cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 May, may have a point and with the polls so close, the NDP and the liberals should think twice about getting along with her because one of them, may need her in a minority situation, she may just hold the most power after the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The Green Party has no legal leg to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So then I guess we'll be inviting the Communist leader too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The Green Party has no legal leg to stand on. On what premises do you come to this conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 On what premises do you come to this conclusion? They've invited leaders from 3 different parties, and it's quite easy to justify inviting just those 3 without resorting to any type of partisan argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 On what premises do you come to this conclusion? Because there has to be processes and standards for qualifying to participate in debates. They're not arguing that everyone be included. They just don't like the fact that they can't meet the standard. They don't mind if some people are screened out, just not them. I have no idea how they're going to argue that in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So then I guess we'll be inviting the Communist leader too. So you see no difference between a party with seats in the house and a fringe party with no hope of seats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So you see no difference between a party with seats in the house and a fringe party with no hope of seats? So it's partisan to not invite the Green leader, but not partisan to not invite the Communist leader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Excellent. Canadians have to fight for Democracy as the dominant powers will do everything they can to stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 From the article: "The Aurea Foundation, with assets of almost $16 million, reported no political activities in its most-recent filing with the CRA last year. It helped fund a group of largely conservative think-tanks, including the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Montreal Economic Institute." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So it's partisan to not invite the Green leader, but not partisan to not invite the Communist leader? You didn't answer my question... I think there has to be some restriction, but if they said "only the top 2 parties will be invited", that would also cause the Liberals to take it to court. So I can see why the Greens would try and be included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) It's a full circle so the money from the debates is going to end up funding conservative right wing think tanks. It's about time Conservative party supporters realize that they are taking part in a genuine movement against Canadian democracy. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) They've invited leaders from 3 different parties, and it's quite easy to justify inviting just those 3 without resorting to any type of partisan argument. They could, but they haven't made that argument and Shady didn't either. I want to see the argument. Is that too much to ask? Hell, I made an argument myself in another thread. The Green Party has never had official party recognition in the House of Commons. If that's the qualifier, then they should state it. But what happens when a new party is formed and becomes a contender between elections? Would they exclude it on the same grounds? Doubtful. So there's a series of qualifications that need to be met. Edited September 20, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So it's partisan to not invite the Green leader, but not partisan to not invite the Communist leader? If your benchmark is only to invite parties with seats in the legislature, then yes. It's one argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 If your benchmark is only to invite parties with seats in the legislature, then yes. It's one argument. She has just as much chance of becoming the head of government as the Communist leader. That's my argument. This angle of theirs (partisanship) is utterly without basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I think there has to be some restriction, but if they said "only the top 2 parties will be invited", that would also cause the Liberals to take it to court. So I can see why the Greens would try and be included. In the past, the NDP should not have been invited. Now, the 3 people on stage have a legitimate chance of becoming head of government. That seems to be the most reasonable test for a national debate stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) There have been lots of parties without official party status that have taken part in the debates.The Progressive Conservative Party, (part antecessor to the current Conservative party and had the same number of Federal MPs in 1993 as the current Green Party), the Reform party (the main antecessor to the current conservative party) etc. Oh but they have a short term memory don't they? They benefited from being allowed in the debates without Official Party Status sometimes even without any seat at all, and now they are excluding others by having different debates run by funders of right wing think tanks. The right wing authoritarians are on the march against Democracy. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I dont see this challenge going anywhere, because the selection of NDP, Cons, and Libs can easily be rationalized as picking front-runners as opposed to being driven by partisan preference. Funding conservative think tanks alone should cost them their tax exempt status though, but thats a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) The voter at the polls on election day are supposed to pick the front runners not the debate organizers. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The voter at the polls on election day are supposed to pick the front runners not the debate organizers. The voters did pick the front runners. We know who the front runners are because voters have been polled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 For last election, not this election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The voter at the polls on election day are supposed to pick the front runners not the debate organizers. The debate organizers are private concerns. They owe no particular political party any favors. If they didn't want to, say, invite the Liberals, that is there prerogative. It wouldn't be a debate worth watching, but so be it. The Greens will be lucky if they get anywhere beyond re-electing their leader. They are a fringe party of no particular note, so as far as I'm concerned they haven't earned the right to be involved in a national debate. Heck, until they've shown they can even produce enough MPs to earn Official Party status in Parliament, I don't think they should even be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 In the past, the NDP should not have been invited. Now, the 3 people on stage have a legitimate chance of becoming head of government. That seems to be the most reasonable test for a national debate stage. Because... you think that the only position of any importance is the head of state? Wow. Sounds like our system of government has real problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) "The debate organizers are private concerns. They owe no particular political party any favors." On the contrary the debate organizers owe Harper for the debate which will make them a lot of money and prestige and as the article has shown they have been funding conservative think tanks. Tid for tat and quid pro quo wink wink. "The Greens will be lucky if they get anywhere beyond re-electing their leader. They are a fringe party of no particular note, so as far as I'm concerned they haven't earned the right to be involved in a national debate." Your opposition to Democracy has been noted. Their leader is currently the most respected parliamentarian in Ottawa."Heck, until they've shown they can even produce enough MPs to earn Official Party status in Parliament, I don't think they should even be considered." I'm sure you didn't apply the same logic to the Reform party the antecessor to the current Conservative Party when they had no seats and were allowed in the debates. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.