ReeferMadness

There are a lot of countries that use party list PR. Before people dismiss it outright, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do some research.

And yet it seems like it's white people that are doing all of the anti-Muslim politicking. Go figure.

I don't think there is any PR system in existence that is unworkable. Even in Italy and Israel, the countries that everyone uses to "prove" PR can't work, the main problem is the politics, not the voting system.

We have right wing evangelical Christians in power right now.

Saudi Arabia? Isn't that the country where Harper is peddling weapons?

Voting system is only one part of the problem - nobody should expect that changing it will fix everything. But the makeup of the parliament should, to the greatest extent possible, represent the views of the people.

That's a fantastic idea, though. We need a thread on strategic voting.

Oh. You long for the good old days. When everyone was white and Christian.

Sounds like boutique tax cuts to me.

We can't have anyone dressing differently, then. Maybe Harper should be outlawing kilts. Lederhosen. Kippahs.

While Harper is running around trumpeting the TPP (the details of which we peons are not allowed to see), the OECD is chasing down the tax dodgers and cheats that his government has spent the last 10 years ignoring. #Harperthedisgrace

That's a way better idea than mandatory voting. To me, the idea of making someone who has no interest cast a ballot is ridiculous. But maybe, if you made them work for a party, they would become educated on the political process and some people would learn to care.

Of course but you lied to us and then denied there was anything wrong with it. So perhaps you operate under a different set of standards.

One more time. What gives you the right to tell this woman she is oppressed? Would you deny women the choice of wearing a girdle? How about a nun wearing a habit? Or a Mennonite wearing the getup that Mennonites wear? Honestly, I think women in Canada are oppressed because we live in a society that expects them to shave their body hair (which is arguably more barbaric than covering one's face). And there are lots of ways women (or men for that matter) can be oppressed that don't involve clothing. So, you know what? It's up to society to foster an environment where equality can be achieved. And if women (or men) are oppressed, we need to help them. But you and Stephen Harper have no right to take away their decision as to whether they are oppressed or not.

In democracy, ultimately the power (and responsibility) rests with the citizens. We have the government we deserve. If people spent a quarter of the time on serious issues that they devote to watching hockey, we might get somewhere.

It's less of a problem with STV and open list systems; because voters can choose which of the candidates to vote for. Under FTP, you can only choose or reject the person the party chose for you.

This law is politically motivated and has nothing to do with public safety. It was crafted to do the following: It maintains peoples' sense of fear of terrorism - even though we should be more afraid of getting struck by lightning. Anything that heightens fear of terrorism (or Muslims) helps the Conservatives. It's an effective wedge issue for the Conservatives. It's a distraction from Conservative corruption and their many, many other failures. The reasons that it won't improve public safety are: It's debatable exactly how dangerous are some of the people who have been convicted so far. Many are one or more of the following: children, mentally ill, misguided, drug addicts, blithering idiots. In the cases I've read, undercover police and paid informants supplied these people with weapons (real or fake), ideas and encouragement. If we ship them overseas, we lose the ability to keep track of them and there's no guarantee they can't assist or plan attacks. This law will alienate some (particularly Muslims because, let's face it, it's aimed at them) and could motivate some of the behavior that it's supposed to protect us against. Finally, it's the wrong thing to do; The law is too broad and allows the Minister too much discretion We're responsible for our own citizens. If we try to deport them, what makes us think other countries will accept them? In many cases, people are born in Canada with dual citizenship. We could be deporting someone to a country they've never been to and where they don't even speak the language.

TPP will supersede NAFTA but it doesn't matter because you're missing the point. This agreement has investor-state dispute settlement rules, just like NAFTA. But, unlike NAFTA, TPP includes agriculture. So, US Agribusiness will be able to challenge our rules against growth hormones. And they can do it without affecting anything else in the agreement. Sorry if you're not getting it. Go do some research on investor-state dispute settlement. And BTW. When people are reduced to poking fun at my handle, it's a clear sign they have nothing intelligent to say.

Not always. Don't tell me. Explain to this woman what gives you the right to decide if she is oppressed.

You're dodging the issue. Under NAFTA, Corporations in US and Mexico can sue Canada if they disagree with environmental or health legislation. Ethyl Corporation launched a $251 million lawsuit when Canada wanted to ban MMT. This investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms provide foreign corporations with a standing that is preferential to domestic corporations or individuals. This agreement open the door to a bunch more companies in a bunch more countries to do the same. So, if American Agribusiness decides that they don't like our ban on growth hormones, they don't have to prove their case in our court. Thank you. That's exactly my point. Instead of a bunch of cheerleaders running around and telling us this is wonderful, we need some objective analysis. Where are we going to get that?

So, you lied. And because you think someone else lies, that makes it OK I totally get now why you guys don't see anything wrong with all of the disgraceful, dishonest, undemocratic shit Harper pulls.

Go take it up with Philippe Couillard. It's not relevant here. I'm not voting for or against him. Maybe you want to berate me because when I criticize Harper, I'm failing to point out he's not as bad as Stalin. And go look up accountability in the dictionary. It doesn't mean blaming your faults on someone else.

Or until the US Agribusiness Industry sues Canada because we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their growth hormones are harmful. Ever hear of the MMT debacle under NAFTA? And who is going to analyze the agreement and point out all the negatives so Canadians understand them? The government is now marketing this while withholding the details. And the media is mostly cheerleading. This is not good for democracy.

You call that information??? It's propaganda. If we have an agreement, release the text so that it can be analyzed by people who aren't trying to sell it to me. Here's an example Sounds nice but wtf does that mean??? Am I to assume that China will have the same minimum wage and hours of work as Canada? Or does it mean that China will have a minimum wage and hours of work? This is crap.

I'm not sure that's 100% true but I agree that if there are racist politics, it's most often Conservatives behind them. I don't know much about Ontario or Quebec politics and I'm not sure why you keep defending the national Conservatives by pointing to provincial Liberals. Keep trying though.