gc1765

I just edited my post as you were posting. What I meant is that Kennedy might not be able to gain seats outside of Edmonton, but he should at least try. I think it's more important to reach out to Albertans, and show them that they aren't forgotten, even if that doesn't translate into seats.

Yes, there are that many people in Toronto. Another way of looking at it: Alberta has, what, 28 seats? Look at that map again and count the red/orange ridings in Toronto, I haven't counted the exact number but it's a lot more than 28, so if we are talking about population, then the CPC is as unrepresented (actually more so) in a large population (Toronto & surrounding areas) as the Liberals are unrepresented in Alberta. Well it's all a matter of how you define a "region"? Why is Alberta a "region" but not Toronto or the suburbs? It makes the whole issue of a "National party" more complicated, no doubt, but if the Liberals aren't a National party then neither are the CPC. Either they both are, or they both aren't. You're really splitting hairs with the demographics here. If you're trying to say that the CPC appeals to urban voters in Edmonton/Calgary (and therefore it doesn't matter if they don't appeal to Toronto?), you could just as easily say that the Liberals appeal to rural Saskatchewan/Manitoba (and Yukon etc...) which are probably just as similar in "demographics" to rural Alberta as Calgary/Edmonton are to Toronto. This I can agree with. The Liberals do need to reach out to the west. Kennedy would have done this for sure, at least in Edmonton anyhow. Edit: I don't know how successful they would be outside of Edmonton, but as Howard Dean said, it is a sign of respect to at least try.

In the suburbs, yes. If you count places like Burlington as the GTA then fine. But what about Toronto (& even surrounding areas like Mississauga & brampton)? There's what, 2 and a half million in Toronto alone? Anyways, take a look at this map: Link There's a lot more seats in that red/orange chunk then there is in all of Alberta.

Actually, that's a good point. Why is it that no seats in Alberta is not a national party, but no seats in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal is? There's almost as many people in the GTA as Alberta, so what makes Alberta a "region" but not Toronto? (or Vancouver & Montreal)

I assume he was banned.

One of his practical solutions is California-style emission regulations. I believe that is the same practical solution that you offered on this thread. Link As for his other ideas....well I don't really know enough about Suzuki to give any meaningful comments.

Ooops, you were talking about the dippers (NDP) not the Liberals. My bad.

Not unless he also happened to be an MD, specializing in surgery. But your description doesn't really fit Suzuki. It doesn't really matter if he has a PhD, or what it's in. He has also been involved in environmental issues for a long time, and that makes him more qualified than just about any politician I have seen. Are there people with more experitse on the environment than Suzuki? Perhaps. Does Suzuki have more expertise than a typical politician? You bet.

I wouldn't believe anything he said, but if I had the choice between believing someone with a "PhD" in front of their name or believing someone with a "Minister of the (fill in the blank)", in front of their name, I'd go with the PhD.

I'll take the one member one vote system. It might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than delegates. I just wish there was a way to ensure that people from one party don't vote for another party. Could there be some sort of registry of all the members of all the political parties that they could use to cross-check? I dont' know, maybe that's not the best idea. Anyone have a better idea? I wish it was free too. I shouldn't have to pay to decide who is going to lead the country. I mean, sure, I have a choice between basically three people, but if I don't like any of them, what kind of choice is that?

What's wrong with a politcian taking ideas from an expert on the subject? Don't most politcians consult experts, and if so why the heck not? Who is going to know more about the environment, a politician or a scientist who has dedicated his career/life to the environment? What do you think the Liberals should have done to reduce greenhouse gases (aside from a carbon tax because I know you and a lot of Albertans would never go for that idea) ?

If the Liberals can just get the non-immigrant vote, the CPC will be down to 2 seats. People here don't really realize or want to face the fact that the CPC is really a party almost solely kept alive by the non-immigrant vote. See how ridiculous that sounds? Who cares if the party's vote comes from immigrants or from non-immigrants? Anyways, most of those Toronto (and Vancouver) ridings when you combine the Liberals and NDP they are at 80-90%. Do you think 90% of Tornoto is immigrants?

What about that poll that is the subject of another thread? The one where the Liberals are at 37% and the Conservatives are at 31%.

Had the CPC looked anything like the PC party instead of a clone of the Canadian Alliance / Reform party they would have won the last election. 2004 or 2006? They did win in 2006, but they probably would have won a majority. I would consider voting for a Progressive Conservative party (have to see their platform first) but I doubt I will ever be voting for Harper and the Reform....err I mean CPC.

Hopefully not. And hopefully the Conservatives won't go negative like they did last time either. One can only hope....

David Suzuki doesn't seem to mind, in fact he is quite happy about it. So....who exactly is the victim here? No one. Link

But there's the question of mis-appropriated funds for the environment. To the tune of $400 million dollars. Show me proof that Dion was involved in misappropriation of $400 million. Do you have a link? We BOTH know? That's news to me. I know no such thing! The only thing I assume, the Auditor general is still doing her clean-sweeping....still turning and looking under rocks. Of course, there must be a lot of scurrying going on, as soon as they get a whiff of her heading towards their direction. Chretien and Gagliano were the ones named by Gomery. If you didn't know that they are no longer MPs, I'll tell you now that they are not. Now we both know. As for Dion and the rest of the Government: Link Perhaps you have more evidence than what was presented during the Gomery inquiry? If you do, please speak up. Can't you at least guess? If you can't have an intelligent debate, don't waste my time. That doesn't sound right. Harper was never known, nor even suspected of having eaten babies, therefore you wouldn't be expecting him to eat babies. Whereas the Liberal Party is neck-deep in corruptions...and discoveries are still being made! The last being that of the Environmental Ministry of Dion. There's the question of $400 million dollars in mis-appropriated funds! So, we've ended back right where we started.... full circle, gc....just as I feared. This merry-go-round makes me dizzy. Bye. Dion is not suspected of stealing money either (at least not by any credible source I've seen). If you want to make a wild accusation that Dion stole money, I can make just as wild of an accusation that Harper eats babies. It doesn't make either one of them true.

Exactly. And Dion never did steal money. Unless of course you have some evidence you'd like to bring forth? Don't hold back, if he's guilty, I'd like him to be prosecuted as much as anyone. If not, then don't accuse him of things he didn't do. We both know that the people who had their hands in the cookie jar are no longer part of the Liberal party. Why do you blame Dion for the mistakes of others who are now history? What, in your opinion, should Dion have said that would satisfy you? What sort of policy are you looking for? Harper never promised not to eat babies, I guess I can't expect him not to eat babies.

That's "crap English". Technically, shouldn't it be "crappy English"? I mean, I have no problem with spelling mistakes, but when someone criticizes someone else for their grammar/spelling, shouldn't they try not to be hypocritical? (no, I am not talking about you Figleaf, I am talking about the original post)

Because it goes without saying. I don't rememeber Harper specifically saying that, if elected, he would not eat babies. That does not mean I believe that Harper is going to eat babies. Even if Dion does not specifically say he won't steal money, does not mean I believe he is going to steal money. But hey, if you want to judge politicians on their words alone, and not on their actions, you can continue believing that Dion is a thief and that Harper eats babies.

I think you missed my point earlier. We can never know what a politician is going to do until they are in power. You helped put Harper into power because you thought he was going to cut your taxes, and he failed at it. Would you describe that as putting Harper into power "just to see what he's going to do"? Dion has certain things that he wants to accomplish, but we can't possibly know if he is going to accomplish those things until he is elected. I am saying that I trust Dion will live up to his word more than I would trust most other politicians. As you've said before, he was only the minister of the environment for a short period of time, and you already said you didn't blame him for not getting things accomplished. Anyways, I wouldn't describe the environment as my number one priority. I think it's an important issue, but not the most important. I don't agree with everything that Dion says, but I agree with him more than I agree with any other party leader.

I'll wait to see if he gets results or not before I judge him. The fact is, we never know what a politician is going to do in charge until we put them in charge. I'm willing to give Dion a chance to see what he can do. I do think he appears more sincere than most politicians I have seen, so if he says he is going to be committed to the environment for example, then I am more willing to believe him than most other politicians. The Conservatives talked a lot about tax cuts, and you know more than anyone they didn't deliver.

Like him or not, he does seem to be popular in his country: Link

Odds of the Liberals being at 33.9% or lower: 1 in 20 Odds of the CPC being at 34.1% or higher: 1 in 20 Odds of the Liberals being at 33.9% or lower AND the CPC being at 34.1% or higher: 1 in 400 In other words, there is a 1 in 400 chance that the CPC is beating the Liberals. Edit: I guess technically I should have used the word "probability" instead of odds.

I dont' speak french well enough to comment on Kennedy's french, but Dion's English is good enough for me.