I haven't found any counter arguments to the Liberal platform except "I don't trust them or him" and "he's just not ready". Or "they put stickers on my door"
The Liberals converted me from NDP, I wonder what it would take for the rest of you.
EDIT - I understand the trust aspect, especially with how Bill C-51 went down. But it's a learning process.
Voting reform (which is my #1 priority as it should be for everyone in the universe *ahem*). The Liberal position of replace FPTP with 'something' is just way weaker than the NDP and Green position of Replace FPTP with PR.
NDP being the federalist option most popular in Quebec makes them, by default, the strongest on national unity of the two as well. (the way to fight the seperatists in Quebec isn't through gutter_trash style rhetoric but giving Francophone Quebecers a better federalist option to vote for and, hey, the NPD is it)
15 dollar daycare.
Getting out of Iraq is also something that makes sense to me. We're not really a vital part of anything in Iraqi training and the money saved there can be used for other peace initiatives in the Middle East where Canada could make more of an impact.
One cent of the gas tax isn't as sexy as BILLIONS FOR NEW TRAINS but it's vital. And hey the NDP has The BILLIONS FOR NEW TRAINS as well. Both are desperately needed.
I agree with C-51 but Trudeau has pulled back from his stance on C-51 and said they will revisit it so it's balanced. I would rather have appeal for sure.
They have a voting reform platform. I definitely recommend reading it on their website (or my post a couple pages back which is mainly copy and paste from their website). It's my preferred voting reform platform.
I'm not partial either way on Quebec, so it's not an important platform item for me, so I can't advise on which party is best for this.
$15 Dollar Daycare is an NDP only platform item right now. If that's important for you, I definitely recommend voting NDP.
Mulcair's biggest problem is that he campaigns like if he was running Provincial campaign instead of a Federal campaign, and it shows big time that he is a former Provincial MNA that still thinks like a Provincial politician instead of being a full Federal MP thinking for all of Canada
They have a voting reform platform. I definitely recommend reading it on their website (or my post a couple pages back which is mainly copy and paste from their website). It's my preferred voting reform platform.
I did read it. They will study it and replace FPTP with 'something' that could be Australian style AV which is just as odious as FPTP. It's not nearly as good as the NDP and Green position.
Edit: And some inside baseball here but it took Liberals for Fair Voting (Fair Vote Canada caucus of grassroots Liberals) years of intense lobbying to get JT to even this position. Plenty of Liberals love PR. They're not in Trudeau's inner circle though which sets of huge alarms for me. There are a million and one ways for a politician to pretend to do something while in actuality stifling a policy and Trudeau by all indications does not like PR.
I did read it. They will study it and replace FPTP with 'something' that could be Australian style AV which is just as odious as FPTP. It's not nearly as good as the NDP and Green position.
I think if there's anyone you can trust to have read it in this thread it's probably Azih.
As I said when you initially posted your list of the items, all of them are trumped by direct and explicit support for PR. They all become much less important when votes actually count.
Also you're being disingenuous in this entire line of conversation. You say you "haven't heard of any arguments except 'trust'", but when faced with arguments you dismiss them as unimportant or simple misunderstandings of the liberal policy when they aren't. On C51 and voter reform it's not about trust, it's about what their actual platform is: Modifying vs. repealing and study vs. PR.
If you believe the numbers, sure. I'm highly skeptical, though, that with oil and the dollar tanking and government spending increasing, they somehow had a $7B turnaround.
*snip*
Haven't moved off any notion; the GG has the prerogative power to dismiss the PM. S/he generally shouldn't, by convention and normatively. I don't think they should "actively decide" who runs the country: I think they should act to appoint a government that has the confidence of the house, and I think we can infer which governments have the confidence of the house without necessarily testing them by having a vote in the house. I'm not particularly concerned with the potential for abuse of crown reserve powers, but in the scenario where you are, I'm fine with an elected GG (see Ireland). Possibly a waste of money for the election, but it's all good by me. I'm not a monarchist by any means.
*snip*
Two things to unpack here:
1) In large part this has been because since King-Byng, minority governments have generally emerged in the following pattern: One party has a plurality of seats. The other party has fewer seats. And then there are one or two regional protest parties (I'm including the CCF, SoCred, Reform, BQ, and much of the NDP's existence here) which hold the remainder of the seats. We haven't formed coalitions because the two major parties have been troubled by the kingmaker problem and they feel they have it less badly when they need to search for ad hoc support. All of this is fair and predictable. In these situations, the government and the opposition mutually agree that the government is the government. There's no coalition on the table. In the hypothetical we're discussing, there is another option on the table. Further, in the hypothetical we're discussing, that option is being ignored.
2) The first thing is largely true because of FPTP. Both opposition parties are talking about moving to voting regimes that will cause this to change. So this might be a conversation we want to have now if we think voting reform is coming. If we move to MMP or PR, we absolutely need a formateur process. If we move to ranked ballot, less so--but the impact of ranked ballot on measures like 2-party-seat-share and ENPP is less clear, so we might benefit from some clarity on how we wish to proceed anyway.
I'm pretty sensitive to the length of this post and the fact that what I meant as a pretty small remark has apparently been controversial enough to elicit quite this much feedback. I hope we don't hijack the thread. But happy to clarify or restate as necessary.
Darn it, Stump, making me read and think about things.
First, RE: the bolded -- I feel like you're just kind of handwaving away one of the key features of our system, which is that the government has to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House. A lot of the time it's just a formality, sure, but look back to 1979 -- Clark wrongly assumed he had the House's confidence, only to fall because his whip couldn't add properly. House votes are a key step in the process. (Which is also why I think that Jean was out of line in allowing Harper to prorogue -- he hadn't demonstrated he was acting with the backing of the House.)
Secondly, an elected GG? I'll admit I know nothing at all about the Irish system, but I really don't like the idea of giving a ceremonial position like the GG any kind of electoral mandate. This is a little hypocritical on my end, I'll admit, since I'm all in favour of an unelected Senate actively fulfilling its role as the place of sober second thought, but that, at least, is backed by the SCC's opinion that the Senate should be playing that legislative role -- there'd be no precedent for the GG taking the more active role you're describing, at least in Canada. Granted, there's nothing stopping us from looking outside of our Westminster system for solutions, but I can't imagine there's any kind of popular support for giving us an elected executive branch.
Having said that -- and I hate bringing this up, because I'm always loath to get into discussions about voting reform around here -- I think we should take a wait-and-see approach to how a different system would make things play out. If it's MMP
(and I really hope it isn't, because I'm not a fan of it, but that's neither here nor there)
, then we may see an increase in coalition talk, though if there are still three main parties locked in intractable conflict, I have a hard time seeing how any of them get to a majority. Then again, if we go to a preferential ballot, things may not change that much -- just look at HuffPo's analysis. A little superficial, sure, but if we do switch to that, I could see us having a permanent minority government situation -- and for all the flaws of minority government (as illustrated by Harper), I don't think people are that opposed to it.
On a related note, it's crazy how all the polls are now basically at 30-30-30. 5 weeks to election day, and no one has any idea of how it will shake out. Though if Abacus' poll today is anything to go by (which it may not be, because Canadian pollsters), NDP support is softening a little.
It's barely perceptible, and it may just be a continuation of that Mainstreet Poll a few weeks ago that found NDP support was built mainly on unlikely voters, but if things are as close as they seem to be, that's what counts as movement now.
Mr. Trudeau believes that it is important to take an evidence-based approach to electoral reform rather than an ideological one, and that all available options are considered. Further, he does not support proportional representation
Trudeau brings up AV in response to the letter about PR said:
...was replaced with a preferential ballot to give Canadians a greater amount of choice. In that system, voters rank the candidates in their order of preference, and the eventual winner must receive over 50% of the votes. If used during the general election, this would ensure that MPs secured support from a majority of the constituents, and beyond his or her traditional voting base, leading to a more representative government. Options such as a Preferential Ballot system are important to also consider
What's being described is Australian style AV and the italicized is a lol.
So I do trust Mr.Trudeau to push for what he really wants. Unfortunately what he wants is ass. Luckily most Liberals both in parliament and in the grassroots aren't on board with JT on this one and a strong NDP minority should be able to get enough Liberals on board to get PR implemented.
I definitely haven't ever seen a post like that from him, immediately after substantive policy criticisms of the Liberal platform were made, on multiple occasions in this thread alone.
I definitely haven't ever seen a post like that from him, immediately after substantive policy criticisms of the Liberal platform were made, on multiple occasions in this thread alone.
What's being described is Australian style AV and the italicized is a lol.
So I do trust Mr.Trudeau to push for what he really wants. Unfortunately what he wants is ass. Luckily most Liberals both in parliament and in the grassroots aren't on board with JT on this one and a strong NDP minority should be able to get enough Liberals on board to get PR implemented.
I agree. I don't believe Trudeau is interested in PR because it would siphon power from his party. He wants some ranking system because Conservatives and NDP voters will have him as #2 + Liberal voters will have him at #1. If that happened, Liberals would always be on the defense during election time because everyone would go HAM on attack ads against them, which I feel would make things a lot worse than "He's just not ready". I wish he would stop politicking and try to do PR to make the country better.
And holy crap at those numbers on that site. Wtf happened in Gatineau, 2008?
My personal speculation is that there almost was, but those MPs simply bailed from the CPC instead of mounting an actual leadership challenge against Harper. Him staying on for the October election was a huge strategic mistake, since it allows the opposition and the public to define him (negatively) prior to the campaign trail.
Of course, the next question of who would succeed Harper is even more difficult to answer because of the lack of charisma and talent inside the CPC.
I haven't found any counter arguments to the Liberal platform except "I don't trust them or him" and "he's just not ready". Or "they put stickers on my door"
The Liberals converted me from NDP, I wonder what it would take for the rest of you.
EDIT - I understand the trust aspect, especially with how Bill C-51 went down. But it's a learning process.
I think "I just don't trust them" is a reasonable position to have. It doesn't come from a personal dislike or distrust of Trudeau. There's a history here of unreliable and flip flopping Liberal positions.
Trudeau was in favour of $15 minimum wage, voted for it, and is now campaigning against it.
He was apparently against C-51, then sided with the Conservatives and voted for it.
He was against deficits and criticized Harper on them before the election, but now advocates deficits.
He's all over the map and in light of this I think it's reasonable to question what promises he'll toss once he gets into power.
Voters with long memories will recall that the Liberals laid on thick heaps of promises in the 90s, and then once elected did a hard right turn with severe cuts to everything from social housing to military funding. This is where the NDP chant "Liberal, Tory, same old story" comes from.
Though from what they've revealed so far, I wouldn't put too much faith in that whole $15/day daycare thing. It requires buy-in and billions from all the provinces, and Ontario has already said that they're not spending additional money on top of what they already have committed. So, like the Senate and the minimum wage increase, it's another example of Mulcair making promises he knows he can't keep, but saying it anyway because it sounds good. Kind of like...
He's not campaigning against a $15 minimum wage. He's campaigning against the NDP's misleading proposal, which would only affect federally-regulated workers -- of which, fewer than 30,000 people would be helped, since most people who work for the federal government already make well above $15/hr.
And deficits...it's almost like the economic situation is drastically different now than it was even a couple of months ago. Most people would think that changing your proposals to adapt to a changing situation makes sense, but hey, if you want ideological rigidity...actually, not sure why you'd then supporting someone like Mulcair, but that's your call.
My personal speculation is that there almost was, but those MPs simply bailed from the CPC instead of mounting an actual leadership challenge against Harper. Him staying on for the October election was a huge strategic mistake, since it allows the opposition and the public to define him (negatively) prior to the campaign trail.
Of course, the next question of who would succeed Harper is even more difficult to answer because of the lack of charisma and talent inside the CPC.
Doesn't your second point fly in the face your first? A leadership challenge would've required a leadership challenger, and I don't think there was anyone in that caucus who was about to step up and try and oust him.
Though speaking of potential challengers, EVERYONE STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW and listen to Maxime Bernier's campaign song. It's so...Quebecois.
NDP's minimum wage is not a minimum for you or me.
the NDP's minimum wage is for Federally REGULATED businesses and institutions only.
So your son at McDonald's and your daughter at Tim Horton's will never see any of that.
Mulcair has a very odd tendency making of promises on aspects that he has no control over since they are of Provincial jurisdiction.
Mulcair campaigns about day care, nurses, and stuff like that but in the end the only way he can help is to funnel Federal money back to provinces because it's the provinces who decide what to do with nurses, daycare and senior care
IMO, it's all good that the Federal gives more money to Provinces to help them out but the way Mulcair campaigns, you would figure he is running to be Premier of a province.
I think "I just don't trust them" is a reasonable position to have. It doesn't come from a personal dislike or distrust of Trudeau. There's a history here of unreliable and flip flopping Liberal positions.
Trudeau was in favour of $15 minimum wage, voted for it, and is now campaigning against it.
He was apparently against C-51, then sided with the Conservatives and voted for it.
He was against deficits and criticized Harper on them before the election, but now advocates deficits.
He's all over the map and in light of this I think it's reasonable to question what promises he'll toss once he gets into power.
I was about to come here and say this. Especially the bold part. Days before the election campaign, he was still blaming Harper for running deficits. Now deficits are necessary. And today he said the 2014-2015 surplus is the reason we had a technical recession.
I was about to come here and say this. Especially the bold part. Days before the election campaign, he was still blaming Harper for running deficits. Now deficits are necessary. And today he said the 2014-2015 surplus is the reason we had a technical recession.
Is it me or is this goofy as hell?
Raise the minimum wage putting youth out of work but then use 200 million of taxpayers money for youth work (help them find jobs)
NDP's minimum wage is not a minimum for you or me.
the NDP's minimum wage is for Federally REGULATED businesses and institutions only.
So your son at McDonald's and your daughter at Tim Horton's will never see any of that.
Mulcair has a very odd tendency making of promises on aspects that he has no control over since they are of Provincial jurisdiction.
Mulcair campaigns about day care, nurses, and stuff like that but in the end the only way he can help is to funnel Federal money back to provinces because it's the provinces who decide what to do with nurses, daycare and senior care
I'm confused, are you accusing him of promising something that only affects federal workers and is thus far too limited to be of use, or are you accusing him of trampling on the right of provinces to regulate their own minimum wages? You can't have this both ways.
Mulcair has a very odd tendency making of promises on aspects that he has no control over since they are of Provincial jurisdiction.
Mulcair campaigns about day care, nurses, and stuff like that but in the end the only way he can help is to funnel Federal money back to provinces because it's the provinces who decide what to do with nurses, daycare and senior care
IMO, it's all good that the Federal gives more money to Provinces to help them out but the way Mulcair campaigns, you would figure he is running to be Premier of a province.
My personal speculation is that there almost was, but those MPs simply bailed from the CPC instead of mounting an actual leadership challenge against Harper. Him staying on for the October election was a huge strategic mistake, since it allows the opposition and the public to define him (negatively) prior to the campaign trail.
Of course, the next question of who would succeed Harper is even more difficult to answer because of the lack of charisma and talent inside the CPC.
Yeah, he eliminated pretty much anyone who had a chance against him and others just saw a sinking ship and bailed, like Baird.
Harper has done a good job of basically maintaining power, but to the detriment of his own party. Even if he wins a minority, which is still possible I suppose, there's still no one to take over once he finally makes an exit.
Still, I really wish this stuff happened here. It's crazy Australia has basically had 2 unelected PMs (and 4 total) in the last few years. There's something really exciting about party politics because it's truly insider backroom bullshit that typically never makes it into the public (like the Chretien/Martin stuff that only sort of came out).
Yeah, he eliminated pretty much anyone who had a chance against him and others just saw a sinking ship and bailed, like Baird.
Harper has done a good job of basically maintaining power, but to the detriment of his own party. Even if he wins a minority, which is still possible I suppose, there's still no one to take over once he finally makes an exit.
Is it me or is this goofy as hell?
Raise the minimum wage putting youth out of work but then use 200 million of taxpayers money for youth work (help them find jobs)
Doesn't your second point fly in the face your first? A leadership challenge would've required a leadership challenger, and I don't think there was anyone in that caucus who was about to step up and try and oust him.
Well, that's kind of the thing. I think a not-insignificant portion of the party would love to oust him, but decided to bail because there literally *no* qualified candidates to run against Harper. It's like... there's the will but no one actually palatable.
I knew FPTP was bad, but god damn. How can we even call this a democracy? I sometimes make fun of America's "democracy" but ours is shameful as well. Like wtf is this?
70% of the people that took the time out of their day to vote had their votes trashed - the parties don't benefit from them. Why is voter turnout low? Because people think their vote doesn't count and in Canada, that is actually true for most people.
Gatineau is the perfect example of how broken FPTP is. With the polls at 30/30/30, we will definitely have more "Gatineau's" in battleground ridings. We really do need proportional representation.
Well, that's kind of the thing. I think a not-insignificant portion of the party would love to oust him, but decided to bail because there literally *no* qualified candidates to run against Harper. It's like... there's the will but no one actually palatable.
I hope when the CPC loses control of the house and Harper leaves, the party falls apart or they at least go through a dark period like the Liberals (hopefully, it will be 3-4 times longer though).
I hope when the CPC loses control of the house and Harper leaves, the party falls apart or they at least go through a dark period like the Liberals (hopefully, it will be 3-4 times longer though).
That would honestly depend on how the next leader/caucus takes the party. If they move towards the center with a likable leader and decent policies, I can see it being 7-10 years. Less if they move right, since there's literally no more support to be gained to that side of the spectrum.
In general, since voter turn-out is so low, parties in Canada are moving in directions in an attempt to garner more votes. NDP is moving center. Liberals are moving left. CPC is center-right, but had been making populist, interventionalist moves for the past couple of years.
If the answer is no, and you are voting Conservative then you are voting against your own self interest. Deep down in that thick head of yours you know it to be true, but are too thick headed to admit you are wrong. Evidence can not dissuade you, you just feel its right.
If the answer is no, and you are voting Conservative then you are voting against your own self interest. Deep down in that thick head of yours you know it to be true, but are too thick headed to admit you are wrong. Evidence can not dissuade you, you just feel its right.
Well, that's kind of the thing. I think a not-insignificant portion of the party would love to oust him, but decided to bail because there literally *no* qualified candidates to run against Harper. It's like... there's the will but no one actually palatable.
I'm still skeptical, though. Winning has a way of keeping people happy. More importantly, though, because there's no realistic challengers, whatever free-floating angst there may be out there about his leadership has never been able to latch on to some person and grow. I'd love to see examples of this anti-Harper will within the Conservative ranks, but I don't think it exists to the degree you seem to believe.
I generally agree with this, but given the timing and circumstances, in this case it seems more likely to me that it's purely an election strategy. The federal Liberals are very close to their Ontario wing, and the Ontario Liberals recently scored a big victory in their last election by "reaching around" the NDP to woo left wing voters with heaps of spending. The federal Liberals are directly copying that strategy in this election.
Trudeau also vowed not to run a deficit if elected prime minister in October.
Ive committed to continuing to run balanced budgets, he said. In fact, it is Conservatives who run deficits, Liberals balance budgets. Thats what history has shown.
But we already knew at this point that it was almost certain that the economy was about to take a huge downturn. The price of oil had already tanked long ago, and the gaping hole this created in the Alberta budget directly lead to the NDP sweeping that province in the May Alberta election.
If we already knew the economy was going to take a dive, then why the big change of opinion? Well an election was called on August 2nd.
I'm a big fan of increased spending on infrastructure, but the way Trudeau and the Liberals have acted here gives off some "we'll do/say anything to get elected" vibes.
If the answer is no, and you are voting Conservative then you are voting against your own self interest. Deep down in that thick head of yours you know it to be true, but are too thick headed to admit you are wrong. Evidence can not dissuade you, you just feel its right.
I'm not selfish nor a millionaire but I'm likely voting conservative. I have zero faith in Mulclair and the NDP party in general. I don't like Trudeau based off some of his comments made earlier in his political career that rubbed me the wrong way.
TBH this is the first election that I really don't like any of the parties. The conservatives have gotten lazy and corrupt which seems to always be the case with a party in power too long. I'll likely still vote for them because they're still the only ones that have a good chance of putting more money in my pocket out of all the other parties. I'd rather them underpromise and overdeliver than some of the BS promises that have come out of the other parties thus far.
I'm not selfish nor a millionaire but I'm likely voting conservative.I have zero faith in Mulclair and the NDP party in general. I don't like Trudeau based off some of his comments made earlier in his political career that rubbed me the wrong way.
TBH this is the first election that I really don't like any of the parties. The conservatives have gotten lazy and corrupt which seems to always be the case with a party in power too long. I'll likely still vote for them because they're still the only ones that have a good chance of putting more money in my pocket out of all the other parties. I'd rather them underpromise and overdeliver than some of the BS promises that have come out of the other parties thus far.
First take the underlined comments and combine them. Re-evaluate yourself.
I don't have a family and don't plan to have kids for a couple more years at least but I am heavily in favour of NDP's platform item for $15 Day Care because it's the right thing to do. I want the Liberals to adopt that platform.
Next, the bolded is once again emotional voting. Zero faith in Mulclair and NDP due to why? Trudeau rubbed you the wrong way?
I generally agree with this, but given the timing and circumstances, in this case it seems more likely to me that it's purely an election strategy. The federal Liberals are very close to their Ontario wing, and the Ontario Liberals recently scored a big victory in their last election by "reaching around" the NDP to woo left wing voters with heaps of spending. The federal Liberals are directly copying that strategy in this election.
And I'm a left wing person, so if there election strategy is to adopt the same political philosophy as me, then that works for me. I think most people here are left wing. NDP has become pretty centrist on the economy. Their new platform shifts is what sold me on them from NDP. That and the debate.
I'm not selfish nor a millionaire but I'm likely voting conservative. I have zero faith in Mulclair and the NDP party in general. I don't like Trudeau based off some of his comments made earlier in his political career that rubbed me the wrong way.
TBH this is the first election that I really don't like any of the parties. The conservatives have gotten lazy and corrupt which seems to always be the case with a party in power too long. I'll likely still vote for them because they're still the only ones that have a good chance of putting more money in my pocket out of all the other parties. I'd rather them underpromise and overdeliver than some of the BS promises that have come out of the other parties thus far.
You say you're not selfish and yet your reason for voting Conservative is "what can you do for me?". Cons are openly shitting on the future of our country by controlling the scientific community and denying the reality of our shitty economy. Harper has shit on things like Insite, something that helps one of Canada's most vulnerable groups. Any attempts between equality of the sexes has also disappeared under Harper.
Maybe I'm just speaking from my ass because I'm a student, not really worried about my personal finances at this point.... but I'd much rather have clean water for our First Nations and 70,000 Syrian refugees then an extra $2,000 in my bank account.
Maybe I'm just speaking from my ass because I'm a student, not really worried about my personal finances at this point.... but I'd much rather have clean water for our First Nations and 70,000 Syrian refugees then an extra $2,000 in my bank account.
Seriously. I'm voting Liberal even though I don't think they have many policies that would directly benefit me. Why? Because, like you, I'd rather the people who need money and assistance get it than see myself personally enriched a little more. It may sound sappy, but we have an obligation to each other. Simply saying "screw the poor, I got mine" is a terrible way to run a society.
Seriously. I'm voting Liberal even though I don't think they have many policies that would directly benefit me. Why? Because, like you, I'd rather the people who need money and assistance get it than see myself personally enriched a little more. It may sound sappy, but we have an obligation to each other. Simply saying "screw the poor, I got mine" is a terrible way to run a society.
It's the same reason I've never complained about taxes or the economy really. It's up to me to make my own way and climb the ladder to be successful. That's why it's not always about how much I am taxed, but what those tax dollars are spent on because value and priorities are what is important.
And I'm a left wing person, so if there election strategy is to adopt the same political philosophy as me, then that works for me. I think most people here are left wing. NDP has become pretty centrist on the economy. Their new platform shifts is what sold me on them from NDP. That and the debate.
I'd really like to know of a good example of a centrist/centre-right party making a left turn during an election campaign actually turning out well for the people it's intended to attract. Off the top of my head, I can think of only bad cases. Most recently in Alberta 2012, where this "campaign from the left, rule from the right" bullshit was a huge factor in the downfall of the PC party. But also, as previously mentioned, the federal Liberals in the 90s were an egregious example and Trudeau has the PM who did it stumping for him right now. (Yeah, that's right, Chretien is no hero of mine. Sorry gutter.)
Yes, this is a trust issue. There's only so many times people should be willing to get burned by sudden campaign shifts (in any direction), yet we keep falling for it over and over again. What I trust? After the campaign is over, the party exec and the caucus will have a huge say in what happens. I care less about Trudeau vs. Mulcair, to be honest, than the Liberal caucus (largely privileged dudes) vs. the NDP caucus (full of ridiculous left wing dreamers and social workers who actually understand what it is to be vulnerable). I think after all these years of Harper and the Martin/Chretien liberals we need more dreamers in government.
Maybe I'm just speaking from my ass because I'm a student, not really worried about my personal finances at this point.... but I'd much rather have clean water for our First Nations and 70,000 Syrian refugees then an extra $2,000 in my bank account.
I'm not selfish nor a millionaire but I'm likely voting conservative. I have zero faith in Mulclair and the NDP party in general. I don't like Trudeau based off some of his comments made earlier in his political career that rubbed me the wrong way.
TBH this is the first election that I really don't like any of the parties. The conservatives have gotten lazy and corrupt which seems to always be the case with a party in power too long. I'll likely still vote for them because they're still the only ones that have a good chance of putting more money in my pocket out of all the other parties. I'd rather them underpromise and overdeliver than some of the BS promises that have come out of the other parties thus far.
Sounds like the 70+ million of taxpayer funded Conservative themed ads (2015 alone) are working on some people.
On and that extra 125 million it cost taxpayers to call an early election really benefits us all. More time for the CPC to show ads. Why? Because they work on the weak willed.
I feel ... The NDP and Liberals are not right or ready ... Where have I heard that???
Voting based on emotion instead of evidence is exactly what the CPC is banking on.
You are right, I put my family before anyone else in this country, if it means that the party I vote for gets me more money to help me put my kids through school or food on the table why wouldn't I?
You are in a much different part of your life than me. Maybe when you have more responsibilities and understand the difficulty in having to support people other than yourself you'll understand.
Mulclair is promising things that he clearly can't deliver, his campaign is like he's running for provincial office not federal. Trudeau is so anti west and said so many backpedaling stupid shit I don't know how anyone can vote for him
You are right, I put my family before anyone else in this country, if it means that the party I vote for gets me more money to help me put my kids through school or food on the table why wouldn't I?
You are in a much different part of your life than me. Maybe when you have more responsibilities and understand the difficulty in having to support people other than yourself you'll understand.
Mulclair is promising things that he clearly can't deliver, his campaign is like he's running for provincial office not federal. Trudeau is so anti west and said so many backpedaling stupid shit I don't know how anyone can vote for him
Then that means you ARE selfish. Might as well do away with all social programs that don't directly impact you. I, for one, have not needed a doctor for over 15 years nor a public school for 10 years...maybe I should vote for a party that doesn't tax me for those things that personally don't affect me. Right?
And since you believe the Conservative line that Mulcair is overpromising and generally being dishonest, those ads do seem to be working on you.
You are right, I put my family before anyone else in this country, if it means that the party I vote for gets me more money to help me put my kids through school or food on the table why wouldn't I?
You are in a much different part of your life than me. Maybe when you have more responsibilities and understand the difficulty in having to support people other than yourself you'll understand.
