to be fair, if you're going to find people in Canada who would like Trump, it's most likely to be in Alberta, just because Alberta, especially rural Alberta, remains the most conservative part of the country. But I do find that even here the most likely group who do like him are going to be the baby boomer conservatives, or people who are generally uninformed.
to be fair, if you're going to find people in Canada who would like Trump, it's most likely to be in Alberta, just because Alberta, especially rural Alberta, remains the most conservative part of the country. But I do find that even here the most likely group who do like him are going to be the baby boomer conservatives, or people who are generally uninformed.
Or really old and racist like my friend's grandparents (They are out in Salmon Arm, BC)
Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
+1
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
Also, Sask loves their protectionist premier. I'm sure they were optimistic about a Trump administration (until the tweets about NAFTA became a reality).
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
to be fair, if you're going to find people in Canada who would like Trump, it's most likely to be in Alberta, just because Alberta, especially rural Alberta, remains the most conservative part of the country. But I do find that even here the most likely group who do like him are going to be the baby boomer conservatives, or people who are generally uninformed.
My brother in law (from Quebec) is staying with me for two weeks starting today.
He got off the plane wearing a " Make Canada great again" hat and think Trump walks on water.
These people do not fundamentally see the world as we do. When they talk about "making xxxx great again" I am coming to think they cannot deal with some of the radical shifts society has gone though in the last 20-30 years and want the world to go back to a time they understood.
Also, Sask loves their protectionist premier. I'm sure they were optimistic about a Trump administration (until the tweets about NAFTA became a reality).
saskatchewan is an odd place because it's actually generally slightly left leaning, except for the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. I know a number of people from SSK who love Brad Wall but hate Trump. They fail to see the connection.
I mean, Brad Wall is protectionist without being a complete crazy person, so that probably helps his cause.
Also, Sask loves their protectionist premier. I'm sure they were optimistic about a Trump administration (until the tweets about NAFTA became a reality).
saskatchewan is an odd place because it's actually generally slightly left leaning, except for the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. I know a number of people from SSK who love Brad Wall but hate Trump. They fail to see the connection.
I mean, Brad Wall is protectionist without being a complete crazy person, so that probably helps his cause.
Brad Wall is very vocal about anything involving Sask. vs the Federal goverment and that speaks to people.
He's also not a complete loon like most vocal conservatives.
Fight them both, O'Leary and Leitch, tooth and nail, and all that follow them. Do not let yourselves fall like the US. Do not dismiss them as jokes that couldn't succeed like Trump. They could very well get a fat juicy cut of that Russian funding like right-wing parties across Europe and win.
Oh, they absolutely could. There's a growing perception, fair or not, that Trudeau's government has fallen back into the patterns of corruption and cronyism that many believe characterized our previous Liberal administrations. Electoral reform may prevent us from falling completely down that hole, as I believe there are enough people in Canada who would flatly reject that kind of authoritarianism - but that's probably what people in those other countries said, right before it happened.
Our best hope, frankly, is that both Leitch and O'Leary fail in their leadership bids, and that a more 'moderate' Conservative takes the helm of the party. There's some hope on that front, at least - the response to O'Leary has been pretty lukewarm thus far, and Leitch seems to be losing support within the party (while, unfortunately, remaining relatively 'popular' outside of it, among Conservative voters).
But they aren't the only ones that would be a disaster. Maxime Bernier's a libertarian who wants to defund the CBC and slash funding for public healthcare. Chris Alexander was one of the architects behind the 'barbaric cultural practices' tip line (who, weirdly, also has a surprisingly progressive view on refugees. Multitudes!) Blaney's a mini-Leitch insofar as xenophobia and fear of the 'other' is concerned. Same with Peterson. Lemieux is running on his opposition to abortion rights and same sex marriage. Same with Trost.
Raitt and Chong both seem to be near the front in terms of polling, and both seem to be somewhat reasonable, at least? Raitt has spoken out against Leitch, and Chong wants to push a more inclusive Conservative party. So maybe we dodge our own Trump-shaped bullet.
But there are absolutely people in Canada who look at Donald Trump and think 'hey, I want some of that.' I live in Alberta, the heart of that kind of sentiment, and my one hope is that the sentiment is mostly limited to here and some pockets across the rest of the country.
'It couldn't happen here' is a dangerous thought, and one that I worry too many Canadians believe.
For what it's worth, I'm renewing my long disused Conservative Party membership specifically to vote for Michael Chong.
to be fair, if you're going to find people in Canada who would like Trump, it's most likely to be in Alberta, just because Alberta, especially rural Alberta, remains the most conservative part of the country. But I do find that even here the most likely group who do like him are going to be the baby boomer conservatives, or people who are generally uninformed.
My brother in law (from Quebec) is staying with me for two weeks starting today.
He got off the plane wearing a " Make Canada great again" hat and think Trump walks on water.
These people do not fundamentally see the world as we do. When they talk about "making xxxx great again" I am coming to think they cannot deal with some of the radical shifts society has gone though in the last 20-30 years and want the world to go back to a time they understood.
The thing I've noticed with the Make X Great Again, is Great seems to be the new word for "white"
Also, Sask loves their protectionist premier. I'm sure they were optimistic about a Trump administration (until the tweets about NAFTA became a reality).
saskatchewan is an odd place because it's actually generally slightly left leaning, except for the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. I know a number of people from SSK who love Brad Wall but hate Trump. They fail to see the connection.
I mean, Brad Wall is protectionist without being a complete crazy person, so that probably helps his cause.
Brad Wall is very vocal about anything involving Sask. vs the Federal goverment and that speaks to people.
He's also not a complete loon like most vocal conservatives.
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be so much of a dig against Brad Wall. It was more that "Rah rah, Trump wants to make America great again, same as Premier Wall looks after us! Oh, wait, NAFTA is going to be re-written? Like, our biggest trade partner? Couldn't that potentially hurt us?"
I feel like the Canadians most interested in the Trump presidency are really NOT seeing the big picture here. Like the guy or not, his policies are not going to be good for anyone other than the United States (and even that is very much up for debate).
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
Also, Sask loves their protectionist premier. I'm sure they were optimistic about a Trump administration (until the tweets about NAFTA became a reality).
I'm not sure that your speculation is founded in anything tangible...
e: This sounds douchey. Sorry. I never heard or saw anything that indicated Saskatchewan, as a whole, was optimistic about a Trump administration.
Also, Sask loves their protectionist premier. I'm sure they were optimistic about a Trump administration (until the tweets about NAFTA became a reality).
saskatchewan is an odd place because it's actually generally slightly left leaning, except for the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. I know a number of people from SSK who love Brad Wall but hate Trump. They fail to see the connection.
I mean, Brad Wall is protectionist without being a complete crazy person, so that probably helps his cause.
Brad Wall is very vocal about anything involving Sask. vs the Federal goverment and that speaks to people.
He's also not a complete loon like most vocal conservatives.
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be so much of a dig against Brad Wall. It was more that "Rah rah, Trump wants to make America great again, same as Premier Wall looks after us! Oh, wait, NAFTA is going to be re-written? Like, our biggest trade partner? Couldn't that potentially hurt us?"
I feel like the Canadians most interested in the Trump presidency are really NOT seeing the big picture here. Like the guy or not, his policies are not going to be good for anyone other than the United States (and even that is very much up for debate).
yea, I was about to say, his policies aren't even going to be good for the US, nevermind anyone else.
I actually had a conversation about O'Leary with a friend who worked for CBC. Apparently he was, at least to the staff and other personalities, unfailingly polite and respectful, and went out of his way to buy Christmas presents for the support staff and other people involved with the show when he was there.
That said, it doesn't mean he'd be a good leadership candidate, but he dors seem to be remarkably more tolerable than Leitch. Not a high bar, certainly, but better than it could be.
You know, oddly enough, I read the same thing about Trump: good to those who worked for him. And some of those who worked for him? The same category of people he was railing against in his speeches, so...
At this point in my life and after having seen how Canadian Reform and Conservative parties morphed over the years, what came across as out and out betrayals to me towards my Canadian values once Harper was in power, even as limited as that was being a minority government with the proroguing and what not... We can't rely on them one iota to be tempered in their approach, not while they insist ideology trumps things like detailed data gathering in the census, starving/muzzling scientists, their treatment of First Nations people, and being found in contempt of parliament.
Xenophobia is just the ugly icing on their nasty ideological cake and I hope we never have to take another bite.
So now whenever they speak as the Opposition, I just roll my eyes, I just don't trust them anymore. Its harder with media though, trying to go back and figure out which outlets endorsed the Cons in past election years sometimes seems beyond my google fu. CBC is the only thing I recall the Cons being dead set against, so they are one of the few who when I read their articles I get the sense they still have a shred of credibility in regards to facts trumping ideological editorial biases.
Conservativism is a cancer on the body politic of western nations at this point. There is no major conservative party I can think of floating around not engaging in that same mix of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, etc, etc.
Conservatism is all about keeping things the same, and maybe, kinda, slowly changing things I guess maybe someday if you can prove its awesome. That this is idea is suffering and going reactionary in the era of the fastest changes in human history should be expected at this point, that mindset simply cannot process the modern world, where things can, should, and must change on a rapid basis.
Conservatism isn't about that at all. That's the philosophical basis for some fantasy political ideology that shares the same name as conservative parties, but it doesn't actually exist in real life. In real life, here and now and for decades in the past at the very least, conservatism is a reactionary ideology against government action and social and cultural change.
People can talk all they want about what conservatism "really is". I'm talking about what it actually is, without the quotes. By looking at their rhetoric and policy.
They are a loose nexus of ideas involving, again, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, a lack of respect for democracy as an idea, a lack of any care for political norms, a lack of respect for basic human rights, etc, etc. That's what is actually consistently shown from their actions.
There is some sort of theoretical conservatism you can read about in a textbook that isn't steeped in these ideas. In the real world, it doesn't exist.
I completely agree, and my apologies that I came across differently. I mentally filed their current insanity under "going reactionary" without fleshing that out, conservatism worldwide has been off the rails for as long as I have been alive, and I agree that they are 100% anti-intellectual, xenophobic, bigots, etc, etc, etc. Completely on board.
What I was trying to muse on was, why? Where did it all go off the rails? And that gets back on the point I was trying to make, conservative politicians worldwide are flailing to find something to keep the same. Because the modern world is hard in flux right now, and that goes against everything the conservative mindset is about: Keeping things the same. Since they can no longer do that, they have turned (over the last 50 years, this didn't start recently) into a reactionary movement, with all the horrors that go along with that.
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
I actually had a conversation about O'Leary with a friend who worked for CBC. Apparently he was, at least to the staff and other personalities, unfailingly polite and respectful, and went out of his way to buy Christmas presents for the support staff and other people involved with the show when he was there.
That said, it doesn't mean he'd be a good leadership candidate, but he dors seem to be remarkably more tolerable than Leitch. Not a high bar, certainly, but better than it could be.
You know, oddly enough, I read the same thing about Trump: good to those who worked for him. And some of those who worked for him? The same category of people he was railing against in his speeches, so...
At this point in my life and after having seen how Canadian Reform and Conservative parties morphed over the years, what came across as out and out betrayals to me towards my Canadian values once Harper was in power, even as limited as that was being a minority government with the proroguing and what not... We can't rely on them one iota to be tempered in their approach, not while they insist ideology trumps things like detailed data gathering in the census, starving/muzzling scientists, their treatment of First Nations people, and being found in contempt of parliament.
Xenophobia is just the ugly icing on their nasty ideological cake and I hope we never have to take another bite.
So now whenever they speak as the Opposition, I just roll my eyes, I just don't trust them anymore. Its harder with media though, trying to go back and figure out which outlets endorsed the Cons in past election years sometimes seems beyond my google fu. CBC is the only thing I recall the Cons being dead set against, so they are one of the few who when I read their articles I get the sense they still have a shred of credibility in regards to facts trumping ideological editorial biases.
Conservativism is a cancer on the body politic of western nations at this point. There is no major conservative party I can think of floating around not engaging in that same mix of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, etc, etc.
Conservatism is all about keeping things the same, and maybe, kinda, slowly changing things I guess maybe someday if you can prove its awesome. That this is idea is suffering and going reactionary in the era of the fastest changes in human history should be expected at this point, that mindset simply cannot process the modern world, where things can, should, and must change on a rapid basis.
Conservatism isn't about that at all. That's the philosophical basis for some fantasy political ideology that shares the same name as conservative parties, but it doesn't actually exist in real life. In real life, here and now and for decades in the past at the very least, conservatism is a reactionary ideology against government action and social and cultural change.
People can talk all they want about what conservatism "really is". I'm talking about what it actually is, without the quotes. By looking at their rhetoric and policy.
They are a loose nexus of ideas involving, again, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, a lack of respect for democracy as an idea, a lack of any care for political norms, a lack of respect for basic human rights, etc, etc. That's what is actually consistently shown from their actions.
There is some sort of theoretical conservatism you can read about in a textbook that isn't steeped in these ideas. In the real world, it doesn't exist.
I completely agree, and my apologies that I came across differently. I mentally filed their current insanity under "going reactionary" without fleshing that out, conservatism worldwide has been off the rails for as long as I have been alive, and I agree that they are 100% anti-intellectual, xenophobic, bigots, etc, etc, etc. Completely on board.
What I was trying to muse on was, why? Where did it all go off the rails? And that gets back on the point I was trying to make, conservative politicians worldwide are flailing to find something to keep the same. Because the modern world is hard in flux right now, and that goes against everything the conservative mindset is about: Keeping things the same. Since they can no longer do that, they have turned (over the last 50 years, this didn't start recently) into a reactionary movement, with all the horrors that go along with that.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
To be fair though, Louis XVI was a hugely popular king. Even the Revolutionaries were pro-monarchy, they just felt that the higher levels of the bourgeoisie had negatively influenced and corrupted the king, and they wanted to remove them, not him. At that point, France could have easily become a constitutional monarchy like England was.
Only when Louis XVI tried to flee to Austria and it was revealed that he really was an absolutist monarch who despised the revolution and wanted it to fail did public opinion turned against him and France went full-on democratic secular head-rolling republic.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
To be fair though, Louis XVI was a hugely popular king. Even the Revolutionaries were pro-monarchy, they just felt that the higher levels of the bourgeoisie had negatively influenced and corrupted the king, and they wanted to remove them, not him. At that point, France could have easily become a constitutional monarchy like England was.
Only when Louis XVI tried to flee to Austria and it was revealed that he really was an absolutist monarch who despised the revolution and wanted it to fail did public opinion turned against him and France went full-on democratic secular head-rolling republic.
Hence why the rest of Europe tried to wipe France off the map after. Since their kings and queens kinda hated the precedent that was just set.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
To be fair though, Louis XVI was a hugely popular king. Even the Revolutionaries were pro-monarchy, they just felt that the higher levels of the bourgeoisie had negatively influenced and corrupted the king, and they wanted to remove them, not him. At that point, France could have easily become a constitutional monarchy like England was.
Only when Louis XVI tried to flee to Austria and it was revealed that he really was an absolutist monarch who despised the revolution and wanted it to fail did public opinion turned against him and France went full-on democratic secular head-rolling republic.
And, as it turns out, France really wasn't ready to be a Republic yet. But seriously, when was the last period of history during which conservatism, as it manifested politically, wasn't really about keeping things the same because conservatives liked being on top of the pile? Bismarck?
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
To be fair though, Louis XVI was a hugely popular king. Even the Revolutionaries were pro-monarchy, they just felt that the higher levels of the bourgeoisie had negatively influenced and corrupted the king, and they wanted to remove them, not him. At that point, France could have easily become a constitutional monarchy like England was.
Only when Louis XVI tried to flee to Austria and it was revealed that he really was an absolutist monarch who despised the revolution and wanted it to fail did public opinion turned against him and France went full-on democratic secular head-rolling republic.
And, as it turns out, France really wasn't ready to be a Republic yet. But seriously, when was the last period of history during which conservatism, as it manifested politically, wasn't really about keeping things the same because conservatives liked being on top of the pile? Bismarck?
Bismark Was a master political strategist and negotiator that hated war.
Chrystia Freeland: International Trade --> Foreign Affairs (She keeps the US/Canada trade portfolio)
François-Philippe Champagne: International Trade (he's just a lil' guy from Shawinigan)
Patricia Hajdu: Status of Women --> Labour
Maryam Monsef: Democratic Institutions --> Status of Women
Karina Gould --> Democratic Institutions
Ahmed Hussen: Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (first black Canadian in Trudeau's cabinet)
As rumored, Dion and McCallum are outie. McCallum is confirmed as Ambassador to China, we're not sure if Dion is headed to the EU yet or not. Dion's statement talks a lot about serving his country "outside of politics," whatever that means.
I'm glad Dion is out. He was not suited to the portfolio. I'm particularly amused that Trudeau has a female cabinet minister in charge of pretty much all dealings with Trump. I laugh at the people who think Freeland's a failure because she shed a couple tears during a hard-fought, frustrating, difficult trade negotiation. Poo to you, toxic masculinity, in both your spray-tan and maple leaf formats.
I wasn't too fond of McCallum's handling of immigration, either. He did fine with the Syrian refugees but otherwise presided over some particularly heartless and unnecessary deportations (like of a Korean-born man who was adopted by Canadians as an infant, but the adoptive parents failed to handle his immigration paperwork properly).
Here's hoping Karina Gould can tackle electoral reform.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
WTF? You honestly think that the American economy will do better under Republicans?
It wont.
The only people that will benefit will be the ones who benefit from the bribes and graft, at the expense of all their competitors and consumers.
I would write up more about how your links are mostly disproven horseshit, but you can always go to the thread relitigating the primary / election for an explanation.
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
WTF? You honestly think that the American economy will do better under Republicans?
It wont.
The only people that will benefit will be the ones who benefit from the bribes and graft, at the expense of all their competitors and consumers.
I would write up more about how your links are mostly disproven horseshit, but you can always go to the thread relitigating the primary / election for an explanation.
What Disco11 said is that the economy will do better in the short-term. Which it might. Eliminating all government, environment, and labour laws, cutting corporate tax rates to nothing, and eliminating unions and worker rights, is definitely good for business in the short term. It is absolutely horrible for business and for society in the long term, but we won't be at that point in three years.
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
WTF? You honestly think that the American economy will do better under Republicans?
It wont.
The only people that will benefit will be the ones who benefit from the bribes and graft, at the expense of all their competitors and consumers.
I would write up more about how your links are mostly disproven horseshit, but you can always go to the thread relitigating the primary / election for an explanation.
In the short term? Absolutely the economy is going to sky rocket. Removing regulatory and oversight is going to do great for business. pipeline approvals regardless of environmental impact, losing safety regulations, lowering minimum, wage.. Nothing is off the table with Mr Trump. Do you seriously think things are not going to be a heyday for big business? Look at his cabinet picks.
And when his 2nd term comes around and he can point at lower unemployment (regardless that people ned to work 2-3 jobs to get by) it will bolster him to a 2nd term. This is in an ideal world where we are not huddling for warmth after a nuclear winter mind you.
Long term they are going to be a fucking disaster though. This is going to make the decades repairing Regan's years look like a nice walk in the park.
I actually had a conversation about O'Leary with a friend who worked for CBC. Apparently he was, at least to the staff and other personalities, unfailingly polite and respectful, and went out of his way to buy Christmas presents for the support staff and other people involved with the show when he was there.
That said, it doesn't mean he'd be a good leadership candidate, but he dors seem to be remarkably more tolerable than Leitch. Not a high bar, certainly, but better than it could be.
You know, oddly enough, I read the same thing about Trump: good to those who worked for him. And some of those who worked for him? The same category of people he was railing against in his speeches, so...
At this point in my life and after having seen how Canadian Reform and Conservative parties morphed over the years, what came across as out and out betrayals to me towards my Canadian values once Harper was in power, even as limited as that was being a minority government with the proroguing and what not... We can't rely on them one iota to be tempered in their approach, not while they insist ideology trumps things like detailed data gathering in the census, starving/muzzling scientists, their treatment of First Nations people, and being found in contempt of parliament.
Xenophobia is just the ugly icing on their nasty ideological cake and I hope we never have to take another bite.
So now whenever they speak as the Opposition, I just roll my eyes, I just don't trust them anymore. Its harder with media though, trying to go back and figure out which outlets endorsed the Cons in past election years sometimes seems beyond my google fu. CBC is the only thing I recall the Cons being dead set against, so they are one of the few who when I read their articles I get the sense they still have a shred of credibility in regards to facts trumping ideological editorial biases.
Conservativism is a cancer on the body politic of western nations at this point. There is no major conservative party I can think of floating around not engaging in that same mix of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, etc, etc.
Conservatism is all about keeping things the same, and maybe, kinda, slowly changing things I guess maybe someday if you can prove its awesome. That this is idea is suffering and going reactionary in the era of the fastest changes in human history should be expected at this point, that mindset simply cannot process the modern world, where things can, should, and must change on a rapid basis.
Conservatism isn't about that at all. That's the philosophical basis for some fantasy political ideology that shares the same name as conservative parties, but it doesn't actually exist in real life. In real life, here and now and for decades in the past at the very least, conservatism is a reactionary ideology against government action and social and cultural change.
People can talk all they want about what conservatism "really is". I'm talking about what it actually is, without the quotes. By looking at their rhetoric and policy.
They are a loose nexus of ideas involving, again, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, a lack of respect for democracy as an idea, a lack of any care for political norms, a lack of respect for basic human rights, etc, etc. That's what is actually consistently shown from their actions.
There is some sort of theoretical conservatism you can read about in a textbook that isn't steeped in these ideas. In the real world, it doesn't exist.
I completely agree, and my apologies that I came across differently. I mentally filed their current insanity under "going reactionary" without fleshing that out, conservatism worldwide has been off the rails for as long as I have been alive, and I agree that they are 100% anti-intellectual, xenophobic, bigots, etc, etc, etc. Completely on board.
What I was trying to muse on was, why? Where did it all go off the rails? And that gets back on the point I was trying to make, conservative politicians worldwide are flailing to find something to keep the same. Because the modern world is hard in flux right now, and that goes against everything the conservative mindset is about: Keeping things the same. Since they can no longer do that, they have turned (over the last 50 years, this didn't start recently) into a reactionary movement, with all the horrors that go along with that.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
Louis XVI wasn't that bad. No worse then alot of monarchs and miles better then alot of others. And let's remember the Left in this instance were the guys that instituted the Reign of Terror. It's a silly comparison anyway though. You can't draw any conclusions about modern conservative politics from the French Revolution, the political situation is too different and the current conservative movement is as much the Left from back then as the Right since they do embrace a decent number of parts of Classical Liberalism. What we think of as "left-wing" or "liberal" today is reform/modern/social liberalism (any of those titles mean basically the same thing) and comes out of movements in the late 19th century when people began to realise that classical liberalism was really really horrible and that government regulation and control was important. You see the emergence of ideas like positive liberties and such.
But yes, absent the example conservatism has rarely been what it has philosophically claimed to be within the modern political context or the lifetime of basically anyone alive today.
I actually had a conversation about O'Leary with a friend who worked for CBC. Apparently he was, at least to the staff and other personalities, unfailingly polite and respectful, and went out of his way to buy Christmas presents for the support staff and other people involved with the show when he was there.
That said, it doesn't mean he'd be a good leadership candidate, but he dors seem to be remarkably more tolerable than Leitch. Not a high bar, certainly, but better than it could be.
You know, oddly enough, I read the same thing about Trump: good to those who worked for him. And some of those who worked for him? The same category of people he was railing against in his speeches, so...
At this point in my life and after having seen how Canadian Reform and Conservative parties morphed over the years, what came across as out and out betrayals to me towards my Canadian values once Harper was in power, even as limited as that was being a minority government with the proroguing and what not... We can't rely on them one iota to be tempered in their approach, not while they insist ideology trumps things like detailed data gathering in the census, starving/muzzling scientists, their treatment of First Nations people, and being found in contempt of parliament.
Xenophobia is just the ugly icing on their nasty ideological cake and I hope we never have to take another bite.
So now whenever they speak as the Opposition, I just roll my eyes, I just don't trust them anymore. Its harder with media though, trying to go back and figure out which outlets endorsed the Cons in past election years sometimes seems beyond my google fu. CBC is the only thing I recall the Cons being dead set against, so they are one of the few who when I read their articles I get the sense they still have a shred of credibility in regards to facts trumping ideological editorial biases.
Conservativism is a cancer on the body politic of western nations at this point. There is no major conservative party I can think of floating around not engaging in that same mix of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, etc, etc.
Conservatism is all about keeping things the same, and maybe, kinda, slowly changing things I guess maybe someday if you can prove its awesome. That this is idea is suffering and going reactionary in the era of the fastest changes in human history should be expected at this point, that mindset simply cannot process the modern world, where things can, should, and must change on a rapid basis.
Conservatism isn't about that at all. That's the philosophical basis for some fantasy political ideology that shares the same name as conservative parties, but it doesn't actually exist in real life. In real life, here and now and for decades in the past at the very least, conservatism is a reactionary ideology against government action and social and cultural change.
People can talk all they want about what conservatism "really is". I'm talking about what it actually is, without the quotes. By looking at their rhetoric and policy.
They are a loose nexus of ideas involving, again, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, a lack of respect for democracy as an idea, a lack of any care for political norms, a lack of respect for basic human rights, etc, etc. That's what is actually consistently shown from their actions.
There is some sort of theoretical conservatism you can read about in a textbook that isn't steeped in these ideas. In the real world, it doesn't exist.
I completely agree, and my apologies that I came across differently. I mentally filed their current insanity under "going reactionary" without fleshing that out, conservatism worldwide has been off the rails for as long as I have been alive, and I agree that they are 100% anti-intellectual, xenophobic, bigots, etc, etc, etc. Completely on board.
What I was trying to muse on was, why? Where did it all go off the rails? And that gets back on the point I was trying to make, conservative politicians worldwide are flailing to find something to keep the same. Because the modern world is hard in flux right now, and that goes against everything the conservative mindset is about: Keeping things the same. Since they can no longer do that, they have turned (over the last 50 years, this didn't start recently) into a reactionary movement, with all the horrors that go along with that.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
Louis XVI wasn't that bad. No worse then alot of monarchs and miles better then alot of others. And let's remember the Left in this instance were the guys that instituted the Reign of Terror. It's a silly comparison anyway though. You can't draw any conclusions about modern conservative politics from the French Revolution, the political situation is too different and the current conservative movement is as much the Left from back then as the Right since they do embrace a decent number of parts of Classical Liberalism. What we think of as "left-wing" or "liberal" today is reform/modern/social liberalism (any of those titles mean basically the same thing) and comes out of movements in the late 19th century when people began to realise that classical liberalism was really really horrible and that government regulation and control was important. You see the emergence of ideas like positive liberties and such.
But yes, absent the example conservatism has rarely been what it has philosophically claimed to be within the modern political context or the lifetime of basically anyone alive today.
You seem much more knowledgeable than I on this.
Have liberals? Can't think of any goverment that has not reneged on some core principles once elected but would love your take on it.
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
WTF? You honestly think that the American economy will do better under Republicans?
It wont.
The only people that will benefit will be the ones who benefit from the bribes and graft, at the expense of all their competitors and consumers.
I would write up more about how your links are mostly disproven horseshit, but you can always go to the thread relitigating the primary / election for an explanation.
What Disco11 said is that the economy will do better in the short-term. Which it might. Eliminating all government, environment, and labour laws, cutting corporate tax rates to nothing, and eliminating unions and worker rights, is definitely good for business in the short term. It is absolutely horrible for business and for society in the long term, but we won't be at that point in three years.
I spent some time trying to tie this back into Canadian Politics, but still seem unable to. So I am going to drop it.
Here's a tie-back to Canadian politics. How are we going to spend the next three years explaining to people who distrust news and education and expert opinions that the bump in the US economy resulting from Trump's total deregulation, detaxation, and suppression of worker rights, is not a good thing we should be emulating like the CPC plans to do, but is a short-term bump that will lead to long-term ravages of US society that the Liberals can shield us from?
An electorate that no longer feels like they have a say in matters + Facebook ( that most people understand even if they are internet Luddites) as your source of news for the last 5-6 years + a democratic candidate that is despised by a large part of the country.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
It's also not accurate. Bring it up in the appropriate thread and there will be plenty of explanation. But basically the DNC favoured Clinton in that they wanted her to win, not in that they actually did anything to help her win. At most, DWS scheduled the debates to get less exposure but that both didn't work and didn't help Clinton since she did good in all the debates anyway. It's one of those truthy stories of the election.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
Doubtful. They'll claim credit for the continuing improvement of the economy caused by Obama's policies but nothing Trump is gonna do is even gonna lead to real short-term gains.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
Here's a tie-back to Canadian politics. How are we going to spend the next three years explaining to people who distrust news and education and expert opinions that the bump in the US economy resulting from Trump's total deregulation, detaxation, and suppression of worker rights, is not a good thing we should be emulating like the CPC plans to do, but is a short-term bump that will lead to long-term ravages of US society that the Liberals can shield us from?
If the economy does do well under Trump I think that will be impossible, honestly. And for some here that think that's impossible i really think you should step back and analyze this objectively without personal opinions about the president affecting your view.
He put Rex Tillerson is secretary of state. The man would drill through the Lincoln memorial if there was a hint of Oil. He will push Keystone in a flat second and will push for drilling right's anywhere.
Andy Puzder is in charge of Labor. Vocal opponent to minimum wage and labor laws. Less wages = more jobs as hiring 3 x people for the price of 2 x is much more effective in a man hour/cost breakdown.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
I actually had a conversation about O'Leary with a friend who worked for CBC. Apparently he was, at least to the staff and other personalities, unfailingly polite and respectful, and went out of his way to buy Christmas presents for the support staff and other people involved with the show when he was there.
That said, it doesn't mean he'd be a good leadership candidate, but he dors seem to be remarkably more tolerable than Leitch. Not a high bar, certainly, but better than it could be.
You know, oddly enough, I read the same thing about Trump: good to those who worked for him. And some of those who worked for him? The same category of people he was railing against in his speeches, so...
At this point in my life and after having seen how Canadian Reform and Conservative parties morphed over the years, what came across as out and out betrayals to me towards my Canadian values once Harper was in power, even as limited as that was being a minority government with the proroguing and what not... We can't rely on them one iota to be tempered in their approach, not while they insist ideology trumps things like detailed data gathering in the census, starving/muzzling scientists, their treatment of First Nations people, and being found in contempt of parliament.
Xenophobia is just the ugly icing on their nasty ideological cake and I hope we never have to take another bite.
So now whenever they speak as the Opposition, I just roll my eyes, I just don't trust them anymore. Its harder with media though, trying to go back and figure out which outlets endorsed the Cons in past election years sometimes seems beyond my google fu. CBC is the only thing I recall the Cons being dead set against, so they are one of the few who when I read their articles I get the sense they still have a shred of credibility in regards to facts trumping ideological editorial biases.
Conservativism is a cancer on the body politic of western nations at this point. There is no major conservative party I can think of floating around not engaging in that same mix of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, etc, etc.
Conservatism is all about keeping things the same, and maybe, kinda, slowly changing things I guess maybe someday if you can prove its awesome. That this is idea is suffering and going reactionary in the era of the fastest changes in human history should be expected at this point, that mindset simply cannot process the modern world, where things can, should, and must change on a rapid basis.
Conservatism isn't about that at all. That's the philosophical basis for some fantasy political ideology that shares the same name as conservative parties, but it doesn't actually exist in real life. In real life, here and now and for decades in the past at the very least, conservatism is a reactionary ideology against government action and social and cultural change.
People can talk all they want about what conservatism "really is". I'm talking about what it actually is, without the quotes. By looking at their rhetoric and policy.
They are a loose nexus of ideas involving, again, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, bigotry, corporate handjobs, deregulation, a lack of respect for democracy as an idea, a lack of any care for political norms, a lack of respect for basic human rights, etc, etc. That's what is actually consistently shown from their actions.
There is some sort of theoretical conservatism you can read about in a textbook that isn't steeped in these ideas. In the real world, it doesn't exist.
I completely agree, and my apologies that I came across differently. I mentally filed their current insanity under "going reactionary" without fleshing that out, conservatism worldwide has been off the rails for as long as I have been alive, and I agree that they are 100% anti-intellectual, xenophobic, bigots, etc, etc, etc. Completely on board.
What I was trying to muse on was, why? Where did it all go off the rails? And that gets back on the point I was trying to make, conservative politicians worldwide are flailing to find something to keep the same. Because the modern world is hard in flux right now, and that goes against everything the conservative mindset is about: Keeping things the same. Since they can no longer do that, they have turned (over the last 50 years, this didn't start recently) into a reactionary movement, with all the horrors that go along with that.
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
Louis XVI wasn't that bad. No worse then alot of monarchs and miles better then alot of others. And let's remember the Left in this instance were the guys that instituted the Reign of Terror. It's a silly comparison anyway though. You can't draw any conclusions about modern conservative politics from the French Revolution, the political situation is too different and the current conservative movement is as much the Left from back then as the Right since they do embrace a decent number of parts of Classical Liberalism. What we think of as "left-wing" or "liberal" today is reform/modern/social liberalism (any of those titles mean basically the same thing) and comes out of movements in the late 19th century when people began to realise that classical liberalism was really really horrible and that government regulation and control was important. You see the emergence of ideas like positive liberties and such.
But yes, absent the example conservatism has rarely been what it has philosophically claimed to be within the modern political context or the lifetime of basically anyone alive today.
You seem much more knowledgeable than I on this.
Have liberals? Can't think of any goverment that has not reneged on some core principles once elected but would love your take on it.
Yes, generally. Left-wing governments have not necessarily fulfilled all their campaign promises (though from studies governments generally actually at least try to accomplish almost all their campaign promises) but that's not really the same thing anyway.
The left-wing as it exists in mainstream politics is essentially social liberalism as it has been for a long time now and still advocates essentially the same general philosophy. Pluralism, capitalism and government aid and regulation.
The right-wing generally can't even commit to a stance of "government should do less" or "good fiscal policy" since conservative governments almost universally expand government power to regulate personal behaviour on issues related to sexuality and run up deficits via big tax cuts.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
Clinton excited people too. More then Sanders, hence why she won. Cause at the end of the day, the DNC didn't make her the nominee, the voters in the primary did.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
The fact that Clinton was actually a Democrat probably played into that a fair bit. There's no way the RNC wasn't thinking the same thing about Trump, nor the CPC about O'Leary right now.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
Clinton excited people too. More then Sanders, hence why she won. Cause at the end of the day, the DNC didn't make her the nominee, the voters in the primary did.
Yeah, nearly 4 million more people voted for Hillary than Sanders.
It's been interesting looking at the polling for the CPC leadership - Leitch is winning among people outside of the party, but she's in 4th or 5th among those who are actual party members. Wonder why that is, specifically.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
Clinton excited people too. More then Sanders, hence why she won. Cause at the end of the day, the DNC didn't make her the nominee, the voters in the primary did.
I absolutely think that she won the primary vote. I do think that "most" pro-Hillary voters were voting for the status quo vs Bernie "bro's" voting for change. And Bernie won the youth vote Hard....
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
Clinton excited people too. More then Sanders, hence why she won. Cause at the end of the day, the DNC didn't make her the nominee, the voters in the primary did.
Yeah, nearly 4 million more people voted for Hillary than Sanders.
It's been interesting looking at the polling for the CPC leadership - Leitch is winning among people outside of the party, but she's in 4th or 5th among those who are actual party members. Wonder why that is, specifically.
Probably high-information vs low-information? If you're a CPC member, you're probably relatively engaged and knowledgeable about politics and policy. Probably a strong corollary to SES too.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
Clinton excited people too. More then Sanders, hence why she won. Cause at the end of the day, the DNC didn't make her the nominee, the voters in the primary did.
Yeah, nearly 4 million more people voted for Hillary than Sanders.
It's been interesting looking at the polling for the CPC leadership - Leitch is winning among people outside of the party, but she's in 4th or 5th among those who are actual party members. Wonder why that is, specifically.
The criticism that the DNC favoured Clinton is only really sensible - and barely - from those who abhor party politics in the first place. This sorta thing is the norm for party politics, even Canadian party politics, whether it was Martin pushing out Chretien, the Ontario PCs favouring Christine Elliot over Patrick Brown, Danielle Smith merging the Wildrose with the Alberta PCs, the current pressure on O'Leary to participate in a French Conservative leader debate, Harper muzzling Conservative backbenchers, Trudeau demanding all Liberal MP candidates be pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), etc.. This is what political parties do. It's always been within their prerogative; hell, it's practically their mandate. Electing party leaders/candidates has never been part of the "public" process.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
The fact that Clinton was actually a Democrat probably played into that a fair bit. There's no way the RNC wasn't thinking the same thing about Trump, nor the CPC about O'Leary right now.
The RNC had no idea how to handle Trump. The man was actively mocking his fellow candidates, reporters (even the handicapped ones!) and single moms yet kept going up in the polls.
Posts
Or really old and racist like my friend's grandparents (They are out in Salmon Arm, BC)
My brother in law (from Quebec) is staying with me for two weeks starting today.
He got off the plane wearing a " Make Canada great again" hat and think Trump walks on water.
These people do not fundamentally see the world as we do. When they talk about "making xxxx great again" I am coming to think they cannot deal with some of the radical shifts society has gone though in the last 20-30 years and want the world to go back to a time they understood.
saskatchewan is an odd place because it's actually generally slightly left leaning, except for the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. I know a number of people from SSK who love Brad Wall but hate Trump. They fail to see the connection.
I mean, Brad Wall is protectionist without being a complete crazy person, so that probably helps his cause.
Brad Wall is very vocal about anything involving Sask. vs the Federal goverment and that speaks to people.
He's also not a complete loon like most vocal conservatives.
For what it's worth, I'm renewing my long disused Conservative Party membership specifically to vote for Michael Chong.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
The thing I've noticed with the Make X Great Again, is Great seems to be the new word for "white"
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be so much of a dig against Brad Wall. It was more that "Rah rah, Trump wants to make America great again, same as Premier Wall looks after us! Oh, wait, NAFTA is going to be re-written? Like, our biggest trade partner? Couldn't that potentially hurt us?"
I feel like the Canadians most interested in the Trump presidency are really NOT seeing the big picture here. Like the guy or not, his policies are not going to be good for anyone other than the United States (and even that is very much up for debate).
I'm not sure that your speculation is founded in anything tangible...
e: This sounds douchey. Sorry. I never heard or saw anything that indicated Saskatchewan, as a whole, was optimistic about a Trump administration.
yea, I was about to say, his policies aren't even going to be good for the US, nevermind anyone else.
I completely agree, and my apologies that I came across differently. I mentally filed their current insanity under "going reactionary" without fleshing that out, conservatism worldwide has been off the rails for as long as I have been alive, and I agree that they are 100% anti-intellectual, xenophobic, bigots, etc, etc, etc. Completely on board.
What I was trying to muse on was, why? Where did it all go off the rails? And that gets back on the point I was trying to make, conservative politicians worldwide are flailing to find something to keep the same. Because the modern world is hard in flux right now, and that goes against everything the conservative mindset is about: Keeping things the same. Since they can no longer do that, they have turned (over the last 50 years, this didn't start recently) into a reactionary movement, with all the horrors that go along with that.
Let's not forget that the Republican party absolutely did not want Trump and are only now trying to make the best of it.
Edit: Unlike the democrats who instead of embracing the new energy that Bernie brought tried to snuff it out so that "their" candidate won.
If anyone is to blame it's the democrats. Trump did not get more votes than Romney did. The Dems just got less.
1. Democratic candidate that recieved more votes in ridings than any of the downballot democrats (thus, she was more popular among democrats and the general public than the "favourability" numbers would lead you to believe)
2. True, no one educated really wanted trump
3. If you can point to an example of Bernie being snuffed out I would appreciate it, especially in some official capacity by the DNC. Instead he purposefully tried to keep his voters separate from the democrats to extract concessions, but was then never able to fully bridge the gap again.
I dont know who is more to blame, Democrats for not beating the Republicans. Republicans for being so naturally awful that people dont expect any better. People that vote 3rd party and thus enabled the worse option to win. Or people who didnt vote at all.
Though this is all a very strange topic for the CANADIAN POLITICS thread.
MWO: Adamski
Honestly, I'm not sure conservatism has ever been on the rails. Remember the origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing: they come from the French National Assembly during the Revolutionary period. The Republicans would sit on the left side of the chamber. The Monarchists would sit on the right side. That is to say, they looked at Louis XVI and said, "More of this, please!"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-31/dnc-s-brazile-said-to-have-leaked-debate-question-to-clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-the-dnc-favored-hillary_us_57b365a4e4b0b3bb4b0800bd
But you are right this is really off topic for the Canadian thread.
What I truly worry about is that the American economy IS going to go gangbusters for the next few years as a result of Trump's pro business, Anti-regulation stance. This will fuel the fires of the "conservatives" up here and reinforce Trump's bullshit is a legitimate way to win a goverment.
To be fair though, Louis XVI was a hugely popular king. Even the Revolutionaries were pro-monarchy, they just felt that the higher levels of the bourgeoisie had negatively influenced and corrupted the king, and they wanted to remove them, not him. At that point, France could have easily become a constitutional monarchy like England was.
Only when Louis XVI tried to flee to Austria and it was revealed that he really was an absolutist monarch who despised the revolution and wanted it to fail did public opinion turned against him and France went full-on democratic secular head-rolling republic.
Hence why the rest of Europe tried to wipe France off the map after. Since their kings and queens kinda hated the precedent that was just set.
And, as it turns out, France really wasn't ready to be a Republic yet. But seriously, when was the last period of history during which conservatism, as it manifested politically, wasn't really about keeping things the same because conservatives liked being on top of the pile? Bismarck?
Canada's new foreign affairs minister is a Ukrainian-Canadian banned from entering Russia.
Bismark Was a master political strategist and negotiator that hated war.
We need a dude like that on the world stage now.
Chrystia Freeland: International Trade --> Foreign Affairs (She keeps the US/Canada trade portfolio)
François-Philippe Champagne: International Trade (he's just a lil' guy from Shawinigan)
Patricia Hajdu: Status of Women --> Labour
Maryam Monsef: Democratic Institutions --> Status of Women
Karina Gould --> Democratic Institutions
Ahmed Hussen: Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (first black Canadian in Trudeau's cabinet)
As rumored, Dion and McCallum are outie. McCallum is confirmed as Ambassador to China, we're not sure if Dion is headed to the EU yet or not. Dion's statement talks a lot about serving his country "outside of politics," whatever that means.
I'm glad Dion is out. He was not suited to the portfolio. I'm particularly amused that Trudeau has a female cabinet minister in charge of pretty much all dealings with Trump. I laugh at the people who think Freeland's a failure because she shed a couple tears during a hard-fought, frustrating, difficult trade negotiation. Poo to you, toxic masculinity, in both your spray-tan and maple leaf formats.
I wasn't too fond of McCallum's handling of immigration, either. He did fine with the Syrian refugees but otherwise presided over some particularly heartless and unnecessary deportations (like of a Korean-born man who was adopted by Canadians as an infant, but the adoptive parents failed to handle his immigration paperwork properly).
Here's hoping Karina Gould can tackle electoral reform.
WTF? You honestly think that the American economy will do better under Republicans?
It wont.
The only people that will benefit will be the ones who benefit from the bribes and graft, at the expense of all their competitors and consumers.
I would write up more about how your links are mostly disproven horseshit, but you can always go to the thread relitigating the primary / election for an explanation.
MWO: Adamski
What Disco11 said is that the economy will do better in the short-term. Which it might. Eliminating all government, environment, and labour laws, cutting corporate tax rates to nothing, and eliminating unions and worker rights, is definitely good for business in the short term. It is absolutely horrible for business and for society in the long term, but we won't be at that point in three years.
In the short term? Absolutely the economy is going to sky rocket. Removing regulatory and oversight is going to do great for business. pipeline approvals regardless of environmental impact, losing safety regulations, lowering minimum, wage.. Nothing is off the table with Mr Trump. Do you seriously think things are not going to be a heyday for big business? Look at his cabinet picks.
And when his 2nd term comes around and he can point at lower unemployment (regardless that people ned to work 2-3 jobs to get by) it will bolster him to a 2nd term. This is in an ideal world where we are not huddling for warmth after a nuclear winter mind you.
Long term they are going to be a fucking disaster though. This is going to make the decades repairing Regan's years look like a nice walk in the park.
Louis XVI wasn't that bad. No worse then alot of monarchs and miles better then alot of others. And let's remember the Left in this instance were the guys that instituted the Reign of Terror. It's a silly comparison anyway though. You can't draw any conclusions about modern conservative politics from the French Revolution, the political situation is too different and the current conservative movement is as much the Left from back then as the Right since they do embrace a decent number of parts of Classical Liberalism. What we think of as "left-wing" or "liberal" today is reform/modern/social liberalism (any of those titles mean basically the same thing) and comes out of movements in the late 19th century when people began to realise that classical liberalism was really really horrible and that government regulation and control was important. You see the emergence of ideas like positive liberties and such.
But yes, absent the example conservatism has rarely been what it has philosophically claimed to be within the modern political context or the lifetime of basically anyone alive today.
You seem much more knowledgeable than I on this.
Have liberals? Can't think of any goverment that has not reneged on some core principles once elected but would love your take on it.
I spent some time trying to tie this back into Canadian Politics, but still seem unable to. So I am going to drop it.
MWO: Adamski
It's also not accurate. Bring it up in the appropriate thread and there will be plenty of explanation. But basically the DNC favoured Clinton in that they wanted her to win, not in that they actually did anything to help her win. At most, DWS scheduled the debates to get less exposure but that both didn't work and didn't help Clinton since she did good in all the debates anyway. It's one of those truthy stories of the election.
Doubtful. They'll claim credit for the continuing improvement of the economy caused by Obama's policies but nothing Trump is gonna do is even gonna lead to real short-term gains.
If the economy does do well under Trump I think that will be impossible, honestly. And for some here that think that's impossible i really think you should step back and analyze this objectively without personal opinions about the president affecting your view.
He put Rex Tillerson is secretary of state. The man would drill through the Lincoln memorial if there was a hint of Oil. He will push Keystone in a flat second and will push for drilling right's anywhere.
Andy Puzder is in charge of Labor. Vocal opponent to minimum wage and labor laws. Less wages = more jobs as hiring 3 x people for the price of 2 x is much more effective in a man hour/cost breakdown.
again, long term they are screwed.
No doubt.. The DNC clearly wanted Hillary to win internally over Bernie is all I ever said.
They just backed the wrong horse. How they thought Clinton was a better choice then Bernie (who actually exited people) is beyond me.
Yes, generally. Left-wing governments have not necessarily fulfilled all their campaign promises (though from studies governments generally actually at least try to accomplish almost all their campaign promises) but that's not really the same thing anyway.
The left-wing as it exists in mainstream politics is essentially social liberalism as it has been for a long time now and still advocates essentially the same general philosophy. Pluralism, capitalism and government aid and regulation.
The right-wing generally can't even commit to a stance of "government should do less" or "good fiscal policy" since conservative governments almost universally expand government power to regulate personal behaviour on issues related to sexuality and run up deficits via big tax cuts.
Clinton excited people too. More then Sanders, hence why she won. Cause at the end of the day, the DNC didn't make her the nominee, the voters in the primary did.
The fact that Clinton was actually a Democrat probably played into that a fair bit. There's no way the RNC wasn't thinking the same thing about Trump, nor the CPC about O'Leary right now.
Yeah, nearly 4 million more people voted for Hillary than Sanders.
It's been interesting looking at the polling for the CPC leadership - Leitch is winning among people outside of the party, but she's in 4th or 5th among those who are actual party members. Wonder why that is, specifically.
I absolutely think that she won the primary vote. I do think that "most" pro-Hillary voters were voting for the status quo vs Bernie "bro's" voting for change. And Bernie won the youth vote Hard....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-people-voted-for-bernie-sanders-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/?utm_term=.13c13a3c3771
That is something neither Trump nor Clinton really managed to achieve and should have been imitated instead of derided as both camps did.
Regardless, hopefully they leaned their lesson for the next go around and that's enough talking about that!
Probably high-information vs low-information? If you're a CPC member, you're probably relatively engaged and knowledgeable about politics and policy. Probably a strong corollary to SES too.
The RNC had no idea how to handle Trump. The man was actively mocking his fellow candidates, reporters (even the handicapped ones!) and single moms yet kept going up in the polls.