Canada BS Thread

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ste...-adept-at-the-tv-reality-of-debates-1.3182495

 

You do realize that we are dealing with humans, right? The ones who vote against their own self interest and happily wallow in selfish needs and unsustainable debt on the brink of bankruptcy every day, mainly becaue of catchphrases and slogans and lack of critical thought or due diligence?

Many of them even bought DCSBs.

 

Communist, Nazi, and CHP. You are correct sir.

Thanks for that brush stroke you hippie .

Like I said, I will wait to see how the polls turn out and what is said during the election run. One debate doesn't matter 2 months out IMHO. TBH if the NDP have a good platform and some support I would think about getting behind them IF they have a shot of winning my riding. Otherwise it's between the PC's and Liberals. I'm probably not the only Canadian with those thoughts.

 

57%

 

Agreed. Wish the Moderator had stepped in and kept things more focused though.

 

There was a couple times where it got a bit noisy but I think he did a pretty good job of giving everyone a turn

 

I thought the moderator was great. Best debate in some time. It held me for the duration. I suspect this event will be long forgotten by the end of this, way too long, campaign.

 

He wasn't bad, I just would have liked him to keep them from talking over each other a couple of times.

Hopefully Harper participates in more debates coming up.

 

I would like to see all 4 of them in all the English language debates

 

How many debates are scheduled right now?

If it's only 2-3 more than I think everyone should be involved, but we don't need a debate every week leading up to the election IMHO.

 

IIRC , the Conservatives have only agreed to attend 2 of the remaining 4 , of the 2 they will attend , the Greens were not invited

The NDP has said they may not attend any debates that the Conservatives skip , they will announce their decision next week

 

So, curious question, what do you think should be the cutoff for a party or party leader to be invited to a nationally televised debate? Is it a single seat in the house, a certain percentage of the popular vote, or something else?

Personally I don't think the Greens, at this time, need to be at the debates. They won't have any influence on this government or the next. While I appreciate their view point and the right for their representation in any constituencies that they win, I find their presence at the national debates to basically be superfluous. That being said, I don't think their presence at a debate should effect whether or not the PC's show up.

 

BTW I'm not saying my opinion is right. I'm curious to hear your viewpoint since I believe that you are from a Green riding.

If the Greens have 10 percent popular support, and for who knows maybe they do because I didn't look it up, then I can totally understand why they are at the debates. For a couple of seats, only one of which they will probably keep, I just don't see the justification for pandering to such a small segment of the population at a national debate on national policies.

 

True, but more than 3.91% of people would vote for Donald Trump if he was the Republican presidential candidate.

I agree with everything you are saying about minority view points often encouraging discussions that need to be had, but at the extremely low support level the Greens receive I'm just not sold that they are contributing as much as you are suggesting they do to the election process. In a way, I feel like that's the NDP's role right now and has been for as long as I have been a voter.

 

conservatives agreed to attend debates hosted by Globe and Mail, Munk, and TVA (french)

polls show them with <5%. greens currently have 2 seats. Bruce Hyer was with the NDP when he was elected, became an independent, then joined the greens. IMO a party with 1 MP elected under their banner should consider themselves lucky that they were included in a national leaders debate.

 

Agreed.

 

Says the guy that didn't watch the only debate that is likely to have all 4 leaders

 

I was referring to the English Language debates

 

Meh. I sense an attempt at insult or moral supremacy in there.

In the Canadian system I'd rather have a good politician that cares about the local area from the ruling party, which might actually lead to more development and voice in government coming back to the area, than burn my vote on an excellent candidate that has no chance of winning. In a parliamentary system with first past the post voting it does pay to put someone in government sometimes that isn't for the party you like, especially if they may be placed in a position of power. It's better for the riding and better for everybody overall in that riding to do so.

Polling data isn't the sole source of my vote. Anyone who does that is an idiot.

That's why I wanted an NDP candidate in my riding last provincial election even though their platform wasn't very strong IMHO. If we had of got someone into the NDP odds are, as one of the few rural candidates, they may of received a cabinet position which would of strengthened the influence our area on provincial policies. I dind't disagree with many of the NDP's assessments of the problems in Alberta, and I would of been more than willing to vote for their candidate if they had of placed someone with a real chance of winning in my riding instead of a fill in from another riding.

 

There isn't just 4 leaders though. Canada has over a dozen registered federal parties. Last I checked, that debate didn't even include the top 4 party leaders from the last election. The Bloc Québécois often have more support than the Greens .