[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Well it is being sold as perhaps the smartest thing the Liberals are going to do for four years. So either it is brilliant or not much intelligence is expected on the part of the Liberals.

I don't think we were reading the same article 

[crazy canuck]

You said it was a dumb promise to make.  Far from it.

The timeline was dumb, and the Libs have essentially admitted it.

The timeline was aspirational and made all the difference in the world.

That's such a beautiful piece of rhetoric!  You shouldn't take promises seriously - they're merely aspirational.

Tell me BB,  what is the substantial difference between getting them all in before the end of December and February.  This is the kind of nitpick that makes me think the Reform wing of the Conservative party really isn't going to learn what went fundamentally wrong with the party. 

[viper37]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

I don't know if it's brilliant or anything, but if you can move from "we made a big promise, but we are being realistic and delivering the substance of it with a bit of a delay but we are delivering" and have the people who want you to deliver the promise accept that as reasonable, that's not a bad way to transition from election promises to the practicalities of governing.

they are going to settle the refugees in camps.  Camps originally not made for winter conditions that will have to be transformed very rapidly.  By cutting corners.  It will be costly and it will not be comfortable for the refugees, especially the young ones.

Moving refugees from one camp to another camp and pretending you are doing something positive is a spin.  Realistically, these camps will be inhabited for 1.5-2 years while the security checks are being completed.  Moving any faster on this means cutting corners (again), and if you think it's problematic to cross the border to the US now, just wait and see for President Trump to build a fence.

Now, I may be jocking, shamelessly exploiting Valmy's fears about his next President , but the core of the issue is there: Canada had to make some serious guarantees to the US government about the vast number of refugees we are about to let in and part of this was the assurance that they would not leave their camps until all security checks have been done, which would require a period of 18-24 months.

That is the Truth of the Liberal plan, the ugly truth the medias usually avoid to reveal for fear of making Trudeau look bad.

This is essentially a leftist solution, making a majority of people suffer, since winter in BC is not exactly representative of the rest of the country simply for the sake of appeasing one's conscience by appearing to do something that has at best no net effects.

[viper37]

I get more frustrated with Conservative types who are still not learning the lessons to be learned from the last election. 

What lesson?  That the government put forward a tip line to denounce cultural practices identified as problematic by the UN?  Is the UN only good when it slams Canada and the US, bad in all other circumstances?

I'm always amazed at how intelligent people can fall prey so easily to propaganda.

The name "barbaric" was ill chosen.  The practices described as such are those listed on a UN blacklist.  The tip line was idiotice because it would likely create more problems to authorities than anything else (information overdose) and we already have a mechanism for this: 9-1-1. 
A better approach would have been to give funds to organism that deal with these communities and act on prevention.
The Liberals will not do that either, they'll simply tact about freedom of religion and let it go.

[Barrister]

You said it was a dumb promise to make.  Far from it.

The timeline was dumb, and the Libs have essentially admitted it.

The timeline was aspirational and made all the difference in the world.

That's such a beautiful piece of rhetoric!  You shouldn't take promises seriously - they're merely aspirational.

Tell me BB,  what is the substantial difference between getting them all in before the end of December and February.  This is the kind of nitpick that makes me think the Reform wing of the Conservative party really isn't going to learn what went fundamentally wrong with the party. 

Because one is what they promised, and one isn't.

I'm not making a huge deal of it.  It's worth pointing out because it goes to the general immaturity of Trudeau - the number of refugees and date were selected in an attempt to out-do the other parties, and not in reference to what was feasible - but it's hardly the end of the world.

What was galling was this article taking what is a minor point against Trudeau and spinning it as a huge positive.

[viper37]

Tell me BB,  what is the substantial difference between getting them all in before the end of December and February. 

What is the fundamental difference for a refugee to spend the next winter in a badly insulated camp in Quebec city or a badly insulated camp in Jordan?

This is the kind of nitpick that makes me think the Reform wing of the Conservative party really isn't going to learn what went fundamentally wrong with the party. 

They have offered no protests when Dion replaced the Queen's portrait with paintings made by Alfred Pellan.  Maybe there is hope...

[crazy canuck]

What was galling was this article taking what is a minor point against Trudeau and spinning it as a huge positive.

I think that says more about your bias then your allegation that the media is biased.  In all the circumstances it was a good idea to delay.  The government showed good judgment.  Another alternative would have been to push ahead as fast as possible.  That would not have been a wise choice.  There is nothing wrong with saying something was a good judgment.

[Jacob]

What was galling was this article taking what is a minor point against Trudeau and spinning it as a huge positive.

It seems like the sensible decision to make given the circumstances, balancing delivering the promise they made with practical realities. That seems like a pretty good quality to have in a government.

[Malthus]

What was galling was this article taking what is a minor point against Trudeau and spinning it as a huge positive.

It seems like the sensible decision to make given the circumstances, balancing delivering the promise they made with practical realities. That seems like a pretty good quality to have in a government.

I can see BB's point. While what the government is doing right now, and what it "aspires" to do, are honourable and good (I am fully on board with Canada taking a far more active role in assisting refugees than the Cons were willing to do), the Libs made the original promise knowing full well they could not reasonably meet it - simply to score points in an election. Yet they are not taken to task for this little cynicism. Lying is still lying even if your heart is in the right place. Which is admittedly better than lying with your heart in the wrong place, put still. 

Unlike BB, I think this is basically a 'honeymoon' issue - that unless something spectacular happens, the Libs will be seen through a positive filter in most of what they do for, oh, six months or so. 

[Grey Fox]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

I don't know if it's brilliant or anything, but if you can move from "we made a big promise, but we are being realistic and delivering the substance of it with a bit of a delay but we are delivering" and have the people who want you to deliver the promise accept that as reasonable, that's not a bad way to transition from election promises to the practicalities of governing.

they are going to settle the refugees in camps.  Camps originally not made for winter conditions that will have to be transformed very rapidly.  By cutting corners.  It will be costly and it will not be comfortable for the refugees, especially the young ones.

Moving refugees from one camp to another camp and pretending you are doing something positive is a spin.  Realistically, these camps will be inhabited for 1.5-2 years while the security checks are being completed.  Moving any faster on this means cutting corners (again), and if you think it's problematic to cross the border to the US now, just wait and see for President Trump to build a fence.

Now, I may be jocking, shamelessly exploiting Valmy's fears about his next President , but the core of the issue is there: Canada had to make some serious guarantees to the US government about the vast number of refugees we are about to let in and part of this was the assurance that they would not leave their camps until all security checks have been done, which would require a period of 18-24 months.

That is the Truth of the Liberal plan, the ugly truth the medias usually avoid to reveal for fear of making Trudeau look bad.

This is essentially a leftist solution, making a majority of people suffer, since winter in BC is not exactly representative of the rest of the country simply for the sake of appeasing one's conscience by appearing to do something that has at best no net effects.

Now you are just seeing things where there is nothing to be seen.

[crazy canuck]

What was galling was this article taking what is a minor point against Trudeau and spinning it as a huge positive.

It seems like the sensible decision to make given the circumstances, balancing delivering the promise they made with practical realities. That seems like a pretty good quality to have in a government.

I can see BB's point. While what the government is doing right now, and what it "aspires" to do, are honourable and good (I am fully on board with Canada taking a far more active role in assisting refugees than the Cons were willing to do), the Libs made the original promise knowing full well they could not reasonably meet it - simply to score points in an election. Yet they are not taken to task for this little cynicism. Lying is still lying even if your heart is in the right place. Which is admittedly better than lying with your heart in the wrong place, put still. 

Unlike BB, I think this is basically a 'honeymoon' issue - that unless something spectacular happens, the Libs will be seen through a positive filter in most of what they do for, oh, six months or so. 

I could see a justification of accusing them of lying if they said that they had changed their minds about bringing in the refugees.  That would be a decision inconsistent with their promise.  This decision is a detail regarding whether the promise is completed by the end of December of a couple of months later.  That is not exactly "lying".

[viper37]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

I don't know if it's brilliant or anything, but if you can move from "we made a big promise, but we are being realistic and delivering the substance of it with a bit of a delay but we are delivering" and have the people who want you to deliver the promise accept that as reasonable, that's not a bad way to transition from election promises to the practicalities of governing.

they are going to settle the refugees in camps.  Camps originally not made for winter conditions that will have to be transformed very rapidly.  By cutting corners.  It will be costly and it will not be comfortable for the refugees, especially the young ones.

Moving refugees from one camp to another camp and pretending you are doing something positive is a spin.  Realistically, these camps will be inhabited for 1.5-2 years while the security checks are being completed.  Moving any faster on this means cutting corners (again), and if you think it's problematic to cross the border to the US now, just wait and see for President Trump to build a fence.

Now, I may be jocking, shamelessly exploiting Valmy's fears about his next President , but the core of the issue is there: Canada had to make some serious guarantees to the US government about the vast number of refugees we are about to let in and part of this was the assurance that they would not leave their camps until all security checks have been done, which would require a period of 18-24 months.

That is the Truth of the Liberal plan, the ugly truth the medias usually avoid to reveal for fear of making Trudeau look bad.

This is essentially a leftist solution, making a majority of people suffer, since winter in BC is not exactly representative of the rest of the country simply for the sake of appeasing one's conscience by appearing to do something that has at best no net effects.

Now you are just seeing things where there is nothing to be seen.

Read the news.

[crazy canuck]

Read the news.

Once again I find myself compelled to ask, what news are you reading?

[Malthus]

What was galling was this article taking what is a minor point against Trudeau and spinning it as a huge positive.

It seems like the sensible decision to make given the circumstances, balancing delivering the promise they made with practical realities. That seems like a pretty good quality to have in a government.

I can see BB's point. While what the government is doing right now, and what it "aspires" to do, are honourable and good (I am fully on board with Canada taking a far more active role in assisting refugees than the Cons were willing to do), the Libs made the original promise knowing full well they could not reasonably meet it - simply to score points in an election. Yet they are not taken to task for this little cynicism. Lying is still lying even if your heart is in the right place. Which is admittedly better than lying with your heart in the wrong place, put still. 

Unlike BB, I think this is basically a 'honeymoon' issue - that unless something spectacular happens, the Libs will be seen through a positive filter in most of what they do for, oh, six months or so. 

I could see a justification of accusing them of lying if they said that they had changed their minds about bringing in the refugees.  That would be a decision inconsistent with their promise.  This decision is a detail regarding whether the promise is completed by the end of December of a couple of months later.  That is not exactly "lying".

They "lied", as in 'promised to do something they knew they could not'.

I agree it's not a big deal (hell, even BB agrees, apparently  ). But calling it 'not exactly lying' because the difference is a 'detail' is more than a stretch. The whole point of the promise was to contrast Liberal instant and decisive action on this issue with Conservative foot-dragging, so the fact that the Liberals knew the time-line they were promising was impossible is significant.*

*With the usual disclaimer that, as someone who supports including more refugees faster, naturally I'd prefer Liberals, lying and all, to truthful Conservatives on this issue. But it is the very definition of partisanship (leading to willful blindness) to assert that politicians one supports are not really 'untruthful', because they are doing what you want.

[crazy canuck]

I guess I am not as willing to accept that when the promise was made they "knew" it would not be possible.  According to the story in the Globe the main reason for the delay is that Canada will no longer do security checks after issuing temporary visas but will instead do the security checks before they enter the country.  I am not sure how the Liberals would have known that to be the case or how they could possibly have foreseen the Paris bombing which caused that change in policy.

Lying denotes ill intend.  When someone doesn't keep a promise that does not mean they necessarily lied at the time the promise was made.