Videodrome
Senior Member
I know that. Did anyone see Michelle Rempel's late night tweets? I swear that she was drunk when that happened...
saw them.......i doubt she was drunk.......she has a provocative style and a way of making people think about thingsI know that. Did anyone see Michelle Rempel's late night tweets? I swear that she was drunk when that happened...
First of all I did say that Harper didn’t bite didn’t I? Second I said that Trudeau’s words were empty, not the Government of Canada’s, although he is the PM now. And what do you define as “standing up”? Simply saying you condemn the actions of a certain individual? In that case I can say “I strongly condemn Mike Tyson’s sexist remarks about women” Did I just stand up to Mike Tyson? Am I a tough guy now? You can argue until the cows come home but I simply cannot see Trudeau defeating Putin at the negotiating table, assuming Putin even cares. You can go on and on and say how Trudeau is a “fighter” and hasn’t backed down from a fight but if you remember people were saying the same things about Obama in 2008 and he has been a huge disappointment (not to me because I expected him to flop). But my question remains: what could Trudeau possibly do to Putin? How will he stand up to him? It’ll take more than words, a lot more than words…I still don't understand your point. Now it seems you are talking about the capacity of the Government of Canada to stand up to Putin. Why is Canada's alleged incapacity somehow linked to Trudeau? Why were Harper's words similarly not empty/hilarious when he took the same hard line stance? If they were empty/hilarious, why are you focusing on Trudeau? What alternative position are you advocating? What do you expect Trudeau to say instead? Lots of Canadians, particularly Canadians of Ukrainian descent, expect Trudeau to say that he will maintain the hard line, regardless of whether or not it impacts Putin. Is Canada supposed to retreat from from the world? Do we simply roll over, or should we stand up for what's right, ideally in a multilateral situation? I'm simply baffled by your "LOL" comment. I don't see why any of this is humourous, or why Trudeau's comment is worthy of mocking.
Did anyone ever care?
Among the other key findings in the Forum poll:
Seventy-five per cent or more said endorsements during the campaign by well-known personalities such as Chrétien, hockey icon Wayne Gretzky, and councillor Rob Ford and brother Doug didn’t improve or had no impact on their image of the party in question. In fact, 91 per cent said Conservative endorsements by the Ford brothers didn’t improve or impact their image of the Tories.
- When asked which endorsements improved my image of the party, former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s endorsement of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals was the top pick with 21 per cent of respondents choosing him.
The original release from Trudeau mentioned ranked ballots or proportional representation as options.Do you have any sources for that? I'm not trying to be an ass by asking...I'm genuinely curious.
Absolutely, a relevant endorsement makes sense. But the word of an old hockey star who hasn't lived in the country in years and who hasn't been involved in our political scene? Not so much.It would appear some endorsement can create an impression, just not the one in question:
Absolutely, a relevant endorsement makes sense. But the word of an old hockey star who hasn't lived in the country in years and who hasn't been involved in our political scene? Not so much.
The original release from Trudeau mentioned ranked ballots or proportional representation as options.
Which one would give the most benefit to a centrist government? Full proportional is dangerous, as then you get wing-nut fascist and extremist parties still getting 1% of the votes, and seats in the house.
the problem with that analysis (in a Canadian context) is that it has not led to the "inevitable" two party system....nor has it led to anything close to the sort of patterned voting that it states would/will happen as a matter of course.Provocative is one way to put it.
Regarding FPTP voting.
Canada is seen internationally (alongside with India) as the exception to the FPTP tendency towards two-party systems. The common suggestion is that due to Canada's geography and history, our parties are much more regionalized, leading to the significant support bases for 3rd (/and other) parties to win seats.the problem with that analysis (in a Canadian context) is that it has not led to the "inevitable" two party system....nor has it led to anything close to the sort of patterned voting that it states would/will happen as a matter of course.
We have 5 parties in Canada fighting for attention during the election and a bunch of other fringe parties that survive for their niches........and that is after about, what, 150 years of FPTP.
the problem with that analysis (in a Canadian context) is that it has not led to the "inevitable" two party system....nor has it led to anything close to the sort of patterned voting that it states would/will happen as a matter of course.
We have 5 parties in Canada fighting for attention during the election and a bunch of other fringe parties that survive for their niches........and that is after about, what, 150 years of FPTP.