Jump to content

Who could effectively oppose Trudeau in the next election?


Icur12c

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

1.) I know a lot about you already and you tell me more each time you post something. Now you're telling me that you want Canada to be more like Australia in some ways. But Austrailia takes a position more like Trump on emigrants while Canada and Canadians take a very different position. We see our social responsibility of taking in people from other countries who are in desperate need, while you don't accept that sort of ideology because you are a Conservative, or a conservative.

2.) I can't put your concerns of GDP over those more human concerns which I've tried to impress on you. What can I say? We're different. If you want to make a point on how you care about people in need then do so. Maybe you just find it difficult to express yourself in that respect and find it much easier to think of profit or for profit government. Granted, your profit and loss statement is important and profit is important to Canada too, but people are also important, regardless of whether they are pure white like you.

3.) maybe we should just stick to how you hate Trudeau?

1.) Well, you've been on this site for all of about five minutes, metaphorically speaking, and yet have pigeonholed my views and presumably those of others who don't blindly support your party and its leader. You, by the way, suggested I look at the other nine countries on the top-ten happiness list to look for other examples of good governance. I chose Australia, because of its may similarities (excluding climate) to Canada in comparison to the rest. Now though, you're trashing Australia for its relatively tougher approach to immigration. It seems you're trying to have it both ways. 

2.) Logically, immigration policy must always be grounded in economic realities in order to benefit a receiving country. To do otherwise is to undermine living standards and the viability of public programs. Mr. Trudeau might believe that budgets balance themselves and that his immigration program is unquestionably beneficial to Canada. I think most prudent and intelligent voters interpret his certainty on such matters to be pure political malarkey.

3.) I don't hate Trudeau. I just don't have much respect for him and his "progressive" coterie and I believe his government's record has been, at best, mediocre. I evaluate political parties and leaders on the depth and breadth of their policy expertise as well as their openness to both public input and criticism. As today's Star editorial ('Voters deserve the best choice) noted - and the Star has a reputation for solidly supporting Trudeau's agenda - to be taken seriously the Libs have to avoid demonizing their critics as the election approaches.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

I know a lot about you already and you tell me more each time you post something. Now you're telling me that you want Canada to be more like Australia in some ways. But Austrailia takes a position more like Trump on emigrants while Canada and Canadians take a very different position.

There's no evidence Canadians take a different position, and quite a bit that they agree.

49% of Canadians think Canada is bringing in too many immigrants.

68% of Canadians want immigrants to assimilate better and faster

75% of Canadians support a values test for immigrants.

68% of Canadian want their province to impose a face covering law like Quebec.

Two thirds of Canadians think we are taking in too many refugees

70% of Canadians were opposed to bringing in so many Syrian refugees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's no evidence Canadians take a different position, and quite a bit that they agree.

 

As  montgomery has already identified his (I'm assuming gender here) bias, he apparently believes that his positions are unassailable, at least in his own mind. He's a committed Lib, through and through, no matter the realities of public opinion nor the existence of objective evidence refuting the logic or benefits of Lib policies.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

directly contradicts

Which tells me that you're resorting to disinformation invented by Conservatives who hate all immigrants. Especially when you would provide a link that pretends that 70% of Canadians hate Syrians because they are mostly Muslims. Is there no end to your evil. Can't you even understand that a country the size of Canada with 35 million people is comparable to China in land area can hold a billion and a half? Wake up and don't be so exclusionist on the kind of people we accept. This isn't the US south in the 60's where people 'you' don't like are forced to drink out of separate drinking fountains. Shame on you. 

If you're a Conservative or conservative supporter then you're teaching me a lot about what conservatives truly are. And it has a pretty nasty stench coming off of it. 

Take your hating somewhere else. This thread is supposed to be about which fascist, racist, neo-nazi the Cons can pull out the sewer to run against Trudeau. Import one from the US, they're awash in KKK'ers who will fit right in the Con agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

directly contradicts

No, it doesn't. Is English a second language for you, just as logic and common sense are foreign concepts?

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

Which tells me that you're resorting to disinformation invented by Conservatives who hate all immigrants.

By quoting mainstream pollsters? That's a pretty goofy response.

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

Especially when you would provide a link that pretends that 70% of Canadians hate Syrians because they are mostly Muslims.

I don't believe anyone suggested they 'hate' Syrians.

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

Is there no end to your evil.

Dunno. I'll have to check.

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

Can't you even understand that a country the size of Canada with 35 million people is comparable to China in land area can hold a billion and a half?

No, but I can understand geography better than you, and that you can't put tens of millions of people on frozen tundra.

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

If you're a Conservative or conservative supporter then you're teaching me a lot about what conservatives truly are.

I don't think people who live beneath bridges are much interested in learning things...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Argus said:

No, it doesn't. Is English a second language for you, just as logic and common sense are foreign concepts?

By quoting mainstream pollsters? That's a pretty goofy response.

I don't believe anyone suggested they 'hate' Syrians.

Dunno. I'll have to check.

No, but I can understand geography better than you, and that you can't put tens of millions of people on frozen tundra.

I don't think people who live beneath bridges are much interested in learning things...

Tell me, do you support citizens having a right to carry handguns on the street because it's their constitutional right? And the same with fully automatic AR type rifles? 

And as to your notion that I don't understand geography? Are you trying to say that most of Canada isn't habitable? Are you saying we can't fit in a half billion people at least? Or are you saying that we could but they would have to be pure white Christians? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments on Scheer's and the Conservative's history of racism.

https://north99.org/2018/08/10/a-not-so-brief-history-of-racism-from-andrew-scheers-conservative-party/

But the big question is, are Con supporters even interested in debating the accusations? Aren't the majority of their ilk quite proud of preferring pure white Christians as citizens of Canada? Don't they openly tell us that people who immigrate to Canada must 'integrate', and then refuse to tell us what that's supposed to mean, as to what others will be permitted to do and not do?

I contend that the Conservatives are the anti-liberals and they hate everything liberalism stands for. Their god is money and Milty Friedman and they don't pretend otherwise!

Check out the link and all the sub-headings. Each of those speaks loudly for what they really are when out of their closets.

Edited by montgomery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, montgomery said:

A few comments on Scheer's and the Conservative's history of racism.

But the big question is, are Con supporters even interested in debating the accusations?

No, because it's a moronic accusation without any evidence made by a poster with no credibility or understanding of politics or life.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, because it's a moronic accusation without any evidence made by a poster with no credibility or understanding of politics or life.

The link I posted makes the accusations. But ignore it if you have no answer.

https://north99.org/2018/08/10/a-not-so-brief-history-of-racism-from-andrew-scheers-conservative-party/

They're neo-Nazis posing as a viable alternative for Canada's government. We've been fooled by them in the past and they never change their stripes. This time they're even applauding the US's psychopath president and following his lead of appealing to the lowest in his constituents.

Why, didn't Harper even try to undercut our Canadian NAFTA negotiating team? 

And then we Liberals should get into the pesonal stuff too shouldn't we? the Cons live by it! Look at fat little halfpint Scheer as compared to our physically fit and great looking gentleman who is our Prime Minister! 

Maybe try a pair of highheel cowboy boots and a ten gallon cowboy hat on Scheer? And maybe a bit of lip rouge and some makeup? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2018 at 6:01 PM, Zeitgeist said:

If Trudeau is out of touch and naive, O’Leary is another greed is good populist.  We’ve had enough of these messes. I don’t see any potential federal leaders with the breadth of vision necessary to take us where we need to go right now. We need to capitalize on our resources yet prevent the rolling back of commitments to tackle climate change, whatever the fed climate change deniers south of the border think.  

We also have some serious work to do fixing and healing the health, education and housing problems on indigenous reserves with long term sustainable solutions.  

Canada also has to be relentless in its defence of human rights and rule of law against the likes of the Saudis, China, and perhaps even the US under current leadership.  We should NOT ratify USMCA without the US removing the steel and aluminum tariffs.  We need to fight for a level playing field on labour standards and wages GLOBALLY.  Yes I said that dirty word.  Only an equal playing field internationally can prevent the further offshoring of jobs by the likes of GM, which should be boycotted if they don’t maintain production levels in Canada that reflect its high sales in Canada. 

We also need to handle immigration more carefully and moderately without giving into the temptation to blame our problems on immigrants, which I know some on here do. Accepting legitimate refugees was a social good of which Canadians should be proud, but we have to turn more attention to problems at home, of which there are many in what is nevertheless such a great country.  

A small nuke dropped on every reserve would solve all our problems with those savages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2019 at 5:24 PM, Argus said:

No, it doesn't. Is English a second language for you, just as logic and common sense are foreign concepts?

By quoting mainstream pollsters? That's a pretty goofy response.

I don't believe anyone suggested they 'hate' Syrians.

Dunno. I'll have to check.

No, but I can understand geography better than you, and that you can't put tens of millions of people on frozen tundra.

I don't think people who live beneath bridges are much interested in learning things...

 

 

I don't think people who live beneath bridges are much interested in learning things...

Please stop the personal attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, montgomery said:

This is not your issue so please keep out of it with your own personal attack on me. I don't find it to be egregious enough to reprot but if you choose to escalate that sort of behaviour I will.

 

I'm speaking up for Argus, as I have every right to do.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, montgomery said:

A few comments on Scheer's and the Conservative's history of racism.

https://north99.org/2018/08/10/a-not-so-brief-history-of-racism-from-andrew-scheers-conservative-party/

 

Is 'north99' an objective and/or independent media source? I suspect it might offer the comfort of bias confirmation to those who already subscribe to its point of view, but a 2018 Macleans article (link below) suggests it may be a partisan pro-Lib outlet. Sometimes doing a little research can be very helpful. Nice try, but no cigar.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-two-ex-political-staffers-behind-the-ontario-elections-most-digital-savvy-outside-groups/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I'm speaking up for Argus, as I have every right to do.

You have no right to attack me personally and you have been warned to not escalate that sort of behaviour.

Your comment to me:

Pot, meet kettle.

Isn't an attack or challenge to my opinions, it's an attack against me. And as I've already told you, I don't find it egregious enough to bother to report this time. We're going to find a lot to disagree about between us so let's just try to stick to doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, montgomery said:

You have no right to attack me personally and you have been warned to not escalate that sort of behaviour.

Your comment to me:

 

Isn't an attack or challenge to my opinions, it's an attack against me. And as I've already told you, I don't find it egregious enough to bother to report this time. We're going to find a lot to disagree about between us so let's just try to stick to doing that.

Pot, again meet kettle. After the deluge of scurrilous insinuations you cast against me yesterday, I think it only fair to offer assistance and support to others who are being similarly bullied. This is an open forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a comment yesterday that needs to be corrected.

Why, didn't Harper even try to undercut our Canadian NAFTA negotiating team? 

I meant to say: Why, did Harper even try to undercut our Canadian NAFTA negotiating team?

It seems that the US and it's completely off the wall neo-Nazi tactics appeal to the likes of Harper more than him being a Canadian? And there's little doubt that the Con party won't be questioning his disrespectful behaviour. 

The Con party has always been ready to sell our country out to blackmail attempts by the criminals south of our border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, montgomery said:

 

The Con party has always been ready to sell our country out to blackmail attempts by the criminals south of our border.

This kind of blatant, knee jerk anti-Americanism is tiresome and pointless. The U.S. may not be perfect, but it is our ally and trading partner and many of us have relatives and close friends in that country. The main problem with American foreign and trade policy is grounded in its practice of exceptionalism, an approach by the way that's replicated by the other two major military powers, China and Russia, neither of which is in any normal sense a healthy, functioning democracy. Americans are not generally, as you put it, "criminals." My mother was an American and I am a dual Canadian-American citizen and I consider your comment to be offensive. Try to be more constructive and thoughtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

This kind of blatant, knee jerk anti-Americanism is tiresome and pointless. The U.S. may not be perfect, but it is our ally and trading partner and many of us have relatives and close friends in that country. The main problem with American foreign and trade policy is grounded in its practice of exceptionalism, an approach by the way that's replicated by the other two major military powers, China and Russia, neither of which is in any normal sense a healthy, functioning democracy. Americans are not generally, as you put it, "criminals." My mother was an American and I am a dual Canadian-American citizen and I consider your comment to be offensive. Try to be more constructive and thoughtful.

The word 'perfect' shouldn't ever be mentioned in any discussion on the US.

The only way the US is exceptional anymore is in it being exceptionally aggressive in starting 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone!

We decent Canadians can't continue to ignore that and the fact that we've become aligned with the bad guys. Unfortunately some Canadians have relatives and friends in that country but if we're going to be Canadians first then we need to deal with the problem in a responsible way. I would suggest not visiting that country and practicing 'tough love' toward them by informing friends and relatives in that country that we must now rise above their continuous wars and killing of people in foreign lands. 

When the next terrorist attack against the US comes, in revenge for US crimes abroad, Canada must not have been complicit in those crimes if we expect to avoid that revenge. Thank Chretien and the Liberal party for not allowing Canada to be a part of their phony Iraq war that was based on lies. Thank the dogs that the Con party didn't get it's way. Trudeau needs to keep it that way! 

There's nothing pointless about condemning US wars of aggression! There's a great deal of evil in supporting it by being complicit in it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, montgomery said:

The word 'perfect' shouldn't ever be mentioned in any discussion on the US.

The only way the US is exceptional anymore is in it being exceptionally aggressive in starting 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone!

We decent Canadians can't continue to ignore that and the fact that we've become aligned with the bad guys. Unfortunately some Canadians have relatives and friends in that country but if we're going to be Canadians first then we need to deal with the problem in a responsible way. I would suggest not visiting that country and practicing 'tough love' toward them by informing friends and relatives in that country that we must now rise above their continuous wars and killing of people in foreign lands. 

When the next terrorist attack against the US comes, in revenge for US crimes abroad, Canada must not have been complicit in those crimes if we expect to avoid that revenge. Thank Chretien and the Liberal party for not allowing Canada to be a part of their phony Iraq war that was based on lies. Thank the dogs that the Con party didn't get it's way. Trudeau needs to keep it that way! 

There's nothing pointless about condemning US wars of aggression! There's a great deal of evil in supporting it by being complicit in it! 

As irritating as the U.S. government can often be, in general we should be thankful that the U.S. is our neighbour. You might want to ask those in countries bordering other superpowers what they think. You might want to talk to Tibetans or Ukrainians, for instance, before slagging the Americans. If you were to poll Canadians as to which of the superpowers they would choose as their neighbour, my guess is that the U.S. would overwhelming win the contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

As irritating as the U.S. government can often be, in general we should be thankful that the U.S. is our neighbour. You might want to ask those in countries bordering other superpowers what they think. You might want to talk to Tibetans or Ukrainians, for instance, before slagging the Americans. If you were to poll Canadians as to which of the superpowers they would choose as their neighbour, my guess is that the U.S. would overwhelming win the contest.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're on about. All I know is that the US has started 40 criminal wars of aggression since WW2 alone and the other superpowers have started next to none, or none. My preference is that Canada now align itself with the BRICS, on the side of peace. If you don't know what the Brics is then just ask. Otherwise, unless you have any point to make, we're finished for now.

I'm very interested in addressing your misunderstandings and misconception on the Ukraine and the provocations for war against Russia by the US. It disgusts me nearly as much as the US intervention and provocations in Syria which has caused the deaths of so many millions of the Syrian people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, montgomery said:

I haven't the slightest idea what you're on about. All I know is that the US has started 40 criminal wars of aggression since WW2 alone and the other superpowers have started next to none, or none. My preference is that Canada now align itself with the BRICS, on the side of peace. If you don't know what the Brics is then just ask. Otherwise, unless you have any point to make, we're finished for now.

I'm very interested in addressing your misunderstandings and misconception on the Ukraine and the provocations for war against Russia by the US. It disgusts me nearly as much as the US intervention and provocations in Syria which has caused the deaths of so many millions of the Syrian people.

U.S. military aggression has been problematic in the post-WWII era. As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom's notes this week in his piece 'Trump is right to pull out of Syria', Trump's policy of foreign military disengagement actually represents a retreat from the recent record of interventionism. But most "progressives" in the West have such a blinkered view of Trump that they can't or won't acknowledge this as progress. The U.S. was for a time, and particularly following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world's single most important military power and was often expected, particularly by other Western countries, to act in a policing role, the consequences of which have sometimes been negative. And its military adventurism, notably the ill-advised and ultimately dishonestly justified second Iraq war, have in some instances been catastrophic. On the other hand, American military power largely served to save the world from Nazi and Japanese hegemony in the 1940s, saved Korea from Communist domination in the early 1950s and saved Western Europe from Soviet aggression throughout the Cold War. Thus, its role hasn't been entirely negative. One good aspect of the U.S. is that it has a healthy capacity for objective introspection, something not necessarily replicated elsewhere. I will always choose to ally with a democracy because it's the only system that provides any kind of realistic check on the temptation of a powerful country to seek hegemony.

By the way, what good would it do to align Canada with the BRICS nations, with which we have virtually no strategic interests in common?

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2018 at 12:56 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

Why are people opposed to Trudeau? Just curious.

Aside from the fact that he's Zoolander; a vacuous Himbo who annoyingly acts as if he's the smartest guy in the room, it's basically a  cost of living issue. Climate Barbie taxes will drive the price of everything up, fuel, gas, electricity, food, etc, so if you like driving or air conditioning or eating well, what have you, need to try to constrain the Canadian Nanny Police State as much as you can.  

 

Mind you, entirely likely that the Phony Cons would be forced to start rummaging around for revenue as well, considering that the deficits are what they are and the Phony Cons talk a big game about cutting spending, until they are in government that is,  and  don't actually have the political capital to follow through in the face of the hysterical screeching which inevitably results,  so, at best, it would be  the lesser of two evils at the margins.

Zoolander legalized the weed, Mission Accomplished, he's expendable now;  next clown, stand up, hook up, shuffle to the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...