enkers

So if this chronology is accurate, basically the commission unilaterally decided to not have the green party there, then tried to blame it on a technicality? Not a good look.

It seems that there are facts that are in contention about whether or not the green party was fielding the necessary number of candidates. They said they did, and the commission said they didn’t. Hopefully there’ll be some third party verification going on here to get to the bottom of this.

Looks like they added some additional info and posted it as a new article:

https://www.greenparty.ca/en/news/the-green-party-reveals-its-chronology-of-events-in-its-communications-with-the-leaders-debates-commission-2

Hot damn, that certainly stinks of foul play, and conveniently for the commission, there’s not even a fall guy.

God, who cares. This is a political debate, not a beauty pageant. The fact is his policy sucks, and that’s what matters.

I was a bit too young to be very involved in politics then so I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter, but it’s funny, because behind closed doors, I’ve had several people tell me that Rae’s policies were unpopular precisely because they were the ones we needed.

Interesting take. I feel like PP’s handlers more or less got the muzzle on ok, tbh. I thought he was more reserved than I expected him to be, even though he spent most of his talking time just trying to bash the Liberals.

I’ve got to say, I’m an NDP supporter, but if anything, I thought it was Singh who did the most talking over others, and for the most part it didn’t do him too many favours, even though I do agree with the points he was trying to make.

I wish he would’ve saved those tactics for the most poignant moments only.

IMO Carney was the clear loser who failed to address allegations about his personal ties to industries he intends to bolster.

As to Singh, asides from talking over others too much, I thought his criticisms were largely on point.

Not sure why, tbh. I thought the BQ did well in the debate. They were QC-first as expected, but they also showed willingness to be part of a united front against US demands, which makes sense; they know if we fall, they do to. They also largely did their best to hold the Liberals accountable, and called them out where appropriate.

While they focused mainly on QC issues, I felt they were invested in Canada’s success as a whole.

Blanchet honestly made me feel a bit jealous that I didn’t live in Québec and he wasn’t going to bat for me.

That’s fine, but then they shouldn’t try and misrepresent that they’re actually fielding those candidates just to meet the qualifications to be part of the debate.

Yeah, I was aware of that, but the proper term eluded me in the moment. Thanks.

I guess if they actually had a leg to stand on, they probably would’ve included it.

Can someone explain what happened with the green party allegedly pulling candidates in strong Conservative ridings? There was an article this morning stating that as the reason for their exclusion from the debate, as they no longer met the criteria for inclusion.

This article doesn’t seem to mention or rebut it at all.

Leighton Walters, an Australian-Canadian cafe owner, shared his “shock” on Instagram after receiving a letter from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordering him to destroy an $CA8000 ($9132) shipment of Vegemite, and to remove the spread from his menu because it has added B Vitamins.

Absolutely baffling behaviour from the CFIA. What the heck are they thinking?

Absolutely. Addressing the material conditions caused by rampant corporatism is the only way to address the rise of the far right, because it’s a reactionary movement to perceived threat to their way of life. That and increased access to education.

And you can’t do that with two corporatist parties swapping power back and forth without any real alternative.

They’re sitting at 20%, so never. Best they can hope for is a coalition government with the other right wing party, and at least they won’t be running the show. And even if that happens, I don’t see how that’s any worse than a merger of right wing and far right parties, which if anything is more insidious.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but in the US, the AFD equivalent is literally running the county. I’ll take deadlock over that noise any day.

Are you sure? The top 5 countries rated on their democracy index are consistently PR systems.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=table

I’ll most likely be voting for a party who promises to implement PR. FPTP is a one way ticket to the American political landscape, and it has to be ended above most other issues.

I’m fairly pro immigration, but it shouldn’t be used mainly as a source of cheap labour to drive down corporate costs and extract money from Canada. Immigrants need time to acclimate to Canadian society, and having too high an immigration rate risks losing our values of tolerance, and equality.

And while I do kinda agree with the headline, the timing is certainly rather suspicious coming from Conservative owned media. Also, I don’t think Conservative policy on the matter would be that substantially different, as they’re equally pro-corporate.

The Québécois Nation Motion reads:

Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation au sein d’un Canada uni.

So we, as a country, do officially recognise their nationhood.

So let me get this straight, they want us to believe the driver recorded their conversation, sent it to a transcription service, then texted it to them? And that their rep also lied about there being a pilot program?

Uh huh. What would either of their motives be?

Or at least give us the option to disable them. If I wanted tictok I’d go on tiktok.