[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

So of course the thing to remember is that stories like this (sourced by anonymous sources) are never leaked on accident.  As good of reporters as the Globe has they didn't just manage to dig this up on their own.  Someone gave the globe this story with a purpose.

That being said I can't make up my mind if it is a pro-Trudeau source or an anti-Trudeau source.  Because the basic message is "well, it's all Freeland's fault".  So from a pro-Trudeau perspective it's trying to deflect criticism of Trudeau himself.  From an anti-Trudeau perspective it kind of shows how out-of-touch Trudeau is.

I do feel like it's something of a pattern with Trudeau also.  He thinks of himself as such an enlightened figure he never realizes he's always blaming women for his problems...

[viper37]

I do feel like it's something of a pattern with Trudeau also.  He thinks of himself as such an enlightened figure he never realizes he's always blaming women for his problems...

I had never noticed this before you mentioned it...  But that's really true.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-dumpster-fire-economy-nato-1.7261981

So at the NATO meeting Trudeau promised Canada would meet our 2% of GDP military spending commitment - by 2032.  And he wasn't all that forthcoming about how we'd do that.

Poilievre instead says he won't promise to meet our 2% commitment, citing that Canada's finances are a "dumpster fire".

Which "take" do you prefer?  Because on one hand the 2% commitment is just that - a commitment.  We need to do this.  But on the other hand I don't think anyone really believed Trudau's commitment to do it in 8 years either.

[viper37]

For once, I prefer Poilièvre's take, because it's the realistic approach, not a populist one.

[Grey Fox]

Populist or not, we need to do it.

Let's just build something, anything. Radar facilities, ports, ships. Anything will help.

[Barrister]

The Canadian politics Redus thread fell to the second page?  This. Can. Not. Stand.

In the Trump shooting attempt over the weekend, Pierre Poilievre tweeted (as many politicians did).  He denounced the use of violence, showed sympathy for those harmed - and said he was glad the shooter was dead.

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1812279106580681205

In my Twitter feed I keep seeing all these posts about how terrible it was for a politician to say he was glad the shooter was dead.

I mean - really?  Of all the things to care about?

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, In not sure why anyone should be sorry the shooter was take out to stop him from killing anyone else.

The main concern is how he was able to get all those shots off in the first place, not that he was stopped.

[Grey Fox]

Many people are just naive.

[Sheilbh]

Got to be honest I'm a little uncomfortable with "I am also happy that the suspected shooter is dead."

The alternative isn't being sorry the shooter is dead but just not saying that.

[Jacob]

I mean I totally understand revenge fantasies that involve people getting killed, but I don't really think that should guide how we run our society.

Politician statements are ultimately indicative of the direction they intend to take our society.

Being happy that cops shoot to kill rather than capture is not awesome.

So not great from Poilievre. Not the biggest deal in the world, but not great.

On a practical level, there are different repercussions from death vs capture and prosecution - some potentially good, some potentially less good.

[crazy canuck]

We had this discussion a while back.  The idea that law enforcement shoot to maim rather than kill is the fantasy.  Once an officer decides lethal force is required, they shoot to take down the target.  And that often results in death.

That is why the threshold for using lethal force is high.

[Valmy]

And frankly the idea that one can shoot people in a non-fatal way, especially on purpose, is ridiculous anyway.

[garbon]

I'm not sure Jacob was arguing that cops should shoot to capture but I'll leave that with him.

I think broader point Sheilbh makes is warranted. I don't know I need a leader who tells me they are happy someone is dead. Feels like the small minded stuff that voters can feel but I don't want my politician saying.

[Jacob]

That's right garbon, it was not a comment on the threshold of using lethal force nor on the practicality for firing guns in pursuit of non-lethal outcomes for the target.

It was about rejoicing that lethal force was necessary to begin with.

[Barrister]

That's right garbon, it was not a comment on the threshold of using lethal force nor on the practicality for firing guns in pursuit of non-lethal outcomes for the target.

It was about rejoicing that lethal force was necessary to begin with.

OK, but so here's Poilievre's exact line.

I am also happy that the suspected shooter is dead.

So I think this was a certain kind of small-c conservative virtue signaling.  Poilievre probably wanted the kind of reaction he got.

But really - I'm kind of happy the guy is dead also.  Guys like Hinkley or Sirhan Sirhan remained people of note for years afterwards.  Even given that it's coming out that Crooks was a Republican I'd hate to see him become a leftist cause celebre in the aftermath of the shooting.