What do you look for in a party leader?
- Thread starter Tyler
- Start date
That depends as a Party Leader does not require a Leadership Campaign to be elected. So your point is invalid to Tyr's comments..
I have also been part of two leadership campaigns and in both cases you were not required to be Canadian to Vote for the Leader.. That is Party Policy and a bad one at that.. Only proof of landed immigrant status is required but not of Canadian Citizenship..
Do you not see a flaw in that system ?
Why are people voting for a Leader and electing him if they will not be permitted to vote for him in the General Election ? They are, in many cases, changing the outcome of who is leader when in reality be when they will have no say in this countries main election. But you see they already have, by affecting the outcome of the leadership campaign when there is one.
I Challenge you to check Party Policy for the Conservative, Liberal or NDP ( 3 Major Parties ) to see if that has changed since I left politics years ago.
What do you say about the flaw now..
Last edited:
That makes absolutely no sense. You wvote for an MP, not the leader of a party. The "assumption" would be that the 99% of the people that vote don't
"belong" to any party, so if you are not that 1%, you don't vote for the leader
now you lnow
You should ask yourself why that comes into your mind first. I believe CBC radio did try to get away with it but to no avail.:smile:
What do you look for in a party leader? When you buy a new car you want features you can feel comfortable with and trust. A very important option in a new politician is the groveling and slobbering index. If that's paid attention to during purchase you should get many years of trouble free string pulling from your brand new scum bag politicion.
What do I look in a party leader?
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is a perfect example of a political leader.
If an election were held today Michael Ignatieff would win a probable majority just because he knows the media and media gets politicians elected if used right.
Even with the limited funds the Liberal war chest has, the Liberals would win.
The problem with Stephen Harper is that he had a chance to win the last election but never got the majority, which he should have won because he was running against Dion.
Harper has persona of a leader but he keeps on making big blunders because he keeps on listening to his American consultants who refuse to accept the fact that American voters and Canadian voters are in fact different.
Attack ads work on American voters because they take everything at face value but not on Canadian voters because they usually will ask questions and do research on their choices.
The Conservative base in the prairies view Harper as a messiah of sorts that will bring religious values in the forefront to come up with legislation to protect the traditional family way of life.
The views and beliefs on Stephen Harper are changing because right in the belly of the Conservative powerhouse in Edmonton Strathcona riding an NDP was elected because those Albertans in that riding see what the Conservatives are not doing and how they are breaking their promises.
What the Conservative party needs is a new leader, but they are stuck with Harper because if they try to get a new leader the Government will fall and the Liberals will get a majority.
Now it is possible to teach old dog new tricks so there is hope for Stephen he just has to re-invent himself, he has to get in touch with his Canadian roots.
A good political leader has to remember that he or she is working for the Canadian voters and no one else.
A good example of a good leader was a Toronto’s Mayor Mel Lastman who was mayor in the city of North York from 1972 to 1997 and when North York and five other cities were amalgamated to a mega city he got elected to that job from 1997 to 2000 where he had to resign due to health concerns so he left at the age of sixty-seven.
His claim to fame was he got rid of the voice mail system at city hall so you get someone live to talk to.
Mel also put the extra scoop on the snowplows and no snow banks were left in front of the driveways when the plow came
He had a weekly live Cable TV show where he would take questions from the voters so he could look you in the eye when he answered a question on your TV screen.
Maybe Harper should produce a monthly Ask The Prime Minister TV show now that would be dreaming.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is a perfect example of a political leader.
If an election were held today Michael Ignatieff would win a probable majority just because he knows the media and media gets politicians elected if used right.
Even with the limited funds the Liberal war chest has, the Liberals would win.
The problem with Stephen Harper is that he had a chance to win the last election but never got the majority, which he should have won because he was running against Dion.
Harper has persona of a leader but he keeps on making big blunders because he keeps on listening to his American consultants who refuse to accept the fact that American voters and Canadian voters are in fact different.
Attack ads work on American voters because they take everything at face value but not on Canadian voters because they usually will ask questions and do research on their choices.
The Conservative base in the prairies view Harper as a messiah of sorts that will bring religious values in the forefront to come up with legislation to protect the traditional family way of life.
The views and beliefs on Stephen Harper are changing because right in the belly of the Conservative powerhouse in Edmonton Strathcona riding an NDP was elected because those Albertans in that riding see what the Conservatives are not doing and how they are breaking their promises.
What the Conservative party needs is a new leader, but they are stuck with Harper because if they try to get a new leader the Government will fall and the Liberals will get a majority.
Now it is possible to teach old dog new tricks so there is hope for Stephen he just has to re-invent himself, he has to get in touch with his Canadian roots.
A good political leader has to remember that he or she is working for the Canadian voters and no one else.
A good example of a good leader was a Toronto’s Mayor Mel Lastman who was mayor in the city of North York from 1972 to 1997 and when North York and five other cities were amalgamated to a mega city he got elected to that job from 1997 to 2000 where he had to resign due to health concerns so he left at the age of sixty-seven.
His claim to fame was he got rid of the voice mail system at city hall so you get someone live to talk to.
Mel also put the extra scoop on the snowplows and no snow banks were left in front of the driveways when the plow came
He had a weekly live Cable TV show where he would take questions from the voters so he could look you in the eye when he answered a question on your TV screen.
Maybe Harper should produce a monthly Ask The Prime Minister TV show now that would be dreaming.
A good example of a good leader was a Toronto’s Mayor Mel Lastman who was mayor in the city of North York from 1972 to 1997 and when North York and five other cities were amalgamated to a mega city he got elected to that job from 1997 to 2000 where he had to resign due to health concerns so he left at the age of sixty-seven.
His claim to fame was he got rid of the voice mail system at city hall so you get someone live to talk to.
Any politician that could do that gets my vote for life. I wouldn't care what party he belonged to
Yes, you can vote for your party leader at a party convention, but you can't vote for a party leader in a general election. Remember too that some of us are non-partisan and so would be uninterested in joining a party.
Also, some of us would like our candidates to be non-partisan representatives of our riding and not slaves to the party leader.
I have also been part of two leadership campaigns and in both cases you were not required to be Canadian to Vote for the Leader.. That is Party Policy and a bad one at that.. Only proof of landed immigrant status is required but not of Canadian Citizenship..
That depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, since I vote for independent candidates and not for their party, it makes no difference to me how a leader is chosen within a party. I would defend the right of a political party to decide for itself who can join it. But I would also support cutting all government funding to parties and removing any legal recognition they might have beyond being a registered charity like any other, with no party name mentioned on ballots (party affiliation being like religious affiliation, a personal matter), no legal recognition granted to party caucuses, and all Ministers being elected by the Members of Parliament in an open ballot.
Do you not see a flaw in that system ?
I do see a problem if they are given special legal recognition beyond simple registered charity status and if they receive funding from the public, both of which are in fact the case at present. If they have a special legal status and receive government funding, then that makes them public institutions subject to the sanction of the people through a parliament dominated by party politics. Oops, now that's a big circular problem.
Why are people voting for a Leader and electing him if they will not be permitted to vote for him in the General Election ? They are, in many cases, changing the outcome of who is leader when in reality be when they will have no say in this countries main election. But you see they already have, by affecting the outcome of the leadership campaign when there is one.
Well, now I'd say that a decision must be made. Either we meet the standards I'd explained above (i.e. strip all special legal recognition and financing, or go your way and limit party membership to citizens only), or yours. I prefer mine, of course, but failing that, then I do believe that yours are necessary otherwise. Either way could be argued to be fair, but certainly they can't have it both ways.
That depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, since I vote for independent candidates and not for their party, it makes no difference to me how a leader is chosen within a party. I would defend the right of a political party to decide for itself who can join it. But I would also support cutting all government funding to parties and removing any legal recognition they might have beyond being a registered charity like any other, with no party name mentioned on ballots (party affiliation being like religious affiliation, a personal matter), no legal recognition granted to party caucuses, and all Ministers being elected by the Members of Parliament in an open ballot.
Do you not see a flaw in that system ?
I do see a problem if they are given special legal recognition beyond simple registered charity status and if they receive funding from the public, both of which are in fact the case at present. If they have a special legal status and receive government funding, then that makes them public institutions subject to the sanction of the people through a parliament dominated by party politics. Oops, now that's a big circular problem.
Why are people voting for a Leader and electing him if they will not be permitted to vote for him in the General Election ? They are, in many cases, changing the outcome of who is leader when in reality be when they will have no say in this countries main election. But you see they already have, by affecting the outcome of the leadership campaign when there is one.
Well, now I'd say that a decision must be made. Either we meet the standards I'd explained above (i.e. strip all special legal recognition and financing, or go your way and limit party membership to citizens only), or yours. I prefer mine, of course, but failing that, then I do believe that yours are necessary otherwise. Either way could be argued to be fair, but certainly they can't have it both ways.
What do I look in a party leader?
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is a perfect example of a political leader.
If an election were held today Michael Ignatieff would win a probable majority just because he knows the media and media gets politicians elected if used right.
I don;t know; I'm not in his riding.
Even with the limited funds the Liberal war chest has, the Liberals would win.
What are you talking about? Is this Nazi Hermany? Deutschland ist Hitler, Hitler ist Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles. The leader is not the party, and the party is not the leader. Even if the leader is a genious, his servants might still be idiots. Canadian politics has stooped so low that people will vote for an ignoramus as long as his leader looks good on TV.
The problem with Stephen Harper is that he had a chance to win the last election but never got the majority, which he should have won because he was running against Dion.
He did get a majorty, over 70% in fact. And no he wasnt' running against Dion. Dion got a majority too, by the way, at over 60%. But neither of them was in my riding. In fact, I didn't even vote beyond casting a blank ballot. All of the candidates in my riding were party slaves. I'd gone into one candidate's office to ask him a question. What does he do? He pulls out the Party Book to read the answer out to me. ****e, I could have done that online fer Pete's sake.What did he want me to vote for, a talking head in parliament who'd give his leader's riding an extra representative in Parliament? What about my riding? Then I'd asked another candidate a question at his campaign office. He wasn't there so a kind lady took the question on paper. The next day I get a phone call from not the candidate, but some other guy, some supposed scholar in the field, on his behalf who tells me what he thinks. Holy ****e, Batman! He's not even on the effin' ballot! What do I care what he thinks?
Parties have dragged the quality of our candidates into the gutter.
Harper has persona of a leader but he keeps on making big blunders because he keeps on listening to his American consultants who refuse to accept the fact that American voters and Canadian voters are in fact different.
Hey, it got him his riding, didn't it? Harper's smart. he doesn't worry about other ridings. He makes sure he wins his own effin riding. Dion was equally smart. Now what we need is equally savvy candidates in our friggin ridings too who'll stand up on their own character and not bend over for the leader's jollies.
Attack ads work on American voters because they take everything at face value but not on Canadian voters because they usually will ask questions and do research on their choices.
Don't be so smug. Look at the ads last election. All the parties were telling us more about how bad the other party was rather than when they were offering. And in my riding at least, it didn't really matter what the candidates were saying, 'cause they were just talkin heads towin the party line anyway.
As for the intelligence of the average Canadian voter, I've met peopel who vote for a party based on the party their parents voted for, as a matter of family tradition. Ungrigginbelieveable! If that's how democracy works, then I'd rather have a technocracy. Since there's not much democracy left anyway now that government's been hijacked by parties, so what's the difference? At least in a technocracy, the guys at the top have some intelligence even if they're not elected. But again, with the farce that elections have now become, what's the difference?
The Conservative base in the prairies view Harper as a messiah of sorts that will bring religious values in the forefront to come up with legislation to protect the traditional family way of life.
And that's why Harper was smart. He took care of the base that can actually vote for him. Dion likewise. That's the kind of candidate I want.
The views and beliefs on Stephen Harper are changing because right in the belly of the Conservative powerhouse in Edmonton Strathcona riding an NDP was elected because those Albertans in that riding see what the Conservatives are not doing and how they are breaking their promises.
And that's where Harpter wasn't thinkin'. If you want to live another day, you need to serve your constituents; not the party, not Parliament, but your constituents. In fact, a smart MP would rather lose his bid for party leadership and even loose his position as a Minister in the government if it means pissin off his constituents. Because no matter how popular he might be outside his riding, if he loses votes in his riding, that'll be the end of him, no matter how popular he might be elsewhere.
What the Conservative party needs is a new leader, but they are stuck with Harper because if they try to get a new leader the Government will fall and the Liberals will get a majority.
Again, it doesn't matter what leader the Conservative party has, as long as each MP serves his bloody constituents.
Now it is possible to teach old dog new tricks so there is hope for Stephen he just has to re-invent himself, he has to get in touch with his Canadian roots.
HIs roots, if he cares for his political survival, are in his riding, not Canada.
A good political leader has to remember that he or she is working for the Canadian voters and no one else.
Yeah, and the only ones who get to vote for him are in his riding.
A good example of a good leader was a Toronto’s Mayor Mel Lastman who was mayor in the city of North York from 1972 to 1997 and when North York and five other cities were amalgamated to a mega city he got elected to that job from 1997 to 2000 where he had to resign due to health concerns so he left at the age of sixty-seven.
His claim to fame was he got rid of the voice mail system at city hall so you get someone live to talk to.
Mel also put the extra scoop on the snowplows and no snow banks were left in front of the driveways when the plow came
He had a weekly live Cable TV show where he would take questions from the voters so he could look you in the eye when he answered a question on your TV screen.
Maybe Harper should produce a monthly Ask The Prime Minister TV show now that would be dreaming.
In other words, he served the people who actually voted for him, and not some party.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is a perfect example of a political leader.
If an election were held today Michael Ignatieff would win a probable majority just because he knows the media and media gets politicians elected if used right.
I don;t know; I'm not in his riding.
Even with the limited funds the Liberal war chest has, the Liberals would win.
What are you talking about? Is this Nazi Hermany? Deutschland ist Hitler, Hitler ist Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles. The leader is not the party, and the party is not the leader. Even if the leader is a genious, his servants might still be idiots. Canadian politics has stooped so low that people will vote for an ignoramus as long as his leader looks good on TV.
The problem with Stephen Harper is that he had a chance to win the last election but never got the majority, which he should have won because he was running against Dion.
He did get a majorty, over 70% in fact. And no he wasnt' running against Dion. Dion got a majority too, by the way, at over 60%. But neither of them was in my riding. In fact, I didn't even vote beyond casting a blank ballot. All of the candidates in my riding were party slaves. I'd gone into one candidate's office to ask him a question. What does he do? He pulls out the Party Book to read the answer out to me. ****e, I could have done that online fer Pete's sake.What did he want me to vote for, a talking head in parliament who'd give his leader's riding an extra representative in Parliament? What about my riding? Then I'd asked another candidate a question at his campaign office. He wasn't there so a kind lady took the question on paper. The next day I get a phone call from not the candidate, but some other guy, some supposed scholar in the field, on his behalf who tells me what he thinks. Holy ****e, Batman! He's not even on the effin' ballot! What do I care what he thinks?
Parties have dragged the quality of our candidates into the gutter.
Harper has persona of a leader but he keeps on making big blunders because he keeps on listening to his American consultants who refuse to accept the fact that American voters and Canadian voters are in fact different.
Hey, it got him his riding, didn't it? Harper's smart. he doesn't worry about other ridings. He makes sure he wins his own effin riding. Dion was equally smart. Now what we need is equally savvy candidates in our friggin ridings too who'll stand up on their own character and not bend over for the leader's jollies.
Attack ads work on American voters because they take everything at face value but not on Canadian voters because they usually will ask questions and do research on their choices.
Don't be so smug. Look at the ads last election. All the parties were telling us more about how bad the other party was rather than when they were offering. And in my riding at least, it didn't really matter what the candidates were saying, 'cause they were just talkin heads towin the party line anyway.
As for the intelligence of the average Canadian voter, I've met peopel who vote for a party based on the party their parents voted for, as a matter of family tradition. Ungrigginbelieveable! If that's how democracy works, then I'd rather have a technocracy. Since there's not much democracy left anyway now that government's been hijacked by parties, so what's the difference? At least in a technocracy, the guys at the top have some intelligence even if they're not elected. But again, with the farce that elections have now become, what's the difference?
The Conservative base in the prairies view Harper as a messiah of sorts that will bring religious values in the forefront to come up with legislation to protect the traditional family way of life.
And that's why Harper was smart. He took care of the base that can actually vote for him. Dion likewise. That's the kind of candidate I want.
The views and beliefs on Stephen Harper are changing because right in the belly of the Conservative powerhouse in Edmonton Strathcona riding an NDP was elected because those Albertans in that riding see what the Conservatives are not doing and how they are breaking their promises.
And that's where Harpter wasn't thinkin'. If you want to live another day, you need to serve your constituents; not the party, not Parliament, but your constituents. In fact, a smart MP would rather lose his bid for party leadership and even loose his position as a Minister in the government if it means pissin off his constituents. Because no matter how popular he might be outside his riding, if he loses votes in his riding, that'll be the end of him, no matter how popular he might be elsewhere.
What the Conservative party needs is a new leader, but they are stuck with Harper because if they try to get a new leader the Government will fall and the Liberals will get a majority.
Again, it doesn't matter what leader the Conservative party has, as long as each MP serves his bloody constituents.
Now it is possible to teach old dog new tricks so there is hope for Stephen he just has to re-invent himself, he has to get in touch with his Canadian roots.
HIs roots, if he cares for his political survival, are in his riding, not Canada.
A good political leader has to remember that he or she is working for the Canadian voters and no one else.
Yeah, and the only ones who get to vote for him are in his riding.
A good example of a good leader was a Toronto’s Mayor Mel Lastman who was mayor in the city of North York from 1972 to 1997 and when North York and five other cities were amalgamated to a mega city he got elected to that job from 1997 to 2000 where he had to resign due to health concerns so he left at the age of sixty-seven.
His claim to fame was he got rid of the voice mail system at city hall so you get someone live to talk to.
Mel also put the extra scoop on the snowplows and no snow banks were left in front of the driveways when the plow came
He had a weekly live Cable TV show where he would take questions from the voters so he could look you in the eye when he answered a question on your TV screen.
Maybe Harper should produce a monthly Ask The Prime Minister TV show now that would be dreaming.
In other words, he served the people who actually voted for him, and not some party.
For all intents and purposes for the AVERAGE JOE, who doesn't live and breathe politics he can not vote for the leader unless he lives in the leader's riding. Most intelligent people have better things to do than getting themselves beholden to some political quack unless he's either looking to get his/her snout in the trough or he/she is mentally challenged.
Please, if you must make a rebuttal, make sure your rebuttal is correct, and not simply whether it 'makes sense' to you or not.
As a poster already stated, you vote for the leader of the party at a leadership convention. Yes, it's not a 'general election'. You MUST be a party member. That is, you must be an NDP party member to vote at the NDP convention. I thought I made that clear in the first post.
Now you know. Hopefully for real this time.
Last edited:
---
Wow... you are still referring to a general election. A leadership convention is something completely different, you don't have to be in the same riding as the candidate.
Also, I don't think your condescending tone is really necessary. Unless you can admit that you either have nothing better to do, or you're not one of the intelligent people?
Just want to emphasize that you can make a point without being patronizing. Please, keep this thread clean.
I certainly don't consider myself breathing/living politics. I do some amateur writing, and community organizing. I do get in touch with some local politicians. My career is in the realm of politics. Nevertheless, I think most people in the forum, including myself have limited 'political credentials'.
The forum is for people to exchange ideas and learn. There really is no need to stamp on someone's head if they're wrong using analogies such as 'mentally challenged' or 'having your snout in trough'.
That depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, since I vote for independent candidates and not for their party, it makes no difference to me how a leader is chosen within a party. I would defend the right of a political party to decide for itself who can join it. But I would also support cutting all government funding to parties and removing any legal recognition they might have beyond being a registered charity like any other, with no party name mentioned on ballots (party affiliation being like religious affiliation, a personal matter), no legal recognition granted to party caucuses, and all Ministers being elected by the Members of Parliament in an open ballot.
That would be fine as long as a bunch of Independents don't join together and form new parties. But can you Imagine the mess in Parliament if we had 308 Independent members of Parliament with no Leaders in the House. Yup a lot would get done ?
I do see a problem if they are given special legal recognition beyond simple registered charity status and if they receive funding from the public, both of which are in fact the case at present. If they have a special legal status and receive government funding, then that makes them public institutions subject to the sanction of the people through a parliament dominated by party politics. Oops, now that's a big circular problem.
Ok so lets not give any Candidate money to run for Parliament and even after being elected, lets give them absolutely no funding either as all Independents deserve no status hence no Party Funding ?
Sounds great in principle but let me ask you if you would run under these conditions and why should any one else? Do you work for free?
Well, now I'd say that a decision must be made. Either we meet the standards I'd explained above (i.e. strip all special legal recognition and financing, or go your way and limit party membership to citizens only), or yours. I prefer mine, of course, but failing that, then I do believe that yours are necessary otherwise. Either way could be argued to be fair, but certainly they can't have it both ways.
Easier said then done.. None of the present parties will never take away that cash cow.. Party membership mean money and those able to vote mean Party Funding.. If you think The Conservatives, Liberals or NDP are about to cut off the major part of their money making machine your nuts..
That would be fine as long as a bunch of Independents don't join together and form new parties. But can you Imagine the mess in Parliament if we had 308 Independent members of Parliament with no Leaders in the House. Yup a lot would get done ?
I do see a problem if they are given special legal recognition beyond simple registered charity status and if they receive funding from the public, both of which are in fact the case at present. If they have a special legal status and receive government funding, then that makes them public institutions subject to the sanction of the people through a parliament dominated by party politics. Oops, now that's a big circular problem.
Ok so lets not give any Candidate money to run for Parliament and even after being elected, lets give them absolutely no funding either as all Independents deserve no status hence no Party Funding ?
Sounds great in principle but let me ask you if you would run under these conditions and why should any one else? Do you work for free?
Well, now I'd say that a decision must be made. Either we meet the standards I'd explained above (i.e. strip all special legal recognition and financing, or go your way and limit party membership to citizens only), or yours. I prefer mine, of course, but failing that, then I do believe that yours are necessary otherwise. Either way could be argued to be fair, but certainly they can't have it both ways.
Easier said then done.. None of the present parties will never take away that cash cow.. Party membership mean money and those able to vote mean Party Funding.. If you think The Conservatives, Liberals or NDP are about to cut off the major part of their money making machine your nuts..
That would be fine as long as a bunch of Independents don't join together and form new parties. But can you Imagine the mess in Parliament if we had 308 Independent members of Parliament with no Leaders in the House. Yup a lot would get done ?
They could be members of parties all they want, and vote accordingly on their own, but that wouldn't change the fact that their party would not be mentioned on ballots and their parties would receive no public funding. This would put independent candidates on at least a slightly more equal footing with their partisan counterparts in elections, which would already be a step in the right direction.
Ok so lets not give any Candidate money to run for Parliament and even after being elected, lets give them absolutely no funding either as all Independents deserve no status hence no Party Funding ?
Sounds great in principle but let me ask you if you would run under these conditions and why should any one else? Do you work for free?
Were you not aware that MP's receive a salary? I'm talking about party funding, not MP's salaries. What's there to confuse about that?
Easier said then done.. None of the present parties will never take away that cash cow.. Party membership mean money and those able to vote mean Party Funding.. If you think The Conservatives, Liberals or NDP are about to cut off the major part of their money making machine your nuts..
I'm aware of that, and the only people to blame for this is us, the ignorant masses. Out of fear of having a worse evil win an election, they vote strategically, which only strengthens the status quo. What more do we want?
They could be members of parties all they want, and vote accordingly on their own, but that wouldn't change the fact that their party would not be mentioned on ballots and their parties would receive no public funding. This would put independent candidates on at least a slightly more equal footing with their partisan counterparts in elections, which would already be a step in the right direction.
Ok so lets not give any Candidate money to run for Parliament and even after being elected, lets give them absolutely no funding either as all Independents deserve no status hence no Party Funding ?
Sounds great in principle but let me ask you if you would run under these conditions and why should any one else? Do you work for free?
Were you not aware that MP's receive a salary? I'm talking about party funding, not MP's salaries. What's there to confuse about that?
Easier said then done.. None of the present parties will never take away that cash cow.. Party membership mean money and those able to vote mean Party Funding.. If you think The Conservatives, Liberals or NDP are about to cut off the major part of their money making machine your nuts..
I'm aware of that, and the only people to blame for this is us, the ignorant masses. Out of fear of having a worse evil win an election, they vote strategically, which only strengthens the status quo. What more do we want?
The electorate votes for an MP. The members of a leaddership convention vote for a leader. Since the post is vague (intentional) and rife with inconsistancies, people make the assumption that you are talking to the 99% of the population that is not part of a "party"
Try to be specific and not nebulous when you post and thread. You can allows go back and correct your inconsitancies with the edit function
Good grief...
Inconsistencies? The article is about the Ontario NDP Leadership Debate! Perhaps, I am guilty in assuming that most people know that the candidates were campaigning for the support for NDP members.
On the other hand, I don't think I'm guilty of that because aside from Tyr, it seems like everyone knows what's going on or at least prudent and humble enough to learn.
Side note, I'm really enjoying the intellectual discussion by Machjo and SirFrancis.
Why would I INTENTIONALLY mislead audience into thinking otherwise with inconsistencies?? It just seems like you're covering your ignorance by accusing me for being 'inconsistent'. This was not even a matter of political opinion; but of political structure! I don't understand why there can be such a long argument about this...
Like I already said, people make mistake It's okay for you to make mistakes, I make mistakes, but you shouldn't put the blame on others.
Go back to your previous posts. You've insisted few times that 'we don't get to vote for the leader.' Period.
Enough of this silliness. If you want the last word, go for it. Continue to accuse me of whatever...
I don't want this silliness and ignorance to interrupt the actual important topic being discussed.
Much thanks to all other posters for a good discussion.
Last edited:
Unless you are a maschocist why would you go to a dipper convention in the first place?I attended the Ontario NDP leadership debate. It was disappointing to say the least.
Here is my experience:
Ontario NDP Leadership "Debate" - Feb.05, 2009 - Blables
My question is, what do YOU look for in your party leader?
- Tyler
There are two main things I look for in any politician
1 Business experience
2 Honesty
You won't find either of these with the dippers. There is a slim possibility with either of the two main parties although the current crop in both is rather disappointing.