Say goodbye to Canada as we know it

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zoesmom
Say goodbye to Canada as we know it

I hate to be the bearer of bad news........and I'm not a fan of asking people to do strategic voting, essentially saying you are giving up everything you believe in.......HOWEVER

 

To point out the obvious - If Harper gets a majority, there may not be any other parties left in this country.  He has already tried to get away with Election Reform, eliminating federal funding to our great opposition parties. Will he do it again?  Of course!

 

So where will the Greens, NDP and Liberals be left?  Having to merge like the unholy alliance on the right? They certainly will not have a fraction of the funding they get today.

 

Other things you can kiss goodbye, if Harper gets a majority;

- Goodbye to the Senate, so there is no one to challenge Harpers changes

- Abortion rights

- Gay marriage

- Charter of Rights & Freedoms (if not eliminated, severely edited)

- Gun control

- Public Health care (will be starved of funding to encourage for-profit healthcare U.S style)

 

This is the tip of the iceberg....In hindsight, dems would have voted for Gore in 2000 if they knew what they now know. Many here have the power to vote strategically and stop the madness.

I love the NDP and want them to form a govt, but that will simply NEVER happen...there are too many idiots who fail to truly understand how Reform/Alliance/Con policies effect real people and our country.

 

Snert Snert's picture

"This message brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada."

Zoesmom

edit - In hindsight, Nader supporters would have voted for Gore in 2000

Zoesmom

Snert wrote:

"This message brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada."

 

.......doesn't change the FACT that every single person in this country who votes for the NDP or the Greens or anyone other than the Liberals is CULPABLE.

 

I'm not a fan of the Liberals, I can't stand Ignatieff, and I do not want them to form a govt.......I'm merely talking about BLOCKING A MAJORITY that will destroy this country to the point where it has completely transformed.

Personally, I think another con minority is fine, gives enough push for the Libs to oust Iggy and get a left-centre leader.

Sometimes people on this website do not embrace reality - the NDP cannot and will never form a government in this country.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Zoesmom wrote:
I love the NDP and want them to form a govt, but that will simply NEVER happen...there are too many idiots who fail to truly understand how Reform/Alliance/Con policies effect real people and our country.

In Western Canada, it's the NDP that is well-positioned to defeat Conservative MPs.

Pogo Pogo's picture

And the NDP is ahead of the Liberals in Quebec.  I hope Zoesmom agrees that anyone who votes Liberal in Western Canada and Quebec is culpable...

Zoesmom

Point - We need to work together to embrace strategic voting!!!!

 

 

WyldRage

It's time for a shift: I urge everyone in the ROC to vote for the NDP. The Liberal brand is tarnished to the point that it will be unrecoverable for at least a generation.

You don't have to beat the conservatives now, but the NDP has to beat the Liberals in this election.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hi Zoesmom.

Your post isn't going to be met with great (or any) enthusiasm here. Mostly because you're brand new, we don't know you, and babble is a magnet for both Liberal and Conservative hacks during election time. 

Now if I had come up with this post, or brought back the idea of strategic voting (which I think is being talked about in at least one other thread) and my long term lefty angry politics is well known here, maybe people would listen. But I wouldn't because I don't believe the Liberals are a viable alternative to the Conservatives.

And this is true, whether we measure by corruption, by scandal, by cow-towing to big business and the US, by taxing the lesser-privileged and letting the richer ones off with tax breaks. Both parties, and the NDP to a certain extent, ignore the overall wishes of the majority of Canadians (troops out of Afghanistan being the most obvious issue in which all tend to blur into a blue/red/orange mess).

So, Anyone But Harper? Which means Ignatieff by default? 

No thank you.

Slumberjack

Zoesmom wrote:
Sometimes people on this website do not embrace reality...  

It probably stems from the childhood exhortation of not talking to strangers being carried over into adulthood.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

.......doesn't change the FACT that every single person in this country who votes for the NDP or the Greens or anyone other than the Liberals is CULPABLE.

 

LOL!

 

Even when an NDP candidate stands a better chance than the Liberal candidate, yes?

 

Because you're really shilling for the Liberals specifically, not 'anyone-but-the-tories', yes?

 

Feel free to revise your post, if what you really want is to prevent a Con majority. Or, if what you really want is more seats for the Liberals, feel free to not change a thing. Your post is perfect just as it is, in that case.

 

Slumberjack

The liberals seemed to be ok in the books of many NDPers back when there was talk of a coalition.  It was instructive to watch how the potential for a few cabinet positions softened the anti-librano rhetoric at the time.

WillC

Zoesmom wrote:

 

...This is the tip of the iceberg....In hindsight, dems would have voted for Gore in 2000 if they knew what they now know. Many here have the power to vote strategically and stop the madness...

False comparison. Harper and Ignatieff are only running for President  in their own minds.  This is the way the Liberals fool some of the ignorant voters.  It's also ludicrous to vote for that Harvard professor, who until a few years ago called himself an "American," and to think by doing so you're stopping US influence in Canada.

Zoesmom

None of these comments have changed the FACT.......

 

If we do not employ strategic voting, Harper will win a majority.

Buh bye opposition! (no more federal funding)  buh bye gay marriage, buh bye abortion rights, public health care, the Senate, etc...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi Zoesmom, welcome to babble! I think a lot of babblers here echo your frustration with the current set up, and some of them fear, as you do, a Harper majority. But many also have experienced the Liberal campaign to steal NDP votes (not Harper votes) under the aegis of "strategic voting," and so remain justly mistrustful when they hear that refrain as well. You might also take a minute to reconsider whether a Harper majority is indeed a "fact," or even a possibility--it's a long campaign, after all.

Stick around, read a bit and help us craft a real campaign against the Cons!

Aristotleded24

Zoesmom wrote:
If we do not employ strategic voting, Harper will win a majority.

The Liberals have been litearlly screaming at people to vote strategically since 2004 and have lost seats to the Conservatives in that election and every election since.

gadar

In a riding where NDP is in a position of taking Con seats the Liberal voters should and must vote NDP.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

None of these comments have changed the FACT.......

 

If we do not employ strategic voting, Harper will win a majority.

 

One of these comments, made more than once, actually HELPS you, if you're being honest.

 

Straight up, on a scale of yes or no: if an NDP candidate has a better chance of election than a Liberal candidate, would you agree that in order to stop the Cons, we should vote for that NDP candidate?

 

no1important

Quote:
.......doesn't change the FACT that every single person in this country who votes for the NDP or the Greens or anyone other than the Liberals is CULPABLE.

 

What about western ridings where the libs are barely a blip and the race is Con vs NDP?

 

Quote:
I love the NDP and want them to form a govt, but that will simply NEVER happen..

 

if half the Liberal supporters who said that and actually grew a pair and voted NDP they would be able to form government.

 

The liberals were left under Trudeau but now they aare conservative lite and I will never vote for them. Even if NDP-Libs officially merged it does not mean I would vote for them.  I would use my votre to vote Indy or even communist or marxist before i ever vote Lib, con or Grn.

 

 

leftgreen

I think the Liberals were further left under Pearson, than Trudeau... just sayin'

 

janfromthebruce

Snert - short answer since our new poster seems to be shy - YES YES YES!

 

But further, considering how the libs and cons are so in bed on major policy pieces, and where Iggy propped up Bush in Torture is ok by me, perhaps I don't see much difference between the Cons and the Libs - one just kicks you in the teeth with glee, and the other says "sorry" before he kicks in the teeth (and snickers behind your back).

 

So I'm STICKIN WITH THE NDP

 

ENJOY Laughing

David Young

gadar wrote:

In a riding where NDP is in a position of taking Con seats the Liberal voters should and must vote NDP.

Exactly the same situation here.

A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Harper.

A vote for the NDP is a vote against Harper. 

Case closed!

 

Zoesmom

ok message heard and received - loud and clear!

In my haste, yes, I was unclear............Strategic voting is the only way to prevent disaster.  Yes, it is a sky-is-falling statement and yes, we have heard "Liberals" say it for years now.......but let's not let apathy get in the way of trying to save our country and our opposition parties, which I hope we will all agree will disappear when this Reform/Alliance/Con coalition govt enacts Election Reform.

We only have 1 month to get this right, and shut them out. Please, if someone would be so kind to point me to a strategic voting thread.

Can I also add - I LOVE my country and I am, at heart, a socialist.  Just because I haven't been able to vote for the NDP in years does not mean I don't stand with many here on most issues. I am NOT looking for a Liberal win or even a minority, just enough to keep a majority away, and get another leader.

You all will hate this  - but I personally believe the best budget we have had in my lifetime was the Paul Martin minority govt, propped up by the NDP.

Sooooo yes, vote NDP if it blocks a Reform/Alliance/con underling from getting elected/re-elected.

 

Zoesmom

If you are in a riding where the liberals could beat the cons, and you do not vote for them, you are culpable.  That is what I meant to say and thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Zoesmom wrote:

edit - In hindsight, Nader supporters would have voted for Gore in 2000

Thanks for reminding us of this urban myth.

A Democratic Party exit poll in Florida showed that Nader's votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Nader. In other words, more than sixty percent of Nader's voters would NOT have voted for Gore.

In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Nader "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.

CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Pat Buchanan had run, Bush would have beaten Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

 

Aristotleded24

M. Spector wrote:
Zoesmom wrote:

edit - In hindsight, Nader supporters would have voted for Gore in 2000

Thanks for reminding us of this urban myth.

A Democratic Party exit poll in Florida showed that Nader's votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Nader. In other words, more than sixty percent of Nader's voters would NOT have voted for Gore.

In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Nader "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.

CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Pat Buchanan had run, Bush would have beaten Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

Even if Nader had played spoiler, it was Al Gore's fault for not winning over these Nader voters, not Nader's fault for offering what Al Gore wasn't.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

David Young wrote:

A vote for the NDP is a vote against Harper.

... and a vote for a coalition government led by Ignastyeff.

Charles

Zoesmom wrote:

If you are in a riding where the liberals could beat the cons, and you do not vote for them, you are culpable.  That is what I meant to say and thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify.

 

May I ask what riding you live in? I'm always curious what people *think* is a strategic vote...

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Even if Nader had played spoiler, it was Al Gore's fault for not winning over these Nader voters, not Nader's fault for offering what Al Gore wasn't.

Never mind winning over Nader's voters. There are 100 million USians who don't vote for anybody! Gore didn't win them over either.

In any event Al Gore won the election. It was George W. Bush and the Supreme Court, not Ralph Nader, who cost him the Presidency.

Zoesmom

Charles wrote:

Zoesmom wrote:

If you are in a riding where the liberals could beat the cons, and you do not vote for them, you are culpable.  That is what I meant to say and thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify.

 

May I ask what riding you live in? I'm always curious what people *think* is a strategic vote...

Burlington .........MP is Mike Wallace........he is an idiot, everytime I have called him challenging him on crucial issues, he stammers and stutters and cannot come up with his own answers. 2 weeks later, I get an "official" answer in the mail, which was crafted by the PMO.  Taking away pay equity for women is just one of the disgusting policies this regime has gotten away with, but it will not be the last or the worst, by far, if we allow a majority.

My point is still valid - if you do not vote strategic, you are absolutely culpable. No amount of arguing will change that. And by the way, don't you think the Reform/Alliance/con warroom is LOVING this???

Snert Snert's picture

Suppose we all vote Liberal, and the Liberals end up forming government.  Then, they vote to continue the "Afghanistan Mission".

We'd be culpable for that too, yes?  Having made the choice to vote for them and all?

Do you have any ideas on how we can avoid being culpable if we do and culpable if we don't??

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Actually I think Zoesmom has a point, the Liberals shouldn't even run candidates west of the Ontario/Manitoba border. Probably shouldn't run them to the east of the Ontario/Quebec border either... Laughing

Aristotleded24

bagkitty wrote:
Actually I think Zoesmom has a point, the Liberals shouldn't even run candidates west of the Ontario/Manitoba border. Probably shouldn't run them to the east of the Ontario/Quebec border either... Laughing

If Liberal MPs keep suddenly dropping out as happened near Montreal, that will become a realistic possibility.

Sean in Ottawa

Ok I admit I am not someone who votes strategically-- I vote for my first choice. I am in a riding that the Liberals now have and the Cons want to take so I should think strategically right?

Ok. I can do that, if only for the exercise since I have been clear I think democracy is only served by voting for my first choice.

Sooooo, strategically speaking. I want to stop the Harper Agenda and Harper policies in parliament. Ok, so my goal is clear.

Now which parties oppose the Harper Agenda in the House?

Conservatives? Umm no, that is Harper.

BQ? Not an option here so no need to consider.

How about the Greens? Well they have no record-- I don't know but I guess they could oppose Harper.

The NDP, well they oppose the Harper Agenda and almost never vote for the government except the rare times when they can get something for it that we all want. They have a leader who even ill and down in the polls would rather fight an election than agree to vote for bad policies. Looks like that is my only choice that has a chance at being elected-- or at least has ever been elected to the House before.

So, what do you know. My strategic choice is my first after all. See this voting thing is not that complicated after all.

wage zombie

Slumberjack wrote:

The liberals seemed to be ok in the books of many NDPers back when there was talk of a coalition.  It was instructive to watch how the potential for a few cabinet positions softened the anti-librano rhetoric at the time.

I think you need to remember that the goal for some people is to have influence over how the government is run.

Zoesmom

This is all well and good thinking for any other election.........the difference this time is that federal funding for parties is at risk. All current Opposition parties will be deeply affected by this, and the only party it doesn't affect is the Reform/Alliance/con coalition govt.

So help me understand what happens to the NDP, Greens and Libs without federal funding.  I'm assuming at least one of those parties will fold.

 

Fidel

I said goodbye to the Canada I knew some time ago.

I was once very optimistic about Canada at or around graduation from highschool in about 1983. And at the time there were Canadians more mature than myself who were worried even before then. 

In the 1970s, 1974 they say, there was no visible homelessness in Canada. National debt was about $18 billion in 1974. I was nine years-old then. Food banks were scarcely mentioned if at all. Unemployment was running around 4%, and welfare and UI were easier to access than today. Most of the adults I knew chose full-time jobs over what were more generous and easily obtained social benefits then.

I had a family doctor then and went to the clinic founded by the steel worker's union. Now it's nearly mothballed and all kinds of services outsourced to private enterprisers. It gets confusing as to where I need to go for blood tests and flu shots. It changes every year. I haven't been there in years.

Things have changed since the 1970s and early 80s by quite a lot. I hardly recognize the place.

Zoesmom

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ok I admit I am not someone who votes strategically-- I vote for my first choice. I am in a riding that the Liberals now have and the Cons want to take so I should think strategically right?

Ok. I can do that, if only for the exercise since I have been clear I think democracy is only served by voting for my first choice.

Sooooo, strategically speaking. I want to stop the Harper Agenda and Harper policies in parliament. Ok, so my goal is clear.

Now which parties oppose the Harper Agenda in the House?

Conservatives? Umm no, that is Harper.

BQ? Not an option here so no need to consider.

How about the Greens? Well they have no record-- I don't know but I guess they could oppose Harper.

The NDP, well they oppose the Harper Agenda and almost never vote for the government except the rare times when they can get something for it that we all want. They have a leader who even ill and down in the polls would rather fight an election than agree to vote for bad policies. Looks like that is my only choice that has a chance at being elected-- or at least has ever been elected to the House before.

So, what do you know. My strategic choice is my first after all. See this voting thing is not that complicated after all.

You live in denial of what is at stake and how our country will be Americanized to the point of no return. I wish I was able to tune it all out, as you do. Believe me, I really do.

Zoesmom

Fidel wrote:

I said goodbye to the Canada I knew some time ago.

I was once very optimistic about Canada at or around graduation from highschool in about 1983. And at the time there were Canadians more mature than myself who were worried even before then. 

In the 1970s, 1974 they say, there was no visible homelessness in Canada. National debt was about $18 billion in 1974. I was nine years-old then. Food banks were scarcely mentioned if at all. Unemployment was running around 4%, and welfare and UI were easier to access than today. Most of the adults I knew chose full-time jobs over what were more generous and easily obtained social benefits then.

I had a family doctor then and went to the clinic founded by the steel worker's union. Now it's nearly mothballed and all kinds of services outsourced to private enterprisers. It gets confusing as to where I need to go for blood tests and flu shots. It changes every year. I haven't been there in years.

Things have changed since the 1970s and early 80s by quite a lot. I hardly recognize the place.

You ain't seen nothin yet.......

Pogo Pogo's picture

If the funding disappears, the NDP survives okay as they have an effective fundraising network.  The Greens and Liberals are in dire straights. 

Fidel

I think that the time has come when very many Canadians feel they have nothing to lose in this election. We can't be frightened into voting so as not to elect a bunch of wacky conservatives, like they vote in fear of doing in the USA. Canadians are beginning to realize that they have had two wolves biting them in their rear ends not one.

Maysie Maysie's picture

bagkitty wrote:
 Actually I think Zoesmom has a point, the Liberals shouldn't even run candidates west of the Ontario/Manitoba border. Probably shouldn't run them to the east of the Ontario/Quebec border either...  

Damn you, Calgarian! Don't you be dumping all the Liberals in Ontario!! Noooooooo.

Surprised Surprised Surprised Surprised Surprised

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm too lazy to search, but I believe babble has a thread like this before every election. We are told every time that unless we vote for a party we don't really want to win the Apocalypse will result after the election. We're supposed to run to the polls with terror in our eyes and shove a ballot in a box for someone we don't want to win, all the while convincing ourselves that by doing so we are actually voting against someone we don't want to win.

And every time I post this question: When do we get to vote for what we really want?

Cheeseburger

I'm voting for whoever I think is going to do the best job of representing regardless of which party they belong to.

The Supreme Court made the decision about abortion laws and no government, no matter who is elected, is going to waste time on it. Talk about fear-mongering. The Greens have some decent platforms and pollution is still a big killer for people and wildlife. I'm definitely thinking about voting Green this time.

genstrike

Isn't it interesting that Zoesmom's arguments for strategic voting is almost exactly the same as the arguments used against people considering not voting NDP in the "Reject the election" thread.

I just find it curious how there seems to be an unwritten undercurrent of "vote your conscience, unless your consciense tells you to do something other than vote NDP" in the babble discourse.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:
And every time I post this question: When do we get to vote for what we really want?
 

When we get a real electoral system. The NDP says we need mixed member proportional voting, like they have in Venezuela. And like they have in Germany where the die Linke party has as many parliamentary seats as they've earned percentage wise. 

People need encouragement to vote for alternative parties, whether it's die Linke or a socialist party in Canada promising real socialism. FPTP tends to negate any such momentum and punishes voters of third parties. FPTP made sense for 19th century politicians but not 19th century mathematicians.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I think it interesting that the latest Liberal propagandist has adopted the name "Zoesmom". It's so warm and fuzzy, you would almost think it had been focus grouped. But, of course, the Liberal Party would never stoop to such a subterfuge. It's also interesting that this person claims to live in Burlington. I live in Hamilton Centre, and I must assume that "Zoesmom" is urging all voters in my riding, Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton East, where NDP MPs are incumbents, to vote NDP. Right? If so, I ask "her" to please confirm that is what she recommends.

 

Doug

While I doubt I'll be pleased by most of the initiatives of a Conservative majority government, I don't think it would be the end of the world. Besides, often Liberals get away with nastier policies because they can pretend to look concerned.

Aristotleded24

genstrike wrote:
Isn't it interesting that Zoesmom's arguments for strategic voting is almost exactly the same as the arguments used against people considering not voting NDP in the "Reject the election" thread.

I just find it curious how there seems to be an unwritten undercurrent of "vote your conscience, unless your consciense tells you to do something other than vote NDP" in the babble discourse.

Personally, I'm voting NDP because I believe they have the best policies, even though my riding is a Liberal-Conservative race where the NDP will be lucky just to make back the deposit. I always try to argue on behalf of the NDP in terms of the policies. If someone says to me, "defeating Stephen Harper is the most important thing," then I will point out that the NDP in many ridings is best positioned to defeat the Conservatives. Having said that, if I cannot convince you to vote NDP, well you have your own reasons and I have to respect that. That isn't the issue to me. The issue is people who just throw up their hands and say, "they're all corrupt, why bother." This attitude has a far more destructive impact on voting and the political process than any fringe party ever could.

Lens Solution

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Personally, I'm voting NDP because I believe they have the best policies, even though my riding is a Liberal-Conservative race where the NDP will be lucky just to make back the deposit.

Is your riding held by a Liberal or a Conservative?  Do you worry about your riding being Conservative if you vote NDP in a race only the Liberals can win?

I live in an NDP riding (Ottawa Centre), but if I lived in a Liberal riding in danger of going Conservative, I might have to hold my nose and vote Liberal.

Searosia

For what it's worth, I don't beleive there is any will in the current Conservatives to change on SSM or abortion rights.  It's political suicide in Canada now, even the cons know that.

Pages

Topic locked