Andrew Scheer for Prime Minister?

[phreezee]

I honestly think we needed a Quebecer to beat Trudope, so I'm disappointed in the result. Not knowing anything about Scheer other than he's from Saskatchewan and a social conservative, I don't like our chances of getting rid of Trudope.

[01RedDX]

.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by phreezee
I honestly think we needed a Quebecer to beat Trudope, so I'm disappointed in the result. Not knowing anything about Scheer other than he's from Saskatchewan and a social conservative, I don't like our chances of getting rid of Trudope.

Bernier was far from a lock in Quebec, especially considering his position on supply management.

Scheer's social conservatism is going to screw us. It's a double hit of driving away more centrist conservatives and giving the Liberals plenty of fodder to hammer him on in the media.

[g-m]

Just bad choices all around for the next election. What was wrong with Harper again?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by FraserB


Bernier was far from a lock in Quebec, especially considering his position on supply management.

Scheer's social conservatism is going to screw us. It's a double hit of driving away more centrist conservatives and giving the Liberals plenty of fodder to hammer him on in the media.

He got 24 months to dial that back. But with 51%, that's hardly everyone onboard.

Somehow this may foreshadow our UCP as well.

[403Gemini]

Is this where we wake up tomorrow and the Conservatives are like "JUST KIDDING, we're keeping Ambrose on board" ? :dunno:

...please?

[J-hop]

Josh Duggar?

[heavyD]

Originally posted by g-m
Just bad choices all around for the next election. What was wrong with Harper again?

Grass is greener syndrome. Unfortunately for Canadians, Trudeau has been a major bust and if he gets another term it's going to be dark times as the country can't sustain the rate of government spending.

[Marsh]

Brutal. Bernier was the guy to lead the party forward, bridging the fiscal and economic conservative aspect with a more liberal social leaning. Scheer is just more of the same old, same old. Not really the guy to move things forward...

[Alpine Autowerks]

first time I wanted a Frenchie to lead us.

[ExtraSlow]

Scheer is a man with no agenda, which sounds good, until you realize he`s a man with no plan and no principles, which doesn`t seem like a winning formula.

Basically he`s a federal version of Ed Stelmach. Ranked ballot voting and a massive field of contenders has fucked us over once again.

[mr2mike]

So Liberals for federal for at least 2 more terms now?

[killramos]

Can I ask for a refund on the next 2 years of my party membership?

I am just surprised people actually wanted that guy, completely out of left field for me...

SoCon's :facepalm:

I am so glad I didn't actually attend the leadership convention party at the Manning center this weekend, would have been depressing.

[Seth1968]

One characteristic of a progressively rational society can be found in its position on assisted suicide. To their credit, the Liberals changed the law to allow some forms of assisted suicide, as the previous law on assisted suicide is morally backwards, and against human rights. Scheer claims he won't repeal the law (he can't anyway), but wants to tighten it up. Kudos for not trying to appeal the law, but the new law is already too tight.

As far as pot goes, he's not happy with decriminalization of pot, but say's, "I am very realistic, and once it’s legal in a short period of time there’s going to be a lot of people that work for companies that distribute it …. so we have to be very realistic as a party.” In other words, he's not going to try and change anything about it.

With that said, no one is going to be able to move us backwards in social policies, as our Supreme Court doesn't side with dogma and idealism.

So what exactly are your problems with Scheer?

[HuMz]

I would be curious as to the negative reaction he faces. If its what he does/doesn't stand for, or if its just because people preferred Bernier. As for what he stands for his policy issues are, prioritizing real refugees, tax savings on home energy, rid Canada of foreign oil, allowing MP's to vote and speak as to their conscience (instead of him dictating everything), protecting and developing the forest industry, taking the fight to ISIS, against M-103, common sense on firearms, support for parents of the independent system, standing with Ukraine and other eastern European allies, enhancing relationship with India and the rest of Asia, supporting Israel, allowing free speech on campus, accountability for first nations, supply management, ending corporate welfare, parental choice, scrap the carbon tax, balance the budget in 2 years, applying property rights to the charter, free trade, cheaper flights through allowing competition, religious freedom, improved health care, protecting the environment, keeping weed legal.

[Seth1968]

^ Exactly.

Looks decent enough to me.

[phreezee]

At least he has a sense of humour.

0pOp99HBUBw

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by phreezee
At least he has a sense of humour.

:thumbsup:

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by HuMz
I would be curious as to the negative reaction he faces. If its what he does/doesn't stand for, or if its just because people preferred Bernier. As for what he stands for his policy issues are, prioritizing real refugees, tax savings on home energy, rid Canada of foreign oil, allowing MP's to vote and speak as to their conscience (instead of him dictating everything), protecting and developing the forest industry, taking the fight to ISIS, against M-103, common sense on firearms, support for parents of the independent system, standing with Ukraine and other eastern European allies, enhancing relationship with India and the rest of Asia, supporting Israel, allowing free speech on campus, accountability for first nations, supply management, ending corporate welfare, parental choice, scrap the carbon tax, balance the budget in 2 years, applying property rights to the charter, free trade, cheaper flights through allowing competition, religious freedom, improved health care, protecting the environment, keeping weed legal.

Can you point to this doc somewhere? His site is wiped since he won.

[Gman.45]

first time I wanted a Frenchie to lead us.

Heh, same, big time. There were few - if any - statements of future policy Max made that I didn't agree with. Could have been the first, at least semi-libertarian candidate to have a true shot at winning office in the West. Sad.

Still, Seth isn't wrong either, I don't think it's all doom and gloom time yet. I hope what Humz posted is accurate.

[cancer man]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-five-things-policies-1.4137120

Good Luck Andrew.
Never going to make it.\

[J-hop]

I love when lofty goals of balancing the budget in 2 years are put forth with zero backing. Just words and not even an intelligent goal. Hopefully no one is swayed by that...

Tax breaks for families that choose private school? Eff off....

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop
I love when lofty goals of balancing the budget in 2 years are put forth with zero backing. Just words and not even an intelligent goal. Hopefully no one is swayed by that...

Tax breaks for families that choose private school? Eff off....

From what I gather, part of the deficit reduction will come from shaving this:


It was interesting to read David Akin's numbers on Trudeau's dollar handouts in his first 100 days in office. By his calculations it amounts to $5.3 billion, of which slightly less than a billion dollars was spent inside Canada. $4.3 billion spent outside of the country will buy you a lot of thanks from some organizations such as the UN or from climate change conferences. That type of spending will also earn you a lot of selfies to up your political profile. But in the end it is our taxpayers footing the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/keith-beardsley/trudeau-deficit_b_9226722.html

Another major cut is apparently geared toward all government branches.

2 years seems out to lunch though, but then again, "The budget will balance itself" - Trudeau

I don't know about the tax breaks for families that choose private schools. If it's true, I'd like to see the reasoning behind it

[Gestalt]

Another anti conservative conservative.

Disappointed.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Can you point to this doc somewhere? His site is wiped since he won.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170525150612/http://www.andrewscheer.com/policy

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HuMz


https://web.archive.org/web/20170525150612/http://www.andrewscheer.com/policy




As Prime Minister, I will:

1. Approve the Energy East pipeline Bringing Western Canadian oil to Eastern provinces would eliminate our need to import foreign oil. This would create over 14 thousand jobs across the Canadian economy. TransCanada predicts this pipeline would transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day. The federal government needs to cut the red tape and allow Canadian businesses to create jobs.

2. Expedite infrastructure projects related to the energy sector There is no reason we should have to be dependent on any foreign import based on a lack of infrastructure. Therefore I will prioritize Federal infrastructure projects that enhance access to natural resource reserves

3. Show Canadians where their oil comes from In order to increase awareness among Canadians about where their oil comes from, we would mandate companies to display at the pump if any of their oil was sourced from foreign countries. This would allow Canadian consumers to make the choice to purchase Canadian-sourced, ethically produced oil.

:thumbsup: Especially #3

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


From what I gather, part of the deficit reduction will come from shaving this:



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/keith-beardsley/trudeau-deficit_b_9226722.html

Another major cut is apparently geared toward all government branches.

2 years seems out to lunch though, but then again, "The budget will balance itself" - Trudeau

I don't know about the tax breaks for families that choose private schools. If it's true, I'd like to see the reasoning behind it

yea 2 years to me says he doesn't have any better grasp than Trudeau.


I've slowly been coming to the realization that fiscal and social policies share a lot in common being that a centrist approach is usually the best. The spenders are bad as they accumulate deadweight and inefficiencies which result in cuts needed after. The cutters are bad because they deplete key areas beyond acceptable levels to meet their lofty targets resulting in spending needed after.

We are stuck in this pendulum that seems like it will never find the middle. The problem are goldfish voters that are brought in by promises of sweeping short term change and who have forgotten the past.

[Seth1968]

Over the last five years, Canada imported an average of 745,000 barrels of oil a day at an annual cost of $23 Billion, all because we cannot transport our oil within our own country.

So realistically, can the PM force Energy East, and what is the actual amount of savings if it's built?

[Gestalt]

What he can't do is force businesses to buy from his choice of supplier.

What he can do is pay them to do so with tax payer money. Which a anti conservative like himself would do.

I really can't get past the anti abortion, afraid of non Christians, voted against assisted suicide, is a fan of the war on drugs, wants to defund Universities who do not want to give a platform to hate speech, wants to give himself a huge tax break for sending his kids to religious school beliefs.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Gestalt
What he can't do is force businesses to buy from his choice of supplier.

Perhaps a huge tariff on foreign oil?

Then not only will the consumer see the Saudi Flag at some pumps, but they'll pay an additional 20% for the Saudi gas.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Perhaps a huge tariff on foreign oil?

Then not only will the consumer see the Saudi Flag at some pumps, but they'll pay an additional 20% for the Saudi gas. l

Go against the saudis? Stop selling them weapons? Tell them to let women drive? Question free trade and lowering of tarrifs? Preech on brother.

But scheer wont do any of that, his voting records speeks for itself.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Gestalt
l

Go against the saudis? Tell them to let women drive?

The flag at the pumps should include text that woman can't drive, along with all the other things they're forbidden to do. The text could also include all the other appalling human rights atrocities that occur there.

With that, all Canadians be then be shouting for Energy East.

[Gestalt]

Labels don't work.

We have made in China on everything, and just buy more and more of it.

I'm not sure how I feel about tarrifs and forcing business to buy only a politicians choice of product. Seems dangerous.

First step thoguh would be stop exporting oil, re importing gas.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


The flag at the pumps should include text that woman can't drive, along with all the other things they're forbidden to do. The text could also include all the other appalling human rights atrocities that occur there.

With that, all Canadians be then be shouting for Energy East.

I don't think that would change any minds (human rights violations). The average Canadian doesn't care (myself included).

People rage about 911 but don't really care about air strikes in Aleppo (how many people do you know that are still talking about this daily).

People care if a family member gets hurt in an at fault car crash, but a stranger? "Effing moron, hope Darwinism gets him"

I'm not on a soapbox, I'll be the first to admit I don't truly care about lives I'm not connected to. I have no idea how to fix that, but at least I'm honest with myself.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


I don't think that would change any minds (human rights violations). The average Canadian doesn't care (myself included). .

Ok, forget the human rights angle then.

What of a sign that say's:


Over the last five years, Canada imported an average of 745,000 barrels of oil a day at an annual cost of $23 Billion, all because we cannot transport our oil within our own country. So much of that money should be staying in Canada’s economy. We can accomplish this by ensuring market access for Canadians to use Canadian oil.

Would that change your mind? If not, what then?

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Ok, forget the human rights angle then.

What of a sign that say's:



Would that change your mind? If not, what then?


Yea I think going from the "shop locally" perspective is a great idea. Human rights I think people just won't care. Everyone knows iPhones are the product of human rights abuses but they sell like hot cakes

[suntan]

Chinese people suffering makes the iPhone prettier, in my view.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Ok, forget the human rights angle then.

What of a sign that say's:



Would that change your mind? If not, what then?
No government will lie like that for you. Transportation was not the issue. Production was. Alberta was pumping full tilt and never ran a surplus.

And how much Saudi gas ends up at Alberta stations. Honest question. I can't find info.

[Seth1968]

Looks like we import a whopping 50% of the oil we use.

[Gestalt]

Google says you are on crack.

We are at record production 4 million a day, eastern Canada impoorts 0.75 million a day, or 18%

None In Alberta.
That's total of all import, Saudi is a small contribution to total.

I really don't care. I more care that we sell them equipment.

[Seth1968]

Forgot to include the CBC link where I found that stat:


Canada exports about two-thirds of its oil to the United States— while half of the oil used in Canada is imported from other countries.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-imports-oil-while-battling-over-pipeline-exports-1.1137804

[Gestalt]

Their number is a little wrong, and misleading how they worded it. But it's close.

If we produce 4 million, and import 0.75 million, that's 18%

If we export 2/3 of the 4 million, that means 1.4 million stays here. So total used here is 1.4+0.75 or about 2.2, so .75 of that 2.2 is 33%

But really no foreign oil is used west of Sarnia and so you are suggesting we stop exporting to cover the imports?

[dirtsniffer]

increase production to cover the imports.

[Gestalt]

We don't have capacity. We set records every year thou

And if you are gping to mandate a productive increase, are you going to regulate where it has to be sold to? Then you want to regulate where companies can buy from.

Sounds like a lot of big government to me.

[Abeo]

Originally posted by Gestalt
But really no foreign oil is used west of Sarnia and so you are suggesting we stop exporting to cover the imports?

That's only 2/3rds of Canada's population. No biggie.

[gatorade]

Nope to the topic title, with such a close vote doesn't look like a significant proportion of "conservatives" are even enthusiastic about him.

[Gestalt]

Looks like dead people came out to vote for Scheer.

Lietch and Bernier camps pointed out that 134,000 people were reported to vote, but when the votes were counted, there were 141,000, and that includes 10000 spoiled ballots.

And Scheers victory was what? 7000?

Did the dead turnout to vote like for Clinton?

[HiTempguy1]

No, it was the dairy farmers.

Seriously. National Post had a great investigative article on it. Basically Bernier was a shoe-in, but dairy farmers mobilized a whole bunch of new members/old.members to vote Scheer vs Bernier.

Also, the NDP and Liberals were buying memberships to vote.

I think they need a better membership process.

[killramos]

We need a system like the American elections where you have to register with a party in order to vote in primaries. Make it illegal to join more than one party per jurisdiction.

[Gestalt]

National post is doshonest.

[Supa Dexta]

Guy's a goofy dork.

Libs would be best off to replace trudeau next round with someone else to appease the growing dissent against him.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by killramos
We need a system like the American elections where you have to register with a party in order to vote in primaries. Make it illegal to join more than one party per jurisdiction.

That sounds horrible and a great way to facilitate identity politics. The US is a great example of how people build allegiance to political parties and vote with them regardless of what moronic ideas they cook up. (Yea I do see what you're getting at in this case but I think it still is a bad idea)

I personally think joining any political party is pretty ridiculous as a common voter. You're basically willingly giving in to their propaganda and no doubt come election time you're going to base your vote on a lot less rational thought than you would otherwise..

The "public" shouldn't really have a say in the selection of party leaders IMO. Those that join parties seem to either be activists trying to sway a vote and/or people entrenched in a certain narrow view on the world. Neither of which are good in politics as they either screw up a political party and get someone in that shouldn't be there or hold back the party from naturally progressing. Let the parties sort that out themselves and then the public can vote

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
Libs would be best off to replace trudeau next round with someone else to appease the growing dissent against him.

If anything I think a Trump presidency will guarantee another Trudeau term.

Sheer looks like someone that will just turn over and try to earn belly rubs by The Donald.

With Sheer, it will take a pretty big scandal to take the Liberals down. At least with Bernier, there is a chance.

[Seth1968]

Kind of off topic, but I was looking forward to a debate between Trudeau and O'Leary.

O'Leary: You've spent billions of Canadian's tax money for your pet projects in other countries.

Trudeau": Ahh, um, diversity, ahhh, tolerance, ahh, diverse, ahhh

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Trudeau": Ahh, um, diversity, ahhh, tolerance, ahh, diverse, ahhh feminism ahh

FTFY

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Xtrema


FTFY

"I'd like to see a female prime minister, I think its time"

:rofl: A faux feminist at that. What an asshole :guns:

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


"I'd like to see a female prime minister, I think its time"

:rofl: A faux feminist at that. What an asshole :guns:

I know he meant an "elected" one but still sounds dumb when that was spoken.

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2017/06/05/prime-minister-justin-trudeau-appears-on-live-with-kelly-and-ryan-in-niagara-falls-today.html

Or may be he will go thru gender reassignment before 2019 election? :rofl:

[Maxt]

When I first saw a picture of him on a news website in a suit, I thought, "Paul Bernardo is already having a parole hearing?".

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968

Trudeau": Ahh, um, diversity, ahhh, tolerance, ahh, diverse, ahhh

What blows me away is that the conservatives haven't yet figured out the social side. Holy fak, just do something, fully support gay marriage or something, it's not that hard.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by J-hop


What blows me away is that the conservatives haven't yet figured out the social side. Holy fak, just do something, fully support gay marriage or something, it's not that hard. Yeah, both provincially and federally this would do wonders for their support.
- Stop talking about abortion, the matter is settled
- Work on equal rights for all sexes, genders and orientations.

Boom, ten percent or more rise in popularity, majority governments.

[CompletelyNumb]

That's what pisses me off about the conservative parties. Just a little social liberalism would get them a majority in my mind.

I'm trying hard to be supportive but I can't find much to like about Andrew Scheer winning.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by J-hop


What blows me away is that the conservatives haven't yet figured out the social side. Holy fak, just do something, fully support gay marriage or something, it's not that hard.

If they have figured it out, they won't get rid of the Progressive from the party name.

BTW, RIP Alberta PC Party.


Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Yeah, both provincially and federally this would do wonders for their support.
- Stop talking about abortion, the matter is settled
- Work on equal rights for all sexes, genders and orientations.

Boom, ten percent or more rise in popularity, majority governments.

Well if you think about it, Conservatives are always scared of Sharia Law yet they are trying to get the government to enforce their value on everyone which is pretty much the same thing.

All Conservatives have to do is pull a Biden:
gGTZ3jiIt-k

You can believe in what you want in your personal life, just don't drag it into the government.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm not happy with all NDP governments, I'm so far neutral on the Liberals but all Conservatives parties on every level are too extreme for my taste.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by J-hop


What blows me away is that the conservatives haven't yet figured out the social side. Holy fak, just do something, fully support gay marriage or something, it's not that hard.

It is hard when your party leaders don't support it and your grassroots party members definitely don't support it. It becomes something you just don't talk about but definitely can't full on support. The party's most loyal and active base of support are social conservatives, pissing them off just isn't something the party can afford to do.

Harper was able play this side pretty much perfectly as a conservative leader. Which makes the notion that Scheer will 'allow MP's to vote and speak as to their conscience' pretty laughable as it is the opposite approach that saw the CPC's greatest success. Harper was able to reel in the crazies but still appeal to the base better than anybody. But eventually the grip can loosen and the backbenchers get antsy and they start saying stuff and it scares the fence-sitters away.

Danielle Smith would be the conservative opposite who saw her inability to control the message and the people in her party lead from a seemingly surefire majority to an embarrassing defeat that stuck with the party through the next election even after she left.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by kertejud2


It is hard when your party leaders don't support it and your grassroots party members definitely don't support it. It becomes something you just don't talk about but definitely can't full on support. The party's most loyal and active base of support are social conservatives, pissing them off just isn't something the party can afford to do.

Harper was able play this side pretty much perfectly as a conservative leader. Which makes the notion that Scheer will 'allow MP's to vote and speak as to their conscience' pretty laughable as it is the opposite approach that saw the CPC's greatest success. Harper was able to reel in the crazies but still appeal to the base better than anybody. But eventually the grip can loosen and the backbenchers get antsy and they start saying stuff and it scares the fence-sitters away.

Danielle Smith would be the conservative opposite who saw her inability to control the message and the people in her party lead from a seemingly surefire majority to an embarrassing defeat that stuck with the party through the next election even after she left.

Yea the thing is though the social conservative voting base is getting smaller and smaller so why they can't figure out that they need to make the shift is beyond me. They probably would say something like "we stick to our principles" which in reality is "we're stubborn".

They need to stop making moronic comments in interviews on socially sensitive issues too. Saying "I have my views but this is what the Canadian public wanted so we aren't going to revisit that" is such a stupid thing to say. It shows they have zero social intelligence.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop
They need to stop making moronic comments in interviews on socially sensitive issues too. Saying "I have my views but this is what the Canadian public wanted so we aren't going to revisit that" is such a stupid thing to say. It shows they have zero social intelligence.

It shows they have zero social and political intelligence.

FTFY.

They know Canadians want social progression such as gay rights, dying with dignity, etc, but the PC's won't shut up about it and have to express their high and mighty self righteous religious position.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by J-hop


Yea the thing is though the social conservative voting base is getting smaller and smaller so why they can't figure out that they need to make the shift is beyond me. They probably would say something like "we stick to our principles" which in reality is "we're stubborn".

Because immigrants.

Asians and south Asians if mobilized are mostly social conservatives as well.

And the attack and defunding of education institutions will only guarantee to build conservative base.

[SportEL]

Anybody but the Globalist Cuck Islamist Sympathizer who can't speak without uhs everyone few words.


Scheer calls out Trudeau for Lying --> https://youtu.be/z-Ha4uOiAKY

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Seth1968


It shows they have zero social and political intelligence.

There's smart people in the party who are more than aware of how to play the political game. Better than anybody else in the country, really.

It's their supporters who are the problem. You don't need to say stupid things and do stupid things at the wrong time unless it is what your base demands


They know Canadians want social progression such as gay rights, dying with dignity, etc, but the PC's won't shut up about it and have to express their high and mighty self righteous religious position.

Hard to get donations from the church going types and even harder to get them going door to door to solicit donations without pandering to that position. Rob Anders was great at mobilizing those people and it is the main reason he was tolerated in the party for so long by the powers that be. It is how the CPC got the huge funding edge on the Liberals after the donation rules were changed that left the Grits weak and disorganized after Chretien.


Resisting change is the basic premise of the political ideology. It's right in the name. It shouldn't be surprising that the party for old people and religious zealots is slow to accept the new hippie reality we live in.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by SportEL
Anybody but the Globalist Cuck Islamist Sympathizer who can't speak without uhs everyone few words.


Scheer calls out Trudeau for Lying --> https://youtu.be/z-Ha4uOiAKY

Didn't click on the link but I would bet it's from Rebel Media.

[SportEL]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Didn't click on the link but I would bet it's from Rebel Media.

Haha, nope. But the content wouldn't change anyways because of the source.


More Scheer Ownage of the Traitor Trudeau -->https://youtu.be/z6XAsLgHRZQ

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by kertejud2


There's smart people in the party who are more than aware of how to play the political game. Better than anybody else in the country, really.

It's their supporters who are the problem. You don't need to say stupid things and do stupid things at the wrong time unless it is what your base demands



Hard to get donations from the church going types and even harder to get them going door to door to solicit donations without pandering to that position. Rob Anders was great at mobilizing those people and it is the main reason he was tolerated in the party for so long by the powers that be. It is how the CPC got the huge funding edge on the Liberals after the donation rules were changed that left the Grits weak and disorganized after Chretien.


Resisting change is the basic premise of the political ideology. It's right in the name. It shouldn't be surprising that the party for old people and religious zealots is slow to accept the new hippie reality we live in.

Wow, very good points.

All the more reason why a political system based in political parties, left, right, center, needs to be abolished.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Wow, very good points.

All the more reason why a political system based in political parties, left, right, center, needs to be abolished.

At the very least we need a true separation of church and state. Maybe a little extreme but practicing a religion should ultimately bar you from entering or at the very least leading a political party. If we quit beating around the bush religion is one of the primary sources of poor and discriminatory social policies. Any person that thinks they can leave their religion at the door is deluded.

Remove religion and IMO not only will you remove the far right but you will remove the reactionary far left as well

Edit: and if someone comes in and says discriminating against discrimation is just as bad I'm going to double face palm

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


At the very least we need a true separation of church and state. Maybe a little extreme but practicing a religion should ultimately bar you from entering or at the very least leading a political party. If we quit beating around the bush religion is one of the primary sources of poor and discriminatory social policies. Any person that thinks they can leave their religion at the door is deluded.

If I had my way, belief in an invisible man would be classified as a mental disorder and treated as such.

It's one thing to consider that consciousness is eternal and an afterlife is possible, (and possibly a necessity), but quite another to impose abstract thought on another (religion).

In my world, the education system would fundamentally teach empirical evidence, skepticism, critical thought, etc. Well, science in general.