Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

615 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

nicky wrote:
Trudeau is right that a cynical electorate is turning away from him. A major reason for the electorate's cynicism is the cynicism of the Liberal Party in thinking the public would vote for such an unqualified lightweight simply because he is a pretty boy with a famous name.

His Blil C-51 position was maybe the most cynical thing the party has done in recent memory. It wasn't so much that he voted for it. It's that he voted for it after saying he was opposed to it. And then he compounded it by saying his vote was motivated by the fact that it's election season, and he didn't want Harper to make "political hay".

When you openly admit that you'd compromise a hugely important issue in the middle of election season, it undermines your credibility in the worst possible way. It also reminds voters of other Liberal campaign flailing, like promising to reduce the GST Federally, or spontaneously cancelling gas plants in Ontario that ended up costing the province millions. This is a party that's MAIN WEAKNESS is the worry they'll say or do anything to get elected.

It seemed like voters were willing to suspend their disbelief while Trudeau brought back fond feelings of yesteryear. But now the cynicism is back in full force. And everything the Liberals have tried on damage control -- trying to change focus with big policy announcements, going back to defending Bill C-51 on security, then promising they're just now working on specific ways to dismantle Bill C-51 (but that we have to wait), and then trying to brand the other parties as the cynical ones -- it all reeks.

He's going to have a hard time getting that stink off.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Even if people voted the same way for a decade or more that doesn't mean they decided in advance how they were going to vote. I do think 75% is a high number, it surprised me at first. This is the first time my decision has been made so far in advance. It would take a lot to change my mind but it is possible. I never thought Trudeau would fall this far in the polls.

When asked, I wouldn't be at all surprised if people answer "I only make my final decision after the campaigns."

If you look at the quote I did supply only 25% of people were aware of TTP which is at least equally surprising to me.  I really can't remember where I was reading, I believe he also said that is the percentage of people paying attention to politics between elections.

Even a lot time ago I prefaced my decision with "unless something changes dramatically". For Debater that was C 51. I don't like the position Trudeau took on it but I am going on the assumption that he will be releasing details of what he will change in the near future.

When a person's mind is made up especially far in advance there is always the chance that something will happen that will change their opinion. There could be a big market crash, we could have a 9/11 in Canada, something could happen to one of the leaders, etc.

As I said the 75% figure makes no sense. Not sure there is much point discussing it since you don't even have a source for it. I simply don't believe it.

The only place I have ever seen such a discussion with a clear percentage is in the Routledge Handbook of Political Management -- in this they use Australia as the model. Their research shows that 75% claim they would not consider changing their vote during an election. This is the opposite of what you said. Maybe you misread.

And of course the comment makes no sense in the context of how political parties work. They identify their supporters and the other parties' supporters becuase the key is to identify what is left -- available voters -- precisely because this is a small number. This is what CIMS and other systems are about. It is a huge advantage to identify the small number of people who will vote and may yet change how they will vote. If most voters were fluid there would be no point in this. The key is the swing voters are a small number and parties need to know who they are (mostly by eliminating who they aren't).

Your statements about the fact that under exceptional circumstances people might change their vote is a red herring. It is not relevant given your initial point.

The fact is very few people change their minds during an election. However, these voters, when added to any of the parties, can represent enough to make the difference between majority government and third party status. If only 10-15% are undecided and a party with momentum can grab most of them the difference is huge.

I don't have the source for this but I have read that this small number of undecideds do tend to swing one way or another. This means that a party with a good campaign can scoop up a vast majority of these unaligned voters and this is how you get swings from one election to another. When even these people have no consensus on how they will vote you get very close elections.

Elections are about this small group of people who are not loyal to a party but who change their minds -- but still vote.

When the core support or loyal voters start to break down you have a party in serious trouble. This can happen by them staying home or by them leaving the party. When those people leave they hardly ever come back. The most obvious example we have of this is the PC core vote that went Reform in 1993.

 

Stockholm

nicky wrote:
Trudeau is right that a cynical electorate is turning away from him. A major reason for the electorate's cynicism is the cynicism of the Liberal Party in thinking the public would vote for such an unqualified lightweight simply because he is a pretty boy with a famous name.

I agree and Trudeau's reaction is like some fading matinee idol unable to comprehend the fact that the public has moved on...its like what Trudeau is really trying to say is "Don't those dumb Canadians know that I AM THE MOST BEAUTIFUL??? How is it possible for anyone not to vote for me when I AM THE MOST BEAUTIFUL?"

Pondering

Thank-you for the respectful reply Sean. Perhaps I did misread.

socialdemocrati...

People focus so much on swing voters (and narrowly on a left-right axis) that they miss the bigger story of voter turnout. In 2011, Conservative voters were excited that Harper might have a majority, and NDP voters were excited about the orange wave. Liberals were depressed about Ignatieff. Tons of voters didn't vote. That's probably why Trudeau was doing well with voters who didn't vote in 2011, at least for a while. If he keeps alienating supporters on important issues like Bill C-51, and keeps making big swerves in the damage control, he may end up with less credibility than Iggy. 

Pondering

Yay!  I didn't find the article I was reading but I did find the source of the information which I started a new thread on.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canadian-voter-perceptions-and...

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, it is not inappropriate to challenge the commentary of another poster when it is worthy of challenge. You made comments about the LPC position on Bill C51 and I challneged them.

There is a difference between challenging the points a poster is making versus expressing an opinion about the poster.

 

You know that in yo ur case, you do both, and often its an integral part of your posts. You're projecting. I told you, if you are going to post things that are unsubstantiated, expect a challenge. And stop trying to turn every challenge to your commentary into allegation of personal attack. You play the victim as it suits you, and it is an unfair tactic.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Thank-you for the respectful reply Sean. Perhaps I did misread.

Of course it is also possible that what you saw was second hand from someone else who misread the original.

My point of course is not entirely that different from your initial point in one respect: While only a small number decide during the election -- this number is critical to making the difference in an election and can make the difference between third and majority. So to the inital point of whether a party 10 points out of first can recover and win during an election, I would say yes and this takes only 10-15% of the vote making up their minds late to accomplish.

Others have pointed out the issue of turnout. This is also a factor. I have not seen anyone quantify it though.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Thank-you for the respectful reply Sean. Perhaps I did misread.

Of course it is also possible that what you saw was second hand from someone else who misread the original.

My point of course is not entirely that different from your initial point in one respect: While only a small number decide during the election -- this number is critical to making the difference in an election and can make the difference between third and majority. So to the inital point of whether a party 10 points out of first can recover and win during an election, I would say yes and this takes only 10-15% of the vote making up their minds late to accomplish.

Others have pointed out the issue of turnout. This is also a factor. I have not seen anyone quantify it though.

While I didn't find the article I did find the poll and it is from last month by Abacus:

From http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/

Firmness of vote choice:

I really don't know which party I will vote for at this point: 17%

I have only a slight leaning at this time: 23%

I have a fairly good idea but it might change: 35%

I know how I will vote and that won't change: 25%

Only 25% of voters say they are firmly committed. That means 75% of voters won't make their final decision until after the campaigns.

In my opinion the Liberals might not have expected to drop so much in the polls but I do think they made the right tactical decision. They could not maintain the high they had in the beginning for two years. Had they started rolling out hastily made platform planks earlier they would have locked themselves into positions they might not want to sustain now and they would have been more open to attack on significant issues.

Trudeau has certainly sustained some damage but I don't think any of it is on the issues voters will actually base their decision on once they are in the polling booth. People do not answer polls with the same gravity that they vote.

The campaigns are going to matter. The Conservatives could be trounced. Harper has lost his top "moderate" men and his core has shrunk. Harper could drop to 3rd place. The Liberals and NDP better be ready with detailed credible platforms.

Even though they don't agree on the details it is a good thing that both the Liberals and NDP are supporting electoral reform. It will make it more difficult for the Conservatives to paint it as extreme or undemocratic.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Thank-you for the respectful reply Sean. Perhaps I did misread.

Of course it is also possible that what you saw was second hand from someone else who misread the original.

My point of course is not entirely that different from your initial point in one respect: While only a small number decide during the election -- this number is critical to making the difference in an election and can make the difference between third and majority. So to the inital point of whether a party 10 points out of first can recover and win during an election, I would say yes and this takes only 10-15% of the vote making up their minds late to accomplish.

Others have pointed out the issue of turnout. This is also a factor. I have not seen anyone quantify it though.

While I didn't find the article I did find the poll and it is from last month by Abacus:

From http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/

Firmness of vote choice:

I really don't know which party I will vote for at this point: 17%

I have only a slight leaning at this time: 23%

I have a fairly good idea but it might change: 35%

I know how I will vote and that won't change: 25%

Only 25% of voters say they are firmly committed. That means 75% of voters won't make their final decision until after the campaigns.

In my opinion the Liberals might not have expected to drop so much in the polls but I do think they made the right tactical decision. They could not maintain the high they had in the beginning for two years. Had they started rolling out hastily made platform planks earlier they would have locked themselves into positions they might not want to sustain now and they would have been more open to attack on significant issues.

Trudeau has certainly sustained some damage but I don't think any of it is on the issues voters will actually base their decision on once they are in the polling booth. People do not answer polls with the same gravity that they vote.

The campaigns are going to matter. The Conservatives could be trounced. Harper has lost his top "moderate" men and his core has shrunk. Harper could drop to 3rd place. The Liberals and NDP better be ready with detailed credible platforms.

Even though they don't agree on the details it is a good thing that both the Liberals and NDP are supporting electoral reform. It will make it more difficult for the Conservatives to paint it as extreme or undemocratic.

 

Those numbers I think are suspect but even so read the next group:

 ** Another 35% say they have “a fairly good idea, but that could change” **

This can mean that know how they will vote but are wanting to follow the election. This does not mean they are waiting to make a final decision so much as they have made a decision but are saying it is theoretically possible they could change their minds - like if something extraordinary might happen. That is a different interpretation than what you are making.

I could fit in this group before many elections-- open to change but not bloody likely and only if something significant would happen.

What they are saying to the pollsters is a message that they don't want to be taken for granted. And certainly that is what I would say even now-- even though I feel quite sure how I will vote.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Even a lot time ago I prefaced my decision with "unless something changes dramatically". For Debater that was C 51. I don't like the position Trudeau took on it but I am going on the assumption that he will be releasing details of what he will change in the near future.

On the Liberal website, it said they plan to put a sunset clause in it.  Other than that they've said nothing concrete, which is inexcusable.  Here's the gobbledygook on their site:

Quote:

If Liberals form the next government, we will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on new provisions of the bill.

Liberals did this before – and followed through on it. The original 2001 anti-terror law was allowed to expire.

But I did not choose to run for a seat in Parliament just to do things that are easy. I want to address the real and very serious issues that affect so many people every day in Winnipeg Centre, across Manitoba and across Canada.

There are people in Winnipeg Centre who wake up every morning wondering how they are going to feed their kids and whether they will have enough money for retirement. There are mothers and fathers and young people who wonder whether they will ever find a better job, or any job at all.

There are people who wake up under bridges who don’t know where their next meal is coming from. There are students who don’t know how they will pay their tuition and graduates who may wonder how they will pay off their student loans. There are veterans suffering with PTSD who are being denied the support they deserve. Every single day in Manitoba, a newborn baby is taken from their parents by Child and Family Services.

There are many people who fear for our future, our water and our planet.

These are the issues we want addressed – and we often protest in order to draw attention to them. But the actions we need to address these problems comes from the government and neither the federal nor provincial governments have been delivering the change we need.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

While I didn't find the article I did find the poll and it is from last month by Abacus:

From http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/

Firmness of vote choice:

I really don't know which party I will vote for at this point: 17%

I have only a slight leaning at this time: 23%

I have a fairly good idea but it might change: 35%

I know how I will vote and that won't change: 25%

Those numbers I think are suspect but even so read the next group:

 ** Another 35% say they have “a fairly good idea, but that could change” **

This can mean that know how they will vote but are wanting to follow the election. This does not mean they are waiting to make a final decision so much as they have made a decision but are saying it is theoretically possible they could change their minds - like if something extraordinary might happen. That is a different interpretation than what you are making.

I could fit in this group before many elections-- open to change but not bloody likely and only if something significant would happen.

What they are saying to the pollsters is a message that they don't want to be taken for granted. And certainly that is what I would say even now-- even though I feel quite sure how I will vote.

I agree but it isn't only not wanting to be taken for granted. I have always said my support is based on a number of assumptions that I think will be accurate.

-plan for environmental protection

- daycare plan

- plan for democratic reform already released

- more details on marijuana legalization

- plan for First Nations engagement

- a realistic economic plan

and now

- amendments to C 51 detailed

I think I have good reason to feel confident those things will be forthcoming, but if a pollster asked me if my decision was unchangable I would have to say no, I lean strongly but I reserve the right to change my mind.

So yes, of that 35% there are some who are quite sure.

On the other hand, when Trudeau was riding high in the polls it wasn't policy based. The lack of policy since then has hurt him because it was difficult for people to answer why they supported him. In the meantime Mulcair has worked hard at getting better known and he has aquitted himself well, gotten lots of positive press.

When you look at voter opinions on Harper they don't support him but they are nowhere near as critical as we are and they don't feel that strongly. 75% haven't even heard of the TPP. They are not paying attention to politics; they are being swayed by headlines but without commitment. Most people start paying attention when the writ is dropped or later, even just days before the election. They review the platforms at that time and decide.

Voters that supported Trudeau when he was riding high are still open to persuasion by a good campaign and platform.

 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Even a lot time ago I prefaced my decision with "unless something changes dramatically". For Debater that was C 51. I don't like the position Trudeau took on it but I am going on the assumption that he will be releasing details of what he will change in the near future.

On the Liberal website, it said they plan to put a sunset clause in it.  Other than that they've said nothing concrete, which is inexcusable.  Here's the gobbledygook on their site:

Quote:

If Liberals form the next government, we will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on new provisions of the bill.

Liberals did this before – and followed through on it. The original 2001 anti-terror law was allowed to expire.

He said more details will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. It's an obvious move.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

While I didn't find the article I did find the poll and it is from last month by Abacus:

From http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/

Firmness of vote choice:

I really don't know which party I will vote for at this point: 17%

I have only a slight leaning at this time: 23%

I have a fairly good idea but it might change: 35%

I know how I will vote and that won't change: 25%

Those numbers I think are suspect but even so read the next group:

 ** Another 35% say they have “a fairly good idea, but that could change” **

This can mean that know how they will vote but are wanting to follow the election. This does not mean they are waiting to make a final decision so much as they have made a decision but are saying it is theoretically possible they could change their minds - like if something extraordinary might happen. That is a different interpretation than what you are making.

I could fit in this group before many elections-- open to change but not bloody likely and only if something significant would happen.

What they are saying to the pollsters is a message that they don't want to be taken for granted. And certainly that is what I would say even now-- even though I feel quite sure how I will vote.

I agree but it isn't only not wanting to be taken for granted. I have always said my support is based on a number of assumptions that I think will be accurate.

-plan for environmental protection

- daycare plan

- plan for democratic reform already released

- more details on marijuana legalization

- plan for First Nations engagement

- a realistic economic plan

and now

- amendments to C 51 detailed

I think I have good reason to feel confident those things will be forthcoming, but if a pollster asked me if my decision was unchangable I would have to say no, I lean strongly but I reserve the right to change my mind.

So yes, of that 35% there are some who are quite sure.

On the other hand, when Trudeau was riding high in the polls it wasn't policy based. The lack of policy since then has hurt him because it was difficult for people to answer why they supported him. In the meantime Mulcair has worked hard at getting better known and he has aquitted himself well, gotten lots of positive press.

When you look at voter opinions on Harper they don't support him but they are nowhere near as critical as we are and they don't feel that strongly. 75% haven't even heard of the TPP. They are not paying attention to politics; they are being swayed by headlines but without commitment. Most people start paying attention when the writ is dropped or later, even just days before the election. They review the platforms at that time and decide.

Voters that supported Trudeau when he was riding high are still open to persuasion by a good campaign and platform.

 

I am not sure I get the second part of your post -- I think that people are very divided but not evenly. There are some loyal to Harper -- no question. But I think there are many who are very hostile to Harper but are not quite decided among the other parties. This is not a surpirse given that this is a government that has been in power almost a decade and has had a very devisive approach -- to say the least. I think that people are far more hostile to Harper than they are to the opposition parties and this is typical of a government seeking a new mandate after being in power so long.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

He [Trudeau] said more details will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. It's an obvious move.

When did he say this?  Was it before 28 May 2015 date of this statement?  If so, then there won't be anything else.  The statement is it.  Within the statement, there's just a lot of gibberish.  The only promise specific to Bill C-51 is this:

 

If Liberals form the next government, we will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on new provisions of the bill.

 

The promise states that they will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on "new provisions" of the bill, which means the Bill itself will stay, but the new provisions of it will have a sunset clause.  Hardly comforting.

I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

He [Trudeau] said more details will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. It's an obvious move.

When did he say this?  Was it before 28 May 2015 date of this statement?  If so, then there won't be anything else.  The statement is it.  Within the statement, there's just a lot of gibberish.  The only promise specific to Bill C-51 is this:

 

If Liberals form the next government, we will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on new provisions of the bill.

 

The promise states that they will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on "new provisions" of the bill, which means the Bill itself will stay, but the new provisions of it will have a sunset clause.  Hardly comforting.

I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

The point of course is the Liberals have voted for the Bill and claimed in their defence that they would make some unspecified changes to it. This comes down to them saying that we should just trust them on this horrible Bill that they have already supported. There is absolutely no reason to trust them on this at all.

The Liberals should have opposed the Bill if they wanted to leave their proposals unspecified. If they felt that they needed to support the bill they needed to provide a coherent reason for doing so which they have not done and would be difficult to do since the Bill did not need their support to pass. Secondly, if they were going to support the Bill and had supplied good reasons for doing so, they would have had to provide a specific list of what they would change and how they would change it (not quite a full draft of the amendments but pretty close). Either this or one of the two other obvious choices: 1) support the bill saying you agree with it and bear the consequences or 2) say you are against the bill and vote against it.

It is much more difficult to say you are against something and then vote for it.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am not sure I get the second part of your post -- I think that people are very divided but not evenly. There are some loyal to Harper -- no question. But I think there are many who are very hostile to Harper but are not quite decided among the other parties. This is not a surpirse given that this is a government that has been in power almost a decade and has had a very devisive approach -- to say the least. I think that people are far more hostile to Harper than they are to the opposition parties and this is typical of a government seeking a new mandate after being in power so long.

I love all the data in this poll, not the data itself, but the fact that it is provided:

http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/

It's definitely time for a change in government is at 51%. (plus 1)

It would be good to have a change but it is not that important to me. 25% (plus 6)

It would be good to continue with the same party but it's not all that important to me. 9%

It's definitely best to keep the Conservatives in office. 15%

The above supports your contention but that doesn't mean the hostility is strong as we can see from the following numbers:

Care deeply about the outcome 25%

Interested 53%

Very little interest 17%

no interest 5 %

Only 25% care deeply. I find that very low. If hostility against Harper were strong that number would be much higher.

The 25% that care deeply are evenly divided between the three top parties. NDP supporters are no more likely to feel strongly than the other two parties. Of those who are interested, the CPC leads by a nose. Again, NDP voters are no more enthused than anyone else.

The narrative that there is a strong groundswell against "the right" or Harper isn't supported by these numbers.

I think those of us who keep up with the pundits think the public is heavily swayed by them but the truth is most people aren't paying that much attention to the MSM anymore.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
When did he say this?  Was it before 28 May 2015 date of this statement?  If so, then there won't be anything else.

No, he said it in response to a question after he released his plan for strengthening democracy.

mark_alfred wrote:

If Liberals form the next government, we will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on new provisions of the bill.

The promise states that they will amend C-51 and institute a sunset clause on "new provisions" of the bill, which means the Bill itself will stay, but the new provisions of it will have a sunset clause.  Hardly comforting.

It is awkwardly phrased but your interpretation makes no sense. They wouldn't put a sunset clause on their amendments. I believe the "new provisions" is referring to the entire bill which is "new security provisions".

mark_alfred wrote:
I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

Amendments that deal with the issues raised by privacy experts.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering you better hope people are willing to let Trudeau get away with this malarkey now that it has so obviousuly hurt him. Like Kerry, he was for it before he was against it. What happened. Oh yeah the Americans reelected Bush. Voters DON'T HAVE the shorty memories Pondering that you clearly hope and believe they do.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering you better hope people are willing to let Trudeau get away with this malarkey now that it has so obviousuly hurt him. Like Kerry, he was for it before he was against it. What happened. Oh yeah the Americans reelected Bush. Voters DON'T HAVE the shorty memories Pondering that you clearly hope and believe they do. How partonizing.

Read the numbers. Voter intentions are skin deep right now and will be until the platforms come out.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

Amendments that deal with the issues raised by privacy experts.

Could you be more specific?

For me, the aspect of the law which centres around giving CSIS the flexibility to bypass the Charter (via applying for a warrant, which puts judges in a bizarre position), is unnacceptable and unnecessary.  The Liberals never objected to this. 

There were some amendments made already, which the Liberals tout as a great success.  But, as I mentioned, the Liberals have never objected to the following [emphasis my own]:

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 wrote:
(3) The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to other Canadian law, unless the Service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under section 21.1

IMO, unnacceptable and shameful of the Liberals to approve such a thing.  Some people joke that Justin Trudeau views PET's unnecessary imposition of the War Measures Act on Quebec in 1970 as PET's greatest achievement.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

Amendments that deal with the issues raised by privacy experts.

Could you be more specific?

For me, the aspect of the law which centres around giving CSIS the flexibility to bypass the Charter (via applying for a warrant, which puts judges in a bizarre position), is unnacceptable and unnecessary.  The Liberals never objected to this. 

There were some amendments made already, which the Liberals tout as a great success.  But, as I mentioned, the Liberals have never objected to the following [emphasis my own]:

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 wrote:
(3) The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to other Canadian law, unless the Service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under section 21.1

IMO, unnacceptable and shameful of the Liberals to approve such a thing.  Some people joke that Justin Trudeau views PET's unnecessary imposition of the War Measures Act on Quebec in 1970 as PET's greatest achievement.

I do believe he said something about warrants but either way he said the details will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

I would prefer that the bill be fully repealed but I am going to listen to privacy experts and take it from there. I give them the benefit of the doubt, you don't which is fine, but we won't know who is right until the details come out.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he said something about warrants but either way he said the details will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

Bullshit.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he said something about warrants but either way he said the details will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

Bullshit.

No worries, we will know long before the next election.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

Amendments that deal with the issues raised by privacy experts.

Again, could you be more specific? 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I'm curious, given that you're not in favour of Bill C-51 as it currently is, what amendments are you hoping for to make it acceptable to you?  And if the Liberals don't propose the amendments you're hoping to see, then will you still support them?

Amendments that deal with the issues raised by privacy experts.

Again, could you be more specific? 

Here you go:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-how-to-salv...

When Trudeau puts out more information I will read more analysis on whether or not it meets the main objections or if there are still aspects that concern me more than the concerns that I have about the NDP.

socialdemocrati...

It's going to be hard for Trudeau to regain credibility, let alone on Bill C-51. The time to take action was before all those candidates left. You'd have to think that the unhappy candidates reached out to head office BEGGING them to do something, and Trudeau just ignored them, or his strategists just rehashed some spin about security and terrorism. If candidates of the Liberal party are heading for the door, you can imagine the mood among less partisan voters. Or better yet, you can just look at the polls.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering you better hope people are willing to let Trudeau get away with this malarkey now that it has so obviousuly hurt him. Like Kerry, he was for it before he was against it. What happened. Oh yeah the Americans reelected Bush. Voters DON'T HAVE the shorty memories Pondering that you clearly hope and believe they do. How partonizing.

Read the numbers. Voter intentions are skin deep right now and will be until the platforms come out.

That's as cyncial an answer as possible. You DON'T CARE that your boy did what he did for political reasons. You really don't care at all what he does, do you, as long as he wins. For my money, there's something wrong with thinking in that way. What a cold, calculating, cynic you are. You're truly shameless. But I'll give this for you, at least you don't hide it. I guess that's a good thing?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he said something about warrants but either way he said the details will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

Bullshit.

When are you and everyone else here figure out Pondering doesn't care what anyone on this board thinks. Its about LPC boosterims, nothing else. Debate, who need it? Discussion, who needs it? Pontificating, Pondering needs it.

takeitslowly
Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering you better hope people are willing to let Trudeau get away with this malarkey now that it has so obviousuly hurt him. Like Kerry, he was for it before he was against it. What happened. Oh yeah the Americans reelected Bush. Voters DON'T HAVE the shorty memories Pondering that you clearly hope and believe they do. How partonizing.

Read the numbers. Voter intentions are skin deep right now and will be until the platforms come out.

That's as cyncial an answer as possible. You DON'T CARE that your boy did what he did for political reasons. You really don't care at all what he does, do you, as long as he wins. For my money, there's something wrong with thinking in that way. What a cold, calculating, cynic you are. You're truly shameless. But I'll give this for you, at least you don't hide it. I guess that's a good thing?

It's realistic not cynical. The degree to which we personally support or don't support a party has no bearing on how well they are doing with the public. I support QS but I am under no illusions that they will win an election in my lifetime. Regardless of which party you support the numbers indicate that as of right now we may have a three-way race which is wonderful news for the NDP. Regardless of the actual outcome of this election, 2011 can no longer interpreted as a flash in pan. The NDP has solidified their position as contenders for the win. That is a huge historic achievement for Mulcair and the NDP regardless of outcome.

Mulcair took weeks to condemn C 51. Do you think he and his team were not hammering out the political ramifications? If Mulcair really released his platform planks last summer so people would have time to study the proposals why didn't he put the most complex ones out, like MMP? Instead he did a summer tour on abolishing the Senate which is really easy to understand. Not much to study on that, nor on the federal minimum wage. He released the planks to get air-time in the hopes of improving his numbers not to give Canadians time to study. It didn't improve his numbers so he changed his campaign team, and it worked. It isn't the sole factor but it is a factor as is the win in Alberta and Trudeau's lack of policy and of course Mulcair's all-around performance and character now that he is getting better known.

if Liberals voting against the bill would have stopped it from passing I would object to Trudeau having voted in favor. I still wish he had voted against the bill and I think he made a tactical error in not doing so.

What I think or what you think does not necessarily reflect public sentiment especially strength of opinion which is very significant. I'm not happy that the Liberals dropped so much in the polls, but that doesn't change the fact that they have. That voter intentions are skin deep, still open to rapid change, is also reflected in the polls.

Pondering

More policy coming out, this time on foreign affairs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-i-ll-end-isis-combat-miss...

Justin Trudeau: I'll end ISIS combat mission, restore relations with Iran

If the Liberal Party claims victory in the next federal election, Justin Trudeau says, his government would end Canada's bombing mission against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and restore diplomatic relations with Iran, in a dramatic departure from the path taken by the Harper government on foreign policy.

"We'd move away from the CF-18 [bombing] mission," Trudeau said in an interview with Terry Milewski on CBC's Power & Politics. "This government has failed miserably to demonstrate why the best mission for Canada is to participate in a bombing mission," Trudeau said.

And while Trudeau pledged to pull Canadian fighter jets from the Middle East, he doubled down on his commitment to send more military personnel to help train Iraqi security forces — beyond the 70 or so Canadian special operations personnel who are currently embedded with the Kurdish Peshmerga. 

"We would engage Canada's military in something we've demonstrated tremendous ability at in Afghanistan and elsewhere: training up local troops doing the fighting on the ground." Trudeau refused to say how many more trainers should be deployed.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced earlier this month that he'd send an additional 450 American troops to advise and assist local Iraqi forces in the fight against ISIS. 

Trudeau ruled out committing combat troops to Iraq, even as the security situation there deteriorates. ISIS now controls more than a quarter of Iraq including Mosul, the country's second largest city. ISIS fighters recently took Ramadi, a city about 100 kilometres away from the capital of Baghdad. 

 

socialdemocrati...

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-trudeau-explains-...

If Canadians are, as Trudeau says, tuning out for the summer months, one would think he wouldn’t reveal his sweeping 32-point “plan to restore democracy” — which would eliminate first-past-the-post voting and introduce a whole host of other parliamentary reforms — just as people across the country are hosing off their patio furniture. Though faced with the question of his sinking support, Trudeau had to say something, and better to blame you, than him.

Article is a little off the mark in parts. But the article is just a drop in the bucket of "Trudeau is just saying anything" stories.

Very few people are talking about Trudeau's political courage, or principles, or ideas.

Everyone is talking about how Trudeau is desperately trying to change the channel, and the channel won't. fucking. change.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Mulcair took weeks to condemn C 51. Do you think he and his team were not hammering out the political ramifications?

Or, what they decided was the hell with political considerations, not like YOUR leader, and let's do the right thing. You don't know one way or the other. The FACTS ARE that the NDP and Mulcair came out against it; that is the ONLY thing that mattes. YOUR leader, turned tail and ran. THAT, IS, WHAT HAPPENED. But you, you don't give a damn. You are PERCECTLY COMFORTABLE with your leader playing politics. Now your spin is, opps, he misplayed that. Oh well, he'll fix that. That somehow makes him the superior leader over your hated Mulcair? Really? What a load Pondering. You are so disingenuous, it hurts. You can't be reading what you post or you wouldn't be posting what you do.

Pondering wrote:

If Mulcair really released his platform planks last summer so people would have time to study the proposals why didn't he put the most complex ones out, like MMP? Instead he did a summer tour on abolishing the Senate which is really easy to understand. Not much to study on that, nor on the federal minimum wage. He released the planks to get air-time in the hopes of improving his numbers not to give Canadians time to study. It didn't improve his numbers so he changed his campaign team, and it worked. It isn't the sole factor but it is a factor as is the win in Alberta and Trudeau's lack of policy and of course Mulcair's all-around performance and character now that he is getting better known.

The FACTS ARE Mulcair, has released major portions of his platform. YOUR LEADER, NOW THAT HE IS BEHIND IN THE POLLS, all of sudden is throwing out policy announcements left, right and center, but no Pondering, it is just a coincidence he's doing it now. Right? Right Pondering? But oh no, don't look at that you say. Just ignore that. It has NOTHING to do with it you'll say.

Seriously, how do you look at yourself in the mirror and not laugh every time? Or do you just see Justin Trudeau smiling back at you when you do that?

Seriously, "Pondering", give me a break. And why do you call yoursef, "Pondering", anyway. What do you "ponder" about, exactly?

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-trudeau-explains-...

Article is a little off the mark in parts. But the article is just a drop in the bucket of "Trudeau is just saying anything" stories.

Very few people are talking about Trudeau's political courage, or principles, or ideas.

Everyone is talking about how Trudeau is desperately trying to change the channel, and the channel won't. fucking. change.

Your concern for Trudeau is sweet but you are worried over nothing. This is the core of her argument:

It’s not that his ideas aren’t good, which they mostly are, or that he doesn’t represent real change, which he does — it’s the perception that Trudeau might not be the guy to competently see them through.

She is betting on the "just not ready" mantra working. That depends heavily on Trudeau's performance once voters tune into the election. The problem with that mantra is that it is dependent on lack of policy and weak presentation. Nor does it take into account the weaknesses of Harper and Mulcair and the attack ads coming for them.

Harper will be exploiting Mulcair's slip on the percentage of taxes paid by business. He already began.

I predict this http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/quebec-sovereignty-would-hurt-the-provinc... will provide fodder for quite a few criticisms.

But Mulcair, who was environment minister under a previous Quebec Liberal government, reminded reporters of his party's so-called Sherbrooke Declaration of 2005, a document that stated Quebec should be granted "specific powers and room for manoeuvring."

With that declaration, the party endorsed the principle of recognizing a referendum victory by the sovereigntist Yes side, even if it were by a majority of 50 per cent plus one.

That clashes with the federal Clarity Act, which calls for the need for a "clear majority."

Moreover, the declaration offers "asymmetrical federalism," meaning Quebec would be given the right to opt out of federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdiction. Quebec would also receive "full compensation."

Mulcair reiterated that the Sherbrooke Declaration is his party's official position vis-a-vis Quebec's relationship with Ottawa.

"It's clear this political offer remains at the heart of our approach with Quebecers," he said.

Trudeau's response:

"On the St. Jean Baptiste, Quebec's national holiday, that Mr. Mulcair would decide to make this announcement about repealing the Clarity Act and making it easier to break up the country is just the worst kind of politics," he said in an interview.

"The fact that he's choosing to bring this up as an effort to pander to votes in Quebec, I think is exactly the wrong thing."

In his travels around Quebec, Trudeau said he's found people want to talk about jobs, the economy, the environment and health care, not the legal requirements for secession. And he said he shares their priorities.

The separatist movement in Quebec is declining. Nobody wants to hear about it. They are so far from any sort of referendum it's depressing for separatists and everyone else is just fed-up with the topic. Allowing Quebec, but not any other provinces, to opt out with full compensation does not sit well with many Canadians.

Why shouldn't any province be allowed to opt out of federal programs with full compensation? Would Quebec even have medicare were it to be introduced under that agreement?

The "not ready" meme will be easily dispelled during the election period.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Seriously, "Pondering", give me a break. And why do you call yoursef, "Pondering", anyway. What do you "ponder" about, exactly?

Because I joined this study just prior to joining babble.

http://ponder.mcgill.ca/

It wasn't a deep decision.

verb (used without object) 1. to consider something deeply and thoroughly; meditate (often followed by over or upon). verb (used with object) 2. to weigh carefully in the mind; consider thoughtfully: He pondered his next words thoroughly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ponder

It seemed like an appropriate moniker for this type of message board.

Pondering
socialdemocrati...

Trudeau comeback? Don't bet on it.

Justin Trudeau plays down polls and the 'politics of fear'

Justin Trudeau blames low polling on timing, cynicism

BBQ season may not improve Trudeau fortunes

Trudeau now entering a crucial stage

Justin Trudeau is no emperor, but his clothes are disappearing anyway

C-51 'right' for Canada, Trudeau insists

Trudeau defends his Anti-Terrorism Act stance

In trying to be all things to all people, the Liberals risk being nothing to anyone

Electora revamp or Grit desperation

Can a man who ignores his promise of open nominations credibly claim to be a great reformer?

Trudeau’s ‘Real Change’ reality check

Trudeau unfazed by Bloc Quebecois passing Liberals in polls

Trudeau misses the mark

 

The media is a cruel mistress. For the past 3+ years they've been obsessed with Trudeau and the polls, which has been frustrating for those of us who wanted a 3-way race about important issues. But now that the Liberals are in third place, they're still about Trudeau and the polls. And now that Trudeau is scrambling to clarify his policy positions, they STILL won't stop talking about Trudeau and the polls.

A week ago, Trudeau realized he had to do something, and kicked his damage control into high gear. And for the past week, everyone has been saying different versions of the same thing: Trudeau is dropping, Trudeau is in damage control, Trudeau is desperately trying to change the channel. Even when people have kind words about his newfound policies, it's part of the bigger story about a campaign scrambling to define itself.

If Trudeau is now seen as someone who will now say anything to turn his campaign around, what can he possibly say to turn his campaign around?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Seriously, "Pondering", give me a break. And why do you call yoursef, "Pondering", anyway. What do you "ponder" about, exactly?

Because I joined this study just prior to joining babble.

http://ponder.mcgill.ca/

It wasn't a deep decision.

verb (used without object) 1. to consider something deeply and thoroughly; meditate (often followed by over or upon). verb (used with object) 2. to weigh carefully in the mind; consider thoughtfully: He pondered his next words thoroughly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ponder

It seemed like an appropriate moniker for this type of message board.

It would be, for another poster,

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Trudeau comeback? Don't bet on it.

Justin Trudeau plays down polls and the 'politics of fear'

Justin Trudeau blames low polling on timing, cynicism

BBQ season may not improve Trudeau fortunes

Trudeau now entering a crucial stage

Justin Trudeau is no emperor, but his clothes are disappearing anyway

C-51 'right' for Canada, Trudeau insists

Trudeau defends his Anti-Terrorism Act stance

In trying to be all things to all people, the Liberals risk being nothing to anyone

Electora revamp or Grit desperation

Can a man who ignores his promise of open nominations credibly claim to be a great reformer?

Trudeau’s ‘Real Change’ reality check

Trudeau unfazed by Bloc Quebecois passing Liberals in polls

Trudeau misses the mark

 

The media is a cruel mistress. For the past 3+ years they've been obsessed with Trudeau and the polls, which has been frustrating for those of us who wanted a 3-way race about important issues. But now that the Liberals are in third place, they're still about Trudeau and the polls. And now that Trudeau is scrambling to clarify his policy positions, they STILL won't stop talking about Trudeau and the polls.

A week ago, Trudeau realized he had to do something, and kicked his damage control into high gear. And for the past week, everyone has been saying different versions of the same thing: Trudeau is dropping, Trudeau is in damage control, Trudeau is desperately trying to change the channel. Even when people have kind words about his newfound policies, it's part of the bigger story about a campaign scrambling to define itself.

If Trudeau is now seen as someone who will now say anything to turn his campaign around, what can he possibly say to turn his campaign around?

Oh you know, the usuall stuff. Mulcair is pandering to the Sepratists, Mulcair IS Harper, can't trust Socialist to govern fiscally responsibly, Canadians know us, they are comfortable with us, we brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (well, ok, can't use that one), THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT!!! You know...the usual stuff!Wink

socialdemocrati...

Since Pondering seems to march in lockstep with Team Trudeau's spin machine, I just assumed she misspelled "Pandering".

 

 

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The media is a cruel mistress. For the past 3+ years they've been obsessed with Trudeau and the polls, which has been frustrating for those of us who wanted a 3-way race about important issues. But now that the Liberals are in third place, they're still about Trudeau and the polls. And now that Trudeau is scrambling to clarify his policy positions, they STILL won't stop talking about Trudeau and the polls.

A week ago, Trudeau realized he had to do something, and kicked his damage control into high gear. And for the past week, everyone has been saying different versions of the same thing: Trudeau is dropping, Trudeau is in damage control, Trudeau is desperately trying to change the channel. Even when people have kind words about his newfound policies, it's part of the bigger story about a campaign scrambling to define itself.

If Trudeau is now seen as someone who will now say anything to turn his campaign around, what can he possibly say to turn his campaign around?

The press talk about whichever leader is giving them a reason to talk about them. Given that you are convinced he is in third place and can't turn it around what are you so worried about?

 

mark_alfred

I worry that the Liberals or Conservatives could make a come back and win.  Neither of them represent what I'd like to see.

Regardless, getting back to the thread topic, yes, I noticed Trudeau's statement about ending ISIS combat mission and restoring relations with Iran.  Seems good to me.  I'm not overly familiar with international affairs, but I believe the States is also hoping to improve relations with Iran, to have a counter balance to the issues they're having with Iraq and in Syria. 

Anyway, regardless, it's something to set him apart from Harper.  It seems to me that Trudeau is trying to recapture the socially Liberal fiscally Conservative air that he was riding before his slump in the polls.  They're trying to convey that they love cutting corporate taxes and love free trade as much as the Conservatives, and thus are good for business (unlike the overly interventionist NDP, as Trudeau refers to them), but they are far cooler than the Conservatives in how they go about it (though their support of Bill C-51 has called this whole premise into question).

Will it work?  Time will tell.  But that is the theme they're campaigning on, I feel. 

They're also staying as vague as possible to let people fill in their own aspirations (IE, they will be "consultative", unlike the partisan NDP and partisan Conservative Party).  The Lib's excessive reliance upon this "consultative" ploy truly doesn't work for me -- it's like voting for an empty, unreliable, and unprincipled shell.  But, to each their own.  Sure, it's fine to promise some consultation for some issues, but these Liberals seem almost incapable of making any firm commitment on anything.

bekayne
Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

  I'm under no illusion that she'll ever share my viewpoints on practically anything.  I feel she's too right wing for that.  But, regardless, I don't mind political discussions with Liberals or Conservatives.

I didn't realize national daycare, minimum income, and environmental protection were on the right side of the spectrum. Mulcair and the NDP are willing to deny me my rights as a Canadian citizen. It's a deal breaker.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It seemed like an appropriate moniker for this type of message board.

It would be, for another poster,

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Since Pondering seems to march in lockstep with Team Trudeau's spin machine, I just assumed she misspelled "Pandering".

Back to the schoolyard taunts I see. Thanks for letting me know I'm right. You think Trudeau is going to win too.

socialdemocrati...

mark_alfred wrote:
They're also staying as vague as possible to let people fill in their own aspirations (IE, they will be "consultative", unlike the partisan NDP and partisan Conservative Party).  The Lib's excessive reliance upon this "consultative" ploy truly doesn't work for me -- it's like voting for an empty, unreliable, and unprincipled shell.  But, to each their own.  Sure, it's fine to promise some consultation for some issues, but these Liberals seem almost incapable of making any firm commitment on anything.

Agreed, and I'd treat this as compatible with my analysis of the campaign. There's wide agreement that Trudeau is saying everything to everyone to pull his campaign out of its sag. And upon closer scrutiny, a lot of what he's promising is "consultation" and "further details to come". 

It's bad for the country, and it's also a bad strategy. He's in the hot seat now, and everyone is zeroing in on those holes in his promises. If he plans to fill in those holes later, it furthers the impression that he makes up his policy based on polls and political pressure instead of principles.

And it's the same lack of trust that's killed the Liberal brand over the past generation.

Pondering

 

mark_alfred wrote:

They're also staying as vague as possible to let people fill in their own aspirations (IE, they will be "consultative", unlike the partisan NDP and partisan Conservative Party).  The Lib's excessive reliance upon this "consultative" ploy truly doesn't work for me -- it's like voting for an empty, unreliable, and unprincipled shell.  But, to each their own.  Sure, it's fine to promise some consultation for some issues, but these Liberals seem almost incapable of making any firm commitment on anything.

I don't see an excessive reliance on the consultative approach. I think changing our electoral system should entail a wide-ranging consultative process.

This seems detailed enough to me:

Our objective is nothing less than making transparency a fundamental principle across the Government of Canada. To start:

  • We will amend the Access to Information Act so that all government data and information is made open by default in machine-readable, digital formats
  • In the rare instances where information cannot be disclosed, the individual making the request would receive a written explanation within 30 days
  • We will also eliminate all fees associated with the Access to Information process, except for the initial $5 filing fee
  • We will expand the role of the Information Commissioner by providing them with the ability to issue binding orders for disclosure
  • We will ensure a full legislative review of the Access to Information system every 5 years thereafter.
  • We will also ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.

This seems pretty clear to me as well:

We will revoke rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists and allow them to speak freely about their work, with only limited and publicly stated exceptions. We will consolidate government science so that it is easily available to the public at-large through a central portal.

We will create a Chief Science Officer whose mandate would include ensuring that government science is freely available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are appropriately considered when the government makes decisions.

There is more at:

http://www.realchange.ca/?ac=4299021,4291325,4299022&gclid=CNjQo7qVqcYCF...

Also concerning Bill C 51

You’ve said you would repeal parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act, widely referred to as Bill C-51. What parts would you repeal?

We’re about to put forward a long and comprehensive proposal that will go exactly to the changes we’re going to make. That’s coming in the coming days.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/interview-justin-trudeau-on-elect...

That is ample time before the next election for voters to evaluate specifics.

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he said something about warrants but either way he said the details will be forthcoming in a few weeks.

Bullshit.

When are you and everyone else here figure out Pondering doesn't care what anyone on this board thinks. Its about LPC boosterims, nothing else. Debate, who need it? Discussion, who needs it? Pontificating, Pondering needs it.

I don't mind sharing perspectives with staunch Liberals and/or Liberal sympathizers.  I'm under no illusion that she'll ever share my viewpoints on practically anything.  But, regardless, I don't mind political discussions with Liberal or Conservative sympathizers.

(edited a 2nd time)

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

More policy coming out, this time on foreign affairs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-i-ll-end-isis-combat-miss...

It will be interesting to see how well this goes down in the Liberal stronghold of Atlantic Canada.  I think the military is a big employer there.  I'm guessing support there will remain, but still I'll be following it to see.

bekayne

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

More policy coming out, this time on foreign affairs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-i-ll-end-isis-combat-miss...

It will be interesting to see how well this goes down in the Liberal stronghold of Atlantic Canada.  I think the military is a big employer there.  I'm guessing support there will remain, but still I'll be following it to see.

I think a lot of people all over Canada are just weary of The Neverending War

Pages