• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Politics & News... Have at it.

I did not say that, but people seem to think anyone cares who our PM is. I know the right wing in this country is getting scared again as they are going all out to attack Trudeau. For someone as bad as you all say he is, why the need to attack him as unless you believe your fellow citizens are ridiculous, no one will vote for him anyway.
 
are you calling for detente and an end to Nazi/Harperite references?

or do you believe this is a one way street or some such nonsense?
 
Last edited:
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
Water is wet.

Everything Harper does is to try and create a wedge issue. He doesn't really care that the Liberals might have been for it in the past and against it now. All he cares about is that he can now say they are soft on terror and weak on crime. He will play on people's fears of the muslim bogey man who wants to shoot him/her while they try on shoes at Aldo or Brown's. It is like before where they said either you were with the molesters or against them.

They are playing to their base to try and shore it up.

Harper also knows that his blanket support for Israel which some say committed war crimes in Gaza will not be attacked by Trudeau because there would be the normal claims of anti-Semitism leveled at the Liberals.

Harper is no more a humanitarian than anyone because if he was, he would support a two state solution and have criticized what appeared to be an overreaction in Gaza and southern Lebanon a few years previously. This is all about making Trudeau and the Liberals out to be soft on terror and soft on crime. It is Republican Politics 101.
Click to expand...

He does:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canad...hen-harper-tells-benjamin-netanyahu-1.3004891

And Junior is soft on crime and terrorism. He's a baby, he's not ready to run a country. He's more concerned about his hair gel then the economy. Let's be real here, if liberals win, and spend and increase the size of government, the GST is going to go up. There are no money trees, and with your high salary, you know it's going to hit high income earners like yourself. I still can't understand why you're a JT fluffer, especially being a rich lawyer.
 
On the 2 state solution. It will probably be forced and will solve nothing anyway, because a 2 state solution is not in the cards for those who oppose the idea of an Israeli state.

it'll hasten war that's all.
 
I see nothing wrong with a politician changing their view on a topic provided that they don't try to pretend that their position hasn't actually changed and that they explain why they changed their mind. You can take a position and then, when more facts are revealed, decide to change your position. It's far more mature than just doubling down after your original position is repudiated. Neo-cons always double down on stupid because they pander to a base who are dumber than a sack of hammers and can be conned into voting against their own best interests. The money men who actually run the right don't care what politicians say to the masses because they already own them.
 
A man of the people

Justin Trudeau, MP
Listening to Montrealers at Metro Saint-Michel before their morning commutes. Great way to start the day!

CBHW--sUIAA3JmL.jpg
 
xposbrad said:
He does:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canad...hen-harper-tells-benjamin-netanyahu-1.3004891

And Junior is soft on crime and terrorism. He's a baby, he's not ready to run a country. He's more concerned about his hair gel then the economy. Let's be real here, if liberals win, and spend and increase the size of government, the GST is going to go up. There are no money trees, and with your high salary, you know it's going to hit high income earners like yourself. I still can't understand why you're a JT fluffer, especially being a rich lawyer.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think I pay less tax now under Harper than I did under Chretien. I pay the same. I know this much, under the Liberals, we had surpluses, under Harper, deficits, so who is the better fiscal manager?

I have no problem paying tax for the federal government. If I pay 67000 or 68000 a year in tax, who really cares, it is miniscule.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
I see nothing wrong with a politician changing their view on a topic provided that they don't try to pretend that their position hasn't actually changed and that they explain why they changed their mind. You can take a position and then, when more facts are revealed, decide to change your position. It's far more mature than just doubling down after your original position is repudiated. Neo-cons always double down on stupid because they pander to a base who are dumber than a sack of hammers and can be conned into voting against their own best interests. The money men who actually run the right don't care what politicians say to the masses because they already own them.
Click to expand...

Not sure that works as well in Canada but it does in the US where the guy making 20000 a year is convinced that cutting taxes for the 1% is good for him
 
I'm not talking about a specific issue, just the concept of allowing for one's mind to be changed based on new information. Politicians are always getting themselves into trouble because they never want to give the impression that they're ever wrong about anything. As a result they cling to beliefs that they themselves no longer believe in just to avoid being labelled a flip-flopper. A lot of Congressmen voted to go into Iraq based on the assumption that Saddam had WMD's. New information came out later which refuted this claim. Why criticize a Congressman who, after seeing this new information, decides to change his view?

But the public is culpable here too because they hold politicians to a standard that they don't hold themselves to. They can change their mind but if a politician does it he's duplicitous and untrustworthy. Personally I have no use for so-called "people of faith" who cling to the same narrative even when it becomes absurd (climate change deniers fall into this category) I'd much rather have people of doubt; people willing to concede that maybe, just maybe, they don't know everything. They don't necessarily have all the answers but they're open to educating themselves. Too many politicians, especially on the right, just "know what they know" and won't allow anything else to penetrate because they need to pursue a certain preconceived narrative.

I support politicians who are humble enough to admit from the start that they don't know everything but want to educate themselves. Harper and his bunch are far too arrogant to admit that they might not know everything. In their minds, there's nothing left for them to know so they don't bother asking themselves any questions. Neocons are the least inquisitive people out there. They've already formed their worldview and nothing as petty as facts to the contrary are going to change their minds. They have "faith" that what they believe is "right" so no questions need to be asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top