federal election - who are you voting for

Matt Rain said:

I don't think there is a Libertarian candidate in my riding this time around, so I may be stuck voting for a major party. I would vote for Mulcair but I dislike Olivia Chow and the rest of the caviar left/champagne socialist crew.

Harper and his gang of sociopaths may as well be extraterrestrials to me.

That leaves Adam Vaughan and Justin Trudeau. *frown*

I'll see what other fringe party is on the ballot and go from there.

Click to expand...

I hear ya!

I have the same dilemma. The NDP candicate in my riding is a super religious (Muslim) woman with her head covered and while i respect peoples religous belifs in their private lives, as a secularist, i have a very VERY hard time voting to send a religous person to represent me riding in the government. As she absolutely wont stand for my non-religious and secularist views. I absolutely have been fighting with myself on what to do.

But at the end of the day, Harper has destroyed Canada in such a way that nothing can be worse than having him back as a PM in my opinion.

LoneRonin said:

whose legalizing the herb?? Like I can grow my own legalized, not some "we're going to regulate it and you can only get it from us" BS

Harper's demonizing it saying its worse than tobacco and all that, seriously?? What a ****ing clown.

Click to expand...

Personally not for legalization, however, I don't see it ever becoming a grow your own situation. If and when it becaomes legal, it will only do so on a controlled basis. And not to prevent it from falling in the hands of minors, but to ensure that it is taxed and the government benefits.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk

mimico_polak said:

Exactly. This is a big deal for me and my family. We are all immigrants, not terrorists, we all assimilated here while keeping our own culture yet somehow have become second class citizens because we kept our Polish passports.

Click to expand...

Exactly, make up your mind, are you Polish or Canadian.

Give a man a fish, eats for one day.
Teach a man how to fish, eats every day.
Give a man someone else's fish, NDP for life.

Obviously someone to fear, whatever he decides.
Canada doesn't make it optimal to give up your old passport, so just makes it a crime instead.
Typical Canadian passive aggressive SJW d-baggery.

Old Suzy said:

Exactly, make up your mind, are you Polish or Canadian.

Click to expand...

Old Suzy said:

Exactly, make up your mind, are you Polish or Canadian.

Click to expand...

Actually, even if you were born here and have no other citizenship than your Canadian one. And even if you have never been outside of Canada and never had a non Canadian passport, you can are still considered second class only if you are ELIGIBLE for another country's citizenship.

This means if you parents or grandparents were born in a different country and by association, you are eligible for another citizenship, even if you have never even applied for one, you are considered second class citizen.

So it doesnt matter whther he chooses to be polish or Canadian. The fact that his parents are or grand parents even, means he can be stripped of his citizenship if the might tyrant Harper chooses so. Even is he doesnt speak a word in Polish.

These laws are being put in place to pave the way for a tyrannical government to expel anyone who oopses any of their views. This is absolutely dictatorial. Silencing all dissent it its most shameless form.

Joe Bass said:

Personally not for legalization, however, I don't see it ever becoming a grow your own situation. If and when it becaomes legal, it will only do so on a controlled basis. And not to prevent it from falling in the hands of minors, but to ensure that it is taxed and the government benefits.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Alcohol is a drug and you can make/produce your own beer/wine.
Same can be said for Tobacco - you can grow it easily as long as it's for personal use, it's legal.

People don't often produce it themselves because it's not worth their time and money to do so.
This would likely be the same for MJ. Would people go the easy route and buy legal taxed MJ at a dispensary, or put their efforts in farming/gardening for a year to produce their own?

Now, where would a minor be able to nurse a MJ plant without their parents knowing? I doubt there are many youths living on their own and have enough time/money to grow.

With the same restrictions as tobacco and alcohol (which are both more harmful products), cannabis could be treated the same way. With the removal of the "overpriced black market" dealers, it wouldn't be a profitable business for them anymore - at least not AS profitable - and those are the very same dealers that kids are getting their cannabis from. Having cannabis regulated in itself will have more of an effect in reducing youth from getting their hands on it as there would be less street dealers and more "can I see your ID please?".

I am not sure 100% who will get my vote, but I'm definitely leaning towards the Cons to not get my vote. C51 and the cuts to science and environment funding and research have rubbed me the wrong way. The secrecy of the TPP terms is a little disconcerting as well.

Also, call me spiteful, but this niqab debate utterly annoys me. It wreaks of a smokescreen - and it's working.

If you are for the Cons, I'd like you to tell me why they should get my vote. I can still be persuaded, and am not asking to be confrontational.

There are issues like the niqab and pot that are distracting Canadians from real issues.

I personally am not a an of niqab and also not a pot user. That said, i wouldnt vote for cons just because they are muddying the waters and distracting from what theyve been up to. Same with pot. I dont smoke it but legalize it or dont. I couldnt care less in the face of the much bigger issues like us loosing our charter of rights and secret trades being force on us.

These parties are trying to use populous yet much less urgent issues to buy our votes.

I wont be distracted from what theyve really been upto.

True story.

Yesterday while out and about on my bike, I saw a couple walking a dog in Georgetown. The dog stopped ... and then the dog peed on a NDP candidate's election sign.

Good dog!

Problem is that the platforms of ALL of the major parties have aspects that I can't tolerate.

Ashkan I hear your concerns about not wanting to vote for a candidate with strong religious views (and in the interest of fairness, that statement applies to ANY strong religious views, no matter what flavour one is talking about).

I will probably vote for whoever has a name that I can pronounce.

Brian P said:

True story.

Yesterday while out and about on my bike, I saw a couple walking a dog in Georgetown. The dog stopped ... and then the dog peed on a NDP candidate's election sign.

Good dog!

Problem is that the platforms of ALL of the major parties have aspects that I can't tolerate.

Ashkan I hear your concerns about not wanting to vote for a candidate with strong religious views (and in the interest of fairness, that statement applies to ANY strong religious views, no matter what flavour one is talking about).

I will probably vote for whoever has a name that I can pronounce.

Click to expand...

Haha exactly. If you have strong religious beliefs, your religion will absolutely influence your policies since religious people hold their god and its teachings above all. I want a candidate who holds his/her constituents above all.

But again, conservatives have proven themselves tyranical over and over in the last few years and Liberals supported them throughout. hence my opposition to both.

FLSTC said:

So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the Conservative Party."

Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.

Click to expand...

You sir, got post of the day

I think tyrannical is a word people use incorrectly when referencing Harper and his band. What would you then call real tyrannical regimes? And you know who they are ... like someone calling Canada a police state ... give me a break. I am tired of the bad cops and bad police leaders (like the one in Peel who thinks that it doesn't matter what the local police board who appointed her thinks of her actions or inactions ....), but that doesn't mean I'd qualify Canada as a police state ...

Typically I would think, the federal election vote gets split in two ways .... between people who don't care so much about reputation of Canadian policies internationally, environment and whether somehow someone rights could be negatively affected by the governments doing and people who do. Seemingly, a party weak in one area seems to be portrayed stronger in the other, which of course is a myth as something like economical numbers can be spun multiple ways feeding into anyone's needs ...

For many it's not really about what NDP or Liberals will do, but rather how little of the good things has Harper done. By his own doing, he technically took himself out of the race, in my little championship (I understand that for some he's a undisputed leader who drove economic numbers up). Eight years of that inactivity is enough for me, if you ask. You can say that one had sort of hoping for good things to happen, but it has become a total farce ... sort of like Tim Hudak non-sense election proposal. Again, took himself and his party out of contention, so now we have to put up for four more years with Libs in Ontario ......

RockerGuy said:

You sir, got post of the day

Click to expand...

Agreed

FLSTC said:

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.

During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up. She said she wanted to be Prime Minister someday.

Both of her parents, Liberal Party members, were standing there so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed with pride!

"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said..."But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that!"

"What do you mean?" she replied.

So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the Conservative Party."

Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, life is not that simplistic. Why are the people homeless?

mxs said:

I think tyrannical is a word people use incorrectly when referencing Harper and his band. What would you then call real tyrannical regimes? And you know who they are ... like someone calling Canada a police state ... give me a break. I am tired of the bad cops and bad police leaders (like the one in Peel who thinks that it doesn't matter what the local police board who appointed her thinks of her actions or inactions ....), but that doesn't mean I'd qualify Canada as a police state ...

Typically I would think, the federal election vote gets split in two ways .... between people who don't care so much about reputation of Canadian policies internationally, environment and whether somehow someone rights could be negatively affected by the governments doing and people who do. Seemingly, a party weak in one area seems to be portrayed stronger in the other, which of course is a myth as something like economical numbers can be spun multiple ways feeding into anyone's needs ...

For many it's not really about what NDP or Liberals will do, but rather how little of the good things has Harper done. By his own doing, he technically took himself out of the race, in my little championship (I understand that for some he's a undisputed leader who drove economic numbers up). Eight years of that inactivity is enough for me, if you ask. You can say that one had sort of hoping for good things to happen, but it has become a total farce ... sort of like Tim Hudak non-sense election proposal. Again, took himself and his party out of contention, so now we have to put up for four more years with Libs in Ontario ......

Click to expand...

"
tyr·an·ny
ˈtirənē/
noun
noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
cruel and oppressive government or rule.
"people who survive war and escape tyranny"

• a nation under cruel and oppressive government."
  
  
  So i agree with you that there are many many regimes far worse than the Canadian one and of course their tyranny is a whole different level of oppression than what we have in Canada.
  
  But have we sank so low that we have to compare ourselves to those regimes like Saudi Arabia in order to not be a tyranny? Harper is a tyranical MP in relevance to our history and democracy. He has pushed many bills that take away out rights like privacy and has pushed laws that can detain us with no evidance. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? he is also passing secret trade deals without letting Canadians see the detail. Remember G20? What do you call tyranical then?
  So yes we are not living under tyranny compare to some of the worst players in the world but its sad that we have to even compare ourselves in order to feel our freedom.
  
  Also when i say a police state, i dont mean that we live in one now. But again, when a government allows its secret agents to spy on everything we write and say, all our private conversation and now can detail us without giving us the right to appear in a court, what do you call that?
  
  We are moving twoards a police state but yes, compare to Libya, we have a free society.
  
  
  
  

Tax the rich to give breaks to the middle class?


Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

tyr·an·ny
ˈtirənē/
noun
noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
cruel and oppressive government or rule.
"people who survive war and escape tyranny"

synonyms:

despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; Moreoppression, repression, subjugation, enslavement; authoritarianism, bullying, severity, cruelty, brutality, ruthlessness "they will not soon forget his brutal tyranny"

Non of the above apply to Canada or even the Conservative party or any other party. Hence, why we are having this election in the first place. Every four years or less (minority) we all get to vote.
All this yipping and yapping about tyrannical rule, is just that yipping and yapping. We live in a constitutional democracy. In fact, recognized repeatedly among the best places in the world to live (standard of living, corruption levels etc.).

A constitutional democracy where someone gets a majority with onlt %40 of the votes? Some democracy. You know where else has democracy? Iran. They also vote every 4 years and select their president. Dont be fooled by names. Now im not saying our democracy is the same as the one in other more oppressive countries. Just making the point that simply because we vote, doesnt mean the syetem is perfect and not broken.
Also, not oppressed? He has been ruining our environment and taking our constitutional rights. Changing what it measn to be a Canadian and even some of your most basic rights as a citizen like the right to a fair trial!

No we are not oppressed. I guess when all you do (and i dont mean you specifically) is watch hockey and drink beer, your constitutional rights being torn apart is not making you feel oppressed but for those who follow Canadian politics, its a HUGEEEE deal against out democracy and agains our basic civil rights.

First past the post may not be perfect but it sure is a whole lot better than proportional representation. Proportional representation gnerally creates minority governments who have to pander to one extreme party or another to remain in power. To compare Iran to Canada is just asinine. Iran is a theocracy not a democracy. Please do some research before you make comments like that. It really destroys all credibility you might have brought to the table.