Ryan Strome Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Just now, Gnarcore said: I have read about him but it's been years. I took Canadian political history in uni along with poly sci before going full business courses. I definitely recall the LBJ stuff. He took umbrage that Pearson critiqued Vietnam and US foreign policy while in the US. LBJ is a well known piece of $&!#. Oh my bad. Well then you probably already know all about his accomplishments. I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Oh my bad. Well then you probably already know all about his accomplishments. I apologize. No apology needed. You reminded me of a few I'd forgotten about. He also was in charge when we became the first nation to make race immaterial in immigration policy. I just read that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: standard practice in the shipping industry tho. Yeah I was pretty unimpressed with the way the Liberal old guard treated Martin. They then went on to provide quite a string of "leaders" I do think Mulroney deserves an honourable (?) mention here for holding elections on key issues and fighting hard for your position. The GST and free trade debates were epic. Now we just see trained seals on all sides of the house. I told you this before if Mulroney run today he would be PM. A conservative telling the rich you have enough you don't need anymore. Let's not forget he threatened the US that Canada would walk away... Hard to believe from a Canadian Pm. He wasn't near as bad as liberals make him out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, Gnarcore said: No apology needed. You reminded me of a few I'd forgotten about. He also was in charge when we became the first nation to make race immaterial in immigration policy. I just read that This was the liberal party I could support but since Trudeau senior I can't support that party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I told you this before if Mulroney run today he would be PM. A conservative telling the rich you have enough you don't need anymore. Let's not forget he threatened the US that Canada would walk away... Hard to believe from a Canadian Pm. He wasn't near as bad as liberals make him out to be. Nope. Kind of pooped the bed at the end there which is a real shame. It'll be interesting to see what his daughter can do... oh wait, the OP doesn't like that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: Nope. Kind of pooped the bed at the end there which is a real shame. It'll be interesting to see what his daughter can do... oh wait, the OP doesn't like that.... He spent like a drunken sailor but hey that was the Canadian way for 20 years lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSeventeen Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 54 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I don't care what a persons family did, if they are qualified and win then great. Whats more important is voter engagement. We seem to think, on a collective level, that we can sit back and not be involved in selecting candidates or for some even voting, and you're going to get a politician that does what you like or does the right thing. I agree with you 100% on voter engagement. We constantly need to remind those in government that they are accountable to all of us. However, what qualifies someone goes beyond a prestigious education and excellent career. That really just shows that someone is smart and hard working. I really think we need to heavily scrutinize the motivations of candidates who choose to run. I cited Elizabeth Warren as a good example because she's not someone who really aspired to be in government. I've been following her since she was invited by Congress to testify and question people who were responsible for the financial collapse. She was just doing her job as a financial law professor and people took notice of her work. When given a national spotlight her ideas spread like wildfire. However, why does a guy like Ted Cruz want to be in government? For me, because of his ego. He believed a Harvard education entitled him to a government position and showed his superiority over others. Therefore "earning" the power to legislate the rules of society. I find that a lot of people in politics have that attitude. They see their story as something inevitable instead of by legacy or favourable circumstances. Why do candidates want to be in government and what do they think the role of government is? We need to demand serious answers to this. Not beyond the lip service answers like wanting to make the world a better place etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Politics on any level are just extensions of extreme tribalism, yet they purport to say to us that inclusion and diversity are our strengths. Really? How about diversity of thought, and diversity of opinion? Oh, but that doesn't check the boxes of identity politics played on both sides of the aisle. The reason why current political philosophy is doomed to extinction is because of the division that a party system intrinsically sows, since the left and right both pander to perspectives that are for the most part, and every day are growing further apart and more diametrically opposed to one another. True progress as a society will not occur until everyone can live with compromise and focus on the long term health and well being of the global community. We are a global community in today's technological age, but that doesn't mean that we also cannot have clear regionality with respect to common shared values, or cultural pride and identification. All countries must do their part to ensure that they are developing the most positive environments as they can thus ensuring the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Currently Canada is one of the largest offenders of not holding other regimes accountable for their lack of action, and realistically speaking we really shouldn't be either. We also shouldn't be a leader in supporting mass migration from these places if our own house is not even in order. Just because the world is an unfair place, and that some are born into lives of struggle does not mean open borders are okay. If everyone from terrible places move to good places, over time those good places will not be able to sustain their high standard of living, and everywhere will just be varying degrees of "meh". Compromise as a global society, and drilling down into a national society and ensuring nations are strong, healthy and independent means it will take a long time to achieve a high standard of living everywhere, or at least in most places. It seems to me that because of the current democratic political landscape being what it is, and political shelf lives are so short, Governments are forced into a perception that long term compromise is something that can be kicked down the road and left to be dealt with by the next Government. This ensures that short term priorities and agendas are naturally favored over long term plans that get scrapped due to partisanship. We need a fundamental shift in thinking if we ever want to truly progress as a society, currently all we have is a fractured smattering of special interest groups who they themselves in a lot of cases are subject to infighting and cannot intelligently present what their concerns are, and as a response we have governments who pander to the special interest groups that either yell the loudest or grease the palms with the most money. I think a good way to start down this road is to regress to a more basic form of politics, and that is to be responsible, transparent, open, and give no special allowances. Even the playing field, because if politics simply boils down to who can pay the most then the average citizen will never be truly represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, OneSeventeen said: Why do candidates want to be in government and what do they think the role of government is? We need to demand serious answers to this. Not beyond the lip service answers like wanting to make the world a better place etc. thats what vetting at the candidate selection stage is supposed to be about, figuring out who really speaks for their constituents. I don't really care if their motivations are as pure as Warrens, or if they just want a good job, whatever, as long as they do what the people who put them in power want them to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Politicians are just elected officials who forgot what their job is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.