And they're off...the election thread

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Mendalla said:
Duceppe wasn't, either, so I guess the Globe only think the three "contenders" matter. I have never heard anything official from the Globe on the matter, though.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference there IMO. The Greens will at least have a candidate running in every riding, or at least they have in the past and I assume that's their intention. If you include Duceppe what about all the small parties?
 
And that's because, unlike the CBC, which is theoretically accountable to us for its decisions, private corporations like the Globe and Mail can do as they wish/invite whom they please. And appoint moderators with poor cat herding abilities.
 
ChemGal said:
There's a big difference there IMO. The Greens will at least have a candidate running in every riding, or at least they have in the past and I assume that's their intention. If you include Duceppe what about all the small parties?
Click to expand...
True. It's just that Duceppe is a big contender in Quebec - for those who think of Quebec as a separate country already - and that has always been taken into account. I don't think he should be given the same weight as the leaders who want to keep Canada together, either.

(Side point - Mulcair made the 50+1 comment to win the respect of the same folks who support Duceppe. To show that he hears their unhappiness and respects them, and would like their respect. It's not that he wants separation but he wants their approval so that he can work to try to make them happy with a unified Canada under NDP leadership, and sway them away from Duceppe. IMO.)
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget that the Bloc was the official opposition at one point. Controlling Quebec is still significant and a Bloc revival in a minority Parliament could lead to them having influence. Not this election, obviously, but if Quebec ever starts feeling marginalized again, they could still be influential in a future vote.
 
I think that's the reason for Mulcair's 50+1 stance, so that they don't feel marginalized. NOT that he wants separation but that he wants their respect to be able to win them over to a unified Canada so that the separation issue ceases to be an issue.
 
Pr. Jae said:
I guess I'm pretty much the opposite. I don't really care if the debate is technically a debate or not. What I love to see is a good, fiery match between the competitors. I want things to be fair for each of the combatants, but whether or not the exact rules of a proper debate are followed - meh. Personally I didn't watch because a) I didn't know the thing was on, and b) I was finishing up a school assignment - a pastoral care triage list.
Click to expand...


Whether its the formal rules of debate or not, I just don't like to see people interrupting, or shouting each other down. Have a moderator who will give each person an opportunity to speak, and then a time for rebutal, and a time to respond to rebuttal. Let the others listen politely, or show by facial expression, or a short interjection, but not 'talking over' the person who has the floor.

I didn't watch the debate. It seems that we in the Maritimes don't matter enough to have it made available to us on TV where I could sit in the comfort of my livingroom and watch it on the big screen or record it to watch later. I caught snippets on The National. And I hope to find it on my computer and watch it sometime tomorrow (I had to be out last evening).

I did hear one commentator saying that Trudeau and Mulcair spent a lot of time combating each other, while Harper stood back and watched. I wish that they would remember that the real goal for many of us is to STOP HARPER. Challange him, his record, his slant, his lack of truthfulness - and let us know what you would do if you were to win, but don't try to take down each other. STOP HARPER and let the best man win. Don't waste your energy fighting each other. Don't let Harper divide and conquer.
 
Seeler said:
Whether its the formal rules of debate or not, I just don't like to see people interrupting, or shouting each other down. Have a moderator who will give each person an opportunity to speak, and then a time for rebutal, and a time to respond to rebuttal. Let the others listen politely, or show by facial expression, or a short interjection, but not 'talking over' the person who has the floor.
Click to expand...

I enjoy seeing a bit of interrupting and shouting. It shows passion. I don't want the whole debate to be like that - I do want to see the moderator interject where they feel it's appropriate for time reasons and to give everyone a fair chance to speak.

Seeler said:
I didn't watch the debate. It seems that we in the Maritimes don't matter enough to have it made available to us on TV where I could sit in the comfort of my livingroom and watch it on the big screen or record it to watch later. I caught snippets on The National. And I hope to find it on my computer and watch it sometime tomorrow (I had to be out last evening).
Click to expand...

They didn't carry it on TV in the Maritimes? Okay, that's bizarre.

Seeler said:
I did hear one commentator saying that Trudeau and Mulcair spent a lot of time combating each other, while Harper stood back and watched. I wish that they would remember that the real goal for many of us is to STOP HARPER. Challange him, his record, his slant, his lack of truthfulness - and let us know what you would do if you were to win, but don't try to take down each other. STOP HARPER and let the best man win. Don't waste your energy fighting each other. Don't let Harper divide and conquer.
Click to expand...

I won't be surprised if Mr. Harper does divide and conquer. Many people want to STOP HARPER, but there doesn't seem to be clear agreement on how that's best done.
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
It's good that the left doesn't know what they want.

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
Click to expand...

PG-13, this is why Reform and PCs merged. Because the first past the post system works best with a 2-party system.

I don't know what the God reference had to do with Canadian politics...unless you mean that God WAS the author of confusion when the RIGHT was split...
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
It's good that the left doesn't know what they want.

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
Click to expand...

All good Christians vote Conservative Pontifex? (As a side note - since when is there peace in all the churches of the saints?)
 
Kimmio said:
No, he changes his mind as a ploy just to win votes on both sides of the centre, I think. He says he's not playing politics but he is and it's obvious, imo. He flip flops. Mulcair pointed out how Trudeau shifted his opinion on running a deficit (that was just to stand out), shifted his position on C51 (both fairly recently) and used to favour the same tax proposals as Harper. There are not substantial reasons for these shifts but to win votes. I don't feel confident about him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eaders-debate/article26377613/?service=mobile
Click to expand...
You can watch it at the link in this post @Seeler
 
Seeler said:
I miss the old debates when all the candidates sat around the table (or stood at their places) and it was available on TV all across the country.
Click to expand...

It was broadcast by CPAC. CPAC is available all across the country, but you have to have either cable or satellite. On radio, it was broadcast by "Canada Talks" - a satellite radio station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top