Argus Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 1:32 PM, SpankyMcFarland said: If O'Leary gets in, it may just be between him and the not-O'Leary of the establishment, maybe Raitt or Scheer. Leitch's abrasiveness will look tame by comparison with the real thing. The problem with the establishment is they have so many people running that no one can get any traction or public recognition, except O'Leary, who already has a big name. Most of the candidates should just drop out as they have zero chance. But they're in the race not to win but in hopes it will eventually lead to something like a cabinet position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 O'Leary is distancing himself from Trump's anti-immigrant stance in the first short clip I have seen. He is making this about taxes, and economic efficiency. That's a winning strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 If he did it right I'd certainly vote for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) When O'Leary talks about economics, it's hard for me not to agree with him. He made the point in one of the, what, six separate interviews I saw him in today, that we pay $12 billion to the Saudis, "to people who hit women with sticks" because we can't build a pipeline from where we have oil to where we need it. "That's stupid!" I can't agree more. He talked about negotiating with the Trump administration in another interview, on BNN, which made real sense. In yet another interview, on CNBC, he said that he decided for sure to run when the government put out a statement that it expected to run deficits for thirty seven years. I definitely agreed with him on that one. The problem is that when all is said and done O'Leary is, from all reports, a real dick nobody likes working with or for. And he comes off like a heartless banker, like the kind of rich guy who sits up in a high corner office making decisions with complete lack of concern for who those decisions might harm. Like if he could figure a way to make a fraction of a fraction of a percentage more profit by closing down a factory and throwing hundreds of people out of work not only would he not give a damn about the people about to lose their jobs but he'd be indignant that you'd think he ought to. O'Leary needs to show he has a soul. Edited January 18, 2017 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: O'Leary is distancing himself from Trump's anti-immigrant stance in the first short clip I have seen. He is making this about taxes, and economic efficiency. That's a winning strategy. Yeah, the problem I have with that is it looks like O'Leary looks at everything from the view of profits. As far as the big corporations are concerned, the more immigrants the better, since that means more business for them. Those corporations couldn't care less about whatever social upheaval that brings with it, or the additional pollution, or the crime, or the possibility of terrorism, or how those immigrants impact governmental budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: He made the point in one of the, what, six separate interviews I saw him in today, that we pay $12 billion to the Saudis, "to people who hit women with sticks" because we can't build a pipeline from where we have oil to where we need it. Except of course it is Algeria and not Saudi Arabia where we used to import most of our oil from, although today I believe we import more from the US. I don't know what we imported from Saudi Arabia, if any, but it is nowhere even close to $12 billion. The left* in this country have been saying we should have a trans-Canadian pipeline long before the right or the oil industry. *left, I use this term because that is your label for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Except of course it is Algeria and not Saudi Arabia where we used to import most of our oil from, although today I believe we import more from the US. I don't know what we imported from Saudi Arabia, if any, but it is nowhere even close to $12 billion. The left* in this country have been saying we should have a trans-Canadian pipeline long before the right or the oil industry. *left, I use this term because that is your label for me. And what side of the political spectrum do you think all the people fighting against such a pipeline fall on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, Argus said: And what side of the political spectrum do you think all the people fighting against such a pipeline fall on? You know I don't believe in the simplistic idea of a political spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You know I don't believe in the simplistic idea of a political spectrum. I know you don't want to answer the question, but never mind. I found this, on imports from Saudi Arabia. This is just to Irving, so I don't know if we import elsewhere, but I doubt anywhere near $12 billion. Nevertheless, his point remains valid in that we import billions from Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries when we should be paying ourselves. That’s right. Saudia Arabia, the oil-rich kingdom that is waging a brutal price war to shore up its market share and devastating Canada’s oil and gas sector in the process, dumped an average of 84,017 barrels a day of its cheap oil in New Brunswick’s Irving Oil Ltd. refinery in 2015, according to data compiled by the National Energy Board (NEB). That’s up from 63,046 b/d on average in 2012. Edited January 19, 2017 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, Argus said: This is just to Irving In 2015, total Canadian imports from Saudi Arabia were under $2 billion. Yes, I assume the bulk of that was petroleum. An interesting note, the Saint John Irving refinery exports most of its production to the US. I believe less than 20% is destined for Canadian markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H10 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 O'Leary will have a tough time doing what Trump did. Trump did a HOSTILE takeover of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has rules that are relatively fair. Anyone who has seen Canadian party rules, will see it says the party can do whatever it wants. The memberships O'leary signs up and votes for him need to be disbursed nation wide, they cannot just be concentrated in one spot, and spread out from different counties too. Canadian politics heavily favor people with political access and having members vote for them. It is not even possible for O'lEARY to win in such a crowded field outright, he will need to form coalitions with others in his party at the convention. Thus Canadian leaders tend to be far more centrist. Otherwise, you'd have to just win an outright majority and crush 12-13 other candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: O'Leary is distancing himself from Trump's anti-immigrant stance in the first short clip I have seen. He is making this about taxes, and economic efficiency. That's a winning strategy. O'Leary's quite aggressive, too. Those fiery speeches against Trudeau does remind me of Trump - he's taking from him style-wise (even though he denies it). It's very effective - it's an attention grabber, and a staple for the media! When disillussion of Trudeau finally sets in 3 years from now - and people are angry about our finances - those fiery words of O'Leary will make him a shoo-in. As he said: "It wouldn't be an election then. It would be an EXORCISM of Trudeau!" Those kind of rhetorics grab you by the throat! He's a colorful man. Bald, no orange hair - still colorful. Edited January 19, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Yes, I agree. He is a strong communicator, with more discipline and focus in his message than Trump. The Quebec demographic, though, is a strong knock against him. Then again, they could respond to his message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 The next CPC or NDP leader cannot be defined with comparisons to Donald Trump, but Canadian media will still try to do so: http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549 It's just what Canada does...like comparing Harper to Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 I'm not sure about this guy, I rather he be elected into the party and set as an MP and see what he all about but he seems doesn't want to do that, he rather go to the top rather work from the bottom, which I think its better so voters can get to know them.. I. also heard on TV news his residency is in the south of the US, anyone know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Yes - and given the economy, there's a good chance he'll beat Trudeau in 2019 (I'd put the odds at 75%). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 26 minutes ago, Smallc said: Yes - and given the economy, there's a good chance he'll beat Trudeau in 2019 (I'd put the odds at 75%). It's not just the economy, it's that O'Leary knows how to use the camera vs Harper. O'Leary has a simple message which helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, blueblood said: It's not just the economy, it's that O'Leary knows how to use the camera vs Harper. O'Leary has a simple message which helps. Yeah, and Trudeau makes stupid mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, I agree. He is a strong communicator, with more discipline and focus in his message than Trump. The Quebec demographic, though, is a strong knock against him. Then again, they could respond to his message. And have max as his quebec lieutenant. Perfect fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H10 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 23 hours ago, Argus said: The problem with the establishment is they have so many people running that no one can get any traction or public recognition, except O'Leary, who already has a big name. Most of the candidates should just drop out as they have zero chance. But they're in the race not to win but in hopes it will eventually lead to something like a cabinet position. That is the thing, in canada, if no one wins a clear majority in the first round, anyone can win, even the person in dead last, if he can convince at least enough delegates in each round to just not be in last place in that round to make it to that next round. That is why a Trump type figure is even that much more unlikely. You cannot attack your opponents in a vicious manner like that in Canada and win a leadership race, unless you are winning an absolute majority. Worse yet, since we don't have province wide primaries, spread out over multiple dates, but rather one single large leadership event, its not even possible to get weak candidates out the race early, its a one shot thing. Anyone with the leadership fee + $50,000 probably has a decent shot to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 The thing is how will brash celebs be seen after a few years of Trump? O'Leary might not seem so endearing then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 hour ago, cybercoma said: O'Leary has a simplistic message that is misleading because his points will never be contextualize by him, nor the media. You can't give simple answers to complex ideas. That makes it easy to prey on people's confirmation bias and emotional biases. That's exactly what he's doing when he says things like, "Why do we get oil from Saudi Arabia where they beat women with a stick?" It was more like why are we spending 12 billion on saudi oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) The problem O'Leary is going to have is that from everything I've read and heard so far he doesn't play well with others. The power of a leader is entirely in how many votes he commands. Alienate too much of caucus, even if you're the prime minister, and your power is gone. We haven't seen a full blown caucus revolt in a long time, MPs tending to be craven, self-serving people, but O'Leary might be the guy to inspire one. A strong part of politics is stroking egos - and not just your own. I've seen nothing to indicate O'Leary has ever been interested in doing that sort of thing. Edited January 19, 2017 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.