Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well JKR, that's nice they aren't considering voting Tory. I said though that I felt I had more in commone with Tories then Liberals. The reason is because Tories willl take a stand and stand by it. You can't say that for Libs. I don't withdraw this remark either.  Pondering herself keeps saying that its a democracy and we have to give people whatever they want, so I know I'm not imagining it.

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well JKR, that's nice they aren't considering voting Tory. I said though that I felt I had more in commone with Tories then Liberals. The reason is because Tories willl take a stand and stand by it. You can't say that for Libs. I don't withdraw this remark either.  Pondering herself keeps saying that its a democracy and we have to give people whatever they want, so I know I'm not imagining it.

I think you have a good point. I think that unlike NDP'ers and Conservatives, Liberals tend to allow short term political considerations to determine their positions to a much greater degree. The pursuit of power for powers sake seems to be greater for the Liberal party than either the NDP or Conservatives. It does seem that the NDP, Conservatives, Greens, and, BQ, are guided by their respective ideologies to a much greater degree than the Liberals who seem to be guided much more by the need to assume or maintain power. That being said, I do think the Liberals have their own ideology which stresses individual liberty over other ideological considerations such as the free market, equality between classes, the environment, or national independence.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well JKR, that's nice they aren't considering voting Tory. I said though that I felt I had more in commone with Tories then Liberals. The reason is because Tories willl take a stand and stand by it. You can't say that for Libs. I don't withdraw this remark either.  Pondering herself keeps saying that its a democracy and we have to give people whatever they want, so I know I'm not imagining it.

I think you have a good point. I think that unlike NDP'ers and Conservatives, Liberals tend to allow short term political considerations to determine their positions to a much greater degree. The pursuit of power for powers sake seems to be greater for the Liberal party than either the NDP or Conservatives. It does seem that the NDP, Conservatives, Greens, and, BQ, are guided by their respective ideologies to a much greater degree than the Liberals who seem to be guided much more by the need to assume or maintain power. That being said, I do think the Liberals have their own ideology which stresses individual liberty over other ideological considerations such as the free market, equality between classes, the environment, or national independence.

Or, the Liberals are the party of democracy that is more likely to reflect the desires of citizens rather than placing ideology first.

Nobody even blinks an eye for floor-crossing anymore. It isn't necessary to renounce the "ideology" of the previous party. It's like switching sports teams not a reflection of changed political ideology. The parties go for different base supporters but all target "the centre" meaning basic acceptance of neoliberalism + micro-targeting.

KarlL

mark_alfred wrote:

Presumably it applies to 100% of the workers under federal jurisdiction.  They really can't go higher than that, can they?

Sure but given that it is about 1/2 of 1% of the Canadian workforce who would be affected, should presumably carry that disclaimer or be in 8-point type. Don't pretend that it wasn't sold with some vagueness as to its applicability.

mark_alfred

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Or, the Liberals are the party of democracy that is more likely to reflect the desires of citizens rather than placing ideology first.

The citizens have desired a national child-care program for many decades now.

They're no longer even pretending to promise this anymore.  Their focus is on a direct cash benefit ("Canada Child Benefit") instead rather than child care.  Their only promise now is to have meetings with the provinces.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jennifer Hollet just tweeted Freeland won't answer questions on the TPP!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So, Trudeau, lover of democracy and dissent, Mr Transparecny, champion of debate said tonight he wants to make it possible for doemstic spy agencies to spy on Canadians. You gotta love that guy! Learned this from Daddy, "Mr. War Measure Act"! Yeah, let's just crush our enemies. Wonderful!

ETA: Link to Trudeau statements, https://news.vice.com/article/liberal-leader-would-give-new-powers-to-ca...

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Or, the Liberals are the party of democracy that is more likely to reflect the desires of citizens rather than placing ideology first.

The citizens have desired a national child-care program for many decades now. The Liberals first promised them this back in 1993. They are still promising it 22 years later. That's the kind of "democracy" the Liberals represent. Trying to "capture the center" with lies and then throwing those lies away as soon as they take power. It's true that their total lack of any political stance to speak of could be considered a virtue by some, if we could count on them to even vaugely honest, but we can't. The only way they "reflect the citizens" is by telling them what they want to hear in election periods. In their actual governing, they do not reflect the citizens at all.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Or, the Liberals are the party of democracy that is more likely to reflect the desires of citizens rather than placing ideology first.

I agree.  The Liberals are very much like the Reform Party, being concerned with yielding to populist whim (aka reflecting desires of citizens).  But they're still a little behind the Conservatives.  To catch up, the Liberals should join in with their corporate ass-kissing brethren, that being the Conservative Party, and declare that the niqab will not be allowed to be worn at citizenship ceremonies.  Apparently this is supported by two thirds of Canadians. Liberals need to get on the ball and better reflect the desires of citizens.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Or, the Liberals are the party of democracy that is more likely to reflect the desires of citizens rather than placing ideology first.

I agree.  The Liberals are very much like the Reform Party, being concerned with yielding to populist whim (aka reflecting desires of citizens).  But they're still a little behind the Conservatives.  To catch up, the Liberals should join in with their corporate ass-kissing brethren, that being the Conservative Party, and declare that the niqab will not be allowed to be worn at citizenship ceremonies.  Apparently this is supported by two thirds of Canadians. Liberals need to get on the ball and better reflect the desires of citizens.

 

SOOOOOOO NAILED IT MARK!

bekayne

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/06/conservative-candidate-muses-about-deport...

Amid a heated campaign debate and at least one Constitutional challenge of the Harper government’s new citizenship law, Bill C-24, Conservative MP and Mississauga-Streetsville candidate Brad Butt has cited NDP Leader Tom Mulcair as an example of a Canadian citizen who could have his passport revoked under the law.

quizzical

sounds more and more like the 'malicious practises act' coming to soon Canada under either the Liberals or Conservatives.

bekayne

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674liberal_tootoo_dumps_...

Hunter Tootoo, the Liberal candidate for Nunavut, said Oct. 6 that Conservative leader Stephen Harper must “denounce” remarks about Nunavut that a Conservative candidate in Montreal made during a recent all-candidates debate.

The candidate, Montreal business person Richard Sagala, is running for the Conservatives in the new west Montreal seat of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount.

...

After criticizing past governments for dealing with Aboriginal issues by “throwing money at it” and sending “more people to talk to them,” he veered off into remarks about Nunavut.

“Nunavut is not that great an experience. Just to tell you, the violence there is comparable to South Africa. Imagine, 1,000 times more than in Canada. You know, we tried to do some delegation of power to them and this is what happened,” Sagala said.

 

 

Debater

Another Conservative asshole that needs to be voted out is Brad Butt, in Mississauga-Streetsville:

Conservative candidate muses about deporting Mulcair under C-24

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/06/conservative-candidate-muses-about-deport...

welder welder's picture

Brad Butt is the same twit who lied about seeing hundreds of voter cards in '11 claming (erroneous) voter fraud...

jerrym

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has published a book, The Harper Record 2008-2015, compiled from 36 writers on the damage he has done to Canadian society. It's great motivation to keep up the drive to end his rule. You can click on the url below to get the complete publication. 

Quote:

This book, which builds on the 2008 collection The Harper Record, continues a 25-year tradition at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives of periodically examining the records of Canadian federal governments during their tenure. As with earlier CCPA reports on the activities of the Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin governments while in office, this book gives a detailed account of the laws, policies, regulations, and initiatives of the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper while in minority (from 2008 to 2011) and majority (from 2011 to 2015).

The 36 writers, researchers and analysts who have co-written this book probe into many aspects of the Harper government’s administration over the last two parliamentary sessions. From the economy to the environment, social programs to foreign policy, health care to tax cuts, the tar sands to free trade deals, and many other areas, these chapters dig through the facts and key moments for this government over the past seven years, highlighting in particular its policy response to the global financial crisis and Great Recession.

October 5, 2015 Download 2.23 MB432 pages

Click the button above to download the full publication.

Click here to download individual chapters.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/harper-record-200...

 

 

quizzical

you can see who are the paid political shills on babble by how many don't post after biz hours. :D

KarlL

quizzical wrote:

you can see who are the paid political shills on babble by how many don't post after biz hours. :D

Wot?  Sorry just dozing.

Aristotleded24

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/conservative-candidate-qu... canadiate not sure if climate change caused by humans[/url]

Quote:
In an interview with CBC radio's Daybreak South on Tuesday, Mel Arnold, the Conservative candidate for North Okanagan-Shuswap said he remains "not convinced" of the scientific proof that's been presented.

Host Chris Walker raised the issue with Arnold after he responded to an online questionnaire on climate change by saying, "until science can prove conclusively and empirically that humans are the main cause of climate change, I will withhold my personal opinion."

Walker asked Arnold why he was withholding his opinions when organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and Environment Canada have acknowledged the role people have played in climate change.

The politician responded by saying he was unsure as to the extent of human impact.

"I don't know that it has been determined for sure that human activity is the main cause. It is part of the process," said Arnold. "But how much of it is actually naturally occurring, that's I think where the debate is."

I think the NDP can really make an issue of these remarks in a region of the country that has literally been going up in flames because of climate change.

Aristotleded24

[url=https://ourdigitalfuture.ca/report]How to the parties rank on digital issues?[/url]

In sum, the parties have been graded thus:

Conservatives: D-

NDP: A-

Liberals: C

Greens: A

Much more detailed breakdowns at the website.

Doug Woodard

Early voter engagement strong, Elections Canada chief says:

http://www.cbc.ca/1.3263621

Looks like turnout will be up - bad for Harper, good for Canada. 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

you can see who are the paid political shills on babble by how many don't post after biz hours. :D

This is a serious accusation.

Some people may post during business hours becuase they work at a computer and post in-between other things. They may go to babble during breaks. Others may do shift work and have erratic schedules. Some are not employed, self employed, direct their own schedules etc. As well if you review media as part of your work and see something of relevance going to babble might be a response to something you ahve seen.

Becuse of the nature of the work I do, which is creative, I work and go here at all hours. While mulling one thing I may post here. I may do things here for a bit and I may work in the evening as well I also may finish work and then come here.

A political operative is also just as likely to work outside business hours.

It is really irresponsible to start accusing people based on their patterns. As well patterns might be hard to establish or observe.

Finally, I really doubt there are paid operatives here. I suspect that if you were paying people to disrupt you would send them to mass media comment boards rather than here. The most persistent may be loyal to a party but I highly doubt they are paid.

That does not mean we don't have trolls who are very loyal to a party even if unpaid. We have the full range of people who see themselves as observers with no interest in any party, to people who are in a movement or party but consider themselves quite independent and able to comment freely, to people who are so loyal to their party they quote pretty much the daily talking points.

 

 

josh

Sean, as usual, the voice of reason.

And, with all due regard to rabble, why would someone want to pay them to post here.

nicky

Perhaps something like this is happening:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/18/trolls-putin-russia-savchuk

Seriously, I don't think anyone is being paid but it is very obvious that social media, especially Twitter, is being flooded with Liberal spin. Unfortunately we seem to be getting a lot on Babble as well although it beggars belief that anyone would pay Terryt...l given the banality of his propaganda.

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:
Perhaps something like this is happening: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/18/trolls-putin-russia-savchuk Seriously, I don't think anyone is being paid but it is very obvious that social media, especially Twitter, is being flooded with Liberal spin. Unfortunately we seem to be getting a lot on Babble as well although it beggars belief that anyone would pay Terryt...l given the banality of his propaganda.

I think the question of payment is hardly relevant. They are party loyalists. The objectives are the same. I don't see how someone paying them would be a huge difference to how they should be received.

My issue is not if they are paid -- but if they are being dishonest or willfully blind while disrupting inquiry with repetition of statements that have been proven incorrect.

I really would have less trouble with a paid operative who makes a case we can debate in a cogent way than a volunteer bot who regurgitates spin thinking it is helping a party even when it isn't. And I do not discount someone's positions or argument based on whether they are paid but based on their record for providing different, interesting or noteworthy ideas.

Also I have no doubt that there are people in the employ of the NDP posting here -- I certainly hope so because they should be at least reading and engaging here. I have written things on purpose to get their attention when I could not in any other way. I also at one time in the past engaged with one off-line so they certainly have existed here in the past.

If a Liberal operative wants to test the water with argument this is not a problem either. I think a paid operative is actually less likely to keep flogging discredited propaganda to the annoyance of others than a supporter that has drunk a bucket of kool-aid and is doing this for free.

KarlL

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think a paid operative is actually less likely to keep flogging discredited propaganda to the annoyance of others than a supporter that has drunk a bucket of kool-aid and is doing this for free.

Agreed.  Being earnest but hamfisted (or just hamfisted) is a problem for some of the posters here who support the Liberals.  I don't think that there is any likelihood that a senior or even mid-level Liberal Campaign manager (and I have been one in the past) has ever said "get thee to babble" to a paid staffer or a volunteer.  There just aren't any votes in it.  

 

 

 

Jacob Two-Two

To be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting people are paid to post here. Rather that there's a gang of Liberal operatives who get paid to do actual political work, who also get their jollies from baiting and antagonizing NDP supporters while they're on the clock. I also doubt this is the only place it happens. And I strongly disagree that these are just zealous supporters. Nobody could employ the constant deceit and shiftiness that they do by accident. One thing they are absolutely not is sincere. They come here to fuck with people.

MegB

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
To be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting people are paid to post here. Rather that there's a gang of Liberal operatives who get paid to do actual political work, who also get their jollies from baiting and antagonizing NDP supporters while they're on the clock. I also doubt this is the only place it happens. And I strongly disagree that these are just zealous supporters. Nobody could employ the constant deceit and shiftiness that they do by accident. One thing they are absolutely not is sincere. They come here to fuck with people.
Whoa, you're making a lot of unfair assumptions here.

Basement Dweller

I've never heard of a "zealous" Liberal. Seems like a contradiction.

Sean in Ottawa

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
To be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting people are paid to post here. Rather that there's a gang of Liberal operatives who get paid to do actual political work, who also get their jollies from baiting and antagonizing NDP supporters while they're on the clock. I also doubt this is the only place it happens. And I strongly disagree that these are just zealous supporters. Nobody could employ the constant deceit and shiftiness that they do by accident. One thing they are absolutely not is sincere. They come here to fuck with people.

Actually I was saying that I have no trouble with people who are political operatives coming here and writing -- even to clarify opinions they will work on at work. Or becuase politics is big for them and they enjoy it.

I think there are more people on this site who are paid to work for the NDP (and come here as a personal sideline) or are paid to work for any number of progressive organization and come here on the side.

I think there are New Democrats who like to come and tease Liberals here when they can. I am sure there are a good number of New Democrats who want to play the wind up a Liberal game.

I personally detest the tendency here to question the sincerity of people in expressing their opinions. I definitely think there are people who do not debate honestly and I have said so. But this ridiculous popular notion that we are infested with people pretending to be something they are not is without any foundation. I have met and still work with a lot of Liberals. We debate -- to be sure. But I do not question their loyalty and sincerity to their party or their motivations in trying to convince others of their point of view. In that regard they are not different from me. I disagree with their logic, conclusions, sometimes question what they present as fact but I never question their motivation which is to make the country a better place by electing the party they think is best to run the country. I want the Liberal party defeated for exactly the same reason they want to see it elected.

I really wish we could add a specific Babble policy that we should never question the motivation of someone for posting. Even if once in a while someone may play with this, we would get it wrong so much more for trying to guess than if we simply never went there.

When you cannot see the logic -- you cannot assume it is not there. Even twisted, distorted, biased or poorly founded -- it is there and we should never question that.

Even the shitty PM we have loves his country in his own sick, distorted and fucked up way.

bekayne
bekayne

Embedded image permalink

Rokossovsky

Wow, the number of straight-up fact checkable, factuel errors in that article is really extraordinary and brings into question anything that I have read by Fisk.

Sean in Ottawa

Rokossovsky wrote:

Wow, the number of straight-up fact checkable, factuel errors in that article is really extraordinary and brings into question anything that I have read by Fisk.

What utter garbage that article is.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

What is wrong with that article? I read it and found it pretty accurate. There might have been one point about Mulcair that seemed off early in the going but overall I had no problem with it. And Fisk is not beholden to any political party in Canada and has been an excellent critic on middle east affairs for the past 15 years that I have read him.

Sean in Ottawa

laine lowe wrote:

What is wrong with that article? I read it and found it pretty accurate. There might have been one point about Mulcair that seemed off early in the going but overall I had no problem with it. And Fisk is not beholden to any political party in Canada and has been an excellent critic on middle east affairs for the past 15 years that I have read him.

 

How about this:

"the Conservative prime minister, William Mackenzie King"

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

LOL, I missed that misstep.

Rokossovsky

National Democratic Party.

Rokossovsky

"Mulcaire" (sic)

Rokossovsky

"Mulcair would prefer higher taxes for all to increase welfare spending..." Huh?!

Debater

Interesting that Harper has chosen not to do any more National media interviews.

He cancelled his appearances on Global's 'West Block' with Tom Clark and on CTV's 'Question Period' with Robert Fife.

Clark & Fife were pretty outspoken in letting the pubilc know what they thought about Harper's attempt to manipulate the media this weekend.

In this segment from The West Block today, Tom Clark, Mark Kennedy, Susan Delacourt & Evan Solomon were all very clear in saying how fed up they are with Harper's fear-based campaign and his demand to control media interviews:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2271165/unpacking-the-politics-a-cancelled-int...

bekayne

Rokossovsky wrote:

"Mulcaire" (sic)

Then again, an NDP ad called him "Muclair"

terrytowel

In his first campaign event this AM Harper took questions from the media.

Debater

Maybe from the local media, Terry Towel, but not National media.

As Susan Delacourt documented in "Shopping for Votes", the CPC feels that it is more in their interest to speak to local t.v. stations and focus on local micro-targetting in particular ridings rather than be questioned by the National reporters.

Debater

CTV's Robert Fife reports tonight that Conservative sources are saying that because of a "collapsing NDP vote in Ontario", the Conservatives are now at risk of losing a number of seats in Ontario.

Joe Oliver, Paul Calandra, Julian Fantino & Chris Alexander are all vulnerable, amongst others.

Here's the video report by Robert Fife tonight:

Campaign shifts as Harper looks to protect seats in Ontario

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/campaign-shifts-as-harper-looks-...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I really don't think there are any paid shills here; I used to think that, but I've decided that was just crazy to think that. No one here is getting paid to post. And I think Sean is right, seriously, who really thinks anything here is going to affect the election? Mind you, I'm always being told, that's not the way to win votes, like I'm going to infludence the way anyone votes here. And besides, I KNOW no one really cares what a Middle Age, slightly over weight little Jewish Man from the Paririe, crazy little Jewish Man I would add, thinks. I KNOW that too! Nope, no career as a pundit for me!

Pondering

It will be interesting to see how this impacts the electorate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/13/stark-policy-differences-and-bad...

OSHAWA, Ont. — Stark policy differences and personal bad blood with Justin Trudeau makes potential co-operation between either a Liberal — or NDP —minority government difficult, Tom Mulcair suggested Tuesday.

The NDP leader also dismissed appeals to stop vote-splitting in the run-up to the Oct. 19 election, saying only his party has the strength and credibility to defeat the governing Tories......

"It's Mr. Trudeau who takes it upon himself to slam that door shut," said Mulcair, who noted that it was the Liberals who walked away from the 2008 coalition of opposition parties that had been formed to unseat the Conservatives.

And in a sign Mulcair doesn't forget a slight, he harkened back to comments Trudeau made last spring where the Liberal leader said he might be open to a coalition with the NDP, just not one with Mulcair in charge of the party.

"There are no problems in terms of personality," Trudeau told The Canadian Press in an interview on April 14. "Mr. Mulcair is a veteran politician who has proven himself. His style is anchored in the old way of practising politics. Politics needs to be about rallying. And we have very different perspectives on how politics should be practised."

The dig clearly still smarts.

"I'll never personalize that way, but I will say this: Canadians who want change and want a track record of working with others know that there's only one party that can do both and that's the NDP," Mulcair said Tuesday.

Mulcair manages to sound ridiculous and whiney at the same time. His disparaging attitude towards Trudeau has been noted.

nicky

Pondering manages to sound ridiculous and whiney at the same time. Her disparaging attitude toward Mulcair has been noted.

nicky

Now Magaine endorses Tom in an editorial that does a good job exposing liberals as fake progressives.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/no-doubting-thomas_1/

Elsewhere in the same issue it endorses 9 NDP candidates in Toronto - all incumbents plus Chow, Hollett and McQuaig. It also recommends holding your nose and voting Liberal to defeat Conservative incumbents in Toronto

mark_alfred

nicky wrote:
Now Magaine endorses Tom in an editorial that does a good job exposing liberals as fake progressives. https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/no-doubting-thomas_1/ Elsewhere in the same issue it endorses 9 NDP candidates in Toronto - all incumbents plus Chow, Hollett and McQuaig. It also recommends holding your nose and voting Liberal to defeat Conservative incumbents in Toronto

Now Magazine is a bit of a joke when it comes to its endorsements.  They never seem able to fully make up their mind.  So, every election the two main editors of Now write separate endorsements, with Hollett endorsing the NDP and Klein endorsing strategic voting (more or less endorsing the Liberals.)  It's been like this every election for at least the past ten years.

Pages