good news for liberals....

[myata]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Cleary we can.  As evidenced by the fact that we did and that no one is very interested in taking measures that might prevent it. 

Well, there's logic and it tells quite conclusively: no, Canada is not (yet, or already) a full democracy. In a full democracy where governments are held to account, and citizens care that outcome just wouldn't be possible.

[myata]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You said "zero effective checks and controls, winning" elections" may not be so challenging."

You are making a connection where none was presumed. Winning elections' may not be so challenging because there are no effective controls over what governments do between them, up to serious third world stuff like alleged interference with the independence of justice system.

Then, all can be cleaned and washed and comes the election time the government will sprinkle a few more cookies (out of your bottomless pocket, whose else?) and pseudo independent media will do the rest of the job. Here. No Trump needed. With zero effective checks and controls by the public, easy deal.

[Dougie93]

21 minutes ago, myata said:

Well, there's logic and it tells quite conclusively: no, Canada is not (yet, or already) a full democracy. In a full democracy where governments are held to account, and citizens care that outcome just wouldn't be possible.

a full democracy is the tyranny of the majority

every modern western liberal state is intended to prevent a full democracy

a full democracy is black ball or while ball on every issue

that just leads to chaos and civil war

[myata]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

a full democracy is the tyranny of the majority

I meant something else, fully functional democracy. Every country in the third world and every other dictatorship including Putin's calls itself a democracy. No need to argue about words but all of those above lack these essential functions working effectively in reality: accountability of the governments; independent checks and oversight over the governments; and responsibility for violating democratic rules. And how should we classify Canada from this perspective?

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

I meant something else, fully functional democracy. Every country in the third world and every other dictatorship including Putin's calls itself a democracy. No need to argue about words but all of those above lack these essential functions working effectively in reality: accountability of the governments; independent checks and oversight over the governments; and responsibility for violating democratic rules. And how should we classify Canada from this perspective?

but the checks & balances are actually meant to constrain democracy

for example America has more checks & balances

and these are designed to prevent the voters from violating the rights of the individual

 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude, you know i respect you even tho we're on other sides of the fence politically but your memory is bruttally off on thsi whole subject.

Blackface didnt' come out till Scheer's campaign, long after harper lost. Harper was weak going into the 2015 election - as are most prime ministers who've been in power for almost 10 years - and he ran a crap campaign, but he was never strong in the polls.  What happened there is for the longest time the libs and ndp were neck and neck and then the ndp blew it on the quebec question and their support flooded to the libs.

Scheer had a SLIGHT numerical lead (and finished with a slight numerical lead) but was never 'ahead' due to most of his lead being from overwhelming support in one or two provinces. He finished as he started after one of the worst campaigns i've ever seen.

O'toole was FAR behind in the polls and if we're measuring success in 'improvement" during the election he's the big winner of the three. The libs thought they had a clear majority - he climbed ahead of them and at one point was threatening a majority himself, then blew it on the gun issue by flip flopping for three days and then fizzled in the last half where the media just kept asking him where kenney was.

Well - again - not to be a jerk but the libs didn't have any scandals in the first of those elections, they weren't in power yet.

So you mean the last two elections. And your'e somewhat right - the libs lost a lot of seats and were dragged to a minority gov't and held there when they THOUGHT they had a majority after how they handled covid.

But it is true that scheer ran an absolutely horrible campaign and of course the problem is that ontario voters don't care about corrpution (hell they seem to look at it as a prerequisite).  So you CANNOT run on corruption alone. The east doesn't care how corrupt a gov't is.  Only the west does and there's not nearly as many people there.

PP will have to come at it from a different angle but it looks like he's prepared to do just that.

You may be right about my memory. My Wife has been telling me that for decades

Bottom line is the liberals won 3 times because, in my opinion, the conservatives have had nothing to offer that was better.

I am not on any political bandwagon. My decision to vote is a last minute decision for who will best work for me in my area.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, myata said:

You are making a connection where none was presumed. Winning elections' may not be so challenging because there are no effective controls over what governments do between them, up to serious third world stuff like alleged interference with the independence of justice system.

Then, all can be cleaned and washed and comes the election time the government will sprinkle a few more cookies (out of your bottomless pocket, whose else?) and pseudo independent media will do the rest of the job. Here. No Trump needed. With zero effective checks and controls by the public, easy deal.

Not what you said but nice backpedalling LOL  You are good at that at least LOL

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You may be right about my memory. My Wife has been telling me that for decades

or has she????  (Dun dun duuuuuuun)

37 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Bottom line is the liberals won 3 times because, in my opinion, the conservatives have had nothing to offer that was better.

Well for that to be true at least two of those times one would have to believe that corruption and selling off the country's interests was some how 'better' than what the others were offering.
 

And a moral person could not come to that conclusion. Either of the other choices was better.

The problem is that eastern voters are morally bankrupt. They could care less about corruption - they regularly embrace it. hell they HATED ford, right up until he got caught up in a few corruption scandals and now he wins elections without even showing up

As long as the person in charge is handing out goodies in cash or benefits they're fine. And the CPC is not a party that hands out a lot of goodies, it tends to look for SMALLER gov't.

Harper had been in power for a decade and most of the time that's about as long as a prime minister gets. it's about as long as justin will have gotten if he loses the next one. Eventually EVERY prime minister has to retire or lose. And justin lied his ass off as we now know and so he 'looked' better.

Scheer ran a crap campaign. He still nearly won, but of course ontario....

Erin ran a decent camapign. And for people in the east to claim that somehow he wasn't a better option than the guy who already had proven multiple times to be a criminal who's only reason for not going to jail was that he was the prime minister and the cops thought he could forgive himself of some crimes means that they literally prefer corruption

So - what the people of the east are doing is setting the bar for that kind of thing so low that it's going to be impossible to get good governance if lies and corruption are the accepted norm.

As it is i suspect PP will get in next. And hopefully he'll cheat as much as the libs do and rig the system to favor the cpc moving forward.  THEN we should see ontario vote for the conservatives more. They'll be more comfortable with us :_)
 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

for example America has more checks & balances

Yes, so that the governments couldn't overreach and abuse the power.

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

these are designed to prevent the voters from violating the rights of the individual

No, the Constitution protects the rights of the individual that can be violated by the governments otherwise.

[ExFlyer]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

or has she????  (Dun dun duuuuuuun)

Well for that to be true at least two of those times one would have to believe that corruption and selling off the country's interests was some how 'better' than what the others were offering.
 

And a moral person ........

As it is i suspect PP will get in next. And hopefully he'll cheat as much as the libs do and rig the system to favor the cpc moving forward.  THEN we should see ontario vote for the conservatives more. They'll be more comfortable with us :_)
 

Look, I am not going to discuss or assume or pass judgment  on the morality of others. Especially over political parties or beliefs. That is an individual thing and just because it is not to my liking,

I cannot call the others immoral. That would make me be superior and I am clearly not.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, I am not going to discuss or assume or pass judgment  on the morality of others. Especially over political parties or beliefs. That is an individual thing and just because it is not to my liking,

The fact that it's an individual's choice is what makes it possible to do so.  We would pass judgement on someone who voted for the nazi's wouldn't we?

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I cannot call the others immoral. That would make me be superior and I am clearly not.

It is immoral to vote for that which is immoral.

Policy and such is a matter of opinion.  Person a can think it's terrible he racked up so much debt, and person b can think doing so was justified.  That's  policy debate.  But accepting bribes.. that's not a 'morality debate'.  That's already wrong. Interfering with the judicial process. Giving 'friends'  multi million dollar contracts. And the list goes on.

When you vote for that - then it's no longer a 'question'.  You have chosen to vote in favour of corruption.

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The fact that it's an individual's choice is what makes it possible to do so.  We would pass judgement on someone who voted for the nazi's wouldn't we?

It is immoral to vote for that which is immoral.

Policy and such is a matter of opinion.  Person a can think it's terrible he racked up so much debt, and person b can think doing so was justified.  That's  policy debate.  But accepting bribes.. that's not a 'morality debate'.  That's already wrong. Interfering with the judicial process. Giving 'friends'  multi million dollar contracts. And the list goes on.

When you vote for that - then it's no longer a 'question'.  You have chosen to vote in favour of corruption.

It is an individuals choice to vote for what ever and whomever they choose. There are many free votes in this world for many different political parties, visions, policies and lifestyles. When a poster resorts to resurrecting nazi, I realize they have no respect for other voices or choices.

Your declaration of immoral is what is opinion. Deciding what is immoral based upon your vision and virtue and proclaiming others to be immoral because they choose otherwise is immoral. You are by no means the keeper of morality.

Policy is something set by governing parties, not by voters and not opinion and for sure, not you.

You also have no idea who I vote for. You make assumptions and then accusations of my morality. We do not have to agree but, please do not insult me or those that do not agree with you and declare us immoral.

I am disappointed that you took this tact. Our discussions have always been civil and respectful but your wander down your morality path has darkened our discussions.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are by no means the keeper of morality.

That is true, but what is your basis of morality?

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

It is an individuals choice to vote for what ever and whomever they choose. There are many free votes in this world for many different political parties, visions, policies and lifestyles. When a poster resorts to resurrecting nazi, I realize they have no respect for other voices or choices.

Well this is where i'm coming from. if  A person chooses to support and put into power a party that is corrupt or evil then that speaks to the person.

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Your declaration of immoral is what is opinion.

No, it isn't. It's accepted as fact in this country that criminal behavior and corruption are immoral. That's established as part of our cultural norms.

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Policy is something set by governing parties, not by voters and not opinion and for sure, not you.

Well you're wrong there as well. the people do set policy and it is aboslutely a matter of opinion. That's basically what elections are about for example - the people deciding what policies they want to support. Further, all parties decide a good hunk of their policy at their policy conventions where the members who are just part of the public and not politicians get to have their say.

 

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You also have no idea who I vote for. You make assumptions and then accusations of my morality.

ummm - i haven't said you vote for anyone. Keep it together big guy.

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

We do not have to agree but, please do not insult me or those that do not agree with you and declare us immoral.

I didn't judge you specifically in the slightest.  I only judged people who voted liberal. Did you vote liberal? You seem to be saying you voted liberal. If you did - sorry, but the shoe fits. I could understand the first time obviously but after that track record there's no excuse the second or third time.  I could understand people voting ndp or green or whatever but voting for the liberals was a strong statement that the voter is supportive of criminal and corrupt behavior, and they deserve to be judged on that.

If you choose to do that in the past, you did something that was wrong ethically. Which is your chocie - you get to choose what kind of person to be.  But - i would encourage you to be a better person moving forward and not support crime or corruption.

 

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I am disappointed that you took this tact. Our discussions have always been civil and respectful but your wander down your morality path has darkened our discussions.

 

[ExFlyer]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is true, but what is your basis of morality?

That is personal. For sure it is none of your concern but certainly not the storybook you ascribe to.

Edited May 7, 2023 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well this is where i'm coming from. if  A person chooses to support and put into power a party that is corrupt or evil then that speaks to the person.

No, it isn't. It's accepted as fact in this country that criminal behavior and corruption are immoral. That's established as part of our cultural norms.

Well you're wrong there as well. the people do set policy and it is aboslutely a matter of opinion. That's basically what elections are about for example - the people deciding what policies they want to support. Further, all parties decide a good hunk of their policy at their policy conventions where the members who are just part of the public and not politicians get to have their say.

 

ummm - i haven't said you vote for anyone. Keep it together big guy.

I didn't judge you specifically in the slightest.  I only judged people who voted liberal. Did you vote liberal? You seem to be saying you voted liberal. If you did - sorry, but the shoe fits. I could understand the first time obviously but after that track record there's no excuse the second or third time.  I could understand people voting ndp or green or whatever but voting for the liberals was a strong statement that the voter is supportive of criminal and corrupt behavior, and they deserve to be judged on that.

If you choose to do that in the past, you did something that was wrong ethically. Which is your chocie - you get to choose what kind of person to be.  But - i would encourage you to be a better person moving forward and not support crime or corruption.

 

 

Have a good day.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Have a good day.

You too.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, myata said:

No, the Constitution protects the rights of the individual that can be violated by the governments otherwise.

governments only violate your rights because it is popular to do so

the purpose of representative democracy is simply a peaceful transfer of power

otherwise, democracy doesn't actually solve problems, it causes them

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

That is personal. For sure it is none of your concern but certainly not the storybook you ascribe to.

Wow!   You just revealed your dirty little secret.  You just admitted you have no basis for your morality.

You confirmed what the Bible says.  

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? "  Jeremiah 17:9  King James Bible

You clearly judged yourself and it is not a good look.

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Wow!   You just revealed your dirty little secret.  You just admitted you have no basis for your morality.

You confirmed what the Bible says.  

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? "  Jeremiah 17:9  King James Bible

You clearly judged yourself and it is not a good look.

Nope, I just stated it is none of your concern or business. Big difference.

I made no judgment on myself, you did. Typical of a the bible thumping better than thou crowd. LOL

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, I just stated it is none of your concern or business. Big difference.

You are the one who comes on here expressing your opinions or moral issues, but refuses to say what the basis is of your opinions.  The fact is when you say it is none of my concern or business, you are basically admitting you have no basis for your moral ideas.  Otherwise why would you keep it secret?  Simple really.

[ExFlyer]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

You are the one who comes on here expressing your opinions or moral issues, but refuses to say what the basis is of your opinions.  The fact is when you say it is none of my concern or business, you are basically admitting you have no basis for your moral ideas.  Otherwise why would you keep it secret?  Simple really.

Nope, did not. I discussed it with another poster.

I do not have to tell you, a bible thumper, anything and refuse to do so. Your morals are based on  a story book so, discussing with you is fruitless. I admit nothing and your attempt at coercion is also fruitless.

Do you still beat your wife or significant other or did you stop when you read your story book?? Are you still blinded by your story book? Why do you keep secrets?? Point is, there are many things that are none of your business, no matter how much you try to evangelize.

I request you stop posting to me, stop responding to me. I do not want to discuss anything with you. You are a waste of my time.

Edited May 8, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Army Guy]

On 5/7/2023 at 4:31 PM, ExFlyer said:

Your declaration of immoral is what is opinion. Deciding what is immoral based upon your vision and virtue and proclaiming others to be immoral because they choose otherwise is immoral. You are by no means the keeper of morality.

Policy is something set by governing parties, not by voters and not opinion and for sure, not you.

You also have no idea who I vote for. You make assumptions and then accusations of my morality. We do not have to agree but, please do not insult me or those that do not agree with you and declare us immoral.

I am disappointed that you took this tact. Our discussions have always been civil and respectful but your wander down your morality path has darkened our discussions.

I think the average Adult Canadian should already have a pretty good idea what is good moral behavior and what is not... we have many examples enshrined in our laws, such as it is immoral to take a life, Rape, and many others many are taken from religion, many are just plain common sense... I think all the above would cover most adults' threshold of good moral behavior.  So who is the keeper of morality... certainly not individual Canadians, but rather already decided by the majority.

I think that when a government starts to operate on the side of bad moral judgements consistently then that should be a red flag to most Canadians, and those that continue to support that immoral government despite this knowledge then why not put that tag on them as "immoral". 

Support for a party does not mean you have to  cast a vote for them, although it is a huge indicator if you did... Support can be shown in many other ways, defending their immoral actions, agreeing with their immoral decisions...

Liberal government has made an entire career out of doing immoral acts, i really think it is hard for Justin to tell the truth, or stay between the lines of good moral behavior regardless of topic, and he has been caught so many times it is really comical...supporting this immoral government means that one has a poor chioce in someone's character, not very smart or really is immoral themselves.

 

 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I think the average Adult Canadian should already have a pretty good idea what is good moral behavior and what is not...

Well, certainly within the boundries of the behavior of our political leaders if nothing else

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I think the average Adult Canadian should already have a pretty good idea what is good moral behavior and what is not... we have many examples enshrined in our laws, such as it is immoral to take a life, Rape, and many others many are taken from religion, many are just plain common sense... I think all the above would cover most adults' threshold of good moral behavior.  So who is the keeper of morality... certainly not individual Canadians, but rather already decided by the majority.

I think that when a government starts to operate on the side of bad moral judgements consistently then that should be a red flag to most Canadians, and those that continue to support that immoral government despite this knowledge then why not put that tag on them as "immoral". 

Support for a party does not mean you have to  cast a vote for them, although it is a huge indicator if you did... Support can be shown in many other ways, defending their immoral actions, agreeing with their immoral decisions...

Liberal government has made an entire career out of doing immoral acts, i really think it is hard for Justin to tell the truth, or stay between the lines of good moral behavior regardless of topic, and he has been caught so many times it is really comical...supporting this immoral government means that one has a poor chioce in someone's character, not very smart or really is immoral themselves.

 

 

OK.

I understand your opinion. Any discussion on this only becomes a personal opinion against a personal opinion.

That is all.