When will populism come to Canada?

[blueblood]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Now let's talk about populism in Canada.

But will boring competence cut it in 2019 in a world with an increasingly short attention span, an insatiable need for 140-character gratification (think Donald Trump), and a constant desire to be entertained?

Likely not.

This is why the more anxious side of the public, and the media in particular, is almost begging for brash businessman and “Mr. Wonderful” Kevin O’Leary to toss his name into the ring for the leadership of the Conservatives.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/16/is-kevin-oleary-the-nowhere-man-todays-politics-craves

He called the trump election and the stock market afterwards to a t.

Certainly a hell of a lot better than Trudeau.  Tax cuts, regulation cuts, and a plan for a stable business environment.  Ideally I'd want scheer to win but he doesn't have the charisma and name recognition to knock off  trudeau.  

He might be an ass, but at least O'Leary has a clear direction on how he wants things done.

[cybercoma]

On 12/18/2016 at 6:03 PM, Argus said:

Trump really has a political ideology, or has ever even read up on any of them

Trump is president because the right-wing in America has a singular purpose: hating liberals. The right-wing has no values, no principles, and no political aspirations or goals. This has been building up for the better part of two decades. Have you seen any interviews with Trump supporters? They don't actually think he'll do the things he says he'll do. They voted for him because they believe he's going to make liberals miserable. That's it. That's all they care about. The more people are outraged at his abhorrent comments and behaviour, the happier they are because "he must be doing something right if liberals hate him." Republicans come out against him? No problem. They probably aren't real conservatives anyway. They're traitors. That's the beauty of not having any principles. It's completely nihilistic. Nothing matters.

[Michael Hardner]

I never thought of it that way.  That is the wedge that would get the Democratic party back, and also explains Col. Sanders (Bernie): he is a super liberal but doesn't seem like one.  Cranky old Mensch vs. Didactic Snowflake.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never thought of it that way.  That is the wedge that would get the Democratic party back, and also explains Col. Sanders (Bernie): he is a super liberal but doesn't seem like one.  Cranky old Mensch vs. Didactic Snowflake.

Sanders was popular for the same reason Trump was. He refused to stick by the carefully managed script designed by the spin doctors and said what he was thinking. I think Trump was more of a populist than Sanders, though, because Sanders believed in what he said and I don't think Trump did much of the time. Trump was the kind of populist who figures out what the crowd is angry about and then takes that position, as opposed to Sanders who is actually a part of the angry crowd. People in the US were tired of the ineffectual 'political elites' and wanted something new.

As for the Democrats, they need to stop worrying about stupid SJW things like transgender bathrooms and focus on jobs, health care and the injustice of their current taxation system.

I think there's some sentiment of that sort in Canada, too. I don't see the NDP abandoning orthodoxy, though. And the only Tory who might would be Kevin O'Leary.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Argus

[Bryan]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

I think there's some sentiment of that sort in Canada, too. I don't see the NDP abandoning orthodoxy, though. And the only Tory who might would be Kevin O'Leary.

Yeah. O'Leary is basically party agnostic. His constituents are tax payers, as he puts it he "speaks the language of jobs". A lot of CPC party core are not happy about the idea of being lead by O'Leary. I've heard many say they'd rather lose again than win with him. They just don't consider him a Conservative -- they think he's a closer fit to the Liberals on a lot of issues.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Yeah. O'Leary is basically party agnostic. His constituents are tax payers, as he puts it he "speaks the language of jobs". A lot of CPC party core are not happy about the idea of being lead by O'Leary. I've heard many say they'd rather lose again than win with him. They just don't consider him a Conservative -- they think he's a closer fit to the Liberals on a lot of issues.

Which is why he could win an election. He seems very fiscally conservative but very socially liberal. And the Republican hierarchy didn't want Trump either.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Argus

[Bryan]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Which is why he could win an election. He seems very fiscally conservative but very socially liberal. And the Republican hierarchy didn't want Trump either.

Populism can help him win a general election, but he'll still have to walk back some of his less conservative social policies if he wants to win the leadership. It's different system for electing leaders here, you actually do have to get the party base on your side.

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Populism can help him win a general election, but he'll still have to walk back some of his less conservative social policies if he wants to win the leadership. It's different system for electing leaders here, you actually do have to get the party base on your side.

I don't think the majority of the Conservative party has a lot of socially conservative views.

[Bryan]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't think the majority of the Conservative party has a lot of socially conservative views.

I'd have to wonder how many Conservative party EDA meetings and/or national conventions you've been to. 

[eyeball]

Social conservatives....I bet they party like the Wolves on Wall Street when no one's looking.

Edited December 24, 2016 by eyeball

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Bryan said:

I'd have to wonder how many Conservative party EDA meetings and/or national conventions you've been to. 

I've said it before. If only the Conservative party got to vote we still would have abortion and gay rights and public health care, so I'm not really sure what you think the majority of the Conservative Party would vote to change.

[Smallc]

That's a pretty easy thing to say, but a pretty difficult thing to prove, being as it's really just your speculative alternate reality.

[H10]

I thought justin trudeau was a populist?

[Argus]

55 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's a pretty easy thing to say, but a pretty difficult thing to prove, being as it's really just your speculative alternate reality.

Really? What measures did the Conservative's take when in a majority on these issues? What measures did their members vote for during the previous national convention?

I'd like a list, please.

[Smallc]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Really? What measures did the Conservative's take when in a majority on these issues? What measures did their members vote for during the previous national convention?

It's all politics.  The Conservatives knew they couldn't touch social issues, or they'd never be elected again.  They did hold their free vote on gay marriage in 2006 though.  That was completely ludicrous to something that the courts said was a human right.

I also have a hard time applauding them finally acknowledging that gay marriage is a real thing and that they should probably acknowledge that.  If there were only Conservative voters, we'd move a long way backwards on social issues - your posts alone are proof of that.

[Bryan]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

I've said it before. If only the Conservative party got to vote we still would have abortion and gay rights and public health care, so I'm not really sure what you think the majority of the Conservative Party would vote to change.

Again, how many EDAs and national Conventions have you been to? How many of the people who actually will directly decide who the leader is do you know personally? 

[Smallc]

I have to agree with you Bryan - especially here on the prairies, there are a lot of socially conservative voters.

[eyeball]

Well, maybe the rest are just socially awkward.

 

[drummindiver]

On Sunday, December 04, 2016 at 2:14 PM, eyeball said:

I certainly hope we get a right-wing populist government, especially an unrepentant one with a real pagan ethos that's determined to finally stop whining about the left and actually do something about it.

I'm itching for a left/right shooting war myself. Can't come fast enough AFAIC.

Bring it on bozos, you know you wanna.

Name calling at Christmas.  Be nice.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Smallc said:

It's all politics.  The Conservatives knew they couldn't touch social issues, or they'd never be elected again.

I see so you have simply imputed a series of social beliefs to them in spite of what their national conventions say and in spite of their actions based upon.... uh... because you're clairvoyant?

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Smallc said:

I have to agree with you Bryan - especially here on the prairies, there are a lot of socially conservative voters.

I've never said otherwise. In fact, while I'm not one I've found the left wing belief that it would be somehow morally improper for social conservatives to have ANY political representation, regardless of their numbers, to be a pretty fair indication of what the Left thinks of democracy.

But that does not mean they have the numbers to even come close to putting much in the way of social conservative policies in place within the Conservative party - as evidenced by the fact no such policies get approved at their conventions.

I also have a hard time applauding them finally acknowledging that gay marriage is a real thing and that they should probably acknowledge that.  If there were only Conservative voters, we'd move a long way backwards on social issues - your posts alone are proof of that.

Really? Can you name my social conservative views? As for gay marriage, the Liberals were opposed to it until they saw political advantage to be had. Then they abruptly reversed course. Had they not seen political advantage they never would have changed. 

Edited December 26, 2016 by Argus

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2016-12-07 at 1:00 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

The fact is, only 3 people were in a position to be prime minister last year in a country of 36 million. And one of them got the leadership of the natural governing party of Canada, not by having good policies, or through debate, but through having a famous last name. And since his Prime Mister position required that he gained the leadership position in the first place, basically the highest political position in this country was obtained not through good policies, but through birth right.

 

JT deserves more credit than that. The Liberal Party did not look at all like the 'Natural Governing Party' of old when he took over, and he became PM by winning a very tough election. Nobody handed that to him. He was weak on policy but strong on tone and values which matter to voters and he presented a clear contrast to his tired and grim opponents. The decision to go with deficit spending was a daring stroke which finished the NDP and united the non-Conservatives. 

Likewise, Trump still had to beat Clinton even though 12 years for the Dems looked unlikely. Again, he looked a lot fresher than Hillary at the end of a grotesquely gruelling contest. 

[-1=e^ipi]

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

and he became PM by winning a very tough election.

 

It was only tough because Trudeau was such a weak candidate. Harper was and still is immensely unpopular for good reason. If the LPC picked a better candidate, such as Martha Hall Findlay, the LPC would have been ahead in the polls well before the election even began.

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

It was only tough because Trudeau was such a weak candidate. Harper was and still is immensely unpopular for good reason. If the LPC picked a better candidate, such as Martha Hall Findlay, the LPC would have been ahead in the polls well before the election even began.

We will never know. Hall Findlay had her chance in the leadership race and got wiped out. A marvellous cv notwithstanding, where is the evidence she had the ability to get people to vote for her? I wanted Garneau to win and he didn't even make it through the campaign. Trudeau represented a clearer contrast with Harper. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[cybercoma]

Populism has been in Canada. The Reform Party was a populist party. Perhaps OP is wondering when white nationalism under the bullshit window dressing name "alt-right" will come to Canada. That's already here too with the mush-brained idiots who get all giddy about anti-intellectualism. These are the same people who espouse values of Christian morality, yet cheerlead for Trump, or the people who claim to be proud proponents of the scientific method, logic, and reason, yet also shake their pompoms for Trump. Anti-intellectualism is the only way they can square their shameless hypocrisy.

Edited January 7, 2017 by cybercoma