Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Sooo everything cancels out and we still vote for Carney is all I get from that.

Pretty much. I already voted and have no problems about that decision, and nothing said so far changes that whatsoever.

[GranteedEV]

Rebel News is so dangerous.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by indes

I'm 35 and the big one for me is the CPC plan for democratic reform. The plan to have the auditor general, ethics and conflict of interest commissioners be appointed by Parliament and answer to them is an affront to our democracy. This is before committing to using the notwithstanding clause and going into the gerrymandering.

I see what's happening in Alberta and the US and I can't vote for that. There is a 0% chance that the erosion of our checks and balances will result in better outcomes for the middle class. That's where I'm at with the CPC.

As for the leaders, no thanks on career politicians either. PP has gotten what, 1 bill passed in the last 20 years? As he becomes the leader he changes his look and his persona - is that our leader? A man that just twists in the wind and does whatever he thinks will get him power?

Mark Carney acts like an adult. He comes across as educated and intelligent (because he is) and doesn't need to run for office. He's held some of the most prestigious banking positions in the world, and he has a vision. While I may not agree with his environmental policy he's won me over to give him a chance to execute his vision for Canada moving forward. If he ####s the bed, at least we won't lose our democracy in the process.

Carney has also pledged to cut GST on new builds up to 1m vs PPs 1.3mm

Carney is struggling to remember what he is supposed to say while holding back/hiding what he really thinks.

Jagmeet is completely irrelevant and a waste life, he has his pension he should just leave.

Pp just repeating everything he has been saying for the last decade.

And Quebec just cares about Quebec like always, but that is ok because they speak French.

[Johnny Makarov]

hahaha Singh just said he wouldn't answer any questions from Rebel News and laughed in the female reporters face! awesome sauce!

[Johnny Makarov]

wooo and now singh is comparing Danielle Smith and what PP will do to healthcare.

And now he is snubbing another Rebel news loser! and she is a black woman. How can she work for them? hahahah I have to give him 2 thumbs up in this press conference.

[calgarygeologist]

The debate commission really ####ed up these post debate scrums. I don't know how they managed to cave and allow five representatives from Rebel to be present while only allowing one representative for every other organization.

[starseed]

The debate commission had better fix this before the English debate. Unbelievably embarrassing.

[starseed]

Oh my god. I've never been more embarrassed to have been born in Alberta. Just awful.

[puffnstuff]

Rebel has 5 reporters?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Carney is struggling to remember what he is supposed to say while holding back/hiding what he really thinks.

Jagmeet is completely irrelevant and a waste life, he has his pension he should just leave.

Pp just repeating everything he has been saying for the last decade.

And Quebec just cares about Quebec like always, but that is ok because they speak French.

Scared of sneaky Carney and calling Singh a waste of life?

So incredibly pathetic. Glad the trash is going to be taken out.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Rebel has 5 reporters?

Define "reporters".

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Pretty much. I already voted and have no problems about that decision, and nothing said so far changes that whatsoever.

Yup. These debates won't move the needle whatsoever. Just from talking with my own family/circle of friends and people from work, etc.. everyone's votes are locked in at this point with only 2 weeks to go.

[Firebot]

Carney wins by default by not falling apart or making major errors and in a French debate with it being a weakness that's as good as it could have gotten. Liberals are likely ecstatic.

Poilievre overall failed to do a slam dunk which was absolutely needed and trying to associate Carney to Trudeau is simply a lost cause and ineffective, mediocre showing at best. Singh tries in futility to make the NDP relevant at a time where the NDP is projecting to be its weakest point in 30 years (not sure what his current purpose is where he mostly goes after Poilievre and even going after Blanchet's voting record), and Blanchet was weaker than usual despite always been extremely strong especially in the French debate.

Can't see anything changing with this, if anything Liberals could grow.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Singh tries in futility to make the NDP relevant at a time where the NDP is projecting to be its weakest point in 30 years (not sure what his current purpose is where he mostly goes after Poilievre and even going after Blanchet's voting record)

Are those things not relevant?

I thought Singh didn't have a great performance but that's an odd thing to criticize him for.

[MegaErtz]

Betting markets have moved heavily towards the Liberals in the last hour. Poilievre needs a knockout blow in the English debate to make this even close.

[Fuzz]

That sounds fair, more Beavers asking questions.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are those things not relevant?

I thought Singh didn't have a great performance but that's an odd thing to criticize him for.

What do you think would give Singh a winning debate in his current situation?

He basically touted the dental care and pharmacare and flaunted it as "you didn't vote for it and are against health" and championing it as the NDP legacy. Both are considered Liberal plans.

Poilievre isn't his main opponent. Blanchet isn't his main opponent. Going after Blanchet's record is an odd attack considering the NDP's abysmal performance in Quebec. At one point when the Liberals were falling apart under Trudeau, he had the perfect opportunity to make the NDP an alternative and go head to head against Poilievre. Instead he gave the Liberals the chance to right the ship and gave all the initiative to them (and that was before the Trump situation reared its head).

He's now floundering at around 8% under Carney's shadow. He was debating tonight like an already defeated leader accepting that "well at least Poilievre isn't going to win" let's go after Poilievre when all his party support is leaving him to go to the Liberals instead.

Singh has always been a great speaker so his speaking is always going to have a strong standard, but what was the end goal there? It's almost like is he's not even in the election and this is his personal legacy swan song at the expense of the NDP's future.

[GGG]

The NDPs legacy is national daycare, and subsidized dental and pharmacare. They were the most effective NDP government. Singh delivered more for the NDP than anyone other than Tommy D.

The Narrative that Singh failed just isnt well founded.

The NDP was and will never be a governing party, forming government should never be the measure of success of a party. Actively advancing policy goals is the measurement and by that measure he was highly successful. He was well positioned to take advantage of a JT minority government.

He also prevented the conservative majority from being elected by propping up Treudeu giving him a chance to resign. A move that while costing his party seats gave Canadians a real choice.

Singh was a great party leader.

[Fuzz]

The only people disappointed about how Singh performed are Conservatives.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This should be the case for every organization. But if the company ends up hiring the best candidates and they all share the same characteristics people end up coming after you about not having any diversity.

I think the "diversity" part of "diversity" is more than just what's visible.

It's the ability to represent different backgrounds and in turn, guide your organization in new growth directions.

Hiring the "best candidates" is often a coin toss at the end anyways, let's not pretend we have a bunch of savants being passed over.

You can hire the best candidates with the same characteristics AND you can alternatively hire the best candidates with diverse characteristics.

Echo chambers aren't exactly the best for business.

I know which company I would bet on to add value to itself.