EPTCanadian Politics Mega-thread - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 22 2015 05:43 DefMatrixUltra wrote: Disclaimer: American living in Canada. Mostly ignorant of Canadian politics except I've learned to hate everything that comes out of Quebec. When you buy a house, you are incurring a large debt for the benefit of a house and (to some degree) the promise of greater wealth in the future as a result of your house becoming more valuable faster than inflation. And nobody would call you irresponsible for a buying a house - they might say you're irresponsible for buying a specific house that is a bad investment, but there's nothing wrong in general with buying houses. But when a government incurs debt to invest in its country's economy, they're apparently irresponsible. The reality of the situation is that it's often foolish to not run at a deficit in periods of low interest rates. Additionally, if the government is trying to stimulate the economy, it is generally recommended that it operate at a deficit to do so - since the return expected later is significantly larger than the cost incurred now. It's probably not Harper's fault that the energy sector exploded. Believe it or not, it wasn't a Canadian event, it was a worldwide issue. Was it foolish to all-in on Canada's energy sector? Yeah, it was. World leaders everywhere in every kind of society tend to over-invest in their country's strengths. "Our economy's 60% oil, it seems wrong somehow to short oil or to hedge against an oil crash." This logic is pervasive, and only the extremely rare economics-literate leader does anything different. If you own stock in the company you work for, you are guilty of the same fault. Expecting the Liberals or NDP would have behaved differently is foolishness or naivety. An easily overlooked point is that Canada's economy is not in an awful state because of government investment in the energy sector. Canada's economy is almost 100% comprised of Finance + Energy + Minerals. If one of those has a downturn in the global economy, Canada is going to suffer. The negative side of the government's investment in the energy sector is that it was a bad investment - i.e. little or no positive returns will come out of it - and that any negative impact will be slightly worse. Investing in something does not cause it to fail. I hate that I'm defending Harper on these points because I find strong disagreement with the PC in general. But it is ignorant and irresponsible to blame Harper for things he has no control over and/or that no one would have done differently given the same information. There are plenty of things to criticize Harper and the PC for, we don't have to go around saying that he personally held a gun up against a senator's head and told him to steal money and use it to buy baby-skin Bibles. The problem, roughly, is that the current PC's biggest appeal is economy management. When it comes to Canadian politics, the leading parties tend to bounce back and forth depending on what the economic state is for the country and the provinces. Economy is good, the progressive parties get more focus. Economy is bad, conservative parties get the lead. So basically if the economy gets worse under a more conservative party's governance, they tend to lose a lot of following fast. That's an extreme generalization, though. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 24 2015 14:37 DefMatrixUltra wrote: That's precisely the simplistic thinking I was criticizing. It makes no sense to lay blame on Harper for the energy sector crash any more than it would be to give him credit for an energy sector boom, which would have skyrocketed Canada's economy into the stratosphere. Well, quite frankly, that's politics. And really, 12 years is around the time when a leader and the party gets too entrenched, issues start piling up, and people just want a fresh team in office. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
| ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On August 24 2015 21:06 Wolfstan wrote: I just tend to vote who in on right economically. That means Harper gets another of my votes. You would vote in the party who said there would be a budget surplus, but all signs point to there being a deficit this year, and despite this being brought up over and over again, simply state that "their information" says it won't be a deficit? You would vote in the party who put us in this economic situation in the first place, by relying upon the keystone XL project to get passed in the states? I mean I can get voting them in because he has a bitching combover, or a myriad of other issues but voting in the Conservatives with their current leadership for their sound fiscal policies is like voting in the NDP because they'll be harder on criminals. | ||
Falling
Canada11218 Posts
 I don't think I got the conservative government I voted for, the one I hoped for. Certainly I didn't get the open and transparent government despite the Federal Accountability Act being an early piece of legislation.Also, what the hell. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-podcast-aug25-1.3203485 I'm not surprised with the 41% provincially in BC for the NDP. I suspect BC is swinging NDP this election, plus Vancouver usually squeezes out a couple Liberal votes no matter the election. But apparently on Vancouver Island, the Green party is polling in second place with some 30%!!!! I mean, I know Elizabeth May has one of the Victoria ridings, and I guess bordering ridings are seeing greater success. But 30% and in second place across for Vancouver Island generally? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
On August 26 2015 17:01 Falling wrote: I don't think I got the conservative government I voted for, the one I hoped for. Certainly I didn't get the open and transparent government despite the Federal Accountability Act being an early piece of legislation.like i said in my previous post .. Harper is better when he is governing with a gun held to his head... when he is scared he could lost his grip on parliament at any nanosecond he behaves a lot more responsibly.... i think the following saying is a bit of an oversimplification, but in Harper's case it applies: "absolute power corrupts... absolutely" i liked how Chretien basically ran the country off of opinion polls.. and i think the Harris//Chretien combo was great for Ontario. Harper could really take some lessons from Chretien on how to be a powerbroker. Chretien was masterful and he made it look easy. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
The Conservative party is out of the question, I don't think I can support a government this incredibly closed to the environmental issues that we're facing. The scumbaggy way in which Canada pulled out of Kyoto and stopped giving a fuck is absolutely disgusting. And I'm pretty sure that the opinion of the world regarding Canada has declined steeply since he became the PM. And it seems to me like anyone with even a little bit of interest in politics and democracy should frown at the lack of transparency this government has been dealing with. I'm not even talking about the Duffy business which shows if not outright corruption a complete lack of oversight in Harper's entourage, I'm just talking about how he does his best to frame his image instead of talking to the people. Many have unfairly called him a dictator, but by Canadian standards, this man has not been acting like a good leader, he's been acting like the administrator of a country of dumb plebs who don't need to be informed about what's happening in Ottawa. Federal Accountability Act my balls. This is a man who's personality is a square, it's whatever he wants people to see and I find that disconcerting. And it wouldn't be so bad if he took the time to at least communicate, talk to the medias, but he's actively been trying to avoid saying anything not scripted. The lack of courage is astounding, and it fucking pisses me off because I've very rarely seen the guy being genuine. And he's only informative when it suits him. Then there are the issues... The longer prison sentences shit they've been flaunting is nothing more than an expensive populist garbage idea, his senate reform ideas are clearly not happening (wonder why!), we talked about his environmental policy, and then there's C-51 that is idiotic and it blows my mind that anyone who has access to the any information at all would consider voting for any of the two parties which supported this bill. His party also tried to drag the abortion debate out of its well-deserved grave, and they're certainly not the ones who'll advance our country on social issues like euthanasia, assisted suicide and all that. To be fair, it's hard to blame the Harper government for the economy over the last decade, but to me it seems like there are too many problems and bullshit stacked against him. And Trudeau isn't much better. So I find myself leaning toward the NDP because my local MP has been great, though Mulcair can suck it as far as I'm concerned. Canadian politics suck, anyway. First past the post is such an outdated system that very clearly doesn't make sense anymore. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
He can't get voted out soon enough. Luckily the Conservatives are starting to poll in 3rd place. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 28 2015 14:37 Ben... wrote: It seems like the level of discourse from the Conservatives lowers with each day. Rather than actually responding to Trudeau's economic platform, Harper just belittles it and makes fun of it at a surface level. He can't get voted out soon enough. Luckily the Conservatives are starting to poll in 3rd place. That's been his platform since day 1. Economy, terrorism, and "neener-neener Liberal Party". And the first one is collapsing, and second Canadians never latched on to in spite of all the scaremongering. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
On August 28 2015 14:37 Ben... wrote: It seems like the level of discourse from the Conservatives lowers with each day. Rather than actually responding to Trudeau's economic platform, Harper just belittles it and makes fun of it at a surface level. He can't get voted out soon enough. Luckily the Conservatives are starting to poll in 3rd place. very David Peterson-esque as Bob Rae stayed consistent and on-point. Peterson labelled Rae's party policies at "cockamamie socialism"... it was a last desperate swipe and made Rae look more and more like the "man of reason and logic". http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1990-bob-rae-surprised-by-victory-for-the-ontario-ndp same thing is going on now with Harper as the NDP looks to take power in Canada for the first time ever... just as Rae's NDP did for the first time ever in Ontario. Mr. Harper, fail to learn your history... and you will repeat it. all the hardcore NDP supporters i know are whining about how right wing Mulcair is. my reply has been that if he were a left wing/socialist/communist NDP member he would not have been made leader and if he were leader no one would vote for him. i find it funny that the only way Ontarians will vote for the NDP is if their message is delivered by a white male.  .. i guess the most left wing of policies are only palatable when delivered by the old, traditional guard regardless of party lines and partisan politics... Mulcair makes for the best PM. any party in favour of federal subsidies for sports teams is committing political suicide .. imo. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-says-there-s-too-much-poverty-for-tax-dollars-to-go-to-pro-sports-1.3208245 if the Toronto Blue Jays think they are getting $1 out of the feds to convert the Dome to natural grass... they can pack up their chicken-outfit and GTFO of town. same goes with whoever thinks they are "bringing baseball back to Montreal" or "bringing NHL hockey back to quebec"... not 1 nickel of federal money boys.. not 1. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
http://www.threehundredeight.com/ predictions, polls etc. http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html | ||
|
nikj
Canada669 Posts
On August 26 2015 17:01 Falling wrote: I don't think I got the conservative government I voted for, the one I hoped for. Certainly I didn't get the open and transparent government despite the Federal Accountability Act being an early piece of legislation.Also, what the hell. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-podcast-aug25-1.3203485 I'm not surprised with the 41% provincially in BC for the NDP. I suspect BC is swinging NDP this election, plus Vancouver usually squeezes out a couple Liberal votes no matter the election. But apparently on Vancouver Island, the Green party is polling in second place with some 30%!!!! I mean, I know Elizabeth May has one of the Victoria ridings, and I guess bordering ridings are seeing greater success. But 30% and in second place across for Vancouver Island generally? I lived on the Island/Gulf Islands for 5-6 years. Doesn't really suprise me considering the amount of hippies there lol. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
how often does the same party ruling Ontario win a Federal Election? seems like never to me. the longer this public school sex ed debacle goes the harder it'll be for the liberals to gain in the polls. i drove past a school bus stop that normally has 15 kids standing with their parents waiting for the school bus. the past few days its been 1 or 2 kids. LOL. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Background story: This woman hauls ass from another country, gets here and he's like "no, I want to skip steps in the citizenship application because I don't want to do the citizenship oath without my niqab". We don't NEED you, why should the rules be suited to let in some people who have these quirks about them. There are plenty of other people who would like to come to Canada and they're not drama queens who won't make any concessions. Canada should have its doors open to people who are themselves open to the country. Understanding that we live in a society where people link face to identity and where this is important in the citizenship process is the least of things. If that cannot be adhered to, not even once, then holy shit who can possibly think that this women and her morals and her values are a good addition to the Canadian society? And I'm not arguing that we should be a homogeneous country, far from it. I think diversity is great, cultural differences and all, but individuals should preferably show that they're compatible with us. The same goes for the Hasidic jews who somehow managed to get a gym to frost their windows because they didn't want to see women who were showing skin working out. Why do we insist on putting up with this shit? Now those women don't get to see outside while they run on the treadmill, great victory. Fuck that shit. And the current government is pandering to that bullshit. What do they expect, people will be like "look how open minded the cons are to close minded attitudes! how great!". For fuck's sake. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 17 2015 00:48 Djzapz wrote: What is there possibly to gain by the Conservatives by dragging that entire niqab shit to the supreme court? Background story: This woman hauls ass from another country, gets here and he's like "no, I want to skip steps in the citizenship application because I don't want to do the citizenship oath without my niqab". We don't NEED you, why should the rules be suited to let in some people who have these quirks about them. There are plenty of other people who would like to come to Canada and they're not drama queens who won't make any concessions. Canada should have its doors open to people who are themselves open to the country. Understanding that we live in a society where people link face to identity and where this is important in the citizenship process is the least of things. If that cannot be adhered to, not even once, then holy shit who can possibly think that this women and her morals and her values are a good addition to the Canadian society? And I'm not arguing that we should be a homogeneous country, far from it. I think diversity is great, cultural differences and all, but individuals should preferably show that they're compatible with us. The same goes for the Hasidic jews who somehow managed to get a gym to frost their windows because they didn't want to see women who were showing skin working out. Why do we insist on putting up with this shit? Now those women don't get to see outside while they run on the treadmill, great victory. Fuck that shit. And the current government is pandering to that bullshit. What do they expect, people will be like "look how open minded the cons are to close minded attitudes! how great!". For fuck's sake. Being a recent immigrant myself. I have to agree with this sentiment. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16270 Posts
The country was created when Britain basically said... "this place is more trouble than its worth". Britain arranged the most favourable deal possible given their economic circumstances and they left. The constitution which defined Canada separate from Britain came 110+ years into the nation's existence. Canada had no flag for its first 100 years. The country is only 145 years old. So for a good portion of this nation's existence the country existed due to economic happen-stance more than any other reason. Because of all this stuff you get waffling by politicians and lawmakers on seemingly fundamental issues. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
I watched it last night but most of it was a blur. Mulcair got a few good jabs in and seemed like he was on the attack for a lot of it. He certainly got rid of the "Friendly Tom" persona and went back to being more gruff and aggressive, which I think is a good thing. Trudeau was pretty good on the attack and I did like that he was more willing to get into details of his plans. Him pointing out that he was trying to be realistic with his economic platform and comparing that to Mulcair's seemed like a good idea. Harper seemed like he just stood back and let the other two attack each other for a good part of the debate. As usual, a fair amount of what he said felt quite misleading, but that could just be my mind being biased because I really don't like him. I did appreciate Trudeau and Mulcair at the same time attacking Harper for fearmongering with regards to the refugee situation and everything going on in Syria. It's blatantly obvious that he's doing it but it needs to be pointed out at every opportunity so that it might have a chance to actually make it into a news story headline and people will start to pay attention to it. | ||
| ||
