On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 LOL. We're getting seats at the WH dinner table from an incompetent lame-duck president who still won't approve anything Canada wants, not even paying for their own damned border inspection station on their side of the new bridge we're building. We don't have a seat on the security council nor is one up for voting. Pats on the back for leaving? Riiiiight. I think it's more telling we weren't even invited to the conference of the major participants last month. I assume you're now name calling the POTUS because he wouldn't approve things YOU would have wanted. And, a seat comes vacant on the council every two years. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Do we really care what Kent thinks or for that matter the old MPs of Harper's party?? I think not. A bunch of sore losers that only throw out personal attacks and to rebuild the party, all of the former members have to go.You should. There's a significant number of people who vote for his party's policies and their politicians. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 I guess you didn't fact check this one. And you are talking about a permanent seat. Some influence at that table would be better than none, which we have now. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 You wish. What does the level of the dollar have to do with Trudeau?That's the revisionist history we're going to start getting. Trudeau and Notley killed the price of oil and sank the dollar, despite this being what they inherited. Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 I assume you're now name calling the POTUS because he wouldn't approve things YOU would have wanted. And, a seat comes vacant on the council every two years. I'm not name calling. I'm describing his utter failure as a president. You won't find a hell of a lot of disagreement among American liberals either. He's failed to approve the things HE wanted, never mind what I wanted. He's failed to get almost anything done. As Michael Moore said not that long ago, Obama will be known in the history books as being the first Black man to be elected president - and nothing more. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 And you are talking about a permanent seat. Some influence at that table would be better than none, which we have now. No...the article is discussing 'regaining' a seat. Canada has never had a permanent seat. Canada is putting a bid in for 2016 however its not expected to get a seat until 2020 'based on how the UN rotates the openings'. At this point we don't have some influence, we have no influence....contrary to what your initial post claimed about us 'having a seat' Quote
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 He won the election based on not being Stephen Harper. Partially. The reality is that the Liberal platform was comprehensive and smart. The Conservative platform didn't exist. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 That's the revisionist history we're going to start getting. Trudeau and Notley killed the price of oil and sank the dollar, despite this being what they inherited. Its funny...I also hear that Harper raised the price of oil and raised the dollar. Quote
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 Its funny...I also hear that Harper raised the price of oil and raised the dollar. Who claimed that? Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Partially. The reality is that the Liberal platform was comprehensive and smart. The Conservative platform didn't exist. No...not partially. It was fairly obvious that people wanted a different PM. Mulclair would have had it if he didn't flip flop so much. After that, Trudeau was the choice. I hardly believe that the vast majority of voters agreed with his entire platform or even knew what it was. Quote
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 I hardly believe that the vast majority of voters agreed with his entire platform or even knew what it was. Who said that? The platform obviously played a part. Infrastructure spending in particular. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Who claimed that? Ever heard of the Petro Dollar and Dutch Disease? Its as if Harper was the one to increase the price of oil? Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Who said that? The platform obviously played a part. Infrastructure spending in particular. I said it. My opinion. Again, people may have liked pieces of the platform but very few people vote for the entire platform. For most people the entire platform doesn't matter to them. Quote
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 Ever heard of the Petro Dollar and Dutch Disease? I think the argument (one I don't agree with, btw) is that Harper relied too much on resources. Of course the reality is, anyone would have done what they could to make the resource economy work over the same time period. Quote
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 I said it. My opinion. Again, people may have liked pieces of the platform but very few people vote for the entire platform. For most people the entire platform doesn't matter to them. I realize that. If you took the 3 platforms and compared the side by side, the Liberals offered more that more people could relate to (that's my opinion, anyway). Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 I'm not name calling. I'm describing his utter failure as a president. You won't find a hell of a lot of disagreement among American liberals either. He's failed to approve the things HE wanted, never mind what I wanted. He's failed to get almost anything done. As Michael Moore said not that long ago, Obama will be known in the history books as being the first Black man to be elected president - and nothing more. Sorry, I'm afraid I still don't see anything there but name calling. He has returned around 120,000 troops from two wars he inherited. His ACA plan has increased the number of people insured while bringing costs down. And the economy seems to be doing reasonably well. Checked what their dollar is worth against ours lately? Quote
overthere Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) At least, that's what happened, according to Peter Kent: Conservative deputy foreign affairs critic Peter Kent said Ban's effusive praise may have been a play for more UN funding for the environment and peacekeeping, as well as for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which helps Palestinians. The Conservatives cut UNRWA funding because they alleged it had ties to Hamas, which Canada lists as a terrorist organization. UNRWA has denied the charges. "It does seem clear he was trolling for new UNRWA funding," Kent said Monday. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-say-ban-ki-moon-flattered-trudeau-to-get-new-un-funding-1.2778735 There's an emerging theme here amongst Conservatives - the young and stupid Trudeau just doesn't know what he's doing. His actual reputation on the world stage seems to be irrelevant. That world leaders and business elites are impressed with Trudeau's style AND substance is, apparently, utterly irrelevant. That Canadians are happy with their new government (happier than they ever were with the last at any time) is also irrelevant. You see, Trudeau is far too caught up in his own celebrity to see what Conservatives see. Apparently, the rest of us are too. Canadian politics is polarized to an extend that it hasn't been in a while. Harper was on the receiving end of it and was seen as the devil by many on the left (mostly wrongly). With Trudeau though, things are at a whole new low. Conservatives are going to show him no respect - will give him no time or opportunity to prove himself (even though he already has to many, moving on more than 5% of his agenda in 100 days). He's too naive to govern. It's going to be a rough term and beyond for Conservatives and their partisan supporters. Trudeau knows what he is deoing. He is willing to pay a few hundred million or a couple billion cold hard Canuckbucks (and worth $.70 US) to get photo ops and applause at the UN. It is not enough that every Canadian loves him. Edited February 16, 2016 by overthere Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Partially. The reality is that the Liberal platform was comprehensive and smart. The Conservative platform didn't exist. The Liberal platform consisted of borrowing money to buy votes, and a lot of people eagerly offered up their votes for sale, convinced someone else would be paying the fee. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Its funny...I also hear that Harper raised the price of oil and raised the dollar. And was responsible for worldwide recessions, and that the deficit spending the other parties demanded was on him, with them having zero responsibility for them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 At this point we don't have some influence, we have no influence....contrary to what your initial post claimed about us 'having a seat' Why exactly do we need this "influence" and in what way will it help us? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 I realize that. If you took the 3 platforms and compared the side by side, the Liberals offered more that more people could relate to (that's my opinion, anyway). Sure. Free stuff. No charge. Come and get it <picture Trudeau dancing through the streets with fistfuls of hundred dollar bills, gaily throwing them to the crowds> Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 The Liberal platform consisted of borrowing money to buy votes As we now know, everyone else offered the same thing. Harper offered the same thing for the last 6 years. Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Sorry, I'm afraid I still don't see anything there but name calling. He has returned around 120,000 troops from two wars he inherited. His ACA plan has increased the number of people insured while bringing costs down. And the economy seems to be doing reasonably well. Checked what their dollar is worth against ours lately? He returned troops and the result is the mess over there now. He's done nothing to influence the economy because he couldn't even get a budget passed. The insurance reform he brought in place is a complicated and expensive mess and is a far cry from what he was talking about before he was first elected, which was universal health care. Race relations are worse than when he took over. Income disparity is worse than when he took office - in contrast to Canada where the income gap has been closing since Harper took over, with the Parliamentary Budget Officer crediting his tax reforms for giving more money to the lower and middle class. He has also been able to do nothing to lessen the growing divide between the Left and Right in the US, being seemingly incapable of influencing even more moderate conservatives. His foreign policy is a confusing mess, and relations with America's allies have actually worsened under him from where they were under Bush. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 As we now know, everyone else offered the same thing. Harper offered the same thing for the last 6 years. Harper's platform, as you pointed out, wasn't offering much new at all. He and Mulcair were restrained somewhat by their promises to balance the budget. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Posted February 16, 2016 Harper's platform, as you pointed out, wasn't offering much new at all. He and Mulcair were restrained somewhat by their promises to balance the budget. And we know now that the baseline would result in a deficit totalling about $5B for the next few years, perhaps structurally. Quote
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.