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
He has consistently topped the polls of registered GOP voters so likely he tops those states. Sanity may prevail though as the election draws near.
 
Hope so... But he'd make dems and "Reagan" conservatives vote for Hillary. The tea party crazies might like him though. I can't even see or hear him without thinking he must be a plant - to help somebody else.
 
In my riding - I recently attended a 'meet the candidates' meeting for my riding.
The incumbant (CON - yes-man) failed to show up - his chair behind his nameplate was empty despite the date of the meeting having been changed to accommodate him. To me this indicates one of three things: eitheer he is complacent and so sure about winning reelection that he doesn't have to attract new votes; or he has given up; or he haas utteer contempt for the people in his riding and does not owe them the courtesy of either showing-up or sending regrets. Apparently he got the word out because, from the nature of the questions from the audience and the audience response to the replies, there wasn't a conservative supporter in the crowd.
The otheer three:
Liberal - I was truly disappointed (predictions have him beating the CONs). He was a typical privileged, white, well-educated, entitled male. It was hard to tell the difference between his support for Trudeau and the incumbant's support for Harper. And he showed contempt and bullying towardsthe two women who shared the platform with him. A group of his supporters sat in front of me - young men in dark suits. They only clapped for him - always clapped for him (others around the room applauded good points made by any candidate - while they sat with arms folded. As much as I hope to see Harper defeated, I can't throw my support behind this man - even in stratgic voting.
NDP - usually my party - young (younger than me) woman, lacking experience, recently nominated by the party, did her best but occasionally seemed to be uncertain or searching for words (better than relying on talking-points). Nice, sincere, eager to leearn, lots of potential - but not ready.
Green - by far the most impressive at the table. Experienced, professional, intelligent, knew what she was talking about. Polite to the other too - answered questions clearly and directly.
An interesting, eye-opening evening. I'll probably vote NDP.
 
Seeler said:
In my riding - I recently attended a 'meet the candidates' meeting for my riding.
The incumbant (CON - yes-man) failed to show up - his chair behind his nameplate was empty despite the date of the meeting having been changed to accommodate him. To me this indicates one of three things: eitheer he is complacent and so sure about winning reelection that he doesn't have to attract new votes; or he has given up; or he haas utteer contempt for the people in his riding and does not owe them the courtesy of either showing-up or sending regrets. Apparently he got the word out because, from the nature of the questions from the audience and the audience response to the replies, there wasn't a conservative supporter in the crowd.
The otheer three:
Liberal - I was truly disappointed (predictions have him beating the CONs). He was a typical privileged, white, well-educated, entitled male. It was hard to tell the difference between his support for Trudeau and the incumbant's support for Harper. And he showed contempt and bullying towardsthe two women who shared the platform with him. A group of his supporters sat in front of me - young men in dark suits. They only clapped for him - always clapped for him (others around the room applauded good points made by any candidate - while they sat with arms folded. As much as I hope to see Harper defeated, I can't throw my support behind this man - even in stratgic voting.
NDP - usually my party - young (younger than me) woman, lacking experience, recently nominated by the party, did her best but occasionally seemed to be uncertain or searching for words (better than relying on talking-points). Nice, sincere, eager to leearn, lots of potential - but not ready.
Green - by far the most impressive at the table. Experienced, professional, intelligent, knew what she was talking about. Polite to the other too - answered questions clearly and directly.
An interesting, eye-opening evening. I'll probably vote NDP.
Click to expand...
Since the Green Party candidate seemed best - why will you probably vote NDP?
 
Mendalla said:
If he's a plant then he is probably some kind of nut.:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...


Gives the wing nut like I 'carious a whole different impact as a dippy place to be sucked in ... feather ABBA din ... about gentler passions ... Granma's couch 'n? S' couch that one aside ... save ID for a rainy day or a dark knight ... for ethereal hedonism? :D

Brae in fart in the PEW? Gnoe Kid 'n ...
 
Pr. Jae said:
Since the Green Party candidate seemed best - why will you probably vote NDP?
Click to expand...
Good question - I've asked myself the same, and I'm still considering.
I guess the short answer (and to properly explain it would make it a long answer) is that I don't think we needed a fourth party. It further splits the vote and gives Harper a better chance of getting in. I keep imagining if the Greens, with all their good intentions, concerns, enthusiam, and the qualitity of candidates they have acquired, had thrown their support in with the NDP - perhaps becoming the Green arm of the NDP, that we would be a force to be reckoned with.
Actually, in this riding both Green and NDP are probably realistically hoping to grab some of the popular vote - I think that the predictions now are - Liberal first, Conservatives a poor second, and Green and NDP tied for third/fourth place.
 
Question that came to my mind during the local candidates meeting.

Who are the 1%?
Somebody, I believe it may have been the NDP stated that increasing taxes on the top 1% would make it impossible for this province to attract more doctors.
Wrong IMHO on two counts - if it is a federal tax increase this province would still be on the same footing taxwise as the other provinces.
And - are doctors really in the top 1%?
I thought that the top 1% were the families like the Irvings and the McLains, the top CEOs of international cooperations, top hockey players, etc.
Multi-millionaires who make more money in a few hours on January 1st than the rest of us make in a year.
I don't think of my doctor - probably paying off a student loan, raising a young family, setting up her practice would be in that category. Doctors income earning is likely somewhat controlled by Medicare (although if Harper gets another term, Medicare might be a thing of the past). Doctors seem rich by my standards - but more likely they are high middle-class, not top 1%. Perhaps some of them are top 10%.
 
Seeler said:
Question that came to my mind during the local candidates meeting.

Who are the 1%?
Somebody, I believe it may have been the NDP stated that increasing taxes on the top 1% would make it impossible for this province to attract more doctors.
Wrong IMHO on two counts - if it is a federal tax increase this province would still be on the same footing taxwise as the other provinces.
And - are doctors really in the top 1%?
I thought that the top 1% were the families like the Irvings and the McLains, the top CEOs of international cooperations, top hockey players, etc.
Multi-millionaires who make more money in a few hours on January 1st than the rest of us make in a year.
I don't think of my doctor - probably paying off a student loan, raising a young family, setting up her practice would be in that category. Doctors income earning is likely somewhat controlled by Medicare (although if Harper gets another term, Medicare might be a thing of the past). Doctors seem rich by my standards - but more likely they are high middle-class, not top 1%. Perhaps some of them are top 10%.
Click to expand...
The bottom of the top 1% in Canada makes around $200k. Many doctors would fit into that, without being rich. I think this is also something where income splitting makes a huge difference. There are many who make 100k, so some families with a 1%er looks pretty similar to other upper middle class families. The top 0.1% is a different story.
 
Seeler said:
In my riding - I recently attended a 'meet the candidates' meeting for my riding.
The incumbant (CON - yes-man) failed to show up - his chair behind his nameplate was empty despite the date of the meeting having been changed to accommodate him. To me this indicates one of three things: eitheer he is complacent and so sure about winning reelection that he doesn't have to attract new votes; or he has given up; or he haas utteer contempt for the people in his riding and does not owe them the courtesy of either showing-up or sending regrets. Apparently he got the word out because, from the nature of the questions from the audience and the audience response to the replies, there wasn't a conservative supporter in the crowd.
Click to expand...
Just curious why those are the only 3 that come to mind. Is it known that he was a no-show without sending regrets? Or perhaps an emergency where he was unable to
 
ChemGal said:
Just curious why those are the only 3 that come to mind. Is it known that he was a no-show without sending regrets? Or perhaps an emergency where he was unable to
Click to expand...

Because if he was a no-show, but with regrets, or an excuse, etc., the moderator of the candidates meeting would normally have said so. We run all candidates meetings in our sanctuary during most elections (from municipal to provincial to federal). If a candidate does not provide us with the courtesy of a "regret" or an "excuse", our tendency is to not embarrass them by saying so. However, if they do call, we are quite eager to present them in a good light by explaining their situation.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Because if he was a no-show, but with regrets, or an excuse, etc., the moderator of the candidates meeting would normally have said so. We run all candidates meetings in our sanctuary during most elections (from municipal to provincial to federal). If a candidate does not provide us with the courtesy of a "regret" or an "excuse", our tendency is to not embarrass them by saying so. However, if they do call, we are quite eager to present them in a good light by explaining their situation.
Click to expand...
That would be an explanation for the first, not the second.
 
Puzzling aspect of this campaign is the "outing" of candidates based on past face book posts or other stupid acts.

The latest is an NDP from Hamilton. Now she has a masters of social work and an undergrade in peace studies. Whatever that is. She is a school trustee and made stupid penis joke about a photo from Auswich. The comment was stupid and juvenile. But he explanation is bizaare. She had never heard of Auswich? How can your be 32 and that illinformed?

Butthe other issue is do we want all these things outed?
 
Lastpointe said:
Puzzling aspect of this campaign is the "outing" of candidates based on past face book posts or other stupid acts.

The latest is an NDP from Hamilton. Now she has a masters of social work and an undergrade in peace studies. Whatever that is. She is a school trustee and made stupid penis joke about a photo from Auswich. The comment was stupid and juvenile. But he explanation is bizaare. She had never heard of Auswich? How can your be 32 and that illinformed?

Butthe other issue is do we want all these things outed?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard of Auswich. Googling just changes it.
 
Never heard of Auswich? Hard to believe!
How long ago did she make the remark? When she was a teenager? One candidate was outed for some juvenile remarks she made when she was 16. When my kids were in junior high (before the age of twitter and facebook) I caught them referring to their friends and classmates as 'Spaz'. I gave them a good lecture about something that 'Aw, Mom. Everybody says it. It doesn't mean anything. We certainly don't mean a person with a physical problem. We just mean that somebody should stop acting stupid.' I never heard them use that expression again. I'd hate to think that now-a-days it could follow them for life.
 
Seeler said:
Question that came to my mind during the local candidates meeting.

Who are the 1%?
Somebody, I believe it may have been the NDP stated that increasing taxes on the top 1% would make it impossible for this province to attract more doctors.
Wrong IMHO on two counts - if it is a federal tax increase this province would still be on the same footing taxwise as the other provinces.
And - are doctors really in the top 1%?
I thought that the top 1% were the families like the Irvings and the McLains, the top CEOs of international cooperations, top hockey players, etc.
Multi-millionaires who make more money in a few hours on January 1st than the rest of us make in a year.
I don't think of my doctor - probably paying off a student loan, raising a young family, setting up her practice would be in that category. Doctors income earning is likely somewhat controlled by Medicare (although if Harper gets another term, Medicare might be a thing of the past). Doctors seem rich by my standards - but more likely they are high middle-class, not top 1%. Perhaps some of them are top 10%.
Click to expand...

I don't think people realize it, but to be in the top 1% of Canadian incomes (not wealth, which includes assets, but income), you only needed to be making $191,000 per year according to the last census and the average income of that group was only $381,300.

If drop the figure to only the top 0.1%, then what you say is true. That starts at $685,000. Or the top 0.01%, which starts at 2.57 million and averages 5.11 million.

So, your doctor could easily be a 1 per center depending on his billings and office costs.

I also think it is quite likely that a lot of people who rage against the "1%" in Canada have no f-ing idea of what that really means. $191,000 is well off, but it's hardly "evil capitalist". And if you have a large family or major debts (like a large mortgage), $191,000 isn't much at all.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-canada-s-top-1-1.1703321
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
I don't think people realize it, but to be in the top 1% of Canadian incomes (not wealth, which includes assets, but income), you only needed to be making $191,000 per year according to the last census and the average income of that group was only $381,300.

If drop the figure to only the top 0.1%, then what you say is true. That starts at $685,000. Or the top 0.01%, which starts at 2.57 million and averages 5.11 million.

So, your doctor could easily be a 1 per center depending on his billings and office costs.

I also think it is quite likely that a lot of people who rage against the "1%" in Canada have no f-ing idea of what that really means.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-canada-s-top-1-1.1703321
Click to expand...
Yep, and then put it into household income if only one person there is making an income and then there's a much bigger group with a similar income. Ie. Household incomes of 200k+ (or less, you gave a more specific number) are probably more common than 1%. Add in student loans, later start on an income due to time spent in school, especially if someone has specialized, often a later start on buying a house/paying down a mortgage and a 1%er in the lower part of that range supporting a household probably isn't living an extravagant lifestyle or even feeling rich. Well off, comfortable? Sure.

I'd rather see changes made so that those doing things to avoid paying taxes that are illegal or are in a grey area are taxed.
 
Seeler said:
Never heard of Auswich? Hard to believe!
How long ago did she make the remark? When she was a teenager? One candidate was outed for some juvenile remarks she made when she was 16. When my kids were in junior high (before the age of twitter and facebook) I caught them referring to their friends and classmates as 'Spaz'. I gave them a good lecture about something that 'Aw, Mom. Everybody says it. It doesn't mean anything. We certainly don't mean a person with a physical problem. We just mean that somebody should stop acting stupid.' I never heard them use that expression again. I'd hate to think that now-a-days it could follow them for life.
Click to expand...
So what exactly is Auswich?
Is that actually how the picture was labelled? If so, I'm not blaming her.
 
Lastpointe said:
Puzzling aspect of this campaign is the "outing" of candidates based on past face book posts or other stupid acts.

The latest is an NDP from Hamilton. Now she has a masters of social work and an undergrade in peace studies. Whatever that is. She is a school trustee and made stupid penis joke about a photo from Auswich. The comment was stupid and juvenile. But he explanation is bizaare. She had never heard of Auswich? How can your be 32 and that illinformed?

Butthe other issue is do we want all these things outed?
Click to expand...
I think she said something stupid, made up an excuse, and it ended up making her look worse. There's no way she had been a university student studying historical injustice and racism, and had never heard of Auschwitz. She should've apologized for her stupid remark, left it at that, and accepted the outcome if she was asked to quit.

There is some discussion around society becoming a little more forgiving about stupid comments made in the past. People are a bit hypocritical about it - or tired of it - and the other side, either side, can always spin it out of context. Still a little perplexed by the peeing in a cup thing though. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top