AsksWhy

@Dougie93 You are a rare breed Dougie. What are your thoughts on selling votes? What affect does this have on the election process?

@Dougie93 Why so loyal to a woman who I presume has not had a face-to-face with you at your door?

@Dougie93 You are clearly against the Liberals. Is there a party that can put us on the right track then, or are we simply going round and round in circles never actually changing anything?

@Yzermandius19 Agreed. But what impact does a no vote have vs an uneducated one?

@-TSS- Thanks for your input. Given the market economy we are in, should people who "don't care" be allowed to sell their vote then? I would be interested in your opinion on this subject as well.

@Dougie93 So lets cut to the chase then. Given that you seem to fall into the "educated" category on matters of politics. How do you feel about people who don't vote vs those uneducated people who do?

@Dougie93 & @Cannucklehead Sorry for venturing down the rabbit hole. I feel we may have strayed off topic a bit. To try and reel us back in: Are you both suggesting that we're too entrenched in historical events that voting today has no effect on the future of the country? If so, why do we even bother? Also, I somewhat get that feeling based on the fact that neither of you voted (above).

@Dougie93 So Canada should break away from the monarch? What are the implications of that?

@Dougie93 In your opinion, how do we better inform Canadians about their history, constitution and laws? What if these individuals can't be bothered to learn?

@Shady Thank you for your response. Would you be willing to elaborate a bit please?

@Dougie93 Thank you for your response. To address a couple of your points: If you know nothing about someone, how can you confidently choose that person to represent you? At what point does Parliamentary Supremacy begin to implode?

Politics do not interest everyone. Meaning, voter knowledge of today's topics will range from fully informed to totally uninformed. My question is: Does the uninformed vote cause more or less damage than a no vote, and why? Please explain. I am interested to hear the thoughts of the community. Thanks!

Or we could skip that scenario by simply hiding the posts that make the thread old. Heck, we could even hide posts like mine and yours that have gone so off topic they just clutter up the thread.

Perhaps, or better yet the admins might want to consider archiving older topics to help keep this site current.

INTERNATIONAL FORUM ETIQUETTE: someone who replies to a thread for the first time should be responding to the Original Post (OP). For those who know this, my response should be crystal clear. Considering your response to my post, I presume that either you were unaware that that was my first post to this thread, or you are not aware of this unwritten rule - in which case you're welcome for the free lesson.

To be crystal clear: I agree that what has been done is disgusting. Unfortunately, there's a market for everything and the world business model supports if not forces people to do strange things to make money - its the nature of the beast.

Us VS Them... terrible topic. Just wondering why so many ppl respond to this crap?

Many poor answers here, which makes me question the intelligence of those who responded. I have been doing my own research, and this is my take on cryptos: Cryptos offer another way to store value. Like gold became the standard centuries ago, and bank notes are the standard today, cryptos could become the standard of the future. The front runner being Bitcoin, because of its early adoption and proven ability to work. The most interesting thing about cryptos is how they could create a shift in power! Have a look at this simple guide, and try to think of the political implications of a decentralized system of exchange: https://www.upfolio.com/ultimate-bitcoin-guide Cheers!

Yes, terminate thousands of jobs and then contract them out at a lower rate. Great solution! Not!

By your definition "bargaining" and "strike" are one and the same, because work stoppages (strikes or lock outs) are the largest bargaining chip each side has.

Every entity "works for its own survival and growth" - that is the system we have created, but government wants to legally strip Union's of this. Why would Canadians ever want to allow this to happen?

Lopsided towards Unions how? Government needs ability to side-step a party's biggest bargaining chip (work stoppage) why?

Strikes are not about winning or losing... they're about compromise. It's a game of give-and-take and our government needs to let that process play out.

Should our gov't be able to pass back-to-work legislation? The whole idea behind union / company agreements is one that allows either party to take a stand when being treated unfairly - primarily in terms of safety, compensation, or job security. In either case - by strike or by lockout - work stoppages are a true indicator that something is wrong with the status quo and should be allowed to play out in natural order. An intervention that expedites this process does nothing of value for either party, likely only conveniences a third party, and is prone to create a larger divide moving forward. Not to mention that a government that "tells" people what to do versus a government that "is told" what to do by its people turns a democracy into an oligarchy. - Is that the type of government we want in Canada? - I think not! What does everybody else think?

Based on YOUR LOGIC, each DAY (clearly an element of time) may vary in length. Meaning, Day 1 might be a millennium, Day 2 a week, Day 3 several hours, etc. Imagine if we applied that logic to each element of an hour (for example)... each minute, may not actually be 60 seconds. Minute 1 might be 80 seconds, minute 2 might be 30, and minute 3 might be 16. I can no longer continue this conversation with you betsy. I tried, but failed ... miserably!