Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Ok, Just for you we'll all change.

Coalitions are good as long as the band of thieves stay together. In Canada, just imagine hoe "walking on eggshells" they'd have to be especially when anything financial--- Duceppe would want a 50% cut on any money bill & to be exempted from any Bill that concerned laws of the country as PQ is, in his mind, a different country.

Yeah. What a terrible situation. MPs looking out for their ridings' interests.

Posted

It is not...we live in a democracy and the party that receives the least amount of votes should not be in government

Constitutional monarchy with democratically elected parliamentary representation. Although, the democracy of FPTP is debateable.
Posted
a coalition of the losers is formed
Very few things in politics bother me more than this stupid saying. The only losers here are the Conservatives in the ridings where the hypothetical coalition MPs will have won. Coalition of losers is conceptually wrong on every level.
Posted

What's really going to irk Canadians is a coalition that has the lowest rated leader as the Prime Minister. Ignatieff is rating well below Layton and if there is a coalition, people have made it clear that they would much rather have Jack Layton as Prime Minister.

Posted

Constitutional monarchy with democratically elected parliamentary representation. Although, the democracy of FPTP is debateable.

Nothing really debatable about it. You vote for your local candidate. The candidate who garners the most support wins the responsibility of representing your region.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

Nothing really debatable about it. You vote for your local candidate. The candidate who garners the most support wins the responsibility of representing your region.

There is a debate when the person with the most support is elected by less than 50% of the voters (even less of the electorate, but we can ignore those that don't bother voting).
Posted

There is a debate when the person with the most support is elected by less than 50% of the voters (even less of the electorate, but we can ignore those that don't bother voting).

Those who cannot convince the most people always seek to blame someone or something else for their failure....they never blame their arguments or policies for their lack of appeal...instead they think it should be like kindergatern....no one loses,,everybody is a winner...even if it most improved or best team spirit.

We don't send people to Ottawa to represent us because they have team spirit or their campaign has improved...we send them because they run good campaigns, they are visible in the community and they can mobilize their support to get out and vote.

My riding will send an MP to Ottawa that I will not vote for. But you will not hear me whine that I think 42% of the sitting MP should be my choice....the collective voters of my riding will make their choice to re-elect the current MP. And the one thing about my riding is, they have sent PCs, they have sent Liberals but they have never sent nobodies to Ottawa.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

We don't send people to Ottawa to represent us because they have team spirit or their campaign has improved...we send them because they run good campaigns, they are visible in the community and they can mobilize their support to get out and vote.

Some of them even answer their constituents' phone calls and emails.

"We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers

Posted

Some of them even answer their constituents' phone calls and emails.

One would hope...mine does.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted (edited)

Another Harper myth bits the dust. It's not only the Liberals that are losing support

CONSERVATIVES OUT OF THE RACE IN ALL BUT ONE NL RIDING
Edited by Harry
Posted

Another Harper myth bits the dust. It's not only the Liberals that are losing support

What myth is that?

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted (edited)

What myth is that?

That Harper was going to win seats in NL.

And now I'm wondering what the heck is happening in Quebec. At first I thought those Harper seats around Quebec City were safe but now....

My hunch is this NPD surge is a lot, lot more than just Outremont.

Edited by Harry
Posted

That Harper was going to win seats in NL.

And now I'm wondering what the heck is happening in Quebec. At first I thought those Harper seats around Quebec City were safe but now....

My hunch is this NPD surge is a lot, lot more than just Outremont.

I am hearing rumblings of around 30%. That could just be the stupid twitter but we will see in the morning. I will tell you what the media has been hoping for some sort of story this election and I think they are about to get it.

Posted (edited)

Now would be a good timer for the braggart who said the NPD wouldn't win 2 seats in Quebec to stand up and take a bow - that is before he/she gets danced, er... laughed out of this place. Jeesh!

Edited by Harry
Posted

And now I'm wondering what the heck is happening in Quebec. At first I thought those Harper seats around Quebec City were safe but now....

I always thought they might be at risk, with the Colisée issue.

Posted

I want to point out I said during the debates (both English and French) that Iggy confronting Jack on Afghanistan would play very well for him. I know their are plenty of other things but that was the moment for me that I felt something is happening in Quebec.

Posted

Robert Fife just let the Qu numbers slip in Twitter. Crop poll in Que: NDP @ 36, BQ 31, Con 17. Libs 13. Those numbers are CRAZY!!!!! Anymore gain and we are looking at an NDP sweep.

Posted

Robert Fife just let the Qu numbers slip in Twitter. Crop poll in Que: NDP @ 36, BQ 31, Con 17. Libs 13. Those numbers are CRAZY!!!!! Anymore gain and we are looking at an NDP sweep.

Excuse me for a moment, but....holy fuck. A mile wide and an inch deep? More like a mile wide and a mile deep.

Posted

The PM is not tantamount to the President, his office does not represent Canada as a nation, his office represents his riding in Calgary, those are the only people his office allows him to speak to or for in any official capacity. If he wants to address the nation as a private citizen that's well and good, but he can't use the office of the PM in such a capacity.

So what you're saying is that:

  1. When JFK met with Diefenbaker he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Saskatchewan?
  2. When Pearson met with LBJ he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Ontario?
  3. When Trudeau met with Nixon and Reagan (not sure if he met with Carter) he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Montreal?
  4. When Mulroney met with Reagan he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Beau Comeau (sp)?
  5. When Clinton golfed with Chretien it was a private affair?

Your point is facially appealing but in practice ridiculous.

What is disingenuous is exactly as I've already stated, apparently you don't understand the fundamentals of Canadian politics or so it would seem your word choice implies. There are no losers in parliament, only the winner in a riding gets a seat, the losers in a riding does not.

No, you don't understand clearly the tradition that the party with the most ridings is asked to form a government.
  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,915
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MDP
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • MDP earned a badge
      First Post
    • DrewZero earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • BlahTheCanuck went up a rank
      Explorer
    • derek848 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Benz earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...