[Newsbot]

Title: Elizabeth May's election focus: winning own riding
Category: Political
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2011-03-25 01:04:32
Canadian

[Arctic_Menace]

Ugh. This woman needs to go.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I say give her the seat, and when she falls flat on her face we wont have to worry about her again.

[Lemmy]

It's likely a good thing for the mainstream parties that the Green's have a kook at the helm. A credible leader may actually make the Green movement a serious political force.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I agree they do a wonderful job of splitting the vote between the NDP and Libs.

Dont you think it would be hilarious if May missed in her riding but a green elsewhere in the country won theirs?

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's likely a good thing for the mainstream parties that the Green's have a kook at the helm. A credible leader may actually make the Green movement a serious political force.

Considering the opinion most have about all the heads of the parties I doubt it would make much difference. Layton is an honest forthwith kind of guy and people on here post all kinds of nasty stuff about him. Iggy is the kind of guy the resident cons here would be drooling all over ..... if he had run for them. Harper, well he is a tool so that's that.

What kind of leader are the Greens ever gonna get that won't come across as a hippie "save the whales/seals/trees/planet" kinda person. Lets face it. If they aren't then they likely wouldn't be running for green.

Quite frankly I think more people should be less concerned with the leader and more concerned with the platform. Its entirely the reason why our politics/politicians suck so bad. Its a popularity contest rather then a "who can run the country best" or a "what party ideology best suits me".

Would the Greens do better with somebody like David Suzuki in charge? How about an Ed Begley Jr. He very much lives and extols the green message. People like to make fun of the green save the planet type of people. It helps alleviate the guilt they secretly harbour that they are helping to destroy the planet for future generations.

[Lemmy]

The thing is that it's EASY to say you support Green when you know there's no chance in hell of them governing. It's an easy protest vote to cast their way. But when you actually look at their platform, who's seriously going to support it? You just can't tell people you want to add a $2/l tax on gasoline and seriously expect people to elect you. The Greens need a leader that will take a LESS Hippie-esque approach, maybe a climate scientist or environmental economist?

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The thing is that it's EASY to say you support Green when you know there's no chance in hell of them governing. It's an easy protest vote to cast their way. But when you actually look at their platform, who's seriously going to support it? You just can't tell people you want to add a $2/l tax on gasoline and seriously expect people to elect you. The Greens need a leader that will take a LESS Hippie-esque approach, maybe a climate scientist or environmental economist?

I agree. A lot of pro-green people would (and do) make an about face when they realize that it will come at a personal cost to them just like the pro-military/justice cons do when they see who much their pet projects will cost them.

I agree the greens would be better served with a hippie-esque person. I just think that anybody with that ideology will run for another party because they want to make a difference but understand the political realities. There is also no guarantee either. Dion was a very pro-green person and he was honest and thoughtful about it. Didn't help him in the end. He failed to capture the greenish leftwing voters from the NDP/Greens and his ideology didn't sit well with the more right wing Liberal voters.

That is how we ended up with Iggy.

[Guy_Fawkes]

DerbyX DerbyX:

just like the pro-military/justice cons do when they see who much their pet projects will cost them.

I wish I could rep you for that!

[Caelon]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Layton is an honest forthwith kind of guy and people on here post all kinds of nasty stuff about him.

Reaaly? I admit I have never met the man in person so my opinion is based on visuals and quotes through the media. When I see him on TV he comes across as slimier than a used car sales man. With that impression I find it difficult to trust the man. Add to that some of the rhetoric spouted and he drops down to the bottom of a not very attractive list.

Maybe in person he comes across as a reasoned and thoughtful person, etc, etc. His media personality, however, is not something that resonates with me.

[andyt]

But Harper, he's a real sweetheart, right? Not given to playing politics at all? Are you sure this isn't just a confirmation bias on your part?

I haven't met any politicians up close and personal, that I can recall. But my guess is that they are mostly decent people who want to do some good, but have strong egos. The system then twists them into pretzels, because we would never elect any of them if they said what they really think. Look at Harper and his commie Canada speech - he's trying to distance himself from it as far as he can.

My confirmation bias would be that the lefties are the better people, because they care about others more. Otherwise, why join a party that has no hope of assuming power. The Liberals are probably shot full of people who were more interested in power than doing any good, but they are being weeded out as the party spends time in the wilderness. And its' the reverse process for the conservatives, they're getting more power hungry types as they stay in power. That's why I think it's good not to keep any party in power for too long.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Man she is a horse faced brod isnt she.

[Bodah]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Ugh. This woman needs to go.

Yup, as far as I'm concerned if you don't have a riding you shouldn't get a seat in the televised debates they're fucked up enough as it is.

[QBC]

Bodah Bodah:

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Ugh. This woman needs to go.

Yup, as far as I'm concerned if you don't have a riding you shouldn't get a seat in the televised debates they're fucked up enough as it is.

Yeah, that is true..... If all the leaders had to tie their shoes before going on stage as a requirement to get in on the national debate, there would be an empty stage, so we can't restrict it too much.

[Unsound]

andyt andyt:

But Harper, he's a real sweetheart, right? Not given to playing politics at all? Are you sure this isn't just a confirmation bias on your part?

I haven't met any politicians up close and personal, that I can recall. But my guess is that they are mostly decent people who want to do some good, but have strong egos. The system then twists them into pretzels, because we would never elect any of them if they said what they really think. Look at Harper and his commie Canada speech - he's trying to distance himself from it as far as he can.

My confirmation bias would be that the lefties are the better people, because they care about others more. Otherwise, why join a party that has no hope of assuming power. The Liberals are probably shot full of people who were more interested in power than doing any good, but they are being weeded out as the party spends time in the wilderness. And its' the reverse process for the conservatives, they're getting more power hungry types as they stay in power. That's why I think it's good not to keep any party in power for too long.

Qouted for truth. For the sake of brevity you could just use one of my favorite political qoutes that pretty much says the same. "Politicians are like diapers. They both need frequent changes, and for the same reason"