Leaders Debates Sep 8 & 9 21

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Leaders Debates Sep 8 & 9 21

Apparently they are deciding today whether or not Bernier can participate and it looks like he will qualify. Imagine giving that clown one second of air time in our national leaders debates. What a farce!

NorthReport

As Covid numbers continue to rise, and polling station workers not even mandated to be vaccinated, hopefully Singh will go after Trudeau big time for forcing an irresponsible and dangerous election on Canadians.

robbie_dee
Pondering

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform-custom/leaders-debate-form-2021

CBC poll on what issues you want discussed by the leaders.

NorthReport

Thanks robbie_dee

The NDP will be happy because Singh was against Bernier's participation, as he is opposed to science as well as his anti-human remarks.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Bernier is a toxic pos. Kick his ass down to Florida where it belongs

Pondering

He would have derailed debates.  One thing I will say for Paul is that I think she will be great on the debate stage. May would not have been able to debate half as well. It's clear that aside from Israel Paul is going left of the NDP. That justifies Singh going more left too. 

Both Singh and Paul easily beat Trudeau in debating ability and probably O'Toole as well. Even if O'Toole is good the policies he will be trying to defend are easy to attack. 

Trudeau does not think well on his feet so to speak. It is a specific skill that doesn't denote intelligence or lack thereof so I am not saying he is stupid but he coached on everything he has to talk about and it shows as everything sounds like a talking point. It doesn't give the impression of authenticity. 

Paul and Singh do come across as authentic because they know their topics in a way that doesn't require memorization. Paul less so because she avoids answering questions directly that she knows people won't like the answer to. Expect her to do a lot of "passing" on all foreign affairs while condemning all violence. 

I hope Canadians will begin to see we have two right wing parties not one. 

cco

Pondering wrote:

It's clear that aside from Israel Paul is going left of the NDP.

In what way?

Badriya

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

It's clear that aside from Israel Paul is going left of the NDP.

In what way?

Yes.  Curious minds want to know.

Pondering

Badriya wrote:

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

It's clear that aside from Israel Paul is going left of the NDP.

In what way?

Yes.  Curious minds want to know.

It sounded like that is what she is trying to do.

https://globalnews.ca/video/8123095/canada-election-green-party-leader-a...

Green Party Leader Annamie Paul was on the campaign trail in Toronto on Wednesday where she shared her vision for Canada including the “radical reform” of long-term care, guaranteed livable income, affordable housing for all, universal Pharmacare, universal child care, free post-secondary education and universal dental care among the agenda items that looks after Canadians from first day to last in a complete “social safety net.”

Definitelly not right wing.

melovesproles

Yeah Paul's big advantage is going to be that her achilles heel, foreign policy, isn't something Singh has any competence talking about. She could have a decent debate and she will definitely parrot NDP positions and try to squeeze the NDP.

I didn't think she looked that great in the Green leadership debates: arrogant and condescending at times and fairly amateurish in not being able to get her points out concisely enough not to constantly go over the alotted time. But in these debates she'll have the advantage of low expectations and not having to perform as a frontrunner. 

NDPP

Notice how the CBC questionaire in #4 doesn't even list foreign affairs as a topic, even though there are critical questions requiring answers of which I give but a few.

Why did the prime minister agree to allow Americans, the most highly Covid infected country on earth, the prime source of our covid crisis,  to cross the  land border into Canada but assented to US demands that  Canadians be refused reciprocal rights to visit USA?

Are Canadian political leaders content with the existing Canada-US relationship? Including adopting America's enemies as ours? Huawei/Meng Wanzhou, etc. Why doesn't Canada have an independent foreign policy?

Are Canadian political leaders content with our membership in NATO?

Are Canadian political leaders content with our support for Apartheid Israel?

Are Canadian political leaders content with our huge defence budget and expenditures to come on new jets, warships etc? Not to mention our arms sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia?

Obviously there are many others in this and other areas of concern. Please feel free to give your own...

melovesproles

NDPP wrote:

Notice how the CBC questionaire in #4 doesn't even list foreign affairs as a topic, even though there are critical questions requiring answers of which I give but a few.

Why did the prime minister agree to allow Americans, the most highly Covid infected country on earth, the prime source of our covid crisis,  to cross the  land border into Canada but assented to US demands that  Canadians be refused reciprocal rights to visit USA?

Are Canadian political leaders content with the existing Canada-US relationship? Including adopting America's enemies as ours? Huawei/Meng Wanzhou, etc. Why doesn't Canada have an independent foreign policy?

Are Canadian political leaders content with our membership in NATO?

Are Canadian political leaders content with our support for Apartheid Israel?

Are Canadian political leaders content with our huge defence budget and expenditures to come on new jets, warships etc? Not to mention our arms sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia?

Obviously there are many others in this and other areas of concern. Please feel free to give your own...

Great questions. Incredible that Canadians aren't allowed to have them answered. The extent to which our political and media instutions are packed with puppets can't really get any higher.

But we're going to hector other countries about "democracy" and support violent regime change and starvation sanctions whenever we get the chance.

kropotkin1951

All the parties will scream about the Taliban being evil at the very moment when it looks like after forty years of Western induced misery the people themselves want only peace. Our politicians are willing to see a fight to the last Afghani civilian rather than seeing a government in power that is not beholding to NATO.

Pondering

The women want to escape. 

melovesproles

Pondering wrote:

The women want to escape. 

What is your point? That after funding and arming Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow the progressive Marxist government in Kabul, the West started a war and violent occupation of Afghanistan which resulted in the exact same government that they set out to overthrow twenty years ago plus the murder of thousands of women and children during that civil war and occupation but now our politicans should pontificate about how much they care about the women of Afghanistan without being challenged on any of that? 

People who care so much about human rights need to stop being the useful idiots of empire.

Pondering

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB59/

    One factor that has kept the "Zahir Shah option" alive over the years is the king's popularity among refugees, especially political moderates and the exiled elite.  A survey conducted in 1987 by Afghan scholar Sayed Bahuddin Majrooh's Afghan Information Center, based in Peshawar, Pakistan, found that 70 percent of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan favored the king's return.  Majrooh was assassinated in 1988, allegedly by an Islamist faction led by Gulbudin Hekmatyar, who strongly opposed a role for Zahir Shah.(4)

We went in and installed a puppet regime instead of someone might have succeeded. 

The US and all followers destroyed Afghanistan and are now just ditching it because we didn't get what we wanted. 

That the west is completely selfish, destructive, and irresponsible for the havoc we create does not make the Taliban a welcome change for the people of Afghanistan, especially the women. 

We will now take all the best refugees. The ones that are educated. Teachers, judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses will be coming to Canada so all in all we are doing fine. Afghanistan is screwed.

melovesproles

The US got what it wanted. A reason to throw billions of dollars at military contractors. They're just moving on to the next place to do the same and they'll be enabled by the media, politicians, and human rights groups that say unilaterial military intervention is the best way to solve a humanitarian crisis. 

All of our political parties are complicit in that process. They should STFU about Afghanistan unless they want to reflect on their complicity and offer a better way forward.

Afghanistan was screwed when the West started funding and arming Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow their secular government. We should be paying reparations.

Pondering

melovesproles wrote:

The US got what it wanted. A reason to throw billions of dollars at military contractors. They're just moving on to the next place to do the same and they'll be enabled by the media, politicians, and human rights groups that say unilaterial military intervention is the best way to solve a humanitarian crisis. 

All of our political parties are complicit in that process. They should STFU about Afghanistan unless they want to reflect on their complicity and offer a better way forward.

Afghanistan was screwed when the West started funding and arming Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow their secular government. We should be paying reparations.

yes

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

melovesproles wrote:

Afghanistan was screwed when the West started funding and arming Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow their secular government. We should be paying reparations.

Quite right. Chris Floyd has a good summary of the whole sordid mess, starting with Carter and Brzezinski, through Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush2, Obama, Trump and Biden. A very sad story that too few citizens of the "free world" are aware of. It begins thus:

Chris Floyd wrote:

People need to understand something about Afghanistan, and the debacle we’re witnessing there. America’s involvement in Afghanistan didn’t begin in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. It began in the last years of the Carter Administration, when he and his advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski set out to “give the Soviets their own Vietnam.” They did this by funding and arming an international cohort of violent fundamentalist extremists and training them in terror tactics. (Osama bin Laden was one of those who joined this jihad army supported by the US, Saudia Arabia and Pakistan.)

At that time, there was a modern, secular regime in Afghanistan. It wasn’t a paradise. It was ridden by internal factionalism, sometimes violent. It was supported by the Soviet Union. It was beset by fundamentalist extremists. It had repressive features. But it was a secular regime. Women were emancipated; many held high positions. Children, including girls, were educated. Science was honored and promoted. Religion was tolerated, albeit uneasily.

Carter and Brzezinski decided to empower the extremist militias attacking the regime, hoping to induce so much chaos that the Soviets would intervene militarily to help their client state. Again, as Brzezinski himself put it, they wanted to give the USSR “its own Vietnam.”

Think about this for a moment. What Carter and Brzezinski wanted was to subject the Afghan people to the years of suffering and death that the Vietnamese had experienced. They WANTED Afghanistan to suffer this fate, and they ACTED to make sure it happened. And it did. If you like, it was one of the great successes of US foreign policy in the post-war period. They deliberately plunged Afghanistan into blood-soaked chaos; and the Soviets – after fierce debate in the Politburo – did send in troops to try to stabilize the country. What followed was year after year after year of horror and death. Again, please note: this was the stated INTENTION of US policy: mass death, terrorism and suffering.

melovesproles

Yep, good article. We definitely won't hear any of that brought up in the debates. I still don't know what the difference is between any of the parties on foreign policy? It's become a carbon copy of American debates on the subject-who can manage the agreed-upon imperial adventures most competently.

NDPP

"Campaign flyer by a Liberal MP boasts that the Liberal government is more anti-Palestinian than Stephen Harper. How is this something to be proud of?"

https://twitter.com/CJPME/status/1429214916779683842

Trudeau supported Israel 91% of the time. Opposed Israel 7% of the time. Harper supported Israel 62% of the time. Opposed Israel 22% of the time. UN Data (See thread)

The topic likely won't be permitted in leaders debate. Unnecessary since they all kiss Israel's shitty apartheid ass anyway. A good example of where lesser evilism choosing becomes far too close to call in any case.

NDPP

An excellent suggestion in response to Scott Taylor's recent piece on Afghanistan:

"...We should not allow the catastrophic outcome of that war to be framed as anything but the starting point for a full and open public review of Canadian defense and foreign policy. Such a review will not be able to avoid the subject of Canada's relationship with the US. A subject the Canadian elite are loathe to discuss unless they are framing said discussion.

Let's hear what Canadians of all ages, and backgrounds think. I believe the tub-thumpers will find themselves as the marginalized minority. I believe the political, economic and military elite of Canada will find themselves as naked in front of the Canadian people as the empire they serve is in front of the whole world. Good." - Richard Harding

On Target: The US Embarrassing Exit from Afghanistan was predicted by the Afghans

http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-the-us-embarrassing-exit-f...

NorthReport

How is O'Toole's French?

There is a French debate next week, on Thursday, September 2 called 'face a face' and has in the past attracted a large audience (bigger than the official French debate).  

NDPP

Mcquaig: the election shouldn't be about the climate crisis - it should be about curbing fossil fuel's influence.

https://buff.ly/38gbw3V

"Recent surveys show that most Canadians -- and most of the global population as well -- understand we're in a climate emergency and must take immediate action to avoid disaster.

So humans grasp the danger and want to act, but there's something blocking us. I don't think I'd be giving away the ending by pointing out that we're being blocked by the fossil-fuel industry -- probably the most powerful set of interests on earth.

Yet in the midst of a Canadian federal election, that brutal political reality barely figures into the discussion..."

Surprise, surprise. Can't imagine why. Why not ask Hill & Knowlton International? They're very well connected politically including Big Oil and might know...

NorthReport

Agreed!

I was hoping Linda would have been a candidate again this election.

NDPP

May watch if only for comic relief. Apparently this is to be the only debate at which 'foreign policy' will be discussed. Probably because, as should already be obvious,  none of these idiots has a clue about it either...

Le debat des chefs 2021 (Anglais/English) 8PM ET

https://youtu.be/ZPHprzOPpr0

 

Le debat des chefs 2021 (VO en francais)

https://youtu.be/tTey8EyaxO0

jerrym

CBC's Poll Tracker by Eric Grenier shows the NDP at 15.0% with 4 projected seats, likely in Montreal's French ridings, Ruth Ellen Brousseau's riding, and Sherbrooke with its large university population. The French debate therefore becomes important to solidify these potential gains and possibly add more. 

NorthReport

During the French debate tonite, in one of the most significant campaign issues, Singh scored big time on Trudeau's pathetic Environmental track record which has become a national and international embarassment. Canada has never ever met its environmental targets because our Liberal federal government is too much in love with the big oil and gas industries, and is giving them subsidies every year in the billions.

melovesproles

NDPP wrote:

May watch if only for comic relief. Apparently this is to be the only debate at which 'foreign policy' will be discussed. Probably because, as should already be obvious,  none of these idiots has a clue about it either...

Le debat des chefs 2021 (Anglais/English) 8PM ET

https://youtu.be/ZPHprzOPpr0

 

Le debat des chefs 2021 (VO en francais)

https://youtu.be/tTey8EyaxO0

Yeah, that was awful. I know that this isn't for an English audience but Singh having a slightly pompous British accent and Paul sounding like she had ingested a few bottles of cough syrup seemed like weird choices for the dubbing. The guy who did Trudeau's voice managed to sound annoying in a way that was not an imitation but really pulled it off. O'Toole's debate coach seems to have advised him to do little namaste gestures with his hands everytime he is about to speak.

But yeah that was thouroughly depressing. O'Toole gave enough answers that should have people feeling worried about what he would do in government. Paul was terrible but Singh was by far the biggest disappointment for me. His foreign policy answer was to say the NDP values "diplomacy" and then to critisize Trudeau for not joining in on the "genocide" vote in Parliament. I get the feeling he slept through the class on diplomacy and international politics. The moderator rightly asked how the NDP would be able to manage if they ever won government at the Federal level when their platform barely alludes to foreign policy at all. Singh looked completely out of his depth and anyone watching would have to come to the depressing conclusion that this is a race between O'Toole and Trudeau. It sucks but the NDP seems firmly wedded to being a party that has some domestic positions they can leverage the other parties on but has no real vision for Canada. I wonder how smart it was for Trudeau to bring up appointing a GG that can't speak French in the French debate but he probably won the night.

Edited to add: I never feel comfortable assessing the appeal of the BQ and there are posters on here who it would be interesting to hear what they think. I thought Blanchet had good moments and landed the best hits on Trudeau but also came across as very politician-y. I was always really impressed by Duceppe in debates. I don't get that same feeling from Blanchet.

NDPP

The pathetic political dog and pony show in the Canadian Museum of Civilization was bizarre but strangely appropriate. These are yesterday politicians. The 'Canadian civilization' they represent is a true historical anachronism no longer sustainable and obviously almost over.

In no real way can they or will they 'represent' me or anyone else I know.  Nor did they show appreciation, capability or inclination to confront the immensity of the challenges bearing down on us. They are simply rather unremarkable, uninspiring professional Canadian politicians picked and paid to 'seem' otherwise seeking state power.

 These colonialist leadership candidates of an admittedly  genocidal settler-state with all too obvious gaps and contradictions in its specious claims to resources, sovereignty and jurisdiction, (beyond propaganda, colonial brute force and might makes right), were always upstaged and overshadowed by the resonant power of the Indigenous imagery displayed around and above them  - from some of the nations known to be the true and rightful owners of these stolen lands we have instead been taught to call Canada.

What was left long after the unconvincing political performances had faded away was a stronger impression of something very wrong  and long overdue calling out to be fixed and put right before anything else became possible. Something that won't be fixed at an ELXN44 ballot box.

NDPP

"Over 6000 children's graves on government-run residential schools and counting and the question taking up significant airtime in the French debate was on one group burning books? I am so sad for those children, their families and the moral state of Canadian politics."

https://twitter.com/cblackst/status/1435781489116028933

lagatta4

The Canadian Museum of Civilisation was renamed the Canadian Museum of History several years ago.

As for Blanchet, while he earns praise for his elocution and the quality of his French, many francophones here in Québec also find him needlessly aggressive and arrogant, a bit of an "attack dog". I'd never vote for him, given his support for the needless and ecocidal "Troisième lien" (Third Link). Not only Québec solidaire but several PQ supporters came out against that wasteful idiocy. Very different from Gilles Duceppe, who as some may remember, was a unionist. I worked with him on hotel unionisation years ago.

kropotkin1951

lagatta4 wrote:

The Canadian Museum of Civilisation was renamed the Canadian Museum of History several years ago.

As for Blanchet, while he earns praise for his elocution and the quality of his French, many francophones here in Québec also find him needlessly aggressive and arrogant, a bit of an "attack dog". I'd never vote for him, given his support for the needless and ecocidal "Troisième lien" (Third Link). Not only Québec solidaire but several PQ supporters came out against that wasteful idiocy. Very different from Gilles Duceppe, who as some may remember, was a unionist. I worked with him on hotel unionisation years ago.

Thank you for the insight. I remember at the start of the century, while working on Svend and Bill's campaigns, thinking that the Bloc platform was as progressive as the NDP's. Every party in the country has shifted to the middle but those goal posts have now shifted to the right and the middle today is the right of yesteryear. That seems to be where we find the Bloc and NDP now, still a better platform than the Liberal's or Cons but that is a very low bar.

lagatta4

I have voted Bloc in the past, we had a very good MP who supported popular struggles, and the NDP candidate was an unknown. I was on the board of our local tenants' association, so if he was a serious progressive I'd have known him. I most certainly wouldn't vote Bloc now. While I'm an ardent secularist, some people use that noble principle to single out "foreign" religions.  I do find that issue complicated though... But the ecocidal "Third Link" must be opposed period.

NorthReport

My impressions were that Paul probably had the best performance of all last nite, but that alone is not going to change things. I was thinking is that possible, but then I heard David Moscrop being interviewed on CKNW this morning, and Moscrop stated that Paul was the best performer last nite as well. 

-------------------------------------------

One of the highlights last evening was the method Jagmeet Singh used for dealing with the 'Rebel Media' issue in his after-debate scrum. 

 

https://twitter.com/TomPark1n/status/1436111254666596355

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

English Leaders Debate live Youtube feed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR8wXdLSl3Q

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Very pleased to see that Shachi Kurl is the debate host. She hosted the BC Leaders Debate during last October's BC election and was by far and away the best leaders debate host I've ever seen.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Shachi Kurl asking hard hitting question the way that Don Newman used to back when he was host of CBC's Power & Politics. Love it!

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Singh failed to go after O'Toole on the pipeline question. O'Toole wants to resurrect the Northern Gateway Pipeline, and Singh didn't mention it.

NorthReport

Paul really rocked Trudeau in their initial debate. This does not appear to be a good debate format for Trudeau, because the other leader have time to talk. Once again Paul is having a good nite.

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

O'toole channeling Brian Mulroney from the 1984 debate. I predict the optics of this will play well with Lib-Con swing voters.

None of the leaders calling for stopping the extradition of Meng Wanzhou in order to get China to release Michael Spavor and Michal Kovrig. Sino-phobia all around. Disgusting.

cco

Blanchet nailed it on Trudeau and Saudi Arabia. And Left Turn, I was just thinking the moderation wasn't actually that good, though maybe it's the questions themselves I'm rolling my eyes at.

melovesproles

Singh is just so out of his depth on foreign policy. He has the opportunity to frame the conversation and says he would "work with allies" and then when it comes back to him tries to change the topic.  

He also doesn't make the connection between fighting climate change and the need for international cooperation with China. O'Toole parrots Singh's line on Trudeau not attending grandstanding vote in Parliament denouncing China. Zero difference between NDP and Conservatives on this.

cco

I wonder who the China hawks in the leader's office are, or if this comes from Hill & Knowlton. There's a bizarre out-of-place "stand up to China" bit in the platform, too.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

On the issue of regional differences with regards to climate action, nobody talking about how we need a plan to ensure a just transition for the oil & gas industry workers whose jobs will disappear when we wind down this industry.

Also, nobody talking about the need to nationalize the oil & gas industry so that we can wind it down in a way that ensures that that thousands of oil & gas industry workers don't get thrown into poverty.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

O'toole is the only leader talking about the need to include workers as part of the climate plan. Of course, O'toole's plan is bs because it involves expanding the tar sands and building two pipelines (Trans-Mountain and Northern Gateway), but many blue-collar workers will view O'toole as being on their side.

jerrym

Shachi Kurl has repeatedly let others interrupt Singh, espeically O'Toole, throwing Singh off his answers and reducing his time to answer, while cutting off Singh from doing the same.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

O'Toole shilling for the oil and gas industry while expressing rhetorical empathy with oil & gas workers.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Singh following Jack Layton's failed strategy from 2006 of attacking the Liberals while ignoring the Conservatives.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Trudeau mostly sounding defensive. Not a good look for him.

Pages