Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting N1120A (Reply 1): Yay. This government has ridden Chretien's economic coattails, while seemingly returning to the corporatist corruption of the Mulrooney days. Its about time |
Quoting dxing (Reply 2): Clearly the minority in Canada is being suppressed. We should immediately begin bombing in support of the rebels |
Quoting C172Akula (Reply 4): Here comes a big waste of ~300M CAD, for most likely the same outcome, another Conservative minority. |
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 5): I mean, c'mon... Would people prefer we just didn't have elections at all? Sure, it would save us some money... |
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 5): This kind of rhetoric frustrates me a little bit. We would be having an election in only 18 months anyways. Parliament was not working. There were ethical questions regarding the current government. Within our current system that means we need an election. That's parliamentary democracy for you, whether you like it or not. |
Quoting arrow (Reply 3): We'll take Detroit again, although gawd knows why we'd want it |
Quoting tu204 (Reply 12): How the hell can an election cost $300CAD |
Quoting tu204 (Reply 12): how the hell does the Bloc Quebecois always manage to get seats in your parliament? |
Quoting ronglimeng (Reply 13): I am disappointed with the comments from both of you guys in Replies (9) and (10). Even if you don't see a difference in policy or behaviour at the level of the national party leaders, you can still vote on the basis of who your riding candidates are. Just get off your bums and attend an all-candidates meeting in the next month or so. Maybe that will reduce your apathy. |
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 9): I would vote in this election if any of the parties had something to offer. Needless to say I will stay home this time. |
Quoting matthew11 (Reply 10): I am in the same boat, nobody stands out. |
Quoting tu204 (Reply 12): How the hell can an election cost $300CAD and how the hell does the Bloc Quebecois always manage to get seats in your parliament? |
Quoting Quokka (Reply 16): Excuse my ignorance, but is politics in Canada similar to that down-under? Here it often seems that there are no substantive differences between the major parties and exchanges in Parliament (at least those we see on TV) are limited to rhetoric and personal abuse. Yet behind the scenes, the parties often work together in a much more co-operative manner. Is that the case in Canada? |
Quoting Quokka (Reply 16): I am asking because I am genuinely interested and if members in Canada can reply by outlining the differences without the usual "you did..." ,"so did you..." and childish point scoring that dominates discussion of politics in other threads, that would be useful. |
Quoting MattRB (Reply 14): That's $300 MILLION CAD. |
Quoting ronglimeng (Reply 13): Even if you don't see a difference in policy or behaviour at the level of the national party leaders, you can still vote on the basis of who your riding candidates are. |
Quoting arrow (Reply 3): Don't hold your breath. As bad as the Tories have been, the other guys are far worse. And if the polling has any validity at all you're more likely to see a Tory majority this time. |
Quoting tu204 (Reply 12): how the hell does the Bloc Quebecois always manage to get seats in your parliament? |
Quoting Quokka (Reply 16): Excuse my ignorance, but is politics in Canada similar to that down-under? Here it often seems that there are no substantive differences between the major parties and exchanges in Parliament (at least those we see on TV) are limited to rhetoric and personal abuse. Yet behind the scenes, the parties often work together in a much more co-operative manner. Is that the case in Canada? |
Quoting Quokka (Reply 16): Do politicians in Canada have real principals and ideals (not idealism but practical ideas) that separate them? |
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 18): I did notice quite a lack of anything in his speech specifically for Ontario. |
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 18): He also seemed to try to woo Quebec to an extent. |
Quoting N1120A (Reply 24): Well, the fact that there has been a coalition for some time means that the parties have to work together to some extent, but I also think that is what is at the crux of this non-confidence vote. The Conservatives have hidden the costs of significant government programs from the other parties. |
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 25): I'm not totally sure what you're getting at. There has been no coalition government... |
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 25): I do appreciate an American's enthusiasm in our affairs though! |
Quoting N1120A (Reply 24): The Liberals have always been the best party for Canada. |
Quoting N1120A (Reply 24): The last 2 major (Campbell was largely a place holder) Conservative PMs have been corrupt |
Quoting N1120A (Reply 24): Harper was getting destroyed in the polls. |
Quoting N1120A (Reply 24): The Conservatives have hidden the costs of significant government programs from the other parties. |
Quoting greasespot (Reply 28): Part of me is wondering if this new found resolve will fade if he finds himself behind Harper. |
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 29): I don't believe in democracy, I believe in freedom. |
Quoting ronglimeng (Reply 6): bothers me that so many people in our democracy are so apathetic. |
Quoting Quokka (Reply 16): What are the major differences between the various actors in Canada? What are the policy areas that result in real debate rather than opposition simply because there is an opposition? Do politicians in Canada have real principals and ideals (not idealism but practical ideas) that separate them? |
Quoting TheCol (Reply 30): The two go hand in hand. Can't have one without the other. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 33): DING!!!! Round One goes to Nobody. No personal attacks, ok? There is disagreement over whether one SHOULD vote or not. Some of us happen to disagree with the assertion that apathy will render a better government in the end. Moralizing and telling people they should lose their citizenship because they don't vote is equally disturbing as their conscious decision not to vote. As a political scientist by schooling, a political junkie and former political candidate, even I sometimes wonder what is the point. I have spoiled my ballot in the past and see it as a legitimate way of saying "none of the above". |
Quoting ronglimeng (Reply 13): I am disappointed with the comments from both of you guys in Replies (9) and (10). |
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): |
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 15): I realized that by voting I was giving permission to govern to people of no integrity who I didn't trust or respect. So now I don't give them the satisfaction. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 17): people died for your right |
Quoting Quokka (Reply 30): Thank you for your detailed and informed summation. It certainly helps make some sense of the reports in the media that tend to emphasize the drama and don't look at the substance. I appreciate your reply and your taking the time to compose it. |
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 31): 1) I think we are somewhat in disagreement but at least we both care about our country and are trying to make it better in our own way. 2) Not sure if you were referring to me, but I am not apathetic unless you define apathy as not voting. I care very much about this country. 3) I don't see how not voting is any "worse" than spoiling your ballot or voting for a minor party. The end result is exactly the same. The only difference is one option takes 5 minutes more. Trust me, it's not the couple minutes in line and one minute behind the cardboard divider that deters me from voting. |
Quoting Revelation (Reply 35): Maybe some enter into military service with this kind of goal, but from what I can tell it's a small minority. From most of the soldiers I've talked to, they didn't join up to save democracy or any such thing. Most of them just did it because they had no choice (you do remember the draft, no?), or they really had no other decent economic opportunity to pursue, or were just bored and thought it would be an adventure, or were a badass and wanted to wear a uniform and be paid to commit legalized mayhem. In many of these cases the choice of joining was being made for them. And in many cases, war is not used to promote or propagate democracy, but instead to promote "vital national interests" which tend in the case of the West tend to be capitalist in nature. |
Quoting Revelation (Reply 35): I could say more, but am wanting to just address some of the points raised here. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 38): They are fought and people die in the name of causes and principles. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 38): Democracy and the right to voice an opinion, the right to select who gets to govern, is definitely one of those principles. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 38): Since then- and I am no student of historic wars but these come to mind.... |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 38): I'm sure you could but let's not go there. a) It's OT and b) we might just cut to the chase and agree to disagree. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 38): Modern democracy as we know and understand it has its roots on the battlefield of Runnymede in 1215. |
Quoting arrow (Reply 40): Just to nitpick -- I don't think it was a battlefield. I suspect it would have been had John decided not to sign the Magna Carta. Regardless, it didn't buy any peace. |
Quoting Revelation (Reply 39): Somehow Vietnam didn't make your list. Clearly it also didn't make GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld's list either. |
Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):![]() |
Quoting A332 (Reply 42): The Conservatives are the only legitimate choice and that's saying a lot right there. I'm pretty disappointed with Harper & his crew, but I wouldn't vote for anyone else. |
Quoting curtisman (Reply 44): 'm with you on that. I think we need to get a majority in for a while just so government can operate. This minority thing is just not working. |