I'm going to take heat for this from this group, but what ever. In the current political climate, I will not be able to vote for a leader who shares all of my values. That's just reality. They will not win.
I would rather get 40% of what I want than 0% of what I want. I don't think that makes me a sell out. I don't think it's a mistake either. There are certain people who will not be able to become Prime Minister. My vote isn't the only one that matters.
We need to be Machiavellian. We need to do what the left has done. Infiltrate corporations, infiltrate academia, give money to causes we support, and if those causes don't exist, create them ourselves.
While I fucking hate Gandhi, "be the change you want to see".
I'm not risking my livelihood by screeching on twitter. I'm high up enough at a massive corporation that I get to decide who to hire. I give money to causes I support, and I continue to try to drive my net worth, and influence how I can.
I agree with a lot of Sloan says. However, Sloan is too straightforward for a politician. You think Trudeau says what he thinks or means? The king of black face really care about racism? The emperor of ethics breaches really care about 'open and transparent' government? The man who sexually harassed a reporter really a feminist?
He is literally more racist, more corrupt, and less feminist than I would ever be. Yet all those groups would call this conservative any name in the book while giving him a pass. Because the man lies. That's what politicians have.
I respect honest people. Politics isn't the place for telling people how it is. Hasn't been since ancient antiquity, isn't now, and never will be.
The masses will always prefer a sweet lie over a hard truth. This is far more complicated than anyone would like to admit, and we need to be far more strategic than any of you would like. To win, we will all need to compromise on our beliefs. It sucks, because the reason most of us have been banished here is because we're the type of people who are unwilling to do so. Stuck right between a rock an a hard place.
Problem is the whole confederation is already built on compromised beliefs, and as right as you may be, compromising further on some issues means total capitulation.
What if engaging in Machiavellian behaviour is the precise polar opposite to our value of say for example, free and fair elections? If we lower our standards to the opposition on matters fundamental to democracy, how can we expect our society to reflect those kinds of values?
Ultimately with that dilemma it's a similar failure, but you may be right. A war of ideas cannot be won while your side is censored and misrepresented, and having the power to prevent that may well be a way to battle to a victory of that war.
I agree, and I don't like it. Exactly why you'll never see me in politics. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I don't at least understand that it may be a necessity.
It means that they may actually want what you want, but they can't be outspoken about it, because they need to court a wider vote.
It's like a politician. There's nothing else out there like them.
If you have the fortitude for it, run for office, it's the only way someone who actually has all the same views as yourself will ever get elected.
Every person needs to read 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. It's mostly timeless. While I abhor lying, I am realistic enough to understand that at times you need to pick the lesser of two evils. Would I lie to get elected so I could actually lower immigration rates? Yes.
I genuinely believe, in certain situations, the ends do justify the means. There is no nobility in war, are we are currently in a cultural, societal, and political war.
When the stakes are high, it's better to cheat and win, than to lose your country, your family's future, and your culture.
I agree with your sentiments. I don't like it. But it is our reality. I will use whatever tool at my disposal to fight for what we have/had. You can only be as noble as your enemy.
Here's the part where I think you missed my point a bit. Short term you don't really 'compromise'. You say that you compromise to get elected, then you implement what you want anyways.
You tell the people what they want to hear, and then you do what you need to do.
Generations to repair....How long did the Liberal scandals of Chretien's Liberals, or the massive debt and ruining our economy of Trudeau Sr's Liberals effect the Liberals?
Obviously not generations.
You keep your integrity while we lose our country, for myself, the ends always justify the means.
Sloan 1, O'Toole 2 and no one else.
Lewis says all the right things, and seems like a nice person but she isn't that bright, she's useless in debates and she can't speak French.
I wouldn't mind her as my MP, but only as a backbencher, not as someone with any kind of high profile position.
She doesn't have what it takes to be an effective leader, much less an effective Prime Minister.
Devil's advocate, came here from another commonwealth country, and the people who left when her parents did (and came to Canada or the UK) did so because they actually thought british rule was a good thing.
However, I'm super wary of any politician who doesn't have a family or children.
Why would they really care all that much for the future?
I'm going to take heat for this from this group, but what ever. In the current political climate, I will not be able to vote for a leader who shares all of my values. That's just reality. They will not win.
I would rather get 40% of what I want than 0% of what I want. I don't think that makes me a sell out. I don't think it's a mistake either. There are certain people who will not be able to become Prime Minister. My vote isn't the only one that matters.
We need to be Machiavellian. We need to do what the left has done. Infiltrate corporations, infiltrate academia, give money to causes we support, and if those causes don't exist, create them ourselves.
While I fucking hate Gandhi, "be the change you want to see".
I'm not risking my livelihood by screeching on twitter. I'm high up enough at a massive corporation that I get to decide who to hire. I give money to causes I support, and I continue to try to drive my net worth, and influence how I can.
I agree with a lot of Sloan says. However, Sloan is too straightforward for a politician. You think Trudeau says what he thinks or means? The king of black face really care about racism? The emperor of ethics breaches really care about 'open and transparent' government? The man who sexually harassed a reporter really a feminist?
He is literally more racist, more corrupt, and less feminist than I would ever be. Yet all those groups would call this conservative any name in the book while giving him a pass. Because the man lies. That's what politicians have.
I respect honest people. Politics isn't the place for telling people how it is. Hasn't been since ancient antiquity, isn't now, and never will be.
The masses will always prefer a sweet lie over a hard truth. This is far more complicated than anyone would like to admit, and we need to be far more strategic than any of you would like. To win, we will all need to compromise on our beliefs. It sucks, because the reason most of us have been banished here is because we're the type of people who are unwilling to do so. Stuck right between a rock an a hard place.
Problem is the whole confederation is already built on compromised beliefs, and as right as you may be, compromising further on some issues means total capitulation.
What if engaging in Machiavellian behaviour is the precise polar opposite to our value of say for example, free and fair elections? If we lower our standards to the opposition on matters fundamental to democracy, how can we expect our society to reflect those kinds of values?
Would you rather capitulate on your moral compass and win, or never compromise and lose utterly?
You can't fight fair against and adversary that refuses to do so.
Ultimately with that dilemma it's a similar failure, but you may be right. A war of ideas cannot be won while your side is censored and misrepresented, and having the power to prevent that may well be a way to battle to a victory of that war.
I agree, and I don't like it. Exactly why you'll never see me in politics. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I don't at least understand that it may be a necessity.
I don't understand how to pick a representative that goes against what we want to get what we want.
Like a bulldog? A martyr? A dirty lawyer?
It means that they may actually want what you want, but they can't be outspoken about it, because they need to court a wider vote.
It's like a politician. There's nothing else out there like them.
If you have the fortitude for it, run for office, it's the only way someone who actually has all the same views as yourself will ever get elected.
Every person needs to read 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. It's mostly timeless. While I abhor lying, I am realistic enough to understand that at times you need to pick the lesser of two evils. Would I lie to get elected so I could actually lower immigration rates? Yes.
I genuinely believe, in certain situations, the ends do justify the means. There is no nobility in war, are we are currently in a cultural, societal, and political war.
When the stakes are high, it's better to cheat and win, than to lose your country, your family's future, and your culture.
I agree with your sentiments. I don't like it. But it is our reality. I will use whatever tool at my disposal to fight for what we have/had. You can only be as noble as your enemy.
Here's the part where I think you missed my point a bit. Short term you don't really 'compromise'. You say that you compromise to get elected, then you implement what you want anyways.
You tell the people what they want to hear, and then you do what you need to do.
Generations to repair....How long did the Liberal scandals of Chretien's Liberals, or the massive debt and ruining our economy of Trudeau Sr's Liberals effect the Liberals?
Obviously not generations.
You keep your integrity while we lose our country, for myself, the ends always justify the means.
Sloan 1, O'Toole 2 and no one else.
Lewis says all the right things, and seems like a nice person but she isn't that bright, she's useless in debates and she can't speak French.
I wouldn't mind her as my MP, but only as a backbencher, not as someone with any kind of high profile position.
She doesn't have what it takes to be an effective leader, much less an effective Prime Minister.
Devil's advocate, came here from another commonwealth country, and the people who left when her parents did (and came to Canada or the UK) did so because they actually thought british rule was a good thing.
However, I'm super wary of any politician who doesn't have a family or children.
Why would they really care all that much for the future?