federal election - who are you voting for

[backmarkerducati]

Forum Sponsor

Oh, you mean the mess that Mulroney inherited from Trudeau?

That got us into the short term thinking mode of how can I next get elected or leave the opposition a bigger mess. We need some long term thinking in government.

We did deregulate. Where do you think that ING direct "anti bank" guy came from? Certainly, not a big bank from the Netherlands? How about HSBC?
Why do you think the banks started using their initials, or that we have branches down in the States, and over in Europe. Or Banks started insurance companies?

Mulroney did inherit a mess from the Liberals and he was unable to fix the mess, I say he even made it worse. Then the Liberals got in and fixed the mess left by the two previous governments (Liberal and PC). Then Harper (Reform, sorry PC minus Progressive) inherited a surplus and created a new mess.

Not sure what bank names have to do with deregulation??? But Harper wanted to deregulate the banking system in Canada prior to the 2008 banking crisis so our banks could compete with US banks. If he had a majority at the time we would have been sunk just like the US was sunk. Instead the banks were well regulated at the time of the crisis and they did not crash like banks all around the world did. This actually gave Canadian banks a foot up in expansion around the world, because they were strong when all the less regulated banks were weak.

We did better in the last recession because we were not hit as hard as the rest of the world. Nothing to do with bank names or letters.

Of course bank letters as names is just a way to hide the country they are from, but how does this relate to Harper wanting to deregulate them so they could crash just like the US???? Then taking credit for them not crashing in-spite of him?

 

[Baggsy]

Mulroney did inherit a mess from the Liberals and he was unable to fix the mess, I say he even made it worse. Then the Liberals got in and fixed the mess left by the two previous governments (Liberal and PC). Then Harper (Reform, sorry PC minus Progressive) inherited a surplus and created a new mess.

Not sure what bank names have to do with deregulation??? But Harper wanted to deregulate the banking system in Canada prior to the 2008 banking crisis so our banks could compete with US banks. If he had a majority at the time we would have been sunk just like the US was sunk. Instead the banks were well regulated at the time of the crisis and they did not crash like banks all around the world did. This actually gave Canadian banks a foot up in expansion around the world, because they were strong when all the less regulated banks were weak.

We did better in the last recession because we were not hit as hard as the rest of the world. Nothing to do with bank names or letters.

Of course bank letters as names is just a way to hide the country they are from, but how does this relate to Harper wanting to deregulate them so they could crash just like the US???? Then taking credit for them not crashing in-spite of him?

Banks have been deregulated since they declined in the world markets, by Conservative AND Liberal governments.
I believe that you're saying that Harper wanted to blah, blah, blah, since he has a majority, and everyone supposedly walks in lock-step with him, then he would have done it; it's as simple as that. I get really tired of duplicitous arguments. On the one hand he was going to do A, so that's bad, on the other hand, what he actually did shouldn't count, because of A.

The bank names bit, is just to show that our banks are expanding through the world, and other banks have already set up here in Canada. I'm not sure why you're pushing to say that Harper wanted the banks here to crash, do you really think that?

Remember the quote: "There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime,”

What should we read into that then?

http://prudentpress.com/finance/the-banking-empire-deregulation-of-canadas-financial-industry-pt-3/

 

[ashkan]

Iranian-Canadiantech founder donates $1,000,000 to fight Bill C-51.

"He recalled a childhood of frequent admonitions to watch what he said on the phone for fear of someone listening in, and said life in Canada offered an escape from such thinking. Newcomers to the country today, he said, may not find the same respite."

Yet some Canadians dont seem to get what a dangerous bill this is!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...llion-of-own-money-to-overturn-bill-c-51.html

 

[Baggsy]

Iranian-Canadiantech founder donates $1,000,000 to fight Bill C-51.

"He recalled a childhood of frequent admonitions to watch what he said on the phone for fear of someone listening in, and said life in Canada offered an escape from such thinking. Newcomers to the country today, he said, may not find the same respite."

Yet some Canadians dont seem to get what a dangerous bill this is!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...llion-of-own-money-to-overturn-bill-c-51.html

I'm not really getting your point.
Are you saying that our previous anti-terror legislation was enough, that we don't need any, or something else?

 

[mxs]

Did the other parties say they will cancel the TPP?

NDP = Yes, two minutes after they are elected, or so Tom has said
LIB = will see, need to see the fine print. I read it as, we will pinch our node and keep it

Having said that, once these things are signed, it's almost impossible to do anything about it (you know the not so far NAFTA agreement right?), regardless what parties promise in dire election hours. The only, very slim, hope would be that US will halt it through their legislative powers and somehow it will render the Canada's signature in question. No idea whether Canada signing and US not is somehow mutually exclusive.

 

[mxs]

I'm not really getting your point.
Are you saying that our previous anti-terror legislation was enough, that we don't need any, or something else?

Anti-terror .. I mean real anti-terror policies based on facts, not a political ambitions and fear, sure. Not the thing the Conservative government has come with, basically give a lot of power to agencies who never should be left without a rigorous oversight. It's like Harper has learned nothing from the US ... all of that because one lunatic threatening the hill in Ottawa.

 

[Neil_V]

I believe that you're saying that Harper wanted to blah, blah, blah, since he has a majority, and everyone supposedly walks in lock-step with him, then he would have done it; it's as simple as that. I get really tired of duplicitous arguments. On the one hand he was going to do A, so that's bad, on the other hand, what he actually did shouldn't count, because of A.

I believe what he was actually saying is Harper wanted to "blah, blah blah", but due to a Minority, he was unable to push his agenda. Months later when the recession hit and we were spared some of the issues faced by other markets, Harper stood up and said "Look. I saved the day" which would not have been the case had his attempt to further deregulate the banks made it through to legislation.

 

[mxs]

The guy will say anything these days ... he fabricates "facts" at will on daily basis to keep people voting for him. Some will some won't.

 

[Boots]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stephen-harper-master-manipulator

Great article on the wonderful things from the Harper government. I don't know about you, but 4 more years of this is actually scary to think about. And I don't mean to put that into a Harper fear sentence.

 

[ashkan]

I'm not really getting your point.
Are you saying that our previous anti-terror legislation was enough, that we don't need any, or something else?

The anti-terror law which passed in 2013 is unconstitutional as well because it allows for government officials to detain someone with NO need for evidence and to jail them without any public trial. Basically allows for kidnapping in nicer terminology.

Also, our charter of rights guarantees our right to privacy but of course Harper cant be bother with constitutional mmbojumbo!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/8-things-to-know-about-the-new-anti-terrorism-bill-1.1413346

And before people think this is for our own protection, remember NSA and remember that all tyrannical governments like Saudi Arabia have the same systems in place where in the name of "national security", then will spy on everyone and detain, jail and even deport(in Canada's case) anyone the deem against the government.

 

[Neil_V]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stephen-harper-master-manipulator

Great article on the wonderful things from the Harper government. I don't know about you, but 4 more years of this is actually scary to think about. And I don't mean to put that into a Harper fear sentence.

That's a good read for anyone arguing against the borderline Fascist policies and politics of the Harper regime

 

[ashkan]

That's a good read for anyone arguing against the borderline Fascist policies and politics of the Harper regime

Good read. but if someone is still ignoring that Harper is a crazy man, they wont change their mind because either they live in their own head or are willingly ignorant. Not sure which ones worse.

 

[Boots]

Good read. but if someone is still ignoring that Harper is a crazy man, they wont change their mind because either they live in their own head or are willingly ignorant. Not sure which ones worse.

This is true. It's sad actually that people would rather live in denial like this.

 

[Baggsy]

The problem here is that you're quoting a left wing British newspaper, isn't that living in your own little world?

 

[ashkan]

The problem here is that you're quoting a left wing British newspaper, isn't that living in your own little world?

while you have a point about how a leftist or a right leaning outlet would present the story in very different ways, facts are facts. Harper did pass the anti terror law in 2013 (which was drafter by liberals before him and never passed ATTN: Liberal voters). He did sign C-51 and then C-24 which did divide Canadians into two different classes of citizens(mind boggling to me) and now he is pushing a secret trade deal. So regardless of how papers represent the fact, the facts remain.

Leftist or right leaning paper are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

But here is another Canadian article on Harper.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/lett...e-master-of-hate-politics-hits-a-new-low.html

 

[Boots]

The problem here is that you're quoting a left wing British newspaper, isn't that living in your own little world?

Do they or don't they quote factual events that took place?

 

[mmmnaked]

Anti-terror .. I mean real anti-terror policies based on facts, not a political ambitions and fear, sure. Not the thing the Conservative government has come with, basically give a lot of power to agencies who never should be left without a rigorous oversight. It's like Harper has learned nothing from the US ... all of that because one lunatic threatening the hill in Ottawa.

There's also the slight chance that Harper, being privvy to all kinds of information we'll never see, actually learned plenty from the US and made the right call. Just sayin'. Such is the advantage of actually being Prime Minister, and not just a pretty face opposing him in an election.

 

[Baggsy]

The problem nowadays is that the media quotes facts interspersed with opinions.
The trick then becomes to separate the two.

It's only natural since columnists make more money that mere reporters,
so everyone wants to give their opinion of the news rather than the news itself.

We're also bottled up in our own little circles, that are getting tighter and tighter.
Google likes to narrow things down for you and give you choices, but as the types of things that you click on become known,
those choices become smaller and smaller. Everyone's search becomes highly personalized, or putting it another way censored.

 

[Jayv]

while you have a point about how a leftist or a right leaning outlet would present the story in very different ways, facts are facts. Harper did pass the anti terror law in 2013 (which was drafter by liberals before him and never passed ATTN: Liberal voters). He did sign C-51 and then C-24 which did divide Canadians into two different classes of citizens(mind boggling to me) and now he is pushing a secret trade deal. So regardless of how papers represent the fact, the facts remain.

Leftist or right leaning paper are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

But here is another Canadian article on Harper.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/lett...e-master-of-hate-politics-hits-a-new-low.html

Wonder how Mulcair would deal with C-24 if the NDP won as he is also a dual citizen?

 

[mmmnaked]

Has Mulcair outlined in any detailed way how he's gonna fund their planned expenditures? I just read over their platform on the website again and its very spend-centric. Only mentions of black ink are "rich CEOs" and "corporate loopholes". Do NDP supporters think the middle class won't actually have to pay for "enhancing CPP", hiring 7000 more doctors and nurses, making one million childcare spaces, retrofitting 50,000 apartment buildings, etc?? Surely taxing a dozen CEOs won't bring in the billions necessary to make these dreams into reality?

Forum Sponsor