Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Leger now showing the CPC and Liberals both at 37%

Obviously we saw very similar polling after the switch from Biden to Kamala, but if you're in the CPC war room you better be working on something other than a slogan.

Didn’t translate to the election though.

I still can’t see how the liberals will pull themselves out of the fire. I think they did such a poor job that people are going to be gun shy to vote for them again this soon.

I think Singh and the NDP are going to fare worse though. Everytime he opens his mouth he contradicts himself.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

That line in the article is poorly written. Thats why i wondered about it.
Liberal leadership race is done Mar 9 th

And after an election call its 36 days to a max of 50.

Either way. They better not drag this out much longer. We at least have to look like we have someone in a leadership role.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I still can’t see how the liberals will pull themselves out of the fire. I think they did such a poor job that people are going to be gun shy to vote for them again this soon.

If Freeland was the candidate I would agree. But if it's Carney and he can distance himself enough from JT a lot of people will vote for him.

PP was a huge leader in the polls because he wasn't JT. That's it. Now that safety net of blaming him for everything and running against him is gone a lot of the support he may have received before is dwindling because PP is a smug, arrogant man. His entire schtick is blaming somebody else for everything. It's boring. And his dumb little nicknames and phrases turn a lot of people off.

I'm not sure who will win, but at the very least, if Carney is the candidate it will be close. No landslide victory for the CPC anymore. And it's mostly due to just how unlikeable PP is.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Pp lost my vote with the Mandatory minimum sentences crap. Don't know where I'm voting yet but it won't be PC.

Mandatory minimum sentences for crime? I full support that. Something has to give. Cant be arresting the same people 200 times a
Year and hoping crime is going to improve.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Mandatory minimum sentences for crime? I full support that. Something has to give. Cant be arresting the same people 200 times a
Year and hoping crime is going to improve.

Like a revolving door for petty crime and they know it.

I’d bet a small percentage of criminals commit the majority of crimes.

[PepsiFree]

Except studies show that mandatory minimum sentences not only don’t deter crime, but they also cost taxpayers more and increase the rate of re-offending. They also bog down the justice system and are often struck down.

It’s kind of wild that some people don’t even look… anything… up. Except for what’s happening in pedophile support groups I guess.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

If Freeland was the candidate I would agree. But if it's Carney and he can distance himself enough from JT a lot of people will vote for him.

PP was a huge leader in the polls because he wasn't JT. That's it. Now that safety net of blaming him for everything and running against him is gone a lot of the support he may have received before is dwindling because PP is a smug, arrogant man. His entire schtick is blaming somebody else for everything. It's boring. And his dumb little nicknames and phrases turn a lot of people off.

I'm not sure who will win, but at the very least, if Carney is the candidate it will be close. No landslide victory for the CPC anymore. And it's mostly due to just how unlikeable PP is.

Not to mention the tariff threats from Trump and the MAGA clowns have completely changed the game. PP is now flailing and trying to pivot as a result, but I don't think he's capable of doing that successfully at this point. There's too much at stake right now, and it's starting to look like Canadians just don't trust PP to be able to handle the Orange s***stain. If the Cons dump Pierre and put in an actual serious candidate in his place, then maybe I'd consider voting for them. But at this point with our economy and sovereignty under attack, I'm on team Carney.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except studies show that mandatory minimum sentences not only don’t deter crime, but they also cost taxpayers more and increase the rate of re-offending. They also bog down the justice system and are often struck down.

It’s kind of wild that some people don’t even look… anything… up. Except for what’s happening in pedophile support groups I guess.

You are a vile person.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You are a vile person.

Because I pointed out the reality of mandatory minimum sentences?

I’ve heard of disliking facts but calling someone vile for bringing them seems quite extreme.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I expect he meant a military invasion is not a likely scenario. Because it isn’t. The U.S. officer class isn’t made of up lunatics, and they’re not going to launch airstrikes against CFB Kingston and paradrop onto the oilsands.

I agree that a military invasion is unlikely but for different reasons than you.

But I am surprised to see you write that. Anything and everything I’ve ever learnt about the armed forces, the people in it, how they function / operate, basically they’re fundamental code and basic premise is that it is an organization that works in strict hierarchy and orders are given and taken.

If the order is go invade Canada, they’re doing it. The armed forces isn’t like a university class where free thinkers can “take the option”. Really strange take.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But I am surprised to see you write that. Anything and everything I’ve ever learnt about the armed forces, the people in it, how they function / operate, basically they’re fundamental code and basic premise is that it is an organization that works in strict hierarchy and orders are given and taken.

Otherwise Private Santiago might still be with us.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Otherwise Private Santiago might still be with us.

Have you seen that guy try and pack? Shameful! Just shameful! His packing habits leave much to be desired.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I agree that a military invasion is unlikely but for different reasons than you.

But I am surprised to see you write that. Anything and everything I’ve ever learnt about the armed forces, the people in it, how they function / operate, basically they’re fundamental code and basic premise is that it is an organization that works in strict hierarchy and orders are given and taken.

If the order is go invade Canada, they’re doing it. The armed forces isn’t like a university class where free thinkers can “take the option”. Really strange take.

But he’d need an act of congress to do it, or they would be taking an illegal order so I think the take is valid. If somehow trump convinced congress to issue that war declaration then I have n doubt the military would do their job.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except studies show that mandatory minimum sentences not only don’t deter crime, but they also cost taxpayers more and increase the rate of re-offending. They also bog down the justice system and are often struck down.

It’s kind of wild that some people don’t even look… anything… up. Except for what’s happening in pedophile support groups I guess.

Minimum sentences themselves do not - as most of the crimes people are committing that carry a minimum are not crimes that are pre meditated or if they are - Not by people in a good frame of mind/mental capacity

The issue is how should we treat the constant reoffenders and committers of serious crimes that people would like a minimum sentence for ?

We don't need a minimum sentence for a judge to actually lock them up for longer periods of time . The perception is Canada has grown way to lenient on crime.

At some point it needs to become a case of getting these people off the street vs compassion/efficiency/whatever

What that point is vs rehabilitation - I have no idea. Should it be as harsh as the US 3 strikes rule? Something different?

But people in this country are getting sick of the increasing crime rates in Canada, and things like "Minimum Sentence" is something people can understand in a two second soundbite

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But people in this country are getting sick of the increasing crime rates in Canada, and things like "Minimum Sentence" is something people can understand in a two second soundbite

What increasing crime rates?



No country should be deciding policy based on vibes. The numbers simply do not will-out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Minimum sentences themselves do not - as most of the crimes people are committing that carry a minimum are not crimes that are pre meditated or if they are - Not by people in a good frame of mind/mental capacity

The issue is how should we treat the constant reoffenders and committers of serious crimes that people would like a minimum sentence for ?

We don't need a minimum sentence for a judge to actually lock them up for longer periods of time . The perception is Canada has grown way to lenient on crime.

At some point it needs to become a case of getting these people off the street vs compassion/efficiency/whatever

What that point is vs rehabilitation - I have no idea. Should it be as harsh as the US 3 strikes rule? Something different?

But people in this country are getting sick of the increasing crime rates in Canada, and things like "Minimum Sentence" is something people can understand in a two second soundbite

Totally. And I think that’s the problem with policies like this. We’re taking a perception, regardless of how it lines up with reality (whether the perception is that things are much more severe than they are, or not), and addressing it through a soundbite that feels tough on crime and is appealing to low info people (like we saw above - no research into it, just “100% fer it ser!”), but doesn’t actually accomplish anything or address the actual issue.

Instead of blunt objects that miss completely and “hard on crime!” soundbites, approaches to criminal justice should be fact and science based. The rate for federal recidivism has actually dropped, but you get people even here who post about some random criminal with something like “and of course he was out on parole!” or whatever, like this is a new or rising thing. So is this is a case of the perception not matching the reality? And if so, do we want to treat the reality with a fact-based approach, or the perception with a good soundbite low info people can vibe with?

It’s the former for me. And that’s not to say there are no problems and nothing can be improved or anything like that. I’m all for it. Just no dumb policies that make the problem worse, please. No matter how “cool” and “hard on crime!” they sound.

[CliffFletcher]

Any government that wants to get tough on crime needs to address the worsening crisis in court capacity. A lot of jurisdictions have 18+ month wait times for court appearances. There are more people in Canada behind bars awaiting trial than serving prison sentences.

We have reasonable provisions in the constitution for how long we can keep people before they’re brought to trial. The main reason so many cases get thrown out isn’t a coddling legal system - it’s a chronic shortfall of judges, lawyers, and courtrooms.

But funding more lawyers, judges, and courtrooms costs money, and doesn’t have the same tough vibes as hiring more police or imposing minimum sentencing requirements. So we get ineffective measures that pander to public ignorance.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except studies show that mandatory minimum sentences not only don’t deter crime, but they also cost taxpayers more and increase the rate of re-offending. They also bog down the justice system and are often struck down.

It’s kind of wild that some people don’t even look… anything… up. Except for what’s happening in pedophile support groups I guess.

You know exactly what you were doing by making this comment. Play coy all you want.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You are a vile person.

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You know exactly what you were doing by making this comment. Play coy all you want.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You know exactly what you were doing by making this comment. Play coy all you want.

Pointing out that it’s wild some people will know absolutely nothing about something topical like mandatory minimum sentences but a lot about completely obscure terms and movements found almost exclusively within pro-pedophile communities?

I don’t see how that’s vile either. That kind of information disparity is quite surprising, actually.