Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Wasn't income splitting one of the first things that the Trudeau Liberals got rid of?

I think Harper backed off of it before it was ever implemented. Trudeau had promised to remove it if it did get enacted.

I'm super biased, but I've never understood why this wasn't a thing. I guess it could lead to marriages of convenience and other ways to abuse it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jacks

She didn't even need to go after Trudeau she could have just said what she said before, that she took out a membership to vote for Charest to stop Poilievre. I get that all politicians lie as second nature but there is just no reason for it there. I think lying was just first instinct and she probably regrets it but the hole is dug now.

For sure; it's just an opportunity to differentiate yourself among the other sycophants.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

She didn't even need to go after Trudeau she could have just said what she said before, that she took out a membership to vote for Charest to stop Poilievre. I get that all politicians lie as second nature but there is just no reason for it there. I think lying was just first instinct and she probably regrets it but the hole is dug now.

This is what everyone should be doing. Pay the poll tax to vote for leaders. It shouldn’t be looked at as a negative thing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think Harper backed off of it before it was ever implemented. Trudeau had promised to remove it if it did get enacted.

I'm super biased, but I've never understood why this wasn't a thing. I guess it could lead to marriages of convenience and other ways to abuse it.

Harper had income splitting for up to a 2000 refund. Trudeau got rid of that one.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think Harper backed off of it before it was ever implemented. Trudeau had promised to remove it if it did get enacted.

I'm super biased, but I've never understood why this wasn't a thing. I guess it could lead to marriages of convenience and other ways to abuse it.

The Family Tax Cut was available for 2014 and 2015 tax returns.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is what everyone should be doing. Pay the poll tax to vote for leaders. It shouldn’t be looked at as a negative thing.

Some parties won't allow everyone to join and pay to vote in a leadership contest.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is what everyone should be doing. Pay the poll tax to vote for leaders. It shouldn’t be looked at as a negative thing.

Disagree, participating in democracy shouldn't have a cost.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Disagree, participating in democracy absolutely cannot have a cost.

Suggested edit.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Makarov

He's a cheap knock-off.

I'm ok being aTemu Makarov

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Disagree, participating in democracy shouldn't have a cost.

Your statement isn’t a reason to not not by a membership.

Democracy today has a cost. We should have an open primary system. We don’t. So in the world we exist in you should buy memberships in every party to vote in leadership elections.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Some parties won't allow everyone to join and pay to vote in a leadership contest.

Which ones haven’t recently?

Since the end of the big conventions with delagates all the main ones have all been pretty open.

[Geraldsh]

The Liberals just changed their rules, foreigners and bots no longer allowed.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Which ones haven’t recently?

Since the end of the big conventions with delagates all the main ones have all been pretty open.

The NDP and in recent leadership votes the Alberta NDP. Anyone who is a member or supporter of another party can not become a member of the NDP.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Disagree, participating in democracy shouldn't have a cost.

The only cost for Voting in elections is the cost to get to the polling place.

Being a member of a party is different

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Disagree, participating in democracy shouldn't have a cost.

Disagree. Participating in Democracy should absolutely have a cost.

All these shiftless layabouts and ne'er do wells, always demanding something for nothing!

You should have to earn that vote beyond merely managing to survive for 18 years, especially since your parents probably did most of the heavy lifting on that score.

What have some of these people done to earn the right to vote? Nothing! Thats what!

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Locke

Disagree. Participating in Democracy should absolutely have a cost.

All these shiftless layabouts and ne'er do wells, always demanding something for nothing!

You should have to earn that vote beyond merely managing to survive for 18 years, especially since your parents probably did most of the heavy lifting on that score.

What have some of these people done to earn the right to vote? Nothing! Thats what!

Governments main responsibility is to collect taxes and manage the expenditure of that money in the area of their responsibility.

Are you suggesting that to be able to vote you have to have contributed to the pot of money at some point?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Governments main responsibility is to collect taxes and manage the expenditure of that money in the area of their responsibility.

Are you suggesting that to be able to vote you have to have contributed to the pot of money at some point?

Nobody said anything about money. I think the last thing Democracy needs is to be ruled by those with the most money.

I merely (and quite sarcastically) suggested that perhaps some form of effort should be required in order to be deigned the responsibility of a vote rather than mere simple existence?

Now, I'm being really sarcastic here so take this with a grain of salt the size of the International Space Station, but there are rules for votes. For instance you must be a citizen, you must be at least 18, etc, we have placed limits and rules on who is allowed to vote. Maybe there could be a few more?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think the last thing Democracy needs is to be ruled by those with the most money.

You might want to sit down Locke, I’ve got some bad news for you…

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You might want to sit down Locke, I’ve got some bad news for you…

I said 'what I want' not 'how it is.'

This is life and in this life I have found that I rarely get what I want.

Until I re-animate Che Guevara and take power. Che will be instrumental, but its not going to turn out like he thought it would in terms of some Communist paradise. Thats why you never tell the underlings the full truth.

[CaptainCrunch]

Anita Anaud announcing that she's not interested in running for leadership or running in the next election.



I expect that this will come down to Freeland versus Carney, with what's his face that announced. If feels like the Liberal Party just really wants to show what's left of their weight behind Carney.