ReeferMadness
-
Posts
3,953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by ReeferMadness
-
If you don't mind milk laden with growth hormones and antibiotics. And if the beef producers get better prices, it means we will pay more as well.
-
How would anyone know? Where are the details? We have Conservatives running around the country patting themselves on the back and newspaper columnists breathlessly announcing what a great thing this will be. And nobody is allowed to know what's in it. Democracy - Conservative style.
-
Oh, cuz you think the people who are swayed by racist politics aren't smart enough to figure out that this reflects on them as well as Harper. Hmmmmm..... maybe you're right.
-
So... you lied. I guess that explains why you think it's no big deal when Harper lies.
-
This cartoon illustrates the ridiculousness of the niqab debate perfectly.
-
An excellent editorial from the The Star on Harper's pandering to anti-Muslim sentiment to gain electoral advantage. Disgraceful.
-
Yup. It's quite possible that the CPC will come in second in popular vote but still first in seats. That's the type of thing that tends to enhance support for PR.
-
Yeah. You might want to direct that pathetic excuse towards people who have vote Liberal or intend to in the future. Maybe they'll care. Meanwhile, you're still voting for a party that has shown zero integrity, zero accountability and zero respect for democracy. Seems like you're OK with that though - as long as you get that boutique tax break. Good on you for sharing your party's values.
-
Sadly, the Conservatives don't care if they win in court or not. This is dog whistle politics and it has already had the effect of reinforcing their base and wooing away voters. It's pathetic.
-
Oh, jeez. Here we go again. The CPC campaigned on accountability. Look it up because if you understand it you must be the only Conservative who does. Because if there is one thing that all of you guys do, it's blame your party's utter lack of ethical behavior on someone else. The CPC's lied to the people about how our system works to cling to power. It's disgraceful. Own it.
-
The Liberals chickened out because public opinion was massively opposed to the coalition. And that was largely because the Conservatives openly lied to a gullible and uninformed public. It was amazing to see multiple scholars come out and try to explain to the public that a coalition is perfectly valid in our form of government - and be ignored. No wonder the Conservatives felt some comfortable openly dismissing science. They saw how easy it was to defeat expert opinion with an echo chamber comprised of their sheep.
-
True. But again, what happened in 2008? Harper knew he would lose the confidence motion so he delayed until the time was better. Then he misled the public to make the other parties back down. The system allows lots of room for trickery and the Conservatives will use every trick they can. The only difference this time is that the Conservatives are likely to have a weaker minority - so perhaps the opposition will be a bit braver.
-
I don't think their policies are really that different - they could find middle ground if they wanted. The real problem is that they spent the campaign convincing their voters they are different. After that, it becomes hard to turn around and say now we can work together. There are lots of right wing Liberals who think the NDP are socialists and left wing NDP who consider the Liberals not much different from the CPC.
-
That's all wonderful in theory. In practise, recall what happened in 2008-09. The Conservatives used parliamentary trickery, dirty tricks and a misinformation campaign that convinced poorly informed and gullible Canadians that a coup d'etat was in process to continue governing. This time they have a GG they have appointed. Let's just say you have much more confidence in the system than I do.
-
That's not necessarily (or even probably) true. Convention has it that the former government gets the first crack at forming a coalition. Harper has agreed that the party with the most seats should be government but under a tie, I expect that he would go to the GG (who he appointed) and ask to be allowed to govern. Once that happens, he can delay convening parliament for months and he could throw something into the throne speech to entice one of the other two parties to vote with him. As long as the government lasted a decent amount of time (say six months), it's more likely that the GG would call a new election than hand the government over to the NDP/LIBs. And if the economy improved in the meantime, the Conservatives would want a new election.
-
So, you asked for this thread. You're welcome. I would have to write a book to fully document all of Harper's corruption and sleaze. So, of course I had to abbreviate. What's on the list has been well documented and hardly needs to be justified. I'm just reminding everyone just how big a pile of corrupt and undemocratic acts Harper has compiled. Also, the link I posted above contains more details of many of my points (and many more I had forgotten).
-
Thinking people can recognize dog whistle politics when they see it. It must be painful for people who believed Harper when he ran on lofty principles of accountability and transparency to see him reduced to calling in a foreigner to guide him on sleazy politics. Even erstwhile supporters are calling him out. Good for you though. Your loyalty is obviously sufficient to overcome any issues with his disgusting governance.
-
If by "awesome", you mean a sh*t storm, I agree. Under this scenario (or in the case of a weak CPC minority), the CPC would make a show of trying to govern long enough (or delay governing long enough) that by time the government fell, they would be looking for a new election. In the mean time, they would pull every wedge issue trick they could to increase their vote.
-
Since Gleason's other thread was closed, I thought his excellent link should be re-posted here to allow debate. Although I am familiar with much of Harper's wrongdoing, there are many items in this list that I forgot and some of which I wasn't aware. Conservative supporters don't like to face the fact that Harper is the most undemocratic PM in modern Canadian history but the list speaks for itself.
-
There is a lot of concern here over the use of party lists and the degree of control that it gives to parties. While I agree there is a concern, I think it might be somewhat overstated, particularly compared to FPTP. Under FPTP, unless you are an active party member (and only a small percentage of the population are0, you have no control over your local candidates. Since most people vote for a party or a leader, they have a choice between accepting whatever candidate is chosen or voting for a party they don't like. When voting from an open list (whether it's MMP, party list or STV), you have a choice of several candidates from that party. So, I would posit that open list systems provide more choice, not less.
-
For anyone who's interested here is a good overview of STV, including strengths and weaknesses.
-
Strategic Voting - It needs to be done
ReeferMadness replied to marcus's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Roger that. It didn't help that the second "yes" campaign was run boy-scout style where idealistic volunteers tried to educate the population while the "no" campaign was run by experienced backroom party insiders who ran a completely negative campaign. It was a ridiculous display of how to undermine democracy. -
And even if he weren't a teenager, it's not like anyone could consider angypenguin an objective observer.
-
You concern could be alleviated through the use of "open lists" (where voters select preferred candidates as well as preferred parties). Unfortunately, it seems that the Ontario proposal had "closed lists" (where you vote for the party and the party determines which candidates are selected). Closed lists give much more power to the parties.
-
A woman who plans to wear the niqab at her citizenship ceremony writes in the Toronto Star Doesn't seem too threatening to me. But if you're inclined to see a terrorist every time you look at a Muslim, maybe it is scary.