Harper's Re-Election Good or Bad for USA?

[Arrogant-One]

Stephen Harper has been re-elected as Canada's Prime Minister. What will that mean for Obama when Barrack gets elected next month? I don't think the relation will be all that cozy, but there is no denying that Harper is a great leader and politican.

[wildernesse]

I'm pretty sure we ignore Canada unless we want their actors, medicine, or non-terrorist oil, so I don't think it will make a huge difference.

[Kael]

Canada? What's that?

[Watser?]

There's plenty of denying.

[erimir]

I don't know much about Stephen Harper.

I had heard that he was in favor of banning gay marriage in Canada. But apparently nothing came of it.

I do have a question: is Harper to the right or left of Obama? I know he's a "conservative", but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't belong in the Republican party in most states in the US...

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Kael

Canada? What's that?

A pretty great state?

Originally Posted by Dingfod

A pretty great state?

I thought it was a ham factory that doesn't know what the fuck bacon is.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

there is no denying that Harper is a great leader and politican.

I deny that Harper is a great leader and politician.

[Watser?]

See, I told you there was plenty of denying.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by erimir

I don't know much about Stephen Harper.

I had heard that he was in favor of banning gay marriage in Canada. But apparently nothing came of it.

I do have a question: is Harper to the right or left of Obama? I know he's a "conservative", but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't belong in the Republican party in most states in the US...

He is to the right Obama, but you are right - he is not ultra-conservative.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I deny that Harper is a great leader and politician.

Well he just got re-elected with more MP's than he had before, so I guess most people disagree with you. I think, despite the fact he isn't a trained lawyer, he's still very sharp.

Best,

AO

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Stephen Harper has been re-elected as Canada's Prime Minister. What will that mean for Obama when Barrack gets elected next month? I don't think the relation will be all that cozy, but there is no denying that Harper is a great leader and politican.

You are making a pretty big assumption there. Don't forget there is still a possibility for the Republiscum to find a way to defraud their way into the White House. They have successfully done so twice so far with Bush Jr.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Well he just got re-elected with more MP's than he had before, so I guess most people disagree with you.

If you think that election proves that the electorate believes someone to be a "great leader", then you may be speaking your own personal language. If you think that in a 5+ party state it means that "most people" think so, you're speaking your own personal arithmetic, too.

37.6% of the popular vote + the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history + no indication of how many of the 37.6% believe that Harper is "a great leader" = you are full of shit.

On this issue, at least. No doubt everyone's full of shit about something or other.

[godfry n. glad]

Stephen Harper?

That's who is the PM of Canada these days? Boy, talk about non-entity. He must stay the hell outta the way, huh?

Where's he from?

How'er your Quebecois doing these days?

Those Canuckistanis....They're wild and craaaaazy people.

[D. Scarlatti]

He's from Calgary.

[godfry n. glad]

NO! Really?

He's not former SocCred is he?

[D. Scarlatti]

He's an old Reform Party hand, I believe, the Preston Manning crowd.

[Julie]

He is a Preston Manning crew guy.

And it's a minority gov't so he has no real power whatsoever.

And the reason we didnt vote was beacuse we had to choose between a Douchbag, a frog, a treehugger, a dickwad and a hippy.

Canada spoke loud and clear...we didnt like any of them and we want new choices. We will be back for another election very very soon.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Julie

a frog

That's not nice (although his accent is distracting as hell).

[Julie]

LOL truth sucks

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

He's an old Reform Party hand, I believe, the Preston Manning crowd.

I was thinking of the Social Credit Party movement, but Manning had a foot in that, too. I've the most familiary with the SocCred folks in BC, primarily premier WAC Bennett, the free enterprise provincializer. Of energy, transportation, that stuff.

The story I heard about ol' WAC when I was but a sprog, was that he promised to do away with the 3% sales tax in British Columbia, running a populist type program. He got elected, and, as the folks told us, he got rid of the 3% sales tax, all right. They got a 5% sales tax, instead. As part of a college political science trip, I met Dave Barrett, the New Democrat who took the premiership away from WAC Bennett, .

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I deny that Harper is a great leader and politician.

Well he just got re-elected with more MP's than he had before, so I guess most people disagree with you.

If you think that election proves that the electorate believes someone to be a "great leader", then you may be speaking your own personal language.

Fair enough, but, I do think it can be said that most people thought he was the best they had to choose from.

If you think that in a 5+ party state it means that "most people" think so, you're speaking your own personal arithmetic, too.

5 party state? Get Real. Nobody who votes for the Green party actually thinks in their head that they are casting a vote for Prime Minister. The fact you've mentioned such an irrelevant unelectable party implies that you are probably a staunch supporter of them.

37.6% of the popular vote

More than the second best 26% that the Liberals achieved

+ the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history

Which affected all leaders and parties equally. How you can construe that as an advantage to Harper is ridiculous.

+ no indication of how many of the 37.6% believe that Harper is "a great leader" = you are full of shit.

Actually, it means you are upset that your little Green party couldn't win a single seat out of 308 ridings where they stood candidates.

On this issue, at least. No doubt everyone's full of shit about something or other.

Perhaps, and you'd be no exception.

[Joshua Adams]

Goal post shift spotted!

Man, we really need a smiley for that.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Fair enough, but, I do think it can be said that most people thought he was the best they had to choose from.

So, two things.

1. You're taking back both "There's no denying that he's a great leader" and "Most people disagree with you." Fair enough indeed. I agree that you were wrong about both of these claims. That was my point.

2. No, it can't be said that "most people thought he was the best they had to choose from", for utterly obvious arithmetical reasons that I just fucking explained to you.

5 party state? Get Real. Nobody who votes for the Green party actually thinks in their head that they are casting a vote for Prime Minister. The fact you've mentioned such an irrelevant unelectable party implies that you are probably a staunch supporter of them.

Please attempt not to be a complete fucking idiot. Never mind your bizarre attempt to mindread both Green voters and me: the point is, Green voters clearly count as people. So your repeated claims about what "most people" thought clearly deal with those voters. So if they voted, but they didn't vote for Harper, it follows that they did not think that "he was the best they had to choose from". You don't get to pretend they don't count.

The percentage of people who voted for Harper's party was 37.6%. The percentage of people who did not vote for Harper's party was, perforce, 62.4%. Do you need still further help figuring out the status of your "most people" claim, or will you just continue to repeat it, stupidity notwithstanding?

Which affected all leaders and parties equally. How you can construe that as an advantage to Harper is ridiculous.

I'm going to slow down here just to ask whether you are a voting-age adult. I don't want to club a baby seal. If you're 14 years old, please do let me know, maybe by a PM. If you're an adult, though, you have to stop reading for a full 60 seconds and slap yourself at least 10 times.

Your claim was about what "most people" think. You cited Harper's party's minority election win as evidence for what "most people" think. But the fewer people who voted, the worse the evidence of the election is for what "most people" think. (It's crappy evidence in any case, given the confounds between reasons for voting in a parliamentary system and one's evaluation of party leaders. My favorite leader is probably Gilles Duceppe; but I'd never vote for the guy.)

Actually, it means you are upset that your little Green party couldn't win a single seat out of 308 ridings where they stood candidates.

Awesome. Best confusion of knowledge for ideology since Adora decided I must be a fundie because I knew more about biblical history than she does.

Perhaps, and you'd be no exception.

That's true enough. I'm probably full of shit about lots of things. But not about this very simple evidential and arithmetical matter.

[Qingdai]

That's it Clutch! You must be a green party fundie!

Really shouldn't the title be something along the lines of "Is Harper's re-election good for Canada" Or "Do incumbents win all the time in Canada too?"
Obviously most Americans have little to no idea about Canadian politics, it appears to be the same for Australians.

[Caligulette]

Harper's election is about inconsequential for American politics no matter who gets in here.