Re: Federal Election
The bad track record of the conservative party is in the past, but not so far in the past! This was the most recent conservative government, it is easy to make it seem like a long time but in terms of governments it is quite recent. Geologists would say that thousands of years are really nothing; I think in politics one or two government terms is not huge! Many of the very same people from the previous conservative government are still in the party now.
I do not understand how you can say that you don't care about the past record of the conservative party, then say we should give them a chance, and if they do wrong we will "live and learn". The time scale for this "live and learn" idea is going to be several terms, so why is what happened several terms ago so irrelevant? In six years, seven years, etc, will you be clammoring to elect the liberals regardless? Perhaps you are arguing that the voting age should be raised to 30 or 40, since only history that you lived through as an adult is real?
But I don't mean to start anything personal; by all means vote conservative if you agree with their ideals, opinions, and goals. I fully support your right to do so and won't argue if you vote for someone I personally oppose if it is because of your own views and with good reason, logic and forethought. I am merely asking about statements that have been made.
I agree that all of the people involved in a race like this - Harper or Martin or whomever - are villified and scruitinized to an unrealistic degree by the media for its own purposes. I also agree with Blair that you can make a difference by not voting for a major contender if it will give another party the opportunity for public exposure (debates, appearances) if they will use that opportunity for a good cause. If only a tiny fraction of people who watch the news re-think a single issue based on what the Green Party says during a televised debate, then I think that is making a difference.
The bad track record of the conservative party is in the past, but not so far in the past! This was the most recent conservative government, it is easy to make it seem like a long time but in terms of governments it is quite recent. Geologists would say that thousands of years are really nothing; I think in politics one or two government terms is not huge! Many of the very same people from the previous conservative government are still in the party now.
I do not understand how you can say that you don't care about the past record of the conservative party, then say we should give them a chance, and if they do wrong we will "live and learn". The time scale for this "live and learn" idea is going to be several terms, so why is what happened several terms ago so irrelevant? In six years, seven years, etc, will you be clammoring to elect the liberals regardless? Perhaps you are arguing that the voting age should be raised to 30 or 40, since only history that you lived through as an adult is real?
But I don't mean to start anything personal; by all means vote conservative if you agree with their ideals, opinions, and goals. I fully support your right to do so and won't argue if you vote for someone I personally oppose if it is because of your own views and with good reason, logic and forethought. I am merely asking about statements that have been made.
I agree that all of the people involved in a race like this - Harper or Martin or whomever - are villified and scruitinized to an unrealistic degree by the media for its own purposes. I also agree with Blair that you can make a difference by not voting for a major contender if it will give another party the opportunity for public exposure (debates, appearances) if they will use that opportunity for a good cause. If only a tiny fraction of people who watch the news re-think a single issue based on what the Green Party says during a televised debate, then I think that is making a difference.
Comment