>>12721

The main problem is that both political parties are shit now. Republicans are too busy running around trying to keep their own party together, they don't have time to think clearly, so their agendas keep popping out blatently into the air, and the Democrats have so many ideas, they can't differentiate shitty ones from good ones, so they're throwing all their balls into the wind and saying "Go for it!". And when they come up with some good ideas, they're too busy thinking of more shitty ideas (or the good ones are hard to start on), that they don't want to get around to doing anything...

>>12722
These problems are entirely related to the fact that they are the only two parties. I hope this leads to instability and split-offs on both ends.

>>12723
>These problems are entirely related to the fact that THERE ARE PARTIES, PERIOD.
Fixed.

Not really, but it pleased me.

>>12724

lack of parties leads to instability, so parties are a necessary evil, to be honest. More parties would be better than 2 parties though.

>>12725

>>12726

Didn't you having more than two parties lead to several of your parties ganging up to try and stage a coup, in direct opposition to the desires of their voters?

>>12724
If there were no parties, elected officials would form alliances based on their common ideologies and financially support each other in their elections, effectively forming parties anyway.

>>12726
Stop being dumb.

>>12727
1) What the opposition parties threatened to do was perfectly legal and has been done several times before when a minority government is in power. 2) The majority of those who voted did not vote for the party currently in charge and they do not hold the majority of seats, hence why they form a minority government. The opposition parties, should they choose to vote together, can at any time vote to bring down the government and call another election or declare that they have lost confidence in the governing party and use that to ask the Governor General to allow them to form the government. The reason why you don't have to deal with stuff like this is because you only have two parties. What you give up in exchange is any realistic difference in ideology between the two.

>>12725
>>12727 I belive the Block was in on the attempted take over as well as the NDP as well as the liberals. By the way does anyone knows what happened to to Dion ?

>>12728
>What you give up in exchange is any realistic difference in ideology between the two.

As opposed to Canada which has the socialists, the socialists in name, the environmental socialists, the Bloc, and the 'Conservatives'?

Yeah, no. Try again.

Snark aside, I find what the Liberal party tried to do, while legal, was basically a butthurt coup. They were quite the little bitches about not being in power and kept threatening this no confidence vote, even after the other parties went 'oookay there pal, back off' and said they wouldn't support it. It seemed less like they actually cared what the reason was and more like they just wanted to call another election to grasp at a chance at being in power.

>>12732

The Liberal Party isn't so much socialist as it is a pragmatic fence-sitter.

>>12728

You find a better macro, then.

>>12731

For the last time, it was not a coup nor a takeover. As pointed out, it was a perfectly legal (if butthurt) attempt by the LIEberals to form the government without having to go to the polls again in such a short timespan.

Part of the problem behind political parties is that people are becoming turned off the electoral system, leaving a select few to govern party policy, cutting out a large number of voices, leading more people to turn off politics. It's cyclical, really.

>>12731
Dion resigned after the 2008 election.

>>12732
NDP are socialist. Liberals are centrist, slightly more right than they are left but willing to say anything to get themselves elected. Conservatives are right-wing. Bloc are whatever works best for Quebec. They are four distinct parties with distinct policies. If it was the Liberals in power you'd be seeing a lot more difference between them and the NDP, right now they're siding with them out of convenience.

As of right now, the Liberals have put forward a non-confidence motion once, which was defeated. The NDP voted against it because they wanted to ensure that EI laws get reformed. Once they do, the NDP might then vote in favour of a non-confidence motion. Things change. It is the job of the opposition to gauge whether the government has the support of the majority of those in Parliament and, if they don't, the Governor General needs to be aware of this in case she needs to dissolve Parliament or ask the Opposition leader to form a new government. Canada's laws regarding this are fairly complex and, as I said before, the U.S. hasn't had to deal with anything like this because you've had the two-party system since forever.

>>12733
>>12734
You two are aware that Moebius is also in Canada, right?

>>12735
SONIC'S IN CANADA?!?!!?

>>12737
Wait. No, Moebius is the Anti-Sonic World. Still, Scourge the Hedgehog lives in Canada. Never would have guessed.

>>12735
lol my bad. Points still stand though.

>>12735

Just because we're all in Canada, doesn't mean we all completely understand our country's politics. In fact, some Americans would probably know more about our politics than many Canadians.

I remember Sechs saying something about how uninformed Canadians were about their politics, and I agree. It goes back to that apathetic attitude some Canadians have when it comes to politics, and it's pretty sad.

The right to vote shouldn't be taken for granted, no matter what system or country. Yet some people continue to think otherwise.

>>12752
I have to agree voting shouldn't be taken lightly and when you go to the voting booth you should vote for the guy that is going to do the best job even if you don't like either of them. the right to vote was hard earned and look how some treat it ?
I have to admit I don't know very much about our politics, but I try to understand what its about.

The only way we'll ever get rid of the two-party system is if we get rid of the "there can be only one" ballots in favor of something where voters have so many points to distribute to the candidates based on how much they want them to win. The problem is, neither of the parties in power would ever approve such a change because, of course, it would lead to third parties coming in and threatening their power.

The system is not only broken, it's unfixable.

>>12756
Voting shouldn't be taken lightly, but you shouldn't vote while uninformed about the candidates and their positions, either. I refuse to be a single-issue voter.

>>12732
Heh. I love that in many places the word "liberal" is derogatory, but in my province the most conservative party IS the Liberal Party.

Speaking of Canada, the video in Sage's link just reads:
>In Canada, Comedy Central Videos are available on The Comedy Network

Grr.

>>12757
Even with multiple parties, there will always be one with a vested interest in keeping the FPTP voting system. Again, in my stupid province vote reform was on the ballot, but one of the major parties ran the numbers and realized that they had the most to lose by switching to proportional voting, so they funded a huge FUD campaign that essentially killed any chance of fixing the system.

>>12756
See attached.

>>12759

What people don't realize is that "Conservative" parties as Americans call them are actually liberal parties most everywhere else, because Conservative implies conserving the status quo, and for most places that is a what americans call a liberal view-point.

>>12761
>>12759

All the more proof of why there's a difference between definitions of Conservatism and Liberalism between countries.

>>12759

What province is that?

>>12761
I question the accuracy of this claim.

I couldn't give a shit about liberal and conservative. I claim conservatism because that generally is the group interested in reduced government. Honestly, give me a candidate of most stripes who actually believes in reducing federal power and you may find a loyal voter in this chapeau. Barring, of course, the person wasn't also a murderer, rapist, criminal in general, supremecist of any flavor, rabid nationalist (i.e. Nazi), rabid Christian (yes, shock, I'm actually opposed to this), and probably another 20 things.

Not that I'm picky.

For a little while I believed that the Constitutionalist party was more along the lines of what I wanted, but they focus too much on the church as the governing body, which aside from the obvious reaction that this would generate in non-Christians, the church can't do it's job and also be the political leaders. So I guess I'm by a constitutionalist.

Sigh.

Ramble ramble.

>>12764
Rather, I guess I'm not a constitutionalist.

Half-paying attention to typing for the lose.

American conservatives are about maintaining a status quo. American liberals are about changing the status quo. I don't see how that is difficult to comprehend. But, then, it almost sounds like you are viewing conservatism and liberalism as a linear equation when it should really be more of a plot than a line. When Americans talk of conservatism, we generally speak of being both fiscally conservative, in which case it means we are on the end of spending less through conserving taxes and whittling down unnecessary spending. Which is but one of the definitions of conservatism. The other axis of the plot is therefore social issues, such as how much social control the government has, issues such as abortion, and gay rights. Typically, yes, American conservatives are for preserving the status quo there and leaving it as is or as was.

But, that's not all American conservatives. Some, such as the Libertarian party, are quite liberal, socially, and quite conservative, fiscally/governmentally.

Again, it is partly due to the sheer number of meanings of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' that can cause issue. Liberal can mean free, but it can also mean open, if not forcing, change politically. Conservative can simply mean to retain status quo, to return status quo to previous levels, or even so simple as simply to preserve resources as in environmental conservatism (versus protectionism for instance).

So, for instance, I could call myself both socially liberal (in favor of personal freedoms) and conservative (in favor of the status quo, anti-abortion, etc.) and not be contradictory because I am using but two of the many definitions of those words. If nothing else, nitpicking over the meanings of the words is hardly as important, or pertinent to this discussion, as the substance of the people being described.

The long and the short of it is that English is horrendously bad at having multiple potentially unrelated, or even nigh contradictory meanings to the same word and conservatism and liberalism (and their related terms) are perfect examples of such linguistic problems.

This is why I dislike using the terms liberal and conservative because it always brings up one of these debates, except for in Canada and other places where there are Liberal and Conservative parties. Let's stick with left- and right-wing please.

>>12763
>What province is that?
B.C. While we technically have a provincial Conservative Party, I've never seen them on the ballot. They typically garner less votes than the Marijuana Party.

Which, in retrospect, speaks volumes about my province.

>>12770
Not really considering Social Credit ran the province for four decades and the only reason the Conservatives couldn't take advantage of their collapse was because the leader at the time was a phenomenal idiot. That being said, the BC Liberals are significantly more conservative than the federal and other provincial Liberal Parties and are closer to the federal Conservatives ideology-wise.

>>12773

Well, given the fact that BC has been largely left wing, it's no wonder that a traditionally Centrist party (Liberal BC Party) would try to reel things in.

That, and the fact that BC has stormtroopers for police, beating up elderly motorists for a minor infraction and all.

>>12795
>BC has been largely left wing
>ignoring that Social Credit (right wing!) ran the province for all but three years in a 40-year span and that the BC Liberals (also right wing!) have run things since 2001
>implying that stormtrooper police are left wing
lol

Thing is Elix, while BC certainly has a reputation for being left-wing, it's pretty much all concentrated in Vancouver and even then it's typically Vancouver itself more than the Greater Vancouver suburbs. Rural BC is as right-wing as Alberta, Victoria is filled with old retired people and the Greater Vancouver suburbs are filled with either rich guys or immigrants. Vancouver just stands out more but it by no means is the be-all and end-all of BC's political leanings.

>>12796

But you didn't touch on the stormtroopers. Are you agreeing with me?

>>12800

>>12796
>implying that stormtrooper police are left wing

Are you implying that "stormtrooper police" are limited to only one side of the aisle?

>>12814
No, Elix is. They're the domain of authoritarian governments on both sides.

>>12816
Ah, I see.

Carry on.

>>12816

Dude, when was the last time the RCMP beat up an elderly driver for a minor traffic violation that wasn't in BC? Or tazered an immigrant to death?

>>12833
You just don't get that BC isn't actually left-wing, do you?

>>12838

Okay, so they're Gordon Campbell's secret police. COME ON, work with me here!

Relivant to the original story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/vitter-confronted-by-rape_n_342051.html

>>13049
>>WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
>>VITTER: Ma'am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

The thing is, Vitter's right. It never has been about criminal prosecution, it's about the lawsuit. The only thing the provisos that are in question do is keep you from suing the company, NOT from reporting it to authorities or pursuing a criminal case against the perpetrators. In essence, it's not about the rape at all, but about the money.

The woman's being a fucking liar. She's attacking him and is making it out like he tried to legalize rape, when that's not what it's about at all.

While what happened to her is terrible, it doesn't change the fact that she's apparently decided to whore herself and her experience out for Democrat street cred. I'm sure she's looking forward to selling the rights for the Lifetime Original Movie where they have her played by some washed-up actress and have her take on the evil Republican senator who wants to make rape the official currency of the United States. While I'd wonder if we've found our next Cindy Sheehan, I imagine she's more likely to be thrown in the garbage pile for having exhausted her usefulness not long after the election has passed one way or the other for Vitter.

Anyway, nice to see that as usual, HuffPo bloggers and commenters, if they really work together and concentrate, have the collective IQ of a retarded olive pit. Love how they had already started the "FOX NEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWS!" rage in the comments before a dozen had gone by.

Ah, wait, my bad. It wasn't actually the woman who was raped... but some random woman who says she's a rape victim. Even less credibility!

>>13050, the whole thing stems from something that shouldn't be an issue because, as we've said before, there's a difference between sexual harassment and rape. While I despise the concept of company tribunals being in charge of deciding what constitutes harassment or not, the fact of the matter is that rape is a criminal act, and should be reported to the police, not the company.

As for this whole little issue, I can definantly see that yes, the woman's making Vitter out to be a pro-rapist, and the law in question doesn't say "Rapists in big companies can't be charged with rape," but I do agree Vitter could have tried to handle the whole thing a little better, rather than just go "Do you think Obama is in favor of rape?" when she never really brought anything about him up.

>>13052

Yeah, but everyone's already acting as if him doing a poor job of defending himself means all the accusations are true.

Of course, he's got an R beside his name, so he's automatically guilty in most eyes. I didn't read every comment, but I saw a number of them that bordered on openly calling him a rapist himself, so I'm sure there are a couple doing just that mixed in there.

Also saw a couple insinuating that he's gay... which is okay to use as an insult if you're insulting a Republican, of course.

I've still got to go with the general sentiment in >>12719 - this was a trap by Franken, pure and simple, and now that the trap's been sprung, everyone involved with setting it, falling into it, and attacking those who fell into it should rightfully be ashamed of themselves.

I'm honestly surprised nobody's actually called out Franken on his bullshit.

>>13054

Who's going to?

Conservative bloggers? "Nut roots."

Fox News? "FOX NEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWS!"

Talk radio? "Rush Limbaugh's hit squad!"

More left-leaning media? HA.

No, Franken's a solid Democrat soldier, with plenty of contacts in the media. He'll get away with it clean.

>>13055

Found it interesting that the senator makes the comment that Obama's administration allegedly was against this - and the lady BLATANTLY IGNORES IT.

>>13056

"I don't care about Obama, I'm asking you!" is what she said.

Which translates to "I don't care about calling out Obama, I just want to attack you."

>>13061, I think it translates more into "I never brought Obama up, so why did you?"

I really do think we need to stop bringing Obama into everything, because generally most problems only relate to him or his administration when someone says "Well if Obama blah blah blah blah..." or "That's because Obama will yadda yadda yadda" as a way to distract people.

>>13061, also, sorry for double-post, but the Obama administration was for the whole amendment, which I still agree is an Al Franken trap, so Vitter really was just saying that to try and get to her, again supporting the whole "What does Obama have to do with this?" statement