Canadian Politics: <DBM> Incoming Election! Run Away From !Harper! </DBM>

darkphoenix22

hawkbox wrote: »

darkphoenix22 wrote: »

Robman wrote: »

dark you realize that what you're proposing is entirely illegal under NAFTA? Newfoundland found that out when they tried to summarily seize a corporation's assets in the name of "the common good".

Then FUCK NAFTA. I'm a traditional Red Tory conservative, remember. David Orchard is my hero on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fight_for_Canada:_Four_Centuries_of_Resistance_to_American_Expansionism

Uh, you do realize you can't just go FUCK NAFTA and have it mean anything right?

I'm running for the Green Party. It's my job to advocate, not to implement. If I get elected, my primary purpose will to be a mouthpiece for Thunder Bay who will be actively courted on close votes.

Meaning I will be able to actually advocate and demand pork for Thunder Bay. Unlike Mauro, who has pretty much just gotten a streetcar contract with Bombardier.

I like to show him a picture of the sparkly pavement and on-ramps leading to nowhere in North Bay (Mike Harris's old riding). And then ask him why Thunder Bay has fucking streetlight intersections on 70 km/h highways. The man has FAILED to do his job.

---

David Orchard is my hero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Orchard

Orchard unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the merger. In a high-profile news conference in early November he suggested that the new Conservative Party of Canada was "an abomination, sired in betrayal and born out of deception." He urged PC Party members to vote "no" on any referendum and also encouraged "loyal members" to express their frustrations with Peter MacKay. Orchard argued that his efforts were not based on self-promotion but rather on preserving one of Canada's founding parties and preventing a takeover of the moderate values and membership of the PCs by the neoconservative values of the Alliance membership.

Orchard was convinced that a merger with an "upstart prairie populist protest movement" was unnecessary. Orchard argued that before the merger was announced, the Canadian Alliance and its leader, Stephen Harper, were highly unpopular and a moment was fast approaching for the PCs to reemerge as the national alternative to the governing Liberals. Orchard suggested that MacKay's "traitorous" actions put the above scenario in jeopardy. Some other notable Tories such as Joe Clark, Flora MacDonald, Brian Peckford and Sinclair Stevens also opposed the merger.

In a last-ditch attempt to stop the merger, Orchard went to court, seeking an injunction against the merger vote. The case was thrown out of court on the grounds that a merger through a "national convention" did not violate the PC Party constitution. The merger was ratified with 96% support by members of the Canadian Alliance in a one-member-one-vote process on December 5. The PC Party opted for a "virtual convention" in which delegates were selected in ridings and then attended local provincial urban centres in which they voted for or against the merger.

Orchard described the process as fraudulent and undemocratic, as the convention delegates never actually voted together in any fixed location. The convention produced a result in which 90.5% of the Progressive Conservative Party delegates voted in favour of the merger. However, Orchard and other opponents claimed the result was not representative of the true PC membership, pointing out that new memberships in the party were sold almost up to the day of the vote, and the number of members nearly doubled.

Well aside from the social conservative stuff.

And I'm quite happy with the idea that Canada is spending the same GDP percentage on our military (1.3%) as Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Norway.

The US spends about the same GDP percentage on their military as countries ravaged by civil war...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

hawkbox

You're going to get crushed like a grape.

darkphoenix22

Comahawk wrote: »

I'm reading a book right now in doing research for a History paper, it is about the Battle of the Atlantic.

One of the points the author makes is how terrible our Air Force was due to old/out-dated equipment. His argument is pretty well rounded, and I found it particularly interesting. I am finding myself drawing parallels between what he is saying and the current debate over the F-35s. I know many people view these fighters as unnecessary, or too expensive, but by purchasing a remodeled version of the F-18s, an old and out-dated airframe, aren't we just putting ourselves in a similar position again?

Now, I also know part of the argument is that we will never be in a war where this is needed. Personally, I view that as a bit naive, especially when you consider similar attitudes were expressed before the World Wars. Drawing direct comparison is problematic, but we can never totally dismiss the chance of needing cutting edge weapons for our military. Especially when we have such a small air force.

It's not just us rethinking the F-35s. Australia dumped them when their Labor Party formed government. For the Super Hornets.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

Below is a good debate on the F-35s. I actually got the military guys to say more than just "They're good. Shut up!".

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/g8ygt/f35_cant_run_cant_turn_and_cant_climb/

PS Could you give us the name of the book. I honestly would like to read it.

darkphoenix22

hawkbox wrote: »

You're going to get crushed like a grape.

It'll be worth it when I bring up native apartheid at the debate and force the Thunder Bay politicians to actually talk about it.

Torso Boy

Orchard was right, a divided right leaving the Liberals to be the only party capable of winning an election was exactly what this country needed.

The way I layered the sarcasm above, I actually can't tell whether or not I'm serious.

darkphoenix22

Torso Boy wrote: »

Orchard was right, a divided right leaving the Liberals to be the only party capable of winning an election was exactly what this country needed.

The way I layered the sarcasm above, I actually can't tell whether or not I'm serious.

That is much better than a country led by neo-cons. I would LOVE a Red-Green alliance running this country.

hawkbox

You've never actually been to a debate before have you?

darkphoenix22

hawkbox wrote: »

You've never actually been to a debate before have you?

I have. And I will use my contacts back home to bring it up as a question.

Robman

darkphoenix22 wrote: »

hawkbox wrote: »

You're going to get crushed like a grape.

It'll be worth it when I bring up native apartheid at the debate and force the Thunder Bay politicians to actually talk about it.

You advocate the role of the green party to be that of a flock of geese who scream "native apartheid" and "fuck nafta" without coming up with a single substantiative policy point. You want to walk into a debate and tard-screed with all the intellectual depth of a spirited discussion of pizza types around the bong.

Yeah, you're going to contribute nothing positive to the debates in Thunder Bay, and will in fact disrupt what could be an otherwise positive battle of policy.

I hope you're proud. People like you are why the Green Party continues it's 0 seat hot streak.

Comahawk

darkphoenix22 wrote: »

Comahawk wrote: »

I'm reading a book right now in doing research for a History paper, it is about the Battle of the Atlantic.

One of the points the author makes is how terrible our Air Force was due to old/out-dated equipment. His argument is pretty well rounded, and I found it particularly interesting. I am finding myself drawing parallels between what he is saying and the current debate over the F-35s. I know many people view these fighters as unnecessary, or too expensive, but by purchasing a remodeled version of the F-18s, an old and out-dated airframe, aren't we just putting ourselves in a similar position again?

Now, I also know part of the argument is that we will never be in a war where this is needed. Personally, I view that as a bit naive, especially when you consider similar attitudes were expressed before the World Wars. Drawing direct comparison is problematic, but we can never totally dismiss the chance of needing cutting edge weapons for our military. Especially when we have such a small air force.

It's not just us rethinking the F-35s. Australia dumped them when their Labor Party formed government. For the Super Hornets.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

Below is a good debate on the F-35s. I actually got the military guys to say more than just "They're good. Shut up!".

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/g8ygt/f35_cant_run_cant_turn_and_cant_climb/

PS Could you give us the name of the book. I honestly would like to read it.

Not enough time to read the full article right now, but the book I'm reading is "In Great Waters" by Spencer Dunmore.

hawkbox

People like him are why I don't consider Green to be a valid vote anymore. That and the local green candidate was batshit loco. So yeah, a lot like him.

darkphoenix22

Well, you have to be in parliament to learn.

Vote Green. Give us a chance. Let us learn. Let us ask questions in Question Period and submit private member bills.

Vote Green so we can actually have a voice in parliament and be able to debate without having to petition every election. Vote Green so we can actually speak up and help make Canada better place.

A Green member of parliament is much better than a backbencher as we will actually be able to influeuce party policy to help our ridings, as opposed to simply toting the part line.

Tired of voting for the lesser of two evils (or three). Vote Green.

Robman

"Backbenchers" actually do quite a bit of work in Parliament. Most of the work is done in committees. You're consistently displaying a huge ignorance towards how our government actually functions.

shryke

Jesus christ, can we just quarantine darkpheonix22 into his own thread so we can go back to having an actual discussion?

darkphoenix22

They are VERY limited in what they can publicly say and advocate though. See Harper.

darkphoenix22

shryke wrote: »

Jesus christ, can we just quarantine darkpheonix22 into his own thread so we can go back to having an actual discussion?

I'm gone. There's very little point to me debating with people outside my riding.

Good day.

Disco11

Vote Green? You have not brought up one point that makes any sense, your policies seem to be all over the map and your response to criticism is to say "not my fault, no experience!" 10 separate people in this thread that know more about politics and how the world works then you seem to have told you to work on a campaign or two before presenting yourself and you have brushed it off.

You are not going to get elected, you probably will get less then 1% of the vote and will serve no other purpose then to be a footnote on how not to present yourself to an electorate. I am not saying this to offend you and I am sure you are a nice guy but you need to face the fact that this is not for you YET. It's great that your interested in the debate and you sure do bring up a lot of stuff on reddit but that does not make you a politician.

I don't like the libs at all ( as I am sure my past points have proven ) but I would vote for one of their experienced candidates over someone that spouts out non nonsensical opinions that are either flat out wrong, impossible or outright illegal.

Torso Boy

darkphoenix22 wrote: »

Torso Boy wrote: »

Orchard was right, a divided right leaving the Liberals to be the only party capable of winning an election was exactly what this country needed.

The way I layered the sarcasm above, I actually can't tell whether or not I'm serious.

That is much better than a country led by neo-cons. I would LOVE a Red-Green alliance running this country.

Well, I vote Liberal, but I like democracy. So half of me believes uniting the right was necessary to make a viable party on that end of the spectrum, and to moderate the kooks. The other half wishes they stayed separate and just bowed down to Liberal hegemony for two or three elections before someone became viable. But then, if that someone was the Alliance, ehh...

And regardless of whether or not it is true that MP[P]s learn best by being elected, that's a very difficult thing to claim as a selling point. I'll reiterate the recommendation that you join another campaign, even of a party you don't care for, and get a taste for how the game works.

Robman

The Reformists brought some real poison pills along with them, and I'm not just talking about Harper here. Manning was perhaps the most reasonable, devout Christian politician we've seen in a long time. The other devout believers that came long for the ride? Less so.

Stockwell Day springs immediately to mind, but there's a whole host of quite thoroughly unpleasant people who genuinely think less of the non-churchgoing population. Colin Mayes, the MP for where my parents live, is a nice example of this. He's openly hostile to them so-called "learned" folk at the ivory-tower elitist institutions etc. etc. for bringing facts to spoil his views.

Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okanagan%E2%80%94Shuswap is a great example of the Greens fucking things up. They threw money at that riding like it was nobody's business, and merely ended up splitting the ABC-vote. The Greens need to do some tactical dealings with the NDP out west, then they could probably manage to get some actual seats.

hawkbox

My girlfriend has done campaign work for Linda Duncan and I ran a city council candidate last summer (note, we got our asses kicked.) and it's not so easy as just showing up and spouting non sequiturs. I may actually start voting NDP as they are the best candidate to win here against the conservative domination. Plus the Liberals are fielding the candidate the Greens ran with last time who is rabidly anti nuclear so I won't vote there anyway.

Man I hope he actually sticks to his word and stops spamming inane shit for at least a little while.

Disco11

If your going to run for something, city council is a great start. Every step of government above that is an order of magnitude more complex.

Jean

How did your riding vote?

You can see block by block how every riding in the country voted last time. Very interesting.

To show how close my riding was last time :
- The subdivision where I live voted Liberal
- The subdivision where my parents live voted Bloc
- The subdivision where I work voted NDP

hippofant

Comahawk wrote: »

I'm reading a book right now in doing research for a History paper, it is about the Battle of the Atlantic.

One of the points the author makes is how terrible our Air Force was due to old/out-dated equipment. His argument is pretty well rounded, and I found it particularly interesting. I am finding myself drawing parallels between what he is saying and the current debate over the F-35s. I know many people view these fighters as unnecessary, or too expensive, but by purchasing a remodeled version of the F-18s, an old and out-dated airframe, aren't we just putting ourselves in a similar position again?

Now, I also know part of the argument is that we will never be in a war where this is needed. Personally, I view that as a bit naive, especially when you consider similar attitudes were expressed before the World Wars. Drawing direct comparison is problematic, but we can never totally dismiss the chance of needing cutting edge weapons for our military. Especially when we have such a small air force.

Hm. The Royal Canadian Air Force was pretty terrible in the pre-war years, but I don't know that this really had any influence on the Battle of the Atlantic. Allied aircraft, across the board, were rather outdated and badly outclassed by their Axis counterparts. The British were only just fielding their Spitfire Is and it really wouldn't be until 1942 that the Mosquito entered service and 1943 until the B-24 entered service. Until then, no aircraft really had the range / flight time to effectively attack U-boats, never mind the technology to attack U-boats at night. The Allies were simply completely unprepared for the Battle of the Atlantic, and it took years until the technology developed for aircraft to play a major role.

Which is sort of the point when it comes to these big military expenditures. We don't predict, very well, the conflicts of the future, so we might not want to make a big investment in brand new technologies only for those technologies not to turn out to be what we need. The Americans learned that lesson when they took their Cold War paradigm mechanized forces and redeployed them to Kuwait... whereupon some of their equipment got entirely bogged down by sand and heat.

But then again, what's the alternative? Wait for the next conflict to erupt and then buy your equipment? It's a suboptimal solution to a very difficult prediction problem.

Edith_Bagot-Dix

Disco11 wrote: »

If your going to run for something, city council is a great start. Every step of government above that is an order of magnitude more complex.

School board is a good choice too, if applicable.

shryke

Robman wrote: »

The Reformists brought some real poison pills along with them, and I'm not just talking about Harper here. Manning was perhaps the most reasonable, devout Christian politician we've seen in a long time. The other devout believers that came long for the ride? Less so.

Stockwell Day springs immediately to mind, but there's a whole host of quite thoroughly unpleasant people who genuinely think less of the non-churchgoing population. Colin Mayes, the MP for where my parents live, is a nice example of this. He's openly hostile to them so-called "learned" folk at the ivory-tower elitist institutions etc. etc. for bringing facts to spoil his views.

Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okanagan%E2%80%94Shuswap is a great example of the Greens fucking things up. They threw money at that riding like it was nobody's business, and merely ended up splitting the ABC-vote. The Greens need to do some tactical dealings with the NDP out west, then they could probably manage to get some actual seats.

That's the sad thing. For all I hate everything the Reform party has become and was and is and all that, Preston Manning was a smart guy I respected (from what I heard from him). I didn't agree with everything he said, but you could tell he knew his shit and he had good points and such. Harper or Day or most of the others come off sounding like idiots and blowhards.

Robman

Time to bust out that new thread smell

Off to GIS