August1991 Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I happen to think that Harper and Romney are easy to beat, because both are wooden technocrats. They both remind me of the guys bought in to "solve" the problems in Greece and Italy. Guys like Harper, Romney were dealing in 2005, and now they're dealing in 2011. ---- Ann Coulter wants the US right to vote for Romney. Whatever. It remains that Harper and Romney are pathetic representatives of free, modern western thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Who do you like? Edited November 20, 2011 by Charles Anthony deleted re-copied Opening Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 There are no real politicians anywhere in North America right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I happen to think that Harper and Romney are easy to beat, because both are wooden technocrats. Give me a wooden technocrat who is capable, a guy you know where you stand with, over some personable, incompetent weasel any time. You want a guy with charm? Like Ronald Reagan maybe, or George W Bush? Hitler had charisma. Great speaker! Really lit up the crowds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Hitler had charisma. Great speaker! Really lit up the crowds! Really? Come on, Argus. This is horribly inappropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Hitler? Wow, Godwin's law applied in less than 4 posts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Really? Come on, Argus. This is horribly inappropriate. all he said was he had charisma... which he did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 all he said was he had charisma... which he did That wasn't the problem with his post. If you don't see what is, I'm not about to spell it out for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 That wasn't the problem with his post. If you don't see what is, I'm not about to spell it out for you. its the internet who cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 its the internet who cares What does it matter what the medium is? It's a public forum. Why are you making an issue out of it? I found the comment horribly inappropriate. I said my peace. Let's leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Give me a wooden technocrat who is capable, a guy you know where you stand with, over some personable, incompetent weasel any time.You want a guy with charm? Like Ronald Reagan maybe, or George W Bush? Hitler had charisma. Great speaker! Really lit up the crowds! Godwin's Law?I want a woman/guy with charisma, who can do good. I trust the crowds to judge whether the person will do good. At heart, I'm a democrat. ----- Romney and Harper are both boring bean counters. But like Italy, maybe that's what the western world needs now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Godwin's Law? I want a woman/guy with charisma, who can do good. I trust the crowds to judge whether the person will do good. At heart, I'm a democrat. ----- Romney and Harper are both boring bean counters. But like Italy, maybe that's what the western world needs now. The idea of an economist being in charge of ANYTHING is scary as hell quite frankly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Economists are even more divided about their discipline than the climatologists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I want a woman/guy with charisma, who can do good. I trust the crowds to judge whether the person will do good. Probably hard to get, but not impossible. You'd have to be very charismatic and know your stuff. I've been a CP member for 12 years and I can tell you the process to become leader of a party is an uphill battle strife with strategic political maneuvering and all sorts of fun stuff. I guess it's the dream you try to keep alive with a party membership, in hopes you get someone really good. But you have to be good out of the gates. If you're too over the top people will see you as phony. If you're too boring, well you'd better hope the other party candidates have some major faults or just suck. When it comes to politics, you're either inside or outside. I'll add something as well. You need friends in the party to help you to the top. Loyal friends. Watch the NDP leadership race and you'll see people backing certain candidates while others wither away to nothing and throw their support behind someone else. Sometimes loyalty is a burden you have to swallow in the future (I think we are seeing this today). It will be interesting to see who throws their support behind who and if that person wins if they get a kick-back later on. Edited November 24, 2011 by Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Probably hard to get, but not impossible. You'd have to be very charismatic and know your stuff. I've been a CP member for 12 years and I can tell you the process to become leader of a party is an uphill battle strife with strategic political maneuvering and all sorts of fun stuff.I've been involved in the political (and bureaucratic) games too. I agree.I guess it's the dream you try to keep alive with a party membership, in hopes you get someone really good. But you have to be good out of the gates. If you're too over the top people will see you as phony. If you're too boring, well you'd better hope the other party candidates have some major faults or just suck.I wonder whether it's getting harder. That is, if the Internet has made it harder to be a successful politician. I'll add something as well. You need friends in the party to help you to the top. Loyal friends. Watch the NDP leadership race and you'll see people backing certain candidates while others wither away to nothing and throw their support behind someone else. Sometimes loyalty is a burden you have to swallow in the future (I think we are seeing this today). It will be interesting to see who throws their support behind who and if that person wins if they get a kick-back later on.Friends? One can always find exceptions. Pierre Trudeau became federal Liberal leader despite having few if any English friends in the party.Or, how about François Legault or René Lévesque? They created their own party. In a sense, that's what Barack Obama did too. Obama raised over $700 million in 2008 in campaign contributions. The vast majority of this money came from individuals, and about half of that from small donors. People donated and worked for Obama; they didn't work for the Democratic Party. Harper seems to have also used it. The Conservative Party in effect is the Harper party. Internet? I think that this may be a political model for the future. Then again, Harper used the old style, paper mailings (signed Irving Gerstein) to raise his money. ---- The Soviet Union collapsed because "it ran out of money" and we are living in a time when governments in general are "running out of money". We are seeing "government failure". Simultaneously, governments have grown large in terms of regulation, taxes, spending and transfers. There are some things that governments can do. There are other things governments cannot do. IMHO, this is the issue of our age. Yet, faced with this question, it just seems to me that both Harper and Romney are inarticulate and even incompetent leaders/politicians. (Let's add Cameron and Sarkozy to the list although Sarkozy at least is articulate.) These men badly represent people who want to limit and redirect governments and government bureaucracies. ----- I'm reminded of a Milton Friedman quote (that I can't find now). I paraphrase, "We shouldn't hope for good leaders. We should have a political system in place such that even evil leaders have an incentive to do good." Edited November 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 I find it interesting that Harper is heading down the same road as past leaders. You plateau and then fall fast. People get bored of you throw out out and the members in the party begin to look for another leader. I think there is a lot of quiet turmoil under the surface in the CPC. Here in the east, we are all red Tories while out west you have ex-reformers. It doesn't mesh all that well (McKay vs. Harper are an example). For the most part I think MP's go along with the crowd so they don't rock the boat, until the leader becomes undesirable, then they either run for the position, or throw their support behind someone they like. Then you see the lines within the party drawn out (You will see this in the NDP leadership race). I get the feeling Harper is starting to play like Air Canada. Keeping just enough people happy to ensure their survival and not really doing anything ground breaking or revolutionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) I find it interesting that Harper is heading down the same road as past leaders. You plateau and then fall fast.Leaders like Trudeau, De Gaulle, Churchill and Thatcher ultimately won and fell because they said what they think. Even Reagan fell in 1976 but won in 1980.That's not my point. ---- My complaint with Harper/Romney is that they're both incompetent leaders, and inarticulate politicians. They have an important message to deliver in democratic societies at this time. But neither can deliver. We on the Right - people who want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation - are badly served. Bottom line? Like Greece, our governments are going to run out of other people's money soon but Harper and Romney don't have the talent to explain this financial situation to us. In short, they are not leaders like Churchill. Edited November 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 The idea of an economist being in charge of ANYTHING is scary as hell quite frankly. You preferred lawyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 You preferred lawyers? There seems to be little difference. Lawyers and economists both can't agree on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 There seems to be little difference. Lawyers and economists both can't agree on anything. Maybe, but you got to believe people get into economics as a field because they want to learn how an economy works. People go into law because they want to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 You preferred lawyers? Sure... lawyers perform a usefull service. Macro Economists sit in universities and think-tanks their whole lives and try to promote one school of thought over the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Here in the east, we are all red Tories while out west you have ex-reformers. Wrong. Mostly what we have in the West are economic refugees from the East. Note that Alberta has just elected a very red Tory premier........ Sure... lawyers perform a usefull service. Really? Could you explain what it might be?Economists are just accountants, minus their wacky sense of humour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Wrong. Mostly what we have in the West are economic refugees from the East. Note that Alberta has just elected a very red Tory premier........ I meant to say traditionally. After the 1993 election you saw PC's in the East and Reformers in the west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) There seems to be little difference. Lawyers and economists both can't agree on anything.I disagree. Lawyers agree on alot amongst themselves, and so do economists.Maybe, but you got to believe people get into economics as a field because they want to learn how an economy works.People go into law because they want to make money. Most people study economics as part of a business programme. IOW, they want to make money. And come to think of it, most people choose an occupation - even actors - with at least a glance at the potential money.----- Lawyers are largely involved in putting together deals. In contract law, it's the terms of the deal. In property law, it's the definition of what you are giving up, or getting. So, lawyers are advisors to people involved in deals. Lawyers (or people attracted to become a lawyer) are natural politicians. Politics is the art of the possible: it's about getting people of different viewpoints to do a deal together. In addition, lawyers (like university professors) can easily take a leave of absence. Even better, lawyers can promote their political career while continuing their legal business. ---- According to Wikipedia, Mitt Romney went to Harvard Law/Business schools (in a combined MBA programme) but I don't know if he ever passed the bar exams. Harper has an MA in Economics from the Univ of Calgary. BTW, Romney is about one year older than Bush Jnr. Harper is over 10 years younger, about the same age as Obama. All 4 of these men are tall, over 6 foot. IMHO, Obama is the best speaker of the lot. Bush Jnr is second - because he learned from his father (Bush Snr) how important it is for a politician to speak to people in a way that they will understand. Mitt never learned this from his father, and Harper's father was an accountant for Imperial Oil living in Leaside/Etobicoke. Returning to my OP, we in the West are badly served with this crop of politician. Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Economists are just accountants, minus their wacky sense of humour. Economics and accounting are two very different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.