Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

French Debate -Part II (TVA)

Recommended Posts

Mon amour!

Rather than describe style, let me talk of perceived substance. (In all honesty, I watched this debate while dealing with serious computer problems and talking with others around me.)

I suspect that no one really listened to the economic section. It was the niqab section that was dramatic and attracted attention and will be copied in reports.

So who "won"? Well, rather, who lost...

Well, Mulcair lost. He showed that he is out of step with Quebecers. His French is good but he is not on the same length wave.

In Montreal, the NDP vote will go to the Liberals. Outside of Montreal, the NDP will go BQ or Conservative. Harper may get as many as 20 seats in Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross posted below from another thread. New value for this thread: I don't think anyone won. It's all stuff that's been hashed in the other 3 debates. It was repetitive. The only "value add" was the stuff on pot. I was pleasantly surprised at Harper though. He was a good deflector. He found himself in a few moments of..."oh crap". He did well, but that doesn't surprise me. He's an experienced politician.

My views on the whole thing.

Interesting. Before I answer, I will have to offer full and fair disclosure. I'm an instructor by trade. I travel a lot (225 nights a year) and my job is, essentially to teach, but I watch these French debates because I don't understand French, so to me, I pick up on body movements in a way that I think most people miss. So my view is, different in this regard (so just putting it out there before I share).

1) Harper's movements tonight were similar, if not eerily similar to the other French debate. You can tell he's an introvert, he's not comfortable up there, but you would never be able to tell. His level of nervousness, was IMO, the same as in other debates.

2) Trudeau was put in his place in debate #3, and debate #4. Mulcair was good at keeping him at bay. Tonight, he smiled more (Trudeau) and didn't seem as much of a "cool boy" as debate #3 (note his posture differences). He was more prime ministerial, but he still cut people off.

3) Mulcair was more angry Tom than debate #2. He should have, IMHO, focused more of his attacks on Trudeau, but he took digs at Harper and Trudeau similarly.

4) Re: talking over each other. I think that happened quite a bit. More than a few times the translators mentioned that they couldn't translate because leaders were talking over each other.

Re: presenter styles.

1) Look at Harper's hands when he speaks, and look at his head motions. He's speaking "out of experience and out of principle" - it's different than Wynne's approach - palm down (teacher like - demeaning...etc). Harper is by far (unsurprisingly) hands down the most seasoned presenter. He uses words like "look" and "let me be clear here" - it's a very solid style.

2) Tom - Tom likes to point fingers (so does Trudeau), but Tom is either angry, or PMish. He switches between the two.

3) Trudeau can't figure out his identity either. He's either in your face, or he goes "oh F this", and he swipes his hand. He's either too cool or too aggressive.

Anyways, that's my take on it. As far as Duceppe, he's just mad all the time :D

To me, Harper's presenting style is bang on. Probably why he ranks the highest in the polls of "most PM like"

Edited by angrypenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem was with Justin again. This time insisting that Canada is similar to America regarding gun control. Which is ludicrous. I'm also sick of Justin attacking Mulcair over water exports. There's nothing wrong with exporting water if you have an abundance of water to export, as it is with any commodity. But he didn't even export any water. It was merely a possible proposal. If Harper was in serious trouble, I'd actually consider strategic voting for Mulcair. I can't stand wonder boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same about Trudeau; for me it has been a choice between Harper or Mulcair from day one.

Luckily I don't have to worry about strategic voting. Unless my local CPC candidate is caught on video setting fire to a bus full of orphans, nothing could prevent my riding from sending a Conservative to Ottawa.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Mulcair did great, actually: the best I've seen him in the debates so far. He did a very good job of clearly distinguishing himself from both Harper and Trudeau, particularly on the topic of our role in the Middle East, and also made a strong defence of his economic plan and took a strong, distinct stance on the TPP. If he loses, he will at least have lost standing for something. His weakest moment came at the beginning of the niqab debate. He seemed visibly scared and was overly guarded in his approach to the issue, saying that while he was personally uncomfortable with it, we need to respect the courts' decisions. He became much stronger as the debate on that issue went on, making some good feminist points. His closing statement had the most substance, I thought. He responded really effectively to Harper's comment about the satellite office issue. On the whole, he may have won my vote.

Duceppe is always compelling, even when I violently disagree with him, which is often. I was impressed by his stance on the Saudi arms deal. I was hoping to see a debate about the monarchy!

I thought JT was a little better than in the Maclean's debate, quite strong on marijuana and the niqab. I feel like Mulcair won the economic argument between the two of them. (Interesting moment when Harper and Mulcair both agreed on the shortsightedness of the Liberal plan!) His rudeness is still grating and his closing statement was inevitably platitudinous fluff.

Harper did what he usually does; he usually comes off as a bit bored to me but he calmly defends his record and gives the expected right-wing criticisms of his opponents, always managing to sound moderate and reasonable, regardless of his stance. His French sounds like mine.

Edited by Evening Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little stunned that Duceppe has come to dedicate himself so thoroughly to xenophobia and warmongering.

How ironic that the ABC vote will be split by ethnic French voters incensed about a ceremony intended for people who want to become Canadians. It's hard imagining any of them wanting to become Quebecers after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How ironic that the ABC vote will be split by ethnic French voters incensed about a ceremony intended for people who want to become Canadians. It's hard imagining any of them wanting to become Quebecers after all.

Split on whether a Muslim woman should have her face covered or not while swearing allegiance to the monarch. The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Seems Québecois hate Muslims more than they hate the Queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little stunned that Duceppe has come to dedicate himself so thoroughly to xenophobia and warmongering.

Rather, Duceppe appeared as a Mini-Me to Harper. These two will split the carcus of the NDP outside Montreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Split on whether a Muslim woman should have her face covered or not while swearing allegiance to the monarch. The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Seems Québecois hate Muslims more than they hate the Queen.

Irony? Like so many others of the noisy, leftist, elite - you entirely miss the point.

=======

Cybercoma, somewhere, the Gods and the rest of us are laughing at you.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Split on whether a Muslim woman should have her face covered or not while swearing allegiance to the monarch. The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Seems Québecois hate Muslims more than they hate the Queen.

Just wait until the SCC flushes the anti-niqab legislation Quebec wants to pass back down the toilet it came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Mulcair actually say "Harper wanted to change Ottawa but Ottawa changed Harper"?

That's brilliant.

Any bets on how fast it will be until Mulcair is fitted with his own Goa'uld?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same about Trudeau; for me it has been a choice between Harper or Mulcair from day one.

Luckily I don't have to worry about strategic voting. Unless my local CPC candidate is caught on video setting fire to a bus full of orphans, nothing could prevent my riding from sending a Conservative to Ottawa.

-k

or peeing in someone's coffee mug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or peeing in someone's coffee mug?

I don't know about where she lives but I doubt that would matter here in Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, Duceppe appeared as a Mini-Me to Harper. These two will split the carcus of the NDP outside Montreal.

I strangely felt that Duceppe won the debate (I always felt him a good debater and an interesting political figure)…..Aside from face coverings, I think he also scored on Harper with the image of his mother having to pick-up the mail, and I felt did make a good point on the placing of the community boxes (absent local consultation)….On Mulcair, when Mulcair spoke to abolishing the Senate, his retort of the Monarchy, then Mulcair’s expression, will I feel resonate in Quebec……..Then on both Mulcair and Trudeau* on not bringing back the long gun registry, which I feel will also resonate in Quebec.

*Trudeau’s political grave dancing on “lax Canadian gun control laws” will sink any hoped gains outside of urban centers in Western Canada, rural/suburban Ontario and the Territories (maybe even hurt him in rural areas in the Atlantic). Any prospective goodwill and trust the Liberals were attempting to regain with gun owners, fronted by Liberal MP Wayne Easter namely, were lost in a couple of sentences aimed at pandering to Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duceppe did well in pointing out that Harper conservatives deal with Saudi Arabia while opposing niqab.

Trudeau did well in pointing out that Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about jobs and economy and not niqab that conservatives are trying to divide and gain support

Mulcair did well when he pointed out Harper trying to use niqab as a political tool to gain .

Harper was a disaster. He again made niqab a major part of his final speech and followed party line to divide and grow his party's support on the hate for Muslims. Since 2011 there has been only 2 cases where women refused citizenship for niqab reason. It is not a major issue he is trying to show it is making it a major policy hiding his disastrous economic failures and hi party's undemocratic acts.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's admirable how Harper has slowly regained many votes despite being polled unfavourably at the beginning of the campaign. It really shows how politically adept he is, and how abismal his opponents are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I had suspected that the race-baiting would backfire eventually. I wasn't completely sure if it would help the Liberals or NDP more but it makes sense that the party led by a Trudeau would benefit.

Edit: The Tories might have been misjudging (or testing) the value that Canadians place on 'multiculturalism'/'the mosaic' as a part of national identity. At the least, I don't think most Canadians want to be seen or to think of themselves as racist.

Edited by Evening Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irony? Like so many others of the noisy, leftist, elite - you entirely miss the point.

=======

Cybercoma, somewhere, the Gods and the rest of us are laughing at you.

I know, August. Anyone who doesn't agree with your rightwing fantasies is an idiot. You and Argus are two Conservative peas in a pod with that tired old record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait until the SCC flushes the anti-niqab legislation Quebec wants to pass back down the toilet it came from.

They'll just use the notwithstanding clause. Since there's so many people that support limiting the freedoms of Muslims, most people won't give a crap that they're ignoring the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no race-baiting going on. Progressives need to start being progressive in all instances. They need to stop carving out exceptions for Islam. The most anti-progressive religion/political dogma on the planet. Stop claiming faux racism to silence debate. Islam isn't even a race anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no race-baiting going on. .... Islam isn't even a race anyways.

No race-baiting, eh? What new things does the Someting Something Barbaric Muslims Act outlaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ILuckily I don't have to worry about strategic voting. Unless my local CPC candidate is caught on video setting fire to a bus full of orphans, nothing could prevent my riding from sending a Conservative to Ottawa.

You think you have it bad? My MP is Pierre Poilievre!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...