"We were basically at war trying to save the country."

Yeah, isn't Quebec a net loss to Canada? Not sure myself.

0 Replies

Thank you all above for this topic, tuning in.

0 Replies

Polls are not fact. They are sort of like opinion pieces. Besides, the most recent number is amongst the lowest of all listed on that page.

I state again, you aren't from here. I can almost guarantee you that he is not the favoured guy in this province.

Besides, unlike the U.S.A., in Canada you don't vote directly for the leader of the country. Whichever party receives the most votes is the party whose leader becomes prime minister. Although not on a federal level, it did happen where the leader of the provincial party in the province I live in, didn't win his riding, although his party garnered the most votes. Very awkward. One of the other party members had to give up his seat so that a by-election could be held, which allowed the party leader to win and carry on as premier. I am not certain of how it would work if he had lost. The same thing can happen on a federal level. Wouldn't that be a hoot! Especially if it wasn't a majority government. It's my understanding that the party needs a majority in order for the losing party leader to be Prime Minister.

So you see, it is not that easy.

As for Québec becoming its own country....well....let me fill you in on a few details. They have a considerable portion of the Canadian population. It would be a disaster, I think, for both sides if they separated. Geographically, the maritime provinces (Montana lives in one of them! Smile

) would be cut off from the rest of Canada. Québec is financially indebted to the federal government for quite a large sum of money. Do you think a country just starting out will be able to pay its debts? Doubt it. From what I understand, the power plant providing the majority of the power to Québec is on native owned land. During the referendum, they made it clear that they wouldn't be part of the separation. I imagine a sovereign Québec would be paying up the wazoo for electricity. And finally, if they were to separate, Canada would likely become a unilingual country. Québec would be forced to deal with their two closest trading partners in English. And if you know Québec at all, just imagine the ruffled feathers that would bring! I think it would sorta defeat their purpose of wanting to exist as an "unique" society.

0 Replies

caprice wrote:

Besides, unlike the U.S.A., in Canada you don't vote directly for the leader of the country.

We don't get to pick our leader either. appointed electors in the electorial college do that. We just vote for the fun of it.

0 Replies

It's more direct than in Canada. The presidential candidates names are on the ballot. The electors are pretty much just a formality. In Canada the only time you would see the names of the candidates for Prime Minister on the ballot is if you are voting in their particular riding.

0 Replies

caprice wrote:

Polls are not fact. They are sort of like opinion pieces.

Yes, a measurement of opinion in a case where opinion is the deciding factor.

See: democracy.

caprice wrote:

Besides, the most recent number is amongst the lowest of all listed on that page.

The point being that the liberals have been making a comeback - albiet a slow one - since the sponsorhip scandal, while the conservatives continue to lag far behind, despite the benifits of a convention and increased media coverge that should have boosted them in the polls.

Caprice wrote:

I state again, you aren't from here. I can almost guarantee you that he is not the favoured guy in this province.

Actually, he is:

Quote:

Perhaps the only solace in a battered voter landscape that the Grits can find is in the approval ratings of the Prime Minister - the first that we have taken since he became Prime Minister in December 2003 - where he is at 57% approval vs. 34% disapproval. The Prime Minister receives majority of approval in every province and region of the country - the highest in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (62%).

Also of interest:

Quote:

As education level rises the proportion that believe Paul Martin would make the best Prime Minister rises (29% less than high School, 34% high school, 38% some post secondary or college diploma, 47% university degree)

Caprice wrote:

Besides, unlike the U.S.A., in Canada you don't vote directly for the leader of the country. Whichever party receives the most votes is the party whose leader becomes prime minister. Although not on a federal level, it did happen where the leader of the provincial party in the province I live in, didn't win his riding, although his party garnered the most votes. Very awkward. One of the other party members had to give up his seat so that a by-election could be held, which allowed the party leader to win and carry on as premier. I am not certain of how it would work if he had lost. The same thing can happen on a federal level. Wouldn't that be a hoot! Especially if it wasn't a majority government. It's my understanding that the party needs a majority in order for the losing party leader to be Prime Minister.

So you see, it is not that easy.

I wasn't trying to say that Paul Martin's high approval rating indicates he will be the next Prime Minister, I was simply blowing a hole in your "all Canadians are upset with Paul Martin" theory by pointing out that he is, in fact, the favored Prime Minister in every province and territory in the nation.

Caprice wrote:

As for Québec becoming its own country....well....let me fill you in on a few details. They have a considerable portion of the Canadian population. It would be a disaster, I think, for both sides if they separated. Geographically, the maritime provinces (Montana lives in one of them! ) would be cut off from the rest of Canada. Québec is financially indebted to the federal government for quite a large sum of money. Do you think a country just starting out will be able to pay its debts? Doubt it. From what I understand, the power plant providing the majority of the power to Québec is on native owned land. During the referendum, they made it clear that they wouldn't be part of the separation. I imagine a sovereign Québec would be paying up the wazoo for electricity. And finally, if they were to separate, Canada would likely become a unilingual country. Québec would be forced to deal with their two closest trading partners in English. And if you know Québec at all, just imagine the ruffled feathers that would bring! I think it would sorta defeat their purpose of wanting to exist as an "unique" society.

Huh.

0 Replies

(Caprice - I must say we (non-US folk) often feel quite able to comment about US politics without being there, I do not think it is reasonable debate to say non-Canadians cannot make informed comment on Canadian politics, just cos they "aren't from here"!)

I think losing Quebec would be a disaster, too. Carving up countries is a pretty big thing to do! I obviously do not understand what anger from the past motivate so many Franco-phones to wish to separate, but I found the France-yearning to be a little sad - not in terms of valuing their own culture and such, but in terms of the importance given to a country which gives a tuppenny razoo. I assume there was/is some discrimination against Franco-phones? Certainly now the Anglo-phones seem to bend over backwards to gruntle the Franco-phones!

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Caprice wrote:
I state again, you aren't from here. I can almost guarantee you that he is not the favoured guy in this province.

Actually, he is:

Quote:
Perhaps the only solace in a battered voter landscape that the Grits can find is in the approval ratings of the Prime Minister - the first that we have taken since he became Prime Minister in December 2003 - where he is at 57% approval vs. 34% disapproval. The Prime Minister receives majority of approval in every province and region of the country - the highest in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (62%).

Well...let's see. I don't live in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, so that quote doesn't apply.

IronLionZion wrote:

Huh.

My Québec comments were in response more so towards roverroad than you.

Oy. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

(Caprice - I must say we (non-US folk) often feel quite able to comment about US politics without being there, I do not think it is reasonable debate to say non-Canadians cannot make informed comment on Canadian politics, just cos they "aren't from here"!)

No, but someone not from here, who hasn't lived here really isn't in a position to state what the sentiment is of the people who do live here.

0 Replies

caprice wrote:

No, but someone not from here, who hasn't lived here really isn't in a position to state what the sentiment is of the people who do live here.

That is a fallacious appeal to authority.

0 Replies

Caprice, in a post she has since deleted wrote:

What's fallacious about it?

Look up "appeal to authority" and you should find plenty of references about that common fallacy.

It's a form of ad hominem. ILZ presents a position and instead of countering the position you choose to discredit him by making an appeal to authority by way of proximity.

It's fallacious because it assumes mere proximity gives you a hand on the pulse of the society that supercedes what ILZ is able to garner through his observation.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

That is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Not only is patently fallacious, it is also demonstrably incorrect.

Caprice, I posted the following quote, among others, to prove my assertions:

Quote:

Perhaps the only solace in a battered voter landscape that the Grits can find is in the approval ratings of the Prime Minister - the first that we have taken since he became Prime Minister in December 2003 - where he is at 57% approval vs. 34% disapproval. The Prime Minister receives majority of approval in every province and region of the country - the highest in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (62%).

To which you replied:

Quote:

Well. let's see. I don't live in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, so that quote doesn't apply.

Frankly, I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean, considering I made a special point of underlining the words "The Prime Minister recieved a majority of approval in every province and region of the country..."

Also, note the polls I posted which indicate the Cons (at 27%) are lagging behind the Liberal (at 38%), despite the fact that the conservatives should be experiancing a rennaissance due to increased media attention, among other things.

Onward:

Quote:

No, but someone not from here, who hasn't lived here really isn't in a position to state what the sentiment is of the people who do live here.

Yes, because living in a nation is the only way to measure the pulse of its political sentiment. Polls, for example, are meaningless.

You have raised several points, each of which has been pretty roundly shot down by the statistics and polls I've posted. The best counter-argument you've been able to muster thus far has been to attack my age and nationality. The bankruptcy of your argument (and I use the word 'argument' in the loose sense) is self-evident.

Your incredulous and dismissive tone only compounds the disparity between the authority you profess to command and your inability to back yourself up, homie.

0 Replies

"We were basically at war trying to save the country."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know