Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why I will still vote for Stephen J. Harper in 2015


Recommended Posts

The one thing I almost entirely support is their move towards a more Canada centred foreign policy. Good on them. We should support our friends and condemn our enemies, not pretend we're 'neutral' in order to garner ethnic votes.

In fact, the vast majority of immigrants who come from countries that Canada condemns are fully supportive of our clear positions. The reasons we condemn them are pretty well the same reasons that they left their countries to come to Canada.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In fact, the vast majority of immigrants who come from countries that Canada condemns are fully supportive of our clear positions. The reasons we condemn them are pretty well the same reasons that they left their countries to come to Canada.

I think you'd find an awful lot of immigrants who don't agree with our support of Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is always the weakest and dumbest argument the Left uses against Harper. While I'm not a particular admirer of his fiscal record the fact is there was a long and deep international recession which raised unemployment and diminished federal tax income. There was also (and remains to an extent) an ongoing issue with oil exports which is costing the treasury billions. And the three 'progressive' parties demanded the government put in place a very expensive stimulus package, or threatened to take over and do it themselves. Even several years later the Liberals were demanding the stimulus be increased. So while the Conservatives can be blamed for lowering the GST (which I disapproved of), and corporate taxes (which I - and the Liberals - approved of but which I no longer do) blaming them alone for the deficit is absurd.

They lowered Government income by slashing the GST (for cheap political gain) and corporate taxes (to pay off their friends and political base). If they hadn't done that, the damage would have been nowhere near as bad and the budget would have been balanced by now.

I think a large part of this is simple that what the Liberals did was largely tolerated and got little publicity, while everything the Tories do is looked on with extreme suspicion. I don't think they're really much worse than the Liberals were.

Oh, what a ringing endorsement! Maybe Harper could use that in the next election - we don't think we were really much worse than the Liberals were. If only that were true.

They've turned their backs on Kyoto, acted as cheerleaders for the fossil fuel industry, attacked and marginalized opponents to their pipeline expansion dreams, gutted waterways protection and have weakened the environmental regulation process. The Liberals didn't do much good but they weren't anywhere near as damaging.

I think it was more a case of certain scientists who have, today, set themselves up as ideological champions, virtually all on the Left, self-declaring as enemies of the right and being treated as such.

Oh, here we go again with the great scientist conspiracy theory. Did it ever occur to you that scientists value the environment because the knowledge and understanding their work affords them has provided them with a greater appreciation for the interconnectedness of the world? Drop your biases and listen to or read David Suzuki when talks about the interconnectedness of the biosphere.

Hyperbole and nonsense. The Liberals championed negative campaigning and nasty politics in Canada for decades, and nobody seemed to take issue with it. Then the tories took it up and suddenly they're acting like Americans and being mean. PHhht.

Another case where your only defence of your great leader is that Liberals are doing it too. And another case where you're wrong.

Robocall scandal, in-and-out scandal, the shameless playing of hot-button ideological issues like the gun registry, and the use of negative ads between elections to paint the opposing leaders before they can define themselves. Your heroes have taken this way past where the Liberals were.

The one thing I almost entirely support is their move towards a more Canada centred foreign policy. Good on them. We should support our friends and condemn our enemies, not pretend we're 'neutral' in order to garner ethnic votes.

Typical right wing view of the world - divide it between us and them. Make enemies where we didn't have them before by supporting our "friends" even when they're in the wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He inherited a financial position of a string of surplus budgets and managed to add something like 150 billion dollars to the federal debt.

Hey Reefer...ever hear of a global economy? Check back to those years the Liberals were running surpluses. You know who else had surpluses in four of those years? Our largest trading partner....the US. The US has only had like 8 surplus years in the last 100 so by chance do you think it was just a good time or do you actually think the Liberals created those surpluses. Harper did carry the surpluses on for a couple of years before the Global Financial Crisis hit. Again...not quite his fault.

Now what is truly impressive is the fact that we are again looking at a surplus when the US and other countries are still reeling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They lowered Government income by slashing the GST (for cheap political gain)

Like it or not, they campaigned on a promise that they would lower the GST and followed through on their promise.

Oh, what a ringing endorsement! Maybe Harper could use that in the next election - we don't think we were really much worse than the Liberals were. If only that were true.

Liberals may not have invented the strategy of divide and conquer, but they surely perfected it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've turned their backs on Kyoto

Rejecting the pathetic hypocrisy called "Kyoto" is one of the high points of their government. This increase the stature of Canada among many around the world because the stature of the country is not decided by lefty navel gazers. Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejecting the pathetic hypocrisy called "Kyoto" is one of the high points of their government.

that's right... so Harper Conservatives could introduce their own "made in Canada" target and reduction commitment! Why bother with Kyoto when you can make up your own reduction target, pledge a commitment to the Canadian public and then absolutely ignore that target/pledge. Another high point, hey?

Edited by waldo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Reefer...ever hear of a global economy? Check back to those years the Liberals were running surpluses. You know who else had surpluses in four of those years? Our largest trading partner....the US. The US has only had like 8 surplus years in the last 100 so by chance do you think it was just a good time or do you actually think the Liberals created those surpluses. Harper did carry the surpluses on for a couple of years before the Global Financial Crisis hit. Again...not quite his fault.

Now what is truly impressive is the fact that we are again looking at a surplus when the US and other countries are still reeling.

By the time 2 years was up and the crisis hit Harper already had us well in deficit, and a goodly portion of that deficit was structural. In this case caused by tax giveaways to buy votes. And not much has changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There has been a lot of chatter in the past week as to whether or not PMSH will be stepping down in the next 6 months. If he were to resign, the window is getting smaller to allow his successor time to clean-up and put his/her own stamp on the government. Interesting article by Justin Ling. Doubt that he would break his own law and call an early election.


www.looniepolitics.com/stephen-harper-seeker/

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time 2 years was up and the crisis hit Harper already had us well in deficit, and a goodly portion of that deficit was structural. In this case caused by tax giveaways to buy votes. And not much has changed.

Nice try. Even with the tax giveaways that you flaunt, he has been able to return the goverment to a surplus again. This of course after dealing with the Global Economic Crisis which actually started in 2006 with the bursting of the US housing bubble. Harper was facing an uphill battle from the day he got into office. The fact he ran two sizeable surpluses in those years is a feather in his cap. Most other sensible people realize that the deficits after this point were unavoidable considering the global economic environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bambino, you and I know that in practice voters choose a party/leader.

No, they choose a person for their representative in parliament and the majority of the House of Commons then says who it supports as prime minister. We don't vote for presidents. And if any Canadians think we do, don't encourage them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Reefer...ever hear of a global economy? Check back to those years the Liberals were running surpluses. You know who else had surpluses in four of those years? Our largest trading partner....the US. The US has only had like 8 surplus years in the last 100 so by chance do you think it was just a good time or do you actually think the Liberals created those surpluses. Harper did carry the surpluses on for a couple of years before the Global Financial Crisis hit. Again...not quite his fault.

Now what is truly impressive is the fact that we are again looking at a surplus when the US and other countries are still reeling.

Know who else had surpluses? Pretty much everyone in the western world. The 90's with good times for all, the Liberals do not get credit for a good global economy.

Canada did however do much better than other nations during the bad times. This however, may be partly on borrowed prosperity, as much of it was accomplished through creating a large housing bubble which will get us later on.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada did however do much better than other nations during the bad times. This however, may be partly on borrowed prosperity, as much of it was accomplished through creating a large housing bubble which will get us later on.

I think it had more to do with Canada being partially a petroleum-driven economy. Late 2008 and early 2009 were really the only periods with oil under $80 per barrel and most of the time oil has been over $95 per barrel. That has had more to do with Canada's doing relatively well than Harper or anything any politician could have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it had more to do with Canada being partially a petroleum-driven economy. Late 2008 and early 2009 were really the only periods with oil under $80 per barrel and most of the time oil has been over $95 per barrel. That has had more to do with Canada's doing relatively well than Harper or anything any politician could have done.

And the Liberal surplus stolen from employees' WSIB premiums.

.

Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Liberal surplus stolen from

Translate into English or Canadian please.

I assume there was some verbiage that got lost because of the lack of grammar and lack of a period at the end of the sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it had more to do with Canada being partially a petroleum-driven economy. Late 2008 and early 2009 were really the only periods with oil under $80 per barrel and most of the time oil has been over $95 per barrel. That has had more to do with Canada's doing relatively well than Harper or anything any politician could have done.

IMO....it ultimately comes down to the exchange rate and how we as an exporting nation can get our products out to the world...including oil. The reality is that the exchange rate had consistantly been around 70-80 cents on the dollar and then shifted closer to parity in 2006 and reaching it in 2007. As much as I like this rate when i'm travelling, it doesn't help our exports especially in Ontario's manufacturing sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they choose a person for their representative in parliament and the majority of the House of Commons then says who it supports as prime minister. We don't vote for presidents. And if any Canadians think we do, don't encourage them.

We do, in fact, vote for presidents. Just not officially.

Most Canadians don't even know the name of the MP they're voting for, much less know anything about him or her. They're voting for the party, and its platform as exemplified by the party leader. They vote for who they want for PM, not who they want for MP.

Most don't really give a damn who their MP is since he's nothing but a trained sheep anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Liberal surplus stolen from employees' WSIB premiums.

.

That is the same as saying the Liberal surplus was stolen from taxpayers (i.e. it is a irrelevant truism). No money was "stolen" from employees - they simply paid a tax that is no different than all the other income tax they pay. Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most don't really give a damn who their MP is since he's nothing but a trained sheep anyway.

Try that one on the Vancouver-Kingsway MP who won the 2006 election and went on to become Harper's Trade Minister. I can't recall his name but he crossed the aisle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We do, in fact, vote for presidents. Just not officially.

Most Canadians don't even know the name of the MP they're voting for, much less know anything about him or her. They're voting for the party, and its platform as exemplified by the party leader. They vote for who they want for PM, not who they want for MP.

Most don't really give a damn who their MP is since he's nothing but a trained sheep anyway.

The local candidate matters, but is only a decisive factor that is completely independent of party, leader, and other considerations for about 5% of voters.

The study: http://ces-eec.org/pdf/localcandidate.pdf

But we should probably be asking why. We elect a representative to go to Ottawa, just like g_bambino said. Perhaps we're so focused on party politics and leaders because MPs have been sterilized but he concentration of power in the PMO. Perhaps, more cynically, people are just completely ignorant of how our system of government works. Likely it's a combination of these things amongst other issues.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

We do, in fact, vote for presidents. Just not officially.

I of course meant officially and of course there are people in this country who actually think "prime minister" is a quirky Canadian title for our president; I recently saw a tv show in which a guy on Parliament Hill said something about "all these statues of presidents" around him. Like him, all the others are wrong, too (he was thankfully corrected on camera), which is clearly only going to assist the decay of our democracy. Prime ministers love to be thought of as presidents, because then they can act like presidents, there to do as they wish until at least four years passes (though, even then, they can "call" "their own" election any time before that); but, keeping MPs as nobodies is a big factor in the prime minister maintaining as much of a presidential status as our constitution will allow. If people saw MPs actually hold a prime minister over a real (metaphorical) fire more often than only in minority parliaments, they might come to learn the prime minister isn't supreme over parliament, it's the other way around.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites

....Prime ministers love to be thought of as presidents, because then they can act like presidents, there to do as they wish until at least four years passes (though, even then, they can "call" "their own" election any time before that);

Actually, a Canadian PM with a majority has far more real political power than any "president".

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the same as saying the Liberal surplus was stolen from taxpayers (i.e. it is a irrelevant truism). No money was "stolen" from employees - they simply paid a tax that is no different than all the other income tax they pay.

It was stolen from dedicated WSIB accounts and put into general revenues. If it wasn't needed for WSIB, it should have been returned to workers via reductions in premiums, expansion of benefits, etc.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on a reading of the NDP charter, admittedly some years ago, that the NDP believes in a "progressive" and activist government, and redistribution.

Kind of like what we get now, but the people who get the redistribution are different. Some favour corps, some favour the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...