The 2nd amendment exists in the US, does that mean gun ownership regulation shouldn't be debated there?
Come on.
-
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.
Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
The 2nd amendment exists in the US, does that mean gun ownership regulation shouldn't be debated there?
Come on.
gutter_trash
Banned
The United States of America does not have ANY official languages though (Constitutionally)
So the point still stands. Because we do, it shouldn't be debated and/or changed?
BigJonsson
Member
The F-35 was a big issue last campaign and we STILL don't have new jets =/
I would say there is a case to be made for respecting our history and heritage, given how little of that we do hold onto, or are taught in school... sort of like England holding onto the monarchy or not. I am specifically saying England holding onto the monarchy, and not Canada retaining the monarchy, given that in England it is all the more encompassing and defining. What else do we really have here in Canada that is just as encompassing and defining if not our English/French foundation... aside from being "Not American" of course.
However, Canada has not done itself any favours by being so horribly weak at teaching French in school. As several have pointed out in this thread, many have gone the French Immersion route and then promptly dropped it by the time they hit high school because you end up still so utterly useless at conversation. That was also my experience and basically it sounds like there have been several generations that have tried and ended up no further along. I can't help wonder about these debates if the opposite were to have occurred, having several generations by now well versed instead?
No there isn't, but Tabris is the only one trying to make it a thing. I had enough of it to be baited into it.
I'm done though since there is no debate, and I'd rather get back to the issues, hating on C-24 and posting funny Mulcair Bear or Demon Harper pics, Justin only really had musketeer Trudeau from the past.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Who wouldn't prefer harmony? What a silly statement.
Anyways, the evidence would burst your bubble. Montreal is probably the most segregated city in Canada.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Didn't we already agree that Cascadia is over? That drought is instant KO. BC will soon have more in common with Arizona and Nevada 
Don't get me started on that, preventing Elections Canada from telling Canadians to get out and vote, uhhh really?
But then again, duuuurrr Harper and the Cons are more Liberal than the American left!!
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Pretty crappy list of languages. These are all tongues that are rarely spoken as second languages. Learning one of these will open up doors for you in the ghetto or the native country. Learning French will open up doors all across Canada and the world.
Speaking of how badly the Conservatives have underfunded the military, here's a great new article about how Canada's Navy is now pretty much bottom tier and incapable of anything.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/
Mannn somebody should bring that up in a debate. I want to hear Harper's response to this. That whole F-35 thing was a fiasco.
I'd agree for most, but Mandarin is very important in today's world.
For a party that is trying to make national security an election issue, this is pretty embarrassing. But, and this may be a stupid question, what does the navy even do? Why do we need them and all those weapons? We're not near any hostile nations (hostile to us, at least) and if anything happens to us, America would come to our rescue, right?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
This is the better option, since Aboriginal languages are technically more "Canadian" than either French and English and by all rights should be as official as those two.
matthewwhatever
Member
I was just about to post that Maclean's article, because it really is infuriating. I'm not even a fan of military spending, but it still feels embarrassing that one of our country's major symbolic institutions is in such a state of disrepair.
First, your latter point is terrible: even if we are allies with the United States, I don't think anyone should feel comfortable handing over the defence of our sovereignty to another country. And that's without even considering how the United States might feel about us letting our military fall into such dire conditions. We're currently the only country in the world that's allowed to command U.S. troops, thanks to NORAD, and that's done with the expectation we even pretend to pull out own weight. I can't imagine that continues if we collectively say, "Enh, whatever, the U.S. can handle it."?
Secondly, even without the military aspect, if you read the story you'd see that having things like ships and rescue helicopters and planes means being able to rescue boaters in distress, or evacuating Canadians from war zones, or responding to ecological disasters. Just last week, they announced the rules for Shell drilling in Atlantic Canada. Do you know how much time they have to cap a blown oil well? One week. Want to know how long Shell has to do the same thing in Alaska, under some recent drilling rules the U.S. announced? 24 hours. The difference is entirely because our coast guard wouldn't be in any position to respond to a spill for that long, and even then we're heavily reliant on the Americans to help us out. Or if you want a non-abstract example, think back a few months to that oil spill into Vancouver harbour: it happened far enough away from Vancouver that it could've been stopped, but it wasn't detected because we no longer have a coast guard capable of monitoring the ocean that well.
Like I said: even if you're not in favour of military spending, it's one of those things that has uses that go far beyond defending our borders.
First, your latter point is terrible: even if we are allies with the United States, I don't think anyone should feel comfortable handing over the defence of our sovereignty to another country. And that's without even considering how the United States might feel about us letting our military fall into such dire conditions. We're currently the only country in the world that's allowed to command U.S. troops, thanks to NORAD, and that's done with the expectation we even pretend to pull out own weight. I can't imagine that continues if we collectively say, "Enh, whatever, the U.S. can handle it."?
Secondly, even without the military aspect, if you read the story you'd see that having things like ships and rescue helicopters and planes means being able to rescue boaters in distress, or evacuating Canadians from war zones, or responding to ecological disasters. Just last week, they announced the rules for Shell drilling in Atlantic Canada. Do you know how much time they have to cap a blown oil well? One week. Want to know how long Shell has to do the same thing in Alaska, under some recent drilling rules the U.S. announced? 24 hours. The difference is entirely because our coast guard wouldn't be in any position to respond to a spill for that long, and even then we're heavily reliant on the Americans to help us out. Or if you want a non-abstract example, think back a few months to that oil spill into Vancouver harbour: it happened far enough away from Vancouver that it could've been stopped, but it wasn't detected because we no longer have a coast guard capable of monitoring the ocean that well.
Like I said: even if you're not in favour of military spending, it's one of those things that has uses that go far beyond defending our borders.
gutter_trash
Banned
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/e...6-un-donateur-du-pq-candidat-conservateur.php
Conservative candidate has donated money to the Parti Quebecois for over a period of 10 years
Conservative candidate has donated money to the Parti Quebecois for over a period of 10 years
dragonfart28
Banned
I.. don't think that learning Mandarin is in any way an unwise decision.
And honestly good on the Liberals for calling out the horrific Islamophobic shit that the Conservatives have been laying out. It sucks to be a minority group used as a wedge issue.
Or even soldiers helping out in disaster areas in the country, such as floods in Manitoba or even the wildfires this year in Saskatchewan.
Simon Belmont
Banned
You want this Government to start building ships after the F-35 disaster? When has Canada ever had a navy capable of projecting power abroad?
matthewwhatever
Member
Who said anything about projecting power? I'd just be happy if they could look after Canadians, to start.
Simon Belmont
Banned
The bolded section of the Macleans article
If you take our current prime minister's word for it, since 2006.
Otherwise, I don't think most Canadians don't care about being seen as a military powerhouse, and would much prefer the peace keeping we had in the 90s
It's not even projecting power abroad it's just even a bit offshore.
If you read the full article it pretty much states that Canada cannot even defend its Arctic claims at all. It seems possible that Canada could be forced into giving up its offshore arctic seabed claims (and all the resources that go along with it) to Russia simply because Canada has no presence there and nothing to back up its claims. I'm not a saber rattler at all and I don't care for military matters generally, but that's a net negative to Canadians.
If you read the full article it pretty much states that Canada cannot even defend its Arctic claims at all. It seems possible that Canada could be forced into giving up its offshore arctic seabed claims (and all the resources that go along with it) to Russia simply because Canada has no presence there and nothing to back up its claims. I'm not a saber rattler at all and I don't care for military matters generally, but that's a net negative to Canadians.
matthewwhatever
Member
Read beyond the bolded part. If that's what you're getting from the article, you're missing the broader picture.
The ship building contract my province was awarded is a waste of money. I'm someone who directly benefits from NS winning it and I'm against it. The money would have been a benefit elsewhere. Also, Irving is an absolute shit company.
Lostconfused
Member
gutter_trash
Banned
divide and conquer.
Ontario well get ugly
If Harper wins another term, it's all Ontario's fault
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
What else is new? Ontario has pretty much decided every election since the beginning of Confederation.
matthewwhatever
Member
While it's not great, compare that to the last election:
CPC 44
LPC 25
NDP 26
If the Conservatives vote drops by 7 points, that could have a pretty major impact, depending on where the drop is. Though Nanos also finds the Greens at 2x what they got the last election; as much as I like May, I have a hard time imagining them drawing that much of the vote this time around.
Where do you think Commander Dickhead is dumping his hundreds of millions in campaign money?
gutter_trash
Banned
Liberals are the Conservatives main competitor in Ontario, that is the only reason why Conservatives continue to attack Trudeau despite the NDP having a better national lead.
Conservatives are targeting key ridings instead of going national
Liberals doing badly = Conservatives win because of Ontario.
Liberals need certain amount of support enough to have the Conservatives downgrade to minority or NPD minority
DreamMachine
Member
Pack it up folks harper getting his third term
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Their numbers are kind of all over the place. Liberals and NDP tied in the Prairies (AB/SK/MB), Liberals ahead of Conservatives in BC. Not sure if those two make sense.
CitizenVectron
Member
There is something sketchy about their polling methods for sure. In the prairies it goes CPC, NDP, LPC, with the LPC being fairly behind because of results in AB and SK.
I think it's to do with smaller sample sizes combined with poor demographic reach/interpretation.
An official language doesn't necessarily have to mean the most-spoken language.
There. Problem solved.
matthewwhatever
Member
I'd like to think that Trudeau's wooing of Western Canada is paying dividends all at once...but yeah, I'm a little skeptical.
Also, BC voters have an obligation to vote for this guy. Viewtiful, that's you, right? You have to move to this riding.
gutter_trash
Banned
the long campaign will help Justin get a boost.
Harper is going all full Republican with terror this, drugs that, crime everyone go to jail (avoiding the economy)
Harper is going all full Republican with terror this, drugs that, crime everyone go to jail (avoiding the economy)
This is the thing about this fucking 4 week roll. For all you know what you're actually seeing is a bump from 2 weeks ago that was being hidden by a particularly bad result 4 weeks ago that just rolled off, that has since dissipated.
It's absolutely baffling that anyone would do this kind of thing.
matthewwhatever
Member
New poll from Ipsos:
NDP 33 (-1)
CPC 31 (-2)
LPC 28 (+3)
The worrisome numbers for Harper: 56% say the country is on the "wrong track", compared to 57% who said it was on the "right track" during the 2011 election campaign. On top of that, 69% say they want a change in leadership. And there's room for that to get worse, too, since "more than eight in 10 respondents (and almost six in 10 Conservative supporters) said they either strongly or somewhat agree the incumbent prime minister should participate in the consortium debates."
In other news, Mulcair has explained his debate position a little more: they're classifying the U of T/Munk Debate in Toronto as a "bilingual" debate. So he's doing that "bilingual" one (which, again, is in Toronto for the University of Toronto) and then the French TVA one.
EDIT: Sorry, the Munk Debate is with U of T, not Globe and Mail. The G&M and Google debates are both up in the air, with Mulcair now begging Harper to do them so he can go back on his decision to skip them.
NDP 33 (-1)
CPC 31 (-2)
LPC 28 (+3)
The worrisome numbers for Harper: 56% say the country is on the "wrong track", compared to 57% who said it was on the "right track" during the 2011 election campaign. On top of that, 69% say they want a change in leadership. And there's room for that to get worse, too, since "more than eight in 10 respondents (and almost six in 10 Conservative supporters) said they either strongly or somewhat agree the incumbent prime minister should participate in the consortium debates."
In other news, Mulcair has explained his debate position a little more: they're classifying the U of T/Munk Debate in Toronto as a "bilingual" debate. So he's doing that "bilingual" one (which, again, is in Toronto for the University of Toronto) and then the French TVA one.
EDIT: Sorry, the Munk Debate is with U of T, not Globe and Mail. The G&M and Google debates are both up in the air, with Mulcair now begging Harper to do them so he can go back on his decision to skip them.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
hmmm, Id say that's even more justification for a coalition even if the Conservatives end up with the most seats.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked