Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Debate pretty much changed nothing, we're headed to a minority. What'll be interesting to see is what happens if it's the likely CPC minority. I could see the next election featuring three different leaders in charge. Surprised the media seems to think Mulcair was the winner, he came off as a condescending dad. I don't think any leader said anything too damaging, although Harper dropping "Old Stock Canadians" was a pretty bad, sort of racist line.

The "Old Stock" think does seem to appeal to a lot of people though.

It was like a couple of elections ago when during one of the debates, Harper and Layton got into it about their long lineages in Canada and were name dropping old family names. Honestly, I don't find a politician more appealing to another because they are a descendent of the McNeil family that immigrated to Nova Scotia in 1720 or whatever. They seemed to think it was important to mention though that they were "more Canadian" than Ignatieff.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I love how government jobs are always devalued like anyone working there is a scammer. In my experience the oil industry has huge teats, even if they running a bit dry at the moment

My point was more related to the fact that I don't think he nor his family should be commended for being in "civil service" like it's noble.

It's a job.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The "Old Stock" think does seem to appeal to a lot of people though.

It was like a couple of elections ago when during one of the debates, Harper and Layton got into it about their long lineages in Canada and were name dropping old family names. Honestly, I don't find a politician more appealing to another because they are a descendent of the McNeil family that immigrated to Nova Scotia in 1720 or whatever. They seemed to think it was important to mention though that they were "more Canadian" than Ignatieff.

I'm sure it does appeal to some people, but a lot? I'm not sure about that. How many people really care if one of these guys' family has been in Canada for 300 years or 30 years? Some for sure (and this "old stock" comment sounds like a dog whistle those people that do care, so ugh) but would it be enough to make a difference? Or enough to risk alienating other people who might not have such a long family history of living in one place over another?

Bah, I don't know. It just seems so stupid to me. My family has been here for just over a hundred years, and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for me if I put that on my scorecard. Nor would I vote for the other guy who bragged about how his ancestor who got on a boat 300 years ago makes him more "Canadian".

[corporatejay]

Also, how is the niqab thing even an issue. I'm surprised that people are required to take the oath in public rather than just signing a piece of paper.

I mean, I think it's great we have the ceremony and everything but let's be honest, it's just a ceremony and has nothing to do with someone is "qualified" to be canadian.

I don't want to debate about whether niqabs, burkas etc.. should be banned in all public spaces, that's another issue. If we accept them in all other social environments, I don't see how this citizenship oath thing is somehow so sacred that it should be banned there. Totally ridiculous.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

It's very bizarre how our own views of politics interpret a statement so differently.

I suspect that Mulcair, telling people he's from a family of 10, who are all civil servants, plays very well with a certain portion of his base.

I, on the other hand, think "wow, 10 children seems incredibly irresponsible, and all of you are sucking off the teat of the government...not a single one in the private sector....."

I mean, this is isn't going to change my opinion of the NDP one way or the other, but I just find it funny how I view that as such a negative but others will find it endearing.

He's 60 years old. Families were a lot bigger back then. 10 was still high.. but most people that age came from large families. Seems like a wacky reaction.

I can see being annoyed he says it, but being annoyed by the fact itself seems weird.

[CaptainCrunch]

I doubt that this debate will change my voting slant at all, but as I've said repeatedly it would be tough to do that.

Tom Mulcair to me resonates Snake Oil to me, he has these spending promises, but he doesn't want to go into how he's going to pay for it, but we all know how he will do that.

Trudeau - He traps himself quite a bit in what he doesn't know. I don't like his platform, he comes across as a naif. To me in these debates and on the campaign trail, he just strikes me as a guy who does the minimum homework possible to get by.

Harper - I'd really like to see him challenge the challengers more, at times he's too dispassionate and to understanded. I get that he has to appear prime minister like because he is, but man I'd like to see him challenge Muclair and Trudeau and try to shake them.

We're definitely heading for a minority unless we see a major cocks up in the coming weeks.

[puckedoff]

I wish we could vote for a robot.

The opposition is offering promises, promises, promises but at the end of the day there are just trying to justify getting their hand deeper into your pocket. I don't like Harper's social policies, Mulcair would decimate our economy, and Trudeau will do whatever he's told while he racks up the debt.

[The Goon]

I saw a couple of Elizabeth May's Twitter responses, and I felt bad for her - the audio made it sound like she was in a pub restroom.

[Harry Lime]

Lets say that I haven't been paying nearly enough attention to this election.

Which of the candidates are closest to this platform, that I would vote for....
1) New spending on public infrastructure only. No handouts or votebuying.
2) Kill the 'spying on the public' provisions of Bill C51. (Would be a brilliant move by CPC)
3) Linking immigration to jobless rate.
4) Eliminating some of the dumber regulations of the Indian Act (like, is that what it is still called?, no repeated house buying and consolidation of non-self sufficient communities). Give back some pride to Native Canadians.
5) Fast tracking the East West pipline and refinery use.
6) Imaginative industry building. (Come on, Arrow 2!)
7) Buy back Tim Horton's from Burger King.

Ok, clearly the requests are getting lesser in value. How about just #1? Who is doing the smallest amount of vote buying?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by saillias

I've heard what happened with $15 minimum wage in Seattle.

That it hasn't happened yet?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Also, how is the niqab thing even an issue. I'm surprised that people are required to take the oath in public rather than just signing a piece of paper.

I mean, I think it's great we have the ceremony and everything but let's be honest, it's just a ceremony and has nothing to do with someone is "qualified" to be canadian.

I don't want to debate about whether niqabs, burkas etc.. should be banned in all public spaces, that's another issue. If we accept them in all other social environments, I don't see how this citizenship oath thing is somehow so sacred that it should be banned there. Totally ridiculous.

I don't agree with the ban but people are entitled to their own opinions. What sickens me is the government raising this issue during an election and petitioning the court to put a temporary ban on niqab at citizenship hearings as if it's some kind of national emergency. It's pure dog whistle politics.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Also, how is the niqab thing even an issue. I'm surprised that people are required to take the oath in public rather than just signing a piece of paper.

I'm confused on this too. Isn't the ceremony just the final step where everyone waves a flag, repeats an oath, then parties? It's not the application or the interview phase.
I'm not sure why I should care what people wear to that.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Ok, clearly the requests are getting lesser in value. How about just #1? Who is doing the smallest amount of vote buying?

That would be Harper.
He says now is not the time to run deficits and that their record as stewards of the economy speaks for itself.
Obviously that last statement says different things to different people.

[puckedoff]

Max vote buying - Trudeau (platform is essentially based on vote buying)
Medium vote buying - Mulcair ("we'll take a bite out of your paycheck, but give your kids dayare")
Minimum vote buying - Harper (Status quo, keep on with planned TFSA increase and won't increase CPP theft")

[Ozy_Flame]

For me it's bill C-51 and the encroachment on privacy rights that I just can't support. Kind of one of those issues that gets lost in the shuffle amidst all of the economy talk. Scaling back of that passed legislation would go a long way in making me consider the Conservatives again. I feel the most comfortable with them handling economic issues right now, but that's not enough to convince me to vote for the CPC.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

That would be Harper.
He says now is not the time to run deficits and that their record as stewards of the economy speaks for itself.
Obviously that last statement says different things to different people.

Thanks. Harper is a weird cat. He doesn't behave like a conservative. He's not decisive in his spending. He's afraid to cut. He builds an immigration policy where the influx of new workers isn't supported by full time job creation. He's easily sold on foreign military equipment, and then doesn't buy any. Generally bad with money. Supports (like all 4 parties) giving funds to parents to increase childbirth rate.

If he ran on a platform of acting like a grumpy old conservative, death grip on the checkbook, desperate to build roads, I might vote for him. He's the new type of Conservative, where everyone (us) is a criminal and the stock market indicates standard of living. Not cool, man. Not cool. Be Dwight Eisenhower, Harper, and I'll vote for you.

[Harry Lime]

I seriously think that it would be brilliant for Harper to admit a mistake on C51, and require a warrant for the collection of personal information. It would completely submarine the Liberals, and would probably win him the election.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That it hasn't happened yet?

Could've sworn I read articles from a thread here about how it, must've been somewhere else.

[Knut]

When has a politician ever admitted a mistake ?

[polak]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I seriously think that it would be brilliant for Harper to admit a mistake on C51, and require a warrant for the collection of personal information. It would completely submarine the Liberals, and would probably win him the election.

If any politician ever gave credit to another party or was willing to admit mistakes and just present a collaborative mindset instead of one that is "us vs. them", I would instantly vote for them.

Thats the only way you get whats best for Canada.