How Justin Trudeau made Canada the Weakest Link

[Dougie93]

It's sort of above Trudueau's pay grade tho, I mean, this is the big dogs going head to head,  no Canadian PM is read in at this level, this is Polo Step.

[Zeitgeist]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Previous PMs who were opposed to U.S. foreign policies were far more adept at leveraging disputes with far more aplomb, garnering wider domestic support in Canada.

Trudeau is capable of neither....as now even Canadian media is piling on.   

I would agree with you at this current point in the game, though JT's first two years were pretty smashing both domestically and internationally and echoed his dad's celebrity.  Trump and the rise of right-wing populism took a sledgehammer to sunny ways.  Nevertheless, I don't think Trump's star is rising.  He'll be lucky to maintain his stature going into the next election.  For different reasons and in different ways, both Trudeau and Trump need some good turns going into the next election cycle.  If the Dems win the next election, especially with a socialist like Cortez at the helm, and if Trudeau holds onto power after next fall, we'll be back to state dinners.  If the Republicans or the Dems have a more centrist leader, like a Bush Sr. or Kasich or Biden, relations between the two countries will be fine.  I think Trudeau is learning to tone down the righteous polcor BS.  Scheer would be uncontroversial.  He's probably a less astute Harper.  At this point in Canada it's about getting the pipelines built.  Most of everything else is noise.

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I would agree with you at this current point in the game, though JT's first two years were pretty smashing both domestically and internationally and echoed his dad's celebrity.  Trump and the rise of right-wing populism took a sledgehammer to sunny ways.  Nevertheless, I don't think Trump's star is rising.  He'll be lucky to maintain his stature going into the next election.  For different reasons and in different ways, both Trudeau and Trump need some good turns going into the next election cycle.  If the Dems win the next election, especially with a socialist like Cortez at the helm, and if Trudeau holds onto power after next fall, we'll be back to state dinners.  If the Republicans or the Dems have a more centrist leader, like a Bush Sr. or Kasich or Biden, relations between the two countries will be fine.  I think Trudeau is learning to tone down the righteous polcor BS.  Scheer would be uncontroversial.  He's probably a less astute Harper.  At this point in Canada it's about getting the pipelines built.  Most of everything else is noise.

AOC can't run against Trump, too young, have to be 35 to run for POTUS. The Democrats are going to run a donkey against Trump in 2020, so if the economy doesn't go into the tank, then 2020 is the bag for him. Also Trudeau is going to get re-elected as well, Scheer stands no chance, and the NDP is boxed out, it will take something big for either Trump or Trudeau to not get re-elected.

The people who think that Trump and/or Trudeau are going to lose the next election are either uninformed or way too deep into wishful thinking to properly analyze the situation, they just can't see clearly. Trumpdeau doesn't to have to outrun Usain Bolt, they just have to be faster than the competition they are running against, and in both cases the competition is very weak.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

49 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

AOC can't run against Trump, too young, have to be 35 to run for POTUS.

We should none the less be thankful for the Bernie Bros as they are in classic Kneedipper fashion splitting the left allowing the Red Storm Rising to hold the Blue Wall once again. 

Just because Industrial Workers in the Blue States are down on their luck, does not mean that they choose communism as a method of restoration.

[Dougie93]

Moreover Donald Trump and the Red Nation have in classic Liberal Party of Canada fashion stolen the Kneedipper platform of protectionist trade war and circling the wagons around the industrialist unions, thus uniting the nationalist right with the Blue Collars.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

JT's first two years were pretty smashing both domestically and internationally and echoed his dad's celebrity. 

When reading this, I didn't know if it was intended as satire. Trudeau's cutesy social media image burns bright outside of this country among those who pay little attention to Canada in general. Otherwise, he's not taken seriously. Despite his obsequious entreaties, his trip to China was a bust, with its leaders mainly avoiding him while shortly thereafter giving Macron of France a welcome fit for royalty. And need we get into his India costume tour and the ex-con invitee fiascos, which rendered him a laughingstock both internationally and at home, a situation exacerbated by his "peoplekind" antics? Sometimes the guy just doesn't know when to stop and seems captivated by his own social media buzz, rendering accusations of narcissism entirely justifiable. Will I vote for his party? No. Neither will I support the hapless NDP. The CPC might be a viable choice but as I live in a solidly safe Lib riding I'll likely vote for whomever runs under Bernier's party banner.

Edited January 27, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

Zeitgeist either chugs the Liberal Party of Canada kool aid by the bucketful and so doesn't even know which way is up anymore,  or he's a paid operative of the Liberal Party of Canada, because who else would shill so hard for them and why?

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Zeitgeist either chugs the Liberal Party of Canada kool aid by the bucketful and so doesn't even know which way is up anymore,  or he's a paid operative of the Liberal Party of Canada, because who else would shill so hard for them and why?

Ha ha.  Nice.  No I'm not a Trudeau fan and I didn't vote Liberal.  Just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.  I did like the mid-90's Libs with Martin as Finance Minister.  They were fiscally conservative and leaned on the more admirable aspects of Trudeau Sr.: standing up to the Yanks on Iraq, socially quite libertarian, multilateral for the right reasons and exceptional for the right reasons.  The Harper Conservatives ended up being much wiser and more centrist than I ever imagined.  He wasn't a showboat like Trudeau, but his policies worked well for families and the middle class.  He also understood the Yanks and the Brits, returning the title Royal to the Canadian military and respecting the complexities US presidents face.  Trudeau says too much and too many of the wrong things.  Generally women like him and he leans on that a lot, but why do they like him?  Is it image over substance? 

Edited January 27, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

35 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Ha ha.  Nice.  No I'm not a Trudeau fan and I didn't vote Liberal.  Just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.  I did like the mid-90's Libs with Martin as Finance Minister.  They were fiscally conservative and leaned on the more admirable aspects of Trudeau Sr.: standing up to the Yanks on Iraq, socially quite libertarian, multilateral for the right reasons and exceptional for the right reasons.  The Harper Conservatives ended up being much wiser and more centrist than I ever imagined.  He wasn't a showboat like Trudeau, but his policies worked well for families and the middle class.  He also understood the Yanks and the Brits, returning the title Royal to the Canadian military and respecting the complexities US presidents face.  Trudeau says too much and too many of the wrong things.  Generally women like him and he leans on that a lot, but why do they like him?  Is it image over substance? 

Paul Martin jumped the shark when he sent a Canadian battle group into Kandahar totally ill prepared and not equipped for the mission, leaving them surrounded for all intents and purpses wherein they began to suffer attrition to no good purpose.

PET had me at "just watch me",  but then lost me at "Section 33"

Chretien destroyed what was left of the Canadian military operational capability, and blamed the troops while letting the chain of command off the hook re Op Deliverance. Also caved at the Medak Pocket.

Harper talked a big game, then cucked hard to cling to power cravenly.

As to Trudeau's sex appeal, seems kind of "teen beat" pop idol kinda thing, I asked my wife what she thinks and she said "I don't like girly men, but he is well dressed at least"

[Dougie93]

My favorite Prime Minister of all time is of course  the Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, DStJ, PC, FRS, HonFRSC

My favorite Canadian Prime Minister of my lifetime would have to be Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ

Red Tory as he was, I found him to be the model of a Great Statesman.

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

My favorite Prime Minister of all time is of course  the Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, DStJ, PC, FRS, HonFRSC

My favorite Canadian Prime Minister of my lifetime would have to be Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ

Red Tory as he was, I found him to be the model of a Great Statesman.

I don't think there's a better gentleman than Mulroney as a world leader that I've seen in my lifetime.  Call it style over substance if you want, but he was pretty centrist on policy and always a class act.  Recent British PM's?  Meh.  Churchill probably the greatest world leader of the millennium.  

[Dougie93]

Churchill, meh, lost the Empire when he demanded that the liberals charge into Belgian Neutrality or he was crossing the floor to the Tories. 

My main quarrel with Mulroney was the forty three billion dollar deficit which in todays dollars would be a seventy five billion dollar deficit which is five times what the Liberals are running at this juncture.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Churchill, meh, lost the Empire when he demanded that the liberals charge into Belgian Neutrality or he was crossing the floor to the Tories. 

My main quarrel with Mulroney was the forty three billion dollar deficit which in todays dollars would be a seventy five billion dollar deficit which is five times what the Liberals are running at this juncture.

There was no saving the Empire, I think.  Its time had come, regardless of who was in charge.  Churchill remains one of my favourite historical characters, and my favourite PM (Maggie is second) because there has never been a better exemplification of the right person in the right place at the right time.  The fact that history would record him as a somewhat flakey adventurer had it not been for the Nazi menace only serves to cement his place, in my view.

Edited January 28, 2019 by bcsapper

[Dougie93]

Churchill is indeed a most interesting character, but the Empire did not have to be smashed upon the shoals of Belgian Neutrality in a Pickett's Charge, and the bailout of the Americans would not have been necessary, was an Empire of gold and sterling at least, even if you were want to jettison the Raj and Far East.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

In terms of Great British adventurers, I would put Winston's ancestor John Churchill 1st Duke of Marlborough at the top of the list.

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

  The fact that history would record him as a somewhat flakey adventurer had it not been for the Nazi menace only serves to cement his place, in my view.

But there again, the only reason Britain charged into Polish Neutrality was because Hitler flipped to Mussolini's side, which meant what? 

Germany was astride the route to India and the Far East, again, and saving the Empire already lost; was the only casus belli, otherwise Britain could have sat that war out as well.

This is why the British only cared about the Soft Underbelly in North Africa and Italy and spent most of their time trying to prevent the Americans from shifting the front to France and marching on Berlin beyond.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Or as I like to say, FDR opened the war as a pawn of Churchill and then closed it out as a pawn of Stalin.  Thank goodness for Harry Truman.

[bush_cheney2004]

Justin Trudeau has freed John McCallum from a leg trap in China that Canada set long ago....

 

Quote

So don’t blame John McCallum. Making a couple of Chinese diplomats persona non grata, joining forces with the United States on its new China policy and banning Huawei now would have been smarter.

Our current China crisis is systemic as well as accidental. Canada’s vulnerabilities to Chinese and American pressures are deeply embedded and largely self-created. Over the long term, strengthened self-reliant economic development policies (à la Pierre Trudeau’s Third Option) and serious security policies should underpin a new Canadian China narrative, as globalist visions dissolve in the acid of the new geopolitics.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-dont-blame-john-mccallum-for-canadas-current-china-mess/

 

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Justin Trudeau has freed John McCallum from a leg trap in China that Canada set long ago....

Great article, pretty much covers it all,  readers digest version

The only flaw comes at the end when he advocates "serious security policies", because the Canadian political class are incapable of being serious about security, Canada has already collapsed most of its security and it would be prohibitively expensive to rebuild considering how much Canadians demand for stupid centrally planned "social programs", so that's a non starter.

Canada is totally reliant on the Americans for anything seriously security related, there's no going back now.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Great article, pretty much covers it all,  readers digest version

The only flaw comes at the end when he advocates "serious security policies",

 

The same has been said a dozen different times a dozen different ways....if Canada wants to sit at the grown-up table then it will have to pay the piper.

The latest shuck and jive Trudeau style is his "feminist agenda", which follows the Liberal's "Responsibility to Protect", "honest broker", yada, yada, yada.

Might work for domestic politics, but the real world doesn't work that way. 

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The same has been said a dozen different times a dozen different ways....if Canada wants to sit at the grown-up table then it will have to pay the piper.

The latest shuck and jive Trudeau style is his "feminist agenda", which follows the Liberal's "Responsibility to Protect", "honest broker", yada, yada, yada.

Might work for domestic politics, but the real world doesn't work that way. 

As the article says, they haven't even banned Hauwei, just like they wont cancel the LAV contract to the Saudis.

Again, all inclusive to the failed state of Confederation wherein all governance is bribery and corruption and influence peddling, and otherwise there's no there there, just an empty void.

[turningrite]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Justin Trudeau has freed John McCallum from a leg trap in China that Canada set long ago....

 

The article you reference is a good analysis of the dead end into which rose-colored globalism has led us. China operates purely on the basis of self-interest. So, too, is Trump's world view formulated on this basis. The author's final line is particularly apt: "Over the long term, strengthened self-reliant economic development policies... and serious security policies should underpin a new Canadian China narrative, as globalist visions dissolve in the acid of the new geopolitics." Trudeau and his globalist minions seem not to realize that their fantastical vision of a globalized nirvana is now passe, as if it had any credibility in the first place.

As for McCallum, he was the wrong guy for the China job. Although reputedly a Sinophile, he didn't seem to realize that an ambassador's job is to promote the interests and positions of his/her own country as determined by its sitting government. Trudeau's sentimentality more than anything else seems to have planted McCallum in Beijing, which is unfortunate given the importance of the posting. There were signs when McCallum was Trudeau's immigration minister, for instance where he bizarrely and falsely touted the existence of widespread support for massively increasing immigration levels when polling indicated otherwise, that he could be a loose cannon whose perspectives weren't/aren't always governed by objective considerations.

To be effective, foreign policy must be governed primarily on the basis of seeing the world as it is rather than as one would like it to be. The dreamers running the show in Ottawa seem to have no clue. Their dreamer in Beijing is gone. Can the crowd on Parliament Hill be far behind?

Edited January 28, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

Only the Hegemons have foreign policies, Canadian foreign policy is American foreign policy, where Canada tries to significantly divert from Washington, Canada will get its comeuppance.

[PIK]

On 1/27/2019 at 2:24 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

AOC can't run against Trump, too young, have to be 35 to run for POTUS. The Democrats are going to run a donkey against Trump in 2020, so if the economy doesn't go into the tank, then 2020 is the bag for him. Also Trudeau is going to get re-elected as well, Scheer stands no chance, and the NDP is boxed out, it will take something big for either Trump or Trudeau to not get re-elected.

The people who think that Trump and/or Trudeau are going to lose the next election are either uninformed or way too deep into wishful thinking to properly analyze the situation, they just can't see clearly. Trumpdeau doesn't to have to outrun Usain Bolt, they just have to be faster than the competition they are running against, and in both cases the competition is very weak.

Uniformed. lol Look in the mirror. Trudeau has pissed off the greens, his base and the people that dont like him now hate him. He has insulted everyone, he has lied thru his teeth on almost everything. He has made a mockery out of this nation. Our allies want nothing to do with him. And when all this comes out and everybody is reminded of what he had done, it is over. There is to much and only a idiot would vote for him. If you are not a immigrant he despises you. And then all his quotes. LOL

Edited January 28, 2019 by PIK

[turningrite]

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.) The Harper Conservatives ended up being much wiser and more centrist than I ever imagined.  He wasn't a showboat like Trudeau, but his policies worked well for families and the middle class. 

2.) Trudeau says too much and too many of the wrong things.  Generally women like him and he leans on that a lot, but why do they like him?  Is it image over substance? 

1.) Where did you come up with this? The middle class in Canada has been in steady decline since at least the Mulroney era under successive regimes that have catered primarily to the interests of economic neoliberalism and globalism. In 2014, during Harper's regime, the PBO reported that virtually all income gains during the Harper years went to the already well-off. Real income declines for middle class Canadian workers were at the time partially masked by the oil boom in Alberta. Once discounting for that, as the boom ended in 2014, the income picture is even more bleak. We now know that over the two decades starting in the 1990s Canada's middle class shrunk from nearly 70 percent to under 50 percent of the population, in large measure under Harper, and the decline continues under Trudeau.

2.) Trudeau often seems vacuous and on a personal level I suspect this criticism is valid. However, his regime is much more dangerous to our future than many imagine. I see Trudeau mainly as a useful idiot who serves the interests of corporate globalism, but a Thomas Walkom column in today's Toronto Star, 'The Liberal hawk has made a comeback', illustrates the radical nature of his government's agenda. Walkom maintains that Freeland and other Libs favour a strategy of radical income redistribution in order to bolster support for their globalist agenda (fantasy?). Otherwise they believe people will become disillusioned by their coveted "liberal world order." (The term "liberal world order" should make any thinking person shudder!) Don't they think many Canadians will become utterly disillusioned by radical income redistribution? Somebody will have to pay for it, and, as Margaret Thatcher famously pointed out, governments eventually run out of other peoples' money to give away. Even worse, says Walkom, hawks like Freeland are apparently willing to use military muscle to achieve their ends. Poor, poor Canada, to be governed by such fools. 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/01/28/the-liberal-hawk-has-made-a-comeback.html