And they're off...the election thread
- Thread starter Mendalla
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
careful not to stereotype people who are poor as not caring about anything else, and well off people as better informed . I do not think that's true at all.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I agree, although it if were logical, rich people would have the additional time, and often education/resources to be better informed. However, they seem not necessarily to avail themselves of those advantages.
Did anyone just watch the debate?
I thought all 3 were strong in their presentations at various points. In presentation terms. Of the two that I will be choosing between, I still like Mulcair better. He seems more Prime Ministerial, he has well thought out plans, he knows what he's doing, he's tough when he needs to be - he is a seasoned politician which has it's plusses and minuses. It's a minus if to see them playing politics - at the same time they need to be able know the field, to argue their points in debate. Mulcair is strong - you can see the lawyer at work - but I think he has integrity. He would be able to hold his own on the world stage, too, not just at home. Trudeau sounds like an annoying kid. Sorry, but I think he does. I think he wouldn't be taken as seriously on the world stage because he just doesn't have it. He sounds like a highschool or early college debater to me. He doesn't have a prime ministerial presence, and he has flipped flopped on issues over a short period of time and although I trust him more than Harper, i trust him less than Mulcair. If Mulcair gets the job he'll start on his first day knowing the job better than Trudeau. I get that sense from his maturity. Trudeau is all enthusiasm.
I thought all 3 were strong in their presentations at various points. In presentation terms. Of the two that I will be choosing between, I still like Mulcair better. He seems more Prime Ministerial, he has well thought out plans, he knows what he's doing, he's tough when he needs to be - he is a seasoned politician which has it's plusses and minuses. It's a minus if to see them playing politics - at the same time they need to be able know the field, to argue their points in debate. Mulcair is strong - you can see the lawyer at work - but I think he has integrity. He would be able to hold his own on the world stage, too, not just at home. Trudeau sounds like an annoying kid. Sorry, but I think he does. I think he wouldn't be taken as seriously on the world stage because he just doesn't have it. He sounds like a highschool or early college debater to me. He doesn't have a prime ministerial presence, and he has flipped flopped on issues over a short period of time and although I trust him more than Harper, i trust him less than Mulcair. If Mulcair gets the job he'll start on his first day knowing the job better than Trudeau. I get that sense from his maturity. Trudeau is all enthusiasm.
There was another debate? I had no idea. Sounds like you're quite impressed with Mr. Mulcair. I agree he'd make a better PM than Mr. Trudeau, at least based on experience.
On the other hand, I'm just not sure I could follow any leader who has a beard.
There's just something about Trudeau as PM that I don't like. It's a gut feeling that he wouldn't be as good a leader as Mulcair.
Would it help if he grew whiskers?
No. It wouldn't. He had a few during Movember and it looked good on him, but nothing to do with his ability for the job of PM.
I get the sense that he's making up his mind as he goes along, he's not solid.
Really? I've honestly never noticed that in him Cousin. Actually, I like the sound of that. Better to be like that than like some people who just choose one position than stick to it no matter what. I appreciate if he changes his thinks about things as new information arises.
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
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eaders-debate/article26377613/?service=mobile
Last edited:
revsdd
Well-Known Member
I didn't "watch" the debate but I was able to listen to an hour of it on the radio while I drove home.
Overall, from what I heard, I thought this one was a two way battle between Mulcair and Harper, with Mulcair coming out perhaps a bit on top, but I thought Harper defended well. Trudeau seemed out of his depth and spoke a lot in generalities. He had his talking points down, though, and that was probably his goal - to pound away at a couple of points. Tax the top 1% and give the middle class a break, and run a 3 year deficit to fund infrastructure. (That deficit promise I like by the way, and one specific Liberal policy I heard tonight was the creation of an infrastructure bank to loan money for projects to municipalities at low interest rates. Our crumbling infrastructure is a huge issue, so that intrigued me.) On balance, though, Trudeau was the clear loser in this one. Not a knockout by any means, but he didn't keep up with the other two. The moderator at one point stopped him with the words "I heard a lot of skating going on there," or words to that effect. (I wish more moderators would be more willing to call bs.) And, in fairness, the same could have been said to all three at times. So on my scorecard, Mulcair won with Harper as the close runner up and Trudeau brought up the rear at a distance, but there was no knockout and no grand slam.
Overall I thought this debate had a more serious tone than the first. Maybe because I listened on the radio, so image and style weren't so front and centre. Maybe the subject (the economy) made it seem more serious. Maybe - sorry - Elizabeth May's absence made it seem more serious. I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, but - I differ with many on this - May hasn't impressed me this time round. Obviously the Greens won't win and it's not likely that they'll win more than her seat and in a parliament divided between 3 parties her one vote won't make or break anything. So, although many wanted her included, I think maybe it was time to accept reality and just let the big kids play.
Overall, from what I heard, I thought this one was a two way battle between Mulcair and Harper, with Mulcair coming out perhaps a bit on top, but I thought Harper defended well. Trudeau seemed out of his depth and spoke a lot in generalities. He had his talking points down, though, and that was probably his goal - to pound away at a couple of points. Tax the top 1% and give the middle class a break, and run a 3 year deficit to fund infrastructure. (That deficit promise I like by the way, and one specific Liberal policy I heard tonight was the creation of an infrastructure bank to loan money for projects to municipalities at low interest rates. Our crumbling infrastructure is a huge issue, so that intrigued me.) On balance, though, Trudeau was the clear loser in this one. Not a knockout by any means, but he didn't keep up with the other two. The moderator at one point stopped him with the words "I heard a lot of skating going on there," or words to that effect. (I wish more moderators would be more willing to call bs.) And, in fairness, the same could have been said to all three at times. So on my scorecard, Mulcair won with Harper as the close runner up and Trudeau brought up the rear at a distance, but there was no knockout and no grand slam.
Overall I thought this debate had a more serious tone than the first. Maybe because I listened on the radio, so image and style weren't so front and centre. Maybe the subject (the economy) made it seem more serious. Maybe - sorry - Elizabeth May's absence made it seem more serious. I've voted Green a couple of times in the past, but - I differ with many on this - May hasn't impressed me this time round. Obviously the Greens won't win and it's not likely that they'll win more than her seat and in a parliament divided between 3 parties her one vote won't make or break anything. So, although many wanted her included, I think maybe it was time to accept reality and just let the big kids play.
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
She participated on Twitter. I wonder if she was using a wifi connection to do so?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elizabeth-may-wages-war-against-wifi/article617404/
Snarky!Europe places limits on those things. Do they know something we don't?
The Smart Meters were a big deal here. People living in apartments were especially concerned. Some complaining of headaches and so on. Seriously, take the block I used to live on. Probably close to residential units on one block, 200 smart meters, 200 different wifi boxes, probably about 400 cell phones going at one time, 200 wireless TV's. Multiply that by a five block radius. It's bound to cause some health concerns over time. That just seems reasonable to assume without knowing the science. But, apparently Europe takes some precautionary measures.
@ChemGal the following document is not a language I understand very well except that it does look like Canada and the US lag behing European Countries in regulating electromagnetic frequency, so maybe Ms.May's not so off her rocker. We're not a leader in the world in environmental sciences. (Btw Europe uses cell phones too, and, along with them, twitter - I guess they're just a bit more careful about how they regulate wireless. Not that it's not available.)
http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/ECBB20E0-A717-4FE9-BAE1-B1E48334459C/0/Section13Final06062013.pdf
http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/ECBB20E0-A717-4FE9-BAE1-B1E48334459C/0/Section13Final06062013.pdf
Europe places limits on those things. Do they know something we don't?
The Smart Meters were a big deal here. People living in apartments were especially concerned. Some complaining of headaches and so on. Seriously, take the block I used to live on. Probably close to residential units on one block, 200 smart meters, 200 different wifi boxes, probably about 400 cell phones going at one time, 200 wireless TV's. Multiply that by a five block radius. It's bound to cause some health concerns over time. That just seems reasonable to assume without knowing the science. But, apparently Europe takes some precautionary measures.
Gotta be some mental induction process ... headaches and pain go into the effort of learning ... sum additions don't believe this aD's up! You did know that "aD" is an old word for beyond ... another metaphor for myth? Alas this would be like the word/God a hated and fearful thing to those below certain standards ... and we should certainly eliminate those ... if only in Satyr form ...
Humans so hate things beyond eM ... strange words in particular if it means everything ... as long as it is not understood! Smart people are duly despised by those of great desire ...
Pinga
Room for All
Interesting RevSDD. .
I was sitting with one other, and we commented how Trudeau was showing he wouldn't put up with crap. Mulcair just stood their stoicly when Harper was rhyming off his spins, but, Trudeau called it out saying "not true", or "That's not true, Mr. Harper".
He seemed stronger than I anticipated. He matched the spirit of many of the folks that I know and how they feel.
In doing a few searches, I wsa really surprised by an application that measures social media negative comments, and they marked, contrary to what I thought, that Mulcair had the most negative tweets and posts on social media. Weird.
Harper looked nervous a few times, he was still swarmy, but also appeared on edge.
Trudeau speaking did brek down a bit as the session went on.
Mulcair was boring. The person that sat with me, said he seemed Ike a professor. Ok, but, not passionate ...ever.
I was sitting with one other, and we commented how Trudeau was showing he wouldn't put up with crap. Mulcair just stood their stoicly when Harper was rhyming off his spins, but, Trudeau called it out saying "not true", or "That's not true, Mr. Harper".
He seemed stronger than I anticipated. He matched the spirit of many of the folks that I know and how they feel.
In doing a few searches, I wsa really surprised by an application that measures social media negative comments, and they marked, contrary to what I thought, that Mulcair had the most negative tweets and posts on social media. Weird.
Harper looked nervous a few times, he was still swarmy, but also appeared on edge.
Trudeau speaking did brek down a bit as the session went on.
Mulcair was boring. The person that sat with me, said he seemed Ike a professor. Ok, but, not passionate ...ever.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
I didn't watch. I always get short tempered when it turns out the debate isn't actually a debate and the debators clearly don't know how debate is supposed to work.
It is theatre. Nothing more and nothing less. visual and audio popularity contest.
Style triumphs over substance and the style is always on the shallow end.
I noticed that Skyfall was on, as was Green Lantern. I flipped between those two.
It is theatre. Nothing more and nothing less. visual and audio popularity contest.
Style triumphs over substance and the style is always on the shallow end.
I noticed that Skyfall was on, as was Green Lantern. I flipped between those two.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I was following it on Global on-line, plus monitoring the twitter feed.
I wasn't impressed by the moderation. It was like herding cats, and a lot of the 'conversation' was three middle-aged white guys yelling at each other. Elizabeth May not being there made it even more starkly obvious who is still running our country. Those 'old Stock Canadians' of the male gender.
For pure appeal, Justin won out. He is easy to look at, has a nicely modulated voice. Since we're going on purely personal feel here, per kimmio's post above, there's something that disturbs me about Mulcair, and it's not the beard. I dig beards; my guy has a huge fluffy grey one. There's something that I distrust about his eyes - a flatness, a way they don't always quite fit with the rest of his expression. And I don't like Mr. Harper, his party, his policies, his personal and corporate ethics, nor even the horse he rode in on...
I wasn't impressed by the moderation. It was like herding cats, and a lot of the 'conversation' was three middle-aged white guys yelling at each other. Elizabeth May not being there made it even more starkly obvious who is still running our country. Those 'old Stock Canadians' of the male gender.
For pure appeal, Justin won out. He is easy to look at, has a nicely modulated voice. Since we're going on purely personal feel here, per kimmio's post above, there's something that disturbs me about Mulcair, and it's not the beard. I dig beards; my guy has a huge fluffy grey one. There's something that I distrust about his eyes - a flatness, a way they don't always quite fit with the rest of his expression. And I don't like Mr. Harper, his party, his policies, his personal and corporate ethics, nor even the horse he rode in on...
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.