2015 Canadian Election

[Great Franconia and Verana]

My riding is a Liberal/Conservative contest,we have had Andrew Saxon as an M since 2008, a Tory. Its mostly leaning heavily towards the Liberals right now however.

What does everyone think of Tom Mulcair praising Margaret Thatcher policies of "Liberty and Liberalism that swept across British markets"?

[Fanosolia]

My riding is a Liberal/Conservative contest,we have had Andrew Saxon as an M since 2008, a Tory. Its mostly leaning heavily towards the Liberals right now however.

What does everyone think of Tom Mulcair praising Margaret Thatcher policies of "Liberty and Liberalism that swept across British markets"?

wait he really said that? I'm unfamiliar with what she did... All I know is that mr Friedman influenced her.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

My riding is a Liberal/Conservative contest,we have had Andrew Saxon as an M since 2008, a Tory. Its mostly leaning heavily towards the Liberals right now however.

What does everyone think of Tom Mulcair praising Margaret Thatcher policies of "Liberty and Liberalism that swept across British markets"?

wait he really said that? I'm unfamiliar with what she did... All I know is that mr Friedman influenced her.

He said it in 2001 while working for a Liberal government in Quebec and in the context of holding the party line on the actions of a previous government. Needless to say, this sort of quote mining reeks of desperation.

[Nation of Quebec]

My riding is a Liberal/Conservative contest,we have had Andrew Saxon as an M since 2008, a Tory. Its mostly leaning heavily towards the Liberals right now however.

What does everyone think of Tom Mulcair praising Margaret Thatcher policies of "Liberty and Liberalism that swept across British markets"?

Like with many things in politics, it's a big deal over nothing. It's not like he went on a racist rant or said something offensive. He said it nearly 15 years ago. People have been known to change their beliefs over time. In fact Harper was once a Young Liberal, but how often is that brought up?

I'm more concerned about the findings from the Duffy trial than I am over irrelevant comments from over a decade ago.

[MERIZoC]

My riding is a Liberal/Conservative contest,we have had Andrew Saxon as an M since 2008, a Tory. Its mostly leaning heavily towards the Liberals right now however.

What does everyone think of Tom Mulcair praising Margaret Thatcher policies of "Liberty and Liberalism that swept across British markets"?

Like with many things in politics, it's a big deal over nothing. It's not like he went on a racist rant or said something offensive. He said it nearly 15 years ago. People have been known to change their beliefs over time. In fact Harper was once a Young Liberal, but how often is that brought up?

I'm more concerned about the findings from the Duffy trial than I am over irrelevant comments from over a decade ago.

Speaking of which, any thoughts on how the whole Duffy thing will affect the election?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Like with many things in politics, it's a big deal over nothing. It's not like he went on a racist rant or said something offensive. He said it nearly 15 years ago. People have been known to change their beliefs over time. In fact Harper was once a Young Liberal, but how often is that brought up?

I'm more concerned about the findings from the Duffy trial than I am over irrelevant comments from over a decade ago.

Speaking of which, any thoughts on how the whole Duffy thing will affect the election?

Unless something really explosive gets unearthed, I doubt its going to affect the outcome much. Expense claims and email chains are much too esoteric to breach the policy wonk-general public barrier.

[Nation of Quebec]

Speaking of which, any thoughts on how the whole Duffy thing will affect the election?

Unless something really explosive gets unearthed, I doubt its going to affect the outcome much. Expense claims and email chains are much too esoteric to breach the policy wonk-general public barrier.

I think it depends on the region. From what I've heard, Harper has been really taking a hit in the Atlantic (even the poll tracker shows that the Conservatives are down to 2 seats in the region, as of this post). Frustrated PCers can no longer stomach the corruption. It again shows Harper's poor judgement and that the corruption goes Wright to the top.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/po ... html#polls

It's not so much the misuse of $90K that bothers me. That's small apples compared to the other wasteful spending by this government. It's the cover up of the crime that really bothers me.

[Saint-Thor]

My riding is a Liberal/Conservative contest,we have had Andrew Saxon as an M since 2008, a Tory. Its mostly leaning heavily towards the Liberals right now however.

What does everyone think of Tom Mulcair praising Margaret Thatcher policies of "Liberty and Liberalism that swept across British markets"?

Like with many things in politics, it's a big deal over nothing. It's not like he went on a racist rant or said something offensive. He said it nearly 15 years ago. People have been known to change their beliefs over time. In fact Harper was once a Young Liberal, but how often is that brought up?

Not quite the same thing. The CPC is not a 180 degree turn from the Young Liberals. While Thatcher is considered, at least in the Western world, as the antichrist of the left. And in 2001, Mulcair wasn't a poor misguided or easily influenced student. He was 47, his view on politics were pretty well defined and well thought. You can not blame that on a schoolboy error. I couldn't imagine Stephen Harper admiring Salvator Allende 14 years ago. That's not the kind of 180-degree a mature man would do, unless he is very uninformed, easily influenced and full of inconsistencies. Or opportunist (probably the case of Mulcair if you take a look at his background.)

Mulcair is not Layton. To me it's quite obvious the NDP under Mulcair will become pretty far from what it was just 10 years ago. It will still be progressive but probably will lose the socialist aspect they had since their founding.

[Nation of Quebec]

I never would have expected to see this, apparently Saskatchewan is becoming a battleground province this time around.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/0 ... an-is.html

Like with many things in politics, it's a big deal over nothing. It's not like he went on a racist rant or said something offensive. He said it nearly 15 years ago. People have been known to change their beliefs over time. In fact Harper was once a Young Liberal, but how often is that brought up?

Not quite the same thing. The CPC is not a 180 degree turn from the Young Liberals. While Thatcher is considered, at least in the Western world, as the antichrist of the left. And in 2001, Mulcair wasn't a poor misguided or easily influenced student. He was 47, his view on politics were pretty well defined and well thought. You can not blame that on a schoolboy error. I couldn't imagine Stephen Harper admiring Salvator Allende 14 years ago. That's not the kind of 180-degree a mature man would do, unless he is very uninformed, easily influenced and full of inconsistencies. Or opportunist (probably the case of Mulcair if you take a look at his background.)

Mulcair is not Layton. To me it's quite obvious the NDP under Mulcair will become pretty far from what it was just 10 years ago. It will still be progressive but probably will lose the socialist aspect they had since their founding.

I'm not attacking Harper or defending Mulcair over this, but what it comes down to is that people can change their political views, even within a ten year period. I know because back before I joined NationStates I was a diehard Conservative supporter, but I soon changed my views and have voted for all three of the major parties at some point in my life.

However, I still prefer Layton over Mulcair. He was keeping the NDP true to their beliefs instead of moving more to the center.

[Alvisiror]

Someone mentioned Harper not attending gay pride. He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. I've never been and don't plan on ever going.

Being the leader of a federal political party attending an event is very different from being an individual.

The fact that, of the four national party leaders, he didn't bother to make an appearance at even one Pride event is newsworthy because it sends a message that he doesn't care about LGBT rights. That in itself is not surprising, considering the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper's personal hostility toward things like same-sex marriage and trans rights, but you'd think he'd at least pretend for the sake of votes.

The problem is that all the other leaders were there.

If Patrick Brown, arguably one of the biggest social conservatives in Parliament before leaving to become Ontario PC leader, could show up for Pride events in his riding and in Toronto, then you'd think that Harper would show up at Montreal Pride. Especially when he's desperate to win new seats in Quebec. This shows Harper's disdain for the LGBT community.

He sticks to his principles and I respect that. He shouldn't have to pretend to be homophilic (pro-gay) just to get votes. He already has the support of Jews and Ukrainians which are much larger groups than LGBTs.

[MERIZoC]

Being the leader of a federal political party attending an event is very different from being an individual.

The fact that, of the four national party leaders, he didn't bother to make an appearance at even one Pride event is newsworthy because it sends a message that he doesn't care about LGBT rights. That in itself is not surprising, considering the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper's personal hostility toward things like same-sex marriage and trans rights, but you'd think he'd at least pretend for the sake of votes.

If Patrick Brown, arguably one of the biggest social conservatives in Parliament before leaving to become Ontario PC leader, could show up for Pride events in his riding and in Toronto, then you'd think that Harper would show up at Montreal Pride. Especially when he's desperate to win new seats in Quebec. This shows Harper's disdain for the LGBT community.

He sticks to his principles and I respect that. He shouldn't have to pretend to be homophilic (pro-gay) just to get votes. He already has the support of Jews and Ukrainians which are much larger groups than LGBTs.

Who gives a fuck if he has the support of Jews and Ukrainians? That's not terribly relevant. Sure, sure, defend him for sticking to his principles. Except his principles are ass-backwards and have no place in Canadian politics.

[Alvisiror]

]
Who gives a fuck if he has the support of Jews and Ukrainians? That's not terribly relevant. Sure, sure, defend him for sticking to his principles. Except his principles are ass-backwards and have no place in Canadian politics.

I disagree I believe that his views are correct while yours are that of someone that has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

[MERIZoC]

]
Who gives a fuck if he has the support of Jews and Ukrainians? That's not terribly relevant. Sure, sure, defend him for sticking to his principles. Except his principles are ass-backwards and have no place in Canadian politics.

I disagree I believe that his views are correct while yours are that of someone that has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

And thus the conversation was over.

[Napkiraly]

Like with many things in politics, it's a big deal over nothing. It's not like he went on a racist rant or said something offensive. He said it nearly 15 years ago. People have been known to change their beliefs over time. In fact Harper was once a Young Liberal, but how often is that brought up?

Not quite the same thing. The CPC is not a 180 degree turn from the Young Liberals. While Thatcher is considered, at least in the Western world, as the antichrist of the left. And in 2001, Mulcair wasn't a poor misguided or easily influenced student. He was 47, his view on politics were pretty well defined and well thought. You can not blame that on a schoolboy error. I couldn't imagine Stephen Harper admiring Salvator Allende 14 years ago. That's not the kind of 180-degree a mature man would do, unless he is very uninformed, easily influenced and full of inconsistencies. Or opportunist (probably the case of Mulcair if you take a look at his background.)

Mulcair is not Layton. To me it's quite obvious the NDP under Mulcair will become pretty far from what it was just 10 years ago. It will still be progressive but probably will lose the socialist aspect they had since their founding.

It's perfectly capable for older people to make complete changes in their political beliefs. The idea that changing political beliefs is the preserver of the young and uninitiated is simply ridiculous.

And of course it is, it needs to in order to appeal to more voters and have a shot of getting into power.

[Nation of Quebec]

Being the leader of a federal political party attending an event is very different from being an individual.

The fact that, of the four national party leaders, he didn't bother to make an appearance at even one Pride event is newsworthy because it sends a message that he doesn't care about LGBT rights. That in itself is not surprising, considering the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper's personal hostility toward things like same-sex marriage and trans rights, but you'd think he'd at least pretend for the sake of votes.

If Patrick Brown, arguably one of the biggest social conservatives in Parliament before leaving to become Ontario PC leader, could show up for Pride events in his riding and in Toronto, then you'd think that Harper would show up at Montreal Pride. Especially when he's desperate to win new seats in Quebec. This shows Harper's disdain for the LGBT community.

He sticks to his principles and I respect that. He shouldn't have to pretend to be homophilic (pro-gay) just to get votes. He already has the support of Jews and Ukrainians which are much larger groups than LGBTs.

That's a bit of a bigoted statement to say that all Jews and Ukrainians will be automatically voting for the Conservatives.

Harper has also pissed off the veterans and many have started to campaign against the Conservative.

]
Who gives a fuck if he has the support of Jews and Ukrainians? That's not terribly relevant. Sure, sure, defend him for sticking to his principles. Except his principles are ass-backwards and have no place in Canadian politics.

I disagree I believe that his views are correct while yours are that of someone that has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

The irony of this post makes me laugh.

[Fanosolia]

]
Who gives a fuck if he has the support of Jews and Ukrainians? That's not terribly relevant. Sure, sure, defend him for sticking to his principles. Except his principles are ass-backwards and have no place in Canadian politics.

I disagree I believe that his views are correct while yours are that of someone that has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

Please tell me you're joking...

[Calimera II]

Why Reform? Their merger into the Conservatives is what ruined the party and brought Canada Harper.

Sort of. They were a party that staunchly supported less pandering to the Quebecois, lower taxes, Friedmanomics, and cleaning up apathy and corruption. They merged into the Conservatives, and yes, it has become shit. But, the Reform Party itself was actually decent.

Friedmanomics sucks.

[Alvisiror]

He sticks to his principles and I respect that. He shouldn't have to pretend to be homophilic (pro-gay) just to get votes. He already has the support of Jews and Ukrainians which are much larger groups than LGBTs.

That's a bit of a bigoted statement to say that all Jews and Ukrainians will be automatically voting for the Conservatives.

Harper has also pissed off the veterans and many have started to campaign against the Conservative.

Obviously not all of them will automatically vote for him but his actions so far will result in a lot of votes from these groups. He is a strong supporter of Israel and Ukraine, he was awarded the King David award by influential Montreal Jews and was the first leader to recognize Ukraine's new government.

Can you provide a source for how he pissed off veterans?

I disagree I believe that his views are correct while yours are that of someone that has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

The irony of this post makes me laugh.

How is this ironic?

[Democratic Socialist States of Africa]

I disagree I believe that his views are correct while yours are that of someone that has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

Please tell me you're joking...

Wouldn't be surprised if he is? Anyway, I support the NDP. I don't like the Liberals, and the Conservatives since they support bill C-51 that attacks the rights of Canadians.

[The East Atlantic]

That's a bit of a bigoted statement to say that all Jews and Ukrainians will be automatically voting for the Conservatives.

Harper has also pissed off the veterans and many have started to campaign against the Conservative.

Obviously not all of them will automatically vote for him but his actions so far will result in a lot of votes from these groups. He is a strong supporter of Israel and Ukraine, he was awarded the King David award by influential Montreal Jews and was the first leader to recognize Ukraine's new government.

Can you provide a source for how he pissed off veterans?

The irony of this post makes me laugh.

How is this ironic?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/sorry-isnt-good-enough-veterans-call-fantinos-apology-a-performance-as-tories-accuse-unions-of-stoking-anger

[The Liberated Territories]

Sort of. They were a party that staunchly supported less pandering to the Quebecois, lower taxes, Friedmanomics, and cleaning up apathy and corruption. They merged into the Conservatives, and yes, it has become shit. But, the Reform Party itself was actually decent.

Friedmanomics sucks.

*stagflation intensifies*

[Saint-Thor]

Not quite the same thing. The CPC is not a 180 degree turn from the Young Liberals. While Thatcher is considered, at least in the Western world, as the antichrist of the left. And in 2001, Mulcair wasn't a poor misguided or easily influenced student. He was 47, his view on politics were pretty well defined and well thought. You can not blame that on a schoolboy error. I couldn't imagine Stephen Harper admiring Salvator Allende 14 years ago. That's not the kind of 180-degree a mature man would do, unless he is very uninformed, easily influenced and full of inconsistencies. Or opportunist (probably the case of Mulcair if you take a look at his background.)

Mulcair is not Layton. To me it's quite obvious the NDP under Mulcair will become pretty far from what it was just 10 years ago. It will still be progressive but probably will lose the socialist aspect they had since their founding.

It's perfectly capable for older people to make complete changes in their political beliefs. The idea that changing political beliefs is the preserver of the young and uninitiated is simply ridiculous.

And of course it is, it needs to in order to appeal to more voters and have a shot of getting into power.

Indeed. It's simply not very serious for someone who devoted his life to politics and is aspiring to become prime minister. The party leaders should stay true to the ideals of the party. If they can't, at least they should try to remain consistent with their own. But from Thatcher to NDP? Really?

[Geilinor]

It's perfectly capable for older people to make complete changes in their political beliefs. The idea that changing political beliefs is the preserver of the young and uninitiated is simply ridiculous.

And of course it is, it needs to in order to appeal to more voters and have a shot of getting into power.

Indeed. It's simply not very serious for someone who devoted his life to politics and is aspiring to become prime minister. The party leaders should stay true to the ideals of the party. If they can't, at least they should try to remain consistent with their own. But from Thatcher to NDP? Really?

You could be looking at a quote out of context.

[Saint-Thor]

Indeed. It's simply not very serious for someone who devoted his life to politics and is aspiring to become prime minister. The party leaders should stay true to the ideals of the party. If they can't, at least they should try to remain consistent with their own. But from Thatcher to NDP? Really?

You could be looking at a quote out of context.

Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that Mulcair is not a socialist. Something the NDP is supposed to be. What's the point of voting NDP if they just become another LPC? I would be tempted to vote NDP if Jack was still alive. Not for Mulcair. But again, I think I will have to reluctantly vote for the Bloc, again...

[Napkiraly]

You could be looking at a quote out of context.

Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that Mulcair is not a socialist. Something the NDP is supposed to be

No, actually it isn't. The NDP is officially social democratic with a socialist faction. It also recognizes the influence of democratic socialists on the party and its values.

Furthermore I think you misread my quote. I said it's ridiculous to think that he cannot radically change his views due to his age and that radical shifts in political orientation at an older age is possible.