Author Topic: Politics in 2017  (Read 51826 times)

MARS, jollyjacktar and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 407,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,865
    • The job.
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #300 on: February 16, 2017, 15:29:40 »
President Trump is focussed on rebuilding his country's economy and security (borders, Armed Forces, law enforcement etcetera). Trudeau is focussed on feminism, climate change windmill-tilting, refugees (in an opposite way to President Trump), and other squishy/frilly things.

The International Association of Firefighters and Paramedics ( 300,000 members as of 2012 ) refused to endorse either candidate in the 2016 US presidential election.
https://www.statter911.com/2016/08/15/firefighters-union-will-not-endorse-trump-clinton/

They did however endorse PM Trudeau in the Canadian election.
https://www.facebook.com/IAFFCanada/photos/a.594193077284163.1073741829.581381598565311/1151703838199748/?type=3&theater
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 15:37:52 by mariomike »
Get on the bus. Take a ride with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lSGnPl-ww

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #301 on: February 16, 2017, 15:32:06 »
This commentary from the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/era-political-shocks-proof-democracy-working-not-crisis/

Quote
The era of political shocks is proof that democracy is working, not that it is in crisis

FRASER NELSON
Fraser Nelson 16 FEBRUARY 2017 • 7:00PM

No one can really know if Marine Le Pen will win this years presidential election CREDIT: JEAN-PAUL PELISSIER/REUTERS
You will, by now, have heard the reasons why Marine Le Pen can never be elected president of France. She may be the most popular candidate, but the electoral rules are designed to stop people like her winning. The first round of voting is about whom the French like: a beauty parade of a dozen or so candidates. But the next round is a choice between the final two, and it’s about whom voters most dislike. So the system is rigged, to stop anyone from the Front National from reaching the Elysée. History teaches that this system never fails.

But history, recently, has been playing up. The Scottish Parliament’s election rules were designed to stop the nationalists winning a majority and calling a referendum. That is not going terribly well. Labour’s leadership rules, demanding that dozens of MPs are needed to nominate a candidate, were designed to stop the far-Left capturing the party. So much for that. The idea of a blogging comedian like Beppe Grillo becoming a serious force in Italian politics once sounded like a punchline in itself. Surprises do happen in politics – but when they happen all the time, it’s time to ask if the assumptions are a little out of date.

A striking feature of the new age of uncertainty is how each shock is preceded by data assuring us that it couldn’t possibly happen. On polling day, Princeton University experts put Donald Trump’s chances at 1 per cent, which was generous compared to the 0.5 per cent that David Cameron was given of winning a majority at the last election. Bookmakers put the chances of Brexit at 20 per cent. Never have elections been so intensively-polled, never have these polls been extrapolated with such sophisticated techniques. And never have the predictions been so spectacularly wrong.
 

Donald Trump during his inaugural address on Capitol Hill
This had a 1 per cent chance of happening, apparently CREDIT: ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES

When scribblers like me are confounded by events, we blame the pollsters. But the polls – always a blunt instrument – have not been so far off. The US polls had Hillary Clinton three percentage points ahead of Donald Trump. She finished two points ahead and it was experts, not pollsters, who had translated all this into Trump having no chance. During the EU referendum campaign, the polls showed a close race, with Leave ahead several times. It was experts, not pollsters, who predicted that voters would stick with the devil they knew. Data are compiled and arranged by humans, who have a weakness for dressing up their gut instinct as objective evidence.

The last few years have proved Karl Popper’s rule of prediction: that history cannot follow any laws because there is no algorithm for human nature. “The fact that we can predict eclipses,” he wrote, “does not provide a valid reason for expecting that we can predict revolutions.” Astronomers can tell exactly where the sun will be, relative to the moon, in a generation’s time because both follow established laws of physics. But politics is a cauldron of human emotion, and there’s no telling what will boil over. Or when.

The CIA’s declaration in August 1978 that “Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation” was not proof that the agency was imbecilic. It was just a reminder that the idea of an Islamic theocracy taking hold of a supposedly modernising country was about as plausible as, well, someone like Donald Trump taking the White House. Trends like the Arab Spring and populism are hard to spot in advance. Which is why most of the great changes in recent years – the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arab Spring or the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – took so many by surprise.

A banner with cut-outs of the three famous Communists on a red flag next to a miniature Kremlin
Marx, Engels, and Lenin: all fans of rigid rules of prediction CREDIT: DARKO VOJINOVIC/AP PHOTO

When my mother-in-law was studying biology at Soviet-run Prague University she was obliged to study Marxist doctrine: the belief that capitalism would end in exploitation, leading to a revolution and then Communism. This was taught not as theory but science: that Marx’s laws of history were as immutable as Newton’s laws. This is the “historicism” that Popper held up to ridicule and it sounds daft now. But it has been making a comeback: the growing faith in the notion of “political science” and the power of data to predict election results and the destiny of nations.

From the mid-Nineties, a few rules did seem to serve as a rough guide. Elections, they suggested, are won from the centre of a Left-Right spectrum and that globalisation was an unmitigated good. But then countries changed – as they tend to do. The uneven recovery from the crash meant the word “modernisation” did not leave everyone with a warm glow, especially those who saw things developing in a way that disadvantaged them and their children. Mass immigration brought demographic change and new concerns. Where will the newcomers live? Isn’t housing scarce enough already? Will they lower wages, or make it harder for school leavers to find a job?

Politicians who rejected these as ugly, fringe concerns created a vacancy for new parties who were less squeamish. This is what has scrambled the whole system: politics has moved, but parties haven’t followed. Many still cling to the mid-Nineties consensus, not realising the views they dismiss as fringe have become mainstream. Three-in-five Americans agree with Trump over bringing back waterboarding; two-in-five want his wall with Mexico. Even on this side of the pond, a recent Chatham House poll found that stopping immigration from Muslim countries was supported by most voters in eight European countries (including France and Italy, but not Britain). Somehow, a gap has emerged between popular opinion and the conventional political menu – and these are the conditions for upheaval.

Or not. The last British general election returned a government more stable than the previous one, as voters recoiled from the prospect of another coalition. The recent rerun of Austria’s presidential election saw the far-Right Norbert Hofer rejected by a larger margin. Brexit seems to have discombobulated Ukip, which is struggling in what should be a very winnable Stoke-on-Trent by-election. As Britain has shown, populism tends to go away if the government responds to people’s concerns. The only spectre haunting Europe is the panic of established political parties who have taken too long to work out that things have changed.

All of this shows democracy working as intended, rather than being in crisis. It certainly makes  things unpredictable – but democracy, if it’s done right, usually is.

I am a democrat.  I believe in the rule of the majority.  I believe in the rule of the majority because I value stability - even as I value chaos.  And political stability only comes when the governed are not discomfited.

Stability is not stasis.  Stasis is rolling down a rut - fat, dumb and happy.  Stability is active control so as to manage whatever gets thrown at you.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Flavus101

  • Member
  • ****
  • 12,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 210
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #302 on: February 16, 2017, 15:38:12 »
Good for the firefighters and paramedics!

Pray tell, was that decision unanimous down to the last 300,000th member?


Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 407,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,865
    • The job.
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #303 on: February 16, 2017, 15:46:10 »
Good for the firefighters and paramedics!

Pray tell, was that decision unanimous down to the last 300,000th member?

IAFF Endorsement Philosophy
http://www.iaff.org/politics/FIREPAC/endorsementpolicy.html

The IAFF believes that every IAFF member has an absolute right to vote for the candidate that he or she feels best represents and embraces that individual’s views and political philosophy. No one, including your union, has a right to tell you how to vote.

The IAFF knows that its members are intelligent enough to review the history, positions and platform of each candidate and to make a decision based on that information. The IAFF will never criticize any member for his or her choice of candidate.  There are many issues that are important to all Americans – including IAFF members – beyond fire service and labor issues. Consequently, the IAFF respects its members’ right to vote for candidates who have not won the endorsement of the IAFF or your local affiliate.

However, the IAFF asks that its members respect the IAFF’s duty to make its endorsement based on fire service, employment and labor issues that directly affect our members.  This union views candidates through a very narrow focus.  Decisions are predicated on how candidates stand on fire fighter and labor issues such as collective bargaining rights, protection of fair labor standards (FLSA) and overtime rights, pay fairness and equity for federal fire fighters, presumption of disability for federal fire fighters, funding for first responder initiatives, full funding of the FIRE and SAFER programs, protection of pension and social security benefits, and protection and extension of health care benefits for active and retired members to name a few.  These are the types of issues that IAFF FIREPAC will base its decision on when deciding whether or not to support a candidate.  IAFF FIREPAC does not and will not base its decisions on issues such as Second Amendment rights, reproductive rights, the environment or other social issues that many of our members hold firm beliefs about.

The IAFF has one mission: to improve the lives and livelihoods of professional fire fighters. This union is an advocacy group similar to the NRA, Christian Coalition, Sierra Club, Chamber of Commerce, National League of Cities, etc. Its range of issues is very specific. No one expects the NRA to base endorsements on fire fighter bargaining rights.  Likewise, no one expects the Christian Coalition to base its support of candidates on funding the FIRE or SAFER Acts.  Consequently, no one should expect the IAFF to base its endorsement on anything other than its specific set of issues. 

While you may personally disagree with an IAFF endorsement and believe that another candidate better represents your own viewpoint, please be mindful that the IAFF endorsement is about the candidate’s stance on fire service and labor issues.

In any union, association or even political party, when an organization endorses a particular candidate or a specific position on any issue, not everyone who is a member is in agreement. People are entitled to disagree and express their own opinions.   
Politics within the IAFF is an issue of mutual respect. The IAFF respects its members’ right to vote for whomever they choose.  Please respect the IAFF’s right to endorse candidates, regardless of party, who have demonstrated their support for the IAFF and professional fire fighters. The IAFF also respects the right of state associations and individual affiliates to endorse the candidate that they believe best represents the views of their membership at the state and local level.
Get on the bus. Take a ride with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lSGnPl-ww

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,720
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #304 on: February 16, 2017, 17:09:04 »
Any Conservative I've heard from.  I was listening to Charles Adler. Both he and Ian Lee praised Trudeau's performance, as did all of the callers.  That isn't exactly a Liberal bastion.

Oh,  a couple people you listened to and some Conservatives you spoke with.  My bad,  you're original statement sounded like you were speaking about a lot more people.

I watched a bit of the meeting.  I find it hilarious that people try and elevate everything Trudeau does into some kind of brilliant award winning performance. The constant attempts to praise anytning and everything he does reminds me of North Korean propaganda videos.   

The link Loachman posted is great. Take a watch if you haven't.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 236,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,358
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #305 on: February 16, 2017, 17:33:13 »
Had a big honking post about Political Correctness, Free Speech, the difference between the left and right.

Canned it. It's almost Friday and I didn't want to wreck the weekend for any SJWs.

See? Us Deplorables DO have a heart.  [:D
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 236,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,358
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #306 on: February 16, 2017, 17:36:44 »
The International Association of Firefighters and Paramedics ( 300,000 members as of 2012 ) refused to endorse either candidate in the 2016 US presidential election.
https://www.statter911.com/2016/08/15/firefighters-union-will-not-endorse-trump-clinton/

They did however endorse PM Trudeau in the Canadian election.
https://www.facebook.com/IAFFCanada/photos/a.594193077284163.1073741829.581381598565311/1151703838199748/?type=3&theater

I don't see the point of your post. Sorry.

What I do see, is that unions should stay out of politics.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,720
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #307 on: February 16, 2017, 17:51:23 »
Quote from: recceguy

What I do see, is that unions should stay out of politics.

Yup.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-take-first-step-towards-repealing-tory-bill-that-would-force-unions-to-disclose-financial-records
Quote
Liberals take first step towards repealing Tory bill that would force unions to disclose financial records
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 236,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,358
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #308 on: February 16, 2017, 18:07:53 »
Even as an ordinary union member, you will never, ever see a full financial disclosure. You may get to see a financial statement from your local bargaining unit of what they are doing, but unless you're on the national executive, you will never see what they do with your money.

So of course the liberals want to get rid of it. They'll likely get a few million in surprise cash come election time, from their grateful union execs.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 193,229
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,359
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #309 on: February 16, 2017, 19:40:24 »
Can you say Third Party Financing?
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,072
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #310 on: February 16, 2017, 19:46:26 »
Oh,  a couple people you listened to and some Conservatives you spoke with.


So, do you have evidence to the contrary?  The Conservative Party even supported what he was doing there, and had nothing bad to say. 

There are enough actual bad things you can find about Trudeau without people inventing things.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,072
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #311 on: February 16, 2017, 19:51:54 »
For those who have not watched the Youtube link that I provided a day or two ago, I suggest watching it. I check Bombard's Body Language fairly regularly. I have taken to doing so with the sound muted, and then watching a second time with sound on, to compare her (more detailed) analysis with mine. President Trump definitely appeared less than impressed with Trudeau. There is a major difference between their interests.

For what it's worth, I'm sure the feeling was mutual.  Feelings aren't as important as results. 

Quote
President Trump is focussed on rebuilding his country's economy and security (borders, Armed Forces, law enforcement etcetera). Trudeau is focussed on feminism, climate change windmill-tilting, refugees (in an opposite way to President Trump), and other squishy/frilly things.

This is hyperbolic partisan nonsense.  Trump has no plan and hasn't had any results (I'm willing to give him time).  Trudeau has delivered on far more than the things you give him credit for (not that any of those things are unimportant, as you've attempted to paint them).

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,720
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #312 on: February 16, 2017, 20:17:21 »

So, do you have evidence to the contrary?  The Conservative Party even supported what he was doing there, and had nothing bad to say. 

There are enough actual bad things you can find about Trudeau without people inventing things.

Sorry JMT you can't say "most Conservatives" without some type of solid source. It's like me saying most Liberals want to drink Trudeaus bath water. It certainly looks that way to me but I realize how unscientific that ratio is.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,072
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #313 on: February 16, 2017, 21:00:46 »
Sorry JMT you can't say "most Conservatives" without some type of solid source. It's like me saying most Liberals want to drink Trudeaus bath water. It certainly looks that way to me but I realize how unscientific that ratio is.

I can't prove it's most Conservatives - you're right.  It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,283
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #314 on: February 16, 2017, 22:16:38 »
I can't prove it's most Conservatives - you're right.  It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).

There, that's much better and a more precise account of your personal experience of interacting with the right.  No generalizations.  Didn't hurt a bit too, I'll bet.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 236,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,358
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #315 on: February 17, 2017, 00:20:51 »
We really have to get video conferencing. Hell, I'll pay the shot.

It'll be worth it to see the heads explode when I post.
I can't prove it's most Conservatives - you're right.  It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).
:backpedalling:
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,720
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #316 on: February 17, 2017, 07:43:43 »
It's certainly true of most Conservatives I've heard from on the matter (all of them, until I logged into this website).

I hear you dude. This place is a real wretched hive of scum and villainy.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 390,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,944
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #317 on: February 17, 2017, 08:37:59 »
I hear you dude. This place is a real wretched hive of scum and villainy.
So young to be so cynical ...  ;D
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,072
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #318 on: February 17, 2017, 09:16:07 »
I hear you dude. This place is a real wretched hive of scum and villainy.

No, just partisanship.

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,397
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,493
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #319 on: February 17, 2017, 10:32:31 »
This is hyperbolic partisan nonsense.

If, by "hyperbolic partisan nonsense", you mean "reality", then I agree.

Trump has no plan

Do not be too sure about that. It's not like he's been underestimated once or twice before.

hasn't had any results (I'm willing to give him time).

Wait for it. The foundations are being laid.

Trudeau has delivered on far more than the things you give him credit for

You're right. I'm sorry. I forgot about the projected deficit. That's going to be much more impressive than promised.

Anything else?

(not that any of those things are unimportant, as you've attempted to paint them).

Yes, they are unimportant, other than the "climate change fighting", which will achieve nothing beyond destroying people's jobs and pushing them closer to poverty as we enter a period of reduced solar activity and its attendant cooling phase. And, now that the photo op is over, interest in refugees seems to have been lost and intake reduced.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,720
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #320 on: February 17, 2017, 15:35:34 »
Quote from: Loachman

You're right. I'm sorry. I forgot about the projected deficit. That's going to be much more impressive than promised.

What's the big deal about the deficit?

Quote
Justin Trudeau says a Liberal government won't balance the books for three straight years but will double spending on infrastructure to jump-start economic growth.

The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years  and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 16:16:02 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,720
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #321 on: February 17, 2017, 15:36:53 »
No, just partisanship.

And it's a good thing too, otherwise you might have passed us on by  ;D
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 236,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,358
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #322 on: February 17, 2017, 15:49:40 »
Quote
Justin Trudeau says a Liberal government won't balance the books for three straight years but will double spending on infrastructure to jump-start economic growth.

The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years  and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.

No other words needed. Unmitigated liars.

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,283
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #323 on: February 17, 2017, 17:28:34 »
He sounds more and more just like dear old Dad when it comes to the military and commitments.    :not-again:

Quote
Trudeau says Canada one of NATO's 'strongest actors' without committing more money

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angela-merkel-germany-1.3987562




Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,397
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,493
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #324 on: February 17, 2017, 17:31:52 »
No other words needed. Unmitigated liars.

"'a modest short-term deficit' of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year"?

We should be so lucky:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3000667/canada-expected-to-run-bigger-deficit-than-trudeau-budgeted-td-bank/

Canada’s federal deficit could be much higher than Justin Trudeau’s government projected, according to a new report from Toronto Dominion Bank.

TD Bank says it could be as high as $34 billion...

<snip>

When the Liberals unveiled the federal budget in March, they projected a $29.4-billion deficit in 2016-17, followed by a $29-billion shortfall the following year and almost $23 billion in 2018-19.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/decades-deficits-morneau-1.3923060

Decades of deficits could be ahead for Canada, federal analysis warns

Finance Department report says the federal debt could double to $1.5 trillion by 2050-51

Federal numbers released quietly by the Trudeau government late last month are painting a bleak picture of Canada's financial future - one filled with decades of deficits.

The report, published on the Finance Department website two days before Christmas, predicts that, barring any policy changes, the federal government could be on track to run annual shortfalls until at least 2050-51.

If such a scenario plays out, the document says the federal debt could climb past $1.55 trillion by that same year - more than double its current level.