Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

I agree,
yup, proportional representation would prop up regional factions like Reform Party, Bloc Quebecois, Social Credit, Alberta Party and zany crazies

It's funny because in the election that ACTUALLY established both of these "regional factions" under FPTP, pure PR (let's say with a 5% threshold) would've actually lowered their combined seat total from 106 to roughly 98 (1997 drops them from 104 combined to 91).

Also the PCs and NDP (as national parties with less concentrated support) would've combined for 70 instead of 11 in '93, and 92 instead of 41 in '97.

In other words, PR would've literally done the exact opposite of what you're positing relative to FPTP, and would particularly "do the opposite" with a high enough threshold (though anything above about 7% probably kills off the Greens in addition to the Bloc).

 

[TheKyle07]

Did anybody else follow Maclean's Facebook polls during the debate? It seemed that most if not all of the results were significantly in favour of Mulcair.
Apparently Maclean's won't be publishing the results until next week, for some reason. Here is a screen from the second to last poll however, with the results from the final poll of "Who do you want as next Prime Minister of Canada" (paraphrased) being roughly the same:

 

[Mr.Mike]

Did anybody else follow Maclean's Facebook polls during the debate? It seemed that most if not all of the results were significantly in favour of Mulcair.
Apparently Maclean's won't be publishing the results until next week, for some reason. Here is a screen from the second to last poll however, with the results from the final poll of "Who do you want as next Prime Minister of Canada" (paraphrased) being roughly the same:

A poll on Facebook would be heavily biased. I wouldn't put too much stock into it.

 

[subrock]

lol

Trudeau On Bill C-51 Stance: 'Perhaps It Was Naive'
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/136520-trudeau-bill-c-51-stance.html
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/7953724

Jesus fuck this is why I absolutely will not vote for his party. We have absolutely no terrorism problem (that can't be solved by current laws) so stop fucking banging that drum.

 

[lamaroo]

It's amazing anyone believes the government needs more power to stop terrorists considering all of the terror plots we've heard about that have been stopped, and I'm sure more we haven't heard about.

 

[subrock]

It's amazing anyone believes the government needs more power to stop terrorists considering all of the terror plots we've heard about that have been stopped, and I'm sure more we haven't heard about.

More people die on back yard swings than from terrorism on Canadian soil.

 

[firehawk12]

I just saw one of those He's Not Ready ads. Yikes. lol

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I love how something as "dead" as Quebec's independance keeps coming up in this thread and even in an english debate where Gilles Duceppe isn't even invited.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I've never heard of a majority government losing a vote that its PM supports.

At the very least, we wouldn't have seen May-Mulcair-Trudeau bickering with each other during the C-51 segment. I'd have much rather seen a unified voice against it. But Harper got off scot-free on such an important issue. Also, the Liberals would've still been strong in Ontario if they had voted against it. Voting NDP is near useless in the GTA.

In this way, I'd say Trudeau very well contributed to the fact that C-51 will always be the law of the land, if Harper wins on election night.

I love how something as "dead" as Quebec's independance keeps coming up in this thread and even in an english debate where Gilles Duceppe isn't even invited.

Ever heard of the term "beating a dead horse"?

I wouldn't say separatism is dead. It's just dormant. With leaders like Péladeau and Duceppe, separatism won't be an issue for a long loooong time. Maybe something to think about in the 2019 election.

 

[gutter_trash]

I love how something as "dead" as Quebec's independance keeps coming up in this thread and even in an english debate where Gilles Duceppe isn't even invited.

did you get that from Radio 98.5 FM or from Le Devoir?

It was Mulcair who re-propped up the Sherbrooke Declaration on the campaign just this summer

 

[Expansion Pack]

did you get that from Radio 98.5 FM or from Le Devoir?

It was Mulcair who re-propped up the Sherbrooke Declaration on the campaign just this summer

Well, all he did was reaffirm that 50%+1 would be enough for Quebec to secede. Which, in reality, is the correct/honest answer. Doesn't matter what the SCC says. If there's a referendum and 50%+1 vote yes but Quebec gets denied its sovereignty, there will simply be riots until the international community intervenes. I also don't appreciate Trudeau pretending like he or the SCC has the final say on whether my province secedes. That's a decision only Quebecers can make and saying otherwise is disrespectful and, more importantly, undemocratic. Will be interesting to see if he changes his tone in the French debate on this issue.

And to the guys saying C-51 was guaranteed to pass. You're very right. I don't know though, it still doesn't sit well with me how the Liberals let the whole thing pass through. Why didn't they just vote against C-51 and vow to pass a similar (but better) bill if elected? I feel like that would have been the more responsible thing to do. Certainly would have kept them viable in the election, I think.

 

[Walpurgis]

Harper has been a disaster on the international stage: isolating us from our traditional allies on major issues, talking tough without doing anything to back it up, making rash decisions (i.e. closing the Embassy in Iran in a huff, selling off overseas properties) and then forcing Canada to the sidelines by necessity. Not sure why you think he's been pandering to the Americans, when a large chunk of his foreign policy in recent years has been to antagonize Obama over Keystone. He's been an absolute joke on the environment. Even on trade, most of what he's "achieved" has been an illusion: even though there was a FTA with the EU announced, it wasn't signed or ratified, and it's looking doubtful that it will even get passed. Likewise, it wouldn't be surprising if the TPP gets signed with Canada on the outside.

I've always gotten the sense that Harper was more American than Canadian in the way that he acted. He didn't represent Canada well and completely ignored the values that this country is famous for. And I read something about Mike Duffy having a massive portrait of Bush in his house. Harper joined the U.S. in the ISIS mission and all of a sudden became buddies with Cuba, conveniently at the same time as the Americans, even though Canada has been buddies with Cuba since Harper was born. I just get a weird feeling from him. However, I'm aware of the tension with the Keystone thing. I guess it might be more accurate to say that he panders to Republicans but they're basically the same.

Mulcair would be just as bad as Harper, if not worse. He's prone to throwing tantrums (see his abrupt departure from the Quebec cabinet), he's a bit conspiratorially-minded, and he came off as really wishy-washy in the foreign affairs section last night when it came to NATO/NORAD. If you think the problem with US relations is that we've been too close to them in recent years -- which really, really isn't the case -- then sure, he'd probably find a way to antagonize them further, but I don't know why you'd want to antagonize the country that's responsible for the overwhelming majority of your trade.

That "conspiracy theory" seems pretty reasonable to me. Bin Laden was probably unarmed and they probably loaded a ton of rounds into him. I know that relations with the U.S. are very important and I wouldn't want us to not be close to them. I just don't want to be their pet and follow them into their constant wars. For example, the Chrétien told Bush to screw off when he asked Canada to invade Iraq. He even said that American foreign policy was the cause of terrorism after 9/11. I guess I just want a Prime Minister who can be like a moral compass and not be scared to tell it like it is. I think that Mulcair can do that.

And to the guys saying C-51 was guaranteed to pass. You're very right. I don't know though, it still doesn't sit well with me how the Liberals let the whole thing pass through. Why didn't they just vote against C-51 and vow to pass a similar (but better) bill if elected? I feel like that would have been the more responsible thing to do. Certainly would have kept them viable in the election, I think.

I agree. Voting for C-51 was just a ploy to get Conservative votes but all it did was make him lose Liberal votes to the NDP, the only major party to stand against C-51. The bill was going to pass either way but if voters knew that the Liberals were against it, they would have come out better.

 

[Savitar]

Did anybody else follow Maclean's Facebook polls during the debate? It seemed that most if not all of the results were significantly in favour of Mulcair.
Apparently Maclean's won't be publishing the results until next week, for some reason. Here is a screen from the second to last poll however, with the results from the final poll of "Who do you want as next Prime Minister of Canada" (paraphrased) being roughly the same:

Huh, has he really been called the winner so far via most polls?

 

[lupinko]

Huh, has he really been called the winner so far via most polls?

From what I've seen from major outlets, they all had Justin winning (actually Elizabeth May, but Justin was second to her).

Oh and the national post had this pic of Angry Tom becoming Smiling Tom.

https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/mulcairs-1.jpg?w=620

 

[NetMapel]

One thing I will say though, is that Mulcair has one very sexy voice. I was pretty mesmerized by his voice during the debate last night.

 

[lupinko]

One thing I will say though, is that Mulcair has one very sexy voice. I was pretty mesmerized by his voice during the debate last night.

Angry Smiling Sexy Tom? Lol

 

[NetMapel]

Angry Smiling Sexy Tom? Lol

and his beard is glorious.

Trudeau got the hair. Mulcair got the beard !

Let us turn this into a superficial discussion on all the party leaders' appearance. We will vote the sexiest person into the prime minster seat. True north strong and sexy.

 

[Pedrito]

If we're being superficial, I'd say Mulcair deseves to be PM just because of that line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX39_zcsEIg

 

[lamaroo]

There's always money in the Banana Stand.

 

[Kazerei]

I miss Justin Trudeau's shaggy curls. So cute it makes me wanna scruff up his hair :3
His facial hair game though ... I gotta deduct points for that

 

[gutter_trash]

Well, all he did was reaffirm that 50%+1 would be enough for Quebec to secede. Which, in reality, is the correct/honest answer. Doesn't matter what the SCC says. If there's a referendum and 50%+1 vote yes but Quebec gets denied its sovereignty, there will simply be riots until the international community intervenes. I also don't appreciate Trudeau pretending like he or the SCC has the final say on whether my province secedes. That's a decision only Quebecers can make and saying otherwise is disrespectful and, more importantly, undemocratic. Will be interesting to see if he changes his tone in the French debate on this issue.

And to the guys saying C-51 was guaranteed to pass. You're very right. I don't know though, it still doesn't sit well with me how the Liberals let the whole thing pass through. Why didn't they just vote against C-51 and vow to pass a similar (but better) bill if elected? I feel like that would have been the more responsible thing to do. Certainly would have kept them viable in the election, I think.

you harp on the number but you ignore the obligation of asking a clear ballot box question.

Is it democratic to ask a dishonest unclear ambiguous question?

 

[lupinko]

Oh on the topic of separation, I'll bring back the Cascadia movement then.

BC/Washington/Oregon doesn't need the rest of yous anyway.

 

[Expansion Pack]

you harp on the number but you ignore the obligation of asking a clear ballot box question.

Is it democratic to ask a dishonest unclear ambiguous question?

Huh? Are you referring to something in particular? Whether it's unclear or not is something the Quebec electorate and the international community should decide on, not the SCC. I'm sure Russia thought the ballot box question they asked Crimea was perfectly legitimate too.

 

[gutter_trash]

Huh? Are you referring to something in particular? Whether it's unclear or not is something the Quebec electorate and the international community should decide on, not the SCC. I'm sure Russia thought the ballot box question they asked Crimea was perfectly legitimate too.

yes, the 1980 question (which was a giant paragraph) and the 1995 question (which was ambiguous and contained an oxymoron in it)

 

[Sch1sm]

Can't we all just settle on the fact that the separatist movement, downplayed as it is today, is stupid?

 

[gutter_trash]

Can't we all just settle on the fact that the separatist movement, downplayed as it is today, is stupid?

it is and I don't understand why Mulcair wants it to make it easier for them,

especially since Quebec has a Canada friendly Premier until 2018

 

[Expansion Pack]

yes, the 1980 question (which was a giant paragraph) and the 1995 question (which was ambiguous and contained an oxymoron in it)

Just read them both. They're certainly longer than the Scottish referendum question from last year, but...

1980 referendum 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 referendum 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?"

As a federalist, I still find these perfectly acceptable since they clearly state the topic of interest. Also, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty certain the media and government did a good job of informing the population that these were about sovereignty

Spoiler

mostly via fearmongering, let's be honest here.

 

[subrock]

it is and I don't understand why Mulcair wants it to make it easier for them,

especially since Quebec has a Canada friendly Premier until 2018

Well, he's telling the people that might vote bloc what they want to hear. Fairly shortsighted, but if it doesn't work he doesn't have to cash the cheque anyway

 

[gutter_trash]

Just read them both. They're certainly longer than the Scottish referendum question from last year, but...

1980 referendum 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 referendum 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?"

As a federalist, I still find these perfectly acceptable since they clearly state the topic of interest. Also, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty certain the media and government did a good job of informing the population that these were about sovereignty

Spoiler

mostly via fearmongering, let's be honest here.

meanwhile Scotland and the UK kept the question clear and simple.:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

there, what's so hard about that? If Scotland can ask a clear cut question, why can't the PQ?

doesn't that feel cleaner than those giant paragraphs you posted filled with euphemisms?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Can't we all just settle on the fact that the separatist movement, downplayed as it is today, is stupid?

Nah.

 

[Expansion Pack]

meanwhile Scotland and the UK kept the question clear and simple.:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

there, what's so hard about that? If Scotland can ask a clear cut question, why can't the PQ?

doesn't that feel cleaner than those giant paragraphs you posted filled with euphemisms?

Yeah, I said they were acceptable - not perfect. And like I said earlier, if a ballot box question is really considered to be bad, then the international community will ignore it as they did with the Crimean vote. From what I understand, what makes a country a country is whether or not other nations recognize it as such. That's partly why I'm saying the SCC is irrelevant and why I'm saying it's up to the electorate of Quebec and the international community to determine if the referendum question is legitimate or not.

One last thing, if your goal is to dissipate the separatist parts of Quebec, having Canada impose its will on Quebec is the dumbest way to go about doing this. I have no idea how so many of my fellow Canadians think this is a good strategy, I cringe every time I read this stuff on here and on Reddit. You're just pouring gasoline on the fire when you do that. Seriously though, separatists aren't wild animals. Mulcair treats them with respect and dignity and, in turn, the federalist NDP is leading in Quebec and managed to effectively kill off the Bloc Quebecois. Rebuilding Canada-Quebec relations requires mutual respect, not divisiveness.

 

[Sch1sm]

Nah.

I'm going to assume this sarcasm. If it isn't, though...


Why not? I don't see substantial benefit to anyone if they do separate, and Quebec remaining doesn't result in a symbiotic relationship that favours the nation more than it does Quebec. In what way would separation be a good move?

 

[gutter_trash]

Yeah, I said they were acceptable - not perfect. And like I said earlier, if a ballot box question is really considered to be bad, then the international community will ignore it as they did with the Crimean vote. From what I understand, what makes a country a country is whether or not other nations recognize it as such. That's partly why I'm saying the SCC is irrelevant and why I'm saying it's up to the electorate of Quebec and the international community to determine if the referendum question is legitimate or not.

One last thing, if your goal is to dissipate the separatist parts of Quebec, having Canada impose its will on Quebec is the dumbest way to go about doing this. I have no idea how so many of my fellow Canadians think this is a good strategy, I cringe every time I read this stuff on here and on Reddit. You're just pouring gasoline on the fire when you do that. Seriously though, separatists aren't wild animals. Mulcair treats them with respect and dignity and, in turn, the federalist NDP is leading in Quebec and managed to effectively kill off the Bloc Quebecois. Rebuilding Canada-Quebec relations requires mutual respect, not divisiveness.

Mutual respect is for all Canadians to be respected in all region, provinces and territories.

Including the respect for Federalist Montrealers who consider themselves to be Canadian and who want a Strong Leader to fight for them in Ottawa, not bend their knee to appease separatists.

All Canadians, equal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLkJbcW33rE

 

[Azih]

you harp on the number but you ignore the obligation of asking a clear ballot box question

Mulcair has said he's for a clear ballot box question.

BTW the Scottish referendum had the sane, clear and obvious criteria of 50%+1.

 

[eBay Huckster]

you harp on [...]

yeah, speaking of harping on, you mind addressing how you apparently have a view of proportional-representation voting that's diametrically opposed to reality instead of Separatists are Human Garbage, Part 700?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Mutual respect is for all Canadians to be respected in all region, provinces and territories.

Including the respect for Federalist Montrealers who consider themselves to be Canadian and who want a Strong Leader to fight for them in Ottawa, not bend their knee to appease separatists.

All Canadians, equal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLkJbcW33rE

I love you gutter_trash, you're like a cartoon villain.

 

[Expansion Pack]

Mutual respect is for all Canadians to be respected in all region, provinces and territories.

Including the respect for Federalist Montrealers who consider themselves to be Canadian and who want a Strong Leader to fight for them in Ottawa, not bend their knee to appease separatists.

All Canadians, equal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLkJbcW33rE

Your hatred of separatists is so strong that you're unwilling to give any credit to the party that killed off the Bloc and made Quebec relevant again. What an absolute joke.

 

[Sakura]

Talked with my middle age neighbour today. She's leaning Harper after watching the debate because "Justin is too young." and "I always vote for Harper. I don't see why we need to change. Then they have to start all over."

I do not support Trudeau or anything, but I've never understood the 'too young' bit. Harper was 46~47 when he became PM Trudeau is 43. Not really a huge difference.

 

[matthewwhatever]

It's probably because older Canadians remember when Trudeau was born, and because his first big appearance on the national stage was when he gave his father's eulogy. He's obviously aged a little since he spoke then...but not that much.

I've always gotten the sense that Harper was more American than Canadian in the way that he acted. He didn't represent Canada well and completely ignored the values that this country is famous for. And I read something about Mike Duffy having a massive portrait of Bush in his house. Harper joined the U.S. in the ISIS mission and all of a sudden became buddies with Cuba, conveniently at the same time as the Americans, even though Canada has been buddies with Cuba since Harper was born. I just get a weird feeling from him. However, I'm aware of the tension with the Keystone thing. I guess it might be more accurate to say that he panders to Republicans but they're basically the same.

That "conspiracy theory" seems pretty reasonable to me. Bin Laden was probably unarmed and they probably loaded a ton of rounds into him. I know that relations with the U.S. are very important and I wouldn't want us to not be close to them. I just don't want to be their pet and follow them into their constant wars. For example, the Chrétien told Bush to screw off when he asked Canada to invade Iraq. He even said that American foreign policy was the cause of terrorism after 9/11. I guess I just want a Prime Minister who can be like a moral compass and not be scared to tell it like it is. I think that Mulcair can do that.

You'll get no argument from me that Harper is frighteningly close to the Republicans, and I completely agree that we're lucky that Chretien stood up to Bush's warmongering and didn't get us involved in Iraq in 2003. That said, the tone of our relationship with the United States -- where the GOP don't control the Presidency, and probably won't again until at least 2020 -- is abysmal at the moment, and I think most of that can be traced back to Harper's petulant attitude. Considering how explosive Mulcair tends to be when things don't go his way -- even setting aside how he left the Quebec Liberal cabinet, just look at how he acted in cabinet -- I'd rather not risk the relationship deteriorating even further the first time he takes offence at something Obama (or Clinton, or whoever) says.

I'd also be worried that he would continue the trend of creating foreign policy out of spite. We were sidelined in Iran because Harper closed our Embassy there. Our relationship with Russia is abysmal, to the point that they didn't even send their Foreign Minister to the Arctic Council Ministerial in Nunavut back in April. I'm not saying we should be best friends with these countries, but I do think we should talk to them. As far as I can tell -- since the last time the NDP talked about Iran was in 2012, when Mulcair back-pedalled from criticisms his party's foreign affairs critic made about closing our Embassy in Tehran * -- nothing would change substantially under an NDP government.

* There was also apparently a resolution at their last policy convention in 2014 condemning the closures, but the people running the convention pushed it so far down the agenda it never got voted on.

Huh, has he really been called the winner so far via most polls?

That may be the only poll that had Mulcair winning -- and even Facebook is saying now that he was the least discussed leader in the debate.

I miss Justin Trudeau's shaggy curls. So cute it makes me wanna scruff up his hair :3
His facial hair game though ... I gotta deduct points for that

I kind of miss that goatee. It made him look like a supervillain. A sexy, sexy supervillain.


So the NDP is now against the tarsands completely? While I certainly wouldn't argue with that -- seriously, I think it'd be awesome if we stopped debating pipelines and started debating whether we should even be extracting the stuff in the first place -- I do wonder how Albertans feel about that.

 

[MMarston]

I do not support Trudeau or anything, but I've never understood the 'too young' bit. Harper was 46~47 when he became PM Trudeau is 43. Not really a huge difference.

I think the issue is that, unless they look the age up themselves, people automatically assume he's 32 or something.

He does look younger than he looks.

 

[Sakura]

I think the issue is that, unless they look the age up themselves, people automatically assume he's 32 or something.

He does look younger than he looks.

He just needs grey hair.

 

[gutter_trash]

I think the issue is that, unless they look the age up themselves, people automatically assume he's 32 or something.

He does look younger than he looks.

the irony out of all that is that many people complain that politicians are all old men with grey hair

He just needs grey hair.

he should shave a bald spot and dye the rest of his hair grey

 

[Tiktaalik]

You guys realize the media is never going to say anything good about Mulcair right? It's all owned by establishment corporations that are reflexively anti-NDP. The Globe and Mail previously endorsed Harper and obviously the National Post always does the same. The National Post has been posting anti-Mulcair articles pretty much daily ever since his poll numbers started going up.

Don't waste your time reading the media's take on "who won the debate."

 

[MMarston]

I kind of miss that goatee. It made him look like a supervillain. A sexy, sexy supervillain.

With his current haircut, and maybe a bit more trimming to the facial hair, I think he could totally rock the look.

Hell, add some frameless glass and he'd look like a Bourne movie villain.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

After this debate I'm satisfied that my 'strategic' vote goes to the Liberals.

 

[MMarston]

After this debate I'm satisfied that my 'strategic' vote goes to the Liberals.

By strategic, you mean plant them as opposition? Or ousting Harper?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

By strategic, you mean plant them as opposition? Or ousting Harper?

I mean ousting Harper, in my district the Liberals have the best chance of beating out the Conservatives.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I mean ousting Harper, in my district the Liberals have the best chance of beating out the Conservatives.

What riding is this?

 

[matthewwhatever]

What riding is this?

I'm sure that whatever riding it is, you'll come up with some reason why he shouldn't vote Liberal.

 

[subrock]

The problem with voting for the strongest candidate in each riding is that if we all do that, we get the same shit all over again