Justin Trudeau, another Kardashian

[AngusThermopyle]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

I didn't expect him to be this bad; he is far worse than expected.

Unfortunately this is pretty much what I expected. I'm sure it'll get worse though. Since he was elected it's been a steady down hill progression from him.

[GostHacked]

Just now, AngusThermopyle said:

Unfortunately this is pretty much what I expected. I'm sure it'll get worse though. Since he was elected it's been a steady down hill progression from him.

Younger people being influenced by his online suave thinking he is going to help them. He is like the rest and really don't care about anyone but himself. But there are still 2-3 years to go! Not looking forward to this at all.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Return of the feudal system, brought to you by August1991

Well at least the people who vote for expensive programs will be the ones who pay for them.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Plato also had a good idea about it.  In many ways, it seems like a better design than democracy based on misinformation and identity politics.

I'm all for having to earn the right to vote. That way people might take their vote seriously. And be more careful who they gave it to.

[dialamah]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm all for having to earn the right to vote. That way people might take their vote seriously. And be more careful who they gave it to.

Have to have quality candidates, too.   If I don't want to vote Liberal next time around, then what are my choices?    The more I learn about Scheer, the more wary I am of his religious bias and his right-wing Christian support base.  Singh is also an observant Sikh, an issue for me although I'd have to know more about Sikhism and how he practices before absolutely deciding against him based on his religious beliefs.  But he's also inexperienced and thus far, is surrounded by inexperience, and I'd prefer someone with a bit more behind him politically.   At this point, as much as I may not appreciate JT as an ongoing PM, I am not sure the other two choices are viable for me.   Selfies, socks and 'ahs, umms' while speaking might be annoying, but I would be even more annoyed to have policy decided based on religious grounds or to have even a 'progressive' Trump-like inexperienced person in power.

And, how would someone 'earn' the right to vote?   A weekend course?   A lifetime of political involvement?  Paying money?

[AngusThermopyle]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Have to have quality candidates, too.   If I don't want to vote Liberal next time around, then what are my choices?    The more I learn about Scheer, the more wary I am of his religious bias and his right-wing Christian support base.  Singh is also an observant Sikh, an issue for me although I'd have to know more about Sikhism and how he practices before absolutely deciding against him based on his religious beliefs.  But he's also inexperienced and thus far, is surrounded by inexperience, and I'd prefer someone with a bit more behind him politically.   At this point, as much as I may not appreciate JT as an ongoing PM, I am not sure the other two choices are viable for me.   Selfies, socks and 'ahs, umms' while speaking might be annoying, but I would be even more annoyed to have policy decided based on religious grounds or to have even a 'progressive' Trump-like inexperienced person in power.

And, how would someone 'earn' the right to vote?   A weekend course?   A lifetime of political involvement?  Paying money?

He's far beyond annoying. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but he's established a habit of making Canada a laughingstock around the world. His policies are dangerous and expensive. He's damaging our international relations with quite a few countries, the list just goes on and on. As for Scheer this religious policy crap is just that, made up hogwash. In fact whenever the media tries to trip him up with it his answers are reasoned and balanced. Not one single time has he been heard to utter anything policy related that is influenced by religion. Rather than regurgitating Liberal fear provoking lies it would be better to actually listen to the man and learn what the truth actually is.

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

He's damaging our international relations with quite a few countries, the list just goes on and on.

Sure thing, could you provide statements from the governments of those countries that say how their relationship with Canada has been ruined by "He".

Concerning Scheer, you conveniently ignore how he supported reopening debate on same sex marriage and was against physician assisted suicide. Conveniently he was speaker of the house on the Conservative (Wadsworth) abortion bill so we don't have his vote there.

 

 

[dialamah]

51 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

He's far beyond annoying. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but he's established a habit of making Canada a laughingstock around the world. His policies are dangerous and expensive. He's damaging our international relations with quite a few countries, the list just goes on and on. As for Scheer this religious policy crap is just that, made up hogwash. In fact whenever the media tries to trip him up with it his answers are reasoned and balanced. Not one single time has he been heard to utter anything policy related that is influenced by religion. Rather than regurgitating Liberal fear provoking lies it would be better to actually listen to the man and learn what the truth actually is.

habit of making Canada a laughingstock around the world.  - Hyperbole.

His policies are dangerous and expensive.  Opinion and inaccurate.  His policies turned out not to be a hell of a lot different than Harper's once he was in office; his rhetoric is merely different.

damaging our international relations with quite a few countries - More hyperbole; this visit to India may have been poorly done but overall Canada's relations with other countries remain largely unchanged under the Liberals, although our reputation has improved.

As for Scheer this religious policy crap is just that, made up hogwash - maybe it is, maybe it isn't.   But his voting record suggests to me that religion plays a pretty big role in the kinds of policies he'd support and/or implement.     

Rather than regurgitating Liberal Conservative fear provoking lies it would be better to actually listen to the man and learn what the truth actually is.  

 

[WestCoastRunner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm all for having to earn the right to vote. That way people might take their vote seriously. And be more careful who they gave it to.

How would someone earn the right to vote?

[WestCoastRunner]

2 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

He's far beyond annoying. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but he's established a habit of making Canada a laughingstock around the world. His policies are dangerous and expensive. He's damaging our international relations with quite a few countries, the list just goes on and on. As for Scheer this religious policy crap is just that, made up hogwash. In fact whenever the media tries to trip him up with it his answers are reasoned and balanced. Not one single time has he been heard to utter anything policy related that is influenced by religion. Rather than regurgitating Liberal fear provoking lies it would be better to actually listen to the man and learn what the truth actually is.

A post clearly lacking of facts. Until you can provide facts, your post is not worth addressing. Can you please provide stats/facts etc and let’s bring this forum back up a notch or two. 

[AngusThermopyle]

One way we could bring it up a notch or two would be if Liberal cheerleaders were to actually look at the reality of the situation and stop denying facts. I know, that's just too much to ask.

 

By the way, it's a fact that our relations with the Chinese have worsened, also the Philipinnes. Not to mention India, who's PM couldn't even be bothered to meet with Trudeau until the day before he left, and took the opportunity to send a not so veiled message to him. Of course you'll claim it's just normal to send a low level casually dressed member of the government to greet foreign leaders, sure. The list indeed does go on, but I can't really be bothered as I know you'll just categorically deny everything.

Indeed the world is laughing at Canada and Trudeau. You may not like that but your dislike isn't going to stop them from laughing.

[WestCoastRunner]

8 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

One way we could bring it up a notch or two would be if Liberal cheerleaders were to actually look at the reality of the situation and stop denying facts. I know, that's just too much to ask.

 

By the way, it's a fact that our relations with the Chinese have worsened, also the Philipinnes. Not to mention India, who's PM couldn't even be bothered to meet with Trudeau until the day before he left, and took the opportunity to send a not so veiled message to him. Of course you'll claim it's just normal to send a low level casually dressed member of the government to greet foreign leaders, sure. The list indeed does go on, but I can't really be bothered as I know you'll just categorically deny everything.

Indeed the world is laughing at Canada and Trudeau. You may not like that but your dislike isn't going to stop them from laughing.

More hyperbole. 

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

More hyperbole. 

No, he really is embarrassing himself - and Canada.  It's sad when the country he's visiting is embarrassed to be seem with him, not to mention getting ripped by European press.  What started out as cute and fun, seems now to recognized as an illness, a desperate cry for celebrity. 

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

How would someone earn the right to vote?

Money, money, money

[Argus]

16 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

How would someone earn the right to vote?

In various ways. 

I think everyone should have to register to vote, and in doing so take a small test, something that could be done in thirty minutes or so, and which demonstrates basic knowledge of what has been happening politically and economically, and what the major party platforms are. I think that merely having to go somewhere and take a brief test would result in nearly half of the electorate not bothering to get 'registered' to vote. Not because they'd find it hard to pass but because they just wouldn't bother. That would be a good thing. The fewer lazy people who don't really care a lot who vote the better.

In  a broader way (which will never happen) I think you should have to be a taxpayer in order to decide how taxes should be spent. And if not, then you should have to do something, volunteer work, say, or joining the military or... something. With rights should come responsibilities. If you have no responsibilities to this country then why should you have the right to vote?

[Argus]

15 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

One way we could bring it up a notch or two would be if Liberal cheerleaders were to actually look at the reality of the situation and stop denying facts. I know, that's just too much to ask.

They will just should 'fake news' like the Trump supporters. Their level of commitment to truth and principles is just as strong as that of the Trumpites.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

In various ways. 

I think everyone should have to register to vote, and in doing so take a small test, something that could be done in thirty minutes or so, and which demonstrates basic knowledge of what has been happening politically and economically, and what the major party platforms are. I think that merely having to go somewhere and take a brief test would result in nearly half of the electorate not bothering to get 'registered' to vote. Not because they'd find it hard to pass but because they just wouldn't bother. That would be a good thing. The fewer lazy people who don't really care a lot who vote the better.

In  a broader way (which will never happen) I think you should have to be a taxpayer in order to decide how taxes should be spent. And if not, then you should have to do something, volunteer work, say, or joining the military or... something. With rights should come responsibilities. If you have no responsibilities to this country then why should you have the right to vote?

Sounds like a Kelly Leitch type idea.  

[AngusThermopyle]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

They will just should 'fake news' like the Trump supporters. Their level of commitment to truth and principles is just as strong as that of the Trumpites.

True, or their other favourite when they don't like what they hear, hyperbole.

[August1991]

On 2/25/2018 at 9:09 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I'm pretty sure that dividing the population this way will again lead to bloody revolution.

On the contrary, the 19th century in Europe was largely peaceful and civilized states decided taxes/voter rights this way.

The European Peace collapsed in 1914 because, well, why?

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

On the contrary, the 19th century in Europe was largely peaceful and civilized states decided taxes/voter rights this way.

The European Peace collapsed in 1914 because, well, why?

Intra-national treaties and internal security are two different conversations.  There is plenty of history of violence in our own country, from social strife.  Do you know about that ?

[August1991]

On 2/27/2018 at 7:31 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Intra-national treaties and internal security are two different conversations.  There is plenty of history of violence in our own country, from social strife.  Do you know about that ?

Violence in Canada? Even in the US?

For the past few centuries, European violence has been remarkable. In the 1990s, Yugoslavia was involved in a civil war. Nowadays, Russia is attacking Ukraine.

When did Tennessee last attack Ohio? Or Ontario invade New York?

=====

Returning to my OP, this recent trip to India seems to confirm my point. Justin Trudeau is a Kardashian.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Violence in Canada? Even in the US?

2. For the past few centuries, European violence has been remarkable. In the 1990s, Yugoslavia was involved in a civil war. Nowadays, Russia is attacking Ukraine.

    When did Tennessee last attack Ohio? Or Ontario invade New York?

=====

Returning to my OP, this recent trip to India seems to confirm my point. Justin Trudeau is a Kardashian.

 

 

1. Yes.

2. We're talking past each other.  You either want to talk about something else or aren't getting the obvious: extreme disparity leads to internal unrest.  Venezuela declared war on the 1%, and they are disintegrated.  Nobody invaded them.

I'm not interested in restating obvious points to you over and over again, only to have you bring up irrelevant points like Europe has had wars in the 20th century.

[OftenWrong]

On 26/02/2018 at 11:35 PM, August1991 said:

The European Peace collapsed in 1914 because, well, why?

Because various factions wanted to break away from the over-arching "federalism" of the Austro-Hungarian empire?

[August1991]

On 3/3/2018 at 9:25 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.

2. We're talking past each other.  You either want to talk about something else or aren't getting the obvious: extreme disparity leads to internal unrest.  Venezuela declared war on the 1%, and they are disintegrated.  Nobody invaded them.

I'm not interested in restating obvious points to you over and over again, only to have you bring up irrelevant points like Europe has had wars in the 20th century.

1. Violence in Europe over the past 100 years has been far greater than in America.

2. I disagree. Extreme disparity does not lead to unrest. You are mistaking correlation and cause/effect. And I'm not even certain about the correlation between social unrest and extreme disparity.

===

I apologize for the thread drift - but I fear creating a new thread....

And I truly hate this forum's current software.  The old software was far more suited to what this forum is.   

[August1991]

On 3/3/2018 at 10:08 AM, OftenWrong said:

Because various factions wanted to break away from the over-arching "federalism" of the Austro-Hungarian empire?

I'm not certain that was the cause of the First World War.

But the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was arguably the most significant result of the war.

=

The federalism of the United States Constitution has stood them well for almost 250 years. Federalism (over-arching or otherwise) is surely not the problem.

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was also "multicultural". Was that a problem? Alone, I suspect not.

==========

To return to my OP, I fear that our current PM is presenting ideas of his father as he learned them from his mother. Uh, this is how his father stated them:

Federalism? A remarkable way to organize a State.

Bilingualism? A Federal State may have certain governments obliged to communicate with citizens in a specific official/state language.

Multiculturalism? The State has no official/state culture. As Pierre Trudeau famously said, "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

===

To my knowledge, I never recall seeing Pierre Trudeau practicing in public anything plainly religious to win votes. No doubt that he did it but I suspect that he was very uncomfortable. And make no mistake: what we now call "multi-cultural" should be called "multi-religional".

Pierre Trudeau wanted Canada to be a bilingual State that has no State religion; a multi-religional State.

Edited March 5, 2018 by August1991