-D-
Banned
this!
I'm a Liberal now
- Thread starter suzuki2000
- Start date
this!
I don't really follow politics at all and after seeing the video STB posted and getting informed she seems like a d-bag
The gist that I've gotten was that they were persona no gratia in the Conservative party.
The Conservatives seem to be better at cleaning up these types of messes. Trudeau is busy hand-picking candidates.
How many was that that crossed the floor Rob?
Don't forget that Trudeau Sr was CCF, but they couldn't get elected.
The Conservatives seem to be better at cleaning up these types of messes. Trudeau is busy hand-picking candidates.
How many was that that crossed the floor Rob?
Don't forget that Trudeau Sr was CCF, but they couldn't get elected.
Last edited:
I think that it was three that they had cross the floor, shortly after they were elected the first time. I forget nothing. I voted for them, the first time, because they said that they wouldn't do the sort of things that the past government had done. The subject of floor crossings was one of the things that bothered me about the Liberals (and, in fact, any previous government that had done the same).
We're well past Trudeau Sr.. It's about time that 'conservatives' found a new whipping boy. It's like the Republicans, in the 'States, who can't help but blame the housing crash on Jimmy Carter.
You make no sense...conservatives banned her from running....Trudeau welcomed her...who's the scumbag..she is and therefore Trudeau is for welcoming her...try not to be so blindly biased and look at facts
Heard about this on the radio on drive home. It was also heavily discussed on TV, CBC, c/w panel of political commentators at dinner time. I'm starting to formulate an opinion. Still want to round it out and knock some of the rough edges off. I'll use this post as a place holder. Watch for the edit. Also, thanks to who ever started this thread, the internet is really starting to jell as a place for the democratic process to flourish.
I think that's a poor excuse. If your party is putting up people that don't represent your best interest then it's best to let them know by not supporting them or declining to vote. If you say "we voted for her because there was no choice" then you might as well support her.
That's the second time that you've made the same vague allegation.
Belinda Stronach?
It doesn't sit right with me that you blame the Conservatives, but not the Liberals for it.
Trudeau Jr's big schtick is "I'm not him".
Sorry, I didn't vote the cool popular kid for class President either.
The nerd that won did some real good for the school.
I may throw a monkey wrench into things and vote NDP this time around, if they come up with some decent policy.
So far, I've never voted Liberal. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future, especially looking at Ontario.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Schneller doesn't like having facts get in the way of his Utopian Liberal worldview.
That's the second time that you've made the same vague allegation.
Belinda Stronach?
It doesn't sit right with me that you blame the Conservatives, but not the Liberals for it.
Trudeau Jr's big schtick is "I'm not him".
Sorry, I didn't vote the cool popular kid for class President either.
The nerd that won did some real good for the school.
I may throw a monkey wrench into things and vote NDP this time around, if they come up with some decent policy.
So far, I've never voted Liberal. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future, especially looking at Ontario.
Does David Emerson ring a bell? He crossed the floor, to the Conservatives, just two weeks after the 2006 election.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-on-floor-crossing-circa-2006/
I blame all political opportunists, equally. This latest bit of stupidity, bringing an albatross over from the Conservatives, doesn't make me feel too good about voting Liberal the next time around. Given the devil I know, however, I'm willing to give the devil I don't a shot. Right now I could go for a big dose of "not him." Like I've said before if the incumbent lies to you, you vote him out. If the replacement lies to you, you vote him out. Play whack-a-mole enough with people's political careers, and perhaps some will learn the lesson.
They'll still lie because that's how they win. The better option is not to believe their lies to begin with. But people are weak and they want to believe, need to believe, that they can get everything for nothing. So politicians will keep lying no matter how quickly they're voted out.
I choose to believe otherwise but until people give up on the belief that things will never change, they will never change.
True ... but it's somewhat getting harder and harder to keep the belief live and kicking .... at some point even the most "glass full" type of a person has to come to assessing the weak odds.
This, and by this I mean the political ecosystem, is more and more about who lies and deceives less than who does not and would not.
Boots
Well-known member
I see where you're coming from on any other point but this one. What's wrong with people wanting to do their own thing because they didn't like the way their party was running, again?
And even then why do we view politically parties as static? Views change, people might not agree with them, so they go to a more fitting party. Was that the case here? Probably not, but don't demonize political moves with the same brush.
(in regards to the move to independant) We critique politicians for not being sincere, but when they make an honest move that (frankly in North America) won't win them much they get critiqued anyway... There's no winning when I hear people talk politics. It's embarrassing.
Last edited:
suzuki2000
Well-known member
Boots, this highlights one of the deficiencies in the process (amongst that many that exist...)
People are elected as so called individuals, but under the premise they support an overall particular party platform. No doubt that views change, people fall in/out of favour, but they are supposed to represent those that elected them and those that supported them. Politicians should have the right to leave their party, but not to just slot with the guys across the room.
These instances should be sent to by-election, if the candidate is worthy under another platform then the public will elect them there as a liberal , Conservative , NDP, Independent or any other party.
the entire electoral process is hijacked by party's. How many independents do you see given a platform to speak in debates? parties are given "official and non-official status. Thinking that the electoral process is about an individual and not a party is unfortunately foolish.
Suppose you supported Eve Adams with your own cash through donation directly to her campaign or through the party, would you feel slighted when your funding moves her to a seat with another party that you do not support?
People are elected as so called individuals, but under the premise they support an overall particular party platform. No doubt that views change, people fall in/out of favour, but they are supposed to represent those that elected them and those that supported them. Politicians should have the right to leave their party, but not to just slot with the guys across the room.
These instances should be sent to by-election, if the candidate is worthy under another platform then the public will elect them there as a liberal , Conservative , NDP, Independent or any other party.
the entire electoral process is hijacked by party's. How many independents do you see given a platform to speak in debates? parties are given "official and non-official status. Thinking that the electoral process is about an individual and not a party is unfortunately foolish.
Suppose you supported Eve Adams with your own cash through donation directly to her campaign or through the party, would you feel slighted when your funding moves her to a seat with another party that you do not support?
Last edited:
IMO we place too much importance on the party and there is too much towing of the party line. That is the way it is today and this is one reason why crossing the floor is such a big issue.
In a better world the person representing us in parliament should put us first, not the party. To do this they need to have more skin in the game when it comes to the local representation. I would rather see some reform on who can run, get rid of the parachute candidate (they will never give a rats …. about the people in the riding). The person running should have to live in the riding they are running in. The catch is what do they do when they change the riding boundaries on purpose to push out an incumbent--so maybe the incumbent can stay in the riding until they are voted out, NOW they have to live in the riding. Maybe have a clause where if they had previously lived in the riding for over 10 years they can also run (they have roots in the riding).
This gets rid of the entire process where the party wants a specific person elected so they hand pick a riding for them to run in, now that person owes the party more than the voters. In the next election she will be parachuted into another strong Liberal riding that she has nothing to do with, and she will owe the liberals not the voters! And the cycle continues.
In a better world the person representing us in parliament should put us first, not the party. To do this they need to have more skin in the game when it comes to the local representation. I would rather see some reform on who can run, get rid of the parachute candidate (they will never give a rats …. about the people in the riding). The person running should have to live in the riding they are running in. The catch is what do they do when they change the riding boundaries on purpose to push out an incumbent--so maybe the incumbent can stay in the riding until they are voted out, NOW they have to live in the riding. Maybe have a clause where if they had previously lived in the riding for over 10 years they can also run (they have roots in the riding).
This gets rid of the entire process where the party wants a specific person elected so they hand pick a riding for them to run in, now that person owes the party more than the voters. In the next election she will be parachuted into another strong Liberal riding that she has nothing to do with, and she will owe the liberals not the voters! And the cycle continues.
There's a reason why when the United States was formed, many of the Founding Fathers warned about the dangers of political parties. Look how long THAT lasted.
It's even more of an issue in our system, in which the guy running for Prime Minister is also the head of the party. Don't tow the line and you're kicked out. If you're not a member of a major party, you're bloody unlikely to ever be elected.
