2011 Canadian Election Thread

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Maybe thats the reason people are walking away from Harper as well?

According to almost all polls...they aren't though.

The cons have been steady since day 1 up a few, down a few, but bascially right where they started everything.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think you nailed it with the bolded part. Harper is loved by CPC supporters but no one else really cares for him. Why? Because he's bland, dry and doesn't deliver sound bites. I really do wish that the CPC had put some effort into building his image rather than just trashing Michael Ignatieff. Maybe they could have taken some photos of him with his sleeves rolled up. It probably wouldn't have killed him to grow a moustache either...

I hate to tell you, but that isn't it. I can get by the fact that he isn't the most outgoing and flashiest. The thing is that Harper has acted as though the Liberals and supporters of the party are idiots, or somehow know less than the CPC and their supporters. I'm not sure that I'm phrasing it properly....and its kind of hard to explain, but there is a fair amount of vitriol between the two parties and it starts at the top.

You could do all of the imaging you wanted and there are blue Liberals (who incidentally he was courting hard today, as now he wants our votes) who would rather not support him.

I might have said it earlier in this thread, but Harper is working in a narrow band here. The fact is the people who support Harper love him. The people who don't support him though, basically intensely dislike him. Because he has been so polarizing it makes it hard for him to get over that 40% that he needs for a majority.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

I hate to tell you, but that isn't it. I can get by the fact that he isn't the most outgoing and flashiest. The thing is that Harper has acted as though the Liberals and supporters of the party are idiots, or somehow know less than the CPC and their supporters. I'm not sure that I'm phrasing it properly....and its kind of hard to explain, but there is a fair amount of vitriol between the two parties and it starts at the top.

Maybe that's what it is for you, but, for the most part, you follow politics and are in tuned to what's going on. Most people aren't like that at all. Ask them why they don't like Harper and they will probably tell you that they think he is a dork or they don't like his haircut.

You could do all of the imaging you wanted and there are blue Liberals (who incidentally he was courting hard today, as now he wants our votes) who would rather not support him.

I realize this, but I think that has a lot more to do with partisanship. It goes both ways, of course. My dad, for instance, is a CPC member (I'm not) and he is absolutely giddy over the fact that the Liberals are getting crushed. I try to tell him how the Conservatives blew what should have been a cake walk to a majority, but he doesn't seem to care. I really hate partisanship like that. Say what you will about me, but if it took voting for the Liberals to stop the NDP from gaining power, I would do it without hesitation.

I might have said it earlier in this thread, but Harper is working in a narrow band here. The fact is the people who support Harper love him. The people who don't support him though, basically intensely dislike him. Because he has been so polarizing it makes it hard for him to get over that 40% that he needs for a majority.

Which is why they need a new leader. We've seen what is important to the people in this election, find a charismatic guy that talks a good game and the CPC will get their majority.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Maybe that's what it is for you, but, for the most part, you follow politics and are in tuned to what's going on. Most people aren't like that at all. Ask them why they don't like Harper and they will probably tell you that they think he is a dork or they don't like his haircut.



I realize this, but I think that has a lot more to do with partisanship. It goes both ways, of course. My dad, for instance, is a CPC member (I'm not) and he is absolutely giddy over the fact that the Liberals are getting crushed. I try to tell him how the Conservatives blew what should have been a cake walk to a majority, but he doesn't seem to care. I really hate partisanship like that. Say what you will about me, but if it took voting for the Liberals to stop the NDP from gaining power, I would do it without hesitation.



Which is why they need a new leader. We've seen what is important to the people in this election, find a charismatic guy that talks a good game and the CPC will get their majority.

Well he is a dork and that is really bad hair....plus those musical "performances" are basically pathetic! Seriously though people are smarter than what you're saying here.

Harper made it clear from day one that it was him against the "coalition". Even before then he had been really pushing to crush the Liberals. I get that this is how politics is, but there are some leaders who still get respect on both sides and gather up the supporters as they flee from their opposition as a result.

[Dan02]

be interesting to see how the Bin Laden story effects the election and if the conservatives have time to press this to their advantage seeing as Layton has wanted out of Afghanistan for a long time.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well he is a dork and that is really bad hair....plus those musical "performances" are basically pathetic! Seriously though people are smarter than what you're saying here.

I think that's the mistake that the Conservatives made though. They actually believed that people were too smart to vote for someone like Layton. So their tactic was to destroy the Liberal party's credibility, and with the help of Michael Ignatieff, they did exactly that. What they assumed, however, is that the average voter would be too smart to support the NDP and they were absolutely wrong about that. Honest to god, I'm betting if you ask anyone who voted for the NDP after tomorrow why they did it, they will give you reasons that have nothing to do with their platform. In fact, I'm sure that they didn't give the NDP platform much, if any thought at all. Again, I don't know why you think that this sort of voter deserves any kind of credit.

[Stranger]

I just have to get this off my chest.

Layton walked into this Chinatown massage parlour called "The Velvet Touch" at 9pm and no warning alarms went off in his head that maybe this isn't a legit place. If I'm in the same situation that's the first thing that comes to mind.

I really don't care about the whole situation, but Jack is really very naive (which I can see in some of the backtracking on policies he's been talking about this week) or a really bad liar. Either way he's better suited for a position in parliment like he's used to where he can talk all he wants and not have to make any real important decisions.

[Slava]

Do you think its worse that Layton did that (15 years ago!) or worse that a guy who was convicted of fraud 5 times and dealing with an escort was an advisor/lobbyist to the PMO?

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I just have to get this off my chest.

Layton walked into this Chinatown massage parlour called "The Velvet Touch" at 9pm and no warning alarms went off in his head that maybe this isn't a legit place. If I'm in the same situation that's the first thing that comes to mind.

I really don't care about the whole situation, but Jack is really very naive (which I can see in some of the backtracking on policies he's been talking about this week) or a really bad liar. Either way he's better suited for a position in parliment like he's used to where he can talk all he wants and not have to make any real important decisions.

I don't think he was being naive at all. He knew exactly what that place was and what he was doing.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I just have to get this off my chest.

Layton walked into this Chinatown massage parlour called "The Velvet Touch" at 9pm and no warning alarms went off in his head that maybe this isn't a legit place. If I'm in the same situation that's the first thing that comes to mind.

I really don't care about the whole situation, but Jack is really very naive (which I can see in some of the backtracking on policies he's been talking about this week) or a really bad liar. Either way he's better suited for a position in parliment like he's used to where he can talk all he wants and not have to make any real important decisions.

What do you mean? If you're looking to pay an asian hooker for sex, that place looks pretty legit to me.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Do you think its worse that Layton did that (15 years ago!) or worse that a guy who was convicted of fraud 5 times and dealing with an escort was an advisor/lobbyist to the PMO?

Well...one could be making critical decisions for the country, the other one cant. You decide.

if nothing else it shows a tremendous lack of judgement if he did know and an amazing inability to understand things if he didnt. Either way...not good.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well...one could be making critical decisions for the country, the other one cant. You decide.

if nothing else it shows a tremendous lack of judgement if he did know and an amazing inability to understand things if he didnt. Either way...not good.

I totally agree....except I have a feeling we're not talking about the same guy!

When is that picture from? I thought that the place closed down over a decade ago though?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Do you think its worse that Layton did that (15 years ago!) or worse that a guy who was convicted of fraud 5 times and dealing with an escort was an advisor/lobbyist to the PMO?

Both situations are pretty bad. One is the leader of a federal party, the other isn't. I think we should be able to agree on which one is worse.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Do you think its worse that Layton did that (15 years ago!) or worse that a guy who was convicted of fraud 5 times and dealing with an escort was an advisor/lobbyist to the PMO?

One of them had the cops called on him by the Prime Minister He was also reported to the ethics committee by the Prime Minister.

The other one got a happy ending in a gross massage parlor.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Both situations are pretty bad. One is the leader of a federal party, the other isn't. I think we should be able to agree on which one is worse.

Yes, and one was working closely with the PMO and the other was 15 years ago and there were no charges. In other words there was one party charged here (5 times nonetheless), and the other rode away with no follow-up.

You tell me which incident should help determine who should govern the country?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yes, and one was working closely with the PMO and the other was 15 years ago and there were no charges. In other words there was one party charged here (5 times nonetheless), and the other rode away with no follow-up.

You tell me which incident should help determine who should govern the country?

yeah clear as day...the leader of the federal party is the one under much higher scrutiny...since you know...the other guy has nothing to do with anything any more.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

yeah clear as day...the leader of the federal party is the one under much higher scrutiny...since you know...the other guy has nothing to do with anything any more.

Really? I can't even argue with you, because I don't even think that you believe that.

[transplant99]

Believe what you like..

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yes, and one was working closely with the PMO and the other was 15 years ago and there were no charges. In other words there was one party charged here (5 times nonetheless), and the other rode away with no follow-up.

You tell me which incident should help determine who should govern the country?

Does the fact that it was 15 years ago really make it a non issues though? The guy was 45 years old at the time and a metro councillor for the city of Toronto. It's not like he was some teenager and the act of paying some asian slave girl to have sex with him can be passed off as a youthful indiscretion. I think that this election should be decided on policy, but if people are so insistent on making this election based on leader character, then how is this not relevant? I mean, you can't think for a second that if this were Stephen Harper in this situation that it would be a non issue, and I highly doubt that your position on this would be the same.

[zamler]