I didn't catch the debate as I was working but did watch the National and their At Issue panel. (by the way, if you like to follow politics the At Issue panel is an absolute must. Great, high quality journalistic panel with Mansbridge as the moderator).
Their summary was that Trudeau did better than expected and that Mulclair was smily Tom at the beginning and seemed uncomfortable.
My question for those who watched: how did Trudeau and mulclair perform to that portion of the electorate who swings to whatever party they believe has the chance to beat Harper?
I swear after looking at some polls in Edmonton that the Liberals are polling way higher than expected because voters in the respective ridings think Trudeau has a better shot of beating harper than mulclair does. It's splitting the vote for (what I expect) are some nervous Conservative candidates.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Don't rallying how anyone can objectively say Trudeau was awful. I went in there expecting a trainwreck from him and thought he performed the best of the bunch. His closer was cheesy but made up for it with his "That's not true, Mr. Harper." Mulcaire was alright. Harper was spinning harder than a methed up trophy wife.
What made Mulcair and Trudeau look bad is May making points that they should've been making, like that Harper's figures weren't accounting for population growth.
Trudeau somehow managed to avoid giving a strong position on pipelines, which he'll probably consider a win. I thought his closing statement was a pretty weird tone, but I wonder if that's because I wasn't the target audience.
I really want to like Justin but his closing speech ruined it for me. And yeah agreed Muclair is very creepy. Harper is just on damage control (as he should be really). May came off surprisingly rational and had good points on a few topics...but her party is unelectable.
More tax on past profit doesn't make that profit a loss.
Yes, hence the melodrama. And of course oil prices have more impact on CNQ than anything. But what this shows me is that people who say things like, "If your business can't withstand small increases like 20% on your tax bill, or like 50% on your minimum wage, you have a terrible business model" are totally ignorant of reality. CNQ is by all consensus a very well run business. Deferring your tax liability and using your capital to generate more income is one of the things people do to create a good business. Here's what good companies will do to remain "good" in this environment. They will cut spending, cut investment, cut jobs, cut expenses, cut dividends, move to more profitable surroundings, close. So now people who say businesses should be able to withstand small increases are actually correct. They just haven't thought about how they will do it.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Am I the only one that thinks Harper is equally as creepy as Mulcair, or are we all just used to seeing the creepy dead eyes and awkward lizard smile that it doesn't register anymore?
I actually really thought May did a good job being the in-debate fact-checker. I also liked her point about how having a balanced budget isn't the be all end all. I actually have no problem with the fact that the Conservatives have run deficits. The problem comes when they're deficits are being spent on the wrong things.
Am I the only one that thinks Harper is equally as creepy as Mulcair, or are we all just used to seeing the creepy dead eyes and awkward lizard smile that it doesn't register anymore?
No, I don't think you're alone... No doubt your perspective is shared by many other NDP supporters.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The thing that really bugs me is the whole "Canada needs to go back to the traditional peace keeper role" statement that May and Mulcair seems to wrap themselves in.
The traditional role of peacekeeping is dead, its been dead for a long time, they need to get out of the 60's and understand that. Its dishonest and its dangerous thinking.
We are if we're smart coming to an understanding that we are entering into the day and age of peace enforcement. Putting lightly armed peace keepers in blue berets between two warring nations is good for creating dead hero's. We're fighting irregular forces who are slaughtering people and they don't give a crap about international law, or UN resolutions, they will kill the peacekeepers dead without even thinking.
If you want to keep the peace you'd better be ready to fight a war.
Unlike the 70's where terrorists hijacked airplanes and bombed buildings, they are no hijacking nations and geography and killing everything inside it.
We can talk about providing humanitarian aid, and I fully agree with the need for it, but until you can guarantee the safety of humanitarian aid workers all that's going to happen is the aid and the workers become a target, because nothing shows resolve like executing some kid from Canada or Britain or the states on TV who was there to distribute food.
When May started pining in her speech that Canada should return to its role as a peacekeeper, I realized that as good as her performance is, she's out of touch with the reality.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Am I the only one that thinks Harper is equally as creepy as Mulcair, or are we all just used to seeing the creepy dead eyes and awkward lizard smile that it doesn't register anymore?
So he's one of the elite reptilian shapeshifters here to convert the population to food, and pave the way for the strip mining of the planet and enslavement and molestation of our woman folk?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I didn't watch but my wife said basically what everyone is saying here:
Trudeau overly dramatic throughout, made him look silly. His closing apparently was brutal. Did he accuse the Cons of invading Afghanistan?
Mulcair seemed mostly calm, but nervous, and kept smiling which made him look creepy. Spent a lot of time blaming Harper.
Harper was calm, robotic, non-emotional. Answered questions; basically looked like someone who doesn't have time for games.
May whining about Canada being traditionally a peacekeeping country. Despite the fact that is not true.
I wish I was able to watch.
Well, there are basically praises and criticisms that could be said about all of them. Depending how you feel about each person/party, will probably bias a person on what they overlook and what they hand their hat on.
Trudeau... did have a bit of an amateurish quality to his presentation. Too scripted and you can tell that he is trying too hard. He needs to act more natural, but I think people forget how bad Harper used to be at these things. Having said that, his points were pretty well laid out I thought. He was vocal when he had to be, but wasn't too belligerent.
May... I thought she made some good points, but they were sometime veering a little off topic. These debates where you have limited time to express your views are difficult for someone like her that wants to get into the little details.
Harper... He was pretty much just there. I thought he played it really safe, which to me doesn't show he is that confident in this election. I pretty much disagree with everything he does, but as a speaker, he is pretty solid.
Mulcair... Was really hit and miss. As times, he does come across as creepy, but at other time,s I find his tone and articulation very comforting. Out of the 4, I thought he showed off his party platform the most. His closing statement was fumbled pretty badly though.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 08-07-2015 at 09:47 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
