Election 2015

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

 

There is no centre.

People just say centre because no one wants to be known as left wing or right wing. Every person and organization leans one way or the other. Centre is just what right wing people say who don't want to associate with the homophobic, pro life, pro gun mentality that is associated with the far right. Same thing on the left for those who dont want to be associated with the hippies, communists, bleeding heart no jail no punishment types.

That sounds impossible, is there a set of numbers that don't have an average?

No but this isn't accounting and you can't learn politics by playing Number Munchers.

So the ndp and liberals and communists are exactly the same? The conservatives and reform are exactly the same? How is 17to18 claiming that harper brought the torys further away from the far right of there is no gradient. Just a black and white set of binary ideologies?

 

 

Not at all.  There is far left, left, right, and far right.  But there is no centre.  And anyone claiming to be "centre" is kidding themselves.

 

Being "center" is just a way to say you're moderate within the context of right and left.  For example, if I was identifying with one party, I'd say Cons.  But if you say that to certain people they think you're a right wing zealot.  Im a "center" right.  A way of saying I have some beliefs that lean closer to the left.

 

The quiz results I posted indicate that.  Surprised even me actually...lol

[17to85]

 

 

 

 

There is no centre.

People just say centre because no one wants to be known as left wing or right wing. Every person and organization leans one way or the other. Centre is just what right wing people say who don't want to associate with the homophobic, pro life, pro gun mentality that is associated with the far right. Same thing on the left for those who dont want to be associated with the hippies, communists, bleeding heart no jail no punishment types.

That sounds impossible, is there a set of numbers that don't have an average?

No but this isn't accounting and you can't learn politics by playing Number Munchers.

So the ndp and liberals and communists are exactly the same? The conservatives and reform are exactly the same? How is 17to18 claiming that harper brought the torys further away from the far right of there is no gradient. Just a black and white set of binary ideologies?

 

 

Not at all.  There is far left, left, right, and far right.  But there is no centre.  And anyone claiming to be "centre" is kidding themselves.

 

No the centre is the point between left and right, it means that where ever you draw the line between left and right, the centre can skip onto either side of it and do things associated with either side. If you have degrees of left and right then you also must have a centre. 

[kelownabomberfan]

I'm anti-control-freak-scientist-muzzling-unfriendly-environmental-bill-pushing-deficit-spending-above-the-law PMs...

 

So that's why you vote NDP.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

@ilanabanks: #DonaldSutherland tells @glasneronfilm if he COULD vote he would vote for Mulcair #cbcnewsarts http://t.co/gW3v4vlkRC

 

@ilanabanks: #DonaldSutherland tells @glasneronfilm if he COULD vote he would vote for Mulcair #cbcnewsarts http://t.co/gW3v4vlkRC

 

Donald Sutherland is married to Shirley Douglas, daughter of Tommy Douglas.  So he really doesn't have any other choice.

 

 

Dude - they divorced in 1970. That's more than enough time to break away from the terrible NDP.

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

 

 

 

There is no centre.

People just say centre because no one wants to be known as left wing or right wing. Every person and organization leans one way or the other. Centre is just what right wing people say who don't want to associate with the homophobic, pro life, pro gun mentality that is associated with the far right. Same thing on the left for those who dont want to be associated with the hippies, communists, bleeding heart no jail no punishment types.

That sounds impossible, is there a set of numbers that don't have an average?

No but this isn't accounting and you can't learn politics by playing Number Munchers.

So the ndp and liberals and communists are exactly the same? The conservatives and reform are exactly the same? How is 17to18 claiming that harper brought the torys further away from the far right of there is no gradient. Just a black and white set of binary ideologies?

 

 

Not at all.  There is far left, left, right, and far right.  But there is no centre.  And anyone claiming to be "centre" is kidding themselves.

 

No the centre is the point between left and right, it means that where ever you draw the line between left and right, the centre can skip onto either side of it and do things associated with either side. If you have degrees of left and right then you also must have a centre. 

 

 

And that is basically were most Canadians stand, despite various parties trying to move them to the wings.

[kelownabomberfan]

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/17/conservatives-take-narrow-lead-new-poll-shows.html

 

NDP down 6% in one week.  Talk about a collapse!  Fin Donnelly, Twitter-gate, and now this insane Leap Manifesto, which due to the labour unions signing on, have tarred Mulcair with the lunatic brush.  Down down down the NDP go....

 

Paul Moist and CUPE members were joined by special guest Tom Mulcair, Leader of the NDP. Mulcair pointed out CUPE NB President Danny Légère’s t-shirt to the crowd, which bore the logos of the NDP and CUPE side by side and read “our party, our voice.” “Every time Paul Moist talks about the NDP he talks about ‘our party’, and that’s the best possible signal that we could send,” said Mulcair.

 

 

Hard to say that Paul Moist, one of those who signed the Manifesto, isn't speaking for the NDP.

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

@ilanabanks: #DonaldSutherland tells @glasneronfilm if he COULD vote he would vote for Mulcair #cbcnewsarts http://t.co/gW3v4vlkRC

 

@ilanabanks: #DonaldSutherland tells @glasneronfilm if he COULD vote he would vote for Mulcair #cbcnewsarts http://t.co/gW3v4vlkRC

 

Donald Sutherland is married to Shirley Douglas, daughter of Tommy Douglas.  So he really doesn't have any other choice.

 

 

Dude - they divorced in 1970. That's more than enough time to break away from the terrible NDP.

 

 

Did not know that.  Has anyone told Kiefer?

[kelownabomberfan]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ndp-s-pat-martin-seen-saying-son-of-a-*****-at-winnipeg-forum-1.3231387

 

LOL - Pat Martin having anger management issues yet again.  And so blatantly that even the NDP news channel aka the CBC had to report it.  Do any of you guys live in his riding?  Aren't you tired of this buffoonery yet?  Of course Martin will just get away with this, as the NDP always get away with everything, including lying on national TV.  Can you imagine the furor if this had been a Conservative calling a Green Party member an SOB at a debate?  The crocodile tears and righteous indignation from the NDP and their supporters would be unprecedented.  Oh, it's just Pat Martin.  Nothing to see here!  Hypocrisy at its finest.

[The Unknown Poster]

This was hilarious too...

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/winnipeg-liberal-candidate-challenges-mp-pat-martin-with-sass-laden-press-release

[rebusrankin]

Falcon Ouellette has a good shot at taking Martin down.

[The Unknown Poster]

I've only been able to read about the debate online. Sounds like Trudeau didn't do well again.

[Mr Dee]

I've only been able to read about the debate online. Sounds like Trudeau didn't do well again.

Actually, Trudeau came out on the offensive and did well. But let's face it, these debates won't sway many people who are already entrenched with their parties.

Mulcair and Harper were more middle of the road in involvement, IMO, and hardly did enough to prove themselves, and in Harpr's case, to defend his record.

Trudeau.

Mulcair.

Harper.

That's how I saw it.

[Fatty Liver]

Terrible debate and terrible moderator imo.  Really hard to watch but I guess that is par for the course for these pissing matches.  I wonder how many Canadians actually had access to and watched this debate.  From what I could tell the only place to watch it was from the Globe and Mail site via You Tube.

[Mark H.]

Tough to be anti death penalty a day after a 2 year old was killed.

Not if you really believe in it. It's not emotional for me. If that was my child would I want to rip his throat out? Ofcourse. But unemotionally and taking God out of the debate we can't have a death penalty when we've convicted innocent people. Period.

Why is God part of the debate? Piece of advice: just ignore the fundamentalists

[The Unknown Poster]

Well I can't say first hand. But that would certainly be the minority from what I'm reading. Sounds like Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau. But like I said I didn't see it first hand.

Probably sense of winner is influenced by which party one most identifies with.

[The Unknown Poster]

@Mark - you misunderstand. I meant that the discussion often comes down to one of faith and the bible but it's easy to be against the death penalty without being religious at all.

[The Unknown Poster]

Toronto Sun (yeah)

If Canadians had any doubt that the election has become a choice between Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair, Wednesday’s leaders debate confirmed it.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau performed so poorly, that – after the halfway mark – he appeared more like an irritant getting in the way of two adults having a conversation than a productive contributor to the conversation.

One of his closing barbs against the Conservative and NDP leaders was “their lack of ambition for our country.” Really?

When asked what the role of the federal government should be, he said to “respond to the needs Canadians have to improve their quality of life.” But that’s fluff. It doesn’t answer the question or say anything of substance.

He also told the biggest lie of the debate: He called out Harper for cutting health care to refugees. But that never happened. (They eliminated eye and dental care for newcomers while eliminating most care for rejected claimants.)

Trudeau’s high school debating tactics hit their lowest when he accused Harper of promoting “fear of others.”

Mulcair meanwhile performed far better than last time, appearing more relaxed and in control. When he opposed Harper he did from a sensible position — like how he acknowledged the importance of security checks for refugees, but wants the government to move faster on processing.

He was also comfortable with the numbers, having wisely released his party’s fiscal framework the day before the debate.

However because Mulcair’s straddling a delicate divide of trying to be centrist but still not alienating his left-wing base, he failed to differentiate himself as belonging to any political camp. This creates voter confusion.

But if you want clear political lines drawn in the sand, Harper is your man.

The first hour of the debate was not so good. Harper spent the time defending his niche credits and, in particular, the indefensible vote-buying pledge that is the home renovation tax credit.

Then he touted the need for government to make “specific investments” in the economy. The government picking winners and losers is a big no-no for true fiscal conservatives.

Plus, he only glossed over his work on trade deals — his best long-term economic project. He should brag about it and commit to do more as the other parties don’t have a leg to stand on with this issue. Although he did point out, towards the end, that Canada will soon have access to over half the world’s GDP.

Then everything changed. Responding to Trudeau’s appeal for more spending, Harper knocked it out of the park by saying, “We don’t measure our level of optimism through our level of spending.”

It was the strongest line of the night, deflating all that rhetoric Trudeau has vented over the months portraying Harper as uncaring and nasty.

It showed that real life is about making tough choices, something Trudeau doesn’t seem to appreciate.

(P.S. The worst moment of the debate was when David Walmsley, the moderator and Globe & Mail editor in chief-in-chief, began a question by editorializing: “Mr. Harper, you’re going to need some new ideas.” The voters deserved better.)

[iso_55]

@Mark - you misunderstand. I meant that the discussion often comes down to one of faith and the bible but it's easy to be against the death penalty without being religious at all.

I'm for the death penalty & God has no place or influence in my feelings about it.

[Fatty Liver]

Toronto Sun (yeah)

If Canadians had any doubt that the election has become a choice between Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair, Wednesday’s leaders debate confirmed it.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau performed so poorly, that – after the halfway mark – he appeared more like an irritant getting in the way of two adults having a conversation than a productive contributor to the conversation.

One of his closing barbs against the Conservative and NDP leaders was “their lack of ambition for our country.” Really?

When asked what the role of the federal government should be, he said to “respond to the needs Canadians have to improve their quality of life.” But that’s fluff. It doesn’t answer the question or say anything of substance.

He also told the biggest lie of the debate: He called out Harper for cutting health care to refugees. But that never happened. (They eliminated eye and dental care for newcomers while eliminating most care for rejected claimants.)

Trudeau’s high school debating tactics hit their lowest when he accused Harper of promoting “fear of others.”

Mulcair meanwhile performed far better than last time, appearing more relaxed and in control. When he opposed Harper he did from a sensible position — like how he acknowledged the importance of security checks for refugees, but wants the government to move faster on processing.

He was also comfortable with the numbers, having wisely released his party’s fiscal framework the day before the debate.

However because Mulcair’s straddling a delicate divide of trying to be centrist but still not alienating his left-wing base, he failed to differentiate himself as belonging to any political camp. This creates voter confusion.

But if you want clear political lines drawn in the sand, Harper is your man.

The first hour of the debate was not so good. Harper spent the time defending his niche credits and, in particular, the indefensible vote-buying pledge that is the home renovation tax credit.

Then he touted the need for government to make “specific investments” in the economy. The government picking winners and losers is a big no-no for true fiscal conservatives.

Plus, he only glossed over his work on trade deals — his best long-term economic project. He should brag about it and commit to do more as the other parties don’t have a leg to stand on with this issue. Although he did point out, towards the end, that Canada will soon have access to over half the world’s GDP.

Then everything changed. Responding to Trudeau’s appeal for more spending, Harper knocked it out of the park by saying, “We don’t measure our level of optimism through our level of spending.”

It was the strongest line of the night, deflating all that rhetoric Trudeau has vented over the months portraying Harper as uncaring and nasty.

It showed that real life is about making tough choices, something Trudeau doesn’t seem to appreciate.

(P.S. The worst moment of the debate was when David Walmsley, the moderator and Globe & Mail editor in chief-in-chief, began a question by editorializing: “Mr. Harper, you’re going to need some new ideas.” The voters deserved better.)

 

The Sun has no bias, chief Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke former Vice-President of the Sun News Network said so.

[The Unknown Poster]

@Mark - you misunderstand. I meant that the discussion often comes down to one of faith and the bible but it's easy to be against the death penalty without being religious at all.

I'm for the death penalty & God has no place or influence in my feelings about it.

Who said he did?

[iso_55]

 

 

@Mark - you misunderstand. I meant that the discussion often comes down to one of faith and the bible but it's easy to be against the death penalty without being religious at all.

I'm for the death penalty & God has no place or influence in my feelings about it.

Who said he did?

 

How can God not be in the discussion it if religion is mentioned? Does He have an assistant that answers His emails & letters?

[The Unknown Poster]

Don't know your point. I said I was against the death penalty and God didn't factor into my decision either.

[iso_55]

Don't know your point. I said I was against the death penalty and God didn't factor into my decision either.

The point is God or religion shouldn't factor into it either way. That's it.

[The Unknown Poster]

Then we agree!

[iso_55]

Then we agree!

Oh yes. I don't know why you can't be a conservative & not be religious. I'm definitely not a social conservative. That guy Huckabee in the US sticking up for Kim Davis is a joke.