The coming Conservative super-majority in Canada

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

have been thinking about this scare tactic of a Conservative super majority.

i say let it happen. maybe then people will see the enormity of what the Conservatives are today and turn their backs on the social conservatives for a decade or so.

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

have been thinking about this scare tactic of a Conservative super majority.

i say let it happen. maybe then people will see the enormity of what the Conservatives are today and turn their backs on the social conservatives for a decade or so.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about that outcome. We had almost a decade of Harper, including four years with a majority, and it didn't stop people in Ontario and Quebec from electing Ford and Legault, respectively.  

Aristotleded24

voice of the damned wrote:

quizzical wrote:

have been thinking about this scare tactic of a Conservative super majority.

i say let it happen. maybe then people will see the enormity of what the Conservatives are today and turn their backs on the social conservatives for a decade or so.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about that outcome. We had almost a decade of Harper, including four years with a majority, and it didn't stop people in Ontario and Quebec from electing Ford and Legault, respectively.

Those times also coincided with arrogant Liberal administrations who angered the voting public so much that a ham sandwich running under a political banner was bound to come along and sweep them out of office.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

quizzical wrote:

have been thinking about this scare tactic of a Conservative super majority.

i say let it happen. maybe then people will see the enormity of what the Conservatives are today and turn their backs on the social conservatives for a decade or so.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about that outcome. We had almost a decade of Harper, including four years with a majority, and it didn't stop people in Ontario and Quebec from electing Ford and Legault, respectively.

Those times also coincided with arrogant Liberal administrations who angered the voting public so much that a ham sandwich running under a political banner was bound to come along and sweep them out of office.

Hi Quizzical, I am assuming you do not live in Ontario. (Actually, I know you don't.) The two things I can say from living in this province is that the pain of right wing governments are hard and immediate. We are having our healthcare and education sized for the coffin here and the poison is flowing. This is a heavy price given the second thing: people in this part of the coutnry at least learn lessons and forget them in no time at all. After the screwing of the Harris years we have elected something worse, without so much as even a platform. Harris was gone only in 2002. We are still paying the price of the Harris regime 16 years later and now we have Ford.

Another example -- here in Ontario the Ford government just ripped up the regulation that prevented third party meters (picked by landords in large buildings or condo corps) from gauging tenants to the extreme. they are also reconsidering the value of providing pain control in some health procedures (like colonoscopy) to save money.

This is the same party during the Harris era that introduced welfare "reform" that cut rates, and then mandated that people on social assistance had to declare and be docked for a family dinner they received. The penalty was to be cut from the welfare roles -- for life -- it did not matter if they had children that would starve either. One woman committed suicide.

I am not a fan of the Liberals and as I have said here they are the in-the-way party. They scoop up progressive support and then bait and switch on policies followed by scandal and delivery of the government to Conservatives. This is a constant theme.

Still, I would never see a silver lining in a conservative victory -- particularly provincial where the effect on the most vulnerable is so immediate. It might be possible to consider the whole short term pain, as extreme as it is, if the voting public did not have the memory of a 1980s desktop computer overwritten for each new campaign. The lack of memory that allows for constant Liberal betrayal is the same lack of memory that sets us up for the disastrous Conservative regimes.

I do not pretend that the Liberals do much for the people but they do refrain, for the most part, from the most gleeful, cruel initiatives to strike at the most vulnerable. (I acknowledge that this is not the case with BC Liberals.) The Conservatives cause this pain not to save money but becuase their base eats it up. The Liberals are sleazy, ineffectual and selfish. The Conservatives have a sadistic streak.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Conservatives cause this pain not to save money but becuase their base eats it up. The Liberals are sleazy, ineffectual and selfish. The Conservatives have a sadistic streak.

I agree, so you would think it would be easier to convince people to vote NDP. 

Ken Burch

Singh may be beginning to do that, but he has to spend every moment of every day, between now and polling day, doing nothing BUT that.  An "a plague on both their houses" campaign could be dramatically effective right now.  Up until the Burnaby by-election, the Singh era has resembled a slow-motion version of the scene from BRAVEHEART in which the English troops are charging and William Wallace keeps shouting "Hold!...Hold!...Hold!" to keep the Scottish forces from firing their arrows until the English are nearly in their faces.  For a long time, it looked as though Singh would never stop shouting "Hold!" and the English(the Liberals and Conservatives, in this metaphor)would just charge right through the NDP ranks, cutting them the party to ribbons with their swords.

Pondering

From the following there is no danger of a Conservative super majority and not much chance they will win.

Polling data on the SNC-Lavalin fallout. I consider Abacus Conservative leaning. 

https://abacusdata.ca/tracking-the-impact-of-the-snc-lavalin-controvery-sunday-update/

The Conservatives have a slight lead over the Liberals. Based on the sample size, there’s an 89% chance the Conservatives are in the lead. There’s an 11% chance the Liberals are ahead. Mr. Trudeau’s personal image remains in the red. The gap between those with a positive view and those with a negative one has persisted since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.  But Mr. Scheer’s image hasn’t benefited from the SNC-Lavalin controversy. Those with a positive view of the Conservative leader has dropped 5 points since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. Mr. Singh has seen almost no change in impressions over this period, which also included his by-election win in Burnaby South at the end of February.

By Saturday, Mr. Trudeau had opened up an 8-point lead over Mr. Scheer on who Canadians would prefer as PM after the next election.

(The following two questions are the results from people who are aware of the SNC case.)

Attention to the controversy hasn’t really changed since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. All the movement is within the comparable margin of error. 

The percentage of those thinking Prime Minister Trudeau should resign has declined over time. Yesterday, 34% were inclined to say “yes” he should resign, the lowest we have tracked since February 28.

Trudeau has an 8 point lead on Scheer. People are not happy about how Trudeau managed this which is reflected in Liberal party numbers but they still prefer him over Scheer meaning they will still vote Liberal. People thinking he should resign is just at 34% which isn't even all Conservative and NDP voters. That number is dropping because people are getting bored with the story. No sex. No money. No laws broken by PM or staff. 

I am not minimizing Trudeau's sins. I am commenting on the likely impact on the election not judging whether it is right or wrong. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

From the following there is no danger of a Conservative super majority and not much chance they will win.

Polling data on the SNC-Lavalin fallout. I consider Abacus Conservative leaning. 

https://abacusdata.ca/tracking-the-impact-of-the-snc-lavalin-controvery-sunday-update/

The Conservatives have a slight lead over the Liberals. Based on the sample size, there’s an 89% chance the Conservatives are in the lead. There’s an 11% chance the Liberals are ahead. Mr. Trudeau’s personal image remains in the red. The gap between those with a positive view and those with a negative one has persisted since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.  But Mr. Scheer’s image hasn’t benefited from the SNC-Lavalin controversy. Those with a positive view of the Conservative leader has dropped 5 points since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. Mr. Singh has seen almost no change in impressions over this period, which also included his by-election win in Burnaby South at the end of February.

By Saturday, Mr. Trudeau had opened up an 8-point lead over Mr. Scheer on who Canadians would prefer as PM after the next election.

(The following two questions are the results from people who are aware of the SNC case.)

Attention to the controversy hasn’t really changed since Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony. All the movement is within the comparable margin of error. 

The percentage of those thinking Prime Minister Trudeau should resign has declined over time. Yesterday, 34% were inclined to say “yes” he should resign, the lowest we have tracked since February 28.

Trudeau has an 8 point lead on Scheer. People are not happy about how Trudeau managed this which is reflected in Liberal party numbers but they still prefer him over Scheer meaning they will still vote Liberal. People thinking he should resign is just at 34% which isn't even all Conservative and NDP voters. That number is dropping because people are getting bored with the story. No sex. No money. No laws broken by PM or staff. 

I am not minimizing Trudeau's sins. I am commenting on the likely impact on the election not judging whether it is right or wrong. 

You are so thinking like it is 1999.

I wrote about this in another thread. People in Canada cannot see what is happening becuase the people and the government are focussing on the wrong thing.

That whole election manipulation thing? Yeah, it works. It is cheap.

For some reason the government is not clueing in to just how cheap -- like the part about you not needing a nation state to pull it off. The government and people are so secure in the fantasy that their greatest threat comes from outside Canada that they do not realize the world they now live in when it comes to politics. The price of manipulation -- effective national manipulation -- is now in the hands of just about anyone. Spending limits are obsolete becuase nobody can track this spending. The government thinks the threat only comes from outside so when our election is blown up from Canadian IP addresses they will have no defence and may not even know it happened.

The most likely thing this fall is that the election will go to the one who spends the most on election manipulation online. I would bet on the right wing.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are so thinking like it is 1999.

I wrote about this in another thread. People in Canada cannot see what is happening becuase the people and the government are focussing on the wrong thing.

That whole election manipulation thing? Yeah, it works. It is cheap.

For some reason the government is not clueing in to just how cheap -- like the part about you not needing a nation state to pull it off. The government and people are so secure in the fantasy that their greatest threat comes from outside Canada that they do not realize the world they now live in when it comes to politics. The price of manipulation -- effective national manipulation -- is now in the hands of just about anyone. Spending limits are obsolete becuase nobody can track this spending. The government thinks the threat only comes from outside so when our election is blown up from Canadian IP addresses they will have no defence and may not even know it happened.

The most likely thing this fall is that the election will go to the one who spends the most on election manipulation online. I would bet on the right wing.

I'm talking about what the polling numbers indicate and how that will play out in October. The big money supported the Conservatives in 2015. They didn't win. The Liberals are also right wing so we agree in that the right wing wins. 

You say this The price of manipulation -- effective national manipulation -- is now in the hands of just about anyone. but that includes the left wing. 

No matter how overwhelming the messaging if it doesn't address what people are focused on in their day to day lives it will not resonate. 

You can convince people that Trudeau is crooked to the core but unless they think Scheer or Singh can deliver as much or more than Trudeau, Trudeau will win. 

Scheer is planning a new climate change plan and scrapping the carbon tax. He is flirting with the yellow vests. His dimples don't make him look charming they make him look like he is smirking in glee when delivering criticisms.  Trudeau bait this election will include pharmacare and he will brag about lifting children out of poverty. 

Hints of where Singh is going leave me hoping but not hopeful that he might manage to hold Trudeau to a minority and force a real pharmacare program or other progressive legislation but looking at the numbers I don't expect a new orange wave this election. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are so thinking like it is 1999.

I wrote about this in another thread. People in Canada cannot see what is happening becuase the people and the government are focussing on the wrong thing.

That whole election manipulation thing? Yeah, it works. It is cheap.

For some reason the government is not clueing in to just how cheap -- like the part about you not needing a nation state to pull it off. The government and people are so secure in the fantasy that their greatest threat comes from outside Canada that they do not realize the world they now live in when it comes to politics. The price of manipulation -- effective national manipulation -- is now in the hands of just about anyone. Spending limits are obsolete becuase nobody can track this spending. The government thinks the threat only comes from outside so when our election is blown up from Canadian IP addresses they will have no defence and may not even know it happened.

The most likely thing this fall is that the election will go to the one who spends the most on election manipulation online. I would bet on the right wing.

I'm talking about what the polling numbers indicate and how that will play out in October. The big money supported the Conservatives in 2015. They didn't win. The Liberals are also right wing so we agree in that the right wing wins. 

You say this The price of manipulation -- effective national manipulation -- is now in the hands of just about anyone. but that includes the left wing. 

No matter how overwhelming the messaging if it doesn't address what people are focused on in their day to day lives it will not resonate. 

You can convince people that Trudeau is crooked to the core but unless they think Scheer or Singh can deliver as much or more than Trudeau, Trudeau will win. 

Scheer is planning a new climate change plan and scrapping the carbon tax. He is flirting with the yellow vests. His dimples don't make him look charming they make him look like he is smirking in glee when delivering criticisms.  Trudeau bait this election will include pharmacare and he will brag about lifting children out of poverty. 

Hints of where Singh is going leave me hoping but not hopeful that he might manage to hold Trudeau to a minority and force a real pharmacare program or other progressive legislation but looking at the numbers I don't expect a new orange wave this election.

What I am saying is the polling number of today are irrelevant as to what will happen in October.

The social manipulation may be cheap to get into but it is still competative. The right, which is wealthier will attack Trudeau and support the Conservatives. The left with attack Trudeau and support the NDP. The centre is boring and even if you can finance it, npbody will be interested. How do you think that will work out for Trudeau? Do you think the left will defend Trudeau???

As for climate initiatives, or any other, Trudeau is neutralized. The left will shred him as well as the right and nobody will believe him.

You better hope Singh does well. He might have a better chance than Trudeau. And it is maybe two snowball's chances in hell rather than Trudeau's one.

Buckle up. The Liberals blew this thing.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau has an 8 point lead on Scheer. People are not happy about how Trudeau managed this which is reflected in Liberal party numbers but they still prefer him over Scheer meaning they will still vote Liberal. People thinking he should resign is just at 34% which isn't even all Conservative and NDP voters. That number is dropping because people are getting bored with the story. No sex. No money. No laws broken by PM or staff. 

I am not minimizing Trudeau's sins. I am commenting on the likely impact on the election not judging whether it is right or wrong. 

I think Liberal friendly outlets are telling people that people are bored with this story.

Nanos Research, Ipsos, Mainstreet Research, Angus Reid, Forum Research, Leger, Campaign Research all have the Conservatives ahead.

Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news.

The Liberals are a cult now. They need to go, even if it means Conservatives in power for 4 years. Maybe when the Liberals pick a new leader they'll get another chance.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau has an 8 point lead on Scheer. People are not happy about how Trudeau managed this which is reflected in Liberal party numbers but they still prefer him over Scheer meaning they will still vote Liberal. People thinking he should resign is just at 34% which isn't even all Conservative and NDP voters. That number is dropping because people are getting bored with the story. No sex. No money. No laws broken by PM or staff. 

I am not minimizing Trudeau's sins. I am commenting on the likely impact on the election not judging whether it is right or wrong. 

I think Liberal friendly outlets are telling people that people are bored with this story. Nanos Research, Ipsos, Mainstreet Research, Angus Reid, Forum Research, Leger, Campaign Research all have the Conservatives ahead. Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news. The Liberals are a cult now. They need to go, even if it means Conservatives in power for 4 years. Maybe when the Liberals pick a new leader they'll get another chance.

I think many people are in shock. No, the news is not how crooked and arrogant the Liberals are. It is really the bush league incompetence. The Liberals used to be better at politics than they apparently are now.

Was everything that worked for Trudeau just coming out of his Gerald Butt?

Unionist

Sean - you're actually debating politics with Paladin? A troll in the service of firearms and the Conservative party? This must be the end of times.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau has an 8 point lead on Scheer. People are not happy about how Trudeau managed this which is reflected in Liberal party numbers but they still prefer him over Scheer meaning they will still vote Liberal. People thinking he should resign is just at 34% which isn't even all Conservative and NDP voters. That number is dropping because people are getting bored with the story. No sex. No money. No laws broken by PM or staff. 

I am not minimizing Trudeau's sins. I am commenting on the likely impact on the election not judging whether it is right or wrong. 

I think Liberal friendly outlets are telling people that people are bored with this story. Nanos Research, Ipsos, Mainstreet Research, Angus Reid, Forum Research, Leger, Campaign Research all have the Conservatives ahead. Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news. The Liberals are a cult now. They need to go, even if it means Conservatives in power for 4 years. Maybe when the Liberals pick a new leader they'll get another chance.

I think many people are in shock. No, the news is not how crooked and arrogant the Liberals are. It is really the bush league incompetence. The Liberals used to be better at politics than they apparently are now.

Was everything that worked for Trudeau just coming out of his Gerald Butt?

 

I'd have to say I'm shocked at a few things. How blatently corrupt the liberal party is, how they don't seem to give a shit that people see it, AND, how their die hard fans can so easily shrug off corruption.  It seems like the rest of us people are finally not letting the Liberals change the channel after telling Canada 'nothing to see here'  So there's that.  They really do seem to be Bush league without the shadow-pm in office anymore. 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Sean - you're actually debating politics with Paladin? A troll in the service of firearms and the Conservative party? This must be the end of times.

Did someone mention end of times? Gonna need guns for that  don't worry there's a growing movement of liberal peppers out there.

 

https://youtu.be/cSSFAGx3GNY

bekayne

Paladin1 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean - you're actually debating politics with Paladin? A troll in the service of firearms and the Conservative party? This must be the end of times.

Did someone mention end of times? Gonna need guns for that  don't worry there's a growing movement of liberal peppers out there.

 

https://youtu.be/cSSFAGx3GNY[/quote]

Liberal peppers? What do they taste like?

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What I am saying is the polling number of today are irrelevant as to what will happen in October.

The social manipulation may be cheap to get into but it is still competative. The right, which is wealthier will attack Trudeau and support the Conservatives. The left with attack Trudeau and support the NDP. The centre is boring and even if you can finance it, npbody will be interested. How do you think that will work out for Trudeau? Do you think the left will defend Trudeau???

As for climate initiatives, or any other, Trudeau is neutralized. The left will shred him as well as the right and nobody will believe him.

You better hope Singh does well. He might have a better chance than Trudeau. And it is maybe two snowball's chances in hell rather than Trudeau's one.

Buckle up. The Liberals blew this thing.

I definitely hope for Singh/NDP to make headway this election. What often happens with the Liberals being attacked by both left and right is Canadians decide that the Liberals are the happy inbetween. 

You are right that polls matter little this far out which is why I don't predict a Conservative win and I don't interpret as if people are voting tomorrow because when they answer these polls they know they are not voting tomorrow. 

The swing to the Conservatives is a reaction to the news but in my view it is preferred leader that will get the vote not party. You mentioned something in another thread suggesting that people vote party because when you were working in elections and the party wasn't mentioned that is what people would ask for. I think they asked for party affiliation because that would tell them the leader. It would be more awkward to phrase asking which representative was associated with which party leader. 

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

I think Liberal friendly outlets are telling people that people are bored with this story. Nanos Research, Ipsos, Mainstreet Research, Angus Reid, Forum Research, Leger, Campaign Research all have the Conservatives ahead. Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news. The Liberals are a cult now. They need to go, even if it means Conservatives in power for 4 years. Maybe when the Liberals pick a new leader they'll get another chance.

It seems the lawsuit worked as despite Scheer's bring it on bravado he has not released the promised documents which were due 2PM Sunday, over 24 hours ago. What is Scheer's excuse for not releasing them and why isn't the MSM hounding him over it?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

I'd have to say I'm shocked at a few things. How blatently corrupt the liberal party is, how they don't seem to give a shit that people see it, AND, how their die hard fans can so easily shrug off corruption.  It seems like the rest of us people are finally not letting the Liberals change the channel after telling Canada 'nothing to see here'  So there's that.  They really do seem to be Bush league without the shadow-pm in office anymore. 

Did the Conservative corruption of the Harper years not prepare you? I don't know who you are referring to as their supporters because the MSM seems to be gleefully doing a post mortem on every statement and JWR is their darling. 

They don't give a shit about who sees it just like the Conservatives didn't give a shit who saw it or who notices their racist dog whistles and pandering to corporations. 

The Liberals also didn't give a shit that 85% of Canadians were against them buying TM pipeline. I hope the NDP can make some headway on that fact. Get out the youth vote. 

By the "rest of us people" I am not sure who you mean. I noticed the polling companies are not registering "don't know about it don't care" votes on SNC. 

It is way too soon to be dancing on Trudeau's grave not because I want it to be that way, it's just the way I see it. In October people will still base their vote on economics. 

Butts may no longer be in office but that does not mean he isn't advising Trudeau from behind the scenes and getting paid for it in some manner eventually. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What I am saying is the polling number of today are irrelevant as to what will happen in October.

The social manipulation may be cheap to get into but it is still competative. The right, which is wealthier will attack Trudeau and support the Conservatives. The left with attack Trudeau and support the NDP. The centre is boring and even if you can finance it, npbody will be interested. How do you think that will work out for Trudeau? Do you think the left will defend Trudeau???

As for climate initiatives, or any other, Trudeau is neutralized. The left will shred him as well as the right and nobody will believe him.

You better hope Singh does well. He might have a better chance than Trudeau. And it is maybe two snowball's chances in hell rather than Trudeau's one.

Buckle up. The Liberals blew this thing.

I definitely hope for Singh/NDP to make headway this election. What often happens with the Liberals being attacked by both left and right is Canadians decide that the Liberals are the happy inbetween. 

You are right that polls matter little this far out which is why I don't predict a Conservative win and I don't interpret as if people are voting tomorrow because when they answer these polls they know they are not voting tomorrow. 

The swing to the Conservatives is a reaction to the news but in my view it is preferred leader that will get the vote not party. You mentioned something in another thread suggesting that people vote party because when you were working in elections and the party wasn't mentioned that is what people would ask for. I think they asked for party affiliation because that would tell them the leader. It would be more awkward to phrase asking which representative was associated with which party leader. 

 

A little scrambled. I said that people used to ask the name of their candidate as parties were not on the ballot. Party affiliation says a lot about a candidate. Given party loyalty in votes it certainly is more reliable in predicting how they will vote in the House than anything they could say. I said leader is secondary to party and candidate is third in my estimation of how people vote. The leader does have bearing on how well they sell the party of course and the promises do have some effect.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

I think Liberal friendly outlets are telling people that people are bored with this story. Nanos Research, Ipsos, Mainstreet Research, Angus Reid, Forum Research, Leger, Campaign Research all have the Conservatives ahead. Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news. The Liberals are a cult now. They need to go, even if it means Conservatives in power for 4 years. Maybe when the Liberals pick a new leader they'll get another chance.

It seems the lawsuit worked as despite Scheer's bring it on bravado he has not released the promised documents which were due 2PM Sunday, over 24 hours ago. What is Scheer's excuse for not releasing them and why isn't the MSM hounding him over it?

Not clear at all. They may have decided to do this another time. Or they may have decided in light of the threat to have a lawyer go through them. does not mean that it "worked."

It does not even mean that these documents exist at all. Why trust either of these parties or leaders?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean - you're actually debating politics with Paladin? A troll in the service of firearms and the Conservative party? This must be the end of times.

Did someone mention end of times? Gonna need guns for that  don't worry there's a growing movement of liberal peppers out there.

 

https://youtu.be/cSSFAGx3GNY[/quote]

Preppers not peppers! I thought you were referring to French Liberals!

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not clear at all. They may have decided to do this another time. Or they may have decided in light of the threat to have a lawyer go through them. does not mean that it "worked."

It does not even mean that these documents exist at all. Why trust either of these parties or leaders?

Well worked temporarily and I don't trust either of them. This is all political theatre.  Works a treat to keep the conversation on anything but wealth inequality and climate change. 

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news. The Liberals are a cult now.

Uh, what? Scheer is a political operative who moved from Ottawa to Saskatchewan where his wife was from and to work with an Alliance MP. How anyone can think of him as "working class" is beyond me.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
Trudeau hitting Scheer with a SLAPP lawsuit is going to look like rich well off Trudeau is trying to silence someone generally from the working class. That's going to keep snc in the news. The Liberals are a cult now.

Uh, what? Scheer is a political operative who moved from Ottawa to Saskatchewan where his wife was from and to work with an Alliance MP. How anyone can think of him as "working class" is beyond me.

A24 - do you actually not understand who you are responding to here? 

Paladin1

bekayne wrote:

Liberal peppers? What do they taste like?

Touche lol

 

Pondering wrote:

It seems the lawsuit worked as despite Scheer's bring it on bravado he has not released the promised documents which were due 2PM Sunday, over 24 hours ago. What is Scheer's excuse for not releasing them and why isn't the MSM hounding him over it?

For starters I think you need to state what the goal of the lawsuit is and what constitutes as working.  Does it mean that Scheer didn't release the items he wanted to a 2pm? Well, maybe. 

If it's something big then releasing it in the midst of a lawsuit which might mean the evidence gets caught up in the court system might be a dumb move and who would fault Scheer for not wasting his ace up his sleeve?  Maybe this just means the release is postponed until the conservatives are sure the liberals can't control it.

Pondering wrote:

 In October people will still base their vote on economics.

I hope so! I'm excited to see how Trudeau explains the balanced budget that's over 19 billion dollars over.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Uh, what? Scheer is a political operative who moved from Ottawa to Saskatchewan where his wife was from and to work with an Alliance MP. How anyone can think of him as "working class" is beyond me.

Okay, maybe not working class but appear more working class than Trudeau. Trudeau with his millions and elietst family and christmas vacations to remote islands hitting someone with a lawsuit to shut them up probably won't come across as a defender of the middle class. Yet another misstep from the Liberals whom I suspect were expecting to just tell Canadians "nothing to see her, move on. Now." and expected Canadians to obey.

 

Unionist wrote:

A24 - do you actually not understand who you are responding to here? 

Did you buy your Katana yet Unionist? WarriorsandWonders out of Vancouver has some great items for all your prepping needs.

mmphosis

For me, pepper, I put it on my plate.

November 25, 1997, at a press conference, in response to a question from Nardwuar the Human Serviette about whether Chrétien supported police use of pepper spray on protestors.

kropotkin1951

Pondering

I think the goal of the lawsuit was to force Scheer to stop making claims he can't back up. Apparently he edited a tweet and now he hasn't released said document and I find it very strange that the MSM isn't all over that asking for it and asking why it hasn't been released. I think the whole "elite" angle is a losing argument. 

Trudeau remains the top choice for PM with an 8 point lead and his budget is popular. The deficit isn't a worry right now. It's within reason. The child tax credit and Pharmacare will both be highlights and I am sure the Liberals have a sophisticated strategy planned for the election period. 

Conservative arguments work with Conservatives. NDP arguments work with NDPers.  Neither works with the general public.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I think the goal of the lawsuit was to force Scheer to stop making claims he can't back up.

Like accusing Trudeau of lying about the very thing that, on April 3, Trudeau admitted to lying about?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/snc-lavalin-justin-tru...

Quote:

Trudeau remains the top choice for PM with an 8 point lead and his budget is popular.

Where are you basing this 8 point lead off of?

Quote:

The deficit isn't a worry right now. It's within reason.

20 billion (okay 19 and change) is within reason when we were supposed to be balanced at this point?

In another 4 years under the Liberals would a 40 billion dollar deficit still be within reason?

Quote:

The child tax credit and Pharmacare will both be highlights and I am sure the Liberals have a sophisticated strategy planned for the election period. 

Conservative arguments work with Conservatives. NDP arguments work with NDPers.  Neither works with the general public.

I think you've fallen for the Liberal outlets telling you that you're tired of the SNC scandal and you have moved on.

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
20 billion (okay 19 and change) is within reason when we were supposed to be balanced at this point?

In another 4 years under the Liberals would a 40 billion dollar deficit still be within reason?

He said he would run a deficit, framed the goal of maintaining a balanced budget as being a code for cutting services, and people voted for him and against his opponents. That should tell you something.

In any case, the real problem with balanced budgets is more political than financial. The reason that the government never balances the budget is that having deficits and debt give the government an excuse to not spend on the things that help their citizens. The only time it is ever advantageous for a government to balance a budget is in an election year so they can say they did a good job. Regardless of the size of the deficit, there is always enough money for the pet causes of the government's wealthy backers. That is true regardless of which political party is in power.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Conservatives are hypocrites on the issue of deficits. If the money is to help the poor, then the requirement not to run a deficit forbids it. If the beneficiary is instead a large, multinational corporation, especially an arms manufacturer, not so much. Dick Cheney said it best: "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Conservatives are hypocrites on the issue of deficits. If the money is to help the poor, then the requirement not to run a deficit forbids it. If the beneficiary is instead a large, multinational corporation, especially an arms manufacturer, not so much. Dick Cheney said it best: "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

Deficits are essential for conservatives. They reduce capacity to spend on the things the people want. Without deficits popular opinion pushes the spending. Tax cuts can create the deficits needed.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

Conservatives are hypocrites on the issue of deficits. If the money is to help the poor, then the requirement not to run a deficit forbids it. If the beneficiary is instead a large, multinational corporation, especially an arms manufacturer, not so much. Dick Cheney said it best: "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

Deficits are essential for conservatives. They reduce capacity to spend on the things the people want. Without deficits popular opinion pushes the spending. Tax cuts can create the deficits needed.

Witness the large scale corporate tax cuts the Liberals implemented in 2000 after the large budget surpluses of the late 1990s.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
20 billion (okay 19 and change) is within reason when we were supposed to be balanced at this point?

In another 4 years under the Liberals would a 40 billion dollar deficit still be within reason?

He said he would run a deficit, framed the goal of maintaining a balanced budget as being a code for cutting services, and people voted for him and against his opponents. That should tell you something.

In any case, the real problem with balanced budgets is more political than financial. The reason that the government never balances the budget is that having deficits and debt give the government an excuse to not spend on the things that help their citizens. The only time it is ever advantageous for a government to balance a budget is in an election year so they can say they did a good job. Regardless of the size of the deficit, there is always enough money for the pet causes of the government's wealthy backers. That is true regardless of which political party is in power.

Also Canada’s debt to GDP ratio is staying steady and is in better shape compared to the U.S.

Pondering

Paladin, those cut up quotes in the article are a pain but I don't see any direct quote from JWR saying that in September she stated she was being inappropriately pressured. As far as I know she asked Trudeau a question and he responded that the decision was entirely up to her. When he said she had not complained to him he was referring to the time between September and January which covers the Wernick conversation and conversations with Butts. 

I think you've fallen for the Liberal outlets telling you that you're tired of the SNC scandal and you have moved on.

I haven't read much of that. I have read the opposite. The media and opposition parties are bleeding this for all it is worth, which doesn't seem like much to me. You may not recall but when this first came out I thought it was huge and I was very supportive of JWR and Philpott. It is only in the intervening weeks I have become less and less impressed. 

I've presented my arguments which are rooted in logic based on recent political history which shows voters to have remarkably short memories. Historically PMs almost always get a second term. I also keep in mind that the voters currently paying attention are not the voters who decide elections. 

"Nanos tracking has Justin Trudeau as the preferred choice as Prime Minister at 30.7 per cent (last week: 31.1 per cent) of Canadians, followed by Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer at 27.2% (last week: 26.7 per cent)."

https://www.voiceonline.com/nanos-poll-shows-trudeau-having-a-rough-time-conservatives-35-liberals-33/

Not the eight points I read somewhere but still significant considering the SNC scandal has had plenty of time to percolate into public consciousness. 

It's opinion at this point. I just don't think Scheer has the appeal it would take to beat Trudeau in 2019. That could totally be bias on my part because of my deep dislike for Conservatives 2.0 better known as the Reform Party. Only the Conservative party has fewer scruples than the Liberal party and that is saying something because the Liberals don't have many if any. 

I think swing voters are a lot more cynical and smarter than they are given credit for. The reason many are not paying attention is because they know it makes no difference. Last week or two of the election they will tune in and get the Coles Notes version which is all anyone needs to come to a decision. Some will watch the debates but many will just read the summaries or not even that. All anyone needs is the top 3 to 5 talking points. 

 At the rate things are going I think Trudeau could be at greater risk in 2023 because he has made a lot of stupid mistakes. I'm not 100% sure Trudeau will win in October. I give him 80% at winning either a majority or a minority. That will change based on events between now and voting day. 

I was wrong about Trump and Ford. I still find support for both to be a bit surreal. I could be wrong about Scheer. On the other hand I was right about Trudeau and Mulcair for 2015. 

Paladin1

Aristotleded24, JKR, Michael,

My problem (well one of them heh) may be that I'm naive. When I hear someone make a promise I expect them to keep it, even if they're politicians. maybe the budget thing isn't that big of a deal to most Canadians. I know I'm tired of paying taxes out the ass and hearing Canada sending money to places and shit I've never heard of, but maybe that's the price of doing business.

Maybe it's expected and accepted that politicans are corrupt and lie and I'm just being a baby about it. I'm legitimately blown away by what I'm seeing from the Liberal party, specifically Trudeau. I'm shocked Canadians aren't up in arms over it (proverbial, not literal). I get that politicans = corrupt as I mentioned but this seems like a whole new level.  Trudeau is behaving like a dictator and his followers a cult.  I wonder if his fan base will ever reach a point where they think he's crossing a line.

 

Pondering wrote:

Paladin, those cut up quotes in the article are a pain but I don't see any direct quote from JWR saying that in September she stated she was being inappropriately pressured.

Sorry Pondering, I continue to think you're bordering on being purposefully imperceptive when it comes to the JWR affair.  She recorded a phone conversation after months of being pressured by dozens of people and you're still pushing this narrative about her not being inapproproately pressured. Trudeau admitted to being guilty of what he's accusing Scheer of lying about.

Trudeau also had someone secretly listening into the private conversation he had with JWR, you know, the same thing he's condeming in her.

Pondering wrote:

 

Not the eight points I read somewhere but still significant considering the SNC scandal has had plenty of time to percolate into public consciousness.

Yea, it's not an 8 point lead at all. But you see how someone can read something, accept it as truth then repeat it as truth. I haven't seen anywhere that Trudea has an 8 point lead in the last 2 or 3 months.

Pondering wrote:

It's opinion at this point. I just don't think Scheer has the appeal it would take to beat Trudeau in 2019.

Scheer sure does have a lack of appeal. He's also got the Liberal media (and Liberal funded media) to contend with.

The SNC affair really puts the Liberal media in a tricky spot doesn't it. Did I read something about the Liberals deciding what would be considered fake news and not in the up coming election?

Anyhow as you say you might be wrong, you might be right. Normally I vote for the local MP I like the most. This is a rare instance where I'm going to vote for the party most likely to get Trudeau out of power.

Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
When I hear someone make a promise I expect them to keep it

I don't. I guess you have more faith in people than I do. If I was paid every time I looked for a job and whomever I was speaking to broke a promise to call back, I would not even need one.

Talk is cheap. Actions count.

Paladin1 wrote:
I get that politicans = corrupt as I mentioned but this seems like a whole new level.  Trudeau is behaving like a dictator and his followers a cult.  I wonder if his fan base will ever reach a point where they think he's crossing a line.

How quickly we forget what Harper's regime was like. Remember Bill C-51? Remember the G-20 fiasco in Toronto? Remember the steps he went to to muzzle and smear anyone who disagreed with his government? Remember the blatant Islamophobic campaign waged by Harper in his last election campaign? We've been going down this road for a long time. Which brings me to:

Paladin1 wrote:
I'm legitimately blown away by what I'm seeing from the Liberal party, specifically Trudeau. I'm shocked Canadians aren't up in arms over it (proverbial, not literal). I get that politicans = corrupt as I mentioned but this seems like a whole new level.

If you look at my posting history, you will have seen that I am one of the harshest critics of the Liberal Party of Canada on this board. I voted against the Liberal candidate in my riding, and I campaigned vigourously to prevent a Liberal victory in another one close by.

Paladin1 wrote:
Normally I vote for the local MP I like the most. This is a rare instance where I'm going to vote for the party most likely to get Trudeau out of power.

I don't like the leaders of any of the 3 main parties. Instead I'll happily vote for my local NDP candidate in the hopes of sending my Liberal MP packing.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
My problem (well one of them heh) may be that I'm naive. When I hear someone make a promise I expect them to keep it, even if they're politicians. maybe the budget thing isn't that big of a deal to most Canadians. I know I'm tired of paying taxes out the ass and hearing Canada sending money to places and shit I've never heard of, but maybe that's the price of doing business.  

You mean like Harper's promises of transparency and clean government?  Yes the Liberals are liars, and so are the Conservatives. It's common knowledge not a revelation. 

Paladin1 wrote:
Maybe it's expected and accepted that politicans are corrupt and lie and I'm just being a baby about it. I'm legitimately blown away by what I'm seeing from the Liberal party, specifically Trudeau. I'm shocked Canadians aren't up in arms over it (proverbial, not literal). I get that politicans = corrupt as I mentioned but this seems like a whole new level.  Trudeau is behaving like a dictator and his followers a cult.  I wonder if his fan base will ever reach a point where they think he's crossing a line.

Dictators and cults do much worse than Trudeau nor does he have a fan base. I"m shocked you are shocked after all the crap Harper got away with. 

Paladin1 wrote:
Sorry Pondering, I continue to think you're bordering on being purposefully imperceptive when it comes to the JWR affair.  She recorded a phone conversation after months of being pressured by dozens of people and you're still pushing this narrative about her not being inapproproately pressured. Trudeau admitted to being guilty of what he's accusing Scheer of lying about. 

She was absolutely inappropriately pressured and it was by Trudeau's team at his behest. I don't see how much clearer I can get about that. Trudeau IS guilty. There is no proof just like there is no proof Harper knew about the Duffy payoff or the election cheating. I know Harper is guilty too. There was Mulroney with his cash transactions, guilty though cleared, the sponsorship scandal, the dirty Canadian arms trade, trade deals by Liberals and Conservatives that are written for corporations not the people. Erosion of medicare. Privatization of government services. P3s. It is never-ending. 

Paladin1 wrote:
Yea, it's not an 8 point lead at all. But you see how someone can read something, accept it as truth then repeat it as truth. I haven't seen anywhere that Trudea has an 8 point lead in the last 2 or 3 months.

And you can pretend that the Conservatives are as pure as the driven snow. Trudeau is still ahead of Scheer. The election is still way out. Much worse stories than SNC have died out. People have been expecting legal consequences the way the "Liberal" media has been hyping this story. 

Paladin1 wrote:
Scheer sure does have a lack of appeal. He's also got the Liberal media (and Liberal funded media) to contend with.

If the media were Liberal they wouldn't back the Conservatives in every election. Scheer's lack of appeal is based on his character. 

Paladin1 wrote:
Trudeau also had someone secretly listening into the private conversation he had with JWR, you know, the same thing he's condeming in her.  

I haven't heard of any recording. 

Paladin1 wrote:
Anyhow as you say you might be wrong, you might be right. Normally I vote for the local MP I like the most.

Whom I am betting has never been a Liberal and never will be. Scheer has not repeated his accusations nor published his documents which the media continues to ignore rather than demanding he release them as he promised to at 2PM on Sunday, days ago, proof Scheer is a liar. 

Paladin1

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I don't. I guess you have more faith in people than I do. If I was paid every time I looked for a job and whomever I was speaking to broke a promise to call back, I would not even need one.

Talk is cheap. Actions count.

Or I'm naive :)

Paladin1 wrote:
I get that politicans = corrupt as I mentioned but this seems like a whole new level.  Trudeau is behaving like a dictator and his followers a cult.  I wonder if his fan base will ever reach a point where they think he's crossing a line.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
How quickly we forget what Harper's regime was like. Remember Bill C-51? Remember the G-20 fiasco in Toronto? Remember the steps he went to to muzzle and smear anyone who disagreed with his government? Remember the blatant Islamophobic campaign waged by Harper in his last election campaign? We've been going down this road for a long time. Which brings me to:

Off the top if my head no I don't remember them but I will familiarize myself with to better understand.

That said, I see alot of "but what about Harper". This isn't about Trudeau vs Harper. Or really this years Liberals vs the Conservatives of 4 years ago. This is about Trudeau being a blatent liar, fake feminist, fake FN supporter, and just all around fake guy. With a party that will laugh at jokes he cracks about FN people suffering mercury poisoning.

What happens if the Conservatives win and they suck for the next 4 years? Fire them. We shouldn't reward shitty behavior.  Maybe after we fire the Liberals, and fire whoever wins the next election after 4 shitty years, the Liberals after that will be good to go?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

If you look at my posting history, you will have seen that I am one of the harshest critics of the Liberal Party of Canada on this board. I voted against the Liberal candidate in my riding, and I campaigned vigourously to prevent a Liberal victory in another one close by.

I respect that. I voted for mine. I'm not sure if it's the same one this time around, this time I don't care though. Like you I want to prevent 4 more years of Liberals.

 

 

Paladin1

Pondering I've been meaning to apologize to you for incorrectly attributing the title of that blog in the other post to you, just haven't got around to replying there yet.

Pondering wrote:

You mean like Harper's promises of transparency and clean government?  Yes the Liberals are liars, and so are the Conservatives. It's common knowledge not a revelation.

More "but what about Harper". Harper is gone. Maybe the Conservatives have improved, maybe they're worse. In 4 years I'm going to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt that their party has possibly changed it's tune.

Pondering wrote:

Dictators and cults do much worse than Trudeau nor does he have a fan base. I"m shocked you are shocked after all the crap Harper got away with.

More "but what about Harper". In fairness, not really defense, I wasn't paying attention to everything Harper was doing.

I was very critical of his behavior and actions towards military veterans, firearm owners and especially his support of bill C-51.

Trudeaus behavior is worse than anything I've seen from Harper. But it doesn't matter, because Harper was given the boot.

Pondering wrote:

She was absolutely inappropriately pressured and it was by Trudeau's team at his behest. I don't see how much clearer I can get about that.

No need to be anymore clear. He should be given the boot solely for his inappropriate actions there.

Pondering wrote:
There is no proof just like there is no proof Harper knew about the Duffy payoff or the election cheating.

"but what about Harper".

Pondering wrote:
It is never-ending.

Agreed. So fire politicans for bad actions.

Pondering wrote:

And you can pretend that the Conservatives are as pure as the driven snow.

Strawman argument.

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau is still ahead of Scheer.

Based on which poll?

Pondering wrote:
The election is still way out.

It sure is! Great isn't it? Trudeau has plenty of time to keep fucking up, burning bridges and showing his true colours. He's on a roll.

Pondering wrote:

If the media were Liberal they wouldn't back the Conservatives in every election.

What? Really?

Pondering wrote:

I haven't heard of any recording.

Someone quietly listening into the conevrsation.

Pondering wrote:

Whom I am betting has never been a Liberal and never will be. Scheer has not repeated his accusations nor published his documents which the media continues to ignore rather than demanding he release them as he promised to at 2PM on Sunday, days ago, proof Scheer is a liar. 

Yea Scheer is definitely the big liar here, and bad person, just like JWR ;)

 

bekayne

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If the media were Liberal they wouldn't back the Conservatives in every election.

What? Really?

Paladin1

I can't argue with that. I stand corrected.

Pondering

No apology necessary. It was a reasonable misunderstanding.

Perspective matters. Areas that stand to profit the most from pipelines support them and those that don't place greater significance on the threats to the environment and climate change. The younger a person is the greater their concern (on average) over climate change. The elderly are most supportive of pharmacare. 

From the Liberal family perspective even if JWR is right she could have handled it internally. It is beyond obvious she wants to take Trudeau out. MPs are dependent on him to get re-elected. Her continued protestations of dedication to Liberal ideals and the Liberal platform ring hollow. The phrase "with friends like these who needs enemies" comes to mind. 

I don't think JWR is a bad person but I do believe she has a personal perspective and feelings just like all other humans. She is a formidable woman as she was born to be. I don't like the angle of "this is women doing politics differently". No it isn't. Not unless women want to take credit for Margaret Thatcher and Imelda Marcos too. 

She wanted to stay AG and wanted to stop Trudeau from shifting her out of the position so he could put someone in place that would feel comfortable overriding the prosecutor. That is something he was entitled to do if JWR is against the directive in principle which it seems she might be. That means she wouldn't even consider it unless the prosecutor made an error in law. I would like to know more about this directive thing that apparently Harper put into place. What is its purpose? I do not believe it was JWR's intent to protect Trudeau. 

Changing leaders or flipping between Liberals and Conservatives does nothing to clean up government. Leaders are chosen because they reflect the priorities of the party and in the hopes that they can attract voters. 

 

robbie_dee

Keith Baldrey, “COMMENTARY: Will the B.C. NDP government soon face a solid wall of conservatism?” Global News, April 12, 2019

Quote:

While the B.C. NDP is by far the greenest government in the country, a string of governments that do not share its priorities when it comes to fighting climate change may frustrate many of its goals and ambitions.

For example, should Scheer and Kenney both form government, B.C. will likely be the only jurisdiction with a carbon tax (and an ever-increasing one at that). That could have significant repercussions on B.C. remaining economically competitive with other provinces.

As well, you can bet on Scheer and Kenney (aided to no small degree by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe) pushing for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Kenney, in particular, has vowed a form of aggression to B.C. if the pipeline is not built.

Kenney has threatened to include various options, including literally “turning off the taps” of Alberta oil sent into B.C. (if you think the price at the pump is high now, just wait to see what would happen if a Kenney-led government reduced the amount of oil flowing into this province).

He has also mused about mandatory “rat” inspections at the B.C.-Alberta border (Alberta is officially “rat-free”) of any B.C. trucks headed into that province. Commercial trucking traffic is a cornerstone of any well-performing economy, and any slowdown of something like that could have dire consequences.

While Kenney, being a next-door neighbour, is potentially the biggest disrupter of the B.C. economy, the NDP government’s relationship with the federal government is in most ways more important.

Ken Burch

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
20 billion (okay 19 and change) is within reason when we were supposed to be balanced at this point?

In another 4 years under the Liberals would a 40 billion dollar deficit still be within reason?

He said he would run a deficit, framed the goal of maintaining a balanced budget as being a code for cutting services, and people voted for him and against his opponents. That should tell you something.

In any case, the real problem with balanced budgets is more political than financial. The reason that the government never balances the budget is that having deficits and debt give the government an excuse to not spend on the things that help their citizens. The only time it is ever advantageous for a government to balance a budget is in an election year so they can say they did a good job. Regardless of the size of the deficit, there is always enough money for the pet causes of the government's wealthy backers. That is true regardless of which political party is in power.

As illustrated by the fact that, in the late Nineties in the UK, there supposedly wasn't enough money for the Blair government to increase spending on the social wage beyond the proposed Tory budget levels during the first two years of "New Labour"s mandate, but there were plenty of funds available to complete construction on the largely-useless monument to Thatcherist-Blairist egotism known as the Milennium Dome.

Pages