[Newsbot]

Title: No election-debate reprieve for Elizabeth May
Category: Political
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2011-04-01 21:40:36
Canadian

[martin14]

Good.

[Lemmy]

Why is that good? It's never good to supress opinion. If the public had a clearer idea of the whacky shit the Greens propose, it'd be a good thing. Their support would go south like a duck in winter if the Greens ever had to formally stand on their platform. But either way, it's always good for democracy to hear many opinions in debate, even those of kooks.

[Scape]

Now all they need to to get rid of the other parties and there will be peace and quiet.

[jeff744]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why is that good? It's never good to supress opinion. If the public had a clearer idea of the whacky shit the Greens propose, it'd be a good thing. Their support would go south like a duck in winter if the Greens ever had to formally stand on their platform. But either way, it's always good for democracy to hear many opinions in debate, even those of kooks.

Because everyone already knows what their one trick pony stands for, they don't have enough issues to actually make a worthwhile debate.

[Lemmy]

jeff744 jeff744:

Because everyone already knows what their one trick pony stands for, they don't have enough issues to actually make a worthwhile debate.

Sure, that's true, but if you stand for election, you ought to be able to show your one trick to the voters. If you really ARE a one trick pony, that will be more quickly revealed if the candidate is allowed to speak.

[jeff744]

Lemmy Lemmy:

jeff744 jeff744:

Because everyone already knows what their one trick pony stands for, they don't have enough issues to actually make a worthwhile debate.

Sure, that's true, but if you stand for election, you ought to be able to show your one trick to the voters. If you really ARE a one trick pony, that will be more quickly revealed if the candidate is allowed to speak.

That takes away from time listening to actual parties that have a number of issues, if green can actually form some more issues then they should be allowed to debate, otherwise they just waste time.

[Scape]

The last debate was a 4 on 1 pile on. I want one on one debates with the parties that at least earned a seat thank you.

We need debates to be one on one as much as possible. If we just have talking heads spout off talking points we don't learn anything of the character of leadership under duress and when we have a rabble all talking at once we will tune out. I would like to see the NDP and the greens square off one on one just like the Libs and the Cons but I doubt Layton would ever give May such a platform that would be at Layton's expense same as Iggy's debate would be at Harper's expense. I still can't believe Harper was the stupid to even offer such a debate.

Everyone has the right to run for office and be heard but the debate is not as sacrosanct. There has to be a cut off.

[Winnipegger]

Lemmy Lemmy:

If the public had a clearer idea of the whacky shit the Greens propose, it'd be a good thing. Their support would go south like a duck in winter if the Greens ever had to formally stand on their platform.

What exactly is their "whacky shit"? I've often heard people criticize the Greens, but no one has any specifics. I'm not defending them, but I have heard several people talk about "whacky shit" and never give any specifics. What is this "whacky shit".

I agree Elizabeth May shouldn't be part of the debate. The leaders couldn't say that themselves, it would appear biased, so the media said it. There should be rules for the leaderhip debate, and it shouldn't be left up to some commercial corporation. This is a major part of our election. I think any party that has at least one MP elected should be represented in the leader debate, but the Greens don't have one. Last time one of the independant MPs declared he is now a Green Party member, so Elizabeth May was permitted in. He didn't get re-elected, so as it stands now the Green Party has failed to elected a single MP. The Green Party doesn't have an MP now, so Elizabeth May should not be allowed in this time. Very clear. But those rules should be set out before hand, not made up ad-hoc by a bunch of businessmen out to sell air time.

I do have a couple specific complaints about what the Green Party stands for, but before I mention any of those I want to hear your answer. What is their "whacky shit"?

[Guy_Fawkes]

I dont know about now, but last election they wanted to rename the Department of National Defense to the Department of Peace.

Also saying they will not 'build more roads' is pretty nutty.

Promising tax cuts and increases in social welfare, and saying they will pay for it all by taxing the rich, corporations and end subsidies for the industrial sector.

[Bodah]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why is that good? It's never good to supress opinion. If the public had a clearer idea of the whacky shit the Greens propose, it'd be a good thing. Their support would go south like a duck in winter if the Greens ever had to formally stand on their platform. But either way, it's always good for democracy to hear many opinions in debate, even those of kooks.

Because she doesn't have a seat ? We have to have some sort of standard here otherwise it's only fair to see the Marijuana Party and ever other fringe group debating Harper on high-brow topics such as Foreign Policy etc.

The debates are enough as joke as it is. I'm glad they're reducing the number of clowns jumping out of the clown car. They should also exclude Duceppe from the English debates IMO. They're maybe one or two anglophones in Québec that vote for him but they don't count.

The last one was a joke all I saw was the back of Harpers head facing off against the four amigos. I'm not even going to watch them anymore until it gets a serious over-haul. I hope the ratings sink like the titanic.

Don't forget to remind the Bloc when they form the official opposition this time to remind them of their duty as the Official opposition to stand up for the rights of all Canadians first and their constiuents second!

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why is that good? It's never good to supress opinion. If the public had a clearer idea of the whacky shit the Greens propose, it'd be a good thing. Their support would go south like a duck in winter if the Greens ever had to formally stand on their platform. But either way, it's always good for democracy to hear many opinions in debate, even those of kooks.

I understand that allowing May to implode on national television is a good thing, but I don't want to set precedent that allows any nut-job party with 10 votes to elbow their way in. Although a Howard Stern style Whack-Pack debate between the Greens, Communists, Heritage Party and Marijuana Party would be entertaining to see the highlights from.

I'd just rather see Harper vs. Ignatieff. I don't care what Layton has to say and Giles Duceppe, while entertaining, certainly isn't hankering for my Ontario vote.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I think May and the rest of the frindgers should get a reality show on Discovery. That way they can spout off their views, while giving us an entertaining show.

[BRAH]

Let her debate and show the public how delusional she is..

[QBC]

Lets face it, the media coverage of her not being allowed to debate has given her more publicity than the debate ever would have.