2015 Endorsements

[GostHacked]

Even a former Harper lawyer is seeing the change in wind direction:

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/18/harper-has-lost-moral-authority-to-govern-ex-pmo-lawyer-says.html

Why would he wait until the last minute?

Could look at it as being opportunistic. Or needing to disassociate himself with the Conservatives in order to propel his political career. Whatever that may be.

[cybercoma]

He's such an LPC partisan that he's voting NDP.

I'm such an NDP partisan that I'm voting Green.

[dialamah]

Look at the treatment of non-natives living on reserve land as it is. As a general rule non-natives are subject to taxes/rents levied by the band but are not entitled to vote for the band councils that set those rates. More onerous is the aboriginal groups see these levies as a revenue source as opposed to a way to collect the minimum amount of funds to provide services as is the norm for municipalities. Comparisons to apartheid or feudalism are not unreasonable here.

Ok, so you have no actual source for the claim that there's some kind of racism going on that Trudeau supports?

I tried googling apartheid state native aboriginal and other keywords, and just got a bunch of heartbreaking stories about natives' actual living conditions on reserves, and in particular the sorry state of the kids - who are 5 times more likely to commit suicide.

Comparisons to apartheid or feudalism are not unreasonable here.

Agreed, but I think it's more accurate the other way around.

Aboriginals are also very resistant to giving up the tax exemptions which are a clearly racist policy inherited from days when racism was the norm.

Maybe when native kids aren't growing up in poverty and committing suicide we can claim that 'racism' isn't the norm.

There's a lot wrong in the aboriginal communities both on and off reserve, but this particular claim really sounds like another case of "whiny white man". So, unless you have some actual, real proof that the white people in Canada are suffering some significant harm from some on-reserve policies, I'm going to assume that's what it is.

Thanks for responding to my question, but I think we're drifting too far off-topic, so before someone comes along and reminds us not to drift, I'm out.

[Smallc]

I'm such an NDP partisan that I'm voting Green.

I'm such a Conservative partisan that I voted Liberal.

[cybercoma]

I'm such a Conservative partisan that I voted Liberal.

You're hurting for the old progressive conservatives.

[Smallc]

You're hurting for the old progressive conservatives.

I was too young to remember much about them, though I was paying attention to politics at the time. I started paying attention to politics during the 1999 Manitoba election when I was 10.

[Evening Star]

He's such an LPC partisan that he's voting NDP.

Wow, I'd love to hear his explanation of this. I'm starting to wonder if he just supports third parties on principle.

[TimG]

Ok, so you have no actual source for the claim that there's some kind of racism going on that Trudeau supports?

Any politician that argues that the responsibility for the failure to address the various problems rests entirely with government and that the aboriginal groups have no blame is effectively endorsing the racist policies demanded by aboriginals.

I tried googling apartheid state native aboriginal and other keywords, and just got a bunch of heartbreaking stories...

So what? The issue is the "solutions" demanded by aboriginal groups are effectively apartheid because they would disenfranchise Canadians who live on land given to native bands as part of any settlement. This makes it next to impossible for politicians to agree to such settlements. Remember that two wrongs do not make a right and trying fix the serious social problems by entrenching an inherently immoral governance model is not justice.

So, unless you have some actual, real proof that the white people in Canada are suffering some significant harm from some on-reserve policies, I'm going to assume that's what it is.

You don't understand what racism is then. A policy is racist if the policy discriminates against people based on their race. It does not require that significant harm be demonstrated. All that needs to be shown is harm could occur. Edited October 19, 2015 by TimG

[Evening Star]

Wow, I'd love to hear his explanation of this. I'm starting to wonder if he just supports third parties on principle.

Oh, I could see C-51 being the reason.

[Smallc]

Wow, I'd love to hear his explanation of this.

Especially considering the democratic reform package that the Liberals are proposing. I was thinking that would be exactly something that he could get behind.

[Scotty]

I did...he proved me wrong.

By reading from whatever his script said?

[Scotty]

And perhaps we can regain at least some semblance of our previous levels of respect in the global community.

Your belief that we have lost respect is not born out by any evidence. Did France lose respect in the global community when it outright banned the niqab?

[Evening Star]

Especially considering the democratic reform package that the Liberals are proposing. I was thinking that would be exactly something that he could get behind.

Yeah, same here.

[cybercoma]

Wow, I'd love to hear his explanation of this. I'm starting to wonder if he just supports third parties on principle.

His explanation was simply "the Conservatives no longer deserve to govern and the Liberals don't deserve a majority."

[Evening Star]

His explanation was simply "the Conservatives no longer deserve to govern and the Liberals don't deserve a majority."

Ah. An interesting kind of strategic vote.

[Smallc]

By reading from whatever his script said?

Is that what you're doing?

[msj]

By reading from whatever his script said?

For a guy who started a thread the other day called "The downfall of respected political discourse in Canada (and here)" I find such a statement hypocritical.

Smallc has already put forth his reasons for voting for Trudeau which sound as reasonable to me as the reasons others have put forth to justify voting CPC, NDP and GP.

So get off your hypocritical horse.

[Scotty]

For a guy who started a thread the other day called "The downfall of respected political discourse in Canada (and here)" I find such a statement hypocritical.

Smallc has already put forth his reasons for voting for Trudeau which sound as reasonable to me as the reasons others have put forth to justify voting CPC, NDP and GP.

So get off your hypocritical horse.

Did I say anything insulting, derogatory or offensive about smallc? I don't believe I did. The topic was not his reasons for voting Liberal but how Trudeau "proved me wrong"

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Is that what you're doing?

That's a strange question. You said Trudeau proved you wrong, and I asked how. Was the question offensive?

[Smallc]

That's a strange question. You said Trudeau proved you wrong, and I asked how. Was the question offensive?

I'm not the only one with this opinion now. The Niqab debate proved that he's far from an idiot. I'm also sure that he had a hand in at least some of the policy planks that led me to the Liberals.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not the only one with this opinion now. The Niqab debate proved that he's far from an idiot. I'm also sure that he had a hand in at least some of the policy planks that led me to the Liberals.

If the Liberal old guard had that much influence, you wouldn't have seen electoral reform as a plank in the Liberal platform. There is simply no way that they would have put that forward.

Now whether Trudeau keeps his promise, particularly if he somehow manages to achieve a majority, is an open question. There are plenty of ways of technically keep one's word on such an issue while doing everything you can to make sure it doesn't come to pass. Witness the two failed STV referendums in BC.

In part, I question how hard the Liberals are going to work on this file simply because the electoral calculus going into the election made it appear as if the NDP's Orange Crush was a permanent electoral fixture, and this was the best way for the Liberals to remain competitive. Now that it looks like 2011 was an aberration and the NDP seem doomed to return to more traditiona levels of support, electoral reform will be seen as a liability to the Liberals.

[ReeferMadness]

Now whether Trudeau keeps his promise, particularly if he somehow manages to achieve a majority, is an open question. There are plenty of ways of technically keep one's word on such an issue while doing everything you can to make sure it doesn't come to pass. Witness the two failed STV referendums in BC.

The process that led to the STV proposal was amazing. They had a citizens assembly that was educated on electoral systems and spent a long time (a year IIRC) coming up with the recommendation. Quite a number of the citizen assembly members were prominent supporters on the yes side. Then there was one sore loser who wanted MMP and was on the no side.

In 2005, STV was on the ballot for the first time. It got 57% approval (but needed a supermajority of 60% to pass). However, most people didn't really have any knowledge what it was.

So, they put it on the ballot again in 2009. This time, they selected people to lead the yes side and no side, paying them each $500,000 to run their respective campaigns. The yes side ran a totally positive, almost boy scout like campaign. They held free sessions on how STV worked (most of them sparsely attended). The no side, run by a pair of senior NDP insiders, went totally negative, campaigning on fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). The yes side got less than 40%. It was well known that the NDP really wanted MMP and didn't like STV. It's one of the reasons why I have a hard time voting NDP.

An interesting sidebar is that Christy Clark was then a radio host and was an STV proponent. There was a widely distributed rant about how politicians and political insiders liked FPTP because it was good for them. Now she's premier and she's never mentioned it since.

[ToadBrother]

So, they put it on the ballot again in 2009. This time, they selected people to lead the yes side and no side, paying them each $500,000 to run their respective campaigns. The yes side ran a totally positive, almost boy scout like campaign. They held free sessions on how STV worked (most of them sparsely attended). The no side, run by a pair of senior NDP insiders, went totally negative, campaigning on fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). The yes side got less than 40%. It was well known that the NDP really wanted MMP and didn't like STV. It's one of the reasons why I have a hard time voting NDP.

From everything I could tell, the BC NDP wanted to maintain FPTP. David Schreck, former NDPer, lead the NDP's unofficial anti-STV charge and made it very clear that in his view, FPTP was superior.

[ReeferMadness]

From everything I could tell, the BC NDP wanted to maintain FPTP. David Schreck, former NDPer, lead the NDP's unofficial anti-STV charge and made it very clear that in his view, FPTP was superior.

I'm not sure it's fair to paint the entire NDP with that brush. I'm going from memory but I believe that the party has (and had) a resolution endorsing MMP.

But you're right about influential party insiders. In addition to David Schreck, Bill Tieleman, another NDP insider was leading the no side. (I thought Bill was the main guy, actually).

I remember attending an STV debate and John Heaney, another senior NDP insider was on the no side with a former Socred whose name escapes me. One of the arguments that Heaney made against STV was that BC is a centre-right province and if PR was adopted, the province would be governed in perpetuity by a centre-right coalition. But under FPTP, at least, the NDP would occasionally get a false majority. I was flabbergasted that he would make what is really an anti-democratic argument to a non-partisan crowd.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure it's fair to paint the entire NDP with that brush. I'm going from memory but I believe that the party has (and had) a resolution endorsing MMP.

But you're right about influential party insiders. In addition to David Schreck, Bill Tieleman, another NDP insider was leading the no side. (I thought Bill was the main guy, actually).

I remember attending an STV debate and John Heaney, another senior NDP insider was on the no side with a former Socred whose name escapes me. One of the arguments that Heaney made against STV was that BC is a centre-right province and if PR was adopted, the province would be governed in perpetuity by a centre-right coalition. But under FPTP, at least, the NDP would occasionally get a false majority. I was flabbergasted that he would make what is really an anti-democratic argument to a non-partisan crowd.

That last STV referendum was a remarkable display of bipartisanship, as both parties and their supporters in the business and labour communities were in full agreement that the voters needed to be screwed over.