Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Doc Democracy]

12 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Since this is the same legislature that is ignoring the lawful results of the Brexit vote there's no moral high ground to be had.

 

Also, I don't like that guy and he is most definitely NOT like the hulk.

 

I would contest that the legislature is ignoring the results of the referendum, it has talked about nothing else for almost three years.  The problem is that the Government failed in its job to deliver a policy that the legislature could agree to.

 

That slim majority for a referendum was followed by a General Election where the Conservatives were elected promising to honour the referendum by delivering a "smooth and orderly departure".  Labour promised a deal that protected the economy and jobs.  Nobody stood on leaving without a deal that the Conservative party swung hard toward when the Conservatives lost their small majority in that election.

 

Personally I think the General Election was the last test of the opinion of the electorate.  Boris exemplifies the swing to no deal and does not represent the manifest will of the electorate for a deal.

 

Doc

 

[Lord Liaden]

Speaking of elections, I found this a rather interesting if somewhat simplistic American perspective on Canadian politics: Canada Does Elections Right.

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Speaking of elections, I found this a rather interesting if somewhat simplistic American perspective on Canadian politics: Canada Does Elections Right.

 

Simplistic Americans are depressingly easy to find.

[TrickstaPriest]

My (limited) understanding of that has to do heavily with the huge rural versus suburban/urban population divide in the US.  Anyone in a rural environment is much more vulnerable to getting limited education, information, and social influence (separately from religion-directed influence), and (to me) appears entirely vulnerable to bad actors spreading misinformation.

 

You can tell I love our radio show/political news environment in the US, can't you.

[Pattern Ghost]

18 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Anyone in a rural environment is much more vulnerable to getting limited education, information, and social influence (separately from religion-directed influence), and (to me) appears entirely vulnerable to bad actors spreading misinformation.

 

I've lived in a lot of rural areas, and this isn't necessarily the case. I've also lived and worked in several major cities, and have seen quite a number of highly educated boneheads in that environment. The real issue, IMO, is that the VAST majority of people make major decisions based on emotions rather than facts or sound reasoning. City mice are NO better in that regard than country mice.

[DShomshak]

I have my own hypothesis on the urban/rural political divide. (And it is only a hypothesis: I know of know empirical research to back it up, so take it with a grain of salt.) It's that small communities and large communities create different social incentives.

 

In a small community, you interact with pretty much the same group of people throughout your life. New people are born, old people die, but turnover is slow and one rarely encounters people who have no social context. This means you must fit in, because the people around you have great influence on your own well being.

 

Take barbershops for an example. Suppose you run a barbershop in a town that can only support one or two barbers. You have a limited supply of potential customers. If people decide you're a weirdo and Not One Of Us, you quickly go out of business.

 

A small community thus encourages sentiments of loyalty and social conformity. Anyone outside the community is an unknown quantity and therefore threatening. And thanks to modern media, rural Americans receive threat-signals of freaky, Not Like Us outsiders every day.

 

In a big city you interact daily with people you don't know and whom you might never see again. It is very important to get along with strangers. If you don't know who's a threat, you also don't know who's an opportunity. And it's worth keeping your eye out for new opportunities, because so much of your life depends on people you don't know: The business where you work could close, your house could be demolished to make way for a bypass, a bank in another country could throw the economy in a tailspin, and so on.

 

Again, consider barbershops. In a city that can support a hundred barbershops, your challenge isn't to fit in -- it's to stand out! Because why should customers go to your barbershop instead of the other 99? Maybe your gimmick is to cultivate a social niche, like being a Black Barbershop, or a Punk Barbershop, or a Blue Collar Barbershop, or whatever. (Cue Ray Stevens' "When You Get A Haircut.")

 

This difference in incentives becomes especially important, I think, in reactions to immigration. In a small town, the sudden arrival of several hundred people from a place you never heard of, who talk, dress, dine, worship and do everything else differently, is an existential crisis. The social order you have known all your life must change. And down in your genes, ten thousand generations of Stone Age ancestors who lived in tiny homogeneous communities are screaming that an enemy horde has arrived and you'd better be ready to fight for your life.

 

In a big city, the arrival of several hundred ethnic strangers is a drop in the bucket... and an opportunity. If you're a politician, maybe it's a new constituency you can cultivate that could tip a close election. For anyone else, the most it likely means is there's going to be a new ethnic restaurant. Impress your friends by being the first to discover it!

 

City folk can feel xenophobia, sure. They have the same ten thousand generations of Stone Age ancestors as rural folk. But there are countervailing incentives as well.

 

Like I said, just a hypothesis. I won't be offended if people with more and wider experience of both big-city and small-town folk say it's full of crap, that's not their experience at all.

 

Dean Shomshak

[ScottishFox]

On 9/17/2019 at 9:12 AM, Lord Liaden said:

Speaking of elections, I found this a rather interesting if somewhat simplistic American perspective on Canadian politics: Canada Does Elections Right.

 

I will be shocked if Trudeau wins another election at this point.  The last couple days have not treated him well.

[Old Man]

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid otherwise intelligent people can be when it comes to race.  And costume parties.

[Lord Liaden]

Social situations are often considered safe environments in which inhibitions are lowered beyond the norm, particularly if alcohol or other recreational drugs are available. There are those who say such unguarded situations cause people to reveal more of their true selves. Others claim they feel freer to take on something they'd never normally do or say, for the thrill. I think it can be both, personally.

 

But at the time the most recent photos were taken Trudeau was 29 and a school teacher, so should have known better.

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I will be shocked if Trudeau wins another election at this point.  The last couple days have not treated him well.

 

It really depends on how the general public reacts to the incidents, and Trudeau's mea culpa. I've been watching man-on-the-street interviews to try to glimpse the tone of people's reactions, and it's a pretty wide spread. I've seen white people who expressed being offended at his actions and are considering changing their vote, even supporting Trudeau's resignation. And I've seen people of color saying yes, it was a mistake, but it was long ago, and Trudeau repudiated and apologized for his actions, so we should move on. And everything in between.

 

Only way to tell if the images may have made a lasting impact, is on election day.

[TrickstaPriest]

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I've lived in a lot of rural areas, and this isn't necessarily the case. I've also lived and worked in several major cities, and have seen quite a number of highly educated boneheads in that environment. The real issue, IMO, is that the VAST majority of people make major decisions based on emotions rather than facts or sound reasoning. City mice are NO better in that regard than country mice.

 

True, 'vulnerable to misinformation' is not correct or right.  But I don't think I'm wrong in saying anyone in a rural environment is much more vulnerable to getting limited education, information, and social influence (separately from religion-directed influence).  That's separate from being a bonehead.  But I also think you are right, it does sound like I am making a judgment call on people in rural environments accepting BS more easily.  That's not true and I shouldn't think of this in that way.

 

I explicitly brought up information, social influence, and education for a reason, though.  All of these are important, but they do not prevent someone from being 'boneheaded'.

 

I run into a -lot- of people who claim to be rational but are definitely prejudiced, judgmental, and angry.  I definitely agree that 'emotional-driven' is a powerful influence on people, but all of these people also deeply engage in the rejection of information they disagree with (not whether it's factual or not) and being prone to believing anything they already agree with.  Even when (as an outsider) some of that new information was almost painfully, obviously, incorrect.

 

I guess the original point of what I was trying to get at is this:  having more access to people with differing opinions is vital in order to re-evaluate what beliefs or 'facts' you take for granted as being true.  I mean, I'm well aware of social echo chambers that exist in cities and online, but that exists regardless.  I'm looking at what else is even available (at least, pre-internet).

 

---

 

Then again, maybe access to other people doesn't have as big an effect on refining people's awareness of the facts as I thought?  It might not be an 'improvement' at all to have access to others information/opinions, or maybe that has no value even if you did have it.

[Doc Democracy]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

It really depends on how the general public reacts to the incidents, and Trudeau's mea culpa. I've been watching man-on-the-street interviews to try to glimpse the tone of people's reactions, and it's a pretty wide spread. I've seen white people who expressed being offended at his actions and are considering changing their vote, even supporting Trudeau's resignation. And I've seen people of color saying yes, it was a mistake, but it was long ago, and Trudeau repudiated and apologized for his actions, so we should move on. And everything in between.

 

Only way to tell if the images may have made a lasting impact, is on election day.

 

A lot of truth in that.  I think people should be judged on their actions.

 

If someone has done something wrong in the past and spent a significant amount of time since then acting better then it probably shows that they have learned something and is probably a better person for it.  Who better to understand the actions than someone who has done them himself and knows where it came from.  It does mean a lot of positive action subsequent to the negative one.

 

If someone has done something wrong in the past and spent a significant amount of time since then acting as if it never happened and their first reaction when confronted with the bad behaviour is to deny it and say they would never have acted that way, and there has been nothing since to demonstrate any significant change of mind or positive action contrary to the wrong thing in the past, then they have probably not learned or changed, they have simply learned to better hide their worse personality aspects from those who would think they were wrong.

 

Personally I think Trudeau is more likely to belong in the former category, and there is a supreme court judge who probably firmly belongs in the latter.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

I am SO embarrassed...

https://twitter.com/gigiglasgow72/status/1174969505530777602?s=20

 

[Starlord]

Apparently, Trudeau has now admitted to more than one instance of 'blackface.'

 

Can someone tell me what the fascination with 'blackface' is anyway?  I'm 50 years old...I can't recall a moment when I ever thought 'oooh, this would be cool!'  Let alone doing it more than once?

[ScottishFox]

11 minutes ago, Starlord said:

Apparently, Trudeau has now admitted to more than one instance of 'blackface.'

 

It was 3x the last I checked.

I can't imagine most politicians surviving this.

 

Or maybe this will start unraveling cancel-culture and the populace will open up to the idea that people can make stupid mistakes and believe stupid things and then - over time - become better people.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I will be shocked if Trudeau wins another election at this point.  The last couple days have not treated him well.

 

While I am not a Trudeau fan, this latest "controversy" is hardly what he should fail for.  Is anyone who ever dressed in drag an unforgiveable sexist pig too?

 

But a lot of commentators are bringing up the issues I consider deal-breakers for Mr. Trudeau and anyone supporting him. 

 

The SNC-Lavalin affair (no, it is NOT OK to look the other way for criminal activity because they are a big business, or because the Quebec pension plan has a lot of bucks invested in that corporation);

 

The Jody Wilson Raybould debacle which sprang from it (yup...way to support your female and indigiinous MP's...or just your MPs doing their jobs properly) which also cost the Trudeau Liberals Jane Philpott ( I have more respect for those two ladies than I will ever have for any Liberal MP who remained silent and remained in caucus - I hope they are re-elected in a landslide for representing Canadians, including their constituents, instead of their "boss");

 

the ongoing refusal to allow access to permit a thorough investigation of the issues - yes, your actions are legal - are they appropriate displays of integrity and leadership? - a lot of reprehensible things are legal;

 

spending my taxpayer money criss-crossing the country to make "spending announcements" that were clear campaigning before calling the election sits poorly with me as well (and just how much carbon did that pump out, Mr. "climate change must be addressed at all costs"?).

 

"Oh, he's a different person now".  Yeah, well, at least he left off the makeup in 2018...https://globalnews.ca/news/4037948/trudeau-family-criticized-for-indian-outfits/ but that gaffe was as a representative of Canadian leadership, not at a private costume party with friends and/or co-workers.

 

ASIDE:  This was also really not what I thought all those comments on our Prime Minister being a Disney Prince were suggesting

 

13 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

It really depends on how the general public reacts to the incidents, and Trudeau's mea culpa. I've been watching man-on-the-street interviews to try to glimpse the tone of people's reactions, and it's a pretty wide spread. I've seen white people who expressed being offended at his actions and are considering changing their vote, even supporting Trudeau's resignation. And I've seen people of color saying yes, it was a mistake, but it was long ago, and Trudeau repudiated and apologized for his actions, so we should move on. And everything in between.

 

Only way to tell if the images may have made a lasting impact, is on election day.

 

Even then, we will never really know what causes the average voter to cast a ballot one way over another.

 

Yes, he "apologized" (I find his apologies do not ring with sincerity, in this or any other arena).  He had no hesitation vilifying past leaders for behaving like "people of those times" did, and apologizing on their behalf.  I don't see his own actions as leading by example.

[Lord Liaden]

Not to excuse Canada's leader, but I can't help realizing how all of this would scarcely raise an eyebrow in the United States today. The comparison really drives home to me how much the proper functioning of our political, legal and social institutions depends on their participants having a working conscience and a sense of shame.

[TrickstaPriest]

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Or maybe this will start unraveling cancel-culture and the populace will open up to the idea that people can make stupid mistakes and believe stupid things and then - over time - become better people.

 

That depends if people actually believe that person has 'become a better person'.

[ScottishFox]

2 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Not to excuse Canada's leader, but I can't help realizing how all of this would scarcely raise an eyebrow in the United States today. The comparison really drives home to me how much the proper functioning of our political, legal and social institutions depends on their participants having a working conscience and a sense of shame.

 

I think most - if not all - politicians in America that were caught in 3 situations wearing blackface at the ages Trudeau did would see their career go down in flames.  Like - instant destruction. 

 

Cancel culture is all the rage here in America though perhaps the recent Dave Chappelle routine on Netflix represents the turning of the tide.

 

 

[Cassandra]

35 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

That depends if people actually believe that person has 'become a better person'.

 

Better person is a relative thing.

[TrickstaPriest]

41 minutes ago, Cassandra said:

 

Better person is a relative thing.

Very true...

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Not to excuse Canada's leader, but I can't help realizing how all of this would scarcely raise an eyebrow in the United States today. The comparison really drives home to me how much the proper functioning of our political, legal and social institutions depends on their participants having a working conscience and a sense of shame.

 

What is "all of this"?  To me, the blackface/brownface is not a huge issue, but that one is not for me (a white guy) to assess.  At the same time...is every buy who ever dressed in drag an irredeemable sexist pig who should be banished to Misogynist Island?

 

If "all of this' also includes his conduct in the SNC Lavalin affair (including his treatment of his Attorney General, his insipid non-apologies and his obstruction of any form of inquiry intended to get the real facts to the public, after running on a platform of greater freedom for MPs and transparency in government); his pressure to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer take an active role in costing election promises followed by a refusal to have his own promises costed publicly, and his refusal to address Quebec's clearly ethnically motivated banning of religious attire by civil servants, to mention just a few, then it should carry much more significant consequences than some raised eyebrows.

 

Not that I am thrilled that the real demonstration of honest politics is the abandonment of all pretense that we would vote on any basis beyond "who will give me the biggest, fastest tax break and/or free services", and that's on all the parties, and really on all of us for so convincingly demonstrating it in past elections.

 

7 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

That depends if people actually believe that person has 'become a better person'.

 

Well, let's see how he improved by early 2018, as the PM...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/asia/extremist-scandal-trudeau-india-visit-intl/index.html

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4037948/trudeau-family-criticized-for-indian-outfits/

 

See the improvement?

[TrickstaPriest]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Well, let's see how he improved by early 2018, as the PM...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/asia/extremist-scandal-trudeau-india-visit-intl/index.html

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4037948/trudeau-family-criticized-for-indian-outfits/

 

See the improvement?

 

Hah.  Glad to know politics in Canada has(n't) improved.

[Lord Liaden]

14 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If "all of this' also includes his conduct in the SNC Lavalin affair (including his treatment of his Attorney General, his insipid non-apologies and his obstruction of any form of inquiry intended to get the real facts to the public, after running on a platform of greater freedom for MPs and transparency in government); his pressure to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer take an active role in costing election promises followed by a refusal to have his own promises costed publicly, and his refusal to address Quebec's clearly ethnically motivated banning of religious attire by civil servants, to mention just a few, then it should carry much more significant consequences than some raised eyebrows.

 

 

Yes, "all of this" should include all those things. And I stand by my statement. Donald Trump has done as much and more, but he brushes all of it off and ignores or blusters and bullies his way through those who criticize him about it. We know he won't apologize for or try to change any of his actions or behavior, because he clearly has no shame or conscience. Neither Trump nor Trudeau will choose to step down because of their conduct; and if our other elected officials are unwilling to take an ethical stand due to their self-interest, neither leader can be forced out, short of being voted out. And even that isn't guaranteed, because principle doesn't carry as much weight to a voting public grown understandably cynical.

 

Like I said, all the rules and laws in the world mean nothing if the people entrusted with upholding them lack conscience and shame.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Yes, "all of this" should include all those things. And I stand by my statement. Donald Trump has done as much and more, but he brushes all of it off and ignores or blusters and bullies his way through those who criticize him about it. We know he won't apologize for or try to change any of his actions or behavior, because he clearly has no shame or conscience. Neither Trump nor Trudeau will choose to step down because of their conduct; and if our other elected officials are unwilling to take an ethical stand due to their self-interest, neither leader can be forced out, short of being voted out. And even that isn't guaranteed, because principle doesn't carry as much weight to a voting public grown understandably cynical.

 

Like I said, all the rules and laws in the world mean nothing if the people entrusted with upholding them lack conscience and shame.

 

Emphasis added.  As I watched these events unfold, I started to question whether I retained any right to criticize the US political situation.

 

If you can only justify Justin Trudeau's behaviour by comparing it to Donald Trump's behaviour, I submit that this demonstrates only that the behaviour of neither one can be justified. 

 

Trudeau campaigned, back in 2015, on a platform of open, transparent government that was a complete change from what had gone before.  Maybe we got a change, but  the implied promise was a change for the better - honesty and integrity.  That is definitely not the change we got.  We definitely did not get openness or transparency. 

 

I do not believe he won the election on a promise to be "no worse than Donald Trump", even the Donald Trump we had seen to that point.

 

You are 100% correct that the electorate is ultimately responsible. 

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”  (attributed to Winston Churchill).

Perhaps more appropriate as we head to the polls, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."