Castanet

Jflem1983 wrote:The Liberal win was stunning. The whole thing was decided before it hit Ontario.
By the time i voted it was meaningless.

Maybe they should start the count at the same time so you feel better

Joking

The CBC hated Harper. There are a lot of tvs in this country tuned to CBC newsworld 24 / 7. Many hotel lobbies etc. I think the CBC has some credit to Treudeaus huge win

jimmy4321 wrote: That palyfull BS is the garbage people hate and it sticks, the last few years of the Con Gov they took it to an all new level.

It is going to take a hell of a lot more than "I hate his hair" to convince the majority of Canadians to trust the Conservatives again. It will be interesting (and telling) to see what approach Andy and his team take from the start of the next campaign.

CBC still sticks it to him, and don't mind getting that deer in the headlights moment. They probably don't run with it as long a other news sources though.
It's a push pull thing that got him there, just look back to Harpers last term, there's a lot of hand in face moments for even his supporters.

jimmy4321 wrote:CBC still sticks it to him, and don't mind getting that deer in the headlights moment. They probably don't run with it as long a other news sources though.
It's a push pull thing that got him there, just look back to Harpers last term, there's a lot of hand in face moments for even his supporters.

That Deer in the headlights, that's easy. He had trouble spitting out what his Family Holiday would be like this year. Maybe was concerned they might pose a question about last year.... duh, um da,da,hum.

Ka-El wrote:It is going to take a hell of a lot more than "I hate his hair" to convince the majority of Canadians to trust the Conservatives again. It will be interesting (and telling) to see what approach Andy and his team take from the start of the next campaign.

Biggest danger is a big lead, many may not even bother to vote lol
Assume nothing i guess.

jimmy4321 wrote: Biggest danger is a big lead, many may not even bother to vote lol
Assume nothing i guess.

I don’t think the Conservatives will have any problem motivating their partisan supporters to get out and vote next election (“We have to git rid of that hair!”). It is us swing voters that matter, and the biggest danger facing the Conservatives is thinking the electorate at large is going to be as incensed over Trudeau’s hairstyle as they are. I credit Rona Ambrose for acknowledging their party needed to take a hard look inward. I’m disappointed it never went any further than that, and at this point the Conservatives have nothing better to offer than the same old, same old. I don’t think that will be enough. But you’re right – assume nothing. We only need to look south to see what disastrous outcomes are possible with voter apathy.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
- John Stuart Mill

Ken7 wrote:Well you asked. It did not teach me anything new about JT. Even when he was running in the election, I did some searching, I listened and in the end I concluded he is not someone I personally felt was able to run our Country.

There should be a apprentice program for such a position. I always ask those who feel he was the right choice, would you put someone with his credentials in charge of your Billion dollar business?

IF you are honest with yourself, what does he truly offer for the position he holds? A sir name., does not cut it for me.


As for what I think you need to know , I actually was not the author...hope one day you see threw him.

I agree, an apprenticeship program should be completed before qualifying for the top position in the PMO, and I'm not aware of any qualifications JT has over and above stated in the article you posted.
Alas, the British Parliamentary system we employ in Canada is open to all Canadians and doesn't support an apprenticeship program. So we end up with candidates such as Stephen Harper and JT who some voters may deem unqualified due to lack of experience.

My point was regarding the obvious bias oozing from the authors opinion piece.

My take on JT is that for an inexperienced leader I'm surprisingly satisfied with the way he promotes Canadian values to the world, and by the way he is received on the world stage.
I believe there is a long term benefit to what he is achieving in that arena.

I'm not comfortable with his "spend our way to prosperity" policies, but I don't see that policy being a whole lot different than the right policies of "cut all the taxes (increase profits) for big business's and they're owners" and everything will trickle down to rest of us. It just doesn't seem to have had he desired affect in my experience.

Would you put Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in charge of your billion dollar business in 1990?

I think this kind of points out where we have a real problem with our politics. One could use the same moniker for Sheer, May or Singh.

We have 4 party leaders with absolutely no real world experience. Not a "doer" among them. No real connection to world that most of us live in. Not a one with management experience or education/training.

This is what happens when our system is reduced to a "popularity contest" dominated by who has the sharpest tongue and who is the best manipulator.

We see that in many situations where we are promised things by politicians, and then they either don't know how to deliver, never knew how to deliver, or never intended on delivering. They see an issue that people want dealt with, or even that a small group want dealt with, and they gin up some bumper sticker notion that they will deal with it just to troll for votes, and then when in power pfft... nothing useful happens.

It is symptomatic of politicians whose real intent is just to get elected, and re-elected, and make a career out of politics. We see a good microcosm of that in the current BC government, where the bulk of the cabinet only has a "political science" degree as educational background, and only one has management experience - running a small organic vineyard. Throw in a couple of lawyers. When you look at it, most have been nothing but observers and career pols all their lives.

Part of that is us as voters. We (as a generalization) sweat the small stuff (and in many cases form opinions on that based on social media, not real research or fact finding). We don't really do the work as voters to be able to suss out the difference between political nonsense and good policy, and so we vote based on fads and a popularity contest tken down to schoolyard level.

We need to demand better. The choice between Trudeau, Sheer, May and Singh is not stark. IF any of us were a business manager looking to hire for the position of Prime Minister, would we not most likely have thrown their resumes on the reject pile? The "short list" is pretty poor. I sincerely doubt that any of them would get a sniff if they applied for the CEO position of a small to medium company.

How do we demand better? For starters we need to drop the partisan jerseys. Just because someone says they are "x" party, doesn't make them a good candidate. Just because "x" party says they are for "y" - are they really? Can they put that into practice? Do they have the expertise? Are they prepared to do the work? (Yes, implementing policy is hard work!)

Too often we vote for "talk the talk" and not "walk the walk".

We need more people in Government like Jane Philpott, not more people in government like the "leaders" of our national parties.

Cons launched attack ads against Trudeau talking about his hair, his age, his selfies, his past as a teacher. They thought these were things that mattered to Canadians and so they attacked him for it. They lost badly and couldn’t figure it out.

So they elected a young selfie taking former waiter with a full head of hair to lead the Conservatives.

They really just don’t get it.

Omnitheo wrote:Cons launched attack ads against Trudeau talking about his hair, his age, his selfies, his past as a teacher. They thought these were things that mattered to Canadians and so they attacked him for it. They lost badly and couldn’t figure it out.

So they elected a young selfie taking former waiter with a full head of hair to lead the Conservatives.

They really just don’t get it.

The Cons saw 45yr old Trudeau, hair and drama and raised the Libs a 38 yr old Scheer, a gentle voice & dimples :)

jimmy4321 wrote:

Omnitheo wrote:Cons launched attack ads against Trudeau talking about his hair, his age, his selfies, his past as a teacher. They thought these were things that mattered to Canadians and so they attacked him for it. They lost badly and couldn’t figure it out.

So they elected a young selfie taking former waiter with a full head of hair to lead the Conservatives.

They really just don’t get it.

The Cons saw 45yr old Trudeau, hair and drama and raised the Libs a 38 yr old Scheer, a gentle voice & dimples :)

Yes, the Cons did. But how does that serve Canada? It only serves the party partisan purpose. Where are the "good guys" like Jim Flaherty, Joe Clark, Lester Pearson, Tommy Douglas, Preston Manning, or the competent ones like Paul Martin? Sacrificed at the altar of political chicanery. Like their brand of political philosophy or not, those people stood for something.

The only one among the leaders we have today that stands for "something" seems to be May, but....it is a fringe "something". None of the current leaders seems to have what it takes to really advance the country and its interests. They all seem to be far too pliable in their thinking. One thing one always knew about Harper, his thinking wasn't "pliable" (but was a bit narrow).

IF we step back and look at things realistically, which of the current lot of leaders would take on the real constitutional challenges we have? Even the fairly straightforward one of fixing the senate? Which of them would have the courage to take on the charter issues and fix the imbalance? There is far too much "political calculation" and not enough "do what the country needs".

Justin Trudeau" by Garry Harrison
How long do you think, in this day and age, will the Western Provinces remain willing to accept the dictates of a Quebec-controlled government hostile to the very basis of its entire economy?

Don't go holding your breath Garry. While the old story about being able to boil frogs is apocryphal, the jury is still out on Western Canadians.

Boda wrote:
Would you put Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in charge of your billion dollar business in 1990?

I can not answer that as I did not know them then or I did not hear them presenting their thoughts on any of their projects.

As for Trudeau, if you can not see through his name sake, his hair, then you and I have nothing in common and are not going to be able to discuss anything seriously.

It is like people who do not read the news or watch it, they live in their own little world. My past experiences with people in politics who are school teachers they tend to live in their own little world and believe they are more intelligent then others. I've seen this many times and this is just another example, he is not capable of being a PM, he should go back to school and then tech drama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNeXlJW70KQ

Steve in 1985, to answer your question there is no comparison between Trudeau speaking and Jobs. He is without a doubt extremely intelligent, and it is obvious. Sadly people like him as I've previously stated are too successful to play with politics at any level.