How Trudeau lost my vote

[BC_chick]

It started with keystone XL pipeline and his stance on fracking and the oil sands.

Then the abortion issue which seemed obviously contrived since it's a moot point. It did not sit well with me when he did not give a choice to his MP's.

The final straw was his official statement on Gaza and the subsequent silence as the death toll mounted. I could see initially why he'd come out bpwith the usual banter but I figured he'd say something, anything, as the body bags piled up.

Now I realize that he's no different than Harper other than his legalization of pot which doesn't particularly resonate with me. I do believe it should be done, but it's not what I would consider a pressing issue for me.

I would've really liked to see him make his distinction on what I believe are Harper's shortcomings - lack of respect for the environment and his good/evil approach to foreign policy.

None of the 3 main contenders seem appealing so unless I find a good fringe group I think I might sit 2015 out.

First time I've ever done that.

[On Guard for Thee]

I would agree that JT has not so far demonstrated the political prowess that his old man was famous for. But I am witholding judgement until we get to see what happens as we get closer to election time. He will have to put his cards on the table at some point, but I wonder if he is not for now taking a page out of Chretiens book and just sitting back with his feet up on the desk while Harper keeps on shooting his own feet off. If your opponent is doing that why not just sit back and keep your mouth shut? For now I'm just enjoying the west coast sunshine and my BBQ. The fall sitting though, should get interesting.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Charles Anthony
deleted recopied Opening Post

[The_Squid]

I won't vote for either of the 2 corrupt parties.

[GostHacked]

I won't vote for either of the 2 corrupt parties.

You mean 3-4 corrupt parties.

[Big Guy]

I believe that it is a mistake to not vote. I also believe that the essence and strength of a democracy is that no one party satisfies all of the wishes of any one particular voter. We usually vote for whoever is the closest to our beliefs or try to defeat someone who is farthest from them.

To choose to not vote is a vote against democracy.

The alternatives are unacceptable.

[Smallc]

Hmmm, maybe he's not so bad after all.

[Boges]

Why aren't people talking about the fact JT wants a Carbon Tax. Why won't he tell us what his plan is with that?

[Shady]

Why aren't people talking about the fact JT wants a Carbon Tax. Why won't he tell us what his plan is with that?

He knows it would be unpopular, so he's purposely being coy about it. He's hoping he'll be elected first before he has to provide any details. By that time, it might be too late.

[Boges]

He knows it would be unpopular, so he's purposely being coy about it. He's hoping he'll be elected first before he has to provide any details. By that time, it might be too late.

The CPC attack ads shouldn't be about Pot, it should be about the Carbon Tax.

[Shady]

The CPC attack ads shouldn't be about Pot, it should be about the Carbon Tax.

I definitely agree. The T in JT should stand for tax.

[cybercoma]

It started with keystone XL pipeline and his stance on fracking and the oil sands.

Then the abortion issue which seemed obviously contrived since it's a moot point. It did not sit well with me when he did not give a choice to his MP's.

The final straw was his official statement on Gaza and the subsequent silence as the death toll mounted. I could see initially why he'd come out bpwith the usual banter but I figured he'd say something, anything, as the body bags piled up.

Now I realize that he's no different than Harper other than his legalization of pot which doesn't particularly resonate with me. I do believe it should be done, but it's not what I would consider a pressing issue for me.

I would've really liked to see him make his distinction on what I believe are Harper's shortcomings - lack of respect for the environment and his good/evil approach to foreign policy.

None of the 3 main contenders seem appealing so unless I find a good fringe group I think I might sit 2015 out.

First time I've ever done that.

None of the 3 contenders seem appealing, yet Mulcair and the NDP have taken all of the stances you say Trudeau should have. It's odd you wouldn't be in favour of the NDP then.

[Boges]

Vote for Kudos.

[TimG]

Now I realize that he's no different than Harper other than his legalization of pot which doesn't particularly resonate with me.

Perhaps the reason JT is no different than Harper is because they represent the opinion of the bulk of the electorate in the middle. You may be convinced of the righteousness of your opinions but a lot of people in this country do not share your views. Edited July 29, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

I believe that it is a mistake to not vote. I also believe that the essence and strength of a democracy is that no one party satisfies all of the wishes of any one particular voter. We usually vote for whoever is the closest to our beliefs or try to defeat someone who is farthest from them.

To choose to not vote is a vote against democracy.

The alternatives are unacceptable.

I'm more than willing to vote but I've decided I'll only ever vote in referendums from now on.

I can't stand the sense I get that voting as we conventionally do is more a stamp of approval for how we're governed than for what needs to be governed. How we govern ourselves is just too damn hamfisted and primitive for the sorts of local issues that have and always will matter most to me.

[BC_chick]

Tim, you're wrong, the country is very closely split on keystone, and 50% want neutrality in the Middle East.

CC, I voted NDP last round, but I'm not crazy about Mulcair. If I do end up voting for one of the 3 it'll be NDP, but I doubt that'll happen.

Big Guy, I used to think not voting was a waste and that people who say all politicians are the same are just excusing their own ignorance. I never thought I would agree but it really doesn't seem to make a difference.

[Smallc]

The country is not very closely split on Keystone when it comes to questions of economic growth and the economy. Sorry, but you're in the minority.

[TimG]

Tim, you're wrong, the country is very closely split on keystone, and 50% want neutrality in the Middle East.

Neutrality in the ME does not mean always taking the side of Hamas as many on the left are prone to do. The majority of the country understands that getting resources to market is essential for the Canadian economy and that pipelines are necessary.

[BC_chick]

Canada' position on the ME conflict has historically been neutrality. Harper and J Trudeau are the first to go pro Israel. I want neutrality back because it addresses the complexity of the issue instead of a good/evil position.

Misinterpret me on the issue or call me pro-Hamas one more time and you go on my ignore list.

Edited July 29, 2014 by BC_chick

[overthere]

and 50% want neutrality in the Middle East.

50% of Canadians want Canada to be neutral.

I don't believe that.

A few Canadians live in a fantasy world where they think that Canada is some kind of giant frozen Switzerland, a nuetral observer and helper of the weal and downtrodden.

Canada is not and never has been a neutral country, we have clear alliances with other countries and that includes strong military alliances.

[Smallc]

Canada has always been pro Israel - always. Now we're just more open about it.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Smallc

[TimG]

Harper and J Trudeau are the first to go pro Israel. I want neutrality back because it addresses the complexity of the issue instead of a good/evil position.

In this case Hamas is clearly evil - neutrality requires that this be acknowledged. If one wants to discuss the complexities of the situation it must start with a clear condemnation of Hamas followed by an emphasis need for constructive engagement with the Palestinian authority (not Hamas), an end to settlement building and a move to a 2-state solution.

You may not like being labelled pro-Hamas but if you refuse to unequivocally condemn Hamas for the rocket attacks and the use of civilian shields then people will draw the logical conclusions from that position.

[Shady]

Canada' position on the ME conflict has historically been neutrality. Harper and J Trudeau are the first to go pro Israel.

As has already been pointed out, your statment is completely false.

[PIK]

Canada' position on the ME conflict has historically been neutrality. Harper and J Trudeau are the first to go pro Israel. I want neutrality back because it addresses the complexity of the issue instead of a good/evil position.

Misinterpret me on the issue or call me pro-Hamas one more time and you go on my ignore list.

And mulcair because the all know is it the right thing.

[The_Squid]

In this case Hamas is clearly evil - neutrality requires that this be acknowledged. If one wants to discuss the complexities of the situation it must start with a clear condemnation of Hamas followed by an emphasis need for constructive engagement with the Palestinian authority (not Hamas), an end to settlement building and a move to a 2-state solution.

You may not like being labelled pro-Hamas but if you refuse to unequivocally condemn Hamas for the rocket attacks and the use of civilian shields then people will draw the logical conclusions from that position.

Both sides are committing horrendously evil acts.

Calling anyone "pro-hamas" is asinine and meaningless rhetoric.

[Boges]

Calling anyone "pro-hamas" is asinine and meaningless rhetoric.

Clearly you're pro-hamas.