***OFFICIAL*** Canadians: Federal Election Thread

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Hoping for a Conservative Majority. Harper aside, most Canadians agree with his government's policies; his 5 point plan has been successfully implemented.
(snip)

Kept what promises, exactly?

He's like every other two-faced politician before him, except he campaigned on accountability, and still has the gall to claim he is accountable.

He hasn't kept one promise unless it was convenient, and I can't see that he has accomplished anything at all, really.

And to top it all off, he's spent the last few months spending like a drunken sailor.

Why are you still so hot for this loser?

I mentioned what his mandate was...and he has implemented each of the core issues he campaigned on. Why would you (snip) out the section of my post that addresses your comment? Harper is the first politician in a long time who campaigned on 5 core issues and completed each one; it's nice to see.

In terms of spending, yes he has been spending in key areas as of late but all were items in the 2008 budget so it's not like it wasn't predicted and it's far far less than the liberal's campaign spending of the past. The NDP even agrees with that .

 

[Martin]

One thing that absolutely disgusts me about the conservatives is their attempts to keep the Greens out of the public's eye:

The television networks have yet to decide whether Ms. May will be invited to take part in the mid-campaign leaders debates. Conservatives have argued against the idea, claiming Ms. May's views are so similar to those of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion that it would be like having two Liberals at the debate.

Conservatives point to Ms. May's previous comments in which she said her preferred scenario would be a Dion-led minority government.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...aign0907/BNStory/Front

The greens got 4.5% last election and they are poling at 10%. Harper's message on this is pretty clear: petty partisanship over a more representative democracy.

 

[Kenazo]

I agree. (and I would consider myself a Harper supporter). If the Greens are polling into the 10% range already, it's time to give them a bit more of a say. Though I suspect the Liberals would have more to lose the better the Greens do than the Conservatives do.

Originally posted by: Martin
One thing that absolutely disgusts me about the conservatives is their attempts to keep the Greens out of the public's eye:

The television networks have yet to decide whether Ms. May will be invited to take part in the mid-campaign leaders debates. Conservatives have argued against the idea, claiming Ms. May's views are so similar to those of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion that it would be like having two Liberals at the debate.

Conservatives point to Ms. May's previous comments in which she said her preferred scenario would be a Dion-led minority government.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...aign0907/BNStory/Front

The greens got 4.5% last election and they are poling at 10%. Harper's message on this is pretty clear: petty partisanship over a more representative democracy.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I mentioned what his mandate was...and he has implemented each of the core issues he campaigned on. Why would you (snip) out the section of my post that addresses your comment? Harper is the first politician in a long time who campaigned on 5 core issues and completed each one; it's nice to see.

In terms of spending, yes he has been spending in key areas as of late but all were items in the 2008 budget so it's not like it wasn't predicted and it's far far less than the liberal's campaign spending of the past. The NDP even agrees with that .

You don't improve accountability just by passing a law with the word 'accountability' in the title.

Harper and the Conservatives have played fast and loose with words like accountability, and ethics, just like every government before them. Before Parliament even returned after the last election, they had taken Emerson, elected as a Liberal, and somehow made him into a Conservative minister. Harper also brought in an unelected minister who he then appointed to the Senate, despite previous statements about unelected ministers.

After the income trust promise that helped galvanize support among seniors, Harper did exactly what the Liberals said they would do (tax the income trusts). This was a lie which may have actually won them the election last time around.

Now we get an election on Harper's schedule, merely because the opposition thought about defeating a government that has made confidence votes out of non-issues for two years now, in order to force their agenda through. Fixed elections were a big deal, and now they're not? Personally I'm not in favour of them to begin with, but Mr. Harper's blatant hypocrisy is getting harder to take all the time.

You claim Harper has done what he said he would do? Maybe; he's also done things he specifically said he wouldn't do. There is absolutely no reason to trust what the man says, nor to believe that he has anyone's interests but his own in mind.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
I agree. (and I would consider myself a Harper supporter). If the Greens are polling into the 10% range already, it's time to give them a bit more of a say. Though I suspect the Liberals would have more to lose the better the Greens do than the Conservatives do.

Originally posted by: Martin
One thing that absolutely disgusts me about the conservatives is their attempts to keep the Greens out of the public's eye:

The television networks have yet to decide whether Ms. May will be invited to take part in the mid-campaign leaders debates. Conservatives have argued against the idea, claiming Ms. May's views are so similar to those of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion that it would be like having two Liberals at the debate.

Conservatives point to Ms. May's previous comments in which she said her preferred scenario would be a Dion-led minority government.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...aign0907/BNStory/Front

The greens got 4.5% last election and they are poling at 10%. Harper's message on this is pretty clear: petty partisanship over a more representative democracy.

Not only that, but the Greens have a candidate running in every constituency in Canada. The PQ does not. The PQ is in the debate and the Greens are not.

 

[Martin]

This is quite sad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
First of all, there's no need for an election except to satisfy Mr. NeoControl Freak. The minority parliament was working exactly like a minority parliament should. Harper claims that it became dysfunctional and inoperative during the summer. Well DUH! It was in remission during the summer, as it is every year.

I have always voted Liberal during federal elections and all but one time in provincial elections (at 19yo I voted Parti Québécois in 1976). To me, Pierre Elliott Trudeau represents what is finest amongst us Canadians: Reason before passion, facts over fiction, rule of law, science, acceptance, diversity, and bilingualism. Maybe my evaluation is tainted by shared values coming from both of us being Jesuit-educated.

I had much respect for the red tories under Stanfield and Clark during the 60s to early 80s. I have but scorn for Harper's neocons. Bunch of cowboy fundies who are trying to americanize and defederalise/decentralise us. Mulroney just did not happen (i.e. I'm trying to forget that despicable time).

I'm scared of the social policies these right-wing nuts might implement if Harper Bizarre ever got a majority. These new Conservatives remind me too much of the Parti Créditiste - Crédit Social) under Réal Caouette, minus the colourful language. There's also the stench of the old Union Nationale being resurrected in essence, coming out of the ground to feed on brains so that legions of antielite zombies would slowly march to the voting booth while repeating endlessly, in a bass monotone, "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge".

Yes there is a need for an election. So far from everything I read, there is every indication that the conservatives will get a majority. The liberals are scared.

Any comment from a liberal card carrying freak like you should be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention you reputation for lying around here, a good liberal value I guess. You praise PET for using mind over passion yet fail to mention les mesures de guerre he imposed on the Quebecois over an inconsequential abduction by a fringe extremist group. Soon after Renee Levesque rose to power and almost took the province with him AND YOU VOTED FOR HIM. Ya, way to go PET.

And I despise how you liberals define yourselves as NOT AMERICAN, as if any association with our neighbor to the south is inherently evil and un-Canadian. I just wonder how many of you American hating liberals work for an American company or post on American forums. I am Canadian and I don't have to hate the Americans to prove it.



You're scared, the liberal are scared. Do not be afraid. I and many Canadians think it's time for a change, it's time for a conservative majority.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Martin
This is quite sad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home

Elizabeth May openly supports Dion for Prime Minister
The greens also have a deal with the liberals to not run candidates in key ridings.

Why have a leadership debate when two of the leaders agree with each other? Elect an MP first...not this disgruntled ex-liberal stuff they are pulling.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Martin
This is quite sad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home

Elizabeth May openly supports Dion for Prime Minister
The greens also have a deal with the liberals to not run candidates in key ridings.

Why have a leadership debate when two of the leaders agree with each other? Elect an MP first...not this disgruntled ex-liberal stuff they are pulling.

You know, some people believe in democracy and representation first, and partisanship far down the line. When you use these talking points (you can see them almost word-for-word in various posts on the article's talk page), it leaves little doubt which one you value more.

First, its obvious her views are closer to Dion's than to Harper's, but wtf does that matter? Does that mean only Harper and Dion should debate because you know, because the NDP and Bloc's views are also more similar to Dion's than to Harpers? This line of argument is just plain silly.

Second, that's just a lie - the greens ran candidates everywhere last election and they'll do the same this time around.

Third, see #1. When we had two conservative parties, no one tried to shut them up because their views were similar.

Fourth... yeah, don't we all love this slippery slope ad-hoccery? First it was "you not popular enough", then it was "you're popular, but don't have an MP", now its "You have an MP, but he switched!". What will it be next? "Well, you have an elected MP, but you need more"? You can keep going on and on forever.
And let's not forget the hypocrisy of using the "he switched" line of attack, when the conservatives know the game all too well. Emerson ring a bell? Unelected cabinet minister Fortier?


You know, Canadian conservatives whine about being labeled US style conservatives, but when you say these absudities and place your guy above fairness and representation, yeah.. you fully deserve the label.

 

[Stunt]

1) It's not about similar views but a strategic alliance and open support. It would be like Nader participating in the US debate and supporting Obama while not running in swing states. It's crap.
2) That isn't clear yet, we already know the liberals are NOT running in every riding to support the Green Party leader.
3) Again see #1...its' a political alliance not just similar views. Reform split from the PC's because of differences in policy...not similarities.
4) The Greens have never elected an MP. Sure people switch parties, happens all the time (Stronach, Emerson, Brison) i don't see how that justifies the Greens being in the debate.

I have nothing against the Greens, they are more likely to split the left wing vote anyway making it easier for the Conservatives to win a majority with the first past the post system. I am more interested in a meaningful debate where people have a clear understanding of the candidates and their platform/record. The debate should only include parties with elected MP's and with a chance to change public policy either in the house or during the campaign. With the other major party getting the endorsement of the Greens their view is already being voiced. Why split that message and confuse the average voter?

 

[RichardE]

The fact is the Green party has never been in government and is not accountable for anything. So they get to sit there in a debate and attack and attack and attack but cannot be attacked due to the fact they havn't done anything. It is not an even playing field.



It would be like me making a post going "Stunt knows alot about Canadian politics, he should be in the national debate!"

What is he going to contribute besides being able to attack with immunity? It is the same deal with the green party. Yeah, they have people in every riding, they are getting alot of votes, but they are still not represented in government (There one guy has yet to sit, and now never will). Once they actually establish themselves as a party and accomplish something than they should be allowed to debate, until than it is not fair.

 

[desy]

Yep Green party has zero accountability in parliment, zero record to try and defend
Why not rhino's and marijuanna party leaders in there too?

Until they have a chair at the table they got nothing. Polling means nothing, at any given time you could have the Liberals winning or losing
Sorry , what counts is election day

 

[silverpig]

The Greens should be allowed in the debate. Almost 5% of Canadians want to hear what they are about as indicated by the popular vote.

That being said, May's comments about how she thinks it was a sexist decision to not allow her in the debates pissed me off. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman, but more to do with her being the opposition.

I think the Greens could be a fresh face in Canadian politics, but need to come around on a few issues, and need a new leader.

In summary, I think May should be allowed in the debate, but I'm glad she won't be.


<-- hoping for another Conservative minority, causing the Greens and Liberals to choose good leaders and forcing an interesting round 4.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
1) It's not about similar views but a strategic alliance and open support. It would be like Nader participating in the US debate and supporting Obama while not running in swing states. It's crap.
2) That isn't clear yet, we already know the liberals are NOT running in every riding to support the Green Party leader.
3) Again see #1...its' a political alliance not just similar views. Reform split from the PC's because of differences in policy...not similarities.
4) The Greens have never elected an MP. Sure people switch parties, happens all the time (Stronach, Emerson, Brison) i don't see how that justifies the Greens being in the debate.

I have nothing against the Greens, they are more likely to split the left wing vote anyway making it easier for the Conservatives to win a majority with the first past the post system. I am more interested in a meaningful debate where people have a clear understanding of the candidates and their platform/record. The debate should only include parties with elected MP's and with a chance to change public policy either in the house or during the campaign. With the other major party getting the endorsement of the Greens their view is already being voiced. Why split that message and confuse the average voter?

Then I'd suggest you go find about about the Conservative platform, and record, which you've glossed over badly, just as they want you too. A government is not described by five bullet-points.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Martin
This is quite sad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home

This morning at 9:19 a.m., Ms. May sent an e-mail to Brent Fullard, the new Liberal candidate in Whitby-Oshawa, Ont., and copied the e-mail to a broad range of reporters and politicians.

?I cannot help myself!!! GOOD LUCK BRENT!!!,? writes Ms. May in response to a Liberal press release announcing Mr. Fullard's candidacy. ?You and Doug together can expose the massive incompetence of Mr. [Jim] Flaherty.?

Doug Anderson, the Green candidate in Oshawa-Whitby, sounded somewhat unsettled by Ms. May's strong encouragement for the Liberal candidate he's running against.

"Shall we say it was a surprise?" He said by phone, declining to comment in detail. "Politics is a strange business."

Ms. May sent the e-mail to several politicians and political activists, including Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois MPs, but it did not appear that any Conservatives received the e-mail.

That woman sounds like a moron, indeed.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: silverpig
The Greens should be allowed in the debate. Almost 5% of Canadians want to hear what they are about as indicated by the popular vote.

That being said, May's comments about how she thinks it was a sexist decision to not allow her in the debates pissed me off. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman, but more to do with her being the opposition.

I think the Greens could be a fresh face in Canadian politics, but need to come around on a few issues, and need a new leader.

In summary, I think May should be allowed in the debate, but I'm glad she won't be.


<-- hoping for another Conservative minority, causing the Greens and Liberals to choose good leaders and forcing an interesting round 4.

That woman sounds like another Hillary Clinton.

 

[Martin]

Stunt, RicharE and desy.

Its interesting to note that in the 1993 election the BQ was in the exact same position (no BQ elected MPs) and were included in the debates, but through the magic of ad-hoc bullshittism like yours, the Greens aren't allowed to debate today. Ain't that wonderful?

Also, when Harper himself was elected in 2002, the Liberals didn't run a candidate against him... surely using the "logic" here, that means he shouldn't have debated in 2004... right? :roll:


Its this idea of putting leaders and parties above fairness and process that will make sure we have a second-rate democracy for a long time.

 

[Number1]

Funny stuff.
Don't click if you're a liberal, you may be offended.

Do you think it's easy to load a web site?

 

[yllus]

Greens have wide protest streak: poll

They have been stereotyped as eco-friendly, bike-riding, urban hipsters, but a new report suggests Green Party supporters do not fit that sandal-wearing, dreadlocked image.

The study, conducted by the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy (LISPOP), used data collected by Ipsos Reid, a polling firm, from 36,000 respondents on the 2006 election day.

The results show that while Green voters are slightly younger and better educated than voters for other parties, they were not dramatically different from the rest of Canada when it came to demographic factors such as gender, household income and whether they lived in cities or rural areas.

"We are not looking at a fringe group here," Prof. Brown said. "They look a lot like Canadians as a whole."

While the federal sponsorship scandal may have pushed some Liberals to vote Green in the last election and garnered the party nearly 5% of the vote, polls last week showed them with between 7% and 13% support. These levels of support are equal or higher than those of similar parties in other countries such as Germany or Australia, where electoral systems based on proportional representation have enabled the election of Green politicians.

While the Green Party is often seen as sitting past the NDP on the far left, the report suggests the average Green voter actually positions themselves closer to the centre of the political spectrum.

"You can almost place the Greens to the right of the NDP if you need to force them onto the political spectrum," Prof. Brown said.

The Green Party and Liberal Party may be playing tag-team for the next election, but it sounds like they're well enough represented in the nation to deserve a place at the leader's debate.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Number1
Funny stuff.
Don't click if you're a liberal, you may be offended.

Do you think it's easy to load a web site?

Pooping puffin paralyzes Canada Conservative event

A Conservative website, notaleader.ca, showed an animated puffin flying across the screen and plopping a white blob on the shoulder of Liberal leader Stephane Dion, drawing an angry response from Dion and an apology from Harper.

This is going to be interesting!

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Number1
Funny stuff.
Don't click if you're a liberal, you may be offended.

Do you think it's easy to load a web site?

Pooping puffin paralyzes Canada Conservative event

A Conservative website, notaleader.ca, showed an animated puffin flying across the screen and plopping a white blob on the shoulder of Liberal leader Stephane Dion, drawing an angry response from Dion and an apology from Harper.

This is going to be interesting!

that pooping puffin has attracted so much attention that the web site must be getting an unbelievable amount of visitors. Good stuff.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Number1
Funny stuff.
Don't click if you're a liberal, you may be offended.

Do you think it's easy to load a web site?

Pooping puffin paralyzes Canada Conservative event

A Conservative website, notaleader.ca, showed an animated puffin flying across the screen and plopping a white blob on the shoulder of Liberal leader Stephane Dion, drawing an angry response from Dion and an apology from Harper.

This is going to be interesting!

that pooping puffin has attracted so much attention that the web site must be getting an unbelievable amount of visitors. Good stuff.

?I anticipate a very nasty, personal attack campaign,? Mr. Harper said Saturday in an interview with CTV.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.../BNStory/politics/home

I guess we now know what he meant now, don't we?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Then I'd suggest you go find about about the Conservative platform, and record, which you've glossed over badly, just as they want you too. A government is not described by five bullet-points.

I read the platform...
Just hitting on the key components of the agenda that most conservative voters had in mind when electing this government.

 

[desy]

Well we could pull out the Liberal Redbook and see how close they have come too

As for the Bloc being invited but not elected . . . . We know how it plays with regards to Quebec in all things national. Doesn't mean we have to repeat past mistakes

Hey once the greens show up as a legitimate contender with a record in parliment , by all means, and sorry polling numbers mean crap. Martin won a minority when the PC's were polling a majority.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: desy
Well we could pull out the Liberal Redbook and see how close they have come too

As for the Bloc being invited but not elected . . . . We know how it plays with regards to Quebec in all things national. Doesn't mean we have to repeat past mistakes

Hey once the greens show up as a legitimate contender with a record in parliment , by all means, and sorry polling numbers mean crap. Martin won a minority when the PC's were polling a majority.

Wow, you're really grasping for straws, huh? The Bloc was included because they had a MP (yes, he switched form an Independent, exactly like the guy who is now a Green MP), tons of support and people wanted to hear what they had to say. A "record in parliament" has never been anybody's criteria until partisans pull it out of thin air. These debates are not about the last session, but the upcoming parliament.

You people seriously need to ease up on your stupid partisanship.