Election 2015

[kelownabomberfan]

Trudeau: 43

 

Harper: 56

 

Mulclair: 60

 

According to Con logic, we should all vote NDP. Just sick and tired of this 3rd grade logic they keep throwing at us.

 

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting.  I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate.  He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45.  You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer.  But what else is new.  All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion.  If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario.  If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west.  There is no answer that will please everyone.  But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel?  I think I know why.  Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit.  If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget.  So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will.  I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I think it's a good possibility we end up with a Conservative minority, which will give us countless ominous threats from them about how the Liberals and NDP are plotting against Harper to form a coalition and destroy our country. This is clearly the worst thing ever, even though our form of government allows for it.

Do you believe a coalition of NDP/Liberals could be an effective government?

 

 

NO.

[iso_55]

 

 

 

Bernardo who was also convicted of other rapes & his wife Karla Homolka who is now free under an assumed name. She even remarried & is allowed to have children after all that happened. Both should have been executed for what they did to Homolka's sister.

Clifford Olsen who raped, tortured, strangled & bludgeoned 11 (that Police know of) children while tormenting the families of the dead kids during his trial & subsequent parole hearings should have been put to death. He loved the attention he got from the news media. Luckily, cancer did the job our justice system wouldn't do in 2011 when he passed away. 

Robert Picton murdered 6 women & buried them on his pig farm in BC. From all accounts, the crime scene was absolutely horrific yet he lives. Yes, I'm all for the death penalty for individuals like these. 

 

I agree these things are heinous but the sytem isn't perfect and one innocent person executed is too much.

 

I do think prisoners should have to pay their society back to debt with labour though

 

Those convictions I refer to were iron clad. Especially Olsen. He boasted & laughed how he killed those kids knowing where they were all buried yet refused to say where for all of them. He wanted to write a book. I believe at one point there was talk of a movie & he complained to the media saying he should be able to profit off of both. He knew he'd never get out so he put the families through hell whenever he could. He also knew he'd never be executed so he had no fear of dying. The man was sadistic, heinous, conniving, cunning & manipulative. 

 

 

ok but the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and people still end up wrongfully convicted. By that definition everyone in jail should have an ironclad case against them if they are going to prision. Where do you draw the line as to what is iron clad and what isn't? What is the mechanism?

 

When the guy is telling police where he buried the victims. That's iron clad. 

[sweep the leg]

 

I think it's a good possibility we end up with a Conservative minority, which will give us countless ominous threats from them about how the Liberals and NDP are plotting against Harper to form a coalition and destroy our country. This is clearly the worst thing ever, even though our form of government allows for it.

Do you believe a coalition of NDP/Liberals could be an effective government?

 

I don't know, to be honest. I don't have a problem with coalitions in theory, for basically the reasons Fraser gave. It would be much easier to sell to Canadians this time around b/c a separatist party wouldn't be involved. It would be tough to do though, just b/c whichever guy agrees to let the other guy lead would take a big hit in his career. When the next election rolls around you'll be known as the guy who deferred to another leader.

 

As far as policy goes, I worry about spending increasing. Each side would be threatening to break up the coalition if they don't have all of their priorities met.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

I think it's a good possibility we end up with a Conservative minority, which will give us countless ominous threats from them about how the Liberals and NDP are plotting against Harper to form a coalition and destroy our country. This is clearly the worst thing ever, even though our form of government allows for it.

Not so much a threat since it almost happened in the recent past.  And while the form of government allows it, its not what the voters intended and I would argue its not what voters would want.  Even if people flip flop based on "their guy" benefiting from a coalition, we've had this tradition of government long enough that people expect that the party with the most seats forms government and if you dont like it, you try to get the most seats next time...not suddenly pal around with people you told us we should never vote for to become the governing power.

 

I wouldnt support a coalition even if it was the Cons benefiting.  Its shady.

 

 

Actually if 2 thirds of  the voters voted for 2 parties that are not in power and they work together that is closer to what the people wanted then 1 party with slightly more than a third holding all the power. Ideally in a minority govt the ruling party would modify their legislator to get the necessary buy in from other parties but if they don't, a coalition seems like a better alternative than another election. I don't think another vote is in the best interest of Canadians.

 

I see your point but I disagree.  And I find it disingenuous of two parties who campaigned against other fiercely to suddenly say hey we're buddies now and we should govern together.  Ultimately this is our method of government and I think people generally look at it a lot more like the US where they are voting for the PM.  So if the other two parties have more seats than the government, it still doesnt represent the will of the majority other than the majority didnt like the guy that became PM...but it doesnt mean the majority liked one person specifically.

 

That is the problem with our way of voting.  People have a choice to make between voting local and voting national and that isnt always aligned perfectly.  How many people voted for the NDP provincially for years who didnt vote NDP nationally?  A lot. 

[iso_55]

 

Trudeau: 43

 

Harper: 56

 

Mulclair: 60

 

According to Con logic, we should all vote NDP. Just sick and tired of this 3rd grade logic they keep throwing at us.

 

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting.  I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate.  He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45.  You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer.  But what else is new.  All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion.  If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario.  If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west.  There is no answer that will please everyone.  But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel?  I think I know why.  Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit.  If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget.  So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will.  I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake.

 

Same thing here in Alberta. The Tories always under/over estimated a barrel of oil. It worked for Klein for a decade as he always underestimated the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate & he had massive surpluses. Didn't work for Stelmach, Redford or Prentice who all over estimated to pay for their election goodies then rung up massive deficits. Klein was the luckiest politician in Canada. Not the best but the luckiest to have governed in a time of wealth & prosperity everywhere unlike the other 3 poor sap AB Premiers. Even the good politicians are clueless. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Trudeau: 43

 

Harper: 56

 

Mulclair: 60

 

According to Con logic, we should all vote NDP. Just sick and tired of this 3rd grade logic they keep throwing at us.

 

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting.  I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate.  He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45.  You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer.  But what else is new.  All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion.  If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario.  If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west.  There is no answer that will please everyone.  But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel?  I think I know why.  Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit.  If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget.  So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will.  I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake.

 

Ofcourse.  They probably came up with a plan and said "what price of oil makes this work" and went with that number.  Then, if elected, they can say "well gee, the price of oil really kicked the bottom out of our plan...its all the fault of those evil oil barons so we have to raise taxes on everyone else."  Plus, they will blame Harper for the next 25 years or so. 

 

But I agree, that was a great question.

[The Unknown Poster]

@GlobalNational: WATCH LIVE: http://t.co/86xaziQiL6Mulcair announces plans for universal pharmacare program #Elxn42

[Mark H.]

 

Trudeau: 43

 

Harper: 56

 

Mulclair: 60

 

According to Con logic, we should all vote NDP. Just sick and tired of this 3rd grade logic they keep throwing at us.

 

I missed the debate last night as the Broncos game was far more interesting.  I did turn over to CPAC at half time, and caught part of Mulcair's interview (I can only watch about 30 seconds of that clown before my gag reflex starts kicking in) after the debate.  He was asked why the NDP used $67 a barrel for oil in his platform rather than $45.  You could tell he had no clue, and didn't know what to say, so he did the usual Mulcair thing and just channeled Pat Martin, getting annoyed and angry that anyone would dare question anything the NDP would say, instead of giving an actual answer.  But what else is new.  All three leaders in my opinion are pretty weak, but they are trying to govern a pretty schizo country in my opinion.  If you pander to the West you piss off Quebec and Ontario.  If you pander to Quebec you piss off Ontario and the west.  There is no answer that will please everyone.  But it was a good question in my view - why is the NDP using $67 a barrel?  I think I know why.  Because their total bullshit platform that is "costed and accounted for" is total bullshit.  If they used actual oil prices they wouldn't even come close to a balanced budget.  So they have to lie to try and make it look like they will.  I think promising balanced budgets was a huge mistake.

 

 

I didn't even hear that much. It was just a bunch of noise that distracted me from my marking and prep.  

[rebusrankin]

Reagan was Gov of California before coming president.

[iso_55]

Reagan was Gov of California before coming president.

Yes, knew that so at least he had some experience governing. The others not so much. Most were career politicians.

[rebusrankin]

I  can handle the Conservatives or the Liberals  in a minority but even in a minority the NDP would be a disaster. Wonder if Tommy will make Martin apologize? Oh wait, those SOBs don't apologize.

[The Unknown Poster]

Reagan was Gov of California before coming president.

Yes, knew that so at least he had some experience governing. The others not so much. Most were career politicians.

Wouldn't being a career politician be a good way to prepare to be THE chief politician of a country?

I get what you're saying but how is infinite experience since he was a kid suddenly a bad thing for Harper versus virtually no experience for Trudeau? I think it's a relevant point that JT is inexperienced.

[The Unknown Poster]

I can handle the Conservatives or the Liberals in a minority but even in a minority the NDP would be a disaster. Wonder if Tommy will make Martin apologize? Oh wait, those SOBs don't apologize.

If you catch the left lying or in bad behaviour they think you should apologize for catching them.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I can handle the Conservatives or the Liberals in a minority but even in a minority the NDP would be a disaster. Wonder if Tommy will make Martin apologize? Oh wait, those SOBs don't apologize.

If you catch the left lying or in bad behaviour they think you should apologize for catching them.

 

 

I've been reading all of the New Dumb supporters trying to explain away the $1.9 billion surplus, and part of the argument is that the Canadian government took a $2 billion (or is it $3 billion?  Or $5 billion? I've seen all kinds of numbers.  when you are lying it doesn't really matter what number you use) loss on the sale of GM shares.  When looked at in a vacuum, it may look like a dumb thing to do, to have sold at $35 a share.  But of course, they don't mention that the shares of GM are down almost $5 a share since the government sold, and so if they had held on, they'd be looking at an even bigger loss now.  Of course they don't tell you that.  And naturally, they don't say that if Canada is so dumb for selling, then that idiot Obama must be really really dumb, because the US took a $13 billion loss on their GM investment.  But that's not the whole story.  Here's how one website looked the US government investment in GM:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/10/1261515/-GM-bailout-produced-a-windfall-for-U-S-taxpayers

On Monday, the federal government announced it had sold off the remaining shares from its $49.5 billion bailout of General Motors in 2009. But the $10.5 billion loss on paper obscures the massive total return on investment for the U.S. economy overall and American taxpayers in particular. As a new analysis from the Center for Automotive Research found, had GM and Chrysler failed altogether, the result could have been 4.1 million jobs lost across the U.S. economy in 2009 and 2010, with federal transfer payments and $105 billion in lost income and payroll tax revenue for the U.S. Treasury.

In its report, CAR examined two scenarios that showed Uncle Sam reaped a return on investment ranging between 334 to 768 percent. In the worst case, the failure of the Bush and Obama administrations to rescue GM and Chrysler led to complete collapse of the American auto industry and the death of its supplier network. In the "GM only" case, CAR's only assumption was that other automakers could not replace GM capacity and employment until 2011. As the full report explained, the payoff to American taxpayers for the $13.7 billion lost in the sale of shares of companies has been immense.

But thanks to the Bush and Obama administrations, the Upper Midwest did not enter an economic death spiral leading to a permanent depression.

The $10.5 billion the Treasury ultimately lost on its GM shares, along with the $1.9 billion not recouped from Chrysler may well be the best investment Uncle Sam ever made.

 

Obama is a genius but Harper is a dummy, yet both leaders did the EXACT SAME THING.  My word, it is just so sickening to watch the NDP and their supporters bend the truth, time after time.  Such lying sacks of crap.

[17to85]

 

I think it's a good possibility we end up with a Conservative minority, which will give us countless ominous threats from them about how the Liberals and NDP are plotting against Harper to form a coalition and destroy our country. This is clearly the worst thing ever, even though our form of government allows for it.

Do you believe a coalition of NDP/Liberals could be an effective government?

 

No there is too much difference despite people screaming that they're both left!!!! the Liberals would find more common ground with the Conservatives than with the NDP if you ask me. The only thing they could agree on as a minority I truly believe is "**** Harper" 

[The Unknown Poster]

I can handle the Conservatives or the Liberals in a minority but even in a minority the NDP would be a disaster. Wonder if Tommy will make Martin apologize? Oh wait, those SOBs don't apologize.

If you catch the left lying or in bad behaviour they think you should apologize for catching them.

I've been reading all of the New Dumb supporters trying to explain away the $1.9 billion surplus, and part of the argument is that the Canadian government took a $2 billion (or is it $3 billion? Or $5 billion? I've seen all kinds of numbers. when you are lying it doesn't really matter what number you use) loss on the sale of GM shares. When looked at in a vacuum, it may look like a dumb thing to do, to have sold at $35 a share. But of course, they don't mention that the shares of GM are down almost $10 a share since the government sold, and so if they had held on, they'd be looking at an even bigger loss now. Of course they don't tell you that. And naturally, they don't say that if Canada is so dumb for selling, then that idiot Obama must be really really dumb, because the US took a $13 billion loss on their GM investment. But that's not the whole story. Here's how one website looked the US government investment in GM:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/10/1261515/-GM-bailout-produced-a-windfall-for-U-S-taxpayers

On Monday, the federal government announced it had sold off the remaining shares from its $49.5 billion bailout of General Motors in 2009. But the $10.5 billion loss on paper obscures the massive total return on investment for the U.S. economy overall and American taxpayers in particular. As a new analysis from the Center for Automotive Research found, had GM and Chrysler failed altogether, the result could have been 4.1 million jobs lost across the U.S. economy in 2009 and 2010, with federal transfer payments and $105 billion in lost income and payroll tax revenue for the U.S. Treasury.

In its report, CAR examined two scenarios that showed Uncle Sam reaped a return on investment ranging between 334 to 768 percent. In the worst case, the failure of the Bush and Obama administrations to rescue GM and Chrysler led to complete collapse of the American auto industry and the death of its supplier network. In the "GM only" case, CAR's only assumption was that other automakers could not replace GM capacity and employment until 2011. As the full report explained, the payoff to American taxpayers for the $13.7 billion lost in the sale of shares of companies has been immense.

But thanks to the Bush and Obama administrations, the Upper Midwest did not enter an economic death spiral leading to a permanent depression.

The $10.5 billion the Treasury ultimately lost on its GM shares, along with the $1.9 billion not recouped from Chrysler may well be the best investment Uncle Sam ever made.

Obama is a genius but Harper is a dummy, yet both leaders did the EXACT SAME THING. My word, it is just so sickening to watch the NDP and their supporters bend the truth, time after time. Such lying sacks of crap.

Stop making sense. You're confusing people.

[Mark H.]

A few thoughts:

 

Liberal / NDP: this actually worked when Martin was PM, but Harper had a little more political savvy and orchestrated the non-confidence vote.  But the current NDP with Mulclair as leader, no bloody way do I want to see them prop up a minority.

 

Conservative / Liberal: this is probably the most likely outcome. Question is, will Harper extend an olive branch, or will we immediately see a Liberal MP cross the floor? (Emerson: 2006)

 

Capital Punishment: guilty people don't usually confess. Innocent people are far more likely to confess. My suggestion would be to raise parole eligibility for 1st degree murder up the to 40 years, 2nd degree murder up the 25 years.  Capital punishment will never happen in a civilized country.

 

My Saturday morning 0.02

[iso_55]

Guilty people don't confess but innocent people do? Can you please explain that, Mark H as it is a confusing statement? I don't think we are "civilized". Civilized countries don't have crime like sexual assaults, murdering 2 year old kids etc. A civilized society doesn't have beheadings, terrorism,torture, prisoner of war camps, or wars. We, as the human race try to convince ourselves that we are civilized when I believe we're not.

[AtlanticRiderFan]

A few thoughts:

 

Liberal / NDP: this actually worked when Martin was PM, but Harper had a little more political savvy and orchestrated the non-confidence vote.  But the current NDP with Mulclair as leader, no bloody way do I want to see them prop up a minority.

 

Conservative / Liberal: this is probably the most likely outcome. Question is, will Harper extend an olive branch, or will we immediately see a Liberal MP cross the floor? (Emerson: 2006)

 

Capital Punishment: guilty people don't usually confess. Innocent people are far more likely to confess. My suggestion would be to raise parole eligibility for 1st degree murder up the to 40 years, 2nd degree murder up the 25 years.  Capital punishment will never happen in a civilized country.

 

My Saturday morning 0.02

 

Conservative/Liberal would only happen if Trudeau led it. He won't stand for Harper staying Prime Minister; that's exactly what he's trying to prevent from happening.

 

Thing is, Harper is resigning if he doesn't get in as Prime Minister, plus he's openly against coalitions, so this makes it very unlikely.

 

I highly doubt there will be any coalition. We're going to be seeing a minority government, and I don't like it one bit.

 

 

 

I think it's a good possibility we end up with a Conservative minority, which will give us countless ominous threats from them about how the Liberals and NDP are plotting against Harper to form a coalition and destroy our country. This is clearly the worst thing ever, even though our form of government allows for it.

Do you believe a coalition of NDP/Liberals could be an effective government?

 

No there is too much difference despite people screaming that they're both left!!!! the Liberals would find more common ground with the Conservatives than with the NDP if you ask me. The only thing they could agree on as a minority I truly believe is "**** Harper" 

 

 

This is the stupid thing about the whole thing. They both have the "**** Harper" attitude, and yet they're in so much disagreement on everything else.

 

I'll laugh my ass off if they split the vote and Harper ends up getting in.

[iso_55]

You have 3 left of centre parties, the Libs, the NDP & the Green Party & one centre right. Of course the vote is split. I have no idea if Trudeau has brought the Libs to centre-left as he should to get some of the Conservative vote... I still think people are afraid to vote NDP & come election day the voters who are courting the NDP will instead park their votes behind the Libs & Conservatives. I just hope the wacko Elizabeth May & the Greens get eliminated. What an annoying ***** of a politician she is. 

[The Unknown Poster]

The Cons were part of a "cooperation" a few years ago but Haper did specifically say it wasn't a coalition.

Mark is correct. Innocent people confess a lot. Either due to mental issues (many FASD sufferers confess) or intimidation by the police.

[The Unknown Poster]

Ctv

the Conservatives at 30.4 per cent

the NDP has 28.9 per cent support

the Liberals have 30.8 per cent

Voters were asked: "Of the current federal political party leaders, please rank your top two current local preferences for prime minister?"

29.7 per cent chose Harper

26.3 per cent chose Mulcair

25.5 per cent chose Trudeau

[iso_55]

The Cons were part of a "cooperation" a few years ago but Haper did specifically say it wasn't a coalition.

Mark is correct. Innocent people confess a lot. Either due to mental issues (many FASD sufferers confess) or intimidation by the police.

Okay so what are you saying? That a signed confession should be thrown out of court because it probably isn't true? Don't be ridiculous. 

[Fraser]

Guilty people don't confess but innocent people do? Can you please explain that, Mark H as it is a confusing statement? I don't think we are "civilized". Civilized countries don't have crime like sexual assaults, murdering 2 year old kids etc. A civilized society doesn't have beheadings, terrorism,torture, prisoner of war camps, or wars. We, as the human race try to convince ourselves that we are civilized when I believe we're not.

A lot of confessions come from extreme police pressure and trickery. Typically this happens to uneducated people even some that have development delays and are borderline mentally challeneged.

DNA has exonerated so many people that have confessed/ were found guilty based on circumstantial evidence.

The system isn't even close to perfect enough to standard needed for capital punishment to be viable.