Canadian Federal Election

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by elly63

Doesn't seem to be any clear winner or loser so far in the debate. It surprised me that they seemed to gang up on Carney for a bit but it didn't last.

Why would it surprise you that they attack the front runner? That's very typical for debates.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I also don't think it's fair that a Party has to be able to get 90% of all ridings represented. In a short election, like this one, that is a piece of cake for the 3 main parties but very difficult for a smaller one without their organization and especially a poorer one like the Greens.

It's 3 1/2 years into a minority Parliament and the opposition parties had said they were bringing down the government at the next opportunity. This election wasn't exactly a surprise. Every party should be ready to go when there is a minority in place.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why would it surprise you that they attack the front runner? That's very typical for debates.

I took the surprise to be that the ganging up didn't last, not that it happened at all.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I took the surprise to be that the ganging up didn't last, not that it happened at all.

No, I was surprised Singh didn't help prop him up for that short time. After that, unlike debates where they attack the polling leader it seems to be spread between the two leaders.

Wait for it, there's the Rosie mention.

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

It's 3 1/2 years into a minority Parliament and the opposition parties had said they were bringing down the government at the next opportunity. This election wasn't exactly a surprise. Every party should be ready to go when there is a minority in place.

And with Prorogation, Justin basically gave them a free 3 months to prepare for an election call. Because any party that wasn't expecting the House to fall as soon as Prorogation ended had to be more optimistic for Carney than the Liberals were.

If a National party didn't have their slate of candidate mostly set up by the end of March, they are simply too disorganized to realistically offer themselves as contendors in the House in the first place. I don't think I saw the exact number of candidates the Greens had, but they seemed to be about 100 candidates short, possibly even before they strategically withdrew 15? That seems to be way too short all things considered.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

And with Prorogation, Justin basically gave them a free 3 months to prepare for an election call. Because any party that wasn't expecting the House to fall as soon as Prorogation ended had to be more optimistic for Carney than the Liberals were.

If a National party didn't have their slate of candidate mostly set up by the end of March, they are simply too disorganized to realistically offer themselves as contendors in the House in the first place. I don't think I saw the exact number of candidates the Greens had, but they seemed to be about 100 candidates short, possibly even before they strategically withdrew 15? That seems to be way too short all things considered.

Were they unprepared or just short of funds?

[JakeLRS]

Singh is interrupting… a lot.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

Singh is interrupting… a lot.

It was rather comical at 6:35 pm. Right now it's alright.

Le français de M. Carney est correct, de mon avis, en passant.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You're just a full on oil and gas shill now?

I guess from the confines of a swastikar it might seem that way. But the last few months have shown that Canada must take advantage of every economic advantage we have, especially if it helps diversify away from the USA. We can't afford to elect carney only to find he is as just anti-natural resource as Trudeau.

Do you now who else would like to diversify away from the natural resource clutches of the USA? Mexico. Too bad we didn't build more facilities to export nat gas.

Mexico’s Achilles’ Heel as It Faces Trump? Reliance on One U.S. Fuel
Mexico’s imports of U.S. natural gas are surging, kindling fears that the Trump administration could weaponize this trade.
By Simon Romero
April 16, 2025, 5:01 a.m. ET

Hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Mass poverty. Factories, farms and whole industries left idle and suffering.

These are some of the most common worries in Mexico if it faced an all-out trade war with President Trump.

But there is another, lesser-known fear of an economic standoff with the United States: Blackouts, big cities suddenly paralyzed and an irate populace ordered to ration electricity.

One of Mexico’s biggest Achilles’ heels in dealing with the Trump administration is energy — its overwhelming dependence on natural gas from the United States....

...“It’s truly one of the unspoken reasons why Sheinbaum has been so accommodating to Trump,” he added, referring to Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum....

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/world/americas/mexico-us-natural-gas-trump.html

[JakeLRS]

Singh just blew up on stage. Holy smokes.

[Dengler Avenue]

The question about women's role is a bit... ironic.

"Patrice, c'est ton groupe qui décide de barrer le parti vert de ce débat là... On aurait Mme. Elizabeth May dans la salle."

[theman23]

Carney invoking the LPC's Godwin law at the end (implying that the CPC is going to put restrictions on abortion).

[JakeLRS]

My thoughts after watching the French Debate (with narrators)

Carney: He weathered the storm. He provided some good points referring to what he would do. He only got testy once. Not a fan of his immigration answers, as they were very broad. He did unfortunately throw a very below the waist punch at PP at the end suggesting he would use the NWC to eliminate abortion rights, right after PP said he would protect women rights.

Poilievre: Did fairly well. His answers regarding international aid got a bit turbulent. He did a good job announcing his plans regarding pipelines but fumbled the ball when it came to Indigenous and Provincial barriers to the pipelines. He didn't do much attacking and stayed relatively quiet when other leaders were engaged. Definitely an effective communicator.

Singh: Terrible performance. I thought Carney might blow up, but it was Singh who had a major meltdown on stage. He was constantly interrupting other leaders during the debate and was just not professional at all. He had the least speaking time, but I believe this is attributed to not being able to adequately deliver his policies and plans. He was more focused on social issues instead of workers issues.

Blanchet: Threw a couple good jabs here and there. Ill be honest, I did kind of tune him out a bit.

No clear winner, but definitely a clear loser.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

My thoughts after watching the French Debate (with narrators) No clear winner, but definitely a clear loser.

Can't argue with any of your post.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Who is picking the journalists for this questions?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Who is picking the journalists for this questions?

Patrice Roy has been moderating the previous few such debates too. That said, I do feel that a lot of topics have been omitted...

[FrankieFlowerpot]

I meant the press conference questions.

We’ve had 2 from Rebel News, a guy from True North and former Rebel guy Keean Bexte.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Patrice Roy has been moderating the previous few such debates too. That said, I do feel that a lot of topics have been omitted...

The topics don't really matter much. These things are more beauty pageants than substantive policy debates.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes it's all Canada but there are separate debates in each language. So I think it's a valid question to ask whether the criteria should be amended to reflect that. Would be interesting to hear pro/con arguments for either position.

Although they're separate debates, the conversation is the same. Ultimately, we only have one election and only one House of Commons. No matter where we are in the country or what language(s) we speak, we cannot understand the priorities and mechanics of the next parliament without understanding who the major issues and players are. The Bloc has formed the official opposition in the past and could potentially hold the balance of power in a future minority parliament. We should all know who they are, what they represent and what they bring to the table—even if it doesn't speak to us directly.

We don't have a Quebec debate and an ROC debate. Anglophones across Quebec have Bloc candidates on their ballots and many wind up with Bloc MPs representing them in Ottawa. Meanwhile, the Bloc presence is just about as relevant to a Francophone voter outside of Quebec as it would be to anyone else in their province.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

I meant the press conference questions.

We’ve had 2 from Rebel News, a guy from True North and former Rebel guy Keean Bexte.

Wouldn't have blamed Carney had he refused to answer these so-called journalists. Especially that agent provocateur from True North, 'you're going to love this question.'

I thought he handled the clearly-antagonistic questions well.