If I never have to see another "F🍁ck Trudeau" flag again, it will be too soon.
If I never have to see another "F🍁ck Trudeau" flag again, it will be too soon.
Nothing says "classy" like flying that flag.
Good L🍁ck Trudeau! (But also, don't let the door hit you on the way out...)
You're viewing a single thread.
Trudeau will be remembered for many things
including all the conservatives that wanted to fuck him.
Many men were disappointed when arriving at the Ram Ranch to find Trudeau wasn't there.
But they made due.
That's how I read those signs. That Bubba in the truck had a boner for Justin.
My response to those truck flags was always "Gay and proud. YES! You go girl!"
This is in regards to our brethren down south, poking fun at 2nd amendmenters and their manly façade. Seems like cons all over the globe mostly like to larp as strong men but like if you gotta hide behind a firearm, are you really manly? 🤷♂️
"Hurt me but make me feel safe at the same time, you pussy liberals" https://youtu.be/TY0eUQ06Q2g
He is a thirst trap though even after ten years in office. He’s only 53 seems very young to retire. I’m curious to know what he does next. UN ambassador? Ambassador for Canada to France?
I hope we keep him around as Chief Toddler Wrangler every time Trump comes sniffing around.
I'm not a big Trudeau fan but he's amazing at dealing with that creep. Remember the handshake during Trump's first term?
Yeah totally, he countered Trumps weak “power handshake” and that was awesome.
Ambassador for Canada to the USA. :-D
I don’t think Trudeau is a masochist like that.
Just finding out I'm a raging conservative. Oh god, I need to sit down... On his lap...
I loved that the original attack ad they had when he was first running for Prime Minister was that he was too young and handsome to be a leader.
He DID have nice hair.
I'm embarrassed they latched onto his hair. And now, all they can say is 'carbon tax', like we're all rich enough where it's a tax and not a benefit.
I've met plenty of people who weren't rich enough who were still certain it was a tax and not a benefit.
Used to have nice hair, still does, but used to too.
I like it a bit wilder.
Nice hair, though
I guess that's why the cons dumped o toole he had no hair
In hindsight he was the best leader they had in a long time
But the Cons are kind of like the scorpion and the frog and I did not trust them one bit.
I'll also always remember how the Liberals pulled a judo-reverse on the Conservatives by turning their main line of attack back against them. I knew from the moment I saw that ad with Trudeau on the escalator that the Liberals would win.
Oh, do you have a link? I'm not Canadian but that sounds interesting.
E: Nvm found it.
found it.
Ah. YOW. Know it well.
That's the one.
I don't know if my memory of that era comports with actual history, but this is how I remember it playing out:
It looked like the Conservative attack ads were going to win the election for them again, just as they had against Dion and Ignatieff. They were ahead and gaining in the polls, and the Liberals seemed to have no response. The slogan was, "Trudeau: he's just not ready."
Then the polls stabilized for a few days, and the Liberals released that ad. The polls started rapidly reversing, and the Liberals decisively swept into power. I don't think I even saw another, "he's not ready," attack ad from the Conservatives again after that.
EDIT: One can debate how much of an effect that ad had, and whether Trudeau's actions matched it's promises, but for me it will always stick out as a good bit of political strategy.
And for letting us down on proportional representation: [email protected]
That was defintely the beginning of the end for Trudeau. And lost him all the young voters.
Proportional representation is not the answer because the party system does not work to begin with.
But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.
See single transferable vote (STV): A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It's still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.
But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.
I never said proportional representation requires political parties. I said, and I quote, "Proportional representation is not the answer because the party system does not work to begin with." meaning the system PR is being tacked on to doesn't work and we aren't fixing anything switching from FPTP to PR if we keep the party system.
The party system is the single biggest issue with our Politics. It prevents independents from ever being elected and allows a few parties to control the entire political landscape and narrative.
Which is why the entire history of Canada has been Conservative Government, Liberal Opposition or Liberal Government, Conservative opposition on a federal level excluding that one time because the right old white guy lead the NDP.
The point is we need a complete overhaul, and not a tune up so electoral reform should mean the entire system if we are going to go through with it because it is a huge undertaking.
I also do not need to have you pretentiously offer me "simple guides to political systems" because I think you are wrong.
There isn't a modern democracy in the world that doesn't have political parties. And for good reason, it's wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties...
The reason we have two major parties is described in Duverger's law. You don't have to think I'm right or wrong, because this is just the reality.
There isn’t a modern democracy in the world that doesn’t have political parties. And for good reason, it’s wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties…
There was a point where Democracy didn't exist, and it wasn't that long ago. We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can't we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren't working.
Human tribalism will be our downfall. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean the alternative is "wholly impractical". It just means humans are a generally ignorant and stubborn species who hate change and cannot imagine things beyond what they know.
Which is the actual reason why we have political parties much like other Primates have their social systems that can be found across the species regardless of how beneficial it is or isn't to the health of the overall species. We aren't that far removed from our cousins.
If you can explain exactly what makes removing political parties from the system wholly impractical I am all ears, otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.
There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago
Yeah, back when democracy didn't exist, humanity lived in misery compared to today's living standards.
We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.
Yeah, the better system is called proportional representation.
political parties from the system wholly impractical
Believe it or not, there is no part of our FPTP electoral system entrenches that political parties in the first place. I know you might not like it, but it's factually the truth. They organically come about because people, it's the most efficient way to organize.
otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.
You are a very angry person, lol. But regardless, Duverger's law is the reason we have a "two party" system.
Yeah, back when democracy didn’t exist, humanity lived in misery compared to today’s living standards.
Compared to today's living standards people who lived in 1800's lived in misery. It also likely depended on who you were and where you lived, exactly like today. This is not an argument against my point.
Yeah, the better system is called proportional representation.
Make an argument for proportional representation while retaining the party system then over removing the party system as a priority. I have already made my points, you are welcome to provide an actual argument against them.
Believe it or not, there is no part of our FPTP electoral system entrenches that political parties in the first place. I know you might not like it, but it’s factually the truth. They organically come about because people, it’s the most efficient way to organize.
Believe it or not, tribalism is not the solution when tribalism is the problem. Which has been my whole point and what you continue to ignore because "Proportional rep good. Unga bunga, only way".
Fun fact! The first ever secret ballot in a Democracy was rigged! Then we decided to build a whole system around that flawed idea and call it "best". Thousands of years later Democracy still doesn't work like it was supposed to and it isn't because we never tried proportional representation in the entire history of civilization.
You are a very angry person, lol. But regardless, Duverger’s law is the reason we have a “two party” system.
Ah yes, I can only be angry because I disagree with an ignoramus. Don't give yourself so much credit, my emotional state is fine.
In political science, Duverger's law (/ˈduːvərʒeɪ/ DOO-vər-zhay) holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party.[1][2] In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representation of minor parties in government.[3]
Will you look at that, the law you are quoting that I said you didn't understand proves me right by your own link in the first paragraph...
I am not wasting further time with you.
- Yeah, that's why your point about "There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago" doesn't make any sense. Shall we return to the dark ages?
- I am in support of proportional representation, which can occur independent of political party, similar to FPTP.
- Ok, so you haven't addressed my point about political parties existing independent of FPTP. Also, I never even brought up tribalism once, that was the other commenter (nor am I even in favour of it).
- Yes, democracy only functions when everyone has a say in governance, as proportional representation guarantees. It is the best system of governance, and to say otherwise is shows how nonsensical your thinking is.
- Yes, we have a two party system because of plurality voting, which is described by Duverger's law. Elimination of political parties ... is impractical.
- Clearly, you are taking my responses personally. Good luck living life feeling constantly like you are the victim and holier than thou.
"Parties" are inevitable just by simple human nature. It's the same reason cliques exist in highschool; We gravitate towards people we agree with and eventually (either purposefully or not) begin to align our decision making.
Our tribalism is one of our greatest weakness' and the ability to change our base responses and nature is one of our greatest strengths as a species.
I don't think we can change our base responses, to be honest.
I think throughout history we've shown that we can mask our tribal responses to maintain a veneer of civilisation. But that at the end of the day, that's all it is. It's a mask waiting for permission from someone like Trump to be cast aside.
I agree with you about tribalism being our greatest weakness. In fact I firmly believe that that is the ultimate answer to the Drake Equation. Their are no species capable of interstellar travel because the Great Filter of tribalism prevents any society from reaching the globalism necessary to ultimately achieve it. As an Archaeology major (a long long time ago, to be fair), the very tribalism that allowed us to dominate this world, is the same tribalism that will keep us ultimately from leaving it.
I don’t think we can change our base responses, to be honest.
If we couldn't both of us would likely not have lived this long, or would have committed a lot more murder to be here.
I think throughout history we’ve shown that we can mask our tribal responses to maintain a veneer of civilisation. But that at the end of the day, that’s all it is. It’s a mask waiting for permission from someone like Trump to be cast aside.
At no point in time have we demonstrated that we aren't tribal as a species, the tribes just grew in size. There is no mask, our world is literally divided by invisible lines made by tribes of people.
But this is changing and has changed over time. The fact that we have countries where most ethnic groups are represented and there isn't mass death proves that.
I agree with you about tribalism being our greatest weakness. In fact I firmly believe that that is the ultimate answer to the Drake Equation. Their are no species capable of interstellar travel because the Great Filter of tribalism prevents any society from reaching the globalism necessary to ultimately achieve it. As an Archaeology major (a long long time ago, to be fair), the very tribalism that allowed us to dominate this world, is the same tribalism that will keep us ultimately from leaving it.
As an archeology major you should know that civilization as we know it is around 6,000 years old, and that is nothing compared to our species total existence meaning we aren't that far removed from a time when individual tribes were the norm and it takes more than 6,000 years for big changes to be made in a species.
If we can make it through the growing pains, who knows what our species can do. We went from horses to fighter jets in less than 100 years. The problem is our growing pains are existential, and we are still in our infancy considering the grand scheme of things with no parent to show us the way.
To assume that "No species" can do something because we are too fucking stupid to do it ourselves demonstrates the hubris holding us back in the first place.
And for letting us down on proportional representation: [email protected]
You only think they were going to choose the most complex voting scheme out there.
Can you explain more? What voting scheme did you have in mind?