Ryan Strome

Liberals win minority government

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, milk and honey said:

is there another election other then the federal one?

 

what do you guys think of bernier's new party? imo I think it will spit the con voters. ndp/libs will be spit to with the whole carbon tax and pipeline issue going on. green might get a few seats but I think its up for anyone.

 

 

We have an election here in Alberta this Spring.

 

My prediction is a conservative majority in Ottawa. 

Edited by Ryan Strome
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, inane said:

Sure, but my point is nothing will change. We've had billions in debt for years so who cares 

 

edit. and the fraser institute? :blink:

Maybe people who are tired of blowing billions in tax dollars for interest payments care.   And as illustrated by my previous post,  that wasted interest money could easily fund  various programs funding.   Plus I could use an extra $676 for every man woman and child if the interest payment was given in a tax cut.

($25 billion ÷ estimated 36.95 million people in Canada = $676.59).

 

As for quoting the Fraser Institute,  it was one of the first articles that came up when googling national debt payments.   I'm on mobile so I just went with it.   If you can find a current source that refutes what I posted, then kudos to you.   Otherwise, my posts stands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Maybe people who are tired of blowing billions in tax dollars for interest payments care.   And as illustrated by my previous post,  that wasted interest money could easily fund  various programs funding.   Plus I could use an extra $676 for every man woman and child if the interest payment was given in a tax cut.

($25 billion ÷ estimated 36.95 million people in Canada = $676.59).

 

As for quoting the Fraser Institute,  it was one of the first articles that came up when googling national debt payments.   I'm on mobile so I just went with it.   If you can find a current source that refutes what I posted, then kudos to you.   Otherwise, my posts stands.  

if it's that easy, just do it. otherwise, stop making it an election issue no one cares about over and over and never do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, inane said:

if it's that easy, just do it. otherwise, stop making it an election issue no one cares about over and over and never do anything about it.

It was happening,  but then the morons that are the Conservative Reform Alliance Party under Stevo took over.  They inherited surpluses and ended up running up over $150 plus billion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, inane said:

But who cares? What did that accomplish? Whether we're a billion or 3 billion or 10 billion in debt, does it matter? Like to the day to day life of joe average?

 

When there are so many things happening that directly influence people's lives, I don't know why this theoretical number means anything.

Many care. It mattered a lot. If Paul Martin hadn't got spending under control we were at risk of becoming like Euro countries today and cutting services and being unable to service our own debt. It was a big deal at the time, Martin really had to put the squeeze on provincial transfers. That along with the Quebec payola scandal cost him his job. 

 

It will effect you directly if the debt gets too big in very meaningful ways. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DADDYROCK said:

Who cares, most politicians are working for big corporations and not for the people.All the public relations firms are doing their thing for all parties,to spin it the way big money tells them to, and here out West we are barely even taken into consideration.It is like our votes don't count.

 

My Dad always said politicians are a notch lower than child molesters,

If they were to do their jobs and not blatantly lie or promise everything and then once elected do whatever the big money tells them to do, we would be far better off.

Just look how that P.R. campaign went, all of a sudden millions of dollars from big money showed up and the people lost out again,because big money don't want the power to go to the people like it was supposed to be.Just so FU$%^ING CORRUPT!

Well that's my rant for the new year.

sorry but "the people" just didn't give a $&!# and couldn't be bothered to mail in their ballots. PR lost because of apathy not big money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the liberals moved too far left for the NDP to compete. There's no niche for the NDP to be unique anymore.

 

I see this one being a pretty close fight between the liberals and conservatives.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, milk and honey said:

Thoughts on scheer?

 

Atm I think he is likable and has stood up on trudeau well.

Thoughts?  he is literally the Clinton in this campaign, the only person in a party large enough to challenge that could lose to Trudeau.  He's got about as much actual substance as a kleenex in a flu clinic.  Harper ran an 11 week long campaign almost 4 years ago about how Trudeau just wasn't ready, how he had no life experience, how he was a trust fund baby

 

The irony of that?

 

Scheer has never held a real job.  Scheer has never had to really work for anything.  Scheer has made almost $8 million in federal salary since the early/mid 2000's and has a history of hyper partisan and religious dogma in his past.  He has literally presented no platform at all to date.  He has not stood up to Trudeau really like, at all.  There is I believe 2 whole videos since he took power in the party of him talking tough to Trudeau, but watching the entirety of that whole debate he was woefully slapped around because he had no idea what he was talking about

 

The party leader equivalent of I know my son is wrong but I am still going to yell because I have to look impressive

 

Much like the NDP, of ALL the qualified leaders that could have been chosen they chose the least likable and capable candidate to actually be a leader.  If Trudeau wins another majority a lot of that reason will be because the NDP allowed a small but vocal minority to railroad Singh into leadership, and because the Conservatives ignored far more qualified possible leaders for Scheer because "he was the most visible face" 

 

When your entire life experience has been, I made a lot of babies and once bussed tables for 6 months.  You're pretty lacking in the anything department because those qualifications are held by literally tens of thousands of people on welfare across the country.

Edited by Warhippy
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Many care. It mattered a lot. If Paul Martin hadn't got spending under control we were at risk of becoming like Euro countries today and cutting services and being unable to service our own debt. It was a big deal at the time, Martin really had to put the squeeze on provincial transfers. That along with the Quebec payola scandal cost him his job. 

 

It will effect you directly if the debt gets too big in very meaningful ways. 

Paul Martin use to say when he traveled and met world leaders they would put their hand out and he would go to shake it and they would say no we want our money.

 

Inane is a far left supporter not surprised he doesn't think debt is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Paul Martin use to say when he traveled and met world leaders they would put their hand out and he would go to shake it and they would say no we want our money.

 

Inane is a far left supporter not surprised he doesn't think debt is a problem.

lol there's those inane boxes you like. why i don't bother with these threads much anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I think the liberals moved too far left for the NDP to compete. There's no niche for the NDP to be unique anymore.

 

I see this one being a pretty close fight between the liberals and conservatives.

You're exactly right

 

Historically, a weak NDP leads to a majority  for the Liberals.  A strong NDP leads to a majority for the COnservatives.

 

Right now the NDP is polling among the worst numbers they've ever seen leading up to an election.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservatives-ndp-1.4912981

 

It's no secret that Conservatives tend to welcome strong New Democrat polling. A robust NDP was cited as a necessity by Jenni Byrne, Stephen Harper's campaign manager, after the party was defeated in the 2015 federal election. The historical record shows why.

In the 18 elections held since the New Democrats' first contested an election in 1962, the party has averaged 14.8 per cent of the vote whenever the Liberals have formed government. They have averaged 19.6 per cent of the vote in the elections that ended in victory for the Conservatives (or their predecessors, the Progressive Conservatives).

The tipping point for the Conservatives seems to be around 17 per cent support for the NDP. New Democrats have managed 17 per cent of the vote or less in eight elections. The Liberals won seven of those; in the eighth election, in 1962, John Diefenbaker's PCs were reduced from a record-breaking majority government to a slim minority.

Of the elections that saw the NDP receive more than 17 per cent support, however, six ended in victory for the Conservatives and four left the Liberals in power (in two of those four Liberal wins, however, the party was kept to a minority).

Two of the three majority governments the Conservatives have secured since 1962 coincided with the NDP's best ever results — in 1988 (20.4 per cent) and in 2011 (30.6 per cent). The Conservatives' third majority, in 1984, happened as the NDP took 18.8 per cent of the vote — its fifth-best result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Paul Martin use to say when he traveled and met world leaders they would put their hand out and he would go to shake it and they would say no we want our money.

 

Inane is a far left supporter not surprised he doesn't think debt is a problem.

well, debt is like an illness, it will effect you whether or not you believe in it. 

 

Trudeau is going to have to have some good answers and planning for it, otherwise I do think you're correct and Scheer has an opening. I don't think this is a given at all for JT. And thats barring some kind of own-goal or some other mishap between now and then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Thoughts?  he is literally the Clinton in this campaign, the only person in a party large enough to challenge that could lose to Trudeau.  He's got about as much actual substance as a kleenex in a flu clinic.  Harper ran an 11 week long campaign almost 4 years ago about how Trudeau just wasn't ready, how he had no life experience, how he was a trust fund baby

 

The irony of that?

 

Scheer has never held a real job.  Scheer has never had to really work for anything.  Scheer has made almost $8 million in federal salary since the early/mid 2000's and has a history of hyper partisan and religious dogma in his past.  He has literally presented no platform at all to date.  He has not stood up to Trudeau really like, at all.  There is I believe 2 whole videos since he took power in the party of him talking tough to Trudeau, but watching the entirety of that whole debate he was woefully slapped around because he had no idea what he was talking about

 

The party leader equivalent of I know my son is wrong but I am still going to yell because I have to look impressive

 

Much like the NDP, of ALL the qualified leaders that could have been chosen they chose the least likable and capable candidate to actually be a leader.  If Trudeau wins another majority a lot of that reason will be because the NDP allowed a small but vocal minority to railroad Singh into leadership, and because the Conservatives ignored far more qualified possible leaders for Scheer because "he was the most visible face" 

 

When your entire life experience has been, I made a lot of babies and once bussed tables for 6 months.  You're pretty lacking in the anything department because those qualifications are held by literally tens of thousands of people on welfare across the country.

Scheer is not the Clinton. You may not like Scheer but he has spent most his adult life in politics and hasn't been involved in any scandals.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Many care. It mattered a lot. If Paul Martin hadn't got spending under control we were at risk of becoming like Euro countries today and cutting services and being unable to service our own debt. It was a big deal at the time, Martin really had to put the squeeze on provincial transfers. That along with the Quebec payola scandal cost him his job. 

 

It will effect you directly if the debt gets too big in very meaningful ways. 

 

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Paul Martin use to say when he traveled and met world leaders they would put their hand out and he would go to shake it and they would say no we want our money.

 

Inane is a far left supporter not surprised he doesn't think debt is a problem.

Jabs aside

 

Paul Martins biggest failing was peoples belief he somehow screwed the people out of tens of billions in EI money.  Money that was literally doing nothing.  They still parrot that today for some reason.  Then they also point to his companies being part of tax havens but completely ignored the entire leadership of the Mulroney party as well as some large names on the then Conservative party (pre merger) also being part of the same tax haven.  Tying him somehow to the Adscam which turned out to be a literal nothing in regards to him, and was 13 times less costly than Gazebo Gate was also essential 

 

Martin to his credit did a fair amount of good and it is actually interesting that we can pinpoint a lot of dog whistle politicking in canada's history started during the 14 months leading up to the 2006 election.

 

Singling out Martins business/tax haven without answering or speaking of the then former leadership caste of the Conservative party being involved

Singling out Martin as part of Adscam when he was completely and totally removed from it

Erroneously labeling him as a thief for shuffling useless money around to help pay down services and debts

 

That was the start of the no accountability era in canadian politics.  And yes, I absolutely put that at the feet of the Harper Government and their campaign managers.  It was easier to point to something people didn't understand but sounded bad and yell about it than it was to explain to those same people about the entire process.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

 

Jabs aside

 

Paul Martins biggest failing was peoples belief he somehow screwed the people out of tens of billions in EI money.  Money that was literally doing nothing.  They still parrot that today for some reason.  Then they also point to his companies being part of tax havens but completely ignored the entire leadership of the Mulroney party as well as some large names on the then Conservative party (pre merger) also being part of the same tax haven.  Tying him somehow to the Adscam which turned out to be a literal nothing in regards to him, and was 13 times less costly than Gazebo Gate was also essential 

 

Martin to his credit did a fair amount of good and it is actually interesting that we can pinpoint a lot of dog whistle politicking in canada's history started during the 14 months leading up to the 2006 election.

 

Singling out Martins business/tax haven without answering or speaking of the then former leadership caste of the Conservative party being involved

Singling out Martin as part of Adscam when he was completely and totally removed from it

Erroneously labeling him as a thief for shuffling useless money around to help pay down services and debts

 

That was the start of the no accountability era in canadian politics.  And yes, I absolutely put that at the feet of the Harper Government and their campaign managers.  It was easier to point to something people didn't understand but sounded bad and yell about it than it was to explain to those same people about the entire process.

yup, that nails it pretty much. From a fiscal management pov I think he may have been the best finance minister and PM we've ever had, at least since the 50s. 

 

I didn't expect quite the same thing from Morneau, but I did expect a lot more. Ah well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Scheer is not the Clinton. You may not like Scheer but he has spent most his adult life in politics and hasn't been involved in any scandals.

He absolutely IS the clinton.

 

In the same way that Clinton was literally the ONLY candidate Trump could beat

 

Scheer is the ONLY candidate that Trudeau can and has to beat.

 

And you're right.  He has spent his entire life in politics.  Has done literally nothing else.  Has shown nothing in regards to leadership.  Has his name tied to some very ugly and contentious legislation under the former Harper government.

 

So, when the advertisements come up, as Scheer the only man experienced enough.  The only man well lived enough.  Trudeau proved he wasn't ready.  Trudeau was only a drama teacher/snow board instructor.

 

Understand, that Scheer is absolutely so woefully below Trudeau in life experience and leadership qualities that it beggars belief.  There is no way in hell I would elect a guy on the public tit his entire life who has done nothing but nod his head in agreement and has all the personality of a damned doorstop and would most likely do nothing to change Trudeaus policies in any meaningful way.

 

Like at all.  he is un-electable IMO and yes this election again I am voting for the best candidate in my area because both leaders are bloody repugnant 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup, that nails it pretty much. From a fiscal management pov I think he may have been the best finance minister and PM we've ever had, at least since the 50s. 

 

I didn't expect quite the same thing from Morneau, but I did expect a lot more. Ah well. 

Morneau...IMO was like the poilivere of the party. Loud, long winded.  About as effective as a bag of charcoal in a forest fire.  One of golden boys biggest mistakes IMO was honestly not purging the proverbial old guard style Liberals when he had the chance.  Regardless of how relatively new Morneau was/is he is still the epitome of everything that was wrong with their party.  Lip service over substance

Edited by Warhippy
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Morneau...IMO was like the poilivere of the party. Loud, long winded.  About as effective as a bag of charcoal in a forest fire. 

Morneau should be in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Morneau should be in jail.

I'd settle for replaced. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.