Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

anyone following Montreal local news knows that the big story is about billions of liters of sewage water pending to be dumped into the river.
You got the Mayor saying that Ottawa is stalling on it.

Then you have Mulcair saying that he is against the dumping of the sewage water into the river under his watch.

Then the Mayor reminded Mulcair that when Mulcair was then Provincial Environment Minister, that the city did dump sewage water into the river a decade ago under Mulcair's watch

Conservatives are playing dumb about it, but the Mayor is saying that the Federal has known about the deadline for over a year

 

[Pedrito]

anyone following Montreal local news knows that the big story is about billions of liters of sewage water pending to be dumped into the river.
You got the Mayor saying that Ottawa is stalling on it.

Then you have Mulcair saying that he is against the dumping of the sewage water into the river under his watch.

Then the Mayor reminded Mulcair that when Mulcair was then Provincial Environment Minister, that the city did dump sewage water into the river a decade ago under Mulcair's watch

Conservatives are playing dumb about it, but the Mayor is saying that the Federal has known about the deadline for over a year

It's pretty clear that Mulcair is in complete desperation mode right now. Stick a fork in him etc.

 

[Windam]

If you find that bad, avoid this Facebook group called "Stephen Harper going away party". The amount of Conservative spinning in there and and the amount of racist posts by Harper supporters... I didn't think Canada had fallen that far :/

The sooner Harper is booted out, the better.

Yeah, a few of my acquaintances joined that. When they also post things like "Voting for the Green Party!" I don't have the heart to tell them that their vote means jack shit (and to be honest, I couldn't change their minds) and if anything, may contribute to a Con MP winning the riding.

 

[Apathy]

anyone following Montreal local news knows that the big story is about billions of liters of sewage water pending to be dumped into the river.
You got the Mayor saying that Ottawa is stalling on it.

Then you have Mulcair saying that he is against the dumping of the sewage water into the river under his watch.

Then the Mayor reminded Mulcair that when Mulcair was then Provincial Environment Minister, that the city did dump sewage water into the river a decade ago under Mulcair's watch

I swear, he says things and thinks people won't check if it's true or not. Ndp Mulcair is hippy dippy old cool guy. That liberal Mulcair is the corrupt one.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

anyone following Montreal local news knows that the big story is about billions of liters of sewage water pending to be dumped into the river.
You got the Mayor saying that Ottawa is stalling on it.

Then you have Mulcair saying that he is against the dumping of the sewage water into the river under his watch.

Then the Mayor reminded Mulcair that when Mulcair was then Provincial Environment Minister, that the city did dump sewage water into the river a decade ago under Mulcair's watch

Conservatives are playing dumb about it, but the Mayor is saying that the Federal has known about the deadline for over a year

Has Trudeau said anything about this yet (I assume you'd know)? From what I read of this it sounded like a case of just needing way more federal transfers to increase treatment.

 

[MutFox]

Yeah, a few of my acquaintances joined that. When they also post things like "Voting for the Green Party!" I don't have the heart to tell them that their vote means jack shit (and to be honest, I couldn't change their minds) and if anything, may contribute to a Con MP winning the riding.

It's best to let them know.
More Canadians need to be educated on it.

If they decide to still vote Green whatever,
but at least they're educated.

 

[gutter_trash]

the thing about Mulcair is that he does not fit the party he represents.

Harper is a Conservative, you don't doubt that.

Trudeau is a Liberal, you don't doubt that

May is an envrionmentalist, you don't doubt that

Duceppe is a seperatist, you don't doubt that

but Mulcair, is not a Social-Democrat, he is trying to change a Social-Democrat Party to be molded into a Liberal Party of the 1960s.

Like why would any Liberal vote for an imitation of Mulcair's version of his Centrist driven NDP when you can just vote for the real deal??

Mulcair has a history as a Provincial Minister of being a penny pincher fiscally and have a more Liberal economic view in the Liberalism definition when speaking about Economics. He is no Social-Democrat

 

[LakeEarth]

Rick Mercer Report: Rick Rants about the Election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3mb6KdV90Y

Cameraman is drunk.

 

[Lone_Prodigy]

lol. I just received that one earlier. Threw it at the garbage bin.

Was it bashing the NDP on one side and bashing the Liberals on the other side? In small fine print on the bottom you can say "paid for by Conservatives". Pretty funny.

 

[Dazzler]

would I be right in thinking they mostly call landlines for these phone polls?

Wouldn't that skew the results more conservative considering it's only old farts who have a landline these days

 

[maharg]

would I be right in thinking they mostly call landlines for these phone polls?

Wouldn't that skew the results more conservative considering it's only old farts who have a landline these days

You would be wrong. They call cell phones now and have for years. The main downside to calling cell phones is that the area and exchange codes (the first six digits) don't necessarily map to where the person actually is.

Some of them are online panels (which are not the same as just some poll on a news site).

 

[Dazzler]

You would be wrong. They call cell phones now and have for years. The main downside to calling cell phones is that the area and exchange codes (the first six digits) don't necessarily map to where the person actually is.

Some of them are online panels (which are not the same as just some poll on a news site).

gotcha, thanks!

 

[CitizenVectron]

the thing about Mulcair is that he does not fit the party he represents.

Harper is a Conservative, you don't doubt that.

Trudeau is a Liberal, you don't doubt that

May is an envrionmentalist, you don't doubt that

Duceppe is a seperatist, you don't doubt that

but Mulcair, is not a Social-Democrat, he is trying to change a Social-Democrat Party to be molded into a Liberal Party of the 1960s.

Like why would any Liberal vote for an imitation of Mulcair's version of his Centrist driven NDP when you can just vote for the real deal??

Mulcair has a history as a Provincial Minister of being a penny pincher fiscally and have a more Liberal economic view in the Liberalism definition when speaking about Economics. He is no Social-Democrat

One reason would be that the actual Liberals grew incredibly corrupt in the late 90s/early 2000s, and they are an arrogant bunch, often assuming they have the right to power. So if you're given a choice between the same platforms/policies and one party is corrupt/complacent, you might lean toward the newer choice that isn't as entrenched.

Two party systems encourage corruption because you know that no matter how bad you are, eventually the other side will wear people out and the public will vote for you again. So that's why the NDP doing well is a good thing, because with 3 parties there is no guarantee that you will win again any time soon if you misbehave.

If Jesus and Hitler were the only 2 options to run for office, Hitler would win after Jesus' 2nd or 3rd term, it would be guaranteed, that's just how politics works. People get tired of the existing guy and then think "well, Hitler did say some bad stuff, but that was like 70 years ago and Jesus has been in too long."

 

[gutter_trash]

TheGreatPotato

if you are voting for a Social-Democrat party because you share their views, I respect that

but their present leader is nothing like past leaders, he does not match your party.

 

[MutFox]

Also, don't blame the the older generation for voting Conservative.
Many of them have never voted CPC, I'd wager a majority.

That's just another divisive way of looking at it.

Conservatives, as we've seen on this forum, come in all ages.
Usually you can see it's mostly regional.

 

[CitizenVectron]

TheGreatPotato

if you are voting for a Social-Democrat party because you share their views, I respect that

but their present leader is nothing like past leaders, he does not match your party.

And if you are voting for a centre-left Liberal Party then...you are wrong. The Liberals have governed from the centre-left, the centre, and the centre-right. Chretien's time in office was basically as a PC, and Pearson's time in office was closer to the modern NDP. You are supporting a party, not even a political ideology. That is why people here make fun of you, because you see it as a game with teams, not as an actual ideological battle. You'd vote for the Liberals if they had Dion as their leader or Ignatieff, even though their beliefs and policies are very different. You're an opportunist and a populist, not an idealist. And that's what best describes the Liberal Party. They have no ideals or backbone, they will do and say whatever it takes to win.

I am voting for the NDP for 2 reasons:

1) They have the best shot to win my riding and the Liberals have no chance.
2) They support MMP reform while the CPC and Liberals do not.

I am basically a single-issue voter in terms of wanting MMP in place, as that will fix a great many other problems our system has.

 

[BigJonsson]

Any articles about the difficulty of doing campaign literature drops in areas with communal mailboxes when none of the houses have their own anymore?

 

[Stet]

And if you are voting for a centre-left Liberal Party then...you are wrong. The Liberals have governed from the centre-left, the centre, and the centre-right. Chretien's time in office was basically as a PC, and Pearson's time in office was closer to the modern NDP. You are supporting a party, not even a political ideology. That is why people here make fun of you, because you see it as a game with teams, not as an actual ideological battle. You'd vote for the Liberals if they had Dion as their leader or Ignatieff, even though their beliefs and policies are very different. You're an opportunist and a populist, not an idealist. And that's what best describes the Liberal Party. They have no ideals or backbone, they will do and say whatever it takes to win.

I am voting for the NDP for 2 reasons:

1) They have the best shot to win my riding and the Liberals have no chance.
2) They support MMP reform while the CPC and Liberals do not.

I am basically a single-issue voter in terms of wanting MMP in place, as that will fix a great many other problems our system has.

The bolded is a weird sentiment given the rest of your post.

 

[gutter_trash]

And if you are voting for a centre-left Liberal Party then...you are wrong. The Liberals have governed from the centre-left, the centre, and the centre-right. Chretien's time in office was basically as a PC, and Pearson's time in office was closer to the modern NDP. You are supporting a party, not even a political ideology. That is why people here make fun of you, because you see it as a game with teams, not as an actual ideological battle. You'd vote for the Liberals if they had Dion as their leader or Ignatieff, even though their beliefs and policies are very different. You're an opportunist and a populist, not an idealist. And that's what best describes the Liberal Party. They have no ideals or backbone, they will do and say whatever it takes to win.

I am voting for the NDP for 2 reasons:

1) They have the best shot to win my riding and the Liberals have no chance.
2) They support MMP reform while the CPC and Liberals do not.

I am basically a single-issue voter in terms of wanting MMP in place, as that will fix a great many other problems our system has.

Liberals have always been an open tent party from Center-Left Sheila Cops to fiscally Centre-Right Paul Martin with lots of in-between and the Liberals don't pretend to be otherwise

Justin is just getting closer to Pearosn-Trudeau minus the confrontational head-butting part from Papa

edit: the Bolded is all the contradictions that from Mulcair the Quebec Liberal penny pincher with Mulcair the position switcher on Federalism, Linguistic equality fighter in the 80s but now wants to bend a knee to Bill 101 for Federal institutions (Quebec votes) , Environmental record (Sewage Water then and now), Hardline NO camp now suddenly courting souvernists with 50%+1, lauding Thatcher then now being more holy than thou,

 

[CitizenVectron]

The bolded is a weird sentiment given the rest of your post.

No it fits in. The Liberals tend not to have any super-strong principles over long periods of time (except for federalism, perhaps). But they shift with the populist winds. If people want balanced budgets then they govern like tories (90s Liberals). If they want expanded public services they shift to the left (like 60s Liberals). They are opportunists. I'm not saying they are bad, because often times their temporary views and goals align with my own (and many Canadians'). And the NDP are also definitely doing anything to win this election, including being opportunistic and pretending to be Liberals, basically. I am okay with that for the purpose of MMP, however, just as I would be if the Liberals were in favour of it. And in the end my riding is the major deciding factor. If it was CPC vs Liberal then I'd vote Liberal.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Liberals have always been an open tent party from Center-Left Sheila Cops to fiscally Centre-Right Paul Martin with lots of in-between and the Liberals don't pretend to be otherwise

Justin is just getting closer to Pearosn-Trudeau minus the confrontational head-butting part from Papa

That's my point, they don't pretend to be anything else because they promise to be everything to everyone, and aren't anything at all in particular. They are populist.

 

[Stet]

No it fits in. The Liberals tend not to have any super-strong principles over long periods of time (except for federalism, perhaps). But they shift with the populist winds. If people want balanced budgets then they govern like tories (90s Liberals). If they want expanded public services they shift to the left (like 60s Liberals). They are opportunists. I'm not saying they are bad, because often times their temporary views and goals align with my own (and many Canadians'). And the NDP are also definitely doing anything to win this election, including being opportunistic and pretending to be Liberals, basically. I am okay with that for the purpose of MMP, however, just as I would be if the Liberals were in favour of it. And in the end my riding is the major deciding factor. If it was CPC vs Liberal then I'd vote Liberal.

I meant that you're calling out gutter_trash for being a flag-waving competitive voter and not looking at the people behind the parties, and then you're going ahead and judging the entire Liberal party in one sweeping generalization.

 

[killer rin]

Yes, even more so now than two months ago.

Marc Garneau is a Canadian hero and is pro-science. The guy is really inteligient

I still hate that our fucking Conservative MP Jeff Watson interrupted, heckled and mocked Marc while he was asking a question. My MP can go straight to hell, I don't car that heckling is common the the HoC, you don't do what he did.
For anyone that doesn't know

 

[Azih]

Justin is just getting closer to Pearosn-Trudeau minus the confrontational head-butting part from Papa

It remains to be seen which side of the fence JT falls on. C-51 wan't a great start but the true test is when you actually have decisions to make.

It's too bad that the idealistic and principled Dion/Rae side of the party doesn't have his ear when it comes to voting reform and he's instead sided with the opportunists that imagine AV would give Liberals a lock on power with a lot more false majorities.

Here's Stephane Dion's thoughts on this issue:

http://stephanedion.liberal.ca/en/articles-en/p3-voting-system-canada-2/

1. Our current voting system is weakening cohesion in Canada

Our voting system weakens Canada’s cohesion. It artificially amplifies the regional concentration of political party support at the federal level. It makes our major parties appear less national and our regions more politically opposed than they really are. With 50% of the vote in a given province, a federal party could end up taking almost all the seats. But with 20% of the vote, it may end up not winning any seats at all. This is how Ontario appeared more Liberal than it really was, Alberta more Reform-Conservative, Quebec more Bloc, etc.

This regional amplification effect benefits parties with regionally concentrated support and, conversely, penalizes parties whose support is spread across the country without dominating anywhere. A party able to reach out to voters across the country is at a disadvantage compared to another whose base is only in one region. For years, these dynamics worked against the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP, and favoured the Reform Party and the Bloc.

The same is true for AV for the same reasons. Things are trending towards a Liberal minority and I'm hopeful that with principled Liberals and the NDP and Greens holding JT's feet to the fire he'll switch away from AV to an actually proportional system and relieve me of a lot of my god damn stress.

 

[gutter_trash]

That's my point, they don't pretend to be anything else because they promise to be everything to everyone, and aren't anything at all in particular. They are populist.

Populist:
that is what Harper and Duceppe are doing going to small towns getting people scared about Muslims


Populism is not a left or right thing, Populism is a pandering thing to the lowest common denominator.

right now, the Liberals are being pan-Canadian inclusive

talk about Propulsive? Look at Steve an Gilles

 

[Parch]

Also, don't blame the the older generation for voting Conservative.
Many of them have never voted CPC, I'd wager a majority.

That's just another divisive way of looking at it.

Conservatives, as we've seen on this forum, come in all ages.
Usually you can see it's mostly regional.

Yes. This is very true. Laying blame on the older generation is just a bunch of ageist nonsense.
Boomers are from the hippy generation and continue to have very liberal ideals.

 

[Cynar]

FPTP + Merge of the right + Split of the center-left vote among 3 parties + Hundreds of million in ads to shape perception + "Difficult" times in the western world Re: economy/security + Most of the population don't care much about the things we get outraged about in this thread

Good summary. There never was a chance in hell of the reform party leading our country as they were a bunch of nutjobs but all it took was a merger with the Conservatives and a bucket of paint to hide their old name and here we are.

 

[MMarston]

"WHAT YEAR IS IT????" - CBC news

 

[Archer]

"WHAT YEAR IS IT????" - CBC news

 

[matthewwhatever]

I wish he was leading instead of Trudeau.

With all due respect to Garneau, I don't think the Liberals would be doing nearly as well with him leading. He's great in a lot of ways, but he doesn't have Trudeau's sense of dynamism.

That Forum poll shows the Liberals in 1st place in the prairies...I would take that with a planet of salt. There is no way that's true.

That's a good attitude for anything related to Forum, regardless of what their polls are showing.

 

[Walpurgis]

gutter, why do you have a problem with 50%+1? Isn't that the only logical way to hold a referendum on separation? What is your number?

On Rabble.

that's rabble

What's wrong with this site?

 

[maharg]

gutter, why do you have a problem with 50%+1? Isn't that the only logical way to hold a referendum on separation? What is your number?

His number is we've known justin trudeau since he was a baby and thomas mulcair says one bloc quebecois out of one mouth and another selling water out of the other mouth and he hurt justin trudeau's feelings with the sherbrooke declaration.

 

[BigJonsson]

With all due respect to Garneau, I don't think the Liberals would be doing nearly as well with him leading. He's great in a lot of ways, but he doesn't have Trudeau's sense of dynamism.



That's a good attitude for anything related to Forum, regardless of what their polls are showing.

Not that I believe the Liberals are actually in the lead in the Parries but Forum did call a Wynne majority when no one else did

 

[Prax]

gutter, why do you have a problem with 50%+1? Isn't that the only logical way to hold a referendum on separation? What is your number?

Well, I would think it should require more than a technical majority to make such an important change.
Maybe something like the amount required to changing the constitution would make more sense. Say... 2/3 of the province's population or 2/3 of the cities representing at least 50% of the province's population.

 

[MutFox]

Yes. This is very true. Laying blame on the older generation is just a bunch of ageist nonsense.
Boomers are from the hippy generation and continue to have very liberal ideals.

Pretty much, I've talked to several older generation people and some of them are Liberal lifers.
(They're the reason Liberals were so strong before we were around)

Some of them blame the younger generation for the CPC.
Due to the younger generation not voting.

We gotta show the older generation, we're not idiots,
and that Canada will be in good hands once they're gone.

 

[gutter_trash]

gutter, why do you have a problem with 50%+1? Isn't that the only logical way to hold a referendum on separation? What is your number?


What's wrong with this site?

because the 1980 question was not a clear question but a misleading paragraph. Big paragraph

because the 1995 question was loaded with euphemisms and had an oxymoron word inserted ''sovereignty-association'' (Parizeau openly admitted that is was a Lobster Trap, to him a Yes was a hard Yes)

The Clariry Act was created to reign in on those two unclear questions.
A clear majority is absolute

plus, there was a high irregular number of rejected ballots in 1995 in ridings with high minority populations. They tossed thousands of votes into the trash.

so is +1 enough?

 

[Azih]

so is +1 enough?

With a clear question any other standard, especially undefined, is a cynical game unworthy of a democracy. +1 is good enough for Scotland after all.

 

[gutter_trash]

With a clear question any other standard, especially undefined, is a cynical game unworthy of a democracy. +1 is good enough for Scotland after all.

there is no Clarity when it comes to the Parti Quebecois.

Scotland required a question review from Westminster. Westiminster demanded that Scotland remove the word ''should'' from the question to make it clearer. Scotland complied

The PQ would never agree to have a question review from Ottawa like Scotland did with Westminster

You Canadians outside of Quebec do not know the dubiousness of the PQ

 

[dragonfart28]

He did it all for the nookie.

Stephen Harper was played ‘like a chump’ in TPP deal, Mulcair says

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20...in-trudeau-at-toronto-town-hall/#.Vha7A1Ws_CS

 

[Azih]

there is no Clarity when it comes to the Parti Quebecois.

That's fine. Nevertheless a clear question and a +1 standard is the only fair way of going about a referendum. If the PQ doesn't agree to a clear question than obviously the +1 standard wouldn't apply.

Don't forget a bare win for separatists (with a clear question of course) basically means that in the subsequent negotiations Canada would demand that the huge swatches of First Nation land that don't want to separate would remain in Canada.

 

[SRG01]

That's fine. Nevertheless a clear question and a +1 standard is the only fair way of going about a referendum. If the PQ doesn't agree to a clear question than obviously the +1 standard wouldn't apply.

Don't forget a bare win for separatists (with a clear question of course) basically means that in the subsequent negotiations Canada would demand that the huge swatches of First Nation land that don't want to separate would remain in Canada.

The one glaring omission from this argument is that, with 50+1, separation would have weaker requirements than changing our constitution.

 

[CitizenVectron]

gutter, why do you have a problem with 50%+1? Isn't that the only logical way to hold a referendum on separation? What is your number?


What's wrong with this site?

I don't have any skin in the game, but I think a fair rule would be something like:

In order to separate you must have a 50%+1 victory, followed by a second 50%+1 victory 5 years later. That way a majority can separate, but it would prevent spur-of-the-moment decisions of passion.

 

[Azih]

The one glaring omission from this argument is that, with 50+1, separation would have weaker requirements than changing our constitution.

True. But what's the alternative to opening negotiations in the aftermath of any 50+1 vote? Ignore it and piss off a population that voted for it? Send in the tanks?

 

[Walpurgis]

The one glaring omission from this argument is that, with 50+1, separation would have weaker requirements than changing our constitution.

Quebec has never been about that constitutional life.

I don't have any skin in the game, but I think a fair rule would be something like:

In order to separate you must have a 50%+1 victory, followed by a second 50%+1 victory 5 years later. That way a majority can separate, but it would prevent spur-of-the-moment decisions of passion.

That seems fair. It's a very big decision to make.

 

[gutter_trash]

I say it should be like Baseball

3 Strikes and your Out

so if PKP ever becomes Premier and launches a 3rd Referendum... if the NO wins for a 3rd Time then Quebec should be OUT of ever asking for any more Referendums for eternity.

 

[Stet]

I say it should be like Baseball

3 Strikes and your Out

so if PKP ever becomes Premier and launches a 3rd Referendum... if the NO wins for a 3rd Time then Quebec should be OUT of ever asking for any more Referendums for eternity.

lol

That's kind of dictatorial.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

You guys are hilarious.

If a province's population chooses to exit the confederation with 50%+1, it doesn't matter what Trudeau said or the rest of Canada thinks. It would happen either way.

And lol @ gutter trash, you hate populist politicians targeting the lowest common denominator, yet you're convinced the population is too stupid to understand a Yes/No question. But I'm not against a simplified question. I want a clean win; I'm not a liberal!

It's crazy how such an outdated idea is still discussed, even by federalists outside Quebec!

I say it should be like Baseball

3 Strikes and your Out

so if PKP ever becomes Premier and launches a 3rd Referendum... if the NO wins for a 3rd Time then Quebec should be OUT of ever asking for any more Referendums for eternity.

Ahah, wow, you're not even trying to make sense anymore. Hey, here's my suggestion. Let's go with the baseball rule for federal elections too. If the Liberals lose this one for a 3rd time in a row, they're out for eternity. What do you think?

 

[gutter_trash]

 

[killer rin]

Honestly, the whole thing about Seperatism is so complicated that not even a simple 50%+1 could cover it all. With or without 50+1 we would go into the motions of then figuring out which regions voted to stay, which voted to leave, does Canada have outliers surrounded by separatists we have to give up? Does Quebec have outliers surrounded by those who want to stay in Canada.

Montreal would likely immediately split off to join Ontario, or form its own province within Canada, that region would extend to form a land-bridge between Ontario and the Maritimes. Canada would want to maintain a land-border to the Maritimes or Labrador, and can justify it using the numbers in the last referendum. Montreal will likely join the Maritimes or Ontario, or split into a new Province within Canada.

The entire situation is sticky and by the end, what ends up going to Quebec is a carved up piece not even close to the size of Quebec today, and at that point they would probably just opt for negotiating more independence within Canada

 

[Silexx]

If a province's population chooses to exit the confederation with 50%+1, it doesn't matter what Trudeau said or the rest of Canada thinks. It would happen either way.

Supreme Court disagrees.