Should the Green Party be asked to a Leadership Debate

[weaselwords]

There's 19 parties running candidates in this election. If the Greens are allowed in why not Doug Christie's Western Block or any of the other fringe parties. The only reason the Greens got in last debate even with the public outcry was the fact they had one sitting member in the Commons. This time they don't.

 

[Colpy]

OMG!

May said the decision not to allow her in the election debates, which are planned for some time in April, is about shutting out a voice that will talk about climate change, First Nations issues and foreign policy.

From CBC.ca

Face palm;

the poor Indians, the poor Palestinians, the poor Planet....

She may even win "most irritating woman on the Planet"

Or at least the compensation prize, Miss Self Righteous.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I would rather have the Green Party attend the debate instead of the Bloc because at least the Green Party runs across the country!

That's a key point, the Bloc only runs in one province and have no chance of electing a govt. The Greens on the other hand have a theoretical chance of becoming the govt by running candidates in all provinces.

That said, I'm totally sick of Eliz May. If she doesn't win a seat, its time to vanish. The party looks like a loser keeping her around so long.

 

[TenPenny]

There is no traditional minimum consideration. It was completely made up by broadcasters, but even then, they wouldn't have ignored it last time by allowing May to participate in the debate. The Greens had a seat in Parliament when the election was called.

Actually, it used to be that you had to be recognized as a party in the House; that was dumped the year that it would have meant the PCs didn't get into the debate as they only had 2 seats.

I think that using the yardstick of 2% of the vote, which qualifies the party for federal funding, is a useful yardstick.

 

[JLM]

There's 19 parties running candidates in this election. If the Greens are allowed in why not Doug Christie's Western Block or any of the other fringe parties. The only reason the Greens got in last debate even with the public outcry was the fact they had one sitting member in the Commons. This time they don't.

From what I can gather May is rude and obnoxious- do we really need MORE of that in politics? :lol:

Actually, it used to be that you had to be recognized as a party in the House; that was dumped the year that it would have meant the PCs didn't get into the debate as they only had 2 seats.

I think that using the yardstick of 2% of the vote, which qualifies the party for federal funding, is a useful yardstick.

Yep, that probably makes sense- BUT if they are loud and obnoxious make it 3%. :smile:

That's a key point, the Bloc only runs in one province and have no chance of electing a govt. The Greens on the other hand have a theoretical chance of becoming the govt by running candidates in all provinces.

That said, I'm totally sick of Eliz May. If she doesn't win a seat, its time to vanish. The party looks like a loser keeping her around so long.

Yep, about as "theoretical" as my chance of being Prime Minister? :lol:

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

This just in: Green Leader Elizabeth May sues for seat in House of Commons.

News at six....

 

[TenPenny]

Rude and obnoxious, sure she is. But Harper is unethical and supportive of fraud on the part of his cabinet ministers.

I'll take rude over tolerating fraud any day of the week. Harper disgusts me, he obviously is ethically-challenged.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Rude and obnoxious, sure she is. But Harper is unethical and supportive of fraud on the part of his cabinet ministers.

I'll take rude over tolerating fraud any day of the week. Harper disgusts me, he obviously is ethically-challenged.

It doesn't have anything to do with obnoxious. Her party doesn't hold a seat.

The only reason she was invited in last time was because Dion and Layton used her to prop up their offensive on Harper in the debate.

 

[JLM]

Rude and obnoxious, sure she is. But Harper is unethical and supportive of fraud on the part of his cabinet ministers.

I'll take rude over tolerating fraud any day of the week. Harper disgusts me, he obviously is ethically-challenged.

But how do you know she doesn't have those "qualities" as well? They are ALL ethically challenged, as a matter of fact I'd go one step further and say corrupt. :smile:

 

[Avro]

It doesn't have anything to do with obnoxious. Her party doesn't hold a seat.

The only reason she was invited in last time was because Dion and Layton used her to prop up their offensive on Harper in the debate.

I'd love to see you prove that considering most of the votes she would get would be at the exspense of the NDP and Liberals.

Or did you just make that up?

 

[TenPenny]

But how do you know she doesn't have those "qualities" as well? They are ALL ethically challenged, as a matter of fact I'd go one step further and say corrupt. :smile:

I don't know, but I'd rather take a chance on someone who might be honest, as opposed to someone who has proven that he tolerates fraud.

Harper has shown his true colours - accepting and excusing fraud. In many places, that's a criminal offense. Try taking your mortgage papers, and adding 'not' in front of the payment schedule. I'm sure that everyone will smile and nod and support your iniative.

 

[Goober]

But how do you know she doesn't have those "qualities" as well? They are ALL ethically challenged, as a matter of fact I'd go one step further and say corrupt. :smile:

I think that she should - what was the percentage of Canadians that voted Green agree with their platform - a substantial number i would say - they run more candidates than the Bloc - i will consider voting green but I am checking into tearing up a ballot and how much i would pay - it even has jail time for doing that.
Lastly - what would one more space cadet do at the table. 4 or 5 space cadets - Whoop de Fuk. That is franglais - for Whoop de Fuk

 

[Colpy]

Rude and obnoxious, sure she is. But Harper is unethical and supportive of fraud on the part of his cabinet ministers.

I'll take rude over tolerating fraud any day of the week. Harper disgusts me, he obviously is ethically-challenged.

I corrected you on this once before.

From Wikipedia:

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.

Exactly which minister is guilty of fraud?????

 

[JLM]

I don't know, but I'd rather take a chance on someone who might be honest, as opposed to someone who has proven that he tolerates fraud.

Harper has shown his true colours - accepting and excusing fraud. In many places, that's a criminal offense. Try taking your mortgage papers, and adding 'not' in front of the payment schedule. I'm sure that everyone will smile and nod and support your iniative.

I think "fraud" is a little strong in Harper's case, a better word might be "rationalization". :smile:

 

[Avro]

I think "fraud" is a little strong in Harper's case, a better word might be "rationalization". :smile:

How about liar?

That'sthe reason for the comtempt charge and the reason for this election.

How could MP's vote on a spending bill when they don't know what is being spent....what's the big secret?

I'd sure like to know what these guys are doing with the money they ripped from my pocket.

 

[JLM]

"No need for name calling" - Say's Avro..........................Now I think I'm finally getting the gist of the game- no nasty remarks to Avro, but it's quite alright for him to accuse people of theft from the taxpayer and employer, sleeping on the job, asking for help after all your resources are exhausted through no fault of your own and people having the audacity to be so ignorant as to not be able to take care of themselves in dire straits. The reason I was able to twig on to this so quickly is because I've met other filthy rich people who riches were realized through no effort on their part- just lucky to have ancestors who saved their money. :lol:

How about liar?

That'sthe reason for the comtempt charge and the reason for this election.

.

I think you're the liar. What specifically was the charge for and when is his court date? (For a guy who posts as much as you do I'm surprised you didn't learn to spell)

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I'd add my opinion, but it might get edited. LOL

 

[Cannuck]

BTW, Ms May is in the running for the most irritating woman on the face of the planet.

She'll finish a distant second to my mother-in-law.

 

[Machjo]

Seems that Jackie and Ig are onside with this - no comment from the Conservatives or Bloc yet. I might be more open to having them in the debate were it not for the shrew who leads the party. Her addition last time was a complete farce. From a female's point of view, her inability to keep her yap shut and let others finish their statements; her continual use of slogans and questionable 'facts'; and her persistent nasty edge did nothing to advance women in politics. It says much about the Green Party that they cannot find anyone better to represent them. Their cause might be better championed by Adriane Carr, IMHO.

She's not in my riding, so not my issue.

 

[earth_as_one]

Unfortunately (insert crocodile tears here) the Greens do not have a seat in Parliament.

The Green Party has been a poor public performance with or without Elizabeth May.

If the Greens, why not the Communist Party, both Marxist-Leninist and whatever other branch there is???? Or the Heritage Party, or the Marijuana Party, or whatever other fringe bunch you can think of???

The traditional minimum for consideration is a single seat in Parliament. IMO they screwed up ignoring that last time, as May whined so skilfully....................time to correct that mistake.

The bloody things are disgusting enough as it is.

About 4% of Canadians support the Green Party and growing. More than all other "fringe" parties combined. Yet they have no representation in Parliament or a voice. Which part of a democracy did you say you support again?