Canadian Politics Thread

[Elias Pettersson]

41 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

I realize I am American and don't know a lot about Canadian politics. I assume that PP is the leader of his party, correct? And then is held by you (and those that agree with you) to the same standard? ie If any member of his party is involved in anything untoward, then PP is also held responsible or should not be in power...? Or does it only matter for the PM?

 

Are you referring to personal scandals?  Why would anyone be responsible for a personal scandal other than the person who is a part of the scandal?  If an MP kills somebody then no, the leader of the party shouldn't have to resign and go to jail for that.

 

If the party themselves is involved in a scandal with multiple parties involved and it affects the taxpayers, then yes the party leader should be held accountable...

[StrayDog]

7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Are you referring to personal scandals?  Why would anyone be responsible for a personal scandal other than the person who is a part of the scandal?  If an MP kills somebody then no, the leader of the party shouldn't have to resign and go to jail for that.

 

If the party themselves is involved in a scandal with multiple parties involved and it affects the taxpayers, then yes the party leader should be held accountable...

Of course I was considering political scandal. Why would you assume I was talking about personal scandals?

[The Arrogant Worms]

Poilievre blasts budget, won't commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636

 

Conservative leader claims pharmacare would 'ban' private plans — health minister says he's 'lying'

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

 

Childish, and sad.

 

As for your dinner parties.  I am sure they are just great.  Dandy even.  With everyone fancifully being an expert on the field of topic du jour they must be just riveting

A poster who claims to be a small c Conservative spends his days in the Canadian Politics thread apologizing for Trudeau and using whataboutisms at every opportunity to defend the current Liberal government, but I am the one who is childish?  Sorry your feelings are hurt. It’s a tough life out there. 
 

Also, you and other people keep bringing up my dinner parties like they hold some kind of significance and relevancy in this thread. Talk about being childish and the pot calling the kettle black. 

Edited April 18 by Elias Pettersson

[bishopshodan]

yes.

[Satchmo]

8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

yes.

Positivity will not be tolerated.   In this thread the correct answer is NO!

[The Arrogant Worms]

[The Arrogant Worms]

[Bob Long]

54 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Poilievre blasts budget, won't commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636

 

Conservative leader claims pharmacare would 'ban' private plans — health minister says he's 'lying'

 

 

well, now it begins. PP says the election will be about "the carbon tax" and now says goodbye to pharmacare, because private plans. 

 

With the lines now starting to be drawn, it should be a lot easier for anyone annoyed with Trudeau considering switching to Skippy to see what they are gaining or losing.

 

 

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Poilievre blasts budget, won't commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636

 

Conservative leader claims pharmacare would 'ban' private plans — health minister says he's 'lying'

 

A conservative leader who may put Canada's social programs at risk, never seen that before. Lower income Canadians having access to funded dental services shouldn't even be a question, oral health affects overall health in significant ways. Same goes for pharmacare, folks shouldn't have to choose between essentials and medication. 

 

Boggles the mind that folks are somehow against feeding children in schools too, a lot of kids go without and you'd think that a "first world country" such as a Canada would be up to tackling that. An additional 400k kids being fed is money well spent.

 

Strengthening social programs and Canada's social safety net will benefit the average Canadian more often than not, particularly as the wealth disparity continues to grow. 

Edited April 18 by Coconuts

[RupertKBD]

6 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

Moi aussi.....

[Elias Pettersson]

9 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Trudeau is about as close to John F. Kennedy as Mussolini…

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

A conservative leader who may put Canada's social programs at risk, never seen that before. Lower income Canadians having access to funded dental services shouldn't even be a question, oral health affects overall health in significant ways. Same goes for pharmacare, folks shouldn't have to choose between essentials and medication. 

 

Strengthening social programs and Canada's social safety net will benefit the average Canadian more often than not, particularly as the wealth disparity continues to grow. 

 

 

Skippy is also talking about nuking childcare, dental as well as pharma. Good, I'm happy its all finally coming out in a clear way. There's no mistaking what Skippy will do now.

 

My wife and I don't need those programs, kid is too old, and I have a good private plan. But I know the value of these things to a stable, fair minded country and if Skippy gets his way everyone will be forced into shitty private plans, and those that can't afford it will just be screwed again, and then cost us more money in emergency services anyway.

 

This is the non-plan crap that Skippy brings. Shut stuff down, let the masses sort it out. 

[Bob Long]

I'd love one of the CPC supporters here to provide us with a link showing how much money PP will save me next year. Where are the projections?

[Coconuts]

5 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

 

Skippy is also talking about nuking childcare, dental as well as pharma. Good, I'm happy its all finally coming out in a clear way. There's no mistaking what Skippy will do now.

 

My wife and I don't need those programs, kid is too old, and I have a good private plan. But I know the value of these things to a stable, fair minded country and if Skippy gets his way everyone will be forced into shitty private plans, and those that can't afford it will just be screwed again, and then cost us more money in emergency services anyway.

 

This is the non-plan crap that Skippy brings. Shut stuff down, let the masses sort it out. 

 

It's very worrisome, privatization is not the friend of anyone remotely closer to the poverty line, which is a lot of Canadians. And it'll be more Canadians in the coming years, there are a lot of lower income seniors out there nowadays and that number is likely to grow as the population ages.

 

Helping folks with childcare costs is a no brainer as the costs of living rise, what folks often spend on a month to month basis for childcare is absurd. Helping with childcare also likely helps folks work, because folks can't work if they've got to miss work to mind their children. It's a spend money to drive the economy matter. 

 

I wouldn't even call myself a liberal, my values veer further left than that, but I certainly don't support a conservative platform that'd slash social programming or socially progressive endeavors such as pharmacare, dental care, or feeding children in schools. 

 

We should be judged by how we care for our most vulnerable. 

Edited April 18 by Coconuts

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

It's very worrisome, privatization is not the friend of anyone remotely closer to the poverty line, which is a lot of Canadians. 

 

Helping folks with childcare costs is a no brainer as the costs of living rise, what folks often spend on a month to month basis for childcare is absurd. Helping with childcare also likely helps folks work, because folks can't work if they've got to miss work to mind their children. It's a spend money to drive the economy matter. 

 

I wouldn't even call myself a liberal, my values veer further left than that, but I certainly don't support a conservative platform that'd slash social programming or socially progressive endeavors such as pharmacare, dental care, or feeding children in schools. 

 

one of the reasons a private plan works for me is some of it is offset in some tax reduction, but that kind of thing doesn't help someone who barely makes enough to pay taxes. Private plans don't start off cheap enough to make it affordable for the working poor or low fixed income folks. They just get to hope things don't get bad.

 

Childcare is a f'n no brainer for the economy. Anyone who's against that is likely a social con who thinks a woman's place is at home.

 

I've supported PCs, Lib's and one time NDP federal voting (didn't want to vote spit, to keep a con from winning). I want things run well fiscally, and am very liberal socially. So the closest thing to that currently is the Libs. 

 

I understand why some on the far left don't care bout the finances part but that has to be sustainable otherwise its just a cruel cycle of giving and taking away programs. 

 

[RupertKBD]

23 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I'd love one of the CPC supporters here to provide us with a link showing how much money PP will save me next year. Where are the projections?

 

Pretty sure they'll be drawing those up at the next dinner party.....

[Coconuts]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

one of the reasons a private plan works for me is some of it is offset in some tax reduction, but that kind of thing doesn't help someone who barely makes enough to pay taxes. Private plans don't start off cheap enough to make it affordable for the working poor or low fixed income folks. They just get to hope things don't get bad.

 

Childcare is a f'n no brainer for the economy. Anyone who's against that is likely a social con who thinks a woman's place is at home.

 

I've supported PCs, Lib's and one time NDP federal voting (didn't want to vote spit, to keep a con from winning). I want things run well fiscally, and am very liberal socially. So the closest thing to that currently is the Libs. 

 

I understand why some on the far left don't care bout the finances part but that has to be sustainable otherwise its just a cruel cycle of giving and taking away programs. 

 

 

Been there, been there a lot. As for plans, I've never had a job that's offered more than bare bones coverage for much of anything, and I've worked several jobs since I was a teenager. Historically I've been that low income Canadian, I was the kid eating school lunches, I grew up in a family that didn't have much wiggle room for extra's. 

 

Thing is, even as I try to climb the economic ladder, I'm not interested in stepping on folks to do so or interested in kicking out the ladder from beneath me. Yeah, I'll go on to earn more money and what I pay in taxes will rise accordingly, but I've no issue with paying my share of taxes so long as a chunk of those taxes is spent taking care of Canadians collectively. I'm not interested in being an "I got mine, fuck you and your very real social and economic problems" sort of person. 

 

Various levels of government helping with childcare is a no brainer for several reasons, one of which being that folks get to work. But it goes further than that. Want folks to have children who'll be the workforce of tomorrow? Than make it more affordable to do so. Raising children has never been cheap, but it's seemingly just gotten more and more expensive over time. 

 

My parents have always voted conservative, so my first federal vote was naturally conservative, I've drifted further left with age. Thing is, you're right, the financial aspects absolutely do matter because you can't fund a country with idealism. But that being said, if we've got to spend government money on anything, spend it on taking care of the citizens, particularly the most vulnerable. 

 

It's why I wish progressive conservatism was still a thing in Canada, progressive conservatism not driven by religion, corporate cronyism, and so on. Canada would probably be better off with such a conversative party during periods of conservative led government. I'd be much more on board with the possibility of a red tory government than neoconservatism. I can respect that some folks have more conservative views in various areas, but all conservatism isn't the same. I'd welcome a Canadian conservative party that took a more progressive approach to politics. 

[Bob Long]

Just now, RupertKBD said:

 

Pretty sure they'll be drawing those up at the next dinner party.....

 

It should be easy to show. Lets just all agree that Skippy is correct. OK, so show me how much money I should expect to save. 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

Been there, been there a lot. As for plans, I've never had a job that's offered more than bare bones coverage for much of anything, and I've worked several jobs since I was a teenager. Historically I've been that low income Canadian, I was the kid eating school lunches, I grew up in a family that didn't have much wiggle room for extra's. 

 

Thing is, even as I try to climb the economic ladder, I'm not interested in stepping on folks to do so or interested in kicking out the ladder from beneath me. Yeah, I'll go on to earn more money and what I pay in taxes will rise accordingly, but I've no issue with paying my share of taxes so long as a chunk of those taxes is spent taking care of Canadians collectively. I'm not interested in being an "I got mine, fuck you and your very real social and economic problems" sort of person. 

 

you don't really have to do that tho. I've certainly competed for contracts, but we were all playing the same game so beating out other contractors is just part of choosing to be in that world. My wife never did that either in her academic career. 

 

Thats the thing about some current neocons, they do seem to want to have that element of someone else losing as part of their success, but its simply not required.

 

But being an asshole can certainly help people succeed as well, there's a lot of examples of borderline sociopaths in senior management positions. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Various levels of government helping with childcare is a no brainer for several reasons, one of which being that folks get to work. But it goes further than that. Want folks to have children who'll be the workforce of tomorrow? Than make it more affordable to do so. Raising children has never been cheap, but it's seemingly just gotten more and more expensive over time. 

 

yep, the only thing surprising about childcare is that it wasn't started sooner. Its nowhere near complete yet either. 

 

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

My parents have always voted conservative, so my first federal vote was naturally conservative, I've drifted further left with age. Thing is, you're right, the financial aspects absolutely do matter because you can't fund a country with idealism. But that being said, if we've got to spend government money on anything, spend it on taking care of the citizens, particularly the most vulnerable. 

 

It's why I wish progressive conservatism was still a thing in Canada, progressive conservatism not driven by religion, corporate cronyism, and so on. Canada would probably be better off with such a conversative party during periods of conservative led government. I'd be much more on board with the possibility of a red tory government than neoconservatism. I can respect that some folks have more conservative views in various areas, but all conservatism isn't the same. I'd welcome a Canadian conservative party that took a more progressive approach to politics. 

 

I was pretty bummed when the Preston Manning pity party wing destroyed the PCs. Mulroney certainly had his flaws, but looking back he looks like a liberal. 

 

[Satchmo]

5 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Pretty sure they'll be drawing those up at the next dinner party.....

Maybe, but we've already been told those dinner parties are insignificant and irrelevant. 

[bishopshodan]

Why is PP trying so hard to get me to vote Liberal?

[Bob Long]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

Why is PP trying so hard to get me to vote Liberal?

 

its his way. 

 

I don't like telling people who to vote for... but here I go. IF you live in a riding where you'd split the vote, I would urge you (or anyone) to consider the risk of a con getting in. 

 

Clearly a Liberal-NDP coalition can do much of the good you want to see. So its not like you'd be losing out on everything. 

 

I have voted NDP once for this very reason. It worked, the con in Burnaby lost and not by much (the 2011 Kennedy Stewart win).

 

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

its his way. 

 

I don't like telling people who to vote for... but here I go. IF you live in a riding where you'd split the vote, I would urge you (or anyone) to consider the risk of a con getting in. 

 

Clearly a Liberal-NDP coalition can do much of the good you want to see. So its not like you'd be losing out on everything. 

 

I have voted NDP once for this very reason. It worked, the con in Burnaby lost and not by much (the 2011 Kennedy Stewart win).

 

i didn't think there was a hope in hell I would vote Lib in the next election, but here we are. 

PP is staring right in to the mouth of the gift horse. Unusual strategy by the little creep. 

 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

i didn't think there was a hope in hell I would vote Lib in the next election, but here we are. 

 

its worth checking your riding - if this is it e.g., its one where I'd be looking at staying clear of the greens or libs and going NDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanaimo—Ladysmith

 

the con is too close for comfort in this one 

 

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

PP is staring right in to the mouth of the gift horse. Unusual strategy by the little creep. 

 

 

he's an arrogant little bugger. He bills himself as 'the next PM of Canada' at his rallies, so maybe he thinks he's already won and can say anything he wants to.