This just in: Canada screws itself up royally

[bullados]

I don't think that anybody said it better than K from MIB: "A person is smart. People? They're stupid, wild, crazy beings that could not comprehend what we're trying to do here." I might be misquoting a little bit there, but that's what I remember.

 

[PokePop]

And here's an example of pandering to the "people are stupid" philosophy:
Remember how many times the Terror Alert level got rasied in the year leading up to the Presidential election? 3? 4? 5 times? Something like that.

And how many times has it been raised since then?
Can you say "Zero"?

Oh, and we just had a confirmed release of a threat from Bin Laden. Doesn't an (attempted) attack always follow in the month following a statement released from him?
And did THAT cause the Terror Alert to get raised?
....

Nope.
Things that make you go...hmmmm.

 

[Weedler]

People, being generally lazy, are uninterested in reading up on the facts, and as such go with whatever their leaders tell them. Hence why Bush got in again—he made enough people believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, as it were (I'll translate so people don't jump to conclusions: he convinced enough people of enough falsehoods to make himself seem like a good choice if you ignored the truth).

But how much easier should have it been for the liberals to label all conservatives as war-mongering blood-for-oil environment wreckers, using the 'people are stupid and bush tirkced people into winning the election' line of thought. Instead of bickering about conservative control in congress/parilament, maybe liberal politicians should understand where the populace lies on major issues, instead of becoming infatuated with their own altruism and how conservatives are 'big cheaters'.

Presidential Election 2000-Bush cheated to win by using his 'Illuminati' powers to alter which ballots were counted and hinder certain groups from voting

Presidential Election 2004-Bush cheated to win by......well, not 'cheating' per se, but by tricking stupid people to vote for him and win more even electoral votes than in the 2000 election.

Presiedential Election 2008-Dick Cheney commands his army of Nosepass to hijack every black voter in the nation and prevent them from voting.

 

[Marril]

Presidential Election 2004-Bush cheated to win by......well, not 'cheating' per se, but by tricking stupid people to vote for him and win more even electoral votes than in the 2000 election.

Time for some Roedy Green. I didn't bring this up because I realize from my previous arguments that this is if anything a slightly right-leaning forum in terms of membership, and bringing in this would just cause more flames, but...

Exit polls are normally bang on. They showed Kerry with a landslide, but the voting machines showed Bush won. Exit Polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state. According to ABC-TVs exit polls, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points. ABC has been biased toward Bush all through the election. Why would they suddenly betray him at the last minute?

Professor Stephen F. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania computes that the odds of the exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are 250,000,000 to one. That's 250 million to one. In other words, Bush cheated.

Unlike democratic countries, where citizens count the ballots under scrutiny of members of all political parties, in the United States employees of a highly-secretive Republican-leaning company, ES&S, managed every aspect of the 2004 election.

Basically, conservatism runs off the voters being apathetic and/or stupid in order to garner votes. The more ignorant the voter base, the more votes garnered by conservatives—how many southern hicks do you think support Bush out of an inflated, right-to-bear-arms sense of "patriotism" that involves the militaristic crushing of any perceived threat?

Ah I'm too lazy to cherrypick the best of everything, just go here for some information on the US election. Read it all before responding, I won't have people skimming over it, seeing one thing that jumps out, and launching into an argument without having read it all, like what happened in the Iraq thread when I posted the bin Laden transcript.

 

[ryanvergel]

now on to canada's political system, as it is currently.
GST and Nafta was done under clinton, which i would like to point out, WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!
how is it a bad thing when your system works?(the guy won, quit griping and move on, god, no one likes a crybaby! its really the reason why gore couldn't win in america now, is beause he fussed about it)

"people are idiots", yet govenments base their whole economy off of its people who are idiots, so there fore you claim to be an idiot if you beleive people are idiots, as indeed, you yourself are a person(plural being people) so then if you truly think that, you are simply a tool being used by the governments for their own self interest and doing nothing about it.

you later go on and say people need tests in order to vote, trust me, conservitives want that just as much as you(especially since we feel most liberals would fail because their emotions(yes i say emotions and not logic, because i debate enough libs on this mattter to know they "feel" rather than use the brain on their shoulders that God/Evolution gave them)) so, it works both ways on this "test"



really? you mean the common man no longer rules*rolls eyes* im so glad you pointed that out, i mean how could i have missed that the campaigns of the past decade have been the msot expensive in history and no common man could afford to run agaisnt either the DNC or GOP? very few presidents have ver had the full backing of the people and the electorial votes. however, the president still wins by popular vote!(before you all say WTF!!!!! OMG!!!!! eleventyone111!!1!1111!11 FORDFORCUS!!!!!) think of it like this

who wins the presidency in America? the one with the most electorial Votes, the people vote, each state is worth so much in electorial votes. the state goes one way or another(if i remeber correctly, 1 sate splits its electrial votes, weakening itself imo)so it still done by the popular vote of the states.

and didnt bush win by the popular vote this last time by 6,000,000+ votes? correct me if i am wrong, but wasnt that the last tallied number or so for Bush's victory above and beyond the electorial votes required to win.


on an ending note, may God Bless Canada and let her gain glory in whatever it does (go Jesus land north!)

Do you even know WHY we have the electoral college? It's because the elites rule, and because the common people were viewed(and still are) as incapable of directly voting for a president.

 

[ninetales1234]

Do you even know WHY we have the electoral college? It's because the elites rule, and because the common people were viewed(and still are) as incapable of directly voting for a president.

Don't want this to evolve into a "Republic v. Democracy" debate, but the electoral college is an anti-democracy feature of the US government to protect us from stupid voters (or a tyrant majority, I prefer to call it).

how many times the Terror Alert level got rasied in the year leading up to the Presidential election? 3? 4? 5 times? Something like that.

And don't expect the Terror Alert level ever to fall to green. Fear, like war, is the health of the state. It makes it easier for the government to grow and grow and grow. Also, it's alot easier to take advantage of fear when the people are uninformed and too-often make their votes based on emotion (if you don't believe me, just think about the political ads lately. Many of them trying to rouse emotion, instead of saying what the candidate will do and a logical reason why). It's just more proof of how unintelligent the voting population is.

and didnt bush win by the popular vote this last time by 6,000,000+ votes

Winning by popluar vote doesn't make it right. If the person you oppose in an election wins by majority vote, don't be surprised when someone uses the "But the majority supported it- so get over it" on you.
An important thing to consider is: how many people are actually voting?
Here's the results of the 1996 US presidential election (along with non-voters)
Bill Clinton: 24.11%
Robert Dole: 19.94%
Ross Perot: 4.11%
Ralph Nader: 0.34%
Harry Browne: 0.25%
Howard Phillips: 0.09%
John Hagelin: 0.06%
Others: 0.06%
Non-voters: 51%
Why does it matter if the “majority” supports a candidate? Look at how many people don’t even vote! In 2000, only 50% of eligible voters voted. In 2004, it was a little better with only 45% as non-voters. This info is from Wikipedia.

 

[Metagross_Ex]

I always enjoy reading these debates. It's insightful into how people think and how there are other educated people out there.

 

[RaNd0m]

Surveying 5000 Americans must be more accurate than surveying all of them. Obviously. That makes sense in all mathematical senses.

Marril, you realize how ridiculous that sounded, right? It's like saying since I surveyed 10 of my friends and 6 of them are homosexual, that means 60% of the population is homosexual.

"Bush cheated."

Gimme a break.

~ RaNd0m

 

[PokePop]

I notice you don't actually address the point's Marril made about the company running the machines.

 

[Marril]

Yes, I think I'll quote myself here for emphasis:

Read it all before responding, I won't have people skimming over it, seeing one thing that jumps out, and launching into an argument without having read it all, like what happened in the Iraq thread when I posted the bin Laden transcript.

 

[SlimeyGrimey]

I feel that the Liberals needed to lose this election, regardless of what party you feel should be leading the country. Its not because the conservatives are anything great. The liberals needed a wake-up call. They've had power for too long and become too corrupt. Losing this election should help straighten things out for them.

I also wouldn't be too worried about Steven Harper. It's pretty likely there's going to be another election in a year or so. If he turns out to be the horrible leader you think he is, he'll be gone. The liberals will be back, but they will be running the country better than they have the past few years (in which I think they did a rather poor job).

 

[Marril]

If he turns out to be the horrible leader you think he is, he'll be gone.

Because that's worked so well for Bush. Really, I'm just pessimistic about the whole situation, but here's hoping Harper tries something stupid, the other parties shoot him down, and it triggers another federal election.

 

[Sceptilious]

Because that's worked so well for Bush. Really, I'm just pessimistic about the whole situation, but here's hoping Harper tries something stupid, the other parties shoot him down, and it triggers another federal election.

Pessimistic is one thing, but really...................come on

Wouldn't it be better to HOPE that Harper turns out to be one of the best leaders in Canada's history (as unlikely as I'm sure you think this will be, don't you think that would be best for Canada right now ?? Only time will tell which way this will turn out :wink, and be comforted knowing that if he DOES try to do something really stupid, he won't be able to and it will be a short lived leadership and another election ??

Or are you so devoted to a party that you really don't care what they do so long as they are in power ??


okeball:

 

[Marril]

I'm not devoted to the Liberal party or anything, and as I've already said, normally I'd vote NDP (which I know won't have even a minority government like ever), but Harper... really is a Bush-like leader, unless now that he's PM he totally changes personalities.

Could be worse though, Canada's federal Liberals could be as right-wing as BC's provincial Liberals (who are in some ways more conservative then our provincial Conservatives).