Demosthenes26

I agree we really need more purality with our politics. 3 parties doesn't reflect the political diversity of our nation.

as far as i'm concerned the NDP isn't a viable party. I don't like a lot of their position on issues. I do consider the policy I do think that more important. But we haven't seen any substantial indication of Trudeau intentions are if he's elected. Like so far We've heard he'll legalize weed but he's given no indication as to what that would be like. He's pro - abortion, well that would've been something in his fathers time, But we haven't has a public debate in parliment concerning abortion itself since mulroney. So at this point in our history it was really a non-issue. There's been suggestions as potential policy ideas(protect the "middle class") but nothing of substance. We don't know his position on the environment, human rights, international law, economic affairs (actually we know this one "the budget will balance itself"). Harper on the other hand we know. His primary concern has been the budget and economics affairs (also tought sentences for criminals). He's done a good job with regards to those two issues. But neglected alot of other important issues namely the environment. Politically he's proven himself to be a shrewd Machiavellian, although at times vindictive and dictariorial. (As far human right and international law i'm not sure what you're refering to unless you're trying to reopen the Israel debate). I think he's been in power too long, Mistakes are adding. But the conservatives are right Trudeau lacks substance not only in personality but also in policy. I bleed blue, so my biasis are always toward economic affairs where harper definitely has the better policy. But i'm not one to ignore the issue that aren't being addressed by Harper. I think we need change in the country, Trudeau jr. isn't the one to do it though

Why Does always have to be the Chinese with you? Viets are cheaper.

People are finally starting to see Trudeau jr for what he is... A mirage, something that looks pretty but is devoid of any substance. As much I think this country need a new Prime Minister, I'd rather another 4 years of Harper than 4 of Trudeau.

Are you sure? you seem to know an aweful lot on the subject. lol

If production is moving anywhere its going to a different third world country. You can already see this with textiles, where they're now being made in countries like vietnam, bangeledesh. The botton line is production is done where its most cost effective. Canada lack the labor rates, supply chains and the infastructure for the products that the chinese produce. Again to moves those over here would cost more than the cost of importing. We're not in a position to be able to make the Chinese do anything.

Probably nothing. But that wasn't the argument I was making.

No You're only looking at one trade relation. yes we run a trade deficit with China, but the difference isn't being funded by debt. Overall Canadian exports to import are pretty even (462 billion : 474 billion in 2012). Our GDP grew by about 3% last year. The rest of our growth was domestic consumption. Cheap good are produced in China, because they are cheap. The cost of producing in Canada would exceed the cost of producing china. Not only because of the cheaper labor but also because of the economies of scale that exist in china and the start up costs. It would be of no benefit because we'd be still competing against chinese goods and we being paying more for domestic production.

Simple In Ukraine, Russia is acting as a foreign agressor against a sovereign nation recognised by both Russia, and Canada. Hong Kong is a semi autonomous region that's part of China's territory, and China's do what they want within their borders. Its also important to note that so far all of anti-demonstrator action is by the HK police and mainland China has not actually put any troops or police there (although they're likely working behind the scenes). Also Canada's got much deeper trade connections with China, than with Russia. The Action taken by Canada against russia was largely symbolic and of no major consequence. With actions against China there would be major consequenses.

Of course. There's also plenty who think Trudeau will just naturally assume prime minister, like its his birth right.

If you we're arguing the chance of a political party lasting more than ten years you'd be right in your assumptions. However the conservatives have been in power for 8 years, and through 3 elections. Odds of the the conservatives winning are independant of their past, to get the ten year mark they only need to win one election. Don't forget victory favors the incumbent. Stephan Dion, Michael Ignatieff all had a significant boost in popularity when they started as leaders. The conservatives managed to cut them down, bit by bit. Trudeau has proven a remarkable ability to deter flak but whether or not it will last this election remains to be seen. The conservatives are out fundraising the liberal, they don't suffer the same bloated bureaucracy the Liberals suffer. They can throw punched and don't hesitate at doing so. They are a leaner, meaner fighting machine. I won't be surprised If Harper's still in power in 2016.

The US government didn't need the khorsan group to justify their actions in Syria. ISIS is enough of one to justify their actions. Why go through the trouble of fabricating this story, just to do what they already had the support to do?

Given that currently we a Shipping the oil by train/truck its not only more economical, but I would think safer to ship it by pipeline. Given the destruction of Lac Mégantic and that was largely oil containers that exploded, that would serve as a powerful and tragic illustration as the danger derailment poses. But the debate of keystone isn't about the safe or environmental impact. As much as they debate those points. This arguement is large about climate change and NIMBYism. Climate change(CC) Environmentalists are opposing this because its oil, and CO2 climate change. But those point aren't as salient as they once where so they've changed it the oil spills and tar sands. It's more economical in both in cost and in carbon footprint to ship by pipeline. But CC environmentalists are more interested in a idealogical argument rather than a practical arguement, and they 100% against anything oil. Most people aren't idealogues, they are pragmatists. So when it comes to climate change they become disengaged, because many of the requirement to deal with climate change, are too costly or arduous. CC environmentalists aren't able to address the source of the problem, the high demand for oil. So Instead the focus on the dramatic, Tar Sands, oil spills, apocalyptic forecasts etc to achieve their agenda. They want to make thing as costly as possible. So they go for oil companies, because big oil is much easier to target than average joes. Regardless of what environmentalists say or do the price of their actions are always felt by the average person and not by the companies. Either at pump, with jobs, with day to day items becoming more expensive. There's an enonomic arguement to be made for doing that. Increasing the cost of oil, should result in a decrease in consumption. But oil is a product insensitive to changes in price. As much as we complain about the price of oil people will pay what they need to pay, We have a society that is far more dependant on it, than one should ever be. The focus of any debate should be on reducing our consumption, but unfortunately its not.

lets hope

George Bush? Jean Chretien? Harper didn't get us involved in Afganistan, It was Jean Chretien, so he could play golf with Bush II. If you seriously saying Harper would get us involve in Iraq, you're just being silly. The man is all bark no bite with regards to military engagements just look at the crisis in Ukraine. All that talk about Russia and Putin, All he did was send a fighter wing to poland. Don't forget he's looking to make cuts to the military this year even as NATO is trying to enforse the 2% of GDP military spending rule (canada is sitting at around 1%) Harper is much more concerned with reducing the deficit, which remains his last saving grace. Wars aren't great for that.