Will Justin Trudeau Be One-Term Prime Minister?

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Will Justin Trudeau Be One-Term Prime Minister?

Every poll that has come out shows the Conservatives would win a majority government.

So will Will Justin Trudeau Be One-Term Prime Minister?

 

Martin N.

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

josh

No.

Nanos, the only non-IVR telephone poll in the field, you know the kind we used to call polls, has had the Liberals leading.

Pondering

Do you remember when the Liberals were in third place going into the 2015 election? They are as preprepared for the 2019 election as they were for the 2015. They don't want to peak early. 

Sean in Ottawa

Trying to answer this question is a problem. The answer is there is no way to know. These polls are problematic in many ways (as I say outside elections they are a measure of enthusiasm more than actual support given the participation rates). However, Canad is not immune to swings and it would be wrong to suggest that the government is safe. The majority secured by the Liberals was a fragile one dependent on new voters' enthusiasm. The Conservatives in votes did not decline that much. while I think the Liberals are likely better campaigners, Canada is open to the message Conservatives would like to send. The Liberals, despite being good campaigners, are incompetent enough when it comes to the progressive message that it is not in good hands.

If I had to bet I would say that the Liberals still hold an advantage but nowhere near enough to be safe. There are too many issues and scenarios that threaten them. In the most seat-rich province, the Liberals are likely to be severely punished. If as it looks now Ford becomes Premier, I think the Federal Liberals have a greater chance of recovery in Ontario federally. I doubt that a new Conservative provincial government from Ford will help Scheer but if he performed above expectations all bets are off. If the NDP managed to take Ontario that is another variable. As well, the pipeline debate is going to impact the federal election and it is not clear exactly which way.

It is also possible that Trudeau could repeat his father's history of a majority followed by a minority...

 

SocialJustice101

Martin N. wrote:

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

Virtue signaling and social engineering??  Sounds like right-wing talking points. 

All politicians signal their virtues.  It's also known as campaigning.   As for social engineering, I would say that social conservatism, corporate domination of consumers and workers, and legalized corporate fraud are all forms of social engineering. 

Unionist

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

Virtue signaling and social engineering??  Sounds like right-wing talking points.

Duh, ya think? I see you haven't met Martin N.

SocialJustice101

It's kind of funny how right-wingers make up new terms for something absolutely everyone does and then accuse the left of doing it.  "I'm conservative, Christian, family man, European Canadian, but the left is playing identity politics!"

Sean in Ottawa

SocialJustice101 wrote:

It's kind of funny how right-wingers make up new terms for something absolutely everyone does and then accuce the left of doing it.  "I'm conservative, Christian, family man, European Canadian, but the left is playing identity politics!"

True, but it is a tactic of the Liberal party to really want us to know that they are in favour of something without actually having to do anything real. I think in this case the term fits like a glove.

SocialJustice101

Did Rachel Notley do something real?   Did Bob Rae do something real?   The fact is corporations control our lives more than the government does.   Even meaningful changes can be difficult for an average person to recognize.   It's not like your average person pours through economic data and gives Trudeau credit for his infrastructure investments.  Politics is largerly a popularity contest, and we all know who's side the overwheming majority of the Canadian media is on.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

True, but it is a tactic of the Liberal party to really want us to know that they are in favour of something without actually having to do anything real.

Well, sad to say, but it is also a tactic of the NDP. As noted by SocialJustice101 the NDP is fond of making virtuous statements during elections, and then either forgetting they said those things, or do something different entirely. The only reason we haven't seen this at the federal level is that the NDP has never formed a federal government. At the provincial level we've seen it over and over, many times.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

wrote:

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

Virtue signaling and social engineering??  Sounds like right-wing talking points. 

All politicians signal their virtues.  It's also known as campaigning.   As for social engineering, I would say that social conservatism, corporate domination of consumers and workers, and legalized corporate fraud are all forms of social engineering. 

I suppose with your moniker everything that doesn't fit in your pigeon holes is 'right wing talking points'. Too bad you didn't pick Economics 101.

My point is that Trudeau is governing using tax dollars to further his own agenda of empty promises, not campaigning. Squandering public funds on internationalist busybodying while domestic concerns are ignored.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

It's kind of funny how right-wingers make up new terms for something absolutely everyone does and then accuce the left of doing it.  "I'm conservative, Christian, family man, European Canadian, but the left is playing identity politics!"

Its only funny when the irony challenged whinge on about it.

Mighty Middle

Martin N. wrote:

My point is that Trudeau is governing using tax dollars to further his own agenda of empty promises, not campaigning. Squandering public funds on internationalist busybodying while domestic concerns are ignored.

That rhetoric sounds very "protectionist"

Martin N.

Unionist wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

Virtue signaling and social engineering??  Sounds like right-wing talking points.

Duh, ya think? I see you haven't met Martin N.

I see you don't bother to check to see if you are still waiting after making demands about still waiting before you have actually waited yet. Whatever.

Your one line drivebys are as irrelevant as your identity politics. Carry on.

Martin N.

DP

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

My point is that Trudeau is governing using tax dollars to further his own agenda of empty promises, not campaigning. Squandering public funds on internationalist busybodying while domestic concerns are ignored.

That rhetoric sounds very "protectionist"

Not at all. It's about value for money, respect for the taxpayer, not Trudeau's empty-headed spendthrift ways. Nations have international interests that must be managed but going abroad with the whole fandamily and a tickle trunk full of costumes in order to make a laughingstock of yourself is not a convincing foreign policy.

Neither is insulting Parliament and, by extension all Canadians by telling porkies to cover up the details, if not the national embarrassment.

Mighty Middle

Martin N. wrote:

Not at all. It's about value for money, respect for the taxpayer, not Trudeau's empty-headed spendthrift ways. Nations have international interests that must be managed but going abroad with the whole fandamily and a tickle trunk full of costumes in order to make a laughingstock of yourself is not a convincing foreign policy.

Neither is insulting Parliament and, by extension all Canadians by telling porkies to cover up the details, if not the national embarrassment.

Your whole spiel sound like it was right out of Doug Ford mouth.

SocialJustice101

Martin N. wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

wrote:

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

Virtue signaling and social engineering??  Sounds like right-wing talking points. 

All politicians signal their virtues.  It's also known as campaigning.   As for social engineering, I would say that social conservatism, corporate domination of consumers and workers, and legalized corporate fraud are all forms of social engineering. 

I suppose with your moniker everything that doesn't fit in your pigeon holes is 'right wing talking points'. Too bad you didn't pick Economics 101.

My point is that Trudeau is governing using tax dollars to further his own agenda of empty promises, not campaigning. Squandering public funds on internationalist busybodying while domestic concerns are ignored.

But wait, you forgot to mention Cultural Marxism and George Soros.  (Apparently that's supposed to terrify everybody. )

You are channeling a certain former reality TV star, and 6-times bankrupt businessman.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

It's kind of funny how right-wingers make up new terms for something absolutely everyone does and then accuce the left of doing it.  "I'm conservative, Christian, family man, European Canadian, but the left is playing identity politics!"

Its also funny to be labeled merely for being opposed to having the idiot governing the village. Are you suggesting I'm Christian and a socially conservative white man? Or are you merely using highly ethical social justice warrior institute methods to imply it?

The non sequitur, of course, is  that anyone who disagrees with boy blunder is obviously a white Christian social conservative who, obviously must be a racist, misogynist gun nut. (LPC™)

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Not at all. It's about value for money, respect for the taxpayer, not Trudeau's empty-headed spendthrift ways. Nations have international interests that must be managed but going abroad with the whole fandamily and a tickle trunk full of costumes in order to make a laughingstock of yourself is not a convincing foreign policy.

Neither is insulting Parliament and, by extension all Canadians by telling porkies to cover up the details, if not the national embarrassment.

Your whole spiel sound like it was right out of Doug Ford mouth.

I was not aware that he was that handsome or intelligent. Maybe I could write policy for him?

Mighty Middle

Martin N. wrote:

I was not aware that he was that handsome or intelligent. Maybe I could write policy for him?

No because you are just repeating his talking points. If you have nothing else original to say then your idea bank is quite empty.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

wrote:

Or, will Justin Trudeau be a two term poster boy for tone-deaf virtue signalling and self entitlements? Is the electorate prepared to endure empty platitudes and runaway debt in exchange for more social engineering and endless vacationing?

Virtue signaling and social engineering??  Sounds like right-wing talking points. 

All politicians signal their virtues.  It's also known as campaigning.   As for social engineering, I would say that social conservatism, corporate domination of consumers and workers, and legalized corporate fraud are all forms of social engineering. 

I suppose with your moniker everything that doesn't fit in your pigeon holes is 'right wing talking points'. Too bad you didn't pick Economics 101.

My point is that Trudeau is governing using tax dollars to further his own agenda of empty promises, not campaigning. Squandering public funds on internationalist busybodying while domestic concerns are ignored.

But wait, you forgot to mention Cultural Marxism and George Soros.  (Apparently that's supposed to terrify everybody. )

You are channeling a certain former reality TV star, and 6-times bankrupt businessman.

Apparently, any thought that does not fit in your pigeonholes terrifies you. Feel free to ramble on wherever your angst takes you but is the subject of this thread not Trudeau?

Take a little time for creativity. The vituperations expressed here are rather lame boilerplate labels. Points awarded for original thinking in both smear and driveby categories.

Mobo2000

Martin, you get 2 points from me for using "vituperations" in a sentence.   Redeemable at Whole Foods stores everywhere.  

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I was not aware that he was that handsome or intelligent. Maybe I could write policy for him?

No because you are just repeating his talking points. If you have nothing else original to say then your idea bank is quite empty.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory of Ford's talking points on Trudeau's reelection chances? I must have missed those.

Mighty Middle

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I was not aware that he was that handsome or intelligent. Maybe I could write policy for him?

No because you are just repeating his talking points. If you have nothing else original to say then your idea bank is quite empty.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory of Ford's talking points on Trudeau's reelection chances? I must have missed those.

Everything you have written here, Ford has said.

Martin N.

Mobo2000 wrote:

Martin, you get 2 points from me for using "vituperations" in a sentence.   Redeemable at Whole Foods stores everywhere.  

Thank you so much. The Trudashianistas are not known for subtlety and getting the big words to run on all cylinders is a chore when faced with crude ad hominem responses.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

Martin, you get 2 points from me for using "vituperations" in a sentence.   Redeemable at Whole Foods stores everywhere.  

Thank you so much. The Trudashianistas are not known for subtlety and getting the big words to run on all cylinders is a chore when faced with crude ad hominem responses.

It really doesn't matter how terrible Trudeau is he only has to be better than his opponents.

Scheer is out of the question so that leaves Singh. I do hope Singh can be the balance of power in a Liberal minority situation. 

Criticizing Trudeau is pointless without a replacement. 

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Did Rachel Notley do something real?   Did Bob Rae do something real?   The fact is corporations control our lives more than the government does.   Even meaningful changes can be difficult for an average person to recognize.   It's not like your average person pours through economic data and gives Trudeau credit for his infrastructure investments.  Politics is largerly a popularity contest, and we all know who's side the overwheming majority of the Canadian media is on.

Excuse me but what 'infrastructure investments' has Trudeau made that he should get credit for? Be precise and only include 'investments' ie: delivered funding, not promises or even worse, the repromising of promises or the reannouncing of promised promises.

Take your time, I know you are busy with your pigeonholes.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

Martin, you get 2 points from me for using "vituperations" in a sentence.   Redeemable at Whole Foods stores everywhere.  

Thank you so much. The Trudashianistas are not known for subtlety and getting the big words to run on all cylinders is a chore when faced with crude ad hominem responses.

It really doesn't matter how terrible Trudeau is he only has to be better than his opponents.

Scheer is out of the question so that leaves Singh. I do hope Singh can be the balance of power in a Liberal minority situation. 

Criticizing Trudeau is pointless without a replacement. 

So your solution is to lower your standards rather than find an applicant that meets your standards? Oh, Pondering, I have so much hope for you to expand your horizons, not reduce them so that Trudashian will fit.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

True, but it is a tactic of the Liberal party to really want us to know that they are in favour of something without actually having to do anything real.

Well, sad to say, but it is also a tactic of the NDP. As noted by SocialJustice101 the NDP is fond of making virtuous statements during elections, and then either forgetting they said those things, or do something different entirely. The only reason we haven't seen this at the federal level is that the NDP has never formed a federal government. At the provincial level we've seen it over and over, many times.

I stand corrected. Yes we have seen this with provincial governments.

And it is not as if parties could not just come clean and look for support and say what they want to do rather than run from it. We can accept a failed consensus but breaking a promise that has significant support is pretty bad.

But I think the NDP means the promises and chickens out whereas I have the impression the Liberals only mean to lock up the voters who want it. Perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But I think the NDP means the promises and chickens out whereas I have the impression the Liberals only mean to lock up the voters who want it.

So I guess we're left to consider which is worse for our political representatives:  cowardice or dishonesty.

Dishonesty is its own thing; if the Libs are just being dishonest then they're just being dishonest.

But can you flesh out why the NDP would be "honest" and then get cold feet?  Surely the NDP must know (federally or provincially, now or in the past) that some would oppose them, so it can't be that.

Martin N.

Overpromising and underdelivering seems to be a proclivity of all governments but our Liberals do it with a cynicism that borders on gamesmanship. Gaming the voters because them think them too stupid to form a cohesive response.

To me, there is a large difference between NDP honesty in policy that they find impossible to achieve upon governing due to inexperience and Liberal insincerity while trolling for votes.

I have been experimenting with voters. Neighbours, acquaintances, passers by etc are subjected to both left-leaning policy positions and, horrors, supposed "right wing talking points". So far I have found no one yet who is either capable or willing to invest the 'little gray cells' required to make a cogent response. Individuals have their opinions but cannot defend them. They hang on to their views with emotional disregard for any factual evidence either way. They cannot verbalise their point of view but adamantly refuse to entertain any effort to inform them. 

I'm coming to the conclusion that Canada could save a lot of money simply by holding an election without bothering to campaign at all. 

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I was not aware that he was that handsome or intelligent. Maybe I could write policy for him?

No because you are just repeating his talking points. If you have nothing else original to say then your idea bank is quite empty.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory of Ford's talking points on Trudeau's reelection chances? I must have missed those.

Everything you have written here, Ford has said.

Gee, do you think you could put a little effort into it? I've got two points toward an ice cream from Whole Foods and all you have is a very pointy finger and a bad attitude toward anyone that you don't agree with.

SocialJustice101

Martin N. wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Did Rachel Notley do something real?   Did Bob Rae do something real?   The fact is corporations control our lives more than the government does.   Even meaningful changes can be difficult for an average person to recognize.   It's not like your average person pours through economic data and gives Trudeau credit for his infrastructure investments.  Politics is largerly a popularity contest, and we all know who's side the overwheming majority of the Canadian media is on.

Excuse me but what 'infrastructure investments' has Trudeau made that he should get credit for? Be precise and only include 'investments' ie: delivered funding, not promises or even worse, the repromising of promises or the reannouncing of promised promises.

Take your time, I know you are busy with your pigeonholes.

2887 infrastructure projects, totalling $9.96 BLN in federal contributions, have been approved since January 2016.  As always, the funds are disbursed upon completion.  Some projects take a while to complete.

You can see the individual projects in this file.  Sort by date: http://infrastructure.gc.ca/alt-format/opendata/project-list-liste-de-projets-bil.xlsx

SocialJustice101

Sorry to dissappoint all of the fans of Andrew Scheer, but the today's Nanos update has the Liberals in the lead. 

Lib 38.14%

CPC 34.68%

NDP 16.83%



Nanos was the most accurate pollster in the 2015 Election and the only live telephone poll conducted recently.  All others are IVR or online.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Did Rachel Notley do something real?   Did Bob Rae do something real?   The fact is corporations control our lives more than the government does.   Even meaningful changes can be difficult for an average person to recognize.   It's not like your average person pours through economic data and gives Trudeau credit for his infrastructure investments.  Politics is largerly a popularity contest, and we all know who's side the overwheming majority of the Canadian media is on.

Excuse me but what 'infrastructure investments' has Trudeau made that he should get credit for? Be precise and only include 'investments' ie: delivered funding, not promises or even worse, the repromising of promises or the reannouncing of promised promises.

Take your time, I know you are busy with your pigeonholes.

2887 infrastructure projects, totalling $9.96 BLN in federal contributions, have been approved since January 2016.  As always, the funds are disbursed upon completion.  Some projects take a while to complete.

You can see the individual projects in this file.  Sort by date: http://infrastructure.gc.ca/alt-format/opendata/project-list-liste-de-projets-bil.xlsx

I stand corrected. The Liberals have come through on infrastructure but Trudeau is still accompanied by circus music.

I also agree with this spending as long as the Finance Ministry is correct in their assumptions of the velocity of debt/GDP

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Sorry to dissappoint all of the fans of Andrew Scheer, but the today's Nanos update has the Liberals in the lead. 

Lib 38.14%
CPC 34.68%
NDP 16.83%

Nanos was the most accurate pollster in the 2015 Election and the only live telephone poll conducted recently.  All others are IVR or online.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

Andrew Scheer has friends here? Or anywhere? Who knew? Polls are like opinions: everyone has one. If I was Scheer I would keep a low profile and let Trudeau pull his next fiasco out of his tickle trunk 

Cody87

Martin N. wrote:
Individuals have their opinions but cannot defend them. They hang on to their views with emotional disregard for any factual evidence either way. They cannot verbalise their point of view but adamantly refuse to entertain any effort to inform them.

Almost like religion.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
 I have been experimenting with voters. Neighbours, acquaintances, passers by etc are subjected to both left-leaning policy positions and, horrors, supposed "right wing talking points". So far I have found no one yet who is either capable or willing to invest the 'little gray cells' required to make a cogent response. Individuals have their opinions but cannot defend them. They hang on to their views with emotional disregard for any factual evidence either way. They cannot verbalise their point of view but adamantly refuse to entertain any effort to inform them.  

That they can't recite the arguments that convinced them doesn't mean they didn't think through their position or explore facts. I can't give you a factual argument for why I believe climate change is happening and I'm not interested in trying. Likewise for why I am against neoliberalism, the free market, and in favor of social democracy and regulated capitalism. There is lots of information on all those topics and people who could persuade you much better than I. 

They have your number. They know you have an agenda when you open the conversation. That you want to "inform" them through debate to try to alter their opinions. 

What they want is to relax not have a political debate with you when there is no election in the offing. Politics is up there with religion as a topic to stay away from socially particularly if you already know that you disagree with the person. 

Martin N. wrote:
 I'm coming to the conclusion that Canada could save a lot of money simply by holding an election without bothering to campaign at all. 

That would be great. Present the platforms in writing in a comparable format. Each present a 2 hour video and do the debates. Slash the amount they can spend by 90%.

Mighty Middle

Martin N. If you could wave a magic wand and make someone PM who would it be?

Andrew Scheer leading a Conservative Government or Jagmeet Singh leading an NDP Government.

Only choose one of the two listed above.

Mobo2000

"Politics is up there with religion as a topic to stay away from socially particularly if you already know that you disagree with the person. "

It is unfortunate that this is true.  I think it's an expected outcome from our polarized, partisan press.   A feature not a bug.   I also think there is something to the notion that people's poltical positions are very reflective of their major personality traits (which is the belief underlying Cambridge Analytics' services, and another "right wing" talking point making the rounds lately, courtesy of Jordan Peterson).

In my personal experience, when I talk politics with people on the "other side", I am relentlessly polite and ask a lot of (not deliberately leading) questions, and that sometimes leads somewhere useful.    People are very attuned to being patronized and any whiff of that usually ends any possibility of a good conversation.

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. If you could wave a magic wand and make someone PM who would it be?

Andrew Scheer leading a Conservative Government or Jagmeet Singh leading an NDP Government.

Only choose one of the two listed above.

If I could wave a magic wand, it would not be at you dictating my choices. My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

 

SocialJustice101

John Horgan?   I guess conservatives just prefer those who lose the popular vote....   *zing*

Martin N.

Yeah, you are likely on the target, Pondering. I suppose demographics plays a part too but my takeaway from this is that the average voter is uninterested in devoting the energy required to be informed. It takes a lot of energy, does it not, babblers? Voter turnouts support the premise that voters are too lazy to inform themselves on the issues and prefer emotional kneejerkery to critical thinking.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

John Horgan?   I guess conservatives just prefer those who lose the popular vote....   *zing*

More disingenuous labelling? Less zinging and more critical thinking, please. It is very much a sign of intellectual weakness to rely on inferred pejoratives rather than cogent arguments.

We socially progressive, fiscally responsible members of the electorate are pragmatic in valuing governing ability such as Horgan has shown over blind ideological attachment to party brands.

Mighty Middle

Martin N. wrote:

 My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

Basically the Ford Nation coalition, thanks for answering my question as you are Conservative, not a Progressive.

btw there is NO Peace, order and good governance with any government led by a Ford.

Cody87

Mighty Middle wrote:

Basically the Ford Nation coalition, thanks for answering my question as you are Conservative, not a Progressive.

btw there is NO Peace, order and good governance with any government led by a Ford.

Poe's law.

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

 My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

Basically the Ford Nation coalition, thanks for answering my question as you are Conservative, not a Progressive.

btw there is NO Peace, order and good governance with any government led by a Ford.

Can any other outcome be predicted from you?  It will not matter if I pick Scheer, Singh or Santa, your response is entirely predictable.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your particular politics is the enemy. Burning bridges rather than building them - and you can't figure out why you are a perennial loser. You blame the media, the "rich", the polls, the electoral system, everyone and everything except yourself. The only way to attain the levers of power is by building consensus, not decrying anyone that doesn't drink your koolaid.

As the mother said at the parade: Look, everyone is out of step except my Johnny! 

SocialJustice101

Martin N. wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

John Horgan?   I guess conservatives just prefer those who lose the popular vote....   *zing*

More disingenuous labelling? Less zinging and more critical thinking, please. It is very much a sign of intellectual weakness to rely on inferred pejoratives rather than cogent arguments.

We socially progressive, fiscally responsible members of the electorate are pragmatic in valuing governing ability such as Horgan has shown over blind ideological attachment to party brands.

Critical thinking?  Now that's rich, coming from someone who started this thread with posting meaningless right-wing buzzwords, parroting the alt-right and the Russian bot army.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

John Horgan?   I guess conservatives just prefer those who lose the popular vote....   *zing*

More disingenuous labelling? Less zinging and more critical thinking, please. It is very much a sign of intellectual weakness to rely on inferred pejoratives rather than cogent arguments.

We socially progressive, fiscally responsible members of the electorate are pragmatic in valuing governing ability such as Horgan has shown over blind ideological attachment to party brands.

Critical thinking?  Now that's rich, coming from someone who started this thread with posting meaningless right-wing buzzwords, parroting the alt-right and the Russian bot army.

Really. Your only response to meaningless labelling is more meaningless labelling. By the way, in your haste to misinterpret my words, you forgot Ford. I suppose if you live in Mom's basement and spend all your time playing video games rather than looking for a job, everyone looks like a conservative huh? Social justicing must be tough when even mom is a conservative monster.

Pages