Why I Won't Vote NDP

[waldo]

I don't think I'll vote NDP either, even though I'd like to see them win. I live in a traditionally Liberal riding that swings Conservative. It's never been NDP and, judging from the current lawn sign distribution, won't be this time either. If I am serious in my desire for this government to be sent packing, I have no choice but to grit my teeth and vote Liberal.

STRRRRAAATTTTEEEEEGGGIIICCCVoting!

[socialist]

He'd be better than the out-of-touch failure we have now.

There is no way he would be better. He has no clue.

[BubberMiley]

Mulcair would be best but either would be better than Harper.

[Argus]

Mulcair would be best but either would be better than Harper.

I might choose Mulcair over Harper for a change. I would not, however, choose the NDP over the Tories.

[PrimeNumber]

When a NDP candidate comes knocking on your door, the first and only question that needs to be asked is “When will the $2.7 million be paid back to the hard working taxpayers?”. If he doesn’t turn and run and starts to lie his/her out of it, remind him of trespass laws.

Libertarians will never have a sitting MP let alone form a government over the next decade. So go ahead and vote for them.

[waldo]

I might choose Mulcair over Harper for a change. I would not, however, choose the NDP over the Tories.

ahhhh... we have your toes in the darkside now... a lil' farther now... keep coming... keep coming!

[WIP]

I don't consider myself a socialist anymore. After much deliberation and self-reflection I see socialism as

a system that rewards the lazy and unambitious. I know many people who have converted. Some of you are stuck in the lie of believing everything you hear from sources such as the CBC. That used to be also, so don't fel bad. You simply need to reevaluate the situation.

I've asked you on another revived thread for your reasons behind your changed worldview.

For my part, I followed the prevailing wisdom of the mid-70's to 2000 that socialism failed and even liberal Keynsianism caused economic stagnation in the 70's. Then economic booms that generally improved economies starting in mid-80's was proof that the hands-off policies of non-involvement from government except for tax cuts, was the best way to manage economies. Much later I learned that the big part of the 70's stagnation was the sharp rise in oil prices when the OPEC Cartel gained effective control of international oil markets. Then the resulting flourishing of new oil developments outside of OPEC led to the North Sea oil coming online, Mexico and Russia becoming major international non-OPEC exporters of oil, and sure enough....oil prices fell dramatically in the 80's just in time for Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie Rayguns and other conservative cretins to take credit for the new blood flowing through their economies.

And what's happened in more recent years? Well, back when I was in high school, I read the dire warnings about uncontrolled economic and population growth were going to have when we would start reaching the end of nature's limits. The problem back then, was that the first line of Cassandras assumed logic would prevail and everything would gradually wind down for the next 30 to 50 years (according to the Limits to Growth Summit Report). But, what actually happened was that scarcities led to the drive to squeeze more and more ketchup out of the bottles! So, we've had economic booms that since the 80's can't match the economic losses of the declines. And as the situation today gets more desperate, business leaders (especially in oil) show themselves to be essentially psychopaths and politicians play along, even (in the case of the US) using military forces to leverage trade terms and expanding Neocolonialism to extract the wealth from more and more nations. This latest turn in (full spectrum dominance) makes our time more dangerous than any time during the Cold War.

And if I consider what I've learned over the last 10 or 15 years with the other big threat - abrupt climate change, I'm more radical leftist now than I ever was in my youth! Because I don't see any choice anymore. It's not about which system will provide the best living standards; it's about which system has a chance of restoring sanity in the world: one of winner take all/might equals right OR let's provide the basic essentials to people and reduce our collective demand on our Earth's carrying capacity.....which was mentioned by someone else earlier as our overshooting of planetary resources put us past Earth Overshoot Day a few days ago already.

If I try to relate this to our political drama: I am likely an unenthusiastic NDP supporter (unlike my youth) because the problem of Linda McQuaig in Toronto saying the truth about tarsands, has revealed the two-faced nature of the federal NDP on environment issues. The NDP is trying to have it both ways....keep their newfound Alberta constituency onboard and wear green when climate change and environment are the topic of conversation. But, as I've said before....like many other Canadians, Harper is so toxic that he and his new Conservative Party have to go.....even if it means gambling on whatever Justin Trudeau would lead us into.

[socialist]

Libertarians will never have a sitting MP let alone form a government over the next decade. So go ahead and vote for them.

I will. Too bad 98% of Canadians aren't wise enough to study their platform.

[socialist]

I've asked you on another revived thread for your reasons behind your changed worldview.

For my part, I followed the prevailing wisdom of the mid-70's to 2000 that socialism failed and even liberal Keynsianism caused economic stagnation in the 70's. Then economic booms that generally improved economies starting in mid-80's was proof that the hands-off policies of non-involvement from government except for tax cuts, was the best way to manage economies. Much later I learned that the big part of the 70's stagnation was the sharp rise in oil prices when the OPEC Cartel gained effective control of international oil markets. Then the resulting flourishing of new oil developments outside of OPEC led to the North Sea oil coming online, Mexico and Russia becoming major international non-OPEC exporters of oil, and sure enough....oil prices fell dramatically in the 80's just in time for Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie Rayguns and other conservative cretins to take credit for the new blood flowing through their economies.

And what's happened in more recent years? Well, back when I was in high school, I read the dire warnings about uncontrolled economic and population growth were going to have when we would start reaching the end of nature's limits. The problem back then, was that the first line of Cassandras assumed logic would prevail and everything would gradually wind down for the next 30 to 50 years (according to the Limits to Growth Summit Report). But, what actually happened was that scarcities led to the drive to squeeze more and more ketchup out of the bottles! So, we've had economic booms that since the 80's can't match the economic losses of the declines. And as the situation today gets more desperate, business leaders (especially in oil) show themselves to be essentially psychopaths and politicians play along, even (in the case of the US) using military forces to leverage trade terms and expanding Neocolonialism to extract the wealth from more and more nations. This latest turn in (full spectrum dominance) makes our time more dangerous than any time during the Cold War.

And if I consider what I've learned over the last 10 or 15 years with the other big threat - abrupt climate change, I'm more radical leftist now than I ever was in my youth! Because I don't see any choice anymore. It's not about which system will provide the best living standards; it's about which system has a chance of restoring sanity in the world: one of winner take all/might equals right OR let's provide the basic essentials to people and reduce our collective demand on our Earth's carrying capacity.....which was mentioned by someone else earlier as our overshooting of planetary resources put us past Earth Overshoot Day a few days ago already.

If I try to relate this to our political drama: I am likely an unenthusiastic NDP supporter (unlike my youth) because the problem of Linda McQuaig in Toronto saying the truth about tarsands, has revealed the two-faced nature of the federal NDP on environment issues. The NDP is trying to have it both ways....keep their newfound Alberta constituency onboard and wear green when climate change and environment are the topic of conversation. But, as I've said before....like many other Canadians, Harper is so toxic that he and his new Conservative Party have to go.....even if it means gambling on whatever Justin Trudeau would lead us into.

That's your view, and I'm thankful I don't share it with you.

Now how would you go about reducing our "collective" demand on earth's resources? I'm interested.

[PrimeNumber]

I will. Too bad 98% of Canadians aren't wise enough to study their platform.

I have it's actually quite terrible. It relies on the idea that Corporations will actually have any interest in your well being after most if not all government power over them is reduced and that ultimately the courts, in a country ruled by Corporations, would be free of a corruption to side with you in the case of that happening.

[socialist]

I have it's actually quite terrible. It relies on the idea that Corporations will actually have any interest in your well being after most if not all government power over them is reduced and that ultimately the courts, in a country ruled by Corporations, would be free of a corruption to side with you in the case of that happening.

Mulcair will do and say anything to get power and the PM job. Don't fall for his crap - closet separatist at the least and a power hungry incompetent to say the best. He will go the way the wind blows if it's to his advantage.

This claim that the NDP attempt to repeal the Clarity Act is somehow intended to *strengthen* separatism is an outright lie. William Johnson has it right: French citizen Thomas Mulcair is knowingly and deliberately weakening federalism in order to get separatist votes.

Obviously Mulcair is pandering to the separatists and doesn't care one iota about Canada!

Vote NDP and destroy Canada!

[socialist]

I don't think I'll vote NDP either, even though I'd like to see them win. I live in a traditionally Liberal riding that swings Conservative. It's never been NDP and, judging from the current lawn sign distribution, won't be this time either. If I am serious in my desire for this government to be sent packing, I have no choice but to grit my teeth and vote Liberal.

It is disingenuous for the NDP to claim that the Liberals are playing games when it has been Mulcair who injected it into the campaign as an election issue.

.

Mulcair seems desperate to get into power and ready to throw anything and everything into the mix if it gets him a few more seats.

The more I see of Mr Mulcair the less I like or respect him.

[WIP]

That's your view, and I'm thankful I don't share it with you.

Now how would you go about reducing our "collective" demand on earth's resources? I'm interested.

Start by putting an end to subsidizing the oil industry through capital cost depreciation allowances on oil and gas wells....same with other mined resources. Those tax loopholes were intended for buildings, machinery and other things that are actually built or purchased by the business that have to be maintained or replaced. They should NEVER have been extended for natural resources discovered/not created by the business and deplete for the simple reason that they are nonrenewable! If it wasn't for such loopholes, growth capitalists are going to claim that economic growth over the years would have never reached today's levels, but so what! Now we are in a situation where our industrial output worldwide is more than a 100 times what it was at the turn of the 20th century, and looking for new fossil fuel resources to exploit has carried on faster and faster until we have hit a point where the cheap, easy stuff is almost gone, and the oil developers are trying to blackmail us into financing their continued development of the dirtiest, most ecologically destructive carbon that's left on the planet!

And if all of the props keeping petroleum at artificially low costs were removed (especially allowing industry and commerce to offload their environmental costs on the public commons), we would have already been transitioning to renewable energy sources years ago. Sure, more expensive energy has a dampening effect on economic activity, but that is an inevitability no matter how you slice it (I just wish the renewables boosters were more up front about that fact), and we are going to have to deal with slower....much slower economic growth worldwide in the coming years.

When economists and policy planners 40 years ago were faced with the bad news about upward trends in population growth and resource costs, their response was to apply all of the "innovations and new technologies" to squeeze more resources from the earth....including fresh water....now, we are at a point in time when the only choices on how to live in a more finite world are to either scale back our demands drastically or have huge wars that literally kill off billions of people to start over again! The present global policy initiatives coming out of Washington these days indicate that the US is becoming more and more aggressive and pushing towards that total war option. That's why we have to keep in mind that, for the most part, we are ruled by psychopaths who will risk anything to achieve their objectives!

On the subject of economic growth, NO political leader of any party is going to be honest about the present global situation (assuming they're all aware of it) because success or failure at the polls depends on promising voters that Canada....a now almost completely dependent on resource exports economy....will somehow skate by all of the stalling and collapsing economies around us...including the US and China. US politicians are telling their people also that they will not be affected by the economic collapse unfolding in China....let's see about that next year! A blogger I've checked in on on a weekly basis for several years - Dave Cohen: Decline of the Empire, has a handy short essay on the vanishing of China's economic miracle and how it is already affecting major economies around the world....with handy hypertext links. So, if you're going to vote for the party that will restore economic growth in Canada.....stay home on election day!

Edited August 16, 2015 by WIP

[Argus]

Start by putting an end to subsidizing the oil industry through capital cost depreciation allowances on oil and gas wells....same with other mined resources. Those tax loopholes were intended for buildings, machinery and other things that are actually built or purchased by the business that have to be maintained or replaced.

They're for depreciating assets, which oil wells and mines are. They aren't exactly free to set up either. What you're demanding is the natural resources industries be penalized because... because... uh, you don't like them.

And if all of the props keeping petroleum at artificially low costs were removed (especially allowing industry and commerce to offload their environmental costs on the public commons), we would have already been transitioning to renewable energy sources years ago. Sure, more expensive energy has a dampening effect on economic activity, but that is an inevitability no matter how you slice it

Well, I can see how this would make oil and gas more expensive. I'm a little confused about how it would make renewables any cheaper, though. And I think you're kind of glossing over that bit about the economic downturn we get with more expensive power. You're also ignoring that power is already so expensive in Ontario due to its zealous pursuit of green energy that many people are having a hard time affording to pay their bills. Do you WANT a lot of freezing old people sitting in the dark?

No, as technology improves, the cost of renewable energy will decline. When it is affordable, we'll switch to it in greater numbers, and not before.

[socialist]

I've asked you on another revived thread for your reasons behind your changed worldview.

For my part, I followed the prevailing wisdom of the mid-70's to 2000 that socialism failed and even liberal Keynsianism caused economic stagnation in the 70's. Then economic booms that generally improved economies starting in mid-80's was proof that the hands-off policies of non-involvement from government except for tax cuts, was the best way to manage economies. Much later I learned that the big part of the 70's stagnation was the sharp rise in oil prices when the OPEC Cartel gained effective control of international oil markets. Then the resulting flourishing of new oil developments outside of OPEC led to the North Sea oil coming online, Mexico and Russia becoming major international non-OPEC exporters of oil, and sure enough....oil prices fell dramatically in the 80's just in time for Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie Rayguns and other conservative cretins to take credit for the new blood flowing through their economies.

And what's happened in more recent years? Well, back when I was in high school, I read the dire warnings about uncontrolled economic and population growth were going to have when we would start reaching the end of nature's limits. The problem back then, was that the first line of Cassandras assumed logic would prevail and everything would gradually wind down for the next 30 to 50 years (according to the Limits to Growth Summit Report). But, what actually happened was that scarcities led to the drive to squeeze more and more ketchup out of the bottles! So, we've had economic booms that since the 80's can't match the economic losses of the declines. And as the situation today gets more desperate, business leaders (especially in oil) show themselves to be essentially psychopaths and politicians play along, even (in the case of the US) using military forces to leverage trade terms and expanding Neocolonialism to extract the wealth from more and more nations. This latest turn in (full spectrum dominance) makes our time more dangerous than any time during the Cold War.

And if I consider what I've learned over the last 10 or 15 years with the other big threat - abrupt climate change, I'm more radical leftist now than I ever was in my youth! Because I don't see any choice anymore. It's not about which system will provide the best living standards; it's about which system has a chance of restoring sanity in the world: one of winner take all/might equals right OR let's provide the basic essentials to people and reduce our collective demand on our Earth's carrying capacity.....which was mentioned by someone else earlier as our overshooting of planetary resources put us past Earth Overshoot Day a few days ago already.

If I try to relate this to our political drama: I am likely an unenthusiastic NDP supporter (unlike my youth) because the problem of Linda McQuaig in Toronto saying the truth about tarsands, has revealed the two-faced nature of the federal NDP on environment issues. The NDP is trying to have it both ways....keep their newfound Alberta constituency onboard and wear green when climate change and environment are the topic of conversation. But, as I've said before....like many other Canadians, Harper is so toxic that he and his new Conservative Party have to go.....even if it means gambling on whatever Justin Trudeau would lead us into.

It's the carbon reduction targets which are of importance.

I believe that especially Mulcair is willing to set very high carbon reduction targets come the Paris meeting. That would mean that under such high target setting, the Oilsands may in fact be shut down, because Mulcair has said that the oilsands depend on what carbon reduction targets MUST be met.

So, let's find out what target setting Mulcair (and Justin) actually have in mind.

[August1991]

STRRRRAAATTTTEEEEEGGGIIICCCVoting!

Waldo, you make the mistake of believing that non-Conservative voters will vote NDP, or anybody other than Harper.

IOW, voters hate Harper more than they fear the NDP. (Sorry, but if people had liked the NDP - they would have said so and voted for them in the past...)

=====

In fact, the non-PC/Harper, non-NDP, not decided vote will divide in a way that is possibly in favour of Harper.

Harper wants a CPC vs NDP face-off for this very reason.

Edited August 17, 2015 by August1991

[waldo]

Waldo, you make the mistake of believing that non-Conservative voters will vote NDP, or anybody other than Harper.

clearly you don't know/understand what strategic voting is... it's what the AnyoneButConservative voter will should do to ensure their individual vote, in their individual riding, has the most ABC impact.

[socialist]

clearly you don't know/understand what strategic voting is... it's what the AnyoneButConservative voter will should do to ensure their individual vote, in their individual riding, has the most ABC impact.

It worked wonderfully in 2011.

[August1991]

clearly you don't know/understand what strategic voting is... it's what the AnyoneButConservative voter will should do to ensure their individual vote, in their individual riding, has the most ABC impact.

IOW, Waldo, you believe that if someone doesn't vote Conservative, the person will necessarily vote for any other non-Conservative party.

Waldo, if you lived in France, you would believe that Socialists would always win the Second Round.

=====

In a second tour run off between Harper and the NDP, Harper is betting that he'd win. Since Canada doesn't have two tours, Harper is creating a second tour in this late federal election.

It's Harper or the NDP. Take your pick.

[PrimeNumber]

Mulcair will do and say anything to get power and the PM job. Don't fall for his crap - closet separatist at the least and a power hungry incompetent to say the best. He will go the way the wind blows if it's to his advantage.

This claim that the NDP attempt to repeal the Clarity Act is somehow intended to *strengthen* separatism is an outright lie. William Johnson has it right: French citizen Thomas Mulcair is knowingly and deliberately weakening federalism in order to get separatist votes.

Obviously Mulcair is pandering to the separatists and doesn't care one iota about Canada!

Vote NDP and destroy Canada!

I think Quebec is free to leave and take their debt with them anytime they would like. No skin off my back.

As for how terrible the Libertarian party platform is...

[waldo]

IOW, Waldo, you believe that if someone doesn't vote Conservative, the person will necessarily vote for any other non-Conservative party.

powerful logic there! Either that or don't vote... or spoil your vote! Again, you don't understand what strategic voting is! It's most certainly not a difficult concept. Again, if one is inclined to vote for AnyoneButConservative (ABC), and is thinking strategically (you know in this "Strategic Voting" context), and wants to maximum their voting impact to best realize ABC... they will vote for the party with the best chance to beat the Conservative candidate in their riding.

[August1991]

Again, you don't understand what strategic voting is...

"Strategic voting"? Waldo you're playing checkers while others are playing chess.

IOW Waldo, you miss the whole point of voting in the US, France or two-tier voting in general.

In two-tier voting, there's a first selection/vote and then a second choice where voters choose among survivors. (The US and France use this system.)

Harper has created two-tier voting in Canada. But he's jumped to the second tier: it's him, or the NDP.

Edited August 17, 2015 by August1991

[BC_chick]

"Strategic voting"? Waldo you're playing checkers while others are playing chess.

IOW Waldo, you miss the whole point of voting in the US, France or two-tier voting in general.

In two-tier voting, there's a first selection/vote and then a second choice where voters choose among survivors. (The US and France use this system.)

Harper has created two-tier voting in Canada. He's jumped to the second tier: it's him, or the NDP.

Well, this is not the US or France. Strategic voting is still very much a thing in Canada.

[August1991]

Well, this is not the US or France. Strategic voting is still very much a thing in Canada.

Really? Across Canada, and it's still early, the choice is between Harper and the NDP. (A Liberal vote, talk of coalition, just means the NDP.)

Canadians are facing a second tour: Harper or the NDP.

=======

Call me crazy but I think Canadians may go orange. Why? Call me crazy again but when history looks back on 2015, it will be because historically, Canadians (people in Ontario) prefer a federal party that has votes "across" the country.

[WIP]

It's the carbon reduction targets which are of importance.

I believe that especially Mulcair is willing to set very high carbon reduction targets come the Paris meeting. That would mean that under such high target setting, the Oilsands may in fact be shut down, because Mulcair has said that the oilsands depend on what carbon reduction targets MUST be met.

So, let's find out what target setting Mulcair (and Justin) actually have in mind.

Mulcair and Trudeau will try to weasle out of those carbon reduction targets....as will every other western leader...just like they've done other time so far. Elizabeth May is the only one who would stop Tar Sands, but the Green Party's not going to form a government.

Shutting down the tar sands seems like it will be accomplished by those same market forces you've become a fan of lately, since collapsing world economies are going to suppress oil prices for the next few years, and keep them below levels where tar sands exploitation is profitable.