Canadian Election

1…6791112

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Roland, you commenting on someone else's degree of education is pretty hilarious.

    uhm...yeah...ok...

    show me evidence of it, and I'll agree.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Actually the population, or at least 44 percent of them don't seem to give a shit either way. If parties (uncluding the Greens and their 7%) want more representation, chase after 44% and find a way to reach and inspire them, rather than going through all the effort to change the system which wouldn't really make much of a difference anyways.

    there are a plethora of reasons why someone doesn't vote ... in either case - it doesn't make the current representation appropriate ... why do you assume those 44% would vote green?
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    uhh ... you are more than welcome to vote for whoever you want but how anyone can say the libs and cons are the same is beyond me ...


    I read the party comparisons from a bunch of different sources and a lot of the issues, save for a few that seemed to be the focus of the election both parties had very similar plans, other than regarding details or amount of money they were going to spend.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    there are a plethora of reasons why someone doesn't vote ... in either case - it doesn't make the current representation appropriate ... why do you assume those 44% would vote green?

    I don't assume those people would vote green, but if the green wants more power they should try to appeal to them rather than trying to change the system. If they could get a decent amount of the non voters it would give them more power in the house then changing the system probably would. Except I guess they would have to pay for it with their own campaign funds, changing the system costs them nothing.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    uhm...yeah...ok...

    show me evidence of it, and I'll agree.

    Just sayin' ... There is not a robust link between education and how people vote in this country. Everyone in Toronto votes Liberal, time after time, no matter who leads the party, because they are better educated than everyone else?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Quit bitching, polaris. If the Liberals had won under similar circumstances, you wouldn't complain. And no, I think its pretty clear that the majority of people in this country voted for a moderate agenda. The Liberals have never represented a progressive agenda, as you put it.
    You guys cannot ever do any better than subtley insulting people's intelligence ... Roland, you commenting on someone else's degree of education is pretty hilarious.

    no ... you have nothing to back up your statement ... 62% voted for a progressive agenda - that is a FACT!! ... and after all these years - you should know i've NEVER voted liberal ... i voted for mixed proportional representation in my provincial election which the libs won here so - whatever preconceived notions you have of what i think - you can pretty much put down as wrong ...

    stephane dion abstained for most votes which in my mind does count for voting for but he did it for political reasons - none of which i agree with which is what i told the liberal canvasser who came to my door ...

    but that doesn't mean that our current electoral system represents the country ... tell me how this works and please try and discuss the topic instead of wasting time calling people whiners ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I read the party comparisons from a bunch of different sources and a lot of the issues, save for a few that seemed to be the focus of the election both parties had very similar plans, other than regarding details or amount of money they were going to spend.

    environment?
    day care?
    military?
    tax cuts?
    healt care?

    wtf is similar?????
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    no ... you have nothing to back up your statement ... 62% voted for a progressive agenda - that is a FACT!! ... and after all these years - you should know i've NEVER voted liberal ... i voted for mixed proportional representation in my provincial election which the libs won here so - whatever preconceived notions you have of what i think - you can pretty much put down as wrong ...

    stephane dion abstained for most votes which in my mind does count for voting for but he did it for political reasons - none of which i agree with which is what i told the liberal canvasser who came to my door ...

    but that doesn't mean that our current electoral system represents the country ... tell me how this works and please try and discuss the topic instead of wasting time calling people whiners ...

    Well, sorry, that's how it comes off. As for the topic at hand, who are you speaking of, exactly, when you talk about Canadians voting for a progressive agenda? Which parties represent such?
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    The media is controlled, shaped and packaged to tell a story to people. It's partisan to a cause. If they started telling people what's really going on, and why things are they way they are, there would be no war, and the people running these wars, and deceptive corporate agendas would be run out of town with pitchforks. That's really just the way it is.

    don't you get it. what you mean by saying "if they (teh media) started telling people what's really going on" is that if teh mass media started telling what you believe is really going on. people search for thinsg that they believe and want someone to prove it to others. that is really the biggest problem in the world today
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I don't assume those people would vote green, but if the green wants more power they should try to appeal to them rather than trying to change the system. If they could get a decent amount of the non voters it would give them more power in the house then changing the system probably would. Except I guess they would have to pay for it with their own campaign funds, changing the system costs them nothing.

    no ... their problem is that the game is rigged against them now - it's a game that favours a singular right wing party now ... simple as that ...

    sure, you can say there are alternative ways but you cannot deny the fact that the current electoral system favours the conservatives ...
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Please that is a huge stereotype (you might as well be saying all Canadians live in Igloos), I am highly educated and I voted conservative. I reviewed all of the issues for all of the parties. Greens and NDP were all way to crazy and impossible, Liberals and Conservative were pretty much the same on a lot of issues.

    What's your stance on Canada's foreign policy from the US perspective?

    You do realize Harper is working with Bush to form a North American union right? This is not in the Canadian media. Does that concern you? Does it also concern you that Harper has been largely accepting of US policy here in Canada?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    environment?
    day care?
    military?
    tax cuts?
    healt care?

    wtf is similar?????

    Day care is a major electoral issue for you?

    Anyhow, the most robust difference here is on environmental issues. If you take Dion at his word, he does not support higher taxes. His party was responsible for the Afghanistan mission, and I don't think anyone can state that the Libs and Cons differ all that much with regards to health care issues.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Well, sorry, that's how it comes off. As for the topic at hand, who are you speaking of, exactly, when you talk about Canadians voting for a progressive agenda? Which parties represent such?

    it only comes across like that because you want it to ... no one else is calling me a whiner ...

    the libs, ndp, green and bloc are all progressive agendas ... look at their current platforms ...

    this was stepahane dion's liberals not paul martin's ... they've brought in a lot of new candidates like justin trudeau, gerrard kennedy, bob rae ... all progressives ...
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Just sayin' ... There is not a robust link between education and how people vote in this country. Everyone in Toronto votes Liberal, time after time, no matter who leads the party, because they are better educated than everyone else?

    i personally think that toronto votes liberal and NDP is becuase there is a very diverse population here. you have the very rich with the very poor and also teh middle class. also i believe that we vote liberal/ndp becuase we remember Mr. harris. i don't know if that is becase we are better educated in teh school sense but maybe we are educated by life experience.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Thecure wrote:
    don't you get it. what you mean by saying "if they (teh media) started telling people what's really going on" is that if teh mass media started telling what you believe is really going on. people search for thinsg that they believe and want someone to prove it to others. that is really the biggest problem in the world today


    It has nothing to do with what I believe. Situations are what they are set forth from historical realities that have taken place. If people still think Canada under Harper is not going to take the same path in the war on terror (and everything that path entail)s, then I think there's going to be a dramatic change in Canada's future despite what people watch on TV and think they really know.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    environment?
    day care?
    military?
    tax cuts?
    healt care?

    wtf is similar?????


    Military is exactly the same because both parties agree with the 2011 withdraw.

    Daycare, both parties seem to like the 1200 a year benefit. Which personally I think is pretty good.

    Health Care both parties say they are comitted to reducing wait times.


    For the most part it is all the same basic shit, some stuff I think the conservatives do better some things I think they are lacking in.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Day care is a major electoral issue for you?

    Anyhow, the most robust difference here is on environmental issues. If you take Dion at his word, he does not support higher taxes. His party was responsible for the Afghanistan mission, and I don't think anyone can state that the Libs and Cons differ all that much with regards to health care issues.

    sure ... living in a city where there is no affordable day care spots - it sure is an election issue ... in any case - can either of you show me the cons and libs are the same?

    i knew you'd go back in history - see my previous post about the liberals who are in control of the party currently (doesn't mean they won't revert back) ... this is the thing i find with conservatives (they will remember every detail of a liberal misgiving but can quickly forget anything a conservative does) ...

    health care is huge difference ... one wants to privatize while the other wants to maintain public access ...

    http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalparties/a/elihealthcare.htm
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    it only comes across like that because you want it to ... no one else is calling me a whiner ...

    the libs, ndp, green and bloc are all progressive agendas ... look at their current platforms ...

    this was stepahane dion's liberals not paul martin's ... they've brought in a lot of new candidates like justin trudeau, gerrard kennedy, bob rae ... all progressives ...

    Everyone else agrees with you, because of how political ideologies on this board are skewed.
    And sorry, I do not consider the Libs to be progressive overall. They are a centrist party. I think the only thing in their platform that could be taken that way is the Green Plan.
    Also, I'd be curious as to the motives of those who vote Bloc. Political progressives, or just hating English Canada? I don't know. Cozying up to the Bloc does not come easy to me. If they shed the sovereignty agenda, I'd concede that point.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Military is exactly the same because both parties agree with the 2011 withdraw.

    Daycare, both parties seem to like the 1200 a year benefit. Which personally I think is pretty good.

    Health Care both parties say they are comitted to reducing wait times.


    For the most part it is all the same basic shit, some stuff I think the conservatives do better some things I think they are lacking in.

    http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalparties/a/elichildcare.htm

    see previous post on health care

    and military http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/03/f-elxn-militaryspending.html

    avoiding environment?

    look ... they aren't remotely close to being the same ... again - you are welcome to vote for conservatives but they are two very different parties ...
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It has nothing to do with what I believe. Situations are what they are set forth from historical realities that have taken place. If people still think Canada under Harper is not going to take the same path in the war on terror (and everything that path entail)s, then I think there's going to be a dramatic change in Canada's future despite what people watch on TV and think they really know.

    It has nothing to do with what I believe. Situations are what they are set forth from "historical realities" that have taken place. If people still think Canada under Harper is not going to take the same path in the war on terror (and everything that path entail)s, then I think there's going to be a dramatic change in Canada's future despite what people watch on TV and think they really know.[/quote

    sorry just wanted to add some some "" to your post.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

Categories