Hypothetical political platform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Hypothetical political platform

    The debate has sort of morphed into something else entirely.

    I guess I just find it interesting how the majority of the younger population isn't even bothering to listen to politicians any more (or vote). It's a funny situation that should be interesting to track for the next several decades.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Hypothetical political platform

      Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
      Paul, Joel asked for better politicians to vote for. I told him my opinion of the changes to current societal attitudes I personally thought it would take. Like I thought I alluded to earlier in this thread, I seperate my own religious views (e.g. on accounting for current social behaviors) from what I thought might perhaps make for an interesting political platform, in whole or in part, at least for some people.

      This is what you wrote in your second post on this thread (in response to Ken Craft):
      "...the idea for such a platform/party came from the weekend conversations I have with my slightly younger brother. Last time he asked me what I'd do if I were Prime Minister. So I promised I'd write up a platform".

      So let's be clear that the platform you gave is YOUR platform. Now, you are asking us to believe that you would separate your own "Judeo-Christian" views (which Joel was so efficient at getting you to profess) from your platform if you were ever in the position of winning office even as Prime Minister.

      Hey, if you want to run on that, go for it. Last U.S. election, one Rick Santorum held similar views and didn't try the obfuscation route you appear now to be attempting... oh, and there was Michele Bachmann too, making Sarah Palin look moderate. Americans proved they aren't ready (at least yet) for that kind of radicalism, and I suspect Canadians would do the same.
      Only the rushing is heard...
      Onward flies the bird.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Hypothetical political platform

        Originally posted by Joel Stainer View Post
        The debate has sort of morphed into something else entirely.

        I guess I just find it interesting how the majority of the younger population isn't even bothering to listen to politicians any more (or vote). It's a funny situation that should be interesting to track for the next several decades.
        It's a cliche, but it kind of rings true to me that if someone doesn't vote, they should know in their heart that they have no right to complain.
        Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
        Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Hypothetical political platform

          Paul, JFK was a Catholic and he had no problem going along with the seperation of church and state. If I entertained any thoughts of ever being PM I could at least have a free vote or referendum on any issues that many voters might find supremely controversial. The real problem IMO is voters deciding to return to old-fashioned values in droves, and a major push towards that goal IMHO would be better carried out by clergymen, ministering to politicians and aspiring parents for starters. The name 'Iced Tea Party' I thought made it clear that it would be a socially conservative party. The updated version spells this out more clearly.

          If you want radical, look at what the socialist Pierre Trudeau did to this country. Or what Green Energy etc. has done to Ontario in recent years.
          Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 30th March, 2015, 12:57 PM. Reason: Adding content
          Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
          Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Hypothetical political platform

            Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
            the seperation of church and state
            What we need is the separation of business and state.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Hypothetical political platform

              Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
              It's a cliche, but it kind of rings true to me that if someone doesn't vote, they should know in their heart that they have no right to complain.
              The opposite is actually true however. If you vote you've agreed to abide by the rules of the games and have given away your right to complain.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Hypothetical political platform

                Originally posted by Joel Stainer View Post
                The opposite is actually true however. If you vote you've agreed to abide by the rules of the games and have given away your right to complain.
                IMO, if I vote for a party that didn't form the government, I have a right to complain about that government.
                Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 30th March, 2015, 11:28 AM. Reason: Spelling
                Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
                Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Hypothetical political platform

                  Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                  What we need is the separation of business and state.
                  If you mean no regulations at all on businesses, I believe these need to be tightened and relaxed judiciously over time. The government needs to keep an eye on whether businesses are competing fairly. Partnership arrangements between business and government also shouldn't always be ruled out. Total seperation of business and government would be a Libertarian notion.
                  Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
                  Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Hypothetical political platform

                    Originally posted by Joel Stainer View Post
                    The opposite is actually true however. If you vote you've agreed to abide by the rules of the games and have given away your right to complain.
                    Holy crap, no way.

                    I have a right to vote, or not to vote.
                    By exercising my right to vote, I do NOT lose my right to complain.
                    Even if my party wins, I still have a right to complain.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Hypothetical political platform

                      Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
                      It's a cliche, but it kind of rings true to me that if someone doesn't vote, they should know in their heart that they have no right to complain.
                      That's mindless. People who are paying taxes do have a right to complain under our system. That there is no candidate in their riding they can support with a vote is not their problem.

                      There should be some kind of rule about dragging up a thread from 5 years ago and polluting it with a religious political tone which would be better placed under a new topic. You should reread the 5 points you posted a half decade ago.

                      Threads which are so old should be deleted.
                      Gary Ruben
                      CC - IA and SIM

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Hypothetical political platform

                        I'm repeating myself when I say that I think it's the voter's duty to choose the least evil. Or that the name of the party is the socially conservative sounding Iced Tea Party.

                        Larry might take a poll on whether to delete old threads, if he wishes.
                        Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
                        Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Hypothetical political platform

                          Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
                          If you mean no regulations at all on businesses, I believe these need to be tightened and relaxed judiciously over time. The government needs to keep an eye on whether businesses are competing fairly. Partnership arrangements between business and government also shouldn't always be ruled out. Total seperation of business and government would be a Libertarian notion.
                          What I mean is this. The state should print its own money, and should not be borrowing from bankers who fabricate the money out of thin air. Banks should be the ones borrowing from the state. Public debt would not exist if we printed our own money as needed. And the economy would function at it fullest potential.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Hypothetical political platform

                            Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
                            IMO, if I vote for a party that didn't form the government, I have a right to complain about that government.
                            Fair enough, I support your right to an opinion. I just have an opposite one. Voters who complain make no sense to me. Agreeing to the rules of a game and then complaining when the game doesn't go your way is strange.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Hypothetical political platform

                              Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
                              Moses and the Exodus is the main example of anti-slavery in the bible I'm thinking of.
                              I was thinking of Moses and the ten commandments. Any of the first four could have been replaced by "You shall not own slaves". Instead God worries about stuff like competition from other gods and whether people work seven days in a row.
                              "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Hypothetical political platform

                                Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
                                I'm repeating myself when I say that I think it's the voter's duty to choose the least evil.
                                It doesn't matter what you think. Evil is evil and no person ever has a duty to support evil or what s/he sees as that.
                                Gary Ruben
                                CC - IA and SIM

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X