Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[Occam]

I thought it was made clear that CVA and RTH were protests against the current government, and would've happened regardless of who is in the driver's seat if they treated veterans the same way.

On the matter of treatment of the CAF, I've been quite vocal in support of the folks still in uniform.  Lots of reasons for them to be angry with the current gov't...killing local retirement moves, clawing back relocation benefits, denied HEA claims, countless other nickel and diming measures.

 

[George Wallace]

I guess CAVUNP is another org I can cross off my list of groups I'd want to join, eh? 

So you are saying that you will only join a group that believes in agitating and is disloyal to the government in power.  A group that is "political and sectarian.”  Thanks for the insight.

 

[Occam]

Wow, put words in other people's mouths much?

I prefer an organization that can negotiate nicely, but can also take the gloves off when the other side digs in and refuses to negotiate.

Edit to remove quote.

 

[Loachman]

disloyal to the government in power

Who among us swore or affirmed loyalty to "the government in power"?

My loyalty, natural and affirmed, is to Her Royal Majesty, not Stephen Harper or any of his predecessors or successors. How, then, can I, or anybody, be "disloyal to the government in power"?

Even if there was an expectation of loyalty to "the government in power", how could, and why should, any person give such to a government so free of ethics, transparency, honour, or honesty, so petty and vindictive, so propagandist, so ineffective, so wasteful, or so corrupt as this one, or the one before it, or the one before that, and so on?

Any notion of owed loyalty to "the government in power" is baseless and wrong.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why the "uniform" matters?

Because this election...ANY election...is nothing more than a fucking sales pitch!!  We are 10 minutes in to the halftime show the Super Bowl, if you want to look at it tht way.  We have 20 more minutes of big time 'advertising' (dressed up as 'issues') to come!!

What, are you people new or something?  Y'all just wake up to the concept of an election campaign?!? 

It is sales.  24/7 for the next 9 weeks.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Which means every single aspect of the campaign, no matter where you stand, or what your cause is, must, by necessity, be designed to influence the actions (read:vote) of your target audience.  It is even evident in their damn slogan: ABC.  A fucking awesome, ideal, super kick ass slogan to be quite honest.  The best one out there. It is designed that way.  Why do you think ABC has so much more traction than ABH??  Give a Cookie to the man or Woman who came up with it.  Better yet, give em a job in sales or advertising if they don't already have one.

The fact that Jason Kenny is being the energizer bunny in the ethnic ridings, the fact that the Duffy trial Reconvened at this very moment, and that the witnesses who are being called are being called now...and every other thing that is happening is by calculated design.  Someone planned this.  And BZ to them!

There is nothing wrong with that - all of this is simply excellent tactics.  I would kill for a staff that could influence the battlefield as well as is being accomplished right now, on all sides. But I grow so tired of people pining for a discussions on 'serious issues'.  Save that for parliament.

:goodpost: MilPts inbound

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I thought it was made clear that CVA and RTH were protests against the current government, and would've happened regardless of who is in the driver's seat if they treated veterans the same way.

On the matter of treatment of the CAF, I've been quite vocal in support of the folks still in uniform.  Lots of reasons for them to be angry with the current gov't...killing local retirement moves, clawing back relocation benefits, denied HEA claims, countless other nickel and diming measures.

For my part, I think it's absolutely disgusting that they are wearing military uniforms for their campaign, and find them to be hugely hypocritical.

That said, are these the key issues that are harming veterans? There are many stories in the newspapers about military persons crying about some injustice, including a recent couple in Greenwood who were posted to North Bay, broke their mortgage and had to pay a $6000 fee (clearly stated in their contract). They cried foul and got the money back and people commented things such as, "how can the government do this" while not asking things like, "Did they actually lose money on their house" (they didn't) and what did they do with the thousands and thousands of dollars they undoubtedly made during their posting.

The point of this is that while there were many "ABC" type comments there were also many, "why does the military get money back? I had to move for my job and didn't get anything". Support for the military is definitely an inch deep and a mile wide, and I can't help but feeling that ABC groups and people like the ones noted above are quickly eroding that support, which will quickly put us further behind. Politicians, be they NDP, liberal, CPC, green, etc will do what the public wants- the public, by and large, see military pensions and benefits and wonder, "I put my body on the line for my job, why dont I get a 50-70% pension and paid moves?"

 

[George Wallace]

Who among us swore or affirmed loyalty to "the government in power"?

I guess my wording was a bit off as to 'joining a group officially opposed in a partisan way to the government', referring to groups of activists. --  No reference to the CAF.  And not in reference to a legitimate political Party. 

 

[Harrigan]

In reading through this entire thread, what astounds me is that so many on here are shocked...SHOCKED... that there may actually be retired veterans who consider more than one party in their voting decision.  Some veterans vote Conservative, some vote NDP, some vote Liberal, some vote Green, some will even vote Bloc.

This group can shout their choice to high heaven for all I care.  No different than the thousands of campaign signs we see every day, or the posts on this site that tell us to vote or not to vote for someone.  Everyone gets a vote, and can cast it as they wish.  What's the problem?

Harrigan

 

[Halifax Tar]

In reading through this entire thread, what astounds me is that so many on here are shocked...SHOCKED... that there may actually be retired veterans who consider more than one party in their voting decision.  Some veterans vote Conservative, some vote NDP, some vote Liberal, some vote Green, some will even vote Bloc.

This group can shout their choice to high heaven for all I care.  No different than the thousands of campaign signs we see every day, or the posts on this site that tell us to vote or not to vote for someone.  Everyone gets a vote, and can cast it as they wish.  What's the problem?

Harrigan

The problem is Harrigan that we have staunch card carrying members of political party's on this forum who don't see the faults in their party's that other see. 

Just like real life.  I have some very good friends who are as red a liberal as you can get and they cannot see any wrong in their party's performance.

Really it just makes for entertaining threads and conversation.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Occam]

The problem is Harrigan that we have staunch card carrying members of political party's on this forum who don't see the faults in their party's that other see. 

Just like real life.  I have some very good friends who are as red a liberal as you can get and they cannot see any wrong in their party's performance.

Really it just makes for entertaining threads and conversation.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The problem is Harrigan that we have staunch card carrying members of political party's on this forum who don't see the faults in their party's that other see. 

Just like real life.

True enough, with supporters of parties of ALL colours - that's why it's called "partisan".

 

[Remius]

In reading through this entire thread, what astounds me is that so many on here are shocked...SHOCKED... that there may actually be retired veterans who consider more than one party in their voting decision.  Some veterans vote Conservative, some vote NDP, some vote Liberal, some vote Green, some will even vote Bloc.

This group can shout their choice to high heaven for all I care.  No different than the thousands of campaign signs we see every day, or the posts on this site that tell us to vote or not to vote for someone.  Everyone gets a vote, and can cast it as they wish.  What's the problem?

Harrigan

I think I have to agree.  Feel free to join them or not.  I don't really see anything wrong with what they are doing. 

Edit to add:  All parties have used veterans and their plight to further their own agendas for a very long time now.  I see no problem with groups of veterans using political parties/elections/the system to further their own.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I see that JT is promising the return of the monthly pension if they get in.  Funny, wasn't it their party that started its removal?

 

[Occam]

I see that JT is promising the return of the monthly pension if they get in.  Funny, wasn't it their party that started its removal?

And the CPC had 9 years to reinstate it if they were so opposed.  We can play that game all day, but I'd really rather not.

 

[jollyjacktar]

No game playing here.  As Joe Friday always said, "just the facts,  Ma'am". 

I'll leave the  :argument:  for others.

 

[Remius]

And the CPC had 9 years to reinstate it if they were so opposed.  We can play that game all day, but I'd really rather not.

Yeah, this is political opportunism and electioneering.  All parties are doing it.  But you have a point.

Regardless of who did what and when can anyone here point out why this would be a bad thing?   

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I think I have to agree.  Feel free to join them or not.  I don't really see anything wrong with what they are doing. 

Edit to add:  All parties have used veterans and their plight to further their own agendas for a very long time now.  I see no problem with groups of veterans using political parties/elections/the system to further their own.

Agree. 2 points though-

1. Just dont do it in uniform or pretend to speak for all veterans. If retired Cpl/LCol Bloggins wants to protest the government of the day than he is certainly free to, just do it as Mr or Mrs/Ms. Bloggins not as "veterans"; and

2. "ABC" is extremely immature. EXTREMELY immature. Dont like the CPC? Fine, than propose a party to support that meets the objectives that you desire. To simply say that literally anyone but the CPC will support veterans without any real evidence/policy is immature bordering on idiotic. The Liberals are annoucing a plan for veterans today, so perhaps they could move from being children with an "ABC" agenda to supporting liberals?

:2c:

 

[Jed]

Agree. 2 points though-

1. Just dont do it in uniform or pretend to speak for all veterans. If retired Cpl/LCol Bloggins wants to protest the government of the day than he is certainly free to, just do it as Mr or Mrs/Ms. Bloggins not as "veterans"; and

2. "ABC" is extremely immature. EXTREMELY immature. Dont like the CPC? Fine, than propose a party to support that meets the objectives that you desire. To simply say that literally anyone but the CPC will support veterans without any real evidence/policy is immature bordering on idiotic. The Liberals are annoucing a plan for veterans today, so perhaps they could move from being children with an "ABC" agenda to supporting liberals?

:2c:

I am in lock step with this post.

 

[Strike]

Agree. 2 points though-

1. Just dont do it in uniform or pretend to speak for all veterans. If retired Cpl/LCol Bloggins wants to protest the government of the day than he is certainly free to, just do it as Mr or Mrs/Ms. Bloggins not as "veterans"; and

2. "ABC" is extremely immature. EXTREMELY immature. Dont like the CPC? Fine, than propose a party to support that meets the objectives that you desire. To simply say that literally anyone but the CPC will support veterans without any real evidence/policy is immature bordering on idiotic. The Liberals are annoucing a plan for veterans today, so perhaps they could move from being children with an "ABC" agenda to supporting liberals?

:2c:

Yup.

WRT point 1 though, I don't have a problem with a veterans' group protesting against or for any one party (provided they don't have anything in their charter that forbids them from doing so as part of that group) but, like you said, don't go saying that you represent the veterans because, guess what, there are veterans that probably support the political party that you oppose, so by default you don't represent them.

 

[Altair]

Yup.

WRT point 1 though, I don't have a problem with a veterans' group protesting against or for any one party (provided they don't have anything in their charter that forbids them from doing so as part of that group) but, like you said, don't go saying that you represent the veterans because, guess what, there are veterans that probably support the political party that you oppose, so by default you don't represent them.

This might just be my take on things, but I don't think they are saying that they represent all veterans.

They seem to be saying that they are a group of veterans who oppose the current goverment. Because honestly, no group on the planet can speak for 100 of that group. There will always be some who disagree.

I don't think this group would care if another veterans group popped up and said they were for the current government. That would be nice if that happened actually. Veterans and by extension, the military don't get mentioned nearly enough on election campaigns.

Maybe if veterans spoke up and actually engaged themselves politically, the public would actually take notice.