More top down direction in the LPC, I guess the kid is a-chip-off-the-old-block, afterall, that is, Trudeaus's think they know what is best for everybody else but them:
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/30/weber-steps-aside-in-scarborough-sout...
Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2
Fri, 2015-05-01 17:30
#152
Arthur Cramer
Fri, 2015-05-01 17:32
#153
Then the NDP supporters here should be feeling very confident and denouncing any hint of a coalition.
Fri, 2015-05-01 18:04
#154
Arthur Cramer
Then the NDP supporters here should be feeling very confident and denouncing any hint of a coalition.
What does your reply above have to do with anything Pondering?
Fri, 2015-05-01 19:15
#155
Then the NDP supporters here should be feeling very confident and denouncing any hint of a coalition.
What does your reply above have to do with anything Pondering?
As far as I can tell both Mulcair and Trudeau do fine on the charisma scale. Harper not so much but he keeps winning elections anyway.
Attacking Trudeau based on his physical appearance is on the tacky side so suggests desperation or worse. Trying to corner Trudeau into agreeing to a coalition is more clever but the ploy of a losing party.
This thread is supposed to be about Trudeau's campaign but is frequently used to take random potshots at him which is fine but don't expect responses to be limited either.
Fri, 2015-05-01 19:20
#156
Trudeau is not charismatic -- he does however, represent some kind of retro glory for the Liberal party. Many poeple seem to project on him whatever they want. That can work for a while.
Sat, 2015-05-02 06:44
#157
Anyway, the big policy reveal is Real Soon Now:
Intentionally or not, the article makes it sound like JT's advisors are picking policies based on maximum differentiation vs. the Conservatives. This may be a good short term strategy but does not guarantee good policies.
My guess is carbon tax, legalized marijuana, and cut back TFSA's. But who knows - maybe there will be a surprise.
Mon, 2015-05-04 20:09
#158
Take note that Trudeau is not trying to present himself as a typical middle class Canadian family.
“Canadians who have done well have always been willing to help out in meaningful ways,” Trudeau said, explaining the tax on the rich. He added it is unfair for well-off families such as his and Harper’s to be receiving thousands of dollars in family tax breaks and child benefits. “We’re reinvesting in the people who actually need it,” Trudeau told reporters.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/04/trudeau-hike-taxes-on-rich...
This is only the beginning:
Trudeau said in the weeks ahead his party will also bring out policies to address the problems of “the working poor,” seniors’ issues and child care.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-delivers-speech-on-party-...
The details have been months in the works, tapping the expertise of a dozens of economists, and are a tightly held secret.
As I thought his team has actually been working on a plan.
Mon, 2015-05-04 20:57
#159
Because they say so. Liberals wouldn't lie, would they?
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:12
#160
Arthur Cramer
Pondering, so far his "plan", is tax someone else, give people back money, and still no explanation where he is going to get the money for the rest of his promises. A child take break, big deal! What about all the other things that need to be done? Trudeau still hasn't said how's he going to pay for things. Its still a zero sum game. He's being too cute by hald. Of course you'd call this a plan. You have too.
ETA: Why won't you explain to us why it is good that the Liberal are attacking unions and that somehow this is going to be good for the Liberals? I know you think you can ignore issue, but NO ONE, who claims progressive credentials can in good concencience argue there is something wrong with a contract negotiated by a Union on behalf of its members which enjoys such widespread support among Canada's Union Leadership. Could you please explaing why this is bad?
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:27
#161
It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:34
#162
It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.
I agree
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:37
#163
Arthur Cramer
I agreeIt is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.
You know Pookie, Tom Mulcair and the NDP had already proposed this. Stop acting like Trudeau is the first one that thought of it. This has been NDP policy in and out of Parliment for decades. And I KNOW, you know that. Tom already proposed this, and of course, the Libs are trying to steal it, because there's an election coming on. Seriously, spare me.
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:46
#164
I agreeIt is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.
You know Pookie, Tom Mulcair and the NDP had already proposed this. Stop acting like Trudeau is the first one that thought of it. This has been NDP policy in and out of Parliment for decades. And I KNOW, you know that. Tom already proposed this, and of course, the Libs are trying to steal it, because there's an election coming on. Seriously, spare me.
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:47
#165
It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.
Agreed. But it's not for greater program spending. Rather, it is so that a tax cut for middle income people can be implemented. IE, it's being sold as "revenue neutral". Thus, it's still promoting the concept of tax cuts.
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:49
#166
The Liberal plan does not seem to tax more -- it takes from one group and gives to another. Certainly it looks like it will tax fairer. But the question is how can implementing a tax increase on a small population of higher earners to transfer to a larger population of middle income earners help fund any restoration of the capacity of government that the Conservatives have cut?
If this policy had come before the last few rounds of cuts, it may have helped rebalance tax rates but at this point a revenue neutral change in tax policy does not answer the questions about the fiscal room the government will be left with to carry out its mandate.
It may well be that the Liberals will choose not to answer these questions before the election.
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:51
#167
I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it. Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did. Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:51
#168
The Liberal plan does not seem to tax more -- it takes from one group and gives to another. Certainly it looks like it will tax fairer. But the question is how can implementing a tax increase on a small population of higher earners to transfer to a larger population of middle income earners help fund any restoration of the capacity of government that the Conservatives have cut?
If this policy had come before the last few rounds of cuts, it may have helped rebalance tax rates but at this point a revenue neutral change in tax policy does not answer the questions about the fiscal room the government will be left with to carry out its mandate.
It may well be that the Liberals will choose not to answer these questions before the election.
I think it's at least a start to address a small part of income inequality. It doesn't fix much but it may start a dialogue in the right direction.
Mon, 2015-05-04 22:52
#169
I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it. Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did. Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.
I can't find it in their policy book.
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:05
#170
I can't find it in their policy book. http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf[/quote]I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it. Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did. Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.
It's there, actually (see below). But it's not something Mulcair has really focussed on.
1.7 Progressive and fair taxation
New Democrats believe in:
a.) A progressive tax system.
b.) Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.
c.) Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
d.) Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.
e.) Combatting tax shelters and money laundering
"a.)" and "d.)" are basically similar to what Trudeau announced.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:07
#171
I can't find it in their policy book. http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdfI'm not sure Mulcair did propose it. Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did. Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.
It's there, actually (see below). But it's not something Mulcair has really focussed on.
1.7 Progressive and fair taxation
New Democrats believe in:
a.) A progressive tax system.
b.) Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.
c.) Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
d.) Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.
e.) Combatting tax shelters and money laundering
"a.)" and "d.)" are basically similar to what Trudeau announced.
[/quote]
No offence but that's a fair bit of interpretive reading.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:09
#172
ETA: Why won't you explain to us why it is good that the Liberal are attacking unions and that somehow this is going to be good for the Liberals? I know you think you can ignore issue, but NO ONE, who claims progressive credentials can in good concencience argue there is something wrong with a contract negotiated by a Union on behalf of its members which enjoys such widespread support among Canada's Union Leadership. Could you please explaing why this is bad?
I think the complaint is that the NDP should be paying for the union office so it isn't an attack on unions however I agree it was an error.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:15
#173
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/mulcair-taxation-confiscation
The quote in the first post doesn't require any creative reading.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:25
#174
Two positives from this: We now have two federal parties promising to raise taxes, something that was unthinkable just a short while ago. And unless this policy specifically sinks the Libs, it should be easy in the next election to get the NDP to promise an income tax increase for wealthy Canadians.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:28
#175
Two positives from this: We now have two federal parties promising to raise taxes, something that was unthinkable just a short while ago. And unless this policy specifically sinks the Libs, it should be easy in the next election to get the NDP to promise an income tax increase for wealthy Canadians.
I agree. It seems a gut reaction from many to dismiss anything proposed by the Liberals. Everyone should take their wins where they can. A more progressive tax system is good, no matter where it originates from.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:28
#176
Pondering, so far his "plan", is tax someone else, give people back money, and still no explanation where he is going to get the money for the rest of his promises. A child take break, big deal! What about all the other things that need to be done? Trudeau still hasn't said how's he going to pay for things. Its still a zero sum game. He's being too cute by hald. Of course you'd call this a plan. You have too.
He isn't finished rolling out his economic plan. Neither is Mulcair for that matter.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:41
#177
No offence but that's a fair bit of interpretive reading.[/quote]I can't find it in their policy book. http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdfI'm not sure Mulcair did propose it. Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did. Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.
It's there, actually (see below). But it's not something Mulcair has really focussed on.
1.7 Progressive and fair taxation
New Democrats believe in:
a.) A progressive tax system.
b.) Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.
c.) Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.
d.) Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.
e.) Combatting tax shelters and money laundering
"a.)" and "d.)" are basically similar to what Trudeau announced.
No offence taken.
Looking at the above, I feel "b" and "c" are big ones. These will be tax increases on the rich that will result in higher revenue for programs (rather than just a revenue neutral tax shift that the Libs are proposing). "e" could be a big one, but I anticipate that fighting offshore tax shelters would be quite difficult.
Mon, 2015-05-04 23:46
#178
@mark-Alfred. I agree that corporate taxes is the main deal. The capital gains thing, presuming capital losses will be treated equally, probably feels better than it will increase revenues overall. Most of the investors I know, including myself, have more losses than gains on the books. I would actually make money on that change.
Tue, 2015-05-05 09:33
#179
I'll point out that Mulcair has already promised to increase taxes on the wealthy to fight child poverty.
Tue, 2015-05-05 09:37
#180
Trudeau's tax cut means roughly 800$ per year, roughly 67$ per month. Sure its nice, but honestly won't actually achieve any real change in this country and it won't fixed anything either.
Tue, 2015-05-05 11:52
#181
I'll point out that Mulcair has already promised to increase taxes on the wealthy to fight child poverty.
Do you have a link to that claim because all I have seen is a promise not to increase personal taxes on the weathy?
Tue, 2015-05-05 14:24
#182
Arthur Cramer
I'll point out that Mulcair has already promised to increase taxes on the wealthy to fight child poverty.
Do you have a link to that claim because all I have seen is a promise not to increase personal taxes on the weathy?
Use "the Google". next time.
One other thing on this. we shouldn't be letting ourselves buy into Ponderings frame that the Libs will do this. We all know they'll promise it and then do nothing. We have nothing to prove here. The Libs record on taxation and fairness speaks for itself; from Martin on, its been one of sticking it to the poor to balance budgets on the backs of those with the least.
No Pondering, you're the one who has to prove the Libs will do this. You can't, so stop trying to flip the frame. Another LPC HQ Talking Point email in your inbox this morning?
Tue, 2015-05-05 15:15
#183
montrealer58
Tax havens and corporate tax shelters are an international problem, and they have to be dealt with in concert. When Canada re-establishes itself as an independent diplomatic entity this is one good thing it could do.
In terms of raising revenue, this kind of vile tax evasion costs governments around the world the entire amount of what they have to borrow.
If we could collect the money which is being shuffled offshore, no government in Canada would run a deficit.
Tax rates should not only be thought of as a revenue tool, but also to stimulate and suppress demand.
Wed, 2015-05-06 17:12
#184
Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail had an interesting article on the Liberal's campaign: Tax Cuts: Liberals can't win on Tories' turf. Basically, he feels the same as many of us do -- that there's not much difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The focus for both parties is tax cuts for the "middle-class". But, Simpson feels "middle-income voters who struggle to sort out different plans are more inclined to stick with incumbents."
Leaving the NDP aside for the moment, the Liberals' policy plan speaks volumes about what Canadian politics -- and perhaps we might say Canada -- has become. [..] National visions, collective dreams, large goals have disappeared from Canadian politics, replaced by appeals exclusively to economic self-interest.
Note that he leaves out the NDP, because they don't fit into his thesis (the NDP actually do have the large goal of childcare, and perhaps more). He states that both the Liberals' and Conservatives' election pitches "will be simple: lower taxes, smaller government".
This I feel could make room for the NDP to emerge as the true agent of change, just as in Alberta. While voters will struggle to find any real difference between the Liberals and Conservatives, they'll see that the NDP is actually a different and possible option (hey, if Alberta can do it, so can Canada).
Wed, 2015-05-06 22:09
#185
Personally I think the NDP will replace the Libs as a top 2 party. The libs will eventually dissolve and Blue Libs will go to cons or greens and orange libs to NDP... People are tired of the Liberal arrogance. They will win a couple seats in BC federally but really the west is Con vs NDP with a token Green seat and Lib seat.
If Hell can freeze over in Alberta it can federally. I would say the 2019 federal election the NDP will be in power as Libs will be irrelevant and people tired of the Harper cons and will want a change. \\But i could be wrong but if you believe the polls Trudeau has lost 16 points since Sept 2014 (in 8 months). The fed libs had their leadership convention to early. Trudeau and Liberals go hand in hand and if a Trudeau can not turn around federal Lib fortunes no one can. Plus when your party since Iggy took over has pretty well always backed Harper with a couple exceptions it shows the Libs are not a change or alternative. May as well vote for the devil you know so to speak. Plus the Libs are incapable of taking Harper on. Harper has a lean machine and has all the angles covered.
Why are the Libs sitting back? I am not gloating (maybe a little) but I really thought Trudeau would of been the one to rid us of Harper, which is what I want but it is pretty obvious he is not up to the task...
Thu, 2015-05-07 00:36
#186
Yeah. It's still hard to say what will happen in October. Could be that the Libs and Cons will be seen as unappealing and too similar (IE, basically just focussed on tax cuts) and that people will want change and vote NDP. Or, they may not feel like big change is needed and decide to stick with the Cons or decide to go with the more likeable Trudeau (part of the Alberta NDP's appeal was that Notley was quite likeable). Or something totally unexpected may happen. The Alberta NDP's win does demonstrate to people that anything is possible.
Sat, 2015-05-09 12:41
#187
Oh look, I was right, his platform is ready, he does have a daycare plan, and it is geared to income.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/09/justin-trudeau-hints-at-n_n_7247...
"I think there is a need for national leadership to make sure that early learning and child care happens, it's just that the actual model put forward by Mr. Mulcair benefits wealthy families as much as it benefits those who actually need it," he added...
Trudeau is staying mum for now, promising to share more in the coming months, but he was clear it would be different from the NDP's pledge of a $15 a day national child-care plan....
Asking wealthier Canadians to contribute more — whether it's potentially for child-care spaces or through the Liberals' proposed tax bracket for those who earn over $200,000 — was the running theme for Trudeau in the interview with Solomon.
Trudeau also expanded upon his planned monthly child benefit, which would roll together and enrich two existing benefits that are geared to income — the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement — into a single, more generous payment that would give families up to $6,400 annually for every child under six and up to $5,400 for children aged six to 17.
He is also promising to do away with the Conservative's universal child-care benefit, arguing it makes no sense for rich and poor families to receive the same amount of money.
"Our child benefit goes directly to the families who need it the most," he said, dismissing criticism his plan wouldn't do enough to help the working poor.
"We're giving $6,400 a year to any family with a family income under $30,000," he said, adding the benefit amount would be tied to family income and would gradually disappear at higher income levels....
"We will have plenty more to say about students, seniors, low-income singles and a range of people in the coming weeks and months," he said.
Just like the NDP, Trudeau is not announcing all measures at once. Now that we are in the six month run-up he is beginning to give the media something to talk about.
The risk for Trudeau was peaking too early and over-exposure. He prefers to be under-estimated. He and his team have had the time to develop a strong platform and he has had time to master its defence.
Trudeau isn't denying that he is not part of the middle-class. He is emphasizing his privelege by stating that families like his don't need subsidies. His family doesn't need 15$ a day daycare. His family can afford to pay higher taxes.
I think that will resonate with people as much as Mulcair's "I'm just a middle class fellow like you" spiel especially when coupled with self-directed tax increases.
Sat, 2015-05-09 12:51
#188
His family doesn't need universal public healthcare, either. So, may as well undermine the idea of universality.
Sat, 2015-05-09 13:37
#189
His family doesn't need universal public healthcare, either. So, may as well undermine the idea of universality.
Exactly. Douglas always stressed the need to have universal programs. It is easier to administer and it helps keep public support for these programs.
Sat, 2015-05-09 14:12
#190
His family doesn't need universal public healthcare, either. So, may as well undermine the idea of universality.
Everyone needs health care, not everyone needs daycare. In Quebec one of the problems has been an uneven distribution of subsidized daycare spaces benefiting the well-off rather than fulfilling it's intended purpose which was to get more women in the workforce. That is the aspect that makes it good for the economy.
His first plank is tax redistribution to benefit the middle class at the expense of the wealthy.
The second plank was to roll up all child benefits into one means tested one that helps the middle class and lower.
His third plank is daycare, also means-tested.
Regardless of whether or not you support him or the Liberals I think his strategy is sound.
Sat, 2015-05-09 14:24
#191
montrealer58
Means testing is a Victorian concept which sits in opposition to the progressive value of "universality". It is better to raise tax rates and provide services for all. You could use "means testing" to set up a two-tier healthcare system.
What about the two instances where one family does not qualify because their income is $10 over the line, and another one does because they made $10 less? This is a gross injustice.
No one anywhere near a "progressive" situation should be talking about "means testing". This idea went out more than a hundred years ago. It really goes to show how reactionary and right-wing Trudeau and the Liberals are.
Looks to me now, Trudeau is going to try to do a Stewart Smith and wheel to the right of the Tories. And like Stewart Smith, he will fail.
Sat, 2015-05-09 14:30
#192
Oh look, I was right, his platform is ready, he does have a daycare plan, and it is geared to income.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/09/justin-trudeau-hints-at-n_n_7247...
How many spaces will the Liberal plan create and how much will it cost people who use this Liberal daycare plan?
Sat, 2015-05-09 16:50
#193
Arthur Cramer
Pondering, means testing is why the Americans gripe about welfare instead of supporting a universal access program. It's why have national health care. Trudeau's approach, as shown again and again in the US, simply results in people resenting others getting things and undermine traditional Canadian support for universality. That's why REAL Progressives, I HATE word, like Canada's greatest Canadian, T.C. Douglas opposed means testing. Real progressives KNOW means testing is a dog whistle. But Trudeau is a neo-con, and so are you. Keep trying to move that Overton window, Pondering; at least here, no one is willing to let you get away with it.
Sat, 2015-05-09 17:16
#194
montrealer58
The other thing about means testing is you need to set up a bureaucracy to administer it. Your Liberal friends in government win, and the people lose. As usual whenever it comes to any kind of deal with the Liberals, the people lose.
Sun, 2015-05-10 12:37
#195
http://www.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/much+Canadians+make/...
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng...
Trudeau's 'middle class tax plan' does nothing for most canadians. Why didnt he increase the personal exemption? It should be 20 if not 25 000$.
So, how much do Canadians actually make?
Of the 24.5 million returns filed, 18 million Canadians reported total income of $50,000 or less. That’s not a typo. In other words, ignoring individuals who don’t file returns such as children, nearly 75% of tax-filing Canadians earned under $50,000 in total income in 2009.
Add another 5 million Canadians who reported total income of between $50,000 and $100,000 and you conclude that about 95% of individuals have income below $100,000 annually.
Mon, 2015-05-11 01:56
#196
Arthur Cramer
Love this Twitter thread, https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/597172763309178880 . Trudeau twitted bragging about paying for LPC attacks ads using LPC funds. Instead the thread has truned into an attack on Trudeau's vote for C51. Amazing number of Libs now voting NDP!
TRULY LOVE THIS!
ETA: Link works if you are first logged into Twitter. It is still much too early to say, but C51 support may be a big problem for Trudeau. Love seeing it get slapped back in his smug little face!
Mon, 2015-05-11 09:05
#197
My guess is carbon tax, legalized marijuana, and cut back TFSA's. But who knows - maybe there will be a surprise.
Turned out to be a tax increase on the uber-rich to fund a tax-cut that primarily benefits the reasonably well off (greatest benefit to those w/ incomes between $80,000 to $200,000, and no benefit for those under $44,000). And provision of some means tested daycare spaces. And some other tax credits for people.
Mon, 2015-05-11 13:12
#198
Arthur Cramer
Well it continues from yesterday regarding Trudeau's Smart Ass Ad Tweet. I think the guy is tone-deaf, regardless of what some of the LPC shills on here maintain about how well Le Dauphin does at "reaching out and communicating with ordinary people", whatever the hell that means. I tweeted he should wipe his smug smile off his smug face in response to his tweet, and my tweet has been retweeted a number of times. I think there may finally be something going on now; it may indeed be possible that Trudeau is starting to be seen for what he is, an arrogant, smug, self-satisfied, machivellian, scheming. lying, manipulative elitist, representing a fully complicit LPC that cares only about power, exercising it, sticking it to oridnary Canadians, while dividing the spoils among themselves. It would be wonderful is this is what is really happening. One thing is for sure, I have no use for the LPC or anyone who would consider voting for them. Period!
Mon, 2015-05-11 21:35
#199
I am plesantly suprised at how many people negatively reacted to Trudeau 's video on facebook and mentioned Liberals support of Bill C 51 instead..
https://www.facebook.com/idontwantmyaccount#!/JustinPJTrudeau/videos/101...
Mon, 2015-05-11 22:36
#200
montrealer58
I am glad to see the ludic loopers on Facebook and Twitter are condemning Justin Trudeau for supporting C-51. The cutting of the Liberal Party card has become an endearing visual meme.
As mentioned, supporting C-51 was the suicide of the Canadian Liberal Party. I cannot see how they can ever live that down. It cut right into the heart of the last decent bit of principle that people credited the Liberals for. The last little thing the Liberals could say they believed in. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For now, it seems only the NDP and the Greens will stand for that.
A node-based social media network with no leadership hierarchy might be quite useful in helping the NDP in the upcoming election. The NDP vote can identify itself and set up platforms for political response and untrolling.
Mon, 2015-05-11 23:33
#201
Well it continues from yesterday regarding Trudeau's Smart Ass Ad Tweet. I think the guy is tone-deaf, regardless of what some of the LPC shills on here maintain about how well Le Dauphin does at "reaching out and communicating with ordinary people", whatever the hell that means. I tweeted he should wipe his smug smile off his smug face in response to his tweet, and my tweet has been retweeted a number of times. I think there may finally be something going on now; it may indeed be possible that Trudeau is starting to be seen for what he is, an arrogant, smug, self-satisfied, machivellian, scheming. lying, manipulative elitist, representing a fully complicit LPC that cares only about power, exercising it, sticking it to oridnary Canadians, while dividing the spoils among themselves. It would be wonderful is this is what is really happening. One thing is for sure, I have no use for the LPC or anyone who would consider voting for them. Period!
Well said. Fabulous.