Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Keepitsimple

Members
  • Content Count

    5,774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keepitsimple

  1. The factions you speak of have largely dissipated. It took a certain ideology to merge the parties, another one to maintain cohesion - and now, as the reform elements (The West wants in!) have retired or died off, it will take a revised, broad and more open platform to revitalize and grow the party. I view it as an evolution - one that certainly paid dividends but in it's last edition, had run its course. There's a time and place for everything in politics. Let's not forget Mike Harris's two resounding majority governments in Ontario - followed by the last 10 years of Liberal rule.
  2. Such a small, silly thing. He could re-enforce his election platform/promises by saying that "Cabinet administration put that process in place.....now that it's been brought to my attention, I've fixed it. As I've been saying all along, people like myself don't need the taxpayers to fund their childcare - and setting that example starts at the top." And that would be the end of the story. Not doing so builds on the narrative I spoke of (arrogance, privilege, recklessness) - and leaves Trudeau vulnerable to an attack ad - perhaps this time from the NDP.
  3. It appears that a new challenge - maybe the biggest one - is actually finding enough "refugees" who want to come to Canada..... Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-not-keen-to-move-to-canada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/
  4. It's not a question of whether it's permitted within the rules. It's about braying that "rich people like Mr. Harper and myself" don't need the money for childcare. It's about using that as part of a narrative where "the rich" pay a little more so the middle class can keep more in their pockets. It's about hypocricy. Is it a big thing? On it's own, no.....but don't forget how the cumulative narrative on Harper was built - secretive and controlling. The foundation of a narrative on Trudeau (by critics) starts with arrogance, privileged, reckless. His team should be working hard to avoid giving
  5. He made a promise - that's what's wrong - a very public one - he said rich people like himself and Mr. Harper don't need the childcare bonus and he would donate his to charity. But first chance he gets - his child care is being paid for. Now....I don't necessarily think he personally made the decision to have them paid by the taxpayers - probably that was a decision by his financial advisers - but the cat's out of the bag so he should apologize for an "administrative slip-up", pay back the money - and move on a little bit wiser. Failing to do so just adds to the "arrogance" narrative that was
  6. The arrogance of that "Canada is Back" line is vomitous. Taken literally, it actually means that we are back in the Chretien/Martin years - they who recklessly signed onto Kyoto and then completely ignoring the consequences as our emissions blew past the ridiculous targets. So much so that we had to use the "out" clause and withdraw from Kyoto or be subject to billions in penalties. Is that what Canada is Back really means - more empty rhetoric? More feel good platitudes? Perhaps some of us would have hoped that Trudeau would introduce more civility and leave Liberal arrogance behind once and
  7. That's one of the advantages - and challenges of a majority government - they have the ability to balance emotion, populism and practicality within the framework of our collective ability to pay. Hopefully, choosing the right priorities - with the right explanations, communication, planning and delivery - the government gets more things right, than wrong. The Conservatives were brain dead and tone deaf on the first part, arguably not that bad on the second.....
  8. You grow the tax base by creating an environment for economic growth - not by taking away disposable income. It's a question of priorities on the spending side.
  9. I hope Trudeau has a positive impact on the economy and jobs. I want him and the Liberals to succeed with that as a foundation....because everything else depends on it. So no matter if you're Green, NDP or Conservative - we've voted our government in for at least 4 years - Canada needs them to succeed. You can't put diehard partisanship ahead of the health of the country. All that said, I can't help but be very concerned that Canadian wallets will be taking a beating.
  10. I didn't say anything to the contrary. SmallC - you were much more pragmatic and factual before the election. What happened to that guy? Only time will tell how long it will take to re-settle 35,000 Syrians in Canada. McCallum has said a year - I'm betting it will be closer to two.
  11. Trudeau promised 25,000 additional government-sponsored refugees. The 10,000 in the works from the pre-election Conservative promise were almost entirely privately-sponsored. That's another element to the confusion and why they shouldn't really be counted as part of Trudeau's promise. But hey, if he can get most of those 25,000 into Canada by the end of February - I'll give him credit for moving the government machinery at warp speed. Are we on the same page now? Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/26/justin-trudeaus-backtracking-on-refugee-promise-casts-shadow-over-other-pledg
  12. But it wasn't - and now that it is, that should make the end-of-February date that much "easier" - right?
  13. Here's another "denier" who might very well end up in jail.....but seriously, it's worth reading: Link: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/
  14. When the Liberals were defending their goal of 25,000 by December 31st (now Feb. 28th) - I did not hear them saying that as many as 10,000 had already been at least partially vetted by the Conservative-initiated process, did you? We were led to believe that these were 25,000 brand new refugees who had to be fully vetted for security and health. So....should they be counted towards the 35K total? Absolutely. Should they be counted towards the Liberal promise of 25,000 new refugees by December 31? Hey, it's politics man - so it will be.
  15. I'd re-word that to read "The Conservatives promised 10K over the course of the next year" and 30,000 over three years. I'd also add that many of those 10K have already been vetted and are in the pipeline for arrival......and will no doubt be counted as part of Trudeau's 25,000. In the end it will be interesting to see how long it actually takes for those 35,000 Syrian refugees to actually show up in Canada. I think you'll find it will take much closer to the three years that were proposed by the Conservatives. We'll see how it all pans out.
  16. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. We can - but we won't. Because we're pulling back - even though we can continue - it clearly says that the Canadian government does not believe in the bombing mission. No sense pussyfooting around - that's just the way it is. Some Canadians agree. Many don't. But don't try to make it out to be different than it is.
  17. And that relates to our CF18's how? That our allies are all misguided and they should follow our lead and just leave Daesh alone?
  18. Ridiculous? Just about every ally who has planes have committed some to the mission. Our allies will not openly criticize Canada - but it's crystal clear that they find the decision to be puzzling, at best. Pulling back an entire well-trained, experienced crew with support teams to simply languish in Canada has never been explained outside of an electoral ploy. But I take it you would be really upset and re-think your adoration for JT if he went back on his promise to call back the CF18's?
  19. The point is they CAN take some action - including formalizing "escalating" penalties within the force (if they don't already plan to have that) or amending the actual legislation. If you can't measure abuse, you can't manage it. But not allowing anything because you assume the worst case is not the wisest course of action. Checks and balances.
  20. I'm OK as long as there is an official audit trail of all uses of warrantless access. Periodically, there should be a random check of a small percentage of them to ensure that there was some sort of probable cause - some reasonable rationale for taking action.
  21. Now we find that the refugee promise of 25,000 additional refugees will take more than a year - is this a portent of things to come? As Thomas Walkom of The Star (not my favourite paper) puts it: Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/26/justin-trudeaus-backtracking-on-refugee-promise-casts-shadow-over-other-pledges-walkom.html
  22. I really doubt there was a plan - I mean c'mon - doing some of the security checking after they are in Canada? Now there's a plan. Let's see if they can get close to achieving it.
  23. I've said it before but it seems to fall on deaf ears. The thought is that young people are drawn to terrorism because they are marginalized, disenfranchised, etc. 1) Many of our First Nations people could and have made the same claim - yet they have not resorted to wanton mayhem, suicide bombings, decapitations and heinous murder of innocent civilians including women and children. 2) Black Americans could and have made the same claim for a hundred years and more - yet they have not resorted in any degree to wanton mayhem, suicide bombings, decapitations and heinous murder of innocent civili
  24. Surely after all these topics and posts you know the difference between Immigrants and Refugees. Here's a good summary of how Canada's Refugee Program worked up to now..... http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/canada.asp
  25. Planning for deficits in an economic downturn runs the very real risk if incurring even larger deficits. If the deficit "investment" does not - at a minimum - pay for itself in economic benefits....then all you're doing is inviting fiscal cannibalism.
×
×
  • Create New...