Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Andy83

To me, shes no different than any other political figure. She's going to do/say things i love or hate, and everything in-between. In the end, i think a large portion of their energy goes into what serves them best, sometimes we end up getting in the way and end up benefitting, sometimes we lose. While I'm not suggesting everything else is forgotten and not taken into consideration, somewhat isolating every decision/policy is kind of important (to me anyway).

For me anyway, even the biggest "idiots" who I tend to disagree with the most are still capable of doing good, even if it's rooted in personal political benefit.

I dunno.
If I ran a company employing "idiots" who sometimes did good, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't keep those idiots around long.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I dunno.
If I ran a company employing "idiots" who sometimes did good, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't keep those idiots around long.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

And if it's your company, that's your decision to make. Problem is, in this case, it's all of our "company", and some disagree that insert politician here is an idiot., even if they don't necessarily agree with everything they do.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

And that's the real kicker with your views and politics - as long as it's good for me, who gives a flying #### about anyone else. You benefit from the rest of us making informed, considerate decisions while throwing it back and saying, "see, I'm right."

You literally proved Smith's point lol.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Sure is easy to "negotiate" when you only have to worry about one apple and not the whole apple cart.

Is this supposed to be a criticism, because it just sounds like good advice.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Andy83

And if it's your company, that's your decision to make. Problem is, in this case, it's all of our "company", and some disagree that insert politician here is an idiot., even if they don't necessarily agree with everything they do.

So as long as she's our idiot, that's ok?

If that doesn't define RW politics, nothing does.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

So as long as she's our idiot, that's ok?

If that doesn't define RW politics, nothing does.

That's not what I said, at all. Sorry you think so.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Andy83

That's not what I said, at all. Sorry you think so.

Hard to tell when all we get is vague generalities and any push for clarification or expansion is met with derision.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's simplify it

Trump's Motivation: Negotiation
Smith's Motivation: Negotiation

Team "Canada" led by the most "unpopular PM in Canadian history, who despite that refuses to step down until it suits him" Motivation: Trade war.

I am pretty sure who is on the wrong side of history, they both went down there to talk to him and came back with 2 different interpretations on what was going to happen. Smith interpreted the right way and goes into that relationship a step up from the others like JT, Ford and whoever is the Premier of that welfare state Quebec

I think you’re missing the point here. I’m not saying the provinces banding together got trump to (at least temporarily) back down on his tariffs, I’m saying it’s ridiculous to suggest that smith impacted the decision or had any more of less of an impact on his decision without any actual proof. You may as well be saying that Legault was responsible since he spoke to Trump first. It’s nonsense. I’m saying this as someone who supported smith’s decision to meet with Trump, even if I didn’t like her overall handling of the situation.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Hard to tell when all we get is vague generalities and any push for clarification or expansion is met with derision.

I don't think there is anything vague about what I've said at all. If you think so, that's fine.

She's a democratically elected official. Some think she's an idiot, some (the majority) don't. Who's right? Kind of the whole point of our election process.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I don't think there is anything vague about what I've said at all. If you think so, that's fine.

She's a democratically elected official. Some think she's an idiot, some (the majority) don't. Who's right?

Not sure, but the people who can expand on their position and provide examples have a head start.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I don't think there is anything vague about what I've said at all. If you think so, that's fine.

She's a democratically elected official. Some think she's an idiot, some (the majority) don't. Who's right?

I'm gonna stand on the side of people who think acknowledging chem trails makes you unfit to lead, but sure, it's 50/50 on this.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not sure, but the people who can expand on their position and provide examples have a head start.

I've happily expanded for people when I see value in doing so.

[Geraldsh]

I’m confused and disappointed, did she go down there to get groped or not? We need results!

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think you’re missing the point here. I’m not saying the provinces banding together got trump to (at least temporarily) back down on his tariffs, I’m saying it’s ridiculous to suggest that smith impacted the decision or had any more of less of an impact on his decision without any actual proof. You may as well be saying that Legault was responsible since he spoke to Trump first. It’s nonsense. I’m saying this as someone who supported smith’s decision to meet with Trump, even if I didn’t like her overall handling of the situation.

Nothing that happened in Canada had any impact on what Trump did. Canadian's have a remarkable delusion of grandeur. We don't matter. Nobody cares. Nobody cares if we emit 0 carbons or a billion carbons.

Everybody in Canada should have supported Smith going to visit Trump and his people. If someone doesn't, that's just a tell for their TDS. It is quite likely she went down there, spoke ten words to Trump, and then had informative discussions with Trump's people. She then understood, either explicitly, or because they suggested it, that there would be limited or no tariffs on anything (especially oil). So the fact that she looked calm and informed was likely because of this trip. Her comments on expecting a tariff at some point were her respecting the Trump staffers, without throwing them under the bus. The other 9 premiers and JT looked like unhinged morons, because they had no information. It's almost like being a reasonable person who is willing to talk, and communicate and discuss things with your partners and stakeholders confers a benefit. Maybe some of the anti-Smith pearl-clutchers in this thread could learn a thing or two about how to work with allies that you perceive as imperfect.

The drama out of the RoC, and the media and half of this thread was just cringe. "Smith is a TRAITOR". lol.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm gonna stand on the side of people who think acknowledging chem trails makes you unfit to lead, but sure, it's 50/50 on this.

On that particular issue, and many others like it, I don't think most people think it's even close to 50/50, on whether its all a bunch of bs or not. And I certainly never suggested as much. I do think a lot of people weighed the good and bad, and made their decision. Of course there are some that vote solely on party affiliation, or other reasons, but there is nothing any of us can do about that.

[Locke]

Is Trudeau at the inauguration? Cozying up to our largest trading partner?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I've happily expanded for people when I see value in doing so.

More words doesn’t always equate to more substance, unfortunately. I get that it’s easy to confuse the two, though.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Locke

Is Trudeau at the inauguration? Cozying up to our largest trading partner?

I think it's more likely he's in tofino, worrying about what he's going to do if he has to go back to work Feb 15th. Doing the job you are being paid to do is a real bitch.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I think it's more likely he's in tofino, worrying about what he's going to do if he has to go back to work Feb 15th. Doing the job you are being paid to do is a real bitch.

Crushing waves and sandos with his bros! And complaining about the Government.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I don't think there is anything vague about what I've said at all. If you think so, that's fine.

She's a democratically elected official. Some think she's an idiot, some (the majority) don't. Who's right? Kind of the whole point of our election process.

The majority of people are in fact idiots so that adds up.