There is something wrong with our election process. Why does the green party have no seats and yet have 6% of Canada's support? Why does Bloc have around 50 (if i recall) seats with only %10 of the support? Bullshit.
With a Majority government in Parliament, laws will get passed without examination and scrutiny like there is no tomorrow.
And when you have a competent leadership who puts in the interest of the people first (unlike Harper), a majority government will allow laws to pass quickly without delay, less squandering and wasting tax payer's money.
Personally, I don't give a shit about party lines, a good leader is a good leader, it doesn't matter what party or ideology he has, as long as he puts the interest of the people first and keeps the majority of the population happy with sustainable sound policies, people will get him to stay in power. None of this I don't vote liberal or conservative bullshit, this is akin to socialist-phobic Americans voting Republicans despite the fact you have a ticket consisting of a cancer-surviving 70 year old and 43 year old hockey mom.
And when you have a competent leadership who puts in the interest of the people first (unlike Harper), a majority government will allow laws to pass quickly without delay, less squandering and wasting tax payer's money.
well if the cons managed to secure 144 seats in the HoC.. i'd say the majority of the population is happy with harper.. the thing about democracy is that you can never satisfy everyone.. if canadians were that upset with him then it beats the hell out of me why they're in power now..:confused: the numbers speak for themselves..
i like a minority gov't in the sense that it keeps the party in power from sidetracking.. power does corrupt.. and although a majority gov't does allow bills to be passed more efficiently.. it leaves lots of room for abusing and we don't want that.. plus you hear a lot more voices with a minority because people are going to oppose if it isn't a justified bill... beats having ppl say "aye aye" to whatever their leader throws at them imo..
well if the cons managed to secure 144 seats in the HoC.. i'd say the majority of the population is happy with harper..
Ideally this would be true, but a majority of Canadians did not vote for the conservative party. Wasn't the total conservative vote barely over 1/3 of the total population?
Also, there were provinces were the conservatives only had one or no seats, in the Maritimes.
Currently, nobody in the leadership of any parties. Jack Layton would be my vote for closest person as viable leader, but he's too lefty, and most of Canadians aren't as far left as his party is, thus they don't share the same goals as him.
iVamp;38772 said:
Ideally this would be true, but a majority of Canadians did not vote for the conservative party. Wasn't the total conservative vote barely over 1/3 of the total population?
Also, there were provinces were the conservatives only had one or no seats, in the Maritimes.
Aye. The problem here is simple, you have three parties (Liberal, NDP, Green) hunting for the centre-left votes while Conservative bags up all the centre-right vote. The undecided will go Conservative, Harper is more "English" than Dion is.
Ideally this would be true, but a majority of Canadians did not vote for the conservative party. Wasn't the total conservative vote barely over 1/3 of the total population?
Also, there were provinces were the conservatives only had one or no seats, in the Maritimes.
if the cons manage to snag just barely over 1/3 of the population.. and 2/3 is split between liberals.. ndp.. bloc and green.. my argument still stands.. you're comparing conservatives to all other parties while i'm comparing party by party..
The "all vs the cons" attitude was really played up by the other parties, this run. They pretty much declared a big alliance against Harper. Interesting.
Apparently Newfoundland had a little slogan: "ABC: Anything But Conservative."
if the cons manage to snag just barely over 1/3 of the population.. and 2/3 is split between liberals.. ndp.. bloc and green.. my argument still stands.. you're comparing conservatives to all other parties while i'm comparing party by party..
As mentioned above by someone else I just meant that all the other parties are lefty while the conservatives get any other vote.
I thought you meant a majority of Canadians as in 50+1% of the population rather than majority support of a party...
This was quite a quick election, and sadly I think it went by too quickly. There is just a lot of things I want to do, meet the MPs, attend debates, go to fundraisers. There is this question that I really want to ask them, but I never got the time to attend any debate...
It is well documented that we have, for quite a long time now, known where one of the major problem is in the world, the Darfur Genocide. Unfortunately, much of the world has stood idol and the United Nation had inadequately described the situation in Darfur as “no less serious and heinous than genocide.” My question is how many times do we have to prove that the situation in Darfur is one of the most hideous genocide of the 21st century and will only get worse? When do we send them an air mail message to Khartoum?
Yes, this is a parody of McCain's "Bomb Iran" thing.
It is well documented that we have, for quite a long time now, known where one of the major problem is in the world, the Darfur Genocide. Unfortunately, much of the world has stood idol and the United Nation had inadequately described the situation in Darfur as “no less serious and heinous than genocide.” My question is how many times do we have to prove that the situation in Darfur is one of the most hideous genocide of the 21st century and will only get worse? When do we send them an air mail message to Khartoum?
The West doesn't care about Sudan, it's nation of Africans (read, not White) with no resources to exploit and no geographical significance, from a strategic standpoint, there's no reason to go into Sudan. Europeans and North American governments are content to let those ethnic group slaughter each other.
Genocide or not, if it doesn't concern others one bit, they don't care. Rwanda, DR Congo, Burma, the governments with the ability to intervene didn't, because it doesn't concern them, why send the blood of my soldiers and my taxpayers' money to defend somebody I don't know or care about? The right thing to do isn't what most people want to do.
The only time in the last two decades where any coalitions was formed to combat genocide was Yugoslavia in 1995 and Kosovo 1999, that was after everyone sold them arms and let them fight it out, when they ran out of money to buy arms, the arm dealing countries intervene because the EU got fed up and USA wanted to flex some muscles, hey, gotta give your military men some practice.
The West doesn't care about Sudan, it's nation of Africans (read, not White) with no resources to exploit and no geographical significance, from a strategic standpoint, there's no reason to go into Sudan. Europeans and North American governments are content to let those ethnic group slaughter each other.
That may be true, but do you see any Asian or African (read: not White) countries stepping in to stop the genocide?
I didn't think so.
Don't go playing the racism card when it clearly isn't warranted or you'll end up sounding like Kanye West.
The West doesn't care about Sudan, it's nation of Africans (read, not White) with no resources to exploit and no geographical significance, from a strategic standpoint, there's no reason to go into Sudan. Europeans and North American governments are content to let those ethnic group slaughter each other.
The West gives more charity money and international aid to Africa (read: not whites!) than any other area, by an enormous margin.
They have also intervened in several African conflicts (see: Somalia,) with disasterous results.
This racial nonsense is... well, nonsense. I personally think the UN (not the US) should intervene militarily in Sudan, but the reason they don't is NOT racism.
Haha, Dion is probably quitting his job as Liberal Party leader today.
mrbubbles said:
The West doesn't care about Sudan, it's nation of Africans (read, not White) with no resources to exploit and no geographical significance, from a strategic standpoint, there's no reason to go into Sudan.
Well actually, Sudan got a highly sought after resource that that's oil. In fact, Sudan is actually Africa's third largest oil producing nation and the Chinese is the Sudanese's best customer. The Sudanese give the Chinese oil and the Chinese gives the Sudanese weapons, well made if I may add.
In fact, I once attended a National Day of Action forum and they said that Western governments actually paid attention to Darfur because of oil. They also add that Western government are terrible people because they are duping guys like George Clooney to speak out against Darfur for their own interest. Look sisters (the host of that forum are female), if George Clooney is "smart" to stay in Batman and Robin after reading the script and seeing the Batsuit, then I think he is smart enough to call his own shot.
Morro;38958 said:
This racial nonsense is... well, nonsense. I personally think the UN (not the US) should intervene militarily in Sudan, but the reason they don't is NOT racism.
The sad part is that, realistically speaking, a UN intervention in Darfur is impossible because of Chinese and Russian interest in the region. There is no way the Chinese or Russian will tolerate a UN presence in Sudan. However, if a few nations unilaterally start sending air mails to Khartoum, then that would be possible.
Comments
fuckin green party
useless
really!
why would i do it if it was boring
Personally, I don't give a shit about party lines, a good leader is a good leader, it doesn't matter what party or ideology he has, as long as he puts the interest of the people first and keeps the majority of the population happy with sustainable sound policies, people will get him to stay in power. None of this I don't vote liberal or conservative bullshit, this is akin to socialist-phobic Americans voting Republicans despite the fact you have a ticket consisting of a cancer-surviving 70 year old and 43 year old hockey mom.
i like a minority gov't in the sense that it keeps the party in power from sidetracking.. power does corrupt.. and although a majority gov't does allow bills to be passed more efficiently.. it leaves lots of room for abusing and we don't want that.. plus you hear a lot more voices with a minority because people are going to oppose if it isn't a justified bill... beats having ppl say "aye aye" to whatever their leader throws at them imo..
Also, there were provinces were the conservatives only had one or no seats, in the Maritimes.
Apparently Newfoundland had a little slogan: "ABC: Anything But Conservative."
I thought you meant a majority of Canadians as in 50+1% of the population rather than majority support of a party...
It is well documented that we have, for quite a long time now, known where one of the major problem is in the world, the Darfur Genocide. Unfortunately, much of the world has stood idol and the United Nation had inadequately described the situation in Darfur as “no less serious and heinous than genocide.” My question is how many times do we have to prove that the situation in Darfur is one of the most hideous genocide of the 21st century and will only get worse? When do we send them an air mail message to Khartoum?
Yes, this is a parody of McCain's "Bomb Iran" thing.
Genocide or not, if it doesn't concern others one bit, they don't care. Rwanda, DR Congo, Burma, the governments with the ability to intervene didn't, because it doesn't concern them, why send the blood of my soldiers and my taxpayers' money to defend somebody I don't know or care about? The right thing to do isn't what most people want to do.
The only time in the last two decades where any coalitions was formed to combat genocide was Yugoslavia in 1995 and Kosovo 1999, that was after everyone sold them arms and let them fight it out, when they ran out of money to buy arms, the arm dealing countries intervene because the EU got fed up and USA wanted to flex some muscles, hey, gotta give your military men some practice.
I didn't think so.
Don't go playing the racism card when it clearly isn't warranted or you'll end up sounding like Kanye West.
They have also intervened in several African conflicts (see: Somalia,) with disasterous results.
This racial nonsense is... well, nonsense. I personally think the UN (not the US) should intervene militarily in Sudan, but the reason they don't is NOT racism.
Haha, Dion is probably quitting his job as Liberal Party leader today. Well actually, Sudan got a highly sought after resource that that's oil. In fact, Sudan is actually Africa's third largest oil producing nation and the Chinese is the Sudanese's best customer. The Sudanese give the Chinese oil and the Chinese gives the Sudanese weapons, well made if I may add.
In fact, I once attended a National Day of Action forum and they said that Western governments actually paid attention to Darfur because of oil. They also add that Western government are terrible people because they are duping guys like George Clooney to speak out against Darfur for their own interest. Look sisters (the host of that forum are female), if George Clooney is "smart" to stay in Batman and Robin after reading the script and seeing the Batsuit, then I think he is smart enough to call his own shot. The sad part is that, realistically speaking, a UN intervention in Darfur is impossible because of Chinese and Russian interest in the region. There is no way the Chinese or Russian will tolerate a UN presence in Sudan. However, if a few nations unilaterally start sending air mails to Khartoum, then that would be possible.