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 August 30 2019 21:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: uhhh, what the hell is Kim Campbell doing? LOL. Managing Canada//US relations is an onerous task and this doesn't help.
Why did she apologise afterwards? That just makes her look weak to Trump. She should just delete the statement and claim she never made it. Would improve relations much more with the US than normal, rational actions.
That tweet lasted about as long as her tenure as Prime Miniister. LOL.
If she gets caught lying about the claim she didn't make the tweet and the series of tweets backing it up then it'll be hard for her to hold on to her position as an adviser on Supreme Court of Canada appointments. It was a good move by her to delete the tweet and provide a full mea culpa. She did have to take a bullet though.
Please Note : She was not elected as Prime Minister. Elected Prime Minister Mulroney quit and she took over leadership of the Progressive Conservative party. She was assigned as Prime Minister.
Having said that, I don't agree with what Trudeau and the PMO did, though I do understand their argument in why they did it. The intent of wanting to use a DPA makes sense because of how serious of the ramifications of SNC going under could be to the economy, but their handling of dealing with JWR was quite unacceptable.
I really like this (former?) lawyer's take on these things:
Of note-
'715.32(3) of the Criminal Code lists three factors that must not be considered by the prosecutor in their decision whether to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement. The prosecutor must not consider the "national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved."'
I don't think there's a "may" about it. They probably already have been working on influence campaigns for months now.
Their typical MO is going after low-information voters on divisive issues and going after those they think would cause them issues policy-wise.
A few issues/general topics I can definitely see the Russians putting attention into given past behaviours in other countries:
- Propping up the PPC. Boosting far right parties is the Russians' bread and butter. By their nature, far right parties tend to be divisive and target low-information voters who fall for emotional pleas even if they aren't based in reality. If these parties catch on they also tend to cause a great deal of turmoil within the country. This makes them an easy target. For that recent issue regarding the PPC billboard and immigrants, I can almost guarantee the Russians targeted comment sections and discussions on it with the goal of making the PPC argument sound more popular than it is or attacking arguments against with whataboutism.
- Boosting voter enthusiasm for the right through fear campaigns and false claims about the policies/beliefs of those they think these people view as the enemy (in this case Trudeau). The Russians did this in 2016 for the US election with Hillary Clinton. They would likely focus on wedge topics and the PM. By his nature, Trudeau tends to be divisive, so targeting voters and fearmongering about what Trudeau will do would be an easy and effective tactic to boost support for opposing parties. I am particularly concerned about this one because here in western Canada, a lot of the federal and provincial conservative politicians and movements already campaign in a way that would make it easy for the Russians to start manipulating. Just look at Alberta. We already have people trying to start a campaign for Alberta to leave Canada if the Liberals win this election, something that would obviously harm both Alberta and Canada, but is an easy concept for people who are misinformed to fall for if they haven't thought the issue through at all. That type of thing would be prime material for the Russians to work with.
- Attempting to suppress voter enthusiasm on the left. They also did this in the US in 2016. In that case they targeted minority and progressive voters and attempted to make them feel like the Democrats didn't support or represent them with hopes of people not showing up at the polls. The same thing could easily happen here. I could see them either trying to split the vote or target Liberal voters by arguing that the party is too corrupt and don't have people's interests in mind.
Luckily we don't have to worry about many of the election security issues the US has to with regards to Russian meddling in the actual election itself. Paper ballots are paper ballots.
the NDP jerks around Sid Ryan so he can't run? lol. The heights that great leaders like Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton took this party and now this is what it has become. Tragic and comedic all at once.
Its not really even a labour party any longer. I wish they had stuck to their labour party roots rather than trying to be all things to all people.
I don't think there's a "may" about it. They probably already have been working on influence campaigns for months now.
Their typical MO is going after low-information voters on divisive issues and going after those they think would cause them issues policy-wise.
A few issues/general topics I can definitely see the Russians putting attention into given past behaviours in other countries:
- Propping up the PPC. Boosting far right parties is the Russians' bread and butter. By their nature, far right parties tend to be divisive and target low-information voters who fall for emotional pleas even if they aren't based in reality. If these parties catch on they also tend to cause a great deal of turmoil within the country. This makes them an easy target. For that recent issue regarding the PPC billboard and immigrants, I can almost guarantee the Russians targeted comment sections and discussions on it with the goal of making the PPC argument sound more popular than it is or attacking arguments against with whataboutism.
- Boosting voter enthusiasm for the right through fear campaigns and false claims about the policies/beliefs of those they think these people view as the enemy (in this case Trudeau). The Russians did this in 2016 for the US election with Hillary Clinton. They would likely focus on wedge topics and the PM. By his nature, Trudeau tends to be divisive, so targeting voters and fearmongering about what Trudeau will do would be an easy and effective tactic to boost support for opposing parties. I am particularly concerned about this one because here in western Canada, a lot of the federal and provincial conservative politicians and movements already campaign in a way that would make it easy for the Russians to start manipulating. Just look at Alberta. We already have people trying to start a campaign for Alberta to leave Canada if the Liberals win this election, something that would obviously harm both Alberta and Canada, but is an easy concept for people who are misinformed to fall for if they haven't thought the issue through at all. That type of thing would be prime material for the Russians to work with.
- Attempting to suppress voter enthusiasm on the left. They also did this in the US in 2016. In that case they targeted minority and progressive voters and attempted to make them feel like the Democrats didn't support or represent them with hopes of people not showing up at the polls. The same thing could easily happen here. I could see them either trying to split the vote or target Liberal voters by arguing that the party is too corrupt and don't have people's interests in mind.
Luckily we don't have to worry about many of the election security issues the US has to with regards to Russian meddling in the actual election itself. Paper ballots are paper ballots.
That is a great analysis thank you.
Is there anything that our government can do to stop this? Or is it pretty much that you just have to put out counter information and try to make people aware that these are Russia's goals and why?
There are a few things they can do, but so far haven't really. For example, there should be media campaigns on how to identify misleading information and identify fake accounts. I've seen that there have been efforts made for teaching high school students this type of thing, but I've seen very little for adults. The topic is just starting to be researched more in depth, but so far preliminary studies have indicated that older adults, especially those who aren't as comfortable or well-versed with news on the internet works, tend to be slightly more likely to mistake false information as real and share it.
A lot of this falls on social media companies, some of whom have made concrete steps and others who have done very little. Twitter has slowly become more active in policing and removing bot/troll accounts though these accounts remain a large problem. Facebook has started to do several things. First they have started more strictly policing ad sales to prevent pages created under sketchy circumstances from advertising posts in people's feeds (Russian trolls abused this in 2016). They've also started to be more proactive about removing content flagged and identified as fake or misleading. They still have a lot of room to improve though.
I doubt this will be a big deal or will shift any swing voters to the other side. He didn't pussyfoot around it and apologized immediately, and my quick glance at social media is a collective meh over it. I think there's a general impression that it was long ago and more foolish like an ignorant young man than truly racist. If SNC-Lavalin didn't utterly collapse Trudeau's reputation, this will be a minor blip in comparison. Even down south with politicians like Ralph Northam who dressed in blackface, it didn't amount to that much once the media circus died down.
Though I do find it quite sad and hilarious how politicians always get caught in black or brownface, like it's some compulsory behaviour before you enter politics.
I'm not a fan of Trudeau, but I did vote Liberal last time around. I'm in a 40/40/20 lib/cons/ndp riding and my vote actually matters so I have to vote strategically.
The brownface, yes it's racist, but he apologized immediately and 2001 is 18 years ago. People born when he did it can vote this year. SNC was about as bad as it gets for him and it's shaken his ratings a bit, but overall he's still better than the imitation Trump Scheer
On September 19 2019 11:19 PhoenixVoid wrote: I doubt this will be a big deal or will shift any swing voters to the other side. He didn't pussyfoot around it and apologized immediately, and my quick glance at social media is a collective meh over it. I think there's a general impression that it was long ago and more foolish like an ignorant young man than truly racist. If SNC-Lavalin didn't utterly collapse Trudeau's reputation, this will be a minor blip in comparison.
This was my same take my dad, who is a Conservative supporter that dislikes Trudeau, had. Had Trudeau avoided discussing the issue and ran away from it (sort of like Scheer has done with the questions regarding his personal views on LGBTQ issues after past statements have come out), it would have harmed him immeasurably, but by directly facing the issue head on immediately, apologizing, and making it clear that he thinks what he did was racist and not acceptable while also making clear that his views have evolved, he has likely blunted at least some of the damage from this.
I think the worse one was the talent show, where he is singing Day-O. . .I think that would be outright blackface. Big oof.
I want to get rid of Trudeau as much as the next guy, but I'll be rather frustrated if this is what brings him down out of all the things he has done in the present. I think the more interesting part is Trudeau is a hypocrite. Maybe people will give him a pass, but can you imagine this coming out about Scheer? We'd never hear the end of it.
I've been really frustrated with how cowardly the Conservatives have been in the face of the Liberal's dirt machine. You have politicians running away rather than attack reporters for drawing water for the Liberals- the whole guilty by association over Faith Goldy. I'd like to see them push back: Did you think Obama had terrorist inclinations because of Ayer? No? Good. Did you think Obama harboured hatred for America because his pastor said "God damn America"? No? Then back off. Goldy said nothing about supremacy while we were friends, I didn't go on that podcast and I never will. Take your guilty by association and take a hike.
Man, if we lose this election, I hope Scheer goes fast. I don't want to see crazy (Ford). But I do want some Conservatives with steel in their spines that don't get bounced around by the nonsense tossed their way. (Somehow a legitimate line of attack is that Conservatives are just secretly racists. Makes me mad.)
(Maybe Michael Chong gets another shot- I've always liked his parliamentary reform ideas.)
but overall he's still better than the imitation Trump Scheer
How is Scheer imitation-Trump? Scheer is a wilting flower with no backbone. I guess his mediator tendencies worked well as Speaker of the House, but it has done him no favours as leader.
I find it hard to believe no one told him in 2001 that painting himself was a bad idea or that he hadn't been told the other times he did it. If that's the case, then it shows how obliviously he came to be a 29 y.o. future PM and leader of the Canadian Liberal party.
Recognizing now that he grew up repeatedly doing racist things he didn't think were racist hopefully opens him up to the realization he's probably doing racist things he's oblivious about now too.
If he did Blackface or Brownface at least 3 times on camera, there's a good chance he did it quite a bit more than 3 times.
On September 20 2019 02:52 JimmiC wrote: Hmmm this does make it seem like it was quite a pattern. I think it would be a lot more damning if it was not so old. But it sure didn't help him.
Yeah the age mostly leave it withlittle value for anyone on the fence and a rational thinker.
Its a bit silly to make someone apologize again again for the occurrence of something even before the one he apologized for.
If someone says "Yeah sorry I shouldve known better when i was 30" you cant go yell at him for not knowing better when they were 25 for the same thing.
To be fair as a brown person thats faced minimal to ignorble discrimination and racism. I really couldnt give two shits what someone has done in their past as long as their recent actions are consistent. Sensibilites are different now and people have evolved. Its the ones that dont that are a problem.
That having been said Trudeau has been inconsistent in many areas. Not ones I care about personally but it would be a lie to ignore them.
On September 19 2019 13:48 Falling wrote: I think the worse one was the talent show, where he is singing Day-O. . .I think that would be outright blackface. Big oof.
I want to get rid of Trudeau as much as the next guy, but I'll be rather frustrated if this is what brings him down out of all the things he has done in the present. I think the more interesting part is Trudeau is a hypocrite. Maybe people will give him a pass, but can you imagine this coming out about Scheer? We'd never hear the end of it.
I've been really frustrated with how cowardly the Conservatives have been in the face of the Liberal's dirt machine. You have politicians running away rather than attack reporters for drawing water for the Liberals- the whole guilty by association over Faith Goldy. I'd like to see them push back: Did you think Obama had terrorist inclinations because of Ayer? No? Good. Did you think Obama harboured hatred for America because his pastor said "God damn America"? No? Then back off. Goldy said nothing about supremacy while we were friends, I didn't go on that podcast and I never will. Take your guilty by association and take a hike.
Man, if we lose this election, I hope Scheer goes fast. I don't want to see crazy (Ford). But I do want some Conservatives with steel in their spines that don't get bounced around by the nonsense tossed their way. (Somehow a legitimate line of attack is that Conservatives are just secretly racists. Makes me mad.)
(Maybe Michael Chong gets another shot- I've always liked his parliamentary reform ideas.)
but overall he's still better than the imitation Drumpf Scheer
How is Scheer imitation-Drumpf? Scheer is a wilting flower with no backbone. I guess his mediator tendencies worked well as Speaker of the House, but it has done him no favours as leader.
Again as a minority who has never had to face reallyyy serious hurtful discrimination (or didnt find it to be such), leans on the side that it is often overblown + Show Spoiler [like this fellow here] +
On September 20 2019 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote: I find it hard to believe no one told him in 2001 that painting himself was a bad idea or that he hadn't been told the other times he did it. If that's the case, then it shows how obliviously he came to be a 29 y.o. future PM and leader of the Canadian Liberal party.
and someone who has actually seen Faith Goldy speak here in TO, if you associate with that woman in even a minimal capacity for more than 10 minutes and acknowledge her views as even remotely legitimate you are a fucking racist or you are an idiot that should no better. Her views being public does not mean they didnt exist at the time of the association. They practically radiate from her.
Second, everyone is running a dirt machine. Its a bit rich to complain that once the gutter game is being played that the other one is playing better (whether thats even true or not is a separate issue). All parties are flinging mud. Either dont be a part of it or if your in it, dont complain that the mud that hit you got mixed with cow dung. Find your own dung.
oof, the "I didn't remember that time I wore blackface" and hesitancy to say "that's it, only 3 times" makes me think he did this a lot and has no idea how many times it was caught on camera by someone that would sell it.
EPT
