Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
She's a giant!

Fun Fact:  at only 4' 2" tall, Tom Mulcair was the first bilingual Emperor of the Lollipop Guild!

Jacob Two-Two

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I still think the problem is the NDP has not sold their plan -- not that the plan itself was not a winner.

I think the focus would best be on communications -- pulling the elements together and really selling this plan. You don't need to rebuild the platform to do that.

I agree completely. The NDP is already the best option, but people don't respond to policies or often understand them. They need to tell Canadians a story about who they are, why they want power, and what they plan to do with it. The NDP can't win like the Liberals do, by being the least worst option, because people stay with what they know in those cases. It can only win when it inspires. That's what makes people do something different.

I don't disagree with the middle-of-the-road approach that the party has taken. I think it was necessary to get to this place where a majority of voters are considering the NDP. But that work has been done and what's not getting done is just as important, which is building a simple narrative around the party that can give people a good feeling about voting for them. They need to stop making a pitch for their respectability that has been successful already and start wooing the voters more with warm appeals for a better Canada.

Fluff

A giant? I can't get behind someone who calls herself a feminist and is anti-choice. The anti-Mulcair stuff around here has been dialed up to hyperventilate. As Chomsky says it's your influence over their policies that count, not so much the Leader. Same goes for Sanders, and the best of the lot, Corbyn. Mulcair's campaign hasn't been brilliant but little attention has been paid to the negative role of the MSM in defining who he is. The fact that he's changed position on a number of issues is a good thing, he can be worked on, like he should be. We don't need another hero or demi-god. The main reason I voted for Layton was that his door was mostly closed to corporate lobbyists, shutting down another avenue of anti democratic influence. Mulcair has the same policy.

bekayne

Fluff wrote:

A giant?

I was talking about the picture

josh

bekayne wrote:

And the Niqab issue gets messier:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/mulcair-niqab-policy-ndp-quebec_...

Three more NDP candidates in Quebec are backing away from party leader Thomas Mulcair's stated policy on the niqab and are telling their constituents they oppose the wearing of face veils during citizenship ceremonies.

The politics of diversion and distraction is alive and well. The fate of the western world hangs in the balance on this issue.

terrytowel

josh wrote:

The politics of diversion and distraction is alive and well. The fate of the western world hangs in the balance on this issue.

On Power & Politics today it was revealed that only TWO (count em) two women refused to remove their Niqab during the citizenship ceremony since 2011.

Aristotleded24

jerrym wrote:
There is still time left and growing rumours that the Cons are ready to sign TPP may give the NDP an opening. This would give the NDP a chance to turn the rural Quebec City region ridings back in their favour as the TPP will almost certainly be a giveaway on dairy products. As Harper admitted in a debate it will almost certainly be a sellout on auto industry.

You mean the same way that grain farmers in the Prairies stood up to defeat so many rural MPs in Western Canada over the former Wheat Board?

Aristotleded24

As long as we're talking about the state of the NDP campaign, everyone here has overlooked one very potent possibility. Western Canadians hate being taken for granted and feeling as if important national decisions are made without their best interests in mind. That is why Reform did so well because they spoke to that, and the contempt with which the Liberals treated Reform only played into that perception. You can really cut Conservative support down out here by hammering home a simple message: "Stephen Harper is taking you for granted. We promise to listen to your concerns." All this focus about Ontario ignores what is going on in the rest of the country.

josh

28 seats the CPC are winning thanks to NDP and LPC splitting the vote, according to TCTC

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/vote-splitting-complement-to-articl...

Brachina

 May is antichoice? I had no idea she opposed abortion, man I would use that against her in BC.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

josh wrote:

28 seats the CPC are winning thanks to NDP and LPC splitting the vote, according to TCTC

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/vote-splitting-complement-to-articl...

The methodology this guy (and all the others like him) uses to make predictions is not nearly reliable enough in individual ridings to support this sort of conclusion. You might as well cast the I Ching to get this list of ridings. In fact, that would probably be more reliable than this crude, low resolution algorithm. I say we should go back to reading chicken entrails if we really want the best predictions.

terrytowel

N/A

quizzical

Michael Moriarity wrote:
josh wrote:

28 seats the CPC are winning thanks to NDP and LPC splitting the vote, according to TCTC

">http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/vote-splitting-complement-to-articl...

The methodology this guy (and all the others like him) uses to make predictions is not nearly reliable enough in individual ridings to support this sort of conclusion. You might as well cast the I Ching to get this list of ridings. In fact, that would probably be more reliable than this crude, low resolution algorithm. I say we should go back to reading chicken entrails if we really want the best predictions.

 

good call. the Liberals are getting panicky again.

Doug Woodard

Brachina wrote:

 May is antichoice? I had no idea she opposed abortion, man I would use that against her in BC.

With reference to what? The following were not hard to find:

 

Green party leader Elizabeth May says her abortion stance is "massively mis-reported"

http://www.straight.com/article-387551/vancouver/green-party-leader-eliz...

 

Opposing a Conservation attempt to limit abortion:

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/press-releases/2012/09/25/con...

 

Elizabeth May's religious orientation:

http://anglicanjournal.com/articles/an-activist-an-anglican-a-political-...

 

Judy Rebick's statement to Elizabeth May, "Raising the need for further debate as you have done is a serious error in judgement..." in

http://rabble.ca/news/rebick-withdraws-any-support-may

looks to me like an error in judgement itself. Elizabeth has opposed re-opening the debate. 

 

 

 

 

 

jerrym

I've double posted this because of the importance and tiemliness of the issue.

If a deal is reached this weekend on TPP, the biggest threat may be in the one section released by Wikileaks rather than on the dairy and automotive industries.

Quote:

The only real details emerging from TPP talks came when WikiLeaks published a secret draft chapter in January detailing how foreign companies would be able to directly "sue" governments through an Investor State Dispute Settlement process outside of Canada's legal system.

That means multinationals could force taxpayers to compensate them for any health, environmental, land use, financial or other government policies that they claim don't give them "fair and equal treatment."

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/07/21/TPP-Another-Secretive-Trade-Deal/

 

TPP could give companies even greater ability to sue governments over policies that reduce their ability to charge whatever they want. In view of the examples of price increases that have come to public attention in the last few days, but have been going on for quite some time, this could quickly become a hot issue during the election campaign. The same issue could of course apply to many other industries.

The following two article illustrates how weak our current laws are in this regard.

TPP could well prevent any attempt to correct this problem in the pricing of products in the drug and other industries because foreign and Canadian firms would have much greater likelihood of winning lawsuits over government regulation under TPP.

 

 

Quote:

Shortly before the onslaught of public condemnation forced his company to backtrack on a 5,000-per-cent price increase for a potentially life-saving drug, Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli went on national television to defend himself, incredulous at the outcry.

“We’re certainly not the first company to raise drug prices,” he said.

And he was right. For years, thanks to a lesser-known U.S. government regulation, what Mr. Shkreli’s company did was not an anomaly, but a fairly common business practice.

The state of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry became the focus of worldwide attention this month after news broke that startup drug company Turing Pharmaceuticals had purchased the rights to a drug called Daraprim, which is used to treat a life-threatening parasitic infection.

After acquiring the drug, Turing immediately raised the price from $13.50 (U.S.) a tablet to $750.

The move to increase the cost of a 60-year old drug by more than 5,000 per cent drew widespread condemnation. But the wave of outrage temporarily overshadows a simple fact about the U.S. pharmaceutical market – massive, overnight price increases happen all the time.

Perhaps the most important factor behind many of the price increases is a quirk in the Food and Drug Administration guidelines, particularly those involving older medications.

Almost a decade ago, the FDA decided to focus more energy on bringing older drugs into its normal drug approval scheme. For years, certain drugs were essentially “grandfathered” into the FDA approval process. To remedy this, the FDA offered pharmaceutical companies an incentive: In exchange for doing the legwork of putting in a new drug application for an old medication, a company would receive from the FDA a kind of limited exclusivity for the new drug. The FDA would remove the older, grandfathered treatment.

Many companies saw a potential gold mine. With limited testing (and often limited risk), a company could quickly gain exclusive rights to an age-old drug – and, perhaps most importantly, charge whatever it wanted.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business...

 

Quote:

Canada’s ability to control the price of patented drug prices could be at risk after a U.S. company challenged the constitutionality of a federal patent drug price regulator.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which has determined the price of the company’s Soliris medication was “excessive.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-...

 

With the astronomical increase in drug prices fresh in the public's mind, this could become a wedge issue, as the Liberals and Cons fully support TPP with the Liberals only protesting its lack of transparency as a campaign gimmick. If the NDP has the stomach to take on the corporate counterattack it will face for bringing it up, it could be an important advantage for them. After all, we have seen various companies use this kind of "free trade" (read corporate rights) agreements to attack environmental and other regulation of mining and other industries.

 

 

 

mark_alfred

Is it Justin?  Or is it Tom?  Which one is more like Stephen Harper?  Time for the great Graph Off (courtesy Dan Speerin):

Cody87

mark_alfred wrote:

Is it Justin?  Or is it Tom?  Which one is more like Stephen Harper?  Time for the great Graph Off (courtesy Dan Speerin):

The pictures in the LPC ad are a clever touch. They used a picture of Trudeau looking forward (at the reader) while Mulcair and Harper are not. Also, the pictures are meant to show further similarity between Mulcair and Harper, and the backgrounds for those two are dark while Trudeau's is light. It's just as dishonest as saying Trudeau opposes the $15 federal minimum wage.

mark_alfred

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Northern PoV

mark_alfred wrote:

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Until Mulcair says

"Federally we can't do much about the minimum wage. We hope that by raising the minimum wage for the small number of workers contolled by federal legislation, it will inspire provincial gov't to follow suit"

I will continue to see him as a sleazy politician.

mark_alfred

Northern PoV wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Until Mulcair says

"Federally we can't do much about the minimum wage. We hope that by raising the minimum wage for the small number of workers contolled by federal legislation, it will inspire provincial gov't to follow suit"

I will continue to see him as a sleazy politician.

Mulcair does say he hopes this will set an example for the provinces. Here's a comment from a student paper on one of the debates (I think the French Consortium debate):

Quote:
Only time will tell whether this will have any effect on Canadians’ wages, although Mulcair hopes the policy will be good for all Canadians: “A $15 an hour federal minimum wage is not only good for [federally regulated workers], it’s a good signal to the provinces to do the same thing, to bring up a living wage.”

Northern PoV

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair does say he hopes this will set an example for the provinces. Here's a comment from a student paper on one of the debates (I think the French Consortium debate)

A "student paper" no less!   OK - a cheap shot...

but really: Trudeau corners Mulcair in a debate so Mulcair finally comes clean.  No one notices but a student reporter. Try harder.

quizzical

the comment is from a professor of political science. geez

Jacob Two-Two

That's the tricky thing about media, POV. This might come as a shock but they're not always entirely honest. Just because you haven't heard something doesn't mean it didn't get said. And just because something isnt reported doesn't mean it didn't get noticed. Usually it means that it didn't fit a prearranged narrative.

Northern PoV

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
That's the tricky thing about media, POV. This might come as a shock but they're not always entirely honest. Just because you haven't heard something doesn't mean it didn't get said. And just because something isnt reported doesn't mean it didn't get noticed. Usually it means that it didn't fit a prearranged narrative.

Something "getting said" for the record 

vs

A mis-leading promotional positioning of an election promise

as for "getting noticed" ... give me a break. Only when Mulcair was cornered in the debate, did he come clean.

Brachina

Michael Moriarity wrote:

josh wrote:

28 seats the CPC are winning thanks to NDP and LPC splitting the vote, according to TCTC

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/vote-splitting-complement-to-articl...

The methodology this guy (and all the others like him) uses to make predictions is not nearly reliable enough in individual ridings to support this sort of conclusion. You might as well cast the I Ching to get this list of ridings. In fact, that would probably be more reliable than this crude, low resolution algorithm. I say we should go back to reading chicken entrails if we really want the best predictions.

 

 Funniest quote in thread.

mark_alfred

mark_alfred wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

It's just as dishonest as saying Trudeau opposes the $15 federal minimum wage.

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Mulcair argues that raising the federal minimum wage could be a model for the rest of the country, whereas Trudeau argues against it, feeling it isn't worth while due to how few people are immediately affected by it (about a 100,000 Canadians getting a raise).  So Cody87 is mistaken in her/his assertion.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, this is a new one. I just was told on Twitter, that I am not Patriotic because I won't vote Liberal, despite my years of military service. There seems to be nothing LPC supporters won't say or accuse anyone of being or doing if they won't give their unqualified fealty to their party and its Air Head, stupid, empty vessel of a leader.

KarlL

mark_alfred wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

It's just as dishonest as saying Trudeau opposes the $15 federal minimum wage.

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Mulcair argues that raising the federal minimum wage could be a model for the rest of the country, whereas Trudeau argues against it, feeling it isn't worth while due to how few people are immediately affected by it (about a 100,000 Canadians getting a raise).  So Cody87 is mistaken in her/his assertion.

Cody87's point is a fair one.  It does affect a few people but is worded so as to play upon people's ignorance of jurisdictional distinctions.  For most Canadians it is about as impactful as those  "You May Have Already Won:" lines on the old Publishers Clearing House mailings.

terrytowel

Jacob Two-Two hate to say it again, but the Liberals use of Anayltic is driving not only their numbers up, but driving the narrative of this election campaign in the media. The NDP has got start using anayltics if they want to stay in the game.

Aristotleded24

terrytowel wrote:
Jacob Two-Two hate to say it again, but the Liberals use of Anayltic is driving not only their numbers up, but driving the narrative of this election campaign in the media. The NDP has got start using anayltics if they want to stay in the game.

The issues with the NDP campagin have to do with communication (particularly in listening to supporters) rather than technological.

terrytowel

Aristotleded24 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:
Jacob Two-Two hate to say it again, but the Liberals use of Anayltic is driving not only their numbers up, but driving the narrative of this election campaign in the media. The NDP has got start using anayltics if they want to stay in the game.

The issues with the NDP campagin have to do with communication (particularly in listening to supporters) rather than technological.

Anayltic is a commuications tool to reach out to your base and the undecided. That is what the Liberals have done, and the NDP has not.

mark_alfred

KarlL wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

It's just as dishonest as saying Trudeau opposes the $15 federal minimum wage.

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Mulcair argues that raising the federal minimum wage could be a model for the rest of the country, whereas Trudeau argues against it, feeling it isn't worth while due to how few people are immediately affected by it (about a 100,000 Canadians getting a raise).  So Cody87 is mistaken in her/his assertion.

Cody87's point is a fair one.  It does affect a few people but is worded so as to play upon people's ignorance of jurisdictional distinctions.  For most Canadians it is about as impactful as those  "You May Have Already Won:" lines on the old Publishers Clearing House mailings.

Cody87's point was that Trudeau is in favour of raising the federal minimum wage.  This is not true.  Trudeau has never said he would do this.  If you feel I'm mistaken and can show me where he has committed to this, I'll admit I'm wrong.  But as far as I can see, Trudeau opposes and will not commit to raising the federal minimum wage.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

KarlL wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

It's just as dishonest as saying Trudeau opposes the $15 federal minimum wage.

Until Trudeau says, "I promise to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour," I consider him opposed to it.

Mulcair argues that raising the federal minimum wage could be a model for the rest of the country, whereas Trudeau argues against it, feeling it isn't worth while due to how few people are immediately affected by it (about a 100,000 Canadians getting a raise).  So Cody87 is mistaken in her/his assertion.

Cody87's point is a fair one.  It does affect a few people but is worded so as to play upon people's ignorance of jurisdictional distinctions.  For most Canadians it is about as impactful as those  "You May Have Already Won:" lines on the old Publishers Clearing House mailings.

Cody87's point was that Trudeau is in favour of raising the federal minimum wage.  This is not true.  Trudeau has never said he would do this.  If you feel I'm mistaken and can show me where he has committed to this, I'll admit I'm wrong.  But as far as I can see, Trudeau opposes and will not commit to raising the federal minimum wage.

The Liberal party voted in favor of an NDP motion to raise the minimum wage on September 18th, 2014. Trudeau has never said that he is against raising the Federal minimum wage.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party voted in favor of an NDP motion to raise the minimum wage on September 18th, 2014. Trudeau has never said that he is against raising the Federal minimum wage.

He also voted for mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession.  Is this reflective of the current campaign promises?  The fact is he's only ever demeaned the NDP's promise to raise the federal minimum wage.  He has never promised to raise it during this campaign.  He is opposed to it.

Cody87

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party voted in favor of an NDP motion to raise the minimum wage on September 18th, 2014. Trudeau has never said that he is against raising the Federal minimum wage.

He also voted for mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession.  Is this reflective of the current campaign promises?  The fact is he's only ever demeaned the NDP's promise to raise the federal minimum wage.  He has never promised to raise it during this campaign.  He is opposed to it.

Trudeau has never been against a $15 minimum wage. He is against the deceptive way Mulcair tried to pass it off as a big deal/major platform plank. And just because he hasn't promised to do it, and may not, doesn't mean he's actually opposed to it. I have never learned to knit. I'm not opposed to it, it's just not a priority. There's nothing wrong with it as a policy, but the truth of the matter is that, except for telecom companies, most employees working in industries under federal jurisdiction (like banks) already make $15 an hour or more. Regardless, this is something that would easily pass under either a liberal or NDP minority government, unlike the other things on the chart that Trudeau actually does seem to oppose (rightly or wrongly).

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party voted in favor of an NDP motion to raise the minimum wage on September 18th, 2014. Trudeau has never said that he is against raising the Federal minimum wage.

He also voted for mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession.  Is this reflective of the current campaign promises?  The fact is he's only ever demeaned the NDP's promise to raise the federal minimum wage.  He has never promised to raise it during this campaign.  He is opposed to it.

What Cody said, but I will add to that you know very well that the Liberals voted for omnibus bills because it would have been pointless to defeat the government when they would just get elected again making a majority even more likely.

It seems even NDP supporters think the only way for the NDP to win is to mislead.

I think the NDP will soon be in a position in which they will be forced to support a Liberal government for fear of being held responsible for triggering another election.

 

mark_alfred

Since Trudeau's only comments on increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 is to undermine it, then it's obvious the Liberals have no plans to do this if elected.  Regarding its significance, many argue against the minimum wage as an effective anti-poverty measure.  And there is great pressure from business against raising the minimum wage.  So, I don't agree with Trudeau's argument that this policy plank by the NDP is insignificant.  It sets an example and helps set the stage for the rest of the country.  It gives a lot of support to those who advocate for increasing the minimum wage provincially.  After all, if even the feds don't do it with the proportionally smaller number employees (though still 100,000, which does make a difference) then it makes it harder to advocate for it provincially.  Trudeau is wrong to undermine the pledge to increase the federal minimum wage.

Ciabatta2

Cody87 wrote:

 

The pictures in the LPC ad are a clever touch. They used a picture of Trudeau looking forward (at the reader) while Mulcair and Harper are not. Also, the pictures are meant to show further similarity between Mulcair and Harper, and the backgrounds for those two are dark while Trudeau's is light.

Selective imagine picking - nothing new.  All of them doing it.  The Liberals have done very well at making sure Trudeau faces that camera in almost every photo.  Particularly in the debates.  I have no idea how Trudeau shook hands with the other leaders without facing them.  It is almost superhuman.  Joking aside, to Trudeau's credit, it takes a lot of discipline to remember to do this throughout the campaign.

As for the 15$ minimum wage thing, he may be a complete partisan but on this mark-alfread is correct.  You'd do better recognizing Trudeau's failure in this reagard (shoudl you agree with the policy) and move on.  Twisting in knots just proves his point.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Today I was waiting for the 78 at Monk/Allard. The bus was running unusually late. In the distance I could see Quebec and Canada flags slowly,slowly moving along the bus route. Turned out it was the CPC candidate for Émard/LaSalle. Flipped him the bird but managed to bite my tongue.

It was quite satisfying. In hindsight I should have given him 2 because he was the reason the bus was almost 10 minutes late.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Since Trudeau's only comments on increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 is to undermine it, then it's obvious the Liberals have no plans to do this if elected.

No one has claimed that Trudeau has any intention of creating a 15$ federal minimum wage. That doesn't mean he is against it. There is such a thing as neutrality not to mention priorities.

mark_alfred wrote:
Since Trudeau's only comments on increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 is to undermine it, then it's obvious the Liberals have no plans to do this if elected.  Regarding its significance, many argue against the minimum wage as an effective anti-poverty measure.  And there is great pressure from business against raising the minimum wage.  So, I don't agree with Trudeau's argument that this policy plank by the NDP is insignificant.  It sets an example and helps set the stage for the rest of the country.  It gives a lot of support to those who advocate for increasing the minimum wage provincially.  After all, if even the feds don't do it with the proportionally smaller number employees (though still 100,000, which does make a difference) then it makes it harder to advocate for it provincially.  Trudeau is wrong to undermine the pledge to increase the federal minimum wage.

The sole point made by the Trudeau campaign is that it does not apply to all minimum wage workers and that it is misleading not to say so explicitly because most people aren't aware when hearing about it for the first time that a federal minimum wage doesn't apply to all minimum wage workers the same way provincial minimum wages do.

Am I to understand that you believe most people, when hearing the term "federal minimum wage", understand that it does not apply to most minimum wage workers?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, another silly post. G-d Mark, why are you wasting your time on this pontificating demagogue?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Over my life my friends have mostly been New Dems + Tories. Based on what I've read here, I understand why Ive almost no LPC voting friends It is a certainty that had they'd been in the Service wit me, I'd doubt whether the Lib voters would have my back when it counted. This comment, by the way, is also based on experiene. At least with a Tory, even if you vehemently disagree with them, you know what they think and they ALWAYS have your back! With a Liberal, there's no knowing what they will think or do. I can't put my trust in the hands of people who act based on whichever the way the wind is blowing.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Over my life my friends have mostly been New Dems + Tories. Based on what I've read here, I understand why Ive almost no LPC voting friends It is a certainty that had they'd been in the Service wit me, I'd doubt whether the Lib voters would have my back when it counted. This comment, by the way, is also based on experiene. At least with a Tory, even if you vehemently disagree with them, you know what they think and they ALWAYS have your back! With a Liberal, there's no knowing what they will think or do. I can't put my trust in the hands of people who act based on whichever the way the wind is blowing.

Shouldn't politicians do what people want them to do? Isn't that democracy?

It's very prejudice to lump people together in such a broad category. People who vote Liberal have also voted NDP, good to know you have such a low opinion of us all. Unlike you I won't allow that to taint my view of other NDP members who are nothing like you.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 At least with a Tory, even if you vehemently disagree with them, you know what they think and they ALWAYS have your back!

Oh Arthur....seriously? And what does that mean? They'll have my back,alright...They'll be completely on it and busy shanking me...for 4 more years. No thanks,mate.

bekayne

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Over my life my friends have mostly been New Dems + Tories. Based on what I've read here, I understand why Ive almost no LPC voting friends It is a certainty that had they'd been in the Service wit me, I'd doubt whether the Lib voters would have my back when it counted. This comment, by the way, is also based on experiene. At least with a Tory, even if you vehemently disagree with them, you know what they think and they ALWAYS have your back! With a Liberal, there's no knowing what they will think or do. I can't put my trust in the hands of people who act based on whichever the way the wind is blowing.

Would you move if a Liberal moved next door?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I stand by what I said. I really have never had any friends who admitted to voting Liberal. I had Liberals next door to me on both sides in the last election; I stayed, they moved! Nope, I don't really feel the need to retract what I wrote. Thanks for asking for asking though. Its nice to know people care. And as to you Pondering, I've already addressed, there is a big difference between have principles and pandering. That's why I'm a New Democrat, and you aren't!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Thanks Mark!

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Holy Cow, in the Toronto Sun?????? Really????? http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/04/ndp-popularity-a-sign-of-voters-opt...

Hi Arthur.  The link above is broken.  I think there's a space at the end that breaks it.  Here it is fixed:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/04/ndp-popularity-a-sign-of-voters-opt...

ETA:

Quote:

They’d keep Mr. Harper’s corporate tax cuts. And they support the Conservative plan to cut health care by $36 billion.

The Liberal platform even cuts $6.5 billion more than Mr. Harper. It’s more of the same disappointment, not real change.

I'm curious where the $36 billion figure identified as a cut to health care comes from.  I'm aware of the $6.5 billion, but I don't recall the $36 billion figure.

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well, I stand by what I said. I really have never had any friends who admitted to voting Liberal. I had Liberals next door to me on both sides in the last election; I stayed, they moved! Nope, I don't really feel the need to retract what I wrote. Thanks for asking for asking though. Its nice to know people care. And as to you Pondering, I've already addressed, there is a big difference between have principles and pandering. That's why I'm a New Democrat, and you aren't!

In this election I've canvassed voters who voted for the NDP in the last electon. A few of them have said they are now leaning toward the Liberals or Greens but so far I have not spoken to a voter who voted NDP last time and is now leaning Conservative this time around.

Pages