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
Pr. Jae said:
Some vote along party lines, and so will choose to vote having Mr. Harper or Mr. Mulcaire as leader in mind. Personally (and I wouldn't be alone in this) based on my perception of who the local candidates are. I vote for whichever man I feel will best represent our riding, regardless of who the PM will be.
Click to expand...
Never a woman?
 
I don't think what May did deserves firing/forced resignation for most positions.
When politicians speak though, it's almost like other fields giving a sales pitch or being in a job interview. Based on this 'pitch' she's not someone I would give a contract to. I'm not seeing many positives from her in general.
 
Lastpointe said:
I think if. Any of theother three leaders did what May did theree would havebeen hugecries for resignation

Not sure why she can get away with a drunken, vulgar speech

Both she and Trudeau can be out on a "not ready to lead" list

Makes the choice clearer. Harperr or Mulcaire
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Back in 2006, what was it that made Harper "ready to lead"? Was it the fact that he had spent pretty much his entire adult life working in politics (assistant to an MP, candidate, MP, head of a lobby group) which is about as far from any personal, meaningful experience of the real world as you can get?
 
revsdd said:
I'm curious. Back in 2006, what was it that made Harper "ready to lead"? Was it the fact that he had spent pretty much his entire adult life working in politics (assistant to an MP, candidate, MP, head of a lobby group) which is about as far from any personal, meaningful experience of the real world as you can get?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, being a "professional politician" is a bit of a thing in this country and some even think it qualifies you to lead a country. Too bad, because, really, it only prepares you for leading a party, not necessarily a nation.
 
Pr. Jae said:
ChemGal, I will vote for a woman, but only if no men are running for office.
Click to expand...

So there's a hardcore right-wing female candidate running for the Conservatives and hardcore socialist males running for both the Liberals and the NDP. You'd vote for one of the socialists just because they are a man? Or would you just stay home and not vote in a case like that?
 
revsdd said:
I'm curious. Back in 2006, what was it that made Harper "ready to lead"? Was it the fact that he had spent pretty much his entire adult life working in politics (assistant to an MP, candidate, MP, head of a lobby group) which is about as far from any personal, meaningful experience of the real world as you can get?
Click to expand...
Mendalla said:
So there's a hardcore right-wing female candidate running for the Conservatives and hardcore socialist males running for both the Liberals and the NDP. You'd vote for one of the socialists just because they are a man? Or would you just stay home and not vote in a case like that?
Click to expand...
In our riding Mendalla, Etobicoke-Centre - there are usually more than three candidates running. However, to answer your question, I'd likely opt not to vote at all. Either that, or I'd opt to reject my ballot. I don't relish the thought of voting hardcore either way.
 
Pr. Jae said:
In our riding Mendalla, Etobicoke-Centre - there are usually more than three candidates running. However, to answer your question, I'd likely opt not to vote at all. Either that, or I'd opt to reject my ballot. I don't relish the thought of voting hardcore either way.
Click to expand...

I kind of thought you were hardcore right wing but that's probably just relative to my centre-left position. And while we do have other candidates around here, too, I find only the Greens a credible alternative. The others we get around here tend to be either 1 issue parties (e.g. the Marijuana party) or differ from the mainstream only in one or two issues (e.g. the various right wing alternatives to the Conservatives). I suppose the Libertarians are another "credible" alternative but voting for a party whose main goal is scrap government beyond the bare minimum does not appeal to me.
 
Mendalla said:
I kind of thought you were hardcore right wing but that's probably just relative to my centre-left position. And while we do have other candidates around here, too, I find only the Greens a credible alternative. The others we get around here tend to be either 1 issue parties (e.g. the Marijuana party) or differ from the mainstream only in one or two issues (e.g. the various right wing alternatives to the Conservatives). I suppose the Libertarians are another "credible" alternative but voting for a party whose main goal is scrap government beyond the bare minimum does not appeal to me.
Click to expand...
Because if I'm a conservative theologically I must also be a conservative politically? I don't vote along party lines. I am on the right when it comes to social issues like abortion and euthanasia. I lean toward the left on the issue of immigration. I'm somewhere in the middle on economic issues. My primary interest when voting is in the shalom of Etobicoke Centre. In the past I've voted for candidates from various parties - Conservative, Reform, NDP, Green, even Natural Law one time.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Because if I'm a conservative theologically I must also be a conservative politically? I don't vote along party lines. I am on the right when it comes to social issues like abortion and euthanasia. I lean toward the left on the issue of immigration. I'm somewhere in the middle on economic issues. My primary interest when voting is in the shalom of Etobicoke Centre. In the past I've voted for candidates from various parties - Conservative, Reform, NDP, Green, even Natural Law one time.
Click to expand...


Thus you wobble? Politically they call this waffling ...

Then if political people are leading authorities ... and authority is corrupt ... what does logic tell yah? Then knowledge is not really welcome in religious (static, fixed) operations according to the metaphor about the tree of knowledge (a stone statute as a fossil?).

For example consider the leadership of FIFA ... and yet the subject was somewhat re-elected as we do things, the same things, over and over ... unless you are unconventional ... and thus as being flexible you would be considered as unstable in church and prone to learning ... and thus the previous thought pattern was displaced by growing light of how one learns! Then you would be out of the realm of naïveté ... a metaphorically innocent domain in which all things are static ... like a donkey that does tilt at windmills ... a standing wave?
 
libertarian.jpg

"I suppose the Libertarians are another "credible" alternative but voting for a party whose main goal is scrap government beyond the bare minimum does not appeal to me." Mendalla

When I think of Libertarian I think of Ron Paul ... though he is not Canadian he has influenced the Libertarian camp possibly more than any other person alive today... Ron Paul has finally given up on politics/government ...
  • "Once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution. And by revolution, I mean doing away with the entire structure, because the corruption and lawlessness have become that pervasive."
@Kimmio ...

 
Last edited:
I'm afraid you cannot separate the local candidate from his leader.
A vote for a conservative is a vote from Harper. And that, quite seriously, will be the end of Canada as we think of it.
A vote for a liberal is a vote for Trudeau who is probably the most incompetent man ever to run for PM. And his party is very, very low on talent.
The Greens are too much a one issue party. It is not possible for them to be a serious contender or to accomplish anything.

You have to look for a party that has a philosophy of the nature of government and of society. The Liberals don't. The conservatives have a philosophy that is essentially fascist - using that word in its correct meaning. the Green party is too narrow to have a general philosophy of government and society.

The NDP has a philosophy which is based on a respect for human needs and rights. I worry about how much it has moved to the centre in the last fifty years. It suggests that, in power, it won't be able to do as much as it should because too much of the public doesn't understand what is needed. However, it's the only choice I see.
 
The US and much of Canada is libertarian - of a sort. There's a wide belief in letting the rich be free of any obligation to the society as a whole. We've often had libertarianism, though we usually call it chaos.
 
I just think that as a human being there is little likelihood of seeing any corrupt behaviour from May that would make anyone doubt her honesty. She may be a bit naive about others intentions. She wants to see the best in everybody to begin with - which is a good trait in a person generally and it sucks that we have to be skeptical that leaders mean what they say. She means what she says. I couldn't see her standing her ground with someone like Putin, though.
 
Last edited:
Pr. Jae said:
Because if I'm a conservative theologically I must also be a conservative politically?
Click to expand...

The two do have a tendency to correlate, largely because of the issues you mention (e.g. abortion). Nice to see you break that pattern, really. UUs have a tendency towards the NDP which is a trend I have tended to buck in recent years myself (hell, I even voted Reform once back when I was in Hamilton).
 
chansen said:
Bzzzzz!

You fell for it. You lose.
Click to expand...
Yep.
I knew Jae wasn't for women in a religious leadership position - with exceptions like a women's bible study. The man should be the head of his household.
I didn't realize he had similar sexist ideals when it came to areas such as politics, although I shouldn't have been surprised.

I still think the Wildrose Party was smart for having Danielle Smith as a leader. I really suspect it helped them become a more mainstream party, despite annoying some of the supporters who think women should be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, homeschooling their quiverful (does the word work in this sense?) of children.
 
ChemGal said:
Yep.
I knew Jae wasn't for women in a religious leadership position - with exceptions like a women's bible study. The man should be the head of his household.
I didn't realize he had similar sexist ideals when it came to areas such as politics, balthough I shouldn't have been surprised.

I still think the Wildrose Party was smart for having Danielle Smith as a leader. I really suspect it helped them become a more mainstream party, despite annoying some of the supporters who think women should be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, homeschooling their quiverful (does the word work in this sense?) of children.
Click to expand...
Not "sexist" ChemGal - complementarian. I believe that women and men are equal but different and thus should fill equal but different roles in the home, Church, and society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top