2019 Canadian Federal Election thread - polls and discussion.

[killramos]

Prime minister is whoever the house votes to be prime minister, so presumably Turdeau and Jagmeet get together in advance and agree to all vote for Trudeau as PM. But Jagmeet could pull support any time.

So it would be Trudeau, sitting on Jagmeets lap.

Whereas a minority government more traditionally could garner most votes for their leader to be PM. And would just need to make sure that enough other MP’s support them on legislation to not trigger a vote of non confidence.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How would a coalition government work.

If conservatives win the most seasons but liberals and ndp form a coalition together. Who would be prime minister?

In the past (that I know of) its always been the party with the most seats still rules with support from the others.

part of the agreement of the coalition would be to decide who would be PM. Generally the one with more seats would have a higher leverage to decide PM, but in theory it could be the lower-seat party's leader if they agree to that.

this is what happened in BC. NDP had less seats than Liberal, but NDP made a deal with Green to coalition and form gov't.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would be open to the idea if it was fully-baked, but every time someone explains to me how it would work it seems to rely on the generosity of both Canada and the USA to make that happen without nuking our economy/services in the process. Fat chance of that happening.

Agreed.

Even in lieu of separation talk there HAS to be a better political model that respects where the Country/world needs to go from a technological standpoint (ie. pollution) while also respecting regional/national economies on a unified front instead of playing everyone against the other. There is no sense of true national unity, less now than almost any point in time I would argue.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agreed.

Even in lieu of separation talk there HAS to be a better political model that respects where the Country/world needs to go from a technological standpoint (ie. pollution) while also respecting regional/national economies on a unified front instead of playing everyone against the other. There is no sense of true national unity, less now than almost any point in time I would argue.

The only sensible solution for Canada is decentralization. Every province is becoming more and more unique as time goes on.

This includes no longer sending money from well off provinces to those who cannot balance their budgets for decades.
If a province wants to go all Quebec (socialist) then they can have that model and show the residents how well that works in terms of economics 101.

Set your own criminal/gun laws based on your population.
For eg. Quebec can be super liberal with gun/criminal law and AB can choose to actually punish repeat offenders and let rural property owners shoot criminals caught in the act.

[suntan]

A bit of history:

The second time the PET Liberals were voted in, they had a minority. They formed a coalition with the NDP. This resulted in the formation of Petro-Canada. Yippee.

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A bit of history:

The second time the PET Liberals were voted in, they had a minority. They formed a coalition with the NDP. This resulted in the formation of Petro-Canada. Yippee.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau Rips Off Canada.

Whole reason it's still called red square. Lol

[Zhariak]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only sensible solution for Canada is decentralization. Every province is becoming more and more unique as time goes on.

This includes no longer sending money from well off provinces to those who cannot balance their budgets for decades.
If a province wants to go all Quebec (socialist) then they can have that model and show the residents how well that works in terms of economics 101.

Set your own criminal/gun laws based on your population.
For eg. Quebec can be super liberal with gun/criminal law and AB can choose to actually punish repeat offenders and let rural property owners shoot criminals caught in the act.

I've been saying this forever, and couldn't agree with it more...

Canada has progressed in to two very different groups of people. A single government can't govern the two groups as one since the vote isn't an even split and the views are so different.

You have one group who wants fiscal responsibility, jobs, a functioning economy, moving progressing as a people/population (think moon landing type stuff), and true freedom (including freedom of speech). And then the second group (which I think is a larger percent of the population) has a main focus of social progression, out of control spending, unlimited borrowing, no fiscal responsibility, freebies left-right-center, corrupt governing (it's ok because it saves jobs right? lol) and suppression of free speech and rights (you have to believe what we want or you're a racist).

What's progressive for the first group, isn't for the second group. And vice versa.

The two groups need their own governments to govern them in order for either group to move forward. It's just causing so many issues and conflicts between them.

[AndyL]

https://torontosun.com/news/national...box=1571167017

Kinsella publicly saying don't vote for the Trudeau cult.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've been saying this forever, and couldn't agree with it more...

Canada has progressed in to two very different groups of people. A single government can't govern the two groups as one since the vote isn't an even split and the views are so different.

You have one group who wants fiscal responsibility, jobs, a functioning economy, moving progressing as a people/population (think moon landing type stuff), and true freedom (including freedom of speech). And then the second group (which I think is a larger percent of the population) has a main focus of social progression, out of control spending, unlimited borrowing, no fiscal responsibility, freebies left-right-center, corrupt governing (it's ok because it saves jobs right? lol) and suppression of free speech and rights (you have to believe what we want or you're a racist).

What's progressive for the first group, isn't for the second group. And vice versa.

The two groups need their own governments to govern them in order for either group to move forward. It's just causing so many issues and conflicts between them.

Separatists are everywhere!

[kertejud2]

I'm just a fiscally responsible guy who wants moon landing type stuff, what's so contradictory about that?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm just a fiscally responsible guy who wants moon landing type stuff, what's so contradictory about that?

The moon is the ultimate separatist. Just look at it!

[killramos]

Beats spending money on bike lanes

[Darkane]

What do you guys say to the advanced polls with 30% more votes than 2015?

Is it a sign?

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've been saying this forever, and couldn't agree with it more...

Canada has progressed in to two very different groups of people. A single government can't govern the two groups as one since the vote isn't an even split and the views are so different.

You have one group who wants fiscal responsibility, jobs, a functioning economy, moving progressing as a people/population (think moon landing type stuff), and true freedom (including freedom of speech). And then the second group (which I think is a larger percent of the population) has a main focus of social progression, out of control spending, unlimited borrowing, no fiscal responsibility, freebies left-right-center, corrupt governing (it's ok because it saves jobs right? lol) and suppression of free speech and rights (you have to believe what we want or you're a racist).

What's progressive for the first group, isn't for the second group. And vice versa.

The two groups need their own governments to govern them in order for either group to move forward. It's just causing so many issues and conflicts between them.

Haha, thats exactly whats been going on in California for decades. They had the power to turn their great state in an socialist, laws-for-everything, paradise and the end result is a complete debacle. Creating pockets of people who think and feel the same is the best course of action however.

Apparently while the power was out for hundreds of thousands of people, the governor was passing laws about single use shampoo bottles in hotels in California. Shows where their priorities lie.

If I had to pick a state to live in, it would probably be one of the Northern ones as they have the least amount of 'government'.

[ZenOps]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm just a fiscally responsible guy who wants moon landing type stuff, what's so contradictory about that?

You can have your moon landing, I'll just put the fuel tab on your bill.

[ZenOps]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Haha, thats exactly whats been going on in California for decades. They had the power to turn their great state in an socialist, laws-for-everything, paradise and the end result is a complete debacle. Creating pockets of people who think and feel the same is the best course of action however.

Apparently while the power was out for hundreds of thousands of people, the governor was passing laws about single use shampoo bottles in hotels in California. Shows where their priorities lie.

If I had to pick a state to live in, it would probably be one of the Northern ones as they have the least amount of 'government'.

Well… Thing is, how one views socialism depends heavily on your personal situation when entering it. Lets say you have a house, maybe a few dollars saved up, maybe a couple employees. Socialism probably looks pretty bad. Lets say you just arrived from bankrupt Greece, you don't have a penny to your name - in fact you owe money, no permanent residence and no job. Socialism looks pretty damn good.

Now, in a democracy if you have more people like the recently immigrated unshaved Greek as being more normal or a larger percentage of the population, then by default more people will vote for socialism.

The fallacy of rich people is that they think that democracy works in their favour when you remove corruption. Corruption is the only think keeping socialism at bay.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What do you guys say to the advanced polls with 30% more votes than 2015?

Is it a sign?

Yes, many many (liberals even) people are pissed off at sock puppet man. Same happened in AB too with the NDP - people emotionally/logically opposed to those in power will cease being undecided very quickly.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Haha, thats exactly whats been going on in California for decades. They had the power to turn their great state in an socialist, laws-for-everything, paradise and the end result is a complete debacle. Creating pockets of people who think and feel the same is the best course of action however.

Apparently while the power was out for hundreds of thousands of people, the governor was passing laws about single use shampoo bottles in hotels in California. Shows where their priorities lie.

If I had to pick a state to live in, it would probably be one of the Northern ones as they have the least amount of 'government'.

The evidence for the failure of progressive policies is right in front of us all: Canada and California chief among them. And yet, people continue with their delusions. I think this is mostly because they are failing to attribute the outcomes to the policies.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Beats spending money on bike lanes

Bike lanes are fiscally responsible, single occupancy vehicle focused transportation options aren’t. Most people on beyond claim to want fiscal responsibility by whining about small projects but are proponents of the most inefficient spending models possible. Typical penny wise, pound foolish stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What do you guys say to the advanced polls with 30% more votes than 2015?

Is it a sign?

Typically it’s bad for the incumbent.

[lasimmon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What do you guys say to the advanced polls with 30% more votes than 2015?

Is it a sign?

Its a sign that it is now incredibly easy to vote in advance.

I don't think the amount of advanced votes really is a sign of anything anymore.