Canadian Politics Thread

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

We have to be a bit more accurate, many of those got better under Mulroney.

 

But the current CPC is a long way from that.

 

Not all of them are bad at all the things. He's also the PM that sold off our National Energy Program for pennies on the dollar to private (predominately wealthy Americans) foreigners. That's a pretty big strike.

 

6 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

This is actually very far from facts, this country has been on a steady decline since 2005.

 

https://cheung.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Canadian-Happiness-Report-March-2022.pdf

 

Overall, our analysis found that Canadian well-being has been decreasing since the late 2000s. Although Canada finds itself at the top of most happiness charts, this downturn in well-being is cause for concern and greater involvement from policymakers. Given our findings, we think it is important for the Canadian government to gain a more in-depth understanding of changes to population well-being by monitoring SWB trends in the population. This monitoring can serve as a type of pacemaker which alerts the public when levels of well-being are low or dropping. Conversely, it can also monitor if certain policy implementations have had a significant impact on the Canadian population.

 

 

Happiness is in decline pretty much everywhere. A pandemic, climate change (fires, droughts, floods, crop shortages), inflation, aging population, growing wage gap will do that. And they're global problems. Not to mention the advent of social media (also global) from right around that time (early 2000's) which has routinely been linked to unhappiness.

 

FYI, we had a Conservative government for a good chunk of that.

 

6 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Well I think you are gonna need to provide all of those “facts” to prove your points.  I mean Jimmy even disagrees with you. 
 

Point by point, how are we better under the Liberals than under the Conservatives in every issue you brought up?  

 

They've been brought up countless times here already. I mentioned Mulroney and Petro Can already, there's also the Wheat board under Harper. The last time they were in power there was massive cuts to all manner of social funding, not the least of which OAS but also child tax benefits and countless others. Cuts to military funding, Coast guard, countless pro corporate/anti worker bills, how they wanted to deregulate banking, debt as a % of GDP under Cons, their complete lack of a climate plan/denial of climate change...

 

The only people the Cons help in power are the extremely wealthy, corporations and maybe nowadays religious folks that would like to see us turn back 100 years of progress on women's/minority/LGBTQ+ rights. The vast majority of Canadians, particularly those closer to the margins do worse under the Cons. And they frequently sell off national assets to foreigners as a means to pay for it which is damaging to all of Canada long term.

Edited May 15 by aGENT

[Sapper]

1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said:

Ya I agree.  I just read some ridiculous stuff from sapper

 

 

1 hour ago, Spring Salmon said:

Telling people voices are real?  What people? What voices?   Your whole post is absurd 

I get it ... Your deep into the cult 

 

The term telling people the voices are real means "lying to people to justify that their paranoia is real"

That's exactly what PP has done standing with and supporting those protesters 

 

You want to support them and their beliefs .... Fill your boots

 

But don't expect all people  to validate it 

 

Edited May 15 by Sapper

[King Heffy]

3 hours ago, Sapper said:

Part of the problem with our electoral system is the party with the most seats if it's a majority gets absolute power 

 

Im not a fan of the USA system but at least the President doesn't get absolute power as there are checks and balances in place with the house and Senate that makes sure all voices are heard ( in theory ,)

 

Canada desperately needs proportional representation. It would leave is with almost always having minority governments.which I feel give the best governments we have had. Heck I didn't even hate Harper in his minority governments ( didn't like but didn't hate it )

 

It's extremely rare in Canada for one party to have 50 percent plus of all votes in the country. That leaves most elections providing Prime Ministers not voted for by the majority of Canadians.  This in a country with 4 consistent ranking federal parties ....causing alot of the divisions.we see currently 

 

First past the post only truly works if there is only ever 2 choices to vote for

 

 

That's precisely why I wanted ranked ballot.

[Heretic]

2 hours ago, 4petesake said:

 

You’re making it awfully difficult for me to mark my x in any box on election day then.

No worries, obviously the majority of Canadian voters are idiots - else he wouldn't have made it to a 2nd term.

He already is the worst fiscally managed PM ever.  

I'm not saying anyone else is better - but come on, why keep doing the same stupid thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Afterall, it was the reason (I use that lightly) that he was voted in the 1st time - people unhappy with Harper.

Or are you (and anyone else that votes for Trudeau again) going to be a hypocrite?  
 

[4petesake]

5 minutes ago, Heretic said:

No worries, obviously the majority of Canadian voters are idiots - else he wouldn't have made it to a 2nd term.

He already is the worst fiscally managed PM ever.  

I'm not saying anyone else is better - but come on, why keep doing the same stupid thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Afterall, it was the reason (I use that lightly) that he was voted in the 1st time - people unhappy with Harper.

Or are you (and anyone else that votes for Trudeau again) going to be a hypocrite?  
 

 

You’re assuming I voted Liberal (Trudeau) in the first place, which would be incorrect. I voted for my Conservative MP who turned out to be both an idiot and a jackass. So I agree with you and won’t do the same stupid thing and expect a different result. I don’t want to a hypocrite…

[Sapper]

I've never voted federal liberal. Sadly where I live the conservative wins by a landslide each time so the other parties don't bother running a serious candidate.

 

Federally I stopped voting conservative after.mulruney sold off everything and switched to reform. One reform vote and watching them I the house was enough of that 

 

This is why I had hoped proportional representation would have happened so voters like me could have their vote matter ..... Same as conservative voters in deep seated NDP ridings feeling the same

 

Don't care for truduea senior or junior but just can't vote for the conservatives under PP.  If PP and Truduea both retired it would be Canada that would be saved 

[Warhippy]

16 hours ago, Heretic said:

The two-bedroom average rent
in new and existing structures in
Canada’s 35 major centres was $949
in April 2015.

In 2023?  $1930.

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/schl-cmhc/nh12-249/NH12-249-2015-1-eng.pdf
 

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/-/media/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/rental-market-report/rental-market-report-2022-en.ashx

Well done Trudeau...well done.  
 

Didn't he promise affordable housing for all back in 2015?

 

Trudeau controls housing prices too?

 

Is there anything he isn't involved in?

[Warhippy]

16 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Why is he making promises he can't keep? Either he's a liar then or purposely misleading the voters

Then why is PP promising he can fix it?

 

Either he's a liar or purposely misleading the voters 

[Bob Long]

12 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Trudeau controls housing prices too?

 

Is there anything he isn't involved in?

 

I get it. People are mad. That usually spells disaster for a sitting pm who's been around for 10 years.

 

But this idea that "it can't get any worse" is pretty silly. You bet Skippy can make life worse for a lot of people.

 

 

[Heretic]

33 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I get it. People are mad. That usually spells disaster for a sitting pm who's been around for 10 years.

 

But this idea that "it can't get any worse" is pretty silly. You bet Skippy can make life worse for a lot of people.

 

 

Exactly - not much difference than a coach in the NHL on a team that doesn't meet expectations.

[Heretic]

52 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Trudeau controls housing prices too?

 

Is there anything he isn't involved in?

Well, that was one of his campaign "promises" that so many drank his Koolaid.

[RupertKBD]

Honestly, I think the entire debate here is a bit of a waste of time. JT can't "fix" inflation, nor can he "fix" the housing crisis. Neither can Pollievre. I think the anti-Trudeau crowd realize this, (if they're being honest) so what they appear to be saying is, "JT has had 10 years to fix these issues and he hasn't done it, so now we should elect this new guy, so he can fail as well."

 

To me, this boils down to a binary choice between philosophies on how to govern. On one side, you have Conservatism, which in essence means cut spending and cut taxes. This generally appeals to people who are in higher tax brackets. The downside of this, of course is that it also means the government will have to make "hard choices", which is code for cutting Social programs.

 

I find myself on the other side of that debate, even though I personally am not reliant on such programs. (For example, I support the Carbon Tax, but I don't qualify for the rebate)

 

I'm okay with my tax dollars going towards funding programs that benefit people who are less fortunate than myself. In that regard, I suppose one could say that I feel that I am my brother's keeper. Yes, it means that it costs a bit more to fill my tank with gas and it means that I have to cut down on the $50 car washes and $60 steak dinners, but IMHO, it's all part of being a contributing member of society. Besides which, somebody's tax dollars went towards helping me out, back when I was young, so this is my way of paying it forward.

 

As far as where my vote goes, I think it's fairly obvious which of the major parties hews more closely to my beliefs. That being said, I've never voted Liberal federally. My local MP is with the NDP and I feel has done a good job, so I will likely support him again.

Edited May 15 by RupertKBD

[112]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

Honestly, I think the entire debate here is a bit of a waste of time. JT can't "fix" inflation, nor can he "fix" the housing crisis. Neither can Pollievre. I think the anti-Trudeau crowd realize this, (if they're being honest) so what they appear to be saying is, "JT has had 10 years to fix these issues and he hasn't done it, so now we should elect this new guy, so he can fail as well."

 

To me, this boils down to a binary choice between philosophies on how to govern. On one side, you have Conservatism, which in essence means cut spending and cut taxes. This generally appeals to people who are in higher tax brackets. The downside of this, of course is that it also means the government will have to make "hard choices", which is code for cutting Social programs.

 

I find myself on the other side of that debate, even though I personally am not reliant on such programs. (For example, I support the Carbon Tax, but I don't qualify for the rebate)

 

I'm okay with my tax dollars going towards funding programs that benefit people who are less fortunate than myself. In that regard, I suppose one could say that I feel that I am my brother's keeper. Yes, it means that it costs a bit more to fill my tank with gas and it means that I have to cut down on the $50 car washes and $60 steak dinners, but IMHO, it's all part of being a contributing member of society. Besides which, somebody's tax dollars went towards helping me out, back when I was entering young, so this is my way of paying it forward.

 

As far as where my vote goes, I think it's fairly obvious which of the major parties hews more closely to my beliefs. That being said, I've never voted Liberal federally. My local MP is with the NDP and I feel has done a good job, so I will likely support him again.

This is a good post, although I would argue that the housing crisis requires coordination between all levels of government now and that the federal side does have to make contributions monetarily--and probably do its best to dictate how these funds are spent such that the municipalities/provinces actually put them toward their intention.

 

I'm someone who's highly reliant on social programs and so I'm in support of the NDP more than any other party. I understand voting in one's best interests and do get why a lot of people vote or will be voting Conservative, although I do think there are many vying to vote that way who are somewhat misled and don't realise what a Conservative government will do to them and their prospects of livelihood. If you're in a high tax bracket and can support yourself, it makes total sense to go that way, but some people aren't and probably don't quite get what/how much is going to be cut under a Poilievre rule that they rely on. They just know that they're angry and that this guy says he'll fix things.

 

I'm not an economist and don't fully understand how national debt = bad, but I do trust that a Conservative government would be more 'responsible' in managing it. With that said, there will be a very real cost to people when those cuts are made.

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Heretic said:

Exactly - not much difference than a coach in the NHL on a team that doesn't meet expectations.

 

well, unless your gay, poor, and older woman alone on a pension, or some other group the CPC doesn't care about. 

[Heretic]

14 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

well, unless your gay, poor, and older woman alone on a pension, or some other group the CPC doesn't care about. 

Are you making an example of how Liberals have cut back on education?

FWIW, My daughter is gay, both her and her partner are NOT voting Liberal.

 

 

[Bob Long]

9 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Are you making an example of how Liberals have cut back on education?

 

Huh?

 

9 minutes ago, Heretic said:

 

FWIW, My daughter is gay, both her and her partner are NOT voting Liberal.

 

 

 

Ok

 

[RupertKBD]

Interesting perspective on the Carbon Tax, using Australia as an example. Article is fairly long, so I've put it in spoilers:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/other/axe-the-tax-here-s-what-happened-after-australia-killed-its-carbon-pricing-regime/ar-BB1mmZZw?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=44cba80d69b74a359203cbecdd28b5c7&ei=14

 

Spoiler

Imagine this: a conservative political leader running on pledges of smaller government, more affordable energy bills and a promise to “Axe the Tax.”

No, this isn’t Canada, it’s Australia in 2013. And the politician is Tony Abbott, who swept to power on the promise of eliminating the former Labor Party’s carbon pricing regime.

 

Abbott followed through on his pledge, making Australia the first country in the world to repeal a carbon tax in 2014. The lessons of how that decision played out may be instructive as Canadians debate the merits of carbon taxes today.

Australia’s carbon tax went into effect in 2012. The plan was to price all carbon at AU$23 (then about C$24) per ton for three years, rising with inflation, before switching to a cap-and-trade system in 2015. 

 

More than half of the funds raised by the tax were redistributed to low and middle-income Australians as tax rebates. 

For the two years it was in force, it worked as intended. At the end of its second year, carbon pricing resulted in a 1.4 per cent annual drop in emissions, the biggest reduction in emissions in Australia for over a decade. 

 

Emissions in the electricity sector were also reduced by about three to five per cent both years the price was in place. 

 

An Australian National University (ANU) study of 142 countries found that the 43 with a carbon price saw their emissions grow at a slower rate — by two percentage points fewer —  each year compared to the countries without.

But at the same time as the tax was introduced, electricity prices went up. While studies show the carbon tax only accounted for part of the increase, it became an easy target. 

Abbott claimed that Sunday roast dinners would soon start costing Australians AU$100 and that the price would make electricity even more unaffordable. 

Australia is among the biggest exporters of coal worldwide, and Abbott argued that it didn’t make sense to “clobber the economy” with a pricing mechanism that he called a job-killer.

After repealing the policy, Abbott offered AU$10 billion in subsidies for fossil-fuel companies. In contrast, the burgeoning renewables industry received 31 per cent less global investment while Abbott was in power, because of uncertainty around the industry. 

In 2015, Abbott banned the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a government investment bank for green projects, from investing in wind and small-scale solar projects.

Abbott’s government also disbanded the country’s Climate Commission.

 

Now, the country is trying to catch up after “nearly a decade of lost time in terms of effective climate change policy instruments,” said Frank Jotzo, a co-author of two studies on the effectiveness of carbon taxes, an economist and a professor of climate policy at ANU. 

He points out that emissions did go down during the eight-year period that the Liberal party — Australia’s more right-wing party — was in power because renewable energy became less expensive during that time.

 

Nonetheless, “Australia's emissions now would be significantly lower than they are, and a task in achieving a 2030 target, and, in fact, achieving subsequent more stringent targets would be much easier,” he said.

 

In May 2022, the Labor Party regained power. Climate was a major issue in the 2022 election. Researchers identified an unprecedented “seismic shift” in votes toward the Green party and climate-focused independent candidates. 

 

As wildfires and heat waves in Australia get more severe, Labor leader Anthony Albanese has promised to cut emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050. 

 

Last year, the Labor government introduced changes to the country’s Safeguard Mechanism, to enforce more stringent carbon pricing for industry emitters. 

But politicians have been hesitant to reintroduce an economy-wide pricing scheme, though economists like Ross Garnaut, a political-economic advisor and professor emeritus at Australian National University, have been pushing for one.

“Without carbon pricing, everything is more expensive, more difficult, more uncertain. We're making some progress, but nowhere near as much progress as we would make with a carbon price,” Garnaut said. 

 

Rod Sims, Garnaut’s colleague at ANU and his co-director at renewable energy think tank The Superpower Institute, goes even further: “Getting rid of the emissions trading scheme was one of the worst public policy decisions we've had in generations.”

Even if it doesn't pass an economy-wide price, Australia’s trade partners will soon make it pay for its emissions anyway. 

 

Starting in 2026, the European Union will charge tariffs on carbon-intensive products, including electricity, imported from countries without a carbon tax.

Sims said Australia is keen to export its solar and wind energy to Europe. “It would be silly for us to essentially be making green products, sending them to Europe and then Europe taxing them again because we don't have a carbon price,” he said. 

Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, all major trade partners for Australia, are also considering imposing carbon border adjustment mechanism programs as well.

 

Carbon taxes in Canada

 

If Canada gets rid of its tax, it would join Australia as the only countries that have abandoned an existing carbon price. 

Slovenia temporarily abolished its carbon price in 2022, but reinstated it in May of 2023.

Canadian economists, including McGill economics professor Christopher Ragan, are rallying for the policy. Ragan is the head of the Ecofiscal Commission, a group of economists and researchers that wrote an open letter arguing the benefits of a carbon price in Canada. 

The policy is difficult to communicate which has left room for its opponents to make exaggerated, inaccurate claims, like arguing that a tax “is responsible for inflation, which is not true,” Ragan said.

 

“They claim that this is going to hurt more people than it's going to help, which is almost certainly not true. They state that it doesn't work to reduce emissions, which is probably not true,” he added.

 

While the carbon tax may be a well-crafted and completely rational policy, “policy that defeats the government is not a good policy,” said Don Desserud, a political scientist at the University of Prince Edward Island. “Even if they're on the side of the angels, if they can't get it done, it fails.”

Trudeau has stood by the tax, but the federal NDP and provincial Liberal politicians including Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey and Ontario Liberal leader Bonnie Crombie are distancing themselves from the policy. 

 

Jotzo suspects the Canadian opposition may have borrowed from the Abbott campaign in its criticisms of the carbon tax.

The difference is, in Australia, the anti-tax campaign was strong from the beginning. 

 

“To see that a mechanism that's been in place for five years can also be subject to those [political] forces is worrying to see,” Jotzo said.

But Alex Marland, a professor of politics at Acadia University, said it’s worth listening to the concerns of rural Canadians who are most disadvantaged by the policy. 

They’re more likely to have no choice but to drive long distances for basic necessities, have lower incomes and spend more on gas because of the tax. On top of that, they vote Conservative at higher rates.

 

“It doesn't mean you have to abandon the carbon tax. It just means you have to find some way to deal with people's concerns,” Marland said.

 

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, 112 said:

I'm not an economist and don't fully understand how national debt = bad, but I do trust that a Conservative government would be more 'responsible' in managing it. With that said, there will be a very real cost to people when those cuts are made.

 

They really aren't though. They rack up just as much (often more debt), giving our tax dollars to primarily the wealthy and corporations, while slashing public services and selling off Canadian assets to foreign interests to pay for it.

 

As I said at the top of this page, they're not going to help the vast majority of Canadians. The young people struggling in the present economy/state of the world who think they're going to help them are in for quite the rude awakening.

[Bob Long]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:44 PM, aGENT said:

 

Not all of them are bad at all the things. He's also the PM that sold off our National Energy Program for pennies on the dollar to private (predominately wealthy Americans) foreigners. That's a pretty big strike.

 

 

is it? was AB ever going to allow such a thing?

 

You're not giving the old PCs enough credit, we're still benefitting greatly from the changes they made. 

[Bob Long]

23 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

Honestly, I think the entire debate here is a bit of a waste of time. JT can't "fix" inflation, nor can he "fix" the housing crisis. Neither can Pollievre. I think the anti-Trudeau crowd realize this, (if they're being honest) so what they appear to be saying is, "JT has had 10 years to fix these issues and he hasn't done it, so now we should elect this new guy, so he can fail as well."

 

To me, this boils down to a binary choice between philosophies on how to govern. On one side, you have Conservatism, which in essence means cut spending and cut taxes. This generally appeals to people who are in higher tax brackets. The downside of this, of course is that it also means the government will have to make "hard choices", which is code for cutting Social programs.

 

I find myself on the other side of that debate, even though I personally am not reliant on such programs. (For example, I support the Carbon Tax, but I don't qualify for the rebate)

 

I'm okay with my tax dollars going towards funding programs that benefit people who are less fortunate than myself. In that regard, I suppose one could say that I feel that I am my brother's keeper. Yes, it means that it costs a bit more to fill my tank with gas and it means that I have to cut down on the $50 car washes and $60 steak dinners, but IMHO, it's all part of being a contributing member of society. Besides which, somebody's tax dollars went towards helping me out, back when I was young, so this is my way of paying it forward.

 

As far as where my vote goes, I think it's fairly obvious which of the major parties hews more closely to my beliefs. That being said, I've never voted Liberal federally. My local MP is with the NDP and I feel has done a good job, so I will likely support him again.

 

I think most of us can see whats coming, barring some really big issue that shifts the landscape. Skippy will very likely get his chance to govern, with all that comes with it.

 

The only thing on the horizon that might shift it, is when Trump wins (which I still think will happen). We may not like what we see in the US when that happens and voters may not want to align more closely with US con's. Not sure this would be enough tho.

 

The election is a referendum on Trudeau. It really shouldn't be, it should be about what policies are needed moving forward, but it is what it is.

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

In researching as I was drafting that post I made over in the assassination attempt thread - it's frankly quite stark how many similarities of the two Trudeau's tenures exist.

 

October crisis - War Measures Act invoked; Krazy Klown Kar Konvoy krisis - Emergencies Act invoked

Constitution patriation, Victoria Charter (1971) ending in failure; Sidelining the Constitution through multiple jurisdictions invoking the NWC

Deficit spending, increased social programming on both tenures

National Housing Act amendments (1973); Housing Action Plan (2023) - both involve provision of financial assistance, loans/funding for co-operative and non-profit housing

RHOSP (1974); First Home Savings Account (2023)

Daddy's government brought in a capital gains tax; son's government increased it

Both have dealt with inflation as a key concern

Daddy's government got voted out after 11 years with him as leader due to "pocketbook issues"; son's government stands to lose the upcoming election after almost 10 years in power due to "pocketbook issues"

On a more personal note, Dad and son both got separated from their respective partners while in power

 

Of course, there are dissimilarities too - the most obvious one being that Sr. is credited with "engagement" on the prc file, while Jr. is best known for getting for getting publicly rebuked by the head of the ccp on the international stage.

[Coconuts]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:54 AM, Gurn said:

For the sake of equality I  propose that:

If abortion is to be outlawed, then mandatory, reversible vasectomies, must be brought into force.

 

If 'we' are going to control women's bodies it is only fair, and equal, we do the same to men.

 

I'd be all for it. If men were the ones who got pregnant instead of women I imagine the abortion debate would look very different. 

 

Folks who present as pro-life are often simply pro-birth, level the playing field and we'll see what birth rates look like when folks have to make a medical decision to try and have children. But what if men don't want a mandatory snip of their bits? What if not being given a choice doesn't seem fair or line up with what they think their rights should be? Oh, hold on, that sounds familiar. 

 

On 5/14/2024 at 10:28 AM, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Voting for the same party who hasn't helped them in any way is also not very rational and reasoned.  Hence, why young voters are turning to the Conservatives.  The rest of your post is just fear mongering.  It's not going to work this time around.  Canadians have had enough and want change...

 

Canadians wanted change under Harper too, my first vote that wasn't conservative was to punt him out, the pendulum tends to swing back and forth. That doesn't necessarily mean Pierre is the better option, that's subjective anyway, politicians simply have a shelf life. 

 

I've said it before, folks often focus too much on the figurehead of any given party and not enough on party platforms. This coming election is shaping up to be more of Canada having finally had enough of Trudeau, which isn't to say he hasn't gotten stale, it's just unfortunate because the condemnation of Trudeau doesn't necessarily equate to an endorsement of Poilievre, or even an endorsement of the Conservative party. Honestly, the Cons could probably run any given member of their party and Trudeau would likely still face the same condemnation. 

 

I wish Canada had a history of having more than two parties being in power, we'd probably be collectively better for it. I wish there were more party options for conservative voters because conservatism isn't a monolith, but as it stands all conservative voters are kinda lumped together into voting for the same party because the people's party ain't viable. Canadians like to mock the American two party system but ultimately two ruling parties are all we've ever had, the difference is sometimes they've had to cooperate with smaller partiers who often act as balancing factors. 

 

Best thing the Liberals could do is simply run a different candidate for PM, remove the outrage associated with Trudeau and the staleness/wanting change factor and things could look very different.

Edited May 16 by Coconuts

[Elias Pettersson]

19 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

I'd be all for it. If men were the ones who got pregnant instead of women I imagine the abortion debate would look very different. 

 

Folks who present as pro-life are often simply pro-birth, level the playing field and we'll see what birth rates look like when folks have to make a medical decision to try and have children. But what if men don't want a mandatory snip of their bits? What if not being given a choice doesn't seem fair or line up with what they think their rights should be? Oh, hold on, that sounds familiar. 

 

 

Canadians wanted change under Harper too, my first vote that wasn't conservative was to punt him out, the pendulum tends to swing back and forth. That doesn't necessarily mean Pierre is the better option, that's subjective anyway, politicians simply have a shelf life. 

 

I've said it before, folks often focus too much on the figurehead of any given party and not enough on party platforms. This coming election is shaping up to be more of Canada having finally had enough of Trudeau, which isn't to say he hasn't gotten stale, it's just unfortunate because the condemnation of Trudeau doesn't necessarily equate to an endorsement of Poilievre, or even an endorsement of the Conservative party. Honestly, the Cons could probably run any given member of their party and Trudeau would likely still face the same condemnation. 

 

I wish Canada had a history of having more than two parties being in power, we'd probably be collectively better for it. I wish there were more party options for conservative voters because conservatism isn't a monolith, but as it stands all conservative voters are kinda lumped together into voting for the same party because the people's party ain't viable. Canadians like to mock the American two party system but ultimately two ruling parties are all we've ever had, the difference is sometimes they've had to cooperate with smaller partiers who often act as balancing factors. 

 

Best thing the Liberals could do is simply run a different candidate for PM, remove the outrage associated with Trudeau and the staleness/wanting change factor and things could look very different.

 

This could easily be achieved if Trudeau would simply step down for the good of the party and let someone else take over.  Why isn't he capable of doing this?  What is his motivation for running for a 3rd term when he knows that people aren't going to vote for him no matter what he does?  It's almost like he is a dictator.

 

And this issue could easily be solved with term limits.  They have this in the USA.  No President can run for more than two 4-year terms, or 8 years maximum.  Trudeau is going on to his 10th year next year, so he will be 10 years in before the next election.  That shouldn't be allowed to happen.  By law, the Liberals should be running a new candidate for the next election.  That would easily solve the problem of a politician having a shelf life and losing an election because people simply want to punt him out...

[chris12345]

On 5/15/2024 at 8:29 AM, Warhippy said:

Trudeau controls housing prices too?

 

Is there anything he isn't involved in?

Budgets....sorry couldn't resist don't want to start a debate.

[bishopshodan]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

What is his motivation for running for a 3rd term when he knows that people aren't going to vote for him no matter what he does?  It's almost like he is a dictator.

 

He would be running for his 4th term.