Are two conservative parties better than one?

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I don't think anything can really result in better politicians

Our politicians are a pretty good reflection of the population, except for the fact that they work 80 hours a week, give up on a career for severals years (if it is a law practice, they will take a 75% pay cut), miss time with family, and work to get problems with the EI system for one of their bosses who calls them a crook and a liar. Other than that, they are just like you.

[Bonam]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Our politicians are a pretty good reflection of the population, except for the fact that they work 80 hours a week, give up on a career for severals years (if it is a law practice, they will take a 75% pay cut), miss time with family, and work to get problems with the EI system for one of their bosses who calls them a crook and a liar.

Exactly. And what kind of person would put up with all that, just to get into public office? Someone who is power hungry as hell, that's who. 

[Queenmandy85]

9 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I have better things to do than mingle with a bunch of political hacks. As do most other reasonable people. 

That may say something about US politics but from the dozens of MP's I've met over the years, it isn't true in Canada.

[taxme]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Our politicians are a pretty good reflection of the population, except for the fact that they work 80 hours a week, give up on a career for severals years (if it is a law practice, they will take a 75% pay cut), miss time with family, and work to get problems with the EI system for one of their bosses who calls them a crook and a liar. Other than that, they are just like you.

Pretty much all of our dear leaders have become nothing more than a bunch of politically correct buffoons and fools. They have pretty much destroyed the old Canada that we all one knew and grew up in and made Canada great. Canadians now are stuck to either voting for a liberal, a socialist or a communist the great dividers and promoters of indecency, immorality and loss of patriotism. The conservative party of the past is all gone. There are just a few old diehards like me left.

We remember the good old days when there was no bilingualism, no multiculturalism, no massive third world invasions, no political correctness, no Muslims around shooting and running over Canadians like we see today, no Indian problems, and where white people were not a minority in their own cities. Now we have all those programs and agendas above thanks to our stupid politicians who have opened up a can of worms that we will never be able to put back in that can. Division is the program and agenda of today's politicians. They pretty much all have done what they set out today. Destroy everything British Canada and replace British Canada with a bunch of foreign people who have no love for Canada but only for what they can get out of Canada. Stop trying to hide that this is a fact and not fiction. I mean let's be honest here. If you emigrated to another country to live are you going to give a crap about their culture if it starts to disappear? I don't think so because that foreign culture means nothing to you. You just went their to live and work and hopefully make money only. Right? 

[Machjo]

16 minutes ago, taxme said:

Pretty much all of our dear leaders have become nothing more than a bunch of politically correct buffoons and fools. They have pretty much destroyed the old Canada that we all one knew and grew up in and made Canada great. Canadians now are stuck to either voting for a liberal, a socialist or a communist the great dividers and promoters of indecency, immorality and loss of patriotism. The conservative party of the past is all gone. There are just a few old diehards like me left.

We remember the good old days when there was no bilingualism, no multiculturalism, no massive third world invasions, no political correctness, no Muslims around shooting and running over Canadians like we see today, no Indian problems, and where white people were not a minority in their own cities. Now we have all those programs and agendas above thanks to our stupid politicians who have opened up a can of worms that we will never be able to put back in that can. Division is the program and agenda of today's politicians. They pretty much all have done what they set out today. Destroy everything British Canada and replace British Canada with a bunch of foreign people who have no love for Canada but only for what they can get out of Canada. Stop trying to hide that this is a fact and not fiction. I mean let's be honest here. If you emigrated to another country to live are you going to give a crap about their culture if it starts to disappear? I don't think so because that foreign culture means nothing to you. You just went their to live and work and hopefully make money only. Right? 

You're obviously not old enough to remember that prior to 1900 in BC and even the 1930s in parts of Oregon and Washington State, Chinuk Wawa served as the main trade language across the Pacific Northwest. So when you say 'the good old days,' I assume you're talking about a very specific time period in Canadian history?

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

You're obviously not old enough to remember that prior to 1900 in BC and even the 1930s in parts of Oregon and Washington State, Chinuk Wawa served as the main trade language across the Pacific Northwest. So when you say 'the good old days,' I assume you're talking about a very specific time period in Canadian history?

As i said already, Canada was once a great peaceful country for many decades with no real racial problems to report on or heard of until all those liberal and socialist programs and agendas of the early sixties mentioned above in my last post were implemented. After they were implemented in the sixties Canada became a house of division and hatred. Those were the days I was talking about. Those early sixties. 

[Machjo]

14 minutes ago, taxme said:

As i said already, Canada was once a great peaceful country for many decades with no real racial problems to report on or heard of until all those liberal and socialist programs and agendas of the early sixties mentioned above in my last post were implemented. After they were implemented in the sixties Canada became a house of division and hatred. Those were the days I was talking about. Those early sixties. 

Wasn't that the time of the sixties scoop as the government took indigenous children away from their broken families caused by the Indian residential school system?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Exactly. And what kind of person would put up with all that, just to get into public office? Someone who is power hungry as hell, that's who. 

There's nothing necessarily wrong with having ambition. It's what you're willing to do to realize that ambition which is the problem with our system. Because basically you have to be willing to be everyone's bitch, to grovel before the party bosses, hold your tongue, agree with them all the time, and never EVER speak in public or give an opinion which isn't cleared by the party. That's why I'd like to see us return to a similar system as in the UK, where backbenchers have real power and can speak their minds. It would likely draw a better class of candidate.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Machjo said:

Wasn't that the time of the sixties scoop as the government took indigenous children away from their broken families caused by the Indian residential school system?

They took lots of white kids away too, but the media don't seem interested on mentioning that part.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

The present Conservative party has already ditched the social conservative stuff. What's socially conservative about them? As to fiscally conservative, since the median of politics has been shifted to the left by the combined left wing parties, it's hard for a party under FPTP to get into power without promising a ton of goodies, just like the other parties are doing. 

The abortion resolution was only narrowly defeated today at the convention. The far right is still strong in that party and I think Scheer will lose the socons after he quiets them for the upcoming election but is defeated by the Liberals.  As for promising stuff, Mike Harris once won Ontario by promising to take away goodies. I feel like that line could work again.

[-1=e^ipi]

7 hours ago, Bonam said:

Today's conservative parties are not about just "conserving things" regardless of context. In fact, conservative parties want change just as much (or just as little, depending on your perspective) as liberal parties do, just towards different ends.

Associating your positions with people that behead women without male escorts while associating your opponent's positions with people like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill seems like you are conceding a lot of unearned linguistic territory to your political opponents.

 

Also, if we redefine words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' to the point where we don't mean what they actually mean then I think this destroys meaning, makes bizarre word associations, and makes it harder to convey ideas in society.

 

George Orwell's novel 1984 emphasizes the importance of word associations and the redefinition of words.

Edited August 26, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

It was a PC government here and a Republican government in the US who brought in free trade. The Liberals and NDP, meanwhile, were violently opposed. In the US, the more leftward politicians were also dead set against it.

What free trade? We've had 300% dairy tariffs and softwood lumber tariffs.

[Bonam]

38 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Associating your positions with people that behead women without male escorts while associating your opponent's positions with people like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill seems like you are conceding a lot of unearned linguistic territory to your political opponents.

I don't think many Western conservatives "associate their positions" with that of Islamic theocracies. Nor, for that matter, do I think that even many of their opponents would accuse of them doing so. 

Quote

Also, if we redefine words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' to the point where we don't mean what they actually mean then I think this destroys meaning, makes bizarre word associations, and makes it harder to convey ideas in society.

I believe it's mostly you that's trying to do the redefining. Most people who follow politics in Western countries today even in a very cursory way know what "liberal" and "conservative" means in the current context. Yes, the meaning of words changes over time. Languages are living things and so are societies. Trying to say that the currently accepted meaning of words should be discarded and we should only use words according to the meanings they had in the oldest known usage of those words is an exercise in pointlessness.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That may say something about US politics but from the dozens of MP's I've met over the years, it isn't true in Canada.

 

Right....it could never happen in Canada....only in US politics !

MPs are so pure and noble in Canada, they even come home from the United States to meekly seek humble office (e.g. Michael Ignatieff).

[Machjo]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Right....it could never happen in Canada....only in US politics !

MPs are so pure and noble in Canada, they even come home from the United States to meekly seek humble office (e.g. Michael Ignatieff).

Living abroad can actually augment an MP's qualifications by expanding his knowledge. Would you want some hick who knows nothing about the world to sit in the White House for example?

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Living abroad can actually augment an MP's qualifications by expanding his knowledge.

 

...and teach them the path to power back home.   Michael Ignatieff never made it to the White House, even though he claimed to be American at a commencement speech.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, Bonam said:

I believe it's mostly you that's trying to do the redefining. Most people who follow politics in Western countries today even in a very cursory way know what "liberal" and "conservative" means in the current context.

 

Let's see, according to wikipedia:

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets."

 

If I go to BC, the BC Liberals are very different from the Federal Liberals. If I go to Australia, the large "centre-right" party is the liberal party and liberal is associated with free markets and even conservatism. If I go to Europe, in Germany liberal is associated with the free democratic party, which is closer to libertarianism. If I go to Sweden, their liberal party is more free-enterprise & classical liberalism. If I go to France, liberal is associated with Emanuel's current regime, which has pushed for more economic freedom.

 

There is no current meaning of liberalism that is universal among Western Countries. Rather, essentially all other western countries have a definition more consistent with classical liberalism, and the US & Canada are outliers. And even in North America, you have some cases such as the BC Liberals, which are more consistent with Europe.

 

But let's stick to North America. Are you saying that the sentence "John Stuart Mill and Voltaire were liberal philosophers" no longer has meaning in North America? How are people supposed to advocate for liberalism if it has been redefined out of existence?

 

Ignore word associations at your own peril.

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

There is no current meaning of liberalism that is universal among Western Countries. Rather, essentially all other western countries have a definition more consistent with classical liberalism, and the US & Canada are outliers. And even in North America, you have some cases such as the BC Liberals, which are more consistent with Europe.

 

You're correct. The term "Liberal" in Canada essentially represents a brand name rather than a consistent political and economic philosophy, particularly where the federal Liberal Party is concerned. The current iteration of the party might more appropriately be termed "progressive" but only so in a very narrow definition of that word as it's mainly concerned with pursuing policies that further the agendas of special interest and identity-focused constituencies. It's certainly not a "liberal" party in the classical sense of the term. The CPC has similarly developed a grab bag approach to politics, although its constituencies include social conservatives, among others, the Libs have sidelined. Otherwise the two parties are largely similar and tend to quibble over relatively minor differences. Tommy Douglas used to describe the two main federal parties as "Tweedledee and Tweedledum," a description that still applies. Given that the NDP has in many aspects joined their club, perhaps it might be called Tweedledumdum? Those concerned about Bernier trying to split the CPC should focus instead on the good that could come out of splitting up the tri-party cartel that's monopolized policy discussion in Ottawa.

Edited August 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Slick said:

The abortion resolution was only narrowly defeated today at the convention. The far right is still strong in that party

I think its more of a revelation of how far left you might be if you consider the pro life people to be 'far right'. The resolution was not to ban abortion, you know. It would have eliminated a pledge that the party not discuss any kind of abortion legislation. Do you consider abortion legislation to be intrinsically a product of the 'far right'? Because every nation in Europe has abortion legislation

 

[Argus]

11 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Associating your positions with people that behead women without male escorts

But you're the only one who has done that.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

What free trade? We've had 300% dairy tariffs and softwood lumber tariffs.

99% of trade between the US and Canada is tariff free.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Let's see, according to wikipedia:

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

You're providing a definition of classical liberalism, which modern 'liberal' parties do not subscribe to. Classical liberals are modern day conservatives.

[-1=e^ipi]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

But you're the only one who has done that.

No, I'm not a conservative. It's the conservatives choosing to associate themselves with the conservatives in Saudi Arabia.

 

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

99% of trade between the US and Canada is tariff free.

If the US decided to ban all our exports on softwood lumber and maple syrup tomorrow, the remaining trade would be mostly tariff free. Does that mean banning softwood lumber and maple syrup imports isn't protectionism?

The reason why dairy makes up such a small portion of trade is because the tariffs on it are so high as to make it unprofitable to trade.

 

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

You're providing a definition of classical liberalism, which modern 'liberal' parties do not subscribe to. Classical liberals are modern day conservatives.

See other countries such as Australia, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, etc. Canada is the outlier.

 

Classical liberals aren't conservatives. Conservatives are anti-freedom people who don't want gay marriage, legalization of abortion, drug legalization, legalized prostitution, legalized pornography, etc. such as Andrew Scheer.

Edited August 26, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

No, I'm not a conservative. It's the conservatives choosing to associate themselves with the conservatives in Saudi Arabia.

Drivel. You're the one associating them with the Saudis.

14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

If the US decided to ban all our exports on softwood lumber and maple syrup tomorrow, the remaining trade would be mostly tariff free. Does that mean banning softwood lumber and maple syrup imports isn't protectionism?

No it means the current regime to the south is not conservative and does not believe in free trade and is violating the terms of the agreement.

14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Classical liberals aren't conservatives. Conservatives are anti-freedom people who don't want gay marriage, legalization of abortion, drug legalization, legalized prostitution, legalized pornography, etc. such as Andrew Scheer.

But I'm a conservative and I'm okay with all those things, although I have a lot of doubts about what you mean about 'drug legalization'.
I think you have a fundamentalist view of politics. Btw, the Liberals are deadset against pornography, too. 

[taxme]

18 hours ago, Machjo said:

Wasn't that the time of the sixties scoop as the government took indigenous children away from their broken families caused by the Indian residential school system?

I am not aware of any time in the 60's where Indian children were taken away from broken families. But there were probably plenty of non Indian children that were taken away from their parents for whatever reason in the sixties. In the days gone by there were residential schools set up where Indian children were being put in residential schools to receive an education. It was time to learn how to read and write. With the new world on their doorsteps it was time for Indian children to learn how to read and write and get their education just like non Indian children had to do also. I do not think that it harmed them at all but helped them instead.