Can Harper beat the odds?

[jacee]

-parliament-s-lack-of-diversity-goes-beyond-race-gender-study/

Interesting that Conservative MP's have more Arts degrees (less science & tech & business) than other parties. I wouldn't have expected that.

.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm wondering if Conservatives are actually excited about the prospect of a Harper re-election.

After all, I still recognize Canada.

[Bryan]

I'm wondering if Conservatives are actually excited about the prospect of a Harper re-election.

After all, I still recognize Canada.

There is real truth to that. Many Conservatives are disappointed that harper has been nowhere near as conservative as we were lead to believe. He's been an improvement over what came before, but the bar was set so low. He's definitely governed way too far to the left for my liking. He's been way too soft, and nowhere near the authoritarian that I was hoping for.

The problem for Liberals (and NDPers) is thinking that disillusioned Conservatives will move even more left if they aren't happy. In protest they might say they would for polls between elections, but that's just not going to happen on the ballots. For the opposition to really replace Harper before he decides to leave on his own, they need to move to right of him.

[jacee]

There is real truth to that. Many Conservatives are disappointed that harper has been nowhere near as conservative as we were lead to believe. He's been an improvement over what came before, but the bar was set so low. He's definitely governed way too far to the left for my liking. He's been way too soft, and nowhere near the authoritarian that I was hoping for.

In what way or on what issue?

And how could you expect Harper to be more authoritarian when he was only elected with support of 25% of the population?

In a democracy, we don't elect dictators. We choose leaders to represent the people, work on behalf of ALL Canadians.

We do not 'have to' do what we're told by an authoritarian leader. We can vote them out, and Harper likely wouldn't have been re-elected.

And democratic leaders always do what will get them re-elected.

.

[Bryan]

In what way or on what issue?

He's left of centre on virtually all policies, just slightly less left than the LPC and NDP.

And how could you expect Harper to be more authoritarian when he was only elected with support of 25% of the population?
In a democracy, we don't elect dictators. We choose leaders to represent the people, work on behalf of ALL Canadians.

We also have campaigns where the leaders tell us what they will do if elected. Why even have that if what the people who DIDN'T vote for you get to veto those promises? Democracy is still fully in force at the next election.

[PIK]

Harper the control freak, sounds a lot like chretien and even trudeau with what he has done so far. Harper the war monger, he has sent 12 or so planes with personal and some SFs, compared to chretien sending us to Afghanistan and martin ratcheting it up even more. The dictator, that sound s a lot more like trudeau himself again. So funny .

[drummindiver]

And how could you expect Harper to be more authoritarian when he was only elected with support of 25% of the population?

In a democracy, we don't elect dictators. We choose leaders to represent the people, work on behalf of ALL Canadians.

.

Harper received 39.6 of the votes. Are you blaming him for the fact that many Canadians are apathetic about voting, one of the greatest responsibilty we have as Canadians? And please, please, don't give me the line that it's because of Harper that ppl are apathetic. Just don't.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

Edited January 3, 2015 by drummindiver

[Keepitsimple]

In what way or on what issue?

And how could you expect Harper to be more authoritarian when he was only elected with support of 25% of the population?

In a democracy, we don't elect dictators. We choose leaders to represent the people, work on behalf of ALL Canadians.

Name the last Prime Minister who was elected with support of more than 35% of the population. Can you name even one?

[eyeball]

People lost faith in our electoral/governing system long before Harper contributed to the vandalism it's suffering from.

[overthere]

the foreign policy lurches trashing Canada's traditional role as peacekeeper,

Please stop saying this, it is completely incorrect.

Canada has participated in peacekeeping missions and will continue in that role.

They have also and will continue to willingly participate in wars in support of our longstanding alliances.

Canada is not and never has been a neutral country. We are not and never have been a 'non-aligned' country.

[eyeball]

A great number of Canadians are blissfully unaware of the massive free ride we have been enjoying for many decades from our well armed and friendly neighbour. .

A great number are just as blissfully unaware of the massive amount of insecurity our well armed neighbour to the south has caused by being too-friendly with the sorts of regimes our grandfathers put their lives on the line fighting.

I don't know what you mean by 'what security means'.

I mean, there is a vast disagreement in how our military spending should be spent, i.e. going off on some offensive halfway around the planet because our stupid allies picked an even stupider fight or...not.

External means the ability to independently protect your own borders with your own forces. We fail miserably at this and have for at least 60 years. Our sole strategy is to enter into alliances that provide for joint defence with allies, mainly NATO. We have all our eggs in this basket. Australia, for example, also has alliances but has far more independent capability. They also spend more on national defence.

Internal security means police, courts and a respected and effective justice system. In spite of all the whining, these work well in Canada. It operates on the basis that if you break the law, you will be found and punished in a consistent way. The other and more important side that means so much to every citizen is that to a large degree we can each live with personal security and will not be persecuted by courts or police. It seems obvious that this is the very foundation of freedom, but you;d never know it by the amount of bitching from supposedly aware people that should know better.

We're obviously talking about completely different things from almost alien perspectives.

[jacee]

He's left of centre on virtually all policies, just slightly less left than the LPC and NDP.

We also have campaigns where the leaders tell us what they will do if elected. Why even have that if what the people who DIDN'T vote for you get to veto those promises? Democracy is still fully in force at the next election.

Democracy is always in force.

Once elected, politicians are accountable to all Canadians.

We pay their salaries ... and expenses.

They work for us.

When they don't, they hear from us.

Democracy isn't an event, it's a process.

.

[jacee]

Harper received 39.6 of the votes. Are you blaming him for the fact that many Canadians are apathetic about voting, one of the greatest responsibilty we have as Canadians?

Nope not blaming, just saying ... only 25% voted for him, but once he's PM he's accountable to all of us.

And please, please, don't give me the line that it's because of Harper that ppl are apathetic. Just don't.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

Nope not saying that.

Just saying Harper now represents all of us.

We pay his salary. He works for us.

We tell him what to do.

It's the opposite of a top down authoritarian system.

.

[jacee]

Name the last Prime Minister who was elected with support of more than 35% of the population. Can you name even one?

Irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many voted for them.

The point was that once they're elected they answer to all of us.

That's why they all become more moderate.

.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

Irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many voted for them.

Once they're elected they answer to all of us.

.

Exactly! Your blathering about 25% support "of the population" was irrelevant.

[jacee]

Exactly! Your blathering about 25% support "of the population" was irrelevant.

I was addressing someone else in context.

Why don't you try it sometime.

.

[Keepitsimple]

I was addressing someone else in context.

Why don't you try it sometime.

.

I keep asking you to stop making stuff up....again and again. You made a big deal that only 25% of the population voted for Harper.....I asked you to name any Prime Minister who had support from more than 35% of the population....and you responded directly to me (not "someone else") by saying:

Irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many voted for them.

[drummindiver]

I keep asking you to stop making stuff up....again and again. You made a big deal that only 25% of the population voted for Harper.....I asked you to name any Prime Minister who had support from more than 35% of the population....and you responded directly to me (not "someone else") by saying:

Irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many voted for them.

I have to agree with Keepitsimple. How can you say in one post only 25% voted for him, then next post state it doesn't matter how many voted for him? And if you are going to state numbers as facts, please get them correct as it does nothing to help your credibility to state random numbers you pluck from the stratosphere.

Of course they answer to all of us. Just realize, that they cannot make all of us happy all of the time.

[poochy]

Irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many voted for them.

The point was that once they're elected they answer to all of us.

That's why they all become more moderate.

.

That's right they answer to all of us, and when they are corrupt or do something illegal we should all demand they answer for it. However, the popular vote red herring is used by the same people that try to turn everything they do into some sort of calamity for the country, when in fact the percentage of votes they won is nothing but normal in Canadian politics. In other words, the tolerance for other ideas on the left seems to be so low that they will make up any ridiculous excuse to call this government illegitimate, like the popular vote, or made up election scams, you do know that most of the rest of us have lived through governments we did not vote for? Those governments then instituted polices that we did not want, but hey, they were left wing policies, progressive policies, which means they are automatically correct right? Guess what it's just the left's turn, once the liberals find a leader with really good hair they will get another shot.

[jacee]

That's right they answer to all of us, and when they are corrupt or do something illegal we should all demand they answer for it. However, the popular vote red herring is used by the same people that try to turn everything they do into some sort of calamity for the country, when in fact the percentage of votes they won is nothing but normal in Canadian politics. In other words, the tolerance for other ideas on the left seems to be so low that they will make up any ridiculous excuse to call this government illegitimate, like the popular vote, or made up election scams,

We don't have to make them up.

you do know that most of the rest of us have lived through governments we did not vote for? Those governments then instituted polices that we did not want, but hey, they were left wing policies, progressive policies, which means they are automatically correct right? Guess what it's just the left's turn, once the liberals find a leader with really good hair they will get another shot.

You think Harper's hair got him elected?

Everybody has a right to complain about government, and I expect you've done your share too.

.

[jacee]

I have to agree with Keepitsimple. How can you say in one post only 25% voted for him, then next post state it doesn't matter how many voted for him?

Because it was tangential to the discussion I was having with someone else.

And if you are going to state numbers as facts, please get them correct as it does nothing to help your credibility to state random numbers you pluck from the stratosphere.

It's correct. About 25% of eligible voters voted Conservative.

Of course they answer to all of us. Just realize, that they cannot make all of us happy all of the time.

Yes that was the point I was making, which you would know if you actually read the original discussion instead of nitpicking isolated bits.

.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

Because it was tangential to the discussion I was having with someone else.

It's correct. About 25% of eligible voters voted Conservative.

Yes that was the point I was making, which you would know if you actually read the original discussion instead of nitpicking isolated bits.

.

Now you're making stuff up to try and hide the fact that you make stuff up.

[drummindiver]

It's correct. About 25% of eligible voters voted Conservative.

Yes that was the point I was making, which you would know if you actually read the original discussion instead of nitpicking isolated bits.

.

"And how could you expect Harper to be more authoritarian when he was only elected with support of 25% of the population?"

So, huge disparity in what you are saying. Again, he received 39.6% of the vote. It's a fact. I posted the fact for you. As usual, left wing, uh, enthusiasts will deny facts when presented.

[PrimeNumber]

Actually if I remember correctly wasn't it under 25% of eligible voters?

[overthere]

A great number are just as blissfully unaware of the massive amount of insecurity our well armed neighbour to the south has caused by being too-friendly with the sorts of regimes our grandfathers put their lives on the line fighting.

But that has not resulted in insecurity for our country, not in any significant way. Or do you feel we are in danger of invasion soon?

Note that our involvement in both world wars had little to do with the US and much to do with a call to arms from a different ally.

I mean, there is a vast disagreement in how our military spending should be spent, i.e. going off on some offensive halfway around the planet because our stupid allies picked an even stupider fight or...not.

Huh? Joining the fight with allies is not an option, unless you are also willing to have an ally not join a fight you are more directly involved with.

Or do you think an aligned country with treaties and alliances (I'm talking about Canada in case you hadn't guessed) can pick and choose and expect your allies not to do that when you are in need? No, you cannot have it both ways.