Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

-1=e^ipi

Members
  • Content Count

    4,724
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

-1=e^ipi last won the day on July 5 2018

-1=e^ipi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About -1=e^ipi

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gender: Agender. Gender roles are dumb.

Recent Profile Visitors

14,074 profile views
  1. When Harper was prime minister, he mostly hid from his media and told all of his MPs not to talk to the media. He was prime minister for nearly a decade, but never really talked about what he believed and why, nor did he ever show his personality (if he had one). Harper only became prime minister due to the sponsorship scandals, he never actually had any appeal. He was destined to lose once anger over the LPC scandals died down. Then we get Scheer who runs on a platform of changing nothing, exempt maybe being a bigger worshiper of the diary cartel, and unsurprisingly he loses. The next leader may likely be O'Toole, who will also change nothing, and will also probably lose. Never at the rate things are going. In fact, we appear to be going backwards with cancel culture.
  2. The LPC not being appealing doesn't mean that the CPC isn't also unappealing. The Canadian political parties in general are unappealing. With respect to the next election, the CPC tried Harper 1.0 and then Scheer (Harper 2.0). I doubt Harper 3.0 (O'Toole or MacKay) will make a difference. If Trudeau survived the blackface scandal, then he can survive the WE scandal, no problem. There is essentially 0 political diversity within the CPC if you compare it to the political diversity in the US Republican party, to the UK Conservative Party, to the Australian Liberal Party, etc. They represent a narrow subset of the population, but then surround themselves with sycophants and preach to their choir. They can't adapt to changing circumstances (which I guess makes sense being conservatives). They never try to reach out to make a more politically diverse party and be appealing to subsets of the population that may agree with them on some issues. Thus the CPC is doomed to failure.
  3. They get a third of the popular vote due to lack of competition and options in a first-past-the-post system. Not because they are an appealing option and certainly not because they have good policies. CPC members account for 0.1% of the Canadian population. Membership in political parties in Canada is a lot lower than other democracies, such as the United States. Perhaps that is a good indication that the Canadian political parties are very out of line with the political views of the Canadian public compared to other democracies.
  4. I disagree. A lot of people don't see any viable options to voting for Trudeau. Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives don't count as a party; they certainly don't compete in the marketplace of ideas and nor do they try to convince people why their policies are better. They only preach to their choir of CPC members, which accounts for 0.1% of the Canadian population.
  5. Do you realize that Justin Trudeau's first scandals where back in 2012 or earlier, before he became leader of the LPC, where he was charging 'charities' excessive amounts of money to speak at events? Like $20,000 per speech. Often these speeches would not have much content. That's more than a lot of people earn in this country in an entire year for doing far more work.
  6. Any threshold would be arbitrary and undemocratic, which is why I suspect the so-called New Democratic Party might support it... It would be better if parties like the Islamic Party had representation, as they do in the Netherlands. It is better for fringe groups to have their ideas represented, so that bad ideas can be more easily defeated, and so that good ideas can challenge the status quo.
  7. What matters is the long term battle of ideas. Also, I disagree that a PR system would benefit the NDP the most. A PR system would benefit most those without current representation, such as the libertarians. Unless of course the political parties in the house of commons collude to create a form of PR system that disincentivises new-comers to the political arena.
  8. I think that one important factor is random drift of the first-past-the-post system. The first-past-the-post system encourages only 2 parties having power and representation, which creates polarization and feeds into tribalism. Also, by reducing representation of many political perspectives to zero, which is what occurs in a first-past-the-post system, bad ideas often go unchallenged and unchecked. If, let's say, the conservative party were to elect a hyper religious candidate, then this would encourage more hyper religious people to join the party and alienate non hyper religious people. This means that more of the party membership consists of hyper religious people, which increases the chance that the next candidate will be hyper religious. The same would be true if the conservative party elected a libertarian candidate, a crony-capitalism candidate, an anti-immigrant candidate, etc. It would be similar if the democratic party were to elect a centrist candidate, an environmentalist candidate, a socialist candidate, or a woke candidate. This mechanism allows mainstream political parties to drift significantly from the will of the electorate for decades. Because there is little competition between parties in a first-past-the-post system, this means that there is little electoral choice to keep random drift in check. In Canada and the US, we have randomly drifted to a place where there is essentially zero political centre. Also, in Canada's case there is zero political diversity within the parties in the house of commons. This is a result of having leaders such as Harper, Trudeau, and Trump and the direction they have taken things in. A slight change in luck could have resulted in a very different political landscape today. If you look at Australia or the UK, there is more of a political centre and more political diversity within parties, so what we are seeing in North America is in part bad luck and political drift. While this doesn`t explain all that we are seeing, any solution must involve the abolition of the first-past-the-post system.
  9. Not really. I mostly just visit this site occasionally to make snarky comments. I'm not as active as I was a few years ago due to a number of reasons: work, the changes to the editing policy, having a more established set of political beliefs, etc. With respect to the topic, I will say that it is interesting that Michael Ignatieff signed it. It makes sense given the threats to freedom that occur to universities in Hungary. But in the Canadian political context it is interesting. Based on some recent videos of him, I suspect that he might be uncomfortable in his current political party under Trudeau. I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps ship (although I doubt he would join the Conservative party). If that happens, it would be interesting to see how that might shake up the political status quo. Edit: on this topic, I wonder what happened to Stephane Dion. One could argue that he was pushed out of his role in Foreign Affairs in favour of Champagne, who is more amicable to the communist party of China. Obviously, Champage's appeasement of authoritarian regimes hasn't been working out very well, not to mention his monetary ties to communist China. I think that Dion would have supported human rights more. But I guess this helps solidify the control of the Trudeau faction over the LPC.
  10. I think you praise them on twitter, like Trudeau and Singh did to Castro.
  11. It doesn't seem that bad. Oh the horror! People dancing to music, painting art, exchanging goods, and having a good time. Clearly we must send in the military to stop it! *sarcasm*
  12. In the US they derive power from the will of the people. In Canada, it stems more from the insane concept of the divine right of monarchs. In the case of the communist party, they derive their power from having the biggest stick.
  13. @ Rue, I have no idea where your ramblings about invasion are coming from. Also, you keep bringing up legality here, but the concept doesn't apply. For example, the communist party ignores Hong Kong basic law as well as their promises under the Hong Kong transfer. The law is whatever the thugs with the biggest guns say it is (which in this case is usually the communist party of china). We like to dress this up by referring to international law, or have romantic notations that laws stem from a monarch divinely appointed by god, or from a romanticized revolution long before we were born (US revolution, French revolution, Chinese civil war) even though all these revolutions were illegal at the time, or from the righteousness of protecting the best interest of some nationality (be it the turks, han chinese, or whoever); but ultimately all laws and legal systems derive their power from violence or the threat of violence.
  14. I never made any claim about legal authority, nor did I suggest other countries should attack China or whatever else you have falsely inferred from what I wrote. I only pointed out that Margret Thatcher made a mistake. The Hong Kong people should have been given the right to self determination instead, to choose if they want to be independence, or be part of the PRC or ROC. Also, you do not specify which legal system you are referring to. There are many legals systems in the world with their own interpretations as to who has the legal authority to do what. Yes... the very neutral world. Almost all of which consists of commie appeasers who refuse to recognize Taiwan as a country, including our current government. The Hong Kong people have no right to self determination under the so-called international UN law. That was stripped from them in 1972 under UN resolution 2908, upon the request by the PRC. Hong Kong was transferred to the PRC by the UK under certain conditions, such as relative independence until 2047. All of this was done without consent of the governed. Given that the conditions of the transfer have been so strongly violated by the PRC, I think the UK and other countries should cease to recognize the transfer as valid, and put the city in a weird limbo state where its status unclear.
  15. Margret Thatcher has failed the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong could have been transferred to the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is the direct successor to the Qinq Dynasty, which leased the land to the British in the first place. In addition, the Hong Kong people should have been given right to self determination to choose their own destiny.
×
×
  • Create New...