You know what's fun? being told an entire side of the political spectrum is wrong, and being lumped into that group. As someone who identifies center-slightly right, I've never really felt unwelcome in this thread until tonight. It's pretty disheartening to have what I believe are reasonable views marginalised because I get lumped in with the same group that Trump, Leitch, etc are in.
I'm taking a break from this thread. There clearly isn't room for opinion that doesn't match the majority here.
I'll leave it on this positive note: Rollup the rim started today, I'm 0/1, I think I went 0/25 last year, so I'm really hoping I like, win a donut or something this year. That'd be nice, considering it's the only time I actually go to Tim Horton's.
Nobody said a thing about what you believe or think. You were never mentioned by anyone.
But it's foolish to pretend like the right-wing as an organized political structure is not a terrible extremist threat to our free and democratic society.
I mean as the first example I can think of, Harper fucking muzzled all our scientists and forced them to seek political approval for communication with the public. Where's the good in this? Where's the equivalent on the left?
I don't know what you actually believe and it's not relevant to my point. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the Conservative party and the Republican party and the Tories and National Front and so on. I'm talking about right-wing politics as it exists in the western world as an actual organized political entity.
Well, based on the radical leftists that I know, the FAR left would probably also muzzle some scientists as well as economists, foreign policy analysts, military officials. But the NDP wouldn't, which is the distinction here.
I'd love to hear this allegedly good policy that has come out of the right wing in contemporary times.
NAFTA.
HM. I'm not sure I can award points for Bush Sr. policy, given where he currently fits on the modern political spectrum, but I'll allow it.
So, on the one hand we have NAFTA.
On the other hand we have institutionalized homophobia, racism, fundamentalist Christianity and misogyny.
HM.
Looking pretty good for the conservatives.
Oh. I was thinking Canadian, so was going through the Wiki pages of Mulroney, Clark, and Harper. Uhh uhhh... John Tory's come out for road tolls? Does that count?
Ummm, Harper expanded our Arctic military presence? (Or intended to, anyways.)
This kind of stuff exposes the Liberal party to getting defeated by people who 'get it done'. If you can't believe that a party will deliver on its core promises, then you'll be vulnerable to someone who doesn't use facts like Donald Trump or someone who has a history of doing what he says like Rob Ford.
Another danger is disillusionment-people who were excited to vote for Trudeau won't show up. Unlike Obama, he has a clear majority to pass his agenda.
If the conservatives run a generic politician, then the Liberal party probably will win the next election, but if they run someone like Kevin O'Leary or Leitch, then the Liberals might run into trouble.
Having voted for Trudeau, I'm disappointed. However, if someone is running like Kevin O'Leary, who I can trust to do what he says, then I'll vote for them.
You know what's fun? being told an entire side of the political spectrum is wrong, and being lumped into that group. As someone who identifies center-slightly right, I've never really felt unwelcome in this thread until tonight. It's pretty disheartening to have what I believe are reasonable views marginalised because I get lumped in with the same group that Trump, Leitch, etc are in.
I'm taking a break from this thread. There clearly isn't room for opinion that doesn't match the majority here.
I'll leave it on this positive note: Rollup the rim started today, I'm 0/1, I think I went 0/25 last year, so I'm really hoping I like, win a donut or something this year. That'd be nice, considering it's the only time I actually go to Tim Horton's.
Nobody said a thing about what you believe or think. You were never mentioned by anyone.
But it's foolish to pretend like the right-wing as an organized political structure is not a terrible extremist threat to our free and democratic society.
I mean as the first example I can think of, Harper fucking muzzled all our scientists and forced them to seek political approval for communication with the public. Where's the good in this? Where's the equivalent on the left?
I don't know what you actually believe and it's not relevant to my point. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the Conservative party and the Republican party and the Tories and National Front and so on. I'm talking about right-wing politics as it exists in the western world as an actual organized political entity.
Well, based on the radical leftists that I know, the FAR left would probably also muzzle some scientists as well as economists, foreign policy analysts, military officials. But the NDP wouldn't, which is the distinction here.
I'd love to hear this allegedly good policy that has come out of the right wing in contemporary times.
NAFTA.
HM. I'm not sure I can award points for Bush Sr. policy, given where he currently fits on the modern political spectrum, but I'll allow it.
So, on the one hand we have NAFTA.
On the other hand we have institutionalized homophobia, racism, fundamentalist Christianity and misogyny.
HM.
Looking pretty good for the conservatives.
Oh. I was thinking Canadian, so was going through the Wiki pages of Mulroney, Clark, and Harper. Uhh uhhh... John Tory's come out for road tolls? Does that count?
Ummm, Harper expanded our Arctic military presence? (Or intended to, anyways.)
Mulroney was a bit player in NAFTA; it was the U.S. that was the lynchpin of the trade deal.
I would maybe be willing to award points to Harper for trying to protect Canadian interests in the arctic, except he bought aircraft completely ill suited for the job and slashed the budgets of the organizations with boots actually on the ground up north.
I personally voted for Trudeau despite his electoral reform pledge (though I hoped he would have just done the classic referendum + not try very hard to win it approach instead of just blatantly ditching it, though I guess this way is more honest). The reason is due to exactly the sentiment expressed above where the main goal of some here is explicitly to shut the Conservatives out of power.
Even if electoral reform went through and did indeed shut the Conservatives out in the near term, eventually the voting population will, at some time, get sick of the left-of-centre (all governments fall prey to sclerosis after a lengthy time in office) and eventually vote a right-of-centre government in. And when that happened, if they had been shut out due to electoral shenanigans, you can bet that they would have no mercy in changing the electoral system to something that heavily favors them as one of their number one goals. Frankly, we don't need that in Canada, and I'm willing to endure the occasional right-of-centre government as the price of maintaining the legitimacy of the electoral system.
I'd love to hear this allegedly good policy that has come out of the right wing in contemporary times.
I liked the free money they gave me (home reno tax credit, book credit, GST reduction), though I would have gotten along fine without it.
Honestly I think if conservatives ditched their toxic social policies and anti-"old stock" Canadian bullshit they'd have a lot more support.
This was basically the old PC party. The issue is that the people that hold those types of social beliefs tend to really hold them strong, whereas most people are pretty flexible in fiscal matters. That being said, I will give props to Harper for keeping as far away from those social policies as he did (even if some did leak in as he got more desperate).
Blarghy on
0
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
I don't know why people keep saying the goal of electoral reform is to shut the right out.
It's not.
The reality is that it would shut the current Conservative party out of power.
And then...
The right would adapt in ways that are beneficial to all Canadians.
If you're on the right, it would encourage the Progressive Conservatives to re-emerge.
We had someone earlier on in the thread bow out because as a center-right thinker, they didn't like getting lumped in with Trump and Leitch.
Well guess what, there's a reason that center-right is lumped in with far-right (the reason is because there's no center-right party). Really you can't blame the left for lumping them together when that is what the right CHOSE TO DO! They CHOSE to be lumped together!
I digress.
On the left, it electoral reform allows for the elimination of strategic voting, which only the hugest assholes don't see as a problem with the current system.
If you don't identify as right or left? You're set too. Now there are more parties with more diverse viewpoints for you to hopefully identify with.
So really, STV only 'blocks out' the right if you think that the way the Conservatives function now is some perfect working machine that would be irreperably broken if they had to actually adapt their party make-up to fit with modern political needs.
I don't want to shut out the right, but I do seriously think that STV is better than FPTP and it only hurts the right if they let it.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
+10
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
Well, it would also hurt the right because Canadians as a whole lean to the left but God forbid we try to implement a system that more accurately reflects the will of the people.
Even if electoral reform went through and did indeed shut the Conservatives out in the near term, eventually the voting population will, at some time, get sick of the left-of-centre (all governments fall prey to sclerosis after a lengthy time in office) and eventually vote a right-of-centre government in. And when that happened, if they had been shut out due to electoral shenanigans, you can bet that they would have no mercy in changing the electoral system to something that heavily favors them as one of their number one goals. Frankly, we don't need that in Canada, and I'm willing to endure the occasional right-of-centre government as the price of maintaining the legitimacy of the electoral system.
Any evidence at all that this can't happen today?
There is nothing stopping the party from doing it except for the fact that this is the system where they are most likely to succeed. It just happens to be the system that throws sand in the face of 60+% of Canadians. Bully for them I guess.
Things are fine because terrible governments that are not representative of the majority of Canadians can come into power? This is the argument being put forward here?
We're definitely in a couple of camps here in this thread.
1. Things are working as they should and / or it's too dangerous to change
2. Things are not working as they should and change is necessary despite difficulty / risk
I'd love to hear this allegedly good policy that has come out of the right wing in contemporary times.
NAFTA.
HM. I'm not sure I can award points for Bush Sr. policy, given where he currently fits on the modern political spectrum, but I'll allow it.
So, on the one hand we have NAFTA.
On the other hand we have institutionalized homophobia, racism, fundamentalist Christianity and misogyny.
HM.
Looking pretty good for the conservatives.
Oh. I was thinking Canadian, so was going through the Wiki pages of Mulroney, Clark, and Harper. Uhh uhhh... John Tory's come out for road tolls? Does that count?
Ummm, Harper expanded our Arctic military presence? (Or intended to, anyways.)
Mulroney was actually one of our better PMs. Just off the top of my head:
- NAFTA, as was already mentioned.
- He stood up to Reagan and Thatcher who wanted to label Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
- He instituted the GST, which was of course hugely unpopular but was economically necessary.
- He gave us our last serious, legitimate attempt at constitutional changes.
- He made Canada the first industrialized country to sign on to the UN climate change convention.
That said, I really can't label him a modern right-wing. The PC he led no longer exists, and a politician like him would get kicked out of the CPC in a heartbeat.
I don't know why people keep saying the goal of electoral reform is to shut the right out.
It's not.
The reality is that it would shut the current Conservative party out of power.
And then...
The right would adapt in ways that are beneficial to all Canadians.
If you're on the right, it would encourage the Progressive Conservatives to re-emerge.
We had someone earlier on in the thread bow out because as a center-right thinker, they didn't like getting lumped in with Trump and Leitch.
Well guess what, there's a reason that center-right is lumped in with far-right (the reason is because there's no center-right party). Really you can't blame the left for lumping them together when that is what the right CHOSE TO DO! They CHOSE to be lumped together!
I digress.
On the left, it electoral reform allows for the elimination of strategic voting, which only the hugest assholes don't see as a problem with the current system.
If you don't identify as right or left? You're set too. Now there are more parties with more diverse viewpoints for you to hopefully identify with.
So really, STV only 'blocks out' the right if you think that the way the Conservatives function now is some perfect working machine that would be irreperably broken if they had to actually adapt their party make-up to fit with modern political needs.
I don't want to shut out the right, but I do seriously think that STV is better than FPTP and it only hurts the right if they let it.
The advantage of reform would be that you can't form a government without having some support from the most liberal 60% of the population (and also the most conservative 60%), as opposed to the current 40% God-Emperor threshold. Tying it to a specific party doesn't really work as there would probably be some reorganization if we implement anything. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the left-wing parties (Green, NDP, Liberal) gets cannibalized, and the fate of the Bloc would be entirely up in the air (STV: how many places will actually give them 50% support; PR: Would they even be willing to join a government, and who would vote for them if not?)
This election reform was my last straw as he's broken more promises I cared about then he's kept.
So no more voting for centrist who throw what I care about under the bus
I mean, I'm still beholden to the strategic vote at the end of the day; if I have to vote Liberal to prevent a Tory win (kind of dubious right now, but you never know how the winds may change), I'll do it.
But I have no confidence in the Liberals anymore. Strategic voters aren't common; most people will just walk off when they feel betrayed like this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this move resigns Trudeau to a single term, effectively imprisoned by the rigid system he just helped to immortalize. Tories will laugh all the way to the bank.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
This election reform was my last straw as he's broken more promises I cared about then he's kept.
So no more voting for centrist who throw what I care about under the bus
I mean, I'm still beholden to the strategic vote at the end of the day; if I have to vote Liberal to prevent a Tory win (kind of dubious right now, but you never know how the winds may change), I'll do it.
But I have no confidence in the Liberals anymore. Strategic voters aren't common; most people will just walk off when they feel betrayed like this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this move resigns Trudeau to a single term, effectively imprisoned by the rigid system he just helped to immortalize. Tories will laugh all the way to the bank.
This assumes people care about this issue that much.
You know what's fun? being told an entire side of the political spectrum is wrong, and being lumped into that group. As someone who identifies center-slightly right, I've never really felt unwelcome in this thread until tonight. It's pretty disheartening to have what I believe are reasonable views marginalised because I get lumped in with the same group that Trump, Leitch, etc are in.
I'm taking a break from this thread. There clearly isn't room for opinion that doesn't match the majority here.
I'll leave it on this positive note: Rollup the rim started today, I'm 0/1, I think I went 0/25 last year, so I'm really hoping I like, win a donut or something this year. That'd be nice, considering it's the only time I actually go to Tim Horton's.
Nobody said a thing about what you believe or think. You were never mentioned by anyone.
But it's foolish to pretend like the right-wing as an organized political structure is not a terrible extremist threat to our free and democratic society.
I mean as the first example I can think of, Harper fucking muzzled all our scientists and forced them to seek political approval for communication with the public. Where's the good in this? Where's the equivalent on the left?
I don't know what you actually believe and it's not relevant to my point. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the Conservative party and the Republican party and the Tories and National Front and so on. I'm talking about right-wing politics as it exists in the western world as an actual organized political entity.
Well, based on the radical leftists that I know, the FAR left would probably also muzzle some scientists as well as economists, foreign policy analysts, military officials. But the NDP wouldn't, which is the distinction here.
Who are these people exactly?
Anti-Vax
Anti-Hospital Birth (Home birth is fine, until something goes wrong and you need a hospital)
Anti-GMO (people that dont understand the difference between GMO, and the patent fuckery that GMO rights holders utilize)
Anti-Free Trade
Naturalpath etc (These ones personally enrage me as one is currently in the process of killing a cousin of mine)
This election reform was my last straw as he's broken more promises I cared about then he's kept.
So no more voting for centrist who throw what I care about under the bus
I mean, I'm still beholden to the strategic vote at the end of the day; if I have to vote Liberal to prevent a Tory win (kind of dubious right now, but you never know how the winds may change), I'll do it.
But I have no confidence in the Liberals anymore. Strategic voters aren't common; most people will just walk off when they feel betrayed like this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this move resigns Trudeau to a single term, effectively imprisoned by the rigid system he just helped to immortalize. Tories will laugh all the way to the bank.
This assumes people care about this issue that much.
People in my parents' generation - the generation that actually goes to vote when there isn't a big Hopium campaign, like when the Liberals are already incumbent and thus can't promise CHANGE! - care about whether or not a politician is a 'liar'. That can mean a lot of things and can be easily spun, but having a gigantic and really damn obvious campaign promise broken makes Trudeau a big fat liar to them (even if they didn't care about the policy itself).
Perhaps it won't stick, because we're still pretty early in the term & whatever disaster happens down south will no doubt impact how politics progress up here, but if the Tories can make it stick they will absolutely be able to cash that shit it.
The last thing you wanna be thought of as when the Boomers go to the polls is a liar.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
Yeah, sorry, that was some reading between the lines on my part, but I mean, c'mon. Why is that even a bet to hedge? Like really, you're going to lead a political party or the country from a different one? Why be cagey about it?
This election reform was my last straw as he's broken more promises I cared about then he's kept.
So no more voting for centrist who throw what I care about under the bus
I mean, I'm still beholden to the strategic vote at the end of the day; if I have to vote Liberal to prevent a Tory win (kind of dubious right now, but you never know how the winds may change), I'll do it.
But I have no confidence in the Liberals anymore. Strategic voters aren't common; most people will just walk off when they feel betrayed like this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this move resigns Trudeau to a single term, effectively imprisoned by the rigid system he just helped to immortalize. Tories will laugh all the way to the bank.
This assumes people care about this issue that much.
People in my parents' generation - the generation that actually goes to vote when there isn't a big Hopium campaign, like when the Liberals are already incumbent and thus can't promise CHANGE! - care about whether or not a politician is a 'liar'. That can mean a lot of things and can be easily spun, but having a gigantic and really damn obvious campaign promise broken makes Trudeau a big fat liar to them (even if they didn't care about the policy itself).
Perhaps it won't stick, because we're still pretty early in the term & whatever disaster happens down south will no doubt impact how politics progress up here, but if the Tories can make it stick they will absolutely be able to cash that shit it.
The last thing you wanna be thought of as when the Boomers go to the polls is a liar.
Yeah but perception and reality have little to no connection here.
And this is, again, an issue Canadians don't appear to feel that strongly about. That's kinda the whole problem.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Yeah, sorry, that was some reading between the lines on my part, but I mean, c'mon. Why is that even a bet to hedge? Like really, you're going to lead a political party or the country from a different one? Why be cagey about it?
Counter argument is that he may feel it is such a silly question that it doesn't deserve an answer. If you're the PM of course you are going to live in Canada, why would anyone question otherwise?
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
The Boston quote is from October. Seems to me like the dots being connected are spaced quite far apart. I hope he doesn't move to Canada. He'd be done before he started then.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
The Boston quote is from October. Seems to me like the dots being connected are spaced quite far apart. I hope he doesn't move to Canada. He'd be done before he started then.
Don't. Just don't. This is exactly what people in the US were saying about Trump every single misstep he took, and see where that got them. Do not underestimate the far-right's party loyalty and unwavering commitment to power for power's sake.
Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of the CPC base won't see living in the USA or loving America more than Canada as a weakness for their candidate. They'll see it as a strength.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
The Boston quote is from October. Seems to me like the dots being connected are spaced quite far apart. I hope he doesn't move to Canada. He'd be done before he started then.
Don't. Just don't. This is exactly what people in the US were saying about Trump every single misstep he took, and see where that got them. Do not underestimate the far-right's party loyalty and unwavering commitment to power for power's sake.
Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of the CPC base won't see living in the USA or loving America more than Canada as a weakness for their candidate. They'll see it as a strength.
We have also been shown that attacking a candidate because they are horrible horrible people doesn't seem to matter... unless they are on the left then any misstep no matter how small will get the liberals to tear apart their own.
Also, before people decide that the failure of electoral reform proves Trudeau's government has been a failure, you should recall that:
1. He's only been in power for 1 out of 4 years.
2. Trudeau Metre indicates he has achieved or is making progress on about half of his 223 electoral promises.
I was as excited as everyone about electoral reform and disappointed enough by the news to make my first ever call to my MP, but let's keep some perspective here. There's more to governing a country than a single issue.
That same meter says he has broken nearly as many promises as he's kept. I know everyone here really hated Harper for various good reasons but objectively can you really say that Trudeau is living up to expectations?
Edit: The "in progress" line means pretty much nothing. Electoral reform was there two days ago and is now ditched.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
The Boston quote is from October. Seems to me like the dots being connected are spaced quite far apart. I hope he doesn't move to Canada. He'd be done before he started then.
Don't. Just don't. This is exactly what people in the US were saying about Trump every single misstep he took, and see where that got them. Do not underestimate the far-right's party loyalty and unwavering commitment to power for power's sake.
Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of the CPC base won't see living in the USA or loving America more than Canada as a weakness for their candidate. They'll see it as a strength.
We have also been shown that attacking a candidate because they are horrible horrible people doesn't seem to matter... unless they are on the left then any misstep no matter how small will get the liberals to tear apart their own.
But we were also shown, in our own election, that being a horrible person didn't help Harper out any. We're not America! We can be different
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
I swear I saw this exact article weeks ago, but this one is dated today. Where is the actual quotes from O'leary saying he wouldn't move back.
Through his spokesman this week, I asked only three questions: Will he continue to split his time between here and Boston if he becomes leader; will he run in the next election even if he loses the contest; and will he still appear on Shark Tank if elected leader?
Not one question was answered. Instead, here is the entire reply:
“Mr. O’Leary is committed to Conservatives and Canada. We are focusing our attention on signing up more members to help us build a strong campaign to form a majority Conservative government in 2019.
“Kevin is focused on winning the Leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and the response to Mr. O’Leary’s candidacy is energized. Conservatives in Canada are tired of hearing the same double talk from Justin Trudeau. He ran on promises to be an open and transparent government — but we have only seen evidence to the contrary.
“As I mentioned before Mr. O’Leary is committed to the Conservative Party of Canada and is focusing on winning the leadership and subsequently the General Election in 2019.”
Not answering that first question is huge. It's not as bad as an explicit confirmation of "No, I will not be moving", but seriously? Not even addressing the question when directly asked is fuckin huge.
+4
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
That response is so boilerplate I'm not sure they even read the questions that were asked.
Also, before people decide that the failure of electoral reform proves Trudeau's government has been a failure, you should recall that:
1. He's only been in power for 1 out of 4 years.
2. Trudeau Metre indicates he has achieved or is making progress on about half of his 223 electoral promises.
I was as excited as everyone about electoral reform and disappointed enough by the news to make my first ever call to my MP, but let's keep some perspective here. There's more to governing a country than a single issue.
That same meter says he has broken nearly as many promises as he's kept. I know everyone here really hated Harper for various good reasons but objectively can you really say that Trudeau is living up to expectations?
Edit: The "in progress" line means pretty much nothing. Electoral reform was there two days ago and is now ditched.
For that matter, "welcome 25000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015" is marked as a broken promise, because he welcomed them in early 2016 instead.
The site is not perfect by any measure. But it is a good starting point to show that Trudeau is not failing or timidly sitting back doing nothing or breaking all his election promises.
So apparently O'Leary's even saying he has no intention of moving back to Canada, even if he were to win? There can't be any way possible he's considered as a viable leadership candidate with that approach.
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
The Boston quote is from October. Seems to me like the dots being connected are spaced quite far apart. I hope he doesn't move to Canada. He'd be done before he started then.
Don't. Just don't. This is exactly what people in the US were saying about Trump every single misstep he took, and see where that got them. Do not underestimate the far-right's party loyalty and unwavering commitment to power for power's sake.
Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of the CPC base won't see living in the USA or loving America more than Canada as a weakness for their candidate. They'll see it as a strength.
We have also been shown that attacking a candidate because they are horrible horrible people doesn't seem to matter... unless they are on the left then any misstep no matter how small will get the liberals to tear apart their own.
But we were also shown, in our own election, that being a horrible person didn't help Harper out any. We're not America! We can be different
Harper was never a reality TV personality. I like to think that the Canadian political system doesn't/won't reward the sort of loudmouthed hustle that Trump rode to the White House and that O'Leary clearly knows how to wield as well. Whether I'm right about that really depends on how well Canadian conservatives can rein in their worst impulses and elements.
Leitch/O'Leary getting elected PM is absolutely something we shouldn't get complacent about.
At the same time, the situations are different. The GOP has spent the last 40 years riling up their base against the Democrats. The CPC as a political entity is still relatively new, and voting in Canada is somewhat more malleable than voting in the States. I think there's an equal likelihood of the CPC putting Leitch or O'Leary at the helm and having that decision drive away some of their voters who still delude themselves that the CPC is basically just the Progressive Conservatives.
Apples to oranges when it comes to the political climates, although yes, 'it can't happen here' is absolutely a good way of getting Prime Minister O'Leary.
Also, before people decide that the failure of electoral reform proves Trudeau's government has been a failure, you should recall that:
1. He's only been in power for 1 out of 4 years.
2. Trudeau Metre indicates he has achieved or is making progress on about half of his 223 electoral promises.
I was as excited as everyone about electoral reform and disappointed enough by the news to make my first ever call to my MP, but let's keep some perspective here. There's more to governing a country than a single issue.
That same meter says he has broken nearly as many promises as he's kept. I know everyone here really hated Harper for various good reasons but objectively can you really say that Trudeau is living up to expectations?
Edit: The "in progress" line means pretty much nothing. Electoral reform was there two days ago and is now ditched.
For that matter, "welcome 25000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015" is marked as a broken promise, because he welcomed them in early 2016 instead.
The site is not perfect by any measure. But it is a good starting point to show that Trudeau is not failing or timidly sitting back doing nothing or breaking all his election promises.
No of course not.
Just 2/3rd the number vs those he's kept.
I just don't find he's done much of substance to counter the dropped promises.
For those here defending him do you find the same? I'm of the school of thought that you don't campaign on things you don't intend to fulfill and he's had quite a few broken promises for being in office for so short a time.
Also, before people decide that the failure of electoral reform proves Trudeau's government has been a failure, you should recall that:
1. He's only been in power for 1 out of 4 years.
2. Trudeau Metre indicates he has achieved or is making progress on about half of his 223 electoral promises.
I was as excited as everyone about electoral reform and disappointed enough by the news to make my first ever call to my MP, but let's keep some perspective here. There's more to governing a country than a single issue.
That same meter says he has broken nearly as many promises as he's kept. I know everyone here really hated Harper for various good reasons but objectively can you really say that Trudeau is living up to expectations?
Edit: The "in progress" line means pretty much nothing. Electoral reform was there two days ago and is now ditched.
For that matter, "welcome 25000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015" is marked as a broken promise, because he welcomed them in early 2016 instead.
The site is not perfect by any measure. But it is a good starting point to show that Trudeau is not failing or timidly sitting back doing nothing or breaking all his election promises.
No of course not.
Just 2/3rd the number vs those he's kept.
I just don't find he's done much of substance to counter the dropped promises.
For those here defending him do you find the same? I'm of the school of thought that you don't campaign on things you don't intend to fulfill and he's had quite a few broken promises for being in office for so short a time.
It's been like a year and a bit. Did you expect everything done in 6 months or something?
Posts
HM. I'm not sure I can award points for Bush Sr. policy, given where he currently fits on the modern political spectrum, but I'll allow it.
So, on the one hand we have NAFTA.
On the other hand we have institutionalized homophobia, racism, fundamentalist Christianity and misogyny.
HM.
Looking pretty good for the conservatives.
Well, based on the radical leftists that I know, the FAR left would probably also muzzle some scientists as well as economists, foreign policy analysts, military officials. But the NDP wouldn't, which is the distinction here.
Oh. I was thinking Canadian, so was going through the Wiki pages of Mulroney, Clark, and Harper. Uhh uhhh... John Tory's come out for road tolls? Does that count?
Ummm, Harper expanded our Arctic military presence? (Or intended to, anyways.)
This kind of stuff exposes the Liberal party to getting defeated by people who 'get it done'. If you can't believe that a party will deliver on its core promises, then you'll be vulnerable to someone who doesn't use facts like Donald Trump or someone who has a history of doing what he says like Rob Ford.
Another danger is disillusionment-people who were excited to vote for Trudeau won't show up. Unlike Obama, he has a clear majority to pass his agenda.
If the conservatives run a generic politician, then the Liberal party probably will win the next election, but if they run someone like Kevin O'Leary or Leitch, then the Liberals might run into trouble.
Having voted for Trudeau, I'm disappointed. However, if someone is running like Kevin O'Leary, who I can trust to do what he says, then I'll vote for them.
Who are these people exactly?
He liked hockey a whole lot?
That's all I can think of really.
Honestly I think if conservatives ditched their toxic social policies and anti-"old stock" Canadian bullshit they'd have a lot more support.
Mulroney was a bit player in NAFTA; it was the U.S. that was the lynchpin of the trade deal.
I would maybe be willing to award points to Harper for trying to protect Canadian interests in the arctic, except he bought aircraft completely ill suited for the job and slashed the budgets of the organizations with boots actually on the ground up north.
Even if electoral reform went through and did indeed shut the Conservatives out in the near term, eventually the voting population will, at some time, get sick of the left-of-centre (all governments fall prey to sclerosis after a lengthy time in office) and eventually vote a right-of-centre government in. And when that happened, if they had been shut out due to electoral shenanigans, you can bet that they would have no mercy in changing the electoral system to something that heavily favors them as one of their number one goals. Frankly, we don't need that in Canada, and I'm willing to endure the occasional right-of-centre government as the price of maintaining the legitimacy of the electoral system.
I liked the free money they gave me (home reno tax credit, book credit, GST reduction), though I would have gotten along fine without it.
This was basically the old PC party. The issue is that the people that hold those types of social beliefs tend to really hold them strong, whereas most people are pretty flexible in fiscal matters. That being said, I will give props to Harper for keeping as far away from those social policies as he did (even if some did leak in as he got more desperate).
It's not.
The reality is that it would shut the current Conservative party out of power.
And then...
The right would adapt in ways that are beneficial to all Canadians.
If you're on the right, it would encourage the Progressive Conservatives to re-emerge.
We had someone earlier on in the thread bow out because as a center-right thinker, they didn't like getting lumped in with Trump and Leitch.
Well guess what, there's a reason that center-right is lumped in with far-right (the reason is because there's no center-right party). Really you can't blame the left for lumping them together when that is what the right CHOSE TO DO! They CHOSE to be lumped together!
I digress.
On the left, it electoral reform allows for the elimination of strategic voting, which only the hugest assholes don't see as a problem with the current system.
If you don't identify as right or left? You're set too. Now there are more parties with more diverse viewpoints for you to hopefully identify with.
So really, STV only 'blocks out' the right if you think that the way the Conservatives function now is some perfect working machine that would be irreperably broken if they had to actually adapt their party make-up to fit with modern political needs.
I don't want to shut out the right, but I do seriously think that STV is better than FPTP and it only hurts the right if they let it.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Any evidence at all that this can't happen today?
There is nothing stopping the party from doing it except for the fact that this is the system where they are most likely to succeed. It just happens to be the system that throws sand in the face of 60+% of Canadians. Bully for them I guess.
Things are fine because terrible governments that are not representative of the majority of Canadians can come into power? This is the argument being put forward here?
We're definitely in a couple of camps here in this thread.
1. Things are working as they should and / or it's too dangerous to change
2. Things are not working as they should and change is necessary despite difficulty / risk
Mulroney was actually one of our better PMs. Just off the top of my head:
- NAFTA, as was already mentioned.
- He stood up to Reagan and Thatcher who wanted to label Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
- He instituted the GST, which was of course hugely unpopular but was economically necessary.
- He gave us our last serious, legitimate attempt at constitutional changes.
- He made Canada the first industrialized country to sign on to the UN climate change convention.
That said, I really can't label him a modern right-wing. The PC he led no longer exists, and a politician like him would get kicked out of the CPC in a heartbeat.
So no more voting for centrist who throw what I care about under the bus
The advantage of reform would be that you can't form a government without having some support from the most liberal 60% of the population (and also the most conservative 60%), as opposed to the current 40% God-Emperor threshold. Tying it to a specific party doesn't really work as there would probably be some reorganization if we implement anything. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the left-wing parties (Green, NDP, Liberal) gets cannibalized, and the fate of the Bloc would be entirely up in the air (STV: how many places will actually give them 50% support; PR: Would they even be willing to join a government, and who would vote for them if not?)
I mean, I'm still beholden to the strategic vote at the end of the day; if I have to vote Liberal to prevent a Tory win (kind of dubious right now, but you never know how the winds may change), I'll do it.
But I have no confidence in the Liberals anymore. Strategic voters aren't common; most people will just walk off when they feel betrayed like this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this move resigns Trudeau to a single term, effectively imprisoned by the rigid system he just helped to immortalize. Tories will laugh all the way to the bank.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/02/02/why-kevin-oleary-still-calls-boston-home-hepburn.html
Maybe I'm the daft one but I didn't see a quote from O'Leary saying anything like that in the editorial you linked.
This assumes people care about this issue that much.
Anti-Vax
Anti-Hospital Birth (Home birth is fine, until something goes wrong and you need a hospital)
Anti-GMO (people that dont understand the difference between GMO, and the patent fuckery that GMO rights holders utilize)
Anti-Free Trade
Naturalpath etc (These ones personally enrage me as one is currently in the process of killing a cousin of mine)
MWO: Adamski
People in my parents' generation - the generation that actually goes to vote when there isn't a big Hopium campaign, like when the Liberals are already incumbent and thus can't promise CHANGE! - care about whether or not a politician is a 'liar'. That can mean a lot of things and can be easily spun, but having a gigantic and really damn obvious campaign promise broken makes Trudeau a big fat liar to them (even if they didn't care about the policy itself).
Perhaps it won't stick, because we're still pretty early in the term & whatever disaster happens down south will no doubt impact how politics progress up here, but if the Tories can make it stick they will absolutely be able to cash that shit it.
The last thing you wanna be thought of as when the Boomers go to the polls is a liar.
The editorial says that he refused to answer the question of whether he would move back to Canada if he wins, and said his favourite city is Boston and his favourite home is there. That's not same as definitely saying he won't move back, but not by much.
Yeah but perception and reality have little to no connection here.
And this is, again, an issue Canadians don't appear to feel that strongly about. That's kinda the whole problem.
I swear I saw this exact article weeks ago, but this one is dated today. Where is the actual quotes from O'leary saying he wouldn't move back.
Counter argument is that he may feel it is such a silly question that it doesn't deserve an answer. If you're the PM of course you are going to live in Canada, why would anyone question otherwise?
The Boston quote is from October. Seems to me like the dots being connected are spaced quite far apart. I hope he doesn't move to Canada. He'd be done before he started then.
Don't. Just don't. This is exactly what people in the US were saying about Trump every single misstep he took, and see where that got them. Do not underestimate the far-right's party loyalty and unwavering commitment to power for power's sake.
Also, I'm willing to bet a lot of the CPC base won't see living in the USA or loving America more than Canada as a weakness for their candidate. They'll see it as a strength.
We have also been shown that attacking a candidate because they are horrible horrible people doesn't seem to matter... unless they are on the left then any misstep no matter how small will get the liberals to tear apart their own.
That same meter says he has broken nearly as many promises as he's kept. I know everyone here really hated Harper for various good reasons but objectively can you really say that Trudeau is living up to expectations?
Edit: The "in progress" line means pretty much nothing. Electoral reform was there two days ago and is now ditched.
But we were also shown, in our own election, that being a horrible person didn't help Harper out any. We're not America! We can be different
Not answering that first question is huge. It's not as bad as an explicit confirmation of "No, I will not be moving", but seriously? Not even addressing the question when directly asked is fuckin huge.
Winter 24 Sussex Drive
For that matter, "welcome 25000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015" is marked as a broken promise, because he welcomed them in early 2016 instead.
The site is not perfect by any measure. But it is a good starting point to show that Trudeau is not failing or timidly sitting back doing nothing or breaking all his election promises.
Harper was never a reality TV personality. I like to think that the Canadian political system doesn't/won't reward the sort of loudmouthed hustle that Trump rode to the White House and that O'Leary clearly knows how to wield as well. Whether I'm right about that really depends on how well Canadian conservatives can rein in their worst impulses and elements.
At the same time, the situations are different. The GOP has spent the last 40 years riling up their base against the Democrats. The CPC as a political entity is still relatively new, and voting in Canada is somewhat more malleable than voting in the States. I think there's an equal likelihood of the CPC putting Leitch or O'Leary at the helm and having that decision drive away some of their voters who still delude themselves that the CPC is basically just the Progressive Conservatives.
Apples to oranges when it comes to the political climates, although yes, 'it can't happen here' is absolutely a good way of getting Prime Minister O'Leary.
No of course not.
Just 2/3rd the number vs those he's kept.
I just don't find he's done much of substance to counter the dropped promises.
For those here defending him do you find the same? I'm of the school of thought that you don't campaign on things you don't intend to fulfill and he's had quite a few broken promises for being in office for so short a time.
It's been like a year and a bit. Did you expect everything done in 6 months or something?