Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm still wondering why Canada requires a modern airforce.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Canada is definitely a country that is often under threat of attack by air.

I understand your point here, but in all honesty the whole push for Arctic Sovereignty and that kind of thing is something that I am in favour of Harper doing (aside from the showmanship about the Franklin expedition, but thats a whole other discussion!)

I think that as Canadians we have this idea that we don't need the military/airforce, etc. because its not that strong anyway, and the threat is minimal. When you look around the world though, its just not the case. One day things are fine and you're just a nice peaceful nation, and the next day the tanks roll in and take your land. I know that seems like a huge exaggeration, but seriously have a look through history and its not like it would be the first time.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The shameful Omar Khadr debacle?

A rather un-nuanced view of the Palestine-Israel conflict?

Dragging behind most other developed states on climate change?

I don't care for Harper's undying love for Israel either, but the reality is all of Nato tows that line.

I don't necessarily buy that Canada is behind others on climate change initiatives. Canada has natural resources that can and should be developed. Canada is also a manufacturing nation, which produces a lot of emissions. Canada is also freezing cold. Canada's overall contribution to GHGs is 2%. Even if Canada slashed their GHG emissions by 50% (which is unrealistic in today's means) that is a 1% reduction in global emissions. If the USA, the EU & China slashed their emissions by 50%, now we're talking.

It's not exactly easy to negotiate with the folks who run Gitmo. Obama promised to shut it down, and lo, it's still up and running. If the President can't shut it down, I doubt Canadian diplomats could negotiate terms with the military/gitmo any better. I also don't have too much sympathy for Omar. He went to Afghanistan to knowingly kill Canadians/Nato troops.

I don't like the feeling of defending the conservatives since I have no love for any politicians, but some arguments against them I don't buy.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

What are the Liberals intentions in regards to corporate tax rates?

Either keep them at the current rate or lower them (in response to a potential American rate cut), so we remain competitive with US businesses.

“We always have to stay competitive on the international stage and where we are now is a very good place,” Trudeau told BNN Monday. “We know the Americans are maybe looking at dropping their corporate income tax rates, so we might have to make adjustments.” Trudeau didn’t elaborate.

Reducing corporate tax rates “stimulates growth and investment” in Canada, he said. “We just have to make sure that we’re doing it in a way that is creating opportunity and fairness for everybody in this country.”

Asked for details on Trudeau’s comments, a Liberal spokeswoman said later the party supports maintaining the current corporate tax rate.

“We’re proud of the Liberal record on this. As a result, we are significantly more competitive than the U.S. and our plan calls for the rate to stay where it is,” spokeswoman Kate Purchase said in an e-mail.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/5/11/Jus...-tax-rate.aspx

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Slava

I understand your point here, but in all honesty the whole push for Arctic Sovereignty and that kind of thing is something that I am in favour of Harper doing (aside from the showmanship about the Franklin expedition, but thats a whole other discussion!)

I think that as Canadians we have this idea that we don't need the military/airforce, etc. because its not that strong anyway, and the threat is minimal. When you look around the world though, its just not the case. One day things are fine and you're just a nice peaceful nation, and the next day the tanks roll in and take your land. I know that seems like a huge exaggeration, but seriously have a look through history and its not like it would be the first time.

I agree to extent, however I don't think Canada would be able to fend off an attack from the only country likely to successfully attack us (Russia).

As it stands, a fleet of fighterjets would be spitting on a fish.

This doesn't even address what kind of massive hornetsnest kicking that downing a Russian fighter buzzing Arctic airspace would be.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Slava

I understand your point here, but in all honesty the whole push for Arctic Sovereignty and that kind of thing is something that I am in favour of Harper doing (aside from the showmanship about the Franklin expedition, but thats a whole other discussion!)

I think that as Canadians we have this idea that we don't need the military/airforce, etc. because its not that strong anyway, and the threat is minimal. When you look around the world though, its just not the case. One day things are fine and you're just a nice peaceful nation, and the next day the tanks roll in and take your land. I know that seems like a huge exaggeration, but seriously have a look through history and its not like it would be the first time.

Further to this point, I would say that a strong airforce is necessary to help allies or innocents around the world from tyrants. Unlikely Canada ever gets invaded again, but both military and humanitarian aid relies on a strong air forces. I think rich countries have a moral obligation to help.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Further to this point, I would say that a strong airforce is necessary to help allies or innocents around the world from tyrants. Unlikely Canada ever gets invaded again, but both military and humanitarian aid relies on a strong air forces. I think rich countries have a moral obligation to help.

[CroFlames]

I assume you are accusing me of being an American war monger with that picture.

[PsYcNeT]

No it's more the implication that "rich countries" are responsible (morally of course, typically by the grace of god/racial superiority/good ol know how) for policing the lesser countries and ensuring democracy/jesus/apple pie become the norm.

By force.

[Table 5]

I agree that Canada needs a strong military presence in the North and around our country. Even if its just optically, you have to protect your borders, as the only thing a country like Russia respects is strength.

What I'm not a fan of is when we start meddling in the Middle East and take one-sided views that only turn us into terrorist targets. That region is something I think both Canada and the US needs to back away from, and let those countries figure it out amongst themselves.

[Fuzz]

We just need a new fleet of the F-18 Superhornets. Well suited to Canada, available now, and not an overpriced boondogle. I'm not sure why this is so hard....

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No it's more the implication that "rich countries" are responsible (morally of course, typically by the grace of god/racial superiority/good ol know how) for policing the lesser countries and ensuring democracy/jesus/apple pie become the norm.

By force.

Too bad the Canadian Military has never been involved in any humanitarian missions.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No it's more the implication that "rich countries" are responsible (morally of course, typically by the grace of god/racial superiority/good ol know how) for policing the lesser countries and ensuring democracy/jesus/apple pie become the norm.

By force.

So now you assume I am racist and religious because I believe in aiding other nations. I can appreciate that people can have a pacifist viewpoint, but I don't accuse them of being whatever, like you accused me.

As my handle suggest, my ancestry is from a "lesser" nation. And I know that that lesser nation appreciated the help it got from racially superior nations like Canada and the jesus they brought along with them.

[octothorp]

So, Harper's pre-screened, vetted audiences didn't do him any favours today. Old white guy yells at reporters and calls them lying pieces of s***, after the crowd tries to shout down reporters asking Harper questions about the Duffy scandal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ions-1.3194754

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I agree that Canada needs a strong military presence in the North and around our country. Even if its just optically, you have to protect your borders, as the only thing a country like Russia respects is strength.

What I'm not a fan of is when we start meddling in the Middle East and take one-sided views that only turn us into terrorist targets. That region is something I think both Canada and the US needs to back away from, and let those countries figure it out amongst themselves.

I understand that perspective, but I question whether a threshold can be crossed that will result in the opinion changing.

For example, do you believe that we have an obligation to respond to ISIS?

(not trying to start a fight, just prepared to listen to the perspective)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

As my handle suggest, my ancestry is from a "lesser" nation. And I know that that lesser nation appreciated the help it got from racially superior nations like Canada and the jesus they brought along with them.

Sorry to derail the thread but....ahahahahahahahah

Yeah they really seemed to appreciate the Canadians.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

So now you assume I am racist and religious because I believe in aiding other nations. I can appreciate that people can have a pacifist viewpoint, but I don't accuse them of being whatever, like you accused me.

As my handle suggest, my ancestry is from a "lesser" nation. And I know that that lesser nation appreciated the help it got from racially superior nations like Canada and the jesus they brought along with them.

I wasn't saying in all instances, but some do truly believe that they are white saviors cleansing the world of the brown menace. Check out Stormfront sometime, it's pretty enlightening depressing.

Don't take the internet so personally, this conversation in particular is pretty broad.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I wasn't saying in all instances, but some do truly believe that they are white saviors cleansing the world of the brown menace. Check out Stormfront sometime, it's pretty enlightening depressing.

Don't take the internet so personally, this conversation in particular is pretty broad.

I don't doubt the rampant racism at all. After all, I live in the USA.

Apology accepted.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Again, this is such a smug comment you guys keep making. Do you guys lack empathy or something?

This is a weird comment. I can't vote CPC precisely because I have empathy. I'm empathetic towards aboriginals, sex-workers, disabled veterans, drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc., all groups of people who have been negatively impacted by CPC. Am I also empathetic to skilled, upper-middle class, (primarily) white dudes who work in O&G? Totally. I've been laid off before and couldn't find a job for 18 months. It suck. It's just that you guys are a lot further down the list for me because you need a lot less help getting back on your feet.

You know what, no I can't look past my paycheque, and I don't think that's sad at all.

I don't think that part is sad at all. What bothers me is the lack of evidence there is to suggest that another party is going to dramatically your paycheque. Perhaps the NDP would, but there seems to be some pretty massive cognitive dissonance going on when you see CPC supporters pointing out the NDP's provincial record, yet ignoring the fact that the CPC have a worse economic record federally than the Liberal governments who preceded them. That's where the boogeyman comment comes from. There is zero evidence that any of the opposition parties would do worse from a economics perspective than the current iteration of the Conservatives.

Can you look past your paycheque? If so, congrats I guess, but most of us can't because we need them. What a stupid comment and it keeps getting repeated. Pure idiocy.

I don't understand why this is so hard to believe. You know what actually got me more concerned about climate change? Noticing the surge in forest fires over the last few years. The only reason I actually pay any attention to that is because it's part of my job. More forest fires are great for my paycheque. Theoretically, if they were reduced, my position could easily become redundant and I could lose my job. That said, I would quite happily take a massive reduction in forest fires.

I can't speak for evman, but the "can't see beyond your own paycheque" comment to me is actually a question of what your tipping point is. How much environmental degradation, privacy-invasion, mistreatment of the less fortunate, and undemocratic governance are you willing to put up with in exchange for your own economic security? It also seems weirdly hypocritical when I see Canadians going after other countries and their citizens for not sacrificing enough to become more democratic when we we're not willing to sacrifice anything to keep ourselves from becoming less democratic.

*queue CHL whining about my lack of objectivity*

Also completely fair if you don't see any of the other parties as being better in those areas than the CPC. Obviously why would you bother with the risk if you didn't foresee any improvement?

Kind of off topic, but a few pages back someone made a comment about voting out of self-interest because that's what everyone else does anyways, which is complete nonsense, IMO. First of all, that completely ignores the fact that only certain demographics in Canada even have the privilege to vote completely out of self-interest. Secondly, it virtually ignores anyone who puts social policies over economics ones. When I look at each party's platform, the issues I care about most (drug legalization, universal child care, decriminalization of prostitution, aboriginal rights, etc.) have pretty much no positive effect on me personally.

For the record, from an ethical standpoint, I don't agree with the idea of shutting down Canada's O&G sector. If we're going to consume as much as we do, then we have a moral responsibility to shoulder our share of the ecologic fallout that comes with that consumption. It's a big reason why I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote NDP. That and there seems to be a lot coming out that doesn't portray Mulcair as any better for democratic discourse than Harper.

So in summary:

Don't want to vote for Harper because I think he's awful for a litany of reasons.

Don't want to vote for Trudeau because he supported C-51.

Don't want to vote for Mulcair because he might be an ideologue, just one I happen to a agree with on several issues.

Don't want to vote for May because doing so might help Harper win.

Yay!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't care for Harper's undying love for Israel either, but the reality is all of Nato tows that line.

How is that "the reality" when, prior to Harper's election in 2006, Canada was somehow able to maintain both a more nuanced position on the Palestine-Israel question and its membership in NATO (and for much of this period with a far more hawkish President in the White House)?

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't necessarily buy that Canada is behind others on climate change initiatives. Canada has natural resources that can and should be developed. Canada is also a manufacturing nation, which produces a lot of emissions. Canada is also freezing cold. Canada's overall contribution to GHGs is 2%. Even if Canada slashed their GHG emissions by 50% (which is unrealistic in today's means) that is a 1% reduction in global emissions. If the USA, the EU & China slashed their emissions by 50%, now we're talking.

Climate change is a complex issue to be sure. However I think there is little doubt that, rightly or wrongly, Canada's position on the issue has exposed it to a great deal of criticism internationally. I know its lazy and far from authoritative, but I'll cite wikipedia on that point:

Canada is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Liberal government that later signed the accord took little action towards meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets. Although Canada committed itself to a 6% reduction below the 1990 levels for the 2008-2012 as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the country did not implement a plan to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Soon after the 2006 federal election, the new minority government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada could and would not meet Canada's commitments. The House of Commons passed several opposition-sponsored bills calling for government plans for the implementation of emission reduction measures.

Canadian and North American environmental groups feel that Canada lacks credibility on environmental policy and regularly criticizes Canada in international venues. In the last few months of 2009, Canada's attitude was criticized at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) conference,[5] at the Commonwealth summit,[6] and the Copenhagen conference.[7]
In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets.[8] The Canadian government invoked Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011.[9] Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew.[8][10] He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way forward.[11] Canada's decision was strongly criticised by representatives of other ratifying countries, including France and China.

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Canada

Originally Posted by CroFlames

It's not exactly easy to negotiate with the folks who run Gitmo. Obama promised to shut it down, and lo, it's still up and running. If the President can't shut it down, I doubt Canadian diplomats could negotiate terms with the military/gitmo any better. I also don't have too much sympathy for Omar. He went to Afghanistan to knowingly kill Canadians/Nato troops.

I don't like the feeling of defending the conservatives since I have no love for any politicians, but some arguments against them I don't buy.

Sorry, but none of what you posted with respect to Omar Khadr makes any sense. Again, I'm going to cite the relevant wikipedia article because (a) its convenient; and (b) it is relatively thorough:

Omar Ahmed Khadr (born September 19, 1986) is a Canadian citizen who was captured badly wounded in Afghanistan in July, 2002 at age 15 by American forces. He was held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp for 10 years. He pleaded guilty in October, 2010 to several purported war crimes prior to being tried by a United States military commission.[1][2][3][4][5] He was the youngest prisoner and last Western citizen to be held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay. He accepted an eight-year sentence, not including time served, with the possibility of a transfer to Canada after at least one year to serve the remainder of the sentence.[6]

During a firefight on July 27, 2002, in the village of Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan, in which several Taliban fighters were killed, Khadr, not yet 16, was severely wounded.[7] After being detained, he was asked for information about Al Qaeda[citation needed]and subsequently sent to Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. During his detention, he was interrogated by Canadian as well as US intelligence officers.

Khadr was the first person since World War II to be prosecuted in a military commission for war crimes committed while still a minor. His conviction and sentence were widely denounced by civil rights groups, anti-Western propagandists, and various newspaper editorials.[8] His prosecution and imprisonment was condemned by the United Nations, which has taken up the issue of child soldiers.

On September 29, 2012, Khadr was repatriated to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canadian custody.[9] He was initially assigned to a maximum-security prison but moved to a medium-security prison in 2014. Khadr was released on bail pending an appeal of his U.S. conviction in May 2015 after the Alberta Court of Appeal refused to block his release as requested by the Canadian government.

Khadr's lawyers successfully challenged his incarceration in Canada as an adult offender. In May 14, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the federal government's position, ruling that Khadr had clearly been sentenced by the US military tribunal as a minor. If he loses his appeal of the US conviction, underway in a separate action, he would serve any remaining time in a provincial facility rather than in a federal penitentiary.[10]

Khadr's defence attorneys claimed that the Canadian government acted illegally, sending its counsel and CSIS agents to Guantanamo Bay to interrogate Khadr and turning their findings over to the Tribunal prosecutors to help convict Khadr,[155] and that the release of the documents might help prove Khadr's innocence.[61] In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law.[71] The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which included an initial account of the firefight that differs from all previously seen reports,[156] could jeopardise national security.[157] Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due to the "embarrassment" they caused the government.[157][158]

On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.[159]

In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled again that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. It concluded that Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.[160] In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2–1 ruling.[161] Finally, in January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:

The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.[citation needed]

But, the Supreme Court stopped short of ordering the government to seek Khadr's return to Canada. It left it to the government to determine how to exercise its duty to conduct foreign affairs while also upholding its obligation to respect Khadr's constitutional rights.[162]

In 2008 Foreign Affairs officials visited Khadr several times. Karim Amégan and Suneeta Millington reported that Khadr was "salvageable" if allowed to return to Canadian society, but that keeping him in the prison would risk radicalizing him.[171] As of January 2009, 64% of Canadians supported repatriating Khadr to Canada,[172] up from 41% in June 2007.[173]

The Wikileaks Cablegate disclosures in 2010 revealed that the Canadian government had decided against seeking Khadr's repatriation, a decision supported by the US. This made it "politically impossible" for the country to accept custody of Uighur former detainees whom the US was unable to return to China.[174] The Wikileaks cables showed strong US interest in Canadian reaction to Khadr's case. The director of Canada's intelligence agency expressed his belief that the release of DVD footage of Khadr's interrogation at Guantanamo by Canadian officials, in which he is shown crying, would lead to "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" and "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty".[174]

Former Canadian Senator Romeo Dallaire has been an outspoken advocate for Omar Khadr's rights as former child soldier. In July 2012, Dallaire set up a petition putting pressure on then Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to honour the plea bargain deal Khadr made in 2010 when he was released to Canadian custody. 35,000 concerned citizens signed the petition. Omar was repatriated in September 2012.[175]

Dallaire: "Omar has been 10 years in jail already, in a jail so many have considered illegal and inappropriate. He's been tortured to get testimony out of him and through all that has seen no support whatsoever."[176]

Frankly, I don't see how Canada's treatment of Omar Khadr is remotely defensible or anything less than a complete embarrassment.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So in summary:

Don't want to vote for Harper because I think he's awful for a litany of reasons.

Don't want to vote for Trudeau because he supported C-51.

Don't want to vote for Mulcair because he might be an ideologue, just one I happen to a agree with on several issues.

Don't want to vote for May because doing so might help Harper win.

Yay!

It is like picking your favourite STI.