Is Canada going Marxist?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

 

It will turn out capitalism was the most destructive order ever invented - destroyed the human mind, destroyed humanity, destroyed the climate in the fastest way possible and eventually destroyed the world with all life on it.

It's a primary system of economics in place for thousands of years, and it served us well.

Every system has problems. It's hard to see how we could have done better, although there is a case that reform is needed.

[cougar]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

One of the main reasons we have all the homeless people and tent cities now is because of the government interventionism or excessive control of home building, apartment building or building anything.  There are so many regulations and red tape and approval processes builders must go through to get approval and the fees are so expensive.  These regulations and costs are imposed by municipalities, regional districts, provincial and federal governments.  Excessive taxation by all levels of government has been getting worse.  Add to that now the carbon taxes which is going up every year.  That's the Marxist-Socialist mentality of governments in Canada. 

blah , blah , blah,

When I came to Canada population was about 30 million.  Now it is 41 million.

Do you dare to guess if we were ever going to have a housing problem or a sky rocketing real estate market and rents, or a decaying medical system if those 11 million Asian heads were left where they were on their continent??

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, cougar said:

Equality was not meant for the world but for people.    The incentive and investment is the greed that destroys the planet.

This is the human nature you are referring to  - greed.

It will turn out capitalism was the most destructive order ever invented - destroyed the human mind, destroyed humanity, destroyed the climate in the fastest way possible and eventually destroyed the world with all life on it.

You don't appear to have learned much about politics, the world, or evils of Socialism.  Here are a few questions for you.

quote

1. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here’s my question to you that I’m almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady’s lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I’m hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

2. Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow’s lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I’d say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate’s mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

3. Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need, by reaching into one’s own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation (see cartoon above).

Why Socialism Is Evil | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

 

Edited March 20 by blackbird

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a primary system of economics in place for thousands of years, and it served us well.

Every system has problems. It's hard to see how we could have done better, although there is a case that reform is needed.

Maybe not so much reform an ancient system as incorporate within it explicit recognition of the planet's ecosystems and the limits to which they can go before breaking down and taking capitalism with them.

You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy anywhere in sight but you can't have it the other way around. Not without a Star Trek replicator at least.

[Moonlight Graham]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The twin evils of frustration for me are having to answer a long and thoughtful response on my phone, rather than on my laptop...

Agreed and understood.  I'm still in the the middle of a draft of a response to you from a post of several days ago.  I will respond to this line of posts after that.  It's an interesting convo.

 

Edited March 21 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

1. Maybe not so much reform an ancient system as incorporate within it explicit recognition of the planet's ecosystems and the limits to which they can go before breaking down and taking capitalism with them.

2. You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy anywhere in sight but you can't have it the other way around. Not without a Star Trek replicator at least.

1. Wow, you're more of a capitalist than I imagined.
2. I think of this quote of yours from time to time eyeball.  It applies to social progress too.  It also explains why good economics and good times breed talks of equalization, social progress and environmental progress and bad times lead to ... bad politics.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 .  It's an interesting convo.

I think so too.  It forces me to face the primary question that we should all be asking ourselves: how do we know that what we think is true... is ACTUALLY true.  As much as I decry your caricature of the 'woke' maniac corrupting academia... I fight with the fact that the caricatures of Trumpists and chuds are also false.  The way I try to avoid falling into believing the relevance of the caricatures is by replacing them with the image of real people who are engaging in unhelpful but understandable behaviours.

So the raging Trumper, the raging pink-haired woker... these people exist but their political influence is more felt when they're used as propaganda icons by their opposition in YouTube videos, etc.  This is the tribalism that is waged via social media, and the new politics of that is hard to centre policy or real ideas around.

Social media both changes the world pervasively and changes the eyeglasses we use to look at said changes.  I think of television in the 1960s.  There was a cultural revolution happening but the way we were looking at it was the lens that was enabling, enhancing and thereby adding to that revolution.

Social media is making the marginal into the centre and pushing everyone into each others' business regardless of these peoples' core principles or values.  Indeed, even with all the fighting on here ... if you went down to the details you would find there's a remarkably strong set of core values between most posters here.  
 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Wow, you're more of a capitalist than I imagined.
2. I think of this quote of yours from time to time eyeball.  It applies to social progress too.  It also explains why good economics and good times breed talks of equalization, social progress and environmental progress and bad times lead to ... bad politics.

1. I'm more into reforming the tax system; Eliminating income taxes, increasing consumption tax - just one that accounts for carbon as well. And a wealth tax. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

1. I'm more into reforming the tax system; Eliminating income taxes, increasing consumption tax - just one that accounts for carbon as well. And a wealth tax. 

 

What about this "no money" deal that Quebec guy was shopping around 🤔

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about this "no money" deal that Quebec guy was shopping around 🤔

Perhaps he's on the cusp of inventing a  replicator.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps he's on the cusp of inventing a  replicator.

I'd take a ride in that thing.

Need another hand to clean out the gutters...

[West]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think so too.  It forces me to face the primary question that we should all be asking ourselves: how do we know that what we think is true... is ACTUALLY true.  As much as I decry your caricature of the 'woke' maniac corrupting academia... I fight with the fact that the caricatures of Trumpists and chuds are also false.  The way I try to avoid falling into believing the relevance of the caricatures is by replacing them with the image of real people who are engaging in unhelpful but understandable behaviours.

So the raging Trumper, the raging pink-haired woker... these people exist but their political influence is more felt when they're used as propaganda icons by their opposition in YouTube videos, etc.  This is the tribalism that is waged via social media, and the new politics of that is hard to centre policy or real ideas around.

Social media both changes the world pervasively and changes the eyeglasses we use to look at said changes.  I think of television in the 1960s.  There was a cultural revolution happening but the way we were looking at it was the lens that was enabling, enhancing and thereby adding to that revolution.

Social media is making the marginal into the centre and pushing everyone into each others' business regardless of these peoples' core principles or values.  Indeed, even with all the fighting on here ... if you went down to the details you would find there's a remarkably strong set of core values between most posters here.  
 

This is a very good post. 

The reality is that these issues likely take up a very small percentage of thought power among most people. 

Though it is driven in the media and to a certain extent our universities now where the prevailing thought is viewing the world through power imbalances. So while I don't think we are full on "Marxist", there is heavy Marxist influence in major institutions right now. 

 

[blackbird]

Canada's socialized health care system is failing Canadians.  Four million Canadians do not have a family doctor.

So much for socialized health care.

Canada ranks last in primary health care access among 10 wealthy countries: report (msn.com)

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, West said:

The reality is that these issues likely take up a very small percentage of thought power among most people.

Though it is driven in the media and to a certain extent our universities now where the prevailing thought is viewing the world through power imbalances. So while I don't think we are full on "Marxist", there is heavy Marxist influence in major institutions right now. 

Don't just hold that thought regarding power imbalances - expand on it because it's a far greater issue than people realize.

Power and wealth are effectively like space and time - one and the same thing. If you one you have the other, it's that simple.

People have been trying to redistribute power more equitably for thousands of years.

We should be encouraging students to influence our institutions with the Magna Carta. This has nothing to do with Marxism.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, West said:

... there is heavy Marxist influence in major institutions right now. 

 

Look up the Munk debate between Jordan, Peterson and Slavoj Zizek.

Zizek asks Peterson point blank to name these people that are influencing academia.  There is only silence.

[West]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Look up the Munk debate between Jordan, Peterson and Slavoj Zizek.

Zizek asks Peterson point blank to name these people that are influencing academia.  There is only silence.

It's a thought system and theory that influences. 

A woman bones her boss as an example and the guy loses his ability to practice law.

A pastor has a consensual affair with a woman and he ends up in prison.

Just a few example; I'm not suggesting right or wrong. 

 

[West]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Don't just hold that thought regarding power imbalances - expand on it because it's a far greater issue than people realize.

Power and wealth are effectively like space and time - one and the same thing. If you one you have the other, it's that simple.

People have been trying to redistribute power more equitably for thousands of years.

We should be encouraging students to influence our institutions with the Magna Carta. This has nothing to do with Marxism.

To an extent. 

My point is that power dynamics and relationships are more complex than breaking it down to power dynamics.  

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, West said:

1. It's a thought system and theory that influences. A woman bones her boss as an example and the guy loses his ability to practice law.A pastor has a consensual affair with a woman and he ends up in prison.

Just a few example; I'm not suggesting right or wrong. 

 

1. Yes such things happen.  The Marxist thought system comes from Hegel's Dialectical process...

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, West said:

My point is that power dynamics and relationships are more complex than breaking it down to power dynamics.  

Sure, and people like to muddy the waters to make them seem deep.

It's no where near as complicated as you think. Certainly not like a tax code that results in Warren Buffet being taxed less than his secretary.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

 Certainly not like a tax code that results in Warren Buffet being taxed less than his secretary.

Well... something like that would only happen if the wealthy and powerful had the ability to influence politics by directly paying politicians... and also influencing media so that political contributions were never brought up as something that needed reform.  🤨

[Moonlight Graham]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:32 AM, Michael Hardner said:

To draw a line between bodies of thought and theories simply because some people believe in one or the other makes no sense. And to say, the origins of something are somewhere else might be true, but it doesn't mean that the seed idea is gaining traction.

Scientists of all stripes believe in evolution, but would you say that because climate science is being followed, evolution is gaining traction?

Furthermore, some of groups that you see as connected, have ideas that negate Marxism.  Postmodernism negates classical thoughts such as Marx's.

If somebody wants to say that Marxism is taking hold in Canada, they have to show actual reasons. Reasons. You can't say that a Marxist came up with some other theory, and then feminism used that theory somehow.

They want to make ideas into flavors of things you like or don't like, and it contributes to the mounting level of stupidity.

That includes wokeism too, and examples heard of woke people asking black folks why they would listen to a white man like Karl Marx...

It's not so much "Marxism" that's taking hold in Canada, it's the far-left moral philosophy behind it, which is equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity.

Let's break it down.  Leftwing politics is defined as such by wikipedia:

"Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole^[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.^[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Leftwingers want to break down hierarchies of power that hold back those deemed disadvantaged.  The way liberals have done that for the past several hundred years is through liberalism via human rights and equality of opportunity.  Liberalism is the basis of our liberal democracies and is defined here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

It means "All men are created equal..." per the Declaration of Independence.  Black civil rights in the US was based on this, as are LGBT rights like gay marriage and other anti-discrimination laws.  Equality of opportunity means everyone has the same rights so don't discriminate against people based on their group identity.  People are treated as individuals and equal, not treated based on their group.

What the far-left focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.  Marxism is morally based on equality of outcome.  Marxists want a classless society without rich or poor.  But when left to their own devices, people will naturally form hierarchies, including economic hierarchies, because some have different abilities and make different choices than others.  So the only way to ensure equality of outcome is to by using force, like taking the wealth of the people with higher ability and giving it to the ones on the bottom.

Woke politics is similarly about equality of outcome.  Someone on the far-left sees women or blacks/hispanics making lower salaries than white or asian males and they automatically assume some kind of injustice like discrimination is happening, and there can be no other variables involved.  Again, when left on their own different people and groups will have different results for various reasons.  The only way to ensure every race or gender will have the same outcomes is by taking by force from the people/groups at the top of the hierarchy and giving it to the ones towards the bottom.  Equality of outcome is a disgusting concept because it involves using discrimination to tear people down in order to build others up, whether it's deserved or not.  Equality of outcome is anti-liberalism.  It's against the very foundation we've built our societies around (liberalism, equality of opportunity).

[Moonlight Graham]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:36 AM, Michael Hardner said:

2. Ok I never thought of that angle.

3. Harper's government brought in the surveillance bill that would allow this to happen. That was in the wake of 9/11 and I supported it and then I still do. As for the other things, you have to provide a cite.  I'm aware of the financial tagging of convoy financers, but I've never seen a detailed explanation of who was impacted.

4. I'm okay with everything that they did in response to the pandemic. Extraordinary circumstances result in extraordinary responses and extraordinary errors. Nothing was egregious as far as I can see.

3.  Cites of the mentioned anti-liberal behaviour by the Liberal Party:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4608105/trudeau-defends-statistics-canada-move-to-collect-banking-info-of-500000-canadians/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadians-trips-to-liquor-stores-pharmacies-tracked-via-phones-during-pandemic-1.5890563

4.  You have many political views that are counter to liberalism and liberal democracy and our Charter of Rights so of course you're ok with it.  Have you ever in your entire life cared when an authority treated you unfairly, or is your natural reaction to comply with authority without questioning it?  Do you understand that sometimes authorities abuse their power, and that some people don't like that and choose to stand up for their rights, and that a healthy liberal democracy depends on this or else we'd still be ruled by the whims of tyrannical kings and queens?

Edited March 31 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:

5. I already responded to the social Marxism point above. It sounds like stupidity to me, and you sound like a dupe.  If you don't like social progressivity, if you want to call it wokeness then that sounds much smarter than stupifying Marxism down to make it sound like witchcraft.

6. Marxism is unethical?  Ok...

7. NDP has moved far to the right in the last 50 years.

8. You can admire a country without admiring its system. You can admire a system for the good things that it provides, and still not think it's a better system than yours. Case in point Trudeau admiring China's ability to ban lead in gasoline with a stroke of a pen.  Or Stalin admiring the US. I don't think anyone would call Stalin an American sympathizer

9. Hey, you know what I'm starting to think maybe you don't like this Trudeau guy 🤔

Seriously, if I don't like someone do I have permission to call them anything negative that I can think of? Even if the definition doesn't apply?

5.  You sound like a dupe for going along and defending all the woke nonsense.  Social Marxism is social equality of outcome.  That's what wokeism is.  If you don't like the term "social/cultural Marxism" then fine.  Call it something else, like "social equality of outcome.  It doesn't change the point being made.  It's anti-liberal nonsense.

6.  Well communism is.  Communism is Marxism put into practice.  The only way communism can work is through tyranny.  You need to build walls to keep people inside the country by force because anyone with any ability to make more money than the average person will want to leave.

7.  They're still a bunch of far-left wingnuts.

8.  The Trudeau's admire Castro's system, which is communist and authoritarian.  You don't befriend a foreign leader and lick his balls for half a century if you dislike the system he enforces while thumbing your nose at your American allies who had a trade embargo with Cuba.

9.  The results speak for themselves.  Please explain how anything I said is untrue.  To review, I called the Liberal Party "highly corrupt wealthy urban yuppie elitists who are communist-sympathizing social/cultural Marxists and economic neoliberals with some authoritarian anti-liberal tendencies centered around their "white knight" leader's own narcissistic cult of personality."

So if you disagree, please explain how the Liberal Party aren't:

- highly corrupt

- wealthy urban yuppies

- elitists

-communist-sympathizing socially far-left wokesters

- economic neoliberals

- have some authoritarian anti-liberal tendencies

- are centered around their "white knight" leader's own narcissistic cult of personality.

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. It's not so much "Marxism" that's taking hold in Canada, it's the far-left moral philosophy behind it, which is equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity.

Let's break it down.  Leftwing politics is defined as such by wikipedia:

"Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole^[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.^[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Leftwingers want to break down hierarchies of power that hold back those deemed disadvantaged.  The way liberals have done that for the past several hundred years is through liberalism via human rights and equality of opportunity.  Liberalism is the basis of our liberal democracies and is defined here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

It means "All men are created equal..." per the Declaration of Independence.  Black civil rights in the US was based on this, as are LGBT rights like gay marriage and other anti-discrimination laws.  Equality of opportunity means everyone has the same rights so don't discriminate against people based on their group identity.  People are treated as individuals and equal, not treated based on their group.

What the far-left focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.  Marxism is morally based on equality of outcome.  Marxists want a classless society without rich or poor.  But when left to their own devices, people will naturally form hierarchies, including economic hierarchies, because some have different abilities and make different choices than others.  So the only way to ensure equality of outcome is to by using force, like taking the wealth of the people with higher ability and giving it to the ones on the bottom.

Woke politics is similarly about equality of outcome.  Someone on the far-left sees women or blacks/hispanics making lower salaries than white or asian males and they automatically assume some kind of injustice like discrimination is happening, and there can be no other variables involved.  Again, when left on their own different people and groups will have different results for various reasons.  The only way to ensure every race or gender will have the same outcomes is by taking by force from the people/groups at the top of the hierarchy and giving it to the ones towards the bottom.  Equality of outcome is a disgusting concept because it involves using discrimination to tear people down in order to build others up, whether it's deserved or not.  Equality of outcome is anti-liberalism.  It's against the very foundation we've built our societies around (liberalism, equality of opportunity).

While I can get behind the general description of left-wing politics it remains to be seen how 'wokism' moves to a classless society.  It's more of a liberal take on how to treat people... nobody is proposing affirmative action programs for trans people or black people for that matter, anymore.  Most of the squawking about wokism is how it asks people to normalize treatment of certain groups and to frame our thinking of social relations.  "Equality of outcome" refers to material well-being, not social acceptance. Marxism doesn't have anything to say about DEI hiring, because that was a thing that couldn't have been conceived of at that time.  It's more of a liberal social program to spread public spending around between ethnic groups more

 

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

2.  Cites of the mentioned anti-liberal behaviour by the Liberal Party:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4608105/trudeau-defends-statistics-canada-move-to-collect-banking-info-of-500000-canadians/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadians-trips-to-liquor-stores-pharmacies-tracked-via-phones-during-pandemic-1.5890563

3.  You have many political views that are counter to liberalism and liberal democracy and our Charter of Rights so of course you're ok with it. 

4. Have you ever in your entire life cared when an authority treated you unfairly, or is your natural reaction to comply with authority without questioning it? 

5. Do you understand that sometimes authorities abuse their power, and that some people don't like that and choose to stand up for their rights, and that a healthy liberal democracy depends on this or else we'd still be ruled by the whims of tyrannical kings and queens?

2. The data in both of those examples is "anonymized" meaning that individuals are not monitored, only the overall trends and aggregate qualities of the data.  Compare that to Harper's Terrorism Bill (once again which I SUPPORT) that allows arrest of individuals if the government *thinks* they are going to commit a crime, and allows more surveillance and actions to share data with the police, non-anonymized.  
https://canadians.org/analysis/whats-harpers-proposed-bill-c-51-security-canada-legislation/

3. "Many" ?  Cite please.

4.  Why are you speculating about my personal character ?  How is that relevant to our discussion of policy ?  You are trying to disqualify me from the conversation based on my characteristics.  And of course I have cared when I was treated unfairly.  Your line of inquiry here is ridiculous.  It's like the woke people calling you racist for questioning things.  Make the discussion about the points, not about my personal life.

5. Yes, because I'm not 10 years old.  Do you understand that sometimes we have to live in the real world, and risk having rights compromised in order to provide for greater security ?  Do you understand that the government can make a decision to arrest you based on travel plans, or some conclusion they would draw as to your intentions ?  Do you understand that that means they could have power to thwart security threats with said powers ?  

 

 

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

6.  You sound like a dupe for going along and defending all the woke nonsense.  Social Marxism is social equality of outcome.  That's what wokeism is.  If you don't like the term "social/cultural Marxism" then fine.  Call it something else, like "social equality of outcome.  It doesn't change the point being made.  It's anti-liberal nonsense.

7.  Well communism is.  Communism is Marxism put into practice.  The only way communism can work is through tyranny.  You need to build walls to keep people inside the country by force because anyone with any ability to make more money than the average person will want to leave.

8.  They're still a bunch of far-left wingnuts.

9.  The Trudeau's admire Castro's system, which is communist and authoritarian.  You don't befriend a foreign leader and lick his balls for half a century if you dislike the system he enforces while thumbing your nose at your American allies who had a trade embargo with Cuba.

10   So if you disagree, please explain how the Liberal Party aren't:

- highly corrupt

- wealthy urban yuppies

- elitists

-communist-sympathizing socially far-left wokesters

- economic neoliberals

- have some authoritarian anti-liberal tendencies

- are centered around their "white knight" leader's own narcissistic cult of personality.

 

6. At least I am making my mind up on the issues and not following some paranoid and brainless slogan equating the Liberal Party with Marxists.  And when I defend things, I tend to do so on conservative principles or, otherwise, pragmatic ones such as the Harper surveillance bill.

7.  I like that you are at least redefining terms when challenged.  Yes, authoritarian governments that restrict your right to travel and ultimately to leave are seen as more unethical than countries with freedom of movement.  This is because it's thought to be ethical to allow the maximum personal freedom of an individual.  Marxism and Communism aren't the same thing and you start to get into the weeds the more you try to put everything in the same box - let alone Liberal Party policy.

8. Are you, then, acknowledging that there isn't a drift to the left ?  That we're not "going" Marxist and that we're actually moving to the right ?  Because with that statement it sure seems like it.

9. Realpolitik.  Who started Trade with Red China ?  Trudeau or Nixon ?  But I won't deny that the Trudeaus were as partial to authoritarians as Nixon or Reagan were.

10. I suspect you are falling into that familiar trap where people think that because I don't tolerate soft-brained criticisms and moronic statements like "Canada is going Marxist" ... that I actually LIKE Trudeau.  Why are you asking me to defend him ?  I won't.  Some of your criticisms reveal your lack of understanding of your own dilemma though.  If you think that Liberals and Conservatives aren't both elitists then you shouldn't vote.  If you think wealthy people don't support Conservative tax cutting, trust loopholes, and such then you're brainwashed.  For that matter, I will bet I have probably voted Liberal less often than you have based on your comments.  
-----
Think with your brain, not your heart.  Trudeau, Poilievre and the rest are the personification of a large body of national political intent - for the purposes of our consideration of them.  There's really no point in hating on any of them.  They're not here to make big changes to anything

[herbie]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suspect you are falling into that familiar trap where people think that because I don't tolerate soft-brained criticisms and moronic statements like "Canada is going Marxist" ... that I actually LIKE Trudeau. 

It can't be considered that one supports the party's policies over another's. It's all about the cult of personality. The only time a party leader ever ran in the riding I lived in I was too young to vote, so I never got a chance to vote for a Prime Minister.
Hard to discuss things with people who can't distinguish between a Prime Minister and a King or Emperor.