CPCFTW

The reason I ask is because I used to have delusions of knowing what's best for the world too. I used to think communism could have worked with the right implementation. That was probably when i was 19-20 in my 1st year of university. I think it's common for any moderately intelligent person in that age group to think they have the world figured out.

Equivalently, I wouldn't argue with the notion that Harper would need to gain popularity in Quebec to secure 200+ seats and that him taking the NDP/BQ vote in Quebec is unlikely, and therefore 200+ seats is unlikely. Obviously anything could happen in 4 years, but my point was that it is unlikely for CPC voters in the ROC to swing to NDP, just like it is unlikely for NDP/BQ voters in Quebec to swing to CPC.

I see you couldn't comprehend the simple concept. I'll try one more time. Hypothetical: Next election Quebec votes 100% NDP, they pick up 2.1m votes, or +14.5% of the vote. The rest of the country votes the same way. End result: NDP 6.6m votes, 45% of the vote, 119 seats Cons 5.2m votes, 35.6% of the vote, 161 seats Conservative Majority. Come on, you're a big boy, surely you can figure this one out now. The NDP needs to gain popularity OUTSIDE of Quebec. With around 50% of voters choosing CPC, they are unlikely to swing to the NDP. That was my point. Can you keep up yet?

It's a pretty simple concept to understand. The NDP won't be picking up many more seats in Quebec, and with the CPC getting close to 50% of the vote outside of Quebec, it's unlikely that those 50% of voters swing to the NDP next election. I know you have a strange proclivity to nitpick on numbers, but it has no relevance to my point.

I stated why Quebec was excluded. The NDP is unlikely to pick up any more seats there since they already have 58/75 seats. I was also only talking about those who voted for one of the 3 main parties. About 4% of the vote went to the Green party or independents. It's just a little long winded to type "the 50% who voted CPC among the population of people outside of Quebec who voted for one of the 3 major parties". I already mentioned how I got to my 50% figure in an earlier post as well. Try reading.

What is your educational background? If it is something more than a 21 yr old in your 2nd year of a social sciences program, then I might consider reading it.

He implied that the majority is not always right. How does that equate to saying that "the population doesn't deserve to be consulted".

Oh sweet, where do I sign up? But wait, my own philosophy is a society where there are different classes, and you work, therefore you succeed, but the end result is a society where everyone is billionaires!! Class differences will only be measured by the amount of Ferraris you own. But people these days just don't care to understand my system! Or maybe because that "system" is just a vague 50 word description of a dream utopian society.

Doubt it. The 50% of the population who voted CPC outside of Quebec won't swing to NDP. The parties are too far apart ideologically. Centrist voters were already presented with the false dichotomy of scary radical right wing policies, or scary radical left wing policies, and overwhelmingly supported the CPC despite being them being the target of all other parties, having been held in contempt of parliament, and governing during a horrible recession. It's hard to imagine any worse scenario for the CPC to face in 4 years. And Quebec is irrelevant because the NDP has already basically peaked in Quebec (won 58/75 seats).

You were implying that the only difference between the two parties was 4% more corporate tax.

And the liberals likely won't be back in power for two decades because of that kind of complacency among elected representatives. You fuck up your mini-dictatorship, you're gone for two decades. Sounds good to me.

I do but if you followed my argument you would understand that that is irrelevant. I already mentioned that the Cons only need to point to the previous constitution to scare Canadians. You do know what previous means right? Of course you don't. Whether or not the NDP has subsequently changed it is irrelevant to my point that it is enough to scare most Canadians into voting Con or Libs. Also the libs will likely be attacking the NDP next election in an effort to regain official opposition status. Next election, the NDP are going to be getting attacked from the Cons, Libs, the media which has always pointed out the holes in Jack's crazy ideas, and even the BQ if it still exists. Who knows how much crazy socialist utopia talk they can dig up.

Nice red herring. Cons just have to run ads about the NDP constitution at the next election: "That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership." That alone is enough to send most Canadians running to the Libs or Cons. And yes, those are borderline communist beliefs.

Direct democracy would be a failure because this country would be run by 18-20 year olds tweeting one line slogans to each other to vote for the most communist party possible. The NDP party would "go viral". "Hey old people shouldn't be poor! Poor people shouldn't be homeless!! Rich people shouldn't hog all their money!! Credit card and oil companies are making too much money!! My manager at McDonalds oppresses me! Vote NDP!!" Click click click, goodbye Canada.

I'm not sure they'll be able to get much funding from those groups once the voter subsidies are gone. And I doubt they move very close to the centre-left while Layton is their leader. I don't think it will be difficult to dismantle NDP support now that Jack is in the spotlight. Much of the NDP support is based on the idea that Layton would be a good leader. Just have to find some dirt on Layton and his far left ideologies and run ads about it all over TV. Even if the NDP tries to paint itself as centre-left, Layton has already espoused enough borderline communist ideals to scare centrists away from voting NDP. I doubt the support in Quebec is long lasting either. The NDP had a perfect storm this election and will be relegated to 3rd party again next election. If the NDP moves to a centrist federal party, then there is enough previous communist propaganda and pandering for Quebec votes to scare centrists out of voting NDP, and they will lose the Quebec vote for moving towards federalism. If the NDP stays as is, it will lose support among ROC voters once the pandering to Quebec nationalism is exposed during an election campaign. The NDP will then become the new Bloc (irrelevant outside of Quebec). The only party that could challenge the cons would be a new liberal party that paints itself as slightly to the left of the cons. The majority of Canada believes in fiscal conservatism with some socialism sprinkled in. The liberal party thought it could move out of that position into far left territory to take the NDP vote while retaining its centrist voters. Was I the only one shocked by how far left the liberals had moved when their platform was unveiled? I knew from the moment the platform was released that the conservatives had won. The majority of Canadians aren't communists. Look at the vote numbers outside of Quebec: 2.9mil NDP, 2.2mil Lib, 5.2mil CPC. When Quebec is excluded, the Cons got more votes than the Libs and NDP combined (ie. over 50% of the vote) immediately after the hugely publicized "scandal" of being held in contempt of parliament! How amazing is that? Not only that, but they has to lead the country with a minority government through the worst recession since the great depression. Coming out of a recession, the CPC would have to really fuck up to lose their support at this point. Four years from now the economy will be soaring and we'll likely be running huge surpluses. We're in for an 8-12 year Conservative dictatorship. All hail King Harper!

Because they don't. The libs are a slightly left party, while the cons are a slightly right party. Libs tried to move FAR left into NDP territory in the hopes of retaining their core while cannibalizing the NDP vote. That failed for several reasons: 1. The liberal core was much more open to the cpc and resistant to far left ideologies than the liberal party thought. 2. Layton was viewed as a much better leader than Ignatieff. The libs brilliant strategy was to fabricate a scandal that would make it unpalatable for Canadian centrists to vote for the CPC, then to simultaneously steal the NDP vote by moving to the far left and having their charismatic academic leader win over the hearts and minds of the people. It backfired spectacularly and Canada will be a better place for it.

Its not my problem you don't like the term "lefties". I'm not going to start typing "those on the left side of the political spectrum" because your e-peen shrivels up in indignation whenever your read "lefties". And while you're perched atop your self-anointed moral high ground, why not try calling out those who use much worse insults than me but happen to share the same political ideologies as you?

Hmmmm where have I seen that 60% number before? Oh yeah, that's the number of losers of the last election. Coincidence? People don't like the results so now they want to change the rules. My hockey team sucked this year, I want hockey reform. The bottom 5 teams should get all the picks in the first round!! Actually no.. I forgot I'm not a whiner and sore loser.

Sounds like someone's got a small epeen.

You agree that quebec should be able to secede from canada simply because 50.1% of quebecers (concentrated mainly in and around quebec city) voted to? You're not much of a Canadian if you agree with that position. That's our land, some entitled frenchies don't have some kind of noble right to all that land. If quebec city wants to secede into some kind of pathetic nation-state then that's fine, but the rest of quebec should not be subjugated to the will of the francophones in quebec city.

I doubt it. I'd say it's more likely some scientist in Japan tries to imitate transformers by then. I'll be sure to bump this in 100 years.

So the residual cultural effect of being a superpower for over 5 centuries is still being felt 15 centuries later? Wow my argument was pretty accurate, thanks for bringing up that example.

Arts are supposed to hold a wide appeal. If the appeal is wide enough, then the creator of the art can generate a profit for his creation. If you are subsidizing art, it means that the art does not hold that wide appeal. All I'm saying is that art should not be subsidized because any subsidized art has been deemed unworthy to be labelled "art" by society. How hard is that to understand? If I take a shit on a piece of paper and label it art, it won't have a wide appeal, and I likely won't be able to sell my "art" for a reasonable standard of living. I can't ask the taxpayers to pay my living expenses so that I can continue to create "art" instead of getting a job.

It was a one line quip which I clarified.... not moving the goal posts. Italy was not a superpower? Have you heard of the Roman empire? And I thought the Zionists ruled the world? You lefties need to make up your minds. It's not an important enough domestic "commodity" to cause us to in-debt future generations of Canadians so we can produce 6 seasons of Little Mosque on the Prairie. Arts and culture is a business, if it is widely appreciated, then the producer of it will profit. It is counter-intuitive to subsidize it. If you are subsidizing art, it means that the art (that you are forcing everyone to pay for) does not hold a wide enough appeal to stand alone.

What other cultures do people of the world care most about? The cultures of former superpowers or near-superpowers. Begone infant.