tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post7265835830604761251..comments2024-03-03T17:01:57.876-05:00Comments on Montreal Simon: The First Debate: Hitting Harper Where It HurtsSimonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15309809679331128837noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-53758324733210432272015-08-10T05:20:45.987-04:002015-08-10T05:20:45.987-04:00http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2015/08/09...http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2015/08/09/the-lies-harper-told-during-2015-election-call-first-leaders-debate<br /><br />http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2015/08/09/trudeau-on-supporting-bill-%E2%80%AAc-51%E2%80%AC-perhaps-it-was-naive/<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-56291123615721799652015-08-09T05:41:13.827-04:002015-08-09T05:41:13.827-04:00The debate: Too much caution, not enough fight
htt...The debate: Too much caution, not enough fight<br />http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/07/the-debate-too-much-caution-not-enough-fight/<br /><br />Transcript of Maclean’s Debate<br />http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/tale-of-the-tape-read-a-full-transcript-of-macleans-debate/<br /><br />Video: Maclean’s National Leaders Debate (Aug. 6)<br />http://www.cpac.ca/enprograms/vote-2015-debates/episodes/90005754/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-43595351499641722782015-08-09T05:28:34.634-04:002015-08-09T05:28:34.634-04:00Video: Maclean’s National Leaders Debate (Aug. 6)
...Video: Maclean’s National Leaders Debate (Aug. 6)<br />http://www.cpac.ca/enprograms/vote-2015-debates/episodes/90005754/<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-38502865139452654222015-08-07T17:37:47.363-04:002015-08-07T17:37:47.363-04:00In addition to making Harper look good, Trudeau de...In addition to making Harper look good, Trudeau derailed what was supposed to have been a discussion on an important issue: democratic reform. He did that by going off topic and attacking Mulcair on the Clarity issue and allowing Harper to point out that those two imbeciles were bickering on a non issue. Sad. It was May who finally did the job of the moderator and brought the discussion back on track to democratic reform. <br /><br />Some might have thought that Trudeau gave a smart answer when he said "nine" finally (for the number of SCC judges) after being pressed by Mulcair repeatedly what percentage of yes votes he would accept. However, I thought Trudeau actually made himself look very foolish by attacking Mulcair and then showing himself unable/unwilling to come up with a number when Mulcair threw the question back at him. <br /><br />As they say, a smart lawyer would never ask a question that he/she does not already know the answer to. You'd think that Trudeau, though not a lawyer, would have an answer for that instead of giving what I thought was a facetious answer of "nine". And I was not the only one as Nerenberg at Rabble had also pointed this out: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/08/trudeau-fires-recklessly-mulcair-letting-harper-hook<br /><br />Most disappointingly, it showed how Trudeau and the Liberals, hungry for votes, could actually help Harper by deflecting what would otherwise have been an opportunity for the opposition to point out the importance of democratic reform, giving examples of what Harper had done to abuse it. It ended with Mulcair committing to proportional representation and May making an important point for limiting the power of the PM. But from Trudeau, who had lately come up with his commitment to his transferable vote form of proportional representation, there was nary a word. Thus opportunity lost for those of us who had hoped that this election would put an end to any government getting absolute power with just 39% of the popular vote. That was what Trudeau appeared to have derailed.<br /><br />And the above is why I think Mulcair would be justified in refusing to attend any more debates unless Harper is there. I had initially hoped that we could have debates among the opposition leaders even if Harper is absent but it appears that Trudeau could, intentionally or otherwise, trigger attacks on the NDP that could lead to Harper winning again by being absent from those debates (e.g., consortium debates).<br /><br />However, I suspect last night's debate would have minimal impact as not too many people watched other than those of us who follow politics closely. And the latter have already made up their minds who they will vote for, as the commenter above aptly demonstrated when he/she praised May for her elevating the debate, and suggested that she had put in the best performance, that we needed more of this. Then in almost the same breath, he/she said he/she would never vote for the Green party.<br /><br />BTW, Simon, aren't you on vacation? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-28870900413772397102015-08-07T14:50:18.218-04:002015-08-07T14:50:18.218-04:00This is why I don't watch debates, the opposit...This is why I don't watch debates, the opposition never hits where it hurts the most, and they all give Harper a very free pass. C51? Voter suppression tactics? Corruption? Terrible judgement? Orwellian revision of laws? Fear mongering of a grotesque order? Muzzling of scientists and destruction of environmental science records? The destruction of our environment? Energy policy criticisms? <br /><br />It's all such an empty display that quite honestly makes all the leaders look like they have more in common than not. No wonder people are disengaged. Bet more Canadians watched the Republican debate than the Canadian one, at least that had Trump for entertainment value. <br /><br />Noahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-74694189086005141112015-08-07T10:40:55.321-04:002015-08-07T10:40:55.321-04:00So , this farmer's chickens keep disappearing ...So , this farmer's chickens keep disappearing night after night. The fox goes to the farmer and says " I have a plan " buy more chickens and let me live in the henhouse. "Why would I do that ?" says the farmer, " you already killed all my chickens ". The fox replied, " I said the plan is working - for me ."rumleyfipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03346146988416679423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-59596599350061581072015-08-07T09:48:31.993-04:002015-08-07T09:48:31.993-04:00You know who won the debate? Paul Wells and MacLe...You know who won the debate? Paul Wells and MacLean's. You know who lost? The media consortium. And they lost big, because Paul Wells was not shy about asking downright embarassing questions which the media consortium has avoided like the plague.<br /><br />I was right, naysayers were wrong. Breaking the consortium's stranglehold was GOOD for democracy in Canada. Stephen Harper really did us a favor by teling them to go pound sand. <br /><br />I think there's room for improvement. The format was still a little disjointed, and I'm quite sure not everybody got equal time. I'm still not a fan of the free-form format, but Paul Wells' willingness to put forward the most contentious issues, hit all of the leaders where they were percieved as most sensitive is a huge plus.<br /><br />Elizabeth May was mostly good, even managing to sound most factual. Is it that when you have basically nothing to lose that you bother with facts? I'd never vote for her because the Green policies are atrocious, but goodness, wouldn't we all benefit if our leadership took a page from her and elevated the discussion, instead of looking to browbeat their opponents? Unfortunately, we tend to respond to lowest common denominator forms of discourse, so that's unlikely. The Angelic Doctor strikes again!<br /><br />I think Trudea managed a great counter-punch when he answered Mulcair with, "My number is nine! Nine supreme court justices." Not a fan of the SCC, but it was a great line, and it shut Mulcair right down. Unfortunately, the rest of his performance felt phoney. Especially his closing statement. It smacked of entittlement. If the debates have the power to sway, I suspect that hitting Mulcair like that will hand Harper the election.<br /><br />Mulcair was a mixed bag, in that he did a good job hammering Stephen Harper, but did so in a condescending, patronizing manner. I think he managed to rattle Harper once or twice. I'm not sure he sounded like a prime minister, as a parent, selling child care spaces wasn't appealing to me at all. I think Mulcair's challenge going forward is connection. <br /><br />And Harper... Oh Harper. Block of wood impression. Boring, stuffy, dull. Same poop different day. Did anybody get the final tally on the clarity count? What I mean by that is, how many times did Harper use the line, "Let me be clear." Or "Let's clear the air." Or words to that effect. I lost count, sorry, it was practically every time he got the opportunity to speak. If all that Harper had to do to win was sound vaguely prime ministerial, and not lose his composure, then he accomplished that, though I think you could see cracks at times. He convincingly managed to return to form, and I don't think it hurt him too badly. Still... Is there an actual personality under there? I think if you could summarize Harper's debating style, it'd be, "Winning by default is still winning!" and it's increddibly lame.<br /><br />Elizabeth May was much stronger overall, except for a few of her ridicuous propositions. <br /><br />Kudos to Paul Wells and MacLeans. Kudos to Stephen Harper for breaking the consortium's idiotic attempts at relevancy, and shifting to something much more open.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23253782.post-77747746751735993922015-08-07T08:15:51.566-04:002015-08-07T08:15:51.566-04:00Being one voter, I know where my vote will be goin...Being one voter, I know where my vote will be going.........so I did NOT watch the debate! Marmaladehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01651890655542192076noreply@blogger.com