Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On February 16 2017 10:49 Falling wrote: People say that, and it's almost become its own meme (rebranded Reform party, PC is dead.) I'm curious on your evidence for it. Harper effectively clamped down on the social conservative element for his entire tenure and we certainly didn't get the Triple E Senate Reform. I think there's almost no-one left from the old Reform party days- Harper and Duncan were some of the last. It was home to red Tory's like McKay, Stephen Fletcher, and Michael Chong- and I think you'd find Bernier on the PC side of things socially although he is quite libertarian generally. And even what Leitch is, more represents the element that Manning had to drum out of the party back in the day. What exactly is so Reform about the Conservatives? We certainly didn't get the transparent and accountable government promised by the Reformers.
I completely agree with you that Stephen Harper did clamp down on the social conservative element of the CPC, however "clamp down" does not preclude its existance - only the appearance of its existance. As much as I loathe Stephen Harper, the man was a brilliant politician. He knew full well that many of the old social conservative stances like reopening the abortion question (Preston Manning was very strongly pro-life) or opposing same-sex marriage was not going to win him any votes, and would certainly cost him some. It was therefore rational and wise to squelch the social conservatives in his own party, as we saw with Vic Toews. Harper also set up unprecedented barriers to his own ministers speaking to the media, for this exact reason.
My position is that progressive conservatism is long dead in Canada (Joe Clark and Peter Lougheed being the last good examples). When the Canadian Alliance (unabashedly socially conservative) and the Progressive Conservative parties merged into the CPC, it wasn't a marriage so much as it was a meal: the Alliance had 66 seats, the PCs had 12. I believe that Stephen Harper was a social conservative, but that he was also smart enough to hide it. The remaining faces in the CPC (Rona Ambrose et. al.) who haven't jumped ship like Peter MacKay or Jason Kenney do not have Harper's discipline. They'll fail to hide the CPC's old Reform Party core membership, and it will hurt them electorally.
Oh, and of course we didn't get transparent and accontable governement promised by the Reformers (and highlighted in their party platform). What did you expect? It's easy to take the moral high ground when you don't have a realistic chance of winning an election (I'm looking at you, Elizabeth May!) but history has shown us that these words are not acted upon when the Opposition becomes the Government. Both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau are guilty of promising superior ethical behaviour than their predecessors, then failing to deliver.
On February 16 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like how Canada's federal parties work right now. we have the right wing PCs, the left wing NDP and the center party that won't hesitate to run the country off of opinion polls.. the liberals
The PC (Progressive Conservative) party is long dead. It died with Joe Clark, and it died for a gas tax that was fiscally sensible. The Conservative Party of Canada is the rebranded Reform Party of Preston Manning, with a more appealing look and colour (green is a terrible colour for a conservative party). There's nothing "progressive" about the CPC.
what is it exactly they are trying to conserve?
On February 16 2017 14:41 Fprime wrote: Both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau are guilty of promising superior ethical behaviour than their predecessors, then failing to deliver.
i don't even care. if Trudeau gets the Canadian economy growing at 7% per year with unemployment under 5% and the average wage at $40/hour... he can skim $0.5 billion a year and put it in his pocket. i could care less. Chretien was corrupt as fuck and did a great job managing the Canadian economy. if the equivalent of Chretien at age 50 were running in the last election i would've voted for that guy because he'd be better than the 3 guys who ran.
On February 16 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like how Canada's federal parties work right now. we have the right wing PCs, the left wing NDP and the center party that won't hesitate to run the country off of opinion polls.. the liberals
The PC (Progressive Conservative) party is long dead. It died with Joe Clark, and it died for a gas tax that was fiscally sensible. The Conservative Party of Canada is the rebranded Reform Party of Preston Manning, with a more appealing look and colour (green is a terrible colour for a conservative party). There's nothing "progressive" about the CPC.
On February 16 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like how Canada's federal parties work right now. we have the right wing PCs, the left wing NDP and the center party that won't hesitate to run the country off of opinion polls.. the liberals
The PC (Progressive Conservative) party is long dead. It died with Joe Clark, and it died for a gas tax that was fiscally sensible. The Conservative Party of Canada is the rebranded Reform Party of Preston Manning, with a more appealing look and colour (green is a terrible colour for a conservative party). There's nothing "progressive" about the CPC.
what is it exactly they are trying to conserve?
To whom do you refer?
Conservative Party. what are these guys "conserving" ?
On February 16 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like how Canada's federal parties work right now. we have the right wing PCs, the left wing NDP and the center party that won't hesitate to run the country off of opinion polls.. the liberals
The PC (Progressive Conservative) party is long dead. It died with Joe Clark, and it died for a gas tax that was fiscally sensible. The Conservative Party of Canada is the rebranded Reform Party of Preston Manning, with a more appealing look and colour (green is a terrible colour for a conservative party). There's nothing "progressive" about the CPC.
what is it exactly they are trying to conserve?
To whom do you refer?
Conservative Party. what are these guys "conserving" ?
I'm going to proceed with the belief that you're referring to the current Conservative Party of Canada, and not one of the previous incarnations which have been loosely called the "conservative parties".
In no particular order:
- First Past the Post electoral system. - Mandatory minimums. - Canada's economy as a one-trick pony (natural resource exportation). - High levels of governmental surveillance on Canadians. - Old British monarchy traditions. - Active military combat in whatever Middle Eastern country which has most recently offended our sensibilities.
On February 16 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like how Canada's federal parties work right now. we have the right wing PCs, the left wing NDP and the center party that won't hesitate to run the country off of opinion polls.. the liberals
The PC (Progressive Conservative) party is long dead. It died with Joe Clark, and it died for a gas tax that was fiscally sensible. The Conservative Party of Canada is the rebranded Reform Party of Preston Manning, with a more appealing look and colour (green is a terrible colour for a conservative party). There's nothing "progressive" about the CPC.
what is it exactly they are trying to conserve?
To whom do you refer?
Conservative Party. what are these guys "conserving" ?
In Western countries, "conservatism" doesn't (usually) refer to whatever is the current status quo, but rather the republican, classical liberal principles of Locke and Hume etc.
On February 16 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like how Canada's federal parties work right now. we have the right wing PCs, the left wing NDP and the center party that won't hesitate to run the country off of opinion polls.. the liberals
The PC (Progressive Conservative) party is long dead. It died with Joe Clark, and it died for a gas tax that was fiscally sensible. The Conservative Party of Canada is the rebranded Reform Party of Preston Manning, with a more appealing look and colour (green is a terrible colour for a conservative party). There's nothing "progressive" about the CPC.
what is it exactly they are trying to conserve?
To whom do you refer?
Conservative Party. what are these guys "conserving" ?
I'm going to proceed with the belief that you're referring to the current Conservative Party of Canada, and not one of the previous incarnations which have been loosely called the "conservative parties".
In no particular order:
- First Past the Post electoral system. - Mandatory minimums. - Canada's economy as a one-trick pony (natural resource exportation). - High levels of governmental surveillance on Canadians. - Old British monarchy traditions. - Active military combat in whatever Middle Eastern country which has most recently offended our sensibilities.
thx for all the details. the question might've come off as a bit facetious, but it was a serious one. i honestly didn't really know what they were supposed to be "conserving".
High levels of governmental surveillance on Canadians.
Anything different with regards to this under T2?
The fact that the Liberals are almost as bad as the Conservatives on these issues isn't in dispute. I was answering another poster's question as to my view of Harper's tenure as PM, not trying to win anyone's vote for Trudeau. I've written in this thread how disappointed I am with Justin Trudeau. I take a dim view of the CPC, but I don't regard the Libs as being much better. The only relevant point I'd want to bring up is that it's slightly less comtemptible to turn a blind eye to the nasty parts of C-51 than it is to be the ones creating it and pushing for it.
And the NDP and Liberals are different in this how?
Neither the Liberals nor the NDP have spent 28 million on making a re-enactment of the war of 1812. As far as uses for taxpayer money goes, that one is right up there with pouring vast quantities of food colouring into Niagara Falls to make it look prettier.
Active military combat in whatever Middle Eastern country which has most recently offended our sensibilities.
Canada didn't participate in the Iraq war. Harper did send 7 F18's to help fight ISIL though.
This isn't a point in favour of Harper or the CPC. When George W. Bush called Canada to join its war in Iraq, it was 2004 and it was Paul Martin who kept us out of it. If you're ever uncertain as to the value of that decision, ask any citizen of the UK what it was like to follow the Americans into that war.
Stephen Harper was probably the most hawkish PM Canada has had since WW2. It's fair to say he would have probably given Bush an affirmative answer, to the detriment of our country.
On February 17 2017 10:53 Fprime wrote: Stephen Harper was probably the most hawkish PM Canada has had since WW2. It's fair to say he would have probably given Bush an affirmative answer, to the detriment of our country.
as long as Harper had a weak minority he was forced to follow opinion polls and could not enter the war. the nano-second he got his majority he stopped paying attention to opinion polls and lost the next election. It is the first time in i do not know how long that the party ruling Ontario won the Federal Election. That is how universally hated Harper's decisions were. Ontario NEVER votes for the party that is currently in charge of their province. But, they did this time.
While Harper had a minority government i thought he was an above average Prime Minister. Once he got a majority he was bad and completely misread the voters.
I wish either Bob Rae or Mike Harris were the Prime Minister of Canada.. they are both fucking geniuses and Ontario was damn lucky to have those mofos in charge of the Province.
DISCLAIMER: my grandma worked directly with Bob Rae when he was negotiating on behalf of the union of which she was in charge. so i got some juicy details you'll never read in the Toronto Star.
Canada PM: will not halt illegal border crossing despite opposition
Canada will continue to accept asylum seekers crossing illegally from the United States but will ensure security measures are taken to keep Canadians safe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Tuesday.
The number of would-be refugees crossing into Canada at isolated and unguarded border crossings has increased in recent weeks amid fears that U.S. President Donald Trump will crack down on illegal immigrants, and photos of smiling Canadian police greeting the migrants have gone viral.
Opposition Conservatives want Trudeau's center-left Liberal government to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the United States because of security fears and a lack of resources to deal with them.
"One of the reasons why Canada remains an open country is Canadians trust our immigration system and the integrity of our borders and the help we provide people who are looking for safety," Trudeau told parliament.
"We will continue to strike that balance between a rigorous system and accepting people who need help."
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen also said Canada would continue to honor the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires it to turn back refugees if they make asylum claims at Canadian border crossings with the United States. Refugee advocates have argued this drives asylum seekers to cross illegally at isolated locations, risking their lives in frigid weather.
Amnesty International and other groups are pressuring the Canadian government to abandon the agreement, arguing the United States is not safe for refugees.
Canadian police said on Monday they had bolstered their presence at the Quebec border and that border authorities had created a temporary refugee center to process the asylum seekers.
The number of people making refugee claims at Quebec-U.S. border crossings more than doubled from 2015 to 2016. Last month, 452 people made claims in Quebec compared with 137 in January 2016.
The influx is straining resources in the western prairie province of Manitoba and in Quebec, where taxis drop asylum seekers off meters away from the Quebec-U.S.border, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said.
The right-leaning Conservative opposition have called on Canadian authorities to hand illegal immigrants over to U.S. authorities, but Hussen said Canada can honor its refugee agreement with the United States while helping asylum seekers who enter the country illegally.
Canada PM: will not halt illegal border crossing despite opposition
Canada will continue to accept asylum seekers crossing illegally from the United States but will ensure security measures are taken to keep Canadians safe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Tuesday.
The number of would-be refugees crossing into Canada at isolated and unguarded border crossings has increased in recent weeks amid fears that U.S. President Donald Trump will crack down on illegal immigrants, and photos of smiling Canadian police greeting the migrants have gone viral.
Opposition Conservatives want Trudeau's center-left Liberal government to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the United States because of security fears and a lack of resources to deal with them.
"One of the reasons why Canada remains an open country is Canadians trust our immigration system and the integrity of our borders and the help we provide people who are looking for safety," Trudeau told parliament.
"We will continue to strike that balance between a rigorous system and accepting people who need help."
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen also said Canada would continue to honor the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires it to turn back refugees if they make asylum claims at Canadian border crossings with the United States. Refugee advocates have argued this drives asylum seekers to cross illegally at isolated locations, risking their lives in frigid weather.
Amnesty International and other groups are pressuring the Canadian government to abandon the agreement, arguing the United States is not safe for refugees.
Canadian police said on Monday they had bolstered their presence at the Quebec border and that border authorities had created a temporary refugee center to process the asylum seekers.
The number of people making refugee claims at Quebec-U.S. border crossings more than doubled from 2015 to 2016. Last month, 452 people made claims in Quebec compared with 137 in January 2016.
The influx is straining resources in the western prairie province of Manitoba and in Quebec, where taxis drop asylum seekers off meters away from the Quebec-U.S.border, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said.
The right-leaning Conservative opposition have called on Canadian authorities to hand illegal immigrants over to U.S. authorities, but Hussen said Canada can honor its refugee agreement with the United States while helping asylum seekers who enter the country illegally.
You guys need to do something about your universities. Is this normal? Peterson isn't someone I agree with about much, but Jesus Christ this pisses me right off. The guy is literally there to talk about the left inhibiting freedom of speech, and they don't let him talk. Apparently he went outside to talk to anyone who wanted to afterwards and the crowd followed after him, continuing to shout. You might disagree with him, but he's hardly Hitler. The guy is a centre right academic who wants to talk ideas out with people,and that should be allowed. For every person they win over with this bullshit, they push 100 to the right.
i went to a co-op school so i only had to be attending classes for 4 months at a time. best move i ever made. Macmaster is a mediocre at best school.
On March 18 2017 10:54 Jockmcplop wrote: You might disagree with him, but he's hardly Hitler. The guy is a centre right academic who wants to talk ideas out with people,and that should be allowed. For every person they win over with this bullshit, they push 100 to the right.
what are you talking about man? Everyone who disagrees with a mob of left wingers is Hitler. Stephen Harper is Hitler. Mike Harris is Hitler. Hazel Mccallion is Hitler.
what i love is Trudeau dresses himself up as a left-wing guy and then when he finally gets into power he says jobs without pension benefits are now a reality of the marketplace.
Watching over the past few months Peterson navigate this has really sharpened my thinking. It has been disappointing, to say the least, to see this develop.
The interesting thing is while you say Peterson is a centre right academic, he didn't start that way. He began his political life with the NDP, our leftist/ labour party.
My only quip with Peterson right now is that I listened to some of his more academic talks (I guess it was a lecture? Unsure) and he was really going hard on Freud and psychoanalysis as a lens to view things. Any psychologist still talking about psychoanalysis isn't worth listening to.
On March 19 2017 04:33 Meepman wrote: My only quip with Peterson right now is that I listened to some of his more academic talks (I guess it was a lecture? Unsure) and he was really going hard on Freud and psychoanalysis as a lens to view things. Any psychologist still talking about psychoanalysis isn't worth listening to.
Psychoanalysis is his expertise. He talks much more about Jung than Freud, and I wouldn't say psychoanalysis is any less valid than other psychological disciplines, its just different. Many people actually find it extremely helpful. The problem with psychology is that it is so subjective that what works for some people doesn't work for others. When I see people from one discipline dismissing all the other disciplines it makes me cringe. You can't be sure you're right, especially in a subjective field, in the face of subjective evidence to the contrary.
On March 19 2017 04:27 Falling wrote: The interesting thing is while you say Peterson is a centre right academic, he didn't start that way. He began his political life with the NDP, our leftist/ labour party.
"In Britain, age is a strong predictor of how someone will vote in an election. Older people are more supportive of the Conservatives, while younger people more supportive of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and more recently, the Greens. This is not a recent phenomenon."
On March 19 2017 04:33 Meepman wrote: My only quip with Peterson right now is that I listened to some of his more academic talks (I guess it was a lecture? Unsure) and he was really going hard on Freud and psychoanalysis as a lens to view things. Any psychologist still talking about psychoanalysis isn't worth listening to.
Psychoanalysis is his expertise. He talks much more about Jung than Freud, and I wouldn't say psychoanalysis is any less valid than other psychological disciplines, its just different. Many people actually find it extremely helpful. The problem with psychology is that it is so subjective that what works for some people doesn't work for others. When I see people from one discipline dismissing all the other disciplines it makes me cringe. You can't be sure you're right, especially in a subjective field, in the face of subjective evidence to the contrary.
psych isn't really a subjective field D:
I did some research off your comments, found some evidence for psychoanalysis that I've never seen before. Still don't feel good about it, but I'll give it to you that it isn't the bs i presented it as. My bad ><
EPT
