Federal politics

[Rob MacLennan]

Forum Sponsor

All I've been commenting on (attack? do you view this as a hostile exchange?) is that to say Harper is a liar but then to say you'll give Justin a chance simply because he hasn't run any attack ads seem to me to be a bit simplistic.

Keeping in mind that Harper was in the minority for the first term effectively making it a lame duck gubment, I think that overall Harper has done pretty well in terms of the economy (ya ya, he got a good economy from the Libs, of course Scheller will be quick to say Obama got a bad one from bush, sooooo, good economy the libs get credit, but the bad economy it's all Bush's fault down there, as usual the Libs wanting to have it both ways...)

I also think overall Harper has done well for foreign policy, turfing the LGR, I like keystone XL, etc.

Justin is going to run a US Style Obama campaign because he has the same plans for Canada as Obama had for the US, even using actual US issues to create his playbook here, even though we don't have the same issues (lost in space Justin??). I'd like to learn from the HUGE mistake that Obama has been in the US.

Maybe we should have a friendly wager as to whether or not Justin will honour his promise of not raising taxes (and of course you're smart enough to agree that other "fees/service charges/etc" are nothing more than taxes.)

And, back to my question about the "attack ads". Is there even a hint of truth in them at all? Cuz if there is, whazdaproblem???

I wasn't commenting upon the exchange being hostile, but rather on your debating tactic of constantly being on the attack, in order to avoid having to defend your chosen candidate.

I disagree that Harper has been good for the economy. He took the good economic state that he was given and then went on an immediate vote buying spending spree, that put our nation's economy in jeopardy. This was contrary to why he was voted in, and against his stated goals. If he had more time prior to the crash his actions would have buried this country.

He may have had a minority government but he behaved as if he had a majority, and for some unknown reason the opposition parties let him get away with it. This has been well documented and was, in fact, his plan for governance. Fortunately for us it takes longer to break a good economy, than it does to recover from a broken one. We've already seen evidence of that and I don't envy whoever comes after the Provincial Liberals, for this reason, as it will be as tough a recovery as Harris had after Rae.

Creating the LGR was theatre. Similarly it's elimination was theatre. The information has not been deleted and at this point at least Quebec is saying that they'll be keeping it. Keystone will never happen, unless the Americans complete it. Foreign policy is all well and good, if you actually believe that he's been good for it (I'm on the fence there), but what happens at home is the priority.

And whether Trudeau is the author of the "American issue debate" is questionable, at best, when he's required to comment on issues that have been created, or conflated by the Conservatives. They want to go the American way on mandatory minimum sentences, increased prison time, and the 'war on drugs.' Mandatory minimums have, in this country, largely been the cause of the multiples for pre sentencing time served that the Conservatives have been fighting against. Increased prison time is immaterial if our system is far more effective than theirs, as it subjectively can be proved to be, through simple numerical analysis. America has lost the 'war on drugs', because they've put themselves in the poor house by trying to over charge and over sentence for relatively innocuous drugs like pot.

 

[inreb]

The Keystone XL pipeline is a critical infrastructure project for energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy. Oil is coming out of the tar sands, that's a given. Canada has the opportunity to assure it's energy independence for a very long time. Canada can build it's own refineries, creating many jobs. That Canada is so shorted sighted to accept short term gain to give the US energy security without at least demanding refineries at home is treasonous. Go Harperottytrain1:

 

[Schneller]

The Keystone XL pipeline is a critical infrastructure project for energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy. Oil is coming out of the tar sands, that's a given. Canada has the opportunity to assure it's energy independence for a very long time. Canada can build it's own refineries, creating many jobs. That Canada is so shorted sighted to accept short term gain to give the US energy security without at least demanding refineries at home is treasonous. Go Harperottytrain1:

Totally agree. The decision not to create a secondary industry for Canada's oil may be a symptom of large multinational companies having greater power than a national government.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Totally agree. The decision not to create a secondary industry for Canada's oil may be a symptom of large multinational companies having greater power than a national government.

Can you please explain why Obama (whom you like) wouldn't take a golden opportunity to do what inreb states about XL being "a critical infrastructure project for energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy"

Assuming what inreb says is true (which I believe it to be), why would Obama knowingly/actively be against XL?

 

[Snobike Mike]

I wasn't commenting upon the exchange being hostile, but rather on your debating tactic of constantly being on the attack, in order to avoid having to defend your chosen candidate.

I disagree that Harper has been good for the economy. He took the good economic state that he was given and then went on an immediate vote buying spending spree, that put our nation's economy in jeopardy. This was contrary to why he was voted in, and against his stated goals. If he had more time prior to the crash his actions would have buried this country.

He may have had a minority government but he behaved as if he had a majority, and for some unknown reason the opposition parties let him get away with it. This has been well documented and was, in fact, his plan for governance. Fortunately for us it takes longer to break a good economy, than it does to recover from a broken one. We've already seen evidence of that and I don't envy whoever comes after the Provincial Liberals, for this reason, as it will be as tough a recovery as Harris had after Rae.

Creating the LGR was theatre. Similarly it's elimination was theatre. The information has not been deleted and at this point at least Quebec is saying that they'll be keeping it. Keystone will never happen, unless the Americans complete it. Foreign policy is all well and good, if you actually believe that he's been good for it (I'm on the fence there), but what happens at home is the priority.

And whether Trudeau is the author of the "American issue debate" is questionable, at best, when he's required to comment on issues that have been created, or conflated by the Conservatives. They want to go the American way on mandatory minimum sentences, increased prison time, and the 'war on drugs.' Mandatory minimums have, in this country, largely been the cause of the multiples for pre sentencing time served that the Conservatives have been fighting against. Increased prison time is immaterial if our system is far more effective than theirs, as it subjectively can be proved to be, through simple numerical analysis. America has lost the 'war on drugs', because they've put themselves in the poor house by trying to over charge and over sentence for relatively innocuous drugs like pot.

So the long and the short of it is, they are all bad, because as you've pointed out, even the Libs and Dippers supposedly allowed Harper to run a minority as a majority. I also fail to see how any other party would have done better than Harper on all of the items you/I have noted (foreign policy - turdo is already becoming a laughing stock just like his idol Obama, keystone, economy, LGR would still be here, etc).

No doubt the LGR was theatre by the Libs that cost billions. But at least the Cons kept their promise to get rid of it.

Regarding Harper somehow not being good for the economy, I fail to see how he hasn't. The world has been melting down around us, and we've been relatively okay. To credit the Libs actions almost 7 years ago when the worldwide economy was so much stronger but discredit Harper keeping our economy above the tide is bordering on incredulous.

I don't think I said Trudeau was the author of the "American issue debate", what I said is that he is using Obama advisors to prepare/run his campaign (assuming he ever comes up with a platform) and at the convention he was actually talking about how to solve middle class problems that were clearly out of the American playbook when we don't have said problems up here, certainly not to the extent that he claimed. Of course that just shows not only the ignorance by Americans about our problems (also due to their arrogance) but also shows the stupidity of Trudeau in doing so. This is just the tip of the iceberg, of all people Rob, I would expect someone who is as well studied as yourself to at least consider the ramifications of such a strategy faux-pax.

Oh well, history will unfold.

Back to my gentleman's bet, do you think Trudeau will, for real, honour his promise to not raise taxes?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So the long and the short of it is, they are all bad, because as you've pointed out, even the Libs and Dippers supposedly allowed Harper to run a minority as a majority. I also fail to see how any other party would have done better than Harper on all of the items you/I have noted (foreign policy - turdo is already becoming a laughing stock just like his idol Obama, keystone, economy, LGR would still be here, etc).

No doubt the LGR was theatre by the Libs that cost billions. But at least the Cons kept their promise to get rid of it.

Regarding Harper somehow not being good for the economy, I fail to see how he hasn't. The world has been melting down around us, and we've been relatively okay. To credit the Libs actions almost 7 years ago when the worldwide economy was so much stronger but discredit Harper keeping our economy above the tide is bordering on incredulous.

I don't think I said Trudeau was the author of the "American issue debate", what I said is that he is using Obama advisors to prepare/run his campaign (assuming he ever comes up with a platform) and at the convention he was actually talking about how to solve middle class problems that were clearly out of the American playbook when we don't have said problems up here, certainly not to the extent that he claimed. Of course that just shows not only the ignorance by Americans about our problems (also due to their arrogance) but also shows the stupidity of Trudeau in doing so. This is just the tip of the iceberg, of all people Rob, I would expect someone who is as well studied as yourself to at least consider the ramifications of such a strategy faux-pax.

Oh well, history will unfold.

Back to my gentleman's bet, do you think Trudeau will, for real, honour his promise to not raise taxes?

If you think that we're in good shape now then imagine what sort of shape we would be in if Harper hadn't gone on his vote buying spending spree, just after he was elected for the first time. Fortunes are made and lost during economic downturns and which way it goes, depends upon how you've positioned yourself. We were poorly positioned, and so couldn't take advantage of it. Oddly enough we would have been in a better economic position if the Liberals had still been in power because, barring the Quebec arm of the party, they have proven themselves to be better stewards of the public purse than have the Conservatives. That, alone, should be a big slap in the face to the Conservatives, but no one seems to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

Do I think that Trudeau won't raise taxes? Well he's a politician and a Liberal, so no. Do I think that he deserves a chance to keep his promises, given that the Conservatives have shown that they have no respect for us and have screwed us over for the better part of a decade? Yes. Of the two, I'll take Trudeau.

 

[Snobike Mike]

If you think that we're in good shape now then imagine what sort of shape we would be in if Harper hadn't gone on his vote buying spending spree, just after he was elected for the first time. Fortunes are made and lost during economic downturns and which way it goes, depends upon how you've positioned yourself. We were poorly positioned, and so couldn't take advantage of it. Oddly enough we would have been in a better economic position if the Liberals had still been in power because, barring the Quebec arm of the party, they have proven themselves to be better stewards of the public purse than have the Conservatives. That, alone, should be a big slap in the face to the Conservatives, but no one seems to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

Do I think that Trudeau won't raise taxes? Well he's a politician and a Liberal, so no. Do I think that he deserves a chance to keep his promises, given that the Conservatives have shown that they have no respect for us and have screwed us over for the better part of a decade? Yes. Of the two, I'll take Trudeau.

The good news is you get to vote for whomever you like. To me, with the already clear incompetence that Justin has shown and he doesn't even have a formal platform, should far outweigh the fact that Harper lied. Justin will lie, it's only a matter of time which means that Harper is a liar, and so will Justin, so we're back to what else can we go on?

Considering it appears from the convention that Justin is whipping up the good old boys club and their elitist "we know better than you" and his Quebec pandering, we're right back to the good old Liberal party we always knew. How that doesn't scare the crap out of you amazes me......(I don't think being angry that the cons are to left than they should be is sufficient rationalization to choose the LIbs, but that's just me)

Nevertheless, based on how the world economy is going, having Justin in power while it hits the fan will an interesting watch. Of course Libs will blame Harper (just like they blame bush down south) for their (upcoming) problems.

Fortunately Justin still has time to put his foot in his mouth a few thousand more times before the election.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The good news is you get to vote for whomever you like. To me, with the already clear incompetence that Justin has shown and he doesn't even have a formal platform, should far outweigh the fact that Harper lied. Justin will lie, it's only a matter of time which means that Harper is a liar, and so will Justin, so we're back to what else can we go on?

Considering it appears from the convention that Justin is whipping up the good old boys club and their elitist "we know better than you" and his Quebec pandering, we're right back to the good old Liberal party we always knew. How that doesn't scare the crap out of you amazes me......(I don't think being angry that the cons are to left than they should be is sufficient rationalization to choose the LIbs, but that's just me)

Nevertheless, based on how the world economy is going, having Justin in power while it hits the fan will an interesting watch. Of course Libs will blame Harper (just like they blame bush down south) for their (upcoming) problems.

Fortunately Justin still has time to put his foot in his mouth a few thousand more times before the election.

I sucked it up and ignored Harper's many gaffs and lack of experience, back when I voted for him the first time. You can see that in one of two ways; either I never should have voted for him in the first place and just given the Liberals another mandate after they had screwed us over, or I looked past the mistakes of inexperience and gave him a chance. The choice is now the same. If you will give the one a chance and not the other then your decision is based solely on political dogma and theatre, rather than reason.

 

[Snobike Mike]

I sucked it up and ignored Harper's many gaffs and lack of experience, back when I voted for him the first time. You can see that in one of two ways; either I never should have voted for him in the first place and just given the Liberals another mandate after they had screwed us over, or I looked past the mistakes of inexperience and gave him a chance. The choice is now the same. If you will give the one a chance and not the other then your decision is based solely on political dogma and theatre, rather than reason.

Maybe the better solution is to have a new Cons leader because of your angst for Harper, vote them in, and then at least we have a party that is right of the Libs/Dippers.

Now to be truthful, I'm going to make a claim I haven't fully researched, but I think that Harper had more political experience when he first got in than Justin has now no?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Maybe the better solution is to have a new Cons leader because of your angst for Harper, vote them in, and then at least we have a party that is right of the Libs/Dippers.

Now to be truthful, I'm going to make a claim I haven't fully researched, but I think that Harper had more political experience when he first got in than Justin has now no?

Harper was the Reform Party's chief policy wonk in '88-'92. He became a MP for the Reform Party in (IIRC) '93. Roughly 10 years later he was the Prime Minister.

Trudeau started really working with the Liberal Party around 2003 though, like Harper, he'd been kicking around politics long before that. He chaired the Liberals' "renewal task force" starting in 2006. He's been a MP since 2008.

So if you look back at their beginnings, there really isn't a whole lot of difference there. Maybe 5 years real experience. The learning curve is pretty steep.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Harper was the Reform Party's chief policy wonk in '88-'92. He became a MP for the Reform Party in (IIRC) '93. Roughly 10 years later he was the Prime Minister.

Trudeau started really working with the Liberal Party around 2003 though, like Harper, he'd been kicking around politics long before that. He chaired the Liberals' "renewal task force" starting in 2006. He's been a MP since 2008.

So if you look back at their beginnings, there really isn't a whole lot of difference there. Maybe 5 years real experience. The learning curve is pretty steep.

Interesting to know. Thanks.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Reported by the Ceeb....

Zach Paikin criticizes Justin Trudeau as he ends Liberal nomination bid

Justin Trudeau broke open nomination promise, Paikin says in ending bid to run for Liberals

Mar 17, 2014 5:07 PM ET
Laura Payton, CBC News

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has broken his promise to hold open nominations to find Liberal candidates for the 2015 federal election, Zach Paikin said Monday as he ended his bid to become one of those candidates.

Paikin, 22, had announced just a month ago that he would run for the Liberal nomination in the newly created federal riding of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas. Two years ago, Paikin ran to be the federal Liberal Party's policy chair. He's the son of TVO journalist Steve Paikin, who has moderated televised debates of the federal party leaders.

When he announced his plan to run for the nomination in Hamilton, Paikin said on Facebook that he believed Trudeau had what it takes to be the next prime minister.

On Monday, Paikin said he was withdrawing in protest because Trudeau broke a key promise by blocking potential candidate Christine Innes from running in Trinity-Spadina to replace Olivia Chow. Chow is running for mayor of Toronto.

Paikin hadn't yet submitted his nomination papers, the Liberals told CBC News.

"I cannot, in good conscience, campaign to be a part of a team of candidates if others seeking to join that team are prevented from doing so if their ideas or ambitions run contrary to the party leader's interest," Paikin said in a statement posted to Facebook.

'Party-wide toxicity'

"I am a strong believer in our country's founding democratic principles, including: Parliament as a place for dialogue, a government that is accountable to Parliament, and party leaders who remain accountable to their respective caucuses (not vice versa). I am particularly troubled by the fact that our leader has discarded some of those principles ultimately in order to protect a star candidate," Paikin said.

The federal Liberals say Innes's husband, former Liberal MP Tony Ianno, tried to bully Liberal members in Toronto into supporting Innes over new MP Chrystia Freeland.

The problems stem from the new electoral boundaries drawn for the October 2015 election. The riding of Trinity Spadina will be split between Fort York-Spadina and University-Rosedale, leaving whoever wins the byelection to replace Chow having to find a different riding in which to run next year.

"Stephen Harper is 'Exhibit A' of what happens when a leader compromises on his democratic principles in order to win power. I feel it important to speak up as forcefully as I can so that the party I care about doesn't go down the same road," Paikin said in his statement.

"Blocking nomination bids is what creates the party-wide toxicity we seek to avoid."

 

[Schneller]

It seems that he has his reasons to block this potential candidate. I'm not saying if I think it's right or wrong, just that there is a rationale behind it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...ite-banning-a-candidate-over-bullying-claims/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...chows-former-riding-over-bullying-complaints/

 

[Snobike Mike]

It seems that he has his reasons to block this potential candidate. I'm not saying if I think it's right or wrong, just that there is a rationale behind it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...ite-banning-a-candidate-over-bullying-claims/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...chows-former-riding-over-bullying-complaints/

Good point.

I'm just pointing out that Justin broke a promise. The guy in question also points out that essentially towing the party line is the only way or the highway with the party leader.

These are both things that Harper has been lambasted for, but the den is thick as thieves it would seem.

The Fed story will be interesting over the next 1-2 years.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Good point.

I'm just pointing out that Justin broke a promise. The guy in question also points out that essentially towing the party line is the only way or the highway with the party leader.

These are both things that Harper has been lambasted for, but the den is thick as thieves it would seem.

The Fed story will be interesting over the next 1-2 years.

Breaking a promise is bad. Doing something wrong is worse. I don't get on Harper's back for breaking his promise about income trusts, because it would have been worse to keep it. I do hold him accountable for breaking his promises about floor crossings and 'open and honest government', though, because there is no downside for the electorate if he'd kept them.

 

[Schneller]

Union for federal scientists breaks neutrality, will campaign against Harper


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/unio...mpaign-against-harper-1.2093214#ixzz3JIF1xw3M

there seem to be 2 points of contention

-the government has targeted "the very existence of unions and collective bargaining."

-scientists who claimed they had been asked to exclude or alter information in government documents for non-scientific reasons. And thousands more said they'd been prevented from talking freely about their work with the media or the public.


The second point bothers me the most.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

mark your ballet in protest

I figured just not going to the ballet was protest enough. I didn't realize I had to sign anything. How about if I go but sleep through it? The Nutcracker's coming up soon, but that damn cannon will probably wake me up.

 

[inreb]

I figured just not going to the ballet was protest enough. I didn't realize I had to sign anything. How about if I go but sleep through it? The Nutcracker's coming up soon, but that damn cannon will probably wake me up.

Don't be coy, didn't I just see a recent picture of you at the ballet with Gary? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Don't be coy, didn't I just see a recent picture of you at the ballet with Gary? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Galley, maybe. Ballet, no.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Union for federal scientists breaks neutrality, will campaign against Harper


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/unio...mpaign-against-harper-1.2093214#ixzz3JIF1xw3M

there seem to be 2 points of contention

-the government has targeted "the very existence of unions and collective bargaining."

-scientists who claimed they had been asked to exclude or alter information in government documents for non-scientific reasons. And thousands more said they'd been prevented from talking freely about their work with the media or the public.


The second point bothers me the most.

Well at this point a scientist is either a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party agenda, or he wears a muzzle. That's not how science is supposed to work.

Take a look at the latest ads about pot; obvious shilling for the Conservatives, masquerading as 'public service announcements.'

Forum Sponsor