Canadian leaders debates - 2015

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

According to you, nobody cares about the platform, or the debates, or what happens in parliament, or history and records of the parties, or experience and qualifications, or political accomplishments. It's hard not to see you and the other Liberal boosters as some kind of sociopaths, because if you turn out to be right, THAT OUGHT TO BE HORRIFYING. To a normal person anyway, yet you guys all cheer for this.

People do care about the platform. I foresee an excellent Liberal platform because Trudeau has attracted top level talent in a multitude of fields. People care about the values of the leader and the team they assemble to stand with them. A strong team provides the expertise. The Liberals are a very professional party. They are current and clever.

People care about the economy and how the country is run not about the day to day shenanigans in the house.

The "history and records" of the parties does count but the sins of individual liberals during particular administrations is not held against the current team. Furthermore the history you think is terrible, such as Martin's cuts of the ninties, are not held against the current liberals either nor even considered terrible by many Canadians.

Intelligent people of good conscience can disagree with you Jacob. It seems the blindness is on your side and it is self-defeating.

If NDP/CPC Alliance questions Trudeau's judgement, it should get the grades need to be accepted into Mcgill, graduate, and teach a hard subject like math. #leadersdebate. #foodforthought

AJ, I don't know what marks Justin had to get to get into teachers college but we do know that he did not have the marks to get into law school.

addictedtomyipod wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:

In reality the Greens are pro-pipeline (singular!) with pretty major caveats.

I still don't see the materail difference between the Green Party position and the position as articulated by Thomas Mulcair.

I agree, the Green position on pipelines is not much different than the NDP's.  But it doesn't really matter what their position is on anything, as we have no idea how each individual MP will vote on any given issue.  We know for sure that Bruce Hyer will support a pipeline, guns and war. I have heard Lizzie support a west east pipeline on several occasions, so I'm sure she would support a pipeline.  The Greens spend an awful lot of time confusing their position on anything, and keep sending out mixed messages.  I emailed Peter O'Neil after reading his article in the VanSun, correcting him on what May said (We're the only Party against all pipelines).  He replied that the Greens are just doing what the old Reform Party did and allowing MP's to pitch their own ideas and not reflect party policy.  I call this misrepresentation and that is what the Greens are all about. Is this Lizzie's new way of doing politics?  It appears so.

 

 

In my opinion the Green position on energy East is much more nuanced.  If you go to this link: http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/island-tides/2013/04/25/pipel...

You can see that the Greens and May are much more clear and precise about what they would like to see happen with energy East.  

As for the ability of Green MPs to vote as they wish and articulate their individual opinions,  I see this as a strength. There is far too much partisanship in parliament as I'm sure most of us can agree and what better way to reduce that partisanship than with thoughtful,  real discussion of the issues facing Canadians?  

If the Greens want to share their opinion of energy east then they should do it honestly.  But they don't, instead they choose to play politics with this issue and that drives me nuts.

If the Greens want to let their MP's behave like independents, then they should not use a party system to forward their agenda.  Your always want to have it both ways.

If a party takes a position on something, it is because of discussion with its supporters and votes from members.  Once a position is taken and campaigned on it is honest to back it up with votes in the HOC, with a party whip if necessary.  The Greens want to take a position and leave it at the door. They also want to use this issue to demonize all the large parties.  Oh look, those big bad parties, look at what they do.  We would never, ever do something like that.  

Do you realize that your support of the Greens will get you nothing?  

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2014-03-07/neb-decision-anothe...

nicky wrote:

AJ, I don't know what marks Justin had to get to get into teachers college but we do know that he did not have the marks to get into law school.

Its harder to get into teachers college than law school. Generally, people trust teachers more than lawyers. And Trudeau went to top schools like UBC, And Mcgill. 

Absolutely amazing, how eager some people are to smear shit on their political opponents, that they can't even focus for 2 seconds on the fact that this thread is supposedly about leaders' debates.

In my humble opinion, you should all get over your atavistic hatred of each other (i.e., Liberals and NDP, so similar, and yet so antagonistic) - what Gerry Caplan calls the "narcissism of small differences" - and get ready now, today, for what needs to happen the day after the election (assuming we manage to hold Harper to a minority - unlikely, if these threads are any indication, but still):

[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/02/07/canadas-2008-electi...’s 2008 election offers lessons for 2015 vote[/url]

Quote:

In 2008, Conservative government blundered in believing opposition would not unite against it and opposition erred in allowing throne speech to pass.

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm not posting about the debates either. I simply decided to smear everyone. Getting into the thrill of the urination!!

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/10/elizabeth-may-power-broker/

NorthReport wrote:

The debates are not that important.

If Harper is not there, Mulcair should probably pull out as well, as what's the point? There doesn't seem to be any sense to this.

Everyone knows the party's positions anyways.

Election debate dates set by broadcasters without Conservatives

English-language debate to be held Oct. 8; French on Oct. 7 - same night as Montreal Canadiens season opener

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-debate-dates-set-by-broadcaster...

I disagree-- not just becuase of the spectacle of Harper not being where everyone else is.

There is a lot to discuss and it is the anti-Harper vote that has the most flux and hardest decisions.

Mulcair woudl be an idiot to pull out -- it might be one of a few things he could do to give the lead back to Trudeau.

I agree with Sean on this one, NR.  The more exposure people have to Tom and the NDP, the more likely it will develop into a solid relationship rather than just a momentary flirtation.  This is the best way to break the Red Door Blue Door fixation, which still has a hold on some people.  Also, I'm confident Tom will be far more impressive than Trudeau in a debate, which will solidify people's commitment that Tom, not Trudeau, is the best and most reliable agent for change.  And, not cowering from any debate sets him apart from both Trudeau and Harper, both of who are cowering from debates (the Women's Issues debate, the Consortium debate, etc.)

A Liberal/Green debate would be like an old cartoon of Chip 'n Dale.

"You're more awesome!"

"No, YOU are!!"

"But I insist!!"

"After you...!!!"

Mr. Magoo wrote:

A Liberal/Green debate would be like an old cartoon of Chip 'n Dale.

"You're more awesome!"

"No, YOU are!!"

"But I insist!!"

"After you...!!!"

I think that's fine. 

Mind you, I do see your point that debating marginal nobodies like Trudeau and May could possibly damage his profile as a serious contender within the public's consciousness.  The important thing is to look like a serious alternative to the current PM, and engaging with the riff-raff could make him be seen as riff-raff as well.  The main thing is to beat Harper, so why waste time with the riff-raff?

But, I still feel that the more exposure Mulcair has, the better.  So, I do agree with Sean on this issue.  It's a good move for Mulcair to debate the riff-raff as well as debating Harper, the main opponent.

mark_alfred wrote:

I think that's fine. 

Mind you, I do see your point that debating marginal nobodies like Trudeau and May could possibly damage his profile as a serious contender within the public's consciousness.  The important thing is to look like a serious alternative to the current PM, and engaging with the riff-raff could make him be seen as riff-raff as well.  The main thing is to beat Harper, so why waste time with the riff-raff?

But, I still feel that the more exposure Mulcair has, the better.  So, I do agree with Sean on this issue.  It's a good move for Mulcair to debate the riff-raff as well as debating Harper, the main opponent.

At least one of those "marginal nobodies" just might surprise you. The first debate is coming up quickly.

Let the audience decide -- with their eyes -- how many debates are too many.

If Harper declines debates, let Mulcair accept them.  Then he can at least say he never ran away from an opportunity to defend what he believes in.  It really doesn't matter how many people watch, so long as he can truthfully claim it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Let the audience decide -- with their eyes -- how many debates are too many.

If Harper declines debates, let Mulcair accept them.  Then he can at least say he never ran away from an opportunity to defend what he believes in.  It really doesn't matter how many people watch, so long as he can truthfully claim it.

Agreed.

North Report -- thankfully you do not get to make this call -- it would be a serious mistake.

People who duck from debate will pay dearly.

NorthReport wrote:

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

4 debates is 100% more debates than 2011. There is more to an election than just debates. But Mulcair's opponent is Harper and the NDP needs to focus on that.

OK, just so that I understand you, what do you propose that Mulcair should do while Trudeau, May and Duceppe are debating on the 3 major networks? What activity would you schedule for those 2 nights, if you were the campaign manager?

NorthReport wrote:

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

And that's exactly what Harper wanted