Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Benz

Members
  • Posts

    641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Benz's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

44

Reputation

  1. The rest can be read here... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-memo-for-canada-back-off-of-quebecs-bill-21/
  2. You give too much credit to Trudeau. The evil picture stick to the conservatives was already in place. He just presented himself with the pretention of the best alternative. He almost failed the first time. He needs to thank Mulcair for his failure. Mulcair took few stands that are not common for an NDPer and again, Mulcair is not stupid and Trudeau is, so a subtle amount of people usually supporting the NDP did the switch because of that. You say the CPC leaders are stupid because you do not like their decisions and positions, and you think it is leading them to lose elections. But the point I am trying to make is, the CPC has been rather stubborn than stupid. They were not stupid, their decisions were. So you can still call them stupids for that, but it is not the same level as the one I am trying to expose and measure with guys like Chrétien/Trudeau. When Trudeau talks, the common reaction is rather "wtf is this guy" than anything else. So Trudeau can take a very bad decision and the reaction to that would not be as bad as it should, like it would with anyone else. Like if people could not believe he would really do it, or if he would, he would just fail as he used to do, so they do not worry as much. So they think. How many people fall into the trap? I say alot and this is what makes the difference.
  3. I have been wondering why guys like Chrétien and Trudeau could have such success in elections, while they are the most stupid politiciens ever. The stupidity of Trudeau is off the chart, yet he managed to win again and could probably win the next one. Your take is that, people are stupid... it's defendable point. But I have been thinking more than once and eventually, my observations lead me to a different angle. I think that, an explanation could be that the people elected them because they see them as a smaller treat than smarter people having opposite values or political positions. Think about it. You have the chance to choose which one will rob you between 2 persons. One is smart and machiavellian, the other one is just plain stupid. What is your take? Even if at the end, there is a possibility that the smart one would only take valuable things and the stupid one would burn down your house, people still prefer to take a chance on the stupid one. Many people believe the stupid one will do less damages. I think it explains why so many people end up voting for them, even if they do not agree with their policies. The first time Martin faced Harper, the people did not consider any of them as stupid and they did go for the "Devil you know". But on the second matchup, Harper proved its points and Martin did otherwise. Martin did not benefit from the "it's ok, he is just stupid" wildcard. Same with Dion and Ignatieff. People did not like them, they did not consider them as a good option. They prefer Harper but, Dion and Ignatieff were not stupid. They were just bad. But once Harper faced Trudeau, a young stupid clumsy brainless, the people did not fear him and then he fetched all those who fear the conservatives/rightwings/Harper legacy. It was not a fight between Harper and his main opponent (Trudeau), it was rather a fight between Harper and the people who fear Harper. Trudeau did not invoke that fear in most of the voters. Even if Trudeau had proven his stupidity above all expectations, even more than its demonization, the last election was having the same dynamic of the previous one. Trudeau only got the minority and it is important to precise that he only got 33% of the vote, which is less than Scheer, yet he won. Many explanations to that. The electoral system, the division of the vote, etc... but to some extent, Trudeau did again fetch with him enough people who are not afraid of its stupidity and see that as less dangerous than any other opponents. So yeah, we can say that people are stupid... but I think it is useful to understand why and how. IMO, that is one possible explanation.
  4. It's just a perception. If your political views are more aligned with another country's ones, than the current government of your own country, it might looks like you tend to belong to that other country, but you are not. Your political opinions are not enough to determine where you belong and your national identity. It's like if you are a Leafs fan living and born in Calgary. As much as you cheer for that team, you still belong to the city of Calgary. No matter how much you share the shame of losers who can't find the path to the cup for the last 53 years.
  5. It made me realize that I was a democrat just because I hated conservatives. Which is a very bad reason to be democrat. I cannot identify myself to that party anymore and I do not think I will ever be able to someday. For me, US politic is just doomed. It's not a surprise for me if Trump became the president and I wouldn't be surprise that he is renewed despite all the stupidities he has done and said. Because at some point, it's a wonder if we are not better off with a stupid man not smart enough to be credible while he is lying rather than professional liars that will steel your money for the benefit of their fund bailers. The conservatives and the democrats are two opposite sides of the same mouth. If I was American, I wonder if I would even bother to vote. Between that or only one political party like in China, I would feel my voice is worth nothing in both cases.
  6. The US's government bailed out the criminals that plunged the world into a financial crisis and the people having the greatest ratio of guns per capita never could do anything against it despite they were the biggest victims of it. Tons of people lose everything and were sent on the street back to square one after a lifetime of saving while those who created the problems received a lot of cash from Obama. So, no. I'm not buying it. It does not make a difference. The US government is lead by corporations, organizations, lobbyists, establishments, guns industries and the election are ran with super pacs raping democracy in a gang bang. Americans do not need guns. They need intelligence, knowledge and true facts. I wonder if they remember how it looks like.
  7. Why O'Leary is not trying to improve his french? Or try to learn french for a start? I do not know him actually. Just heard his name a while ago. I'm sure O'Leary does not target to win Quebec anyway. But if he can consolidate the traditional conservatives seats in Quebec by handling a basic french, it would be worth it for him. I doubt very much that MacKay's french is out of reach. Someone that really take this seriously can make it. Harper could barely speak french in his beginning of politics and he said it several times that he never regretted learning it.
  8. I am in favor of gun control and yet, I can only agree with argos and ProudConservative on this one. Whatever the liberals do with this subject, it's just wrong or inefficient. They clearly use this topic to keep a grasp on anti-gun voters rather than have a firm simple and efficient program to control (not ban) guns. No way you will see me defend them on the front line. "It's a trap" -Ackbar.
  9. Self determination is always a good idea. What you do with it is another story. I'll borrow Genesys' words for this post. Trudeau is selling Canada by the pound. You are using a wrong example. Trudeau lays a silver plate of total forgiveness to terrorists while he is pooping in the war veterans' plates. It might be a very bad use of the self determination but, it's not making the self determination illegitimated. La nuance est importante.
  10. If you were feeling the urge to conquer a land, would you conquer and handle people loving Trudeau? I wouldn't touch such land not even with a 20 feet pole.
  11. Could this have been planned? Yes. Do we have evidence of that? No, not at all. Can we conclude if this was planned or not? No. Can we investigate? yes. Are we going to do so? No. We want that one individual somewhere will be more courageous than all of us combined to reveal information that will make him/her enemy of the state for the benefit of mankind. Like Snowden.
  12. What a polite man. We can easily guess that in his mind, it rather sounds like "we're not here to talk about how much you s*ck".
  13. I know his real name is John James Charest and he is a child of both worlds. It is impossible to say what languages is better at, just like Mulroney. Both perfect bilinguals. Unlike Justin Trudeau, his french is so poor and hesitant, he sounds like he needs a french immersion. Or maybe it is just his personality.
×
×
  • Create New...