EPTWell, it seems they have, or rather they haven't needed to what with this brownface/ blackface doing the trick all on its own. The difference being, this once was a government that promised 'sunny ways'. Guess that's long gone. But my complaint wasn't so much that the Liberals were flinging dirt (it's hard to imagine anyone wouldn't for any length of time), but rather that the Conservatives are cutting and running.
Canadian Politics Mega-thread - Page 64
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
Falling
Canada11389 Posts
Well, it seems they have, or rather they haven't needed to what with this brownface/ blackface doing the trick all on its own. The difference being, this once was a government that promised 'sunny ways'. Guess that's long gone. But my complaint wasn't so much that the Liberals were flinging dirt (it's hard to imagine anyone wouldn't for any length of time), but rather that the Conservatives are cutting and running. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 20 2019 09:07 Falling wrote: @Rebs Well, it seems they have, or rather they haven't needed to what with this brownface/ blackface doing the trick all on its own. The difference being, this once was a government that promised 'sunny ways'. Guess that's long gone. But my complaint wasn't so much that the Liberals were flinging dirt (it's hard to imagine anyone wouldn't for any length of time), but rather that the Conservatives are cutting and running. From what Ive been seeing here in Ontario, the news generally and alot of coverage on international news channels where this made news (Al Jazeera, BBC etc) the response and the analysis of people checking pulses right after the incident. The response to this even has largely been muted.. no one seems to really care, given the circumstances and how its been handled. There are plenty of grievances with the Liberals that are genuine. The handling of the Lavalin on its own would have been enough if the conservatives werent awful. Imagine this.. a sittting PM is 50/50 despite what is clearly incorrect actions unbefitting of his position [spoiler](regardless of how well intentioned they might have been, which doesnt even count as a pass because that can also be put down to self interest)[/spoiler. Thats how bad they are. I have yet personally to see a liberal scare ad while Scheer sneers at people on my tv every night between every other sports commercial. They have been dumping money into it since May starting with that 5 pack or whatever I read about back when. That doesnt mean liberals arent doing the same thing where it suits them,. As for being spineless or whatever. The reality is that many Conservatives have to cut and run because if they pushback people will dig more. And that doesnt work for them either. | ||
|
goldspoon
Canada112 Posts
 they don't have any misconduct yet so little support | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
On September 21 2019 04:37 goldspoon wrote: Why no love for Singh and NDP they don't have any misconduct yet so little supportSingh feels to me like he's trying too hard, and it comes off as insincere. In general, they're missing the charisma Jack Layton had, and have been struggling ever since. They're also a minority party so it's difficult to support them for most people (I generally support a mix between Liberal/NDP policies), and I need to vote Liberal in my riding. Ranked choice or some other proportional voting method would be better, but until then, I need to vote according to my best interests under FPTP. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On September 21 2019 04:59 Lmui wrote: Singh feels to me like he's trying too hard, and it comes off as insincere. In general, they're missing the charisma Jack Layton had, and have been struggling ever since. They're also a minority party so it's difficult to support them for most people (I generally support a mix between Liberal/NDP policies), and I need to vote Liberal in my riding. Ranked choice or some other proportional voting method would be better, but until then, I need to vote according to my best interests under FPTP. Yeah I agree. Also in 2015 the NDP went from being quite up in the polls in summer (ahead of both the Liberals and Conservatives) to getting almost completely wiped out in some places in the election, and it seems that they have never been able to fully recover. They lost a lot of long-time representatives and figures within the party and just seem unable to get it together fully since then. | ||
|
goldspoon
Canada112 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17202 Posts
Its kinda funny that Trump and Trudeau can both skate on by after major political gaffes. Both men employ radically different methods to maintain their teflon shields though. On September 22 2019 03:32 goldspoon wrote: Ya Layton would've 95% beat Trudeau in 2015, I don't think Layton ever had what it takes to keep quebecers happy along with the rest of the NDP's voting foundation. The unlikely alliance Layton stumbled into was doomed to fail even if he was in perfect health. He deserves credit for taking advantage of a bunch of lucky breaks that all went his way though. Singh is making Mulcair and Layton look like geniuses. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17202 Posts
If Justin Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau...welp then Andrew Scheer is the spiritual son of Joe Clark. Scheer and Clark are so bland. https://globalnews.ca/news/5960379/trudeau-plant-trees-climate-change/ This tree thing is a great way to deflect attacks from environmentalists. With what the Liberals introduced so far this election Trudeau can now have a 5 minute convo with any hardcore environmentalist and either appear to hold his own or he can appear to "win" the discussion. Four years from now Justin Trudeau can point to any open grass field and say "see that! in 40 years that will be 2,000 trees". LOL. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On September 28 2019 07:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I think we're going to see a Liberal majority government with the Liberals capturing ~40% of the popular vote. The Liberals deserve to win because they've put together the best strategy and best campaign. Yeah, the polls in general are agreeing with you. At first there was a big dip for the Liberals but their numbers are already back where they were before the blackface scandal and the Liberals are again starting to consistently rank ahead of the Conservatives in terms of both voter intent and seat projections. Right now the highest probability outcome is a Liberal majority, and the chance of the Liberals winning overall is 60-70% according to the two major poll aggregators. I also think that when push comes to shove on election day, there will be a non-trivial number of undecided centre/left voters who will vote Liberal rather than NDP or Green just because of fears of the Conservatives gaining power again. My views are left of the Liberals but I've actually been somewhat impressed by their climate strategy. At first it seemed like too little, but now that they are announcing more and more, it is starting to look somewhat competent. It strikes a good balance between the extremes of Green Party's policy and the Conservatives' policy (or lack thereof). The tree planting thing is indeed quite smart as that has been something being suggested by climate scientists for a while now as a way to counter some carbon emissions and it is something easy to understand that they can point to unlike their carbon tax was. Given everything that has happened with the Liberals: all the scandals, a divisive leader, some failures to go through with major promises like electoral reform, it's rather impressive just how badly the Conservatives have bungled this election so far. Their policy is too similar to Harper's from 2015 with nothing to make them stand out, they've continually put themselves in vulnerable positions which has made them easy to be criticized by their opponents, and they chose an incredibly weak leader who has both been ineffective on the attack and himself has been too easy of a target. Scheer and several other candidates running away from controversy rather than facing it head on has definitely hurt their credibility. Had Scheer handled the questions regarding his views on abortion and LGBTQ issues like same-sex marriage better, there would be a lot less doubt about him. How he has handled this has made him look like a paper tiger who loves attacking but is incapable of defending. The Conservatives' choice to court controversial candidates has also done what I'm sure is measurable amounts of harm to their prospects, especially that candidate in Ontario that was viewed as too toxic by the PC party to run in the last provincial election, but also several candidates of which a simple check of their social media would have shown them to be problematic like the guy in Manitoba who recently stepped down from his candidacy. On September 28 2019 07:39 JimmiC wrote: I dunno the NDP had a pretty good comment to Justin's environmental plan which was "you bought a pipeline". They are the favorites, but I think it is a long way from them winning a majority at the moment. Actually, as it stands there is a higher probability of the Liberals winning a majority than a minority. Right now the chances of the Liberals winning a majority is on par with or above the Conservatives' chances of winning at all according to 338Canada. And they are also prepared for the pipeline argument. They've made it pretty clear that tax revenue from the pipeline is going to be used for climate initiatives. I didn't agree with their purchase of the pipeline but at least they have done some work to justify it. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
montrealgazette.com 8:10 p.m. First question: abortion The first skirmish is over abortion. Blanchet and Scheer are asked for their personal positions on abortion. In response, Blanchet says the Bloc supports a woman’s right to choose and any Bloc MP who tries to reopen the debate on the issue would be thrown out of the party’s caucus. Scheer, who has the support of many social conservatives, does not answer the question directly. Instead, he says the party has not changed its position and he would vote against any new limits to abortion. “Under a Conservative government that I lead, this debate will not be reopened,” Scheer adds. Trudeau confronts Scheer on abortion, asking him repeatedly, if he supports a woman’s right to choose? Scheer does not answer. Instead, he repeats the answers mentioned above. Singh also takes on Scheer on abortion. The NDP leader says he support abortion rights. He asks Scheer again for his personal opinion. Scheer again won’t answer. We thought Trudeau would be the focus of attacks. But so far, it’s Scheer who is on the defensive. I imagine Scheer has to be regretting not stating his personal views a long time ago. His refusal to state his personal views on key topics like abortion and those regarding the LGBTQ community will likely repeatedly come back to haunt him. Trudeau and Blanchet got into a debate about Bill 21, something people were expecting Trudeau to avoid talking about as much as possible. Bill 21 of course is about government employees wearing religious symbols. Trudeau's response is apparently a bit of a non-response in that he says that he will defend discrimination against minorities and that he wouldn't rule out backing a legal challenge, but he doesn't say much more than that. Singh seemingly has come to Trudeau's defence by openly attacking Blanchet on the issue. Given the disgusting scene we saw earlier today where a man told Singh to cut his turban off "to look more Canadian", I'm glad to see Singh doubling down on not tolerating this nonsense. edit: Holy shit Scheer's bad at this. He walked right into this one and left himself being pressured by the moderator: 8:45 p.m. Legalizing drugs The moderator asks Trudeau, whose government legalized cannabis, if he’ll legalize other drugs Trudeau says “not at the moment,” leaving the door open for Scheer, who asks the Liberal leader: “So that’s your secret agenda? Decriminalize, legalize, hard drugs?” Trudeau doesn’t answer the question, instead, he says: “We see your politics of fear.” Scheer suggests Trudeau’s legalization of cannabis was supposed to deter criminal gangs and keep the drug out of the hands of youth – but it has failed in both respects. Trudeau rejects the characterization and asks Scheer whether he will reverse the legalization. Pressed by the moderator on that question a few minutes later, Scheer says he will not make cannabis illegal again, in part because “it’s a new era” in Canada. Scheer also says a Conservative government will ensure that police forces have the resources they need to handle the problem of people driving while high. double edit: found a CBC person translating the debate well on Twitter. Holy moly Trudeau dunked on Scheer hard with this one: triple edit: Oh no, it sounds like Scheer was tricked into mentioning about Doug Ford's government and was promptly torn into about being cozy with Ford and Kenney by Blanchet. Scheer also got double-teamed by Trudeau and Blanchet over the SNC scandal, with Blanchet claiming Scheer would have allowed those SNC jobs to move elsewhere. Did Scheer not get the memo that SNC has ultimately been a net positive for the Liberals in Quebec? After the last bit of big news on the scandal where Trudeau said he would not apologize about defending Quebec jobs, the Liberals' numbers went up in Quebec. I think Scheer needs to up his game if he is going to survive these debates. He has been a punching bag through this debate by the sound of things. Scheer has to know Doug Ford is absolutely toxic to bring up, and in doing this he has yet again allowed himself to be hit hard by yet more attacks. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11389 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 03 2019 10:25 Falling wrote: Who's behind organizing this debate? That abortion is the first question and May is not invited seems to dance to the beat of Trudeau's campaign. The only reason abortion is back into play is because Trudeau's war machine- nothing to do with what anyone else is saying. I don't vote Green, but I get so frustrated when the goal posts move to exclude Greens. They poll 10%, twice the BQ AND they have actually won seats and they are running candidates across Canada. It just makes me mad. This isn't one of the official debates. Those are next week (7th for the English one, 10th for French). This one is one of the smaller scale ones like the Munk debate was. Apparently the requirement for this TVA debate is that to be included, a party must have at least one seat in Quebec, which would exclude the Greens and the PPC. I agree it's a shame May is not included. The Greens in some polls are nearly tied with the NDP, which makes excluding them extra frustrating. She will be at the official debates next week though. So will Bernier, which I'm sure will make things interesting. I found them opening with an abortion question bizarre as well. I guess those in charge of this debate view that as an important issue for Quebecers? I'm not sure why they included it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 03 2019 11:01 JimmiC wrote: It should be a super easy question to answer, it is 2019. They might need to add the word progressive back to remind people that in our country we do make evidence based decisions. Yes, I definitely agree there. I found it bizarre to add the abortion question because it's a settled matter among the majority of Canadians. But at the same time, yes, if a person is intending to be leader of Canada, it is important for the rest of us to know what they believe. Scheer's refusal to answer the abortion question isn't fooling anybody. His refusal to answer is in itself an answer. At this point I think it would have been less damaging for him to have been honest about his views. Had he done so months ago while pledging not to let them get in the way of governing, we'd likely have moved on from it soon after. But he didn't, and that has left him opened to sustained attacks as a result. And it's exactly the same with his refusal to answer questions regarding his personal views on LGTBQ issues. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17202 Posts
On October 03 2019 11:01 JimmiC wrote: It should be a super easy question to answer, it is 2019. They might need to add the word progressive back to remind people that in our country we do make evidence based decisions. On October 03 2019 11:11 Ben... wrote: Yes, I definitely agree there. I found it bizarre to add the abortion question because it's a settled matter among the majority of Canadians. Regarding abortion: the devil is in the details. For example, every year Quebec women go to the USA for late term abortions. Quebec women sometimes can't get enough DRs to sign off on a late term abortion so they want less hurdles to leap over. I think the debate around abortion in Quebec centers around 3rd term abortions. I suspect this is part of the reason why it got brought up in the debate. IMO if a baby can survive outside the womb with no health risks to the mother and the pregnancy is "aborted" then that abortion is unethical. That particular case should be illegal. The obstetrician my mom worked for in the 00s has never done an abortion on any fetus older than 18 weeks. He just flat out won't do it. The devil is in the details. It is not a super easy question. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11389 Posts
But at the same time, yes, if a person is intending to be leader of Canada, it is important for the rest of us to know what they believe. I think it's quite clear that he still thinks it's morally wrong, but he also knows it's political suicide to say so. Pro-lifers need not apply in any mainstream party and/or are actively rooted out of most of the rest. But if the past is anything to go by, people who are worked up by what Scheer actually believes underestimate Conservative desperation to gain power. They've got that solid +30% base, but to touch the abortion question in any official capacity beyond back-bench sound and fury is to be relegated to opposition (or worse) forever. The support for abortion even to third term is overwhelming in Canada. Unless we see a massive revival within orthodox Christianity or if we suddenly flood our country with devout Catholics or Muslims, this is not is not a position a Conservative party with majority government aspirations will touch with a ten foot pole. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 03 2019 13:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Regarding abortion: the devil is in the details. For example, every year Quebec women go to the USA for late term abortions. Quebec women sometimes can't get enough DRs to sign off on a late term abortion so they want less hurdles to leap over. I think the debate around abortion in Quebec centers around 3rd term abortions. I suspect this is part of the reason why it got brought up in the debate. IMO if a baby can survive outside the womb with no health risks to the mother and the pregnancy is "aborted" then that abortion is unethical. That particular case should be illegal. The obstetrician my mom worked for in the 00s has never done an abortion on any fetus older than 18 weeks. He just flat out won't do it. The devil is in the details. It is not a super easy question. In context to this debate, the question was not a particularly in-depth one. The question was basically "What is your personal stance on abortion" to which Blanchet said "I believe in a woman's right to choose", which was apparently echoed by Singh and Trudeau later on before they all dogpiled on Scheer who had dodged the question multiple times. Of course it can be a complex topic especially in certain edge cases like late term abortions, but just in general, polling done indicates a substantial majority of Canadians believe in a woman's right to choose. The latest numbers I can find are an Ipsos poll from 2017 indicating 77% of Canadians support abortion, which is slightly above average compared to other countries. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17202 Posts
On October 03 2019 14:31 Ben... wrote: In context to this debate, the question was not a particularly in-depth one. The question was basically "What is your personal stance on abortion" to which Blanchet said "I believe in a woman's right to choose", which was apparently echoed by Singh and Trudeau later on before they all dogpiled on Scheer who had dodged the question multiple times. Of course it can be a complex topic especially in certain edge cases like late term abortions, but just in general, polling done indicates a substantial majority of Canadians believe in a woman's right to choose. The latest numbers I can find are an Ipsos poll from 2017 indicating 77% of Canadians support abortion, which is slightly above average compared to other countries. it is a common tactic of pro-abortion political people to focus only on the 1-sided consumer aspect and oversimplify the discussion. This tactic does not make it a "super easy question" though... even in standard cases. | ||
| ||
