Canada Election 2015

[artvandelay]

I watched the debate last night and I think it was the best of the debates thus far. The moderator did a good job of keeping the leaders from talking over each other and kept them on topic.

Harper came out on top, with generally well reasoned answers that were of substance, but this is to be expected as the sitting PM would have far more foreign policy experience to draw upon.

I thought Mulcair was somewhat impressive as well. I'm not a fan of his party's platform at all, but he certainly can't be accused of being ill informed.

Trudeau came across as being out of his comfort zone as usual. The man simply does not have the level of intelligence necessary to debate the other two leaders on an even playing field. At one point, the moderator had to ask him to join the discussion as it seemed his main goal was to get away without making a mistake.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by kiwi

My biggest issue with Harper is that he brings his personal religious ideology into Canadian social policy and forcing his bible thumping delusions into Canadian law.

I haven't noticed this at all. Are there any specific examples you can cite?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I resent the insinuation that a genuine attempt to advocate for a fair and inclusive society is nothing more than a personal quest for piety or self aggrandizement. Both cynical and insulting.

Well, the way I see it, it's certainly not a personal quest for a "fair" society if you're genuinely trying to make sure there are different types of laws for different types of citizens. You're much closer to... the exact opposite, actually.

Fair == helmet mandatory for everyone on a motorcycle. Period. (Or else, helmet optional... for everyone. It's the case in NH and IIRC several other states.)

Unfair == helmet only legally mandatory for some.

You have to have seriously warped definitions of what's fair to argue for anything else...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I resent the insinuation that a genuine attempt to advocate for a fair and inclusive society is nothing more than a personal quest for piety or self aggrandizement. Both cynical and insulting.

It's fair game when people (not necessarily you, but if the shoe fits, wear it) insinuate that people who are opposed to opening the door to the niqab in our public institutions are intolerant and racist.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

I think I (and others) held back for long enough.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, this ad gave me the feeling it was a Canada-wide ad that just got translated for Quebec.

As you say... My reaction to it was partly "Huh, a Bloc Québécois ad that ends with "This advertisement was authorized and paid for by the official agent of the Conservative Party of Canada"".

Seems that their war chest is so full they can afford to use it for ads benefitting others

An important question is whether the Bloc has the organization, people and money to turn this around into their favour.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

BTW geotag, I think flar absolutely hit the nail on the head with this one and he's expressing my position perfectly (which is identical to his).

Surely you can't wish for the random, usually ancient, nearly always idiotic requirements of various religions to start to have the power to trump actual laws...? Please tell me you don't...

Well I'm not going to touch the odd sense of reverence for the often arbitrary creation of human rules called "actual laws", but I think flar is dead wrong in dealing with religion as a mere personal whim no different than any other choice. Religion is more like a mental illness in that a person has very limited control in dealing with it or its effects. It's a potentially serious affliction and one that holds many people's minds, happiness, and sense of self hostage. For some it's fairly benign and mostly harmless and they're still able to function more or less the same as if they didn't have it. But for others this is not the case. For some they feel they absolutely have no choice because if they waiver, they risk spending an eternity in damnation.

If anything, his assertion is actually the reverse. It isn't about giving religion the power to "trump" the laws; it's the fact that the law has the power to conduct itself in a way that is as functional as possible (ie carry out it's purpose or goal with the least amount of side effects). Secular legislators are intelligent and capable enough to create laws in such a way that they can carry out their role and benefit society rather than conflicting with it. Religion often isn't. It seems odd to criticise religions laws for being inflexible while at the same time criticising secular laws for being flexible.

Like I said in my previous post, I see no purpose for such insistence on equal having to look the same other than an anti-religious bias.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

My investment portfolio takes a huge hit whenever she opens her mouth. I lost a lot yesterday after she went off on power generation in Alberta. The last thing I need is more NDP. Conservatives all the way. 1) Economy, 2) Economy, 3) Economy......

This kind of thinking is what's — us over collectively. Environment<Economy. Social justice<Economy. Refugee crisis<Economy. Privacy<Economy. Human rights<Economy.

Any important issue always gets trumped by the economy in a Conservative mind. All that matters is what your investment portfolio is doing today. Fuck future generations. Fuck poor people. Fuck third world countries. Fuck the environment. This Wall Street mentality is ruining the world. Want proof? Look no further than that asshole who bought the rights to that drug used to treat Aids and Cancer patients and raised the cost 5000% overnight. Under our system he's doing nothing wrong. I'm not equating you to him but this is where that line of reasoning ultimately leads.

Also how much of this business uneasiness is becoming self fulfilling prophecy for conservatives? The government hasn't even produced their first budget yet. Lay off the anxiety meds.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if these initial attempts by the Tories to sway Quebecers towards them with the niqab issue won't be recouped by the Bloc instead. If the Bloc people are smart, that's what they'll do.

Because sure, the Tories don't want the niqab, and neither do most Quebecers. The Tories and Quebecers have this in common.

But the vast majority of other Tory policies oppose Quebecers and the CPC.

Whereas the Bloc and the views of most Quebecers are closely aligned on way more issues. (Of course, it's easy for the Bloc to do this as they only run in Quebec and will never govern.)

I don't know how this will all play out, but I sure know what I'd do if if I were the Bloc.

I guess the big challenge with them isn't meeting Quebecers on the issues, it's convincing Quebecers that the Bloc is still relevant.

Even if most Quebecers supposedly feel strongly about the niqab issue I really wonder if it will make much of a difference in voting. There are so many other bigger issues. Remember how well the religious wear issue worked for Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois last year!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's fair game when people (not necessarily you, but if the shoe fits, wear it) insinuate that people who are opposed to opening the door to the niqab in our public institutions are intolerant and racist.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

I think I (and others) held back for long enough.

I don't resent the insinuation because I see it as somehow unfair. Saying something fair but true to someone else is always reasonable whether or not they some something fair but true to you. No, I resent it because it's untrue and this is the case regardless of the accuracy of anything said to or about you.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I guess there's no gratitude in greater Haligon for the multi billion dollar shipbuilding contract. I guess Irving might as well move the shipyard back to New Brunswick where it belongs........

I would gladly give the Conservatives thanks for that contract but it was clearly stated during the selection process that the decision was being made based on merit and not by a political agenda. Irving was chosen simply because it was the most suitable choice and not because Harper thought it would increase CPC support.

In ten years under Harper control Nova Scotia has received zero benefits so it's not surprising that CPC support is extremely low.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This kind of thinking is what's — us over collectively. Environment<Economy. Social justice<Economy. Refugee crisis<Economy. Privacy<Economy. Human rights<Economy.

Any important issue always gets trumped by the economy in a Conservative mind. All that matters is what your investment return is doing today. This Wall Street mentality is ruining the world.

I agree with that and it annoys me when people make self-centered comments being worried about "my portfolio." Well I'm not wealthy enough to even have a portfolio. I would prefer that we all have excellent health and social services before having a portfolio.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Even if most Quebecers supposedly feel strongly about the niqab issue I really wonder if it will make much of a difference in voting. There are so many other bigger issues. Remember how well the religious wear issue worked for Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois last year!

What sunk the PQ in 2014 was mostly their unequivocal siding with spoiled-crybaby-students and spoiled-crybaby-unions, combined with major vote-splitting with the CAQ (many people not too keen on unreasonable accomodations voted CAQ over PQ, myself for example) no wonder we got a PLQ majority.

It's offtopic for a federal election thread, but I just wanted to point out that it's not at all politically harmful in Quebec (whether provincially or federally) to position your party as anti-niqab and anti-unreasonable-accomodations.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

I asked my gf who she was going to vote for (via text message and spontaneously yesterday, I think she thought it was a bit of a trick question from me and wasn't too sure why I was asking... especially since I gave zero hints of what I thought were the "right" and "wrong" answers)...

Undecided but probably Tory!!! She's the first person I meet except myself who has ever done that. AND it's in one of the few ridings when it's not a totally wasted vote.

I noticed that the other main two parties were potentially "on the table" as well but not the Bloc at all (I kinda did expect that from a pure Anglo). I might have to promise not to vote Bloc myself, in exchange for securing one more Tory vote in Levis. Sounds like I'll be voting Green...

Do I hear wedding bells?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't resent the insinuation because I see it as somehow unfair. Saying something fair but true to someone else is always reasonable whether or not they some something fair but true to you. No, I resent it because it's untrue and this is the case regardless of the accuracy of anything said to or about you.

So what you are essentially saying is that the pro-niqab set is all sunshine and rainbows and the anti-niqab are racist (overt or closet, don't matter).

Who says Canada isn't prone to groupthink?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well I'm not going to touch the odd sense of reverence for the often arbitrary creation of human rules called "actual laws", but I think flar is dead wrong in dealing with religion as a mere personal whim no different than any other choice. Religion is more like a mental illness in that a person has very limited control in dealing with it or its effects.

Mental illness doesn't give one a free pass to disrespect laws without having to face the consequences either...

For some they feel they absolutely have no choice because if they waiver, they risk spending an eternity in damnation.

Fine. Let them set their own priorities then.

If your religion forbids you from wearing brown, it's your choice to refuse that UPS job offer. "Spending an eternity in damnation" is a pretty big deal, so I can understand setting your priorities that way -- but you can't have it all. Priorities mean sacrifices. It's like that for everyone. No one can keep their cake intact while also eating it.

Like I said in my previous post, I see no purpose for such insistence on equal having to look the same other than an anti-religious bias.

A bias in favor of the State being secular and religion-neutral, sure.

Most people, at least here, would be biased like that (90%+ of people) and it's not going to change.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This kind of thinking is what's — us over collectively. Environment<Economy. Social justice<Economy. Refugee crisis<Economy. Privacy<Economy. Human rights<Economy.

Any important issue always gets trumped by the economy in a Conservative mind. All that matters is what your investment portfolio is doing today. Fuck future generations. Fuck poor people. Fuck third world countries. Fuck the environment. This Wall Street mentality is ruining the world.

You do realize that the only way to address many of the issues you apparently care about is through a strong economy, right?

A society that does not value entrepreneurs and the contributions that they make will ultimately become an impoverished society. An impoverished society will not be able to provide the social services we all desire.

Many left wingers can't grasp how important wealth creation is.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, the way I see it, it's certainly not a personal quest for a "fair" society if you're genuinely trying to make sure there are different types of laws for different types of citizens. You're much closer to... the exact opposite, actually.

Fair == helmet mandatory for everyone on a motorcycle. Period. (Or else, helmet optional... for everyone. It's the case in NH and IIRC several other states.)

Unfair == helmet only legally mandatory for some.

You have to have seriously warped definitions of what's fair to argue for anything else...

I just don't see the functional benefit of this approach. Like I said in the previous post, I see religion as basically the same as a mental illness and approach it in the same way as other disabilities. There are laws regarding accessibility for people who have limited mobility. When there are ramps, the ramps can be used by anyone including the physically capable, but in some buildings there are elevators that are specifically for those with limited mobility and stairs are provided for the general public. To me this is fair. Everyone who wishes to access the building is able to do so, but it would be far more costly to provide necessary elevator capacity for everyone. I could argue that as a physically capable person i should be able to take the elevator if I so choose and that I'm being discriminated against by being forced onto the stairs but that would serve no purpose.

If I get a hamster and a gold fish, I don't put them both in a cage lined with wood shavings and say that because I'm treating them the same their treatment is equally fair. You provide fair treatment by providing for an outcome rather than quibbling on how the outcome is provided.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

A bias in favor of the State being secular and religion-neutral, sure.

Most people, at least here, would be biased like that (90%+ of people) and it's not going to change.

For the record, I don't really consider myself to be anti-religious.

I just don't think that religion should be an absolute, valid at all times, "free pass" for everything.

Freedom of religion is fine, but there are some limits on that freedom as there are on most freedoms we have.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just don't see the functional benefit of this approach. Like I said in the previous post, I see religion as basically the same as a mental illness and approach it in the same way as other disabilities. There are laws regarding accessibility for people who have limited mobility. When there are ramps, the ramps can be used by anyone including the physically capable, but in some buildings there are elevators that are specifically for those with limited mobility and stairs are provided for the general public. To me this is fair. Everyone who wishes to access the building is able to do so, but it would be far more costly to provide necessary elevator capacity for everyone. I could argue that as a physically capable person i should be able to take the elevator if I so choose and that I'm being discriminated against by being forced onto the stairs but that would serve no purpose.

If I get a hamster and a gold fish, I don't put them both in a cage lined with wood shavings and say that because I'm treating them the same their treatment is equally fair. You provide fair treatment by providing for an outcome rather than quibbling on how the outcome is provided.

That's actually pretty insulting to persons with disabilities. Obviously you don't have a disability or someone close to you who does.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Black Star

Amen brotha.


I didn't realize how bad the provincial NDP could be for Alberta's economy and my portfolio also. The NDP with Mulcair's leadership or the Liberals under Trudeau would drive this economy into the ground faster than a 95 mph fastball past a blind batter at the plate.

Harper's the only one IMO that can run our economy. And not make us look like goofs and weaklings on the International stage.

Moderator to Trudeau......How would you handle Putin!.....Crowd just starts to laugh!!