Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Except he didn’t make it seem simple. He was arguing against it being as simple as setting an arbitrary date and calling that approach irresponsible. He goes on to say that a “commitment to growing the economy” entails an economy that works for middle class Canadians, allows young people to find jobs, and makes people feel secure in their retirement. That’s very complex, and very difficult.
The economy grew, but the Liberals failed at creating one that meets the criteria THEY set out in order for the “budget to balance itself,” which is why it hasn’t. That’s worthy of conversation, but as belsarius pointed out, people instead resort to “lol the budget will balance itself” because they’re unable or unwilling to actually engage with more than a soundbite.
|
I'm reminded of an interview by Evan Solomon on CBC's
Power & Politics back in 2013 following the bombing of the Boston Marathon.
In the immediate aftermath of that attack before the suspect(s) were identified, one politician offered a nuanced response when questioned about it by Peter Mansbridge, stating, "We have to look at the root cause. Now we don't know now whether it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue… But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society."
On Solomon's show, a backbench MP (at the time) from another party responded only with a laughably simplistic and facile soundbite: "The root cause of terrorism is terrorists."
The former, of course, was Justin Trudeau. The latter was Pierre Poilievre. You may or may not agree with Trudeau's response, but at least he put some thought into the issue. Poilievre completely ignored any complexity and nuance to a very complicated issue while committing a textbook
begging the question logical fallacy.