TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Many people only vote for the MP they want to represent them....and personally I see no problem with that way of thinking. Myself, I will vote for the party who I feel will better serve my needs as a middle to upper middle class white male.

yea vote like that if u want, though theres not much point really since federal mps dont do anything for their community...but when he can't back it up with any reason whatsoever for picking her, then theres a problem.

MP's won't do anything for the people in the region unless you write to them, talk to them. They'll do didly squat for whatever you write about in this forum or any other for that matter.

The fact IS, they represent US, our region, first and foremost. Otherwise, what's the whole point of voting for MPs? Screw all the regional elections, and just have ballots that say, Conservative, Liberal, Marijuana, Communist, Marxist-Leninist, Green, Rhinoceros, whatever. So, voting for a party is your and everyone's prerogative, but in the end, the fact is, you vote for the person first. Show me anywhere on a ballot that says otherwise.

Seriously, you can write to MPs without a postage stamp, it's free. The more letters they receive about their constituents' concerns, the more they'll listen. If an MP gets a letter on an issue from only one person, yes, it will gather dust, but if they get many letters on the same issue, it'll be on the front burner. YOU are the ears and voices of their community.

So this coming election, I encourage everyone to vote. I don't care who you vote for, just vote. It is our priveledge. And if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. If you don't care to vote, you don't care who represents you.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie So this coming election, I encourage everyone to vote. I don't care who you vote for, just vote. It is our priveledge. And if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. If you don't care to vote, you don't care who represents you.

I do agree with you...that we should all vote...however...only vote is you are actually going to make an educated vote...don't vote if you are not going to educate yourself on the platforms of at least the main parties. Not voting is bad but uneducated voting is worse

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Not voting is bad but uneducated voting is worse

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

Amen. Cuz All I hear from everyone is why I shouldn't vote for who I want to, rather than why I should vote who I 'should' vote for. Most people I spoke with in Aurora/Newmarket can't even name who's running for the Conservatives here without googling it. It's always anti-Liberal I hear, but no one ever sucessfully has been pro-Conservative.... these are two different things, even though they appear to be the same.

Howmany think the proposed tax cut will effect the running?

I dont think it will much . Most of the people on the news said they didnt really care, now obviously they couldve left out the ones who said they did, I dont know. but 2% imo...big whoop.

It doesnt matter who is elected.. cause we are already screwed.

Why do all politicians keep promising better things for the people of canada & our economy, yet when elected... NOTHING changes! Our economy is just a big piece of shit thats travelling very quickly @ a 747 turbine engine. We just like to believe our politicians and the media that keep saying "everything is getting better", while factories keep closing up(or moving to china) & people keep losing their jobs.
North America is heading towards a massive economic disaster.

But people rather hear good lies, then accept unpleasent truth.

Also there is evidence to suggest that voting is a fraud. That all major people in power have been "selected" rather then "elected". Just to give sheep(the ignorant masses) the illusion that we have a choice & live in a country of freedom. But lets not get into that.

Have a nice day.

Everytime I skim by this thread I see "Stephen Hawking."

That is all.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Dude, seriously, what are you on about? You missed the point completely. Harper didn't even talk about the gay marriage issue in his speech. THIS LIBERAL DOUCHEBAG WROTE HIS ENTIRE ARTICLE ABOUT SOMETHING HARPER NEVER EVEN MENTIONED. Can you leave your personal emotions out of this for half a second and look at what's ACTUALLY happening?

True, he did not mention it in the speach but he was asked a question about it afterwards which was the basis for all the discussion that ensued. Mr. Harper is going to be pleagued by journalists asking about his "secret agenda" for the next 6 weeks because that is the story that's going to sell papers in the large urban markets the national press cares about, moreover, it is what the electorate really wants to know about (assuming it exists, which a great number do believe). He really has to learn how to better handle these questions or avoid them if he is to have any measure of success. One of his handlers (I hate that term) tried to deflect the question but Mr. Harper returned to it.... he shouldn't have, this was a critical mistake on his part.

I think the real problem here is that Harper is very good at developing policy (he's a thinker) but very poor at communicating that policy to the electorate and even worse at understanding what will and will not play with voters. His problem is more of a stylistic one then a lack of merit. Unfortunately for Mr. Harper, if you cannot deliver your intended message to the audience then they will never receive that message and will not recognize any merit that it may have. In short, he's a good theorist but a weak politition Since the general public doesn't have the ability to understand the theories on their own they need a politition to deliver them in a manner they can make sense of..... sadly Mr. Harper cannot do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard ...One of his handlers (I hate that term) tried to deflect the question but Mr. Harper returned to it.... he shouldn't have, this was a critical mistake on his part. I think the real problem here is that Harper is very good at developing policy (he's a thinker) but very poor at communicating that policy to the electorate and even worse at understanding what will and will not play with voters. ...

exactly why I started this thread.

he's not an idiot...he's not a "bad person"...he's just not a politician and I don't think he'd make a good PM. He doesn't "get it" and while those who do "get it" often take advantage of the situation, IMHO you have to at least "get it" to be able to do the job. He seems so out of touch with how to play the game...and it IS a game to reach that position.


btw...anyone notice that the lunatic Carolyn Parrish isn't running again? YAY! lol

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT He doesn't "get it" and while those who do "get it" often take advantage of the situation, IMHO you have to at least "get it" to be able to do the job. He seems so out of touch with how to play the game...and it IS a game to reach that position. btw...anyone notice that the lunatic Carolyn Parrish isn't running again? YAY! lol

It used to be that your political skill was less important. Mackenzie King was a fuckin' whack job with almost no interpersonal skills, however, he managed to get elected and severed more time in office then any PM because he was fantastically intelligent. Unfortunately that was 70 years ago.... modern media highlights style over content. Mackenzie King would never be prime minister today. Mr. Harper (regardless of his merit as a policywog) suffers from a severe lack of style. Is this right or good.... of course not, but it's real.

With regard to Parrish..... now there is a good politition! Hear me out, don't jump down my throat quite yet. Parrish's riding has a huge consentration of Arab decendants and recent immigrants. Her bashing of Bush and the war in Iraq endeared her to that population. It would have been a great political move if only she could have pulled it off with a little more tact. Regardless, she did manage to be re-elected.... a testiment to her skill at winning the hearts of a local electorate?

^Heh. You'd have to wonder how someone who likes to talk to ghosts ever became a PM.

On issue of MPs representing their constituents, well, you also have to realize that they also have their party line they have to toe, or they'd get booted.
Now the IDEAL MP is the one who puts his riding before his party. In a lot of cases, belonging to a party gives an MP more clout because whether you like it or not, people do vote for the party, not necessarily the candidate. This became to happen because people get too busy and people don't pay enough attention to what their MPs are doing on their behalf, unless one pays a lot of attention to local politics. I mean, how many people have time to read the national news, let alone local news nowadays?

So you have the ideal and the reality. In most cases, the ideal and the reality are in line most of the times. But when it doesn't, well, the result gets interesting.

can you guys imagine a conservative govt with no one elected in Quebec???

thats one hell of a mind bender for Harper....

quote:

Originally posted by malek can you guys imagine a conservative govt with no one elected in Quebec??? thats one hell of a mind bender for Harper....

It's possible but not probable and certainly problematic to say the least.

Malek, I'm curious to hear your thought on Duceppe. I like him. I think I would prefer him as PM over all the other leaders if that didn't mean having the Bloc comprise the governing party. I presume that you would have greater familiarity with him then we would here, how do you assess the man.

^^^ I think Duceppe is a remarkable speaker...seems to be very astute, intelligent, etc. I agree with much of what he has to say from both economic and social standpoints and quite enjoyed listening to him during the debates last time.

If only he was leading a national party...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT ^^^ I think Duceppe is a remarkable speaker...seems to be very astute, intelligent, etc. I agree with much of what he has to say from both economic and social standpoints and quite enjoyed listening to him during the debates last time. If only he was leading a national party...

my thinking as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard my thinking as well.

Heh. Harper can't lick Duceppe's balls when it comes to interviews and debates. Layton just comes off to me as a slimy bastard.

Duceppe does have his foot in mouth comments though. Like that Quebec should send its own hockey team to Olympics comment.

I come from Quebec as well, and although I don't follow the politics as much, I clearly remember a very different politician from 6 years ago during the federal debate with Alexa McDonough, Jean cretien, joe clark.

Gilles Duceppe's voice barely resonated, his english was not as good and he and alexa struggled so much that the moderator had to ask to let them have their turn to speak. I remember questioning his capability until I saw him in French language interviews and realised he was well spoken and very bright.

I guess after become leader of the party his exposure to English increased and he has since become very articulate. His voice is very powerful, and his presence in Quebec is powerful because he truly represents what the people want.

The thing is, I think what makes Quebec different is that we're not as conservative in general, and haven't been for many years. Although I have grown to really love living in Ontario, I am constantly taken aback at how conservative it is in comparison to Quebec.

I don't know that Gilles Duceppe would succeed as a national party leader, because I think there are an overwhelming amount of Canadians who prefer the lip service that the liberals and conservatives offer. Unfortunately we quickly forget the awful time we had with Mulroney in power.

While I do agree that the Liberals aren't that great, I shudder at the thought of Harper leading this country.

that's just my two cents

i shudder even more at the prospect of canadians re electing known criminals and rewarding crime and lying with another term.

Lets be honest. Our scandal pales in comparison to what's happening in many countries. If it wasn't the gomery inquiry, people would be going off on something else.

There are literally millions of people swimming in corrutpion far more grand then we could possibly ever fathom; perhaps we should look to our neighbours to the south. People are dying everyday. Most Afrcian countries don't even have a government to speak of, let alone know the meaning of democracy.

let's be honest people, what we deal with is small potatoes. And you can be as disgruntled as you'd like, but I'm sure there are many people who would do anything to switch places with a Canadian.

That's all I have to say. discussion closed for me.

quote:

Originally posted by djeso don't fucking talk to me about politics. the gst and pst taxes have me going around like a crazy donkey.. did i get an std from that last tax i paid for, probably. fucking politicians, liars and monkies. fuck them all, and vote for anarchy and djs on djlist. me especially since i make you all dance like frogs on the paris frying pan.

Coupled with your post in "waitresses r people too" thread, I sense some anger in you, young Jedi.

Duceppe is a friggin bright man, I don't think there's a politician on the Federal level that can match him at the moment.

I remember that almost 2 years before the gomery scandal, he was talking about the fraud going on with the sponsorship program, and his claims were very detailed... but no one listened to him because he's an evil separatist.

If he could run for the PC as head of party, he would win the elections hands down and demolish the PLC with a 200+ seats govt.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Coupled with your post in "waitresses r people too" thread, I sense some anger in you, young Jedi.

that wasn't me posting i gotta learn to log out when I have drunken friends over

LMFAO at young Jedi

Stephen Harper is my biggest obstacle in voting Conservative to be honest. He is just too far to the right on certain social issues where I find myself leaning toward the left. Why do people care so much about gay marriage! Geez.

Now, if the Tories would just reform a bit and make their platform about:

-maintaining and improving healthcare (limited privatisation),
- wise tax cuts where applicable/possible WITHOUT favouring big business,
- not getting too far up the Yanks' arses
- emphasising Canadian culture (ie, our roots, none of this holiday tree crap! drawing the lind FIRMLY in the sand concering religious freedom) instead of pandering to every pressure and immigrant group like the Liberals and NDP
- limiting immigration big time
- accepting gay marriages and abortion
- a much stronger committment to the JOKE that is our armed forces

Then I would surely vote for them. Trouble is, their leadership is based too much in the west and have social values that I deem a bit scary. They have to recognise that to succeed, they're going to need a leader from Ontario who can't be linked to some crazy church group and is actually socially MODERATE.

Bring the party a bit more to the left and they'd do better. With Harper, it's not going to happen.

Steven Harper, plain and simple, is fucking ridiculous

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