TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Federal Election Looms: Who would you vote for?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Personally, I'd rather that people who don't take the time to educate themselves and instead base their opinion on whatever they hear second-hand would just stay home. People should vote, but only if they understand what they're voting for. And I'm not only directing that to uneducated Liberal voters as opposed to Conservative (although I believe that there are more of the former). If you want to vote for the NDP because you're a hardcore socialist and support the unions then go and vote for the NDP. But if you're going to go out and vote Liberal because the Conservatives are Conservative and have a hidden agenda then please, stay home and watch TV instead.

I agree that people should educate themselves before voting.

quote:

Originally posted by Brennen I have voted in every election since I turned 18 and what has changed? NOTHING!!! The last election I voted for some Croatian guy running as an independent. First you said: Then you said this: So you never voted, you just showed up and informed them you were not voting. So by your logic you should be out of the country.

no, I still voted and my vote was counted....I voted for none of the candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I'm stunned so many are supporting Harper. let's see... Senate Reform? fail. Harper just stacked the Senate AGAIN in recent weeks. I'm sure Jacques Demers is among the top candidates that were available.

Harper wanted to change the constitution and have an elected senate. Of course he cannot do this without the support of the provinces. So he left it to the provinces to decide whether they wish to elect the senate. I believe only Alberta choose to do this while the other provinces did not. So as a result we DO have an elected senator from Alberta. The fact is that these seats have to be filled and therefor he filled them. But ALL senators he appointed have agreed to pass a bill that would limit their terms to 4 years (or was it 8) if the bill ever went to the senate (A conservative majority would be needed for this)

quote:

Environment Plan? fail. lame duck John Baird given new ministry, now known for his Toronto can "fuck off" comment. way to dismiss the economnic powerhouse of the country, douchebag.

And i applauded him. Miller thought he could circumvent the rules by failing to meet the mandate and deadline of the stimulus funding. When asked to bend the rules Baird basically told miller to fuck off. GOOD!! He wasnt saying toronto can fuck off so much as he was saying Toronto COUNCIL can fuck off. And i agree with him.

quote:

Fixed election dates? fail. Harper calls an unneessary election for the sole purpose of trying for a majority...denies contravening his own fixed election date plan under the bullshit guise of this only applying to majority gov'ts. how convenient.

And we all know the Liberals were about to pull the plug anyways. So Harper did it for them. I do think harper should have let them pull the non confidence vote themselves but either way the election was going to happen. Dion was feeling his Liberal support crumble and was desperate for an election.

quote:

Balanced budget? fail. we all know that was b.s. by all parties, but publicly the CPC says 2015 (most economists laugh) and privately states they don't know when they can balance the books.

I HATE THE DEFICIT. MAJOR FAIL! I agree here. I blame the Liberals and Conservatives (and somewhat the NDP) equally though. Id like to see what would have happened under a majority where harper wasnt forced to govern like a quasi liberal and give into a lot of the spending demands. But just think, had Martin been re-elected wed be paying for a national day care program (much like health care) and if Dion had been elected we would be paying billions to foreign countries for "pollution credits".

quote:

Transparency/accountability? fail. information has never been more restricted, gov't ministries have never been more muzzled and power has never been more concentrated and controlled in the PMO.

Yes the government does need to be more open but at the same time Harper knows the media is NOT his friend and this is partly why he does it. I can see his point. Give the media rope and they will hang you with it.

quote:

True colours? check! fires staff who provided $400k grant to Toronto Pride...a weeklong event that brings hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy and subsequently denies any funding to Montreal's event. gotta appease the right-wing homo haters among the party faithful, I suppose.

I cant defend some of the social aspects of the right wing as i am a more moderate and libertarian person when it comes to these things. However as for same sex marriage, im extremely doubtful that will ever be revisited by any government in the future that wishes to even have a chance at being reelected.

quote:

Hypocrisy? check! the CPC has the GALL to run a commercial this week saying that an election now is a *waste of money*. ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME??? Ignatieff forcing an election would be for the possibility of a change of gov't, while Harper's last election was nothing more than $200 million roll of the dice for him to score a majority.

Again last time around the Liberals were about to force it. And yes an election right now is uncalled for. Most people agree (except the hardcore harper haters). King Iggy cant stand to be on the opposition bench. There is no doubt about that one.

quote:

Lies? check! the same commercial claims that Ignatieff supports a coalition, despite his repeated public statements he will not consider.

HE IS ON RECORD AS SUPPORTING THE COALITION! In fact he even said he would lead it. Will he support one now? Maybe, maybe not but the track record that he is capable of supporting one is a MATTER OF FACT.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced no, I still voted and my vote was counted....I voted for none of the candidates.

You can officially ask to "Decline your ballot" which goes on record basically as "none of the above"

Spoiling your ballot goes into the spoiled ballot bag and basically says "Im a retard who cant follow instructions" and sends no political message at all.

I used to work as a DRO and SDRO for polling stations

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ... HE IS ON RECORD AS SUPPORTING THE COALITION! In fact he even said he would lead it. Will he support one now? Maybe, maybe not but the track record that he is capable of supporting one is a MATTER OF FACT.

last week:

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Fed...ition-NDP-Bloc/

'Ignatieff dismissed Prime Minister Stephen Harper's warning that the Conservatives need a majority or the Liberals will try to form a coalition with the "socialists and separatists."

"The Liberal party will not agree to form a coalition," Ignatieff said flatly. "We do not support a coalition today or tomorrow."

He said that if he had supported a coalition rather than rejecting it last January: "I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada."

Ignatieff promised to form a "compassionate, moderate government of the centre."


yes...the "I could be standing here..." is a bit bullshit. The reality is that public opposition to the coalition was *at least* as much of a deciding factor...never mind that the GG agreed to Harper's request to suspend Parliament and make it a moot point.

point being...he's made it rather clear that the coalition is not an option. The CPC is clinging to issues that haven't been relevant for some time.


your reply to the fixed election dates is a cop out crock of shit. he pulled it for Liberals? that is fucking ridiculous. he clearly did so to try to form a majority. there was NO other reason. they'd passed every piece of legislation they put forth, yet claimed parliament was "dysfunctional". really? he got everything he wanted!

how you can possibly justify his election call vs. this possible one is beyond me. so it's ok to ignore your own fixed election date stance to corral more power, but it's not ok for the opposition to try to force an election for a change in gov't?

wow.

i don't get why everyone in Canadian politics is so anti-coalition?

why are they letting the right wing take control of the country when only the one third of the people voted for them?! thats just plain WRONG.. left wing parties better grow some balls, form the coalition and SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE!

ugh

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 i don't get why everyone in Canadian politics is so anti-coalition? why are they letting the right wing take control of the country when only the one third of the people voted for them?! thats just plain WRONG.. left wing parties better grow some balls, form the coalition and SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE! ugh

Why? Because traditionally the party that wins the most votes governs. What we need in Canada are run off elections. If 50% + 1 isnt reached by any single party, the top 2 parties have a run off election to determine who gets power.

Why should the green party for example that gets 5% of the vote be allowed to partially govern whereas a party that receives 37% of the vote cant govern at all?

Coalitions are not the answer. Neither is our current system (which technically allows coalitions) but ill take the current way of doing it over the coalition any day.

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 i don't get why everyone in Canadian politics is so anti-coalition? why are they letting the right wing take control of the country when only the one third of the people voted for them?! thats just plain WRONG.. left wing parties better grow some balls, form the coalition and SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE! ugh

uh, no.

while I accept a coalition as a perfectly legitimate, legal option (and it's commonplace in many countries)...it's not a good idea. no one voted for a coalition and CERTAINLY not one that would have been lead by Dion, who badly lost an election and widespread support in his own party.

few people want to see the ludicrous (and expensive) concessions that would need to be made to keep a coalition intact...many of which would also not serve the interests of the people.

as much as I can't stand Harper, that's not the way to get him out of office. the way is to point out what a hypocrite he's been and how he's failed miserably to implement his platform. he feels the only way he can govern is with a majority and can't accept the FACT that Canadians do not want him to have one.

the THREAT of a coalition was beautiful in that it was a giant bitch slap across Harpers smug face that chilled him the fuck out for a while...but that's worn off and it's time for him to go

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT last week: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Fed...ition-NDP-Bloc/ 'Ignatieff dismissed Prime Minister Stephen Harper's warning that the Conservatives need a majority or the Liberals will try to form a coalition with the "socialists and separatists." "The Liberal party will not agree to form a coalition," Ignatieff said flatly. "We do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." He said that if he had supported a coalition rather than rejecting it last January: "I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada." Ignatieff promised to form a "compassionate, moderate government of the centre." yes...the "I could be standing here..." is a bit bullshit. The reality is that public opposition to the coalition was *at least* as much of a deciding factor...never mind that the GG agreed to Harper's request to suspend Parliament and make it a moot point. point being...he's made it rather clear that the coalition is not an option. The CPC is clinging to issues that haven't been relevant for some time. your reply to the fixed election dates is a cop out crock of shit. he pulled it for Liberals? that is fucking ridiculous. he clearly did so to try to form a majority. there was NO other reason. they'd passed every piece of legislation they put forth, yet claimed parliament was "dysfunctional". really? he got everything he wanted! how you can possibly justify his election call vs. this possible one is beyond me. so it's ok to ignore your own fixed election date stance to corral more power, but it's not ok for the opposition to try to force an election for a change in gov't? wow.

As i said, Iggy is on record as stating that he supported the coalition. He backed out after seeing how a coalition polled and realized that a coalition would probably mean a slaughter at the polls. Would he do one now? I dont think so, but it's possible. If the numbers polled in his favour you dont think he would try it? I do!

I agree that the conservatives SHOULD have let Dion slay the dragon but the fact is that we all knew it was a matter of days before the call was to be made. Essentially he called dion's bluff. Do i agree with how it went down? Not exactly. But i do understand why it happened.

As for this election being uncalled for. We are in a recovery and an election will shut down parliament for 3 months leaving government unable to respond to any changes in the economy. If iggy is so hot for an election perhaps he should at least wait until the next recess or until the recovery is strong. Ah, but that wouldnt be good opportunism because people are generally happy with a government on a recovery whether they feel that government is responsible or not. Hence why Iggy is desperate to have an election NOW

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT the THREAT of a coalition was beautiful in that it was a giant bitch slap across Harpers smug face that chilled him the fuck out for a while...but that's worn off and it's time for him to go

What it did was help create the massive deficit we now have by having Harper spend money like a drunken liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT uh, no. while I accept a coalition as a perfectly legitimate, legal option (and it's commonplace in many countries)...it's not a good idea. no one voted for a coalition and CERTAINLY not one that would have been lead by Dion, who badly lost an election and widespread support in his own party. few people want to see the ludicrous (and expensive) concessions that would need to be made to keep a coalition intact...many of which would also not serve the interests of the people. as much as I can't stand Harper, that's not the way to get him out of office. the way is to point out what a hypocrite he's been and how he's failed miserably to implement his platform. he feels the only way he can govern is with a majority and can't accept the FACT that Canadians do not want him to have one.

you're wrong, since you don't account for the fact that within the coalition you still have the tug of war between the various parties, that wouldn't let ridiculous policies through.. how is it fair to allow the ruling party to be that for which only 1/3 of the country voted for? it's irresponsible on part of politicians, since they do not serve the will of the people, but their own self-serving interests

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 you're wrong, since you don't account for the fact that within the coalition you still have the tug of war between the various parties, that wouldn't let ridiculous policies through.. how is it fair to allow the ruling party to be that for which only 1/3 of the country voted for? it's irresponsible on part of politicians, since they do not serve the will of the people, but their own self-serving interests

You dont think that shady backroom deals wouldnt be made? I think it would be even more chaos than a minority government. Look at Italy and their model. They have annual and bi annual elections as a rule. And most of the time there is nothing but screaming and yelling and even the odd fist fight in parliament. No thanks!!!

yes, equate canada to one of the most corrupt societies in the world.. classy!

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 yes, equate canada to one of the most corrupt societies in the world.. classy!

I did not equate us to them. And thats why i want to avoid coalitions. So we DONT become that.

One has to ask how some of these societies become corrupt in the first place. What systems allowed them to become that way in the first place?

Dont you think runoffs would be a better option?

the last thing i would want to see is the runoff election system.. democratic societies need to move as far away from the two-party model of the USA as possible! runoff election system would move us dangerously close to it, and would result in serving the establishment, not the people

coalition system is the only way to grow the democratic system, since it would encourage people to start up new parties with fresh ideas.. with coalitions, these interests are served, not abandoned, as you claim

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 yes, equate canada to one of the most corrupt societies in the world.. classy!

Canada? No.

The Liberal party? Absolutely.

What, have you already forgotten everything that went down during the 12 years before Harper took the helm? Makes the Italian parliament look like bingo night.

And it's really incredibly foolish to say that societies need to move away from the two-party system, when the two-party system is the only system in which you don't get bloc voting/tactical voting. I think Canada does alright with our 2 major and 2 minor parties, but what you're advocating is practically anarchy. With no allegiances and no unified platform, there's nothing to stop anyone from trading votes for political favours.

Pure democracy is one of the worst ways to run a government (or a business or anything else). That's why every "democratic" system today is actually a system of democratic elections combined with a constitutional process.

kanye west !!!!!

cause WHITEY KEEPS ME DOWN TOO !!!

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 the last thing i would want to see is the runoff election system.. democratic societies need to move as far away from the two-party model of the USA as possible! runoff election system would move us dangerously close to it, and would result in serving the establishment, not the people coalition system is the only way to grow the democratic system, since it would encourage people to start up new parties with fresh ideas.. with coalitions, these interests are served, not abandoned, as you claim

You dont think a run off election would serve us well? Its not a 2 party system due to the fact that there had already been an opportunity to elect ANY party that chooses to run in the first election.

So on one hand you bemoan that a third of the votes gets to rule and then say that 50% + 1 doesnt work because its American?

Coalitions would result in nothing but back room peddling and political fighting and NOTHING would get done. Talking about serving the establishment!

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 you're wrong, since you don't account for the fact that within the coalition you still have the tug of war between the various parties, that wouldn't let ridiculous policies through.. how is it fair to allow the ruling party to be that for which only 1/3 of the country voted for? it's irresponsible on part of politicians, since they do not serve the will of the people, but their own self-serving interests

that's your opinion. I'm not "wrong".

I didn't say that "ridiculous policies" would make it through. I said that there would be expensive concessions needed to secure the support of the other parties.

the Bloq and the NDP both know damn well they will never form the gov't on their own so they will make demands that will either be granted or they threaten to yank their support, the coalition falls, and they're no worse off then they are now. otherwise, WTF is the point of participating in the coalition if they don't get to implement part of their own agenda? Why the hell do you think that so many Liberal supporters did NOT support the coalition, even though the Liberals would lead it?

do you actually think there would be some utopia of noble cooperation that set aside partisan interests for the good of all Canadians?

hahahahahaha...ok.

certain types of coalitions (namely one with a large party supported by ONE smaller party) are great in theory and do work well enough elsewhere...but I really can't see that working well here at all when the three parties would be the Liberals, NDP and Bloc. There are too many idealogical differences and disparate agendas for that to be functional, stable and GOOD for Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by malek Bloc Pot of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 You can officially ask to "Decline your ballot" which goes on record basically as "none of the above" Spoiling your ballot goes into the spoiled ballot bag and basically says "Im a retard who cant follow instructions" and sends no political message at all. I used to work as a DRO and SDRO for polling stations

and that is exactly what I did...I declined to vote. I agree that spoiling a vote does nothing....declining to vote tells the parties they all suck

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced and that is exactly what I did...I declined to vote. I agree that spoiling a vote does nothing....declining to vote tells the parties they all suck

Good! Im glad some of those who dont want to vote for anyone actually take the time to make that political statement. It's just as much a service to the country as voting for someone. Staying home achieves nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Good! Im glad some of those who dont want to vote for anyone actually take the time to make that political statement. It's just as much a service to the country as voting for someone. Staying home achieves nothing.

It was an easy choice for last election....it may be a little harder this election to decline to vote.

i like the idea of a runoff. having 4 hands in the pot and a minority gov. just increases the spinning and nothing gets done.

A funny thing i see with elections is that we pick and fight over the little things when there are more pressing issues. For example, these topics are always hot potatoes:

• abortion
  
• aboriginals
  
• same sex marriages
  

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.