necessary cuts to spending and ended up balancing the budget for eight consecutive years. When the liberals turned government over to the Conservatives they left a 13.3 billion dollar surplus. Harper spent it all. Despite knowing that and economic storm was coming from the US he spent his cushion and even ran a deficit budget in January/February of 2008. Now he hasn't ruled out running a deficit for the coming year. I'm not an idiot I know that Mulroney had to deal with economic issues during his tenure, but the problem with Conservatives is that they are ideologically driven. Whether the time is right for their traditional fiscal approaches or not it doesn't matter. They'll stick with the ideology over logic. We didn't need a 1% cut in the GST this year but Harper did it anyway despite every economist in Canada saying that was an important cushion to have with a potential recession looming. People criticize the liberals for swaying their positions on key issues, I think that's the best part about our party. Fiscally when times are tough we are able to shift to the right to weather the storm, but when the economy is going strong we can shift to the left and provide the country with a boom to investments and social services through increases in spending. It's frustrating to hear people trumpet the need for conservative fiscal approaches as we enter a pending recession. Just look at how conservative fiscal policy has demolished the US economy over the last eight years. During the great depression there was an excellent saying coined, and it's one that I'm sure we will all be thinking about over the tenure of this new government. "Tory times are tough times" /rant Edited October 22, 2008 by nhfarber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.