The Official Election Thread

Forum Sponsor
I'm ok handing the keys over to another government for four years just to see how well they do.

Federal politics is messy and complex. Let's see how The NDP or Libs deal with foreign policy, military spending, foreign aid, UN support, the senate expenses, provincial funding transfer payments.

Honest. I'm good with a Change up. I know the new electorate will blame the previous government for the mess the country is in. But, they will be in charge will making better.

I'd like to see them try.

Look, im old enough to remember the Rae days. And I'm not suggesting a federal NDP government will bring decades old ideas from a provincial party.

But we think we see too much business leaving the country now, it will be interesting to see how businesses will deal with increased costs and taxation. Does it go south? Does it go to China? Does it tough it out at home?

We shall see.

Just don't piss away our tax dollars on waste. Seems not government can fix and resolve the billions ****** away from stupidity. Closing departments and opening new ones, giving severance packages and rehiring the same people to do the same job and honour their seniority and pensions. That stuff doesn't fly in the private sector.

I know it's a federal election but, how about the the money paid to corporations for the power plant that was never built? The government negotiated with the contractors these clauses. No one can fault the contractors for wanting to protect themselves from a change in government and money invested for the contract itself. But to get paid crazy money to fold up and leave? Doesn't make sense.

Wanna give the offspring of Pierre a try? Sure, go for it.

He will likely win due to branding. But he's nothing like his father. And these days are nothing like what his father had to work in.

So just how well will Justin govern our country? I don't know? I just get a feeling he's a puppet to the party and will follow what ever the wind blows. Say all the things that sounds good. But can he make the tough decisions that are unfavourable to the public or his party?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RockerGuy said:
Well that article reaffirms my point that Norway is not doing well along with Alberta because of oil prices.

If I am reading that article correctly. Norway is doing fine because of proper financial management & that of their resources, not because of Socialism. However, I do agree with you about the politicians here screwing the people & lining their own pockets.

Caboose, this is not a personal attack against you. I keep hearing how Norway is so much better & I want some solid facts. I appreciate that link
Click to expand...

I genuinely believe it's because of proper management of their rich natural resources AND their socialist ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Isn't socialism part of a doctrine on how to properly manage a country's resources? Can't really not associate them together and say they are doing well for everything but their socialist views or policies.
 
Well if Socialism is so great why arent we looking at other Socialist countries or failed Socialist states. Cuz theres a **** load more of failed Socialist countries than there are succesful ones. So maybe the government type should be taken out of Scandinavian success all together? Something tells me that if they were governed by a conservative government they would be just as well off.

We need to end this "conservatives are bought by corporations" brainwashing. POLITICIANS are bought by corporations. You are a ****ing idiot if you dont think the liberal or NDP parties are not in another set of corporations pocket. What? You think all those windmills popped out of a unicorns ***? You think Hydro ONE sale behind closed doors has YOU as the beneficiary?

There are Corporations getting filthy rich from Ontario Liberal money spending, so anyone who puts "Conservatives are corporate lackeys" sentence together IMMEDIATELY gets branded as willfully brainwashed and ignorant
 
Not sure if that was directed at me but I never said socialism was great or not, I was just responding to the notion that if a socialist country is doing well, is due to everything but that.
 
Red_Liner740 said:
Well if Socialism is so great why arent we looking at other Socialist countries or failed Socialist states. Cuz theres a **** load more of failed Socialist countries than there are succesful ones. So maybe the government type should be taken out of Scandinavian success all together? Something tells me that if they were governed by a conservative government they would be just as well off.
Click to expand...

That's debatable.

The fact is they DO have plentiful natural resources and they DO have a socialist ideology and they are doing quite well. Socialism is not inherently bad, nor is it destined to fail, it's not the boogyman that some people posting in this thread try to suggest. When managed properly it is viable and sustainable. There are examples of socialist countries that prosper and others that have failed. There are examples of more right leaning countries that prosper and others that have failed.

Socialism in itself is not bad.
 
The reason a lot of companies, clubs and organizations etc. might function well is because most members recognize the inherent value of a social contract and act in a socialist way. This comes from individual integrity. When this is not done you can see how it's rotten to the core. A country is only as good as the majority of people in it or the few people with power to over ride all the goodness.
 
Not directed at anyone Paulo, just discussing things.


ZX600 said:
Not sure if that was directed at me but I never said socialism was great or not, I was just responding to the notion that if a socialist country is doing well, is due to everything but that.
Click to expand...
 
For those marching to the drum of never voting for an incumbent, what are you looking for in a candidate?

I mean, you vote them into office and expect them to govern the country right? So what skill sets should they have? What kind of back ground?

Would it end up being a case of the inmates running the funny farm?

How do we attract potential candidates to run for office that will do the job we elect them to do?

Why can we have conservative leaning economics with social responsibilities?

Would electing a green representative give us good governance for things outside tree hugging and proper recycling? Would the greenies unplug the nuclear power plants and get those windmills connected and contributing to the grid?

Could the NDP take care of the unions and less fortunate without scaring the employers away?

How do we get the government to change and make them accountable for corruption and waste when they are caught doing so instead of waiting for an election to vote them out. Or in some cases, elect them back into office????

It's easy to be critical. Point fingers and tell people they need to this and that or not do this or that. But, I don't see enough common ground for folks to get together and agree upon a better approach?

So we have to just hold our noses and let the cards fall where they may and just suck it up and deal with it?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What a bore the debate is. Elizabeth May and Harper look best. Mulcair is a phony smiling creep and Trudeau is a lispy phony wimp who can't stop saying uhh.
 
In the Constitution of india we have a section which requires all elections to have the option of "none of the above". If this gains a majority then all candidates are banned from running for said position/level for a fixed period (cant remember for how long)... i think thats what we need here..
 
I agree....democracy should never be about picking the least favorable candidate. If the people dont like any of the choices than logically new choices need to be offered.

shahfaisal said:
In the Constitution of india we have a section which requires all elections to have the option of "none of the above". If this gains a majority then all candidates are banned from running for said position/level for a fixed period (cant remember for how long)... i think thats what we need here..
Click to expand...
 
sonnythebull said:
What a bore the debate is. Elizabeth May and Harper look best. Mulcair is a phony smiling creep and Trudeau is a lispy phony wimp who can't stop saying uhh.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth May was a breath of fresh factual air. I thought Mulcair did great and Harper came off looking like a terrible phoney spinning lies.
 
AdRath said:
Elizabeth May was a breath of fresh factual air. I thought Mulcair did great and Harper came off looking like a terrible phoney spinning lies.
Click to expand...

I thought May added a lot to the debate. She certainly is well informed and knew her facts. Mulcair shows his intellect but is still not the populist that Layton was. Trudeau did not do that well but he was not a joke either.

Harper was... Well... Harper. Time will tell if some of the mud slung at him will stick. This is one heck of a long election campaign and the polls, public opinion, and perception may well look a lot different in a few weeks.

Trudeau still has a lot of unanswered questions around him.
 
A sober May is very impressive.
 
nakkers said:
For those marching to the drum of never voting for an incumbent, what are you looking for in a candidate?
Click to expand...

Anyone that has had a real job before and promises not to raise tax and mind their own business would get my vote. Preferably with no party allegiance. But just once. They get one term to get their SJW kicks and then they are gone. Bye bye, thanks for your "service". Next please. I don't need to be governed. Most people shouldn't. Laws exist. Right now. And in the past. I don't think society would fall apart because a bunch of busy-bodies don't meet periodically and impose more red tape and tax on the untermensch.
 
I hope the media perform a fact check/bullshjt meter on statements made by the candidates. As an example, I heard Harper say that greenhouse gas emissions were going down. This contradicted May saying the opposit. Which assertion is true and which is bullshjt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom