Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Larf.

You just described it to a "T" what that would entail if it was accurate.

I have no problem with anyone being whatever they are on the political spectrum, but when you claim to be neutral and unbiased as you have repeatedly when its so easily apparent you are anything but, it needs to be called out. But thats fine, I get it and have no problem with it.

How do you feel about Trudeau actually lying about why he has changed his position in regards to legalizing weed then? Does that reflect on him in any way particularly? Do the ends justify the means in this case because its apparent Canadians would like this change? If the Cons did a sudden about face in the same direction, would there be no backlash because of the flip flop aspect?

Irrelevant.

One leader is supportive of a policy that another leader is not supportive of. That's what we're talking about. You want to make it personal about certain posters you disagree with.

Continue to dance around the burning effigies of your straw men.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Irrelevant.

One leader is supportive of a policy that another leader is not supportive of. That's what we're talking about. You want to make it personal about certain posters you disagree with.

Continue to dance around the burning effigies of your straw men.

So when the leader of a federal party lies...its irrelevant? Or is that just a Liberal leader?

LOL...OK then....good to know.

Oh..and I will talk about what I like, thanks.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Larf.

You just described it to a "T" what that would entail if it was accurate.

I have no problem with anyone being whatever they are on the political spectrum, but when you claim to be neutral and unbiased as you have repeatedly when its so easily apparent you are anything but, it needs to be called out. But thats fine, I get it and have no problem with it.

How do you feel about Trudeau actually lying about why he has changed his position in regards to legalizing weed then? Does that reflect on him in any way particularly? Do the ends justify the means in this case because its apparent Canadians would like this change? If the Cons did a sudden about face in the same direction, would there be no backlash because of the flip flop aspect?

If you can't figure out that my saying the Wildrose would re-launch the egg in the frying pan commercials again was a joke, then I'm not sure where to begin.

I definitely have my biases, and I think that everyone does. I don't try to imply that I'm totally neutral. The difference is that when I say/said in an election thread that I don't know who I'm voting for, you take that as me saying that I'm an objective observer of some sort, which I'm clearly not. I do think that I can like some policies and ideas from parties/politicians and not jump into bed with them though.

I have no idea where the weed issue leaves Trudeau in the polls. If you want to know, I really don't care about marijuana laws one way or the other. I've never tried it and have no intentions of doing so, so it makes no difference to me one way or the other. What I do find funny is that the usual suspects here who are anti-Trudeau, yet love the idea of more referendums and public involvement in general are criticizing him for going along with what the majority of people seem to favour. Does this position actually get Trudeau any votes? Maybe, but its certainly not likely to be a tipping point type of issue. I doubt we see the next election fought on marijuana laws. What it does though is paint a picture of someone being much more liberal regarding these issues than his opposition. To me the really interesting party here is the NDP. What will they say? They can't every well just agree with the Harper position, and at the same time to come out and support Trudeau isn't likely a great political move either.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So when the leader of a federal party lies...its irrelevant? Or is that just a Liberal leader?

LOL...OK then....good to know.

Oh..and I will talk about what I like, thanks.

In this context yes, it's irrelevant.

Talk about what you like, I know you always do. You'd just be much more convincing if you talked about things that were relevant.

But you're so hopelessly partisan that you can't discuss policy or politics without it being a personal mud fight between your "team" and the rival "team". Which is the problem with modern politics.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you can't figure out that my saying the Wildrose would re-launch the egg in the frying pan commercials again was a joke, then I'm not sure where to begin.

I definitely have my biases, and I think that everyone does. I don't try to imply that I'm totally neutral. The difference is that when I say/said in an election thread that I don't know who I'm voting for, you take that as me saying that I'm an objective observer of some sort, which I'm clearly not. I do think that I can like some policies and ideas from parties/politicians and not jump into bed with them though.

I have no idea where the weed issue leaves Trudeau in the polls. If you want to know, I really don't care about marijuana laws one way or the other. I've never tried it and have no intentions of doing so, so it makes no difference to me one way or the other. What I do find funny is that the usual suspects here who are anti-Trudeau, yet love the idea of more referendums and public involvement in general are criticizing him for going along with what the majority of people seem to favour. Does this position actually get Trudeau any votes? Maybe, but its certainly not likely to be a tipping point type of issue. I doubt we see the next election fought on marijuana laws. What it does though is paint a picture of someone being much more liberal regarding these issues than his opposition. To me the really interesting party here is the NDP. What will they say? They can't every well just agree with the Harper position, and at the same time to come out and support Trudeau isn't likely a great political move either.

Thanks for the pointed response and the bolded part is certainly an interesting dichotomy. I also agree that weed wont be a huge issue either way in the election.

Forgetting for now that they are polling about 13 points higher than the Libs country wide the last i saw (before summer IIRC)....do they have the cache with voters to align closely with Liberal platforms and not lose votes to the more center party?

There is almost no reason that the Harper conservatives shouldnt be defeated in the next election to some degree by either the Libs or the Dips...but it seems as if they will be each others biggest stumbling block to do so. Its very odd.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Iblah blah blah.

Seems Slava and i can talk about what we are talking about without you playing referee. Imagine that.

Now if you want to engage in what WE are talking about, jump in.

Whether you believe something in irrelevent or not, doesnt matter to me and for you to call someone out for being partisan is as laughable as anything ever said by you...and that is saying something.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In this context yes, it's irrelevant.

Talk about what you like, I know you always do. You'd just be much more convincing if you talked about things that were relevant.

But you're so hopelessly partisan that you can't discuss policy or politics without it being a personal mud fight between your "team" and the rival "team". Which is the problem with modern politics.

to be honest, its pretty hilarious when you call someone out for being partisan. I know I'm partisan.

The fact that your calling someone out considering that your not the poster child for balance is great.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think there's a good chance 15 months from now the NDP is a total non-factor and might even be looking up at the BQ in the polls. Mulcair is no Jack Layton, and he can't ride his coattails forever.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think there's a good chance 15 months from now the NDP is a total non-factor and might even be looking up at the BQ in the polls. Mulcair is no Jack Layton, and he can't ride his coattails forever.

Liberals only real chance likely.

Anyone now how the NDP are polling in Quebec these days? Did a quick search but didnt see anything.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

to be honest, its pretty hilarious when you call someone out for being partisan. I know I'm partisan.

The fact that your calling someone out considering that your not the poster child for balance is great.

Ugh, nobody ever said I wasn't partisan, I'm just not hopelessly partisan. I've voted for every major federal party at least once.

I recognize the good policy of the Conservatives. Most notably James Moore taking on big telco. I'm not so partisan that I can't see good policy for what it is.

That's the distinction.

What I see from some is a rival leader taking an interesting and well supported policy position and trying to debase the discussion on whether they "lied" or not. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I see t99 is even trying to engage Slava on actual issues without resorting to "..." and the like so I'll step away.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think there's a good chance 15 months from now the NDP is a total non-factor and might even be looking up at the BQ in the polls. Mulcair is no Jack Layton, and he can't ride his coattails forever.

Mulcair's best strategy right now is to go hard after Trudeau and to question him on every single thing and every single inconsistency.

The next election is going to be about the NDP remaining relevant, and going after the key areas that the Liberal's might threaten in.

I think the next election is going to be very interesting as are the leadership debates. If Harper is smart, he'll ignore the NDP to an extent and try to guy Trudeau. If Mulcair is smart he'll attack Harper but go to absolute war with Trudeau ala Layton and Ignatieff.

[transplant99]

In the end i think the only thing about all this that could hurt JT is that he has admitted that while he was smoking weed as an MP, he was also voting to support mandatory minimum sentences for those involved in it from what i understand.

Thats a tough one to hide from...voters dont like hypocrisy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Mulcair's best strategy right now is to go hard after Trudeau and to question him on every single thing and every single inconsistency.

The next election is going to be about the NDP remaining relevant, and going after the key areas that the Liberal's might threaten in.

I think the next election is going to be very interesting as are the leadership debates. If Harper is smart, he'll ignore the NDP to an extent and try to guy Trudeau. If Mulcair is smart he'll attack Harper but go to absolute war with Trudeau ala Layton and Ignatieff.

Yeah the NDP isn't going to be shedding any voters to the CPC. The Liberals are their threat and Mulcair has to go after Trudeau and he cannot afford to wait too long or it will be too late.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Anyone now how the NDP are polling in Quebec these days? Did a quick search but didnt see anything.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html

You're in luck a new one out today...

CROP's Quebec poll showed little change at the top from their last survey from June, with the Liberals down only a single point to 41%. But the New Democrats fell five points to 27%, their lowest level in a CROP poll since the 2011 election. The Bloc Québécois was up two points to 17% and the Conservatives were up six points to 14%. About 10% of respondents were undecided, while another 6% refused to answer or said they would not vote for any of these parties.

The Liberals led in this poll among francophones with 33% to the NDP's 31%, as well as among non-francophones with 72%. But it was the Conservatives, at 20%, and not the NDP, at only 8%, that placed second in this demographic. The Liberals led throughout the province except in Quebec City, where the Conservatives were ahead.

That would still likely mean that the NDP would take the most seats due to the high concentration of Grit voters being in Montreal but the NDP losing to the Grits even amoungst francophones has to be concerning for them.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by nik-

It is pretty odd that the majority of politician's stances on this are so out of sync with the general population. Seeing as typically politicians just pander anyway.

I'm guessing block voting and public endorsements from law enforcement groups and soccer moms have a large part to do with this.

Old people and our neighbors to the south.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Old people and our neighbors to the south.

I think this issue would have been settled many years ago if it wasn't for our major trading partner. They definitely forced Mexico to change their mind regarding decrim/legalization and surely have had much input into Canada's laws as well.

That being said, this has to be one of the very least important issues facing most Canadians, no?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think this issue would have been settled many years ago if it wasn't for our major trading partner. They definitely forced Mexico to change their mind regarding decrim/legalization and surely have had much input into Canada's laws as well.

That being said, this has to be one of the very least important issues facing most Canadians, no?

Agree on the first point for sure.

As for the second point, I'm not really sure. Definitely not a super important issue, but I think it could be more important than some think. If we can save money on crime and punishment and perhaps even make some through taxes and whatever, it could be a fairly interesting issue.

Shoot even California played around with legalizing pot to help with their deficit. There could be real tangible benefits to legalizing it that could affect more than just those who want to smoke it.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Agree on the first point for sure.

As for the second point, I'm not really sure. Definitely not a super important issue, but I think it could be more important than some think. If we can save money on crime and punishment and perhaps even make some through taxes and whatever, it could be a fairly interesting issue.

Shoot even California played around with legalizing pot to help with their deficit. There could be real tangible benefits to legalizing it that could affect more than just those who want to smoke it.

I just don't see it being a real monetary issue within a 275 BILLION dollar budget... Cigarette taxes raised about 6 Billion last year and I don't think MJ would be anywhere near that.

Saving on crime and punishment would be difficult to measure, but I don't imagine you would see any cuts to spending with a change in the legal status.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html

You're in luck a new one out today...



That would still likely mean that the NDP would take the most seats due to the high concentration of Grit voters being in Montreal but the NDP losing to the Grits even amoungst francophones has to be concerning for them.

Yeah....that is not good news for the dippers at all...i didnt realize they had faltered that severely and to the point they trail the cons by that much among non-francos? Looks like a free fall at this point, though that shouldnt come as a complete surprise.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Old people and our neighbors to the south.

Except our neighbour to the south is tilting the other way while we import their failed policies.