Canadian Politics

[Tracker]

One of the biggest failings of, most conservatives these days is that they still remember the Conservatives of 40 years ago, and these are not your father's right-wingers. The influx of extremists from fundamentalist "Christians" , conspiracy theorists, vaccine opposers, and the like  have created an unholy alliance. Because the conservatives were bereft of younger, enthusiastic members and saddled with an antiquated economic and political philosophy, the decision was made to welcome them in but with the tacit understanding/hope that the newcomers would fall in line. 

What happened in reality was what has happened in both Britain and the US. The newcomers initially toed the line but in short order began to implement their values as they moved into key positions within the party. Some of this appears to have been happenstance, but much of it was a deliberate, methodical taking over the host body by a parasitic organism. The restraints of the former policies have been swept aside in the lust for power and there is now little pretense of moderation. The appointment of Jim McRae to a judicial post despite his open disbelief about the horrors of the residential schools is a signal to the extremists with party ranks about who is really in control and what the agenda is.  

 

Spoiler

 

 

[blue_gold_84]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prime-minister-will-waive-cabinet-confidences-agencies-reviewing-foreign-interference-1.6855162

Quote

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has agreed to waive cabinet confidence so that two federal agencies can read the confidential documents David Johnston, the government's special rapporteur on foreign interference, reviewed as he produced his report on foreign interference.

Up to now, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) have not been allowed to review cabinet documents.

The two agencies have been tasked with reviewing what the Liberal government and national security agencies knew about allegations of foreign interference in the last two Canadian elections, and when they knew it.

Although calls for a public inquiry have been coming from all sides, Johnston said such an inquiry would be ineffective because of the sensitive and classified nature of the information he reviewed.

 

Instead, Johnston recommended that NSICOP — made up of MPs of all political stripes with special security clearances — should review his report.

He also said NSCIOP should work with the NSIRA — the watchdog set up to monitor the activities of Canada's national security and intelligence agencies — to "comprehensively" assess his report's findings and "identify any different conclusions than mine." 

Johnston said his confidential annex includes "additional details for those with relevant clearances," including records covered by cabinet confidence.

"NSIRA and NSICOP would benefit from reviewing them to ensure these review bodies have access to the same information I gathered and reviewed," Johnston wrote in his report.

[Tracker]

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prime-minister-will-waive-cabinet-confidences-agencies-reviewing-foreign-interference-1.6855162

Which will not mollify PP at all. 

[JCon]

Just now, Tracker said:

Which will not mollify PP at all. 

He refuses to get clearance. 

[Mark F]

21 minutes ago, JCon said:

He refuses to get clearance. 

really?

astonishing.

overdriven wacky conspiracy driven pretzel logic fully engaged for that one.
 

the idea of having intelligence service information discussed publicly, is that what he wants?

G-d   save us if he gets to play Prime minister.

this buffoonery started with newt gingrich. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

Edited May 26, 2023 by Mark F

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

I know in the 70s and 80s they all believed that was the case,  it's why we saw conservative governments the world over go all in on supply side economics.... but here is the thing, we're 40ish years out from these policies, we can see what they have done and SURPRISE! No-one credible believes it works they way they say anymore. It sounds goodnso people believe it, the reality is that the tax savings don't get passed down in any way. They get vacuumed up to the top and stay there.

That may be the case, but that was not the argument. The tax cut did not automatically create a deficit, the mismanagement and misdirection of the cut could do so. It's not the same thing. The problem is that many use tax cuts and other similar economic principles failure to give credence  to the thoroughly debunked Keynesian economics which is time proven to be far more harmful an economic approach. The problem is that it wasn't the tax cut, it was the failure to manage it properly that is the problem. The deficit isn't created by the tax cut, it is created by the mismanagement and poor planning of the tax cut. A tax cut in an of itself does not create deficit. However, Keynesian economics would have you believe they do and that has been debunked thoroughly by almost all of academia. In fact, they now teach Keynesian economics as a cautionary tale. 

Perhaps, I am getting caught up in the pure economics of each principle vs. the practice, as Friedman's economics can certainly fail if not implemented correctly even though it is far more economically sound. However, I am responding to the general statement that "tax cuts are deficit spending". It simply isn't true, although it can become true if other factors are in place. I will say I am probably being anal about it because my prof at Queens economics would have failed me if I made a blanket statement like that....lol. He was no fan of Keynes.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[GCn20]

38 minutes ago, Tracker said:

One of the biggest failings of, most conservatives these days is that they still remember the Conservatives of 40 years ago, and these are not your father's right-wingers. The influx of extremists from fundamentalist "Christians" , conspiracy theorists, vaccine opposers, and the like  have created an unholy alliance. Because the conservatives were bereft of younger, enthusiastic members and saddled with an antiquated economic and political philosophy, the decision was made to welcome them in but with the tacit understanding/hope that the newcomers would fall in line. 

What happened in reality was what has happened in both Britain and the US. The newcomers initially toed the line but in short order began to implement their values as they moved into key positions within the party. Some of this appears to have been happenstance, but much of it was a deliberate, methodical taking over the host body by a parasitic organism. The restraints of the former policies have been swept aside in the lust for power and there is now little pretense of moderation. The appointment of Jim McRae to a judicial post despite his open disbelief about the horrors of the residential schools is a signal to the extremists with party ranks about who is really in control and what the agenda is.  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I do agree that on both sides of the political spectrum we are seeing a real move to the extreme....and it's sad.

[17to85]

Oh I see it's just poor execution not flawed ideology.gotcha.

 

Good grief.

[Fatty Liver]

48 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I do agree that on both sides of the political spectrum we are seeing a real move to the extreme....and it's sad.

I think you're misinterpreting the centre for the left from your perspective, the people you're mainly choosing to argue with are for the most part former Progressive Conservative voters.

[Noeller]

in no way, shape or form are Fed Grit supporters "moving to the extreme", unless there's such a thing as Extreme Middle.... even the NDP aren't "Extreme"...... maybe the Greens are? But the CPC has absolutely been hijacked by extreme Right, religious extremists, anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists and the like...

[GCn20]

20 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

I think you're misinterpreting the centre for the left from your perspective, the people you're mainly choosing to argue with are for the most part former Progressive Conservative voters.

I argue with a lot of people about a lot of things on this thread. However, I was not really speaking about the people here in that statement. Just generally what i am seeing overall in Canada and the US, in particular. I find most people here pretty moderate on most issues. I have seen no extremism that I can really recall, just difference in ideologies. Without all the emotion tied into some of the posts, I don't think anyone is all that far apart here.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[GCn20]

14 minutes ago, Noeller said:

in no way, shape or form are Fed Grit supporters "moving to the extreme", unless there's such a thing as Extreme Middle.... even the NDP aren't "Extreme"...... maybe the Greens are? But the CPC has absolutely been hijacked by extreme Right, religious extremists, anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists and the like...

There are definitely NDP and grit supporters that would qualify as extreme. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. Each of the federal parties cast wide nets for support and in kind have some supporters from the extremes. I do not deny for one minute that CPC has attracted it's share of wingnuts. I don't believe for one second that the party has been completely hijacked by them though. That's just the posturing of the left to paint all on the right as extreme. I do not find it extreme for a person to be a Christian and follow Christian beliefs, it's not my cup of tea but it's not extreme. I do not find it extreme to want small government and the resumption of the oil industry. Just as I don't paint all Liberals as ANTIFA supporting wingnuts, or socialists. It would be comically inappropriate to suggest that. I think a big part of the problem is that the left and right extremes dominate the news cycle now while the average supporter is just too boring to talk about. If you were to ask people on the left they would say that the right has been hijacked by the extremes, well newsflash....the right feels the same way about the left. Neither is correct, though both sides will suggest they are and the media seems to have some perverse attraction to keeping this charade alive.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[Noeller]

5 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

There are definitely NDP and grit supporters that would qualify as extreme. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. Each of the federal parties cast wide nets for support and in kind have some supporters from the extremes. I do not deny for one minute that CPC has attracted it's share of wingnuts. I don't believe for one second that the party has been completely hijacked by them though. That's just the posturing of the left to paint all on the right as extreme. I do not find it extreme for a person to be a Christian and follow Christian beliefs, it's not my cup of tea but it's not extreme. I do not find it extreme to want small government and the resumption of the oil industry. Just as I don't paint all Liberals as ANTIFA supporting wingnuts, or socialists. It would be comically inappropriate to suggest that. I think a big part of the problem is that the left and right extremes dominate the news cycle now while the average supporter is just too boring to talk about. If you were to ask people on the left they would say that the right has been hijacked by the extremes, well newsflash....the right feels the same way about the left. Neither is correct, though both sides will suggest they are.

most of this is nonsense, but I wanted to highlight this bit...... THEY CHOSE THE CHIEF WINGNUT TO BE THEIR LEADER!!  How is that not complete hijacking?? I mean, the only way it could possibly be worse is if they had Mad Max.......and even then, I think they're about equal. 

[GCn20]

5 minutes ago, Noeller said:

most of this is nonsense, but I wanted to highlight this bit...... THEY CHOSE THE CHIEF WINGNUT TO BE THEIR LEADER!!  How is that not complete hijacking?? I mean, the only way it could possibly be worse is if they had Mad Max.......and even then, I think they're about equal. 

By that reasoning the right could easily say the biggest left wingnut took over the Liberal party. However, I do agree that Poilievre really needs to come to centre if he wants to win over the country. Just as Trudeau needs to tone down the rhetoric and virtue signalling if he wants to retain power. Before you say that Poilievre is a bigger wingnut than Trudeau, I would recommend looking at the polls. Poilievre is leading in support for who would make the best PM. That ought to be a huge wake up call for Trudeau to pull his head out of his butt don't you think?

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[Bigblue204]

15 hours ago, bigg jay said:

My point was that you seem to have an absurd amount of anger/hate for many things and that is not limited to politics, or having a different point of view.  I could have posted the same thing in a football thread and it would be just as valid.

 

I'm 100% positive someone HAS posted something like that on the football side.

[Sard]

12 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

There are definitely NDP and grit supporters that would qualify as extreme. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. Each of the federal parties cast wide nets for support and in kind have some supporters from the extremes. I do not deny for one minute that CPC has attracted it's share of wingnuts. I don't believe for one second that the party has been completely hijacked by them though. That's just the posturing of the left to paint all on the right as extreme. I do not find it extreme for a person to be a Christian and follow Christian beliefs, it's not my cup of tea but it's not extreme. I do not find it extreme to want small government and the resumption of the oil industry. Just as I don't paint all Liberals as ANTIFA supporting wingnuts, or socialists. It would be comically inappropriate to suggest that. I think a big part of the problem is that the left and right extremes dominate the news cycle now while the average supporter is just too boring to talk about. If you were to ask people on the left they would say that the right has been hijacked by the extremes, well newsflash....the right feels the same way about the left. Neither is correct, though both sides will suggest they are and the media seems to have some perverse attraction to keeping this charade alive.

Please explain the extreme left because I truly don't understand.

ANTIFA stands for Anti-Fascist, so if you are saying that is extreme and a bad thing, then I will just point to this pinned post on Troy Westwood's twitter:
https://twitter.com/TroyWestwood/status/1300962913092591616?cxt=HHwWgIC7zY24-Y0kAAAA

The post refers to racism, but same goes for fascism.

 

[GCn20]

6 minutes ago, Sard said:

Please explain the extreme left because I truly don't understand.

ANTIFA stands for Anti-Fascist, so if you are saying that is extreme and a bad thing, then I will just point to this pinned post on Troy Westwood's twitter:
https://twitter.com/TroyWestwood/status/1300962913092591616?cxt=HHwWgIC7zY24-Y0kAAAA

The post refers to racism, but same goes for fascism.

 

Dude...I'm not even going to bother reading any drivel written by Westwood. As for ANTIFA being extreme...they most certainly are. I'm not even going to debate that. If you don't feel the same way fill your boots. We will agree to disagree. I have no problem with anyone being anti-fascist or anti-racism, what I will never support is condoning violence and crime in order to further these causes. That is extreme.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[Bigblue204]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

That may be the case, but that was not the argument. The tax cut did not automatically create a deficit, the mismanagement and misdirection of the cut could do so. It's not the same thing. The problem is that many use tax cuts and other similar economic principles failure to give credence  to the thoroughly debunked Keynesian economics which is time proven to be far more harmful an economic approach. The problem is that it wasn't the tax cut, it was the failure to manage it properly that is the problem. The deficit isn't created by the tax cut, it is created by the mismanagement and poor planning of the tax cut. A tax cut in an of itself does not create deficit. However, Keynesian economics would have you believe they do and that has been debunked thoroughly by almost all of academia. In fact, they now teach Keynesian economics as a cautionary tale. 

Perhaps, I am getting caught up in the pure economics of each principle vs. the practice, as Friedman's economics can certainly fail if not implemented correctly even though it is far more economically sound. However, I am responding to the general statement that "tax cuts are deficit spending". It simply isn't true, although it can become true if other factors are in place. I will say I am probably being anal about it because my prof at Queens economics would have failed me if I made a blanket statement like that....lol. He was no fan of Keynes.

I 100% agree with this. However. Expect any government to implement it properly is a fools game. At this point in time, you'd have to be a complete idiot to assume a government will somehow be able to fix all the corrupt bs that makes it fail. 

To clarify I'm not saying you're an idiot...I'm saying we can't rely on a system that assumes people in power won't use that power to manipulate said system. Manipulation will 100% happen, regardless of who is in charge. Our systems whether taxing or otherwise need to be manipulation proof and not "Trust the people in charge will do the right thing" because time has proven they will not.

[GCn20]

3 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I 100% agree with this. However. Expect any government to implement it properly is a fools game. At this point in time, you'd have to be a complete idiot to assume a government will somehow be able to fix all the corrupt bs that makes it fail. 

To clarify I'm not saying you're an idiot...I'm saying we can't rely on a system that assumes people in power won't use that power to manipulate said system. Manipulation will 100% happen, regardless of who is in charge. Our systems whether taxing or otherwise need to be manipulation proof and not "Trust the people in charge will do the right thing" because time has proven they will not.

I am in total agreement with you on your above post. Government is a cesspool and it is very hard to have an ounce of trust in anyone. Just as tax cuts are unlikely to be managed correctly, I believe the same for deficit spending to increase social programs. Neither are very sound strategies when the dollars are manipulated by crooks. For this reason, in the past 3 elections I have not voted for any party. I have registered a protest vote.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[Sard]

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Dude...I'm not even going to bother reading any drivel written by Westwood. As for ANTIFA being extreme...they most certainly are. I'm not even going to debate that. If you don't feel the same way fill your boots. We will agree to disagree.

So you're not going to answer the direct question that I asked... please explain the extreme left?

Ok, you don't like Westwood... fine, then read the post that was actually retweeted:

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1300872645404225537

Because Twitter won't embed properly it says:

Not all Trump supporters are racist but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal breaker.

 

Explain to me how being anti-fascist is a bad thing?

[GCn20]

3 minutes ago, Sard said:

So you're not going to answer the direct question that I asked... please explain the extreme left?

Ok, you don't like Westwood... fine, then read the post that was actually retweeted:

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1300872645404225537

Because Twitter won't embed properly it says:

Not all Trump supporters are racist but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal breaker.

 

Explain to me how being anti-fascist is a bad thing?

Anti-fascism in and of itself is not a bad thing. Using violence and destruction to promote your beliefs is. I come from a race that has historically been subject to racism, I would call out my own people if they chose violence as a path forward. Thanks for the link, I did not realize it was simply a retweet and I do agree with the premise but would not agree that it is a justification for violence if it came to that.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[Sard]

7 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Anti-fascism in and of itself is not a bad thing. Using violence and destruction to promote your beliefs is. 

For the third time, what is the extreme-left?

 

I believe that the actions of some anti-fascism groups start to fall under what someone else referred to as the paradox of tolerance.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Sard
added comment

[Bigblue204]

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I am in total agreement with you on your above post. Government is a cesspool and it is very hard to have an ounce of trust in anyone. Just as tax cuts are unlikely to be managed correctly, I believe the same for deficit spending to increase social programs. Neither are very sound strategies when the dollars are manipulated by crooks.

True, but in those two cases, 1 of the situations results in some of the money actually getting to people who need help. I've worked in non profits and there's loads of wasted money, bad actors...etc etc. But at the end of the day, some (never enough) of the funds STILL reach the people they were intended to reach.
Tax cuts to wealth do nothing for society except prop up old boys clubs that have been and will continue to be a virus on this planet like they has been for centuries.

Actually something I REALLY  want to see from any "liberal/left" government is a BIG push on patriotism via taxes. I want to say it blows my mind they haven't thought of this already, but it doesn't. I know why they won't ever do it, but some people get pissy when you call the left crooks so I won't. But all this "MAGA/TAKE BACK ALBERTA/CANADA STRONG...BS, should be used against those tools. They all talk about back in the day and how things used to be...but they NEVER mention the tax rates and what they were. Close the loopholes. "BE PATRIOTIC!! SHOW US HOW MUCH YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY BY SHARING YOUR TAXES. YOU'LL BE A HERO! NATIONAL TREASURE...ETC ETC ETC.." Jerk those egos off!!

PP/Trudeau won't ever do that though, because those pensions/corporate gigs after office, are a little too nice.

9 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Anti-fascism in and of itself is not a bad thing. Using violence and destruction to promote your beliefs is. I come from a race that has historically been subject to racism, I would call out my own people if they chose violence as a path forward. Thanks for the link, I did not realize it was simply a retweet and I do agree with the premise but would not agree that it is a justification for violence if it came to that.

Not always. The only good Nazi is a dead one. 

[GCn20]

33 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

True, but in those two cases, 1 of the situations results in some of the money actually getting to people who need help. I've worked in non profits and there's loads of wasted money, bad actors...etc etc. But at the end of the day, some (never enough) of the funds STILL reach the people they were intended to reach.
Tax cuts to wealth do nothing for society except prop up old boys clubs that have been and will continue to be a virus on this planet like they has been for centuries.

Actually something I REALLY  want to see from any "liberal/left" government is a BIG push on patriotism via taxes. I want to say it blows my mind they haven't thought of this already, but it doesn't. I know why they won't ever do it, but some people get pissy when you call the left crooks so I won't. But all this "MAGA/TAKE BACK ALBERTA/CANADA STRONG...BS, should be used against those tools. They all talk about back in the day and how things used to be...but they NEVER mention the tax rates and what they were. Close the loopholes. "BE PATRIOTIC!! SHOW US HOW MUCH YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY BY SHARING YOUR TAXES. YOU'LL BE A HERO! NATIONAL TREASURE...ETC ETC ETC.." Jerk those egos off!!

PP/Trudeau won't ever do that though, because those pensions/corporate gigs after office, are a little too nice.

Not always. The only good Nazi is a dead one. 

Who said anything about tax cuts for the rich? That again is the misconception. Tax cuts do not have to even include the rich. Would a reduction in taxes to middle and lower income families not do a lot of good? Again, I stress that a tax cut need not be deficit spending nor does it even have to include the upper echelons of the income levels. Saying that tax cuts only benefit the rich is patently false. That is only true if the cuts themselves are actually designed to favor them. Just as social programming does not necessarily make spending acceptable. It is only acceptable if the spending and programs are not wasteful and provide the appropriate value for their cost.

...and yes Nazis might be the exception to the rule...and child molesters.

Edited May 26, 2023 by GCn20

[Fatty Liver]

5 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Problem for government is that you can't ever cut enough programming to offset tax cuts so yes tax cuts are deficit spending. There is a cost associated with cutting taxes.

There's a conservative mentality called starve the beast. You cut taxes first to make programs unsustainable and then they die because you don't have the tax revenue to keep them going. It's bullshit. 

Conservatives need to stop pretending that cutting taxes is any different than spending on social programs. Same result. Higher deficit and higher debt. Trickle down economics doesn't work and that fact has been proven time and time and time again. You can not find one source citing it's effectiveness.

Dani explains this process very clearly, she frequently makes these statements in front of live microphones and yet people still don't seem to comprehend what she's directly saying.

(Sorry can not embed video directly, maybe because it is from May 10?  I dunno.)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1656335790622883841

The keynote of this video is an appointed auditor, "The Alberta Quality Council" will determine whether existing organizations "can meet the terms we want them to." 

So....Preston Manning or maybe Jason Kenney plus 4 other political appointees will decide that the health care system has failed, they will then deal out the public assets to the parasitic vultures who put them in the position to make this happen in the first place.  Got it.