It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Australian P.M. labels 'Old Europe' Irrational.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

You won't see me talking about British inner politics - sometimes it's better to stay low on things you don't know. Take that advice. Thanks.


How many times have you talked about inner-American politics?

The BBC is respected worldwide. All reports I've seen show Schroeder is becoming increasingly unpopular. His economic promises haven't come through. Do you have something to show to the contrary?


The conservatives would have done much better had they been able to leash some of the more extreme candidates. A lot of people really didn't want to vote Liberal, but just couldn't support the Conservatives after the comments made.


Do you have any polls to show? I can go find articles in America that still say Bush won because of "moral values" based on faulty exit polls, while polling done after showed the major factor was Iraq and the War on Terror. The media will focus on whatever they want.




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Here's a couple of polls from right before the elections:

Ipsos - Harper Poised To Be P.M. With Strong Minority

Environics - Dead heat: L 33%, C 33%, N 18%

This page keeps track of the Election Opinion Polls, and offers these thoughts on the results:


Election night on June 28th brought a very different result from the what the media and academic predictions had led everyone to believe. One explanation lies in the way in which most polling companies rolled "leaners" in together with truly "decided" voters. Many of those leaners obviously had second thoughts in the last few days of the campaign and decided not to vote Conservative. An indication that this could happen is seen in the last Compas poll that revealed that more respondents believed that a Liberal-led government (either majority or minority) would be better for the country than a Conservative-led government by a margin of 41% to 28%. It is interesting that the level of support for a Conservative-led government was 5 percentage points lower than those who said they were thinking of voting Conservative (33%).



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
None of that backed up your claims.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Why don't you tell me exactly what it is you would like to see? That way I know what to look for.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You're right, it's not Iraq. Most Canadians, Frenchmen, and Germans don't agree with the war. At the same time, the liberal governments have still bee doing worse then the conservative. Their utopian beliefs, and welfare economics are failing.


Liberals in Canada aren't liberals in the United States. And the Liberals in Canada are having a hard time because of ONE issue, which is very internal - a sponsorships scandal. It has nothing to do with political philosophy, and everything to do with a government that's become too confident.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
And about what's been said by some American posters about Canadian politics in this thread... I feel like saying what's being said to us in other threads...

You criticize our political system. You must be a Canada-hater. I bet you're jealous of our freedom.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The US has a shrinking unemployment which is already lower then the average in Europe by a ratio of about 2:1.



US unemployment is shrinking cuz the books are cooked - only people collecting unemployment insurance are considered "unemployed." So once their insurance runs out, they're no longer 'unemployed' whether they have a job or not. ...The homeless, bankrupt, barely surviving from one gig to the next just are not counted...


Also, the US national debt is over $8.2 trillion - and you are minimizing the importance of that because it's not as much as all the nations in the EU combined? Pul-leeze!


.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

US unemployment is shrinking cuz the books are cooked - only people collecting unemployment insurance are considered "unemployed." So once their insurance runs out, they're no longer 'unemployed' whether they have a job or not. ...The homeless, bankrupt, barely surviving from one gig to the next just are not counted...


And European nations do what, exactly? I'm going to bet their standards aren't much different.


Also, the US national debt is over $8.2 trillion - and you are minimizing the importance of that because it's not as much as all the nations in the EU combined? Pul-leeze!


America's debt is smaller in relative size when compared to its GDP then the most powerful economies in Europe. France and Germany have larger relative debts.


Why don't you tell me exactly what it is you would like to see? That way I know what to look for


I want to see something that specifically asks why people voted for who they did, like in America. What were the most common reasons? That's what I'm arguing here.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Well, we aren't Americans and don't poll like you. The pollster's were too busy covering their butts after being wrong, that the only surveys that were done were more along the lines of when did you decide and what's important to you.

Here are two examples of said butt-covering:
One Fourth of Voters Decided their Vote in the Last 24 Hours
How 3.78% of All Votes Cast On Election Night Handed The Liberals A Minority Government and The Conservatives A Back Seat

And while not a poll, this sums it up:



The commonest, near-universal, interpretation of what happened was that a combination of last-minute Liberal fear-mongering and negative ads coupled with some Conservative bloopers sent New Democrats scuttling back to the Liberals for fear that Harper’s hordes were at the gates of government. - Richard Gwyn

Quite simply, the majority of Canadian decided, at the last minute, that it was safer to stay with the devil we knew. Take it or leave it, I don't care. If you wish to continue in your delusion that you have a better grasp of Canadian internal politics than the people who actually live here, that is your perogative.

No matter what you are presented with, you are obviously incapable of assimilating new information into your very narrow view of the world. I'm done with this discussion.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Plus he couldn't really agree the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do because he was part of it and it isn't in his nature to admit he is wrong... even if no one else besides Bush, Blair and a few other leaders agree with him.


Few agreed with Howard and Bush, yet they were both re-elected...That's strange.


This reminds me of the late film critic Pauline Kael’s reaction to Richard Nixon’s landslide victory over George McGovern:


I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.


[edit on 1/31/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Quite simply, the majority of Canadian decided, at the last minute, that it was safer to stay with the devil we knew. Take it or leave it, I don't care. If you wish to continue in your delusion that you have a better grasp of Canadian internal politics than the people who actually live here, that is your perogative.


What your source seems to be saying is that the conservatives made campaign mistakes, or the liberals were better, not that people agreed with liberals more, or were too scared of a conservative policy.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by shoo
You won't see me talking about British inner politics - sometimes it's better to stay low on things you don't know. Take that advice. Thanks.


:shk: spare me. Really now, People seem to have NO problem with commenting on US politics to the point of being critical over who we voted for to outright campaigning for one party to another. Yet, we dare not venture into sacred EU stuff eh?

Good for Howard. The EU's policies are at best "fortress like" and are in place to staunchly defend its home grow industries. Just ask the Thai's. In due time thse policies will cheese off the ret of the non EU world. It is not inconcieveable that we may have a Canada, Aus, US, Mexico union to combat the EU and China's rising influence



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What your source seems to be saying is that the conservatives made campaign mistakes, or the liberals were better, not that people agreed with liberals more, or were too scared of a conservative policy.


I know I said I was done with this, but you sounded so reasonable......

Canadian election campaigns are very different from those in the US. The main focus is always on specific topics, such as health-care and social programs. The campaign errors the Conservatives made were in relation to rights that Canadians hold as unassailable.

Examples:

Cheryl Gallant who said that there is no difference between the beheading of Nichols Berg and abortion.

Randy White said that the Conservatives would be 'very prudent' in using the notwithstanding clause (he was refering to changing our Charter of Rights and same-sex marriage) which allows the government to overturn the Supreme Court. Only problem is, it's never been used since it's introduction, and we don't want it used now.

Rob Merrifield called for mandatory couselling for all women seeking abortions. Also not very popular.

Again, Cheryl Gallant stuck her foot in her mouth when she opposed amending the hate laws to include sexual orientation because then that might somehow protect pedophiles


Scott Reid advocated repealing official bilingualism, which is a country destroying idea.

Just weeks before the election, a letter written by Vic Toews was leaked to the Liberal party expressing his desire to repeal or amend our hate-crime laws in respect to homosexuals.

These are the kinds of things that made Canadians feel that the Conservatives couldn't be trusted to run our country the way we want it run. I hope this helps you get an idea of just how out of control they were, and if Stephen Harper didn't have the leadership to keep them quiet, how could he run a government?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Yea, you can say that, and it sounds all well enough. The problem is proving it. It's like listening to a liberal talk about why Bush was re-elected. It's a one-sided view. They'll say something like rednecks, or religious nuts, while the truth is far different.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I'm not arguing either side, in particular. I voted Independant. Like I said our coverage is very different from yours, but all of the stupid comments the rougue Conservatives made hurt the Conservatives at the only poll where it counts.

We had the choice between a corrupt government, and a party who said one thing in their platform, but whose members made contradicting statements, in public, on camera.

Not being at war, we didn't have the same kinds of issues to deal with as you did, and the election was focused on who would do the least damage to our country. We're a very cynical bunch politically, up here.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
Quite simply, the majority of Canadian decided, at the last minute, that it was safer to stay with the devil we knew. Take it or leave it, I don't care. If you wish to continue in your delusion that you have a better grasp of Canadian internal politics than the people who actually live here, that is your perogative.


This is exactly what's been happening in the UK. Perhaps I'm not qualified to judge, since although I've lived here since '93, in not a citizen and therefore can't vote.

Nevertheless, I've yet to meet a single person who supports (or admits to supporting) Labour. If the Conservatives could just get their act together - to include finding a credible leader - they would probably win by a large margin.

In the meantime, people will continue voting for the "devil they know", or will just abstain.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
How many times have you talked about inner-American politics?

The BBC is respected worldwide. All reports I've seen show Schroeder is becoming increasingly unpopular. His economic promises haven't come through. Do you have something to show to the contrary?


Rarely and when it was more about general topcis that may affected the USA but didn't stick to inner American politics. About American foreign politics? Often but that affects us all.

So, do you start to realise something? Maybe even the respected BBC puts facts not the exact way. As I said before, we have enough monthly done polls who showed a slow increase in his popularity. But I guess, I have been lied to all the time and the great and holy BBC with it's British reporters (and we all know that loyal Brits love the German government for their stand in the Iraq war).



:shk: spare me. Really now, People seem to have NO problem with commenting on US politics to the point of being critical over who we voted for to outright campaigning for one party to another. Yet, we dare not venture into sacred EU stuff eh?


You don't like I criticise the American choice of president? Accept it, as long as he messes up the world like he does.
Schröders already messed up but who could imagine that Bush could bring the triple-mess to the whole world!?

And why EU stuff? You know, EU isn't a country...maybe news for you.
You may also accept the fact that some of those (I agree it's not the mass) who discuss American politics as foreigners know far better than Americans talking about Germany, Britain, France or any other country. Accept it, naturally your country has national literacy and international illiteracy.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
No shoo what I was pointing out is that 'America and Bush Bashing" seem to be okay for everyone to jump on in to, but when commantary starts flowing to UK or EU politics the locals get there ire up. I could care less if you do not like Bush. The sun still comes up no? I was commenting on the political double standard that alot of people seem to spew forth



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   


PARIS (AFP) - An accusation by Australian Prime Minister John Howard that France was guilty of lingering "anti-Americanism" drew sharp words from Paris during a visit by the Australian foreign minister.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, standing next to his Australian counterpart Alexander Downer, told journalists he was "very, very surprised" to hear Howard's remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on the weekend.

He stressed that France and the United States were allies and would remain so, despite differences over the invasion of Iraq that have chilled transatlantic relations for the past two and a half years.
France



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join