[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

I admit I haven't been paying my full attention to this bill, and I also haven't read all of it, but what exactly is so worrysome to all?

The lack of oversight. 

compared to the US, sure, but compared to what we have now, for current operations or RCMP and SCRS/CSIS, what would change?

But that is the issue, we are now moving to more of a US model for intelligence gathering and counter espionage.  The current operational mandate is changing without a change to oversight of those new powers.

If you want to get an idea of the magnitude of the change pay attention to what the RCMP are saying about their need for additional funding to carry out the new responsibilities under the proposed Bill.  And that is just the RCMP!

ok, I'll have to take a look, thanks.

[crazy canuck]

@ Jacob, name one thing you can recall that made Chretien an effective leader.  Under his leadership the Liberals engaged in activities that gave rise to the sponsorship scandals that all but destroyed the Liberals.  Under his leadership there was internecine fighting with the Martin supporters.  The only thing he really did was win elections - which any Liberal (even Justin) could have done during that period of time. 

He kept everyone in line and managed to win majority government with the exact same platform 2 times in a row and a slightly modified version the 3rd time. 

Yeah, so in other words, "The only thing he really did was win elections - which any Liberal (even Justin) could have done during that period of time."

He certainly did not "maintain unity".  There was infighting between his supporters and the Martin supporters right from the time he won the leadership until he was finally was forced to be replaced by Martin.

[Grey Fox]

Lets not spend an afternoon arguing over Jean Chrétien when we could spend it arguing over Trudeau Jr.

[crazy canuck]

 

[Jacob]

There's not much to argue about Trudeau Jr. though, is there?

The Conservative stalwarts will advance the argument that he's a terrible lightweight. The middle of the ground people will think there may be something to it, look around for counter-arguments and not find a whole lot. The lefty people will hope it's not true, but still not find a lot of counter arguments. And, of course, the Quebec contingent will talk about how English Canada - and particularly Malthus -is perfidiously shafting Quebec.

[crazy canuck]

There's not much to argue about Trudeau Jr. though, is there?

The Conservative stalwarts will advance the argument that he's a terrible lightweight. The middle of the ground people will think there may be something to it, look around for counter-arguments and not find a whole lot. The lefty people will hope it's not true, but still not find a lot of counter arguments. And, of course, the Quebec contingent will talk about how English Canada - and particularly Malthus -is perfidiously shafting Quebec.

I am not sure why you think it is just "Conservative stalwarts" making that point.  You may not be as unbiased as you might think 

and for context Jacob, you might recall that Mulcair is fond of saying in reference to Justin that being prime minister just isn't an entry level job.

[Jacob]

I am not sure why you think it is just "Conservative stalwarts" making that point.  You may not be as unbiased as you might think 

You and BB are the ones who bring it up consistently, and you are fairly stalwart - BB more so than you, obviously. Malthus concedes it once in a while, but rarely brings it up on his own; it's mostly in response to you or BB posting another "Trudeau says or does something silly" story. Josephus rarely brings it up, though he obviously isn't a fan of the Liberals.

Neil will say something idiosyncratic. Camerus and Maximus rarely opine on party politics. We rarely see Drakken or Oex. Viper, Zoupa, and grallon will focus on Quebec line.

Who did I miss? Who talks about Trudeau being a lightweight with any frequency other than you and BB?

[crazy canuck]

I see, so now I am part of "the Conservative Stalwarts".

Now you have no claim at all to being unbiased.

As to whom you missed.  You could start with Mulcair 

[Jacob]

I see, so now I am part of "the Conservative Stalwarts".

Now you have no claim at all to being unbiased.

I realized after I posted that you might have taken offence; if that is so, I apologize.

Here's my take:

I see you as comfortably Conservative - you're definitely willing to criticize the Conservatives, and you're willing to look at alternatives if the alternatives are viable and/or if the Conservatives are losing their way too badly in your view; but if not, you are comfortable remaining with the Conservatives. If the Conservatives lose you and people similar to you, they are in significant trouble, in my view, but it is not that likely at this junction.

You definitely evaluate the political landscape continuously and critically, and you're not in lockstep with Conservative values or the party; but in the last while, and it seems in the immediate future, you end up with the Conservatives.

On languish, you and BB are the two people who consistently argue the Conservative position. So yeah, you're what I'd term a Conservative Stalwart, at least on languish. This is distinct from a Conservative Partisan (a set only including BB here on languish).

Separate from the term, would you say there's anything inaccurate in my perception (and if so, I'm happy to be corrected)?

And if you object to "conservative stalwart", is there another term you prefer (other than "objectively correct" and similar variations)?

[Jacob]

and for context Jacob, you might recall that Mulcair is fond of saying in reference to Justin that being prime minister just isn't an entry level job.

Mulcair doesn't post on languish, though (AFAIK), and that's the context I was considering.

[crazy canuck]

If you were just thinking about Languish, I don't think anyone here fits within the description of "Conservative Stalwart".  BB is a Reformer through and through.  Neil is a reformed Reformer who strikes me more and more as a what we used to describe as a Red Tory. 

As for me.  When is the last time you saw me arguing the Conservative position on anything?

[Grey Fox]

This fall is going to be fun here, hopefully CC won't rage quit.

[crazy canuck]

This fall is going to be fun here, hopefully CC won't rage quit.

Naw, I know where Jacob is coming from.  I am just surprised at his perception.

[Barrister]

I see, so now I am part of "the Conservative Stalwarts".

Now you have no claim at all to being unbiased.

I realized after I posted that you might have taken offence; if that is so, I apologize.

Here's my take:

I see you as comfortably Conservative - you're definitely willing to criticize the Conservatives, and you're willing to look at alternatives if the alternatives are viable and/or if the Conservatives are losing their way too badly in your view; but if not, you are comfortable remaining with the Conservatives. If the Conservatives lose you and people similar to you, they are in significant trouble, in my view, but it is not that likely at this junction.

You definitely evaluate the political landscape continuously and critically, and you're not in lockstep with Conservative values or the party; but in the last while, and it seems in the immediate future, you end up with the Conservatives.

On languish, you and BB are the two people who consistently argue the Conservative position. So yeah, you're what I'd term a Conservative Stalwart, at least on languish. This is distinct from a Conservative Partisan (a set only including BB here on languish).

Separate from the term, would you say there's anything inaccurate in my perception (and if so, I'm happy to be corrected)?

And if you object to "conservative stalwart", is there another term you prefer (other than "objectively correct" and similar variations)?

Perhaps it would be better Jacob to try and assess people's arguments on the merit of what they are asserting, rather than by trying to label people according to your own pre-conceived notions of what political allegiance they have.

[Jacob]

If you were just thinking about Languish, I don't think anyone here fits within the description of "Conservative Stalwart".  BB is a Reformer through and through.  Neil is a reformed Reformer who strikes me more and more as a what we used to describe as a Red Tory. 

As for me.  When is the last time you saw me arguing the Conservative position on anything?

Whenever you talk about Trudeau Jr. being a lightweight 

I mean, it's *also* an NDP position, but I'm confident you don't belong in the NDP supporter category, much less the stalwart one.

In any case, if you object to being referred to as a Conservative I will refrain from doing so rather than argue with you that you are