Munk debate 2015/09/28

[angrypenguin]

I guess when you think about it, there will always be a vocal minority that complains when "their guy" is not PM. It was Chretien the Dictator back then and now amusingly, it's Harper the Dictator.....and I can guarantee that if Mulcair ever became PM, the cries of Mulcair the Dictator would ring out. What has changed over the years is the ease and multitude of formal and social media. The squeaky wheels have gotten progressively more grease over the years. But hey, it's all part of a healthy democracy.

+1

[ToadBrother]

I guess when you think about it, there will always be a vocal minority that complains when "their guy" is not PM. It was Chretien the Dictator back then and now amusingly, it's Harper the Dictator.....and I can guarantee that if Mulcair ever became PM, the cries of Mulcair the Dictator would ring out. What has changed over the years is the ease and multitude of formal and social media. The squeaky wheels have gotten progressively more grease over the years. But hey, it's all part of a healthy democracy.

As I've said elsewhere, part of the problem is that partisans tend to cast elections in terms more familiar to apocalyptic cults; "It's the end times, and if you don't elect my party, all will be destroyed!"

It's part of creating a false drama, to cast every election as THE election where a wrong choice will allow the forces of darkness to seize control.

In reality, other than the political wing of government, most of our government has been designed specifically so that who sits at the top is largely irrelevant. Income taxes will still be collected, the taps will still run, the police will still attend 9-1-1 calls, whether Harper, Mulcair or Trudeau is PM after election day, and even, and this is very important, if we're not even sure who is going to form government after election day.

[Argus]

Boy you really do need a history lesson as others have pointed out. Maybe start with a study of our honored role as peacekeepers.

I like how you can read a post and completely ignore what it says then reply as if you hadn't read it. Is there a name for that in some psychology text?

[Argus]

Since I voted for him once, that would be a fail for you. He managed to turn me from a supporter to a non-supporter strictly on his own merits.

But hey, I'm glad he's got you on his side.

I don't like his style, to be honest. I didn't even want him to win the leadership way back when. But compared to the other two he seems like the most logical and practical choice. I don't vote out of a desire to be the PMs buddy. I don't care if the PM is an asshole. Mulcair sure seems to be one, and I kind of like the guy. Trudeau just seems shallow, callow and painfully earnest. No thanks. I like how everyone laughed when he was asked how he would stand up to Putin. As if! Putin would pat him on the head and walk on by.

[On Guard for Thee]

I like how you can read a post and completely ignore what it says then reply as if you hadn't read it. Is there a name for that in some psychology text?

When a post essentially says nothing, it is easy to ignore. Our military are "UN crossing guards?"

[Argus]

My grandparents bought a one way ticket across the Atlantic on a ship. They bought some dirt, turned it into a farm, and raised 6 successful kids. That's a small part of the way this country was built. Take your "socialist haven" bullshit and shove it where the sun don't shine, ad study a little history while you are at it.

History is not today's reality. Nobody is immigrating to Canada to go work on a farm. Nor do we need any more farmers. I wonder how our immigration program would work if this was the Canada of a century ago. After all, new immigrants would have to get a job, settle down and work - or else. No welfare, no pogey no government skills or language training. You succeeded or you went home.

A lot of people immigrated to Canada in the old days and then failed and went home. That's not something today's proponents of immigrants care to discuss much. Today's failed immigrants, and there are many, don't go home.

[Argus]

As opposed to Harper Lovers?

For the love of god. Please push people to vote, or guys like the above will choose the next government again, with 36% of the votes.

And yet, if I use, for example, YOU as an example of the typical anti-Harper voter I'd be aghast at the thought of them getting into power. You and a lot of people on this site are worse than that guy by a long shot.

[Argus]

As far as pidgeonholing Conservatives as angry old white dudes, this is also a red herring and is about as insightful as saying that all Green supporters are tree-hugging hippies, or NDP supporters are all social assistance recipients and civil servants.

These are the classy representatives of the NDP!

http://www.therebel.media/photo_ndp_candidate_s_husband_posing_gangster_style_with_handgun

[Argus]

As I've said elsewhere, part of the problem is that partisans tend to cast elections in terms more familiar to apocalyptic cults; "It's the end times, and if you don't elect my party, all will be destroyed!"

That is often true, but in this case we have two parties promising to completely change the way we elect governments, which will have a huge impact on the future governance of this country. It isn't something which can simply be removed in a few years. Once such a system is in place, regardless of its drawbacks, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. And they want to make this change despite nearly 150 years of sound governance on the basis that they don't like Stephen Harper.

[Argus]

When a post essentially says nothing, it is easy to ignore. Our military are "UN crossing guards?"

Okay, I understand. You actually don't know anything at all about the roll of UN peacekeepers in the past.

[ToadBrother]

That is often true, but in this case we have two parties promising to completely change the way we elect governments, which will have a huge impact on the future governance of this country. It isn't something which can simply be removed in a few years. Once such a system is in place, regardless of its drawbacks, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. And they want to make this change despite nearly 150 years of sound governance on the basis that they don't like Stephen Harper.

Then don't vote NDP or Liberal.

[On Guard for Thee]

Okay, I understand. You actually don't know anything at all about the roll of UN peacekeepers in the past.

Having worked with them in at least 5 different country's in the past, I think I do know something about it.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I bet you're in health care and biotechs...

You can thank Hillary Clinton for them tanking.

Or if you're in oil and gas you can thank the Saudis.

I'm in lots of things. The only bright spot is US dollar investments because our dollar is tanking as well.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Harper is a pretty placid guy from what I've seen. And going after terrorists is fine with me. They might be your buddies, but they're not mine.

He is an angry man as many who have had to deal with him can attest e.g. Danny Williams. The placid guy facade doesn't even survive a few minutes of Mansbridge.

Edited September 30, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

Then don't vote NDP or Liberal.

You need have no fear of that.

[SpankyMcFarland]

And yet, the nickname of the opposition leader is "Mister Angry", however much he tries to put on a happy face during the election...

Nevertheless, I don't care if the PM is a nice guy. I care if he's competent. And so far, Harper has been reasonably competent. I may not like him, but then, as I said, I don't have to.

Having a PM is who is not likeable is an issue. We've put up with this for a decade now.

[Argus]

Having worked with them in at least 5 different country's in the past, I think I do know something about it.

You're one of those guys who works in the Tim Hortons?

[dialamah]

I don't like his style, to be honest. I didn't even want him to win the leadership way back when. But compared to the other two he seems like the most logical and practical choice. I don't vote out of a desire to be the PMs buddy. I don't care if the PM is an asshole. Mulcair sure seems to be one, and I kind of like the guy. Trudeau just seems shallow, callow and painfully earnest. No thanks. I like how everyone laughed when he was asked how he would stand up to Putin. As if! Putin would pat him on the head and walk on by.

I suspect many people underestimate Trudeau because he's enthusiastic and idealistic. He's much smarter than people give him credit for, and he's likable in a way Harper isn't. "Likable" people get farther in terms of negotiating than unlikable people, and the apparent lack of sophistication can be disarming ... until it's too late. What you see as a weakness could actually be a strength - but only time will tell. And you have to admit, he's brought the party from the ashes to a possible second place finish -- that should tell you something.

[On Guard for Thee]

He is an angry man as many who have had to deal with can attest e.g. Danny Williams. The placid guy facade doesn't even survive a few minutes of Mansbridge.

His office tantrums have been talked about often, and one need only look at how he either tightly controls or completely hides from probing media questions to see how short a fuse he has.

[Argus]

I'm in lots of things. The only bright spot is US dollar investments because our dollar is tanking as well.

Which is good for exports.

Really, blaming Harper for the fact the boom market is in correction phase all around the world is ludicrous.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I find the Harper Haters to be much more angry.

Read the comments in the Toronto Sun some time and hear what the Harper chorus sounds like. His whole campaign is based on division, riling up the minority who will vote for him, the Cowans of this world. He knows the majority don't like him.

Edited September 30, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[dialamah]

That is often true, but in this case we have two parties promisinAnd they want to make this change despite nearly 150 years of sound governance on the basis that they don't like Stephen Harper.

I've been hearing complaints about this system from long before Harper was elected, so it's just because of Stephen Harper. I think people are getting more vocal about it, but that could also be because of the internet and social media.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're one of those guys who works in the Tim Hortons?

I suspect that's more your type of venue. They didn't have them in Mogadishu, or Baghdad, or Luanda....Keep digging.

[Argus]

I suspect many people underestimate Trudeau because he's enthusiastic and idealistic. He's much smarter than people give him credit for, and he's likable in a way Harper isn't. "Likable" people get farther in terms of negotiating than unlikable people, and the apparent lack of sophistication can be disarming ... until it's too late. What you see as a weakness could actually be a strength - but only time will tell. And you have to admit, he's brought the party from the ashes to a possible second place finish -- that should tell you something.

I get that he's likeable, and pretty, and has name recognition. What I don't see is any indication that he has the sophistication, experience or even intelligence to see beyond simplistic and paternalistic answers to complicated issues. His willingness to earnestly and wholeheartedly embrace positions without thinking them through, for example, and to throw money around on 'solutions' like it's confetti are very unimpressive. Remember the native inquiry where he promised - without reading the report - to carry out all 94 recommendations? How much would that cost? What would that involve? No matter! I promise! Duh!

[Argus]

I suspect that's more your type of venue. They didn't have them in Mogadishu, or Baghdad, or Luanda....Keep digging.

Oh digging! You were one of the contractors hired to dig latrines!