Merged: Canadian politics: the Justin Trudeau years

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Civet

Seems like a stupid way to generate a scandal. If I ever get elected to public office, I promise that all of my scandals will involve weird sex, cocaine or truly vast amounts of money.

Rob Ford, is that you?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a condition is sexist. People? Sure. That I can see. One person can hold a sexist attitude towards another. But a condition?

I think the issue is that the sexist attitude contributes to the condition of poverty. The poverty itself may not be sexist, but there may be a correlation between being female and being in poverty (especially in other parts of the world.)

I can see that as being an issue, in places where women are treated as second class citizens (e.g. throughout much of the Muslim world.) The problem is, addressing the issue might mean challenging the validity of other cultures, something that is often viewed as bad by the left wing.

[Joey McGee]

Wow I found more dirt inside of my mouse when I cleaned it with isopropanol this morning, *********** lame dude.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think the issue is that the sexist attitude contributes to the condition of poverty.

FALSE IT IS THE MAIN DRIVER LOOK AT THE HITCH VIDEO AND RETRY YOUR ATTEMPT AT LIFE

[Civet]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Rob Ford, is that you?

I miss Rob. For one brief, shining moment he gave us a way of feeling superior to our neighbors to the north. He made politics fun again. Wrong fun, but still.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think the issue is that the sexist attitude contributes to the condition of poverty. The poverty itself may not be sexist, but there may be a correlation between being female and being in poverty (especially in other parts of the world.)

General reply:

(1) Citation needed (for anyone suggesting the idea that 'sexist attitudes' [definition needed] contributes to poverty).
(2) Correlation is not causation.
(3) The news articles citing the statements clearly state, "poverty is sexist". No qualifications provided by the speakers quoted (apparently).

As evidence for my claim that the word 'sexist' has been overused to the point of ridiculousness, here follows a list of just some of the things which have been declared 'sexist' within the past few years:

• the way men sit
• air conditioning
• being professional in the workplace
• using the word 'guys' in mixed company
• the phrase 'mine shaft'
• the word 'too'
• the voices of digital assistants
• the names of craft beers
• the eggplant emoji
• grilling
• ski slopes
• a four-year-old
• the dictionary
• the constellations
• biology

And now, of course, poverty.

If everything is sexist, then nothing is.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I can see that as being an issue, in places where women are treated as second class citizens (e.g. throughout much of the Muslim world.)

I would suggest the situation for many men in those same parts of the world isn't particularly great either. It seems to me to be a case of an argument over how standing calf-deep in a river of crap is so much worse than standing ankle-deep in a river of crap. Such an argument misses the point. The problem is not how deep one is standing in a river of crap—the problem is the river of crap. Fix that, and everyone benefits.

But such a human-focused approach, it would appear, is not identity politics-centered enough for the identity politics crusaders.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

General reply:

(1) Citation needed (for anyone suggesting the idea that 'sexist attitudes' [definition needed] contributes to poverty).
(2) Correlation is not causation.
(3) The news articles citing the statements clearly state, "poverty is sexist". No qualifications provided by the speakers quoted (apparently).

As evidence for my claim that the word 'sexist' has been overused to the point of ridiculousness, here follows a list of just some of the things which have been declared 'sexist' within the past few years:

• the way men sit
• air conditioning
• being professional in the workplace
• using the word 'guys' in mixed company
• the phrase 'mine shaft'
• the word 'too'
• the voices of digital assistants
• the names of craft beers
• the eggplant emoji
• grilling
• ski slopes
• a four-year-old
• the dictionary
• the constellations
• biology

And now, of course, poverty.

If everything is sexist, then nothing is.





I would suggest the situation for many men in those same parts of the world isn't particularly great either. It seems to me to be a case of an argument over how standing calf-deep in a river of crap is so much worse than standing ankle-deep in a river of crap. Such an argument misses the point. The problem is not how deep one is standing in a river of crap—the problem is the river of crap. Fix that, and everyone benefits.

But such a human-focused approach, it would appear, is not identity politics-centered enough for the identity politics crusaders.

But it's the Current Year! Men need to have everything taken away from them to institute equality, you holocaust enabler! Disagreeing with this is tone policing!

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

But it's the Current Year! Men need to have everything taken away from them to institute equality, you holocaust enabler! Disagreeing with this is tone policing!

As Professor Farnsworth said, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[Segnosaur]

The most important court case of the decade (perhaps even since confederation) is starting in B.C.

A doctor has launched a challenge to the Canada Health act, in an attempt to allow private health care in areas traditionally covered by our public system. (The doctor is not pushing for an all-private system like the U.S. but a hybrid mixed public/private system, like almost every other western country in the world has.) The argument is that long waiting lines for health service violate the parts of the constitution dealing with "security of the person". Various groups (including the federal government) are in opposition.

Even if he wins the case, it probably won't have an immediate effect, since its likely the case will eventually wind up getting appealed, and end up with the supreme court.

A similar case occurred a few years ago regarding Quebec's health care (which ended up allowing private health care in Quebec), but that ruling applied only in Quebec. This one could affect all of Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/gr...n-in-b-c-court

I certainly hope he wins the case. Despite the arrogance of many Canadians regarding our health care (Look at how great our healthcare is! Yah Canada!) in reality it is not that great. (In a recent study of 11 countries by the commonwealth fund, Canada ranked 10th in health care. Only the U.S. was last. The countries at the top of the rankings usually had some sort of mix of private/public health care. Those in opposition seem to be engaging in standard hysterics (OMG! You're going to privatize everything! You'll destroy Canada's health care!), while never really explaining how, if other countries can mix public and private systems, why can't Canada?

To be honest, I was rather disappointed in previous Conservative governments in their failure to address the issue.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ.../mirror-mirror

It will be interesting to see what happens if the case makes its way to the supreme court and the Liberals are still in power. After all, that would be a rather bitter pill to swallow for the government, especially one that is on the center-left.

[Segnosaur]

Latest Liberal scandal... moving expenses..

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...nses-1.3771470
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government spent an estimated $1.1 million to move 49 ministerial aides to Ottawa, but how more than half of that amount was spent is a mystery.
...
While 10 ministerial offices didn't spend a cent to relocate any political staff to Ottawa, the Prime Minister's Office spent an estimated $220,564 to move five people to the capital, with one person reimbursed $126,669 for a move.

A few notes:
- Since that time, various people involve have apologized/offered to pay back expenses
- The Liberal response was to point out how they were "following rules set up by previous governments"
- I remember hearing a comparison with the previous Harper government, where there was an unwritten rule capping expenses at (I think) $20,000, and the highest moving expenses were actually around $5,000

In the grand scheme of things, its a pretty small amount, especially when dealing with a federal budget of $billions. But hey, the Conservatives got burned over Patric Duffy, so only fair that the liberals get the same treatment.

[Civet]

You mean Mike Duffy, right? I'd consider this to be another one of those really stupid scandals where politicians get a lot of bad press over bad choices that really didn't cost that much in financial terms. Shows poor judgement. The Duffy thing was the same. Makes for fun question periods, though.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I remember hearing a comparison with the previous Harper government, where there was an unwritten rule capping expenses at (I think) $20,000, and the highest moving expenses were actually around $5,000

The highest moving expenses for a Harper staffer was just over $93K for a single move. But, certainly overall the Trudeau government has brought this nonsense to a new level.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Quote:

I remember hearing a comparison with the previous Harper government, where there was an unwritten rule capping expenses at (I think) $20,000, and the highest moving expenses were actually around $5,000

The highest moving expenses for a Harper staffer was just over $93K for a single move. But, certainly overall the Trudeau government has brought this nonsense to a new level.

You are right... the Harper government did have some rather expensive movies.

My mistake... I was listing to a source that I thought was valid (without doing a proper follow up), and was relying a bit on memory.

[Segnosaur]

Looks like Canada is going to be buying the F18 Super Hornet as an "interim measure".

From: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...aft-is-unknown
The Canadian government intends to purchase 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets to deal with what it says is a gap in the country’s defence capabilities. Liberal Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan made the announcement Tuesday in Ottawa, calling the purchase an “interim measure.” He noted that a competition for a new fighter jet would be held later in the government’s mandate... Procurement Minister Judy Foote declined to outline what the proposed purchase would cost taxpayers.

Ok, lets look at some of the issues here:

First of all, the claim that there is a "capability gap" is a lie... While our CF18s do need replacement, after the last set of upgrades they are still expected to last for several more years at least.

Secondly, the government is labeling this an "interim measure". But here's the problem with that... in any future competition, the F35 will be at a disadvantage, even if its a superior plane, because the Liberals can always rig the competition by saying they don't want a "mixed fleet" of F18s/F35s. (And even if they don't rig the competition, if the F35 won we'd still be stuck with a mixed fleet, which will drive up costs.)

Lastly, the hypocrisy is amazing.... The Liberals spent a considerable amount of time condemning the Conservatives over the F35, with claims that there was "no competition and cost is unknown". Now, the Liberals are planning on buying a plane with no competition, and with costs that are unknown.

[Border Reiver]

And militarily we need almost everything of the non-sexy variety:

Supply ships, otherwise our navy is tied to ports;
Medium and heavy trucks, because once we get there we need to keep supplied;
Man-portable radios, it's good to talk;
Light helicopters, that can carry weapons because they were designed to, not because MCpl McGuyver can improvise a rig for the GPigs;
Decent frickin' boots; and
Maybe enough uniforms so that we're not wearing 4 different patterns of combats.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Now, the Liberals are planning on buying a plane with no competition, and with costs that are unknown.

Oh come on, I'll grant you the "no competition" part, but are you seriously arguing that a plane that has been flying for almost 20 years now has "unknown costs"?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

And militarily we need almost everything of the non-sexy variety:

Supply ships, otherwise our navy is tied to ports;

I also seem to remember that we're missing tankers as well.

Quote:

Medium and heavy trucks, because once we get there we need to keep supplied;

Didn't you tell us before that the conservatives bought new trucks, but they were not reliable enough?

The frustrating thing is that the Liberals are probably going to wait until after their defense review to look at buying new equipent. But a lot of stuff will be needed regardless of what the review says.

So, the liberals avoid spending money on the military for a few years. Then after their defense review (and after several years of deficit) claim "We now need to worry about the budget. No more money".

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Oh come on, I'll grant you the "no competition" part, but are you seriously arguing that a plane that has been flying for almost 20 years now has "unknown costs"?

First of all, buying a fighter jet is not like running down to the local auto dealership and buying a car right off the lot. The initial cost of the plane can be mired in details... the model (E or F), what base options we want (regular planes or growlers), what additional modifications Canada will want made, etc.. And, the costs of any jets are going to depend on the rate of production... Boeing may want to slow down building the planes in order to keep the production lines open longer, which will increase costs.

We may have an approximate idea of the initial purchase price, but we can't say for sure until we actually have a negotiated deal with Boeing.

Secondly, even once we know the initial cost, we will have no idea what the long term cost will be. The only military that's been using the Super Hornet long-term is the U.S. navy, but operating planes off of carriers provides a different set of challenges compared to operating a land-based fleet. Also, those long-term costs will be highly dependent on factors outside of our control (for example, how many other countries also purchase the F18E/F. If no other country buys them, we may end up with an orphan plane in the future, which will drive up costs.)

The article itself had the following line: Procurement Minister Judy Foote said the government has a rough idea of how much the Super Hornets will cost but declined to release that number.

So even if the government itself knows approximately how much it will cost, its not telling taxpayers. (Good thing the Liberal government promised to be more open. Hey, didn't the conservatives get hit with a "contempt" charge for not releasing information about the cost of airplane purchases?)

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I also seem to remember that we're missing tankers as well.

The ships like the Protecteur were both - capable of both refuelling and resupply.

Quote:

Didn't you tell us before that the conservatives bought new trucks, but they were not reliable enough?[

I did. The MSVS is not intended for operational service (ie. not to be sent to foreign lands where people may be trying to kill us) as it is essentially a civilian pattern vehicle with an olive drab paint job and a 24v electrical system. They work fine here in Canada where there is ready access to repair facilities and no one is shooting at us.

The 5 and 10 ton trucks that are currently in the system are 20-25 years old, but are fairly easily repaired in the field and have the capability of having some protection for the cab.

Quote:

The frustrating thing is that the Liberals are probably going to wait until after their defense review to look at buying new equipent. But a lot of stuff will be needed regardless of what the review says.

So, the liberals avoid spending money on the military for a few years. Then after their defense review (and after several years of deficit) claim "We now need to worry about the budget. No more money".

Agreed. The only time spending money on the military gets votes is in large scale wars - at practically any other time Defence is seen as a drain on the Treasury that might be better spent on services or infrastructure that has a direct impact on voters right now. It's been that way since 1870 (when most of the British garrisons left and we absolutely had to create a permanent force) and I really don't see it changing. It's not the Canadian way of war.

[Delvo]

They've said this before. At first I even thought Segnosaur had just found a months-old article. (But I thought they'd backed off from it between then and now.)

The "interim" part is especially odd. I suppose they're playing on years-old tales of how the F-35 is so delayed it will never arrive, but if they'd order some now, they'd get them just about as soon as they could get F-18Es, Fs, or Gs anyway. So this is an "interim" between what and what else?

Originally Posted by Horatius

Oh come on, I'll grant you the "no competition" part, but are you seriously arguing that a plane that has been flying for almost 20 years now has "unknown costs"?

There are ways to try to estimate cost. With a lower quantity than were made of the same type of plane before, and the latest updates that Boeing has been pitching, it will definitely be much more expensive than the usual quoted prices, which are based on the same type's original production run ages ago. It would even exceed the cost of the "much too expensive, budget-draining" F-35, even if it were just one type versus another, and it gets worse if you compare a split force with a single-type force.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Delvo

They've said this before. At first I even thought Segnosaur had just found a months-old article. (But I thought they'd backed off from it between then and now.)

Nope, its all brand new. (The issue was brought up months ago, and was even discussed here in this thread. At the time I suggested it was a "trial balloon", but no, it looks like the government is foolish enough to go ahead with it.

Quote:

The "interim" part is especially odd. I suppose they're playing on years-old tales of how the F-35 is so delayed it will never arrive, but if they'd order some now, they'd get them just about as soon as they could get F-18Es, Fs, or Gs anyway. So this is an "interim" between what and what else?

Thought it was rather clear from the article... the "interim" is the time period between now and when the government actually runs the competition to replace the fighters. (Which of course will be delayed because the government wants to have some sort of defense analysis/report.) Basically, its a problem of the Liberal's own creation.

Calling it 'interim' isn't really odd at all... its the Liberal's attempt to place the tiniest fig-leaf of respectability over their idiotic decision. They criticized the conservatives over their sole-source/non-competition purchase of the F35, and to get around the same issue, they just claim "we're not really picking a plane without a competition... its just a temporary measure." Its all political B.S. And I recognized it coming from long before the election.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Agreed. The only time spending money on the military gets votes is in large scale wars - at practically any other time Defence is seen as a drain on the Treasury that might be better spent on services or infrastructure that has a direct impact on voters right now.

Well, for better or worse the conservatives at least made an attempt when first elected (I think military spending went up for a short period of time. They even purchased C17s), before things fell apart.

I wonder what caused them to pull back on military commitments... Did the F35 experience scare them away from all military purchases? Or did the recession cause them to restrict funding? Or was it just political (an attempt to pander to potential voters with an anti-military attitude.)

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well, for better or worse the conservatives at least made an attempt when first elected (I think military spending went up for a short period of time. They even purchased C17s), before things fell apart.

I wonder what caused them to pull back on military commitments... Did the F35 experience scare them away from all military purchases? Or did the recession cause them to restrict funding? Or was it just political (an attempt to pander to potential voters with an anti-military attitude.)

Canada, since Confederation and before, has had a "Meh" attitude to its military. Compared to the most serious threat to our physical security, we've always had far to much territory to be defended by far too few people. And this has lead to the very realistic assessment that the Canadian military could not win a serious war within Canada against our most likely foe (the United States), and at best could be a serious nuisance to an invader, maybe holding out until Britain comes to bail us out. So, since we can't win, there's no point in spending all that money on stuff that can't be properly used. So the military gets the least amount of equipment that the government can get away with.

Our experience in the Boer War led the military genius that was Sam Hughes to believe that the Canadian Militia, called out from their farms, factory benches and offices could hold off an invader with long range precision marksmanship. The government loved it - rifle bullets are cheap and bolt action rifles aren't terribly hard or expensive for part time soldiers to maintain. This lead to us adopting an awesome target rifle for the army - the Ross rifle - which proved to be less than awesome when the soldiers had to move and shoot rather than shooting from the 600 yard point on the range and shooting bullseyes. Then came the Great War.

Our take away from WWI was that Canada could call up its army from nothing, bash it together and it would be awesome. Ignoring that it took over 2 years to train up to the point of being competent and really was only awesome because we were still practically at full strength units when we became fully engaged while every other combatant was using understrength units (we did realize that we needed to keep the front line units at full strength rather than get more, but less effective units in the field). Oh, and the horrors of the war (about 10% of the total Canadian population served in WWI, so actual knowledge of what was what was not hard to get) led us to believe that it would be better to not have to fight wars, oh, and we really need to save money now, so lets pare that Defence budget back to pre-war levels really fast.

The interwar years were tough in the Canadian economy and military spending was at the bottom of what the government was prepared to spend money on - what with the immediate post-war recession and then the Depression, who can justify toys for the generals? Besides, Canada was now in a position where the US was not being considered as the imminent threat and there were these two rather large bodies of water between us and those buffoonish seeming Europeans and the Japanese so we'd have time to get the militia ready if something happened....

Then something happened.

After WWII we kept a larger military around for a while, but Canada came to realize that peacetime militaries are expensive, so costs get cut because the immediate threat to the Canadian homeland isn't there.

And here we are. Back at the "Let's see how little we can get away with spending while making it look good" stage of defence spending.

[Segnosaur]

Related to the 'interim' purchase of the F18:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...s-to-the-grave
The Liberal government has brought in a gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program, now underway, to replace the country’s fighter jets... Defence industry executives and retired public servants say they have never seen such secrecy surrounding an equipment program....Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister for materiel at the DND, said he has never heard of such agreements.

So, the conservative government got criticized for not being forthcoming with data surrounding the F35. They got criticized for being secretive in general. And now the Liberals (after promising a more open government) seem to be even more secretive than the conservatives were.

[Segnosaur]

Latest controversy over Trudeau: Upon Castro's death, Trudeau released the following statement:

Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante. I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba. On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.

Right now, many people (both inside Canada and outside) are criticizing the statement for whitewashing Castro... although he said Castro was "controversial", he seemed to be ignoring the fact that he was a dictator, or some of his human rights abuses, and instead had statements like his "love for the Cuban people".

Criticism has come largely from the conservatives, although he's also gotten some criticism from the Americans (largely from Republicans).

Now, there is a twitter hashtag #trudeaueulogies, where people are basically posting the same type of response Trudeau gave to other people:

Today we mourn the loss of Norman Bates, a family man who was truly defined by his devotion to his mother. #trudeaueulogies

#trudeaueulogies “Today we say goodbye to Mr. Mussolini, the former Italian prime minister best known for his competent train-management.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...rudeaueulogies

[TriangleMan]

Canada's relations with Cuba have been generally positive for decades. The Trudeau family were close to Castro and IIRC even took private vacations to Cuba and met up with him. I recall Castro took the time to personally attend Pierre's funeral, famously sitting next to Jimmy Carter.

Justin's message was what I generally expected.

As for US Republicans, what message gets sent to Saudi Arabia whenever one of their Kings passes away? I don't recall the White House having harsh words to say about King Fahd when he passed away in 2005.

[Joey McGee]

The statement was poorly worded. Obama started a good thing with Cuba, some people don't know that the Americans and the Cubans were meeting on Canadian soil to make that happen. Canada's good relationship with Cuba is going to be important in the future.

It seems like it was aimed at the people of Cuba for such reasons, but it certainly could have been said more tastefully when considering that most Canadians wouldn't have wrote what he did.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

As for US Republicans, what message gets sent to Saudi Arabia whenever one of their Kings passes away? I don't recall the White House having harsh words to say about King Fahd when he passed away in 2005.

Bush's 2005 statement:
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...0050801-1.html

Obama's 2015 statement:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...-bin-abdulaziz

Not sure why you chose to make this just about Republicans, since the treatment is pretty much the same for both parties.

[TriangleMan]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Not sure why you chose to make this just about Republicans, since the treatment is pretty much the same for both parties.

Because Segnosaur noted that US criticism of Justin's statement was "largely from Republicans" so I figured the point would be better made if I chose a Bush-era example instead of an Obama example.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Because Segnosaur noted that US criticism of Justin's statement was "largely from Republicans" so I figured the point would be better made if I chose a Bush-era example instead of an Obama example.

Segnosaur was partisan so you decided to be partisan. Got it.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Canada's relations with Cuba have been generally positive for decades. The Trudeau family were close to Castro and IIRC even took private vacations to Cuba and met up with him. I recall Castro took the time to personally attend Pierre's funeral, famously sitting next to Jimmy Carter.

Justin's message was what I generally expected.

As for US Republicans, what message gets sent to Saudi Arabia whenever one of their Kings passes away? I don't recall the White House having harsh words to say about King Fahd when he passed away in 2005.

Shame on you, exposing the USAian double standard on supporting repressive dictatorships.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Quote:

Not sure why you chose to make this just about Republicans, since the treatment is pretty much the same for both parties.

Because Segnosaur noted that US criticism of Justin's statement was "largely from Republicans" so I figured the point would be better made if I chose a Bush-era example instead of an Obama example.

I mentioned the republicans because the anti-Trudeau quotes I've read seem to come from Rubio and Cruz.

Granted, that is a small sample size... perhaps there are more Democrats and independents out there who also take issue with Trudeau's praise of Castro. I just haven't come across them yet.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Canada's relations with Cuba have been generally positive for decades.

Yes they have been. There may be nothing wrong with that. After all, we live in a world with significant political and economic inter-dependencies, and even interactions with countries with less than stellar human rights records can be beneficial overall. The main issue is that Trudeau took his praise of Castro too far. Its possible for 2 countries to maintain relations without the leader of one country positively gushing over the other. Fine, lets keep the Canada-Cuba trade relations intact; just don't look at it as more than just a mutually beneficial political and economic decision.

I think Obama took the right tone... he offered condolences to the family of Castro. He made several references to the people of Cuba (offering "thoughts and prayers") but without saying whether they liked or hated Castro. When he mentioned Castro, he simply said he "altered the course" of people's lives (leaving it open to weather that was for the better or worse). Trudeau should have done something similar.

Even if Trudeau didn't want to start badmouthing Castro, calling him a dictator and breaking out in a chorus of "Ding dong the witch is dead", he didn't have to go so far the other way with his praise of Castro, claiming that everyone knew he had a "love for Cuban people" (questionable, considering he amassed a huge fortune while cracking down on dissidents and homosexuals).

Quote:

The Trudeau family were close to Castro...

Yes they were. There are 2 issues I can see here:
- How exactly should we take that sort of friendship in terms of morality? Castro was pretty brutal to many people. Even if maintaining political and economic relationship with Cuba can be justified, that doesn't necessarily mean that the leaders should be buddy-buddy.

- How much of Trudeau's gushing over Castro is due to those family relationships? Hopefully we expect our leaders to keep their personal and political life separate. It may not be the case here.

Quote:

Justin's message was what I generally expected.

I expected it too. Mostly because Trudeau is a frackin' idiot. We're talking about a guy who, when he was asked what country he admires most, mentioned China (a country that is not a democracy).

There may have been valid reasons to vote Liberal in the last election. (I voted conservative, but even I recognize that some of the Liberal's policies were better than the conservative's.) But the brains of Justin Trudeau should not have been one of the reasons to vote for the Liberals.

Quote:

As for US Republicans, what message gets sent to Saudi Arabia whenever one of their Kings passes away? I don't recall the White House having harsh words to say about King Fahd when he passed away in 2005.

So, because the Americans do something that many consider bad (i.e. whitewash Saudi Arabia's abuses) that we should consider it acceptable when Trudeau does the same thing?

Personally, I'd prefer if we held our leaders to higher standards, not lower.

[TriangleMan]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So, because the Americans do something that many consider bad (i.e. whitewash Saudi Arabia's abuses) that we should consider it acceptable when Trudeau does the same thing?

Personally, I'd prefer if we held our leaders to higher standards, not lower.

Actually I was just pointing out a likely hypocrisy that some Americans are critical of Trudeau for his pro-Castro condolences despite Castro's dictatorship, yet not calling out the White House for doing a similar thing for Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy would be on a case-by-case basis of course, it is possible that someone critical of Trudeau was also critical of the President praising a King of Saudi Arabia, in which case they are not being a hypocrite.

As for holding leaders to a higher standard perhaps this is the beginning of such a phenomena. Leaders would typically give condolences to the passing of an ally, regardless of that ally's actions when they were leader. With the increasing use of social media perhaps people will hold their politicians more accountable for praising dictators and regimes with poor human rights records. Time will tell.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Actually I was just pointing out a likely hypocrisy that some Americans are critical of Trudeau for his pro-Castro condolences despite Castro's dictatorship, yet not calling out the White House for doing a similar thing for Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy would be on a case-by-case basis of course, it is possible that someone critical of Trudeau was also critical of the President praising a King of Saudi Arabia, in which case they are not being a hypocrite.

Keep in mind that there are a couple of key differences between the death of Castro and the death of the King of Saudi Arabia.

- Castro was a little bit more of a trouble maker world wide, sending troops to places like Angola and Boliva. Bad enough to oppress your own people but it probably makes it a bit worse if you're trying to get OTHER people oppressed too. (By contrast, Saudi Arabia is a hell-hole, but it seems to be quite content with making only its own people miserable.)

- Did anyone even know of the death of the Saudi king? I didn't. (His death just means one despot exchanged for another.) On the other hand, Castro is pretty much known throughout the world. I wouldn't have raised a concern over government statements regarding the Saudi king because I didn't even know or care he had died.

[Segnosaur]

More on the purchase of the F18:

From: http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news...97d37621d.html
Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood told the Senate defence committee the Liberals recently changed the number of jet fighters he is required to have ready at any given time for NATO missions and to defend North America.The change was made after he testified in April that he was "comfortable" with the air force's current fleet of CF-18s, Hood said. As a result, the current number of CF-18s available is now insufficient, Hood said, while Canada will also need to buy more new planes than originally expected.


So, to summarize: Previously, the military based our military commitments based on the need to support both NATO and NORAD (with the idea that we probably won't need major deployments for both at the same time.) The Liberals changed the rules regarding the number of planes needed, then claimed "we need more planes".


Also, keep in mind that the Liberals are supposedly conducting a defense review. (I guess its one of the justifications for delaying any major military purchases, like running a proper fighter jet replacement competition.) Yet despite them not having finished their review, they are making changes to our commitment levels.



And from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/figh...ings-1.3866445
The federal lobbyist registry indicates that Chicago-based Boeing, which will provide 18 Super Hornet jets to the air force, had roughly seven times as many official meetings with federal staff since the beginning of the year as rival Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-35. The breadth and scope of the access are also extraordinary.

[Segnosaur]

Latest Canadian/Liberal issue....

During the election, Trudeau promised it would be the last under the "First Past the Post" system. So, the Liberals created a committee to investigate.

A year later, the committee came up with a report recommending a referendum pitting first-past-the-post against Proportional representation. The Liberal minister in charge then criticized the committee for not coming up with a specific system. (The Cynic in me might think she was complaining they didn't recommend ranked ballots since it would have favored the Liberals most strongly.)

So, in response, the Liberals have launched a web site survey, and will be sending out a bunch of postcards to people. The on line survey is being strongly criticized for being exceptionally vague (they don't specifically ask "Do you want proportional representation or First-past-the-post", but they ask about things like "values") or for asking about things that the committee didn't investigate.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...al-reform.html

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So, in response, the Liberals have launched a web site survey, and will be sending out a bunch of postcards to people. The on line survey is being strongly criticized for being exceptionally vague (they don't specifically ask "Do you want proportional representation or First-past-the-post", but they ask about things like "values") or for asking about things that the committee didn't investigate.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...al-reform.html

Not one of the government's better PR moves, that's for sure.

By the way, does anyone here have an opinion on the Phoenix pay system issues? My understanding is the minister was under the impression everything was ready to go, while those out in the field were saying "no way!" Mind you, it wasn't helped by the previous government getting rid of all the people who knew how the system it was intended to replace worked.

[Border Reiver]

Phoenix works fine.

Provided that you don't change jobs, get reclassified, go on leave without pay, come back from leave without pay, accept an acting position.....

[Civet]

I remember the CBC doing lots of reporting on the Phoenix scandal a while back. Impression I got was that the Liberals inherited a lousy situation from Harper's government and weren't on the ball enough to fix or contain it promptly. Not sure how fair that characterization was, but that seemed like the narrative at the time.