How do I join a political party in Canada?

[Asher]

I need to join the Conservatives and cast my vote against Stephen Harper.

I have a few questions.

1) Does it cost anything?
2) Can I sue them if they send me spam mail?
3) How do I do it?
4) When do I vote?

[notyoueither]

Why do you want to vote against Harper, and who would you vote for? Why?

[Asher]

Erm. Why would a gay male vote for Harper?

I would vote for milady.

[Agathon]

Asher:

If you want to associate with a political party in Canada, there is no point joining, it's far easier just to receive underhand payments from one.

[Asher]

I want to vote on the leader.

[Agathon]

All that Stronach woman has going for her is that from the neck down she looks like she'd be useful in the sack.

Unfortunately, she doesn't have any brains.

It doesn't matter anyway, the fundamental truth of Canadian politics is that the Liberals win. Even if they are on a par with the mafia.

[FrustratedPoet]

You'd think a techie would know how to use google, wouldn't you?

https://www.conservative.ca/english/...ship/index.asp

Important note: The deadline to procure a membership in time to vote in the Leadership has passed. If you sign up now, you will not be eligible for a ballot.

[FrustratedPoet]

You can register via the membership form on their site and yes, it does cost money: $10 per year.

[Asher]

Actually I can't access any sites other than Counterglow and Apolyton right now. My router is ****ing with me and will only allow me to connect to the first two sites I try. I have to keep rebooting it to permit more.

And damnit, I don't want Harper as leader! LET ME VOTE! Fascism, communism, etc.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
Erm. Why would a gay male vote for Harper?

I would vote for milady.

Didn't he kick a troglodyte out of caucus recently?

I like Belinda, unfortunately she is not fluently bilingual and she is a political neophyte. I don't think she is the one to form the focal point for a credible alternative to the Liberals.

I am rethinking my views on Harper. I think he'll bomb in the Maritimes, but I don't see a lot of viable alternatives as leader. He seems to want to minimise religious ideology in the politics of the Conservative Party.

Also, the biggest issue to face any parliament in the near future is going to be parliamentary and civil service reform, within the bounds of the current constitution. Harper has been around so he at least has a clue about how Ottawa really works. The other 2 are completely lacking in this regard. Do we want the opposition, or God forbid the government, the be led by a rookie when these important issues are considered?

[Oncle Boris]

If you want gay rights, vote NDP.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
All that Stronach woman has going for her is that from the neck down she looks like she'd be useful in the sack.

Unfortunately, she doesn't have any brains.

It doesn't matter anyway, the fundamental truth of Canadian politics is that the Liberals win. Even if they are on a par with the mafia.

- Serves on the Ontario Task Force on Productivity, Competitiveness and Economic Progress
- Founding member of the Canadian Automotive Partnerships Council
- Director of the Yves Landry Technological Endowment Fund
- Member of the Dean's Council at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and the Dean's Advisory Council at the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
- In February 2003, Stronach joined the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- Awarded an Honorary Doctor of Law degree in 2003 from the Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University.

- In 2001, the National Post named Stronach the most powerful businesswoman in Canada
- In 2002, Fortune magazine ranked Stronach as #2 in their list of the world's most powerful women in business
- Also named to Canada's "Top 40 at 40" in 2002
- The World Economic Forum has named Belinda as one of 80 "Global Leaders of Tomorrow."

No brains, eh? You should be thankful if you ever come close to exhibiting cerebral functions a fraction of what she has. Judging by past performances, I'd say you'll have a long ways to go.

[Oncle Boris]

Yeah, and wasn't she helped by daddy?

The financial elite is surprisingly dumb. Besides moving factories to Mexico and bribing politicians to change union laws, they don't have much talent.

[Ben Kenobi]

I need to join the Conservatives and cast my vote against Stephen Harper.

I have a few questions.

1) Does it cost anything?
2) Can I sue them if they send me spam mail?
3) How do I do it?
4) When do I vote?

As the resident member of the Conservative party,

1. 10$ from your own resources.
2. They don't spam.
3. You can go to their website, just google Conservative Party of Canada
4. To vote you must be a registered member of the party at least 21 days in advance of the vote.

Considering that the leadership vote is on March 21st,

[notyoueither]

Actually, rich daddys normally give trust funds to marginal children. They do not give them the reigns of the company they built from scratch.

The fact that she got the reigns of the business and not her brother should say a lot to most anyone.

I wish she had spent more time learning French. If she had, she'd be eating the political landscape, and any hope the NDs ever thought they had in some fevered wet moment, for breakfast.

[Asher]

IIRC, she's the only candidate in favor of gay marriage. Correct?

[Ben Kenobi]

You'd think a techie would know how to use google, wouldn't you?

Too bad you beat me.

[notyoueither]

She is specifically for it, but would allow MPs a free vote.

Harper is against it, but would allow MPs a free vote.

I can see your POV, but the truth is neither could corral their party to vote in either direction. If you feel that this is the make or break issue, then so be it. However in the meantime, the Supreme Court seems bound and determined to decide the issue, so I see it as less of an issue for the next election.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, rich daddys normally give trust funds to marginal children. They do not give them the reigns of the company they built from scratch.

The fact that she got the reigns of the business and not her brother should say a lot to most anyone.

I wish she had spent more time learning French. If she had, she'd be eating the political landscape, and any hope the NDs ever thought they had in some fevered wet moment, for breakfast.

OK, maybe for the heritage thing... but businessmen are astute, not brilliant, or else they'd be doing something else.

I don't know if it would help her if she spoke French. She's just seen as a lame candidate here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

OK, maybe for the heritage thing... but businessmen are astute, not brilliant, or else they'd be doing something else.

No businessmen are brilliant, which is why they do what they do. Everyone ELSE wishes they could be as brilliant as businessmen to do what they do .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
OK, maybe for the heritage thing... but businessmen are astute, not brilliant, or else they'd be doing something else.

I don't know if it would help her if she spoke French. She's just seen as a lame candidate here.

And lawyers are better?

The lack of French might be why she is seen as lame, yes?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
OK, maybe for the heritage thing... but businessmen are astute, not brilliant, or else they'd be doing something else.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read (today).

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No businessmen are brilliant, which is why they do what they do. Everyone ELSE wishes they could be as brilliant as businessmen to do what they do .

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read (today).

No, skilled businessmen are good at managing human resources, show entrepreneurship, think fast, etc. Brilliant persons make discoveries about non-linear mathematics and write the logico-philosophicus tractatus.

That's the difference between being astute and brilliant- and before you point it out, the former is better when it comes to running a country.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
No, skilled businessmen are good at managing human resources, show entrepreneurship, think fast, etc. Brilliant persons make discoveries about non-linear mathematics and write the logico-philosophicus tractatus.

That's the difference between being astute and brilliant- and before you point it out, the former is better when it comes to running a country.

Nonsense.

You need to be brilliant to run a company like, say, Microsoft. You need to reliably anticipate trends, as well as innovate on a more general basis.

It's absurd to claim businessmen are astute while researchers are brilliant. The best businessment are both brilliant and astute, as are the best researchers.

And I would question the word "brilliant" to describe people writing "logico-philosophicus tractatus". "Conceited, useless waste of taxpayer's money" would be more apt.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

Nonsense.

You need to be brilliant to run a company like, say, Microsoft. You need to reliably anticipate trends, as well as innovate on a more general basis.

It's absurd to claim businessmen are astute while researchers are brilliant. The best businessment are both brilliant and astute, as are the best researchers.

And I would question the word "brilliant" to describe people writing "logico-philosophicus tractatus". "Conceited, useless waste of taxpayer's money" would be more apt.

Of course, the best people are beautiful, strong, brilliant, creative, astute, charismatic, seducing, eruditic.

Most don't have all of this, and Stronach's record does not indicate anywhere she is brilliant, in the scientific/philosophic sense. In large companies, most successful managers need not be the think tanks- these are roles you can sub-contract. Look at Bill Gates, who's crap at personnel managing, and lets Ballmer do the job; I suppose only the greatest have all the talents, like Sanders or Grove.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Of course, the best people are beautiful, strong, brilliant, creative, astute, charismatic, seducing, eruditic.

Most don't have all of this, and Stronach's record does not indicate anywhere she is brilliant, in the scientific/philosophic sense.

I don't recall anyone saying she was brilliant in the scientific/philosophic sense. And I'd prefer if you lumped "philosophic" in with other humanities/social sciences, rather than science itself. It's misleading.

Look at Bill Gates, who's crap at personnel managing, and lets Ballmer do the job; I suppose only the greatest have all the talents, like Sanders or Grove.

Bill Gates managed the personnel to make Microsoft the dominant player before Ballmer did it. He doesn't do it anymore, because he kinda has more important things to do...

And I sincerely hope by saying Sanders has all the talent, it's not Jerry Sanders, of AMD fame? He was one of the worst executives in recent memory. He alone is responsible for AMD's poor image in the business market.

Andy Grove -- now that I can agree with.
Andy Grove, Craig Barrett.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't recall anyone saying she was brilliant in the scientific/philosophic sense. And I'd prefer if you lumped "philosophic" in with other humanities/social sciences, rather than science itself. It's misleading.

Well, then my point was just that I don't like the word 'brilliant' being used to describe charismatic or astute people.

Philosophers have a lot in common with scientists, as demonstrated by the interest the disciplines show towards each other.

[Asher]

You'll find that most scientists ignore philosophers.

The last thing a computer geek developing an incredibly intelligent AI wants to hear is the ethics behind it...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, rich daddys normally give trust funds to marginal children. They do not give them the reigns of the company they built from scratch.

The Eaton brothers and Conrad Blackto name a couple of children who have proven marginal.

[Spiffor]

Joining a party is supposed to be more of an involvement than just voting for the leader (except in the US where the primary system is so prevalent).

You should join only if you feel conservative enough to be closely associated with their politics: they will obviously send you mail, they will probably ask you to help finance the party, they will ask you to help them in non financial ways. If you're ready to join a party, you're supposed to be ready to do it, at least the "pay your share and get mail" part.

If not, then you'd better not join.