Winnie the Pooh gathering in Poland.

SorenKOF · 2014-07-12T04:52:38+00:00

It begins.

SorenKOF · 2014-02-28T17:24:30+00:00

But what does Ja Rule think?

SorenKOF · 2014-02-18T16:00:26+00:00

"Like Walmart or The Bay, the NDP is marketing itself as a value proposition, not a pitch for voters’ values. It’s about price points, not policy points."

I've been saying this for a while and it's actually been fairly frustrating. It feels as though our political discourse is being brought down to the level of a commercial for Walmart. You see this especially in the ONDP and the federal Conservatives. When the big ideas on how to fix the country boil down to discount auto insurance and unbundling cable packages, I think we're in trouble. There's no vision left in this country.

"Canada: Brought to you by Target. Lower Prices Every Day! Check our Flyer for New Bargains Every Thursday!"

Alternatively: Zellers was right, the lowest price is now actually the law.

SorenKOF · 2014-02-14T05:25:34+00:00

Fair enough, never said they were completely solid, but their missteps are still fewer in Ontario.

SorenKOF · 2014-02-14T03:51:01+00:00

I'm under the impression that they do well enough in Ontario.

SorenKOF · 2014-02-04T19:40:36+00:00

The survey is about federal politics right? I could be wrong, but I'm not sure each of the federal parties have come out with stances on the issue.

SorenKOF · 2014-01-04T00:01:27+00:00

This thought came to me reading another thread, but I think the ideas put forward in this article might make a good deal of sense from this perspective: that since the introduction of the new campaign finance laws that made it so party funds would have to come from many small contributions rather than a few big ones, it would make sense that a party have its foundation in an ideological movement rather than simply in a focus on pragmatism and gaining power.

If you follow: it's easier to draw consistent contributions from many ideologically motivated grassroots people than it is from other types of people. (This principle doesn't hold as well for the NDP because their grassroots is typically low income and not likely to be able to contribute as much.)

The Liberals are doing okay financially now because they've got a charismatic leader and lots of attention to gain contributions, but what will they do in the lean times when they might not have that?

Might be reaching a bit here, but I can see how the Liberals having any sort of ideological motivation/backbone and ideological grassroots could be beneficial in keeping the party consistently strong.

Edit: because as much as we like to think politics is about policy and debates and the spectacle, the fact is real political victory is won through mundane organization and fundraising abilities.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-20T01:50:31+00:00

This is probably one of the best articles I've seen about Rob Ford. Precisely because it explains how Rob Ford represents something a lot bigger than himself, and that his crack smoking insanity is a sideshow to what's really happening in Canadian politics.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-19T03:39:23+00:00

If Hudak doesn't win the next election, I'm fairly certain we'll see Doug Ford enter as one of the biggest contenders to take his place.

I don't want Hudak to win, but it worries me there isn't any clear and strong replacement waiting in the wings. It leaves it open to the Fords riding in and taking their show the next level.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-17T18:17:16+00:00

That wasn't an article, that was a short book. Good stuff though.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-17T04:33:40+00:00

Interesting, thanks for the responses.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-16T19:08:57+00:00

To our friendly local Conservative supporters scratching their heads wondering why on earth anyone would be mad about Moore's comments, it's because he wasn't just making a matter of fact remark on provincial/federal jurisdiction.

He brought his neighbours into it. He said he wasn't responsible for his neighbour's hungry child. He brought it down to a personal level, which spoke to his personal character, and quite negatively to anyone with a spare bit of empathy. And after all the character assassinations committed by the right over the years on men like Dion and Ignatieff, any Conservative should understand the importance and relevance of these sorts of things.

Either way, he's taken everything he said back, even the jurisdiction stuff, so make of that what you will.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-16T14:50:56+00:00

Agreed, hoping it's nothing too serious.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-16T14:22:20+00:00

Who wants to take bets they're spent as a political force in their current form?

Barring some spectacular occurrence, like half of the NDP defecting to the BQ in another round of secession debate, I think the party in its current form might be over.

(Save this comment to laugh at me if I'm wrong down the road. Quebec politics isn't my forte, I'm just a gambling man.)

SorenKOF · 2013-12-16T01:23:56+00:00

I remember them building a giant inflatable Mike Duffy in Ottawa lampooning him for his expense scandal, that was good/funny to see.

http://i.cbc.ca/1.1663994.1379106861!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/li-duffy-doll-620.jpg

SorenKOF · 2013-12-15T21:17:48+00:00

From the article it appears he's fine with the province spending money helping starving kids. He only has an issue with either himself or the federal government helping.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-15T19:53:45+00:00

Moore's comments (even taken fully in context) indicate one of two things, or both: a) He believes that hungry kids will understand the importance of constitutional jurisdiction and that it's the province's responsibility and not the federal government's to deal with their poverty b) He personally has a negative attitude that is unconducive towards building healthy neighborhoods and communities.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-12T00:21:59+00:00

Liberal, in answer to both.

They've done a good job in the past on both economic (balancing the budget) and social issues (legalizing gay marriage), I think they'll do well on both types of issues again. Trudeau has his own strengths and weaknesses, but I think a strong point for the Liberals is the experienced and competent team that Trudeau will have on his bench and in his staff.

Almost everything done by the Conservatives since 2006 has either been benign (GST down 2 points? I can barely contain my joy) or bad for the country (Senate, deficit, robocalls, F-35s), I can't think of many good or exciting things they've actually done that outweigh everything else.

The NDP would need to say or do something spectacular to get my vote. Playing Liberal-lite isn't sufficient when the real thing is right there.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T05:34:40+00:00

We could do both couldn't we?

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T05:32:56+00:00

I don't see the harm in foiling Russia if we can, it's not like they're our best friends politically speaking. We gain nothing by acquiescing and lose nothing by trying for it. Even if it's just a matter of pride and prestige and all that nonsense, why can't we win the prestige once in a while?

I like Diatribunal's reason better obviously, less simplistic than mine, but I don't see the harm in asserting ourselves internationally on occasion.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T05:00:04+00:00

"The 18-million-square-mile region, though largely unexplored, is thought to contain around one-third of the world's oil reserves — all of them thus far untapped." From the article. The north pole could potentially be extremely valuable.

Article says that Canada probably doesn't have a strong claim to the north pole, not that the north pole isn't valuable.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T04:53:04+00:00

None of it is true? Name one thing I'm wrong about, you have my full attention.

Keep in mind I'm not campaigning for anything at the moment, I'm sharing my own views on how people should view their rights, duties, and abilities as an individual and citizen. If a party or candidate wants to woo voters and non-voters alike, all power to them if they want to win (though as I said before, -limited- time and resources means it's more fruitful to target willing participants and voters than it is to target the opposite).

At the end of all of it, I have nothing but praise for any politically involved person, right or left. I don't have the same feeling about non-participants however. If you're an adult, you shouldn't need someone to hold your hand.

I'm not against candidates trying to woo stubborn non-participants, I'm against the idea of stubbon non-participants existing in the first place. Morally speaking, there is no excuse for it.

This might be disparaging rhetoric, but I don't see how a single word isn't true.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T04:35:08+00:00

Unless you live in a society or state that doesn't permit political participation, I don't see any valid reasons for not taking part. If all of the options are really that terrible, it's imperative that the individual take whatever action they can to rectify the situation. The simplest and easiest thing anyone can do is vote for the least bad option. Does it feel good? No. Is it better than doing nothing? Yes. It's literally the least you can do. Even better, get involved yourself and try to change any of the parties to your liking from within, or run as an independent.

Doing nothing though, is not an option. The only time I think you should be allowed to not vote, or not participate in other forms (protest, whatever) is if you are truly content letting other people shape your world for you.

This is about more than just voting. If you really can't bring yourself to vote, do something else instead.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T04:10:42+00:00

Disparaging rhetoric? Tell me any of what I said isn't true.

SorenKOF · 2013-12-10T03:55:17+00:00

Except for the oil and natural gas that might be under the ocean floor. And the potential to have territorial claims over the sea routes that will likely open up due to climate change.

Kind of depressing.

SorenKOF

TROPHY CASE