Canadian Politics Thread

[Master Mind]

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Where?  Where is this space for neutrality?  We're not even gonna have election debates in the USA, and maybe none here either.  PP has built his entire campaign AGAINST the mainstream media.

 

So where is that space?

 

1 hour ago, Satchmo said:

It might be silly, or just a mistake, or just a human foible, but no one has jumped to any conclusions about anybody unless they are questioning a point of view.  Points of view, topic by topic,  are far more important than getting somebody's voting history correct.

 

Going to put this here to clarify my initial post.

 

1 hour ago, Master Mind said:

 

I think this is straying from what I was initially saying. I'm meaning on any given topic, I think it's silly to be labelled as the opposition for not having a strong belief one way or the other.

 

[Master Mind]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

Maybe. But if someone chooses to ignore eg CSIS warnings, is that neutral or denial?

 

If by ignore you mean they don't pay much attention to it, that sounds fairly neutral to me. For example, I don't have strong opinions on Israel/Palestine. Some would consider me as part of the opposition as a result.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

Listen, just show me a well thought out piece of legislation. What the cpc senator did was political theatre.

 

 

Poilievre will allow backbenchers to put forward laws that chip away at women's rights, you can take that to the bank.

 

Have such laws been put forward, and if so what specifically do you feel I should be concerned about?

[Miss Korea]

2 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Yea, I'm very likely to vote conservative. And if Pierre Pollieve sucks too, then when it's time to vote, I'll vote against him too. I don't care who's in power as long as my life isn't being affected. Currently mine is. It's that simple. I just want to see change. If the change sucks, so be it. Then we start again.

 

Well unfortunately I always seem to have like 3 people quoting me and then if I don't respond they claim I'm dodging them. So I'm kinda in a lose/lose situation here.

 

I'm not a troll and as long as I don't insult people I don't see how I would be causing any problems. People don't agree with me quite clearly but is that not why we have these discussions?

 

 

 

You are mistaking yourself for someone you're not.  People are not fed up with you because they don't agree with what you're saying.  People disagree with you because you don't have the gall to stand up for what you believe in.  "If there was someone better I'd support them"?  What the fuck are you talking about?  There is no one else.  You're voting for Pierre because you believe in his message of "Fuck Trudeau", even if his entire campaign has been exposed as one big fat lie.

 

Doesn't matter where your allegiances lie.  You are just extremely tiring to talk to.

[Miss Korea]

32 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

 

Going to put this here to clarify my initial post.

 

 

 

TBH i forget the debates I've had with you here, but we are grilling RR right now because he is blaming Trudeau for things that just aren't his fault.  I have several gripes with him.  I am likely never going to vote for him or the Liberal Party.  But I am also not going to let people get away with nonsense arguments.

 

For example, do you think anyone here doesn't have strong beliefs?  Nobody is going to come into this cesspool of a thread unless they already have firm convictions.

[Ricky Ravioli]

16 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

You are mistaking yourself for someone you're not.  People are not fed up with you because they don't agree with what you're saying.  People disagree with you because you don't have the gall to stand up for what you believe in.  "If there was someone better I'd support them"?  What the fuck are you talking about?  There is no one else.  You're voting for Pierre because you believe in his message of "Fuck Trudeau", even if his entire campaign has been exposed as one big fat lie.

 

Doesn't matter where your allegiances lie.  You are just extremely tiring to talk to.

Here we go again.... wHaT tHe FuCk ArE yOu TaLkInG aBoUt. I'm going to vote conservative because I have seen 8 years of Trudeau and I'm good on seeing anymore. If there was a solid NDP candidate that wasn't propping up this current government, they would be another option for me to vote for. We ain't got that right now though do we.

 

You know you can stop responding to me at any point right?

I don't want to put anyone on ignore but you are getting mighty close. It's getting exhausting 

 

Edited March 22 by Ricky Ravioli

[Master Mind]

10 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

TBH i forget the debates I've had with you here, but we are grilling RR right now because he is blaming Trudeau for things that just aren't his fault.  I have several gripes with him.  I am likely never going to vote for him or the Liberal Party.  But I am also not going to let people get away with nonsense arguments.

 

For example, do you think anyone here doesn't have strong beliefs?  Nobody is going to come into this cesspool of a thread unless they already have firm convictions.

 

You can have strong beliefs about one topic, and not have a strong opinion about another topic, therefore being neutral on that subject in particular. I don't think that makes someone the opposition, but some people believe that is the case.

 

This is in regards to the "you're either with us or against us" mindset.

[Satchmo]

37 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

If by ignore you mean they don't pay much attention to it, that sounds fairly neutral to me.

I suppose the word neutral can have that meaning but it seems a bit of a stretch to me.

 

[Miss Korea]

23 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Here we go again.... wHaT tHe FuCk ArE yOu TaLkInG aBoUt. I'm going to vote conservative because I have seen 8 years of Trudeau and I'm good on seeing anymore. If there was a solid NDP candidate that wasn't propping up this current government, they would be another option for me to vote for. We ain't got that right now though do we.

 

You know you can stop responding to me at any point right?

I don't want to put anyone on ignore but you are getting mighty close. It's getting exhausting 

 

 

Do whatever you want.  But when multiple people are grilling you over your talking style, you need to begin considering the possibility that you're not very good at this.  And that's certainly what I'm saying here - you're a poor debater whose arguments are laden with contradictions.  And when they are pointed out to you (by multiple posters), you just pivot and pivot and pivot.

 

As Sharpshooter told you - just own up to your own fucking beliefs.  Nobody cares if someone is anti-Trudeau or anti-whatever.  We want to know what they are pro-whatever.  And for you, you're pro-Poilievre - you're just not willing to own up to that and wasting everyone's time in the process.

[Miss Korea]

17 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

You can have strong beliefs about one topic, and not have a strong opinion about another topic, therefore being neutral on that subject in particular. I don't think that makes someone the opposition, but some people believe that is the case.

 

This is in regards to the "you're either with us or against us" mindset.

 

That's just generalities you're talking about.  What specifically in a Canadian context do you have "neutral" convictions towards?

[Ricky Ravioli]

7 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Do whatever you want.  But when multiple people are grilling you over your talking style, you need to begin considering the possibility that you're not very good at this.  And that's certainly what I'm saying here - you're a poor debater whose arguments are laden with contradictions.  And when they are pointed out to you (by multiple posters), you just pivot and pivot and pivot.

 

As Sharpshooter told you - just own up to your own fucking beliefs.  Nobody cares if someone is anti-Trudeau or anti-whatever.  We want to know what they are pro-whatever.  And for you, you're pro-Poilievre - you're just not willing to own up to that and wasting everyone's time in the process.

Lol here it is again. This isn't a competition to be won. This is a discussion thread. You continue to keep talking in circles saying the same things. We aren't getting anywhere anymore.

 

 

 

 

[Miss Korea]

2 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Lol here it is again. This isn't a competition to be won. This is a discussion thread. You continue to keep talking in circles saying the same things. We aren't getting anywhere anymore.

 

 

This is exactly what I mean.  It's not about you winning or losing.  You just can't get your point across.  You're not even letting us establish the fact that you are aligned with Poilievre's Conservatives.  That's not a win or a loss.  That's just wasting time.

 

Just answer these fucking questions and be done with it.

 

1) What is the cause of inflation in grocery prices in this country?

2) What is the cause of rising housing/rental prices in this country?

3) What is the cause of civil strife/disorder in this country?

 

So yeah - you're blaming Justin Trudeau for all of those questions, and the entire community here has pointed out that it's both completely wrong to blame him for random shit, and that you are completely reciting the message of Pierre Poilievre's attack campaign.  Almost verbatim.

 

You have said some really dumb shit the past two days.  And just because you say something like "Justin Trudeau is causing higher grocery prices", doesn't let you be entitled to that opinion.  That's just a lie - a straight-up, 100% lie.  That is not up for discussion.

[Master Mind]

21 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

That's just generalities you're talking about.  What specifically in a Canadian context do you have "neutral" convictions towards?

 

I'll provide the same example that Jimmy mentioned in abortion.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Master Mind said:

 

I'll provide the same example that Jimmy mentioned in abortion.

 

I'll pick this back up tomorrow, don't worry.

[Ricky Ravioli]

5 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

This is exactly what I mean.  It's not about you winning or losing.  You just can't get your point across.  You're not even letting us establish the fact that you are aligned with Poilievre's Conservatives.  That's not a win or a loss.  That's just wasting time.

 

Just answer these fucking questions and be done with it.

 

1) What is the cause of inflation in grocery prices in this country?

2) What is the cause of rising housing/rental prices in this country?

3) What is the cause of civil strife/disorder in this country?

 

So yeah - you're blaming Justin Trudeau for all of those questions, and the entire community here has pointed out that it's both completely wrong to blame him for random shit, and that you are completely reciting the message of Pierre Poilievre's attack campaign.  Almost verbatim.

 

You have said some really dumb shit the past two days.  And just because you say something like "Justin Trudeau is causing higher grocery prices", doesn't let you be entitled to that opinion.  That's just a lie - a straight-up, 100% lie.  That is not up for discussion.

Lol you for real?

[Miss Korea]

5 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Lol you for real?

 

Yeah - speak your mind and answer the 3 questions.

[Miss Korea]

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

 

I'll provide the same example that Jimmy mentioned in abortion.

 

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

I'll pick this back up tomorrow, don't worry.

 

Well it's not about abortion per se, it's about the assertion that there's room for "neutrality".  The only people who can maintain neutrality on any issue is someone who has simply not thought about the issue enough.

 

If you want to specifically focus on abortion... know that abortion is a constitutionally protected right in Canada.  A woman in Canada can have an abortion for whatever reason they want, whenever they want.  No exceptions.  Their choice, not mine or the government's or anyone else's.  And I think that's how it should be.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Lol here it is again. This isn't a competition to be won. This is a discussion thread. You continue to keep talking in circles saying the same things. We aren't getting anywhere anymore.

 

 

 

 

Old drunk Alf believes we can have conservative values (personal finance, dress, raising kids, etc) while being more liberal in our political views. 

[Smashian Kassian]

 

Interesting example of how media framing/propganda works, from both sides.

 

Spoiler

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7138046

 

 

 

 

 

Take your pick^. Ultimately;

 

"The coming period of recession will also accelerate the decline in living standards that the younger generations have already witnessed compared to earlier generations," says the report.

 

"For example, many Canadians under 35 are unlikely ever to be able to buy a place to live. The fallout from this decline in living standards will be exacerbated by the fact that the difference between the extremes of wealth is greater now in developed countries than it has been at any time in several generations."

 

“Economic forecasts for the next five years and beyond are bleak" 

 

These quotes are very bad regardless which rag you read it in.

 

And right now, as much as progressives might not like it, PPs cons are seemingly the only one presenting themselves as an alternative to the status quo - as we saw today in that stupid vote (which was the whole point of them doing it) - and thats why he'll likely win, not cause things will improve overnight.

 

Anyhoo, in the meantime... 

 

[RWMc1]

35 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Interesting example of how media framing/propganda works, from both sides.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7138046

 

 

 

 

 

Take your pick^. Ultimately;

 

"The coming period of recession will also accelerate the decline in living standards that the younger generations have already witnessed compared to earlier generations," says the report.

 

"For example, many Canadians under 35 are unlikely ever to be able to buy a place to live. The fallout from this decline in living standards will be exacerbated by the fact that the difference between the extremes of wealth is greater now in developed countries than it has been at any time in several generations."

 

“Economic forecasts for the next five years and beyond are bleak" 

 

These quotes are very bad regardless which rag you read it in.

 

And right now, as much as progressives might not like it, PPs cons are seemingly the only one presenting themselves as an alternative to the status quo - as we saw today in that stupid vote (which was the whole point of them doing it) - and thats why he'll likely win, not cause things will improve overnight.

 

Anyhoo, in the meantime... 

 

 

 

What is the status quo and what does little pp plan to do to change it?

 

What is his platform and what is his plan?   Presenting himself as an alternative is just bullcrap until he shows us how he will change things. I noticed falcon doing the same thing. "We have a plan." We're just not going to tell anyone what that plan is. So far it's still truedough bad therefore us good. Global recession and wars driving up costs is a ridiculous reason to support what, to me, is religion infiltrating politics.

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Master Mind said:

 

You can have strong beliefs about one topic, and not have a strong opinion about another topic, therefore being neutral on that subject in particular. I don't think that makes someone the opposition, but some people believe that is the case.

 

This is in regards to the "you're either with us or against us" mindset.

 

I agree.  I don’t think anyone agrees with every policy decision or viewpoint of the political party they associate themselves with.  Even Sharpshooter admitted that he has both liberal and conservative views depending on the issue.  I am the same way.

 

Generation Z voters have been quoted as saying that they are looking at each issue individually and are voting based on where they stand on those issues, not necessarily any political platform or party.  This is the case with many voters actually.  

 

The problem with the Liberal party right now is that they associate themselves more with the left than the right. They are no longer a centrist party like they used to be, so naturally conservative voters and independents who don’t identify with any particular party are not going to vote for them.  This is happening in the US as well.  The Democrats are leaning quite left right now and have moved away from the centre, so they are in danger of losing a lot of independent voters.  

 

If you lose the independent and the centrist vote then there is a strong possibility that the right wing parties will both get into power in the next elections…

Edited March 22 by Elias Pettersson

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

This is exactly what I mean.  It's not about you winning or losing.  You just can't get your point across.  You're not even letting us establish the fact that you are aligned with Poilievre's Conservatives.  That's not a win or a loss.  That's just wasting time.

 

Just answer these fucking questions and be done with it.

 

1) What is the cause of inflation in grocery prices in this country?

2) What is the cause of rising housing/rental prices in this country?

3) What is the cause of civil strife/disorder in this country?

 

So yeah - you're blaming Justin Trudeau for all of those questions, and the entire community here has pointed out that it's both completely wrong to blame him for random shit, and that you are completely reciting the message of Pierre Poilievre's attack campaign.  Almost verbatim.

 

You have said some really dumb shit the past two days.  And just because you say something like "Justin Trudeau is causing higher grocery prices", doesn't let you be entitled to that opinion.  That's just a lie - a straight-up, 100% lie.  That is not up for discussion.

 

If the Trudeau government isn’t responsible for any of that random shit, then neither will the Conservative government under Pierre be responsible either.  So you really have nothing to worry about.  

[Miss Korea]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

If the Trudeau government isn’t responsible for any of that random shit, then neither will the Conservative government under Pierre be responsible either.  So you really have nothing to worry about.  

 

You're missing the point.  It's not up for debate - Trudeau is not responsible for your food costing what it is right now.  Anyone with even a basic understanding of market economics is going to understand that.  The price of BC wine will spike this summer because of the failed crops (the cold snap in January).  Will you blame Justin Trudeau every time you order a wine?  Maybe Indian farmers will ban rice exports again.  If that happens, will you blame Justin Trudeau for higher rice prices?

 

You need to start basing your vote off things that are more directly under his control.  You are forgetting that the first group he betrayed back in 2015 was the progressives.  We wanted PR and he broke that promise.  He has kept some promises and broken many others.  There are points of valid praise and also points of legitimate criticism.

 

But "being mad at the current state of this country" is biggest pile of generalizing BS I've seen.  It's extremely lazy, and when I press people like this, they have no clue what they're talking about.  On that note, I have never known a Canadian party leader that's as dishonest, disingenuous, and downright sleazy as Pierre Poilievre.  As a historian, imagine what I thought when he tried to make the association between Nazis and socialists.  My old Holocaust professor had some things to say about that.

 

Not today, but I'm ready to talk real things I'm happy/upset with Trudeau.  I'm also ready to talk real things about what a Poilievre government would look like.  Hint: he wouldn't do jack shit to make your life any better.  Literally jack shit.

[Bob Long]

9 hours ago, Alflives said:

Old drunk Alf believes we can have conservative values (personal finance, dress, raising kids, etc) while being more liberal in our political views. 

 

like the old progressive conservatives. Run the country well financially, stay the heck out of peoples personal lives and bedrooms. You'd think that would be easy to do. 

[Gnarcore]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

like the old progressive conservatives. Run the country well financially, stay the heck out of peoples personal lives and bedrooms. You'd think that would be easy to do. 

And such a party right now would crush it come election day. Sadly, we don't have that. 

[Bob Long]

10 hours ago, Master Mind said:

 

I'll provide the same example that Jimmy mentioned in abortion.

 

good morning. 

 

OK so here's the concern with the CPC, its backbenchers, and Poilievere on this particular issue. The CPC, and PP in particular, has shown a tolerance to allow backbenchers to put forward motions and bills on this issue that would erode women's rights (see: https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations-anti-bills/). 

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that PP will continue to allow people like Wagantall to keep doing this. If the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, you can expect this to happen.

 

Whats really interesting about PP is how he really tries to play each side of the issue when it suits him, see: https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/the-inconvenient-anti-choice-record-of-poilievre/. 

 

But at the end of the day, we know he will allow votes on it. 

 

And of course thats his right to do so in a parliamentary democracy. But we just have to look at his history to have a very good idea of what to expect.