BREAKING NEWS: The Globe and Mail reports Andrew Scheer is an American citizen

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...s-citizenship/

This makes perfect sense on why he was trying to ruin the NAFTA negotiations for Canada.

Andrew Scheer is not as advertised

lol at media acting like this is a story

also lol a scheer spending so long in politics and waiting to renounce until august

also lol ted cruz

Yeah I do not get the Conservatives.

Were are the ads pounding the SNC scandal and how Trudeau tossed two women under the buss

Also the prancing around like a Monkey.

Also Trudeau climate change policy is a joke. I get that folks will not vote Scheer because of his lack of a climate strategy But Trudeaus would be like me being told by my doctor I need to lose weight or may suffer a Heart Attack. So I announce ill lose 40 lbs in 10 years and have no plans for the next 1 year or will not meet my 5 year goals but looking to hire experts

Elizabeth May would run the largest Deficit just paying for her Pharmacare plan

NDP has the best leader but those racist French CDN's may not vote for him

I sort of agree, sort of not. Implementing a national carbon price is a big deal, and an important step in the right direction. I think the projected numbers for the tax should be rapidly advanced, and that the tax should be only one of a multipronged effort to make substantial overhall of the economy. Without these other things, the 2050 projection numbers are pie in the sky (and to be fair, I don't think they are presented as having a concrete plan for that either). However, I don't think that diminishes the fact that, to me, this election should be a referendum on the idea of a national carbon price as the liberals signature agenda and that isn't diminished despite us doomed to fail paris accord regardless.

First really important debate tonight. Scheer bringing the lols right off the bat

gah this is so terrible. At least singh is well spoken and I don't visibly flinch when he speaks.

May is clearly winning, Blanchet doing really well, Singh and Trudeau doing decent and Scheer/Bernier are total garbage

Voted PPC and my wife voted NDP. She was all about Trudeau until the debates. Will be interesting to see what happens come election day. I feel like Green/NDP will be takng votes from the Liberals and PPC will take some votes from Conservatives.

You two must have some great pillow talk. I really struggle to find any reason to vote PPC beyond feeling good that one's....let's say....nativist views are being echoed by a politician.

It's fine, she actually likes Max Bernier and it was between him and NDP.

I am conservative but just do not like Sheer. It was a decision I went back and forth on a lot but when it came time to cast the vote i went with my gut.

You'd be hard pressed to find two politicians that show a larger contrast in their positions.

And, depending on where you live, voting for PPC is potentially half of a vote for Trudeau or scheer.

What are your priorities that would lead you to those two as the leading options?

It seems like both of you are more "personality" based vs "priorities" based?

As in, there is a political spectrum of what kinds of policies you might want, and what values you uphold, divorced from whoever happens to lead the party. The NDP and the PPC are diametrically opposed on that spectrum. So for instance, I think we should take action on the environment to meaningfully combat climate change, but there is a spectrum of what the parties will act on that file. Voting just because you "like" a person but representing completely opposite ends of the spectrum seems completely ridiculous.

Your situation is a bit more reasonable, as Bernier and Scheer are both on the same end. But Bernier's existence as a party is basically an example of a poor loser from the leadership election, and now it really represents one thing on the national stage: nativism. If you also hold extremely racist reviews on, say, immigration, I suppose it makes sense to vote for the party that represents that far right fringe. But again, I think you should do that if you agree with those views and think they are important enough to vote for, not just because you like the guy personally.

I wouldn't call cutting immigration in half and focusing on economic immigration until the deficit is balanced "extremely racist".

Voting because you like someone is what majority of people do. How many votes did the liberals receive last election because Trudeau was a younger good looking guy that was going to legalize weed?

Trudeau came off smug and arrogant last English debate.
Scheer always comes off as a weasel.
May comes off/is a nutjob.
Singh was very likeable but a socialist obv
Bernier was reasonable and not near as extreme as he's been made out by the media.

Personally I dislike Trudeau a lot. I don't think Scheer will be much better but still better for my province and career hopefully. I live in a riding that is all but guaranteed to be conservative, NDP hasn't even bother putting up signs. So rather than most people I know who just want Trudeau out I voted for the party policies I agreed most with.

Even if voting because you like someone is what the majority of people do it wouldn't be a good reason or something you'd want to emulate.

Who knows what berniers reason for wanting to cut immigration is? You still know what the effect will be and waffling between bernier and singh makes no sense if that was a priority. On pretty much all policy matters they're opposite, and there's almost nothing that would connect them on a personal level.

Who said anything about wanting to emulate it?

Because he thinks it's costing the country to much money? Nobody knows what the effect of any of these politicians policies will have? Who knows what effect promising free pharmacare and dental will have.

Earlier in the thread I used "nativism", which is a somewhat lower bar. Bernier is not unlike many other far-right nationalist parties in europe whose policies are about absolutely slashing and burning down immigration rates. You have to have your head in the sand if you don't think racism has any part of their popularity.


Since it appears you have no idea whether this policy will or will not actually "save money", what reasons other than natism or racism or whatever you like is there for supporting it? If all policies are just a toss up and you guy for the guy saying the meanest things about immigrants because you like them, what else are we supposed to conclude?

Of course the party is also running on climate denialism, sick though that is. Maybe you like him for that instead.

Not sure what you are rambling on about. Are you for open borders? Is the 350k number of immigrants the Liberals allowed racist? Why cap it? Why not 600k?

I never voted for PPC because of the immigration policy. I'm tired of the same old parties taking turns promising tax breaks to different groups trying to buy votes.

So you support a party whose raison d'etre is about nativist slashing of immigration....but not because of immigration, a policy you believe "nobody knows" the effects of?

The secondary thing the party is associated with is climate denialism. Is this the reason you support them, if not immigration? Truly sad, if so.

I get the idea of not liking the mainstream parties. But it seems you've thrown your vote away without much consideration as to what the party you voted for actually stands for.

I meant that you could say "nobody knows" the actual effects of any policy, it's a poor argument to make against any policy. You still never answered my question, are you for open borders? Are the liberals racist for limiting immigration at 350k?

What's climate denialism? Do you mean climate change denier? I'm against crazy alarmism and insane green policies that destroy economies yes.

I know exactly what the party stands for and have been following Bernier since he was running for the conservatives so no I have not thrown my vote away and the more I follow the campaign the better I feel about my vote.

I don't think your vote is wasted either. I never realized till a few weeks ago that we had 350,000 immigrants. I have no issue with that but understand why some would feel its to large and some not enough.

I am in the one Alberta Riding that matters NDP dominance but she retired and the Conservatives put up a strong candidate a young veteran family man. I voted Trudeau last election but no way I vote for him again. Leader wise I thought Singh was the strongest but he is against the Trans Mountain Pipeline. I ended up voting conservative the lesser of two evils

I see a minority government and the Green Party getting 8 seats.

I'm generally against responding to whataboutisms, but if you insist, no and no, things exist on spectrums not absolutes. This is a bit slippery here. You voted for a person whose principle political thrust is slashing and burning immigration rates, that (except for being a VERY sore loser) is why the party even exists. Yet you claim your support wasn't because of immigration policy. If a high brow discussion of the appropriate immigration rates is what really animates you, ok, we could do that, but it is hard to deny on its face that just like many european far right nationalist parties, the PPC is also premised on stoking nativist anti-immigration views.

Obviously. It's just sad that Canada now has a political party whose platform openly rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. But at least it makes sense. If you also deny the scientific consensus - which it seems you do although not 100% clear - then that is a legitimate reason to vote for this denialist party. I'ts such a weird political moment. From my perspective, Trudeau's carbon tax for instance is a meaningful but muted step in the right direction. It is insufficient to meet already too small international targets and no reason to think (see BC) that it would torpedo the economy for something this small. The conservative plan is even worse, doing even less mainly focusing on a pipe dreams about selling green tech to china. You might well believe that I am too alarmist and that the solutions I would propose to insane, but you have a whole spectrum of political parties who can't remotely be classified in that camp. But you voted for the even further far right denialist one.

Me neither, and I wouldn't know the "optimal" number either, although I think it has a technocratic answer not a values answer. The question is whether it being 350,000 or half that is a sufficiently large political moment that justifies splintering one of the big tent parties to become this sort of bizarre far right breakoff party. I have no issues with single issue parties (and wish the greens remained a single issue party), I just think that people who are animated about this particular issue are probably not all animated because of those technocratic optimal economy type reasons, and much more likely animated by versions of "me no like the immigrants".

I'm sympathetic to trans-mountain as a disqualifying issue. What is the major policy planks that motivate a difference in the cons vs grits, as they both clearly support trans-mountain? Like for me, the action or lack there of on climate change is the big differentiator between the policies (I hardly care for the minute differences in the dualing 6B tax cuts, say). What's the big ones for you?

Lol no. Where are you getting the other seats beyond VI?

I think Trudeau lacks a climate change policy as well. Were the worst country in the G7. He has set goals for 2050 but cant tell you what he plans in the next 4 years or how he plans on hitting 2030 goals. I just personally think Scheer will be better for Alberta and have more qualified cabinet. Trudeau promised so much and delivered so little. Though I am fine with the carbon tax. I really have no party and wish I had a selection on the ballot none of the above

I see a mix in BC of PC, Liberals and Green
Alberta & Sask all Conservative
MB Lots of Conservative
Ontario split Liberals & Conservatives
Quebec Conservative & Liberal and Bloc. I think the NDP gets decimated
Atlantic may get 1 or 2 Green and a split conservative and liberal

I will not be shocked if the Green Party gets more seats than the NDP and I really like Singh

Even modest projections have 4 or 5 seats going green

Ha, I'm just so confused by everything, so sorry in advance for spamming a bit Man this election is running a number on me.

But like....the carbon tax IS the major policy plank. And it's a big ****ing deal, despite being worst in G7, despite not being sufficient to meet Paris. Like, implementing national carbon taxes even if too low is a massive change. All the other stuff like methane and incentives and blah blah are icing on the cake. What's abundantly clear is that Scheer's plan will do much, much less. Like if you care about this file like even a little bit - if being the worst country in the G7 is something you think is bad - why would you support the person even worse?

So all my life in Canada (also lived in US for a bunch) is BC or Ontario. In neither province do I really ever here people talking in federal politics about doing what's best for the province in isolation. Like BC residents might care about BC issues like shipping oil and Ontario residents might care about Ontario issues like auto industry, but Alberta residents seem to speak differently. The idea of getting someone specifically good "for Alberta" whatever the **** that means is like a key voting thing. I guess good "for Alberta" means two pipelines not the one he bought? I just don't get it.

Is this code for rejecting the idea of having a gender balance in cabinet? I can't say I really see "qualified cabinet" as a fundamental problem for trudeau. Besides, Harper had probably the most asymmetrically powerful PMOs in Canadian history where it didn't matter two hoots whether a cabinet minister was qualified or not, what the PMO wanted is what the PMO got, none of this privacy council "delivery unit" grease the wheels stuff that Butts brought in.


I've heard this. I also don't get it. There are always big and small issues. The four probably biggest planks of 2015 is a) middle class tax cut / upper class tax rise b) carbon tax c) pot legalization and d) electoral reform. He was 3/4 on those. Maybe 4/5 if you include pipelines. Then there are the hundreds of small little things. The liberals advertize they did 92% of the individual things (as they consistently publicized progress on these in an attempt to be open, unlike harper) and I'm sure that is a twisting and exaggeration by a lot, but it seems they were pretty successful at articulating plans, tracking, and implimenting a good chunk of the "small" issues.

The sense I get, maybe not for you specifically but generally is not that he promised specific policies, and was particularly bad at implimenting those compared to previous governments, but that he symbolized changes to the culture of government in ways not dissimilar to obama. And he hasn't lived up to the symbol.