English-language leaders' debate 2011 post-op, part 2

Marx talks about how in a capitalist system profit is most important as this is the key to hoding on to power. so how can u blame the media when they are simply doing what they supposed to? First he blamed the individual, then he blames the media. The problem is the profit-driven system. Sure we can't just change it but don't blame manipulated Canadians or media that is just doing what the system tells them to do. This is the reason the NDP gets trashed in the media.

Harper's medicated,almost lobotomized state,kinda reminded me of an old Flintstones episode where Fred's uncanny resemblance to the owner of some huge corporation that went AWOL,got him to take over the business during the CEO's absence.

He was scripted just to repeat 3 exclusive responses - 'Whose baby is that?' ...'What's your angle?' .. ' I'll buy that'

As usual the Cons wheeled out their biggest sociopath,paralyzed his face from moving and gave him a script with 3 exclusive responses.

I don't know why he was let off easy by the 3 other leaders.

I'm hoping that tonight's debate will get very scrappy and Harper will not get an easy ride.

I think it's do or die...I'm guessing Layton,Duceppe and Iggy are smart enough to realize that and will start dropping bombs and spraying bullets at the teflon Emporer.

knownothing is an apt handle. 

I actually believe all others are my equal and unlike you I blame the media pundits for taking their large salaried and corporate endorsements and doing what they are paid well to do.  However I find it bizarro land to be debating whether elections in a bourgeous capitalist democracy have any legitimacy with a poster who relies on Marx to prove to me voting is good.  WOW LMAO

I said I was sorry for presuming and I wasnt trying to lecture anybody. I just get mad when people blame individuals for not appreciating democracy, when they are told to not do so by the cultural hegemony. I also find it frustrating when you blame the media as immoral when they are simply doing what their shareholders want them to do. Marx didn't say much about the media but I provided a quote above. I was talking about issues. Why blame people and the media when they are not the problem? How does that help?

I recorded the debate as I had planned to pause the recording, make some remarks here, and then go on with listening to more of the debate. I did this a little, on the other thread, but not much. I had an overpowering reaction to Harper's lying ways. I'm going to have to try again, and soon.

There are some mighty efforts to sculpt these politicians into something they are not. The biggest pocket may very well get the best advice. I think these things are worth studying, carefully, even the parts that make us retch, to learn something about how skillful the marketing of politicians and their messages have become.

Now where is a genuine transcript? It might make it easier for me to watch this debate again. Anyone?

Sorry to be contrary but I think Layton and Ignatieff lost badly.

Here is why:

The people who watched the debate were decided voters mostly. Few people interested enough in politics to watch a two hour debate would not already have formed a political philosophy. Very few undecided voters would have watched.

The media is portraying this as a draw in some places and a Harper win in others acknowledging the others got their licks in. The media declined to call Harper on his outright lies. This is what the undecided will see and hear.

While for those in the room, Layton I think won and Ignatieff did fairly well, none of that will mean anything as the fix is in.

I'm afraid the election is over and the media have decided the winner.

The French language media may be different but Harper does not need or care about Quebec (or Francophones outside Quebec). He will make his majority elsewhere and if the result is Quebec separation, I think he will not mind.

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

.

I like how political discourse has become 'bickering'

It's quite amazing how easy the 'conservatives' are spinning anything and everything that may expose their lies,hypocrisy and blatant contempt for democracy and make the opposition look like the villains.

And is anyone getting tired of the 'the conservatives are the best stewards of the economy'?

When Harper tried to take all the credit for the fact that our economy didn't tank like in the U.S. , why didn't ONE of the other 3 bring up the fact that it was the REGULATIONS we have in Canada that saved our asses.

The same regulations Harper wants to scrap simply because regulations are against his ideology.

Also bring up the fact that the cons pissed away billions in surplus and gave us the biggest deficit in history...Hmm..some stewards,eh?

I hope Layton Duceppe and Iggy are more prepared tonight.

Stockholm wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

So in other words, you don't actually think anyone "won" or "lost" the debate because you think that NOTHING that happened in the debate could ever have made any difference. So then why even bother commenting on the debate itself? Why not just say "the election is over" the debate is irrelevant and it doesn't matter how well or how badly anyone performs.

Actually i kinda agree with sean and think it's a valid arguement...only people who had their minds made up watched the debate (especially with the time schedules...couldn't they re-air the debate afterwards?) and the rest of the peoples will just see what the media tells them to see...a battle the Conservative are heavily winning already.

Calgary based comment...I've only found 4 people who watched the debate last night (gotta be out of 100 by now), and all 4 of them are NDP members.  You can win debates all you want, but when nobody watches the debate and only see's the media afterward...Harper wins solely on that regardless of what happened in the debate

Are "zingers" the only measure of success in a debate? I think they can backfire, actually - they can be seen as immature and petulant.

The Turner - Mulroney debate classic didn't turn on a "zinger" - it turned on Turner simply he was outmatched by Mulroney, and on a very real issue of the day - patronage.

Stockholm wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

So in other words, you don't actually think anyone "won" or "lost" the debate because you think that NOTHING that happened in the debate could ever have made any difference. So then why even bother commenting on the debate itself? Why not just say "the election is over" the debate is irrelevant and it doesn't matter how well or how badly anyone performs.

Are you kidding?

I am talking abut the debate as much as I can trying to tell people what happened as they are lied to.

But there is value in telling the truth. The media is lying and campaigning for Harper-- who cares what actually happens if people believe something else. Don't believe me? Read the Globe front page today.

So yes, this election may in fact be over. We need to start talking now about how to create a democracy in Canada. We don't have one now -- you can kid yourself pretending the NDP will win a landslide just because Harper won the debate for those in the room. We need to figure out how to cut through the propaganda and to start we need to recognize the problem.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 We need to figure out how to cut through the propaganda and to start we need to recognize the problem.

I doubt the vast majority of the Canadian electorate would agree there is a problem. They probably desire strong, steady government, a growing economy and more jobs, and fewer elections - which is why Harper has been in majority territory - off and on - for so long, despite the scandals, financial incompetence, and all the rest of it.

The closed captioning during that segment was so atrocious I couldn't make out what was being said.

I think Harper lost his majority with his general all around disdain for democracy and accountability in government.

He lost it with oppressive immigration policies and lacklustre performance on the economic recovery compared to dozens of other rich countries now ahead of Canada in growth and job creation. 

Harper lost his coveted phony majority when cavorting with crooked lobbyists and scandals in the senate. The Harpers are strong on crime alright.

I could not believe how he equated his party's record number of years in minority government as some sort of proof that they have earned a majority. Harper then described his so-called democratic debates with the opposition parties over the last five years as "bickering". 

That is a real danger.  I talked to a friend last night who is voting for the first time in her life(she's in her 30s)because she can't stand Harper and her mom told her to vote Liberal to stop Harper even though her mom preferred the NDP.  I looked up her riding and it's Nanaimo Cowichan with an NDP incumbent and the Lib a distant third.  More worringly her mom's riding is Vancouver Island North where the NDP just barely lost out to the Con last election.  I have nothing against strategic voting and I might even do it in my riding (Sea to Sky-Sunshine Coast-North Vancouver...)but it is scary how many people still don't take a riding to riding approach.

Yeah of course.  She said her mom would be relieved.  I was just surprised that narrative would still be dominant in two ridings where it so clearly didn't apply.

I was under the impression we spoke German. Maybe I'll ask Mme Paille?

melovesproles wrote:

Yeah of course.  She said her mom would be relieved.  I was just surprised that narrative would still be dominant in two ridings where it so clearly didn't apply.

The CBC and the other MSM outlets in BC have been pushing this message over and over.  

Van Isle North needs the large chunk of liberal voters who switched to the Conservatives last time to decide Iggy is their guy and return to the liberal fold.  In that riding like in some others in BC the poll tracking after the election showed basically that the liberal vote collapsed and went 2 to 1 for the Cons not the NDP.  

It is those kinds of numbers that always give me cause to ponder when people say merge the NDP and Liberal party.  There are a whole lot of Liberal supporters who like them as a centre right party and that would not change after any merger.