Stop the NeoCons! Vote strategically against Harper

[TenPenny]

That explains the reference to the 'poke her' game.

I'll go first, thanks.

 

[Antiochus]

In which case, don't blame Bush, it's Clinton you should be looking at.

Not true. The economist Claude Picher made a convincing case on this and Clinton managed to keep the economy in a good place because of the boom in high tech industries. Sadly, president Bush allowed the entire balance of the american economy to be in housing, which could only last so long.

 

[earth_as_one]

On what are you basing this?? Are you dreaming it??

Its no secret that the neoconservative agenda is smaller government and less government regulation or "interference". (Except when it comes to multi-billion dollar bailouts)

Didn't you read my reference? Maybe you should:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/f...ns-vote-strategically-against.html#post992213

Maybe you should read "It's the Deregulation Stupid"
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/03/deregulation-economic-crisis.html

Canada's banking system is stronger than the American banking system, because American neocons deregulated their banks.
Re:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

As a result of our tighter government regulations (or interference as neocons label it), Canadian banks can't assume the same level of risk as American banks.

Deregulation is a core Harper neocon philosophy:

...when it comes to Canada's future, Harper has often spoken of the need to redesign the political equivalent of the entire electrical grid. From his days as a graduate student of economics at the University of Calgary, the Toronto-born Harper has been a staunch believer in smaller government...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/leadersparties/leaders-harper.html

An example of that neocon "smaller government" philosophy was the Harper government decision to transfer responsibility for meat testing from government to the meat industry. As a result we had a listeriosis outbreak. At least that's the opinion of the Canadian Medical Association Journal:

...Last November the Canadian government instituted a

strategic review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA). Among its outcomes was to transfer inspection duties
for ready-to-eat meats from the government inspectors to the
meat industry. Cabinet decided to “shift from full-time CFIA
meat inspection presence to an oversight role, [thereby] allowing
industry to implement food safety control programs
and to manage key risks.”​

​

1
​

In practice, the new policy meant that CFIA inspectors would rarely enter meat plants to test for bacteria and testing
was left mostly to companies. Self-inspection came largely to
substitute for, and not just to supplement, government inspection.
Self-inspection mechanisms have worked effectively in
other countries, but in Canada something went very wrong.
One troubling sign is that even now, months after the policy
change, the CFIA’s required sampling procedure remains under​

development...

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081477v2.pdf

Neoconservativism isn't new to Canada. Former Ontario Premier Harris was also a neocon like Harper. He also believed in small government and deregulation. Ask Walkerton residents how they feel about smaller government:

INDEPTH: INSIDE WALKERTON
Canada's worst-ever E. coli contamination

CBC News Online | Updated Dec. 20, 2004


...It found that illnesses could have been prevented if Koebel had monitored chlorine levels in the drinking water. It also pointed to deregulation of water testing and cuts to the Environment Ministry by the Ontario government as contributing factors....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/walkerton/

People have short memories, but there is no excuse for Canadians electing neocon Harper while neocon Bush still occupies the Whitehouse.

Not only do these neocons have the same philosophies, they speak the same words:

Mark Brennae, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, October 03, 2008
The Liberal party for the second time in a week are accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of plagiarizing, at least in part, a speech delivered by another politician. On Friday, the Liberals released a video that appears to show Harper parroting parts of a 2003 address given two months earlier by Mike Harris, who at the time was premier of Ontario....

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/f....html?id=cd163148-73a2-4dcd-9440-c3ed0b5363fd

This follows the previous revelation that Harper's 2003 speech in support of the Iraq war was nearly word for word the same as a speech given two days earlier by Australian neocon PM John Howard.

TORONTO - A transcript provided by the Liberal party highlighting similarities between speeches delivered by former Australian prime minister John Howard on March 18, 2003, and one by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper two days later as Opposition leader in the House of Commons:

Howard: In 1991, the world judged that the Iraqi regime was a dangerous aggressor. In the interests of world peace and regional security, the community of nations required Iraq to surrender its offensive arsenal, its chemical and biological weapons, and abandon its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agreed to comply.

Harper: In 1991, after the invasion of Kuwait, the world judged the Iraqi regime to be a dangerous aggressor. In the interests of world peace and regional security, the community of nations expelled Iraq from Kuwait; required Iraq to surrender its offensive arsenal, its chemical and biological weapons; and to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agreed to comply with these demands as an enormous and victorious force of allied troops and personnel, not just American and British, but Canadians as well stood ready to invade.

http://www.canadaeast.com/election/article/432657

The difference was Harper was only an opposition leader and Howard had a majoirty like the one Harper is about to get. As a result Australia went into Iraq and Canada didn't.

 

[Vicious]

If you are against the Bush/Harper neo-Con agenda consider voting strategically (ABC - Anyone But Conservative) in this election. Go to this website and find out which party has the best chance of defeating the conservative candidate in your riding:

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

It doesn't make sense for the neo-con opposition (a majority of Canadians) to split the vote against Harper. Ideally I'd like to see the Liberals, NDP and Green Party divide up the country and not run candidates against each.

A Harper majority can only be stopped if enough Canadians vote strategically. If that means voting for another party other than your choice, consider that the alternative is aiding a Conservative majority. If you are conflicted, consider donating money to your party of choice and then voting for whoever has the best chance of beating your local conservative.

There is one downside to strategic voting. You are denying the $1.00 (or so) per vote that each political party receives. By voting strategically you are cutting the funding to the party you really support.

 

[einmensch]

The Green Party Stated loud and clear that the reason Canada closed hospitals beds and lost doctors was a due to a demand by the IMF. Do you get it? Wolfowitz and the chosen clan bankers tell our polliticians what our social programs will be.

 

[darkbeaver]

Harper is not Canadian he's neo-con therefore he's not even human. Canada has to scrape this crap off the national boot.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Harper is not Canadian he's neo-con therefore he's not even human. Canada has to scrape this crap off the national boot.

I gave him a new nick name Harpo the copy cat, or Harpo the plagiarizer or HarpoBush mush......
For originality, I give Harper .000 he is a Bush counter fit.....

 

[TenPenny]

The Green Party Stated loud and clear that the reason Canada closed hospitals beds and lost doctors was a due to a demand by the IMF. Do you get it? Wolfowitz and the chosen clan bankers tell our polliticians what our social programs will be.

That is close to the most idiotic thing on this thread, and that's saying something, I can tell you.

Do you have a source for this quote by the Green Party? I wasn't aware they were quite that stupid.

 

[Colpy]

That is close to the most idiotic thing on this thread, and that's saying something, I can tell you.

Do you have a source for this quote by the Green Party? I wasn't aware they were quite that stupid.

She did say it....I heard her.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I thought this stinkpot of a thread and the idea behind it had faded into the sunset when common sense
reared its head, but it seems not.

So yeah, vote "strategically" for a party you don't want in instead of the party you do want in so that a third
party might not get in. Careful what you wish for 'cuz you just might get it. Instead of letting democracy take
its course and the single party that the most people honestly vote for attaining office, some third party gets the
Brass Ring when, if you where true to yourself, wouldn't have had a chance. That makes all kinds of sense.

So if you really think the Liberals should be the federal leaders, and you have a fear of Western Canada
voting for the party they think will be most aligned with their beliefs, and you thing the Liberals are going
into the toilet so "strategically" vote for the NDP and they actually win....do you forfeit your right to
righteously complain about them or any other party?

 

[darkbeaver]

The Green Party Stated loud and clear that the reason Canada closed hospitals beds and lost doctors was a due to a demand by the IMF. Do you get it? Wolfowitz and the chosen clan bankers tell our polliticians what our social programs will be.

That's the catch in our little facade of democracy, we will be working for bankers now matter what. Our choice is which flavour.Will that be chocolate debt or vanilla?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yea but if you don't blame deregulation you'd have nothing and nobody to blame. Except maybe spontaneous economic ruin caused by rampant homosexuality and the erosion of family values coupled with godless hedonistic lifestyles advocated by latte drinking poofter liberal progressives and the lazy filthy socialist bums trying to get thier hands in our wallets. I think maybe deregulation is a more likely choice. Nancy Raygun is to blame she was Ronnies brain in the last days of great communiction.

Ya know Beave, sometimes I think pretty much everything you post is a put on.

But on the thread topic: I don't believe strategic voting works. It's simply not possible to convince enough people to do it, and apart from that it's fundamentally dishonest. The real problem is with the electoral system itself. It's possible to form a majority government in our system with the support of only about 40% of the voters, which means 60% of voters, a pretty significant majority, don't buy the vision enunciated by the governing party, but the system sticks them with it. And with the center-left vote as fragmented among multiple parties as it currently is, the probability of getting a government most voters don't approve of is pretty much certain. It *always* is, but this time it's worse than usual.

 

[earth_as_one]

There is one downside to strategic voting. You are denying the $1.00 (or so) per vote that each political party receives. By voting strategically you are cutting the funding to the party you really support.

I agree, that's why I donated $100 each to the NDP, Liberals and the Greens. I asked that my donation be directed to a riding where their candidate is in a close race with a conservative.

I already voted Liberal in the advanced polls, because in my riding its a close race between the conservatives and the liberals.

Layton impresses me. He's the best political leader the NDP has ever had. I think I might donate another $100 to the NDP.

 

[Risus]

I agree, that's why I donated $100 each to the NDP, Liberals and the Greens. I asked that my donation be directed to a riding where their candidate is in a close race with a conservative.

I already voted Liberal in the advanced polls, because in my riding its a close race between the conservatives and the liberals.

Layton impresses me. He's the best political leader the NDP has ever had. I think I might donate another $100 to the NDP.

More money than brains, eh?

 

[Socrates the Greek]

I agree, that's why I donated $100 each to the NDP, Liberals and the Greens. I asked that my donation be directed to a riding where their candidate is in a close race with a conservative.

I already voted Liberal in the advanced polls, because in my riding its a close race between the conservatives and the liberals.

Layton impresses me. He's the best political leader the NDP has ever had. I think I might donate another $100 to the NDP.

 

[earth_as_one]

More money than brains, eh?

Coming from an idiot who probably voted for Harris, I'll take that remark as a compliment.

The fact is I'm willing to accept any of the other three parties. My main fear is Bush-clone, neocon Harper. That idiot will water down our social programs and involve us in neocon led wars like Iraq. I'm not in favor of taking for the poor and giving to the rich or handing out our tax dollars to corporations.

This is probably the most important Canadian election in recent history, because of the danger Harper represents.

I give money because it buys advertising. In general people will vote for whichever party has the most air time. We all believe we aren't affected by advertising, but that's why some people prefer coke over pepsi or the other way around and believe the difference is important when both taste like crap. Why do people buy Tide? Why did Americans re-elect a war criminal who fabricated lies to start a war?... Advertising.

The neocons don't have to fool everyone, just 50%+1.

In my riding:

Paul Szabo 23,018 Liberal
Phil Green 20,888 Conservative
Mark de Pelham 5,607 NDP
Brendan Tarry 2,393 Green

So why would I vote NDP or Green? My main objection is to prevent Canada from being run by Bush-clone neocon Harper. So I held my nose and voted Liberal. I would prefer to vote NDP or Green, but how does that stop a Harper majority?

 

[Stretch]

vote Independent.

 

[Machjo]

Yes, everyone. Please vote strategically. God forbid you should actually vote FOR something. Much better to vote AGAINST someone instead. Yes, maby then we could call the next government the anti government?

No wonder voter turnout is hitting an altime low.

Imagine f the liberals should win. Instead of saying, 'thanks for voting for us', they'll have to say 'thanks for voting against harper. We'll make sure that whatever we do, it won't be Harper's way, whatever we do.

Wonderful system we have here. And then we're busy preaching democracy to other countries?

 

[s_lone]

Yes, everyone. Please vote strategically. God forbid you should actually vote FOR something. Much better to vote AGAINST someone instead. Yes, maby then we could call the next government the anti government?

Sadly, it's much easier to vote AGAINST something because of the archaic voting system we have... If you support the NDP in a riding where either the Bloc or the Conservatives will win, your vote literally goes to waste.

We desperately need some form of proportional representation.

 

[earth_as_one]

Yes the problem is the "first past the poll" electoral system. Someone with 34% of the vote beats the other two with 33% each. When Fort William and Port Arthur alagamated the new city's name was decided by referendum. The choices were:

1) "Lakehead"
2) "The Lakehead"
3) "Thunder Bay"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay,_Ontario#Thunder_Bay.27s_name

Guess which name won the most votes. Guess which name the people who set up the referendum wanted. Is that democracy or manipulation?

A better system would require the winner to get at least 50%+1 of the vote. If the first vote doesn't result in a clear winner, the top two go to the next round. I'm voting like the NDP and Green were eliminated by the first round of voting and now the choice is between the Liberals and the Conservatives.