Politics in 2016

[The Bread Guy]

... Lots of paperwork ...

From what little I've seen, I think that, and a reluctance to have the "hard chat", is what keeps many public sector managers from being able to deal with baddies.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Finally, some move back to the "Progressive" conservatives. It's time that the Conservatives dump "losing" policies against gay marriage, assisted suicide, and the legalization of marijuana. The sooner the conservatives can move back to a focus on small government and economic prudence and away from issues like these the better.


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservatives-vote-to-end-official-opposition-to-gay-marriage/ar-BBtB0Uh?li=AAggNb9

 

[Good2Golf]

Finally, some move back to the "Progressive" conservatives. It's time that the Conservatives dump "losing" policies against gay marriage, assisted suicide, and the legalization of marijuana. The sooner the conservatives can move back to a focus on small government and economic prudence and away from issues like these the better.


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservatives-vote-to-end-official-opposition-to-gay-marriage/ar-BBtB0Uh?li=AAggNb9

My own :2c: is that the Conservatives were doomed at the next election when Stephen Harper reneged on his deal with Peter MacKay to hand over after two rounds, to respect the addition of the PCs to the Alliance's ranks, without which the rebranded Conservatives would likely have had a much greater time challenging Paul Martin's Liberals.  I think that was a large part of why Peter MacKay extracted himself from the degrading state of Conservatives' cling to power.

G2G

 

[PuckChaser]

Finally, some move back to the "Progressive" conservatives. It's time that the Conservatives dump "losing" policies against gay marriage, assisted suicide, and the legalization of marijuana. The sooner the conservatives can move back to a focus on small government and economic prudence and away from issues like these the better.

I agree with you except for legalized marijuana. The Conservatives can carve themselves out a niche here with a hybrid theory of decriminalized small amounts (set fine, no record) and pushing for more scientific research so that THC-derived medicines can be produced without making another mind-altering substance that people can drive around using and get a slap on the wrist. There is still no viable roadside screening yet, and the Liberals want to completely legalize next year.

 

[ModlrMike]

I certainly think that the middle ground is the right approach. As much as I am philosophically opposed to marijuana, I can understand that the horse has left the barn on the subject. I think if we decriminalized small amounts, then we could save lots of money in administrative costs that can be directed elsewhere.

On the medical front, I support greater research. That being said, there are a number of cannabis derived medications that work very well, but none for pain, or any of the other supposed miracle cures. I'm willing to keep my mind open that there is something good yet to be found, but I think if "big pharma" was able to isolate the proverbial golden bullet, they would have done so by now. They would be able to manage the legal implications of the research, despite the illegal nature of the parent drug.

But that's a whole other discussion.

 

[PuckChaser]

I certainly think that the middle ground is the right approach. As much as I am philosophically opposed to marijuana, I can understand that the horse has left the barn on the subject. I think if we decriminalized small amounts, then we could save lots of money in administrative costs that can be directed elsewhere.

On the medical front, I support greater research. That being said, there are a number of cannabis derived medications that work very well, but none for pain, or any of the other supposed miracle cures. I'm willing to keep my mind open that there is something good yet to be found, but I think if "big pharma" was able to isolate the proverbial golden bullet, they would have done so by now. They would be able to manage the legal implications of the research, despite the illegal nature of the parent drug.

But that's a whole other discussion.

Its a whole other discussion, but likely appropriate here as the Liberals have used marijuana to make political hay and a hallmark promise (although they said day one, here we are well past day 100). We have harmful drugs like Oxy, Morphine, other opiates given as a medicine in controlled doses as they are highly addictive. There's no reason we can't have a similar system for medical THC, and can prove once and for all whether its a placebo effect or does have properties that would be viable as medicine for certain conditions. I feel, however, that the legalize marijuana lobby won't like that answer, because instead of wanting medicine to heal people, a lot would rather just rolling a fatty and getting baked for a weekend.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I agree with you except for legalized marijuana. The Conservatives can carve themselves out a niche here with a hybrid theory of decriminalized small amounts (set fine, no record) and pushing for more scientific research so that THC-derived medicines can be produced without making another mind-altering substance that people can drive around using and get a slap on the wrist. There is still no viable roadside screening yet, and the Liberals want to completely legalize next year.

PLease, don't make statements as if you are knowing what you talk about.

Not one country has been succesful with THC derived medicines, as there are other terpenes involved medicinally, such as CBD.  The natural plant has been proven to be the most effective treatment, nations like Isreal have been at the forefront of these studies since the 80's, and using them for their military, both serving and retired.

Please don't comment on what you know Zero of.  And don't give me any of the opionion crap either.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Its a whole other discussion, but likely appropriate here as the Liberals have used marijuana to make political hay and a hallmark promise (although they said day one, here we are well past day 100). We have harmful drugs like Oxy, Morphine, other opiates given as a medicine in controlled doses as they are highly addictive. There's no reason we can't have a similar system for medical THC, and can prove once and for all whether its a placebo effect or does have properties that would be viable as medicine for certain conditions. I feel, however, that the legalize marijuana lobby won't like that answer, because instead of wanting medicine to heal people, a lot would rather just rolling a fatty and getting baked for a weekend.

Again, I advise shutting it.

You know zero how people medicate,and I dont' appreciate you commnenting with derogatory statements.  We don't roll fatties to get baked.

Sort yourself the fuck out, and stay in you lanes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Again, I advise shutting it.

You know zero how people medicate,and I dont' appreciate you commnenting with derogatory statements.  We don't roll fatties to get baked.

Sort yourself the fuck out, and stay in you lanes.

I advise shutting this whole, Politics, page.

Maybe we could have a Strategy page that would allow for some, limited, discussion of partisan political issues in so far as they impact on the elements of a grand strategy: economic/fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, foreign policy, defence policy ...

As far as I'm concerned, this page goes on  :ignore:  as do some of the people who pushed it there.

 

[larry Strong]

I advise shutting this whole, Politics, page.

Maybe we could have a Strategy page that would allow for some, limited, discussion of partisan political issues in so far as they impact on the elements of a grand strategy: economic/fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, foreign policy, defence policy ...

As far as I'm concerned, this page goes on  :ignore:  as do some of the people who pushed it there.

Thanks for that


:goodpost:

Cheers
Larry
:goodpost:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Ok here is a little lighthearted humor to calm this place down.  An Australian comparison of Canadian Politics to Australian Football:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj7pBOdtEGI

Disclaimer:  Australians like to swear  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Before the baby goes out with the bathwater ERC - and I share Mr. Campbell's "enthusiasm" for the quality of much of the discussion here - perhaps we can have another go at civil debate?

On Facebook, a friend of mine, whose politics happen to be entirely opposite to mine posted this:

And today I read in the National Post:

Government does not have a place in your bedroom’: Conservatives vote to accept same-sex marriages

which puts them in the same place as this fellow:

Also on Facebook another friend posted a comment about Orwell and T.S. Eliot and from that I found a commentary by Orwell on Kipling that included this observation:

Although he had no direct connexion with any political party, Kipling was a Conservative, a thing that does not exist nowadays. Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists. He identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.

That was printed in 1942.

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip

In Eisenhower's time the Democrats were southern conservatives and the Republicans supported the working class.

In Orwell's time he had seen the Conservatives shift to start encompassing their old foes the Liberals as the totalitarian fight between Communists and Fascists played itself out.  Today I have seen it argued that many NDPers and UK Labour members are actually conservatives, just as Orwell's Liberals were seen as Conservatives, because they wish to conserve the gains/changes that they had already made.

Now in Canada we see Conservatives swinging.

Throughout all of these swings we have tribal loyalties that tie people to their colours regardless of the policies of the institution.

It suddenly dawns on me that the best analogy for institutional battles is rugby, in particular the scrum.  In searching for advantage it is common for one side of the scrum, blind or open, to dominate the other.  The scrum then pivots and unless the ref blows it down the scrum can find itself pushing its opponents towards its own end, potentially scoring an own goal.  This isn't allowed to happen because, as noted, the rugby ref will blow the shift down.

But in the real world their is no ref.  The scrum wheels and pivots and pushes and people keep cheering on their own side regardless of where it goes on the field, or even if it goes out of bounds. 

The blind battle of the scrum takes over and moving the ball on the field is forgotten.

Can we break apart from the scrum long enough to play the ball?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am actually not surprised by this. As I have mentioned before, in the US, the main parties (Rep and Dems) have always been electoral machines - not ideological ones. Their aim is to get their candidates elected - not to impose an ideology on the US.

Lately, ideological sub groups of both the Dems and Rep have taken over the driving of the party agenda in their respective party, which has left the national political discourse in Washington highly polarized, to the horror of the non-ideologically driven members of both parties.

The good thing, however, is that since there are no real underlying ideology to each party, swinging back to the centre or even the opposite "side" over a certain amount of time is possible as it always has been (it starts with debate at conventions, with someone basically saying on point x, we have gone too far - so I propose we ease bit by making y our policy on this point. Majority agrees, leaving some to "abandon" the party but attracting others, and slowly increment by increment, policy position evolve and swing to opposite. Trump has managed that over the course of a few months for his own positions  ;D). The other benefit, is that, when (sometimes even minute) changes in policy clears the party of the influence of those small sub groups trying to impose ideology on the party, the tone of politics in Washington can get back to a collaborative effort that can only benefit the nation.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I advise shutting this whole, Politics, page.

Maybe we could have a Strategy page that would allow for some, limited, discussion of partisan political issues in so far as they impact on the elements of a grand strategy: economic/fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, foreign policy, defence policy ...

As far as I'm concerned, this page goes on  :ignore:  as do some of the people who pushed it there.

Sometimes, it's important to realize that not everyone sees things thru the same looking glass or cares about the same issues.  Lot's of threads and discussions here go for speed wobbles, nothing new is it?

However, if the discussion isn't to your 'standard', there's always the option of just not reading it, or skipping over the parts or people you choose to.

Cheers

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is a thread about Canadian politics..........not US. There is a proper thread if you wish to discuss that.

THIS thread is SUPPOSED to be POLITE discourse on CANADIAN politics.

There has been many times that this thread has almost been shut down because certain individuals can't play nice. There has even been people banned because of this thread.

It has taken more Mod oversight and time than almost any thread in the forum.

If posters can't be civil, if they can't move past their partisan feelings and discuss things like adults, then maybe, it might be time to sink it.

After all, there is a forum standard that has been sorely lacking here in an attempt to let individuals have their unfettered say and it's not working.

 

[Altair]

This is a thread about Canadian politics..........not US. There is a proper thread if you wish to discuss that.

THIS thread is SUPPOSED to be POLITE discourse on CANADIAN politics.

There has been many times that this thread has almost been shut down because certain individuals can't play nice. There has even been people banned because of this thread.

It has taken more Mod oversight and time than almost any thread in the forum.

If posters can't be civil, if they can't move past their partisan feelings and discuss things like adults, then maybe, it might be time to sink it.

After all, there is a forum standard that has been sorely lacking here in an attempt to let individuals have their unfettered say and it's not working.

Instead of the scorched earth campaign against this thread why ban the offending parties?

There are a few bad apples who seem to be able to grab all of the attention however most of the people here can keep it civil most of the time.

Off the top of my head I can think about 3 maybe 4 people who go over the line on a regular basis but most of the 20 or so regulars here can keep it mostly civil for the most part.

I also don't want to have to flood puckchaser inbox if this thread goes down. Think of the children!

 

[PuckChaser]

I also don't want to have to flood puckchaser inbox if this thread goes down. Think of the children!

Although we'd likely have a good debate of actual facts?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Although we'd likely have a good debate of actual facts?

Unforutnately, you lasts posts on MM were not factual, as I previosly stated.

 

[Altair]

Although we'd likely have a good debate of actual facts?

For at least a post or two  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Another alternative - so as to keep Mike Bobbit's name in good standing,  after all it is his site and we are all here as his guests - perhaps Mike could put up a separate Politics board much as he has done for Army, Navy and Air Force and MilNet, only different.

Same membership but a different look and feel and no association with the military.