Topaz Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 The CBC is going to do interviews with all 3 leaders and tonight, Peter interview the PM and I'm wondering if Peter had to give special allowances to Harper that the PM requires from reporters? Why can't Harper always has to have the questions first before being asked, why so much trouble with an answer? Starts at 9PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) The CBC is going to do interviews with all 3 leaders and tonight, Peter interview the PM and I'm wondering if Peter had to give special allowances to Harper that the PM requires from reporters? Why can't Harper always has to have the questions first before being asked, why so much trouble with an answer? Starts at 9PM.Because he understands a lot of weight will be on how he answers. As someone conscious of the implication of making a mistake, he wants to have time to think throught how best to answer the question to give the least ammunition to others as possible to twist & manipulate his answer for their own purpose.All the Conservative Candidates are depending on him. He wants to win. Edited September 8, 2015 by Freddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 I'd pay more attention to interviews with leaders if there was a rule against lying and making promises you have no intention of keeping. And for those fixated on Harper, Chretien was as bad at breaking promises, and so was Mulroney and so was Trudeau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 I'd pay more attention to interviews with leaders if there was a rule against lying and making promises you have no intention of keeping. And for those fixated on Harper, Chretien was as bad at breaking promises, and so was Mulroney and so was Trudeau. fixated on Harper? You mean... because he's currently the governing leader... he's been in government for almost a decade? That fixation? Same ole routine with you, hey! It's always you apologizing for Harper by drawing reference to long past governments/leaders. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Andrew Coyne/NP had an interesting article a while back speculating on the lengths Harper might go to in attempts to retain power... to snatch victory from defeat!: It isn’t just the election results that are impossible to predict — it’s what happens after based on his interview with CBC's Mansbridge, it appears he'll take his 'walk in the snow'... after all! Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he will cease to be prime minister if his party comes a close second in the Oct. 19 election, signalling he will not resort to any procedural tactics to remain in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Mansbridge is too nice with these people, judging from the Harper interview. I'd like to have seen Terry Milewski give them a proper going over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 So spanky you would prefer to try and embarrass harper instead. That is not a good interview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Andrew Coyne/NP had an interesting article a while back speculating on the lengths Harper might go to in attempts to retain power... to snatch victory from defeat!: It isn’t just the election results that are impossible to predict — it’s what happens after based on his interview with CBC's Mansbridge, it appears he'll take his 'walk in the snow'... after all! Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he will cease to be prime minister if his party comes a close second in the Oct. 19 election, signalling he will not resort to any procedural tactics to remain in power. We should not have to depend on verbal undertakings by the PM that he will not carry without a plurality of seats. What happens after an election needs to be explicitly defined so that a losing government has to relinquish power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Andrew Coyne/NP had an interesting article a while back speculating on the lengths Harper might go to in attempts to retain power... to snatch victory from defeat!: It isn’t just the election results that are impossible to predict — it’s what happens after based on his interview with CBC's Mansbridge, it appears he'll take his 'walk in the snow'... after all! Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he will cease to be prime minister if his party comes a close second in the Oct. 19 election, signalling he will not resort to any procedural tactics to remain in power. Harper is already on record as saying "the party with the most seats governs. That's the way it has always worked." It would be a complete 180 if he attempts to hold onto government with less than the most seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 fixated on Harper? You mean... because he's currently the governing leader... he's been in government for almost a decade? That fixation? Same ole routine with you, hey! It's always you apologizing for Harper by drawing reference to long past governments/leaders. . No, I was pointing out that every party breaks promises. How can you not reference previous administrations in doing so? I could also point out that Trudeau has already broken several promises, such as free and open nomimation fights, and he doesn't even have a government under him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 We should not have to depend on verbal undertakings by the PM that he will not carry without a plurality of seats. What happens after an election needs to be explicitly defined so that a losing government has to relinquish power. The context of Harper's statement is to try to de-legitimize any attempt to unseat his government at the vote on the Speech from the Throne. His false statements about how our constitution resolves who will govern in the event of a hung Parliament or a defeat of a government are well in line with the pure cr*p the Tories and their supporters have been spreading since 2008. Which is ironic, since the first people in this millennium to float the idea of defeating a government with a plurality of seats in favor of some sort of coalition of other parties was no less than the Tories themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 I could also point out that Trudeau has already broken several promises, such as free and open nomimation fights, and he doesn't even have a government under him. yabut... no mug pissers have made it through yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 And the NDP lie and steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 And the NDP lie and steal. You know what they say about those in glass houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 yabut... no mug pissers have made it through yet! Look's like a mugs game to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Harper Conservatives now going after the pity vote! in the interview, Harper tells Mansbridge, "I'm not perfect"... there's a new Harper Conservative ad out that includes a supporter stating: "Stephen Harper isn't perfect"! Pity the pity vote seekers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Vote for me! I make mistakes! I won't admit to any of them, but hey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I missed trudeau's I wonder how much editing they had to do. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) So spanky you would prefer to try and embarrass harper instead. That is not a good interview. We still live in a democracy and this is one of the few occasions where all the candidates can be asked follow-up questions outside a debate format. Yes, the interviews should be tough, of course. We hear a lot about the British tradition from our monarchist friends. I suggest they watch some British TV and see how PMs and wannabe PMs are handled over there. Edited September 14, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Harper Conservatives now going after the pity vote! in the interview, Harper tells Mansbridge, "I'm not perfect"... there's a new Harper Conservative ad out that includes a supporter stating: "Stephen Harper isn't perfect"! Pity the pity vote seekers. I thought that was fairly pathetic.... Not a strong leader vibe at all in that interiew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) I thought that was fairly pathetic.... Not a strong leader vibe at all in that interiew.Would you ever vote Conservative? No matter who the leader was. Edited September 14, 2015 by Canada_First Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Not one comment yet about Trudeau's performance - or Mulcair's.Trudeau: first thing he'd do as PM? Climate Change - get to Paris. Pathetic. Mulcair: on ISIS - bring all our troops home. No training, no airplanes. Leave it to others. At least you know where he stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) They all did well enough with the gentle questions. Mulcair seemed as flummoxed as Harper on what personal qualities he had for the job which was hardly a surprising query. The 'I'm not perfect' angle is OK but Cameron went one better when asked about regrets and pointed to his ignorance of other languages - something specific that actually sounded true. I could vote Conservative with a different leader. I have voted PC in the past. Edited September 14, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Not one comment yet about Trudeau's performance - or Mulcair's. Trudeau: first thing he'd do as PM? Climate Change - get to Paris. Pathetic. Mulcair: on ISIS - bring all our troops home. No training, no airplanes. Leave it to others. At least you know where he stands. You must hate honesty as the environment logically would be the first thing as the conference is the first thing that will occur. I guess you wanted him to give you a platitude........like he'd get right over to Syria and show those "m'slums" what for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) Would you ever vote Conservative? No matter who the leader was.Normally I ignore your posts... but this doesn't seem to be trolling for a change, and it's a good question.Yes, I would vote for Conservatives, depending on the situation. I was ready to vote Reform (and then Conservative when they first merged) because I wanted to see the Senate reformed. The only reason I didn't was because my Reform/Conservative candidate (who won the seat) was rabidly anti-science, anti-women and wanted to legislate based on biblical teachings. Now you saw what happened with the Senate issue. Not only did the Conservatives not deliver on that key platform, they went and made it much, much worse than it was! They can't be trusted to deliver on difficult policy platform ideas and, in fact, have made things worse in this country on many fronts. It is definitely time to let someone else try. Edited September 14, 2015 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.