-1=e^ipi

One election every 4 years is too infrequent. We should have 1 election every 3 years like Australia.

Globalist means the same as Mondialist in French. It's just that some right wing individuals in North America have started using the word in recent years to mean everything they dislike, even if it is completely contradictory, such as saying Globalists are in favour of trade barriers. The average person doesn't use the word Globalist this way; actually, the average person doesn't use Globalist at all. Taxme's comments on the word "Globalist" sound insane to me to and I am a native English speaker. One could argue that Taxme is engaging in the Orwellian corruption of language by arguing that Globalists and Globalism are against free trade and are in favour of trade barriers, which is contradictory to the meaning of the word.

The sensible thing to do is to get rid of the Dairy Cartel.

An alternative to subsidies are countervailing duties (i.e.duties enough to offset the us subsidies as opposed to a duty of 300% to protect an immoral cartel). I doubt the US would lower their subsidies just for Canada since they would give up negotiating power with the Europeans if they did that.

End the birthright monarchy as well.

He said he wants to lower it back to 250,000 per year.

It's the perfect time the start a new party. All of Canada's trade with the US is about to get destroyed and the only way to pursue free trade is to vote in a Bernier government 2019. Trudeau and Scheer are too in bed with the dairy cartel to support what is in the national interest.

Despite the fact that Tim Moen, the leader of the libertarian party, has invited Bernier to take over as leader of the party multiple times, Bernier has not accepted that invitation. In addition, Tim Moen doesn't plan for the libertarian party to join Bernier's party. Currently, they are not going to collaborate, which is a shame. There are apparently differences over issues such as immigration & health care that they have difficulty with.

Emmanuel Macron is president of France.

Have you not heard? Maxime Bernier quit the Conservative party and is going to run a new party.

http://abacusdata.ca/will-max-bernier-be-a-spoiler-for-the-conservative-party/ Maxime Bernier is at 13% nationally and beats the Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, and NDP in Quebec. So much for the claims that his support won't amount to anything. Do you think this poll is too early to be reliable, or does it suggest that Maxime Bernier is a serious contender for 2019?

No they don't. They support 300% tariffs. That's not free trade.

The liberal party isn't liberal.

No, I'm not a conservative. It's the conservatives choosing to associate themselves with the conservatives in Saudi Arabia. If the US decided to ban all our exports on softwood lumber and maple syrup tomorrow, the remaining trade would be mostly tariff free. Does that mean banning softwood lumber and maple syrup imports isn't protectionism? The reason why dairy makes up such a small portion of trade is because the tariffs on it are so high as to make it unprofitable to trade. See other countries such as Australia, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, etc. Canada is the outlier. Classical liberals aren't conservatives. Conservatives are anti-freedom people who don't want gay marriage, legalization of abortion, drug legalization, legalized prostitution, legalized pornography, etc. such as Andrew Scheer.

Let's see, according to wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets." If I go to BC, the BC Liberals are very different from the Federal Liberals. If I go to Australia, the large "centre-right" party is the liberal party and liberal is associated with free markets and even conservatism. If I go to Europe, in Germany liberal is associated with the free democratic party, which is closer to libertarianism. If I go to Sweden, their liberal party is more free-enterprise & classical liberalism. If I go to France, liberal is associated with Emanuel's current regime, which has pushed for more economic freedom. There is no current meaning of liberalism that is universal among Western Countries. Rather, essentially all other western countries have a definition more consistent with classical liberalism, and the US & Canada are outliers. And even in North America, you have some cases such as the BC Liberals, which are more consistent with Europe. But let's stick to North America. Are you saying that the sentence "John Stuart Mill and Voltaire were liberal philosophers" no longer has meaning in North America? How are people supposed to advocate for liberalism if it has been redefined out of existence? Ignore word associations at your own peril.

What free trade? We've had 300% dairy tariffs and softwood lumber tariffs.

Associating your positions with people that behead women without male escorts while associating your opponent's positions with people like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill seems like you are conceding a lot of unearned linguistic territory to your political opponents. Also, if we redefine words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' to the point where we don't mean what they actually mean then I think this destroys meaning, makes bizarre word associations, and makes it harder to convey ideas in society. George Orwell's novel 1984 emphasizes the importance of word associations and the redefinition of words.

He still is anti-freedom, even if he doesn't open these issues. He did say that he will take action against porn, he will continue to be anti-prostitution legalization, he will continue to be against drug legalization, and he will likely move against sex robot legalization.

12 parties is better than 300 'independent' MPs that all share the same opinion due to the first past the post system. And how do you propose to 'weaken' the party system beyond removing names from the ballot? Get rid of freedom of association?

Do you believe that cow life begins at conception? So then why don't you support moving to a proportional representation system where there will be more viable parties to better represent your views?

Rather, basing an ideology around conserving things for the sake of conserving things is rather silly. Conservatism is a relative political ideology rather than an absolute political ideology. Conservatism only has policies once you take into account the society you are in, where has something like Classical Liberalism has policies that apply everywhere regardless of society (freedom of speech, equality between men and women, etc.). That's why conservatism means beheading women who go shopping without a male escort and killing gay people in Saudi Arabia. Why people would want to associate themselves with the gay-killing Saudis is crazy to me, but it makes a bit more sense once you take into account Andrew Scheer's dislike of gay marriage. Conservatism has nothing to do with free trade. That's revisionist history. Traditionally, conservatism in most societies has been about conserving traditions and not wanting to trade with foreigners. The conservative parties in Canada were opposed to free trade until the 1980s. It was conservatives that opposed free trade with the Americans during the time of Wilfred Laurier. Trade liberalization is a Classical Liberal idea, not a conservative one (see Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill). If you look at the origins or the terms right and left with respect to politics (i.e. late 18th century France), the right consisted of monarchists, catholic theocrats, and protectionists wanting to restrict economic freedom & trade. Bernier is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. It is too bad that he has bought into this revisionist history rather than correctly identify himself as not conservative.

That's what Justin Trudeau wants, and it will result in even less political diversity in parliament. In a representative democracy, all voices should be represented, even the extremes. A PR system doesn't entrench the power on the parties since parties can freely split and form without concern about splitting of the vote. Furthermore, if there are more parties then there is more competition between parties. Rather a first past the post system entrenches the power of parties as we see in parliament where the slightest dissent from party ranks isn't allowed. And why must everything be local? It is a national election for national issues. Perhaps if the political system weren't so focused on local issues we would have better governance and less caving into special interest groups.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I was arguing for the opposite. If we merely keep the first past the post system with ridings and get rid of party names, it won't really change anything, except give voters less information to make informed choices.

The first rule of politics should be to convince the electorate of the merits of your position through argument. That is the best long term strategy.

People will form parties anyway and people will know who will correspond to which party. Furthermore, you would still have the problems of the first past the post system. Socialists in rural areas will get zero representation. Libertarians will get zero representation. Conservatives in urban centres will get zero representation, etc. What's the point of having a representative democracy if it fails to adequately represent the electorate? Some people care more about universal ideas than they care about the best interests of their particular riding at the expense of society.