Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 They run on a platform of Conservatism (big c). That generally means that they'll vote that way, and that reality won them an election. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 They run on a platform of Conservatism (big c). That generally means that they'll vote that way, and that reality won them an election.It's like I was saying in the other thread. When they win with the support of less than 50% of their constituents and the majority of their constituents, according to polls, have an opposing viewpoint, what's the point of representation? It doesn't represent the constituency at all. It represents a very specific interest in the constituency and not even the majority interest. Quote
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 It represents what is, quite obviously the largest interest in the constituency. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 It represents what is, quite obviously the largest interest in the constituency.How so? You were just given an example where it quite clearly didn't. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 It represents what is, quite obviously the largest interest in the constituency. I believe that when you vote for a federal rep you may do so for many reasons; The candidate; Reflects your major concerns. Reflects your position on a major local issue. Is a relative. Is the only name you recognize. Is alphabetically listed first on the list. Belongs to a party which best reflects your views. Is someone you know and might b able to influence. Is a means to defeat someone you do not want to see winning. There are no rules for the reason to vote for somebody. Each is just as valid as any other. It is your vote, you can use it for whatever reason you deem appropriate. The ones who do not vote are generally outsiders who tend to stand on the sidelines and throw **** at those who do and those who vocalize their support of a candidate or party. Any person who gets the OK to run for a particular party signs on to the idea that if it is a whipped vote then they will vote with the party line. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Not sure if this is the right thread but: I copy many news shows and generally fast forward to the political panel discussions and reporter panel discussions. Most of the political panel discussions are strictly talking heads mouthing party pieces which have been fed to them. The only one I really enjoy is on Don Martins CTV Power play (I forget which day) when the panel consists of Megan Leslie (NDP), Roger Cuzner (Liberal) and James Rajotte (Conservative). James was one of the very few Conservatives who voted for the bill to get the government to answer questions during question period – the bill that Calandra voted against. This is the only panel that I have found where the members do not necessarily agree with each other but are all well informed, polite and respectful with each other and are not afraid to question something said or done by their leader. I think if these people led their parties there would be a very different atmosphere in the house and especially during question period. Edited October 2, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 A plurality of the vote is still the largest percentage, even if it isn't a majority percentage. It doesn't matter if it was just one vote, it's still a plurality. Quote
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 So when does trudeau start defending Canada, like he defends islam? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 What does that even mean? Could you cite examples? Quote
Mighty AC Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) A plurality of the vote is still the largest percentage, even if it isn't a majority percentage. It doesn't matter if it was just one vote, it's still a plurality. In the example given the politician, elected with less than 40% of the vote, opposed equal marriage, despite a local poll showing the riding was 60% in favour. Edited October 2, 2014 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Yes on that one issue he is on the side of lower support. But that support is made up of people who voted for parties that people agreed with even less (they're split on too many issues), and so they don't get to represent the constituency. That's why many of us see PR as something that is supported by losers who can't get enough support for their ideas. Quote
Mighty AC Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Yes on that one issue he is on the side of lower support. But that support is made up of people who voted for parties that people agreed with even less (they're split on too many issues), and so they don't get to represent the constituency. That's why many of us see PR as something that is supported by losers who can't get enough support for their ideas. Why do supporters of a national party running in a federal election have to be neighbours to count? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 What does that even mean? Could you cite examples? By not backing the government on Iraq. In other words ,let someone else do it. That is not the canadian way ,that is the liberal way. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Trudeau didn't say that he opposed the mission...but many in Canada view Iraq as a problem created by someone else. I don't, but many do. Quote
guyser Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 By not backing the government on Iraq......equals not defending Canada? <facepalm> Quote
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Trudeau didn't say that he opposed the mission...but many in Canada view Iraq as a problem created by someone else. I don't, but many do. He has said no air force. So that tells me no nothing. So Is he just pandering for votes? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 He's said that Harper hasn't convinced him, and has left the door open to supporting such a mission. Maybe he'll support it after tomorrow. Quote
Black Dog Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 By not backing the government on Iraq. In other words ,let someone else do it. That is not the canadian way ,that is the liberal way. He's not wrong. Quote
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Many strategists say that there is little to be gained by most airstrikes at this point in the game, and that this is where the Iraqi army has to get their ground game on. Quote
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 .....equals not defending Canada? <facepalm> This is one event that we all should be concerned about. Not to be used for votes. Either he is in or not, you can't have it both ways. If it was about boots on the ground OK, but if the air force can help and keep our boots off the ground and help support arab boots on the ground, then he should at least look at it and not just say NO. That is not leadership. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 He's not wrong.Yes he is big time. That is not the canadian way. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Liberal leader Justin Trudeau suggested Wednesday that by limiting Canada’s contribution to the anti-ISIS mission to “a handful of aging warplanes”, Prime Minister Harper was ignoring the fields of humanitarian, diplomatic, and political aid in which Canada could play a far greater role. Aging war planes, no respect . Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Well aren't they? Isn't that the argument for spending billions on planes that don't yet exist? Quote
PIK Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Well aren't they? Isn't that the argument for spending billions on planes that don't yet exist?Yes and that is the Canadian way, we do great thing with old equiptment, but for someone that wants to be a leader should not be saying stuff like that.Like demanding how many SF's we have in Iraq during QP, that is nobodies business, unless behind close doors.Lets tell the enemy what we are doing. Edited October 2, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 Canadian Forces members shouldn't have to do more with less. That's what Harper used to believe anyway. Quote
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.