Re: worthwhile Canadian debate

"My penis is THIS long. Can Ignatieff beat that? No, he cant!"

Oh man, we’re really bound to get viewership with this exciting topic, eh? I was gonna comment on zuuko’s post, but my comment stretched out to about the length of the post, so here it goes on its own.

I watched the debates, and they were fun to see. Although a lot of the stuff the leaders were talking about seemed kinda completely irrelevant to me, but then I guess I don’t live there, so maybe it wasn’t meant to be relevant to me.

Again, maybe it’s that I’ve been living in the US for the last four years, but it was unbelievable to hear the leader of the conservative party say uncrazy things. -No new corporate tax cuts! -Support of Copenhagen accords! -More money for green energy! -taking pride in a large stimulus and the necessary bailouts and industry support! And it wasn’t like he said these things defensively: he brought them up himself!!! I wish he’d stop the Canada is the greatest nation on earth thing, though, because that’s the US. In some way, I dread what Harper would be replaced with as Conservative leader if he loses. I mean, if it’s Peter Mackay, I’d be happy, but what if it’s Vic Toews or some latter-Stockwell-Day? But in the end, his dogma on corporate taxes (“you can’t raise taxes on corporations since they’ll just forward them to the consumer!” – this is just like the ridiculous claim that “you can’t prosecute white collar criminals cause they have good lawyers!”) just reminds me: he’s a conservative. A pretty competent and benign one, I think, but a conservative nonetheless. I am not a conservative. I wouldn’t feel good voting for him.

Ignatieff I have some sympathy for, but I don’t really get his points – worrying about the deficit right now seems premature, his points about democracy and Security Council seats are trumped up, and I don’t understand why he is so keen to rule out a coalition. And his arrogance in saying the Liberals are the only non-Con choice: it’s basically saying – okay, we know you hate us, but vote for us anyway. Also his French is atrocious. And this is petty, but his eyebrows kinda scare me.

Jack Layton should never try to be friendly. He comes off as incredibly creepy. His weird debate ploy of asking the other parties’ leaders to just adopt NDP policies is a weird debate ploy that just makes him sound like a demagogue, which is actually what he is. He should just yell at people instead. Or better yet, the NDP should just get a different leader. It’s sort of the opposite idea as with Conservatives: a party I agree with on many issues, led by someone I don’t at all like or respect.

Gilles Duceppe in English often just started talking angrily about things unrelated to the question. He seemed kinda crazy, but effective in a way. Gilles Duceppe in French, you sorta felt sorry for like being the straight man in some ridiculous farce (although I must say, Layton and Harper’s French were better than I expected). I don’t agree with Quebec sovereignty, but I think the best way to deal with it is to preserve the special place of Quebec within Canada, and the best way to achieve that is to have a strong Bloc fighting for Quebec in parliament. Of the four major parties, they’re the closest I can come to supporting. Too bad I can’t vote for them.

This entry was posted in politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Re: worthwhile Canadian debate

  1. Zuuko says:

    ” his points about democracy and Security Council seats are trumped up, and I don’t understand why he is so keen to rule out a coalition.”

    Harper has clearly eroded the institutional strength of Parliament in my view. Not that it would be any different under another party. Ignatieff is keen to rule out a coalition because of politics. A word coalition has a very precise definition: the parties in the coalition form a government, usually with the attendent cabinet positions etc. For many Canadians, the presence of the Bloc in the government is unacceptable. However, a Liberal-NDP coalition that expressly rules out the presence of the Bloc from the government benches would be palatable to many Canadians. No on in Canada minds if the government (including the present Conservative minority) looks to the Bloc for support. The Libs should pursue that strategy, although the vote-splitting might benefit the Tories. And of course they can’t do that during an election, as they’re jockeying for more seats.

    • Zuuko says:

      is it just me or does this comment not make much sense in the sense that i’ve clearly moved on in my head from whatever point I was trying to make in any particular sentance I was writing at the time?

  2. Zuuko says:

    “He seemed kinda crazy, but effective in a way… Of the four major parties, they’re the closest I can come to supporting.”

    In previous debates, I’ve gotten the sense that Duceppe was angry and had a point. This time, he’s just angry. That seldom wins. I used to have that same feeling about the Bloc as in too bad I can’t vote for them because they’re leader can articulate the clearest policy. Of course, that policy was the disintegration of Canada, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is, Gilles Duceppe was weak this time around and the Bloc has an institutional advantage over the federal parties, in terms of articulating policy, because they’re a special interest group and nothing more.

  3. Pingback: Consolation | ratedzed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s