|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2015 20:27 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 07:36 lethal111 wrote: Jt only voted for it, so he can use it in the election campaign as some crap. Saying he will amend it if he gets elected... Why dont u just vote against it instead of using it as a platform for your campaign. I wasn't old enough to vote during the last federal election but i wont be voting conservative at all... If you watch the interview, he says there are things in the bill he agrees with, which is the answer as to why he voted for it (sometimes you have to achieve what you can, not what you want). Now, if say the Tories win, you will have no changes to the bill. If the NDP win, you will have no bill c-51. If JT wins, you will have a modified C-51 where you won't be called a terrorist if you're critical of the Gov or if you're an environmental activist. Hopefully that helps you better understand the options. Speaking in layman's terms, we need protections, C-51 has a few things that could actually help catch bad people, and it has a lot of things that could be used against good people. As it stands now, the bill is damaging to the freedoms we have. However having nothing in place, could be damaging as well. In my eyes it's about finding balance, that's what this election is about to me. Edit: The Spells
Except if JT didn't like it and is going to fundamentally change it, he should have just voted against it. The Conservatives were going to pass it anyways. The only reason he voted for it was basically so that they can't call him "soft on terror" (whatever the fuck that retardedness means) come election time, which they will do anyways.
In short, it's a pretty wishy-washy reason. Which is what JT seems to be. Just take a fucking stand on something for once.
|
Slightly off topic but what the fuck happened in Alberta, anyone have some insight? It seems like everyone went crazy all of a sudden!
Anyway at this point I'll vote for anyone promises to kill C-51. I'm so profoundly disappointed with this country I'm getting dreams of an independent Quebec again. Let us go. Let us live without your insane laws. We have enough of our own insane laws
Alternatively, cut the crap bros. I love you all.
|
|
On May 09 2015 00:41 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 21:38 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 08 2015 20:27 iMOOrtal wrote:On May 08 2015 07:36 lethal111 wrote: Jt only voted for it, so he can use it in the election campaign as some crap. Saying he will amend it if he gets elected... Why dont u just vote against it instead of using it as a platform for your campaign. I wasn't old enough to vote during the last federal election but i wont be voting conservative at all... If you watch the interview, he says there are things in the bill he agrees with, which is the answer as to why he voted for it (sometimes you have to achieve what you can, not what you want). Now, if say the Tories win, you will have no changes to the bill. If the NDP win, you will have no bill c-51. If JT wins, you will have a modified C-51 where you won't be called a terrorist if you're critical of the Gov or if you're an environmental activist. Hopefully that helps you better understand the options. Speaking in layman's terms, we need protections, C-51 has a few things that could actually help catch bad people, and it has a lot of things that could be used against good people. As it stands now, the bill is damaging to the freedoms we have. However having nothing in place, could be damaging as well. In my eyes it's about finding balance, that's what this election is about to me. Edit: The Spells Except if JT didn't like it and is going to fundamentally change it, he should have just voted against it. The Conservatives were going to pass it anyways. The only reason he voted for it was basically so that they can't call him "soft on terror" (whatever the fuck that retardedness means) come election time, which they will do anyways. In short, it's a pretty wishy-washy reason. Which is what JT seems to be. Just take a fucking stand on something for once. Sometimes politics isn't about being an ideologue. The liberals are the central party in our system and his positikn on c51 shows that. JT has to separate himself from Muclaire, and Harper. In the end it comes down to taking votes away from the tories and swinging more central leaning NDP voters to his cause, he wants to show that he is hard on terror but at the same time will respect our freedoms more than the conservatives do. BTW he is taking a stand on something, marijuana. So you can't say he doesn't take a stand on things because clearly he does. He just does what he thinks is the right thing to do. I can tell you're going to vote NDP, which honestly makes me happy. ABC in the end my friend. (Anything but conservatives).
"Taking a stand" on marijuana is pretty.....meh. It's not a huge issue for me, even though I actually use it occasionally and am in favour of legalization. It was an issue I cared about when I was a teen. There's much more important things to take a stand over. And if he thinks voting for bill C-51 is "the right thing to do" (and it's not actually a political calculation), then that's honestly even more of a reason to not vote for him. In assuming that he's making a strategic political decision, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
But yeah, I'd take JT over the Conservatives any day. Not a huge fan of Mulcair, but there's people in the NDP who I do know have a ton of integrity and intelligence so I will most likely be voting for them. I lean NDP, but am not opposed to voting to JT if he can sway me and I think he can beat Harper.
So far he's not succeeding.
|
Before I go on i should say im a huge JT supporter, i have his book "Common Ground" I've been to rallies, door to door, ect. So with that in mind ill say this, if Paul Dewar was the NDP leader (the candidate who will win my riding anyway regards of my vote for the libs) I would be right there with you. He is truly a great person so I can understand how you feel about the people within the NDP. Now, I agree that pot isn't the only thing to take a stand on, I was only pointing out that he is willing to take a stand on other important issues he believes in, I.e he's not as gutless as people portray him.
It is political posturing in regards to c51, if you watch the interview I linked previously, its more than evident. But his position is exactly where the most liberals have always been, to the wayleft of the Tories and right of the NDP. That's where I like them personally. If we end up with a minority conservative government the NDP and the liberals will have to work together to amend the bill. If the liberals win they will amend the bill, and if the NDP wins they will need the liberals support to amend or remove the legislation (assuming they don't end up in a majority which is the most unlikely). In the end they (NDP and libs) will provawbly have to work together to sort it out.
Sorry send from phone hard to post
Edit: I should say it also in a way forces the NDP to work with the libs down the line. C51 was going to pass regardless of jt's support. By saying he supports part of it he's drawing away from harpers base, while also forcing the NDP to work with him when the time comes to amend it down from what it is now. Jt is trying to play chess match while the other parties play checkers. Wheather or not it works has yet to unfold.
|
Holy hell, this Harper guy. I'm not how much people on this forum might care about this issue, but this is pretty damn ridiculous:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497
Basically, today Harper has signaled a willingness to prosecute individuals advocating in favour of the Israel BDS movement with hate speech laws.
That's a pretty serious thing. Using hate laws to target groups that are peacefully opposing a foreign state's actions seems like a serious disregard for free speech.
Using the legal logic that they are applying the Conservatives would have opposed the BDS movement against Apartheid, too.
God damn I hope he loses the next election badly.
|
Personally I am leaning toward voting NDP because they have made it clear that they support a change toward mixed proportional representation in the voting system. The way we have it now (I think its called "first past the post"?), apparently conservatives can gain a majority government even if only 40% of canadians voted for them (and I'm not sure that's the lowest possible percentage). Basically all of the votes I made in the past toward the green party are wasted under this system, and it makes me feel like my vote is truly worthless. It just seems anti-democratic to me, because people care less about voting based on what they believe and more to play around vote-splitting in particular ridings.
One one hand I understand that technically people are voting for a representative for their region in a province, so it seems fair that the majority of votes should decide which candidate is put into parliament. But realistically the type of person in parliament is insignificant in comparison to the general strength of the party and their ability to influence government policy by acting as a voting bloc. That's what really matters - it is a federal election after all, not a municipal or even provincial one, so you're not voting someone into parliament who will provide some kind of personal treatment. Their primary role in the system will be to decide on things that work for millions of people, not just one small part of Canada.
But I'm guessing everyone here already agrees. Vote splitting is just so damaging to democratic values, and is basically responsible for providing the conservatives with a majority. So I might have to play politics again with my vote to play the first-past-the-post game if polls show strong liberal support in my riding (because hey anything but conservative!), but I hope I won't have to.
Also as a side note anything that will move us on a trajectory away from promoting and selling tar sands oil. We are on the verge of an environmental catastrophe and politicians (including the liberal party) think that its a good idea to start actively advertising for oil expansion. We should all be making a collective effort to move away from oil. Nothing is going to collapse if we don't start extracting the hell out of the tar sands, the world was fine before and it is fine after. The only thing it does is make people even more oil-dependent than they were before. Sigh...why are some people so obsessed with making money. Its an infection
|
On May 09 2015 00:03 Djzapz wrote: Slightly off topic but what the fuck happened in Alberta, anyone have some insight? It seems like everyone went crazy all of a sudden!
I live in Alberta and tbh I have no idea what happened. I'm your typical oil and gas engineer working in the exploration/production portion of the industry. There's quite a bit of worry about the NDP especially from the old boys.
It's interesting... EVERYONE I talk to - guys from the field, people on facebook, coworkers, anyone - they ALL fear the worst for Alberta. Which makes me wonder who voted for the NDP / how I'm socially isolated because idk anyone who voted NDP hahaha.
Anyways we'll see how it shakes down. My political knowledge is not great so I will refrain from forming an uneducated opinion.
|
On May 13 2015 00:04 rally_point wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2015 00:03 Djzapz wrote: Slightly off topic but what the fuck happened in Alberta, anyone have some insight? It seems like everyone went crazy all of a sudden!
I live in Alberta and tbh I have no idea what happened. I'm your typical oil and gas engineer working in the exploration/production portion of the industry. There's quite a bit of worry about the NDP especially from the old boys. It's interesting... EVERYONE I talk to - guys from the field, people on facebook, coworkers, anyone - they ALL fear the worst for Alberta. Which makes me wonder who voted for the NDP / how I'm socially isolated because idk anyone who voted NDP hahaha. Anyways we'll see how it shakes down. My political knowledge is not great so I will refrain from forming an uneducated opinion. The cities voted NDP. Most of the rural areas voted Wildrose. I live here too and what happened is Pretenice told everyone to look in a mirror as to why the economy is bad and the budgets don't balance. That went over VERY poorly.
Add in the hate towards Harper and the terrible campaing of fear mongering tactics and voting PC becomes a very ugly prospect. NDP have the better message and were the easy choice.
I think the wildrose leader said it best. After this election the PC party will realize it has no reason to exist and will fold. I hope he is right.
|
|
We got Paul Beeston yappin' away about a $200 million dollar renovation for the Rogers Center... owned by Rogers Communicaitons...
We got Montreal sniffing around for an NBA team and an MLB Baseball team these last few months i got just 1 thing to say:
not 1 nickel of federal money towards a pro sports team... as far as i'm concerned the Raptors, and Blue Jays can pick up their balls and move to the USA and go play in a free government funded stadium... not here.
no corporate welfare for pro sports teams. not 1 nickel.
|
On May 12 2015 23:33 radscorpion9 wrote: Personally I am leaning toward voting NDP because they have made it clear that they support a change toward mixed proportional representation in the voting system. The way we have it now (I think its called "first past the post"?), apparently conservatives can gain a majority government even if only 40% of canadians voted for them (and I'm not sure that's the lowest possible percentage). Basically all of the votes I made in the past toward the green party are wasted under this system, and it makes me feel like my vote is truly worthless. It just seems anti-democratic to me, because people care less about voting based on what they believe and more to play around vote-splitting in particular ridings.
One one hand I understand that technically people are voting for a representative for their region in a province, so it seems fair that the majority of votes should decide which candidate is put into parliament. But realistically the type of person in parliament is insignificant in comparison to the general strength of the party and their ability to influence government policy by acting as a voting bloc. That's what really matters - it is a federal election after all, not a municipal or even provincial one, so you're not voting someone into parliament who will provide some kind of personal treatment. Their primary role in the system will be to decide on things that work for millions of people, not just one small part of Canada.
But I'm guessing everyone here already agrees. Vote splitting is just so damaging to democratic values, and is basically responsible for providing the conservatives with a majority. So I might have to play politics again with my vote to play the first-past-the-post game if polls show strong liberal support in my riding (because hey anything but conservative!), but I hope I won't have to.
Also as a side note anything that will move us on a trajectory away from promoting and selling tar sands oil. We are on the verge of an environmental catastrophe and politicians (including the liberal party) think that its a good idea to start actively advertising for oil expansion. We should all be making a collective effort to move away from oil. Nothing is going to collapse if we don't start extracting the hell out of the tar sands, the world was fine before and it is fine after. The only thing it does is make people even more oil-dependent than they were before. Sigh...why are some people so obsessed with making money. Its an infection
I dunno man oil is a pretty good thing here in Alberta. I am sad if we return to the days where all a Federal party has to do is pander to Ontario and Quebec while leaving the east and west without a party to represent them.
|
The latest block of "bipartisan" government ads is pretty shameful. It's all "the government is proposing". Weird, I always thought "the government" meant the entire government, opposition included, not just one party. I highly doubt the opposition is proposing these things that just happen to be part of the Conservative platform. Not to mention advertising services that don't actually exist is incredibly dishonest.
|
|
On May 19 2015 04:26 Ben... wrote: The latest block of "bipartisan" government ads is pretty shameful. It's all "the government is proposing". Weird, I always thought "the government" meant the entire government, opposition included, not just one party. I highly doubt the opposition is proposing these things that just happen to be part of the Conservative platform. Not to mention advertising services that don't actually exist is incredibly dishonest.
Just so you know going forward my friend, "The Government" has always meant "The Ruling Party" This is how they (he) rule <3 + Show Spoiler +
|
Hmmm, funny reading this threads collective head shake over the Alberta election. I knew that something was going to happen although on D1 I was expecting a minority with a large Wildrose opposition. I think the day that the NDP really showed that they were ready for people to take a chance on them was when Notley announced the in-province plan to refine and upgrade the ft.mac oil. (In retrospect it's probably not a great idea, Dutch disease and all)
I was a NDP voter (although my riding was going NDP with or without my vote) and it seemed like every week closer to the election my expectation moved closer and closer to the outcome. I was still surprised by such a large majority, but was expecting it to be close (within 5 seats either direction for the NDP). The polls don't lie.
|
On May 26 2015 21:35 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 04:26 Ben... wrote: The latest block of "bipartisan" government ads is pretty shameful. It's all "the government is proposing". Weird, I always thought "the government" meant the entire government, opposition included, not just one party. I highly doubt the opposition is proposing these things that just happen to be part of the Conservative platform. Not to mention advertising services that don't actually exist is incredibly dishonest. Just so you know going forward my friend, "The Government" has always meant "The Ruling Party" This is how they (he) rule <3 + Show Spoiler + I'm not talking about attack ads, I'm talking about the "Action Plan" ads, which are not indicated as being by the Conservatives or related groups but instead are depicted as being by "The Government of Canada". They used to at least contain actual services a person could use. Now it is all "the government is proposing", which seems quite dishonest to me since they are advertising things that are part of one party's platform and do not exist yet they put it under the guise of being a bi-partisan ad.
I hate attack ads but at least it is transparent what they are so the average person will learn to just tune them out. These new ads are a whole new level of low as they try to hide that they are heavily slanted in favor of the Conservative agenda.
|
On May 29 2015 08:04 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 21:35 iMOOrtal wrote:On May 19 2015 04:26 Ben... wrote: The latest block of "bipartisan" government ads is pretty shameful. It's all "the government is proposing". Weird, I always thought "the government" meant the entire government, opposition included, not just one party. I highly doubt the opposition is proposing these things that just happen to be part of the Conservative platform. Not to mention advertising services that don't actually exist is incredibly dishonest. Just so you know going forward my friend, "The Government" has always meant "The Ruling Party" This is how they (he) rule <3 + Show Spoiler + I'm not talking about attack ads, I'm talking about the "Action Plan" ads, which are not indicated as being by the Conservatives or related groups but instead are depicted as being by "The Government of Canada". They used to at least contain actual services a person could use. Now it is all "the government is proposing", which seems quite dishonest to me since they are advertising things that are part of one party's platform and do not exist yet they put it under the guise of being a bi-partisan ad. I hate attack ads but at least it is transparent what they are so the average person will learn to just tune them out. These new ads are a whole new level of low as they try to hide that they are heavily slanted in favor of the Conservative agenda.
I completely understood what you were asking, I've seen the ads. For all of the "Government of Canada ads" as well as the "Political attack ads" when the word is stated "Government" it is to be assumed to mean "Ruling Party". It's been that way since I can remember political ads from the early 90's, and I would assume probably long before that too. It's done to make you think that the other parties agree or at least do not oppose what "The Government" is proposing, when in reality if you look up the party platforms the Libs and NDP offer their own "Action Plans".
It's been this way for a long time, here's one from 1989
+ Show Spoiler +
EDIT: It's a bit more bland in the 80s/90s Gov ads but the idea is still the same
|
|
As much as I dislike a single-Province party having national representation, I've always liked the Bloc's role in screwing up majority leadership math.
|
|
|
|