Coalition Government For Canada???

Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I personally do not think that it would serve the best interest of this country.

Here is a link, for people interested.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ion-talks.html
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
First of all the voices of Canadians are being ignored. What is the point of voting if our decision for the leaders of this government are going to be ignored? Are we choosing or are we being told???

Dion (Liberal leader) is going against Liberal supports by joining the other two parties.

For the record I do not support Harper and the Conservatives, but I do support the freedom of choice and this goes against that.



How is the majority decision being ignored any more than it would be if the Conservatives formed the government? The votes of a majority of Canadians would be represented in the proposed left-center coalition, would they not? I mean this is a parliamentary system, right?

Am I missing something?



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Yes, you clearly are.

There should be more right wing parties, not a take over of Government.

It's only been a couple of months and a group of sneaky politicians are going to pick who the Prime Minister is? Canadians did not vote for this person, not one single person voted NDP-Liberal coalition not to even mention the addition of the Separatists in Bloc.

This is all about power and money and a middle finger to Canadians.

Hell, a recent poll indicated that 81% of Canadians are AGAINST this coalition.

I don't want another election, I don't think anyone does. But I sure as hell don't want people making decisions behind closed doors.

What a slap to the face of democracy.



Last time I checked, this is how parliamentary republics are designed to work. And last time I checked, Canada was a parliamentary republic. If you want more democracy, change your constitution. Same goes for the US by the way.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
You know what, I didn't think about it that way. Let's all throw away our rights while were at it.

I had no idea that Canada, who is a parliamentary democracy, actually meant that the citizens had no voice in the leaders of their government.

Please forgive my 'apparent' ignorance.



You know what, I didn't think about it that way. Let's all throw away our rights while were at it.
I am actually suggesting quite the opposite. Changing the constitution is not the same as rejecting the constitution. Expanding democratic rights and freedoms is not the same as renouncing existing rights and freedoms, is it?
I had no idea that Canada, who is a parliamentary democracy, actually meant that the citizens had no voice in the leaders of their government.
No, but as Canada is a parliamentary republic you have no direct vote in the selection of your defacto chief executive. The office of the Prime Minister is voted in by a majority in parliament, correct?

The bottom line is this: you think that this move is undemocratic. But do you think that it should be constitutionally allowed?



So what you're saying is that government by a majority coalition is less democratic than government by an arbitrarily enforced plurality by virtue of tradition?
And speaking of 'undemocratic,' it's still technically the Governor General's call isn't it?



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
What you're telling me is that you don't care that a citizen has no voice in their government.

And thank you for proving my point. It shouldn't be their decision, it should be ours.



You seem to be having trouble distinguishing statements that describe things as they are as opposed to things as they ought to be. Take a deep breath and reread my posts.
What you're telling me is that you don't care that a citizen has no voice in their government.
In fact I am saying quite the opposite. It just so happens that as Canada is a parliamentary republic you have no direct vote in the selection of your defacto chief executive.

The bottom line is this: you think that this move is undemocratic. But do you think that it should be constitutionally allowed?



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
When did I ever say that?

Do you not read posts either?

What part of voting for a party, who then wins, and then is over thrown by other parties without the voice of the citizens, do you not understand?

I say it is undemocratic, sure, but do you agree with me? Or do you just like arguing my posts?

I'm done bothering with you.



When did I ever say that?
You seem to demonstrate it every time you attempt to restate one of my positions. You are talking about the fact that every time you try to restate my positions you come out with some bizarre strawman, right?
What part of voting for a party, who then wins, and then is over thrown by other parties without the voice of the citizens, do you not understand?
Why is this a problem when the 'usurper' parties in question constitute a majority in parliament that the people have just voted in?
I say it is undemocratic, sure, but do you agree with me?
I still don't see how it is any less democratic than the alternative.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Maybe we should hear from some other Canadians about this. I realize that here in the U.S. that we actually vote for the President, who does belong to a party, and they can't do this here, but there are other countries where you vote for a Party rather than a candidate, and even if the people speak for a plurality, the other parties can apparently get together to strike some deal for their "respective constituencies".

One thing different between these countries and the U.S., however, is that Bush I and Perot could not have gotten together and struck a deal after the 1992 Presidential election and had Bill Clinton removed before he took the office of President. Of course, that didn't stop the "Powers That Be" from trying to remove him before he finished his second term.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I'm done bothering with you.
You haven't substantively responded to anything that I've said anyway. So I say good riddance.
One thing different between these countries and the U.S., however, is that Bush I and Perot could not have gotten together and struck a deal after the 1992 Presidential election and had Bill Clinton removed before he took the office of President.
The fact is though that Perot's run basically constituted such a move against Bush. Perot wasn't in it to win- he was in it to **** things up for Bush. In the American system however, this did not guarantee Perot (and thus supposedly those who voted for him by proxy) a voice in the Clinton administration.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
You haven't substantively responded to anything that I've said anyway. So I say good riddance.
You've said nothing worth responding to. As it is with most other threads you post in.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
You haven't substantively responded to anything that I've said anyway. So I say good riddance.

The fact is though that Perot's run basically constituted such a move against Bush. Perot wasn't in it to win- he was in it to **** things up for Bush. In the American system however, this did not guarantee Perot (and thus supposedly those who voted for him by proxy) a voice in the Clinton administration.
I don't think you can rid him from his own thread. I'm pretty sure there is more than one way to discuss a topic, and emotional responses to perceived injustices seem to work for several people. I don't believe that your responses will cause TUS to begin a drive for a constitutional amendment, but enough "emotional responses" from Canadians may well do the trick.

As far as Perot and his a la carte platform, he took just as many votes away from Clinton as he did from Bush. Perot ran on a "Maverick" campaign against "Politics as usual", so both Bush and Clinton were vulnerable to that. The fact that Clinton could twist Perot's words to benefit him more than H.W. isn't really surprising. By the way, Perot was the clear frontrunner in polls after the first debate.

Hey, Canucks, where are you, and what do you think about what may happen? I realize it's not a done deal yet.



I don't think you can rid him from his own thread.
I would never try to do such a thing. All I am saying is that his dismissive and condescending declaration of of being "done bothering" with me was actually preferable to the substance and tone of his previous responses. I try not to take things personally, but this is rather hard to do with personal insults.
I'm pretty sure there is more than one way to discuss a topic, and emotional responses to perceived injustices seem to work for several people.
"Emotional" and "irrational" are not necessarily synonymous.
I don't believe that your responses will cause TUS to begin a drive for a constitutional amendment
I was merely attempting to help him clarify his apparently muddled position.
Perot ran on a "Maverick" campaign against "Politics as usual", so both Bush and Clinton were vulnerable to that.
I have heard it argued that while Perot most certainly used his '92 campaign as a national platform for his specific views; his ultimate purpose was (among other things) to sabotage Bush's reelection campaign.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
That's fine. I was 36 when I voted in that election. A billionaire tried to sabotage a "non-conservative" Republican to get an "unknown" Democrat elected? Revisionism is the new reality. Of course, the last eight years are also "revisionism", even if they actually happened.