haha, did you really just post a link from Rabble?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
haha, did you really just post a link from Rabble?
Here's my problem with the mortgage story even if I accept your premises that the leader's personal finances are significant: leveraging an asset with value is something normal people do every day, and it seems likely that his gone is worth considerably more than the $300k he's apparently leveraged out of it. There are so many normal and mundane reasons people do this sort of thing that it seems completely ridiculous to assume either malice or incompetence as the reason without *anything* else to suggest those things. Not does a $300k mortgage require needing an income like the one the story suggested he was demanding to service, especially at current rates.
Normal people releverage their houses. Normal people have mortgages. If anything this story only serves to make him look more normal against the other two -- quite wealthy -- party leaders.
BigJonsson
Member
I don't know any more than what's out in the public. Sounds like the investigation is based out west.
If the source of these threats is some pissed off amateur/dumbass kids/etc. it may be easy to get to who is behind it. If it's someone who's been smart about it, could be tough to stop.
*shrug*, just found it on google
eBay Huckster
Member
oh god don't even remind me
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
It depends on his current global coordinates.
I kind of liked Ignatieff, but a part of that was almost certainly bristling at how well the "he's not here for you" campaign worked. I'd like a PM who's not afraid of the world. :/
gutter_trash
Banned
Both pronunciations are used depending which first language is spoken,
Like a true bilingual Canadian
So, even CPC sources say talks with Mulcair broke down over principle.
What a scoundrel. Clearly a mercenary.
What a scoundrel. Clearly a mercenary.
matthewwhatever
Member
...actual policies from the NDP? The links you posted were, again, to a 3-year-old story of someone speculating on what NDP policies might look like under Mulcair, and a 2-year-old story from Rabble about how Seriously Guys, the NDP Isn't Soft on Separatism. If that's how you respond to the charge that the NDP is vague on everything, you're not exactly refuting any of it.
Though to that latter article, I'll just leave this here: Mulcairs crass play for Quebec votes
I know that when I want to get to the bottom of a story, I look to anonymous "Conservatives who were in senior government roles" who are critical of Harper and the Liberals, and who also manage to work in comments on how strong Mulcair is on the environment. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?
The Sherbrooke Declaration has never seemed to me to contradict the Clarity Act. The Clarity Act keeps vague what a 'clear majority' means. The NDP takes it to mean '50+1'. It confuses me that this is even a talking point from Liberals. I mean in the incredibly incredibly unlikely event of a 50+1 vote to separate what do Liberals propose to even do? Send in the tanks? Why is the Clarity Act vague on this incredibly critical point anyway?
And matthew. Really. You're taking Dimitri Soudas's word as gospel, that's just as bad if not worse than the canda.com article.
And matthew. Really. You're taking Dimitri Soudas's word as gospel, that's just as bad if not worse than the canda.com article.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I assume the vagueness was on purpose, to let them set moving goal posts if needed.
gutter_trash
Banned
the most important piece of the Clarity Act is not the % required but the requirement of CLEAR CUT question
Westminster had to approve the question concerning Scotland, they reworded the question through various revisions to get it right before Cameron could be okay with it.
Both questions for Quebec in 1980 and 1995 were badly worded (on purpous, check back Parizeau's comments on a lobster traps)
The Clarity Act now requires it to be as clear as what Scotland did
... Because the one source to the contrary is so trustworthy and has nothing to gain from it?
matthewwhatever
Member
How is it taking Soudas' word as gospel? The story first came out in 2012, the newer ones have multiple people quoted on record, and Macleans has stated that he wasn't the source of it now. I don't see why the simpler explanation -- that Mulcair is, in fact, an unprincipled mercenary out to make the most money possible -- is somehow more implausible than the idea that it's a years-long conspiracy involving people from several different political parties.
Anyway, on a totally different topic: Certify imams to stamp out 'extreme ideas,' Senate anti-terror report says
In other words, a reminder that even if the economy may be tanking, the CPC is still going to play that anti-Muslim card as hard as they possibly can.
The fact that he was courted and/or courting all the parties came out in 2012, and is plainly fact *by his own admission at the time and now*. The idea that he turned it down because they wouldn't pay him a lot of money is the new claim by Soudas, and the one that paints him as a mercenary. Where's my conspiracy theory? The only person whose claims I find improbable or unlikely are Soudas' claims of it being all about money.
And it's implausible because his course afterwards doesn't resemble in any way an 'unprincipled mercenary'. He ran for a low odds seat for a low odds party that matched and continues to match the principled stand (on the environment) many sources say he actually rejected the position with the government advisory board about. He even opens his big fat mouth about this principle when it does him harm. I honestly don't see how you look at these public facts and come to the conclusion you do. It's absolutely bizarre. To me yours is the improbably conspiracy theory, that Mulcair is an unprincipled mercenary playing a decade-long unlikely con to ... what? Win Outremont and then the World?
gutter_trash
Banned
electoral reform is one of your biggies, here is an interesting article about Conservatives being a distant 3rd under Justin Trudeau's preferred model
http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/07/with-electoral-reform-conservatives.html
http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/07/with-electoral-reform-conservatives.html
AV is awful. All it does is formalize strategic voting into the system itself, pushing things back towards a less diverse legislature as the population becomes more diverse. It also magnifies regional power in the same way as FPTP.
It's only more proportional in the sense that everyone gets not quite what they want.
It's only more proportional in the sense that everyone gets not quite what they want.
gutter_trash
Banned
It think it's cool
I like Liberals 1st and NDP 2nd, if I get one or the other, I'm okay with it
I like Liberals 1st and NDP 2nd, if I get one or the other, I'm okay with it
The likely result is that in the long run, one of those parties withers away and dies. In an extra perversion, it's the one that's the most people's second choice that is most likely to survive. At least in FPTP it's the parties people are actually passionate about supporting that survive.
Hence why as a system it would have a tendency to push the results to some kind of centre, leading to a not very diverse field of viable choices. It's just an alternate path to an American-style two party oligarchy.
The goal should be diverse voices in the legislature, forced to cooperate for the greater good. Not strategic voting enshrined and long term stasis.
Hence why as a system it would have a tendency to push the results to some kind of centre, leading to a not very diverse field of viable choices. It's just an alternate path to an American-style two party oligarchy.
The goal should be diverse voices in the legislature, forced to cooperate for the greater good. Not strategic voting enshrined and long term stasis.
gutter_trash
Banned
Bad questionair.
too many questions related to sectors that fall more in Pronvincial jurisdictions like education, electricity and health
CBC.ca usually gets a good questionair out every election
LOL Communists, and I said leave Corporate Tax rates ''as is''
The Bloc only gets bumped up in here because they share the exact same stance as the Liberals on Assisted Suicide
re-edit again LOL. I find that there is no weighting in some of the questions. You have less important issues being weighted the same as party policy first issues.
gutter_trash
Banned
hahaha the questionair classified commercial DRONES as a ''transportation'' issue
seriously? I did not know you could hitch a ride to work via a commercial drone
seriously? I did not know you could hitch a ride to work via a commercial drone
matthewwhatever
Member
I think there may be something wrong with this test:
It also has Bloc at 70% for me, even though I placed very high importance on Quebec not separating. Presumably it'll be a little more precise once all the parties have their platforms out.
It also has Bloc at 70% for me, even though I placed very high importance on Quebec not separating. Presumably it'll be a little more precise once all the parties have their platforms out.
Hasn't the Bloc been traditionally on the left/left-of-center, outside of the whole leaving Confederation thing
gutter_trash
Banned
The worst question was about Nationalizing or Privatizing the energy sector.
1st their are different energy sectors
2nd it's a provincial issue. Like Hydro One being Ontario and stuff
1st their are different energy sectors
2nd it's a provincial issue. Like Hydro One being Ontario and stuff
gutter_trash
Banned
the Bloc is center-left on social issues but they are far right on ethnic nationalism.
The Bloc of today has been reduced to a Federal branch of the PQ. When the PQ veered more extremist on ethnic nationalism in 2013, the Bloc walked in lock-step with the direction of the PQ, forcing Maria Mourani out of the Bloc (now running for NDP)
matthewwhatever
Member
Like Gutter said - they're very progressive on a lot of issues (and Duceppe is actually charming), but they're hard right when it comes to immigration/multiculturalism.
I also only matched with the CPC at, like, 16%, which also surprised me. Even though I find them pretty appalling in a lot of ways, I'm still a big believer in free trade, which I would think would at least put me in line with some portion of their platform.
gutter_trash
Banned
NDP narrowly favoured to win election, Globe model predicts
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lection-globe-model-predicts/article25372657/
Probability of majority government: 0.9 per cent
give it to the Bloc to keep Harper in power
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lection-globe-model-predicts/article25372657/
Probability of NDP win: 51.9 per cent
Probability of majority government: 0.9 per cent
The return of Gilles Duceppe may chip away a few seats in Quebec from the NDP who are trying to beat the Cosnervatives nationally on seat count ... Gilles Duceppe may end up helping Stephen Harper stay in government
give it to the Bloc to keep Harper in power
matthewwhatever
Member
No matter what the polls say, the CPC is still very, very dangerous: Riding association numbers show Tories still far ahead of the pack:
Obviously, those aren't the federal party numbers -- those will be out soon, and they may be a lot closer -- but it shows that the CPC, at the very least, have the most engaged members at the local level. In elections where GOTV operations matter (i.e. this one), that's bad news for all of us who want Harper gone.
Obviously, those aren't the federal party numbers -- those will be out soon, and they may be a lot closer -- but it shows that the CPC, at the very least, have the most engaged members at the local level. In elections where GOTV operations matter (i.e. this one), that's bad news for all of us who want Harper gone.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
That would suck so hard. But I'm not sure of that, he did lose his seat to Hélène Laverdière after all.
Harper suppressed the announcement of the Franklin expedition discovery so that he could announce it purposely? Tens of thousands funneled from Balsillie to Mansbridge for coverage in order to boost Canada's arctic sovereignty claims?
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/paul-watson-toronto-star-resignation-820147
http://canadalandshow.com/article/q...-journalist-why-he-just-resigned-toronto-star
These are the kinds of stories that happen when a PM starts hanging around too long.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/paul-watson-toronto-star-resignation-820147
http://canadalandshow.com/article/q...-journalist-why-he-just-resigned-toronto-star
These are the kinds of stories that happen when a PM starts hanging around too long.
gutter_trash
Banned
Yup and i voted for her to kick him out.
But Tom isn't Jack. We will only find out in October if he can keep hold on his seats.
The worst outcome would be a sizable Bloc increase that grants Harper another term
I just did isidewith and came out *shudder* Liberal.
I tried the American version and it was a lot more straight forward. Canadian politics are much more nuanced.
The American version had abortion as a question for crying out loud. I was like bang bang bang. The Canadian version I had to actually think about some questions.
"Should the employee contribution rate for the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) be raised above its current 4.49% rate?"
Uhhhhhh...
I tried the American version and it was a lot more straight forward. Canadian politics are much more nuanced.
The American version had abortion as a question for crying out loud. I was like bang bang bang. The Canadian version I had to actually think about some questions.
"Should the employee contribution rate for the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) be raised above its current 4.49% rate?"
Uhhhhhh...
gutter_trash
Banned
there is nothing to shudder about with the Liberals, they balanced consecutive budgets, legalize gay marriage, created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, made Canada officially bilingual, passed the Canadian Health Act.
young lefties today tend to forget the accomplishment of Liberal PMs. Even the most fiscally conservative Liberal PM (Paul Martin) saw gay marriage pass. Paul Martin gets a bum rap, but the man today fights for First Nations rights
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
And Republicans abolished slavery in the US. I don't disagree but you know, the Liberals of yesterday are not those of today.
gutter_trash
Banned
there is a big difference between 2005 and 1865
150 years difference vs 9 year difference, like lol.
one of the last final act of the Liberal government for advancing legalizing of gay marriage was in 2005. They lost power in 2006 by a vote of No Confidence by a motion from the ungrateful NDP who then gave us 9 years of Harper.
Martin slashed and burned the social safety net in this time as FM and PM. The only good budget he had was one that Jack Layton co-wrote. Also the NDP would have supported Martin if only they had publicly announced support for a universal health care system. They refused. That story reflects badly on the Liberals. Not on the NDP.
Wikipedia said:
Source
Layton was acting like a good parlimentarian looking for cooperation to pass legislation good for Canadians. Martin shouldn't have been an ass. Can you explain why Martin acted like such a buffoon?
Even matthewwhatever agrees that it was the Liberals that fucked up and let Harper win.
Gutter, you need to get over the fact that the Harper's victory in 2006 had nothing to do with the NDP. Paul Martin screwed up, plain and simple. He was a great Finance Minister but a very poor Prime Minister.
The NDP would have done those things too. This current Grit group supports C-51.
I'm a Liberal supporter, I was at the after party when they passed the same sex marriage legislation.
But I also know that it was ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada that forced the government to pass that law. I'm pretty sure any government would have passed that legislation since the SCC had ruled that any thing else who be unconstitutional.
But I also know that it was ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada that forced the government to pass that law. I'm pretty sure any government would have passed that legislation since the SCC had ruled that any thing else who be unconstitutional.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Sure, but the point stands. Also, the Charter and Health Act are over 30 years old, not 9.
Incidentally, I also got a slightly higher Liberal rating than NDP myself. Politically I am indeed probably a bit closer to them than the NDP. But I just don't trust the Liberals at all, and I really don't want Trudeau as a PM (though I'd still prefer him over Harper obviously).
lol, sure, blame the NDP...
gutter_trash
Banned
Justifce Minister Martin Cauchon did the leg work during Jean Chrétien's final year to push it through
Without Minister Cauchon's work, the act would not have gone to the Supreme Court.
Cases just don't fall onto the lap of the SCC out of thin air. People have to do the work to get the ball rolling. And that is exactly what Chrétien did by tasking Martin Cauchon with the task.
The SCC descision was finalized when Martin was sitting as PM. Martin was obliged to make it law. The work was started by Chretien and Cauchon
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked