Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Harry Lime]

To me, all of the talk about fining universities, or forcing universities to allow or prohibit speakers is just another massive smokescreen. I'm not sure how much this will ever be invoked, and universities are generally pretty self governing by the student bodies on issues like this. With the questionable speaker at the UofL, they were forced to allow him to speak, but then the student body invoked their own right to protest when he arrived, and he ended up not speaking.

I hate to pile on the C-11 discussion, but this feels like a 'waving arms over here' issue so that the Bill is not overly scrutinized.

[Harry Lime]

Also, C-11 reads like a far right-wing wet dream, so the whole discussion is very weird to me.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

To me, all of the talk about fining universities, or forcing universities to allow or prohibit speakers is just another massive smokescreen. I'm not sure how much this will ever be invoked, and universities are generally pretty self governing by the student bodies on issues like this. With the questionable speaker at the UofL, they were forced to allow him to speak, but then the student body invoked their own right to protest when he arrived, and he ended up not speaking.

I hate to pile on the C-11 discussion, but this feels like a 'waving arms over here' issue so that the Bill is not overly scrutinized.

The Bill has been around - and heavily scrutinized - for a year. It has been criticized and discussed on here in full conversation no less than half a dozen times.

At what point are people allowed to discuss other things without being accused of trying to distract from Bill C-11 every time it comes up. It was casually mentioned as part of an entirely different conversation. Does everyone owe it to the board to shift the discussion exclusively to Bill C-11 every time it is even mentioned in passing?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

By going back on parts of the gun ban, they can re-open the issue when they need to again in the future. Probably right after a shooting somewhere.

Can’t let that well go dry.

Isn't after a shooting the EXACT time to reassess if gun laws are working or not?

Shouldn't the desire be that the well does in fact go dry? That way there are no shootings?

Maybe I'm a left wing hippie but I think people getting shot is a bad thing, and would love to see a form of gun control that allows for hunters and collectors to have their guns without there being any people getting shot.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

To me, all of the talk about fining universities, or forcing universities to allow or prohibit speakers is just another massive smokescreen. I'm not sure how much this will ever be invoked, and universities are generally pretty self governing by the student bodies on issues like this. With the questionable speaker at the UofL, they were forced to allow him to speak, but then the student body invoked their own right to protest when he arrived, and he ended up not speaking.

I hate to pile on the C-11 discussion, but this feels like a 'waving arms over here' issue so that the Bill is not overly scrutinized.

I'm not going to get into it too deeply, but my understanding is that, the University of Chicago understood that the concept of allowing Free Speech on Campuses was, at the time, ambiguous at best.

It was something that some groups or others could be allowed or disallowed based on how the wind was blowing through the halls of Academia at the time.

So they decided to try and standardize it via 'The Chicago Principle' so as to try and eliminate the ambiguity, de-politicize the process and remove the ability to cast blame for allowing one thing versus disallowing another.

Lets just say...its not perfect, but I understand the intent.

[cheevers]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1621188310180794371

Quebec still not happy about appointee.

I mean if anyone knows about Islamophobia it would be Quebec.

[Yoho]

Tight polls.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1622267849237487619

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

... Yup, that's another Liberal minority right there.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Yup, that's another Liberal minority right there.

Meh...polls when there isnt even an announced Election on the books are pretty meaningless.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Meh...polls when there isnt even an announced Election on the books are pretty meaningless.

Even then. I’m pretty sure the Conservatives had a healthy lead in the polls going into both of the last two elections. Didn’t translate to the seats required to win.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Even then. I’m pretty sure the Conservatives had a healthy lead in the polls going into both of the last two elections. Didn’t translate to the seats required to win.

Absolutely. Because these polls are essentially just a tiny, insignificant snapshot into how a certain group of people feels right now.

How that translates into votes 'X' number of months down the road, in what ridings resulting in which seats...if I ran a polling company I'd just make the numbers up at this point and cash my cheques...because nobody would know.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You're definitely right. I'm just saying that if we were going into an election with those polling results, the safe money would be "LPC minority again, CPC in the low 130's".

[Johnny Makarov]

Polls are there to lift up the hopes of rightwingers before they realize it's all seniors at home with landlines when the election hits.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're definitely right. I'm just saying that if we were going into an election with those polling results, the safe money would be "LPC minority again, CPC in the low 130's".

Yeah, and I'll agree with that.

Quite honestly? My 'best case scenario' right now is exactly that.

I think, and it may not be a popular opinion, but Poilievre strikes me as an overly religious unhinged lunatic whereas at the moment Trudeau is a relatively harmless dope.

He'll steal from us, but he's already done that, a few times even, and nobody cared.

Poilievre keeps banging the drum of 'Fiscal Responsibility' but I dont think that means what he thinks it means and further, I dont think that his version really aligns with mine all that much, if at all.

And finally...'Fiscal Responsibility?' Post COVID that ship has sailed. Its dead in our lifetimes, we can maybe take some small bites out of the turd burger, but in all reality thats an Elephant thats going to have to be hunted by future generations.

Our generation lament the waste of the Boomers...well, the future generations are going to say worse things about us.

But those horses are long gone. What you do with the Barn Doors now is entirely irrelevant.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, and I'll agree with that.

Quite honestly? My 'best case scenario' right now is exactly that.

I think, and it may not be a popular opinion, but Poilievre strikes me as an overly religious unhinged lunatic whereas at the moment Trudeau is a relatively harmless dope.

He'll steal from us, but he's already done that, a few times even, and nobody cared.

Poilievre keeps banging the drum of 'Fiscal Responsibility' but I dont think that means what he thinks it means and further, I dont think that his version really aligns with mine all that much, if at all.

And finally...'Fiscal Responsibility?' Post COVID that ship has sailed. Its dead in our lifetimes, we can maybe take some small bites out of the turd burger, but in all reality thats an Elephant thats going to have to be hunted by future generations.

Our generation lament the waste of the Boomers...well, the future generations are going to say worse things about us.

But those horses are long gone. What you do with the Barn Doors now is entirely irrelevant.

I get what you’re saying, but respectfully disagree. We must try and stop the bleeding, fiscal responsibility should be high on our list of priorities, regardless of what party is governing.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to try and do something, rather than throw in the towel and say - it’s your problem.

[Yoho]

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think, and it may not be a popular opinion, but Poilievre strikes me as an overly religious unhinged lunatic whereas at the moment Trudeau is a relatively harmless dope.

For all the dramatics and doomsaying that will go on (as per usual) when an election does in fact happen, I think it's pretty likely that they'll both be roughly equivalent in their "harmlessness". Which is to say, there will be some harm caused either way, but there won't be all that much difference in the way the country ends up being run on the whole, regardless of who wins. The risk of being wrong about that, though, would seem to favour voting for the devil you know; i.e., Trudeau and company.

Whatever; it's all just an academic exercise at this point.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

May I suggest take your party blinders off and vote for the best candidate running in your area. The one that you think will represent you the best.

I know that's going to be extremely hard for some people and areas of the country, but if you can't fathom to vote for the parties, at least give the individual a chance.

To be clear, I personally believe abstaining is not an option. No one is above democracy. We are lucky to have it.

This is exactly what I've done for the last 2 or 3 elections. I really feel it's important to vote no matter what, at least if I can help elect someone in my area I think will represent us well I feel good about my vote.

[flamesfever]

I believe there has been a noticeable shift in voter sentiment across the country in the past 6 months. I think voters are gradually realizing how the actions of the Government are starting to affect them personally. For example:

1. Government overspending leading to a rise in inflation and interest rates, even noted by those formerly on the inside e.g. Morneau

2. Economic disincentives e.g. over taxation, burdening regulation, slow and inefficient government, all acting to stifle resource development, and contributing to our brain drain.

3. Our ballooning debt

4. Our collapsing healthcare and need for change and increased spending

5. The poor state of our armed forces

6. Government inefficiency e.g. acquiring passports, border policies, etc.

7. Corruption and gross overuse of consultants with probable conflicts of interest

8. Our decreasing standing as a country, as it relates to many issues e.g. corruption, investment opportunity, healthcare, etc.

9. The arrogant, virtue signaling, ideologically bent, grossly inefficient leadership

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe there has been a noticeable shift in voter sentiment across the country in the past 6 months. I think voters are gradually realizing how the actions of the Government are starting to affect them personally. For example:

1. Government overspending leading to a rise in inflation and interest rates, even noted by those formerly on the inside e.g. Morneau

2. Economic disincentives e.g. over taxation, burdening regulation, slow and inefficient government, all acting to stifle resource development, and contributing to our brain drain.

3. Our ballooning debt

4. Our collapsing healthcare and need for change and increased spending

5. The poor state of our armed forces

6. Government inefficiency e.g. acquiring passports, border policies, etc.

7. Corruption and gross overuse of consultants with probable conflicts of interest

8. Our decreasing standing as a country, as it relates to many issues e.g. corruption, investment opportunity, healthcare, etc.

9. The arrogant, virtue signaling, ideologically bent, grossly inefficient leadership

Is Pierre gonna fix all that?