Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well don't sugar coat it, are you saying you think Israel is guilty of war crimes?

The UN is one of the more corrupt organizations on Earth.

Uh considering how many civilians they murder every year, yeah they are. So is the US if that was your next question.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The civilian deaths are in large part a matter of military engagement in dense populated areas. The Israelis can hardly be held accountable for the use of human shields, in one form or another, on the part of its enemies, who deliberately put civilians in harm's way in the (frequently successful) hope of deterrence. Regardless of the circumstance, a numerical reference to body count cannot ever in itself, devoid of context, establish the basis for asserting that a war crime has been committed. That's always a contextual issue.

That being said, it is undoubtedly true that the Israelis are guilty of war crimes. Even just on the same topic, there are multiple accounts of them using enemy children as human shields - which is absolutely barbaric.

[PsYcNeT]

One of the absolute worst parts about being a Jew is having ####lords automatically assume I support the Zionist regime in Israel.

Also Christian Zionism is gross. Quit riding Israel's dick yo (not directed at anyone in particular).

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by John Doe

The debate didn't have the viewership that the old consortium debates had.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/...ticle25910569/

Too much apathy, too early in the campaign, wrong time of the year or inaccessible to too many people?

Lots of people watch via different media than they did in 2011 though. Its easy to catch the youtube replay the next day and not have to watch ads or the inter-debate segments.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Speaks to the Canadian political climate that a guy has to be removed from candidacy for basically agreeing with the U.N.

Personally, I find it disappointing that this is the case.

Israel is an effed up mess, but frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who takes the UN seriously.

[FlamesAddiction]

I watched the debate live on Youtube and I think at the peak, there were about 36,000 viewing it. Not sure if that is good or not.

Personally, I think it is just too early in the campaigning right now. It's the dog days of summer. Many people just aren't into it yet.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Israel is an effed up mess, but frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who takes the UN seriously.

While there is much to hate about the UN, it is the best we have right now.

Also, a lot of the good stuff happens behind the scenes. We all look at the posturing of the security council and see problems. And rightly so. But so much happens underneath.

Secondly, disaster response, we could probably give props right there.

Those that speak out against the UN, don't understand how it works. It's flawed, like all governments are, but it actually does a lot of good.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I watched the debate live on Youtube and I think at the peak, there was about 36,000 viewing it. Not sure if that is good or not.

Personally, I think it is just too early in the campaigning right now. It's the dog days of summer. Many people just aren't into it yet.

That's the point. Harper wants early debates (why he said he'll only do a couple) and let his ads carry him as he has more money.

Funny enough, he actually beat Mulcair this time. No one was expecting that, not even Harper.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Lots of people watch via different media than they did in 2011 though. Its easy to catch the youtube replay the next day and not have to watch ads or the inter-debate segments.

It may be easy but it evidently isn't easy enough.

In its statement, Rogers noted that the video of the debate had been started 278,000 times on YouTube, Facebook, Macleans.ca and OMNI.ca, with 4.1 million total minutes viewed – meaning that, on average, each online viewer watched just less than 15 minutes of the two-hour event.
In contrast, the lone English-language debate of the past federal election, which included Mr. Harper, NDP Leader Jack Layton, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, reached 10.6 million viewers, with an average per-minute audience of 3.85 million.

The people most likely to watch online are young people, who happen to be the segment of society least likely to be engaged politically. I am all for opening up new venues in which to view the debates. My problem is when you restrict traditional venues (e.g.: refusing to do the consortium debates). It isn't an either/or situation. You can do both.

[GP_Matt]

It was my understanding that all media was allowed to carry the debate and air it live. They just weren't invited to organize it.

Is that not the case?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Israel is an effed up mess, but frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who takes the UN seriously.

My point is that the position he took is not extreme at all, but that this issue has clearly been so severely and causticly politicised in Canada that his very reasonable position appears to warrant immediate removal from candidacy. That speaks very poorly about Canada's environment for democratic debate on this topic. That's disappointing.

How very American.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

My point is that the position he took is not extreme at all

Sure it is. I don't think it deserves immediate disqualification from candidacy but it's pretty extreme. Here's the quote:

“One could argue that Israel’s intention was always to ethnically cleanse the region — there are direct quotations proving this to be the case. Guess we just sweep that under the rug. A minority of Palestinians are bombing buses in response to what appears to be a calculated effort to commit a war crime.”

I don't think it's at all fair to say that Israel was attempting to ethnically cleanse a region and I'm totally unaware of any such quotations. It also implicitly justifies bombing that deliberately targets civilians. I think it's absolutely fair to say this guy is completely out to lunch.

That being said, anyone who refers to these sorts of comments as "anti-Semitic" is an idiot and frankly should be prevented from participating in discussions on this topic henceforth.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You know what, after some though I'm going to back off a bit on that stance - I don't really know how extreme or not he was in light of the fact that that quote is taken out of context. On its own, it sure seems way over the line, but without seeing the rest of the surrounding conversation, who really knows.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Actively seeks out and signs free trade agreements. That's something I believe in.

Lowered GST
Increased funding for sport and athletes.

Have you bothered to read those free trade agreements? The TPP is a mess and should never be passed.

(except for the part about forcing Canada to abolish our supply management system. That part should be passed)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

My point is that the position he took is not extreme at all, but that this issue has clearly been so severely and causticly politicised in Canada that his very reasonable position appears to warrant immediate removal from candidacy. That speaks very poorly about Canada's environment for democratic debate on this topic. That's disappointing.

How very American.

He wasn't "removed", he chose to resign. He could have stuck around (assuming the NDP didn't punt him and clothe it as a resignation) so your entire point may be a little off base.

Also, if he's going to whine about this being a "smear campaign" and say the comment that is circulating is taken out of context, then why did he delete the post rather than publicize the entire discussion, in context?

Yeah, sorry, no. If you're going to stand for public office, your public comments will be scrutinized. And if you aren't willing to stand behind them, then perhaps it is best you resign.

And that is independent of your personal feelings about Israel.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure it is. I don't think it deserves immediate disqualification from candidacy but it's pretty extreme. Here's the quote:

“One could argue that Israel’s intention was always to ethnically cleanse the region — there are direct quotations proving this to be the case. Guess we just sweep that under the rug. A minority of Palestinians are bombing buses in response to what appears to be a calculated effort to commit a war crime.”

I don't think it's at all fair to say that Israel was attempting to ethnically cleanse a region and I'm totally unaware of any such quotations. It also implicitly justifies bombing that deliberately targets civilians. I think it's absolutely fair to say this guy is completely out to lunch.

That being said, anyone who refers to these sorts of comments as "anti-Semitic" is an idiot and frankly should be prevented from participating in discussions on this topic henceforth.

Controversial, but not really extreme, and very little isn't controversial in discussing Israel and the Palestinians. Ilan Pappe, who is well-regarded as a leading historian on the region, has a whole book just on the topic of Israel's intent to ethnically cleanse the region. This alone shows that Wheeldon's statement that “One could argue that Israel’s intention was always to ethnically cleanse the region — there are direct quotations proving this to be the case." is true.

Anyways, I really don't want to derail this thread into another discussion of Israel and Palestine, so I'm happy to leave it at that and for other discussion to take place by pm or in another thread. My main interest in posting what I did was to comment on Canadian political environment rather than to take sides on Israel and Palestine.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He wasn't "removed", he chose to resign. He could have stuck around (assuming the NDP didn't punt him and clothe it as a resignation) so your entire point may be a little off base.

It may be off base. I admit I'm reading between the lines based on this part of the article:

The website also reports: “Asked if he resigned, Wheeldon promptly declined to comment.”

He said, “I still support all of the awesome candidates that are part of our party, and I have nothing nasty to say about any of that. There’s certainly stuff I’d love to say but at this time I want to be cautious and take my time to think about what’s happening.”

But the federal team is distancing itself from the now-former candidate, perhaps suggesting it played a hand in his sudden exit.


“Our position on the conflict in the middle east is clear, as Tom Mulcair expressed clearly in the debate. Mr. Wheeldon’s comments are not in line with that policy and he is no longer our candidate. We were made aware of some information that had not previously been disclosed. When we approached Mr. Wheeldon with this information he submitted his resignation,” Senior Campaign Advisor Brad Lavigne said in a statement.

Those quotes seem pretty suggestive that it wasn't simply a matter of voluntary resignation, but I may be wrong in that.

[JohnnyB]

On a separate note, I thought this was a really interesting article on the electoral strategy and success of the conservative party. Interesting regardless of individual political leanings.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015...l-win-election

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Those quotes seem pretty suggestive that it wasn't simply a matter of voluntary resignation, but I may be wrong in that.

I don't think you're off base at all, and for what it's worth I spoke to someone today who agrees with you and has credibility on this (can't say who).

[rubecube]

Sigh...Harper doubles down on pot prohibition.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politi...n-crime-agenda