Liberals win
- Thread starter bcneil
- Start date
When do we get the legalized brothels and forced child marajuanna habit?
Seriously though it the same old cycle, get po'd at the current guys and elect the other party in until you get pissed off at them again.
Trudeau is young and inexprerienced and capitalized on his name, which basically means it will be old Liberal party apparatus running the show behind the scenes in backrooms. ( I vote NDP generally in case anyone is assuming I'm a an ardent conservative)
My hope here at least is that they reform the first past the post system to better reflect the popular vote and force parties to work together to achieve a compromise consensus for the benefit of all Canadians. This would be in contRast to the increasingly autocratic regimes we've been getting.
Seriously though it the same old cycle, get po'd at the current guys and elect the other party in until you get pissed off at them again.
Trudeau is young and inexprerienced and capitalized on his name, which basically means it will be old Liberal party apparatus running the show behind the scenes in backrooms. ( I vote NDP generally in case anyone is assuming I'm a an ardent conservative)
My hope here at least is that they reform the first past the post system to better reflect the popular vote and force parties to work together to achieve a compromise consensus for the benefit of all Canadians. This would be in contRast to the increasingly autocratic regimes we've been getting.
Some of the Conservative Winners in this province have shown very little class in their leader's defeat. So pathetic that all of those individuals were brain washed by his facist leadership style. Their victory speeches all attack Justin
Critics say that the reason liberals wins because the liberals "help all classes (poor, middle, and the rich)". 
well yes and I've always been left in politics because of social issues, the environment and science, secularism, and women & minorities are also considered and equality, makes sense to me since a lot of the younger people probably identify with that too.Critics say that the reason liberals wins because the liberals "help all classes (poor, middle, and the rich)".
Last edited:
Take a look at your history of the industrial revolution and the workhouses in Great Britain. You think that is a better alternative?
The reality is that when you have a moderate redistribution of income, you have a much happier and safer society.
Part of the economic stagnation in recent years is due to the tax cuts and loss of the redistribution that was more pronounced 40 years ago. There is only some much consumer spending a billionaire can do, and if the rest of the population doesn't have enough disposable income to by consumer goods, naturally the economy will be stagnant or worse.
The vast majority of canadians are still more or less middle class. You have to tax them because that is where the money is. The poor don't have enough, and there is not enough rich to make up the short fall. Plus the rich have the knowledge and ability to move their money out of the way if it becomes imperitive that they do so.
So a balanced tax system is the only answer. One needs the more well off to be looking for ways to engage in the economy of the country, because they have the where withall to do so, rather than having them look for escape routes.
As for Trudeau, the cynic in me says: "Nobody has ever lost money, buying people with their own money".
So a balanced tax system is the only answer. One needs the more well off to be looking for ways to engage in the economy of the country, because they have the where withall to do so, rather than having them look for escape routes.
As for Trudeau, the cynic in me says: "Nobody has ever lost money, buying people with their own money".
You also have to just look around. Nations that concentrate the wealth of the nation in the nation's "elite" tend to be violently over thrown. That's what was happening in Syria until ISIS took advantage of the revolution to attempt to create an Islamic state. That's what happened in Libya and Egypt and we are witnessing the result.
Even the Chinese communists understand that you cannot have an "elite" and an desperately poor underclass. That's why they encourage enterprise within a very constrained set of rules.
We used to have much higher taxes in the USA and Canada. Until people discovered that they can vote for less tax with Proposition 13 in 1978. Well now we have reduced taxes and what happened? The wealthy got wealthier and the poor got poorer, shared infrastructure like roads and bridges isn't maintained and the wealthy have concentrated the media in their hands. We saw that with the obscene endorsement of the Harper Conservatives by Post Media. Newspapers and TV Stations that once were independent now jump to the dictates of Hedge Fund Managers. The population only ignored the dictates of Post Media because the Harper Conservatives had completely worn out their welcome.
I'm in agreement with you sdw. Thanks for providing additional evidence for the doubters among us.
Actually, Liberalism is not interfering in how people live their lives, to be tolerant. Conservatism is to be intolerant of any behavior outside of a narrow set of "normal" and traditional behavior. It has nothing to do with economic policy.
This is not evidence it is argument.I'm in agreement with you sdw. Thanks for providing additional evidence for the doubters among us.
I argue that the left is just as elite as the right. Hence all communist regimes have been dictatorships. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and Mao killed more people than both combined.
Redistribution of income is a laudable goal, and works up to a point. At some point anyone outside of the Marxist-Leninist camp has to agree that it becomes counterproductive and saps a society of one of it's most important drivers of change, the desire to better onces condition. There is a societal decision that needs to be made as to when that "betterment" is a result of your own activities or that of others.
In economic terms, wealth is only created when something is created that did not exist before. Like when raw resources are used to make something thazt is sold "outside" the country. New wealth flows into the country that was not there before, thus enriching the nation. All the rest is just service industry, moving money from one pocket to the next in society.
Growth comes only from new money. It ultimately pays for everthing. Everything else is just rearranging chairs at the table. New money brings more chairs to the table.
If one makes it so new money is not allowed in or the people who bring it in are not permitted a reasonable return on their efforts to make it worthwhile, why bother?
The thing that bothers me most about the left is not their goals but rather there arrogance that they know better what to do with "my money" than I know what to do with my "my money". I find it to be a rather paternalistic attitude.
In economic terms, wealth is only created when something is created that did not exist before. Like when raw resources are used to make something thazt is sold "outside" the country. New wealth flows into the country that was not there before, thus enriching the nation. All the rest is just service industry, moving money from one pocket to the next in society.
Growth comes only from new money. It ultimately pays for everthing. Everything else is just rearranging chairs at the table. New money brings more chairs to the table.
If one makes it so new money is not allowed in or the people who bring it in are not permitted a reasonable return on their efforts to make it worthwhile, why bother?
The thing that bothers me most about the left is not their goals but rather there arrogance that they know better what to do with "my money" than I know what to do with my "my money". I find it to be a rather paternalistic attitude.
And what happened in the USSR? Does the USSR still exist or did the population rise up and kick the government out?
Being liberal has nothing to do with being left or right. Left or right refers to which socio-economic principles you adhere to, ie socialism or capitalism. Both socialists and capitalists can be liberal, just as both socialists and capitalists can be conservative.
There are three basic dimensions in describing someone's general political outlook:
A) Progressive or Reactionary. Someone who is progressive looks to change society for the better in the future. Some who is reactionary resists that change and attempts to preserve the status quo or return it to a previous state. Progressives look to the future for guidance, reactionaries look to the past for guidance.
B) Socialist or Capitalist. Someone who is socialist believes that individuals should be responsible for the betterment of society. Someone who is capitalist believes that individuals should be responsible for the betterment of themselves.
C) Autocratic or Tolerant. Autocratic people believe that they should be deciding how other people should live their lives. Tolerant people believe that other people should decide for themselves how to live their lives.
Generally speaking in our society a conservative is almost always a reactionary, and usually they are autocratic. Most are capitalists but there are many who are socialists as well (these would be your communists after they have taken power).
Liberals are usually progressive, almost always are tolerant, and generally around the center between socialism and capitalism.
There are other dimensions as well. Politics is a complex thing, it is not wise to try to pigeon hole people because there is a huge diversity between all those dimensions. No two people are exactly alike in their opinions and philosophy.
