Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

I am actually disgusted at Ontario most of all. They are the one who gave us a Harper majority and they are the ones deciding the 2015 election.

They have learned nothing from the Mike Harris years, and have elected old Harris boys to Ottawa. They are such masochists and probably will eat into Jason Kenney's hands

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

The Tea Party and "suburban conservatism" was trendy in the GTA in 2011. It died out around October thankfully.

 

[gabbo]

I am actually disgusted at Ontario most of all. They are the one who gave us a Harper majority and they are the ones deciding the 2015 election.

They have learned nothing from the Mike Harris years, and have elected old Harris boys to Ottawa. They are such masochists and probably will eat into Jason Kenney's hands

We don't all have such short memories here

 

[gutter_trash]

Montreal elects ex-Liberal MP Denis Coderre as Mayor of Montreal.

I voted for Melanie Joly, she took 2nd place but eh at least I am relieved that tramway nut Bergeron didn't become mayor.


Oh well, things should get interesting when Coderre goes head to head with Pauline Marois... eeek gawd.

Melanie Joly would have been better but 2nd place is a good try for a 1st timer.
She helped Justin Trudeau's leadership campaign in Quebec.
She will be a fine candidate in 2015 for Justin.

 

[Kazerei]

Duffy, Brazeau, and Wallin just got suspended from the Senate. Hurrah.

 

[gutter_trash]

Duffy, Brazeau, and Wallin just got suspended from the Senate. Hurrah.

And now the story gets swept under the rug and Harper gets what he wants: everyone will stop talking about it

 

[gabbo]

And now the story gets swept under the rug and Harper gets what he wants: everyone will stop talking about it

I get the feeling those three senators aren't done talking, nor is the RCMP hopefully.

 

[BigJonsson]

I'm sure we'll hear more from Duffy

 

[firehawk12]

"I'm sorry I appointed Duffy, but I was in a drunken stupor when I did it."

 

[gutter_trash]

I get the feeling those three senators aren't done talking, nor is the RCMP hopefully.

RCMP may not investigate further if all three senators have been punished by another body (the Senate). A Harper tactic to stop short the investigation. We are not in the US, we are in Canada mind you.

 

[gabbo]

RCMP may not investigate further if all three senators have been punished by another body (the Senate). A Harper tactic to stop short the investigation. We are not in the US, we are in Canada mind you.

I can only hope that the RCMP doesn't stop looking because of that.

 

[Heshinsi]

Anyone seen this yet?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/25/305314/confirmed-canada-2011-polls-fraudulent/

The court emphasized in a Thursday ruling that it has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the vote.

The ruling also stated that “there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database.”

“Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent--just like in the Senate scandal.”

 

[maharg]

Yep. In May, when it happened.

 

[Heshinsi]

Yep. In May, when it happened.

Oh, oops. Just showed up on my FB news feed lol

 

[maharg]

Yeah it showed up on mine about a week ago as well, friend of a friend, and had some choice replies about people not believing it because the article didn't mention a case name or number. Heh.

I hope we'll see some of those quotes come out in the next campaign in television ads.

 

[Boogie]

RCMP may not investigate further if all three senators have been punished by another body (the Senate). A Harper tactic to stop short the investigation. We are not in the US, we are in Canada mind you.

Huh?

There's no reason for the RCMP to suddenly stop investigating possible criminal activity just because the senate subjected the three to an administrative sanction.

You have some weird notions about police investigations, dude.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I like this opinion piece on the Vancouver Sun about CETA. I have very little against getting rid of tariffs on European products, but what worries me and should everyone else are the clauses that allow the world's largest multination corporations sue the Canadian government if any of our policies get in the way of their profit making.

To put it into perspective of why this is so bad, if NAFTA were ratified in the 60s, we would have no universal healthcare today. American insurance companies would have sued our government to death if they dared try anything like that, we were getting in the way of their profit making. American mining companies are suing Ontario to this day, because Ontario has a policy that private companies must have discussions with First Nations before they build mines and infrastructure. This gets in the way of their profit making.

What's sad is that Canadian companies are awarded no such rights. If the government were to make policies that harmed their profits, they have no right to trial and they can't sue the government. In short, only the world's largest multinational corporations are awarded any such rights. How does this appear fair to anyone? How does this replicate a free and competitive market?

 

[gabbo]

I like this opinion piece on the Vancouver Sun about CETA. I have very little against getting rid of tariffs on European products, but what worries me and should everyone else are the clauses that allow the world's largest multination corporations sue the Canadian government if any of our policies get in the way of their profit making.

To put it into perspective of why this is so bad, if NAFTA were ratified in the 60s, we would have no universal healthcare today. American insurance companies would have sued our government to death if they dared try anything like that, we were getting in the way of their profit making. American mining companies are suing Ontario to this day, because Ontario has a policy that private companies must have discussions with First Nations before they build mines and infrastructure. This gets in the way of their profit making.

What's sad is that Canadian companies are awarded no such rights. If the government were to make policies that harmed their profits, they have no right to trial and they can't sue the government. In short, only the world's largest multinational corporations are awarded any such rights. How does this appear fair to anyone? How does this replicate a free and competitive market?

Sounds a lot like FTA/NAFTA

 

[lacinius]

I like this What's sad is that Canadian companies are awarded no such rights. If the government were to make policies that harmed their profits, they have no right to trial and they can't sue the government. In short, only the world's largest multinational corporations are awarded any such rights. How does this appear fair to anyone? How does this replicate a free and competitive market?

The same and worse with the FIPA agreement with China. Good thing we're only locked into that piece of shit for the next 31 fucking years.

[url]http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/02/canada-china-trade-deal-is-too-one-sided/


**edit to add... although the deal is signed, apparently FIPA has not yet been ratified by Parliament. Or maybe it has, I can't find shit on Canadian government websites. Well whatever, with Harper's majority I'm sure it doesn't matter.

 

[gutter_trash]

Thomas Mulcair unfit to be Prime Minister, playing regionalism politics just like the Reform Party and Stephen Harper did.

Tom Mulcair on the Clarity Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtVmxczG_AI

stories related to NDP reaction
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...adians-provincial-ndp-leaders/article8784987/

Stephane Dion (father of the Clarity Act) reacts to Thomas Mulcair's treason
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...lcairs_potentially_costly_quebec_mistake.html

 

[Azih]

Thomas Mulcair unfit to be Prime Minister, playing regionalism politics just like the Reform Party and Stephen Harper did.

Tom Mulcair on the Clarity Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtVmxczG_AI

stories related to NDP reaction
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...adians-provincial-ndp-leaders/article8784987/

Stephane Dion (father of the Clarity Act) reacts to Thomas Mulcair's treason
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...lcairs_potentially_costly_quebec_mistake.html

I've... never really understood this. How would Canada try to hold on to Quebec if 50%+1 voted to separate in a theoretically successful future referendum on separatism (that'll probably never happen but whatever, all of this is about hypotheticals)? I mean what, are we going to send the tanks in or something?

 

[gutter_trash]

I've... never really understood this. How would Canada try to hold on to Quebec if 50%+1 voted to separate in a theoretically successful future referendum on separatism (that'll probably never happen but whatever, all of this is about hypotheticals)? I mean what, are we going to send the tanks in or something?

remember both questions for 1980's and 1995's Referednums were unclear and convoluted.
Reason why the Clarity Act was drafted.

If they want to take Scottland as example, then so bet it. Scotland was mandated to ask a crystal clear question for theirs. That is how it should be.

1980 Question:
"The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"

1995 Question:
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

How can Thomas Mulcair be against Clarity?

 

[Azih]

Well we're talking about two very different things here.

1. The threshold for a successful vote in a referendum
2. The question asked in the referendum itself.

I'm talking about point 1 right now which is something the Clarity Act *does* leave vague but regardless, what exactly do you think Canada should do in a 50%+1 sort of situation? .

 

[killer rin]

I've... never really understood this. How would Canada try to hold on to Quebec if 50%+1 voted to separate in a theoretically successful future referendum on separatism (that'll probably never happen but whatever, all of this is about hypotheticals)? I mean what, are we going to send the tanks in or something?

Its pretty much stated by now that if Quebec was to separate from Canada, they wouldn't get the entire province. Instead regions which want to stay with Canada would stay with Canada. So basically we would end up getting all the parts which matter, like Montreal and Quebec City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec

 

[CitizenVectron]

Its pretty much stated by now that if Quebec was to separate from Canada, they wouldn't get the entire province. Instead regions which want to stay with Canada would stay with Canada. So basically we would end up getting all the parts which matter, like Montreal and Quebec City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec

Nothing is for certain. Legally it's a completely grey area, and it would be tied up in courts for a decade.

I also think (not directed at you) that referring to Mulcair's comments as treasonous is the same sort of brinkmanship and vilification that is so often derided when the Tories use it.

 

[Azih]

Nothing is for certain. Legally it's a completely grey area, and it would be tied up in courts for a decade.

I also think (not directed at you) that referring to Mulcair's comments as treasonous is the same sort of brinkmanship and vilification that is so often derided when the Tories use it.

Yeah it's incredibly ugly partisanship and harmful to politics and debae.

 

[Silexx]

Hoooooly shit @ the RCMP documents in the Nigel Wright investigation.

 

[gutter_trash]

Yeah it's incredibly ugly partisanship and harmful to politics and debae.

just like how Mulcair says he is goign to ''wipe the floor with Justin'', am right?

Canadians should rally behind Justin to oust Harper, forget the gimmicks the NDP offers with it's regionalism stance in Quebec and what not.

 

[Azih]

just like how Mulcair says he is goign to ''wipe the floor with Justin'', am right?

Accusing somebody of being a traitor for having a different opinion is much worse.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Whatever Chairman Gutter_Trash thinks Canadians should do, fact is the NDP was neck-to-neck with Conservatives until Trudeau jumped in. Now the NDP vote will be highly divided where it was strong (Quebec), and the Liberal vote will be very weak anywhere else in Canada where it matters. Conservatives will win again, just maybe not a majority. Canada (outside of Quebec) is a conservative country. It's why Harper has been doing everything he can to ignore Quebec when taking political decisions; he doesn't want to muddle his conservative policies. So far it worked, and will likely continue. Anyone defending non-conservative ideals will be said to be defending Quebec, which is the image they have be making for the NDP and will do the same with Trudeau.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Trudeau bringing up a topic like Quebec separation is just that, a cynical political game that tunes people out. What a benign and beaten to death topic.

Shit like this makes me want to vote Harper, at least he talks about #RealPriorities like jobs and the economy, even though his opinions are completely wrong, he does not waste my time like the other two parties.

I actually liked where everything was going, having a national discussion about income inequality and poverty. But no, let's switch the channel. Corporate politicos didn't like the obvious solutions that were coming out of it, need a distraction.

 

[gutter_trash]

Mulciar does double speak when he goes from English to French.

he pretends to be all federalist in English but then switches to regionalism pandering when he speaks French with his stance against the Clarity Act and all.

Trudeau speaks the same in English and in French. We bilinguals are not fooled by Mulcair's double speak.

Harper has a Denis Lebel an ex-Bloc supporter in his party, so he is no better than Mulcair.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Doesn't matter when it comes down to election day; Trudeau or Muclair won't beat Harper.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Doesn't matter when it comes down to election day; Trudeau or Muclair won't beat Harper.

Trudeau can still beat Harper, the NDP is a nonfactor. It depends on how he goes about it.

If he plays silly political games like he is now, then the small c conservative vote will vote Harper and NDP/Liberal will stay at home.

If he tries to differentiate between his party and the Conservatives like McGuinty did in Ontario, then he will grab more non-Quebec NDP votes. Add in some conservative goodies and you've got a plan. However, all I see right now is that Liberals and Conservatives are pretty much two peas in a pod on economics issues. They differ on social issues, but Harper has been smart to lay low and keep quiet on those ones, those issues aren't deciding elections.

 

[gutter_trash]

Doesn't matter when it comes down to election day; Trudeau or Muclair won't beat Harper.

Trudeau can beat Harper.
Mulcair can't
But Mulcair can contribute to Harper's re-elction by attacking Trudeau instead of attacking Harper.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Trudeau can beat Harper.
Mulcair can't
But Mulcair can contribute to Harper's re-elction by attacking Trudeau instead of attacking Harper.

And what about it? Mulcair won't magically disappear, nor would anyone who would be in his place at the head of the NDP. Everything you say is based on the impossibility that the NDP would disappear to please you. It won't happen, the vote will be strongly split. You don't think Trudeau will spend his time attacking Mulcair as well? No choice. There's no way out of this. The only thing that can prevent Harper from winning again is some sort of giant corruption scandal or some such.

 

[CitizenVectron]

I find it funny when people say "so and so can't win." Many said that about Harper since he's so uncharismatic and boring. But he did, eventually. All it would take is Trudeau making a big mistake close to the election for things to swing to the NDP. Many things could happen. We simply don't know, and it's just funny when people think they can predict political outcomes.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Trudeau can beat Harper.
Mulcair can't
But Mulcair can contribute to Harper's re-elction by attacking Trudeau instead of attacking Harper.

Trudeau also helps Harper's re-election by attacking Mulcair it goes both ways.

So when he goes to Toronto Centre and talks about the Clarity Act he is not winning over NDP voters who really can't care less about Quebec separation. He is making them cynical. He is also making Liberal leaners cynical. Trudeau -knows- no one cares about Quebec separation and - knowingly- wastes everyone's time talking about it, when we can be discussing things that actually matter, like income inequality. It's completely petty.

If you want to discuss provincial issues, then discuss it in the appropriate province. Coming to Ontario or Manitoba and talking about national unity when people are worried if there will be jobs for their kids or if they'll have enough money for retirement, is just begging people to tune out and reduce turnout at the polls (benefiting the incumbent).

 

[gutter_trash]

The Liberals have broader coast-2-coast appeal. Liberal support are solid in the Maritimes and the Island of Montreal.

BC is the Province where their Left are more likely to lean NDP.

But the Liberals are not aiming Left, they are aiming Center and Center-Right economically where their focus is on Harper 1st.

Aiming Left = Conservatives win

 

[Azih]

Both the NDP and Libs are focusing on Haper first. They're also both aiming at each other as a close second. To deny this is to be incredibly partisan.

And legalizing marijuana is a left wing policy plank.

 

[CitizenVectron]

The Liberals have broader coast-2-coast appeal. Liberal support are solid in the Maritimes and the Island of Montreal.

BC is the Province where their Left are more likely to lean NDP.

But the Liberals are not aiming Left, they are aiming Center and Center-Right economically where their focus is on Harper 1st.

Aiming Left = Conservatives win

If you're talking historically, then yes, the Liberals have wider support. But today? The Liberals can win maybe 4-5 ridings (and probably only 1-3) in AB, SK, and MB combined. The NDP will probably win 5-12 in those provinces (and maybe more with the changes in Saskatchewan electoral boundaries which will favour the NDP in Regina/Saskatoon). In BC, it's about even lately. The Liberals definitely have an advantage in the Maritimes, and in Ontario and Quebec it could go either way (as was seen in the last election).

So I would say both have broad national support (as do the Conservatives). Each party is weak in a certain area. The NDP in the Maritimes, the Liberals in the West, and the Conservatives in Quebec. You can't use historical examples because times change. If we could, then one could say that the Conservatives should sweep Ontario since it used to go Conservative all the time, and Quebec would go Liberal (along with the West). But that flipped in the 90s partly, with the Liberals winning Ontario and the Conservative power base switching to the West.

It just seems you are viewing things through an extremely partisan lens. I am a Liberal voter myself (well actually I vote NDP strategically since I live in Saskatchewan where the Liberals have no chance outside of Ralph Goodale), but I am not delusional. Trudeau has charisma but clearly has limited self control. All it would take is a few large blunders for him to lose confidence. Mulcair on the other hand is less prone to those mistakes. He's like Harper in that he's a more bland guy, but is clearly very well educated and competent. Trudeau is the sole reason the Liberals current resurgence, and it's a wide (but shallow) support that could easily dissolve if mistakes are made.

 

[maharg]

Haha "coast to coast" if you mean the Atlantic to Lake Superior, maybe.

 

[gutter_trash]

as long as former separatists are seated inside the Conservative party and the NDP, I cannot support any of those two parties

 

[Azih]

Isn't the whole point of unity and a stronger Canada to make former separatists into federalists?

 

[fallout]

as long as former separatists are seated inside the Conservative party and the NDP, I cannot support any of those two parties

What happens if former separatists end up in Liberal party? Will your vote go to which party has less?

 

[CitizenVectron]

And if the Liberals get 30 or more seats in Quebec in the next election then there's a near-guarantee that some of those MPs will be soft nationalists or former separatists back in the federalist fold.

 

[firehawk12]

I'm glad these new files are out and shit is exploding in Ottawa again. Honestly, seeing Harper being a turd is much more amusing to me than anything that happens with Rob Ford.

That said, I'm going to cry when the Tories win another majority in a couple of years.

 

[gutter_trash]

And if the Liberals get 30 or more seats in Quebec in the next election then there's a near-guarantee that some of those MPs will be soft nationalists or former separatists back in the federalist fold.

latest CROP poll on Quebec voting intentions (Federal)
http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/11/federal-liberals-up-among-francophones.html
%

seats

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Polls really don't mean much, I mean we've seen what happened in Alberta, BC and the Ontario byelections. Nova Scotia was accurate but the turnout was good and the Liberals were so far ahead that it wasn't that hard to measure.

I mean, the polls have Hudak at 35% and Harper at around 32% in Ontario. That is logically impossible. If Hudak is at 35%, I'd peg Harper at a good 40-45%.

And I think Riley has a point. 40 seats means a near-guarantee that there will be an ex-separatist. Will you switch your vote when Conservatives or Greens end up having the least?

 

[CitizenVectron]

latest CROP poll on Quebec voting intentions (Federal)
http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/11/federal-liberals-up-among-francophones.html
%

seats

Okay...I was talking about how people will jump in with whatever party is going to win. You don't really think everyone who was a Liberal MP in Quebec was a strong federalist, do you? And that every Bloc MP was a strong separatist? They are all strong opportunists.