Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Or the "office of religious freedoms" which was really just to protect Christians. And wasn't their a hotline to rat on people you found uncomfortable(Muslims)?

Well...in fairness, some people might just be trying to help.

Burkas seem like they'd be uncomfortable, especially when its hot out.

"Someone get them a fan or something."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When I stop seeing stickers that say “#### Trudeau” with no other context I’ll be more inclined to agree he’s not a wedge issue for many voters.



How do any of those things not fall under the same category of policy discussion and negative campaigning?



I think that overall they’re still fairly similar but as you said that’s a completely separate debate. What’s your take on Harper having been a strong proponent of right to work laws? I think we can agree that there isn’t much to debate about which American party falls in line with that.

What is your definition of a wedge issue? I think yours and mine are completely different here

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

What is your definition of a wedge issue? I think yours and mine are completely different here

Basically most things that can be politically divisive. I’m not sure I understand why you think economic issues or individual politicians can’t be made into wedge issues.

From your previous post:

My interpretation of the classic wedge issue is to create situations where despite agreeing with a party there is one specific issue that causes you to vote against all the other things that matter.

I’m a little perplexed as to how you can make this statement and not consider Trudeau to be a wedge issue for many voters. I certainly know a lot of people who won’t vote for the liberals so long as he is their leader, so if that doesn’t fit your definition of a wedge issue what do you call it?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Basically most things that can be politically divisive. I’m not sure I understand why you think economic issues or individual politicians can’t be made into wedge issues.

From your previous post:

I’m a little perplexed as to how you can make this statement and not consider Trudeau to be a wedge issue for many voters. I certainly know a lot of people who won’t vote for the liberals so long as he is their leader, so if that doesn’t fit your definition of a wedge issue what do you call it?

Because in our elected dictatorship model with a strong cabinet and strong PMO when you vote in an election you are voting for the leader. It’s what you are voting for. Saying I won’t vote for a party while Trudeau is leader isn’t a wedge issue it’s how our FTFP weak senate system works.

I don’t think your definition of wedge differentiates policy and a wedge issue.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because in our elected dictatorship model with a strong cabinet and strong PMO when you vote in an election you are voting for the leader. It’s what you are voting for. Saying I won’t vote for a party while Trudeau is leader isn’t a wedge issue it’s how our FTFP weak senate system works.

I don’t think your definition of wedge differentiates policy and a wedge issue.

Isn't banning abortion a policy issue? Private members bill C-233 banning abortion based on gender selection was just introduced a couple years ago so it's not some bygone issue.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because in our elected dictatorship model with a strong cabinet and strong PMO when you vote in an election you are voting for the leader. It’s what you are voting for. Saying I won’t vote for a party while Trudeau is leader isn’t a wedge issue it’s how our FTFP weak senate system works.

I don’t think your definition of wedge differentiates policy and a wedge issue.

That’s ok. I don’t think your definition has parameters that can be described as anything other than arbitrary with a confirmation bias, so even though I can respect your opinion I don’t have to agree with it.

[Northendzone]

Going to be interesting to see how much traction this issue gets over the next few weeks

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...sis-documents/

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Or the "office of religious freedoms" which was really just to protect Christians. And wasn't their a hotline to rat on people you found uncomfortable(Muslims)?

It was one of the most disgusting things ever put into practice in this country. A direct "Don Cherry" shot at "the wrong colour Canadians" and how to rat on them if you (white people) weren't conformable with minorities around you. So awful.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Yoho

The difference now is those same Liberals would never be taken down today because the MSM media has no interest in smearing them and holding them accountable.

MSM already stands for Main Stream Media, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Niqab bans, barbaric cultural practices snitch hotlines, "Old Stock Canadians", treating naturalized Canadian citizens differently under the law from Canadians who gained citizenship at birth.

You can just say racism. The Harper Conservatives were racists.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can just say racism. The Harper Conservatives were racists.

Don’t think that who the leader changes the truthfulness of that statement. Just that Harper was actually in power.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Don’t think that who the leader changes the truthfulness of that statement. Just that Harper was actually in power.

Harper in the early days had a significant Ontario first gen immigrant base. Whether the racist elements were just hidden or grew more powerful is an interesting debate.

I think you have seen the rise of right wing racists over the past 20 years into influential positions rather than in just being better hidden in the past. The difference between these two in my opinion is did leadership suppress racists because it was unacceptable or did leadership just hide their racism.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Going to be interesting to see how much traction this issue gets over the next few weeks

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...sis-documents/

This should be an enormous story, and Canadians should be extremely concerned about it. Instead we see news stories about Freedom Convoy reunion protests and things like that. It would appear that the goals of that campaign are being met!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

This should be an enormous story, and Canadians should be extremely concerned about it. Instead we see news stories about Freedom Convoy reunion protests and things like that. It would appear that the goals of that campaign are being met!

Why is it that every time someone posts something along the line of ”This should be a massive story! But (the media/politicians/people)…” they never actually bother discussing the story, they would just rather make some vague political statement about why the story isn’t being discussed enough?

It’s obviously not that enormous if you think the media covering the freedom convoy “instead” (funny claim) of it is bigger.

[opendoor]

LOL. Responding to post with a link to an article from probably the biggest newspaper in the country (which now has 2 more stories at the top of its front page related to this) by saying "why isn't anyone covering this?"

It's getting tons of coverage. But much like the 2016 US election and Russian influence, the actual impact on the result was probably pretty minimal so people don't seem too alarmed by it. And ultimately, there's only so much that a free country can do to stop that kind of social media based foreign influence and lobbying while maintaining robust free speech.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by opendoor

LOL. Responding to post with a link to an article from probably the biggest newspaper in the country (which now has 2 more stories at the top of its front page related to this) by saying "why isn't anyone covering this?"

It's getting tons of coverage. But much like the 2016 US election and Russian influence, the actual impact on the result was probably pretty minimal so people don't seem too alarmed by it. And ultimately, there's only so much that a free country can do to stop that kind of social media based foreign influence and lobbying while maintaining robust free speech.

That is the part that is missing from the story. What is the potential impact of influencing recent Chinese immigrant voters? No one wants foreign actors influencing elections, but I do question the efficacy of such a campaign and wonder what numbers are actually in play.

[ZedMan]

Buried in the second last paragraph of the story:

CSIS Director David Vigneault told Mr. Trudeau that there was no indication that China’s interference efforts had helped elect any of them, despite the consulate’s attempts to promote the campaigns on social media and in Chinese-language media outlets.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why is it that every time someone posts something along the line of ”This should be a massive story! But (the media/politicians/people)…” they never actually bother discussing the story, they would just rather make some vague political statement about why the story isn’t being discussed enough?

It’s obviously not that enormous if you think the media covering the freedom convoy “instead” (funny claim) of it is bigger.

Thanks for your valuable addition to the discussion though.

Originally Posted by opendoor

LOL. Responding to post with a link to an article from probably the biggest newspaper in the country (which now has 2 more stories at the top of its front page related to this) by saying "why isn't anyone covering this?"

It's getting tons of coverage. But much like the 2016 US election and Russian influence, the actual impact on the result was probably pretty minimal so people don't seem too alarmed by it. And ultimately, there's only so much that a free country can do to stop that kind of social media based foreign influence and lobbying while maintaining robust free speech.

Well, I actually receive the G&M at home and this was about halfway through the first section. So, it's not that no one is covering this, it's that it should rightly be front-page news and the government should be disclosing everything they know.

I happen to think a foreign country interfering in our democracy is a big deal. I guess it's fine if it's for the party you support, but that's not my feeling on the matter.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I happen to think a foreign country interfering in our democracy is a big deal. I guess it's fine if it's for the party you support, but that's not my feeling on the matter.

Grasping at straws are we Slava?

There’s literally no one in this thread saying this.

Besides I seem to recall you telling us on multiple occasions that your friends say you’re a big time Liberal. So who’s putting you up to this? Is it China? It’s China, isn’t it?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thanks for your valuable addition to the discussion though.


Well, I actually receive the G&M at home and this was about halfway through the first section. So, it's not that no one is covering this, it's that it should rightly be front-page news and the government should be disclosing everything they know.

I happen to think a foreign country interfering in our democracy is a big deal. I guess it's fine if it's for the party you support, but that's not my feeling on the matter.

I think that a little secrecy is prudent. China doesn't need to know what worked and or didn't work.