Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Should we doubt you Americans just a little bit? LOL

 

No, because some of those emigre millions to the USA includes Canadians...part of the world's 20% in America.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, montgomery said:

No, they're not coming apart at the seams. They're experiencing some problems which can be expected. You see I'm not a bigot or a racist so I can see the good in helping out people that need help, mostly because the US has caused huge migratio

What has bigotry and racism got to do with importing massive numbers of impoverished middle east Muslims who think a woman who shows her hair is a whore into western countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where womens equality is taken for granted? It is only basic common sense that this is going to cause enormous problems.

[Centerpiece]

17 hours ago, montgomery said:

Yeah, been that way since the first white man stepped ashore in the 14th. century. Now the numbers speak loudly to reveal American lies. While Canada with a tenth the population rescues the migrants that Americans hate. That would be the ones with a little colour in their skins or the ones that don't believe in the Kristyun sky fairy. What's to be expected from a country ruled by a psychopath as president and in which half believe the earth is about 6000 years old?

Should we doubt you Americans just a little bit? LOL

You really do need to educate yourself instead of just watching the CBC or reading The Star. The first wave of "migrants that Americans hate" were almost exclusively from Haiti - refugees who came to the US under a TPS program (Temporary Protection Status) put in place due to the 2011 earthquake. After determining that is was safe to return to Haiti, refugees were given 18 months' notice that their TPS status would be ending. Canada had an identical policy for Haitians but ended it more than a year prior to Trump's announcement. As a result, almost all Haitians that rushed to the border as a result of Trudeau's idiotic tweet, are/have been ineligible for refugee status. Trump is simply doing what Canada SHOULD be doing. Refugees are precisely that = people seeking temporary refuge and ultimately/hopefully returning to their countries when deemed safe to do so. It is not/should not be viewed as an alternate path to immigration/citizenship. Refugees are refugees. Immigrants are immigrants. Different rules, obligations and expectations. Trudeau and his CBC enablers constantly combine immigration with refugees and "asylum seekers" - specifically to paint those who want better control of our borders and refugee/asylum processes as "anti immigration". It's a perfect example of why this Prime Minister is the most divisive in Canadian history. 

[turningrite]

20 hours ago, montgomery said:

No, they're not coming apart at the seams. They're experiencing some problems which can be expected. You see I'm not a bigot or a racist so I can see the good in helping out people that need help, mostly because the US has caused huge migration problems and they are not helping. Did you know that the US has started nearly 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone? Canadians back our Liberal government in wanting to help.

Conservatives in the US are falling for the same old trick Hitler used against the Jews to turn the German people against them, and that was to fix all their problems. In the US Trump is using the same tactic with migrants and it's hugely successful in bringing the people together because half of that country were already closet racists anyway. It's extreme rightist tactics! It's fascism! And Canada's Conservatives are more than willing to try it in Canada too. Stop the migrants right? Especially the Muslim ones, right?

Perhaps you might try doing some online research before rendering sweeping generalizations. Scandinavian countries, and particularly Sweden and Denmark, face significant challenges relating to migration, not the least of which is the sustainability of the long-standing societal consensus in both countries on the efficacy of the welfare state itself. None of this is really a shock. The late Nobel-winning American economist, Milton Friedman, famously noted that the welfare state cannot practically co-exist with an open migration policy.

And your comments on the situation in the U.S. are wildly alarmist. While a strong although likely minority cohort of Americans fall into the camp of what has traditionally labelled "nativism," America continues to absorb hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year. Nativism's pull long preceded Trump's ascendancy and has largely been grounded in economic insecurity more than it has cultural exclusion and historically it's been promoted by what we now consider "progressive" institutions in society, particularly labour unions. Trump has certainly capitalized on certain aspects of American insecurity to assuage his political base but it's helpful to remember that America is perhaps the only major Western country to share a significant land border with a developing economy. Wealthy Australia, due to its isolation and proximity to the world's most populous continent, takes an equally hard line on immigration. If you understood economic history, perhaps you'd realize that prosperity was largely built and sustained in the democratic West within the context of secure national boundaries. There is little evidence to broadly suggest that it can be maintained otherwise.

Edited January 2, 2019 by turningrite

[montgomery]

24 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Perhaps you might try doing some online research before rendering sweeping generalizations. Scandinavian countries, and particularly Sweden and Denmark, face significant challenges relating to migration, not the least of which is the sustainability of the long-standing societal consensus in both countries on the efficacy of the welfare state itself. None of this is really a shock. The late Nobel-winning American economist, Milton Friedman, famously noted that the welfare state cannot practically co-exist with an open migration policy.

And your comments on the situation in the U.S. are wildly alarmist. While a strong although likely minority cohort of Americans fall into the camp of what has traditionally labelled "nativism," America continues to absorb hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year. Nativism's pull long preceded Trump's ascendancy and has largely been grounded in economic insecurity more than it has cultural exclusion and historically it's been promoted by what we now consider "progressive" institutions in society, particularly labour unions. Trump has certainly capitalized on certain aspects of American insecurity to assuage his political base but it's helpful to remember that America is perhaps the only major Western country to share a significant land border with a developing economy. Wealthy Australia, due to its isolation and proximity to the world's most populous continent, takes an equally a hard line on immigration. If you understood economic history, perhaps you'd realize that prosperity was largely built and sustained in the democratic West within the context of secure national boundaries. There is little evidence to broadly suggest that it can be maintained otherwise.

Let's dispense with your bigotted comments on migration to Sweden and Denmark. The simple answer is that they are choosing to take people in need into their countries and are not changing their policies because of the inconveniences they suffer. That is the first thing you need to understand if we are ever going to understand each other. I believe that they're doing the right thing and you don't because you have no feelings for the migrants in need.

But never mind, they are still on the list of the happiest countries in the world.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html

I know that your Conservative priorities have nothing to do with helping people in need, it's all about money with you, but you have to understand that it's different with me, and you'll have to accept that. This is why I'm a Liberal supporter and you're a Conservative supporter. 

As to the situation in the US currently, your defense of that dog and pony show under the Trump regime, is just too surreal to warrant my attention right now. How shameful that half the country, the racist southern half basically, support that monster! 

[montgomery]

33 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Perhaps you might try doing some online research before rendering sweeping generalizations. Scandinavian countries, and particularly Sweden and Denmark, face significant challenges relating to migration, not the least of which is the sustainability of the long-standing societal consensus in both countries on the efficacy of the welfare state itself. None of this is really a shock. The late Nobel-winning American economist, Milton Friedman, famously noted that the welfare state cannot practically co-exist with an open migration policy.

And your comments on the situation in the U.S. are wildly alarmist. While a strong although likely minority cohort of Americans fall into the camp of what has traditionally labelled "nativism," America continues to absorb hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year. Nativism's pull long preceded Trump's ascendancy and has largely been grounded in economic insecurity more than it has cultural exclusion and historically it's been promoted by what we now consider "progressive" institutions in society, particularly labour unions. Trump has certainly capitalized on certain aspects of American insecurity to assuage his political base but it's helpful to remember that America is perhaps the only major Western country to share a significant land border with a developing economy. Wealthy Australia, due to its isolation and proximity to the world's most populous continent, takes an equally a hard line on immigration. If you understood economic history, perhaps you'd realize that prosperity was largely built and sustained in the democratic West within the context of secure national boundaries. There is little evidence to broadly suggest that it can be maintained otherwise.

If I understood economic history?? We'll take it right back to the Sykes/Picot agreement if you like. Maybe that would be a good way to start to educate you on who the bad guys are in this world? Or we could talk about the US's 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone? America, that country you seem to want Canada to emulate! 

Australia? Why not New Zealand, which makes the list of ten? And differs from Australia where they hate their aboriginal people, and can be compared in that respect to N.Z. where they love their Maoris and honour them.

Liberals like me don't think the same way as you Conservatives. That's just a basic understanding you're going to have to come to terms with. Think of me in the extreme as a socialist or a communist, to get yourself on the right track to begin with. Then we'll work on getting it more correct. I'll think of you as an extreme right fascism supporter and you can try to explain to me why you think you're not one!

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, montgomery said:

1.) Let's dispense with your bigotted comments on migration to Sweden and Denmark.

2.) I know that your Conservative priorities have nothing to do with helping people in need, it's all about money with you, but you have to understand that it's different with me, and you'll have to accept that. This is why I'm a Liberal supporter and you're a Conservative supporter. 

 

1.) Bigotted (sic)? 'Argumentum ad hominem' (See online definition below.) You lose.

2.) I'm not a CPC member, nor am I a CPC voter. Actually, you know nothing about me, so please keep your assumptions to yourself. Clearly, you're a staunch LPC supporter, whether or not evidence and/or logic sustains your preference for its policies.

Argumentum ad hominem: a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

[turningrite]

3 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Liberals like me don't think the same way as you Conservatives. That's just a basic understanding you're going to have to come to terms with. Think of me in the extreme as a socialist or a communist, to get yourself on the right track to begin with. Then we'll work on getting it more correct. I'll think of you as an extreme right fascism supporter and you can try to explain to me why you think you're not one!

Again, 'argumentum ad hominem'... Again, you lose.

[montgomery]

14 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Again, 'argumentum ad hominem'... Again, you lose.

I'm happy to be the socialist/commie for you; it's something for you to work with. 

The topic is about Justin Trudeau and how 'you' people think he's Canada's worst ever. Do you subscribe to that position

I'm suggesting that Justin is becoming one of Canada's greatest and may even have the resolve to be as great as Jean Chretien, who kept Canada out of the US phony war of aggression against Iraq.

I don't see how any of that can fit the definition of being an 'as hominem' argument??

What do you want to say? Do you wish that Canada could be removed from the list of the ten happiest countries in the world? All ten are quite socialist/commie leaning aren't they! I think Trudeau wants to move us up higher on that list. Why not?

.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html 

Accepting more emigrants and people in need into our Canada is certainly the way of the future. Can't you see the necessity as world population grows? Will it cut into profit that much? Or is it more about the shade of those people's skin that makes you so against the whole idea? That's the schtick with people who support Trump you know. They don't even pretend it's not!

 

[WestCanMan]

24 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Let's dispense with your bigotted comments on migration to Sweden and Denmark. The simple answer is that they are choosing to take people in need into their countries and are not changing their policies because of the inconveniences they suffer. That is the first thing you need to understand if we are ever going to understand each other. I believe that they're doing the right thing and you don't because you have no feelings for the migrants in need.

But never mind, they are still on the list of the happiest countries in the world.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html

I know that your Conservative priorities have nothing to do with helping people in need, it's all about money with you, but you have to understand that it's different with me, and you'll have to accept that. This is why I'm a Liberal supporter and you're a Conservative supporter. 

As to the situation in the US currently, your defense of that dog and pony show under the Trump regime, is just too surreal to warrant my attention right now. How shameful that half the country, the racist southern half basically, support that monster! 

Your accusations of bigotry are pathetic and shallow. The reality is that you're just refusing to see facts because you'd rather do some virtue signalling than deal with real world issues.

Conservative priorities have everything to do with helping people in need, but we are more interested in helping those who are most afflicted than helping the ones who make us look good.

What did you think of your precious LIBERAL government government while they were staunchly refusing to admit that Daesh (that's the term that Trudeau uses for Islamic State, it's just a middle eastern acronym for Islamic State) was committing genocide until the UN (the 2nd most useless organization on the planet, after our own Liberal party) begrudgingly admitted it? What do you think of Trudeau's policy to allow war criminals back into the country without facing prosecution, even when they brag about it on the radio? 

As a Liberal you should kinda hate those types of people, no?

 

Your ignorance of American population demographics and their electoral system is duly noted, and your accusation of racism is again pathetic and shallow. 

 

[turningrite]

12 minutes ago, montgomery said:

1.) I'm suggesting that Justin is becoming one of Canada's greatest and may even have the resolve to be as great as Jean Chretien, who kept Canada out of the US phony war of aggression against Iraq.

2.) I don't see how any of that can fit the definition of being an 'as hominem' argument??

3.) What do you want to say? Do you wish that Canada could be removed from the list of the ten happiest countries in the world? All ten are quite socialist/commie leaning aren't they! I think Trudeau wants to move us up higher on that list. Why not?

4.) Accepting more emigrants and people in need into our Canada is certainly the way of the future. Can't you see the necessity as world population grows? Will it cut into profit that much?

5.)Or is it more about the shade of those people's skin that makes you so against the whole idea? That's the schtick with people who support Trump you know. They don't even pretend it's not!

 

1.) Wow! JT is down to 35% in the polls. Even his media friends are advising him to be less, well, fluffy in the run-up to the 2019 federal election. A Toronto Star editorial today warned that he should stop preening. Hey, when your friends tell you that, what can your enemies say that's more devastating? What are his accomplishments, by the way? There are pretty slim pickings, if you ask me. JT's a lightweight and more people figure this out as each day passes.

2.) Apparently, you don't understand the term.

3.) The rankings mean nothing. That's my point. Another survey recently indicated that the most unhappy places in Canada, the Toronto and Vancouver regions, which have the highest levels of immigration, are the unhappiest in Canada. The happiest regions are Atlantic Canada and Quebec, which have comparatively low levels of immigration. What do you make of that.

4.) Pure conjecture.

5.) You're veering into another 'ad hominem critique', so I won't respond further. See #2.

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by turningrite

[montgomery]

5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) Wow! JT is down to 35% in the polls. Even his media friends are advising him to be less, well, fluffy in the run-up to the 2019 federal election. A Toronto Star editorial today warned that he should stop preening. Hey, when your friends tell you that, what can your enemies say that's more devastating? What are his accomplishments, by the way? There are pretty slim pickings, if you ask me. JT's a lightweight and more people figure this out as each day passes.

2.) Apparently, you don't understand the term.

3.) The rankings mean nothing. That's my point. Another survey recently indicated that the most unhappy places in Canada, the Toronto and Vancouver regions, which have the highest levels of immigration, are the unhappiest in Canada. The happiest regions are Atlantic Canada and Quebec, which have comparatively low levels of immigration. What do you make of that.

4.) Pure conjecture.

5.) You're veering into another 'ad hominem critique', so I won't respond further. See #2.

 

Your continuously referring to immigration as bad for Canada is just more evidence of your lack of understanding of our need to be socially responsible and bring in more immigrants and faster. And also, we must be totally colour blind and make religioius sky fairy beliefs not a consideration. 

You don't agree with me on that and so I'm pointing out how we differ. I'm also pointing out rightists and extreme right fascists, as has become the norm in the US, is not good for Canada. You seem to think it's something we would want to emulate.

I see Justin as the anti-Trump and little Scheer as just another Trump far right fascist. Would you like to talk about Justin or do you insist on taking this thread more off topic?

As I said, Justin could become as great as Jean Chretien. You wouldn't understand that as greatness because you likely haven't even got over how Jean kept us out of Iraq, while the Conservative cried out their woes in support of the US's phony war. 

I'm just not going to entertain any of your notions of immigrants not being allowed into our country! It makes me feel dirty to even suspect a Canadian could be so cruel and selfish! Could it be that you're a Christian? There must be something I'm missing in your personal makeup that makes us so different?

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, montgomery said:

...As I said, Justin could become as great as Jean Chretien. You wouldn't understand that as greatness because you likely haven't even got over how Jean kept us out of Iraq, while the Conservative cried out their woes in support of the US's phony war.

 

Not likely, as PM Chretien enthusiastically supported Canada's military attack on another nation without UNSC approval in 1999 (Kosovo War), and conspired with France and the United States to invade Haiti to kidnap their democratically elected president (Aristide) in 2004.

 

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, montgomery said:

I'm happy to be the socialist/commie for you; it's something for you to work with. 

The topic is about Justin Trudeau and how 'you' people think he's Canada's worst ever. Do you subscribe to that position

I'm suggesting that Justin is becoming one of Canada's greatest and may even have the resolve to be as great as Jean Chretien, who kept Canada out of the US phony war of aggression against Iraq.

I don't see how any of that can fit the definition of being an 'as hominem' argument??

What do you want to say? Do you wish that Canada could be removed from the list of the ten happiest countries in the world? All ten are quite socialist/commie leaning aren't they! I think Trudeau wants to move us up higher on that list. Why not?

.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html 

Accepting more emigrants and people in need into our Canada is certainly the way of the future. Can't you see the necessity as world population grows? Will it cut into profit that much? Or is it more about the shade of those people's skin that makes you so against the whole idea? That's the schtick with people who support Trump you know. They don't even pretend it's not!

 

Trudeau is a complete and total idiot, and it seems as though he's doing his level best to destroy the country by simultaneously destroying our economy and racking up massive amounts of debt.

In his attempt to be the next J Chretien, Trudeau stopped bombing Islamic State. He also elevated returning Islamic State members to the level of "returning soldiers" by refusing to recognize them as war criminals, even when they brag about it. He even gave Omar Khadr $10.5M of our tax dollars when it wasn't his place to do so and it was done erroneously (there was also no precedent for that kind of money going to an actual terrorist, because other accused terrorists who were awarded settlements were actually found to be innocent). It was an insult to Albertans to take billion$ in equalization payments, kill the economy, drive away over a hundred billion in investment, and then offer a $1.6B loan. How about if you give me $10M and then I get you fired and give you a $16K loan? 

I don't know who called you a commie, or a socialist, but I don't see evidence of that in the few posts I read. I'd say you're naive and that you're intentionally ignorant because you love virtue signalling. 

 

You are being disingenuous by saying "accepting" people in, when you're really talking about people muscling their way across the border whether we like it or not, and then staying on the public tit for life if they so choose. We're all immigrants of some stripe unless we're 100% native, but our forefathers came here, learned the language, and then worked or starved. They also obeyed the laws and didn't demand that the majority changed their ways to be less offensive to them.

Skin colour isn't a problem for anyone. Culture is a problem. Just like you have a problem with Republicans because they don't believe in open borders, other Canadians have a problem with "accepting" people in who don't appreciate our way of life or our freedoms, we don't like being taken advantage of, we don't like terrorism, we don't like people who support genocide and we don't like our laws being challenged just because they're not medieval enough. People who are happy to contribute to our economy and respect our way of life are welcome. 

It's important to have some "Republican types" who insist on maintaining our values and upholding our standards. It would be ridiculous to just let people in here when they have the intent of draining the economy, being involved in criminal activity, or changing our way of life for the worse. I know that you call that racist. I call it understanding that freedom and democracy are  still just an experiment, compared to thousands of years of the various forms of authoritarianism all across the planet. Look around the world and think about how many countries there are that you would actually call free or truly democratic. What percentage of the earth's population live in countries that aren't free? We're a minority, and not by skin colour. It's by our form of government and way of life.

 

 

 

 

[Hates politicians]

On 12/30/2018 at 9:37 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Sounds like you think it is a good gig. Why don't you run and get paid for doing nothing? 

It is a good gig. Six yrs of bag licking and sucking schlong and taking it the exhaust pipe by your leader and your set for life with an $80 plus thousand pension fully indexed I don't bend over for anyone and I don't bow down to my leader nor am I willing to suck his weiner. So therefore I would have to run as an independant which is what every politician should be so that they represent their constituants, the problem is very few independants get elected because canadians are too stupid to realize that party politics don't work, they never have. Then there are the I'm a lieberal or I'm an ndp etc. Who will automatically vote for their brand no matter what they fxxx up.

[turningrite]

32 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Your continuously referring to immigration as bad for Canada is just more evidence of your lack of understanding of our need to be socially responsible and bring in more immigrants and faster. And also, we must be totally colour blind and make religioius sky fairy beliefs not a consideration. 

You don't agree with me on that and so I'm pointing out how we differ. I'm also pointing out rightists and extreme right fascists, as has become the norm in the US, is not good for Canada. You seem to think it's something we would want to emulate.

I see Justin as the anti-Trump and little Scheer as just another Trump far right fascist. Would you like to talk about Justin or do you insist on taking this thread more off topic?

As I said, Justin could become as great as Jean Chretien. You wouldn't understand that as greatness because you likely haven't even got over how Jean kept us out of Iraq, while the Conservative cried out their woes in support of the US's phony war. 

I'm just not going to entertain any of your notions of immigrants not being allowed into our country! It makes me feel dirty to even suspect a Canadian could be so cruel and selfish! Could it be that you're a Christian? There must be something I'm missing in your personal makeup that makes us so different?

My position is that immigration, like any other government policy, needs to be subjected to constant scrutiny and open to adjustment. Immigration in Canada is overly politicized and the promotion of its benefits is too often mainly grounded in "progressive" assumptions and ideology. Objective analysis suggests that large-scale immigration in post-industrial economies does not provide the benefits its proponents often argue to apply. The British economist and Oxford professor, Sir Paul Collier, has concluded that large-scale immigration only marginally increases per capita economic output and in so doing actually increases economic inequality. Australia, which has subjected its large-scale immigration program to scrutiny, concluded that immigration isn't a practical solution to the so-called "demographic deficit" (one of the hobby-horses of the immigration lobby) and that certain aspects of immigration policy, particularly family reunification, actually do impose an economic burden on taxpayers. Australia's study recommended paying much more attention to the economic viability of immigrants, including by matching eligibility to real economic and labour market requirements and prioritizing English-language skills. There is a good way to operate immigration programs and in many aspects it appears Canada's system doesn't reflect best practices. Generally speaking, any policy or program spared from objective observation and scrutiny will eventually generate negative outcomes.

Edited January 2, 2019 by turningrite

[Argus]

2 hours ago, montgomery said:

Let's dispense with your bigotted comments on migration to Sweden and Denmark. The simple answer is that they are choosing to take people in need into their countries and are not changing their policies because of the inconveniences they suffer. That is the first thing you need to understand if we are ever going to understand each other.

Both have already changed their policies quite a bit, so if you're going to insist everyone 'understand' your dishonest view of the world you're not going to get anywhere.

2 hours ago, montgomery said:

I know that your Conservative priorities have nothing to do with helping people in need, it's all about money with you, but you have to understand that it's different with me, and you'll have to accept that. This is why I'm a Liberal supporter and you're a Conservative supporter. 

More likely he pays taxes and you do not. Thus you berate him for caring about money, yet you place your vote on whichever party offers YOU the most money, the most programs and services FOR FREE, because other people have to pay for it.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

Your continuously referring to immigration as bad for Canada is just more evidence of your lack of understanding of our need to be socially responsible and bring in more immigrants and faster. And also, we must be totally colour blind and make religioius sky fairy beliefs not a consideration. 

If we were totally colour blind we would be bringing in more immigrants from Europe and the United States, and far, far fewer from the Middle East. Africa and China. Government statistics and studies have shown immigrants from Europe are far more economically successful in Canada than immigrants from other locations. This means they'll not only be happier, but will be contributing taxes so that poorer people can enjoy government services - rather than simply contributing to the demand for services.

However, there is little evidence to show we need to bring in immigrants at the rate we are, and no evidence that increasing that rate would be good for Canada - vs considerable evidence it would not be.

Quote

I'm just not going to entertain any of your notions of immigrants not being allowed into our country! It makes me feel dirty to even suspect a Canadian could be so cruel and selfish! Could it be that you're a Christian? There must be something I'm missing in your personal makeup that makes us so different?

Dirty... ? Your positions are so extreme I'm beginning to smell something here other than far left silliness.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Argus

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

I'm suggesting that Justin is becoming one of Canada's greatest and may even have the resolve to be as great as Jean Chretien, who kept Canada out of the US phony war of aggression against Iraq.

 

"Disliking" Justin Trudeau and his competence is not a partisan issue anymore. I personally have gone on record to say that this Liberal Party would have had a much more centrist and reasonable agenda had they elected Marc Garneau as leader. The divisiveness and indeed danger that we face is that Trudeau is so obviously not the leader of our country - but simply a parrot for his un-elected advisers, the main one being Gerald Butts. These two brief videos speak volumes of his competence. Have a look and tell us what you think - I mean really, take off your partisan blinders and tell us if you still think he's becoming one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers........

Justin Trudeau on Ethics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-5O4UPM0U

Justin Trudeau on Trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oedaSfUU0vc

 

 

[montgomery]

On 2/15/2017 at 12:42 PM, Omni said:

I think the biggest foreign policy blunder Trudeau has made was not cancelling Harper's deal to sell arms to the Saudis. I'm sure it is providing some good jobs but a bit of a black eye for the country.

The Conservatives get us into this kind of deals with the devil for the money they can make out of them. Then they scream bloody murder when the Liberals want to be honourable and get Canada out of them. The Conservative have no conscience when it comes to evil empires slaughtering people in foreign lands. The lives of people aren't as important to them as the profit they can make off the pro-war death insustry. 

Just ask one!

[Centerpiece]

40 minutes ago, montgomery said:

The Conservatives get us into this kind of deals with the devil for the money they can make out of them. Then they scream bloody murder when the Liberals want to be honourable and get Canada out of them. The Conservative have no conscience when it comes to evil empires slaughtering people in foreign lands. The lives of people aren't as important to them as the profit they can make off the pro-war death insustry. 

Just ask one!

Wow! You're way out there....a troll I guess. Truth is, Liberals and Conservatives have seldom been that far apart - both relatively centrist with one leaning towards bigger government and the other towards personal responsibility - but really, quite close in keeping Canada on a pragmatic course. Trudeau has really upset the apple cart in veering so far to the Left in following the ideology of his (as I said previously) his un-elected advisers, dividing the country, and creating a fraudulent anti-immigration shield for his globalist, open borders recklessness. Modest deficits and a balanced budget that have stretched to over $80 billion with hundreds of billions yet to come. In a similar vein, a carbon tax that "starts" at $10 and $20 per ton but ideologically will rise to $300 - without telling Canadians! Will all that revenue be returned to Canadians as with the first $10 or $20? Would you trust his backroom boys. These are not your father's Liberals. They are an aberration who have sullied the Liberal brand - and like Kathleen Wynne - they will pay the price dearly. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, montgomery said:

The Conservatives get us into this kind of deals with the devil for the money they can make out of them. Then they scream bloody murder when the Liberals want to be honourable and get Canada out of them. The Conservative have no conscience when it comes to evil empires slaughtering people in foreign lands. The lives of people aren't as important to them as the profit they can make off the pro-war death insustry. 

Just ask one!

Why can’t we sell arms to the Saudis? Are you being a racist or a religious bigot? 

 

[Zeitgeist]

18 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

"Disliking" Justin Trudeau and his competence is not a partisan issue anymore. I personally have gone on record to say that this Liberal Party would have had a much more centrist and reasonable agenda had they elected Marc Garneau as leader. The divisiveness and indeed danger that we face is that Trudeau is so obviously not the leader of our country - but simply a parrot for his un-elected advisers, the main one being Gerald Butts. These two brief videos speak volumes of his competence. Have a look and tell us what you think - I mean really, take off your partisan blinders and tell us if you still think he's becoming one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers........

Justin Trudeau on Ethics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-5O4UPM0U

Justin Trudeau on Trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oedaSfUU0vc

 

 

I have to agree with you here.  I try to be as progressive as possible without giving away the farm, but while I disagree with Trump’s approach, which I think is foolishly belligerent to allies and xenophobic, I agree with the idea of slowing immigration to get it right and questioning trade deals that have allowed countries to maintain low labour standards in order to keep exports on hyperdrive while also creating unfair barriers to imports.  Trump plays into the nativist anti-“globalist” paranoia when it’s good international rules that will actually save the environment and jobs in developed countries.  We just need better international rules that are respected.  Sovereignty and a certain amount of exceptionalism will probably always exist and a certain amount probably should.  I worry about a mindless open borders approach that fails to recognize that some cultural values are healthier than others and that protecting our own country’s values and traditions is important.  We can’t be naive and we shouldn’t be reckless about spending, as that always results in an austere and right wing backlash.  Think of Mike Harris after Bob Rae in Ontario. 

[montgomery]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Why can’t we sell arms to the Saudis? Are you being a racist or a religious bigot? 

 

Why should Canada be selling arms to anybody? Is there a reason other than profiting on killing people in foreign lands? 

In the case of selling to the evil Saudis it's just useful to the US intentions of starting a war with Iran and destroying that country too. But now that the window of opportunity for the US to bring the entire ME into it's sphere of influence, Russia and China have slammed that window shut and won't allow it to happen. The U.S. understands what M.A.D. means,  and we're back to another Cold War.

But it's very encouraging so far because Russia/Putin have been able to save Syria's people from another US bombing campaign from 30,000 feet. Syria is out of bounds to further Nato aggression and the US appears to be stalled for a long time at 40 wars of aggression.

[montgomery]

23 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) Bigotted (sic)? 'Argumentum ad hominem' (See online definition below.) You lose.

2.) I'm not a CPC member, nor am I a CPC voter. Actually, you know nothing about me, so please keep your assumptions to yourself. Clearly, you're a staunch LPC supporter, whether or not evidence and/or logic sustains your preference for its policies.

Argumentum ad hominem: a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

If you're not a CPC voter or supporter then what extreme right political party 'do' you support? A local Neo-Nazi party?

Yes, I support the LPC. I used to support the NDP but they insisted in supporting the fascism of the CPC in order to serve their interests. So if you criticize me for being a Liberal, then what party would you suggest I should support?

I think you must be either a closet CPC supporter or something more extreme right. You sure do seem to hate the top ten happiest countries in the world, and Canada taking a place among them. 

Why do you hate immigrants? Or do you just hate those who are Muslim or have a shade darker skin than you? People of the Muslim faith don't want to harm others. But there are a few individual exceptions with people who have had their entire families slaughtered under Canada's/Nato's bombs. Can't we just try to screen those few out? 

I mean, they're not to blame of course but I guess Conservative hate has a point with victims being dangerous. No matter that the US had it coming on 911 because of what it did to a million or more Iraqi people, based on lies.