73 replies to this topic

[PIK]

The reason harper has a majority and will have another one is...............he is doing a great job, not perfect which will never happen ,but a good job. And in 3-4 years people will realize that and some will hold thier nose and vote for him, because they understand he is doing a good job. It is very simple.

[WWWTT]

Polling has shown that Liberals and NDP are pretty equal in heir support for the idea. Besides Chretien I haven't heard any high-profile Liberals say the parties should merge, and as Chretien said he's only a small town lawyer trying to earn a living.

Polling among NDP members?

I think not!

WWWTT

[madmax]

The reason harper has a majority and will have another one is...............he is doing a great job, not perfect which will never happen ,but a good job. And in 3-4 years people will realize that and some will hold thier nose and vote for him, because they understand he is doing a good job. It is very simple.

1) If one takes the position of the first sentence... then it supports the position that it is not simply a merger that brings one to vote for a political party.
2) The merger didn't immediately launch Harper to government.
3) I believe the campaign of Harper was successful. A good campaign can produce a positive government image in spite of running the largest deficit in Canadian History. Its better marketing and branding then actual competence.
4) Many will hold their noses.. its called the incumbency factor and many did that during the Liberal period where the books were balanced but corruption prevailed behind the scenes. Finally something has to give.

Mulroney got 2 terms and the largest Majorities in History, while running the largest deficits in history and taxing us to death. Harpers Deficit is now the largest in History.

[Evening Star]

Polling has shown that Liberals and NDP are pretty equal in heir support for the idea. Besides Chretien I haven't heard any high-profile Liberals say the parties should merge, and as Chretien said he's only a small town lawyer trying to earn a living.

Warren Kinsella

[bleeding heart]

The reason harper has a majority and will have another one is...............he is doing a great job, not perfect which will never happen ,but a good job. And in 3-4 years people will realize that and some will hold thier nose and vote for him, because they understand he is doing a good job. It is very simple.

Such praise for successful electoral politics must, of course, be automatically extrapolated to every party's success in every case.

This is the first time I've heard you praise the remarkable Liberal electoral successes over the years. I didn't realize you thought they had done such a "great job."

[waldo]

the Canadian public isn't sophisticated enough to understand coalitions are viable working alternatives; clearly, the Harper Conservatives have done their "magic" to seriously undercut an acceptance of coalition government for some time. In any case, still effectively minority government... and yes, we've seen some minority governments work quite well. But in the political climate of today, and the relatively near future, I just don't see an ability to truly realize an alternate majority ruling government. It's equally clear that the Canadian public isn't sophisticated enough... perhaps isn't caring enough... to hold Harper Conservatives accountable for their past/current failings.

I wouldn’t paint the public’s political sophistication levels with such a wide brush…….At least not publicly…….I would opine that most tend to hold a negative view when it’s suggested they’re morons though……..Did you ever consider it was you? You know, the whole living in and believing in social democratic castles in the clouds………And you called me a pompous ass……Jesus Christ.

interesting... although my brush wasn't that wide - after all... was it? I qualified questioning sophistication with direct reference to two aspects: 1- understanding viable working coalition alternatives, and 2- holding Harper Conservatives accountable for past/current failings. Now, if you'd like to get into each of those qualifications I spoke to, bring it on.

as for calling you a "pompous ass", let the record show it was actually "pompous ***"... i.e., your inference, hey? In any case, I have no difficulty resurrecting that scenario, where you stated I dodged you based, in fact, on an actual subsequent edit you had made to your original post. Let me reacquaint you - you're welcome... carry on!

Nice dodge…….so……back to the real world example, "ripped from the Headlines":

dodge! You pompous *** - you added that quote, the following quote, as an edit:

To add, what would be demonstrated by the Italian police giving information to the RCMP?

This post has been edited by Derek L: Today, 10:01 PM

[Derek L]

[quote name='waldo' date='18 April 2012 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1334784707' post='787886']
interesting... although my brush wasn't that wide - after all... was it? I qualified questioning sophistication with direct reference to two aspects: 1- understanding viable working coalition alternatives, and 2- holding Harper Conservatives accountable for past/current failings. Now, if you'd like to get into each of those qualifications I spoke to, bring it on.

as for calling you a "pompous ass", let the record show it was actually "pompous ***"... i.e., your inference, hey? In any case, I have no difficulty resurrecting that scenario, where you stated I dodged you based, in fact, on an actual subsequent edit you had made to your original post. Let me reacquaint you - you're welcome... carry on!

This post has been edited by Derek L: Today, 10:01 PM [/quote]

[/indent]
[/quote]

So ones sophistication is a direct correlation of ones views towards the current Government?

[waldo]

So ones sophistication is a direct correlation of ones views towards the current Government?

well, at least this time you're half-correct in how you're reading/interpreting my latest post. Again, sophistication in understanding the viability of coalition government... relative to existing working governments... has nothing to do with the current Harper Conservative government. Oh, wait... I see your point. I get it! You're extending on the (lack of) sophistication in regards to the sheeple buying into the Harper Conservative, "Opposition coalitions bad", attack machine. Of course, the other half of my sophistication focus rests upon the understanding/recognition of the overt disdain and disrespect Harper Conservatives have shown for Parliament. But like I said, if you'd really like to get into the intricacies of both of these sophistication failings, we can certainly go there. Your choice...

[Derek L]

well, at least this time you're half-correct in how you're reading/interpreting my latest post. Again, sophistication in understanding the viability of coalition government... relative to existing working governments... has nothing to do with the current Harper Conservative government. Oh, wait... I see your point. I get it! You're extending on the (lack of) sophistication in regards to the sheeple buying into the Harper Conservative, "Opposition coalitions bad", attack machine. Of course, the other half of my sophistication focus rests upon the understanding/recognition of the overt disdain and disrespect Harper Conservatives have shown for Parliament. But like I said, if you'd really like to get into the intricacies of both of these sophistication failings, we can certainly go there. Your choice...

I apologise for hovering on this point, but clearly the recent Majority mandate relied on these very “sheeple”, or the centrist Canadian voter, to have said mandate awarded….Now would it be a fair conclusion to assume the these very same voters would be required to form a Majority NDP or Liberal Government?

Would questioning their level of “sophistication” be a valid strategy during the next election campaign?

I think your camp should run with it.

[waldo]

I apologise for hovering on this point, but clearly the recent Majority mandate relied on these very “sheeple”, or the centrist Canadian voter, to have said mandate awarded….Now would it be a fair conclusion to assume the these very same voters would be required to form a Majority NDP or Liberal Government?

Would questioning their level of “sophistication” be a valid strategy during the next election campaign?

I think your camp should run with it.

well... there you go again! Hey now, didn't you just state you, "wouldn’t paint the public’s political sophistication levels with such a wide brush"? And didn't I narrow that brush for you by emphasizing the 2 aspects my sophistication comment was tagged against? And didn't I just (further) elaborate around the sheeple and 1 of those 2 aspects; i.e., coalitions? Why... yes I did!

but, like I said: "there you go again". Elevating my focused sheeple sophistication association comment to (not) understanding/recognizing working viable coalition governments... elevating it to your continued want to, "paint with a wide brush".

[Derek L]

well... there you go again! Hey now, didn't you just state you, "wouldn’t paint the public’s political sophistication levels with such a wide brush"? And didn't I narrow that brush for you by emphasizing the 2 aspects my sophistication comment was tagged against? And didn't I just (further) elaborate around the sheeple and 1 of those 2 aspects; i.e., coalitions? Why... yes I did!

but, like I said: "there you go again". Elevating my focused sheeple sophistication association comment to (not) understanding/recognizing working viable coalition governments... elevating it to your continued want to, "paint with a wide brush".

So to clarify, only “left leaning”, non-Conservative voters have the sophistication to understand how Parliament works?

[waldo]

So to clarify, only “left leaning”, non-Conservative voters have the sophistication to understand how Parliament works?

how obtuse are you, truly? Again, you've extended upon a most direct reference to coalition governing and made a wholesale, across-the-board, extension of that to "Parliament at large". There you go again! I also said nothing about Conservative voters... or non-Conservative voters - my target was initially described as, "the Canadian public", which was further extended upon when you began your banal obtuseness, to the, "sheeple" who, again, know nothing of the viable working alternative coalition governments throughout the world. Those who can't think beyond the Harper Conservative "coalition bad" attack machine.

Edited by waldo, 18 April 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[Derek L]

how obtuse are you, truly? Again, you've extended upon a most direct reference to coalition governing and made a wholesale, across-the-board, extension of that to "Parliament at large". There you go again! I also said nothing about Conservative voters... or non-Conservative voters - my target was initially described as, "the Canadian public", which was further extended upon when you began your banal obtuseness, to the, "sheeple" who, again, no nothing of the viable working alternative coalition governments throughout the world. Those who can't think beyond the Harper Conservative "coalition bad" attack machine.

I see my error, the “sheeple” are those who have fallen pray to the snake oil sales pitch by the Harper machine on coalitions....IOW PM Harper has got their collective noses...

Just putting this out there, what if they understand the viability of a coalition Government and are just not interested?

[Tilter]

I see my error, the “sheeple” are those who have fallen pray to the snake oil sales pitch by the Harper machine on coalitions....IOW PM Harper has got their collective noses...

Just putting this out there, what if they understand the viability of a coalition Government and are just not interested?

"sheeple" should be reserved for only those who would foster the idea of Kreetin as leader of the LDP merger.
As to a coalition Government, Prime Minister (and he is a Prime Minister) Harper is the Prime Minister, and he has more votes in Parliament--- we have a government & don't need a minority coalition.

[waldo]

I see my error, the “sheeple” are those who have fallen pray to the snake oil sales pitch by the Harper machine on coalitions.

yes, I wholly accept your snake oil sales pitch characterization

Just putting this out there, what if they understand the viability of a coalition Government and are just not interested?

ah yes... aided and abetted by the Harper Conservative caucus beating the anti-coalition drum in their home ridings, your 'not interested' took the form of raucous protestations that a coalition would "steal democracy" and deny a 'rightfully elected' Harper Conservative government. Is that the, "understanding viability" and, "not interested", that you're speaking to?