Benz

You give too much credit to Trudeau. The evil picture stick to the conservatives was already in place. He just presented himself with the pretention of the best alternative. He almost failed the first time. He needs to thank Mulcair for his failure. Mulcair took few stands that are not common for an NDPer and again, Mulcair is not stupid and Trudeau is, so a subtle amount of people usually supporting the NDP did the switch because of that. You say the CPC leaders are stupid because you do not like their decisions and positions, and you think it is leading them to lose elections. But the point I am trying to make is, the CPC has been rather stubborn than stupid. They were not stupid, their decisions were. So you can still call them stupids for that, but it is not the same level as the one I am trying to expose and measure with guys like Chrétien/Trudeau. When Trudeau talks, the common reaction is rather "wtf is this guy" than anything else. So Trudeau can take a very bad decision and the reaction to that would not be as bad as it should, like it would with anyone else. Like if people could not believe he would really do it, or if he would, he would just fail as he used to do, so they do not worry as much. So they think. How many people fall into the trap? I say alot and this is what makes the difference.

I have been wondering why guys like Chrétien and Trudeau could have such success in elections, while they are the most stupid politiciens ever. The stupidity of Trudeau is off the chart, yet he managed to win again and could probably win the next one. Your take is that, people are stupid... it's defendable point. But I have been thinking more than once and eventually, my observations lead me to a different angle. I think that, an explanation could be that the people elected them because they see them as a smaller treat than smarter people having opposite values or political positions. Think about it. You have the chance to choose which one will rob you between 2 persons. One is smart and machiavellian, the other one is just plain stupid. What is your take? Even if at the end, there is a possibility that the smart one would only take valuable things and the stupid one would burn down your house, people still prefer to take a chance on the stupid one. Many people believe the stupid one will do less damages. I think it explains why so many people end up voting for them, even if they do not agree with their policies. The first time Martin faced Harper, the people did not consider any of them as stupid and they did go for the "Devil you know". But on the second matchup, Harper proved its points and Martin did otherwise. Martin did not benefit from the "it's ok, he is just stupid" wildcard. Same with Dion and Ignatieff. People did not like them, they did not consider them as a good option. They prefer Harper but, Dion and Ignatieff were not stupid. They were just bad. But once Harper faced Trudeau, a young stupid clumsy brainless, the people did not fear him and then he fetched all those who fear the conservatives/rightwings/Harper legacy. It was not a fight between Harper and his main opponent (Trudeau), it was rather a fight between Harper and the people who fear Harper. Trudeau did not invoke that fear in most of the voters. Even if Trudeau had proven his stupidity above all expectations, even more than its demonization, the last election was having the same dynamic of the previous one. Trudeau only got the minority and it is important to precise that he only got 33% of the vote, which is less than Scheer, yet he won. Many explanations to that. The electoral system, the division of the vote, etc... but to some extent, Trudeau did again fetch with him enough people who are not afraid of its stupidity and see that as less dangerous than any other opponents. So yeah, we can say that people are stupid... but I think it is useful to understand why and how. IMO, that is one possible explanation.

It's just a perception. If your political views are more aligned with another country's ones, than the current government of your own country, it might looks like you tend to belong to that other country, but you are not. Your political opinions are not enough to determine where you belong and your national identity. It's like if you are a Leafs fan living and born in Calgary. As much as you cheer for that team, you still belong to the city of Calgary. No matter how much you share the shame of losers who can't find the path to the cup for the last 53 years.

It made me realize that I was a democrat just because I hated conservatives. Which is a very bad reason to be democrat. I cannot identify myself to that party anymore and I do not think I will ever be able to someday. For me, US politic is just doomed. It's not a surprise for me if Trump became the president and I wouldn't be surprise that he is renewed despite all the stupidities he has done and said. Because at some point, it's a wonder if we are not better off with a stupid man not smart enough to be credible while he is lying rather than professional liars that will steel your money for the benefit of their fund bailers. The conservatives and the democrats are two opposite sides of the same mouth. If I was American, I wonder if I would even bother to vote. Between that or only one political party like in China, I would feel my voice is worth nothing in both cases.

The US's government bailed out the criminals that plunged the world into a financial crisis and the people having the greatest ratio of guns per capita never could do anything against it despite they were the biggest victims of it. Tons of people lose everything and were sent on the street back to square one after a lifetime of saving while those who created the problems received a lot of cash from Obama. So, no. I'm not buying it. It does not make a difference. The US government is lead by corporations, organizations, lobbyists, establishments, guns industries and the election are ran with super pacs raping democracy in a gang bang. Americans do not need guns. They need intelligence, knowledge and true facts. I wonder if they remember how it looks like.

Why O'Leary is not trying to improve his french? Or try to learn french for a start? I do not know him actually. Just heard his name a while ago. I'm sure O'Leary does not target to win Quebec anyway. But if he can consolidate the traditional conservatives seats in Quebec by handling a basic french, it would be worth it for him. I doubt very much that MacKay's french is out of reach. Someone that really take this seriously can make it. Harper could barely speak french in his beginning of politics and he said it several times that he never regretted learning it.

I am in favor of gun control and yet, I can only agree with argos and ProudConservative on this one. Whatever the liberals do with this subject, it's just wrong or inefficient. They clearly use this topic to keep a grasp on anti-gun voters rather than have a firm simple and efficient program to control (not ban) guns. No way you will see me defend them on the front line. "It's a trap" -Ackbar.

It depends. Not regarding water.

Self determination is always a good idea. What you do with it is another story. I'll borrow Genesys' words for this post. Trudeau is selling Canada by the pound. You are using a wrong example. Trudeau lays a silver plate of total forgiveness to terrorists while he is pooping in the war veterans' plates. It might be a very bad use of the self determination but, it's not making the self determination illegitimated. La nuance est importante.

If you were feeling the urge to conquer a land, would you conquer and handle people loving Trudeau? I wouldn't touch such land not even with a 20 feet pole.

Could this have been planned? Yes. Do we have evidence of that? No, not at all. Can we conclude if this was planned or not? No. Can we investigate? yes. Are we going to do so? No. We want that one individual somewhere will be more courageous than all of us combined to reveal information that will make him/her enemy of the state for the benefit of mankind. Like Snowden.

What a polite man. We can easily guess that in his mind, it rather sounds like "we're not here to talk about how much you s*ck".

I know his real name is John James Charest and he is a child of both worlds. It is impossible to say what languages is better at, just like Mulroney. Both perfect bilinguals. Unlike Justin Trudeau, his french is so poor and hesitant, he sounds like he needs a french immersion. Or maybe it is just his personality.

Harper has proven that it is possible to win without substantial supports from Quebec. Indeed. Not easy thought. Still, it is a faisable strategy. Now that Trudeau is destroying the little credibility left in the eyes of those unicorn-rainbow dreamers, it might be more possible than ever. Not exactly. He said, the Québécois are a nation. He did not recognized Québec as a nation-state or distinct society in the form used by Meech. He was very clear that for him, it means nothing and changes nothing. At least, he destroyed the Quebec Liberal's distinct society confusion bu****it card. The sovereignists are thankful for that. I also think it helped him a little bit in Quebec because he won more seats than we would have expected from a very conservative party. Is it possible to formulate a party where the western conservatives and the Quebec progressives can both find satisfaction? I do not think so. The former Progrssive-Conservative party was transvestite into a second liberal-like and it was against nature. The biggest mistake of Harper was to turn his back on the promise of decentralisation and reform the senate. It did not looked like a bad move to drop that at the moment but, in the long run, it brings us all to square one once the liberals get back the power.

Actually, the only one time I remember we were mocking his french, is when he said "nous allons en erections" instead of en élection. Translated back in English, it is "we are going to have a boner". We got a good chuckle on that one.

What to expect from a man that says "STAY HOME" and then go on vacation at his chalet later on. He is doing exactly what he is asking us to avoid. No, he is not only asking, we can be fined for that. Trudeau is an imbecile and no one can argue against that.

Jagmeet rewarted in Quebec? Jesus! You definitely not looked at the results in Quebec. He got almost wiped out. Only one seat in Quebec while the cons had 10. It's the second time you say something false. You can easily found the facts on internet. 1) An anglo from Toronto with average french won Quebec's heart, Layton. No one cares if he is born in Montreal, there no differences between an anglo of west island and someone of outside Quebec. 2) Jagmeet got rejected and had less support in Quebec than Harper had. You are grieve yourself of rediculous. End of the story.

Layton's french had a big english accent. His french was not better than the one of Harper. For several years, Quebec did not want him at all and he had no chances. Until the day he said Quebec must be bring back into the constitution. So yes, it's an excellent example that contradicts you. Following election was not Layton, it was Mulcair. Although he is an English, hs french was very fluent. Perfect biingual. However, in the past, he fought against bill 101. He took care to remove the promesse of reopen the constitution for Quebec. That is why he lost in Quebec. With Jagmeet, a guy who thinks you can avoid wearing a helmet and replace it with a turban on a motorcycle? He was considered as a big joke. None of those two guys are comparable to Layton, none of them have the same success, despite both of them had a better french. So yeah, the point still prevails. Example of a leader that can win the heart? I did not say it happened, I said it can happen. Since Quebecois are not conservatives at all, very few are, it is indeed difficult to find someone among the conservatives that could please Quebec. But if an English speaker with bad french really get interested in quebec politics and what Quebec wants, it is possible to say something Quebec will like. It's not because it never been attempted that it can't happen. I could return you the favor. Name me someone with poor french that did promise to Quebec something that is important to Quebec. Layton did. His french was just ok, not elegant.

Jack Layton. Bang! You are demolished. Do not attempt to save your face by claiming he is born in Montreal. Because he was born and raised in a very English community and he moved to Toronto in 1970. I remember his poor level of french at his debuts. He eventually managed to make it fluid and understandable. He never been identified has, someone coming from Quebec, or a Québécois. Although he said it few times, he did not play the card "look, I am from Québec" that much. He never pretended to be something he is not. Jack Layton was having poor results in Quebec at every federal elections until the day he said something like "The situation of Quebec with the constitution is unacceptable. It's time to reopen the door and repair the injustice caused to Québec.". 2 weeks later, he wins the biggest amount of seats in a very long time in Quebec and become the leader of opposition in Canada. Even if you have someone with a bad french, a leader can easily win the heart of Québécois if it shows respect and the sincere will to repair the injustice that still leaves us out of the constitution lap. But if you keep presenting a wolf to a horde of sheep, do not accuse the sheep to be xenophobic toward the wolf when they refuse. By the way, despite Harper represented the exact opposite model of what the Québécois are looking for, he still have win alot of respect from us when he decided to recognised the Québécois people, even among ennemies. At the next election, he gain some seats in Québec and destroyed the best liberal tool used to manipulate the anti-Quebec people in the ROC. Every time you try to portait Quebec people as evil, you just shoot yourself in the foot and you bit the dust like every before you.

He can't sue. After all he said on Québécois, Europeans, Russians, women... he has no chance to win anything. Even if they fired him for the wrong reasons. If the neo-canadian wearing a puppy is an important subject for him. He can use its popularity to promote it. I am sure many followers would support him. Unless he does not really care it was just another topic where he could say something bad to pass his own frustration of failing to win the cup. In 5 seasons, his team got kicked out of the playoff 3 times out of 5 by the Habs (those damned frenchies).

Cherry should have been fired or forced to appologies to many times before. Sexist, xenophobic, name it. After all he said on the women, russians, europeans, french, Québécois... there are tons of material to blame him for. Now that he is fired on his "you people", I get double mad. Because after all he did wrong, he is fired of something he did nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong by his opinion that immigrants should were a puppy. You may agree or desagree with him, but there is no blame of anything that holds the line. His sanction is not because he lied, statistically, it is true that the immigrants tend less to wear the poppy. The blame on him is because he blames them for not woring it. This is one of many proof that this country is paralysed by the Trudeau's multiculturalism. You can defecate on women, french or any non-english white people but, don't you dare to say anything about immigrants. Even if it is true. This is so sick. -------------------------------------- Now, what I think about the opinion itself? Imagine he says that to an indian from India. I am choosing that specific country because after discussing with few of them, I noticed that many of them (not all) do not know anything about the two world wars. They can't name the countries involved and they know only the original definition of the swatzika which is several thousands of years old. So of course, they know nothing about the poppy as well. Why should blame them? Because what they experienced of the suffering regarding wars and what they still remember, is the bloody religious war they have been through at the time of their independence of a conflict the british purposely put oil on fire and hold a big responsability in it. So who is going to tell them what flower to wear on what day... our british colony? Maybe you prefer to take the example of Rwanda that suffered from a genocide in which Canada among others has its share of responsability as well? What flower on what day shall we dare to tell them to use? Or what about Sudan where a Albertan Oil company paid para military organisation to create civil wars for the beefit of coastal oil company to pump the underswater ground while the mainland is fighting one against each others. We are not the center of the universe and our involvements in wars and foreign conflicts are not always hands clean. This is why Cherry should have been more sensible. It is ok if he invites immigrants to buy a poppy. It's arrogant to blame them for not doing it. But in both cases, there is not even a start to discuss about conditions to fire him. This is clearly an assault against freedom of speech.

Considering that many women are abandonned and have already one or many other kids they barely or can't provide support, abortions is also an effective solution but, I admit it is not necessarly constructive without proper education. What disgusts me is, if you just blow the dust off the surface, you will see the corruption and how the money is redirected into other interests. How much of that money really goes to the ones in need? It's surprising how big is the leak.

Unless your religion says you can. To have any right in this country, you gonna have to adopt or create your own religion. Canada: "You can't ride anymore, not safe". Me: "My godssays I can". Canada: "oh, ok, sorry! I will tax more the other non believers so when you have an accident, they will pay for you. Because obiously, you need a tax break. I do not want to mess up with your god."

I was talking about decisions like forbidding sikh to ride without helmets andother kind of rules like that. You think it's the ROC's taxes that makes us having more intelligent rules?

There is no way Québec will accept such non sense.The only compromise I would do, is to revoke indemnity after a motorcycle accident. Same for public health care. When take the decision to not wear a helmet, it is at your own expense. No helmet, no public hospital. Go private! In Quebec, we have the automobilist insurance and every one are covered. We would do an exception for the sikh not wearing helmet. But we are not like that. We prefer to protect them from themselve and no helmet is not an option.