News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.2K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 299     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 847     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Videodrome said:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sch...140546#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=iP1hJKI

Congrats to Trudeau on his re-election. Scheer would make pot illegal again.
Click to expand...

What a complete tool. A dull and rusty one.

Is he in favour of making alcohol illegal again? It's addictive and toxic, after all.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, alcohol isn't a drug. It's its own classification. Not a psychotropic substance at all.
Noooope. And it's good for ya. Can't take away the beers from the good old boys. To hell with a rational understanding of psychotropic and their various degrees of social and personal safety, or lack thereof.

Ain't nobody got time for objective truth.

Honestly, these sorts of people need to educate themselves or just stop talking.

Somebody tell Scheer that cannabis is a plant. It's unnatural for it to not be around. Aren't some of these idiots all about how homosexuality is unnatural, for example?

People like Scheer need to take their morality based on irrational and illiberal beliefs and keep it to their damn selves.

*spits*

Some people's kids, honestly.
 
The CPC is scrambling to explain Scheer's comments and are blaming the media now. Once you give people a right, it usually can't and shouldn't be taken away.
 
MTown said:
What a complete tool. A dull and rusty one.

Is he in favour of making alcohol illegal again? It's addictive and toxic, after all.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, alcohol isn't a drug. It's its own classification. Not a psychotropic substance at all.
Noooope. And it's good for ya. Can't take away the beers from the good old boys. To hell with a rational understanding of psychotropic and their various degrees of social and personal safety, or lack thereof.

Ain't nobody got time for objective truth.

Honestly, these sorts of people need to educate themselves or just stop talking.

Somebody tell Scheer that cannabis is a plant. It's unnatural for it to not be around. Aren't some of these idiots all about how homosexuality is unnatural, for example?

People like Scheer need to take their morality based on irrational and illiberal beliefs and keep it to their damn selves.

*spits*

Some people's kids, honestly.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when you elect Winnie the Pooh as Federal Con Leader.

FFS - the man is an airhead. I can't understand why anyone in his party would have voted for him over Bernier.. Seriously... One man has the guts and gravitas to lead - the other looks like a children's literature character.
 
I didn't really analyze the results, but isn't Scheer a perfect example of the downfalls or 'ranked' balloting?
 
narduch said:
I didn't really analyze the results, but isn't Scheer a perfect example of the downfalls or 'ranked' balloting?
Click to expand...

I think its more a measure of the impact of 10,000 instant Conservatives who just happen to be dairy farmers.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/an...r-spills-the-beans-er-milk-on-leadership-race

****

All parties have leadership races that are based on selling new memberships.

I really think the very idea is bizarre at best, and very prone to corruption at worst.

Personally, I'd like to see a rule that you can't vote in a party leadership race unless you've been a member for at least one full year.

That would by no means make such races immune from corrupt practice, but at least it wouldn't be an open invitation to same.
 
That makes more sense. And I think that's how Brown won the leadership in Ontario, sold lots of new memberships.
 
Northern Light said:
I really think the very idea is bizarre at best,
Click to expand...

I think it's bizarre that we've moved away from the parliamentary tradition of letting a caucus pick their leader. Look at the Corbyn situation in the UK to see how badly it can end up when the more extreme wing hijacks your party and elects someone in conflict with sitting MPs. All because everyone wants a political show like the American primaries.

I would think the MPs and candidates would best know who can get them elected. They should be able to pick their leader.
 
kEiThZ said:
I think it's bizarre that we've moved away from the parliamentary tradition of letting a caucus pick their leader. Look at the Corbyn situation in the UK to see how badly it can end up when the more extreme wing hijacks your party and elects someone in conflict with sitting MPs. All because everyone wants a political show like the American primaries.

I would think the MPs and candidates would best know who can get them elected. They should be able to pick their leader.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily have a problem w/that. Though that's how Australia works and its been a gong-show lately with PMs lasting, on average a year or so.

No method is perfect or immune to abuse. My notion was simply to run w/the idea in use here and clean it up a bit.

To go the caucus based version, unto itself, cures nothing. It has some advantages (much lower cost of leadership run) but it also has its disadvantages, including leaving party members completely out of the loop on the leader and often on party policy as well.

I think if one were to go that route one would also need to ask how we do include the 'grass roots' of the various parties, and how we minimize the risk of inordinate turnover.
 
Northern Light said:
I think if one were to go that route one would also need to ask how we do include the 'grass roots' of the various parties,
Click to expand...

Again, this is all creeping Americanism. Everyone watches their primaries and starts asking why we can't have the same show here.

We need to ask to go back to the original purpose of political parties. They are coalitions of like minded politicians. The grassroots get their say at the local level when they pick candidates. Why do they have to get the leader too? All you end up with is a bunch of people who are not engaged in their local riding association, paying their $10 and getting a vote. That's the extent of "grassroots involvement" most people have. I don't think that kind of superficial nonsense benefits us at all. It's the kind of crap that got Ford and Scheer the big chair. Bernier got overturned on the last round and went off and started his own party, pissed at the thousands of single-issue dairy farmers who signed up just to stop him. What exactly is "grassroots" about have single-issue voters hijack a party over something fairly insignificant to the vast majority of Canadians?

The American presidential primaries make sense because they are voting for one person and because the electoral college requires that they perform better in certain states. The primaries shake that out. It makes no sense to emulate that system in a Parliamentary democracy where the Prime Minister is supposed to be "first among equals". Indeed, I'd argue that a lot of the undemocratic overly centralized (at the PMO) governing we see is a direct result of effectively giving party leaders popular mandates (from the base). They'll devolve far more if they had to answer to their backbench.

Northern Light said:
Though that's how Australia works and its been a gong-show lately with PMs lasting, on average a year or so.
Click to expand...

As you point out no system is perfect. But in situations like these it is those MPs taking the risk. They know what could happen to them if they make the government unstable or appear unstable.
 
Last edited:
Videodrome said:
The Beauce Boyz aren't taking much from the CPC yet.
Click to expand...

Sad. The Beauce Boyz need to step it up. Their leader is a thousand times the man that Scheer is, by which I mean he's an alpha male leader whereas Scheer is.......um..........well, soft yet offensive.

Bernier needs to lay out his ideas on rational drugs policy. I'd bet 50$ that they're better than anything any other party stands for.

Want to stop the destruction of lives by the state?
Want to put an end to the destruction caused by reckless gun violence in our cities?
Want to respect science like all the politicians say they do?
Want evidence-based policy?
Want to treat psychological illness the way it should be treated, as an intrinsic part of physiological illness?

If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then you want a rational discussion of drugs policy.

Scheer, you're disqualified, get out.

PS: This fool reminds me of when Harper said that rubbish about marijuana being more dangerous than tobacco by an order of some magnitude. Yeeeeeeeeaaaaah, have another beer, buddy. Don't worry about its toxicity, drink up.
 
So, from that Montreal Gazette article linked above we have the following illiberal and illogical nonsense:

The day pot became legal, Conservative MP Tony Clement put it this way, carefully, in French: “So I think that the reality is the reality. The reality right now, it’s legal. And for us, to better protect citizens, there need to be solutions if there are problems.”
Click to expand...

To better protect citizens? From themselves?

Gtfo. Nobody needs the state to protect them from themselves....all one needs is knowledge to be able to make the right choices. Something that is actively discouraged and even criminalised.

How's protecting citizens against gun violence directly caused by the war on drugs going for ya, Tony?
How's protecting citizens against harms caused by illicit drugs because of a lack of harm reduction and education based on fact going for ya, Tony?
How's protecting citizens against criminalisation due to the moral crime of drug posession going for ya, Tony?
How's protecting citizens against the harms of alcohol by properly educating them as to the nature of the drug going for ya, Tony?


Piss off, Tony. I don't want nor need your "protection" especially where that "protection" is manifested as a criminal record and the safety of a prison cell for many good years of my life.

You and Howdy Doody need to shut face.
 
Cobra said:
Canada needs to 'stand-up to our responsibilities' on defence spending, says Liberal-appointed senator

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-defence-policy-sajjan-1.4105136

Some of the other recommendations include:
  • Doubling the size of the planned fighter jet purchase to 120 aircraft.
  • Buying 21 additional CH-147 D battlefield transport helicopters, over and above the existing fleet of 15.
  • Buying 12 diesel-electric submarines to replace the four already in the navy's inventory.
  • Building 18 frigate replacements, up from the 15 the former Conservative government proposed.
  • Arming coast guard ships and turning the service into a constabulary with broader enforcement powers.
Also
  • a review and possible cancellation of the Conservative-era Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship program: "Seventeen knots is the best speed they can make, which is slower than a B.C. ferry and some fishing boats they might want to interdict," Kenny said. "There's every likelihood they're going to need a coast guard escort in order to get around in the Arctic."
  • improving diversity and the participation of women
We need to do something with our military, it's embarrassing... This is the report:
https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf
Click to expand...
Interesting news.


I don’t think we’ve built to a British design since the Flower and Tribal class.
 
I look forward to watching the coming thirty-year circus for the associated helicopter purchase.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top