Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
If you want to add PP to the threat to democracy disqualification that would be fine with me as there certainly are elements of his rhetoric that fall into the breaking norms world. I think it’s important to note the difference between actually breaking those norms and obstructing Justice to being at risk of breaking norms. Which makes Trudeau more unelectable than PP.
|
I definitely understand where you're coming from, but when you're electing a politician to an office you have to assess what you really think is the likely outcome of them getting that office - becoming PM. The fact that PP hasn't had the chance to break those norms yet doesn't mean he won't - you have to look at his rhetoric and assess whether he will or not.
There were plenty of warning signs about the crazy stuff Smith was going to do before she ever took office and did crazy stuff. It's a bit different because she gained power without being elected, but I don't think you can just automatically assume the person who has done the crime is, by virtue of that, more likely to commit future crimes than a guy who is effectively telling you "give me a chance and I'll do the crime".
At any rate, I don't see the two things you identified as the source of the real tension for voters. It seems to me that it's more what your echo chamber is like. If you only read this thread, you'd assume PP has nothing to say but populist nonsense and sleazy hackery. If you're instead a Sun reader you have an entirely different impression of what he's doing and saying on a day to day basis - in other words whether the guy looks like a hack wingnut who no one should listen to or a scathing yet effective critic of a corrupt PMO depends on what's being presented to you. I think that's far more the case with PP than it was with O'Toole, as far as I can tell.