I guess I'm just used to Harper, because to me Mulcair is far more creepy and dishonest looking/sounding .
Trudeau is actually the only one that across as genuine.
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Watching Harper in interviews is like watching a small child trying to talk their way out of a lie. He never concedes a point, I can't take someone seriously that is so defensive. When he talks about the scandal in his office it's mind bottling watching him try to talk his way out of it, just will not admit to a mistake that I've seen.
I didn't even know much about it until I saw an interview and he is just so arrogant while simultaneously dripping with guilt.
This. I have never seen him admit to an error. It seems to me that Harper sees owning up to a mistake as a sign of weakness.
This. I have never seen him admit to an error. It seems to me that Harper sees owning up to a mistake as a sign of weakness.
I think in politics, it absolutely is.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread giving Harper any credit for anything he's ever done, so why would he (Harper) believe that by owning up to something, that he'll actually get credit for it?
Remember the crap Harper got a couple pages back about the "I'm not perfect" ad? He basically showed some weakness and people saw it as a sign of desperation.
In this case, sticking to your guns (however weak) is at least neutral. Admitting weakness is either neutral, or negative. There is no upside for owning up to a mistake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
Heh, that's pretty good. They (The NDP) should do a big buy on that one... not only will it likely work on everyone that the Tory ad worked on but after someone see's it when they see the "Just Not Ready" Ad they'll think of this one.
I went to the Calgary Confederation all-candidates meeting this afternoon at the Varsity Community Association. It was a surprisingly large turnout which makes me wonder if this riding is actually in play and not a CPC shoe in. To his credit, Len Webber, the CPC candidate, showed up.
The other candidates were Natalie Odd, Green Party, Matt Grant, Liberal Party, and Kirk Heuser, NDP.
I really dislike the hyper-partisans of any political stripe. The cries of "Shame!" and sign waving was a bit much. There were a bunch of elderly women in the front row with CPC T-shirts and signs that were constantly dismayed and making faces whenever someone other than Webber spoke. It was nice to see Grant address them directly at one point which put a stop to their nonsense.
Heuser undoubtedly has oratory skill, having a been a broadcaster his entire life. He spoke well, with authority, and added humour along the way. Judging on that alone, he was ahead of the others. I wonder how many are swayed by that.
I was leaning Liberal but now I am undecided. Nothing Webber said convinced me he's the right man for the job but I wasn't going to vote CPC this time anyway. Mrs. Odd from the Green Party made some cogent points that got applause from the entire crowd. While you have to commend her for running, I think it's a wasted vote.
I probably won't make a decision until the ballot box.
I went to the Calgary Confederation all-candidates meeting this afternoon at the Varsity Community Association. It was a surprisingly large turnout which makes me wonder if this riding is actually in play and not a CPC shoe in.
[...]
I was leaning Liberal but now I am undecided. Nothing Webber said convinced me he's the right man for the job but I wasn't going to vote CPC this time anyway. Mrs. Odd from the Green Party made some cogent points that got applause from the entire crowd. While you have to commend her for running, I think it's a wasted vote.
Confederation is definitely up for grabs, but unless you find a poll showing otherwise, assume that only Grant or Webber or will grab it. threehundredeight.com's riding projection shows those two as the front-runners.
Confederation is definitely up for grabs, but unless you find a poll showing otherwise, assume that only Grant or Webber or will grab it. threehundredeight.com's riding projection shows those two as the front-runners.
I don't necessarily trust 308's riding projections. In my riding, they have the projection like this:
NDP 42
Lib 24
Green 23
Con 12
When it is much more likely to be something like this:
Green 38
NDP 36
Lib 14
Con 12
The mathematical formula is good for the overall projection, but isn't nuanced enough to trust on single ridings.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
If better information is available, by all means go with it. (Riding polls are definitely better, I'm not sure if anything else qualifies.)
Here's another metric for Calgary Confederation that's also not the be all and end all - Facebook likes. At time of posting: Matt Grant 3,867; Len Webber 999; Natalie Odd 361; Kirk Heuser 336. I don't expect Grant to quadruple Webber at the polls, but it corroborates him being in the lead for an ABC vote.
Of course it could depend on the details - how much is one time revenue (sales of shares from auto bailout, etc).
It's great news for the Conservatives - it was one of their big promises and it shows them as good chequebook managers. It should play very well for fiscal conservatives.
It's more debatable whether it's a good thing or not for the economy at this point in time. What did they sell off, what did they not spend on (e.g. underspent on immigration & refugees by $150M), how many jobs did they shed, what could they have invested in, .....what Trudeau is getting at what he talks about them cutting and implementing austerity. These are harder questions to answer so I expect the Conservatives will net gain on this issue.
On a 280 billion budget, 1% hardly matters, whether it was a surplus or debt. I don't think this is going to offer that much help. If they try to spin it, the other parties can just point to their years of deficits and that they did everything in their power(asset sales, not spending allocated budgets) to reach this "goal".
Seriously what are they going to say? "Look at us, we finally have a surplus after a decade of trying! We suck a little less at this!" Colour me unimpressed, but I guess that is their advertising strategy now, so they might run with it.
Wow, a surplus once in a decade? Brilliant fiscal management. "Hey guys, forget the 5-6 years leading up to this, because now that there is an election we finally balanced the budget for a change and drove the country back into recession. 4 more years!"
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Wow, a surplus once in a decade? Brilliant fiscal management. "Hey guys, forget the 5-6 years leading up to this, because now that there is an election we finally balanced the budget for a change and drove the country back into recession. 4 more years!"
To be fair though deficits started in 08-09 when the great recession started. Before that they had surplus's according to graph in the article.
