Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by turningrite

  1. 36 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

    Trump was right to insist on a sunset clause...here's why:



    I'm not an opponent of the idea of a sunset clause. And I agree that public input into the FTA/NAFTA arrangements was cursory, at best. But five years seems a very short time period. It's taken North America almost ten years to recover from the last major recession, for instance. Although I'm not a huge fan of regional trading pacts in general and believe trade is better regulated under WTO rules and procedures, I think a much longer time frame should be set to examine the effectiveness of deals like the NAFTA.

  2. 2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

    Trump does not visit the forums.  Also he just imposed 50 B in tariffs on China.  Are you going to bitch at China when they impose tariffs on the USA? Or will you understand that Trump's actions are the direct cause of other nations imposing similar tariffs on the USA?


    I laughed when I read your first sentence. Visiting the forums would entail taking the time to read them, which apparently isn't one of his strengths. Reportedly, Trudeau isn't much interested in news and current events either. I get the feeling that both of these guys live in echo chambers where they get feedback that conforms to their respective preferences and confirms their preexisting views.

    That said, I tend to agree with Trump that globalized trade has been rigged. But Canada, other than for its protected supply management sector, isn't a huge offender. The U.S. too is at fault as it doles out generous subsidies to its farmers and some industries and uses it huge military budget to subsidize industrial enterprises in sectors like aerospace. There are few real 'boy scouts' that can claim total innocence where trade is concerned.

  3. 1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

    Perhaps a little bit of paranoia - but well-founded in the habitual lies and deceit that the Trudeau/Wynne Liberals have indulged in. There is absolutely no problem - there's actual a necessity to resolve the refugee homeless problem........but these Liberals probably don't want to draw attention to the need to throw more money at a problem that they've created - so they'll get money to the cities in other ways. If you can't properly plan for - and fund - the intake of refugees, don't take them in.....you're playing with peoples' lives. For the Syrians, it's arguably no better being homeless in a completely strange country than it is being in a refugee camp with your own people. And now we've got thousands of illegal economic migrants on the public dole. 

    Most of us assume the Libs understand the nature of the problem they're creating, or, perhaps more accurately, worsening, right? It's fascinating that they didn't seem overly interested in the homelessness issue until, well, refugee homelessness started to become a political flashpoint. Among people I talk to here in Toronto, several have asked what the refugee influx is doing to the already existing homeless population, particularly given that we're in the midst of an opioid addiction epidemic, the consequences of which are readily apparent on downtown streets, in downtown parks and, presumably, in the shelter system. And as rents continue to skyrocket in places like Toronto and Vancouver, are we very far away from having do deal with a homelessness crisis among seniors and the physically disabled? Has anybody in Ottawa seriously analyzed these issues, or is that too much to expect?

  4. 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:


    Yes...many Canadians warned that the FTA and NAFTA would lead to exactly what has transpired....foreign (American ownership of Canadian economic base), more dependence on exports to a single nation, more political influence from foreign nations, more dependence on foreign direct investment, "harmonizing" of environmental regulation for consumer/industrial products, and American capture of bitumen exports at a large discount.

    Author Maude Barlow has been screaming about this for years, as have many other Canadian authors/pundits....all ignored.

    The Liberals hated FTA/NAFTA....but now the LOVE it ?

    You're correct. I very clearly recall the free trade debate of the 1980s. There were warnings back then that completely integrating the Canadian economy into the American one could lead us into a very difficult situation were the Americans to change course and adopt an isolationist economic policy, as is now happening under Trump. Of course, the Americans have the right to set their own economic policies and with a much smaller economy we have few choices but to accept the consequences. American politicians aren't elected to worry about Canadian interests, after all. It may be that the Libs have no choice here. Metaphorically speaking, we chose our course long ago and we either have to stick with it or sail into uncharted waters. But whatever direction we now choose, we're left without lifeboats or even life jackets if we sail into a tempest. The warnings were sounded, and largely ignored, long ago. 

  5. 39 minutes ago, Altai said:

    If it is a hate that will harm society life, it must not be allowed.

    It depends on what you mean by the word "hate." There's been an increasing tendency in the West to equate the meaning of hate merely with perceived offense. This is untenable in the Western intellectual context, which is grounded in a philosophy of challenge and objective criticism. In Canada, for instance, criticism of some religious practices and beliefs is often conflated these days with "phobia" or fear and is thus held to be promoting hatred, even where there's no obvious justification for this conclusion. Even defending secularism, which an eminently reasonable concept in a pluralistic society, gets lumped by some into the category of promoting hatred. We need to get back to basics here, and acknowledge the primacy of free speech before we lose sight of the virtues of Western intellectual inquiry and criticism.

    • Like 3
  6. Undoubtedly, American military and economic power is waning relative to the rest of the world. But we should be wary about celebrating this. As economic power and prestige strengthens in what we now describe as the 'developing world,' we may have to make policy choices that could for many be unpalatable. The international order largely built by American fiat after WWII has been the basis of generally prolonged peace and prosperity for most in the West. Replacing America's often irksome influence might just turn out to be a bigger nightmare than we've bargained for. As my mother used to say, it's dangerous to dive into water without knowing what's below the surface.

    • Like 1
  7. Generally speaking, I oppose the concept of censorship. I do, however, believe it necessary to restrict speech that's intended to incite violence against members of any specific group, which historically has been the intent of hate speech laws in democratic countries. In a free and democratic society, there must be no topics that are presumptively deemed to be beyond the realm of public discourse. The role of a responsible citizenry is to ensure that debate is fairly and civilly conducted. The tendency to bully others into silence has seemingly increased, and particularly so in academia, which is disturbing. Democracy can't survive without freedom of speech and anybody who says otherwise is either a fool or is taking the rest of us for fools. 

    • Like 3
  8. 18 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:


    OK, but slavery was an economic system that was pervasive around the world, including propagation by the British empire.   Spain was far more instrumental in banning slavery early on, including many years before Ontario in North America (British slaves escaped to Florida and converted to Catholicism/military service).   Britain's slavery ban in the 1830's did not free all existing slaves as there were exceptions for certain parts/commerce in the empire.

    Vermont banned slavery in 1777, and four other American colonies in the northeast had done so by 1789.

    Canada had every bit of legal and social discrimination against blacks and other minorities as seen elsewhere.   Segregation was commonplace in many parts of Canada, reflection the social and economic norms of the time.

    Agreed....Canada's past and continuing treatment of First Nations people, land, and resources remains far worse than any prior history with slavery.

    I believe Vermont's slavery ban was more symbolic than practically effective as slavery continued to be practiced in the state for several years following the ban, as has been noted in academic analyses. In most other Northeastern states, I believe slavery was gradually but effectively curtailed over time by the courts, as was the case in British North America as well. As for systemic anti-black racism, could you point out a circumstance in Canada where systemic (i.e. institutionalized) civil rights violations existed and were sustained against blacks into the modern era? Unlike in the U.S., Canada, for instance, didn't practice segregation in its armed forces and as far as I'm aware didn't formally apply legalized voting restrictions against black citizens. Of course, there was social and economic discrimination against blacks, as was the case with many other minorities as equally was the case throughout much of the world. Ironically, one of the motivations for Upper Canada's 1793 legislated slavery ban may have been to disincentivize new settlers, mainly arriving from the U.S., from bringing blacks into the colony. It would be interesting to know whether this was the case as the incidence of slavery reportedly rose substantially with the influx of Loyalists following the American Revolution. 

  9. Italy has a new populist government. It's not surprising that it's going to defend the interests of its workers and farmers. A new paradigm seems to be emerging in much of the West in opposition to the impacts of globalization. Will leaders like Trudeau, who's beholden to what for many is a failed economic model, be able to bridge the gap merely by inserting words like "progressive" into these investor-focused deals? Trump is correct that we need fair trade in the world economy, which is not where globalization has led. I doubt that Trudeau really understands what fair trade means or entails. Trudeau should be looking for commonality with other Western countries, including the U.S., rather than simply lashing out about unfair tariffs and the like. The whole structure is unfair and, as it turns out, might turn out to be little more than a house of cards. My (now late) father warned of this in the 1980s when the great "free trade" debate was in play. He said that in a "free trade" environment it would only take one contrarian American leader to lay waste to the fragile system the Mulroney government was promoting. He believed the FTA (and its late iteration, the NAFTA) would not provide permanent unfettered access to the American market. And he was a businessman. Hmmm....

  10. 13 hours ago, eyeball said:

    I said the war became illegal, when it's conduct violated UN and Geneva conventions, especially as they relate to torture, and the treatment of children as per the UN's opinion I mentioned above.

    Fuck the US government's exceptionalism and fuck any country that sucks up to it, especially its allies.  You stand by and allow one country to go down this road there'll be no reason why anyone can't declare themselves more exceptional and do whatever they please as well.  

    Your concerns about unscrupulous regimes and organizations is fricken' hilarious.

    It seems to me that you've lost the argument here and are now just shouting.

  11. 39 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:


    Perhaps, but Canada has it's own version of voting discrimination, ex-pats are barred from voting in Canadian elections after loss of residency (several years).  This may or may not impact certain ethnic groups disproportionately.   This goes far beyond voter registration..it is legal disenfranchisement.



    I would agree that it is less in scope and scale, if only because there was a much smaller population of black people in Canada to be exploited as a conscripted labour pool (i.e. slavery).    But Canada certainly has a history of systemic discrimination against many groups, including black people.   Today, so called "aboriginals" (what a word !) bear the brunt of institutionalized racism in Canada.



    Your argument about anti-black racism in Canada is not in fact entirely correct. I believe Upper Canada (Ontario) was the first jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere and within the British Empire to ban slavery when its colonial legislature enacted legislation to do so in 1793, long before slavery was banned throughout the British Empire in the 1830s. The notion that slavery didn't survive merely because of the small number of blacks living in British North America is somewhat specious. Slavery increased along with the arrival of Loyalists from the American States in the 1780s, some of whom brought slaves with them, which by some estimates expanded the practice by 300 to 400 percent, but it was quickly shut down due both to a legislative response (as in Upper Canada) and by the courts, which simply refused to enforce the rights of slaveholders. While blacks have, of course, faced social and economic discrimination in Canada, this has not substantially been predicated by an institutional or legal framework that has intended to create the situation. In fact, it might well be argued that some other minorities have from an institutional perspective been treated more harshly.

    Canada's treatment of its indigenous peoples, on the other hand, remains a stain on the country's psyche and reputation. It is an issue the country is only now beginning to comprehensively address.

  12. 54 minutes ago, H10 said:

    That is delusional, there had been a minimum wage freeze in place for a very long time, it should have been rising 50 cents a year to keep place with inflation from 10 years ago, by 2020, we are going to need a $20 minimum wage to just keep pace with the Ford cluster mess.

    Or how about we raise taxes on the wealthy and elite who hardly pay any taxes, what about scotiabank making $2 billion but claiming nothing coming tax time?  Ford will be a 1 term premier if his own party doesn't boot him.  He will not survive because he has conflicting claims.  He won't raise taxes on the rich who have increasingly been using tax evasion schemes to avoid paying their obligations. If he freezes the wage at $14 an hour, he is finished, because his dumb suppporters with low iq earning minimum wage will learn he duped them.  They were just so rash in their anti wynne sentiment they forgot to vote their nterest.  O well.

    I read a Toronto Star article this morning about the reasoning of Ford voters. I believe the principal motivation of these voters was to see the government rein in public sector spending. Other motives were in play as well, including a belief that the minimum wage increase was too fast and opposition to more taxation, including the carbon tax. Somehow, these voters seem to have got it into their minds that costly new programs being promoted by the Libs and NDP would have to be paid for by somebody. Imagine that! And consumption-based taxation like carbon taxes tend to most severely impact those "low iq" voters for whom you express apparent contempt. Many of these voters apparently had reservations about Ford's baggage but were more convinced by economic reasoning. Maybe they're not so stupid after all?

  13. 2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

    Self defence? That's laughable. Our laws do NOT apply to foreign nations. Canadian or US Law has no jurisdiction over other nations plain and simple.

    But it is interesting that 17/19 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi's but yet Iraq and Afghanistan needed to be pounded into the ground. The Bin Laden family is a HUGE deal in Saudi Arabia. What is the connection people are missing here in regards to that?


    Oh my, how should I start to respond? I'll be short here: Under international law nations have a right to self-defense. Afghanistan was attacked because its then-governing regime was permitting its territory to be used as a base by al Qaeda, which perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. The role of Saudi Arabia is often debated as most of the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks were from that country, however Bin Laden's organization and its form of Wahabi extremism have generally been seen as potential threats to the interests of the Saudi regime, which for better or worse was and remains a U.S. and Western ally.

  14. 3 hours ago, eyeball said:

    It was being illegally conducted the minute we started ignoring that charter's conventions according to the UN officials responsible for upholding it.

    You're saying it allows for the torture, trial by military tribunal, confinement and public vilification of children?  These are war crimes btw. International conventions have certainly discouraged the charging of any kids with war crimes since WW2.  At the very least, Omar's parents should have been charged with illegal indoctrination and if found guilty this should have been given consideration in a real court of law that determined Omar Khadr's treatment.


    What academic or legal opinions can you cite to support your contention that the War in Afghanistan was illegal? Anything I've read on the topic has concluded that it was a legally valid action according to the terms of the UN Charter, which permits self-defense. In case you don't remember, the U.S. was attacked in 2001 by an organization, al Qaeda, that was being permitted to operate from Afghanistan. NATO approved military action in response to the 2001 attacks and in my recollection the UN did not condemn the response.  And your second point is somewhat ridiculous. Of course, torture is banned under international law, whatever the age of those subjected to it. Its use by the Americans at Gitmo has been controversial, both inside the U.S. and internationally. The U.S. government and military, however, have adopted a policy of exceptionalism, whereby international law is not held to apply outside of U.S. territory where U.S. military and security interests are at stake. And there is no general prohibition on prosecuting child combatants for war crimes, nor should there be unless of course you'd like to see unscrupulous regimes and organizations take advantage of such impunity to encourage the greater deployment of children in armed struggles.

  15. On 6/10/2018 at 10:40 AM, Centerpiece said:

    It's always so easy to look back and judge actions through today's moral lens. It would be interesting to see how things would have turned out if either a) the government had done nothing or b) there had been no abuse. As with most issues in Canada, we only seem to get one side of the story. There were likely many, many success stories with the Residential School system that remain untold....but as they say - the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

    I'm not sure there's much that can be said at this point to justify the residential school system. Its objective was assimilation and in that it failed even if at the time it was pretty commonly held to be a laudable goal. Removing children from their families and communities is not generally seen these days in a positive light. The fact that it was done by state fiat to achieve an objective that had little specifically to do with the welfare of the affected children renders it cruel. We have to acknowledge past mistakes where they have been made, even if in the day it was believed there was a valid justification. Who today would speak in favour of turning back the MS St. Louis which carried Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany or defend the forced internment and confiscation of the property of Japanese Canadians during WWII? I tend to resist the tendency to "presentism" that often accompanies assertions of past wrongdoing. But some actions are simply wrong and have long lasting or even permanent negative implications for those impacted. It is not harmful to admit that these mistakes were made.

  16. 24 minutes ago, betsy said:

    Trump was clear in that press conference before he left for Singapore. 

    His aim is to have a trade deal without any barriers....without any tarriffs.....and without any subsidies.  That it will be equal.   I understood that those are meant for everyone - including the USA.  Therefore.....there shouldn't be any subsidies for the USA either.

    That's up to the consumers to choose what product they want.    The government shouldn't be the one to make decisions for us.

    Trump would have to get the U.S. Congress to commit to subsidy reductions and the dairy lobby is very powerful in some parts of the U.S., as is the case here. I haven't yet heard him specifically admit to the extent of subsidy protection afforded the American dairy industry. He tends to cite stats that favour his own positions and ignore facts that don't. As for consumers getting the products they want, I tend to agree with you. However, trade negotiators often address regulatory differences under the heading of "non-tariff barriers" to trade. I seriously doubt that Canada's stricter regulatory regime wouldn't be challenged. In an ideal world, Canada could maintain its regulations and offer consumers throughout North America more choice. In the real world, the regulatory situation is unlikely to fly under the radar. Reportedly, Canada had to make concessions on dairy regulations in the TPP negotiations. My guess is that negotiations with the Americans on dairy would be much tougher.

  17. 19 hours ago, eyeball said:

    Can you imagine what would happen if his parents were charged with Geneva convention crimes?

    It would mean we tortured a child soldier in a illegally declared and conducted war.

    Then there are all the other POW's we're responsible for.

    This is why Omar's mother will never be charged or investigated for anything. Go there and we're really fucked.

    The "fact" there was no child (just an 8 year old adult) conveniently means there was no war, no POW's, no conventions, no responsibility. 

    I'm responding not only to your quote above but to other comments you've made on this topic. It seems you're operating under some misconceptions. First of all, unlike Bush II's Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan (2001-2014) was not illegally conducted. I believe it was sanctioned by NATO and as far as I'm aware the U.S.-led invasion was legitimately considered a form of self-defense based on the UN Charter.

    Further, you seem to have a false impression regarding the treatment of what are categorized as child soldiers. International law does not prohibit state or non-state combatants who are under the age of 18 from being prosecuted for war crimes. Instead, it restricts the types of punishments to which they can be subjected, including prohibiting capital punishment for committing such crimes. There is a very good reason for allowing child combatants to be prosecuted for war crimes as granting immunity from prosecution would very likely encourage increased recruiting and deployment of child combatants, particularly to commit the most heinous acts. 

  18. 3 hours ago, betsy said:

    The Feds should open up Supply Management for negotiations.   It's not doing us any good anyway. 


    Yesterday with Paul Martin - he really skewered the Agriculture Minister to clarify whether Trump's numbers on dairy tarriff is correct.   The Agriculture Minister just kept deflecting the question - he couldn't answer yes or no.  So Martin said in frustration - I take it, it means yes.

    The Agriculture Minister's defense for supply management is that it gives us "high quality" and safe milk.   Martin said, I never heard of anyone getting sick drinking American milk!  High quality bs.   Let the consumers choose!   Milk is milk. 


    As for safety - I'd worry more about products coming from China!  So don't give us that bs about "safety."


    From a non-partisan panel guest who understands about supply management, he says that supply management keeps the prices ARTIFICIALLY HIGH for Canadian consumers!   That's why we're paying more for this basic food!

    A lot of Canadians are already counting pennies to make ends meet!

    The problem with the American position on supply management is the enormous subsidies paid to support their dairy industry. In Canada, subsidies are directly paid by consumers in the form of artificially higher prices while in the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. These practices create problems where the concept of "free trade" is concerned as subsidies are more insidiously oblique than are tariffs. That said, if Canada won't even discuss opening up its dairy market we have no chance to discuss with the Americans the issue of their subsidy regime and arrive at a conclusion that either equalizes or neutralizes the impacts of these market skewing policies.

    The other issue Americans have with Canada where dairy is concerned is regulatory as Canadian dairy products don't contain growth hormones like BGH or BST while U.S. products often do. I'm not sure Canadian consumers want to adopt American standards on this. Surely, however, many American consumers might be enticed by the option of having hormone-free dairy products more available to them.

  19. 12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

    Canada has it's own brand of racism and language hate.

    That's true. But the history of anti-black racism is much different in Canada in comparison to the situation in the U.S., where it is institutionally and culturally ingrained as a result of historical circumstances. This week, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a restrictive voter registration law in Ohio that many critics believe disproportionately impacts black voters. It's almost inconceivable that such a law would either be enacted or withstand a court challenge in Canada. Racism, of course, is often practiced at the individual level. Canada has its own problematic history of systematic exclusion and repression, particularly with its indigenous peoples, but in contrast with the situation in the U.S., systemic discrimination against black people is neither a general nor intractable feature of Canadian law and society. 

  20. 33 minutes ago, taxme said:

    I only wanted to inform members here that it is not only black people that are being shot and killed by white or black policeman/woman. 457 white people being shot by the police in one year is not a small number to overlook and avoid not to want to mention those killings. But the liberal media will never willing report anything about how many white people are shot and killed by the police. This needs to be reported not hidden. This is just another case of who cares what happens to white people. They all are only a bunch of racist nothings. 

    I do not believe that the shooting of black people has anything to do with racial bias but more to do with the crime that those blacks were committing at the time they got shot for it. It is quite obvious that the liberal MSM is being racially bias here alright against reporting on white people who get shot by the police. You have so called black leaders like the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton who never talk about how many blacks are killing blacks every year and appear to not give much of a dam about it. But let some white cop shoot a black man and they go ballistic and even the MSM appear to want to go ballistic over it also. The liberal MSM appears to always enjoy trying to stir up trouble. Why do they have to mention race anyway? Why not just say a man who was committing a crime was shot and killed by police. Why always bring in race or color here? 

    Indeed the liberal media and even our dear leader PM got their azzes kicked over that false report about reported by that lying Muslim woman. The media and the PM just could not wait to make and turn the incident into a racist story. It backfired on them. That sure looked good on them alright. :D

    Although some in Canada would like us to believe otherwise, anti-black racism in Canada is different from that in the U.S., as my educated white American mother used to point out. She often noted that she was raised to be terrified of black people and to believe that separation of the races was the only practical means of coexistence. She said that when she was growing up (in the North) in the 1930 and 1940s official segregation was the law in much of the South and unofficial segregation remained a practice in much of the North. I think the American racial consciousness is largely grounded in a deeply (but at least now acknowledged) problematic history. Canada has a different history and a different experience. Anti-black racism certainly existed here in the past and still exists today. But it is not historically ingrained. Personally, I'm skeptical about arguments that it is a "systemic" aspect of Canadian society, although anti-indigenous systemic racism has existed and to some extent remains relevant. I think there's too strong a tendency, especially among activists, to broadly and inaccurately ascribe American experiences, attitudes and problems to Canadian contexts.

    As for the falsely reported hijab attack, I don't know that the public was ever fully informed of its motives. But it certainly contributes to skepticism about the veracity of claims of racial or religious intolerance. I think the PM, activists and media who played up the story owed Canadians a big apology, which in my recollection we didn't get.

  21. 5 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

    I'm talking about Quebec Ideology. They think they are the intellectuals of Canada. The Quebec politicians are snobs. Ask any other province, what province of people the dislike the most politically, they are going to say Quebec. I'm not concerned over race or ancestor, just the political culture of Quebec. They expect the rest of Canada to go out of their way, for their appeasement. They constantly want favors done for them in Ottawa, while western Canada get's ignored. They have an entitlement mentality that gets very irritating.

    I doubt that Quebec's Francophone intelligentsia claim JT as one of their own. He studied, in English I believe, at McGill and almost certainly in English at UBC. Quebec politicians tend to reflect a broad ideological range. I think many English-speaking Canadians have an unrealistic view of Quebec. While it is undoubtedly, due to language, a distinct and often insular place, it's not inhabited by unreasonable people. It's population tends to reflect social views and trends often more similar to its French-speaking counterparts in Western Europe than to those held more commonly throughout English-speaking North America. But is this any big surprise? Quebec's political relationship with the rest of Canada is interesting and to some extent the view that it gets special treatment is justified. However, that's been the price paid to maintain national unity in what is an otherwise unlikely country. Western Canada also has the ability to assert its interests at the ballot box and many believe this actually occurred during the Harper era. However, what we're now witnessing is squabbling between Western Canadians themselves, as in the pipeline fight between  B.C. and Alberta. And Ford's election in Ontario might well ally his province with Alberta and Saskatchewan in resisting Trudeau's national carbon tax regime. Alliances can be very fluid, as it turns out.

    • Like 1
  22. Robert Greene: He's one-quarter French-Canadian. I believe three of his grandparents have mainly British Isles ancestry. So, he's pretty mainstream Canadian, as far as I can ascertain. There's no shame in that, although Trudeau himself seems to shun the concept of being mainstream. My ancestry is a mixture of French, Irish and Portuguese but I see myself as being mainstream Canadian. I believe his predominant ancestry is Scottish, which he has on both his mother's and his father's side and some have noted a facial resemblance to Sir John A. Macdonald. Say it isn't so! His father made sure he learned French (as I wish my parents had done for me) but I believe that psychologically he's far closer to his mother.

  23. On 6/10/2018 at 4:08 PM, taxme said:

    Ontario has become a deep state and a deep province for decades now. Now one can only hope that the deep state liberals gets their butts booted out of Ontario.

    I'm not sure what you mean by the terms "deep state" and "deep province" in this context? To me, if one wants to summarize their general policy approaches, the Wynne Libs, and in many aspects the Trudeau Libs, seem to have embraced a philosophy of deep incompetence. In Wynne's case, the incompetence was so apparent that by early 2015 she'd blown any chance at being reelected. As for Trudeau, given his government's poor performance on several files, including democratic renewal, indigenous affairs, pipeline politics and, maybe most importantly because it's undermining his government's support even among its base, its handling of the "irregular" migrant fiasco, polling indicates steadily eroding voter support. This isn't deep state stuff. In my opinion it's just plain old garden variety incompetence. 

    • Like 1
  24. If success is measured merely by the fact that these two leaders met with each other, I guess that counts for something. But, as many in the U.S. media are reporting, Kim gave up almost nothing, agreed to no new nuclear concessions and wasn't made to respond to human rights concerns. He comes off the big winner and Trump will try to claim victory based on the mere fact that he's established a rapport with the hermit regime in NK. I think Kim played Trump like a fiddle in all of this. NK had the weaker hand to play but its regime has clearly won by enhancing its legitimacy. Time will tell if the relationship between Trump and Kim amounts to anything substantial. However, at this point, Obama's Iran deal far exceeds in actual importance anything that's been accomplished in Singapore over the past couple days.

    • Like 1
  25. 1 hour ago, PIK said:

    The libs should know trump by now and waving the red flag in front of him ,was the wrong thing to do. Justin tried to throw elbow and it cost him.

    I've changed my mind a bit on this fiasco as it's evolved over the past few days. Trump obviously expects Canada and other allies to be subservient to U.S. interests and the Trudeau government's approach of pursuing Canadian interests at various levels, including with members of Congress, state politicians, in the U.S. media and among American business interests has clearly achieved some level of effectiveness as it's irritated Trump and caused him to react in a fashion that undermines his own legitimacy. That being said, our negotiating positions on three issues undermine the government's strategy. First, we have to come to terms with the impact of our supply management system and find a way to start winding it down. Otherwise, our trade strategy will always to some extent be undermined. Second, why we maintain an attachment to a dispute resolution mechanism that has only been used against our interests remains an utter mystery. Is this issue worth sacrificing our broader trade interests and objectives? Finally, while a five year sunset clause is probably far too short a period to assess the effectiveness of changes made to a trade agreement, the idea of periodic review could serve the interests of all parties. In summary, the Trudeau government's outreach strategy seems to be irritating Trump, which could indicate that it's achieved some effect and has substantiated the reality Trump never really intended to bargain in good faith, but the government's priorities need to be re-evaluated if a renegotiated deal has any realistic chance of success.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...