Leadership debate on Bill Good this morning

[LoneWolf_53]

It's good to be able to count, even better to possess the ability to process the data, to avoid the same mistakes over and over again.

...and even better to let go of the past and move on to the future.

Oh you must mean like forgetting Adrian's role in past NDP shenanigans, yeah it's certainly true most crooks desire that people forget the past.

Others just choose to remember it selectively when it supports their agenda.

[logicalview]

He didn't, he said "has had the highest or second highest child poverty rate for the past eight years." and the latest data shows that to be absolutely TRUE. Again, nice try.!!

what DATA are you talking about? The invented DATA from NDP-friendly "advocates" looking to cash in on rivers of government spending when the NDP are elected?? Those same "advocates" that are going to then magically report that BC has drastically climbed the ladder of "child poverty" (whatever that is, given every different organization seems to have a different intrepretation of what qualifies) thanks to the rivers of money pouring into these "advocacy" groups? One thing is certain, when you mix politics and social issues like helping out those less fortunate, nothing is ever TRUE. You are either yet another NDP automaton, or you are incredibly naive. Either way, you are perfect fodder for the Dix bibble-babble propaganda machine.

[krocky]

You are either yet another NDP automaton, or you are incredibly naive. Either way, you are perfect fodder for the Dix bibble-babble propaganda machine.

Naive, not a chance - idealistic maybe, NDP supporter, nope, at least not yet. Have been a Conservative mostly but the BC Conservative/Social Credit hybrid here have bungled things to badly to want to vote for them this time around. I was hoping for an independent but since there are none running in my area that leaves the Greens. Must say, I'm leaning a little more to the left though, every time Christy Clark opens her mouth...

[Logitack]

Now, let’s stop here. After the closing remarks it was clear the best performers were Dix and Cummins, followed by Sterk and Clark in dead last place. Now we know why Clark wants a one on one: Both Cummins and Sterk make more sense than she does and deliver better. Dix is the best, but his showing was a little shaky. I know he’s a severe diabetic and I’m wondering if it’s his condition (I’m not being mean, by the way, as my father is a diabetic and can be like that from time to time–although Dad is a superb debater!) Dix needs to find a better answer on when he changed his mind on Kinder Morgan. His reply made no sense and he got hammered over it post-debate.

But this was Clark’s opportunity to shine and she didn’t. She actually looked bad, performed horribly and couldn’t do anything except repeat the same old tired lines about the NDP. Her biggest fall down is not correcting her own NONSENSE about Moody’s allegedly approving of the BC Liberals fiscal plan. This is total crap! She’s lost on this alone. In the scrum afterwards, she started reading from her B/berry and saying reporters weren’t reading carefully enough. LMAO! Clark really is delusional.

The take away: Clark is skilled at lying and as ‘Talking Points Barbie’ if she tones down the nastiness, could be very effective in the televised debate against Dix.

Dix, on the other hand, needs to sit down with a skilled debating coach and go over key strategies. He started off nervously and didn’t settle down until Clark started self-destructing. Not good.

Winner? Dix by a half length, but Cummins was surprisingly agile with details and his tone was very good. Sterk had flashes of brilliance, but the fraud of strictly anthropogenic global warming just makes her unbelievable–in fact discreditable.
The big loser was Clark. She was nasty, ill-informed, condescending, in-your-face and needed Good to intervene thrice.
She will not win anything with that kind of strategy. Very poor performance–surprisingly so. She needs to go back and watch the tapes of herself debating her leadership rivals. That’s the tone she’ll need to survive in the televised debate.
And if Dix wants to look like the premier-in-waiting, he desperately needs to do some debate prep. A deft handling of the issues isn’t enough. He needs some zingers about Clark and the BC Liberals. He had none today, but still won.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2013/04/26/ckn ... tion-2013/

[LoneWolf_53]

Lemme see now, Logitack declares Dix the winner, and Alex Tsakumis is used to support that conclusion, there's an open minded non biased ratings process, if ever there was one. ROTFLMAO

Clearly some lack any semblance of shame whatsoever.

[maple leaf]

The take away: Clark is skilled at lying and as ‘Talking Points Barbie’ if she tones down the nastiness, could be very effective in the televised debate against Dix.

Dix, on the other hand, needs to sit down with a skilled debating coach and go over key strategies. He started off nervously and didn’t settle down until Clark started self-destructing. Not good.

I would agree with both statements from Alex.After listening to the debate I would also go Dix,Cummins Sterk,Clark.Clark didn't offer very much to a debate, but spent her time attacking,with misinformation and lies.

[Urbane]

I would agree with both statements from Alex.After listening to the debate I would also go Dix,Cummins Sterk,Clark.Clark didn't offer very much to a debate, but spent her time attacking,with misinformation and lies.

I don't agree with Sterk on the issues but she was actually quite effective. Cummins had his moments but in answering Bill Good's question about why he voted NDP in the last election he claimed that he didn't even know there was a Conservative candidate in his riding until he showed up at the polling station. If true it shows a stunning lack of awareness. Dix was edgy, seemingly uncomfortable, and not very transparent. Here's a guy who promised, as a principled matter, to hold off on a decision re Kinder Morgan and then apparently changed his mind on Earth Day but still won't come clean about how or why he came up with a new set of principles all of a sudden. Sleazy is how he came off to me. Christy Clark spoke well and did not fall into the trap of only attacking the NDP (there was certainly some of that) but did talk about fiscal management etc. She had a good debate for sure. Dix didn't.

[flamingfingers]

Cummins gained HUGE in this debate. He was on topic, caught Clark several times in her lies and was very well organized with his comments. Dix needs to develop a couple of quick come-backs to Clark's constant attacks (she was shrill, rude and interrupted even Good at times and I think Good was getting a bit PO'd at her). Unfortunately, he hesitates in delivering a knock out blow because he does not want to appear as it he is 'attacking'.

Sterk did come up really well on a couple of points, particularly the question on transparency in government AND the very important issue of Christy killing off the Therapeutics Initiative. And seems like Sterk, Dix and Cummins had a plan to speak to. Clark presented no such plan (unless you count the pie-in-the sky 'LNG" farce.)

[logicalview]

Now, let’s stop here. After the closing remarks it was clear the best performers were Dix and Cummins, followed by Sterk and Clark in dead last place. /

BWHAAAA HAA HAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

WHAT A JOKE!!!

The only thing that Adrian Greaseball Weasel Dix was the "best" at was stumbling, bumbling, babbling and just generally making a massive idiot of himself. When Sterk finally got sick of his stupid blathering on the Kinder Morgan pipeline she demanded that he pick a side and he STILL went on mumbling and bumbling. I know Alex Alphabet is right up the NDP backside in terms of bias, but NO ONE could be happy with that horrible performance. It was totally embarrassing.

[logicalview]

I would agree with both statements from Alex.After listening to the debate I would also go Dix,Cummins Sterk,Clark.Clark didn't offer very much to a debate, but spent her time attacking,with misinformation and lies.

Ridiculous. Seriously. You can't be happy as an NDP cheerleader with Dix's performance. Just stop the spin and nonsense just for one minute. He's got to get better. He came off completely unsure of himself, totally contradicted himself constantly and just babbled every time it was his turn. If you honestly think that Dix did the best then you really need to watch some more debates. Dix performed about as bad as I've seen in a debate, and I am talking John Turner bad.

[maple leaf]

I don't agree with Sterk on the issues but she was actually quite effective. Cummins had his moments but in answering Bill Good's question about why he voted NDP in the last election he claimed that he didn't even know there was a Conservative candidate in his riding until he showed up at the polling station. If true it shows a stunning lack of awareness. Dix was edgy, seemingly uncomfortable, and not very transparent. Here's a guy who promised, as a principled matter, to hold off on a decision re Kinder Morgan and then apparently changed his mind on Earth Day but still won't come clean about how or why he came up with a new set of principles all of a sudden. Sleazy is how he came off to me. Christy Clark spoke well and did not fall into the trap of only attacking the NDP (there was certainly some of that) but did talk about fiscal management etc. She had a good debate for sure. Dix didn't.

I would agree with you about Cummins on that point.Also about Dix explanation about Kinder Morgan,Hopefully he will be able to give a better answer in the TV debate as I'm sure it will come up again.Other than that I felt Dix was a little nervous but answered well on everything and all 3 didn't let Christy Clark get away with some of the lies and misinformation,especially about what she said about Moody credit agencies.To me Dix was for sure the front runner.I'm looking forward to the TV one.

[flamingfingers]

Here's a guy who promised, as a principled matter, to hold off on a decision re Kinder Morgan and then apparently changed his mind on Earth Day but still won't come clean about how or why he came up with a new set of principles all of a sudden.

In January KM stated that they wanted 3-fold increase in the amount pumped to Vancouver. That meant there would be a 3-fold (or thereabouts) increase in tanker traffic to fro Vancouver port. On the basis of that information, Dix stated that he thought about the ramifications and decided on Earth Day to come out with his opposition to making Vancouver an oil tanker port.

It is nice to see that a politician can be receptive to new information and make a considered decision.

[NAB]

I judge such things firstly on how strong a grasp the candidate has of the issues and their ability to enunciate and discuss them (and their proposed solutions) clearly - ....and place their ability to make personal and ideological attacks at the very bottom of the criteria, ....recognizing of course that there are some folk who rate a win/lose in debate just the opposite because that is their own preferred approach. On this one, from my perspective, Clark ranked 4th out of 4 and Cummins was the clear winner.

Nab

[Urbane]

Cummins gained HUGE in this debate. He was on topic, caught Clark several times in her lies and was very well organized with his comments. Dix needs to develop a couple of quick come-backs to Clark's constant attacks (she was shrill, rude and interrupted even Good at times and I think Good was getting a bit PO'd at her). Unfortunately, he hesitates in delivering a knock out blow because he does not want to appear as it he is 'attacking'.

Sterk did come up really well on a couple of points, particularly the question on transparency in government AND the very important issue of Christy killing off the Therapeutics Initiative. And seems like Sterk, Dix and Cummins had a plan to speak to. Clark presented no such plan (unless you count the pie-in-the sky 'LNG" farce.)

I understand how this works. The NDP'ers on here are promoting Cummins to try to help divide the anti-NDP vote. Not that Cummins did badly overall but I don't think that he gained "HUGE" in the debate. He certainly pointed out the serious shortcomings of the NDP and found fault with the Liberals as well.

Those who are claiming that Christy Clark was "shrill" or "rude" are just reminding us that they simply don't like Clark or anything that she says or does. By the way, Dix's answer to Bill Good's question about ordering studies rather than knowing after all these years what he wants to do was pathetic. He said that the Liberals had initiated seven studies so that it was "common practice." Using the Liberals as a template on how to govern, eh Adrian?? And yet the NDP'ers on here will tell us it was a great answer I'm sure.

[maple leaf]

Cummins gained HUGE in this debate. He was on topic, caught Clark several times in her lies and was very well organized with his comments. Dix needs to develop a couple of quick come-backs to Clark's constant attacks (she was shrill, rude and interrupted even Good at times and I think Good was getting a bit PO'd at her). Unfortunately, he hesitates in delivering a knock out blow because he does not want to appear as it he is 'attacking'.

Sterk did come up really well on a couple of points, particularly the question on transparency in government AND the very important issue of Christy killing off the Therapeutics Initiative. And seems like Sterk, Dix and Cummins had a plan to speak to. Clark presented no such plan (unless you count the pie-in-the sky 'LNG" farce.)

I agree Cummins did not bad and made some good points.Sterk was great the way she jumped in about the Therapeutic Initiative.