Originally Posted by Misspolitics

Lastly, I don't want to pay to take care of someone else's children. If they cannot afford to look after their children, then maybe they should either save their money for daycare, etc. I should not be forced to pay more taxes just so that a child can go to daycare. There is a lot more I would like to respond about but this is the top three.

Social programs like daycare are extremely hard to argue against subsidizing with taxes. They usually go towards helping the poorest members of our community who other-wise would either a) Be forced to quit work and go on welfare in order to take care of their children or b) be forced to work longer hours and live in even lower levels of poverty. Both situations correlate to more behavioral issues with the children and often end up with the children being forced into situations where they steal/join gangs and eventually end up in prison.

So the choice is between subsidizing daycare and helping to hopefully create a child that can one day be a productive member of society, or not subsidizing daycare and stacking the deck against the child so they may end up in prison which we're paying for anyway and costs us significantly more.

I'd rather just pay for daycare, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

Still, they should not lie to voters. It is wrong to lie to your employer (which I believe we, as the voting population are) They are accountable to us, and if they want to slip out of a situation, he should not have said ---“We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election. What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government." (theglobeandmail.com) instead saying they "might" or "we'll see" By saying no then going back shows a lack of commitment (this is applied to any politician). A person's word is still everything to the majority of Canadians, including myself and a person who flips back and forth doesn't deserve to run this country.

This is precisely the sort of statement I was responding to - that is, the end product of a chain of illegitimate assumptions.

You're right when you say that the political establishment is in the service of the voting population, but I think your idea of what we should expect isn't reasonable. Political situations evolve continuously (to be pedantic, 'Continuously? Not quite - discretely, at a high frequency'), and thus it ought to be reasonable to expect party leaders to change stances continuously.

Now, I do agree that sudden stance-changes (generally) shouldn't merit support. However, even assuming the definition of a universal metric to actually give meaning to 'disproportionate' and 'reasonable' stance-changes (an apparent impossibility), there's still issues with differentiating environmental from personal-political causes. The present paradigm of stance-changing in politics is a function of the present political situation and thus that these 'disproportionate' stance-changes (versus the 'continuous' ones mentioned earlier) may be mainly pinned on the problem of mediation between the satisfaction of the core vs. the general population.

So, I don't think it particularly reasonable to use stance-changing as a major criterion for your decision - its use is warranted sometimes, of course, but there's rather more things to blame in this issue than the (relative!) honesty and credibility of particular leaders.

In other words, it's rather complicated, so let's not jump to conclusions about 'lying'.