yconic - Election Results
Hide Menu

My Feed Money for School Student Help Brands Winners Support Center



Explore yconic
Explore Student Life Topics
Scotiabank
STUDENT CHAMPION
yconic proudly recognizes Student Champion Partners who are providing our community with superior support for their student journeys. Learn More
Student Help Brands

Election Results

A photo of Melodydrama Melodydrama
Where do you stand, what are your reactions and feelings? Anyone else really upset and suddenly tempted to go into politics?
Was this helpful? Yes 0
28 replies
 
This post was deleted

 
A photo of esin esin
the conservative party is like nickleback, i dont know anyone who likes them, but they always seem to do well'
lol
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of andrewk512 andrewk512

@esin wrote
the conservative party is like nickleback, i dont know anyone who likes them, but they always seem to do well'
lol


I lol'd.
And yeah... how has Nickelback done so well? Rofl.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of beyondsection17 beyondsection17
I'm really happy they won a majority, actually.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of BrownianMotion BrownianMotion

@prmly wrote
I'm classically liberal/libertarian, so I'm not particularly partial to any three of the main political parties. With that being said, however, I am extremely pleased with the Harper majority. Perhaps now we get can stuff done in Ottawa now without the minority excuse.



If the Conservative Party was comprised of actual conservatives (or classical liberals to be more exact) I too would be pleased with the outcome. I just don't see them doing anything to significantly cut waste, reduce spending and the national debt, deregulate industries, etc. Which is a shame.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Bluesharpies Bluesharpies

@esin wrote
the conservative party is like nickleback, i dont know anyone who likes them, but they always seem to do well'
lol



Funny because it's true, minus the part where they've done well - Nickleback's success tends to come and go fairly quickly (not that I'm complaining!)

Considering I was down for some change, I'm rather unhappy that not only did the Conservatives win again, they won a majority. I may be entirely off base, but I almost feel that the main reason for their win is that Canadians are somewhat afraid of change. Rather than take the opportunity to start things fresh, people want to ensure we're stuck with mediocrity by giving Harper the chance to do whatever he wants for the next 4 years. :|

EDIT: I live in the Mississauga-Oakville area. Best believe I was extremely disappointed with my area in particular. ;-;
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of SaraJJA SaraJJA
I'm very happy we have a Conservative majority government. We can really get things done now and not stumble every step of the way of doing something. The Conservatives have some really great initiatives, I personally am a fan of their tough on crime goals. Hopefully they'll carry out these things as best as they can.

Wooo Go Blue!
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Jesseyeahh Jesseyeahh
I'm shocked over the Cons support coming out of this forum. Hmm.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of cakee cakee
to be honest i actually dont mind the fact that the conservatives have majority. and i dont understand where all the hate on them is coming from....
i mean if you think about it... the Conservatives hasn't done anything terrible...
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of quin quin
Great news everyone, now we get to build mega-prisons to create jobs. Our shrinking government threatens our democracy's relevance, putting power into the hands of corporations. Most of the worlds natural resources are already being operated for profit, why not water and our health care too? Yeah, privatization of these things might make them cheaper, but it’s at the expense of shrinking wages and pensions. It will cut costs for the consumer, but at the expense of the working class. The idea of individuals earning millions off of my tax dollars is scary.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of littleroom littleroom

@cakee wrote
to be honest i actually dont mind the fact that the conservatives have majority. and i dont understand where all the hate on them is coming from....
i mean if you think about it... the Conservatives hasn't done anything terrible...


I'm glad he's quiet about it, but Harper's alleged views on abortion and homosexuality are not what I want in my government.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous

@littleroom wrote

@cakee wrote
to be honest i actually dont mind the fact that the conservatives have majority. and i dont understand where all the hate on them is coming from....
i mean if you think about it... the Conservatives hasn't done anything terrible...


I'm glad he's quiet about it, but Harper's alleged views on abortion and homosexuality are not what I want in my government.


His "alleged" views? Is this more of that hidden agenda crap? If not, show me a source that proves his views on those two issues.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Sheldore Sheldore
Homophobia FTW!
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of littleroom littleroom

@ARMY101 wrote

@littleroom wrote

@cakee wrote
to be honest i actually dont mind the fact that the conservatives have majority. and i dont understand where all the hate on them is coming from....
i mean if you think about it... the Conservatives hasn't done anything terrible...


I'm glad he's quiet about it, but Harper's alleged views on abortion and homosexuality are not what I want in my government.


His "alleged" views? Is this more of that hidden agenda crap? If not, show me a source that proves his views on those two issues.


I was expecting backlash, so I said "alleged" because I'm not sure if those really are his views. For homosexuality, I'm pretty sure he's against them marrying (there is a video on youtube of him making a speech about it, I could find it if you really want it). Keeping abortion out of aid to foreign countries (you should know this) is not a direct disapproval of abortion, but if you have no qualms about abortion, you think it's legitimate aid, if not, you don't provide it. Maybe there's more to it. You can tell me.

I also was careful to add that I'm glad he's quiet about it, not to say that I think he has a hidden agenda, but to mean that although he's made it clear that he doesn't want to "reopen the debate/issue", I still don't like it that he has those views. It was more a social statement than a political one.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of steffeh steffeh

@Jesseyeahh wrote
I'm shocked over the Cons support coming out of this forum. Hmm.


Me too. I was not expecting it.

A few reasons why people don't like Harper on these sites:
http://whynotharper.ca/#printablelist
http://bit.ly/e6hAhj
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous

@steffeh wrote

@Jesseyeahh wrote
I'm shocked over the Cons support coming out of this forum. Hmm.


Me too. I was not expecting it.

A few reasons why people don't like Harper on these sites:
http://whynotharper.ca/#printablelist
http://bit.ly/e6hAhj


Disgusting communist propaganda.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of burntheevidence burntheevidence
I am very very happy with the majority! I agree - now they can't use the minority excuse.
I am very pro-Harper and pro-Conservative. I travelled 3 hours to my hometown so I'd be able to vote.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo

@steffeh wrote

@Jesseyeahh wrote
I'm shocked over the Cons support coming out of this forum. Hmm.


Me too. I was not expecting it.

A few reasons why people don't like Harper on these sites:
http://whynotharper.ca/#printablelist
http://bit.ly/e6hAhj



While I'm sure some (perhaps even most) of that propaganda is true, it is worded so poorly, often twisted, and never tells the whole story. For example, Harper's $56 billion deficit. Yes, he did that. He was in power for the greatest recession since the Great Depression; of course his government is going to have less to spend but be obligated to increase fiscal spending - does the propaganda remind its readers of this? No.

Harper "wants US-style bank deregulation"... or so he said once when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition. I'm sure we've all wanted to do things that we now know to be stupid. It doesn't really matter what he wanted when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition; it matters what he wants now, and I really doubt he still wants US-style bank deregulation.

"Report an unsafe nuclear reactor; get fired." This was probably the worst claim, as it misses the point completely. For one, we have to trust that that one scientist's opinion is more valuable than the other scientists', who say otherwise, opinions, and secondly, the propaganda does not mention at all that the main reason the supposedly unsafe nuclear reactor is running is because it is a worldwide major source of medical isotopes used in the diagnosis of cancer.

The second site was even worse.

I'm not a Harper supporter either. I don't stand for a lot of his egotistical, semi-dictatorial BS (though, really, I don't care that he broke a tradition and plastered pictures of himself all over the lobby of the Parliament rather than pictures of previous PMs), but he doesn't deserve a lot of the flack he receives. Ultimately, I hate the anti-Harper brainwashing (of stupid people who can't do much critical thinking) more than I hate Harper himself, thus my reason for this post.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous

@Sheldore wrote
Homophobia FTW!


What homophobia?
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of BrownianMotion BrownianMotion

@mynameismattgotmlgo wrote

Harper "wants US-style bank deregulation"... or so he said once when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition. I'm sure we've all wanted to do things that we now know to be stupid. It doesn't really matter what he wanted when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition; it matters what he wants now, and I really doubt he still wants US-style bank deregulation.



It wouldn't be stupid at all. It would be stupid only to those who who have a very pedestrian understanding of economics, regulation, and its role in the financial crisis, and to those who have never worked in the industry and whose only source of information is CNN (which is every single one of you).

Though I wouldn't be too worried if I were you, because as you pointed out, Harper only pays lip service and isn't an actual conservative (referring to the political philosophy of conservatism, and not the name of a political party).
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo
I know quite a bit about the financial crisis actually. I'd like to say that bank deregulation caused THE financial crisis, which is probably true, but even if the U.S. financial markets were more regulated, A financial crisis (of a different sort) very likely would have occurred.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of BrownianMotion BrownianMotion

@mynameismattgotmlgo wrote
I know quite a bit about the financial crisis actually. I'd like to say that bank deregulation caused THE financial crisis, which is probably true, but even if the U.S. financial markets were more regulated, A financial crisis (of a different sort) very likely would have occurred.



Looking at the origins of the financial crisis, I can literally point to specific regulation that was responsible.

The government had been trying to increase home ownership since the early 1990s and began putting pressure on mortgage lenders to expand loans to those with low income as a percentage of their loan portfolio. Then to assert its control, it enacted the CRA, which despite being responsible for a relatively small number of subprime loans, created an entire market for subprime mortgages. By their very nature, these contracts are very risky. So banks decided to securitize the loans by cutting them into pieces and selling them as assets to investors in order to mitigate their credit risk. The problem is that if these assets are structured poorly, it can lead to significant loss, because their credit quality changes with time as a result of changes in volatility that are time/structure dependent.

Additionally, regulation (namely Basel I) is what fueled the growth of credit derivatives - at least in its early stages. Banks wanted to be able to manage (or arbitrage) regulatory capital requirements - theyc an use credit derivatives to reduce the amount of expensive regulatory capital they have to hold.

And it was the trading of these illiquid, impossible-to-evaluate assets, that caused a large portion of financial institutions to go belly-up which in turn increased systemtic risk in the economy, blah blah blah. The trading of these assets would not have been disallowed in the absence of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. What's more, is that the institutions that were the most diversified, like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, escaped the crisis relatively unscathed in comparison to companies like Lehman. Which further underscores that those who claim deregulation was responsible have no idea what they're talking about.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo
Hey, I definitely agree. What you seem to be thinking, though, is that because regulation can be a bad thing that deregulation must (?) be a good thing. That's what I don't agree with. Really the problem is not the regulation but the lack of further regulation. And, ultimately, the issue is never actually a regulation or lack thereof but a decision to either follow that regulation or take advantage of a loophole in the regulation. For example, yes, the government allowed synthetic CDOs and credit default swaps, which together were the main causes of the financial crisis, but it was the banks' decision to use those financial instruments that actually caused the problem. If there were no regulations at all, I'm near-certain that investment banks would offer credit default swaps in times when some asset (housing or otherwise) seemed to be forever increasing in value. It just makes sense. The investment banks that were making tons of money pre-recession were the ones selling the most CDSs, and they were making tons of money because they were selling CDSs. Their issue was not realizing that the housing boom could not continue indefinitely.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of BrownianMotion BrownianMotion

@mynameismattgotmlgo wrote
Hey, I definitely agree. What you seem to be thinking, though, is that because regulation can be a bad thing that deregulation must (?) be a good thing. That's what I don't agree with. Really the problem is not the regulation but the lack of further regulation. And, ultimately, the issue is never actually a regulation or lack thereof but a decision to either follow that regulation or take advantage of a loophole in the regulation. For example, yes, the government allowed synthetic CDOs and credit default swaps, which together were the main causes of the financial crisis, but it was the banks' decision to use those financial instruments that actually caused the problem. If there were no regulations at all, I'm near-certain that investment banks would offer credit default swaps in times when some asset (housing or otherwise) seemed to be forever increasing in value. It just makes sense. The investment banks that were making tons of money pre-recession were the ones selling the most CDSs, and they were making tons of money because they were selling CDSs. Their issue was not realizing that the housing boom could not continue indefinitely.



My position is in favor of deregulation, yes. There are already numerous layers of risks in the market that we simply don't understand, and regulation only adds to that uncertainty due to the unpredictability of its effects. Regulation has, and always will have, unintended consequences. More regulation to deal with the failures of previous legislation is just silly. But my bigger beaf is with centralization. Any decision regarding regulation should be made at the State level (or at the Provinical level in Canada.)

And no, banks certainly wouldn't use these credit derivatives (at least not to the same extent) if they didn't absolutely need to - it would serve no purpose, as the sheer cost would inhibit their creation. They use them primarily to reduce the amount of regulatory capital they have to hold on their balance sheet (which is expensive.)
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo
OK. Don't you think banks would in a regulation-free world lend to subprime borrowers (assuming the financial crisis, which really drove home the dangers of lending to subprime borrowers, never occurred)? The way I see it is the government only made the financial crisis unravel as it did. That is, if the government were abolished in 2001, some very similar crisis in the housing market still would have occurred. After all, it was the companies, not the government, who decided to lend to subprime borrowers and who designed synthetic CDOs and CDSs more or less to trick retail investors, institutions, rating agencies, heck, even themselves into thinking bad/risky financial instruments were good/safe. It even tricked the government/the Fed. What they were doing, from a capitalist POV, was genius. I don't see what would have stopped them from doing the same in an unregulated market, keeping in mind that corporations would have even more pressure to deceive retail investors, institution, and rating agencies in an unregulated market. The financial instruments used to do so would probably be much more complex than relatively simple synthetic CDOs.
Was this helpful? Yes 0