News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

I know that. Did anyone see Michelle Rempel's late night tweets? I swear that she was drunk when that happened...
 
Skeezix said:
I still don't understand your point. Now it seems you are talking about the capacity of the Government of Canada to stand up to Putin. Why is Canada's alleged incapacity somehow linked to Trudeau? Why were Harper's words similarly not empty/hilarious when he took the same hard line stance? If they were empty/hilarious, why are you focusing on Trudeau? What alternative position are you advocating? What do you expect Trudeau to say instead? Lots of Canadians, particularly Canadians of Ukrainian descent, expect Trudeau to say that he will maintain the hard line, regardless of whether or not it impacts Putin. Is Canada supposed to retreat from from the world? Do we simply roll over, or should we stand up for what's right, ideally in a multilateral situation? I'm simply baffled by your "LOL" comment. I don't see why any of this is humourous, or why Trudeau's comment is worthy of mocking.
Click to expand...
First of all I did say that Harper didn’t bite didn’t I? Second I said that Trudeau’s words were empty, not the Government of Canada’s, although he is the PM now. And what do you define as “standing up”? Simply saying you condemn the actions of a certain individual? In that case I can say “I strongly condemn Mike Tyson’s sexist remarks about women” Did I just stand up to Mike Tyson? Am I a tough guy now? You can argue until the cows come home but I simply cannot see Trudeau defeating Putin at the negotiating table, assuming Putin even cares. You can go on and on and say how Trudeau is a “fighter” and hasn’t backed down from a fight but if you remember people were saying the same things about Obama in 2008 and he has been a huge disappointment (not to me because I expected him to flop). But my question remains: what could Trudeau possibly do to Putin? How will he stand up to him? It’ll take more than words, a lot more than words…
Furthermore there are quite a few Canadians, particularly Russian Canadians, that see the issue in Ukraine as more complicated than simply black and white. Before you go off on a tangent, let me say that I’m not talking sides in this conflict as I think at the day of the day, it’s just Slav versus Slav. And seriously is Trudeau talking the talk considered “maintaining the hard line”? That’s it?
Also why do I have the feeling by the tone of your post that you’re implying that I’m a Harper fanboy simply because I don’t share your enthusiasm about Trudeau? You’ll be hard pressed to get me to be enthusiastic about any politician. Do you honestly believe that the quality of your life will be as different as heaven and hell now that Trudeau has been elected?
As for explaining my LOL comment to you, I’m afraid I can’t. How do you explain to a blind man what the colour blue looks like? Sure you describe the wavelength of the colour in contrast to red but that still wouldn’t mean anything to him.
 
Yeah, you're completely missing the point I was making. Your comments are directed at the capacity of the Government of Canada, whether you think they are or not, unless you seem to think Trudeau was talking about taking a plane over to Moscow and challenging him to a fight. And the points you are making are simply emphasizing why your "LOL" comment was so bizarre, mostly because you still fail to answer the basic question which is, if you think the comment was so hilarious, what else do you expect him to have said? And more importantly, why would he have said it? I don't think you're a Harper fanboy (whatever that is - I have no idea as to your political leanings and I wouldn't make assumptions), and I have no idea what you mean by my "enthusiasm" for Trudeau (don't make assumptions about how I voted). Anyway, I'm done with this conversation, as it is not really going anywhere.
 
PinkLucy said:
Did anyone ever care?
Click to expand...

It would appear some endorsement can create an impression, just not the one in question:

Among the other key findings in the Forum poll:

  • When asked which endorsements improved my image of the party, former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s endorsement of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals was the top pick with 21 per cent of respondents choosing him.
Seventy-five per cent or more said endorsements during the campaign by well-known personalities such as Chrétien, hockey icon Wayne Gretzky, and councillor Rob Ford and brother Doug didn’t improve or had no impact on their image of the party in question. In fact, 91 per cent said Conservative endorsements by the Ford brothers didn’t improve or impact their image of the Tories.
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-motivator-in-oct-19-election-poll-shows.html

AoD
 
ttk77 said:
Do you have any sources for that? I'm not trying to be an ass by asking...I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
The original release from Trudeau mentioned ranked ballots or proportional representation as options.

Which one would give the most benefit to a centrist government? Full proportional is dangerous, as then you get wing-nut fascist and extremist parties still getting 1% of the votes, and seats in the house.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It would appear some endorsement can create an impression, just not the one in question:
Click to expand...
Absolutely, a relevant endorsement makes sense. But the word of an old hockey star who hasn't lived in the country in years and who hasn't been involved in our political scene? Not so much.
 
PinkLucy said:
Absolutely, a relevant endorsement makes sense. But the word of an old hockey star who hasn't lived in the country in years and who hasn't been involved in our political scene? Not so much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at least not at the Federal level - and in this case it probably backfired on The Great One (and his half-baked mea culpa only makes it worse).

AoD
 
nfitz said:
The original release from Trudeau mentioned ranked ballots or proportional representation as options.

Which one would give the most benefit to a centrist government? Full proportional is dangerous, as then you get wing-nut fascist and extremist parties still getting 1% of the votes, and seats in the house.
Click to expand...

Is that really dangerous though? With 1% of the seats they're not going to have much impact, and at the same time it would be a constant reminder to people that there are actually still people out there that think like that.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable to not go "full" proportional and instead implement some limitations (i.e. a party must have at least 2% of the vote to earn any seats).
 
Videodrome said:
Provocative is one way to put it.


Regarding FPTP voting.
Click to expand...
the problem with that analysis (in a Canadian context) is that it has not led to the "inevitable" two party system....nor has it led to anything close to the sort of patterned voting that it states would/will happen as a matter of course.

We have 5 parties in Canada fighting for attention during the election and a bunch of other fringe parties that survive for their niches........and that is after about, what, 150 years of FPTP.
 
TOareaFan said:
the problem with that analysis (in a Canadian context) is that it has not led to the "inevitable" two party system....nor has it led to anything close to the sort of patterned voting that it states would/will happen as a matter of course.

We have 5 parties in Canada fighting for attention during the election and a bunch of other fringe parties that survive for their niches........and that is after about, what, 150 years of FPTP.
Click to expand...
Canada is seen internationally (alongside with India) as the exception to the FPTP tendency towards two-party systems. The common suggestion is that due to Canada's geography and history, our parties are much more regionalized, leading to the significant support bases for 3rd (/and other) parties to win seats.

We are not typical example, and the tendency for FPTP to lead to two-party systems is regularly demonstrated in our provincial elections, and through strategic voting like with the collapse of the NDP in our recent election.
 
TOareaFan said:
the problem with that analysis (in a Canadian context) is that it has not led to the "inevitable" two party system....nor has it led to anything close to the sort of patterned voting that it states would/will happen as a matter of course.

We have 5 parties in Canada fighting for attention during the election and a bunch of other fringe parties that survive for their niches........and that is after about, what, 150 years of FPTP.
Click to expand...

A follow up video to that mentions ranked ballots.

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top