Here's Stephen Harper's plan to win the 2015 election

Yes, give up! That should be the Liberal slogan. You might as well vote for us and let us rob you and lie to you for another four years because politics is so corrupt you can't expect anything better.

Liberals, the party of hope. Hope they don't rob, cheat, and swindle us too badly this time.

Is that what realists do? Assume things will never get better? To my reading, history defies your realism.

I agree with Clambake - The Liberals here should make a case for why they should govern -- what they will do.

For that matter the NDP must make the same case even if they have the advantage on the credibility front due to long-time positions.

clambake wrote:

I've been lurking on this board over the past couple of months, and it seems apparent that the crux of Debater and Pondering's argurments rest solely on the fact that the Liberals are the party to vote for based on current polls and the apparent likelihood of them being the main alternative to Harper. 

Then perhaps you should have been reading rather than just lurking. The reason I am voting Liberal is because they have more to offer me than the NDP this time around.

clambake wrote:

I find this strange, given that is clearly obvious that visitors of this site care about social and economic justice, and the main objections to the Liberal Party have nothing to do with irrational hatred, but rather their record in power and the current (few) positions and policies held by Trudeau.

The reason I am voting for Trudeau Liberals is because I care about social and economic justice.

clambake wrote:

It'd be nice to hear an argurment from Liberal supporters as to why they need to be in power again from a policy standpoint, given their record corporate welfare, social safety net slashing and terrible record on the enviroment.

Had you been reading you would have read several, but I will give you a nutshell version.

1) I believe the Liberals will do just as much on the environmental file as the NDP would were they elected. Mulcair's support of Energy East is no better than Trudeau's support of Keystone. Mulcair's reason for supporting Energy East is that it would create jobs in Canada. Trudeau's reason for supporting Keystone is that it has passed all environmental assessments and it has social license which are his criteria for supporting a pipeline. The Trudeau family love nature and the wilderness and Marc Garneau also has an appreciation for it. Dion is close to Trudeau and very knowledgable about policy.

2) Trudeau is supporting marijuana legalization, something that is long overdue and will boost Canada's economy not only through recreational use but through medical and industrial research and development and provide money for social services. Guess the NDP isn't that dedicated to social justice.

3) Much of what Harper has undone was instituted by the Liberals and I have no doubt that they will seek to restore their legacy.

4) Trudeau fully supported the Clarity Act and spoke up in the defense of minorities in Quebec and is a staunch federlist.

5) In my view Mulcair is too much of a decentralist and caters to Quebec nationalists.

6) In my view a clear majority of NDP members would have voted for marijuana legalization had they been permitted to vote. They were prevented from voting on it so NDP's championing of democratic reform seems like lip service. In contrast, not only members but also supporters were able to vote for the Liberal leadership and we didn't have to be able to afford to attend a convention to do it.

7) Mulcair/the NDP is more concerned with marketing than reality as evidenced by their roll up the red carpet door. I prefer Trudeau's approach of getting on with what can actually be accomplished. Trudeau walks the talk. He exposed his personal finances more deeply than is required even for the PM. He voluntarily started having all Liberal MPs and senators post their expenses online, and then expelled Liberal Senators from caucus so he no longer controls them.

Where is the evidence that the Trudeau Liberals support social and economic justice?

Let us consider the previous Liberal government's environmental record for a moment.

It was so bad that this writer thinks that all the tearing down Harper has done could end up being a positive so that we could start again.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/07/31/stephen_harper_the_...

He makes the point:

"In a 2005 study, a year before the Conservatives took office, Canada ranked 28th out of 30 industrialized countries for environmental performance."

The Liberals had been in power 12 years when that study was done.

The short version of the article is that The Liberal environmental policies were so bad that Harper did the environment a favour by tearing them down and firing up environmentalists.

I worry that Trudeau will restore the Liberal legacy. I sure hope he does not get the chance and that we can build something better.

Pondering wrote:

From the same article which is by Rick Smith is Executive Director of the Broadbent Institute (www.BroadbentInstitute.ca ):

This brings me to the second environmental legacy of the Harper years: a fierce and rejuvenated environmental movement. The great irony of the much-reported, politically motivated Canada Revenue Agency assault on environmental charities is that it has made traditionally cautious and low-key individuals and groups very angry. Blatant injustice tends to have that effect on people.

Correct, and the progress of climate change has had a strong impact on public opinion. Dion was skewered over his carbon tax plan because the public still wasn't ready for serious measures He was ahead of his time and will have a cabinet position along with Marc Garneau.

It doesn't matter. The LPC had governance and did NOTHING. That's ALL that matters. Leader get out of the way. It's time for the LPC to get out of the way. They had their chances and failed misers illy. Te's up!

montrealer58 wrote:

Yeah. That's funny. The Liberals did such a bad job on the environment, Trudeau will put Dion (who failed) in his cabinet. 

Dion has never been Prime Minister so if he failed at all it is that he failed to get elected.

montrealer58 wrote:

Because Trudeau has to stick to his corporate and foreign policy obligations, there will be no room for him to move to the left. 

Mulcair is pretty corporate friendly himself. I think you over-estimate the support for left-wing economic policy.

montrealer58 wrote:

Having nowhere else to go, Liberal supporters will go to web fora more friendly to the left, and look pretty desperate. 

We shall have to wait and see but so far Liberal support is strong and they haven't suggested they will be any farther left than Chretien or Martin were on the economy (to my knowledge). I think the notion that voters just don't Liberal history is far-fetched. I think people do know Liberal history and don't percieve it the same way you do.

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I can't write an essay right now but I'll just deal with the first point since it says so much about how Pondering approaches this. It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file based on the fact that Justin's family loves nature....It speaks volumes to the intellectually dishonest manner in which you make these evaluations.

I did say "in a nutshell" but you are right in character by resorting to personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Trudeau

.... He also started a Master of Arts degree in Environmental Geography at McGill University before suspending his program to seek public office.[13]

Yeah he also started an engineering degree and didn't finish that either. He's quite the quitter, that Justin. But y'know, there's school and then there's the real world. If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.

But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell". That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details. You leave out the revelent points, like qualifications, experience, reputation, and political record, so that you can focus on irrelevent finer points, like his family's love for nature, or the fact that he knows Stephane Dion (who, by the way, has an abysmal record as environment minister, despite only being such for two years). This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You know full well, of course, that Mulcair was actually an environment minister who had a strong reputation as a dogged enforcer of standards, and who quit that government over an issue of conscience concerning environmental matters.

No he didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mulcair#Departure_from_cabinet

During a February 27, 2006 Cabinet shuffle, Charest offered Mulcair the position of Minister of Government Services in the Quebec government, and Mulcair chose to resign from cabinet rather than accept the apparent demotion.[23] 

Mulcair did not quit over an issue of conscience and he is still supporting pipelines so I don't see any superiority on the environmental file nor on the intellectual honesty front.

Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.

"There was speculation that his contrary opinion on a project that would have transferred lands in Mont Orford Provincial park to private condominium developers led to his removal as Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks."

When you think about it for two seconds (which, I realise, isn't something that's encouraged in the Liberal party) the narrative of Mulcair leaving the provincial government over a demotion doesn't really make any sense. This always happens in governments. Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly. If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier. What you definitely don't do is leave the government altogether so that you can throw in with a third place federal party that has no presence whatsoever in your home province, and try to build that from the ground up. That was a total longshot that happened to pay off, but it clearly wasn't the act of an opportunist. He might have been demoted by Charest, but he demoted himself even further. He ran a very real risk of taking himself right off the political map.

So that version of events doesn't hold water. Obviously it was something besides his own advancement that prompted his departure, and I can't think of a scenario that makes more sense than the one he claims himself: that he left because he wanted to make a real difference on the environmental file and the Quebec Liberals were preventing him from doing that. Logic tells us that it wasn't ego or ambition, but an ethical stand. You'll never admit it, of course, since a fact that doesn't help your Liberal cheerleading doesn't count as a fact in your world, but that's still the only explanation that makes sense.

montrealer58 wrote:

Where is the evidence that the Trudeau Liberals support social and economic justice?

Legalization of Marijuana is a social and economic justice issue and so far it is the most transformative change being offered.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If they don't perceive it as a history of lies, theft, corruption and corporate toadyism then they just don't know it. Those are the facts.

The Liberals have a lot to be proud about in their history too. Any political party that has a long history of being in power will have had periods of corruption, even the NDP and they have only been in opposition. A lot of people have a more balanced memory of the past as evidenced by the current popularity of Trudeau and the Liberals. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file ...

I wasn't giving them an edge on the environmental file, I am saying they will accomplish as much as the NDP would in the next four years. In my view both Trudeau and Mulcair have expressed concern for the environment but neither the NDP nor the Liberals are promising transformative change beyond restoring former protections and perhaps enhancing them. Apparently the NDP does plan some sort of carbon tax/trade or equivalent thereof but that was in Dion's platform too. I am not claiming that the Liberals are superior to the NDP on the environment. I agree that Mulcair has shown that he cares deeply about the environment but he is still supporting Energy East so he is obviously willing to bend to political pressure to some extent. Maybe he will put something big in the platform but as of right now I don't see the NDP saying anything significantly different on the environment.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.

I don't expect a Prime Minister to be an expert in every field. That's why nominations are important. I don't want Trudeau to be a one man band like Harper. I like the way he listens to the people that he recruits as he has with regional chief Jody Wilson-Raybould concerning the transparency bill. He is building an impressive team of advisors. I agree with Trudeau's vision of Canada more than I do Mulcair's and that matters to me.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell".

That's nothing but an excuse to make a personal attack. If the argument I present is weak then it is easy to demolish without the personal insults.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details.

"In a nutshell" also means a casual summation especially in the context of a post on a message board. A weak summation is not a valid reason for personal attacks.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.

Another smear statement bereft of any value.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.

Do you think your personal attacks are clever or meaningful? From my perspective you are only illustrating your own stupidity. The second sentence does not refute the first and there is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia in this context.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly.

He did not resign as a result of the Mont Tremblant decision. He resigned after he was offered a lesser portfolio which he then refused following which he resigned. A perfectly reasonable choice but had he kept the environmental portfolio I don't believe he would have resigned.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier.

What a surprise, more smearing. People in any profession, politicians included, often switch "companies" if they percieve themselves blocked or consider themselves demoted. I do not recall Mulcair denouncing his Liberal past. You see these comments as some sort of condemnation of Mulcair but I don't see them as such because I don't see the radical difference between the parties that you seem to. I do believe that the environment is the cause closest to Mulcair's heart, but that isn't stopping him from supporting Energy East, which he must do to get elected. You could look at it the nasty way and call him a sell-out, or recognize that political reality dictates acceptance in principal of pipelines.

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If they don't perceive it as a history of lies, theft, corruption and corporate toadyism then they just don't know it. Those are the facts.

The Liberals have a lot to be proud about in their history too. Any political party that has a long history of being in power will have had periods of corruption, even the NDP and they have only been in opposition. A lot of people have a more balanced memory of the past as evidenced by the current popularity of Trudeau and the Liberals. 

See, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about. You know precisely what I'm going to say to this because we've already had this argument a half-dozen times, and every time you keep throwing out the same talking point as if I had never taken it apart multiple times before.

As I've said over and over, the good things that the Liberals have done (mostly under duress) are all in the party's far past, while their corruption and criminal behaviour is very recent, from the very last time they had any power. It is representative of who they are now. It is not "balance" to say that these cancel out somehow. The party of old that once did some good is not the corrupt, criminal party of today. People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file ...

I wasn't giving them an edge on the environmental file, I am saying they will accomplish as much as the NDP would in the next four years. In my view both Trudeau and Mulcair have expressed concern for the environment but neither the NDP nor the Liberals are promising transformative change beyond restoring former protections and perhaps enhancing them. Apparently the NDP does plan some sort of carbon tax/trade or equivalent thereof but that was in Dion's platform too. I am not claiming that the Liberals are superior to the NDP on the environment. I agree that Mulcair has shown that he cares deeply about the environment but he is still supporting Energy East so he is obviously willing to bend to political pressure to some extent. Maybe he will put something big in the platform but as of right now I don't see the NDP saying anything significantly different on the environment.

Exactly. "Saying" anything different. That's why you left things like real world experience and actual accomplishments out of your little nutshell, because you wouldn't want the conversation to become about "doing" instead of "saying". Mulcair has a proven record of pursuing his goals and getting things done on the environmental file. He has stuck his neck out for his principles. In contrast, Justin has no record on any file. No accomplishments in the political world of any kind beyond getting himself elected. I don't really believe that you think these men will be equally effective at protecting the environment. That's too foolish of a premise for someone as smart as yourself.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.

I don't expect a Prime Minister to be an expert in every field. That's why nominations are important. I don't want Trudeau to be a one man band like Harper. I like the way he listens to the people that he recruits as he has with regional chief Jody Wilson-Raybould concerning the transparency bill. He is building an impressive team of advisors. I agree with Trudeau's vision of Canada more than I do Mulcair's and that matters to me.

Another great example of you running out of arguments and just launching into a stock Liberal press release. We were talking about the environmental file specifically, remember? One person has a history of experience getting results on that file, and the other studied it for a few years in school. One has built the skills needed to protect Canada's environment in his long record of public service, and the other hasn't. These people are not on equal footing.

Mulcair's advantage on this file is obvious, despite the irrelevancies of Justin's family's love of nature or his closeness to a former terrible environment minister. Again, I can't buy the notion that you believe these are sound arguments.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell".

That's nothing but an excuse to make a personal attack. If the argument I present is weak then it is easy to demolish without the personal insults.

Well, I suppose you're right, but honestly Pondering, I get tired of demolishing the same old speils from you over and over, presented unchanged no matter how often they're countered. The mockery keeps me engaged. The first few times, it's interesting enough just to craft the argument, but as you approach the fourth or fifth go-round, you gotta throw in some laughs just to keep typing.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details.

"In a nutshell" also means a casual summation especially in the context of a post on a message board. A weak summation is not a valid reason for personal attacks.

No, but a summation that is blatantly misleading by leaving out any information that might be relevant to the issue is a valid reason to call someone out on being blatantly misleading.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.

Another smear statement bereft of any value.

Well, I am making an assumption about your motivations here, I'll admit, but I just can't see any other way to explain how you would think that a summation of NDP vs. Liberals on the environment should include the fact that Justin's family loves nature, and not include the experience or qualifications of either leader on this file. That's the kind of omission that's not very credible as an oversight. I think I'll be sticking with my theory.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.

Do you think your personal attacks are clever or meaningful? From my perspective you are only illustrating your own stupidity. The second sentence does not refute the first and there is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia in this context.

I admit my snarkiness is totally indulgent, but I feel that you earn a little ribbing with stuff like this. The second sentence doesn't refute the first, but it refutes the point you were trying to make by quoting the first, which was that Mulcair's departure was a matter of ego or ambition. I said it was a matter of conscience, and you knew exactly what I was talking about, but still quoted only the first sentence and omitted the second. Did it hurt your wrist to get the whole paragraph? No. It just didn't fit your argument, so you excised it. That's how you roll.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly.

He did not resign as a result of the Mont Tremblant decision. He resigned after he was offered a lesser portfolio which he then refused following which he resigned. A perfectly reasonable choice but had he kept the environmental portfolio I don't believe he would have resigned.

Of course he wouldn't have, because he would have been making progress and getting things done. He was removed for being too effective, which wasn't what they wanted from an environment minister. Mulcair wants to get things done and make a difference. His record shows that. That's why he was a Liberal in the first place. Because he wanted to be in government where he could make real change. When it became clear they weren't going to allow that, he left. left to build an NDP Quebec movement from nothing.

From the standpoint of an opportunist, that move made no sense. From the standpoint of a guy who wanted to make real change in politics, it made perfect sense. He tried being the maverick in the mainstream party, and it didn't work. So instead he joined Layton in building a more radical party into an electoral success. A longshot, but the only shot that could give him what he wanted: a chance to have a real impact on the nation.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier.

What a surprise, more smearing. People in any profession, politicians included, often switch "companies" if they percieve themselves blocked or consider themselves demoted. I do not recall Mulcair denouncing his Liberal past. You see these comments as some sort of condemnation of Mulcair but I don't see them as such because I don't see the radical difference between the parties that you seem to. I do believe that the environment is the cause closest to Mulcair's heart, but that isn't stopping him from supporting Energy East, which he must do to get elected. You could look at it the nasty way and call him a sell-out, or recognize that political reality dictates acceptance in principal of pipelines.

 

You could certainly do either of those things, yes. But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about why Mulcair left the Quebec Liberal government. Yes, people switch organisations. My point (that you are dancing around as usual) was that opportunists switch from positions of lower notoriety and opportunity to positions of higher notoriety and opportunity. Mulcair did the opposite, which makes him the opposite of an opportunist in that instance. It was clearly an ethical move.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You know precisely what I'm going to say to this because we've already had this argument a half-dozen times, and every time you keep throwing out the same talking point as if I had never taken it apart multiple times before....

People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.....

 That's too foolish of a premise for someone as smart as yourself....

Another great example of you running out of arguments and just launching into a stock Liberal press release. We were talking about the environmental file specifically, remember?...

Well, I suppose you're right, but honestly Pondering, I get tired of demolishing the same old speils from you over and over, presented unchanged no matter how often they're countered. The mockery keeps me engaged. The first few times, it's interesting enough just to craft the argument, but as you approach the fourth or fifth go-round, you gotta throw in some laughs just to keep typing....

No, but a summation that is blatantly misleading by leaving out any information that might be relevant to the issue is a valid reason to call someone out on being blatantly misleading....

Well, I am making an assumption about your motivations here, I'll admit, but I just can't see any other way to explain how you would think that a summation of NDP vs. Liberals on the environment should include the fact that Justin's family loves nature, and not include the experience or qualifications of either leader on this file. That's the kind of omission that's not very credible as an oversight. ...

I admit my snarkiness is totally indulgent, but I feel that you earn a little ribbing with stuff like this....Did it hurt your wrist to get the whole paragraph? No. It just didn't fit your argument, so you excised it. That's how you roll.

You present your weak reasoning, declare yourself right then get offended that I don't agree to justify personal insults. That's lame and trolly.

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As I've said over and over, the good things that the Liberals have done (mostly under duress) are all in the party's far past, while their corruption and criminal behaviour is very recent, from the very last time they had any power. It is representative of who they are now. It is not "balance" to say that these cancel out somehow. The party of old that once did some good is not the corrupt, criminal party of today. People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.

Adscam is old news and a limited number of individuals were involved.  You aren't ready to move on, that's fine, you are entitled to put whatever significance you want on it. Other people are not wrong for being willing to move on and give a new leader a chance.

Yes, that's right Pondering. That's what you say at this point, and then I point out that it makes no sense to say that the Liberal's crimes don't count anymore because they're in the past, while simultaneously saying that the good that the party did cancels out the bad, when the good is even farther in the past.

You are not logically consistent. You don't make sense and you don't care that you don't make sense.

Go on. Your turn.

Is he for real? It is a sociological phenomenon and a national disgrace. Harper is extremely ignorant or purposely obtuse for someone with a social sciences background (economics).

To call the systemic attack on aboriginal girls and women a case of random violence is shocking.

I understand it is 25 -- 18 who say they won't run again and 7 who are already gone.

I have said that I don't think Harper can govern until next September. PMs rarely allow an MP who has announced she/he will not run again to be in the Cabinet.

The Conservatives do not have the bench strength if a significant number of current cabinet members are no longer cabinet options.

This is a combination of those who are not trusted by Harper; those whose views are too extreme to be politically tolerable in the lead-up to an election; those not competent enough to hold the position.

If Harper calls an early election asking for a manadate needing new blood, he won't be lying. And I doubt many people would complain for more than a day or so.

I expect an election in May.

If these Tory members are from 'solid' Conservative seats, maybe they have seen some writing on the wall which has not made it to the media yet. You have certain people in your riding who are 'bellweather', or at least talk to a lot of people.

Albertans are seeing as well as anyone else that in the USA and Germany the money is chasing the renewables. If the Liberal-Conservative Party stays with hydrocarbons, Alberta is going to be left behind. No one is going to want their goo.

I'd prefer that the name calling on all sides be stopped so that people can look at the attributes of each candidate. I don't want the NDP to do the same as the Conservatives with Trudeau even though I can see the temptation especially as there are a good number of Liberals who do the same. The "Angry Tom" name seems more popular among Liberals than Conservatives for example.

I think the party that gains the most out of maximum nastiness is the Conservatives as it fits best in their vision of politics and the country.

This is why I stopped using words like "Lieberals" (if I do it now it would be a typo). Instead I try to rely on facts, explanation and argument.

The NDP and the Liberals hate each other becuase they consider each to betray the other. The only solution is to be better educated about what the parties stand for and where they are philosophically and stop pretending any different.

The Liberals have to stop pretending to be moderate New Democrats and the NDP have to stop buying into that and feeling that the Liberals are betraying something they never really stood for. The NDP has to stop pretending there is no differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Each of the parties has a fairly clear philosophical approach to government and policy. While the NDP and the Conservatives have opposing moral, political and social philosophies they can understand each other as they are driven by their respective visions. The Liberals have a more flexible view of the world and can't be pinned down so easily -- in fact that is what characterizes their political philosophy. For those with a specific political vision it is easy to respect another vision while disrespecting one that is elusive, inconsistent and ultimately untrustworthy when it comes to values that are at times borrowed and at other times betrayed. For the NDP the Conservatives are the real opposition but often the Liberals are "in the way."

Well all in good fun. If Mulcair's beard goes any whiter you could punch him in both eyes and call him a panda. But that does not approach the subtext of the comments about Trudeau's appearance-- that is that his appearance is his best feature. Nobody has ever said that about Mulcair -- at least not in recent decades.

I haven't seen any sort of thing like that Debater. And I never called Justin names, other than an empty suit. MY point was he voted with the liberals on all the votes. He could have disented and still not changed anything. HE chose to vote with the party 79 times in a row to keep Harper in power. Harper brought his own party down, he called the election, not the liberals jumping on a grenade to save all of Canada. You also might remember at the time all the pundits said it was the NDP that pulled the trigger and it would wipe the party out. Kady even made mention of it last week in an article.

BTW nice passive agressive..oh no I didn't say mulcair is short yada yada though i could have (you did by just doing so) . I am SHORT you asshole and that is pretty damn offensive, because you did say it even when you pretend you didn't.