Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Of course I would. I would prefer a perpetual Reform rule, but not much hope there.... Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Of course I would. I would prefer a perpetual Reform rule, but not much hope there.... So this whole democracy thing, it's not really your bag. Yeah, we shouldn't have competing parties, we should have one dominant party that always wins no matter what, because, you know, that leads to really great government. It strikes me as near-universal truth that extremist partisans at both ends of the spectrum in fact have a deep distrust of democracy. That comes from a near-religious belief that your party is not only always right, but has some sacred right to rule that democracy interferes with. Well, I'm hoping that we get electoral reform, so that no party ever can actually gain a majority of seats, and is always forced to work with other parties to form a government. I hope we're seeing the end of the "elect your dictator" phase of Canadian politics. Quote
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 My, my aren't you the self righteous one. So now I'm an "extremist" because I don't agree with your vision of government? Hmm....now where have I heard THAT type of garbage before??? Oh yeah - a particular ex-teacher that posts here. Maybe you two could just design the government and all it's policies and let the rest of us know how things will done from now on? Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 My, my aren't you the self righteous one. So now I'm an "extremist" because I don't agree with your vision of government? Hmm....now where have I heard THAT type of garbage before??? Oh yeah - a particular ex-teacher that posts here. Maybe you two could just design the government and all it's policies and let the rest of us know how things will done from now on? You're an extremist because you don't believe in democracy, unless it delivers you only the answer you want. You've said as much. Anyone who believes only one party should win every election is someone who despises what democracy really is. Quote
Smeelious Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 It's a truth universally acknowledged that governments that are in power too long become corrupt, or lazy, or both. Then what happens? People get annoyed enough to vote for the NDP in Alberta. Anyway, having any one party in power too long is bad, Especially with the joke that is the Senate. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 It's a truth universally acknowledged that governments that are in power too long become corrupt, or lazy, or both. Then what happens? People get annoyed enough to vote for the NDP in Alberta. Anyway, having any one party in power too long is bad, Especially with the joke that is the Senate. What else could the Senate be? It has no democratic legitimacy, and was designed specifically as a house of sober second thought that rarely if ever outright opposed legislation. It's supposed to be a check on power, not an actual source of power. Quote
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 You're an extremist because you don't believe in democracy, unless it delivers you only the answer you want. You've said as much. Anyone who believes only one party should win every election is someone who despises what democracy really is. How do you figure that I don't believe in democracy? Did I say that I want "my team" to win without a vote? No, I didn't. I definitely believe in perpetually blocking left-leaning principles from taking over Canada, and the only way to reduce that chance is to vote for whatever party leans my direction - exactly the same thing that every other Canadian is doing in another week. By you're own definition, anyone who votes for a party is an extremist because...damn it...no one's team should ever win. That's just against democracy. Your use of labeling for anyone who disagrees with you is pitiful. Truly pitiful. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 How do you figure that I don't believe in democracy? Did I say that I want "my team" to win without a vote? No, I didn't. I definitely believe in perpetually blocking left-leaning principles from taking over Canada, and the only way to reduce that chance is to vote for whatever party leans my direction - exactly the same thing that every other Canadian is doing in another week. By you're own definition, anyone who votes for a party is an extremist because...damn it...no one's team should ever win. That's just against democracy. Your use of labeling for anyone who disagrees with you is pitiful. Truly pitiful. No, by my definition who wants to block other parties from winning is an extremist. In democracy, voters deserve choice, and not choice designed specifically to make sure they have none. Quote
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 No, by my definition who wants to block other parties from winning is an extremist. So anyone considering strategic voting is an extremist then - your definition not mine. Correct? Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 So anyone considering strategic voting is an extremist then - your definition not mine. Correct? How does that follow? They want another party to form government. That, to me, is the point of elections, not simply to be re-coronations for the party you support. Hey, it's not my fault you wish to suppress the will of 2/3s of voters because of your bizarre dedication to a mere political party. But since this is the system we have, ousting governments may mean having to vote for the best means to get rid of them. If we had another voting system, none of this would be necessary. Quote
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 You said anyone voting to block a party is an extremist. Strategic voting (in this case) is strictly to block the Conservatives. Hence, "extremist". Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
Wilber Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 The thing about voting for "anyone but" is you have to be happy with the "anyone" you end up getting. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) ...you have to be happy with the "anyone" you end up getting. I wonder how many people doing the ABC thing have truly thought about that. When the NDP were leading, supporters were slamming the Liberals, and now they are apparently supporting them. How convenient. edit->sp Edited October 13, 2015 by Hydraboss Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
Evening Star Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 The thing about voting for "anyone but" is you have to be happy with the "anyone" you end up getting. I'm generally not an 'anyone but' voter but I think the basic premise is that one option is so bad that any of the others would be less bad, even if they don't quite make you happy. Even if you end up voting out your 'anyone' in four years, you have avoided something that you consider terrible. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 The thing about voting for "anyone but" is you have to be happy with the "anyone" you end up getting. I always do anyway. And I have not been happy with "anyone" for the past 3 elections. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I wonder how many people doing the ABC thing have truly thought about that. When the NDP were leading, supporters were slamming the Liberals, and now they are apparently supporting them. How convenient. edit->sp If ABC is an influencing factor (and I think some of the riding polls, particular in Ontario suggest it is a factor), the issue no longer is "who am I happiest with", but rather "who do I want to see gone." I'm sure many NDPers who are now switching their votes will regret voting Liberal in time. The Liberals are masters of campaigning from the Left and governing from the Right, but at this point the mood is so toxic to the Tories that I think even more informed NDP voters are willing to take their chances. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 If ABC is an influencing factor (and I think some of the riding polls, particular in Ontario suggest it is a factor), the issue no longer is "who am I happiest with", but rather "who do I want to see gone." I'm sure many NDPers who are now switching their votes will regret voting Liberal in time. The Liberals are masters of campaigning from the Left and governing from the Right, but at this point the mood is so toxic to the Tories that I think even more informed NDP voters are willing to take their chances. I would say that would be true only if the LIbs get a majority or a very strong minority. If they get something in the 130-140 seat range, they will have to work with someone and Trudeau has been adamant it won't be any party led by Harper. In the fullness of time, it might be possible for Trudeau to work with the Cons once Harper has left and there is a decent interval to let people forget. In the beginning, though, he will have to make nice with the NDP. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 ...he will have to make nice with the NDP. No, I don't think he would. If that scenario played out, Justin would simply govern like he had a majority since the NDP are too broke to go to another election. Of course, so are the Liberals. The NDP would gripe loudly about everything, but ensure that just enough of their MPs vote to support the Liberals. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
ReeferMadness Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Just how desperate can the Conservatives get? This nutter claims the Liberals will "mandate brothels". WINGNUTS!! GET YOUR WINGNUTS HERE!! CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN!!! Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 No, I don't think he would. If that scenario played out, Justin would simply govern like he had a majority since the NDP are too broke to go to another election. Of course, so are the Liberals. The NDP would gripe loudly about everything, but ensure that just enough of their MPs vote to support the Liberals. The Tories certainly have created a situation that invites a stable coalition, at least for a couple of years. If the parties were still flush with cash, which would have happened in a traditional 30 day campaign, the Liberals and NDP might have been more likely to scrap with each other, but now they're in a Mexican standoff that means they'll have to play nice, and will shut the Tories out. It's looking like Harper's 70-odd day election was as much a miscalculation as Prentice's going to an early election. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Just how desperate can the Conservatives get? This nutter claims the Liberals will "mandate brothels". WINGNUTS!! GET YOUR WINGNUTS HERE!! CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN!!! I'm hoping the Liberals do. Forcing prostitutes on to the street has produced nothing but misery, and worse. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I'm hoping the Liberals do. Forcing prostitutes on to the street has produced nothing but misery, and worse. I would like to see legalized, regulated prostitution as well - but I don't think that was anywhere in the LIberal platform. And more to the point, legalizing is not the same as "mandating". This guy is out of his gourd. The Conservatives sound more and more like Republicans of the north. Edited October 13, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Hydraboss Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) It's looking like Harper's 70-odd day election was as much a miscalculation as Prentice's going to an early election. If the CPC get a minority, any minority, I think his overly long campaign will work in his favor. If the LPC and NDP refuse to create a formal coalition and yet still take down the CPC at the throne speech, whichever one does it will be "to blame" for another election in the eyes of huge portion of the electorate IMO. I doubt many people understand the abilities of the GG and I also doubt that he would refuse the request for another election if the CPC minority were taken down, so it would be off to the election again and only one party would have the money to do so. edit-> And I really believe that Harper was planning for the likelihood of this exact thing happening when he dropped the writ. If he were to get another majority, then who cares how long the campaign was. If he were to be reduced to a minority.....see above. Prentice made mistakes that shot himself square in the forehead. Edited October 13, 2015 by Hydraboss Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 If the CPC get a minority, any minority, I think his overly long campaign will work in his favor. If the LPC and NDP refuse to create a formal coalition and yet still take down the CPC at the throne speech, whichever one does it will be "to blame" for another election in the eyes of huge portion of the electorate IMO. I doubt many people understand the abilities of the GG and I also doubt that he would refuse the request for another election if the CPC minority were taken down, so it would be off to the election again and only one party would have the money to do so. Prentice made mistakes that shot himself square in the forehead. For the Opposition to take down a Liberal minority, they're going to need to demonstrate to the Governor General that Parliament can supply a stable government. In other words, if they take down a minority Tory government, it's because they've worked out some sort of governing agreement (likely a confidence and supply agreement, not likely a full coalition), and thus the Tories will be dumped, and another government will be sworn in, all without an election. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 For the Opposition to take down a Liberal minority, they're going to need to demonstrate to the Governor General that Parliament can supply a stable government. In other words, if they take down a minority Tory government, it's because they've worked out some sort of governing agreement (likely a confidence and supply agreement, not likely a full coalition), and thus the Tories will be dumped, and another government will be sworn in, all without an election. Doesn't it depend on how long it's been since the last election? Harper could easily drag his feet on the throne speech and delay it well into 2016. Who knows what could happen between now and then? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
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.