Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:22 AM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I just find it amusing that the Cons, who generally seem to be opposed to any sort of electoral reform, use ranked ballots in their own election.
While I understand the sentiment, it's not a huge change from their prior rules, which were successive rounds of runoff voting. The ranked ballots just allow you to do the runoff voting all in one go. This isn't no change at all, of course, as it doesn't allow voters to change their mind about their lower rankings as the rounds progress, but it's not nearly as big a change to their voting scheme as it would be to the general election rules.
  #52  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:31 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
I don't think the comparison to the process the Conservatives or Liberals use to select their leaders are very helpful, especially since the voting is not based on "one person, one vote". Both parties tie the vote to the constituency structures. It's a different type of election entirely.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #53  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:35 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
So far, the only campaigning I've noticed is we got a door-knocker for the NDP handing out material, and the outgoing CCF member took down his "Thank you Regina" signs, probably to avoid election expense violations since he's not running.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #54  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:05 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
The latest Mainstreet poll has the Liberals winning a majority if the election were held today, due mainly to the collapse of the NDP, which now only has 8.4% national support - below the green party.

But the real danger of this election is also shown in the poll: The liberals are favorites in the East, but the Conservatives are the overwhelming favorites in the west, even in very liberal BC.

Quote:
In Alberta and the Prairies, the Conservatives are easily outpacing their rivals, grabbing over 50 per cent of support. In Alberta, the Tories lead the Liberals 56.4-20.3, followed by the Greens (9.7), NDP (8.4) and PPC (2.9). In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the Conservatives are up on the Liberals by a 54.1-19.9 margin, with the NDP following at 11.7 per cent, and the Greens (6.7) and PPC (3) in the rear.
I predict that if the Liberals win another majority, you will see the strongest separatist movement in the west since, well, the last Trudeau. You are also going to see huge blowback against the equalization system.

After SNC-Lavalin and all the other scandals, gaffes, and broken campaign promises, I don't know how Trudeau can possibly be this popular down east. Oh, wait.... Billions of dollars of vote buying might have something to do with it. He brings home the bacon for his peeps, at the expense of everyone else. Hence the heavy geographic polarization.
  #55  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:30 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,413
It's not just buying votes. It's also sincere antipathy towards the conservative message - and this is in no small part due to a couple of prominent conservative politicians that are absolute dumpster fires (Ford and, yes, that American president guy). Also, I really have very little idea of what Scheer actually stands for. I have a pretty good idea of what he stands against, but that's not very helpful in persuading voters who aren't already inclined to dislike Trudeau.
  #56  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:17 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
It's not just buying votes. It's also sincere antipathy towards the conservative message - and this is in no small part due to a couple of prominent conservative politicians that are absolute dumpster fires (Ford and, yes, that American president guy). Also, I really have very little idea of what Scheer actually stands for. I have a pretty good idea of what he stands against, but that's not very helpful in persuading voters who aren't already inclined to dislike Trudeau.


And that's evidenced by there being a whole lot of people like me, who used to vote Conservative, in one of their variations or the other, but who have left the party in recent years because we don't like the path they've chosen. No one "bought" my vote, the Conservatives threw it away.
  #57  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:15 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,080
Ontario, and much of Canada, has a lot of Red Tories and people like me who are socially liberal (and even libertarian) but economically conservative. Canada is less partisan than the US, and the two major parties have far more similarities than differences. One would hope for a return to fiscal prudence and a more sensible balance between provinces, programs and stakeholders. I haven’t yet seen this from any of the contenders.

The Liberals have little chance of winning Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But this is nothing new or unexpected. Their policies have favoured their traditional areas of support. Their popularity in Ontario is in part due to the current opinion of Ford. While it is surprising that the Conservatives have a slight lead in BC, this is partly due to the fact both the Greens and NDP are doing better there than in other regions.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #58  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:27 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,821
Sam Stone I'm not sure claiming vote buying is a clever thing to use to denigrate Ontario voters when the Federal government spent 4.5 billion dollars to buy a pipeline to move Alberta bitumin. Glass houses and all.

The real question is not "why do votes want to vote for the Liberals". The real question is "why are Conservatives unable to gain votes. Heck in Ontario they've lost ground, as have the Liberals.

Very interesting Polling Aggregator at the CBC.

Let's look at the "Since 2015" view for Canada, BC, Alberta, Praire Provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada.

Canada
Big story is the NDP (~15% to ~12%) and the rise of the Green Party (~5% to 10%)
Conservatives/Liberals swap places back and forth but Conservative have failed to capitalize on Liberal misfortunes.

BC
Almost identical to Canada overall - NDP/Green are neck and neck, but Conservatives have allowed the Liberals to creep back up to almost parity

Alberta
Looks like Liberal voters have moved to either the NDP/Green parties or into the Conservative groups. Oddly the PPC rise (though small) doesn't look like it's impact the Conservatives.
Oddly Liberal vote buying in the form of pipelines hasn't seen any benefits .

Prairies
Liberal support looks like it mainly went to Conservatives with some going Green/NDP but a recent spike in Green support seems to tie to NDP loses.

Ontario
Liberal/Conservative are neck and neck with some Liberal uptick recently but the story is the rise of the Greens from ~5% to 10% eating into the NDP. Remember the NDP leader was a provincial MP and should carry some popular weight here.

Quebec
NDP collapse and Green rise with steady Conservative growth but the Liberals remain in the lead - quelle suprise

Atlantic Canada
NDP and Greens now basically tied. The Conservatives saw steady growth from ~20% to 35% but have faded away recent giving votes (and the lead) back to the Liberals.

To be fair, I'm annoyed that the Conservatives are doing so badly here. I've stated why the Liberals wont be getting my vote but claiming voters west of Manitoba have been "bought" is disgusting and obviously untrue on review. They appear to not see anything vote worthy in Andrew Sheer and his party. They obviously want to, given the positioning of both Conservative & Liberal polling results (they're close). Basically it's not the people's fault the Conservative can't capitalize on Liberal mistakes.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #59  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:27 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
Ontario, and much of Canada, has a lot of Red Tories and people like me who are socially liberal (and even libertarian) but economically conservative.

See, that's part of the problem. I used to describe myself the same way, but lately I've preferred "economically responsible", because the current conservative economic plan is anything but responsible. They're stuck on tax cuts and trickle down theory, which has been shown not to work*.

Hell, Doug Ford had to be dragged kicking and screaming into presenting anything that even looked like a proposed budget during the Ontario election. If any other party had ever tried to pull that, the Conservatives would have cried foul without hesitation, but now, the party that used to pride itself on being "the one that can do math" just flat out refused to do any math at all.


Add in the obvious trends towards pandering to the religious right and the racists, the major anti-scientific shift, and pandering to conspiracy theorists and crazies, and there's just nothing left in this party for a Red Tory.



*I had an epiphany a while back: Trickle down is to the right wing what communism used to be to the left wing. A nice sounding theory, that utterly failed in reality, because it turns out real people don't actually act the way the theory assumes they will act. The left wing has largely moved past outright communism, but the right wing is still stuck on trickle down.
  #60  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:19 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,080
I don’t disagree. When I say “economically conservative”, I am referring to a classic description which seems to no longer exist in practice.

The irony is that plenty of voters respect fiscal restraint. It worked very well for Chrétien and Martin, although times were different and there were some skeletons in the closet. It got Ford elected — although he has largely been profligate. Best not to mention Ontario Hydro, buck-a-beer or school curricula. It is understood tough decisions have to be made, but they have not. These distractions have accomplished little. And one can’t but help feel both provincial and federal Tories could do better.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #61  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:11 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
I have often described myself as socially liberal and economically conservative.

But what does such a person do when the choices you have are for a mildly socially conservative, fiscally conservative candidate, or a socially liberal candidate who blows money and grows government like a drunken sailor? Neither candidate is perfect, but you have to hold your nose and vote for one of them.

Normally, I would decide based on what I think is the lesser evil at the time. A big spender might be more tolerable when the economy is good, the global economy is fine, and the debt is low. A social conservative would be terrible in a time where there are increasing tensions between groups and a generally restrictive and intolerant populace persecuting visible minorities.

On the other hand, if there are economic storm clouds everywhere and your deficit is already huge and growing, and most of the threats to civil society and freedom are coming from the 'social liberals' (hate speech laws, freedom of association attacks, etc), then it becomes an easier choice.

Trudeau could not manage our finances during a time of relative well being and a reasonable economy. He promised a balanced budget in 2019, but instead we have a deficit about twice as large as he promised the deficit would ever go. And it wasn't because of a crisis or something unforseen - it was because of choices his government made.

And we have very little to show for that money. Having that idiot in charge when a major financial collapse or other crisis comes along is terrifying. And also, he really needs to be punished for breaking his election promises so badly - not just on finances, but on a lot of things that matter to the left as well.

Also, let's admit that if Trump got caught in an SNC-Lavalin type affair, you'd all be screaming for impeachment. Yet you're willing to vote for Trudeau, who clearly tried to strong-arm an attorney general into twisting the law for a favored constituent, then destroyed her career when she wouldn't play ball, but he has shown almost no remorse for what he did. That simply can't be rewarded.

Scheer is not Trump. He's not an old reactionary, or a racist. He's a modern conservative in the mainstream tradition. I don't like all his policies, and if he was running against someone like Paul Martin and the old liberals, they might get my vote. But Trudeau is a dangerous man-child of a leader who continually embarrasses Canada on the world stage and makes stupid decisions at home. He is also in the process of creating a new western separatist movement with his clear favoritism of the east, as seen in his willingness to break the law to save a few hundred jobs in Quebec while being almost indifferent to 180,000 jobs being lost in the prairies due to government choices.
  #62  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:43 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
Sam Stone I'm not sure claiming vote buying is a clever thing to use to denigrate Ontario voters when the Federal government spent 4.5 billion dollars to buy a pipeline to move Alberta bitumin.
Let me know when that does a damned bit of good for Alberta. We don't want federal nationalized infrastructure, and Kinder Morgan wasn't looking to sell. They just wanted a guarantee that the Trans-Mountain pipeline could be built without massive delays from lawsuits. Instead, Trudeau bought them out. Then the very day the shareholders voted to approve the sale, the National Energy Board's approval of the pipeline was overturned by a court of appeals due to lack of consultation with indigenous groups. What a screw-up.

Now Trudeau is 'looking for investors' to complete the project, but no one is biting because there is no evidence it will ever be allowed to be built. He has even offered to indemnify investors against the cost of delays, which essentially will open a blank cheque on the federal government. The purchase of the Trans-Mountain pipeline project was one of the stupidest things Trudeau has done. He could have achieved the same thing by simply giving the same assurances to Kinder Morgan that he's willing to give anyone else now that the government owns it, and he could have done it without spending a penny. And if that guarantee wasn't possible because of legal roadblocks, he was an idiot to buy it.

And shouldn't this be a strike against Trudeau from the perspective of the environmental movement? He just spent 4.5 billion supposedly to guarantee that the world's dirtiest (in terms of CO2) oil can make it to market. Why aren't they enraged at this? Maybe it's because they believe that pipeline will never be built, and the 4.5 billion could better be seen as a bailout.

Finally, Trudeau himself supported a ban on BC oil tankers. Bill C-48 is going to be law. So what good is the pipeline supposed to be if the oil can't be moved out of BC ports? And what kind of idiot buys a pipeline to the coast, then bans the tankers that would take it to market?
  #63  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:44 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,821
Then it should be an easy argument for the Conservatives to make and so regain people in that surprisingly voted Liberal in the last election. The Liberals were in 3rd place - they won by getting Conservative and some NDP voters. It can not possibly be that hard for the Conservative party to woe them back given it's only been 4 bloody years.

And yet they are failing at it.

That's not a voter problem, it's a platform framing problem.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #64  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:24 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Let me know when that does a damned bit of good for Alberta. We don't want federal nationalized infrastructure, and Kinder Morgan wasn't looking to sell. They just wanted a guarantee that the Trans-Mountain pipeline could be built without massive delays from lawsuits. Instead, Trudeau bought them out. Then the very day the shareholders voted to approve the sale, the National Energy Board's approval of the pipeline was overturned by a court of appeals due to lack of consultation with indigenous groups. What a screw-up.
Be fair. KM shot down non-essential work in April of 2018, the purchase offer was May and the approval by KM shareholders was August. Oilsands crude price also worsened in the 2nd half of 2018. Do you seriously believe KM would have keep working on the project? I suppose you could argue that a Liberal federal government should let a pipeline die in Alberta. I mean that could only have gone well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
And shouldn't this be a strike against Trudeau from the perspective of the environmental movement? He just spent 4.5 billion supposedly to guarantee that the world's dirtiest (in terms of CO2) oil can make it to market. Why aren't they enraged at this? Maybe it's because they believe that pipeline will never be built, and the 4.5 billion could better be seen as a bailout.
Of course the purchase of the pipeline cost Liberals votes - they knew it would cost votes and they did it anyway to keep the pipeline project active. Do you not remember the discussion around linking pipeline completion with carbon tax (or equivalent) with the idea of balancing resource exploitation with environmental action on CO2

The entire pipeline is a screwup, though I see it more as an untenable balancing act between oilsands and the environment with a gaggle of political figures in provincial and federal in BC, Alberta, Quebec (energy east) and the ROC.

But we've moved away from the previous point about Liberal fortunes only being floated by vote buying in the east.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey

Last edited by Grey; 09-16-2019 at 05:25 PM.
  #65  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:08 AM
Acierocolotl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 23
CBC has a nice little summary of the various party platforms: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elec...rty-platforms/

I've had a couple party volunteers show up to convince me to vote, but never got anything substantial out of them--so this is nice.
  #66  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:59 AM
borschevsky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Having that idiot in charge when a major financial collapse or other crisis comes along is terrifying.
Do you have more confidence in Sheer's understanding of this stuff? When he writes things like this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Sheer
Why is Justin Trudeau punishing Canadians’ success? According to @FraserInstitute, Canadian families earned an extra 3.3% last year, but taxes were up by 3.1%. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals taxed away 94 cents out of every extra dollar earned. Canadians are missing out.
Not a lot of fun choosing between Trudeau and the guy who doesn't understand how percentages work.
  #67  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:06 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Just in case any non-Canadians are reading this, I'll point out that the term 'Progressive Conservative' has been an oxymoronic joke since . . . forever.
Almost as funny as "compassionate conservative." But not quite.
  #68  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:09 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
That pretty much summarizes my views as well. I had hopes that Trudeau would be a better prime minister, and while he hasn't been awful he hasn't been that grand either. I'm particularly annoyed at the half-hearted (at best) attempt at electoral reform.
What would "electoral reform" constitute in Canada, where you already have a system where a nonpartisan commission of civil servants draws the riding-boundaries? Seriously, what would it be -- proportional representation?
  #69  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:30 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Civil servants do not draw electoral boundaries.

There is a three-person boundaries commission appointed for each province, consisting of a superior court judge, an individual recommended by the government, and an ndividual recommended by the official Opposition.

The Commissions file their reports with Parliament, which invariably adopts them.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 09-17-2019 at 08:30 AM.
  #70  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:32 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
PR and single transferable votes seem to be the two alternatives that get the most discussion.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #71  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:31 PM
This_Just_In... is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 43rd largest island
Posts: 649
I wish we had proportional representation so I could confidently vote for who I want to. However the recent referendum in BC proved to me that it's supposed popularity on the internet are off-base when it comes up against people who actually show up to vote.

So back to strategic voting. Federal elections are always Liberals vs. Conservatives - the only two parties that ever have a real chance to win. Between those two choices my support is with the Liberals. However I live in a BC riding where the real contenders are NDP and Conservatives. Subsequently - unless one of those parties pulls far ahead in my riding I'll strategically vote NDP to help the Liberals win.
  #72  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:01 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post


Also, let's admit that if Trump got caught in an SNC-Lavalin type affair, you'd all be screaming for impeachment.
Ummmmm No. Not even close. Let's imagine for a moment that Trump puts pressure on a cabinet secretary to make a decision that lets a company off the hook so that they can employ thousands of people....

That would be about #3,674 on the list of things he has done that are not good.

"Screaming for impeachment". Good lord. I think you are serious. Why not call us "shrill" while you are at it for good measure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
But Trudeau is a dangerous man-child of a leader who continually embarrasses Canada on the world stage and makes stupid decisions at home. He is also in the process of creating a new western separatist movement with his clear favoritism of the east, as seen in his willingness to break the law to save a few hundred jobs in Quebec while being almost indifferent to 180,000 jobs being lost in the prairies due to government choices.
Yep, this is what I see in on-line commentary as the reason people are planning to vote for Scheer:

1. I hate Trudeau with the passion of a thousand burning suns
2. Alberta is being treated so UNFAAAAAAAIR. It's Trudeau's fault that Alberta's economy was not diversified over the past 40 years, and the world oil prices have made the oil sands uneconomical.
  #73  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:13 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,821
Can I just quickly ask where the 180,000 jobs lost comes from?

This Alberta government PDF puts employment in Albert on Forestry, Fishing, Mining, Oi and Gas at 138,300. Even if you assume 25% of construction jobs are linked to oil (25% of 241,900) and assume all 138,300 are tagged to oil you only get 199,000 jobs.

So how does the 180,000 get calculated - genuinely curious.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #74  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:58 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by This_Just_In... View Post
So back to strategic voting. Federal elections are always Liberals vs. Conservatives - the only two parties that ever have a real chance to win. Between those two choices my support is with the Liberals. However I live in a BC riding where the real contenders are NDP and Conservatives. Subsequently - unless one of those parties pulls far ahead in my riding I'll strategically vote NDP to help the Liberals win.
Green Party candidate has no shot in your riding?
  #75  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:05 AM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Ummmmm No. Not even close. Let's imagine for a moment that Trump puts pressure on a cabinet secretary to make a decision that lets a company off the hook so that they can employ thousands of people....
And that's if you equate a deferred prosecution agreement to "letting a company off the hook".
  #76  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:17 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,244
The Liberal majority has been too good for them that they felt no need to even fake an interest in voting reform. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Last edited by orcenio; 09-18-2019 at 08:20 AM.
  #77  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:20 AM
Palooka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 2,565
They did that survey for it and it revealed people liked the status quo so they didn't do anything.
  #78  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:43 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,762
Scheer may not be a racist but he seems awfully keen to curry their support. And that's one of the things that worries me about him. He might have to continue to curry their favour. 69% (Oh my! Takei get outta here) percent of CPoC supporters believe there are too many non-white immigrants coming into the country. The white nationalist are in the CPoC. Scheer attempts to curry their favour without upsetting the rest of Canada is actually pretty comical. Ultimately Scheer is anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, pro-nationalism (whether intentionally or not), and pro-trickle down economics. It is not possible for me to vote for that. That's not the Canada I want to see.
  #79  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:40 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,080
After the usual “let us travel across the country and survey all the local people” nonsense, it is true support for a different voting system is not strong.

But it is hard to believe the drop in enthusiasm is not related to a desire not to permanently split the leftish vote, since PR (for example) would presumably benefit the NDP and Greens.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #80  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:39 PM
Acierocolotl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 23
Scheer claims he'll cover the tax cuts by removing (some) corporate subsidies.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/con...dies-1.5288031

Water is still wet? Check.
Gravity makes things fall? Check.

We haven't entered the negaverse yet, but you'll forgive me if I feel really bewildered about the Conservatives taking anything even remotely close to a business-hostile stance.
  #81  
Old 09-18-2019, 01:02 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,413
The numbers I've seen in the press don't add up, either. I thought I saw that he was talking about roughly $1.5 billion/yr in subsidy cuts, but my understanding is that his tax cut is more like $7 billion/yr. (If I have this wrong, someone please correct me.) I suppose he'll make up the rest by "eliminating waste" and "finding efficiencies."

I'm not really finding Scheer any more credible on the fiscal responsibility front than the Liberals. For all that the Liberals have exceeded their deficit targets, the debt to GDP ratio has been stable (actually declining slightly) which is hardly anything to get worked up about. I'd rather see modest deficits that don't increase the debt/GDP ratio and govt services being provided at their current levels than tax cuts and either increased debts or cuts to services.
  #82  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:07 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acierocolotl View Post
Scheer claims he'll cover the tax cuts by removing (some) corporate subsidies.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/con...dies-1.5288031

Water is still wet? Check.
Gravity makes things fall? Check.

We haven't entered the negaverse yet, but you'll forgive me if I feel really bewildered about the Conservatives taking anything even remotely close to a business-hostile stance.
Good to know that the Conservatives will not continue to pour money into helping the oil companies, such as pumping money into the Trans-Mountain pipeline. I imagine voters in Alberta will take notice that the oil company subsidy tap will be turned off under Scheer.
  #83  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:41 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Is the cancel culture in Canada as bad as it is in the US? If so, this might be a bad upcoming week, perhaps 10 days, for your prime minister if this is true. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ancouver-party
  #84  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:59 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 577
Justin Trudeau appeared in “brown face” in 2001

https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAHuTfz?m=en-c...rID=InAppShare
  #85  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Is the cancel culture in Canada as bad as it is in the US? If so, this might be a bad upcoming week, perhaps 10 days, for your prime minister if this is true. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ancouver-party
Since I have no idea what "cancel culture" is, I can only assume it's not as bad in Canada.

It's not a great look but "brown face" in Canada doesn't carry the same weight or meaning as it does in the States. He'll ride this out ok if he watches his step.
  #86  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:55 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 220
It may or may not substantially damage him, but his core brand is being the woke white guy and now... well it’s gonna be hard to reconcile these photos with his brand, notwithstanding all the other shit that’s tarnished him this year.

The one positive thing about this is that his apology was swift, unequivocal in his condemnation of his own actions and sincere. But man, if you told me back in February when the blackface scandal with the governor of Virginia was in the headlines that Trudeau would be at the heart of a similar scandal later this year, I would have slapped you silly.
  #87  
Old 09-18-2019, 11:04 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,762
I'm willing to bet that Scheer wished hadn't of said yesterday that an apology is sufficient to atone for past mistakes in judgement vis a vis one of candidates having racist remarks on Twitter.
  #88  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:11 AM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Since I have no idea what "cancel culture" is....
From what I've read elsewhere, it appears to be synonymous with "boycott." For example, "Let's boycott ABC Industries' products," means the same as, "Let's cancel ABC Industries." Different terminology, but same objective.

I'm willing to cut Justin Trudeau a little slack on this one. First, he did it eighteen or nineteen years ago, when he likely never expected to be the PM, and he had no reason to believe the photo would never resurface to the Canadian public during his election race to remain the PM of Canada, nineteen years later--more likely, back then, it would amuse his circle of friends, and that would be it. Secondly, we all did things in our early twenties that we would take a second look at doing nowadays. Those of us who have reached thirty years or more beyond then, anyway.

I'm no fan of Mr. Trudeau, but I must say that I do not like the "negative campaigning" that has been occurring from all parties. Tell me what your platform is, not how the other person's platform (and of course, it is interpreted in a negative way) sucks. Tell me what you will do for me if elected, not how the other side is going to screw me over if he or she is elected.
  #89  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:24 AM
Quint is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 907
Well thank goodness this was a case of “brownface” and not blackface. Unless this is a whitewash??
  #90  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:33 AM
Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I'm willing to cut Justin Trudeau a little slack on this one. First, he did it eighteen or nineteen years ago, when he likely never expected to be the PM, and he had no reason to believe the photo would never resurface to the Canadian public during his election race to remain the PM of Canada, nineteen years later--more likely, back then, it would amuse his circle of friends, and that would be it. Secondly, we all did things in our early twenties that we would take a second look at doing nowadays. Those of us who have reached thirty years or more beyond then, anyway.
So, this is okay because he was just trying to impress his friends and it wasn't likely he'd be PM? Article I read says Mr. 'Woke' was 29 at the time, btw. Well past the age that someone with the gravitas necessary to eventually be PM should be doing such stupid things. Interesting that he felt no need to bring this up earlier and use it as a learning experience for us all.

Anyone else envision him in an Indian hotel room, dressed as a Bollywood actor and holding a can of brown shoe polish, with a puzzled look on his face after his wife smacked him upside the head?
  #91  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:03 AM
McDeath_the_Mad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 961
I'm totally willing to cut him some slack on this (note I am a pretty staunch Liberal).

Were these (there are 3 now) stupid, racist, irresponsible acts? Yes.

Is Trudeau a racist? No frick'n way. Look at how diverse his cabinet is, compared to I don't know lets say the Trump cabinet. He has a Sikh as his minister of defense (who is doing a great job).

These all happened 18 years and like close to 30 years ago (in high school). He apologized and said they were stupid and racist.

MtM
__________________
/\/\cDeath the /\/\ad
  #92  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:43 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
The hyper partisans who hated Trudeau with a passion still hate Trudeau.

The rest of us are ready to move on to more substantive issues and policies.

Someone at my workplace (who I think tends to be center-right in political terms, and has no love of Trudeau) said something interesting - that she felt that one way to look at this was that Trudeau did some wrong things in his past ... and this has actually helped make him a better man today. That perhaps part of the reason for who is is today is that he has looked back at things he's done in the past, thought about them, and realized he was wrong. And that this growth is something she valued in a leader.

Food for thought.

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 09-19-2019 at 02:44 PM. Reason: spellig
  #93  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:55 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Yeah, just like Brett Kavanaugh's indiscretions in college made him a better man today, right?

I wonder what you'd have to say if a photo of Andrew Scheer in 'brownface' turned up. Would you also conclude that this made him a better man, and therefore was not relevant to the election at all, or even a good thing?
  #94  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:10 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Yeah, just like Brett Kavanaugh's indiscretions in college made him a better man today, right?

I wonder what you'd have to say if a photo of Andrew Scheer in 'brownface' turned up. Would you also conclude that this made him a better man, and therefore was not relevant to the election at all, or even a good thing?


Yes, but "a better man today" isn't just something we assume he is, it's something we can evaluate. Like, how did Trudeau address these issues? Did he, say, start ranting and crying about how he was being mistreated? Did he deny it ever happened? Did he think declaring his love of beer would make everything okay? No? Then yeah, he's at least a "better man" than Brett Kavanaugh, and probably is better than he was back then.

This is just the Canadian version of "The Democrats Are The Real Racists!", and it's just as much obvious bullshit. Doing something stupid 20 years ago pales in comparison to the CPC's open embrace of racists today.
  #95  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:17 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
Well Sam, I'm just reporting what a colleague said to me. Your mileage may differ.

Most folks I know are analyzing the situation on it's face, and are not bringing up the "Oh ya, what about this other guy in the US, huh? What about how he was treated, huh?"

And if a photo like that turned up for Scheer, my reaction would largely depend on a couple of things:
- how he handled it via an apology
- what he has done in the intervening time, and how he has behaved.

Analysing these two factors are needed before deciding whether an individual has learned from poor past behaviour, or if they still hold poor beliefs. So you have to look at each case and the totality of the individual. Sorry this is not a simple answer.

For instance, Scheer has, in the past, denounced same sex marriage, and has made a less than flattering analogy with a dog's leg. (note - I was not particularly bothered by his analogy - I think partisans made a big deal of very little). He has not gone to Pride parades.

Now -- has Scheer learned and grown from this? Does he now accept that same sex marriage is not a horrible thing? Will he, as PM, go to Pride parades and accept that same sex marriage is OK? I'm not entirely sure. His actions, words and lack of apologies to date make this an unknown.
  #96  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:03 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Yes, but "a better man today" isn't just something we assume he is, it's something we can evaluate. Like, how did Trudeau address these issues? Did he, say, start ranting and crying about how he was being mistreated? Did he deny it ever happened? Did he think declaring his love of beer would make everything okay? No? Then yeah, he's at least a "better man" than Brett Kavanaugh, and probably is better than he was back then.

This is just the Canadian version of "The Democrats Are The Real Racists!", and it's just as much obvious bullshit. Doing something stupid 20 years ago pales in comparison to the CPC's open embrace of racists today.
It is fascinating that the exact same behavior can be used both as a cudgel against a political opponent or be completely irrelevant aside from an opportunity for personal growth. Things that make you go .
  #97  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:20 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,762
Who is Andrew Scheer today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?
Who is Justin Trudeau today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?
Who is Brett Kavanaugh today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?
Who is Donald Trump today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?

It really isn't that hard to figure out. I know that Kavanaugh and Trump are the same scum they've always been. Scheer, I don't know because he's so wishy-washy. It isn't hard to figure out why he's wishy-washy. He knows his (probably) socially regressive views are not popular with most of Canada, so he has to make a show of being an old school Progressive Conservative for fear of driving away voters. At the same time, he cannot lose the socially regressive voters. But who knows, maybe Scheer has grown up too. Too bad his words and actions don't indicate as such.
  #98  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:49 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Who is Andrew Scheer today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?
Who is Justin Trudeau today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?
Who is Brett Kavanaugh today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?
Who is Donald Trump today? Is their current behavior the same or different from their past behavior?

It really isn't that hard to figure out. I know that Kavanaugh and Trump are the same scum they've always been. Scheer, I don't know because he's so wishy-washy. It isn't hard to figure out why he's wishy-washy. He knows his (probably) socially regressive views are not popular with most of Canada, so he has to make a show of being an old school Progressive Conservative for fear of driving away voters. At the same time, he cannot lose the socially regressive voters. But who knows, maybe Scheer has grown up too. Too bad his words and actions don't indicate as such.
How exactly do you know that Brett Kavanaugh is the same today? No one can find a co-worker, male or female, who has a bad thing to say about him. The only dirt they could find was a maybe-something from 35 years ago. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg has sung his praises.

So how exactly is Brett Kavanaugh the same?

The cognitive dissonance and double standards are amazing to behold.
  #99  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:01 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It is fascinating that the exact same behavior can be used both as a cudgel against a political opponent or be completely irrelevant aside from an opportunity for personal growth. Things that make you go .
As some have tried to explain:

There is some nuance here, and room for interesting thought.
One needs to look at the events in question, as it is clear that two events in two countries involving two different individuals with very different circumstances are not "Exact same behavior"

Also, as has been pointed out, one should also look at the RESPONSE to the past behaviors/acts. Has there been sincere apologies? Has recent behavior show to a reasonable person that they have learned from the past bad acts?

Some call this "double standard", assuming that we must treat two acts identically, regardless of initial circumstances and present behavior. I disagree.
  #100  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:01 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
How exactly do you know that Brett Kavanaugh is the same today? No one can find a co-worker, male or female, who has a bad thing to say about him. The only dirt they could find was a maybe-something from 35 years ago. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg has sung his praises.

So how exactly is Brett Kavanaugh the same?

The cognitive dissonance and double standards are amazing to behold.
Let's say I concede Kavanaugh, so what? Does that change the point at all?

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 09-19-2019 at 05:01 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017