Canadian Election

Jay: I'm talking votes, not seats. The NDP may not win many seats, but they have almost twice the %age of the popular vote than does the BQ. That kind of vote division obviously hurts the liberals, who then lose seats to the conservatives or BQ they might otherwise have won. In my riding, the liberal candidate lost by only a few hundred votes last election, and the NDP got something like 19% of the votes here. If 3-4% of that had shifted the liberals' way, well, it's pretty obvious how that would have shifted the decison.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
Two reasons why I think getting rid of the military is a bad idea: 1) Canadians value being the greatest peacekeeping nation on the world. Even if peacekeepers are a joke to other countries (like the US), it's valued by us, and the UN. 2) The army assists the country in non-miliary events too. For example, cleaning snow off the toronto steets when they get 4cm of white stuff. okay probably a waste of money, but helping out in the Winnipeg flood a few years ago was of great value to the city.

- - - - -

'Itâ??s a wonder I havenâ??t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
These days, a purely realist perspective like that one, which apparently implies that only hard power makes any difference on the world stage, is so outmoded that it's almost laughable.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
Ah. I get it JD. Did you know that in Australia the Senate is represented by the popular vote. Why can't we do shit like that.

- - - - -

'Itâ??s a wonder I havenâ??t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
Because it would place power in the hands of extremists in worse ways than a first past the post system ever could... I'm a supporter of a mixed member plurality for the provinces, actually. However, in a federal sense, it would mean that ridings would be just far too large. I can't come up with a better system than the current one... I suppose you could say it's the worst alternative except for all of the other ones I can think of.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
So outmoded its almost laughable? Yeah of course, because everyone is laughing at the US right now. Or China, or North Korea, or Iran. There are a lot of people out there who don't listen to words unless you've got one hell of a punch to back it up.

I think thats one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.

West is Best.
 
In case you haven't noticed, everyone IS laughing at the US... that, or outraged at them. Realism has its place, but when you accept it as a practical solution to all problems, you're just digging yourself a very deep hole. That, and it's kind of self-fulfilling. Given that more or less the entire planet has adopted a cosmopolitan stance towards world issues, a hegemon putting into practice a fossilized world view is an exercise in denial more than anything else. What were you expecting, the USA to suddenly collapse under its own weight? You could put a trash can in the white house and it wouldn't matter... their country is just too powerful. It hasn't helped itself, though.

Why are we talking about the USA, anyway? It's sort of ironic that you've managed to align yourself with their world view, given that Harper has been striving desperately to convince everyone that he has no hidden agenda with regard to cozying up to the US through following in their footsteps with the military.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
I'm voting for Harper because he most closely identifies with my views. I don't care if hes trying to dispell the fact that wants to cozy up to the US, hell I want him to, but thats a completely different story. Besides the reasons Bush sold the war, it is something that I believe Canadians should have, and still should be a part of. Relieving a country from tyranny as well as staying there to get the job done and stabilize it.

The realist approach to International Relations, as textbook as that sounds, is the only way that things get done. Look at what all the talking in the world has done. The UN has not been able to stop North Korea's nuclear program, and they are cocking up the situation in Iran too. And when the UN does need to do something important, they don't send delagates, what the fuck are politicians going to do in Sudan to stop genocide, no they send a military peacekeeping force. It's the way things work, Real power is power, plain and simple.

West is Best.
 
I digress though, the UN, the US and all that bullshit is another argument for antoher day. The point is, a stronger military will make Canada a stronger nation.

West is Best.
 
word up. green party is the only one that makes any sense at all. too bad most of the country is dumb to realize that.

 
So veteran, you support his cozying up to the US, Canada should fight a "war against tyranny(if you believe that, well...), health care should be privatized, aswel as education, you don't trust the liberals with money. I dissagree with you on every point except the money issue, but that is outweighed by all the others put together, just out of your list. I gues thats why we're voting for opposite parties.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW

Like a virgin on prom night.
 
I have a lot of problems with that statement. First of all, it's a massive oversimplification as a predictor. Firstly, it assumes narrow self interest and nothing more, while human nature is more complex: we are not governed only by narrow self-interest, but by moral and even self-defeating impulses (hatred/envy). Secondly, it's often just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples in recent history wherein the realist policy prescription was simply not undertaken. This should be pretty obvious, but if you need a few examples, I've got plenty. Thirdly, it doesn't account for any peaceful or progressive change. The Democratic peace theory, the end of the cold war, the anti-nuclear proliferation regimes, and hell, even the years-old moratorium on slavery are all contradictory to the basic tenets of a narrow realist view. And last but not least, the theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone adopts these tenets, the world will be as realism says it is by necessity; working under realism CREATES the dog-eat-dog world it predicts. Thankfully, most people, apparently, aren't buying it; and thank god, or we'd have even more nuclear powers (good thing the Ukraine gav eup its nuclear weapons, isn't it?)

Basically, adopting one narrow view and saying that it's the only way to think if you want to accomplish anything is to fall victim to tunnel vision. Realism works in a variety of situations, but to take a hard-line stance that it's the only way to go about things is, forgive me for saying so, incredibly stupid.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
Obviously the realist approach isn't applicable to all situations. Fuck, I'm the last person who wants to go to was with North Korea or some shit. The point is, soft power is backed up by hard power. You can put all the international pressure on countries you want, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. North Korea isn't giving up their nuclear program, Iraq exploited the Oil for Food program with basically no consequences, and without the United States backing up Taiwan, China would literally blown them out of the water.

You need to have both, but hard power is necessary to back up that soft power. Things would obviously be a lot easier if everyone was rational too. Discussions work a lot better with rational people, but in case you haven't noticed, a lot of this world isn't rational.

West is Best.
 
Odd... proponents of realism usually ASSUME the rational actor model. How much sense does it make to rely on hard power if you're assuming that others will NOT act rationally? Deterrence becomes a crap shoot. That's just plain dangerous, and you're basically asking for a war. I'm not sure you've thought that one through completely.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
To respond to the military issue I raised, I guess I overlooked peace keeping. I think peace keeping is a good idea because, well, it promotes peace! But really, having a military does nothing but promote war - Take the cold war for example. And really, since we will be the U.S.'s little brother for the forseeable future, why not take advantage of their military dominance? What's the point in buying military vehicles that sink in the middle of the atlantic ocean or fall out of the sky?

'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)

"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
 
I wasn't saying the hard power is only good for deterence, with irrational actors, sometimes action is necessary. Yes war, fighting, sometimes it comes down to that. Physical intervention is necessary when pursuasion and deterence don't work.

West is Best.
 
So, when people are rational, military is good because it'll prevent them from attacking (basically deterrence... I guess we need more nukes). But when they're not, military is good because we need to invade them?

... Remember when I said this position is dangerous because it's self fulfilling?

Again, this seems like a good way to set up a massive arms race that's probably unnecessary on the whole. It hasn't turned out so badly when people have betrayed this model in the past... and it's turned out altogether badly for many who have. So why should we listen to you? It's great that your theory is simple and all-encompassing... it boils things down to one nice, neat factor. But if it's inconsistent, and worse still, if its failures lead to large-scale conflict, it seems like quite a risk to take.

-------------------------

When the truth is, I miss you.

Yeah the truth is, that I miss you so.

And I�'m tired...

I should not have let you go.
 
The problem with officially using the American army is that we'd have to align our foreign policy to be similar to theirs. It's been a long road, hard tough road for us Canadians to get our own foreign policy (1982 was when we finally got it if I'm not mistaken), I don't want to give it up so soon. I like the way things are now. US is kind of our unoffical army. It's not written anywhere, but everyone knows it.

- - - - -

'Itâ??s a wonder I havenâ??t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
^ AMEN! Really, I was just being an extremist little punk. I like the way things are now. Mind you I don't know anthing else since the liberals have been in power since I can remember.

'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)

"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
 
It all goes back to when we canceled the Arrow, the plane that ALL modern jet firghter craft are based off of. It was the first air craft that could super cruse, meaning the only one the could turn going mach. Then Difenbaker got his ball pinched, and it was canceled bacause america did not want to loose the skys.

Just with that technology we could have become a world power. But no, we got fucked by the Americans again. Then they take all our designer to make everything from the NASA shuttle, to the F117 stealth fighter. Ever since then we have just given given more and more to them. All the conservatives want to do is give them more. Stephen Harper is the most evil of the Conservative leaders of them all, the last thing this country needs is him.

Matman10: Man lat you had that 7 down but you binder poped off

Laterails:Yeah i think they aren't adjusted, or it could be the fact that all that is holding them together is one of my pubes
 
Wow, I typed something really long and then low and behold, apparently these new forums like to refresh themselves, and it all dissappeared. Pretty cool. I guess I'm too incompetent and arrogant to know how to use a forum. On the other hand, we have the worlds smartest man:

"When you have a single party dominating politics for as long as the liberals have, it's more or less inevitable that some corruption will occur. That's not an excuse, it's just a problem inherent in the system. When that happens, and the governing body takes responsibility and DOES something about it, I see responsibility and transparent government."

This clearly shows how knowing you are. Let's see. "DOES"

Is an apology, in your eyes, doing something? Well this is basically a rhetorical question, because it is quite clear that you are the king of talking. Hey why not, your good at it, keep that shit up. Its quite obvious why you align yourself so closely with this fantastic party.

"some"- I'd be interested to know what kind of injustices would have to be done to change this word to 'a lot of'.

You may full well be right. I mean, you usually are, as you are such a genius. The conservatives may not even win a minority. I'm fully aware of this, and if you think that I believe they will win in all seriousness, then you are mistaken. My optimism isnt that misplaced, I merely like to get heard. There is always option 2. Watch that Alberta Separatist movement grow 2 fold if Onterrible continues to take it in the ass and brush it off.

Maybe you've never heard that actions speak louder than words. Or is that too real for you.

Yeah, two can play the name calling game. Boiiii.

signatures are for pussies

 
I'm curious, why does Alberta want to seperate? I havn't heard much about it.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW

Like a virgin on prom night.
 
I can't say that everyone wants to, but there is definetly a movement. If you drive from Calgary to Red Deer and have your eyes open, you can see a large sign that says "Seperation Long Overdue" and then a number. Plus, in the last provincial election, there was quite a few canidates running under the Alberta Seperatist Party. Quite frankly it's what ^he said. "Fed up." You could argue that Alberta is often being held back by the rest of the country as well. Personally, I don't actually want to seperate, but it is a way to be heard. However, if seperation were to occur, I probably wouldnt cry about it.

signatures are for pussies

 
because they're rich and don't want to share their monty with the rest of the country.

- - - - -

'Itâ??s a wonder I havenâ??t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
I'm assuming that that entire post was composed purely out of bitterness, since you said nothing new and basically just tried to make fun of me (none too effectively, either... I'll assume you were tossing softballs intentionally and thank you). I'm going to guess that the SOURCE of that bitterness was this paragraph, since you somehow got the idea that I was "calling you names".

""Unfortunately for you, no matter when this election is held, your party is going to be greatly disappointed with the results. I've never seen such misplaced optimism from any political party, ever... I'm not sure whether to attribute it to incompetence, or arrogance. There will be no conservative majority under Harper, ever. He's unelectable to that position. If there's ever a minority, I'll be apalled, and more than a little surprised. At least Joe Clark commanded an ounce of respect.""

I should've made that much clearer. The arrogance is on the part of the conservative party, not yours. I think their polling system is just about the least accurate thing I can think of, and the fact that they all seem to think a minority is in the bag and a majority probably is sort of funny. So no, this wasn't about you.

 
Hmmmm, it must have been that "unfortunately for you" part that led me to believe so. Either you're backpedalling or I was suppose to decipher from your original post where the "you" part stops. Anywho, your welcome to still tell me just exactly what you would consider lots of corruption. While you're at it, explain to me how apologizing is doing something. Seems more like saying something to me. But you don't have to, seeing as how I've said nothing new this post and you've avoided any sort of true response the first time around.

signatures are for pussies

 
He's not back pedalling, he's trying to debate without personal attacks.

- - - - -

'Itâ??s a wonder I havenâ??t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
Fair enough, I'd like to do the same, but surely you can see where the confusion came about.

signatures are for pussies

 
Simmah down nah! I'm not backpedalling, I reread my earlier post and went "Oh yeah... so that's where he got that idea." So I cleared it up. Now, as for corruption, when this story broke (over a year ago, it's amazing how we recycle this stuff), I was not at all surprised. It did not chock me, because I expected this sort of thing. It's a problem that's been identified, presented clearly to the people, and is being dealt with by an independent commission. Does that qualify as "doing something"? Now, if this was on the order of, say, deliberately miscounting votes in key ridings, I'd say that would qualify as "lots of corruption", and enough to immediately do away with the party as a viable choice (which would leave us with a sum total of 0 viable choices). Embezzlement... well, it's bad, but it's being dealt with and it's a problem that, if not fixed, can certainly be remedied to large extent through repayment and disciplinary action against those involved. An apology isn't necessarily doing anything, but if you hadn't (as I assume you did since you posting that) missed or ignored the rest of Martin's speech that day, he also laid out exactly what he's done and what he's still doing to address the issue. Meanwhile, the apology, for me, was a nice change from "IT WASN'T MY FAULT! PLEASE STILL VOTE FOR ME! LET ME ATTACK MY OPPONENTS TO GET YOUR MIND OFF THIS WHOLE SCANDAL." And other common attitudes I'm used to seeing. I just thought it gave him a greater air of respectability in my eyes to see him say, "This is what happened, I'm sorry I didn't see it at the time, and I apologize. This is what we're doing about it." Is that enough? Obviously not for you. We differ there, I doubt anything would be enough for you, because there are some people who will simply take any excuse to call for a change in power (usually those supporting the people who would take over, oddly enough). I won't know if it's enough for me until I have all the facts, which is why I'd like to see them wait for that election. They won't, though.

 
No, your right, it isnt enough for me. I do want to see a change in power, and have wanted to before this scandal ever arose. What I have to say to Martin is that talk is cheap. While he may full well mean to do what he says, I'm tired of second chances. Really, I almost feel for the guy, because it is his predessors fault. Unfortunately Martin has to take the hit, but take it he should. Of course I want change. I doubt that Harper is the devil to end all that you all seem to think he is. Lets see what he can do. If I found out he did something as dumb as the sponsorship scandal and pretty much all around sucked as a leader, I would vote his ass out too. Even if it meant voting back the Libs again.

signatures are for pussies

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top