Options

THE DEBATES 2016

13132333436

Comments

  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,672

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    A country with about 10% of the population of the US is obviously going to have significantly different politics...
  • Options
    HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 36,217

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    A country with about 10% of the population of the US is obviously going to have significantly different politics...
    I don't think population size has much to do with it. it's all relative. I think it's mostly to do with cultures. the US culture is much more ingrained in its history with religion and taking the book at face value. canada is much less rooted in that.
    Flight Risk out NOW!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • Options
    Who PrincessWho Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    Polarization is much more extreme than in the past, mostly due to gerrrymandering by state legislators that guaranties the dominance of one party.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,896

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    Polarization is much more extreme than in the past, mostly due to gerrrymandering by state legislators that guaranties the dominance of one party.
    I think the rise of the right wing media, starting with Limbaugh in the 90's, led to the current polarization. This led to left and right wing websites that cater to the all the worst tendencies of each wing. You can live your entire life simply reading or listening to things that reinforce your existing bias, never challenging your conclusions. It's quite sad actually.
  • Options
    Who PrincessWho Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    mrussel1 said:

    Polarization is much more extreme than in the past, mostly due to gerrrymandering by state legislators that guaranties the dominance of one party.

    I think the rise of the right wing media, starting with Limbaugh in the 90's, led to the current polarization. This led to left and right wing websites that cater to the all the worst tendencies of each wing. You can live your entire life simply reading or listening to things that reinforce your existing bias, never challenging your conclusions. It's quite sad actually.
    Yes, and unfortunately I have family members who choose to get all their political information that way. It's depressing.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • Options
    dignindignin Posts: 9,317
    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    Polarization is much more extreme than in the past, mostly due to gerrrymandering by state legislators that guaranties the dominance of one party.
    I think the rise of the right wing media, starting with Limbaugh in the 90's, led to the current polarization. This led to left and right wing websites that cater to the all the worst tendencies of each wing. You can live your entire life simply reading or listening to things that reinforce your existing bias, never challenging your conclusions. It's quite sad actually.
    I blame the internet. As great as it is, it has some major downsides.
  • Options
    Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom's Posts: 18,302
    dignin said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    Polarization is much more extreme than in the past, mostly due to gerrrymandering by state legislators that guaranties the dominance of one party.
    I think the rise of the right wing media, starting with Limbaugh in the 90's, led to the current polarization. This led to left and right wing websites that cater to the all the worst tendencies of each wing. You can live your entire life simply reading or listening to things that reinforce your existing bias, never challenging your conclusions. It's quite sad actually.
    I blame the internet. As great as it is, it has some major downsides.
    Same here...too easy to get bad information.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • Options
    PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,776
    pjhawks said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    Rob Ford was the Mayor of your biggest city. that alone should keep you from patting your own country on the back for your political choices.

    Why in the hell should I consider my whole country because of one city's mayor getting on drugs? Don't be ridiculous.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Options
    PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,776

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who would choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    That is true, especially when it comes to social issues. Even the evangelical PM Harper wouldn't go anywhere near trying to criminalize abortion or gay marriage; it never came up. Despite his religion, he fully understood that Canadians aren't interested in going backwards with our civil rights, nor in allowing religious beliefs into politics.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Options
    PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,776
    edited October 2016

    PJ_Soul said:

    so, if the american people are so tired of the status quo of garbage candidates, why did they nominate two? as ridiculous a process as the primaries may be, your country gets to choose your representatives to run. canada does not. for better or worse.

    I'd definitely say that's for the better. We do elect the people who choose the candidates. They represent us, and so far they have all done a pretty decent job in selecting reasonable people, whether you love them or hate them. No Canadian PM candidate has ever been a nightmare because we seem to still understand that you don't vote in crazy people who wouod choose a leader like Palin or Huckabee or whatever other nutcase you want to choose from the bowl of elected nuts South of the border. Good enough for me, and very well worth it in order to avoid primaries.
    we also don't have the polarization that exists in the states. the political air space that exists between our major parties is WAY smaller than that of the US.
    A country with about 10% of the population of the US is obviously going to have significantly different politics...
    I don't think population size has much to do with it. it's all relative. I think it's mostly to do with cultures. the US culture is much more ingrained in its history with religion and taking the book at face value. canada is much less rooted in that.
    I agree - I think the difference lies largely in religion and the willingness of the people to allow religion to dictate politics. Canada is much more like Western Europe in that sense. The idea of the separation of Church and State is something most Canadians actually believe in and pretty much adhere to, whereas Americans seem to have somehow allowed that to fly right out the window.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,672
    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

  • Options
    ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,755

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    Respectfully, I just don't believe that to be true. Like stated earlier, it's all relative. Each country has so many different variables that play into the general makeup of it's government. It wouldn't be fair to say that the size of a country does or does not matter. Just way too many factors coming into play.
  • Options
    DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    Free said:

    ...due to the rigging of the election.

    Where is your proof of the rigging?
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • Options
    HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 36,217

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    Flight Risk out NOW!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • Options
    Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    totally disagree, polls are normally done by groups of people who lean towards a certain interest there for the calls and info made or used are going to lean towards those groups of peoples interest: democratic party calls 300 to a thousand voters in each state....maybe 3 to 5 states are called and chances are those states are known for their interest in democratic government values, so saying that " 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million" is ridicules......there is your first area of a "rigged system" but I'm sure you don't believe that a rigged system is even possible.

    Godfather.

  • Options
    HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 36,217

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    totally disagree, polls are normally done by groups of people who lean towards a certain interest there for the calls and info made or used are going to lean towards those groups of peoples interest: democratic party calls 300 to a thousand voters in each state....maybe 3 to 5 states are called and chances are those states are known for their interest in democratic government values, so saying that " 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million" is ridicules......there is your first area of a "rigged system" but I'm sure you don't believe that a rigged system is even possible.

    Godfather.

    I wasn't talking about political polls specifically. any poll.
    Flight Risk out NOW!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • Options
    dignindignin Posts: 9,317

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    totally disagree, polls are normally done by groups of people who lean towards a certain interest there for the calls and info made or used are going to lean towards those groups of peoples interest: democratic party calls 300 to a thousand voters in each state....maybe 3 to 5 states are called and chances are those states are known for their interest in democratic government values, so saying that " 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million" is ridicules......there is your first area of a "rigged system" but I'm sure you don't believe that a rigged system is even possible.

    Godfather.

    Not a surprise that you have no idea how scientific polls work.
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,896
    dignin said:

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    totally disagree, polls are normally done by groups of people who lean towards a certain interest there for the calls and info made or used are going to lean towards those groups of peoples interest: democratic party calls 300 to a thousand voters in each state....maybe 3 to 5 states are called and chances are those states are known for their interest in democratic government values, so saying that " 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million" is ridicules......there is your first area of a "rigged system" but I'm sure you don't believe that a rigged system is even possible.

    Godfather.

    Not a surprise that you have no idea how scientific polls work.
    Or statistics...
  • Options
    Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    glad I could help.

    Godfather.
  • Options
    mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,114

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    I guess it depends on your definition of "roughly the same".
    Polls can be 3 or 4 or 5 percentage points off, and in many cases is the difference between who wins or loses.

    And consider the states. There is a large polarization, but if we divide the country into 10 regions the size of Canada, the extreme of the polarization shrinks.
    Take New England and it will be very similar, but completely different than the south, or Midwest, each with their own values and agendas. Size definitely plays a role.
  • Options
    oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,844
    mace1229 said:

    Lol to anyone who doesn't think population size has anything to do with government

    it's the same idea as taking a poll. you take a certain group and it's pretty accurate to state that it's going to have a pretty good representation of the population. 1000 people is going to be roughly the same outcome as 300 million. this is no different.
    I guess it depends on your definition of "roughly the same".
    Polls can be 3 or 4 or 5 percentage points off, and in many cases is the difference between who wins or loses.

    And consider the states. There is a large polarization, but if we divide the country into 10 regions the size of Canada, the extreme of the polarization shrinks.
    Take New England and it will be very similar, but completely different than the south, or Midwest, each with their own values and agendas. Size definitely plays a role.
    First off, you can't divide your country into 10 regions the size of Canada. Maybe 10 regions roughly the population of Canada, but not the size. And of course there is regional disparity. There is regional disparity in Canada, too, like most other countries. That has very little to do with size and much to do with the differences between rural and urban, between coastal and prairie, between founding cultures/values, and the like.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Options
    mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,114
    Yes, what I meant was population size. Since that is what everyone else was referring to, why would you assume this conversation took a drastic turn into land mass? So if we agree there is a difference in regional disparity, how does it not make sense that a larger country will have larger differences? If we split into 10 countries the polarization within each new country that is the size of Canada (yes, by population again, we all know Canada is a huge land mass that is 90% empty) would be much, much smaller. Because you will have more urban areas, large cities, coastal and prairies and everything else you mentioned is more prominent when a country is 10 times larger. I don't see how those two are not related.
  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,672
    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
  • Options
    mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,114

    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    Obviously there's other factors, even geography can create political divides. I don't think there's a big debate about whether or not to build a wall on their southern boarder and how to treat illegals coming from the south.
    But you're right, there's huge differences on how to run a program with you're talking 30 million vs 300 million
  • Options
    HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 36,217

    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.

    it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
    Flight Risk out NOW!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • Options
    PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,776

    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.

    it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
    Of course. Seems obvious, right?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,672
    edited October 2016

    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.

    it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.

    ha, okay. Canada has it all figured out...pretty cute you guys are up there...

    So I guess the mayor of NYC's job is no more difficult than the mayor of Utica? Come on...

    Post edited by Cliffy6745 on
  • Options
    PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,776
    edited October 2016

    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.

    it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.

    ha, okay. Canada has it all figured out...

    So I guess the mayor of NYC's job is no more difficult than the major of Utica? Come on...
    I'm pretty sure the mayor of NYC has a much bigger support system than the mayor of Utica does. It really is all relative.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,672
    PJ_Soul said:



    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.

    it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.

    ha, okay. Canada has it all figured out...

    So I guess the mayor of NYC's job is no more difficult than the major of Utica? Come on...
    I'm pretty sure the mayor of NYC has a much bigger support system than the mayor of Utica does. It really is all relative.
    You didn't answer my question
  • Options
    PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,776

    PJ_Soul said:



    Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.

    Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.

    no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.

    it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.

    ha, okay. Canada has it all figured out...

    So I guess the mayor of NYC's job is no more difficult than the major of Utica? Come on...
    I'm pretty sure the mayor of NYC has a much bigger support system than the mayor of Utica does. It really is all relative.
    You didn't answer my question
    You weren't asking me, were you?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sign In or Register to comment.