Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's such a bizarre tactic though because those ads seem like they'd only resonate with 55+ crowd. Everyone else is just doing a collective eye-roll.

That's the swing voting block still.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Slava

You're about to be left with no respect for any of them, so let me welcome you to the club! They are all going negative because it works.

At this point Harper and the CPC are hitting Trudeau because they need the Liberals who voted for him last time to do it again. It's now they get to a majority from that ceiling of 31% noted on that 308 poll on the last page. If it becomes a two horse race (its a dead heat for now) they could switch to the NDP, but at this point those attacks are sensible.

I don't care about the negative ads if they've actually got something to say. The 'he's not ready' ads have nothing to say except he's a pretty boy and he'll legalize marijuana. They are just painful.

[Resolute 14]

They worked against Ignatief with the 'American tourist' angle, however.

Personally, and in Simpsons-esque style, I want to see the Conservatives run an ad condemning Trudeau for supporting C-51.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I don't care about the negative ads if they've actually got something to say. The 'he's not ready' ads have nothing to say except he's a pretty boy and he'll legalize marijuana. They are just painful.

The first time that I saw that ad, I thought it was a Rick Mercer parody. The "nice hair do" line was funny.

Those ads hurt the CPC I think. It makes them look immature.

[Coach]

I love attack ads. It's an easy way to pick out who has actual ideas and good points and who is just throwing s*** at everyone else to try and make themselves look better by comparison because they have nothing else to offer.

Like PeteMoss said, if they say something of value, fine. But the majority are just pot shots at quotes taken out of context and are greatly annoying. Those ones are easy to discount. The Cons, just wow. Anyone with a shred of intelligence should be able to cut right through any of those ads.

[JohnnyB]

If anyone else is a dual citizen, eligible to be one or is simply as annoyed by bill c-24 as I am, here's a link to a petition you can sign against it.

The government wants the power to eliminate a person’s Canadian citizenship without even having to go to court to get a judge’s order. This means that Canadians will be vulnerable to faceless government bureaucrats abusing their power.

Repeal Citizenship Changes! Don't leave millions of us as second class Canadian citizens

[temple5]

This has been brought up alot by my LoC friends and so I have had to do some research because there are some wild accusations that come from this.

Its not a "faceless government bureaucrat", its the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (or delegate) who would be the one revoking the citizenship. Its not like a speeding ticket, you get convicted and you automatically get your citizenship revoked - its that they can revoke.

And thats only under one of a number of conditions, the specific one you are referring as not being in front of a Canadian court is is listed as "B" in the Act. Where the person was convicted of a terrorism offence or an equivalent foreign terrorism conviction in a foreign country and sentenced to five years of imprisonment or more.

"B" is the only one where you wouldnt get to plead your case in front of a Canadian judge, all the others are crimes against Canada brought forward in front of in Canadian courts.

While you havent mentioned this, alot who have also bring this up as racist and the use of "second class citizen". I assume they do this as this is the NDP/Liberal/rabble talking points to try to paint the Conservatives as "Tea Party North". The only reason why this only applies to dual citizenship holders (not not us whitey single passport holders (or any color that has a single passport)) is because Canada must comply with the UN’s 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness else I am sure they would just as happily revoke my citizenship.

I do agree that part "B" is vague. I believe it should include a list of countries where the ruling such country would be considered lawful.

Egypt for example with Mohamed Fahmy case is the normal one brought up and I wouldnt consider it to be one of those "lawful countries". Im not a political genius by any means, but no matter how anyone hates the Conservatives, I dont think they would revoke anyones passport if the judges reasoning for conviction was "On 23 July 2014, the judge in the case released his reasoning for the sentence, saying the Al-Jazeera journalists were brought together “by the devil” to destabilize Egypt"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Fahmy - Im no lawyer but that doesnt sound like the firmest of legal grounds and I dont think Canada would revoke a citizenship because of it.

I am surprised why the Conservatives would bring this Bill forward the year before the election especially when they have spent so much time trying to bring the "2nd Passport" vote to them. You would think they would have internal polling or hard facts on the ground that would make them believe they wont lose support over this.

I personally believe that this was brought on so they dont have to deal with another "Khadr" type situation. If the person has as second citizenship and convicted then they remove his citizenship so they dont have to deal with him (not sure if Khadr had dual citizenship) but I think that is the type of situation they are looking at dealing with.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

If anyone else is a dual citizen, eligible to be one or is simply as annoyed by bill c-24 as I am, here's a link to a petition you can sign against it.



Repeal Citizenship Changes! Don't leave millions of us as second class Canadian citizens

I may not agree with Paul Watson but I fail to understand how a fellow born in Toronto can lose his Canadian citizenship. It just seems wrong

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domest...0OV2MZ20150615

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by temple5

This has been brought up alot by my LoC friends and so I have had to do some research because there are some wild accusations that come from this.

Its not a "faceless government bureaucrat", its the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (or delegate) who would be the one revoking the citizenship. Its not like a speeding ticket, you get convicted and you automatically get your citizenship revoked - its that they can revoke.

And thats only under one of a number of conditions, the specific one you are referring as not being in front of a Canadian court is is listed as "B" in the Act. Where the person was convicted of a terrorism offence or an equivalent foreign terrorism conviction in a foreign country and sentenced to five years of imprisonment or more.

"B" is the only one where you wouldnt get to plead your case in front of a Canadian judge, all the others are crimes against Canada brought forward in front of in Canadian courts.

While you havent mentioned this, alot who have also bring this up as racist and the use of "second class citizen". I assume they do this as this is the NDP/Liberal/rabble talking points to try to paint the Conservatives as "Tea Party North". The only reason why this only applies to dual citizenship holders (not not us whitey single passport holders (or any color that has a single passport)) is because Canada must comply with the UN’s 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness else I am sure they would just as happily revoke my citizenship.

I do agree that part "B" is vague. I believe it should include a list of countries where the ruling such country would be considered lawful.

Egypt for example with Mohamed Fahmy case is the normal one brought up and I wouldnt consider it to be one of those "lawful countries". Im not a political genius by any means, but no matter how anyone hates the Conservatives, I dont think they would revoke anyones passport if the judges reasoning for conviction was "On 23 July 2014, the judge in the case released his reasoning for the sentence, saying the Al-Jazeera journalists were brought together “by the devil” to destabilize Egypt"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Fahmy - Im no lawyer but that doesnt sound like the firmest of legal grounds and I dont think Canada would revoke a citizenship because of it.

I am surprised why the Conservatives would bring this Bill forward the year before the election especially when they have spent so much time trying to bring the "2nd Passport" vote to them. You would think they would have internal polling or hard facts on the ground that would make them believe they wont lose support over this.

I personally believe that this was brought on so they dont have to deal with another "Khadr" type situation. If the person has as second citizenship and convicted then they remove his citizenship so they dont have to deal with him (not sure if Khadr had dual citizenship) but I think that is the type of situation they are looking at dealing with.

I've read the bill and understand it. I'm not a big fan of increasing the requirements for immigration in it either, for other reasons, but the fundamental issue for me is that citizenship should be inalienable. For me (a born and raised Canadian), the fact that a law has been passed which grants the government the power to remove me of my Canadian citizenship is something worth protesting, regardless of the limited conditions under which it might occur.

The position taken by the current government to reframe citizenship as a privilege rather than a right is dangerous and unnecessary.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I've read the bill and understand it. I'm not a big fan of increasing the requirements for immigration in it either, for other reasons, but the fundamental issue for me is that citizenship should be inalienable. For me (a born and raised Canadian), the fact that a law has been passed which grants the government the power to remove me of my Canadian citizenship is something worth protesting, regardless of the limited conditions under which it might occur.

The position taken by the current government to reframe citizenship as a privilege rather than a right is dangerous and unnecessary.

They could always have revoked your citizenship. C-24 does nothing to change it except they expedite cases for which it makes sense to - and even in those cases, it's not just some random arbitrary decision. The criteria for invoking this is extremely clear.

[rubecube]

The Liberals keep telling everyone it's a three-horse race, but it's sure looking like there are only two serious contenders.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...click=sf_globe

If an election were to be held today, the NDP would likely take the cake.

That’s according to our new election forecast tool that analyzes polling and historical data and helps make sense of it all.

This week’s projections:

The probability of an NDP win is currently 52 per cent
The Conservatives were favoured to win the most seats 47 per cent of the time
The Liberals won in 2 per cent of the simulations
Two other notable outcomes:

1. Probability of a majority government: 0.9 per cent

Majority governments were found in just 9 simulations out of 1,000
However, the likelihood of a minority government this time is a three-way race, which has historically been rare
This three-way split could mean that small shifts of 2 or 3 percentage points from one party to another can result in every government/opposition combination you can imagine

[rubecube]

As far as "embarrassing remarks by Conservative MPs" goes, this is probably below Anders calling Mandela a terrorist, but pretty brutal nonetheless. Not only was it in poor taste, it was also just flat-out wrong on a factual basis. It looks like either she deliberately lied to conjure up political support or she's just an idiot. Also interesting that we have yet another instance of the Harper government rejecting expert recommendations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tory...bing-1.3152013

In a speech to churchgoers in her riding two weeks ago, Conservative backbencher Wai Young, the MP for Vancouver South, compared the Harper government to Jesus and accused Canada's spy agency, CSIS, of knowing in advance about Canada's worst-ever attack — the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182.

She added that, "If bill C-51 had been in place 30 years ago, Air India would never have happened. Those some 400 lives would have been saved."

"CSIS knew or heard that there was a bomb on board this plane," she said. "But because of the strict laws that government departments have, they cannot share information between departments.… Because they couldn't share that information with the RCMP, the RCMP could not act to take that bomb off that plane. Today, with C-51, they will be able to share that information."

The factual record, however, contradicts her. After a series of criminal trials and a lengthy inquiry under retired Supreme Court justice John Major, no evidence has ever surfaced to suggest that CSIS knew there was a bomb on the Air India plane. Nor has there been any evidence, even if it had known, that any law prevented CSIS from advising the RCMP.

Rather, Major's inquiry concluded there was a lack of co-ordination between CSIS and the RCMP in the investigation of the bombing, and that this should be remedied by having both agencies report to a national security adviser.

The Harper government rejected that recommendation.

In her June 29 speech to the Harvest City Church, Young also criticized "most journalists" because, she said, they did not respect facts and should call themselves "columnists" instead.

"I do not read the newspapers anymore, because most of the facts in there are not factual," Young told the congregation.

[Knut]

As a "close to former" Conservative supporter it is so frustrating that the fringes of the party are so bad at keeping their mouths shut about the crazy stuff.

My biggest issue is the muzzling of Science that is happening and I will be letting my MP know.

[rubecube]

And the twittersphere now has a hold of it #CPCJesus.

http://www.straight.com/blogra/48864...rious-cpcjesus

[Slava]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The Liberals keep telling everyone it's a three-horse race, but it's sure looking like there are only two serious contenders.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...click=sf_globe

The percentages they're polling at are within 2-3 points of each other, so that's why it looks like a 3 horse race. It will be interesting to see how the seat distribution falls out from that, and of course a lot can change over the course of an actual election campaign. I think that really starts after the August long weekend.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Slava

The percentages they're polling at are within 2-3 points of each other, so that's why it looks like a 3 horse race. It will be interesting to see how the seat distribution falls out from that, and of course a lot can change over the course of an actual election campaign. I think that really starts after the August long weekend.

I think their only chance at this point is if Mulcair really puts his foot in his mouth, and I think it'll have to be a pretty big gaffe. The whole not knowing the corporate tax thing didn't really register with voters by the looks of things. Other than that, outside of absolutely killing it in the debates, I don't see how Trudeau can climb back into the race.

[rubecube]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/un-hum...omen-1.3164650

The UN human rights committee is accusing the Canadian government of failing to act on missing and murdered aboriginal women, violence against women generally, and numerous other matters, ranging from refugees to Bill C-51, the new anti-terror law.

The UN's first report card on Canada in 10 years was released Thursday, and measures whether the country has met its human rights obligations.

[Slava]

Harper has to be dreading this election. He is too close to the fixed date to step down and the bleeding just won't stop. Just yesterday it came to light that his brilliant economic stewardship has turned a possible surplus (which would have been the first in eight years) into a $1.5B deficit. That's at least partly as a result of the terrible income splitting they put in. The country is probably in recession and of course the increased UCCB was widely panned this week. At this point his only possibility is to drop the writ early so he can out spend his opponents and hope to paper over the problems.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Slava

Harper has to be dreading this election. He is too close to the fixed date to step down and the bleeding just won't stop. Just yesterday it came to light that his brilliant economic stewardship has turned a possible surplus (which would have been the first in eight years) into a $1.5B deficit. That's at least partly as a result of the terrible income splitting they put in. The country is probably in recession and of course the increased UCCB was widely panned this week. At this point his only possibility is to drop the writ early so he can out spend his opponents and hope to paper over the problems.

Yeah, I don't think that's going to help. See: Prentice, Jim.

[robbie111]

I think conservative strategists thought something like this

1. Bribe Canadians and post tonnes of ads congratulating yourselves on said bribes.

2. Build more jails than we know what to do with.

3. Run 8 straight deficits

4. profit



I'm a small c conservative who believes in balancing books. Why not invest the jail money into our military instead or infrastructure when the cost of borrowing is at record lows. Use some of that taxpayer ad money to create jobs. Also if you're giving tax breaks, give them to small business where the majority of employment creation occurs. It's sad when the most conservative thinking finance minister was Paul Martin in the 90's.