ReeferMadness

Thanks for the ad hominem comment. They're only dangerous if they happen to have the levers of government - particularly, if they are an autocratic leader like Harper. If a fundamentalist Muslim were in a similar position, I would be similarly concerned.

Probably about the same as that of an evangelical Christian. And speaking of Harper.....

I think it will too. Elections Canada has been setting up polls at University for students who want to vote in their home ridings and the turnout has been huge. I suspect that the younger generation is reacting with disgust to Conservative anti-Muslim politics. Good one them.

ditto.

After watching that Conservative candidate pee in a cup, it's hard to believe you guys are still drinking the kool-aid.

Hahahahahahahaha :D Yeah, that's Harper's problem. He lacks style. And integrity. And honesty. And empathy. And humility. And cooperativeness. And judgement. And foresight.

I'm asking questions that the media and the other parties should be asking. Who is going to lose and are we compensating the right people. It seems like you would rather just accept the PMs word that it's good for Canada (and just what DOES that mean anyway?) Given that no party other than the Green Party even has policies designed to help the poor, it's evident that nobody in Canada gives 2 craps about poor people anymore. If you don't care, fine. No need to debate.

Maybe that's because the Quebec government underwent a public consultation process before their law was tabled. It wasn't a single right-wing politician running around in an election telling everyone to watch out for Muslims.

Harper the much vaunted (by himself) economist has helped drive the housing bubble.

Yeah. That's why I think that if there is anything, it will be pretty tame.

We can all doubt. Surmise. Imagine. Conjure. What we can't do is analyze; because even though the politicians and corporations know what's in the deal, we're not allowed to know. That doesn't stop people around here from accepting that it's a 'good deal for Canada' (whatever that means) because the same right wing economists who tell us every trade deal is good say the same about this one.

Wow. I feel so much better now. I no longer need to think for myself - I've got economists and trade experts to do that for me. Yeah. I'm sure those 500 people probably feel much better. It doesn't matter that I don't have a place to live because I'm just statistical background noise. When right wing media talk about Canada winning or losing from a trade deal, they're pandering to peoples natural tribal instincts. What nobody seems to have figured out is that the tribes have changed. From the perspective of corporations and the very wealthy, the tribes aren't Canadian vs American. It's the super wealthy vs everyone else. And these deals might be a mixed bag for peons and small businesses but they are universally good for corporations. The automotive industry executives must be laughing and high-fiving each other. This deal was already going to lower their labor costs because it allows them to threaten to move the plants elsewhere. And then Harper turned around and threw a billion dollars at them.

And you base this general sentiment on what? And more to the point, what does "it won't do that much for the Canadian economy' mean? If 500 people lose minimum wage jobs and find themselves living on the street, you're right, that won't be noticed much in the GDP numbers. Does that make it OK?

And you would like the courts to do the same. Harper's autocracy would finally be complete.

If you're trying to claim moral high ground, you've already lost it. The problem right now is that Harper and his echo chamber of right wing economists are running around spreading propaganda about how great this deal is and even if it is released before the election, it won't be understood in time. It's thousands of pages. And, based on this discussion, beyond some academic notion of whether it's good deal for Canada (how do you even measure that), nobody seems to care how many people will find themselves discarded.

I think a majority government is unlikely, though not out of the question. I think a weak minority (either for Conservatives or Liberals) is the most likely scenario. I'm picturing Harper choking out the words "Prime Minister Trudeau".

ISIS would have started in Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Wear a niqab to work and they won't be able to tell who you are.

I don't care what most people believe - but there are some exceptions. For example, if we had a Prime Minister would believed in dispensationalism and thought that end times and rapture could start with a war in the middle east, that would worry me.

Which one did he believe in?

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, Harper's rule has been so odious, so completely lacking in integrity that I wouldn't care much. I don't think they have anything, though. If they did, I think they would have used it by now.

Ditto and arrogant disregard for our impact on the planet.

I think 100% of people everywhere have a natural tendency towards tribalism that can express itself as bigotry based on race, religion, ethnicity or other differences. Although most people are able to overcome these tendencies, they can still be triggered by someone playing on peoples fears. And I believe that politicians that play on these fears are beneath contempt. The majority isn't always right - the history of our species is replete with examples of majorities oppressing minorities. We need leaders who will stand up for principles, not ones who will pander to fear-mongering. Canada has many shameful examples in its past as well. This is not as bad as the Chinese head tax or the Japanese internment, nevertheless there will come a time when this is seen in a similar lens. Harper should be ashamed and so should his disciples.

Our media doesn't seem to consider this matter of any consequence.

I do. But I already know that they have the intelligence to be concerned about ISDS. Which seems to be something we lack.