I didn't think we had a thread for this. 

Is Trudeau this out of touch or does he just not care?

 

Yes, let's bank the countries future on something that really doesn't exist,  create anything material, or contribute to the welfare of humanity.  There has been alot of articles on the cost of " mining " bitcoin lately. Apparently it uses more energy than the entire country of  Sweden . Being an old fart I had  a  " mining ????? "  moment and had to read up on that.

 

What's worse is he's the front runner for leadership of a major party.

It's a pivotal moment for the Conservatives. Do you continue with the right of center party they have always been or do you leap feet 1st  into the idiocy that plagues the US. I still have faith in Canadians. I believe if they go down the far right path they will be soundly rejected in the net General election. A strong, competent leader for the Liberals would ensure that. 

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

It absolutely is true. The problem is that whenever someone swings in right/left fashion they tend to move the goal posts of what moderation is along with them. It would be insane to suggest that society in general hasn't moved sharply to the left in the past 20 years and politicians have picked right up on it. They aren't stupid. We have the Federal Liberal party occupying the space that the NDP once held and abandoning the middle, while the NDP largely are content to share that space not knowing what to do next. Justin Trudeau is easily the most left of centre prime minister in the history of Canada. I'm not judging the spectrum, just pointing out that there has been a huge shift.

Take a look at the last 32 years - they are a mixed bag:

1. Mulroney: removed old taxes (manufacturer's) introduced new taxes (GST), implemented NAFTA, no significant social changes that I can recall

2. Chretien / Martin: cut budgets, slashed transfer payments, finances were in the black, brought in some social change (same sex marriage), dealt with the Quebec referendum, paid lip service to climate change (Kyoto Accord)

3. Harper: trimmed budgets in many areas, implemented significant tax cuts, also reduced transfer payments, began dealing with key social issues (eg. residential schools agreement), did as little as possible to combat climate change

4. J. Trudeau: increased transfer payments, introduced actual climate change measures, major spending increases - mostly due to the pandemic, some tax cuts for the middle class, increased CPP contributions

So, unless you're going to define the Trudeau regime as a major shift to the left, it really has not happened.  Keep in mind, Trudeau has kept Harper's tax cuts mostly intact.  

It most certainly did not happen with any of the other regimes.  In fact, it was the absolute opposite

If you take the pandemic out of the equation to level the playing field, then I doubt Trudeau spent much more than any other government before him

 

 

The Liberals occupy the middle. It's confusing for the right because they've swung so hard to the right, they think no one is in the middle. 

There was a time that the right believed in science. That stopped when the Reform took over the PCs. 

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

It absolutely is true. The problem is that whenever someone swings in right/left fashion they tend to move the goal posts of what moderation is along with them. It would be insane to suggest that society in general hasn't moved sharply to the left in the past 20 years and politicians have picked right up on it. They aren't stupid. We have the Federal Liberal party occupying the space that the NDP once held and abandoning the middle, while the NDP largely are content to share that space not knowing what to do next. Justin Trudeau is easily the most left of centre prime minister in the history of Canada. I'm not judging the spectrum, just pointing out that there has been a huge shift.

Who said the left has become radical? I stated both the right and left have swung away from the middle. I think there is a massive chunk of voters who still reside in the middle of the political spectrum and the party that can swing back to the middle will be the one that will have future success. If Jean Charest is able to convince the small C conservatives to take back the party from the Reformers the Liberals will have to take a good hard look at their leadership and their sharp move to the left of the spectrum. If Pollievre wins, it remains a polarized **** show.

Now I'm just convinced you don't know what the "left" actually is.

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

Now I'm just convinced you don't know what the "left" actually is.

I define the middle as a government that maintains/improves social services, keeping taxes stagnant, and running small to no deficits. I think many people share that as a view of the middle of the political spectrum. By that definition what we have seen from the Liberals is definitely a sharp turn to the left. Deficits were already out of control before the pandemic and are now staggering due to the pandemic. 

11 minutes ago, JCon said:

The Liberals occupy the middle. It's confusing for the right because they've swung so hard to the right, they think no one is in the middle. 

There was a time that the right believed in science. That stopped when the Reform took over the PCs. 

The overwhelming majority of PC supporters believe in science and were supportive of pandemic policies. There is a far right faction in our party that doesn't but they are the minority. 

20 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Take a look at the last 32 years - they are a mixed bag:

1. Mulroney: removed old taxes (manufacturer's) introduced new taxes (GST), implemented NAFTA, no significant social changes that I can recall

2. Chretien / Martin: cut budgets, slashed transfer payments, finances were in the black, brought in some social change (same sex marriage), dealt with the Quebec referendum, paid lip service to climate change (Kyoto Accord)

3. Harper: trimmed budgets in many areas, implemented significant tax cuts, also reduced transfer payments, began dealing with key social issues (eg. residential schools agreement), did as little as possible to combat climate change

4. J. Trudeau: increased transfer payments, introduced actual climate change measures, major spending increases - mostly due to the pandemic, some tax cuts for the middle class, increased CPP contributions

So, unless you're going to define the Trudeau regime as a major shift to the left, it really has not happened.  Keep in mind, Trudeau has kept Harper's tax cuts mostly intact.  

It most certainly did not happen with any of the other regimes.  In fact, it was the absolute opposite

If you take the pandemic out of the equation to level the playing field, then I doubt Trudeau spent much more than any other government before him

 

 

I think you need to take a look at the deficits Trudeau ran compared to Harper/Chretien/Martin then tell me that Trudeau's spending was normal.

Delivering on Canada’s climate promises requires top grades from provinces and territories. We grade the leaders and laggards

BY SHAWN MCCARTHY

APRIL 19, 2021

https://www.corporateknights.com/climate-and-carbon/net-zero-report-card-how-future-friendly-are-canadian-provinces/

 

13 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I think you need to take a look at the deficits Trudeau ran compared to Harper/Chretien/Martin then tell me that Trudeau's spending was normal.

I am fully aware that he has spent more - I said that in my post

Once again, we've gone through a once in a 100 years pandemic

Or, do you think we should have managed things the way some States did?  Just pretend it doesn't exist?

4 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

I am fully aware that he has spent more - I said that in my post

Once again, we've gone through a once in a 100 years pandemic

Or, do you think we should have managed things the way some States did?  Just pretend it doesn't exist?

They pretend climate change doesn't exist, so that would be on-brand. 

Cons don't believe in science. This is not even asking if humans are contributing to climate change. 

Things on this chart that surprised me:

-60 and over having the most 'conclusive evidence' responses

-8% of those Green Party voters polled said 'little to no evidence' whhuh????

30 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

Things on this chart that surprised me:

-60 and over having the most 'conclusive evidence' responses

-8% of those Green Party voters polled said 'little to no evidence' whhuh????

The 8% of disbelievers in the Green party is a surprise. Those of us in the 60+ age group are used to trusting research as opposed to opinion, but global warming is only part of the problem- the climate change model when it was created in the 80's also predicted more violent storms exaggerated droughts and cloudbursts, higher highs and lower lows and more unpredictability in weather forecasts. All this has come to pass and still the disbelievers cling to their beliefs like drowning people clinging to flotsam.

24 minutes ago, Tracker said:

The 8% of disbelievers in the Green party is a surprise. Those of us in the 60+ age group are used to trusting research as opposed to opinion, but global warming is only part of the problem- the climate change model when it was created in the 80's also predicted more violent storms exaggerated droughts and cloudbursts, higher highs and lower lows and more unpredictability in weather forecasts. All this has come to pass and still the disbelievers cling to their beliefs like drowning people clinging to flotsam.

I actually don’t find the 8% of disbelievers surprising. I think people hide behind certain colors , ideologies to gaslight others while pretending to be someone else when in fact they’re not who they say they are whether they know it or have really rationalized to themselves as being genuine. Take a few posters here who espouse to be middle of the road, slightly right slightly left whatever and seem to consistently gaslight views/interpretations/perspectives/factsthat sway from theirs.

Just now, HardCoreBlue said:

I think people hide behind certain colors , ideologies to gaslight others while pretending to be someone else

That's crazy talk, you're being crazy

1 minute ago, MOBomberFan said:

That's crazy talk, you're being crazy

Touché. 

Green Party is a protest party that catches many ideologies. 

6 minutes ago, JCon said:

Green Party is a protest party that catches many ideologies. 

Okay and I’m not up to speed on the Green Party as I don’t follow them closely at all so I could be off here but isn’t their common theme protecting the environment? 

36 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

actually don’t find the 8% of disbelievers surprising. I think people hide behind certain colors , ideologies to gaslight others while pretending to be someone else when in fact they’re not who they say they

Example

Kristen synema..  Sinema began her political career in the Arizona Green Party and rose to prominence for her progressive advocacy, supporting causes such as LGBT rightsand opposing the war on terror.

more famous example    Barrack Obama. Mr comfortable shoes.

Edited March 31, 20223 yr by Mark F

Just now, HardCoreBlue said:

Okay and I’m not up to speed on the Green Party as I don’t follow them closely at all so I could be off here but isn’t their common theme protecting the environment? 

That's how it started but, like any fringe party, it attracts disaffected voters from the mainstream parties. Environment remains the key focus but they lack the complete platform, which is why they attract radicals. The Green Party itself is mess and the voters it attracts tend to hold extreme views. 

This is a good article on the state of the Green Party following Pauls' resignation. This is just the internal struggle for the control of the party. 

https://thenarwhal.ca/green-party-canada-future/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-basic-income-conspiracy-theories-1.6403777

Quote

Members of the Red Chamber have been hit by a wave of questionable correspondence from Canadians convinced that a pending Senate bill would take away their pensions and lead to some sort of totalitarian world government.

Tens of thousands of calls, emails and handwritten letters urging senators to oppose Bill S-233 have flooded into the Red Chamber. The emails — many of them based on outlandish conspiracy theories — have at times overloaded the Senate's servers, bringing the normal workflow to a grinding halt.

Bill S-233 calls for the creation of a national "framework" to allow the federal government to begin studying a "guaranteed livable basic income" program in Canada.

Those contacting senators' offices to oppose S-233 blame the purported conspiracy to destroy the Canadian way of life on a range of bad actors: fascists, socialists, the Masons, billionaires like Microsoft founder Bill Gates or investor George Soros, or World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab.

Others bizarrely maintain the legislation will lead to "transhumanism" — an alleged plot to turn people into cyborgs.

"This is CANADA . . . not North Korea, not Russia, you are employees of the people! NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE WEF OR THE WHO," one correspondent told Simons in a recent email.

"Bill S-233 is just the beginning. We are losing our freedoms to a group of elites that want to depopulate and control mankind, enslave us to experimental transhumanism, and the removal of any Christian and Godly devotions," said another.

"Nobody voted for Nazi Klaus Schwab. Nobody even knew he existed 2 years ago. He has NOTHING to do with Canada or any other country. Schwab holds a statue of Lenin in his office! This is NOT CANADA. We are NOT going BACK to NAZI GERMANY. Please see NUREMBERG CODE & TRIALS," said one letter-writer, referring to the WEF founder who has been the subject of many conspiracy theories since the onset of COVID-19.

...senators got an email that claimed the adoption of a basic income program would lead to the forced sterilization of people of child-bearing age and the extermination of the elderly and the disabled.

Simons said an untold number of Canadians have been "manipulated and terrified" into believing "outrageous" conspiracy theories that are patently false.

"Since the trucker convoy ended we've been bombarded. There's been just a really sudden, dramatic spike in letters and many of them are from people who are deep into a conspiracy theory spiral..."

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-basic-income-conspiracy-theories-1.6403777

 

44 minutes ago, JCon said:

 

This is the 2nd time that I've heard her speak (the first time was regarding the convoy protest or something else related to the pandemic, I can't remember at the moment exactly what it was).  I have a lot of respect for her.  This is the type of person who is good to have in a position of power within the goverment.

33 minutes ago, Sard said:

This is the 2nd time that I've heard her speak (the first time was regarding the convoy protest or something else related to the pandemic, I can't remember at the moment exactly what it was).  I have a lot of respect for her.  This is the type of person who is good to have in a position of power within the goverment.

She is great. Someone else posted something in here from her before, I think it was about the wackiness of the convoy. Unfortunately the ones that really need to come out with a speech like this, people like Bergen, Bernier, Pollievre, etc., will not do it. Hearing it from a senator nominated by Trudeau will just add to the paranoia.

3 hours ago, Mark F said:

Example

Kristen synema..  Sinema began her political career in the Arizona Green Party and rose to prominence for her progressive advocacy, supporting causes such as LGBT rightsand opposing the war on terror.

more famous example    Barrack Obama. Mr comfortable shoes.

Apparently the lust for fame and power is seductive.