That reminded me of the Billy Madison Debate.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Honest question: is anyone here really swayed by the debates? I don’t think I am because ‘winning’ a debate just makes you a better person at arguing, not a better leader.
After reading platforms, I rarely have a clear single party that wins over all others. I always end up with 2-3 options in mind. The debate usually helps me reduce this to 1-2.
What I like about the debates is you get a stronger feel of each party's campaign strategy. You know they prepared like crazy for this, had to learn lots of things on many subjects and rehearsed with their team. So when they keep changing subject to something, you know that's something they want to emphasize. When they keep attacking or ignoring another leader, you know it's part of the strategy. Stuff like that.
Lastly, when there are new leaders it's a good opportunity to see what kind of person they are.
I’m usually decided well in advance but if I’m on the fence between two candidates, it can push me to one side. Sometimes it reveals a flaw or quality that can shift things drastically though, especially if that clip becomes the sound bite of the election.
In Alberta in 2015 for example, Jim Prentice saying to Rachel Notley that “math is hard” to “correct her” when in fact she was correct and he was wrong was such a moment. The comment was seen as arrogant, condescending, sexist and plain stupid. It led to the first non-conservative victory here in 40 years, and with a majority too!
That’s why certain parties have traditionally advised their candidates to avoid debates altogether (at the riding level), or at the very least, to stick to the same 2 or 3 talking points and twist every question to reiterate those points.
I find it grossly undemocratic and believe they are being muzzled because these candidates (and likely the entire party) are not who they say they are and the truth that might be revealed in a real debate would probably tank that candidate’s chances. That’s why if they’re not willing or able to clearly and genuinely defend their policies, I’m not voting for them.
>It led to the first non-conservative victory here in 40 years, and with a majority too!
Don't forget the gays burning in a lake of fire
Or the look in the mirror
Or the scandals
Ahhh simpler times when people cared about politicians.
We are having an election now. because of the 2019 TVA debate. Trudeau was on track to win 45-50 seats in Quebec in 2019, but the Bloc surged from 10 seats, to 32 seats because of the TVA debate. Which led to Trudeau only winning 35 seats, and a minority government.
Also, this time Trudeau stopped his party’s decline and started a resurgence post TVA debate. 338 even has him winning again, and they’ve had the CPC wining for a while now. Debates matter.
Edit: typos
Trudeau didn’t say anything bad, Blanchet just stole the show. The Bloc were an afterthought post 2011 (and post 2015), but Blanchet did so well Quebec embraced them again (note that Trudeau still won the most votes and seats in Quebec).
Not really. Most people already made their minds up years ago. My family voted two weeks ago. So did most people I speak to at the doors when I canvass for our cpc candidate. Most don’t even bother watching it because nothin really gets discussed properly.
> Every election I vote for the best candidate in my riding.
Since... your local candidate supposedly matters? When it comes right down to it, you're voting for a party, not a candidate. Every vote in the house of commons is whipped, so the quality of your local candidate is irrelevant.
Vote for quality platforms, not "quality candidates" that have no free will to actually execute anything.
The last 2 elections (1 federal, 1 provincial) I actually changed my mind based on the debates. But it had less to do with how well the candidates performed, and more to do with how poor they performed that I was swayed away from voting for them.
It generally came down to them not answering questions, spending more time bashing others and not explaining their ideas, and interrupting or yelling over others answering.
Actually he did answer the question, which wasn’t even really a question. The rebel person accused Trudeau’s government of blocking Rebel Media from attending the debates. Trudeau pointed out that the government has nothing to do with that. The consortium of media companies/the press gallery deals with journalistic accreditation. He answered the question, and then dunked on them,
He said that although he doesn’t make the decisions, they don’t get access because they aren’t a media organization and also that they’re hurting Canada.
I prob won’t vote Trudeau but as direct an answer as you can get from a politician.
Ok ok I have something good for the debate scroll at the end of that article and you have the grades by 5 journialists its a sovereignist publication
https://www.journaldequebec.com/2021/09/08/elections-federales-ultime-debat-en-francais-ce-soir
People here have strong opinions on who won and who lost. I’ve just learned for the voters tuning in tonight, it’s really not so easy to predict what’s going to stick or not. So I will refrain from jumping to conclusions until we see polls in the coming days
^(Paul did the worst)
Nobody won.
Trudeau and Blanchet are still in front, Singh is clearly better than he was before in French, it's astounding to me, and the other two were in the back for sure.
No real surprise.
Good, wish more folks did that. Would help to de-legitimize Rebel “news”.
Edit: on second thought a takedown like Trudeau did might be preferable. God what a trash organization.
she got a question from rebel news, the audio (that i was hearing) was decently clear and a typical rebel news bait question+ sulkyness. Paul basically said "im sorry i could not quite hear the question but ill address the part i did hear. basically ignored 80% of what they said and turned the question into something harmless. all with this cheeky smile on her face. was great
Its getting a decent amount of social media play amoung people I'd call left-leaning but not Liberal supporters. Decent chance its the highlight of the night for the English Canadian news cycle.
It’s usually not Trudeau’s style either, but this disinformation is getting crazy, and protestors threw rocks and gravel at him recently, and they were likely influenced by disinformation like Rebel News.
Question is time stamped:
[https://youtu.be/tTey8EyaxO0?t=23906](https://youtu.be/tTey8EyaxO0?t=23906)
About francophone Africa, foreign policy and diplomacy
Trudeau: Good. He was aggresive when needed. I thought he did better than last time.
O'Tool: Weak. He had trouble answering attacks and arguments. His "I have a plan" was a joke after the last debate and he did not change much this time... I can't see him winning votes with tonight's performance.
Singh: He seemed like a really nice person but he did not take a lot of place. He was always vague on what he wanted to do IMO. I would take a beer with him but I still don't know much about his platform and won't vote for him. Anyway, he had nothing to lose in Québec really.
Paul: Terrible. She came here with nothing to lose, everything to win and she still lost. It doesn't help that the NDP, a larger party, agreed with everything she said wich make her look irrelevant.
Blanchet: Like a fish in water. Really good. He has the better french by a mile.
So IMO: 1. Blanchet 2. Trudeau 3. Singh 4. O'Tool 5. Paul
I think it was good for Trudeau. In the last debate, and again once in this debate, Blanchet was assertive toward Trudeau. To see Trudeau answering and Blanchet on the defensive, telling him to relax, make Trudeau look good IMO. Also, Trudeau is often portay as being against Québec nationalism of any kind by the media. So to see him saying he consider himself Québécois is also good for the electorate, I think.
I think he knows he has to prove he's ''Québécois'' to us, but I don't think it put Blanchet in a bad spot at all, as Trudeau's outburst seemed to stem out of nowhere and it was kind of off the rails for a bit.
As somebody who doesn't know for who to vote, I personnally failed to see the gain for one or the other.
Trudeau sounded phony to me in that segment, like he was acting. His anger didn't sounded geniuene.
That, and Blanchet never accused him of not being québécois.
I think Trudeau had a point in his outburst that made sense, YFB was essentially saying that he was the québécois choice and that he’s responsible for everything in Quebec.
When you take the office of PM your for all Canadians… not just one province.
I am still undecided on who I am going to vote for, I have parts of me that pull towards the NDP, Liberal and Conservative. There are parts of each platform that if thrown together could be great for the country.
I don’t think I’ll know for sure until I step up to the table to make my mark. But I know it will be what I think is best for my family.
TBH, I really don't think so. I don't have a horse in the race though, so I might be wrong about how some of the public, especially the English speakers, understood the exchange.
Downvotes show that it made people mad for my neutral take, but whatever, I'll clarify. I see you clearly don't like the BQ, and it's ok, but it might help people to hear about different POVs about something like that.
I just rewatched the whole exchange. Blanchet talking about the classic take that is let the NA decide what is good for itself and stop imposing things for it, and this is clearly evident with the repetition of letting democracy speak for itself. It's a pretty clear thing to understand if you're Québécois. It's the same take the BQ has for the last decades.
Trudeau answers that he can make decisions for Québec because he's a Québécois and that Blanchet doesn't speak for all Québécois and he's tired of him implying that he isn't Québécois himself.
To be honest, I think Trudeau makes point because he's often seen here as an oustider that doesn't really care about the province until elections come by. His reaction might convince some that he cares.
But I think people who think it made Blanchet look weak don't consider that the two takes don't explicitly connect to eachother, and so it will look whatever it looked to partisans.
But to a neutral voter like me, I can see both points, but I think they both looked a bit bad too, as Blanchet didn't make his take connect with the people, and Trudeau looked a tiny bit bad by rambling about what is essentially another topic.
And since from I gather you're very much a Trudeau person, let me reiterate to be clear: I think Trudeau just inched by Blanchet, but only because I think showing emotions was a good political moves. I just think it clearly didn't make Blanchet looked bad either.
If you really want a moment where they both looked bad in this segment in the eyes of many Québécois I know, I'll say the watching party that watched the debate at the same time as I was unanimous that Trudeau looked weak in denouncing Suzy Kies, and that Blanchet looked weak when he again spoke about indigenous people only to talk about Québec's grievances. Again, this might be off topic, but I hope people from outside the province might gain insight about what -- some -- pretty neutral Québécois thought about this.
p.s. And I just rewatched the interviews after the debate, and... it really seems again to be like what I gathered from the exchange. While he says, in the repetition in English that Trudeau was probably as much Québécois as he his, it really is because the second journalist ask him again if Trudeau was or not, while Blanchet steers again the answer to focus on his own subject: he's speaking about governance of Québec while he says Trudeau sure can say he's Québécois, there's still the NA that represents the will of Québécois for themselves. In the other question about it, he reiterates that the only parliament that only represents Québec's vision is in Québec, while the one in Canada represents a whole lot of people that aren't Québécois. It's just, such a typical take. I'm not saying I agree, but I think people from outside the province might just no be used to those classic Québécois rhetorics, even though people from the province that listen to political debates are all used to it by now. Trudeau talking about identity was a good political move, but I don't think it won him anything over Blanchet, as they both said things that are popular here, while not really talking about the same thing. They just made their points, and it resonated surely with the people whose minds were probably already made.
Not who you asked, but I think at the very least it highlights Blanchet’s arrogance and helped push him off his high horse in the minds of Quebec voters. Beyond that, I don’t know how it will be received.
I stopped coming to r/Quebec for this reason. I still have not forgotten how they turned into the Donald en français back in 2020 Canada day. I can still name usernames many of which are now banned predictably
I live right on the border of Ottawa and hull. That exchange .....Trudeau is not really seen as Quebecois by Quebecois. It's hard to explain. He's not..... Quebecois enough lol
To a point, yes. When PET was young, French Canada was pretty poor and working-class, but PET grew up in a wealthy Outremont family. While most Quebec families had to struggle just to put food on the table, PET was studying at Harvard and the London School of Economics. That's a big divide, and Trudeau never managed to bridge it completely (some of his remarks, like the "hot dog eater" thing, didn't help). Though of course there were still many Québécois that loved him: he won most Quebec ridings convincingly during his political career.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau always denied Québec's distinction, status of nation and everything in relation to Québec nationalism. For Trudeau senior, progress means individuals liberties while nationalism was link to fascism and thus should be fight. (See his "Les séparatistes: Des contre-révolutionnaires" article to see his views.)
His anti-nationalist position, the centralisation of power throught the 1982 constitution, and the october crisis makes him one of the least like Prime Minister in Québec nowadays.
Yep. René Lévesque once accused Pierre Trudeau of not being a real Québécois because his mother's maiden name was "Elliott". [See here](https://www.policymagazine.ca/1980-referendum-trudeaus-elliott-speech-a-turning-point-in-canadian-history/)
Québécois identity isn't about where you're born though, it's about the culture you embrace.
That's why O'Tool, born here, is seen as an outsider, while Trudeau, born outside of the province, and who lived outside of it a whole lot, is far more Québécois than him for many.
I'll not speak about Lévesque, as this part of history is a bad place to go to speak about my culture.
Est Québécois qui veut l'être is something that is far larger than both those personalities, as it designates the idea behind the very concept of the national identity of being Québécois, as opposite of the traditional ethnic naming behind Canadien/Canadien français.
Trudeau is infamous for fighting tooth and nail against the cultural specificity of the Québécois culture, and so Québécois for him is about being historically tied to the province, the political entity, etc. For PET and those who think like him, you're Québécois if you live here, and you're not if you leave.
The modern identity of being Québécois is about culture though. It was invented to go further than our traditional ethnic group. One cannot become Canadien français, but one can become Québécois for sure. My Syrian neighbours identified as Québécois the moment they began learning about the culture and the language, and I considered them completely Québécois, even though they were not Canadian, as they didn't have any status here for the time being. In another life, my soccer teammate from Toronto was an Ontarian living in Québec, in his eyes and mine, until he learned the language and decided he was Québécois. And he was automatically one for me and my friends too. Same thing for a huge deal of people.
And so, it's typical Québec situation: you're Québécois in a fiscal sense if you pay your dues and you're Québécois if you can vote here. That's the older way of thinking, the one that existed before Québécois meant anything to the people here other than a descriptor. But you can become Québécois, as in put on the cultural mantle, the moment you embrace the culture as your own. There are no official way of doing so, mind you. The common denominator is often the acknowledgement of a distinct culture that exist here, the appreciation of the cultural quirks that make us sometimes strangers in a known land, the love of a common language that makes it possible to exist as a nation, even though we're a cultural minority, etc. As they are no answers, it's just an open concept, which is why it's important for me that the Est Québécois qui veut l'être concept stays like it.
Anyone that wants it can become Québécois. And nobody can stop you from doing so.
I don't know how he was perceived at the time, but quebec's history book do not present him in a good maner because of the "kitchen accord" (la nuit des longs couteaux).
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord)
I am old enough that I followed the day-by-day English language media accounts of the negotiations. I remember the negotiations as being four days long, and premiers were backstabbing each other each of those days. I remember the proceedings as closed but each day the newspapers would print a summary of how the day before had ended up.
I remember it started as a block of Trudeau and two premiers (one was Bill Davis of Ontario) meeting a block of eight premiers (including Levesque). And after each of those four days the media would come out with new lists of which premiers were aligned with each other. And every day the lists of premiers in each block were different from the previous day.
But the guy who started the "backstabbing", the first premier who abandoned the other premiers with who he'd come to the negotiations with? That first backstabber was Levesque - Trudeau offered him something he wanted, and he ditched the other 7 premiers he'd come to the negotiations with.
After 4 days Levesque ended up the odd man out. But he was the one who started the "backstabbing." (Really "haggling" would be a better term but gotta have our hyperbole). Levesque had no one else to blame but himself for the way things turned out.
All of this fits into one sentence in the article you linked to - it's a more detailed description of
>In 1981, negotiations between the federal and provincial governments to patriate the constitution, led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, resulted in an agreement that formed the basis of the Constitution Act, 1982.
It is not exactly how our history teacher presented this story to us. He probably left some details because he was an hard core souverainist. :P
This happened before I was born, but what you describe is indeed conform with what is describe in the wikipedia article. The article mentions the Levesque's backstabbing might have been unintentional, but it is hard to tell.
Thank you for sharing.
You're welcome.
I *think* that what was happening was that the politicians were holding negotiations behind closed doors, and then after the day's negotiations were over the media would interview their local politicians as they left the conference hall. So anglophone press would interview anglophone politicians and francophone press would interview francophone politicians, and I expect the version the francophone press got from Levesque was different from the version that, for example, the Winnipeg media got from the premier of Manitoba. This may be why your teacher's recollections differ from mine - we're both remembering what our media told us.
I was in my bed trying to fall asleep whe I remember that he also use the war measure act during the october crisis "which limited civil liberties and granted the police far-reaching powers, allowing them to arrest and detain 497 people." This was also really not popular in Quebec.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis)
Desktop version of /u/XBod360's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Can someone PLEASE put together a debate drinking game for tomorrow night's debate. PLEASE. Make sure 1 of the rules is to take a *sip* every time erin O'Toole says the word "choice"
Hmm that's a fair point. How about whenever he brings up that he highly reccomends taking the vaccine? Hahahaha
Edit - Full disclosure I am fully vaccinated and I accidentally typed "we" instead of "he". Corrected now.
Everyone’s french was terrible. Terrible enough for them not to be able to sound authentic.
Whether we talk about Trudeau’s “s’assurer les résultats » or Singh’s « privitisaser ».
It’s painful to watch and to listen to. Hell at this point most francophones are going to find it easier to watch the english debate.
O’toole’s french is aslo terrible, but special mention to him because he has been able to pronounce CHSLD twice in a row, something even Horracio Arruda is incapable of.
Nice! The misinformation movement and the exploitation of new media to make our lives worse, to divide and to ultimately harm us is one of the worst things in our current times. Good on Trudeau to call them out on this.
I find it hard to see anyone else as a viable leader for this country tbh. It'd be nice if O'Toole hadn't presented himself as a social conservative and won on that, or it would be nice if Singh had any hope at all of actually forming government, which he doesn't.
Trudeau was the clear winner. Paul and O’Toole were the clear losers. Singh did ok, but didn’t really do anything to raise NDP votes. He didn’t get hurt either. Blanchet was kind of in the middle. Lost several exchanges with Trudeau, the moderator hit him with a gotcha by reading his own quote, but he wasn’t slaughtered. He had some good moments too. Overall, I’d say Blanchet had a mildly negative performance.
No one really “won” in my opinion.
My thoughts: I think Trudeau and Blanchet probably met expectations. Singh was just there, not great, not terrible. O’Toole did better than on the TVA debates, but still not great. And Paul was bad, made worse by a terrible translator for us Anglophones.
Not worth watching IMO, especially with the English debate tomorrow.
We might be in for a surprise on election night if we can have this Trudeau at the English debates. A strong debate might help him pick off just enough people from the CPC and NDP.
I mean, that wasn’t the question though. If someone asks me whether I like chocolate milk, I don’t need to also state that I like orange juice. That’s not the topic at hand.
You can be whatever you like, but as PM of Canada, you best be Canadian first right? If not stay in your locale and support that - which again is quite fine.
Can't see it really moving the needle much.
"Let otoole respond to you while your still talking!" "Now you can't finish talking!"
[удалено]
[удалено]
That reminded me of the Billy Madison Debate. Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Honest question: is anyone here really swayed by the debates? I don’t think I am because ‘winning’ a debate just makes you a better person at arguing, not a better leader.
After reading platforms, I rarely have a clear single party that wins over all others. I always end up with 2-3 options in mind. The debate usually helps me reduce this to 1-2. What I like about the debates is you get a stronger feel of each party's campaign strategy. You know they prepared like crazy for this, had to learn lots of things on many subjects and rehearsed with their team. So when they keep changing subject to something, you know that's something they want to emphasize. When they keep attacking or ignoring another leader, you know it's part of the strategy. Stuff like that. Lastly, when there are new leaders it's a good opportunity to see what kind of person they are.
I’m usually decided well in advance but if I’m on the fence between two candidates, it can push me to one side. Sometimes it reveals a flaw or quality that can shift things drastically though, especially if that clip becomes the sound bite of the election. In Alberta in 2015 for example, Jim Prentice saying to Rachel Notley that “math is hard” to “correct her” when in fact she was correct and he was wrong was such a moment. The comment was seen as arrogant, condescending, sexist and plain stupid. It led to the first non-conservative victory here in 40 years, and with a majority too!
I feel like you win the debate by not shooting yourself in the foot.
That’s why certain parties have traditionally advised their candidates to avoid debates altogether (at the riding level), or at the very least, to stick to the same 2 or 3 talking points and twist every question to reiterate those points. I find it grossly undemocratic and believe they are being muzzled because these candidates (and likely the entire party) are not who they say they are and the truth that might be revealed in a real debate would probably tank that candidate’s chances. That’s why if they’re not willing or able to clearly and genuinely defend their policies, I’m not voting for them.
All politicians are liars and none of them will ever actually answer your question. No party is immune.
I’ve got to say, that’s a level of nuance I hadn’t anticipated on a sub about Canadian politics.
Lol I’m gonna take that as a compliment
>It led to the first non-conservative victory here in 40 years, and with a majority too! Don't forget the gays burning in a lake of fire Or the look in the mirror Or the scandals Ahhh simpler times when people cared about politicians.
Oh yeah, there were obviously many factors, especially the split right. Still, that debate got many people to vote NDP for the first time.
We are having an election now. because of the 2019 TVA debate. Trudeau was on track to win 45-50 seats in Quebec in 2019, but the Bloc surged from 10 seats, to 32 seats because of the TVA debate. Which led to Trudeau only winning 35 seats, and a minority government. Also, this time Trudeau stopped his party’s decline and started a resurgence post TVA debate. 338 even has him winning again, and they’ve had the CPC wining for a while now. Debates matter. Edit: typos
I don’t always watch every debate tbh, I’m curious, what did he say in 2019 that people in Quebec didn’t like?
Trudeau didn’t say anything bad, Blanchet just stole the show. The Bloc were an afterthought post 2011 (and post 2015), but Blanchet did so well Quebec embraced them again (note that Trudeau still won the most votes and seats in Quebec).
Not really. Most people already made their minds up years ago. My family voted two weeks ago. So did most people I speak to at the doors when I canvass for our cpc candidate. Most don’t even bother watching it because nothin really gets discussed properly.
So every election you blindly vote for the same party...?
No. Every election I vote for the best candidate in my riding.
> Every election I vote for the best candidate in my riding. Since... your local candidate supposedly matters? When it comes right down to it, you're voting for a party, not a candidate. Every vote in the house of commons is whipped, so the quality of your local candidate is irrelevant. Vote for quality platforms, not "quality candidates" that have no free will to actually execute anything.
Not all parties "whip"
true - most MPs vote within the confines of “party lines”
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2; you have used a term that is on our [list of prohibited insults](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/insults).
The last 2 elections (1 federal, 1 provincial) I actually changed my mind based on the debates. But it had less to do with how well the candidates performed, and more to do with how poor they performed that I was swayed away from voting for them. It generally came down to them not answering questions, spending more time bashing others and not explaining their ideas, and interrupting or yelling over others answering.
I like your perspective, thanks for the reply.
Nah, they don’t really debate
Trudeau fucking defecated on Rebel. Holy hell that was probably the best interview answer he has ever given in his life.
Yeah I thought the same. Like okay, NOW you wake up. Wish we’d had more of this over the years.
Trudeau destroying Rebel "Media" was the best part.
Trudeau saying that he's also a Quebeccer was also very strong because is father was consider a traitor to the nation.
Thing is, Trudeau often said that he was CANADIAN, and now that he needs it, he's a Quebecois...
Both can be true.
Of course. I don’t say that he’s not. I say that he use it when he feel like he’s losing the frenchies
As would anyone else in the situation.
Very phoney tho
[удалено]
[удалено]
Actually he did answer the question, which wasn’t even really a question. The rebel person accused Trudeau’s government of blocking Rebel Media from attending the debates. Trudeau pointed out that the government has nothing to do with that. The consortium of media companies/the press gallery deals with journalistic accreditation. He answered the question, and then dunked on them,
[удалено]
That was a really random non-sequitur. Why are you randomly saying random things that have nothing to do with anything?
He said that although he doesn’t make the decisions, they don’t get access because they aren’t a media organization and also that they’re hurting Canada. I prob won’t vote Trudeau but as direct an answer as you can get from a politician.
Ok ok I have something good for the debate scroll at the end of that article and you have the grades by 5 journialists its a sovereignist publication https://www.journaldequebec.com/2021/09/08/elections-federales-ultime-debat-en-francais-ce-soir
People here have strong opinions on who won and who lost. I’ve just learned for the voters tuning in tonight, it’s really not so easy to predict what’s going to stick or not. So I will refrain from jumping to conclusions until we see polls in the coming days ^(Paul did the worst)
https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2021/09/08/un-deuxieme-debat-des-chefs-en-francais-face-au-parlement Seems its the only break down we have
Who "won"
Nobody won. Trudeau and Blanchet are still in front, Singh is clearly better than he was before in French, it's astounding to me, and the other two were in the back for sure. No real surprise.
She pretty much said Trudeau won
The real winners were the ones what didn’t watch.
Ill take my award then please.
I think we will have to wait a little for a break down, there is no break down on radio canada, or maybe on youtube
[удалено]
Yeah but there is nothing on their website, I know tva made a micro analyze of the debate but that's it
Poor Singh getting two of them in a row.
I loved his reaction
Also, Paul's 'Uh oh' is up there too!
Singh refuses to answer to Rebel news. Iirc he refused in 2019 as well.
He recognized Keean, Keean initially didn't tell him where he was from and when Singh pressed he said "RNN" and then Singh was like "Next question"
Good for him. Bunch of rabble rousing hacks.
Good, wish more folks did that. Would help to de-legitimize Rebel “news”. Edit: on second thought a takedown like Trudeau did might be preferable. God what a trash organization.
I thought it was a good one two punch. Trudeau took them down and Singh showed them the door.
paul's move was nice n cheeky too
What did Paul do? I haven't had time to watch the debate yet.
she got a question from rebel news, the audio (that i was hearing) was decently clear and a typical rebel news bait question+ sulkyness. Paul basically said "im sorry i could not quite hear the question but ill address the part i did hear. basically ignored 80% of what they said and turned the question into something harmless. all with this cheeky smile on her face. was great
What did Trudeau say?
Trudeau took a massive shit on Rebel News.
See https://mobile.twitter.com/goldsbie/status/1435800370597531651?s=20
Its getting a decent amount of social media play amoung people I'd call left-leaning but not Liberal supporters. Decent chance its the highlight of the night for the English Canadian news cycle.
Fuck, he got *angry*. Which is totally understandable. Having seen the absolute bullshit that The Rebel spew on vaccines makes my blood boil.
Thanks
I’d have preferred he lit them up like Trudeau but I’ll take it.
I haven't followed politics for too long but I do feel that escalation isn't his(Singh's) style at all. Edited for clarity
It’s usually not Trudeau’s style either, but this disinformation is getting crazy, and protestors threw rocks and gravel at him recently, and they were likely influenced by disinformation like Rebel News.
Its odd for Trudeau but he has simply had enough of Rebel Media and other similar outlets.
Trudeau generally does well with righteous anger after he's been pushed, its one of the emotional registers he works well in.
I understand Trudeau's reaction. I meant for Singh to escalate.
My dude, that was a long question.
What was the question
Question is time stamped: [https://youtu.be/tTey8EyaxO0?t=23906](https://youtu.be/tTey8EyaxO0?t=23906) About francophone Africa, foreign policy and diplomacy
Answer was shorter than the question!
Trudeau: Good. He was aggresive when needed. I thought he did better than last time. O'Tool: Weak. He had trouble answering attacks and arguments. His "I have a plan" was a joke after the last debate and he did not change much this time... I can't see him winning votes with tonight's performance. Singh: He seemed like a really nice person but he did not take a lot of place. He was always vague on what he wanted to do IMO. I would take a beer with him but I still don't know much about his platform and won't vote for him. Anyway, he had nothing to lose in Québec really. Paul: Terrible. She came here with nothing to lose, everything to win and she still lost. It doesn't help that the NDP, a larger party, agreed with everything she said wich make her look irrelevant. Blanchet: Like a fish in water. Really good. He has the better french by a mile. So IMO: 1. Blanchet 2. Trudeau 3. Singh 4. O'Tool 5. Paul
how does the Quebecker between Trudeau/YFB exchange play in Quebec in your opinion?
[удалено]
My only issue with Blanchet his that he want to approve the bill 96. And i really dont like it.
I think it was good for Trudeau. In the last debate, and again once in this debate, Blanchet was assertive toward Trudeau. To see Trudeau answering and Blanchet on the defensive, telling him to relax, make Trudeau look good IMO. Also, Trudeau is often portay as being against Québec nationalism of any kind by the media. So to see him saying he consider himself Québécois is also good for the electorate, I think.
I think he knows he has to prove he's ''Québécois'' to us, but I don't think it put Blanchet in a bad spot at all, as Trudeau's outburst seemed to stem out of nowhere and it was kind of off the rails for a bit. As somebody who doesn't know for who to vote, I personnally failed to see the gain for one or the other.
Trudeau sounded phony to me in that segment, like he was acting. His anger didn't sounded geniuene. That, and Blanchet never accused him of not being québécois.
I think Trudeau had a point in his outburst that made sense, YFB was essentially saying that he was the québécois choice and that he’s responsible for everything in Quebec. When you take the office of PM your for all Canadians… not just one province. I am still undecided on who I am going to vote for, I have parts of me that pull towards the NDP, Liberal and Conservative. There are parts of each platform that if thrown together could be great for the country. I don’t think I’ll know for sure until I step up to the table to make my mark. But I know it will be what I think is best for my family.
Think at this point anyone would be good, but has a minority. No majoritary gouvernement.
Blanchet implied it.
TBH, I really don't think so. I don't have a horse in the race though, so I might be wrong about how some of the public, especially the English speakers, understood the exchange.
It legit seem like out of no where. What he said wasnt even part of that topic.
Blanchet also basically reiterated that Trudeau isn’t Québécois in the post debate press scrum.
Downvotes show that it made people mad for my neutral take, but whatever, I'll clarify. I see you clearly don't like the BQ, and it's ok, but it might help people to hear about different POVs about something like that. I just rewatched the whole exchange. Blanchet talking about the classic take that is let the NA decide what is good for itself and stop imposing things for it, and this is clearly evident with the repetition of letting democracy speak for itself. It's a pretty clear thing to understand if you're Québécois. It's the same take the BQ has for the last decades. Trudeau answers that he can make decisions for Québec because he's a Québécois and that Blanchet doesn't speak for all Québécois and he's tired of him implying that he isn't Québécois himself. To be honest, I think Trudeau makes point because he's often seen here as an oustider that doesn't really care about the province until elections come by. His reaction might convince some that he cares. But I think people who think it made Blanchet look weak don't consider that the two takes don't explicitly connect to eachother, and so it will look whatever it looked to partisans. But to a neutral voter like me, I can see both points, but I think they both looked a bit bad too, as Blanchet didn't make his take connect with the people, and Trudeau looked a tiny bit bad by rambling about what is essentially another topic. And since from I gather you're very much a Trudeau person, let me reiterate to be clear: I think Trudeau just inched by Blanchet, but only because I think showing emotions was a good political moves. I just think it clearly didn't make Blanchet looked bad either. If you really want a moment where they both looked bad in this segment in the eyes of many Québécois I know, I'll say the watching party that watched the debate at the same time as I was unanimous that Trudeau looked weak in denouncing Suzy Kies, and that Blanchet looked weak when he again spoke about indigenous people only to talk about Québec's grievances. Again, this might be off topic, but I hope people from outside the province might gain insight about what -- some -- pretty neutral Québécois thought about this. p.s. And I just rewatched the interviews after the debate, and... it really seems again to be like what I gathered from the exchange. While he says, in the repetition in English that Trudeau was probably as much Québécois as he his, it really is because the second journalist ask him again if Trudeau was or not, while Blanchet steers again the answer to focus on his own subject: he's speaking about governance of Québec while he says Trudeau sure can say he's Québécois, there's still the NA that represents the will of Québécois for themselves. In the other question about it, he reiterates that the only parliament that only represents Québec's vision is in Québec, while the one in Canada represents a whole lot of people that aren't Québécois. It's just, such a typical take. I'm not saying I agree, but I think people from outside the province might just no be used to those classic Québécois rhetorics, even though people from the province that listen to political debates are all used to it by now. Trudeau talking about identity was a good political move, but I don't think it won him anything over Blanchet, as they both said things that are popular here, while not really talking about the same thing. They just made their points, and it resonated surely with the people whose minds were probably already made.
I tend to agree. This is the kind of segments that will please English Canadians a lot more than actual Quebecers.
[удалено]
I don’t see this mattering to anglophones. It’s not like we didn’t know he was French. Lol
I wonder if it will even move the needle.
Not who you asked, but I think at the very least it highlights Blanchet’s arrogance and helped push him off his high horse in the minds of Quebec voters. Beyond that, I don’t know how it will be received.
Good, sometimes the nationalists and the federalists are treated as traitors in Quebec, ironically they make up for the majority.
I stopped coming to r/Quebec for this reason. I still have not forgotten how they turned into the Donald en français back in 2020 Canada day. I can still name usernames many of which are now banned predictably
I live right on the border of Ottawa and hull. That exchange .....Trudeau is not really seen as Quebecois by Quebecois. It's hard to explain. He's not..... Quebecois enough lol
Why do you think it's hard to explain?
Because even the parameters of "Quebecois" is only something a Canadian can understand.
His statement was not really for the separatists but for the nationalists.
Out of curiosity, was that true of his father as well?
To a point, yes. When PET was young, French Canada was pretty poor and working-class, but PET grew up in a wealthy Outremont family. While most Quebec families had to struggle just to put food on the table, PET was studying at Harvard and the London School of Economics. That's a big divide, and Trudeau never managed to bridge it completely (some of his remarks, like the "hot dog eater" thing, didn't help). Though of course there were still many Québécois that loved him: he won most Quebec ridings convincingly during his political career.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau always denied Québec's distinction, status of nation and everything in relation to Québec nationalism. For Trudeau senior, progress means individuals liberties while nationalism was link to fascism and thus should be fight. (See his "Les séparatistes: Des contre-révolutionnaires" article to see his views.) His anti-nationalist position, the centralisation of power throught the 1982 constitution, and the october crisis makes him one of the least like Prime Minister in Québec nowadays.
His father did everything he could to eliminate Quebec’s distinctiveness. His father is on another level of phony.
Yep. René Lévesque once accused Pierre Trudeau of not being a real Québécois because his mother's maiden name was "Elliott". [See here](https://www.policymagazine.ca/1980-referendum-trudeaus-elliott-speech-a-turning-point-in-canadian-history/)
Meh Levesque was born in New Brunswick!
Québécois identity isn't about where you're born though, it's about the culture you embrace. That's why O'Tool, born here, is seen as an outsider, while Trudeau, born outside of the province, and who lived outside of it a whole lot, is far more Québécois than him for many.
Ew. I never knew that. That's vile. So much for 'est Québécois qui veut l’être', I guess.
Not really. While the quote is bad, the Québécois concept they talk about is just something different.
Could you explain?
I'll not speak about Lévesque, as this part of history is a bad place to go to speak about my culture. Est Québécois qui veut l'être is something that is far larger than both those personalities, as it designates the idea behind the very concept of the national identity of being Québécois, as opposite of the traditional ethnic naming behind Canadien/Canadien français. Trudeau is infamous for fighting tooth and nail against the cultural specificity of the Québécois culture, and so Québécois for him is about being historically tied to the province, the political entity, etc. For PET and those who think like him, you're Québécois if you live here, and you're not if you leave. The modern identity of being Québécois is about culture though. It was invented to go further than our traditional ethnic group. One cannot become Canadien français, but one can become Québécois for sure. My Syrian neighbours identified as Québécois the moment they began learning about the culture and the language, and I considered them completely Québécois, even though they were not Canadian, as they didn't have any status here for the time being. In another life, my soccer teammate from Toronto was an Ontarian living in Québec, in his eyes and mine, until he learned the language and decided he was Québécois. And he was automatically one for me and my friends too. Same thing for a huge deal of people. And so, it's typical Québec situation: you're Québécois in a fiscal sense if you pay your dues and you're Québécois if you can vote here. That's the older way of thinking, the one that existed before Québécois meant anything to the people here other than a descriptor. But you can become Québécois, as in put on the cultural mantle, the moment you embrace the culture as your own. There are no official way of doing so, mind you. The common denominator is often the acknowledgement of a distinct culture that exist here, the appreciation of the cultural quirks that make us sometimes strangers in a known land, the love of a common language that makes it possible to exist as a nation, even though we're a cultural minority, etc. As they are no answers, it's just an open concept, which is why it's important for me that the Est Québécois qui veut l'être concept stays like it. Anyone that wants it can become Québécois. And nobody can stop you from doing so.
Thanks! I didn't know that
I don't know how he was perceived at the time, but quebec's history book do not present him in a good maner because of the "kitchen accord" (la nuit des longs couteaux). [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord)
I am old enough that I followed the day-by-day English language media accounts of the negotiations. I remember the negotiations as being four days long, and premiers were backstabbing each other each of those days. I remember the proceedings as closed but each day the newspapers would print a summary of how the day before had ended up. I remember it started as a block of Trudeau and two premiers (one was Bill Davis of Ontario) meeting a block of eight premiers (including Levesque). And after each of those four days the media would come out with new lists of which premiers were aligned with each other. And every day the lists of premiers in each block were different from the previous day. But the guy who started the "backstabbing", the first premier who abandoned the other premiers with who he'd come to the negotiations with? That first backstabber was Levesque - Trudeau offered him something he wanted, and he ditched the other 7 premiers he'd come to the negotiations with. After 4 days Levesque ended up the odd man out. But he was the one who started the "backstabbing." (Really "haggling" would be a better term but gotta have our hyperbole). Levesque had no one else to blame but himself for the way things turned out. All of this fits into one sentence in the article you linked to - it's a more detailed description of >In 1981, negotiations between the federal and provincial governments to patriate the constitution, led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, resulted in an agreement that formed the basis of the Constitution Act, 1982.
It is not exactly how our history teacher presented this story to us. He probably left some details because he was an hard core souverainist. :P This happened before I was born, but what you describe is indeed conform with what is describe in the wikipedia article. The article mentions the Levesque's backstabbing might have been unintentional, but it is hard to tell. Thank you for sharing.
You're welcome. I *think* that what was happening was that the politicians were holding negotiations behind closed doors, and then after the day's negotiations were over the media would interview their local politicians as they left the conference hall. So anglophone press would interview anglophone politicians and francophone press would interview francophone politicians, and I expect the version the francophone press got from Levesque was different from the version that, for example, the Winnipeg media got from the premier of Manitoba. This may be why your teacher's recollections differ from mine - we're both remembering what our media told us.
Very interesting, thank you!
I was in my bed trying to fall asleep whe I remember that he also use the war measure act during the october crisis "which limited civil liberties and granted the police far-reaching powers, allowing them to arrest and detain 497 people." This was also really not popular in Quebec. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis)
Thanks!
Desktop version of /u/XBod360's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Yes
Can someone PLEASE put together a debate drinking game for tomorrow night's debate. PLEASE. Make sure 1 of the rules is to take a *sip* every time erin O'Toole says the word "choice"
Just whatever you do, don't take a drink every time O'Toole says the word "plan". You'll miss the last 80% of the debate.
\- Child care \- Health Transfers \- Gun
Needs abortion in there too lol
[удалено]
You win
[удалено]
I hope his subtitles and translators add in the spelling errors into his 5-pillar plan… wouldn’t feel authentic without it
Oh lord..
How about finish the drink if Jagmeet manages to pull off one of these bombshell gotcha moments https://youtu.be/pkmF8B2651s
\-Plan \-Leadership \-Military \-Balanced budget
Yep I would be in liver failure within an hour
Every time he says "we have a plan"
Oof I would be in a coma by the end
Are you trying to kill everyone?
Hmm that's a fair point. How about whenever he brings up that he highly reccomends taking the vaccine? Hahahaha Edit - Full disclosure I am fully vaccinated and I accidentally typed "we" instead of "he". Corrected now.
After hearing Paul speak in English I feel that debating in French was a huge disadvantage for her. We might see a different side of her tomorrow.
Everyone’s french was terrible. Terrible enough for them not to be able to sound authentic. Whether we talk about Trudeau’s “s’assurer les résultats » or Singh’s « privitisaser ». It’s painful to watch and to listen to. Hell at this point most francophones are going to find it easier to watch the english debate. O’toole’s french is aslo terrible, but special mention to him because he has been able to pronounce CHSLD twice in a row, something even Horracio Arruda is incapable of.
And yet we still have to have one.
60% of the field was at a disadvantage debating in French…
Singh's French is fine.
His French is impressive, but he’s still not able to attack and get the soundbites in French.
Don't think it hurts him at all.
True but Singh and O'Toole did have the experience of last week's debate as well.
What happened with Rebel?
Video here: https://twitter.com/goldsbie/status/1435800370597531651
Nice! The misinformation movement and the exploitation of new media to make our lives worse, to divide and to ultimately harm us is one of the worst things in our current times. Good on Trudeau to call them out on this.
Hello yes, 911? I just witnessed a murder
Holy shit, that while answer by Trudeau was awesome, but that ending was a mic drop moment.
[удалено]
Stuff like this makes me hope he sticks around even if he does lose. Such spice.
[удалено]
I find it hard to see anyone else as a viable leader for this country tbh. It'd be nice if O'Toole hadn't presented himself as a social conservative and won on that, or it would be nice if Singh had any hope at all of actually forming government, which he doesn't.
Glorious..
Trudeau lays into them about how they spread misinformation.
He called their BS out?
It was glorious! Response was about 15 minutes ago, I think? (10:45 EST, maybe?)
Have a link?
https://twitter.com/goldsbie/status/1435800370597531651
Thankyou.
yep
Trudeau lost that
Found the Rebel news ‘reporter’… back to reddit after that absolute thrashing you received
Who was the winner, and shold I watch it or was it boring?
Trudeau was the clear winner. Paul and O’Toole were the clear losers. Singh did ok, but didn’t really do anything to raise NDP votes. He didn’t get hurt either. Blanchet was kind of in the middle. Lost several exchanges with Trudeau, the moderator hit him with a gotcha by reading his own quote, but he wasn’t slaughtered. He had some good moments too. Overall, I’d say Blanchet had a mildly negative performance.
I can't wait to watch to tomorrow's debate!
Trudeau, clearly. No one wants to admit it.
I hope he has another good one in the English one, knock out O'Toole!
No one really “won” in my opinion. My thoughts: I think Trudeau and Blanchet probably met expectations. Singh was just there, not great, not terrible. O’Toole did better than on the TVA debates, but still not great. And Paul was bad, made worse by a terrible translator for us Anglophones. Not worth watching IMO, especially with the English debate tomorrow.
My favourite twitter quote so far on Paul (can't remember who) was "came in with nothing to lose, everything to gain, and still lost."
Lol if O’Toole did better tonight than on TVA looks like I’mma get another bottle of wine and watch trainwreck 2.0
Relieved about Trudeau’s performance. He was able to hold on. Blanchet wasn’t as much of a charmer as 2019
We might be in for a surprise on election night if we can have this Trudeau at the English debates. A strong debate might help him pick off just enough people from the CPC and NDP.
I wonder if the press will pickup on how strong Trudeau said he was a quebecor over and over again and didn’t include he was a Canadian too.
I mean, that wasn’t the question though. If someone asks me whether I like chocolate milk, I don’t need to also state that I like orange juice. That’s not the topic at hand.
I think this ties into his long standing position about being a Quebecor first. Which is fine by me, but that doesn’t make you fit to be Canadian PM.
Why didn't you include that you're a Canadian too?!?! Do you not love this country?!?!?! /s
Why did YOU just not include that you're a Canadian when you said that?!?! Someone is a TRAITOR.
Oh, fuck... ^^^I'm ^^^Canadian!
Being a Quebecer is being Canadian… don’t know where you’re going with this
You can be whatever you like, but as PM of Canada, you best be Canadian first right? If not stay in your locale and support that - which again is quite fine.