Canadian Politics

[17to85]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Everyone needs to read the facts instead of folklore

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

 

What facts are those? That until Chretien and Martin everyone on that list ran deficits including the conservative governments? That Harper had deficits until the very end of his time?

All that does is prove my point that everyone is going to run a bloody deficit because everyone likes to spend money if it belongs to someone else. 

[Mark H.]

4 hours ago, pigseye said:

liar liar pants on fire

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

 

I think just got a playground rebuttal...

Let's look at the most recent Conservative regime, using the link you provided:

Surplus years: + 25.3 Billion

Deficit years: - 144.7 Billion

Net (deficit): - 119.4 Billion 
 

The end result: if you're casting your vote based on how a government manages finances, hold you nose and pick your poison.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

[Mark H.]

What’s a ‘string women?’

[kelownabomberfan]

 

[kelownabomberfan]

Andrew Coyne: Bad policy versus no policy — the real difference between Conservatives and Liberals

• BY ANDREW COYNE
• https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/andrew-coyne-bad-policy-versus-no-policy-the-real-difference-between-the-conservatives-and-liberals/

[Wideleft]

10 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Andrew Coyne: Bad policy versus no policy — the real difference between Conservatives and Liberals

• BY ANDREW COYNE
• https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/andrew-coyne-bad-policy-versus-no-policy-the-real-difference-between-the-conservatives-and-liberals/

That's a great article.

[kelownabomberfan]

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

That's a great article.

Tough but fair to both parties.

[pigseye]

On 2019-09-25 at 1:39 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

My Apologies- I didn't think we needed to hear about how hrper inherited a surplus from the Liberals, frittering it away and then post  6 consecutive deficits and then posting a questionable surplus aided by a fire sale of the governments assets to give the optics of sound fiscal stewardship in an election year.  

You got all that from the link? Except you forgot the part about the World Financial Crisis, you do remember that don't you? 

[pigseye]

On 2019-09-25 at 1:45 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

I don't think washing your bedding after shitting the bed counts... does it? Inherit  15+ bil surplus.... post a 5 bil surplus (down 10bil) run 6 consecutive deficits only to post a meager 1,9 bil surplus (made with very questionable means) in an election year... 

Once again, you conveniently leave out the Financial Crisis and Recession, must be nice posting revisionist history based on only what matters to your point.  

[pigseye]

On 2019-09-25 at 2:43 PM, 17to85 said:

What facts are those? That until Chretien and Martin everyone on that list ran deficits including the conservative governments? That Harper had deficits until the very end of his time?

All that does is prove my point that everyone is going to run a bloody deficit because everyone likes to spend money if it belongs to someone else. 

Ditto, Financial crisis and recession, something Martin didn't have to deal with. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Just now, pigseye said:

Once again, you conveniently leave out the Financial Crisis and Recession, must be nice posting revisionist history based on only what matters to your point.  

WHy does that matter- the way that was handled was a disaster too... the cons caved to Liberal and NDP pressure to issue a stimulus package.. there was no need to do that at all- they should have stuck to their guns and just rode ti out. And the auto sector bail out? disaster too.. 

[pigseye]

On 2019-09-25 at 5:36 PM, Mark H. said:

I think just got a playground rebuttal...

Let's look at the most recent Conservative regime, using the link you provided:

Surplus years: + 25.3 Billion

Deficit years: - 144.7 Billion

Net (deficit): - 119.4 Billion 
 

The end result: if you're casting your vote based on how a government manages finances, hold you nose and pick your poison.

Ditto, financial crisis and recession, otherwise things would have been in the black or at least balanced. 

There is no reason for JT to be running $10B deficits, except to try to buy votes, staying in power is all that matters to him, not being a fiscally responsible leader. If you enjoy passing the debt off onto your children so be it. 

[pigseye]

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

WHy does that matter- the way that was handled was a disaster too... the cons caved to Liberal and NDP pressure to issue a stimulus package.. there was no need to do that at all- they should have stuck to their guns and just rode ti out. And the auto sector bail out? disaster too.. 

You have to do stimulus payments in a recession, which is the only time they should do them. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You have to do stimulus payments in a recession, which is the only time they should do them. 

Yes, I agree with you that recessions are the only time you ever need to use stimulus packages- But they didn't need to- Canada wasn't hit that badly- Ottawa and the Canadian banks were ready for the recession. There was no reason, aside of politics, for the stimulus package. it was a poor choice.

Edited September 27, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[do or die]

Political party phoned me up.....wanted the usual "can we count on your support"  I gave the ole "undecided" reply.  Person then wanted to know who my partner ( she wasn't in) would be voting for. 

None of their business....

[Mark H.]

43 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Ditto, financial crisis and recession, otherwise things would have been in the black or at least balanced. 

There is no reason for JT to be running $10B deficits, except to try to buy votes, staying in power is all that matters to him, not being a fiscally responsible leader. If you enjoy passing the debt off onto your children so be it. 

I don't enjoy passing on debt at all.  But other than Chretien / Martin, can you name a federal government that actually had a balanced budget?

I mean, not every government was in power during a financial crisis - you should be able find one somewhere that was in the black for their tenure, should you not?  Just saying 'it would have been balanced' is not giving evidence. 

[do or die]

Just now, Mark H. said:

I don't enjoy passing on debt at all.  But other than Chretien / Martin, can you name a federal government that actually had a balanced budget?

I mean, not every government was in power during a financial crisis - you should be able find one somewhere that was in the black for their tenure, should you not?  Just saying 'it would have been balanced' is not giving evidence. 

Martin "balanced" the budget by offloading onto the provinces and also busting the UI fund.  

[kelownabomberfan]

Quote

 

A week into the Justin Trudeau blackface drama, there has been praise for the comments and conduct of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh — beginning with praise from Conservative party Leader Andrew Scheer.

Singh deserves much credit for refusing to be used “as a tool in (Trudeau’s) exoneration,” as he put it. Trudeau had asked for a meeting with Singh in order to personally apologize, but Singh saw it for what it was, a desire to set a scene in which Trudeau the apparently-mortified and latterly-enlightened would take centre stage, and Singh would be there as a prop. Singh refused that scenario, and took a private call from Trudeau instead, with the press alerted only afterwards.

Of course, if Trudeau had just wanted to apologize he could have simply called Singh without announcing to the country that he desired a public meeting in which to offer his ostentatious contrition. He could have said sorry and let Singh decide how to handle it publicly. But Trudeau did not want something done backstage; he wanted the spotlight.

My colleague Joseph Brean looked at the “high school drama teacher” angle of Trudeau’s explanations for his pattern of blackface appearances — too numerous to remember, apparently — in these pages last Saturday. Yet there is another angle to that, not so much that the prime minister likes to be melodramatic in the lead role, but that he regards everyone else as props.

That’s what he wanted to do to Jagmeet Singh. Trudeau has been doing that a long time.

Look again at the photo from the gala at West Point Grey Academy. There is Trudeau, clearly the belle of the ball, blackened hand firmly planted in Joe-Bidenesque style on the bare chest of the young woman in front of him. Not only bizarre and racist, but creepy, too. And the women in the photo appear not as Trudeau’s friends enjoying the gala, but as props in the photo. Later, he finds two turbaned Sikhs for another such photo.

It is, in light of the blackface costume in 2001, remarkable that Trudeau did not actually wear a turban on his Indian visit. But we saw the same instinct. The vast country of India was reduced to an elaborate set for Trudeau’s costumes, and the people he met were just props on stage. The fact that there was a paucity of actual government meetings was the logical consequence; actors do not speak to the props.

Trudeau’s response to his blackface history was to employ others as props in aid of recovery. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan proved a willing prop; Singh did not. But the most audacious attempt was to enlist the whole country as props in the Trudeau blackface drama.

That’s what Trudeau was doing when he suggested that this was an occasion for all of us to learn about racism. It was a reprise of the Kokanee grope response, and perhaps was suggested by his advisers as they beheld the creepy dimension of the blackface photo.

Wearing blackface is not a society-wide problem. Has anyone in your widest circle of acquaintances ever seen anyone in even modest blackface, let alone the full-body treatment that Trudeau customarily employed? Of course not. But instead of the country serving as an audience to judge the quality of his performance, Trudeau would prefer to have all of us be props in his drama. It is more convenient that way, for the props do not write the script. Singh refused to be used a prop. That’s an act the country should follow.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elections/raymond-de-souza-yes-the-worlds-a-stage-for-trudeau-and-people-are-just-his-props/ar-AAHW8C8?ocid=spartandhp

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

12 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elections/raymond-de-souza-yes-the-worlds-a-stage-for-trudeau-and-people-are-just-his-props/ar-AAHW8C8?ocid=spartandhp

 

Jagmeet Singh's awesome- handles things with aplomb befitting a seasoned statesman. 

scheer should really stop bringing up Justin's black face debacle- he's proving what a hypocrite he is. scheerer is ok with racists, homophobes and anti-Semities- as long as they are not Liberals. 

Edited September 28, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

. 

scheer should really stop bringing up Justin's black face debacle- he's proving what a hypocrite he is. 

I don't recall Scheer ever being in black face and so he's no hypocrite in this situation.  The only true hypocrite is Trudeau the virtue-signalling clown.  And rightly so.

I don't see Scheer really bringing up this issue much, it's more Canadians seeing the empty-suit we have for a PM and judging him the vacuous tool that he is.

I see Jagmeet's true value in siphoning off votes from the Leftist pie from the Liberals.  That's gold Gerry gold.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

31 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I don't recall Scheer ever being in black face and so he's no hypocrite in this situation.  The only true hypocrite is Trudeau the virtue-signalling clown.  And rightly so.

His criticism of Trudeau is totally warranted- He didn't have to don blackface and call Trudeau out to be a hypocrite. but if he is going to stand by and excuse all those candidates in his party that are racists, homophobes and anti-Semities and give them the benefit of the doubt then he should apply the same to Trudeau. Or if he's shitting on Trudeau, criticizing him and calling him out- then he should hold his party to the same standard- so, he's a hypocrite. 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

. but if he is going to stand by and excuse all those candidates in his party that are racists, homophobes and anti-Semities and give them the benefit of the doubt then he should apply the same to Trudeau. 

 

There are no racists or homophobes or anti-semite candidates so there is no excusing necessary, and it is horribly disingenuous  and downright silly to even suggest this.  I also don't think Trudeau is a racist. I don't think Scheer thinks Trudeau is a racist. A lying privileged idiot but not a racist.  

The hypocrisy is Trudeau not holding himself to the same standards as everyone else. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.  Shame on Trudeau indeed.

Edited September 28, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Just now, kelownabomberfan said:

There are no racists or homophobes or anti-semites so there is no excusing necessary, and it is horribly disingenuous  and downright sill to even suggest this. 

There are numerous examples of tory canditates and members resigning or getting suspended for a litany of a racism, homophobic and have shared or liked racist facebook posts. These are facts. So it is not " horribly disingenuous  and downright sill to even suggest this. ".  Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can make up your own facts, pearl-clutch and shout people down as being silly and disingenuous. 

[kelownabomberfan]

10 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

There are numerous examples of tory canditates and members resigning or getting suspended for a litany of a racism, homophobic and have shared or liked racist facebook posts. These are facts. So it is not " horribly disingenuous  and downright sill to even suggest this. ".  Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can make up your own facts, pearl-clutch and shout people down as being silly and disingenuous. 

I am not "pearl-clutching" and it's silly to even suggest this. This is a bigger issue and you've highlighted it perfectly.  Labeling people as homophobic etc for one stupid act is as dumb as labeling Trudeau a racist for his many blackface transgressions.

That people of one party are just given these broad brush strokes and are forever labeled "racists" for some stupid social media post years ago while a Brown-faced boob, who just happens to be Liberal, is given a pass, is just silly. It's time to stop all of this PC nonsense and start affording everyone the same courtesy of forgiveness if they express regret. No matter what party.