• 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.
I am conservative and coincidentally Conservative.  Far from taking away anyone's freedom, the government employed scientists can do research for anyone else in the world.  I guess they have to work for private industry to find out how much freedom they really have.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
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.

FWIW - I believe in Climate Change.  I don't think there is a dam thing we can do to enhance, change, minimize or stop it.  I do believe that we can do what we have always done: Improvise-Adapt-Overcome.

Planning is over-rated.
 
Tight message control on employees of the federal government is an over-reaction; it's an over-reaction not just to the presence of inconvenient facts, but also to the problem of people not staying in their lanes.

I, too, believe in climate change - I even believe in climate warming.  I don't attach any credibility to hypotheses of imminent climate doom, which are essentially predictions of some very crude and incomplete computer models and some occasionally incompetent statistical analyses - those, too, are facts.  The pressure to prove imminent man-made doom is taking money and manpower away from the study of other climate change drivers.  A greater concern is the opportunity cost of fixing major public policies around wild guesses.  Candidates who are on board with spending vast sums on climate change abatement policies are inhumane and rarely demonstrate a quantitative grasp of what is implied by their qualitative assertions.

We don't have enough money to fix every policy problem, and we don't need to fix every problem shown to exist.

"Expert" is a relative claim.  It means a person knows much of what is known about a topic, not that a person knows much of what there is to know.
 
Brad Sallows said:
"Expert" is a relative claim.  It means a person knows much of what is known about a topic, not that a person knows much of what there is to know.

:nod: 

Up until the 15th Century, those in the know, knew that you'd fall off the edge of the Earth into space when you got to the edge of the oceans...

As a branch plan, we can apparently all relocate to the ever growing Antarctic ice plate when things get to warm in the Northern hemisphere.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Required reading for anyone who wants to understand what this government has done and is trying to do to democracy in Canada, no matter what party you support.


http://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-broken-covenant.pdf

Sorry.  Once I saw "Maude Barlow" and "The Council of Canadians", I was immediately turned off.  They have a 'socialist agenda' that I do not agree with, nor find practical, economical, and socially sustainable.  I would prefer we strive to do away with our 'Welfare State'.
 
George Wallace said:
Sorry.  Once I saw "Maude Barlow" and "The Council of Canadians", I was immediately turned off.  They have a 'socialist agenda' that I do not agree with, nor find practical, economical, and socially sustainable.  I would prefer we strive to do away with our 'Welfare State'.

Some people have to use  whatever ammunition they have when they lose three very democratic elections in a row.  So who is supposed to believe that Harper is undemocratic?  The 39 % of the people who democratically elected him?  Barlow is preaching to the choir. 

It's just like Craig Oliver and Barney Fife going into their 10th year of Harper scandal of the week.  Everyone who would ever vote Conservative wrote them off a whiny little schoolgirls 10 years ago.  10 years of supposed scandals and the Conservatives are as well off as when they started.
 
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.


I think that Justin Trudeau is, right this minute, facing a HUGE problem: the "bloom is off the rose," the "new car smell" has faded, and so on. The media has stopped fawning and is asking some hard questions; the Conservatives may have successfully defined M Trudeau as "Just Not Ready."

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is, generally, favourable and quotes M Trudeau's team and followers at some length, but the problem is that the article exists at all, the fact that it was written and published indicated that there is cause for real worry in Liberal ranks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/backers-fear-that-missing-in-action-trudeau-losing-bid-to-lead-canada/article25748545/
gam-masthead.png

Backers fear that missing in action, Trudeau losing bid to lead Canada

DAVID LJUNGGREN AND ALLISON LAMPERT
OTTAWA/MONTREAL — Reuters (Includes Correction)

Published Wednesday, Jul. 29, 2015

Justin Trudeau, the man who was supposed to lead Canada’s Liberals out of the political wilderness, has instead sunk to third place just months from an election, with some in his party complaining he is missing in action.

Born to a sitting prime minister and raised at the foot of power, he presents himself as a kinder, more approachable alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper after nine years of rule by the right-leaning Conservatives and three straight Liberal defeats.

But more than two years into his leadership of the once-powerful centrist Liberals, the 43-year-old father of three has struggled to define himself and been labeled by opponents as unready for office despite his prized political pedigree.

Some critics complain Trudeau, son of the late Pierre Trudeau, appears unwilling to go on the road and repeat his message enough times for it to sink in before the Oct. 19 vote.

Former Liberal legislator Dennis Mills, who worked for Trudeau’s father - prime minister for 15 years ending in 1984 - took aim at Trudeau’s team, saying his handlers needed to be more aggressive.

“All these photo ops are nice, but I think we haven’t really seen the inner strength and the passion of the man, and that’s because he hasn’t been in a situation where that’s been allowed to come out,” Mills said.

Trudeau’s inner circle includes strategist Gerald Butts, campaign co-chair Katie Telford, and Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc. All are in their 40s.

Asked to respond to the criticisms of his handlers, Trudeau’s chief spokeswoman said he and his team “have a clear vision and plan for a better government, not just a different government, and on how we get there.”

Trudeau’s handlers have previously denied he is keeping a low-profile, noting a series of appearances across Canada.

But opinion polls consistently put the Liberals in third place behind the left-leaning New Democratic Party and Harper’s Conservatives, making Trudeau a potential kingmaker if a split vote results in a minority government.

Trudeau, a former teacher and one-time snowboard instructor, burst on the public scene with an emotional televised eulogy at the 2000 funeral of his father. He entered parliament in 2008 and enjoyed a commanding poll lead for the first 18 months after he assumed the party leadership in 2013.

NICE HAIR, THOUGH

Conservatives have seized on Trudeau’s perceived lack of substance, broadcasting a recent advertisement that depicts him as a job applicant who includes his photo with his resume and has a celebrity following, but “has some growing up to do.”

The ad closes with a pitch-perfect: “Nice hair, though.” Some Liberals privately say attacks like this have worked.

A string of verbal blunders by Trudeau, including jokes about the federal budget and air strikes on Islamic State, both of which backfired, may argue for the short leash.

“The serial gaffes were the worst. They helped bolster the view - now widely held - that Trudeau just wasn’t ready,” said Warren Kinsella, a pundit and former Liberal strategist, adding that poor handling and “a barf bag of policy” were all to blame.

But many Liberals argue it is too early to despair. An unusually long campaign is expected and the Liberals plan their own advertising blitz closer to the election.

“We’re very much present on the ground,” said Melanie Joly, a Quebec Liberal who helped Trudeau during his leadership campaign. “(He has been) rebuilding the Liberal party from its base, making sure that we have a very strong organization on the field.”

Friends suggest people are underestimating Trudeau, and say his upbringing in a political fishbowl created a man who performs under pressure.

Marc Miller, 42, a Liberal candidate in Montreal who went to high school with Trudeau, said classmates and even a teacher at their prestigious private school used to challenge Trudeau as a proxy for his famous - and controversial - father.

“He’s fine with being underestimated,” Miller said. “He’d prefer that. He likes a challenge.”

Another Quebec Liberal candidate said the underdog position will pay off when campaign debates begin in August.

“Justin has a big advantage,” the candidate said. “All he has to do is remain standing and he is exceeding expectations.”

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this Reuters article incorrectly said Justin Trudeau was the father of two. This version has been corrected.


There are a lot of people, really a lot, including Maude Barlow (see above, on this page) who yearn for the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau ~ those people ALL failed Economics 101, but they loved the statist, silk stocking semi-socialist, il considered left wing policies that Prime Minister Trudeau loaded upon the backs of the Canadian middle class. It was the "just society" about which they all dreamed (but never "costed" on a balance sheet). Most people, including many Liberals, know that those policies failed. Michael Ignatieff proved it when he suggested that the LPC should campaign on the left ... he never intended to govern from the left, but he believed, incorrectly, that Canadians, broadly, still shared Pierre Trudeau's vision ~ they don't! Canada has changed. The LPC needs to change with it.

M Trudeau is a nice young man; I think I would like to have them as neighbours and friends; I wish him well ... I also wish for a new Liberal leader: a grownup.
 
George Wallace said:
Sorry.  Once I saw "Maude Barlow" and "The Council of Canadians", I was immediately turned off.  They have a 'socialist agenda' that I do not agree with, nor find practical, economical, and socially sustainable.  I would prefer we strive to do away with our 'Welfare State'.

Rocky Mountains said:
Some people have to use  whatever ammunition they have when they lose three very democratic elections in a row.  So who is supposed to believe that Harper is undemocratic?  The 39 % of the people who democratically elected him?  Barlow is preaching to the choir. 

It's just like Craig Oliver and Barney Fife going into their 10th tear of Harper scandal of the week.  Everyone who would ever vote Conservative wrote them off a whiny little schoolgirls 10 years ago.  10 years of supposed scandals and the Conservatives are as well off as when they started.


I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic.

Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression.
 
Yeh Yeh!  They prorogued Parliament and eliminated the long-form census, thus ending civilization.  You've bought.  I suspect a critical 39 % hasn't.
 
Kilo_302 said:
I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic.

Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression.

From the report:
This is a Prime Minister that prorogued Parliament not once, but twice, when it suited his political agenda.

Okay, so technically, even though it is the Sovereign's representative who prorogues government (GG for Federal, LGs for Provinces) to end the parliamentary session, let's give the author the benefit of the doubt...the Right Honourable Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament twice.

"So what," you ask?

Well, that means that Mr. Harper has to prorgue Government yet again for a third time to even try to match the record of Bob Rae, as NDP Premier of Ontario from 1990 to 1995.  Rae's accumulated prorogation totalled a whopping 373 days, more than a year in total  and the last time in 1995, they didn't even return to sit before dissolution...AND the NDP didn't even table a '95 budget.  So Harper is worse than (now) Liberal Bob Rae? 

*scratches head wondering what Kilo's point was again?*

 
Kilo_302 said:
I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. ✔ I agree. And the leader of this "different" government has faced new and different challenges and he has responded in ways that bother some Canadians but most seem OK with his broad policy direction. Maybe because the country is "different" than it was in the 1970s. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic. ✘ I disagree. Maude Barlow may think we are less democratic but she has a list of worries, not facts. There are different sizes and shapes of democracy: ours is neither the best (we have an appointed legislature for heaven's sake) nor the most sophisticated. But it suits us well enough.

Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  :bullshit:
                                                                                                                                                                                    This is too tendentious to even merit a comment
 
Aside from trivia like the long form census (a marketing survey done at taxpayer expense), I think Edward has brought the issues into sharp relief. Canada and Candians have changed, so Mr Ignatieff's "Campaign from the Left", while it might have been appropriate 30 years ago, simply did not fit into the modern Canadian landscape. Jack Layton was far better and more authentic at "campaigning from the Left", and no one doubted for a second that he really meant it as well.

The realities are that the political, social, economic and demographic foundations have shifted since the 1980's (bracketed neatly by Preston Manning's book "The New Canada" and Bricker and Ibbitson's book "The Big Shift"). The Conservatives and the NDP have evolved with the times; the LPC has not. The question facing the electorate in the fall is basically "What party offers answers to the pressing issues of the day?" Parties which had no answers (Candian Social Credit, British Liberals American Whigs) were all rapidly eclipsed and vanished from the poloitical landscape, either as actual parties or as relevant political instruments.

The Liberals have a very strong "brand" which may survive being frittered away over multiple electoral cycles (Mr Dithers, Mr Dion, Mr Ignatieff and the Young Dauphin), but each time they spend their political capital that way, it becomes harder to recover, and there is more detritus to clear away. I suspect that the "next" Libreal leader will only become successful if they spend the period from 2015 to 2019 clearly outlining what Liberalism actually stands for (i.e. become a Transformative party) and outline what steps need to be taken to impliment the new Liberal vision (i.e. the transactive steps or "Art of Governance" needed).

This is also a very delicate balance; I could outline a theoretical program which will focus Federal Government activities very sharply curtail spending, lower taxes and make a dent in the national debt and unfunded liabilities. If I were the replacement of the Young Dauphin and was elected due to voter fatigue with the CPC while outlining that plan, I could also realistically expect to serve just one term before everyone whose ricebowls were broken massed to elect one of the other parties (regardless of how well the economy was doing or other factors). No matter how radical a plan or vision the new leader had, and no matter how skillfully communicated, unless there was some sort of crisis, small and incrimental steps would need to be taken.
 

Sorry, what else would you call robocalls that steer voters to non-existent polling stations?
 
Kilo_302 said:
Sorry, what else would you call robocalls that steer voters to non-existent polling stations?


How does a stupid, juvenile prank sound?

Of course I don't approve ... but he was a twenty-something kid; twenty-something's don't even have fully developed brains ~ that's why so many are lefties, they're stupid.

He was a stupid kid who did a dumb thing. Wrong thing? Yes, of course. Bad thing? Yes, that too. But "voter suppression?" Like I said: tendentious.
 
The history of dirty tricks in politics is largely unwritten, but one would be hard-pressed to find virtue in that area in any political party.  Robert Anson Heinlein wrote a fictional account of an election in "A Bathroom of Her Own", which includes numerous examples.  In a foreward to the story, he once wrote "Any old pol will recognize the politics in this story as the Real McCoy. Should be. Autobiographical in many details. Which details? Show me a warrant and I'll take the Fifth".
 
E.R. Campbell said:
How does a stupid, juvenile prank sound?

Of course I don't approve ... but he was a twenty-something kid; twenty-something's don't even have fully developed brains ~ that's why so many are lefties, they're stupid.

He was a stupid kid who did a dumb thing. Wrong thing? Yes, of course. Bad thing? Yes, that too. But "voter suppression?" Like I said: tendentious.

Well, my turn to call "BULLSHIT!". It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a kid working for a political party did something as specific and targeted as misdirecting voters (to his party's advantage) and it was nothing more than a prank. There were 800 calls, and they were made using data from the party's Constituency Information Management System. The fact that only this kid was caught suggests to me he's taking the hit for whoever was directing him. It's far more likely that this goes up the ladder than it was a one-off prank by a junior staffer. You really are in denial.



 
Kilo_302 said:
Well, my turn to call "BULLSHIT!". It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a kid working for a political party did something as specific and targeted as misdirecting voters (to his party's advantage) and it was nothing more than a prank. There were 800 calls, and they were made using data from the party's Constituency Information Management System. The fact that only this kid was caught suggests to me he's taking the hit for whoever was directing him. It's far more likely that this goes up the ladder than it was a one-off prank by a junior staffer. You really are in denial.

Prove it.



 
recceguy said:
Prove it.

???

I did say it's "far more likely"  it is than he was just acting alone of his own volition. Again, 800 calls, using data from the CIMS, the effect of which was to make it harder to vote for parties OTHER than the Conservatives. I fail to see how this is a farfetched scenario. Do you really think this kid just woke up one day and decided to commit election fraud on a relatively large scale in a riding where it would make difference because it would be funny?
 
Kilo_302 said:
Sorry, what else would you call robocalls that steer voters to non-existent polling stations?

I would call it Shenanigans.

I put it on the same level as candidates who engage in other unfortunate practises like overspending on their campaigns; signing up party members - the elderly or recent immigrants for example - who may or may not know what they are signing up for; using public funds for partisan purposes such as satellite offices; lying to voters during election campaigns about the things they will do if elected (although we actually call this last bit "campaign promises"); etc, etc.

They are all unfortunate and distasteful but I don't personally consider any of them to be outrageous in any sense.

My 2 cents
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top