Election Stress Disorder

HughFreakingDillon

lukin2006 said:

Oh well, i refuse to hold politicians to any specific levels, politicians should walk amongst us not in the clouds and pretend their shit don't stink. I do not fucking care if you've been in public office one day, makes no fucking difference to me...maybe if people quit pretending you need special skill sets to be a politician maybe just maybe everything would not be so fucked up, maybe if people got elected because they display some common sense, truly care about the taxpayers money that they are elected and essentially entrusted to make good decisions with (which they don't)...

So you want the Status Quo...Im glad for you, Im glad that you support the present status quo of liars and corruptness that takes place. These are the clowns you want? A PM who campaigned on running more deficits, thats leadership, pile more debt on future generations as our social programs get eroded and are starved of the money they deserve because our politicians dating back decades can not/will not live with in their/our means as a country...and the great part of these politicians who can't add, they eventually leave office with generous pension/severance while making somewhere around 4 times the average Canadian, and they leave the mess behind, us holding more debt, no these current clowns are selfish and greedy, well at least i know where O' Leary stands ... sounds like he'd fit in with the rest of the greed and corruption.

so would you hire someone as CEO of a company who has never worked in an office before? that doens't make any sense at all. if he wants to be in a cabinet position for a while or at least on a provincial level, but to go directly from the private sector to leader of a country? that's ludicrous.

HughFreakingDillon

I don't know where this god shit came from. No one is holding them to any higher standard other than EXPERIENCE. like you need in any job that requires leadership.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

lukin2006 said:

Oh well, i refuse to hold politicians to any specific levels, politicians should walk amongst us not in the clouds and pretend their shit don't stink. I do not fucking care if you've been in public office one day, makes no fucking difference to me...maybe if people quit pretending you need special skill sets to be a politician maybe just maybe everything would not be so fucked up, maybe if people got elected because they display some common sense, truly care about the taxpayers money that they are elected and essentially entrusted to make good decisions with (which they don't)...

So you want the Status Quo...Im glad for you, Im glad that you support the present status quo of liars and corruptness that takes place. These are the clowns you want? A PM who campaigned on running more deficits, thats leadership, pile more debt on future generations as our social programs get eroded and are starved of the money they deserve because our politicians dating back decades can not/will not live with in their/our means as a country...and the great part of these politicians who can't add, they eventually leave office with generous pension/severance while making somewhere around 4 times the average Canadian, and they leave the mess behind, us holding more debt, no these current clowns are selfish and greedy, well at least i know where O' Leary stands ... sounds like he'd fit in with the rest of the greed and corruption.

so would you hire someone as CEO of a company who has never worked in an office before? that doens't make any sense at all. if he wants to be in a cabinet position for a while or at least on a provincial level, but to go directly from the private sector to leader of a country? that's ludicrous.

Not ludicrous at all...

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lukin2006 said:

Oh well, i refuse to hold politicians to any specific levels, politicians should walk amongst us not in the clouds and pretend their shit don't stink. I do not fucking care if you've been in public office one day, makes no fucking difference to me...maybe if people quit pretending you need special skill sets to be a politician maybe just maybe everything would not be so fucked up, maybe if people got elected because they display some common sense, truly care about the taxpayers money that they are elected and essentially entrusted to make good decisions with (which they don't)...

So you want the Status Quo...Im glad for you, Im glad that you support the present status quo of liars and corruptness that takes place. These are the clowns you want? A PM who campaigned on running more deficits, thats leadership, pile more debt on future generations as our social programs get eroded and are starved of the money they deserve because our politicians dating back decades can not/will not live with in their/our means as a country...and the great part of these politicians who can't add, they eventually leave office with generous pension/severance while making somewhere around 4 times the average Canadian, and they leave the mess behind, us holding more debt, no these current clowns are selfish and greedy, well at least i know where O' Leary stands ... sounds like he'd fit in with the rest of the greed and corruption.

so would you hire someone as CEO of a company who has never worked in an office before? that doens't make any sense at all. if he wants to be in a cabinet position for a while or at least on a provincial level, but to go directly from the private sector to leader of a country? that's ludicrous.

Not ludicrous at all...

well if Oleary can make a wish at a carnival not to be such a dick, I'm all for it.

lukin2006

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lukin2006 said:

Oh well, i refuse to hold politicians to any specific levels, politicians should walk amongst us not in the clouds and pretend their shit don't stink. I do not fucking care if you've been in public office one day, makes no fucking difference to me...maybe if people quit pretending you need special skill sets to be a politician maybe just maybe everything would not be so fucked up, maybe if people got elected because they display some common sense, truly care about the taxpayers money that they are elected and essentially entrusted to make good decisions with (which they don't)...

So you want the Status Quo...Im glad for you, Im glad that you support the present status quo of liars and corruptness that takes place. These are the clowns you want? A PM who campaigned on running more deficits, thats leadership, pile more debt on future generations as our social programs get eroded and are starved of the money they deserve because our politicians dating back decades can not/will not live with in their/our means as a country...and the great part of these politicians who can't add, they eventually leave office with generous pension/severance while making somewhere around 4 times the average Canadian, and they leave the mess behind, us holding more debt, no these current clowns are selfish and greedy, well at least i know where O' Leary stands ... sounds like he'd fit in with the rest of the greed and corruption.

so would you hire someone as CEO of a company who has never worked in an office before? that doens't make any sense at all. if he wants to be in a cabinet position for a while or at least on a provincial level, but to go directly from the private sector to leader of a country? that's ludicrous.

Not ludicrous at all...

Exactly..But hey look at all that experience Clinton has...

It's fucking politics, they have staffers that constantly brief them and educate them, not to mention talking points...and the O'Leary should be the perfect candidate...he's built multiple companies successfully...lol

lukin2006

I would think after electing politicians that continue the same old failed Middle East policies you'd think people would wake up and look at someone like Jill Stein...and if I was a us voter that's where my vote would go even in a close election...

rustneversleeps

can i get a HUUURRRNTT HUURRNNNTTT out there?

lukin2006

And all of these experienced politician like the Clintons have failed to bring the US citizenry what should be a basic right, universal health care. In the case of Canada all these experienced politicians have brought us all these great trade agreements, and failed to protect the auto pact...can't beat experience like that...no sir...quality, quality people...

hedonist

But...Tom Hanks was a toy-tester/marketing guy, and Loggia was the CEO...no?

HughFreakingDillon

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lukin2006 said:

Oh well, i refuse to hold politicians to any specific levels, politicians should walk amongst us not in the clouds and pretend their shit don't stink. I do not fucking care if you've been in public office one day, makes no fucking difference to me...maybe if people quit pretending you need special skill sets to be a politician maybe just maybe everything would not be so fucked up, maybe if people got elected because they display some common sense, truly care about the taxpayers money that they are elected and essentially entrusted to make good decisions with (which they don't)...

So you want the Status Quo...Im glad for you, Im glad that you support the present status quo of liars and corruptness that takes place. These are the clowns you want? A PM who campaigned on running more deficits, thats leadership, pile more debt on future generations as our social programs get eroded and are starved of the money they deserve because our politicians dating back decades can not/will not live with in their/our means as a country...and the great part of these politicians who can't add, they eventually leave office with generous pension/severance while making somewhere around 4 times the average Canadian, and they leave the mess behind, us holding more debt, no these current clowns are selfish and greedy, well at least i know where O' Leary stands ... sounds like he'd fit in with the rest of the greed and corruption.

so would you hire someone as CEO of a company who has never worked in an office before? that doens't make any sense at all. if he wants to be in a cabinet position for a while or at least on a provincial level, but to go directly from the private sector to leader of a country? that's ludicrous.

Not ludicrous at all...

Exactly..But hey look at all that experience Clinton has...

It's fucking politics, they have staffers that constantly brief them and educate them, not to mention talking points...and the O'Leary should be the perfect candidate...he's built multiple companies successfully...lol

as many if not most have said, ad nauseum, Clinton is far from ideal. She's just also far better an option than the p**** grabbing nuke monger.

brianlux

OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.

The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?

So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.

lukin2006

brianlux said:

OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.

The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?

So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.

Brian, very well said...

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.

The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?

So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.

Brian, no one is saying that experience is the be-all end-all for choosing a candidate. But experience in government is but ONE of the qualifiications that must be considered. Does it disqualify, in my opinion, Trump or O'Leary from being a decent candidate? No. it's part of the full package.

Stein is a great candidate. It's unfortunate that the US election process doesn't give any official time to anyone outside of the establishment. There is no question that needs to change. In the past, Canada has included all 5 parties in the official debates. One of them even being a nonsensical party that only has the interests of Quebec in its platform.

We all know the only reason Clinton is getting elected is that it's too risky to split the left vote and let Trump win. That's it. That's all.

Do you think that, if Stein had been given the same benefits as the R and D candidates, she would have had a legitimate chance? Even in Canada, our Green Party got about 3-4% of the vote. Because splitting the vote and handing the government to the right is a very real concern for many on the left.

PJ_Soul

But not all of Canada's parties are represented. Only those with representation in the House of Commons are allowed to participate in the Canadian leadership debates. So that excludes the Communist Party, the Marijuana Party, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Democratic Advancement Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, Alliance of the North .... and the list goes on! The Green Party can only participate if they did win a seat (they've had all of 1 seat for a awhile now, which is why we've seen them in the debates in more recent years, but they weren't eligible before then. Did they win a seat in the last election? If not, they won't be in the next debates. I can't remember if they won anything or not). So okay, Canada includes more parties, but still only the major ones. We just have 2 - 3 more major parties than the US... which is definitely good. But it's not like we allow for fair representation of what are considered the fringe parties, just like the US Green and Libertarian parties, Communists, etc are considered fringe in the US.

Free

brianlux said:

OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.

The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?

So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.

Remember 2008? People against Obama said he didn't have enough experience to be president, he was only a community leader...

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

But not all of Canada's parties are represented. Only those with representation in the House of Commons are allowed to participate in the Canadian leadership debates. So that excludes the Communist Party, the Marijuana Party, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Democratic Advancement Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, Alliance of the North .... and the list goes on! The Green Party can only participate if they did win a seat (they've had all of 1 seat for a awhile now, which is why we've seen them in the debates in more recent years, but they weren't eligible before then. Did they win a seat in the last election? If not, they won't be in the next debates. I can't remember if they won anything or not). So okay, Canada includes more parties, but still only the major ones. We just have 2 - 3 more major parties than the US... which is definitely good. But it's not like we allow for fair representation of what are considered the fringe parties, just like the US Green and Libertarian parties, Communists, etc are considered fringe in the US.

but you can't have 12 people on stage during a debate. if you do, you run into the US primary schmozzle. 5 is plenty.

rustneversleeps

sounds like they need a HURNT HURNT up there.....

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

But not all of Canada's parties are represented. Only those with representation in the House of Commons are allowed to participate in the Canadian leadership debates. So that excludes the Communist Party, the Marijuana Party, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Democratic Advancement Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, Alliance of the North .... and the list goes on! The Green Party can only participate if they did win a seat (they've had all of 1 seat for a awhile now, which is why we've seen them in the debates in more recent years, but they weren't eligible before then. Did they win a seat in the last election? If not, they won't be in the next debates. I can't remember if they won anything or not). So okay, Canada includes more parties, but still only the major ones. We just have 2 - 3 more major parties than the US... which is definitely good. But it's not like we allow for fair representation of what are considered the fringe parties, just like the US Green and Libertarian parties, Communists, etc are considered fringe in the US.

but you can't have 12 people on stage during a debate. if you do, you run into the US primary schmozzle. 5 is plenty.

What about when the Green Party doesn't win a seat? Still all good? I feel like they should get rid of this holding a seat caveat with straight up popular votes in the previous election. Get over, say, 3%, and they belong in the next debates (none of this 15% support nonsense that the US does).

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

But not all of Canada's parties are represented. Only those with representation in the House of Commons are allowed to participate in the Canadian leadership debates. So that excludes the Communist Party, the Marijuana Party, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Democratic Advancement Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, the Canadian Action Party, Alliance of the North .... and the list goes on! The Green Party can only participate if they did win a seat (they've had all of 1 seat for a awhile now, which is why we've seen them in the debates in more recent years, but they weren't eligible before then. Did they win a seat in the last election? If not, they won't be in the next debates. I can't remember if they won anything or not). So okay, Canada includes more parties, but still only the major ones. We just have 2 - 3 more major parties than the US... which is definitely good. But it's not like we allow for fair representation of what are considered the fringe parties, just like the US Green and Libertarian parties, Communists, etc are considered fringe in the US.

but you can't have 12 people on stage during a debate. if you do, you run into the US primary schmozzle. 5 is plenty.

What about when the Green Party doesn't win a seat? Still all good? I feel like they should get rid of this holding a seat caveat with straight up popular votes in the previous election. Get over, say, 3%, and they belong in the next debates (none of this 15% nonsense that the US does).

yeah, I'd agree with that.