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!

Pr. Jae said:
What I love to see is a good, fiery match between the competitors.

Which is why all you get is political theatre and talking points more than an actual analysis of policy ideas. Too few people actually care for what politics is supposed to be about and look to it for its entertainment value.

Sure, we will all complain about the outcomes of the election and how we are disappointed with the vote and later than that disappointed with who we voted for. And then given the choice between style and substance we opt for the circus.
 
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.

James Bond and Green Lantern would definitely be more entertaining than the three amigos, that's for sure.

Started watching and quickly went "eff this" and went on to other things in my life. These debates do nothing to help me decide anything and this one didn't even look especially entertaining.

I'm someone who want substance in my leaders and the growing lack of it is part of my growing discontent with the whole effing system.
 
Which is why all you get is political theatre and talking points more than an actual analysis of policy ideas. Too few people actually care for what politics is supposed to be about and look to it for its entertainment value.

Sure, we will all complain about the outcomes of the election and how we are disappointed with the vote and later than that disappointed with who we voted for. And then given the choice between style and substance we opt for the circus.

Which is kind of what Keith Boag was trying to say, even if he left out the fact that media's pandering to this desire for circus is a contributing factor.
 
Which is kind of what Keith Boag was trying to say, even if he left out the fact that media's pandering to this desire for circus is a contributing factor.

LOL. Keith Boag and I have exchanged some tweets over his article. He still won't concede that the media play any role in the dumbing down of our politics.

As to the "debate," I agree that it's not a debate. Twas interesting to listen on the radio though. It seemed more substantive and serious through that medium. On radio, Trudeau's repeated "that's not true" didn't sound aggressive, it sounded whiney. Mulcair's calm sounded like competence, and like Bette I have a thing with Mulcair's eyes. To me there's something wrong with how he looks at me. It seems insincere. That doesn't come across on radio. And, on radio, regardless of the fact that I don't like him, Harper sounded cool, professional and experienced.

Radio's much different than TV.
 
I watched it. Should have tried listening as per revsdd Maybe i will next time.

i am not a fan of Trudeau at all. But the NDP are scary.

The press all talk about the close race. I really dont know how they would have any idea.

In this election alone i have done five political polls on my cell phone. And two on my house phone. One was very obviously done by the liberals with the questions horribly slanted. But the others were the standard polling companies.

So if i am getting called so many times, my guess is that so are all the other people being polled. They dont know how people think because they keep asking the same people and getting the same answers
 
Trudeau's voice is awful. I mean it's fine, it works, but not as a high level public speaker. I don't really want to hear it for 4 years.
He didn't show to me that he can stand up for himself, well, for Canada, better than Mulcair (he did it better the first debate, also). He just reminded me of a spoiled kid. I can't shake it.

Mulcair was actually debating, not just arguing. That's why he actually stood back and listened and when he did speak he kicked butt. He had a couple of memorable interruptions - but he wasn't squandering them. He showed he was mature. Both Mulcair and Harper did (don't like Harper but his presentation was good) Trudeau did not. Mulcair seems like a better alternative to Harper.
 
Last edited:
@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
I don't think of it as a lag.
 
LOL. Keith Boag and I have exchanged some tweets over his article. He still won't concede that the media play any role in the dumbing down of our politics.



Well, look who signs his pay cheques. Don't bite the hand that feeds and all that.
 
I watched it. Should have tried listening as per revsdd Maybe i will next time.

i am not a fan of Trudeau at all. But the NDP are scary.

The press all talk about the close race. I really dont know how they would have any idea.

In this election alone i have done five political polls on my cell phone. And two on my house phone. One was very obviously done by the liberals with the questions horribly slanted. But the others were the standard polling companies.

So if i am getting called so many times, my guess is that so are all the other people being polled. They dont know how people think because they keep asking the same people and getting the same answers

The biggest difference between the NDP's position and the Liberals is that the Libs are the ones that want to run a deficit for a few years - Justin did a switcheroo for political effect - and Mulcair thinks it's not necessary (I don't care, it's a shell game - as long as the worse off have better opportunities that's what I care about). Mulcair wants to tax rich CEOs by taking away stock options, Trudeau wants to tax them by taxing the personal income of the top 1% more. They are both ways of getting more taxes from the wealthiest - but Trudeau has to stand out as different because he wants himself and the Liberal brand to win. It's just a little bit different idea for doing the same thing, though.

NDP proposes cap and trade on industry that harms the environment - to make way for a clean energy economy- because carbon tax doesn't lower emissions it just makes people pay more money for them. While that may put more money in the purse it doesn't stop environmental damage done.

The Quebec/ Mulcair fear mongering is a red herring. He is not a seperatist. He proposed that 50%+1 is how referendums have always been, and he thinks that is a fair number, not that he wants it to happen. It won't happen if Quebequoise are happy with the Canadian government, anyway. There was a referendum before and seperatists lost, and they are even less of a force now.

The Conservatives are out of touch with what ordinary people need vs. what the most well off want. The old stock comment was a kicker.

Mulcair pointed out Trudeaus recent seitcheroos, including the deficit plan, and C51 because it kind of shows he's making it up as he goes along to try to win the election.
I think that given that the Libs and NDP are only nominally different in economic views, in actuality, Mulcair would make a better leader. Justin's just annoying.
 
Last edited:
@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


I don't know, wi-fi is everywhere in Switzerland (which, admittedly, isn't EU and not subject to their regulations) and Italy. Downtown Lugano is blanketed with free wi-fi which is more than I can say for the much bigger city of London where I live. They may be regulating power levels or something but whatever the regs, they aren't stopping the rollout of it. And I'm happy with that because I used it heavily since my company phone doesn't have global roaming on it.
 
That's fine. I think they do have slightly more stringent regulations on emisions strength of electromagnetic fields in Europe though. Canada, US and Japan seem to be less stringent. According to the document I posted. I think, like most environmental concerns, May is just proposing that we catch up with what more conscientious countries are doing.
 
Which is why all you get is political theatre and talking points more than an actual analysis of policy ideas. Too few people actually care for what politics is supposed to be about and look to it for its entertainment value.

Sure, we will all complain about the outcomes of the election and how we are disappointed with the vote and later than that disappointed with who we voted for. And then given the choice between style and substance we opt for the circus.
Trudeau and Harper repeated their talking points the most this time. Mulcair had a few but he was actually treating it like a debate moreso and discussed issues and I think he has more substance.
 
She's not a major contender, is the main reason (i know this was for Bette). Even though I like her presence in debate and either Mulcair or Trudeau would've benefitted by having her there. When someone makes a good point she acknowledges it. When someone is not telling the whole truth, she corrects them.
 
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.
 
Back
Top