Its pretty clear by reading those comments that he wasn't advocating separation. The comment about it not being a boogeyman is quite accurate as well; thats why voters flocked to the NDP in Quebec in the last election.
- Inefficient taxation through no GST
- Less gun control
- Lots of control on things are are relatively harmless (marijuana, for instance)
- Internet surveillance and digital locks for the MPAA/RIAA
- No stimulus spending in recessions
- Political discourse and criticism is muffled (stronger executive branch of the government, weaker legislative and judicial)
- Access to information is limited
Its pretty clear by reading those comments that he wasn't advocating separation. .
He wasn't outright advocating it but he certainly was indicating that it was an option for him and Quebec, in his own mind..
And since he is considering running for the leadership of a federal party, its a pretty dumb comment to make publicly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The comment about it not being a boogeyman is quite accurate as well; thats why voters flocked to the NDP in Quebec in the last election.
Last I heard, separtists were still alive and kicking in Quebec. They may not have enough votes to head further down the separtist path, but they haven't stop trying. ... and they certainly don't need any encouragement from JT. Separatist leaders in Quebec were overjoyed at his comments.
-Inefficient taxation through no GST - last I heard, GST was still at 5%
- Less gun control - only on rifles and shotguns... which is not a bad thing as most gun violence is a result of handguns. Handgun and full automatic weapon legislation still remains as tough as it has always been
- Lots of control on things are are relatively harmless (marijuana, for instance) - when was the last time you heard of anyone being busted for simple marijuana possesion?
- Internet surveillance and digital locks for the MPAA/RIAA - he's trying to fight terrorism, eliminate internet child pornography, and enforce copyrite laws
- No stimulus spending in recessions - we didn't need it. Canada is doing fine. It would be stupid to spend more to put us further in the whole when it isn't needed.
- Political discourse and criticism is muffled (stronger executive branch of the government, weaker legislative and judicial) - disagree with your judicial statement but as to your other two points, thats what happens when the people elect a majority government.. get over it.
- Access to information is limited - no different than when the Liberals were in power
And those are just the things we know about - more fear mongering?
Last edited by Rerun; 06-17-2012 at 12:32 AM.
Reason: clarification
The Following User Says Thank You to Rerun For This Useful Post:
He wasn't outright advocating it but he certainly was indicating that it was an option for him and Quebec, in his own mind..
And since he is considering running for the leadership of a federal party, its a pretty dumb comment to make publicly.
Last I heard, separtists were still alive and kicking in Quebec. They may not have enough votes to head further down the separtist path, but they haven't stop trying. ... and they certainly don't need any encouragement from JT. Separatist leaders in Quebec were overjoyed at his comments.
He's well regarded as a staunch federalist. I suppose you can read whatever you like into his comments, but if he were a separatist he would've just run for the BQ. Instead Dion specifically had him run against a BQ MP to take a seat away from them. That is much more telling than these comments.
It hardly matters. It's just another in a long line of Liberals you would never support anyway.
-Inefficient taxation through no GST - last I heard, GST was still at 5%
- Less gun control - only on rifles and shotguns... which is not a bad thing as most gun violence is a result of handguns.
- Lots of control on things are are relatively harmless (marijuana, for instance) - when was the last time you heard of anyone being busted for simple marijuana possesion?
- Internet surveillance and digital locks for the MPAA/RIAA - he's trying to fight terrorism
- No stimulus spending in recessions - we didn't need it. Canada is doing fine.
- Political discourse and criticism is muffled (stronger executive branch of the government, weaker legislative and judicial) - disagree with your judicial statement but thats what happens when the people elect a majority government.. get over it.
- Access to information is limited - no different than when the Liberals were in power
And those are just the things we know about - more fear mongering?
-Inefficient taxation through no GST - last I heard, GST was still at 5% - which is a step towards elimination... the Conservatives hate GST because it's an example of broken liberal promises... never mind that's it's actually sound economic policy. Don't think I'm going out too far on a limb to suggest that if it were feasible, Harper would eliminate it.
- Less gun control - only on rifles and shotguns... which is not a bad thing as most gun violence is a result of handguns. Well I guess more gun violence is okay, as long it's not most. The Conservative gun policy is also highly discongruous with other Conservatives policies, such as drugs as below. Control the internet, control drugs that are less harmful than booze, but make it so that someone can buy a gun, re-sell it to someone and unless the police canvas every frickin store they'll never be able to track where it came from. Brilliant.
- Lots of control on things are are relatively harmless (marijuana, for instance) - when was the last time you heard of anyone being busted for simple marijuana possesion? The direction the law is going is absolutely clear, with the intent to eliminate judiciary discretion.
- Internet surveillance and digital locks for the MPAA/RIAA - he's trying to fight terrorism Hence the copyright bill. Digital locks to fight terrorism!
- No stimulus spending in recessions - we didn't need it. Canada is doing fine. We had a cough, we took the medicine and you declare that we didn't need the medicine because our cough got better. Sound logic! If we didn't need it, why do the Conservatives keep trying to take credit for it?
- Political discourse and criticism is muffled (stronger executive branch of the government, weaker legislative and judicial) - disagree with your judicial statement but thats what happens when the people elect a majority government.. get over it. Harper's disdain for parliament and the courts goes beyond simply majority government. His use of omni-bus bills is unprecedented, he's pushing mandatory sentencing, he circumvented the will of parliament by proroguing to avoid a confidence vote (another bad precedent).
- Access to information is limited - no different than when the Liberals were in power. I'd say it's different. See: massively redacted documents, contempt of parliament over the F-35s (and frankly, contempt of the public too).And those are just the things we know about - more fear mongering? More just pointing out that the list I created includes only very limited speculation.
I think you have a real problem with hyperbole...i have no doubt the guy was hiding what he spent on his campaign and should be held to task for doing it and whatever consequences that come with that...but money laundering?
money laundering noun concealing the source of illegally gotten money
The allegation against Del Mastro is that his cousin got upwards of 18 individuals to "donate" $1000 dollars to the Del Mastro campaign. In exchange he would pay those individuals $1000 dollars plus a $50.00 pain in the ass fee. If the allegation is true, that would mean the cousin donated $18,000.00 dollars to his cousin's campaign. That would fit the dictionary definition of money laundering, as an individual cannot donate $18,000 dollars and therefore the money to the campaign would have been received illegally.
In fairness to Del Mastro, they are saying that all of these employees almost unanimously volunteered to donate $1,000.00 dollars to the campaign, which contradicts the sworn statements of former employees to Elections Canada.
Since when is it hyperbole to use a word, as defined by the dictionary, to describe an event that fits the definition of that word?
Trudeau put separation back on the table. Combine that with the most dangerous politician in 20 years in mulclair, and we'll see a separatist vote in the next 5 to 7 years.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Mulclair's antics will swing Quebec back to the bloc and you'll see another pc majority.
Quebecers aren't fond of people living in luxury (hence their being socialist than everywhere else in the country), so I'm sure many of them aren't fond of having an elitist type leading the party that they all voted for. I wouldn't be surprised if they do switch their allegiances back to the Bloc next time. I have however, had Quebecers tell me that the Bloc aren't separatists anymore...though I don't quite understand what they are trying to tell me
Trudeau put separation back on the table. Combine that with the most dangerous politician in 20 years in mulclair, and we'll see a separatist vote in the next 5 to 7 years.
I don't agree with you at all. I don't see how he put separation back on the table? Merely mentioning the word doesn't make it a factor, and just like has already been mentioned I don't think that the appetite for a referendum is there anyway. That has been brought up time and time again, and quite frankly the mass voting by Quebecers for federalist parties last election is great evidence of that fact.
Even so, lets pretend there is a referendum in 5-7yrs. I would much prefer a strong federalist messgae from Justin Trudeau rather than Stephen "firewall" Harper anyday. When I think of the government cabinet in fact there aren't many of them that I would expect could rally any nationalist sentiment in a referendum. Harper is completely uninspiring, John Baird is a total blow-hard and then we get to guys like Pierre Polievierre (I know that's probably mispelled, and sorry!), Jason Kenney (who I would describe as incredibly smarmy)and I'm not even sure who else. Don't even bring up Flaherty who has the charisma of a garden gnome.
To me a referendum isn't a policy issue either. Liberals, CPC and NDP all have a similar stance in that we're against separation so the concern here is actually a different animal entirely. To me its a question of who can win that vote and looking at the CPC today I would say there are questions about who could step up and deliver that win.
If Justin Truedeau's "Strong Federalist Message" is “There is a way of viewing social responsibility, openness to others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that is necessary to Canada,” he told talk show host Franco Nuovo, a well-known Quebec nationalist writer. “And I always say that if I ever believed Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper and we were going against abortion and going against gay marriage, and we were going backward in 10,000 different ways, maybe I’d think of wanting to make Quebec a country.”
First of all he's saying that we should support Quebec values over the rest of Canada which to me is not a strong federalist statement, and second he brings up the booga booga Harper hates gays and loves dead babies argument, which is pretty much complete bs.
You talk about Harper being uninspiring and its true he's more of a technocrat, however spoiled little Justin is nowhere near as smart as his old main while inheriting his arrogance and full of sh%t factor. I'd rather not have him leading any kind of fight against separatism.
Right now, I'd say that Harper is tactically far smarter and far more experienced then Trudeau who has his dads name and non of the other attributes.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
If Trudeau is elected leader, I will have no idea what to do. That would prove the Liberals, as a party, still don't get it. He is far too young and naive to be the leader of our country.
Then we are left between a party that could be disastrous to the economy and foreign policy in the NDP, and a party in the CPC that continues to promise openness of government, toughness on crime, stronger military, and smaller government while delivering a more opaque government than ever before with the muzzling of his caucus and the elimination of programs like CAIRS, the creation of mega-prisons (which the Americans know first hand how they act as huge money pits and criminal-making factories), short-sighted and inefficient military development, and the highest spending government in Canadian history. Not to mention the same old annoying underhanded behaviour like their election tactics, frivolous spending of public funds on lavish hotels and meals, throwing US style pork onto random bills (hello Mr. Clement)...
These are dark dark times in federal politics.
At least provincial politics are relatively healthy!
The Following User Says Thank You to starseed For This Useful Post:
