Your sincerity of your hatred of Trudeau is certainly not in question. I’m sure you hated Trudeau very much before, and your hatred has not abated recently, nor will it ever lessen.
I’m not sure if your hatred of Trudeau (and of his father, apparently) is enough of a policy position to get others to vote for the Conservative party though.
I was just coming on to post the same thing.
The CPoC supporters in this thread (and elsewhere) are doing a great job proving me right to continue to withhold my support for the CPoC. This is not a conservative party that I can get behind. I find that quite a few CPoC supporters sounds very Republican. That’s definitely not what I want for Canada. So while Trudeau’s personal flaws suck, and I hate to vote for him, I don’t really have much of a choice if I want reasonable, traditional policies for the country.
The most recent argument seems to be sort of like:
“Trudeau is not as racially tolerant or feminist supporting as he would have you believe. Therefore you should vote for a party that does not care about tolerance or sexism. At least they are not hypocrites.”
Or maybe I’m just reading between the lines too much, and it’s the same as last week: “I hate Trudeau and so should you”
I hate posting memes, but this is a pretty good summary I think.
https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/d6uo6s/justin_trudeau_and_andrew_scheer_on_social/
This is not exactly but kind of my point with respect to who they are and what they’ll do for the country, versus who they might have been.
Trudeau is a child of privilege, and he’s not somebody I would want as a friend or hang out with. I don’t think we would get along very well. However, policy wise, Scheer has stood and continues to stand for things that I oppose. If I thought Trudeau the “racist” was going to implement racist policies, then I wouldn’t vote for him. I’d probably vote … frak I don’t even know at that point. But I can be absolutely 100% certain Trudeau isn’t going to drift the country to the modern right. That’s good enough for me. The modern right needs to come back to the center on social issues more before I can support them again. And that won’t happen while the conservatives choices are the Reform party (sorry CPoC) and the PPC. Bring back the PC party!!
Also, economically, Canada is doing ok. GDP to dept ratios are about where they’ve been since Harper (even gone down slightly). Unemployment is good. Basically, most of the indicators that matter are doing fine. So while his opponents like to characterize him as spending like a drunken sailor, such rhetoric doesn’t influence me.
But yeah, I’m some hyperpartisan who has drunk the Kool-aid. Whatever.
That’s exactly right. It’s completely hypocritical and is yet another data point that the left weaponizes so-called outrage over certain behaviors for political reasons. The historical context being, the answer to the question of “is the subject in question nominally an ideological ally?”
It works like this: All good Liberals know that Andrew Scheer is a racist, so if a picture of him in blackface came out it would reinforce his racism and make him unelectable.
But Trudeau isn’t a racist, so any past evidence of racist activity is either wrong, or misconstrued, or irrelevant, or a positive since it shows that he has ‘grown’, since he’s obviously not a racist.
This is how people rationalize the things they want to believe.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
Andrew Scheer is not a racist. There is no evidence that he’s a racist. He does avoid condemning fringe elements of the conservative movement who are racist (as evidenced by the Faith Goldy interview, etc), but no sane person thinks he actually supports those views. He is, however, a social conservative. There is good evidence that he personally opposes equal rights for sexual minorities. He promises that such issues will not be re-opened, and any reasonable person believes him on that score because he’d be an idiot to do that. However, it is not unreasonable for someone who cares about equal rights for sexual minorities to want the leader of the country to actually support equal rights for sexual minorities. Scheer is probably also personally in favour of restrictions on abortion. Again, he promises not to revisit the issue of abortion, and reasonable people believe this promise. However, it is not unreasonable for someone who cares about abortion rights to want the leader of the country to actually support such rights.
Trudea is also not a racist. He’s out of touch and privileged, and frequently a dipshit. However, there is good evidence that despite his too frequent idiocy that he actually sincerely supports things like equal rights for sexual minorities and abortion rights, and socially liberal issues general. It is not unreasonable for a social liberal to prefer someone who sincerely supports their policy preferences on such issues in spite of all too frequent social faux pas and a record of past behaviour that shows that he hasn’t always practiced what he preaches over a sincere social conservative who opposes their policy preferences even with a believable promise not to initiate any socially conservative legislation (at least on a couple of key issues.)
Add in Scheer’s absolutely 100% guaranteed regression on climate policy, various economic promises that guarantee cuts to government services, and the general vagueness of the Conservative policy platform, and it ought to be perfectly clear how a liberal-ish voter can come to the conclusion that Trudeau is preferable to Scheer without positing a giant portion of hypocrisy.
No, I don’t think Scheer is a racist. I don’t think his policies would be good for the country. But you go on telling me and those like me what we think. Apparently you know better than me what I think.
But that apparently makes me someone who “drank the Kool-aid”
I do believe that Scheer does not think gay people should be allowed to have basic rights like the right to marry each other. Because he said so. And he has never said anything different. And I really don’t like that.
I don’t think Scheer is a racist. I do think he wants the racist vote though. And that’s a problem.
I think with the emergence of the PPC, you’re going to see the CPoC turn even harder to the right to recapture those voters. And that’s a problem
At least for me. YMMV.
Exactly.
Recently, Mr. Scheer has started to let us know his plans to pay for his promised $9 billion in tax cuts and program spending. One method will be by cutting $1.5 billion from annual subsidies to Canadian corporations.
No details on exactly what “subsidies” he will cut that would amount to $1.5 billion annually. Has anyone heard any details on this? Probably not cuts to oil corporations - that would not go over well in Alberta. He mentioned “economic development programs”, but also said he would protect regional economic-development agencies.
He did give some examples like the $12-million subsidy the government gave grocery giant Loblaw to buy more energy-efficient coolers, as well as money for energy-efficient gas turbines for the Canada LNG project in British Columbia. So it seems that one thing on the chopping block would be anything with the words “energy efficient” in the title.
However, just yesterday, Scheer promised 1.5 billion for new medical imaging equipment across the country. So I guess we are back at square one again, and we don’t know how he’ll pay for his other promises and tax cuts.
Like all elections, I simply can’t believe all the promises from any politician. But Scheer seems to be going all out with the goodie giveaway promises.
I believe that the Economic development programs are the overseas ones in Africa and other parts of the world. Your question regarding the energy efficient projects, I believe that if they can be walked back without too much penalty, they will.
Ah. So he’s really talking about overseas aid and encouragement for energy efficiency. I was wondering why the corporate sector, especially the oil patch was quiet about this promise.
I recognized Trudeau for what he was when I first saw him. Now, the evidence confirms it.
Also, you do realize that most people don’t vote for Trudeau directly? Nothing stops anyone voting for Liberals if JT is given the boot, as he should be. Liberals can still be in power with any number of people better qualified to lead them than this idiot. Frankly, there are millions of people in Canada of a similar age who have never put on blackface, nor would have considered it appropriate to do so in 2001 and would make a better PM.
Unemployment in Alberta a couple % above the national average and no help from Trudeau. Well over a 100000 jobs lost and nothing, while a few plant jobs in Oshawa is a national disaster and the non-job loss of SNC was worry enough for him to break the law and demonstrate how willingly he would sacrifice inclusiveness when it came to potential votes. So, yes, you drank the koolaid.
Yet the hypocrisy is obvious. If it was Scheer, he’d likely be gone, yet Trudeau isn’t. He blames privilege for his lapse, but it wasn’t that. It was 2001 not 1970. He wanted to play dress-up and did so. He knew it was wrong to do so, as the vast majority of people did even then (other than the obvious neanderthals that people like JT deride). If privilege was involved it made him think he was above having to make the choice between what was, even to him obviously wrong, and what he wanted to do.
Exactly like every other choice he has made as PM. Caveat: Other than the pipeline purchase. I expect after the election we’ll finally see that written off, especially if he achieves a minority gov. He can then blame the decision on the NDP or Greens, etc.
Anyone has checked out JT’s new facebook profile image? :rolleyes: Christ. Is his campaign manager secretly a writer for “The office?”
Yes, you really have convinced me that you hate Trudeau with the passion of a thousand burning suns.
I’m sorry that he caused 40 years of Conservative provincial governments in Alberta to stick their heads in the sand and refuse to diversify the economy and rely on a single industry that undergoes definite ups and downs, depending on world oil price.
I like Trudeau, and still do. But it’s tough to know who to vote for. I’d have liked it far more if Trudeau had stuck to the original budget. I don’t care about PR, the Aga Khan visit, or what politicians wear (Stampede hat, jet-ski clothing, costume in India). The brown face is quite embarrassing and will offend many, but is hardly “the roof caving in”, as reported today.
I do care about policy, though. Canada needs infrastructure, and getting it when money is cheap makes sense. The Infrastructure Bank seems to have had very limited success. The pipeline purchase seems inefficient as it does not address many of the problems. It is hard to identify the biggest priorities, but returning the pension age to 65 reverses a politically tough and economically reasonable decision. Hard working dairy farmers lost an additional 3-4 percent of market share in free trade negotiations, perhaps they deserve compensation?
Trudeau has some progressive ideas and successes on American relations and trade. No one made him raise expectations on an ambitious set of goals, and the sunny ways have seen their share of cumulonimbus clouds. However, the competition have not yet articulated much of what I hope to hear about infrastructure, budget restraint and other reforms. Canadian political parties seem to prefer not giving specifics for as long as possible and not challenging vested interests even when doing so might be surprisingly popular.
Why does my dislike for him matter to you? Are my facts incorrect? Am I wrong in my conclusions?
NP. Send back the transfer payments and we’ll call it a wash. <crickets> Hey, even showing a little concern and caring might be nice. But when it comes to a few autoworkers loosing jobs everyone freaks out. A little hint here: Gas powers those cars. Magic pixies don’t make the gas, ya know.
I dislike Trudeau. I thought when the Liberals chose him as leader that it was a dumb choice, because I thought he was entirely style over substance. Not being a member of the party, I didn’t get a say - and of course had I been a member my vote would have been outweighed anyways. During the last campaign and in the early days of his mandate I was cautiously optimistic, because in spite of my impression of him as a lightweight with no real leadership skills his stated opinions aligned very well with my own policy preferences. Time has proven my initial assessment correct, that he is indeed style over substance.
His numerous gaffes, of which this blackface episode is the latest, have very little impact on my assessment of him. They are largely not particularly important. I really don’t give a flying fuck what he wore on a state visit to India, for example. I acknowledge that his sartorial choices were somewhat daft, but they 1) are not very important, and 2) just confirm my opinion that he’s a lightweight who’s mostly style over substance. That doesn’t move the needle, because that’s where the needle already is.
I am far more disappointed over his failure to deliver on various promises. I would have liked to have seen more effort on the electoral reform issue. He has failed to achieve substantial progress on the plight of indigenous communities, aside from issuing formal apologies for everything under the sun (most of which merited apologies, but ffs let’s have some action instead.) He has been far more profligate with spending than he promised he would be. And then there’s the whole SNC affair, which demonstrates significant disrespect for rule of law.
And yet, in spite of those things, his government has generally moved the country in a direction I approve of. He’s completed negotiations on CETA and TPP, both of which were both difficult and important. And he managed to walk the line on NAFTA with about as much success as could be expected - I certainly thought we’d have to cave a lot more in negotiations to avoid Trump throwing a tantrum and beginning a formal NAFTA withdrawal.
On the other hand, we have Scheer, whose policy platform outside of not being Justin Trudeau has been maddeningly vague.
I’m very confident he’ll do nothing to end dairy supply management, so I guess there’s that. Except that I’m in favour of ending dairy supply management, not that it’s any kind of priority.
Well, okay, we also know that he’s opposed to the carbon tax. Except that I’m in favour of it, because it’s the proper free market economic solution to the problem of a significant negative externality. I guess Scheer was asleep that day in Econ 101, because his vague policy of regulating large polluters in some way, not clear on the details (I mean he isn’t clear, not that I have failed to understand what he has said), is the textbook example of big government regulations that will be inefficient in achieving their desired goal and likely to result in negative unintended consequences. The knots that conservatives have tied themselves into on this issue stagger my mind, frankly. They’ve finally admitted that there’s a problem, but now that the Liberals have adopted the orthodox conservative economic solution to the problem, the Conservatives insist on opposing it in favour of some cockamamie bullshit.
And he’s going to get some pipelines built, which I’m not opposed to, really, but I am curious as to how he’s going to accomplish it in the face of the various court decisions and the opposition of the BC government. Obviously he’s not going to ignore the courts or anything, because unlike Trudeau we know that he respects the rule of law (or is that only relevant with respect to corruption charges against Quebec construction companies?)
And he’s promised more fiscal responsibility. Why, he’s going to balance the budget in just a couple years, or by the end of his term at least. And he’s going to give us a big tax cut. And he’s going to spend a bunch of money on medical imaging equipment (which is actually a good idea - kudos on that one). Which means he’s going to have to cut about 20 billion/year in federal spending. I would kind of like to know which 20 billion he intends to cut before I sign off on this plan, but maybe that’s just me.
He’s promised not to re-open divisive social issues, but he has simultaneously refused to retract old statements opposed to legal gay marriage, etc. And to be blunt, anyone who thinks that my thoroughly wonderful nextdoor neighbours shouldn’t be married to each other can fuck right off. This happens to be an issue I feel just as strongly about as you feel about oilpatch jobs. Possibly more strongly. I don’t care that he’s not going to re-open the issue. His personal views are that my neighbours shouldn’t have a legally recognized marriage. Fuck. Off. Now, if my local CPC candidate or one of his volunteers comes to my door and assures me that he does personally support LGBQT equal rights, I would rescind this disqualifying mark. This has not yet happened, though there’s still time.
And that’s about as much of a platform as Scheer has. I don’t know what the Conservative position is on immigration, or foreign affairs, or crime prevention, or indigenous affairs, or marijuana legalization, or a myriad of other issues, except that Trudeau has fucked all those things up and they’re going to make it right again.
So, I’ve got a choice. On the one hand, there’s a jackass leading a party whose policy positions I generally approve of, and whose governance has proven generally acceptable, jackassery notwithstanding. On the other hand, there’s a mostly unknown quantity who seems not to be a particular jackass but whose few stated policy positions I mostly disagree with, some of them vehemently. Please do elaborate on how choosing the former means I must obviously approve of the jackassery.
Well, you shouldn’t have to choose. The Liberal party should dump the idiot which would allow you to vote for them with a clear conscious. That they continue to support him means that they are willing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk, so why take them seriously and give them your vote? It’s not like there is a hell of a difference between the parties when they are running the country. And I agree about Scheer. Who is this guy and why can’t parties pick people who have charisma and competence? Does it have to be mutually exclusive or lacking in both?!