How Will You Vote
- Thread starter UberCree
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Michael O'Leary said:
Let's just throw all our votes to the NDP.. or the Communist party. Heck, I'd vote for the Die Men Die party if it meant a change for the better.
Seriously though, of course there's no ethically dominant party, they're politicians.
I still stick to my ideas, though: it's better to go with a party that might change things for the better, than one who we know won't change anything. Whether that's the Conservatives, the NDP, or whoever else, that's above my paygrade.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Frederik G said:
That's the problem - "thrown" votes don't win elections, they get spread too thin. Organized votes win elections, even if it's only with a minority government.
Now ask yourself this: if none of the other parties manages to organize sufficient votes; either through their campaign and/or by grass-roots support, and the Liberals do form another minority government, do you think the Canadian voter will support another non-confidence vote in the near term? (And please don't hide behind generalized insults about their intelligence, because it only makes me doubt yours.)
If you're so dead set against the Liberals, identify the clear alternative and build a case that will actually convince enough people to make a difference. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke and posting empty rhetoric.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Indeed, I could use some juicy sponsorship money. I'm pretty sure separatism in alberta is building... we need another national unity program, this time for the west.
Screw my Liberal membership, I'm voting conservative!
(for the record, no, I'm voting Liberal, IMO anyone who thinks they are getting a better deal from the Conservatives will be sorely dissapointed. Plus, from my perspective I don't really see anything that could be called a "platform").
Screw my Liberal membership, I'm voting conservative!
(for the record, no, I'm voting Liberal, IMO anyone who thinks they are getting a better deal from the Conservatives will be sorely dissapointed. Plus, from my perspective I don't really see anything that could be called a "platform").
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Why have they Conservatives removed the policy document from the website? (The published results form the big confab in Montreal in March.. I think it was March..) Maybe the web development dept inadvertently buried the link.. Hmph.
Anyway, I saved a copy. If anyone can tell me how to post it (pdf doc.) I'll toss it up there...
For a jist of the platform just peruse the website.. and did you catch the GST announcement today? Love it or hate it it is definitely a substantive policy announcement. ...a plank in a platform.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Re: the GST
sure, one aspect of a platform, certainly doesn't tell me what a conservative government would do once in power.
oh, and re: the gst
""From an economic point of view, it wouldn't be my first choice," Bill Robson, senior vice-president of the CD Howe Institute...Jason Clemens, an economist with the Fraser Institute, said he also opposes reducing the GST.
Jim Davies, who teaches economics at the University of Western Ontario in London, also said he would prefer income tax cuts."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/01/gst-reac051201.html
sure, one aspect of a platform, certainly doesn't tell me what a conservative government would do once in power.
oh, and re: the gst
""From an economic point of view, it wouldn't be my first choice," Bill Robson, senior vice-president of the CD Howe Institute...Jason Clemens, an economist with the Fraser Institute, said he also opposes reducing the GST.
Jim Davies, who teaches economics at the University of Western Ontario in London, also said he would prefer income tax cuts."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/01/gst-reac051201.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
re the GST:
Yeah.. sure from a productivity standpoint reducing income taxes (edit: ..and eliminating the capital gains tax..and reducing coporate taxes) would be a better move. From a retail standpoint reducing the GST will certainly not hurt. Additionally, the Tories hint that there is more to come on the tax cut front...
Yes it does ..and a platform is made of many planks. This is one. We're discussing part of the Conservative platform right now.
Yeah.. sure from a productivity standpoint reducing income taxes (edit: ..and eliminating the capital gains tax..and reducing coporate taxes) would be a better move. From a retail standpoint reducing the GST will certainly not hurt. Additionally, the Tories hint that there is more to come on the tax cut front...
Yes it does ..and a platform is made of many planks. This is one. We're discussing part of the Conservative platform right now.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Right, go compare the liberal http://www.liberal.ca/issues_e.aspx issues section with the conservative http://www.conservative.ca/EN/key_issues/ key issue.
Notice how there are actually dollars, legislation, explanations, etc, in the liberal one, whereas all the Conservatives can manage is single sentance blurbs?
An excerpt... Conservatives say: "New or rebuilt municipal roads, bridges and other infrastructure."
Liberals say "The Liberal government remains firmly committed to a New Deal for Canada's cities and communities. We are working hard to give Canada's municipalities a strong voice and the tools to succeed and bridge the gap between municipal resources and municipalities' growing responsibilities.
A key part of this strategy is our commitment to share with municipalities a portion of the revenue from the federal excise tax on gasoline.
We originally committed to transfer a total of $5 billion over five years, beginning with a penny per litre, or $400 million this year. But in Budget 2005, we went even further, starting with $600 million and rising as promised to 5 cents per litre, or $2 billion annually, in 2009-10.
Over 90% of the Canadian population is now covered by such an agreement.
Gas tax agreements have already been signed with the Northwest Territories, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Yukon, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
This funding will provide valuable support to municipalities across the country, helping them to establish local environmentally sustainable infrastructure and improve their competitiveness and quality of life."
Not only are the Liberals actually saying "look, this is what we'll do, these are the dollars and cents, these are the agreements we will sign", they are saying "well actually we've already brought in a lot of this in our last budget, and we've already signed a lot of agreements, we just need to be able to continue to carry it through".....while all the conservatives got is "oh yea, we like cities...... the Liberals eat babies....."
In relation to things that would resonate with people here...
How would they actually change defence spending? What are the actual dollars they would put in? Would they continue to support these recent unbugeted capital expenditures, or, following in line with their criticsms they've been throwing about, go through a lengthy procurement process? How would they plan to use the Armed Forces in regardes to their foreign policy? Wait a minute, what is their foreign policy? How do they view relations with China? Do they support the building of a "strategic partnership" with China? How would they actually deal with recent aggravations in US-Canadian relations? They claim to want better relations, but everytime the camera is on them they are saying we "aren't doing enough" in regards to softwood? What would "enough" constitute? Would they bring in economic sanctions? etc. etc. etc. etc.
In short, they don't have a platform.
Notice how there are actually dollars, legislation, explanations, etc, in the liberal one, whereas all the Conservatives can manage is single sentance blurbs?
An excerpt... Conservatives say: "New or rebuilt municipal roads, bridges and other infrastructure."
Liberals say "The Liberal government remains firmly committed to a New Deal for Canada's cities and communities. We are working hard to give Canada's municipalities a strong voice and the tools to succeed and bridge the gap between municipal resources and municipalities' growing responsibilities.
A key part of this strategy is our commitment to share with municipalities a portion of the revenue from the federal excise tax on gasoline.
We originally committed to transfer a total of $5 billion over five years, beginning with a penny per litre, or $400 million this year. But in Budget 2005, we went even further, starting with $600 million and rising as promised to 5 cents per litre, or $2 billion annually, in 2009-10.
Over 90% of the Canadian population is now covered by such an agreement.
Gas tax agreements have already been signed with the Northwest Territories, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Yukon, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
This funding will provide valuable support to municipalities across the country, helping them to establish local environmentally sustainable infrastructure and improve their competitiveness and quality of life."
Not only are the Liberals actually saying "look, this is what we'll do, these are the dollars and cents, these are the agreements we will sign", they are saying "well actually we've already brought in a lot of this in our last budget, and we've already signed a lot of agreements, we just need to be able to continue to carry it through".....while all the conservatives got is "oh yea, we like cities...... the Liberals eat babies....."
In relation to things that would resonate with people here...
How would they actually change defence spending? What are the actual dollars they would put in? Would they continue to support these recent unbugeted capital expenditures, or, following in line with their criticsms they've been throwing about, go through a lengthy procurement process? How would they plan to use the Armed Forces in regardes to their foreign policy? Wait a minute, what is their foreign policy? How do they view relations with China? Do they support the building of a "strategic partnership" with China? How would they actually deal with recent aggravations in US-Canadian relations? They claim to want better relations, but everytime the camera is on them they are saying we "aren't doing enough" in regards to softwood? What would "enough" constitute? Would they bring in economic sanctions? etc. etc. etc. etc.
In short, they don't have a platform.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well.. they do have a platform. Saying they don't doesn't make it otherwise. ...and the Liberals are bad.. "yea" (..as you say) They stole tax money to fund their campaigns. They used the power of government to subvert the electoral process. That's pretty %$#&ing bad in my book.
Without checking your links (it's very late where I am) I feel comfortable accepting your quotes as presented. I concede that the Liberals ..at this point ..seem to have a better articulated plan for funding of cities (ie. apportioning revenue from the federal gas tax) than the Tories do. Although this doesn't amount to much more than saying "hay we'll cut you a slice of this federal tax" ..and then doing the math on it.
Truth told, I'll give both parties a failing grade on this one. Cities are creatures of the provinces. Just cut federal taxes.
edit: you edited in the "eat babies" thing ..I could have come up with a witty counter quip for that one.. you also edited in the defence and foreign policy and softwood stuff..
It's a little late for this where I am ..I need to sign off. Suffice it to say for now that it will be a long campaign ..and if anyone can tell me how to post the Conservative Party Policy Document (pdf) I'll stick it up there.
Without checking your links (it's very late where I am) I feel comfortable accepting your quotes as presented. I concede that the Liberals ..at this point ..seem to have a better articulated plan for funding of cities (ie. apportioning revenue from the federal gas tax) than the Tories do. Although this doesn't amount to much more than saying "hay we'll cut you a slice of this federal tax" ..and then doing the math on it.
Truth told, I'll give both parties a failing grade on this one. Cities are creatures of the provinces. Just cut federal taxes.
edit: you edited in the "eat babies" thing ..I could have come up with a witty counter quip for that one.. you also edited in the defence and foreign policy and softwood stuff..
It's a little late for this where I am ..I need to sign off. Suffice it to say for now that it will be a long campaign ..and if anyone can tell me how to post the Conservative Party Policy Document (pdf) I'll stick it up there.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Joe Blow said:
Yea I'm an edit slut. I was one of those kids in school that would get insulted, and only come up with the really stinging response a little while later (damn short bus, they dont teach you anything you really need to know). Here, you can just edit it in and seem witty from the start!
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Spr.Earl said:
They didn't want to tear them down, they wanted to move them between Ontario and Quebec. I'd love a slice of THAT government contract...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
quote author=KevinB link=topic=36968/post-303183#msg303183 date=1133491537]
Keep reminding yourself the CPC is not the OLD PC party.
The CPC is both the Reform and the PC's -- as such in corruption will benifit those of us out west ;D
[/quote]
Good point.. at least the Liberal corruption benefited Quebec. That's it, I'm voting Liberal!
Well, ok, I won't. But think of the benefits!
I meant that in jest. I wouldn't actually want to throw my vote away. I agree with you there... wow.
No, and that's the problem. I think a lot of people would agree the Liberals, as they stand right now, are not what's best for Canada. (I'm not saying the Conservatives are right, though.) If we elect another Liberal government, it will not only keep the opposition from getting another non-confidence vote, it will also reinforce the culture of entitlement the Liberals have, which is a lot worse.
As for canadian voters... well, I don't really know what they're thinking, in the ROC. In Quebec, most of us (at least the Quebecois) don't want the Liberals in, because most of the corruption happened there and we've seen how bad it went. I get the feeling the rest of Canada thinks it's Quebec's fault, or something like that, and not the Liberals. Just a problem of perspective, I guess. (Again, not saying Quebec's perspective is better.)
You know what? I don't have a clear alternative. The NDP are way too far in the left field, the Bloc are a Quebec-only party, the Conservatives scare people and some of their social ideas are not exactly good...
That's the problem in Canada. People don't want to go to the Liberals, but they're the only clear choice. Most other parties are defined as being non-Liberal (just as we're defined as being non-American, I guess) so what do you expect?
So, yes, maybe, I'm "posting empty rhetoric," but I'd rather post empty rhetoric that just might make one person change their mind, than not say anything and watch the Liberals steal and mismanage for four more years.
Keep reminding yourself the CPC is not the OLD PC party.
The CPC is both the Reform and the PC's -- as such in corruption will benifit those of us out west ;D
[/quote]
Good point.. at least the Liberal corruption benefited Quebec. That's it, I'm voting Liberal!
Well, ok, I won't. But think of the benefits!
Michael O'Leary said:
I meant that in jest. I wouldn't actually want to throw my vote away. I agree with you there... wow.
No, and that's the problem. I think a lot of people would agree the Liberals, as they stand right now, are not what's best for Canada. (I'm not saying the Conservatives are right, though.) If we elect another Liberal government, it will not only keep the opposition from getting another non-confidence vote, it will also reinforce the culture of entitlement the Liberals have, which is a lot worse.
As for canadian voters... well, I don't really know what they're thinking, in the ROC. In Quebec, most of us (at least the Quebecois) don't want the Liberals in, because most of the corruption happened there and we've seen how bad it went. I get the feeling the rest of Canada thinks it's Quebec's fault, or something like that, and not the Liberals. Just a problem of perspective, I guess. (Again, not saying Quebec's perspective is better.)
You know what? I don't have a clear alternative. The NDP are way too far in the left field, the Bloc are a Quebec-only party, the Conservatives scare people and some of their social ideas are not exactly good...
That's the problem in Canada. People don't want to go to the Liberals, but they're the only clear choice. Most other parties are defined as being non-Liberal (just as we're defined as being non-American, I guess) so what do you expect?
So, yes, maybe, I'm "posting empty rhetoric," but I'd rather post empty rhetoric that just might make one person change their mind, than not say anything and watch the Liberals steal and mismanage for four more years.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Some of you might find this CBC quiz helpful in determining who you agree with on the various issues.
http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/
It worked for me!
http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/
It worked for me!
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Frederik G said:
Ah, the quintessential Canadian political dilemma ... the devil you know, or the devil you don't. And do you offer them a majority with no controls, or accept a minority in hope that it will regulate their enthusiasm?
- Status
Similar threads
