Jump to content

Federal Conservative Debate Laval Qc - mai 2022


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

 if Canada is to survive as a country - get along, I've decided to vote for Charest.

this is a safe bet...

I'm not a fan of old men hanging around forever but new voices aren't given a pass because they are young

I know what I want to hear from a leader - any leader.  I want to hear new ways to address:

-National and regional unity - strengthening confederation
-Economic issues - modernizing our private and public economies and ensuring widespread prosperity
-Real climate action that doesn't punish individual citizens

The three main parties are FAR FAR closer on policy than is admitted on here.  Any one of them could produce a leader with ideas for this, but I am not really hearing that today

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 9:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Coke and Pepsi is a false choice, if you understand how marketing combines work these days ;)

As long as they don't collude.

The mere existence of choice keeps them honest.

=====

In federal America, it is clear that they don't collude.

But imagine a world - like Baltimore - where you can vote Democrat or Democrat!

Welcome to the world of urban America.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada, at the federal level, we have a choice:

a) politicians who speak French well

b) politicians who don't speak French well

=====

Western voters have to decide. Aside from various sex scandals, I'm thankful to Trudeau Snr for making the choice easier in Canada.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only Poilievre and Charest are potential federal Conservative leaders.

Like our current PM.

=====

Ambitious parents? Make sure that your children speak fluent French and English.

Like people in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire learned German, you learn a skill and create a choice.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make this plain:

Only Charest and Poilievre are possible/potential federal politicians.

Glass ceiling? Pearson and Trudeau Snr created it in the federal Canadian context. Since 1968, to be PM of Canada, you must speak intelligible French.

These other people Leswyn, Babar, Patrick Brown etc. They will never be elected in federal politics. So, why are they doing this, wasting my time? A lack of self-awareness. L'inconscience, le fléau de notre époque.

=====

Democracy is a word. A federal republic is a society. I am thankful to Trudeau Snr for the habits he created. 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To lead us, when given the choice, we generally prefer a tall person or a person with blue eyes.

(Check the height of all recent American presidents, Australian PMs, etc. -True, Carter was under 1m78 but he has blue eyes. Nixon was 1m82 like Reagan. Obama was tall like LBJ.)

Or someone who can avoid a scandal - as currently determined.

The Trudeau Snr criteria may seem arbitrary - but I kinda like this new criteria: someone who can speak intelligible French. Compared to eye colour or height or recent sex scandal, this one seems more intriguing - telling, as poker players say.

=====

In a democracy, we have to choose. Tall/short, brown-eyed/blue-eyed or survivor of scandal. Whatever, we have to choose.

I reckon that if someone can speak intelligible French, they're competent in one skill.

Of course as the misogynist Somerset Maugham famously said, "I know a woman who can speak eight languages. Unfortunately, she can't say anything intelligent in any one of them."

Or rather, tall men with blue eyes are just as likely to be foolish.   

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. As long as they don't collude.

2. The mere existence of choice keeps them honest.

3. In federal America, it is clear that they don't collude. But imagine a world - like Baltimore - where you can vote Democrat or Democrat! Welcome to the world of urban America.

1. Of course they collude.
2. It definitely does not.  If your belief in markets is predicated on the honesty of multinational marketing brands you now have to reconsider that ideology.
3. The idea that Republican vs Democrat or Liberal vs Conservative is a 'free' choice is remarkable given that you have travelled in the world.  It's pretty clear that mainstream parties collude to make other choices seem extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2022 at 8:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course they collude.
....

To my eyes, it is obvious that the Clinton/Biden clan do not collude with Trump.

The Bush clan? Can't say. Frum?

===

Coke or Pepsi? What's the difference?

We have a choice. One side keeps the other honest.

====

You'll know that we have a non-colluding duopoly when one side cheats on the other side.

Prisoner dilemma.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, August1991 said:

1. To my eyes, it is obvious that the Clinton/Biden clan do not collude with Trump. The Bush clan? Can't say.

===

2. Coke or Pepsi? What's the difference?  We have a choice.

====

3. You'll know that we have a non-colluding duopoly when when one side cheats on the other side. Prisoner dilemma.

1. Well clearly you suspect *something* or you wouldn't have hesitated.

2. They collude.  You can't choose "other" any more than you can expect to see the Libertarian leader on stage with Clinton and Trump.

3.  Successfully you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the broader point:

Who will be the next federal Conservative leader?

Someone who can avoid/survive a sex scandal and can also speak intelligible French.

=====

Many foolish people have big egos and want to change the world and want to be the next federal Conservative leader.

As a voter, do they have the right to waste my time checking them out?

====

The US Constitution has a CIvil Code 35 yrs for presidents. I prefer the common law Trudeau Snr criteria.

To be a federal PM in Canada, you must speak intelligible French.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Michael,

{sarcasm}Coke and Pepsi do not collude?{/sarcasm} I have several Budweiser Youtube ads to show my point.

The mere existence of choice is my point.

Make no mistake, this is the greatest idea of the Enlightenment - the West.

Collusion is a Western phenomenon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Collusion is a Western phenomenon

Irony is my description of Coke and Pepsi.

=====

Sarcasm -> saying the opposite of what you mean.

Smart move!

Irony -> saying something when others know otherwise.

Don't open the door!

====

Both sarcasm and irony require theatre.

Years ago, I saw these same basic Western ideas portrayed as Buddhist in front of a temple in northern Burma.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Standup comedy is only a thing in the west because we value antagonistic thoughts and conflict.

Coke and Pepsi are on the same team AND they are both capitalists.

Uh, no.

The people in northern Burma (Mandalay?) Years ago. They had no electricity.

But even at night, actors could perform in front of a temple by moonlight.

Since then, whenever I have entered a medieval European church, I looked at the entry and was reminded of this Buddhist theatre in Burma.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

But even at night, actors could perform in front of a temple by moonlight.

Since then, whenever I have entered a medieval European church, I looked at the entry and was reminded of this Buddhist theatre in Burma.

 

Such as scene is as far away from standup comedy as possible.

I asked a Taiwanese woman I knew why stand up comedy wasn't popular in the East and she said "why would people want to sit around and listen to a stupid person?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 6:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Coke and Pepsi is a false choice, if you understand how marketing combines work these days ;)

Never heard of it. Is that like the false dichotomy of the choice between Coke vs Pepsi, leaving out everything else? It was good marketing for Pepsi back when I was a kid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 10:25 PM, August1991 said:

If Canada is to survive as a country - get along, I've decided to vote for Charest.

Charest is the CBC's choice for Canada. Debates will be framed to make him look good.

They'll choose debate questions which play to Charest's strength, they'll allow Charest to interrupt, they'll avoid topics that are good for PP, and if PP gets onto one of his preferred topics or interrupts Charest he'll get gob-smacked by the moderator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2022 at 5:11 AM, August1991 said:

Let me make this plain:

Only Charest and Poilievre are possible/potential federal politicians.

Glass ceiling? Pearson and Trudeau Snr created it in the federal Canadian context. Since 1968, to be PM of Canada, you must speak intelligible French.

These other people Leswyn, Babar, Patrick Brown etc. They will never be elected in federal politics. So, why are they doing this, wasting my time? A lack of self-awareness. L'inconscience, le fléau de notre époque.

=====

Democracy is a word. A federal republic is a society. I am thankful to Trudeau Snr for the habits he created. 

Are we allowed to post in french in these forums? J'ai oublié les règles.

I haven't posted in these forums in a long time, but the above post is interesting to me. The French of Leslyn, Baber, and Aitchinson was terrible; they could only read pre-prepared notes and did not respond directly to the questions, fair enough. But, is it fair to put Patrick Brown in the same category as the other three? He could speak French, responded to the questions and the other candidates, and communicated his message. Admittedly, his French was not perfect, and he made mistakes, such as the use of "à le" instead of "au". But, what he was trying to say could be understood, and the point of language is communication. Patrick Brown did not make many complex arguments, but that was more because he is a dull politician that doesn't have much to say in either official language, rather than due to his French ability.

Maybe I'm slightly biased because my French is at a similar level as Patrick Brown, or slightly worse. But, aren't your standards a bit unreasonable if you are putting Patrick Brown in the same category as the other three candidates?

Recently, I have been thinking about what level of linguistic ability is the threshold to be considered bilingual or multilingual or not, and I wonder if Canadian standards are out of sync with the rest of the world. For example, I have recently gamed occasionally with people in other countries (Europe, South Korea, etc.) and sometimes talk about language. What I notice is that there are many people in Europe, Asia, etc. who will say that they speak 5 languages, for example, but their competence in 3 of them would actually be worse than the level of French of Patrick Brown.

I also wonder if there are differences in standards of linguistic acceptance between English Canada and French Canada. For example, I would consider a candidate with an equivalent level of English as Patrick Brown's French as being at an acceptable level. Maybe English Canada is just more accepting of immigrants compared to Quebec, so there is a greater level of acceptance of different linguistic competencies due to exposure to immigrants. Of course, individuals within societies will vary in their linguistic expectations.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...