Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Huh, Wasn't aware the communist party or the christian coalition had sitting MPs in Parliament.

Is that the standard? If so, why is that a good standard for participation in the debate?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Is that the standard? If so, why is that a good standard for participation in the debate?

I think its the standard because if people elect you to represent them then including you in the debate seems logical.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Coal power plants are being retired at the moment due to the drop in natural gas prices. Shale gas has driven opcosts low enough that coal is no longer a viable fuel for power generation. It also burns cleaner than coal, with the added benefit being a smaller environmental footprint.

Don't kid yourself. Regulating coal power plants in the US has more to do with the economics of power generation than it does environmental initiatives. They just regulated a sunset industry. Big whoop.

Natural gas may burn cleaner than coal, but when you factor in how much gas is lost due to leaks before being able to be burned, and that methane traps 72x more heat than CO2, it ends up being worse for the environment than coal is. Years of Living Dangerously did an episode on that and every test that has been done so far has shown that far more methane is leaking into the atmosphere than what would be acceptable for it to be cleaner than coal

http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/...asing-methane/

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Also, I can't help thinking that Trudeau doing a boxing-ring photo-op this morning is an attempt to goad Harper into attacking him on his style during the debate. See if Harper falls for it and if Trudeau has a powerful counterpunch waiting.

I doubt Harper falls for that, he's the most experienced guy in the room from a leadership debate standpoint, and has been mostly very good in terms of being effective in these situations.

Harper isn't going to go for some emotionally charged attack on Trudeau, he really doesn't need to, the day and age of the Mulroney knockout punch on John Turner, or 1980 when Reagan clobbered Carter in the second debate.

For the most part the leaders are too well prepared for these debates, and you don't see the round house punches, you mostly see jabs.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

An ironically appropriate image, since the use of per capita figures is the propaganda argument.

Like I said, environmental damage does not exist per capita. Or are you going to try and argue that Canada's "2-3 times per capita" of pollutants dumped into the environment is causing more real damage than China's far greater total pollutants is?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think its the standard because if people elect you to represent them then including you in the debate seems logical.

I don't know man, with 2 seats in parliament and 3.9% of the popular vote, and being non existent in the polls, I find it tough to find any reason that May should be there, considering that she threw a lot of her candidates under the bus resource wise so that she could maintain her seat.

Her performance in the previous debate was pretty dreadful.

I really think that with what's at stake, you have three major parties and three potential prime ministers, the focus should be on them.

May isn't there to debate issues, she's there to rant and help Mulcair in attacking the Prime Minister.

That's about it.

[Resolute 14]

May's presence in the debates will only be a distraction and a waste of time.

Objectively though, she deserves to be there because she is an elected leader.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

An ironically appropriate image, since the use of per capita figures is the propaganda argument.

Like I said, environmental damage does not exist per capita. Or are you going to try and argue that Canada's "2-3 times per capita" of pollutants dumped into the environment is causing more real damage than China's far greater total pollutants is?

No...I was explaining/labelling what starseed was saying....perhaps I should have quoted him as that was who it was targeted at.

Its an age old ploy by the enviro set...obfuscate the actual narrative.

[Resolute 14]

Ahh, k. You threw me off by quoting me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know man, with 2 seats in parliament and 3.9% of the popular vote, and being non existent in the polls, I find it tough to find any reason that May should be there, considering that she threw a lot of her candidates under the bus resource wise so that she could maintain her seat.

Her performance in the previous debate was pretty dreadful.

I really think that with what's at stake, you have three major parties and three potential prime ministers, the focus should be on them.

May isn't there to debate issues, she's there to rant and help Mulcair in attacking the Prime Minister.

That's about it.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

May's presence in the debates will only be a distraction and a waste of time.

Objectively though, she deserves to be there because she is an elected leader.

Oh, don't get me wrong, she won't actually be in the running for PM and I personally wouldn't consider her. The thing is that as soon as you start excluding elected leaders from the debate you have a problem.

And all the leaders are going to pile on Harper; that's how these debates go. Harper has to get his message of liking to sit home and watch Breaking Bad through that. He has to explain that while he hasn't actually balanced the budget in eight years the quote of Trudeaus that he takes out of context still applies. He needs to find a way to drive home the idea that Mulcair is a career politician, but him never actually holding anything but political jobs is somehow completely different. Its the challenge of incumbency.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the day and age of the Mulroney knockout punch on John Turner, or 1980 when Reagan clobbered Carter in the second debate.

For the most part the leaders are too well prepared for these debates, and you don't see the round house punches, you mostly see jabs.

I don't know, last debate Layton pretty much laid out Iggy.

[Jacks]

As for May in the debates I agree that she shouldn't be there. I'd like to see the requirements for official party status reduced to 4 seats then restrict the debates to parties that have had official party status in at least one of the last two parliaments. If you can't get 4 seats out of 338 then you have pretty much no chance of forming even a minority government. Having 5 parties participate just waters down the debate between the serious contenders.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Jacks

As for May in the debates I agree that she shouldn't be there. I'd like to see the requirements for official party status reduced to 4 seats then restrict the debates to parties that have had official party status in at least one of the last two parliaments. If you can't get 4 seats out of 338 then you have pretty much no chance of forming even a minority government. Having 5 parties participate just waters down the debate between the serious contenders.

The 'at least one of two of the last governments' is a clever rule, it gets around the problem that every now and then, one major party may have their support collapse beyond the official party status.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I don't know, last debate Layton pretty much laid out Iggy.

Iggy wasn't much of a politician and surprisingly wasn't very good on the debating floor, and left himself wide open.

I have to admit that Iggy surprised me with how blisteringly bad and unprepared he was as a Liberal leader.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I don't know, last debate Layton pretty much laid out Iggy.

The death of Romney's campaign came during his last debate with Obama and his "binders full of women" remark

[carbonrod]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

May's presence in the debates will only be a distraction and a waste of time.

Objectively though, she deserves to be there because she is an elected leader.

It is kind of a bad precedent though. What happens when one party decides that it will offer a leader as a coalition of individual parties and send 308 'leaders' to the debates each representing their fringe viewpoints?

[Swift]

I don't know about anyone else, but now I'm picturing Walter White cooking meth in his winnebago giving crap to young punk Jesse's lack of experience. "He's just not ready! Nice hair though."


Also, I'll keel over and die from laughter if the topic of muzzling scientists comes up at the debate tonight and young pup Justin breaks out a "Science, bitch!"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The death of Romney's campaign came during his last debate with Obama and his "binders full of women" remark

Romney's campaign (or whoever they nominated) died the same time Bin Laden did. But realistically, if there was a comment that sunk him worse than any other it wasn't during the debates, it was the "48% of people will vote for the president because they're entitled" thing.

[burn_this_city]

The hidden camera definitely killed Romney, that was the worst thing I've ever seen in politics.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by carbonrod

It is kind of a bad precedent though. What happens when one party decides that it will offer a leader as a coalition of individual parties and send 308 'leaders' to the debates each representing their fringe viewpoints?

Given none of those will be elected, they wouldn't qualify.