Next Federal Election

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Graeme Decarie said:
let's get away from terms like liberal, conservative - they don't mean a thing. Nor does progressive conservative mean conservatives who are progressive

The reality is that the two major parties are owned by the very, very rich. That's why they are the major parties. They're the only ones who can get money from the very, very rich to run campaigns. It's more obvious in the US where Hillary Clinton has already raised a billion dollars. But it's as bad here. As well, almost all news media are owned by a very small circle of the very, very rich. That's true all over the North america. And most of the news media circulate pure propaganda. It's most obvious here in New Brunswick where one family owns just about everything, including the private news media - and the family openly intervenes in government. This has a lot to do with the anti-terrorism bill. In fact, the RCMP has for decades been spying on protest groups, calling them potential eco-terrorists or, earlier, communists. Tommy Douglas was spied on for years. And every year, the RCMP has been reporting its findings to big business. CSIS is now doing that job.

The result is that we don't have democracy. Democracy does not mean simply the right to vote. It means having truthful information. It means parties being able to compete on equal terms. It means informed Canadians publicly discussing issues. We don't have that. (Especially in New Brunswick.)

What we ( and the US) do have is a population with a high proportion of sheep who are suckers for a Harper who runs a campaign of fear and hatred approaching racism - or for a Trudeau who is nothing but a name.

The only way the NDP has been able to get money is by watering its programme so much that the party, even if elected, would not be able to make essential changes.

As for throwing votes away, you are doing it no matter who you vote for.

In the US, this situation is becoming dangerous as millions no longer bother to vote. When that happens, violence is almost inevitable.

Voting does not indicate we are a democracy, not any more than a herd of sheep saying ba-a-a indicates that sheepdom is democracy.
Click to expand...

I don't know Graeme - have you paid much attention to Elizabeth May? She's not your typical politician.

As for the "two main parties" being owned by the very rich - that didn't work out too well for the Liberals in the last election. It didn't guarantee them a government, or the opposition. I think Mulcair is a shrewd politician, as politicians go - he plays politics like every other one (except May - she really doesn't play games. She's the best one in the house but she's not going to be the next PM) but I also think he would try very hard to make essential changes. I believe he is also a Canadian concerned about Canada. And I think he is right when he says Trudeau cares most about Trudeau. Trudeau has the added pressure of a family legacy and maybe he doesn't want to stray too far from what his dad would've done - IMO, on one hand if he doesn't stand up to Harper the way that Mulcair is - that will cost his party new votes unless he changes his mind on a few things before October, on the other, he might win back centre right voters fed up with the PCs. I do believe it matters who we vote for.
 
Many people do not understand the tactics of extremism that requires hostile reaction-ism!

Thus the ironic caldron fulminates ...
 
Oh, I like May. The fact that so many Canadians won't vote for her tells us more about Canadians than it does about May.
Mulcair I have known personally, and liked. But almost 50 years ago, the NDP watered down its principles to get campaign donations from the unions. The result is policies that won't be adequate.

Capitalism is at a dangerous phase of self-destruction. It's greed is causing suffering all over the world - including in the US (a region of suffering our news media don't say much about). That breeds increasing violence, increasing suppression. As well, greed drives capitalists to accumulate money way, way out of proportionate their their reasonable share. The result of that to decrease the wealth in general circulation and to destroy capitalism's own markets.

That's not a very bright policy. But greed destroys judgement as it destroys morality. As well, the very, very rich are becoming a hereditory class, owing their wealth and power to inheritance more than any brains. It's very similar to the old aristocracy of Europe whose power, uninfluenced by either brains or morality destroyed itself.
 
Luce NDs said:
To get clear of Classic Polity (extremism) do we need to get further out in choices?
Click to expand...

Yeah, we do. Always voting for the lesser of two evilis instead of the party you like best is not good but with our system I don't see a better solution. Trudeau is gumming up the works, I think, though, with some of the positions he's taken recently - a lot of people who were thinking of voting for him won't be now. I will probably vote NDP but I am not sure. Too soon to tell.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
Oh, I like May. The fact that so many Canadians won't vote for her tells us more about Canadians than it does about May.
Mulcair I have known personally, and liked. But almost 50 years ago, the NDP watered down its principles to get campaign donations from the unions. The result is policies that won't be adequate.

Capitalism is at a dangerous phase of self-destruction. It's greed is causing suffering all over the world - including in the US (a region of suffering our news media don't say much about). That breeds increasing violence, increasing suppression. As well, greed drives capitalists to accumulate money way, way out of proportionate their their reasonable share. The result of that to decrease the wealth in general circulation and to destroy capitalism's own markets.

That's not a very bright policy. But greed destroys judgement as it destroys morality. As well, the very, very rich are becoming a hereditory class, owing their wealth and power to inheritance more than any brains. It's very similar to the old aristocracy of Europe whose power, uninfluenced by either brains or morality destroyed itself.
Click to expand...

I think...get the NDP in and May or whoever is the leader of the Greens by 2019 has a much better chance next time. I don't think that says anything about Canadians except that nearly 70% of us really, really want to have a different government after October - to begin to turn the tide in the other direction - and voting for a party with only 1 seat as of now won't do it.
 
A' moor from my base invisible persona:

After listening to some local CBC on greenhouse effect and the response of several elder sorts ... we have much to learn about the politics of the great divine ... Skittish schism ... or just schizoid?

One from a sincere environmental background might as well depart into the Shadow of Green sleeves and push up daffy'd Isles ... Utopias? Immaterial as compared to the material powers?


Then one has to wonder about the fall of material powers versus immaterial humility of the fall of psyche ... will this come up later ... as something S' ain't or incarnation as defined as appears as it isn't? Like Ness ... this is a dark pool ... adept domain for abstract monsters ... IDe's? Just Idioms in projection ... as temporary or temporal abstract that we're already in and don't know it!:oops: ... where did that go?

Utopians no-where's ...
 
I don't really care about political parties. I vote based on my perception of who the local candidates are.
 
Pr. Jae said:
I don't really care about political parties. I vote based on my perception of who the local candidates are.
Click to expand...

Ideally, I do both if possible - if the best candidate in my riding happens to represent a potential leader I like. Last election, I voted for the candidate that was not of a party I wanted to elect federally at that time but she is strong and has a good reputation in the community. That might have been a mistake in the bigger picture.
 
I can't see myself voting Green, even with a great local candidate. The party's platform is way into pseudoscience and it really scares me what they would do to our country if they became a majority government.
 
Kimmio said:
Pseudoscience in what way?
Click to expand...
I think I've covered these things between WC and WC2 before.
Organic farming being better - some of the organic pesticides are more harmful than the non-organic ones
Things like homeopathy being pushed in medicine
The GMO issue, and confusing it with GE
There was a 4th I had in mind, hopefully it will come back to me.
 
The Lyme Disease bill? I don't care about that. She aknowledges she's not a doctor. She knows what's going on in the house with the big political issues - she lets everyone know what's going on, and that's why I respect her.
 
ChemGal said:
I think I've covered these things between WC and WC2 before.
Organic farming being better - some of the organic pesticides are more harmful than the non-organic ones
Things like homeopathy being pushed in medicine
The GMO issue, and confusing it with GE
There was a 4th I had in mind, hopefully it will come back to me.
Click to expand...
And some of the non organic ones are harmful.

I care that she stands up to you know who - and she does it well.

She's not going to be PM anytime soon, but she has my respect.
 
Kimmio said:
Pseudoscience in what way?
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know, too, because I've found their actual platform to be a fairly reasonable middle ground (given their odd political orientation, there are likely candidates in there with questionable views but you can find those in all of the three major parties, too). Heavy on the environment and on focussing health care towards prevention and health-maintenance rather than the current reactive break-fix system but also with an eye to keeping the books balanced. That said, I have not read their current platform documents (I will before the election) so maybe they are leaning heavily to naturo- and homeopathy or something? Which does not matter much because nothing can be done in health care without provincial support/consent since it is constitutionally a provincial, rather than federal, matter. Even the Canada Health Act had provincial buy-in at the time, though that has slipped somewhat over the years.
 
Kimmio said:
Also, the Greens aren't likely to stifle research and debate about anything and would make room for voicing disagreement.
Click to expand...

I'm cynical enough to not count on that. A party in fourth or fifth place can be a very different beast once they are in power. Being in power, or even in contention for power, requires the leader to keep a stronger reign to avoid blow-ups that could hurt the party at the polls. Look at how Harper has come down on some of his more right-wing MPs and candidates at times even though he likely agrees with them personally.

That said, I like the Green platforms that I've seen in the past so I will likely keep supporting them unless I see signs that they are getting stupid, at which point I'll likely throw my hands up in disgust and start throwing darts at the ballot or something.

(I feel the same way about the current Grits. Trudeau talks a good line about being more open and accountable while he's in third place but his father and Chretien were hardly that so I'm not counting on it once he's in power. Relative to Harper, maybe, but that's the most I'll give him until I see him in action.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top