Prospects in Canadian federal politics

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Faramir said:

1. So where are you if not on the left? 

2.  But IDEOLOGY is King, and despite the failures and corruption of Newsom, they kept their man.

1. Me? Why do you care about me? I don't know you

2. Most would say wokeism is ideology I think.   And when ideologies clash, well, one of them wins out. Similarly, when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young intern it was time for everybody to choose the democrats. I have no idea why, they're not really worth much.  Maybe they would try harder if they lost these kind of battles.

[Faramir]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Me? Why do you care about me? I don't know you

2. Most would say wokeism is ideology I think.   And when ideologies clash, well, one of them wins out. Similarly, when Bill Clinton sexually harassed a young intern it was time for everybody to choose the democrats. I have no idea why, they're not really worth much.  Maybe they would try harder if they lost these kind of battles.

True I don't know you but your ideology matters to the intent of what you post.  But fine, if you want to keep it secret, who am I to say otherwise.

[myata]

9 hours ago, Faramir said:

No we as conservative benefit from the first past the post system where four leftist parties split the vote.  A PS would doom us as 60% or so would select liberal representation.

That's exactly the narrow-sighted shoot yourself in the foot thinking that seals the 18th century political status quo and prevents all progress in the country. The role of politics is not to rule wisely and singlehandedly but to offer perspectives and vision to the society and for that the society has to be represented accurately, not on a smiley poster but as it is in the reality. But of course, don't fix it and good luck to us in this 21st century.

[Faramir]

15 hours ago, myata said:

That's exactly the narrow-sighted shoot yourself in the foot thinking that seals the 18th century political status quo and prevents all progress in the country. The role of politics is not to rule wisely and singlehandedly but to offer perspectives and vision to the society and for that the society has to be represented accurately, not on a smiley poster but as it is in the reality. But of course, don't fix it and good luck to us in this 21st century.

I have to say at least politically our ancestors were much wiser than us, and that 18th century form has served us very well.  Way preferable than the chaos a proportional system would give us.  Look at Israel and Denmark that use these unstable systems.

[TreeBeard]

18 hours ago, Faramir said:

I have to say at least politically our ancestors were much wiser than us, and that 18th century form has served us very well. 

What did you like about the 18th century?  The monarchy?  White voters only?  Men only?

 

“Way preferable than the chaos a proportional system would give us.  Look at Israel and Denmark that use these unstable systems.”

 

I took a look at Denmark.  It seems they have elections every 4 years.  Can you explain how it is unstable?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark

Edited September 24, 2021 by TreeBeard

[myata]

21 hours ago, Faramir said:

I have to say at least politically our ancestors were much wiser than us, and that 18th century form has served us very well. 

And I would say that dinosaurs learn only one way - with the back of the head. There's a first in anything it's the law of the nature. And it can be a disaster for those who long forgot how to learn and adapt.

[Faramir]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What did you like about the 18th century?  The monarchy?  White voters only?  Men only?

 

“Way preferable than the chaos a proportional system would give us.  Look at Israel and Denmark that use these unstable systems.”

 

I took a look at Denmark.  It seems they have elections every 4 years.  Can you explain how it is unstable?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark

They left us a model for responsible government.  Not pure democracy which would put the minority at the mercy of the majority.  We have a system of elected officials who are elected by riding with a bias to creating majority governments.  Strong government that can get things done as the population has given it the mandate to do.  A Senate to put the Parliament in check.  And a court to also keep the government in check.

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, Faramir said:

They left us a model for responsible government.  Not pure democracy which would put the minority at the mercy of the majority.  We have a system of elected officials who are elected by riding with a bias to creating majority governments.  Strong government that can get things done as the population has given it the mandate to do.  A Senate to put the Parliament in check.  And a court to also keep the government in check.

So you think it worked better in the 1700s than it does today?

[Faramir]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So you think it worked better in the 1700s than it does today?

Yes because they hadn't had the decades to build up an organized effort to subvert democracy.  We did our best.  Unlike France we are still on our first try.  

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, Faramir said:

Yes because they hadn't had the decades to build up an organized effort to subvert democracy.  We did our best.  Unlike France we are still on our first try.  

How did it work better back then than it does now?

I bet there was plenty of opposition to democracy when it was first being formed back then.  Or do you think absolutely everyone was in favour of it?