Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Vulcan]

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well you got lots of thanks so I'm sure you are feeling good about yourself but I have to ask the question, Like what?

You have made 3 posts in this thread, none of them discussing "important and pressing issues", all of them bashing Harper.

Almost every single substantive issue in this election is more important than ISIS.

Even the Duffy debacle is a bigger issue IMO. And honestly the whole Duffy thing is something I don't really give a rat's ass about.

For me, the ISIS "issue" is something I only care about insofar as it frustratingly blinds voters to the real issues - first and foremost in my mind being the continuous anti-democratic, anti-science, and anti-information government we've had for the past nine years.

I may have said this earlier in this thread, but to give an example, the long form census is a far more important issue for me (and should be for all Canadians) than playing whack-a-mole in the middle east.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well you got lots of thanks so I'm sure you are feeling good about yourself but I have to ask the question, Like what?

It's always amazed me that we allow the politicians to decide what the agenda for discussion will be for every election. I suppose it's the responsibility of the media to not let this happen, but they have been neutered long ago.

Just off the top of my head, some things that I would like the parties to address :

1. Linking immigration to the jobless rate.
2. Forcing provinces to budget within 10% of the median percentage of deficit against income to qualify for equalization.
3. Consolidation of Northern communities.
4. Imposition of a tax on foreign ownership of real estate.
5. Get us a decent intercept aircraft for the military. (Build a new Arrow, please)
6. Even elimination of the barrier to moving alcohol across provincial boundaries, just because it was in the news today, and it shouldn't cost over three dollars to buy a beer at a store.

I have put zero thought into answering this question, other than literally as I was writing. These could probably be ripped apart easily, but the point is, most of what is being shouted across the floor is costly tonnes of money and makes little or no difference to the majority of Canadians the day after the election. It's hot air.

[Knut]

Historically I have voted conservative. Mostly this is because I do feel that a more conservative fiscal policy is required federally. I have recently found myself trending more liberal socially. Social changes largely will happen regardless and government should follow trends there and not try and hold changes back. They should also try and form policy around the scientific consensus and use sound unbiased research to form policy.

Anyways I had the chance to talk on the phone with both Crockett and Hehr in the last few weeks.

First with Crockatt. I had emailed some questions to her and actually received a personal call back. I had concerns about muzzling science, rejecting climate change, the losing social media battle and not considering decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana. I had a good feeling after the conversation was over. She mentioned that they have added a new MP with a strong science background to head up the science committee (can not remember who) and that they have changed their policy. They are adding a stronger social media team this time around. The discussion centered around the NDP's ability to get people to vote due to social media presence. She did not touch on marijuana, but we did talk about climate change. This is where my concern has come up. Her thought is that climate change is largely a smear job by the United States against the Oilsands in support of their own oil extraction. I countered with that scientific consensus is showing man-made climate and that recognition that it is happening with a solid economic policy to tackle it would likely counter much of the complaints against the party. It was certainly positive but i did not like the political rhetoric about climate change policy.

Next, my wife got in touch with Kent Hehr (she once worked on his campaign provincially) and arranged for him to call me. Asked him the same basic questions. He did not agree that anything would change with Science muzzling and that his party (not sure about him) is all for Marijuana legalization and the tax dollars it will bring. As for climate change. He does acknowledge the science and knows that something must be done. He is against a cap and trade, but things a smart carbon tax would be beneficial (but that each province would come up with their own policy on this and did not want to try and force a federal measure that would not fit all provinces). He also is pro-pipeline for transport and wants the delays fixed urgently to avoid losing market share.

In short.... Kent's policy's aligned much closer to mine and i am leaning towards voting liberal.

Must be a tight race coming up if I got personal calls from both sides during a federal election.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Canada is officially in a recession.

Canada's economy expanded in June but declined by 0.1 per cent for the second quarter as a whole, meeting the bar of what is legally defined as a recession.

The economy expanded by 0.5 per cent in June, Statistics Canada said.

But that slight monthly uptick wasn't enough to offset the contraction in the previous two months, which means for the second quarter as a whole, the economy shrank.

The economy also shrank in the first quarter, which means Canada's economy has met the bare minimum required before a recession is declared — two consecutive quarters of decline.

On an annualized basis, the economy shrank by 0.5 per cent in the April-to-June period, after contracting at an 0.8-per-cent annual pace in the first three months of 2015. For comparison purposes, the U.S. economy expanded by 3.7 per cent during the same period, the data agency noted.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gdp-...sion-1.3210790

[EldrickOnIce]

^ Not going to help lower the NDP's 8B per fiscal year platform deficit..

[Resolute 14]

On a less serious note, begun the sign wars have. And I have to say, I'm rather disappointed that the Liberals seem to be trying to battle the Conservatives on the size of signs. It's going to get ridiculous.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Seems like a couple pages of discussion, of 60+ pages, is pretty reasonable.

Not really. I mean, more people die in Canada on a yearly basis due to lightning strikes then they do due to terrorism... where are the pages dedicated to lightning strikes (or any other small percentile niche cause of death)?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Not really. I mean, more people die in Canada on a yearly basis due to lightning strikes then they do due to terrorism... where are the pages dedicated to lightning strikes (or any other small percentile niche cause of death)?

I hate arguments like this. Terrorism/extremism is one individual or group actively trying to murder other individuals or groups. That is a little different than death by nature.

You can make an argument (and a good one) that Isis isn't dangerous to Canadians at all, but using the lighting or shark attack argument makes you sound like a gun enthusiast blindly defending his "rights" to guns.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

On a less serious note, begun the sign wars have. And I have to say, I'm rather disappointed that the Liberals seem to be trying to battle the Conservatives on the size of signs. It's going to get ridiculous.

I am seeing it in my riding with the NDP and Liberals. The Liberals put their signs up first, and now the NDP supporters have put their signs just about a foot in front of the Liberals signs to block them. It's so ridiculous and is turning me off even considering the NDP in my riding. There is lots of room for everyone's signs. You don't need to plaster them over each other.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I hate arguments like this. Terrorism/extremism is one individual or group actively trying to murder other individuals or groups. That is a little different than death by nature.

Of course it is but that's not the point. The point is that it's exceedingly rare for anyone to be in danger due to lightning so how freakishly rare is it to be in danger due to terrorist activity if lightning is the more common COD. It's a comment less about the nature of the subject and more about how big it's "share" of the discussion should be.

I don't actually think we need a national discussion on lightning strikes... I'm just using that as a point of comparison as to why we don't need terrorism to hold outsized prominance (relative to it's actual impact) in the national narrative either.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Of course it is but that's not the point. The point is that it's exceedingly rare for anyone to be in danger due to lightning so how freakishly rare is it to be in danger due to terrorist activity if lightning is the more common COD. It's a comment less about the nature of the subject and more about how big it's "share" of the discussion should be.

I don't actually think we need a national discussion on lightning strikes... I'm just using that as a point of comparison as to why we don't need terrorism to hold outsized prominance (relative to it's actual impact) in the national narrative either.

Well the thing with terrorism/extremism, isn't the sheer numbers. The very definition of terrorism is to incite terror. Terror groups like Isis are incredibly adept at recruiting vulnerable people based on twisted ideology. The fear is that these folks will turn into violent people in our own society, which has happened.

Statistically speaking, we aren't at risk of being subject to a terror attack. But when they do happen, it's sucky. So the people want the government to do something to prevent attacks. But what can be done? That's why the discussion is so long. There is no consensus on what the government should do. Furthermore, there is the issue (that some people feel) that there is a moral obligation to help the innocents in regions under oppressive groups like Isis.

There is much to talk about, despite the statistical likelihood of an attack on you or me being basically nil.

[EldrickOnIce]

Foreign policy is really low on my list, but it was one of the major topics (20%?) in the McLean's leaders debate, where Canada's involvement in the campaign against ISIS was front and centre, so I maintain a bit here is reasonable.
What I find interesting is that Harper haters should welcome the topic - not reject it - as I am sure that though foreign policy is low on most people's lists, I doubt the CPC is aligned with most Canadians on this.

[CaptainCrunch]

There's not likely much at this point that's going to change my vote. I look at Mulciars platform and it comes across as fairy dust. I don't trust his two faced stances on other things. His platform really doesn't resonate with me at all.

I won't vote for Trudeau, he still comes across as unprepared and his economic promise of the infrastructure comes right out of the Kathleen Wynne dig deeper stupid platform.

While Harper hasn't been great and he hasn't had a good campaign, I like my current MP so I'm sticking with it.

this hasn't been a great campaign by any of the sides, I expect that the nastiness is only going to get bigger and bigger in the weeks to come, so it would be easy to tune it all out unless something major shifts with one of the other parties that sways my vote.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's not likely much at this point that's going to change my vote. I look at Mulciars platform and it comes across as fairy dust. I don't trust his two faced stances on other things. His platform really doesn't resonate with me at all.

I won't vote for Trudeau, he still comes across as unprepared and his economic promise of the infrastructure comes right out of the Kathleen Wynne dig deeper stupid platform.

While Harper hasn't been great and he hasn't had a good campaign, I like my current MP so I'm sticking with it.

this hasn't been a great campaign by any of the sides, I expect that the nastiness is only going to get bigger and bigger in the weeks to come, so it would be easy to tune it all out unless something major shifts with one of the other parties that sways my vote.

You don't like his drama teacher flair? It's so not contrived or anything.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You have made 3 posts in this thread, none of them discussing "important and pressing issues", all of them bashing Harper. I don't get why you are complaining about what other people are discussing without contributing anything to the conversation yourself?

I haven't gone through my posts in this thread but I do recall one where I said the most pressing problem in government in general is accountability. I think that could probably be considered me discussing "important and pressing issues". Harper is the leader of the sitting government and has a record to defend. If you see that as bashing Harper so be it.

If you want to talk about something else then by all means talk about something else. Even though I haven't discussed ISIS much it seems to me that it is a legitimate election issue since we are in a combat mission overseas.

If people want to talk about ISIS that's fine. They should. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that it's a big deal to the daily lives of Canadians and that Canada's potential involvement with ISIS will ultimately make much if any difference. We can certainly think and talk about more than one issue at a time, but it seems to me that the ISIS problem is now being treated with more reverance than it deserves relative to other issues that have a much bigger impact on the lives of Canadians now and in the future.

Well you got lots of thanks so I'm sure you are feeling good about yourself but I have to ask the question, Like what?

Not sure I deserved this comment for stating an opinion about the issues. Do you take my criticism of the sitting government personally enough that you need to insult me personally as a result?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Foreign policy is really low on my list, but it was one of the major topics (20%?) in the McLean's leaders debate, where Canada's involvement in the campaign against ISIS was front and centre, so I maintain a bit here is reasonable.
What I find interesting is that Harper haters should welcome the topic - not reject it - as I am sure that though foreign policy is low on most people's lists, I doubt the CPC is aligned with most Canadians on this.

The problem with debates about foreign policy is how they devolve (deliberately) into black and white stances on things like terrorism when it is actually a nuanced issue that touches on foreign spending, and therefore budget, immigration, foreign aid, etc.

The Harper haters should probably avoid the topic though. Trudeau's position was easily spun into his being soft on people that kidnap, rape and murder children, enslave half the population and destroy historical sites. The best option is to not allow it to become an issue, but if it does and you don't want to come out hard in opposition, you need to be one hell of a public speaker to avoid such comparisons. And Trudeau simply can't do it.

[Azure]

Honestly at this point I don't really care. Liberal majority all the way.

They certainly won't be worse than the Conservatives. And we need some new faces in government.

[FlamesAddiction]

Minority governments are often good for checks and balances, but I worry about how a 3-way split would work. If that happens, I would expect another election within a couple of years (barf).

I would almost prefer a coalition is formed between any of the 2 parties if that were to happen. Trudeau has already ruled out an NDP/Liberal coalition, but would a Conservative/Liberal coalition be out of the question? It would seem unlikely, but it might actually work.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would be amazed if any minority lasted a year.

It would last maybe one budget or maybe two, then the paper flies.

If Harper loses, and its a minority it will last long enough for the cons to get a new leader in place and established.