Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Where is it called a coup? Seriously, in what country would it be called a coup when you have two parties that were voted for by over half the people in the country forming the government?

If that were the case, you'd have a point. But it's not as we already know, the two left parties have said many times and in no uncertain terms that they will not unite. Coalitions in other countries almost always include the party with the most votes. #2 and #3 never kicks out #1. So it's by definition a coup, except here where some people think it's a majority government.

[Looch City]

coup
ko͞o
noun
1.
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
"he was overthrown in an army coup"
synonyms: seizure of power, coup d'état, putsch, overthrow, takeover, deposition; More

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

If that were the case, you'd have a point. But it's not as we already know, the two left parties have said many times and in no uncertain terms that they will not unite. Coalitions in other countries almost always include the party with the most votes. #2 and #3 never kicks out #1. So it's by definition a coup, except here where some people think it's a majority government.

You should probably just go shine your gun rack. This is clearly over your head.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

If that were the case, you'd have a point. But it's not as we already know, the two left parties have said many times and in no uncertain terms that they will not unite. Coalitions in other countries almost always include the party with the most votes. #2 and #3 never kicks out #1. So it's by definition a coup, except here where some people think it's a majority government.

Who said that they would unite? As rubecube pointed out earlier, they don't even have to form a coalition.

And you are wrong about the party with the largest number of seats always forming part of the government. For example, the Kadima party won the most seats in the 2009 Israel election but did not form part of the ruling coalition. Benjamin Netanyahu, who lead the second place (Likud) party, became the Prime Minister. If I remember correctly, the "Harper Government" supported that Israeli government. If it was an illegitimate way to form government, then why did we (he) support it?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Who said that they would unite? As rubecube pointed out earlier, they don't even have to form a coalition.

And you are wrong about the party with the largest number of seats always forming part of the government. For example, the Kadima party won the most seats in the 2009 Israel election but did not form part of the ruling coalition. Benjamin Netanyahu, who lead the second place (Likud) party, became the Prime Minister. If I remember correctly, the "Harper Government" supported that Israeli government. If it was an illegitimate way to form government, then why did we (he) support it?

In Israel the norm is for the party with the most seats to form the government...

On 20 February the President Shimon Peres announced that Likud's Netanyahou would be given the task of forming a government. This is the first time in which the president had not appointed the head of the largest party for this task

There are also about 40 parties in Israel and their government is usually held as an example of the futility of such a crazy system.

BTW, I know what coup d'etat means. I can also name three other concentration camps. Anyway, coalitions will be the death of whoever forms one with the goal of making the party with the most seats go away.

[Cube Inmate]

Some people are too attached to the idea that there is some broad "will of the voters" -- extending that concept as far as to say that if the first-place party isn't part of a coalition, then we have an illegal / unethical seizure of power.

The problem is that there is no "will of the voters." There are 15 million different "wills" in play, which combine in some way, shape, or form to give us a big damned statistical artifact called "Parliament." I would suggest that this year's NDP gov't in Alberta is a pretty good illustration of that.

My point: anyone who claims to know what Canadians voted for, and then goes on to claim that an alternative outcome in Parliament is illegitimate, is making some pretty large and unfounded / untestable assumptions.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

#2 and #3 never kicks out #1. So it's by definition a coup, except here where some people think it's a majority government.

You might want to brush up on your Canadian history.

[Jacks]

It's pretty hard to say what he "will of the voters" is but I would wager that many Liberals would prefer a CPC government rather than a NDP government. People act like the Libs and NDP are almost the same and their votes are interchangeable when in reality they are vastly different.

[Fuzz]

Can we PLEASE get rid of the Neanderthals, just for, like, a couple years guys? Please?

More than 100 former Parks Canada employees have signed an open letter saying they have concerns about the firing of a senior parks scientist in Jasper, Alta., this summer.
They also criticize what they call the "purging of science-based management" in national parks, and are blaming the federal government.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...242733?cmp=rss

[Jacks]

Just tuned into the debate, there are 4 people talking at once. These moderators suck.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can we PLEASE get rid of the Neanderthals, just for, like, a couple years guys? Please?

No

[Looch City]

Harper's trying to distract with the useless niqab debate...

[transplant99]

As long as people truly believe Mulcair, they don't have to worry about a coalition government.

Afterall, this is what he had to say about forming a government with the Liberals.

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party.

“N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition.

“The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03...34.html?ref=tw

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Harper's trying to distract with the useless niqab debate...

You sure do like to tell people what matters to them and what shouldn't eh?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can we PLEASE get rid of the Neanderthals, just for, like, a couple years guys? Please?


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...242733?cmp=rss

I'm sure Harper personally fired the guy because he wanted to muzzle his research on how mountain goat breeding patterns were being negatively affected by the Conservative policies.....

I mean seriously man, it doesn't even say what he was fired for. He could have been watching porn on his work computer for all you know, not everything is a nefarious plot orchestrated by Harper.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

There was nothing deceitful about it. They were very openly saying that they could form a coalition government. But lets play your game.

Is it okay to compare this "deceitful" deal with election tampering?

really eh?

Former federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has launched a searing broadside against his predecessor, Stephane Dion, for trying to take power in 2008 with an “illegitimate” coalition, saying it looked like the work of “a desperate leader” who clung to power through a “coup de theatre.”

“It came as a thunderclap, especially to me. Although I was the party’s deputy leader, I had been excluded from the secret negotiations with the other parties.” Referring to Dion, he writes, “What I saw was a desperate leader clinging to power by any means, resorting to a coup de theatre to survive.”

“The problem was not a coalition itself. You can make coalitions among winners.”

“In our case, it was a coalition of losers. The government had just increased it seats in the House of Commons, while we had lost seats. How were we to explain to the people that we were throwing out a government duly re-elected two months before?”

About Dion, he said his predecessor “burst” the coalition plan on to the Liberal caucus, and that it landed like a “bombshell” with Canadians.

Sounds somewhat deceitful to me when I read that.

The other thing is IIRC, both Dion and Layton said before the election they would not form a coalition with each other and certainly not with the BQ...but I ay not remember that entirely correctly.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You sure do like to tell people what matters to them and what shouldn't eh?

Does it matter to you? I mean, like, really? Do you actually care?

I don't think I've ever even seen a person in Canada wearing one of those things, and I wouldn't care if I did, but now it's an election issue., when it is a nothing issue to virtually every person in Canada.

There are actual fish to fry here, and actual issues that affect us all, but they are talking about the clothes of, I don't know, 0.001% of the population, if that.

Now I'm not telling anyone what does and does not matter to them, but if this does matter to a white guy hockey fan in Calgary (like me), it shouldn't.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm sure Harper personally fired the guy because he wanted to muzzle his research on how mountain goat breeding patterns were being negatively affected by the Conservative policies.....

I mean seriously man, it doesn't even say what he was fired for. He could have been watching porn on his work computer for all you know, not everything is a nefarious plot orchestrated by Harper.

You 're right. There has been nothing systematic about Harper's continuous attack on government science. It's clear the past 10 years of stories are all made up. Carry on comrade. Your government is flawless and shouldn't be questioned.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't think I've ever even seen a person in Canada wearing one of those things, and I wouldn't care if I did, but now it's an election issue., when it is a nothing issue to virtually every person in Canada.

Well that really isn't true.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...-pco-1.3241895

A public-opinion poll ordered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper earlier this year found overwhelming support among Canadians for the requirement that women remove their niqabs or burkas at citizenship ceremonies. The March telephone survey by Léger Marketing found 82 per cent of Canadians favoured the policy somewhat or strongly, with just 15 per cent opposed. Support was widespread, but especially strong in Quebec, where 93 per cent were in favour of the requirement.

[starseed]

Trudeau claims to catch Mulcair in a lie. Says he has video proving his bulk water exports stance that Mulcair repeatedly stated that he never said. Will they release the video after the debate?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well that really isn't true.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...-pco-1.3241895

People having an opinion on a subject doesn't mean it's actually important. No doubt nearly every person in the country has an opinion on neck tattoos. If they start talking about them, will it make it an important issue?

But I don't know, maybe it is important to some people.

Let's take you for example. I'll make a couple assumptions -- you aren't Muslim, you live in Calgary. If I'm wrong about those, let me know.

How high is this subject on your particular list of concerns going into this election. Is it higher or lower on your list than the economy/recession, commodity prices, pipelines, the environment, overseas military engagements/ISIS, national security/funding the military, and... the clothes someone wears to a citizenship ceremony. Where does it fit in the mix for you?

EDIT: just to add - I do think they should take them off, but it's not something that actually concerns me beyond having an opinion, and it doesn't mean I think it's an election issue.