ReeferMadness

No. It's not. Elections aren't democracy. They are a democratic means of choosing representation. And when the government doesn't really represent the views of the country, it's hard to call it democratic. The ability of people to act and think in their own best interest is limited by their ability to understand what that interest is. When you have a system (including the media) that is controlled by a relatively small group of wealthy individuals, you should expect that most people understand their interest in a way that corresponds with the interests of the people that control the system. And that's exactly what we have. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are a plethora of factors (the voting system, centralization of power in the PMO, preferential access to parliamentarians by the wealthy/corporations/lobbyists, money required to be elected, and so on) that mean that most of the peoples representatives have very little ability to actually effect change anyway. And where did I say this is about me getting my way? When you need to invent my position in order to debate it, it's proof that you have no good argument to make. Don't bother responding to my posts if you need to make stuff up.

And somehow, the Liberals elected Dion in convention so clearly he was someone they could follow. You insist he isn't a leader. I think that a guy who reached across parties to form a coalition is exactly the type of leader we need.

That's a very cynical view of the world and it's really not supposed to be that way. With views like yours, it's not surprising that democracy is slowly dying. Democracy means rule by the people and representative democracy means rule by a government that is supposed to be representative of the people. The problem is that wealthy individuals and corporations have become so powerful, national governments can't properly stand up to them anymore. Globalization has undermined the power of governments as corporations that don't like the rules can take their ball and go somewhere else to play. So governments don't really represent the people, they mainly represent people with money. Including the NDP.

So, you prefer a government without integrity that governs from the left to a government without integrity that governs from the right? Progressive? I don't even know what that means anymore. The economic policies of today's NDP are overall probably to the right of the Conservatives in the 70s'. If you want to do good, work to stop the right-ward drift of the population, instead of shoehorning your party into power. Personally, I'd love to see the Green Party come to power - but not if it meant electing someone who would pander to racists and trample on minority rights. If you abandon your principles, you don't deserve power. Yup. The NDP supporters tell me that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same while the Conservative supporters tell me there's no real difference between the Liberals and NDP. Both can't be right and in fact neither are. In a way, all the big parties are the same. They all favor endless economic growth in a system dominated by a relative handful of wealthy people. The disagreements are really around the edges.

He's not a politician - that doesn't mean he's not a leader. I don't think we were given a chance to fairly evaluate him as a leader. People who have intelligence, integrity and courage to take the type of stand he did are rare. People who endless complain that all politicians are corrupt/liars/incompetent but fail to get behind the exceptions can look in the mirror if they want to know why politics is such a cesspool.

Yeah. They picked a leader with intelligence and integrity, but not huge amounts of political savvy or charisma. I'm sure that's a lesson that won't be lost on anyone.

Quebec voters have a reputation of being fickle. The NDP would be better off returning to their social democratic roots. It would be better for them and better for the country. The party was fooling itself to think it could remain what it was and still govern the country. Social democrats should focus on changing the country, not become another centrist party.

In fact, the G&M endorsed Harper in every election since 2006. The claim that it is "left leaning" is patent nonsense.

And how far do you go? A couple of women have already been assaulted as a result of Harper's pathetic pandering to Islamophobes. What's it worth to you to get more seats? The problem here isn't Mulcair, it's Harper and the Islamophobes. ETA: This is why we need a new voting system. Third parties could stick to their principles without getting destroyed at the polls.

Yes. Do you accept that it was the right thing to do? And that good leaders do the right thing even if it's unpopular?

Would you prefer he had been politically smart and morally bankrupt?

The difference is that the NDP's base is in Quebec. And more than that, in the areas of Quebec that are not exactly known for being tolerant of other religions and cultures. I think that what happened is that Trudeau stayed in the game by exceeding the low expectations that many people had. Then when the niqab debate happened, Mulcair's supporters in Quebec abandoned him for the Bloc or the CPC. And when that happened, the faction of the centre left that could go either NDP or Liberal started going Liberal. I'm not sure either of those are finished yet. It really bothers me that this insidious and despicable tactic of the Conservatives seems to be working.

Do you have a link that would suggest that either is "against Stephen Harper"? Certainly, the Star is left leaning but that's hardly the same thing. You can't say the same about the Globe.

Oh. Is that why the Globe and Mail endorsed Harper in 2011?

Harper's latest idiotic statement pot is 'infinitely worse' than tobacco. I can understand why Argus would like this thread killed. Harper adds to embarrassing tally of disgraceful statements and actions daily. It can't be easy to be reminded that the guy you're going to vote for is really this bad.

Green-Liberal

Danny Williams might be outspoken but he says what he means. He leaves more integrity in his wake when we walks away than Stephen Harper will ever have. And he's absolutely right when he calls the Conservatives tactics racist.

Canadian values? The phrase is used by our PM when he wants to invoke racist and anti-Muslim feelings among his base. Our PM belongs to an evangelical church. It makes me wonder what his kids are being taught on things like homosexuality, divorce and abortion. When I grew up, I was taught homosexuality was evil, abortion was murder, divorce was wrong, premarital sex was wrong and living together was living in sin. And I know I'm not the only one. So, let's be careful about buying into the PM's arrogance that somehow, we have things to teach Muslims.

Not everyone in Saskatoon loves Harper.

She has subjects? Besides her corgis?

From the Financial Post A lot of small businesses are just professionals who incorporate to save on taxes. Trudeau is right and if we had any kind of media in this country, Harper and his crew would be called out for the dishonest way he attacked Trudeau. We had a discussion on this called Tax Fairness in Canada. There is a poster by the name of msj who is an accountant and confirms that a lot of people (including him) are using corporations as tax dodges.

Oh. There's an accountant on MLW (his name escapes me) who's confirmed that a lot of small businesses are primarily tax shelters. I know it's difficult for you guys to understand that your hero isn't feeding you the unvarnished truth.

Get rid of Harper. Go to this strategic voting website to figure out how to vote to kick him out.

Very little has been written in the mainstream media about Stephen Harper's belonging to an evangelical church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance. It seems like it would be more than fair to ask and expect and answer to the question of how much Harper's faith has influenced his policy. It's possible that Harper is nothing more than a fiscal conservative who throws bones to the fundamentalists to retain their support. However, it's also possible that Harper's own views are informed by some of the scarier fundamentalist Christian teachings. Under our broken form of government that has been distorted by parties sucking the power away from elected MP's this guy exercises near-dictatorial authority, If he does believe that Jesus is literally coming back to Israel for a big war with Satan, I would find that a pretty scary thing.

I guess it makes as much sense to blame the Christians' issues one the Muslims and Sikhs as it does to blame Harper's failures on Chretien and Wynne. At least you're consistent.