Politics - Down With Martin, Down!
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Nov 10, 2005 @ 2:58am |
 Coolness: 92385 | yes but voting is one step after educating, one step that shouldn't be taken without the other. So I guess I agree? but I don't agree that everyone shoudl vote since most of them didn't take that first step. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Thu Nov 10, 2005 @ 8:53pm |
 Coolness: 150580 | Originally posted by MOONDANCER...
The wrong guy gets elected cause people don't knwo who the wrong guy is and they vote, and screw everyone else over.. but really nobody knows. Ahem... ... if there is one think I know about Canadian politics is that citizens don't vote for the person they want to win. They vote against the person they want to lose. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Nov 10, 2005 @ 9:25pm |
 Coolness: 339785 | Uhh, no.
That's the US. You know why they call it a two party system in the US? cause if anyone votes for anyone but the Democrats or Republicans.. they're throwing their vote away. In canada, people vote for the guy they want to win, which is why we have a minority government right now. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Thu Nov 10, 2005 @ 10:32pm |
| Coolness: 150580 | That was very enlightening, but I was actually refering to Canada.
First off, it was just a little joke... you know, "I don't like Harper so i'll just vote Liberal" and "... well, I don't like either party so i'll just vote NDP or Independent." If people really wanted the Liberals in power, they would be holding the majority. The only reason they are the ruling party, is because the NDP is lending them their seats (which is why the goverment is in the NDP's hands, and why there is so much attention around Layton). To clarify my some-what witty remark; people vote Liberal because they don't want Conservatives in power and people vote Conseravative because they're fucking pricks! Everyone who hates both parties goes for NDP, and the people who hate Canada vote Block. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Thu Nov 10, 2005 @ 10:57pm |
 Coolness: 97220 | woh woh woh, I don't hate Canada, I'm a proud Canadian, but I'm also a proud Québecois, and I'm voting bloc!
But yes, you are right, in Quebec and in Canada, there's a lot of people who will vote Liberal to counter the Bloc, and elsewhere there's a lot of people that would vote for the NPD, but will vote liberal because they don't want to see a conservative government and they think that the NPD has no chance of winning. That was what I said, with this strategy, new ideas/party are not able to emerge. I hope more Canadians will vote for the NPD this winter. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Thu Nov 10, 2005 @ 11:02pm |
| Coolness: 150580 | . |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 12:56am |
| Coolness: 92385 | Originally posted by MICO!...
Originally posted by moondancer...
The wrong guy gets elected cause people don't knwo who the wrong guy is and they vote, and screw everyone else over.. but really nobody knows. Ahem... ... if there is one think I know about Canadian politics is that citizens don't vote for the person they want to win. They vote against the person they want to lose. That's exactly what I'm doing. LOOL |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 12:48pm |
 Coolness: 148935 | Originally posted by MR. FROG...
why not? because you don't agree with the idea? why should a 50%-1 lose by thinking in that way? so let me get this straight... a SMALL, MINIATURE monority WANTS to separate, and that's ok... but if it were reversed and an INFANTESSIMALY SMALL majority DIDNT want to separate, is that ok? a majority for such a thing cannot be a 50+1 vote... it makes no sense, 2/3 should at least be for it for such a motion to pass... right now theres so much complaining because a little under 50% of quebecers wants to separate.. what if it was the other way around.. you dont think there would be just as much stupidity and shit floating around.... you make no sense also, separation from canada IS, INDEED, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.. a supreme court ruling said so. but it also said that if any province wanted to secede, WITH A SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SUPPORT FROM THE POPULOUS then the canadian government had a moral obligation to let it... now, define a sufficient majority of the population... 50+1 just doenst cut it for me (side note: any person making claims to a state wanting to secede the union is hung for treason.. HUNG in the year 2005) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 12:51pm |
| Coolness: 150580 | Originally posted by MDC...
side note: any person making claims to a state wanting to secede the union is hung for treason.. HUNG in the year 2005 I'll vote for that. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 1:29pm |
| Coolness: 97220 | UN and International laws approve sovereignty after a legit referendum with a mark of 50%+1. ("clear" question or not, please, the first one who speak that a 3 lines questions isn't clear for sovereigners (only) is a dumb blinded shit).
And I don't know where you lived the last 2-3 years, but approvals to the sovereignty of Quebec maintained a stable 50 to 55% in the public surveys. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 6:32pm |
| Coolness: 148935 | Originally posted by MDC...
(side note: any person making claims to a state wanting to secede the union is hung for treason.. HUNG in the year 2005) uhh.. yeha... i meant to say that in the states that how it is already |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 9:36pm |
| Coolness: 339785 | Originally posted by MR. FROG...
UN and International laws approve sovereignty after a legit referendum with a mark of 50%+1. ("clear" question or not, please, the first one who speak that a 3 lines questions isn't clear for sovereigners (only) is a dumb blinded shit). And I don't know where you lived the last 2-3 years, but approvals to the sovereignty of Quebec maintained a stable 50 to 55% in the public surveys. Hahaha, surveys according to whom? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Sat Nov 12, 2005 @ 12:48pm |
| Coolness: 150580 | CBC news:
...The poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Globe and Mail and Le Devoir newspapers showed 54 per cent of decided respondents supported sovereignty if it included an economic and political partnership with Canada...
...The latest polls suggest support for sovereignty is at its highest in the province since 1998. Similarly worded polls over the past year have gauged support for separation from 44 to 49 per cent... ... Léger polled 1,008 voters between April 21 and 24. The results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Which brings me to the other thread. The reason the polls show an increase for Quebec seperation is due (mostly) to the sponsorship scandal. It seems quite clear the Charests government will get the boot, leaving parliment to the PQ. (Anyone have polls on Charests Government?) As for how the rest of Canada feels about the sponsorship, I know that Alberta is pissed because the federal government forced them in the sharing their Oil surplus, plus, the millions of federal tax dollars went straight to Quebec, and wasn't split among the other provinces. Will Conservatives be our new Minority? Or even Majority for that matter? The polls are pretty fucking close. Back to you... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Sat Nov 12, 2005 @ 2:02pm |
| Coolness: 150580 | And Mr.Frog, the 3-lined question was bullshit.
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" If the Yes side would have one the referendum, Quebec would still have been a province of Canada, until Canada accepted to hold new political and economic parternerships with the State that would be formed after the fact. Which was an impossibilty because there were no laws in our constitution saying a province could Seceede unilaterally. As far as the question goes; it all falls into pieces after "...After..." Many people were voting "Yes" to get a new political and economic parternership -as in, a show of numbers that they want change from the federal government. Yet still be a part of Canada. But the question used in th 95' referendum was really just a "Do you want to separate or Not" with that little schpeil in between the lines. The thing was, if you voted NO in the referendum, that would mean that you not only do you want to stay with Canada, but at the same time accept the way things are, and NOT negotiate a new political and economic parternership. Get it? |
Politics - Down With Martin, Down!
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
