BigJonsson
Member
I wonder if Quebecor is going to buy Wind or Mobi
-
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
The Gaming Deals thread is the Canada GAF thread.
Thats very possible, easy in.
So the Liberals are having/have recently had a convention where they've voted on a bunch of policies. I'll try to list some of them here.
* Creating a Basic Annual Income
http://www.liberal.ca/100-priority-...ual-income-designed-implemented-fair-economy/
*Justin Trudeau defends Andrew Leslie, vows not to raise taxes
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jus...drew-leslie-vows-not-to-raise-taxes-1.2547076
*Liberals vote to decriminalize medically assisted suicide
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...to-legalize-assisted-suicide/article17055601/
Also, a link to the speech Justin Trudeau gave at the convention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjtByjPvtSQ
They also put out this here video about the economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Lt43E0wCI
* Creating a Basic Annual Income
http://www.liberal.ca/100-priority-...ual-income-designed-implemented-fair-economy/
*Justin Trudeau defends Andrew Leslie, vows not to raise taxes
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jus...drew-leslie-vows-not-to-raise-taxes-1.2547076
*Liberals vote to decriminalize medically assisted suicide
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...to-legalize-assisted-suicide/article17055601/
Also, a link to the speech Justin Trudeau gave at the convention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjtByjPvtSQ
They also put out this here video about the economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Lt43E0wCI
gutter_trash
Banned
Canada counts 1.2 million Ukranians decents.
Justin's joke on Tout Le Monde en Parle was soooo stupid. Dumb dumb dumb
This one is actually really bad IMO, especially concerning current events
Justin's joke on Tout Le Monde en Parle was soooo stupid. Dumb dumb dumb
This one is actually really bad IMO, especially concerning current events
It wasn't, at all. What's worse, is it's being used as spin to give the illusion that Canada cares more than it does about what's gone on in Ukraine.
It's harsh, but it's true. No one here wants to see people getting killed, but we also won't bother to 'step beyond the walls' of our nice functioning country either so to speak. The pathetic superficial 'sanctions' imposed by Harper display that well enough.
The hypocrisy in the reactions to the comment from all sides are just sad.
It wasn't really funny or clever or appropriate for the situation whatsoever, but at the end of the day it just wasn't really offensive. Or at least I'm not offended, and I'm one of those 1.2 million people of Ukrainian descent.
I'm also not really sure what exactly these people want Canada to do about the situation. There's not really much for us to do besides imposing sanctions (done) and perhaps providing some sort of aid to the people of Ukraine (my church is collecting donations for EuroMaidan). This ball is in the EU's court as far as foreign intervention, mediation and leadership goes.
Inappropriate, maybe. Unfunny sure. But it's being made out like Trudeau is going to lose his political career over it, which clearly isn't the case. Is he really that threatening that the other parties are trying to drown him with this?
I suppose so. Most of those 1.2 million Ukrainian descendants probably live in the prairies, which is pretty conservative anyway (although there is a pretty big community in Toronto). But this isn't about them, this is about making Justin Trudeau look incompetent at every possible opportunity. Doesn't seem to be working so far.
gutter_trash
Banned
true that the bulk of Ukrainian-Canadians live in the prairies and true that most people will tune in the last 8 weeks leading up the the election
but in the age of the internets, gaffs can return to haunt. He better think before he speaks
but in the age of the internets, gaffs can return to haunt. He better think before he speaks
BladeWorker
Member
It's the flavour of the week. Gerry Ritz got pretty much the same treatment for "death by a thousand cold cuts" during the listeriosis outbreak.
Trouble is, Trudeau has a bad habit of saying dumb things that make him sound like he doesn't have a darn clue about anything policy-related. It's a habit he's going to have to break, or he'll soon find it'll come back to bite him in the derriere.
Better to be silent and be thought a fool, recall, than to speak and remove all doubt.
matthewwhatever
Member
I think (well, hope) that it holds. If the Conservative strategy is to paint him as a lightweight, it just succeeds in diminishing expectations for him for the debates. So long as he doesn't come out drooling and saying stupid things -- and he shouldn't, since he's not an idiot -- that only works to his advantage.
Besides, it seems like a lot of people feel protective of Trudeau on account of remembering his father/seeing him grow up. Attacking him too much -- i.e. making crazy-sounding claims like calling him a communist sympathizer, as they did a few days ago -- may just make those instincts kick in faster.
gutter_trash
Banned
Montreal Canadiens fans honour Canada's Women hockey team and sing O Canada
http://youtu.be/rtiHFT7vA6Q?t=4m3s
a just respone to Pauline Marois stupid olympic comment earlier this week
http://youtu.be/rtiHFT7vA6Q?t=4m3s
a just respone to Pauline Marois stupid olympic comment earlier this week
I'm not sure what she hopes to achieve by pretending that Canada doesn't exist. A quick google search tells me support for separation is about 33% while support for the PQ is about 39%, which seems kinda crazy to me, but I guess that's what happens when you're sick of your ruling party and the other party is a separatist party.
So what exactly is the PQ hoping to achieve? Separation obviously, but every time I consider the logistics of separation it always seems like it would be an enormous hassle. What happens with currency, citizenship, public assets and the national debt?
gutter_trash
Banned
separation is impossible, so what is the point? Power, like all political parties wanting to cling to power.
The PQ is riding the wave of identity politics on the the secularism thingy.
But the irony is by doing so, they are just pissing off minorities who in the end are crucial at winning a Referendum. The more minorities they piss off with identity politics = the more impossible sovereignty can be achieved.
Knowing this, they will contend to clinging to power, aiming for a majority and filling up high level civil sector jobs to their closest friends
The PQ is riding the wave of identity politics on the the secularism thingy.
But the irony is by doing so, they are just pissing off minorities who in the end are crucial at winning a Referendum. The more minorities they piss off with identity politics = the more impossible sovereignty can be achieved.
Knowing this, they will contend to clinging to power, aiming for a majority and filling up high level civil sector jobs to their closest friends
Link to her comments?
Huh. That bordering on barely congratulatory as it is.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I noticed they sang the bilingual version, which is not what people sung at the Olympics. lol
Also, I must be way out of it, but Mulcair is hinting at coalition now? He must be desperate now that Trudeau is seemingly moving ahead by actually offering nothing of substance. I'd almost feel bad for the NDP if the Liberals win the next election by being bland, empty, and lead by a man who seems to have as much depth as Harper has a personality.
gutter_trash
Banned
I have no problems with a Liberal+NDP coalition, just as long as the Bloc is not included
I can agree with that
matthewwhatever
Member
As a Liberal...no thanks. Not until the NDP changes their stance on the Clarity Act (I'd rather not have crypto-separatists in government) and free trade (unless they became more vocally in favour of it and I missed it).
Admittedly, my thinking is a little coloured by their lead in the polls. But realistically, if they're anywhere close to a majority -- and at 37%, they're not far off -- I don't see why they'd agree to a coalition. If they could win a plurality of seats (say 130-140), then I think the Liberals would be more than willing to govern as a minority, and hope for a quick election that might lead to a majority.
Admittedly, my thinking is a little coloured by their lead in the polls. But realistically, if they're anywhere close to a majority -- and at 37%, they're not far off -- I don't see why they'd agree to a coalition. If they could win a plurality of seats (say 130-140), then I think the Liberals would be more than willing to govern as a minority, and hope for a quick election that might lead to a majority.
gutter_trash
Banned
This is Justin's stance and it is quite understandable from a Federalist ideoloical point of view; the Liberals are branded as the ''purest'' Federalist party on the issue of national unity.
Trudeau's father never compromised with separatists unlike the Mulroney (distinct society) and Harper (recognized as nation) Conservatives have.
then the onus is on the NDP to change their stance on national unity and renounce the Sherbrooke Declaration against the Clarity Act.
A Federalist party should never compromise national unity to accommodate separatist-nationalists.
matthewwhatever
Member
I'm sure they would work with the opposition parties -- they'd be foolish not to do so on areas where there are common goals. But I also think that they'd approach it like Harper did from 2006 to 2011, and treat the minority situation as a way to make their majority seem inevitable and palatable to all the people who are on the fence about it. Admittedly, it'd be a little harder for them to do it, since that would involve pushing the NDP to the far left and the Conservatives to the far right -- whereas Harper already owns the right, and just had to push the Liberals off the centre -- but I think it's doable. There's a reason the Liberals were the most successful political party in the Western Hemisphere for about a century, and I think it's possible for them to regain that position.
gutter_trash
Banned
For sure they will work with the NDP if they end up with a minority governments.
The Librals will not mention the words ''Coalition'' because their focus is on winning a majority
In the case of winning a minority, yeah they will work with the NDP..
Their campaign will be focus in the Center battling the Conservative on the Economy in Center-Right.
They will avoid being pegged as Lefty-Left Socialist demon, so they will avoid giving the Conservative any ammunition like what happened to Dion's attempt of a coalition
The Librals will not mention the words ''Coalition'' because their focus is on winning a majority
In the case of winning a minority, yeah they will work with the NDP..
Their campaign will be focus in the Center battling the Conservative on the Economy in Center-Right.
They will avoid being pegged as Lefty-Left Socialist demon, so they will avoid giving the Conservative any ammunition like what happened to Dion's attempt of a coalition
From my observation of Canadian politics, the Liberal 'natural governing party' of the Chretien days was almost solely due to the right being splintered into three entities, two of which sapped votes from each other while the third was massively over-represented (THANKS FTPTP! Same woulda happened with AV/IRV btw) allowing the Libs to routinely win majorities with 43% or less of the vote (one of the Cretien majorities had less support than the current Harper one). And before that Mulroney was the dominant force.
In any case I really don't see how the NDP Sherbrooke Declaration that 50%+1 with recounts is enough to separate in any way a violation of the Clarity Act, it just makes clear a sentence in the Act which is vague.. what does 'a clear majority' in the Act mean anyway? Doesn't 50%+1 qualify? If not than what does? How do we decide that when the 'Clarity' Act is anything but on that kinda important point.
And isn't that a tenable position compared to the idea that in the unlikely case that 50%+1 of Quebeckers do vote to separate that the rest of Canada would.. what... send in the tanks instead?
gutter_trash
Banned
Azih, 1995 had an unclear quesion and 1980 had a super long complicated unclear question.
Reason why we need clarity.
Why is Scottland able to formulate a simple clear question while the PQ cannot?
Why this insistence on defending the Sherbrooke Declaration'?
Reason why we need clarity.
Why is Scottland able to formulate a simple clear question while the PQ cannot?
Why this insistence on defending the Sherbrooke Declaration'?
Because I don't think it's some sort of horrible traitorous betrayal of Canada? And the question of what constitutes a majority should be left vague?
gutter_trash
Banned
you harp on the % but completely don't care about the question.
convoluted questions filled with softening euphemisms.
equippedwithtowel
Member
For a federalist party to take a clear stance in opposition it is (no pun intented) clearlya compromise of values designed to make headway into a base of supporters which any federal party that wants my support should go nowhere near making concessions to.
gutter_trash
Banned
On the Island of Montreal, almost all Orange ridings will trun Red (with the exception of Outremount and Laurier-Ste-Marie)
Well my original point was about the %age value but you aren't responding to it at all. I like the Clarity Act, except for the vagueness in it, and because of that I think some elements of the Sherbrooke Decalaration are perfectly valid and perfectly required. As well I don't like the idea that 50%+1 isn't enough for self-determination. The Sherbrooke Declaration is obviously not law of course, and it isn't a bill that can be voted on either, so it can't be compared directly to the Act, but the Act has very real flaws and can be improved upon.
gutter_trash
Banned
The question posed on the 1980 ballot was:
"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?"
here is the 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?"
The 1980 question was super long and convoluted while the 1995 one was deceitful willed with euphemisms
How can you defend the above?
"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?"
here is the 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?"
The 1980 question was super long and convoluted while the 1995 one was deceitful willed with euphemisms
How can you defend the above?
How am I?
gutter_trash
Banned
your defense of the Sherbrooke Declaration and your critique of the Clarity Act
hence ''Clarity'' as in clarity in the wording of the referendum question requiring a ''CLEAR'' Question
So pointing out flaws in the Clarity Act is tatamount to disagreeing with the entire thing? Fine. Here is my full answer so that you don't misrepresent my shorter ones.
My ideal situation would be for the Clarity Act to be amended to replace the "clear majority" to "50%+1". And also specifying that no force would be used at any point following a successful referendum. Requiring a clear question is great, being deliberately vague about what it would take for a referendum to succeed isn't. The Sherbrooke declaration is flawed as it is is unclear on the nature of the question to be asked in a referendum (but it is better because it is specific about the treshold of success and what would happen following a referendum, the Clarity Act is flawed as it is unclear on the threshold of success (which should be 50%+1) and also on whether force by Canada would be used to hold on to Quebec but is better as it requires a clear and unambiguous question to be asked.
None of this makes it reasonable to shout about traitors, or betrayals or any other nonsense aimed at either the Liberals or the NDP in an incredibly partisan and divisive manner.
gutter_trash
Banned
this is starting to sound my like party convention squabble on semantics and a waste of time defending a side that is close to the Bloc's on the issue.
who wants to be close to the Bloc? nationalists, that's who
who wants to be close to the Bloc? nationalists, that's who
It's better to be detailed than throw absurd generalizations and accuse anybody who cites flaws with the Clarity Act of being seperatist. I mean come on. Are you going to accuse me of hating maple syrup and hockey next?
gutter_trash
Banned
this is why you lefty lefts will never form goverment Federally
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ticket-system-for-pot-possession-pushed-by-some-tories-1.2559798
Something to present to voters as an alternative to legalization?
Something to present to voters as an alternative to legalization?
A bit late on this, but that's a horrible response. Way to make things partisan and lower the tone of the debate.
That might fly with their base, I don't see the broader public going for it.
killer rin
Member
I still dont understand why they dont just make it legal and tax the fuck out of it. It would take a big source of money out of gangs and dealers and put it in the hands of the government where they would be able to put it towards more government programs such as improving Healthcare and the Educational system. Making it legal would also have the effect of allowing citizens to buy the drug legally in stores instead of having to weasel around in back-alleyways negotiating with some shady person who you may/may not know. It also removes the risk of tampering because you would be able to expect that it came from a safe source.
There is literally zero (or near zero) down sides.
For a government that's trying to look 'tough on crime' and has been actively making us forget that government programs/employees are a good thing, it's almost zero upside.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Rosemont-LPP will still be NDP, especially with the Bloc being done for.
And also because it does NOT want the government to have any source of revenue. It would much prefer have the NDP/LPC push for "taxes" and "drugging our kids" too.
I think 'tax on weed' would be quite a hard-sell even for the Fear Machine that the Conservatives use.
This thread's going to get extra crazy for a while, isn't it. :/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked