Public Questions from Presidential Debate
•
by Dade Pendwyn
Here they are. For the list of official questions go here. These are the juicy audience questions. Thanks to RoyMunson for compiling these for me.
DadePendwyn If Canada were under attack and losing terribly, what would be your first and upmost priority to the people? (from Shaddy Joe)
Zanalan Consolidate a last bastion of defense. Where would be a matter of how the battle had unfolded. *done*
Dominik I would make a call to arms for all citizens. I would fight with everything that I have. On the logical side of things, I'd be requesting help from our allies. *done*
Bruck To use every means within my power to defend Canada including using reserve funds and our stockpiles of weapons set aside for just this case. Assuming Ontario still holds it would be our bastion of defense and from there launch resistance wars to harass the enemy, use up their supplies and attempt to liberate our nation. I would also make every effort to call on foreign powers for aid. *done*
DadePendwyn What steps will you take to address the growing desire for transparency in congressional debates? (from Josh Taggart)
Bruck I support conditional transparency. I support government reporting on the activities of Congress and the Cabinet, I support a Congressman's right to bring transgressions to the public, but I do not support public access to the Congressional forum. We need congress to make important and security sensitive decisions in private and by their concisences, not under public pressure and foreign scrutiny,.* done*
Zanalan The CSD has been the one party to call for transparency in each of the past three session. We will continue to make that call for openness. I have also committed to presenting Josh's "openness motion" once it is finalized. Canadians have a right to know what Congress is doing. *done*
Dominik I have been a supporter of transparency for many months. In my presidency, I would push for read-only access to congress for all citizens. Immediate actions I would take include appointing a top Canadian journalist to work under the Social Service wing of my cabinet and be in charge of posting regular articles on cabinet affairs. Basically, I would do what I could to establish near-maximum transparency (with the exception of sensitive info)*done*
DadePendwyn Zanalan, you never took a stance on the Dean22 issue. Did you support Dean22's ejection from Canada, and what was your stance on his attempt to strongarm the Canadian government into doing as he and his business cronies wanted? (from Augustus Baldwin)
Zanalan Dean was able to screw over the people of Canada because the President allowed him to. He should have been stopped far earlier by the previous administration. I guess I have a question about the methods of his ejection. The Supreme Court heard the case and rendered a decision and punishment. I believe we should have honored that decision. At the same time, I think certain people screwed up by not launching the expulsion case in Congress first.*done*
DadePendwyn Do you believe the boomer generation has been fully integrated into eCanada, or are there further measures you would enact to ensure that young citizens remain active? (from RoyMunson)
Dominik I've outlined numerous ideas in the first part of my platform. I believe the boomers have been partially/temporarily integrated, but we need to establish more programs to keep them interested and make sure we receive a long-term addition to our community. Hopefully, the boomer generation will be among the leaders of Canada in a couple of months. There are many skilled individuals, and my ultimate gain is to make the hierarchy of Canada competitive, ensuring boomers will stay interested. In the meanwhile, my reforms will ensure a wide range of institutions boomers can participate in.*done*
DadePendwyn How can you justify being supported by the separatist Bloc? Is political power and votes more important to you than Canadian unity and national interest? (from Augustus Baldwin)
Dominik The Bloc liked the idea I was proposing which would include the reformation of our government system into a more decentralised regional system giving the Quebecois more control over their own affairs. And yes, if a referendum confirms the desire of Quebec to separate, I will fully support Quebec sovereignty. *done*
There they are. Be sure to read the official questions as well. And don't forget to sub!
Thanks for reading.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Well Dominik, I dont think I like your answer to Augustus Baldwin's very handsome and sexy question.
I agree with Augustus Baldwin. You want to destroy Canada as a nation, Dominik?
PS: This is in no way Augustus Baldwin writing from his OA.
Augustus, would you support Canadian killing Canadian to keep Quebec?
...You're the only one who wasn't asked a tough question 🙂
William: Yes my American friend I would. Consider me the Canadian Abraham Lincoln. Minus the big hat.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand... It will become all one thing, or all the other."
And all that jazz.
Abe needed an army to keep his country together. Mine needs leadership.
Augustus, when you introduced the Adam Sutler case to congress a few months ago, you were vehemently defending the concept of democracy. I don't see why this idea you think so highly of can not be applied to Quebec sovereignty. I don't support the very idea of separatism, but I support democracy, and I support the Quebecois; and I happen to believe it's Quebec's choice.
augustus just because the BPQ supports us doesnt mean we fully agree wtih their views. ur logic doesnt follow. the CPC endorsed bruck. does that mean he is a commie?
William: I agree, Canadian unity is only as strong as our leaders commitment to defending Confederation. Abraham Lincoln's was total. So is mine. Thats why I asked the question.
Dominik: The same logic as in that case is at play now. Democracy applies within the context of the Canadian constitution and state, as does the law. Democracy does not supersede Canada, it serves it. Just as someone cannot democratically become a dictator, so too someone cannot democratically destroy the state. There are limits on everything.
Scorpius: I was referring to Dominik's answer to the final question. Take a look.
Augustus, I think your assertion that the Bloc is "destroying the state" is based on the concept of nationalism- a concept I strongly reject as being anti-logical. I don't see a country- I see a group of people- and if a part of this group wants to break off and begin its own group, who are we to tell them they can't?
I'm with Dominik on this one.
Dominik: If what you say you believe in is true, then you do not believe in the idea of the modern state, or liberal democracy. In fact the idea of the state stands in contradiction to what you believe in.
The modern state is the ultimate power to which people submit in exchange for protection and care. That is the basic foundation of the modern state. But by the sounds of your ideology you and the RFP are more anarchists than you are democrats.
In a democracy there are rules, there is structure, there are laws, and there is order. Democracy exists within the state, the state does not exist within democracy. Order > Choice, or else we have... anarchy. You are allowed to walk the streets freely, but you cannot walk into someones house uninvited. You have the right to vote, but you can only vote for a candidate on the ballot. You can protest the actions of the government, but you may not try and destroy the government. You can vote to change the government, but you can't vote the government out of existence.
Choice within reason and law is the founding principal of Canada. Canada's official motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government". Our motto is not "Let the Tyranny of the Majority Rule". Simply because something is approved through a majority vote does not make it so. Thats the whole idea behind Constitutional law.
As I said, what your preaching is something contrary to the basic founding principles of Confederation. Its more comfortable in the anarchist brigades of the Spanish Civil War than a modern democracy. Like a dog on a leash, your rope ends when you try and leave the backyard.
Not even close to anarchist. Where have I in my last post proposed the elimination of a state that maintains order? Perhaps better wording would have been that I don't believe in the idea of a "nation" rather than "country". I believe in a civic state that keeps law and order. I don't believe in patriotism, I don't believe in nationalism, and I don't believe in national loyalty. I believe the civic state should function to serve the people. And if it is the Quebecois people's desire to separate from Canada, we must respect that. I see no logical reason in making them be a part of a country they don't wish to be a part of.
Simply put, because 100% of those residing in Quebec do not support separatism. Unless the majority of Canadians as a whole vote to dissolve Canada then Canada has a duty to its loyal citizens.
The BQ represents 57 people in a province of more than 500.
Otherwise every joe schmo and his dog would have the right to separate his house and backyard from Canada.
And then what do we have? Anarchy.
I'm not arguing with you there. I won't call myself a federalist or a sovereigntist either way because it doesn't affect me. However, if a referndum shows Quebec wants to separate, I won't hold any prejudices. Of course, the final details would have to be worked out. For example, it would indeed be best to have a referendum for Canada as a whole, not just Quebec. The very least we can give them is an all-Queebec plebiscite. It's ultimately all up to admin, anyways.