Politics in 2016
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
Careful. You've been guilty of the same in the past.
- Reaction score
- 4,717
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
I'm still waiting for you to prove Trudeau is actually a leader of substance, other than taking populist stances to attract better polling numbers (which you like to trot out whenever you can't dispute a point on issues).
I'm also curious: Do you like Trudeau, or just dislike Harper?
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
I'm sure we all have.recceguy said:Careful. You've been guilty of the same in the past.
Still, I'll call it out when I see it, and I'll accept it when I'm called out doing it.
both.PuckChaser said:
As for being a leader of substance, I would point to the climate file as one where he is making progress.
He has also appointed good people into key positions (except john maccallum, hate that guy).
The CF 18s vs special forces training has been a bit of a fumble, but I would say that he handled the Syrian refugees in good fashion. 25 000 new people into canada without any major incidents, no mass movement of soldiers to make room,nothing has blown up. Took longer to do, but it has been without any major drama.
Come budget time we shall see more of what the plan is on the economic front.
However, nothing he has done to date suggests he is a terrible leader or that he is in over his head. More of a caretaker goverment than anything else.
- Reaction score
- 4,717
- Points
- 1,160
He's made absolutely no progress on the climate file other than dumping money into climate change "funds" and paying for $1M delegation to hang out in Paris. His intent is to move the yardsticks AGAIN in relation to carbon levels. You can't achieve goals if you constantly change what those goals are. All parties are guilty of this, but only one campaigned on "real change". "Real Change" would be saying "we're committed to this goal, and our party will work to achieve and surpass it prior to the deadline".
OP IMPACT hasn't been a fumble, its been a gongshow born out of a purely political promise to remove CF-18s from "combat". However, OP IMPACT pers now have ROE that apparently allow them to shoot first, so hasn't Trudeau pushed us further towards ground engagement despite his promise of a more "Canadian approach"? If Canadian he means warfighting, he's right on the mark.
His Syrian refugee handling was another purely political promise, a game of oneupmanship designed to garner votes. There was no reason to make an arbitrary number, or arbitrary (and unattainable deadline). There was no reason why we needed to bring that many, that fast, other than to win votes. We're already a world leader in Syrian refugee resettlement. Also think of the CAF members who deployed to support this refugee surge, when just streamlining the existing processes and removing the cap would have been completely sufficient.
As for the budget, his platform was supposed to be fully costed. Fully costed means we should know exactly what the budget will be, and with a sub $10B deficit. Add 20% to that deficit figure because Alberta is still getting hit hard with low oil prices, and we should be right around $12B if it was actually fully costed. It wasn't. Morneau is talking about $20-$30B deficits, but even he has no idea. Confidence level dropping.
Caretaker government? He's got in with a chainsaw and is swinging at any bill or law signed since 2006. He doesn't have an issues stance other than "we'll reverse everything the Tories did".
OP IMPACT hasn't been a fumble, its been a gongshow born out of a purely political promise to remove CF-18s from "combat". However, OP IMPACT pers now have ROE that apparently allow them to shoot first, so hasn't Trudeau pushed us further towards ground engagement despite his promise of a more "Canadian approach"? If Canadian he means warfighting, he's right on the mark.
His Syrian refugee handling was another purely political promise, a game of oneupmanship designed to garner votes. There was no reason to make an arbitrary number, or arbitrary (and unattainable deadline). There was no reason why we needed to bring that many, that fast, other than to win votes. We're already a world leader in Syrian refugee resettlement. Also think of the CAF members who deployed to support this refugee surge, when just streamlining the existing processes and removing the cap would have been completely sufficient.
As for the budget, his platform was supposed to be fully costed. Fully costed means we should know exactly what the budget will be, and with a sub $10B deficit. Add 20% to that deficit figure because Alberta is still getting hit hard with low oil prices, and we should be right around $12B if it was actually fully costed. It wasn't. Morneau is talking about $20-$30B deficits, but even he has no idea. Confidence level dropping.
Caretaker government? He's got in with a chainsaw and is swinging at any bill or law signed since 2006. He doesn't have an issues stance other than "we'll reverse everything the Tories did".
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
If you're complaining about allowing members to fire first then I don't even know what to say. Weren't you the one making him out to be a dove? Regardless, our allies are happy, Canadians seem satisfied, so whatever. Don't think Trudeau cares about what Altair or puckchaser thinks.PuckChaser said:
The budget deficit is 12 billion,plus 6 billion for contingancy funds that may or may not be used, and 10 billion in infrastructure. Not insane.
As for climate, I'll agree to disagree.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
PuckChaser said:
I think it's important to recall that, as with most governments in their first year or so in office, this one is still in campaign mode.
Remember that he was elected, mainly I think, because we, Canadians in general, were tired of Stephen Harper and it was time to "throw the rascals out," even if they weren't really "rascals" (for a change) and even if we didn't have many really fundamental disagreements with most of Prime Minister Harper's polices ... we have, quite unthinkingly, adopted the notion of eight year "terms" and Harper had been there for nine, so ... :dunno:
This government, at the very centre, PMO and, thanks to an act of almost unparalleled chutzpah, maybe the PCO, too, ran a remarkable campaign. They ~ Butts/Telford/Trudeau ~ were a really, really good campaign team and they liked doing it; they're good at it; they plan, I suspect, to keep doing it for as long as the polls allow ~ and those polls continue to show that most (over 50% of) Canadians like Prime Minister Trudeau and approve of what he's doing (even if they have no f'ing idea at all about what it is that he's doing ... or not). Campaigning is easier than governing, and it's more fun, too. But, my guess is that there is a dawn, the cold light of which will come as an unpleasant shock to Justin (Sunny Ways) Trudeau.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Altair said:
[
Where is Kilo and his "statistics"?
Polls after all, are nothing more than "statistics".
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,740
- Points
- 1,040
There isn't really much to be upset about yet.
The government's achievements to date have mostly been in the "small gestures to pull Harper's nose" category; we don't know what the '16/'17 budget balance forecast will be (and based on a recent article by Stephen Gordon, '15/'16 might actually end up in surplus); TPP hasn't been dumped outright; the foreign "talking to others" and "deals" to date have mostly been inconclusive and amount in most cases to being agreements to propose agendas for meetings to establish frameworks for negotiating agreements; and the domestic equivalent of the same is mostly photo ops and the customary demands from premiers to hand over more money and stay out of their business.
It looks good to people who think a statement of intentions is a plan, or that "dialog" is an end in itself.
Campaigning and statecraft are two distinct skills. Not every effective campaigner is competent at statecraft, and people who might be good at statecraft rarely get to prove it if they are ineffective campaigners. The inside team of this government is good at campaigning, so that's what they are doing.
The government's achievements to date have mostly been in the "small gestures to pull Harper's nose" category; we don't know what the '16/'17 budget balance forecast will be (and based on a recent article by Stephen Gordon, '15/'16 might actually end up in surplus); TPP hasn't been dumped outright; the foreign "talking to others" and "deals" to date have mostly been inconclusive and amount in most cases to being agreements to propose agendas for meetings to establish frameworks for negotiating agreements; and the domestic equivalent of the same is mostly photo ops and the customary demands from premiers to hand over more money and stay out of their business.
It looks good to people who think a statement of intentions is a plan, or that "dialog" is an end in itself.
Campaigning and statecraft are two distinct skills. Not every effective campaigner is competent at statecraft, and people who might be good at statecraft rarely get to prove it if they are ineffective campaigners. The inside team of this government is good at campaigning, so that's what they are doing.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
Will you please, please read, and understand, what is posted before you go off. The first paragraph is ranting rhetoric because you failed to read what was said before you attacked. The only thing that makes sense is the last sentence. "Don't think Trudeau cares about what Altair or puckchaser thinks."
On that point, you're right. He doesn't care what any of us think. All he cares about is that he has four free years to do whatever he, and his puppet masters, want to do.
- Reaction score
- 4,717
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
Its no where near complaining, its far better ROE than I would have expected out of him. What I'm pointing out (I'll clarify since you missed it), is the fallacy of removing CF-18s from combat to move to a more humanitarian/non-combat role, but allowing the advise/assist force to be allowed to eliminate threats in their AOR. His reasoning was completely political as stated, and if there was another reasoning (we can't afford to fly 30 year old fighters in combat anymore, totally acceptable), then he should have stated it. It would have been far easier for him to explain that we've run the CF-18s ragged, than saying "I'm pulling them because I said I would, deal with it".
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The entire MO of Gerald Butts and co was summed up when people suggested that selecting a cabinet on merit rather than pack an arbitrary number of Ministers of State in so you can say there is 50% mld/female representation:
"Because 2015"
That sentence tells everyone that there is no desire to justify, explain or debate the issue, they wanted to shut down any debate and expected the media to follow suit (which the major Canadian media meekly did; it was the Rebel which broke the story).
So expect that the same "answer" will be trotted out if/when anyone has the audacity to challenge statements coming from the new, improved government.
As I have explained in the economic threads, Canadians will be easily hoodwinked because few of them know and understand concepts like opportunity costs and compound interest, so the future will be sluggish overall growth punctuated with a few bubbles where Liberal cronys are able to siphon off your tax dollars. No one will "know" the cause of this, and of course any umber of convenient excuses will be trotted out (including "Blame Harper", which I expect to hear a lot of in 2019).
Frédéric Bastiat explained it all in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas.
http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html for those who want to read it in the original French.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen for the English translation
"Because 2015"
That sentence tells everyone that there is no desire to justify, explain or debate the issue, they wanted to shut down any debate and expected the media to follow suit (which the major Canadian media meekly did; it was the Rebel which broke the story).
So expect that the same "answer" will be trotted out if/when anyone has the audacity to challenge statements coming from the new, improved government.
As I have explained in the economic threads, Canadians will be easily hoodwinked because few of them know and understand concepts like opportunity costs and compound interest, so the future will be sluggish overall growth punctuated with a few bubbles where Liberal cronys are able to siphon off your tax dollars. No one will "know" the cause of this, and of course any umber of convenient excuses will be trotted out (including "Blame Harper", which I expect to hear a lot of in 2019).
Frédéric Bastiat explained it all in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas.
http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html for those who want to read it in the original French.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen for the English translation
- Reaction score
- 22,065
- Points
- 1,360
jmt18325 said:
Your "reality" perhaps? ???
Orders in Council PC2015-1225 through PC2015-1229 would indicate that you are wrong, jmt18325.
Perhaps you are thinking of some other Commonwealth Government that "has no Ministers of State?" :dunno:
Regards
G2G
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
argumentum ad ignorantiamrecceguy said:
he has repeatedly said that he don't feel dropping bombs is the best solution to solve the problem that is isil.PuckChaser said:
He has repeatedly said that training local ground forces to take the ground isil holds is the best way to defeat isil. To that end he said he would expand the training mission and recall the fighters. In order to protect themselves( and avoid any blue helmet like scenarios ) he has allowed out SFs the ability to shoot first when the situation warrants. Not because, yay combat, but because he wants them to be safe and return home to their families.
No doublespeak, no contradiction, just good Ole common sense.
He doesn't believe in the bombing mission to solve the problem. He has said this many times. And looking at the quagmire that is syria, with isil, the assad regime, turkey, Russia, rebel groups, Hezbollah, Iran and the Kurds, I cannot say I blame him.
He has stated on multiple occasions that training local forces to take the fight to isil is more effective than bombing.
The only question he has not answered is why not do both.
Good2Golf said:
It helps to verify things first:
When asked to clarify the discrepancy Friday morning, a senior government source speaking on background told CBC News that what was presented to the public on Wednesday is, in fact, what's real: all 30 are full ministers.
Some of the Treasury Board statutes pertaining to cabinet roles, however, have to be changed to give all these roles full ministerial status and salaries, retroactive to Wednesday.
Those changes can't just happen overnight, the source said, but will happen pretty quickly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-cabinet-fine-print-women-junior-ministers-1.3307122
There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.
- Status
Similar threads
