• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thucydides said:
Since Recce is:

1: expressing an opinion, and

2: expressing an opinion based on research and facts,

he is acting as an exemplary model of a citizen, and not just blindly expousing and following a "narrative". Just because people like he and I are not following your narrative does not mean we are necessarily following your opponent's narrative; as a small "L" libertarian I only find part of the CPC agenda convincing, but (sadly for the two brave and also exemplary Army.ca members who are actually running for the Libertarian Party), find the CPC is the best vehicle to get "half a loaf" of somewhat smaller government and lower taxes, since the Libertarian party in its current state is still akin to people herding cats.

I say this with a great deal of love too. I attended a Libertarian Party "Meet and Greet" for two London candidates where there were a total of 6 people in attendance besides me (including the candidates) and there was virtually no points of agreement between anyone there, hardly a winning formula for gaining and exercising political power.

So, like a lot of people (outside of thiose who would vote for a potted plant if it was branded with their party logo), I have to consider all the arguments against the evidence of the outside world and make the "least worst" choice.

No, it's the people who have spent their lives studying climate change, the nature of democracy and law in Canada, political science etc that are expressing opinions based on facts. You can disagree with some, or all of what Caplan is citing, but you can't do it with dismissive labels like "bullshit" and expect people to swallow that as truth. The fact is, our current government has made a point of rejecting all sorts of evidence and information and instead pursuing policies based on ideology. This is undeniable.

How else do you explain the end of the long form census?

Mandatory minimum sentences (which by the way, are NOT the reason for lower crime rates as that trend has been constant for decades and the Conservatives have only been in power since 2006, painfully simple stuff here) have been proven to be ineffective as a deterrent by several studies in several countries, and yet our backward government is touting them in the name of "victim's rights." The policies of this government might FEEL good, but they are not based in reality or verifiable facts. Just like recceguy's post. Nothing was actually addressed, instead the points were dismissed with meaningless rhetoric. This government has alienated even the talking heads who traditionally identify as Conservative, they're that bad.



 
Kilo_302 said:
We should all give thanks to recceguy for providing his informed opinion and saving us from the "chattering classes."

Your zealous faith in our government is strong, and I look forward to the day when people like you rescue us from democracy, lead us in the escape from freedom and show us how to reject any rational fact-based opinions as "bullshit" and "claptrap."

OR, you could go do some "recce" in a library, or perhaps speak to one of these people with those pesky opinions.  :facepalm:
Kilo_302 said:
No, it's the people who have spent their lives studying climate change, the nature of democracy and law in Canada, political science etc that are expressing opinions based on facts. You can disagree with some, or all of what Caplan is citing, but you can't do it with dismissive labels like "bullshit" and expect people to swallow that as truth. The fact is, our current government has made a point of rejecting all sorts of evidence and information and instead pursuing policies based on ideology. This is undeniable.

How else do you explain the end of the long form census?

Mandatory minimum sentences (which by the way, are NOT the reason for lower crime rates as that trend has been constant for decades and the Conservatives have only been in power since 2006, painfully simple stuff here) have been proven to be ineffective as a deterrent by several studies in several countries, and yet our backward government is touting them in the name of "victim's rights." The policies of this government might FEEL good, but they are not based in reality or verifiable facts. Just like recceguy's post. Nothing was actually addressed, instead the points were dismissed with meaningless rhetoric. This government has alienated even the talking heads who traditionally identify as Conservative, they're that bad.

Your vehement attack is indication that no matter, if it doesn't fit your narrative, everyone else is wrong.

Nice personal attacks BTW.

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.

Typical. Which is why I have you on 'Ignore' and won't be responding to anymore of your 'claptrap'.
 
recceguy said:
If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.

Such a common tactic used by a certain segment of our society.  Sadly, they have such fanatical and poorly researched causes that they  are 'fighting' for, often hypocritical in their own practices, that the majority of our society have put them on IGNORE.
 
According to a report in the Globe and Mail, Olivia Chow will contest the Toronto riding of Spadina-Fort York for the NDP. According to the article, "she faces a tough competitor in Adam Vaughan, the former Toronto city councillor who won her old seat for the Liberals in a by-election."

Edited to add: it appears that Sabrina Zuniga. a former high school science teacher and now an independent businesswoman (does that mean unemployed?) is running for the CPC.

Picture.aspx
 
VaughanAdam_Lib.jpg
 
1508072_636567306423152_1217139392439886929_n.jpg
       
        Olivia Chow                 Adam Vaughan                    Sabrina Zuniga
 
recceguy said:
Your vehement attack is indication that no matter, if it doesn't fit your narrative, everyone else is wrong.

Nice personal attacks BTW.

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.

Typical. Which is why I have you on 'Ignore' and won't be responding to anymore of your 'claptrap'.

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black hmmm? I didn't know you were so sensitive. I DID attack your arguments (if they can be called that).
 
Thucydides said:
Since Recce is:

1: expressing an opinion, and

2: expressing an opinion based on research and facts,

Thuc, you are as bad as Recceguy is if you even think for one second that it is a fact that, as he states:

"Except that GW has been debunked by more specialised and highly respected scientists. The MSM cannot publish or listen to them because if global warming became a non starter, their partisan readership would shrivel. Really, the leading spokesman for GW is Al Gore. C'mon."

Other than in conspiracy theorist circles and a very limited scientific circle bought out by the oil and gas industry (a proven fact, this), there is absolutely no debate in scientific circles that  global warming exists, is an established scientific fact and there is the greatest scientific agreement EVER that it's most probable cause is human activity. [And BTW, the leading spokesperson for GW is the IPCC: The largest ever scientific consensus report on any scientific subject, not Al Gore].

There isn't a single peer reviewed scientific magazine out there to the contrary, and the reason the MSM have stopped giving any time or place to contrary view is because there are no proper opposing scientific views out there. Every one of the so called GW deniers that have claimed to be scientists have been exposed as frauds or as bought out by big oil and/or using partial or improper data or improper scientific method, or not even being scientists in a relevant field for their "research".

Period. End of Statement, and absolutely accepted fact everywhere in the world except in fundamentalist religious circles, mostly in the US.

If those are the type of alleged facts you put in your opinions Recceguy, then you should expect to be called out on them as "bull". That is not a personal attack, as YOU are free to believe that GW doesn't exist, but you cannot invent a non existent alleged scientificc proof to the contrary, which is not a fact, in support of your opinion.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The divide between M Trudeau's team and the Liberal grassroots just got a little bit deeper. Eve Adams lost the LPC nomination (Eglinton-Lawrence) to Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino. Mr Mendicino will be a tougher opponent for Joe Oliver than Ms Adams would have been, so it's a mixed blessing for the CPC.


And now, according to a report in the Ottawa Citizen, M Trudeau may be embroiled in another nomination problem, this time involving Montreal lawyer and Trudeau leadership campaign team member Mélanie Joly. It really doesn't matter if Justin Trudeau is pure as the driven snow in all this, the media smells blood and, like vultures, they are circling. It's just what he doesn't need.
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Bullshit!

I'm keeping my opinions to myself on this, but if you're going to call someone out, at least give evidence why they're full of BS.
 
All,

Take the global warming stuff to the global warming thread and keep this one focused on the Election.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is one further ~ and the last from me, I promise ~ commentary on the Eve Adams fiasco:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Stephen+Maher+Adams+nomination+loss+puts+harmful+blunder+Justin/11246803/story.html
Ottawa-Citizen-Logo-160x90.jpg

Eve Adams’ nomination loss puts end to harmful blunder by Justin Trudeau

STEPHEN MAHER

07.26.2015

Back in February, when the Liberals were a dozen points ahead of the NDP in the polls, Justin Trudeau held a news conference in Ottawa to announce a surprise star candidate: Conservative MP Eve Adams!

Adams said she could no longer put up with the mean-spirited, divisive leadership of Stephen Harper, and praised Trudeau and his “kind, generous and strong leadership.”

Trudeau returned the favour, in what Andrew Coyne accurately described as a “crawlingly demeaning performance,” praising Adams’ “passion and commitment to her constituents,” behaving as if he had outfoxed his opponents.

But he had actually taken a huge problem off the hands of the Conservatives. Conservative campaign manager Jenni Byrne even sent a bouquet of flowers to Trudeau advisor Gerry Butts.

Adams and her spouse, former Harper aide Dimitri Soudas, had been caught cheating twice in an effort to get her a Conservative nomination. When party brass finally threw up their hands and disqualified her, suddenly she was next to Trudeau, saying she could no longer support the nasty Conservatives.

The stated reasons were transparently bogus, requiring the kind of suspension of disbelief that only dedicated partisans can muster.

Even Liberals could drop the pretence as of Sunday evening, when Liberals in Eglinton-Lawrence voted for Marco Mendicino over Adams in a hard fought nomination battle.

Mendicino is Italian, like many of the voters in the Toronto riding. He’s a former mob-fighting prosecutor who helped put the Toronto 18 behind bars; a strong candidate to challenge the incumbent, Finance Minister Joe Oliver.

Mendicino’s people say that when they door-knocked the voters Adams signed up — mostly new Canadians — many of them didn’t know they had joined the party and they certainly hadn’t paid to do so. This is the same tactic that got Adams disqualified by the Tories.

At the school where the battle was held on Sunday, Adams and Soudas were hustling all afternoon, trying to get their instant Liberals — mostly Somalis and south Asians — to the polling place, while Mendocino’s people — mostly Italian — watched apprehensively. They were ahead all day, but she had signed up more people. If they all showed up, Mendocino would have lost. They didn’t show.

As supporters waited for results to be announced, Adams’ supporters chanted: “We need more women in Parliament.” A Mendicino supporter shouted: “But we don’t need more Tories.”

Trudeau lucked out when Mendicino won, since he stands a better chance against Oliver.

But what was he thinking back in February? What possessed him to recruit Adams?

The darkest theory is that he wanted intel from Soudas, who might know all kinds of interesting things

Trudeau’s people say that’s nonsense. It was a simple political calculation. Trudeau wanted a name, the kind of candidate who makes it easier to bring down a cabinet minister.

The party encouraged her to run in Milton but she wanted Eglinton-Lawrence, where Mendicino beat her. End of story.

Even if this is the whole story, it’s not impressive that Trudeau would be prepared to take someone who cheated too much for the party that had Dean Del Mastro’s back right up until the bailiffs put him in chains.

And was Trudeau too full of himself to see that nobody would be convinced by her words of praise?

He is now trailing in the polls, and his party is sharpening knives and complaining about him and his team, while the other parties are out looking for votes.


The reason I'm posting this at all is this bit:

    Back in February, when the Liberals were a dozen points ahead of the NDP in the polls, Justin Trudeau held a news conference in Ottawa to announce a surprise star candidate: Conservative MP Eve Adams!

    Adams said she could no longer put up with the mean-spirited, divisive leadership of Stephen Harper, and praised Trudeau and his “kind, generous and strong leadership.”

    Trudeau returned the favour, in what Andrew Coyne accurately described as a “crawlingly demeaning performance,” praising Adams’ “passion and commitment to her constituents,” behaving as if he had outfoxed his opponents.

    But he had actually taken a huge problem off the hands of the Conservatives. Conservative campaign manager Jenni Byrne even sent a bouquet of flowers to Trudeau advisor Gerry Butts.

    ...

    Even if this is the whole story, it’s not impressive that Trudeau would be prepared to take someone who cheated too much for the party that had Dean Del Mastro’s back right up until the bailiffs put him in chains.

    And was Trudeau too full of himself to see that nobody would be convinced by her words of praise?

    He is now trailing in the polls, and his party is sharpening knives and complaining about him and his team, while the other parties are out looking for votes.



M Trudeau has some good, even very good people in his caucus and he has some real, authentic "star" candidates ... but, until now, anyway, the entire Liberal campaign has been : JUSTIN!

It is not too late to turn things around but, in my opinion, doing that requires surrounding M Trudeau with some "grownups," and the media will notice and flay him for that, too.
 
My guess is despite JT taking a bit of a hit on this this week, is that it is a blessing in disguise for him and the LPC. 
 
Here's a 2013 article detailing the many ways in which our current government is trying to prevent scientific realities from influencing the way Canadians vote. Make no mistake, this is NOT business as usual. Canada's scientists and academics have noticed a significant shift since the Conservatives took power. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, it's undeniable that a well informed public will make better decisions come election time, and that this is crucial to a healthy democracy.

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/

Science—and the culture of evidence and inquiry it supports—has a long relationship with democracy. Widely available facts have long served as a check on political power. Attacks on science, and on the ability of scientists to communicate freely, are ultimately attacks on democratic governance.

It’s no secret the Harper government has a problem with science. In fact, Canada’s scientists are so frustrated with this government’s recent overhaul of scientific communications policies and cuts to research programs they took to the streets, marching on Parliament Hill last summer to decry the “Death of Evidence.” Their concerns— expressed on their protest banners—followed a precise logic: “no science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy.”

“No Science”

Since 2006, the Harper government has made bold moves to control or prevent the free flow of scientific information across Canada, particularly when that information highlights the undesirable consequences of industrial development. The free flow of information is controlled in two ways: through the muzzling of scientists who might communicate scientific information, and through the elimination of research programs that might participate in the creation of scientific information or evidence.

Federal scientists, academics, journalists, and environmental organizations across Canada have complained of increasingly strict communications policies that prevent researchers from relaying crucial scientific information to the media or the public. Such suppression of communication ranges from the laughable—such as Environment Canada scientist Mark Tushingham being prevented from attending the launch of his own book, a novel that explored a future world catastrophically altered by global warming—to the systemic—such as federal scientists with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans being required to obtain permission from high-level bureaucrats to discuss peer-reviewed research with the media. The problem of muzzling is widespread in federal departments, agencies, and organizations tasked with scientific research. The problem has been endemic since the election of the Harper Conservatives nearly seven years ago.
 
My choice, from amongst sitting MPs, for leader of the LPC would be:


BrisonScott_Lib.jpg
DuncanKirsty_Lib.jpg
GarneauMarc_Lib.jpg
LeBlancDominic_Lib.jpg

        Scott Brison                  Kirsty Duncan                Marc Garneau              Dominic LeBlanc
        1st Choice                      4th Choice                      3rd Choice                    2nd Choice

I could imagine any of those four leading the LPC to a very good second place finish, even back into government ... Justin? Not so much. He's led the party back into third place and that's where it belongs so long as he leads it. He's a nice, personable young man, but he's not fit to be prime minister of Canada.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
My choice, from amongst sitting MPs, for leader of the LPC would be:


BrisonScott_Lib.jpg
DuncanKirsty_Lib.jpg
GarneauMarc_Lib.jpg
LeBlancDominic_Lib.jpg

        Scott Brison                  Kirsty Duncan                Marc Garneau              Dominic LeBlanc
        1st Choice                      4th Choice                      3rd Choice                    2nd Choice

I could imagine any of those four leading the LPC to a very good second place finish, even back into government ... Justin? Not so much. He's led the party back into third place and that's where it belongs so long as he leads it. He's a nice, personable young man, but he's not fit to be prime minister of Canada.

Solid choices.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Here's a 2013 article detailing the many ways in which our current government is trying to prevent scientific realities from influencing the way Canadians vote. Make no mistake, this is NOT business as usual. Canada's scientists and academics have noticed a significant shift since the Conservatives took power. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, it's undeniable that a well informed public will make better decisions come election time, and that this is crucial to a healthy democracy.

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/

Brought to you by the people who make their living on the public teat.  They think they should both take the money and control the agenda?  I don't think so.  I have trouble understanding how scientific evidence could encourage someone to vote one way or another.  The logic does not follow.  Why wouldn't Conservatives want good information?  I do and I'm Conservative.
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Brought to you by the people who make their living on the public teat.  They think they should both take the money and control the agenda?  I don't think so.  I have trouble understanding how scientific evidence could encourage someone to vote one way or another.  The logic does not follow.  Why wouldn't Conservatives want good information?  I do and I'm Conservative.

Are you sure you aren't conservative? I am, and the party that uses the upper case for the first letter of the name is one that I have a great deal of difficulty supporting this time around (congratulations to them - I'm having trouble deciding for the first time since Trudeal Sr was in the Big Chair).

The issue is the nature of science, and the fact that there are scientists who work for Canada  doesn't change that. They aren't seeking to control the agenda, the current Government is, and that's why they are speaking up.

If you're in uniform you are also "living on the public teat" so it may be worth taking a bit of care how you think of others in a similar position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top