As I said in my last post, I had trouble staying awake during the Maclean's Debate. It was that boring.
So while I was struck by the weird way way Andrew Scheer was behaving, and how he began every answer no matter the question with the words "Justin Trudeau."
I missed some ugly Scheer moments.
Like when he went after asylum seekers. Again
Andrew Scheer says refugees suffering in camps shouldn't be bumped by asylum seekers at the border. Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh slam the Tory view. #cdnpoli #elxn43 #firstdebate pic.twitter.com/FY9qO3tioB— Maclean's Magazine (@macleans) September 13, 2019
Even though he knows that's false.
Asylum seekers who show up at Canada’s border, including irregular border crossers, are not “jumping the queue” as Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer suggested in Thursday night’s Maclean’s/Citytv national leaders debate.
In fact, there is no queue.
There are two completely separate systems, and this is just playing to Scheer's ugly base.
“There’s nothing compassionate about forcing people to wait longer who are in refugee camps, in places where there is civil war, where they will be killed if they leave those camps, where they have to wait longer because some people are skipping the line and jumping the queue,” Scheer said.
So he can dig up this old racist message...
And use it to attack the Trudeau government again.
But then why should anybody be surprised?
When he also refused to condemn the way Donald Trump is stripping children from the arms of their parents, and jailing them in prison camps.
And he's not sorry he accused indigenous groups of holding natural resources projects hostage.
And it shouldn't be too hard to imagine where he might take this country should he become prime minister.
To a very very dark place...
You know I still see progressives who don't understand the threat of the religious right, and in my opinion are sleepwalking to disaster.
Or hear others arguing over who is a "real progressive," and see crazy old men claiming that only Theodore Roosevelt can save us, or the spirit of Nirvana.
And all I can say to them is get real snowflakes, the fascists are at the gates.
And unless we defeat them, they will destroy this country...
15 comments:
When it comes to pipelines Scheer clearly indicated he plans to wedge indigenous communities with the fascist statement 'most support pipelines and we cannot let the minority hold us hostage'. In simple terms it means buyout the sellouts and destroy the rest with non stop propaganda. Sound familiar, if not check the Trudeau file.
During the debate Andy sure got flustered and babbled on non stop when May caught him flat footed with his tough on China weak Trudeau rhetoric. She reminded him Harper entered trade deals with China where they could privately sue Canada for breach of contract but we could not do the same or even disclose the nature of the suit or the terms of the settlement. Of course Scheer denied it but it was likely out of ignorance as the only thing he knows about China is that Trudeau screwed up and fearless Scheer the super smart negotiator will have them begging for mercy in short order! If you believe that you are going to love his fiscal plans, no social cuts while lowering the deficit by creating jobs while the unemployment level is at historic lows. He cant bring in more immigrants to boost the economy, the Dougie 4% efficiency improvement proved mythical so it is either a lie or he plans on selling our assets to private interests. Sell you house, pay off the mortgage and rent instead ... now that's a plan!
RT
This was his "old-stock Canadians" moment and he's guaranteed to have others. He couldn't hold his own against these two clowns at a basic cable debate with DicklessPW stacking the deck of jokers in his favor? The foreign policy debate should be fun, if it even happens. He's deluded if he doesn't think Trudeau is on the plane watching film and studying his opponent(s). Captain of the McGill debating team versus... an insurance broker with telephone anxiety, reading from a prepared script that goes "a noun, a verb, and SNC." I hope weak Andy has nightmares about boxing matches for the next 37 days. Nothing animates a Trudeau like being a "Social Justin Warrior." Nothing animates a Trudeau like grinding racists into the ground.
This week Sheer-idiocy has appeared with an anti women's rights crusader and attacked ''those people like a good ole redneck racist. He boycotts every Pride event everywhere. He says he didn't mean it when he advocated getting rid of public schools. Judging from his behaviour lately he still wants to .
From what I could find, only Global news reported how Scheer's ongoing queue jumpers lie is in fact a lie. He keeps peddling this bullshit and most of the MSM ignores it along with the many other distortions of the truth he continually belches out.
As long as Scheer is allowed to continue his mass deception to Canadians without being roundly and soundly called out on it, he will have a chance to form government. Canadians deserve to know the truth before casting their ballots and not just Scheer's "facts" from his worn out soap opera, "Days Of Our Lies".
JD
Harper had bozo eruptions but he never said what was really on his mind. Now the bozo eruptus is Sheer-incompetence. Racist, sexist homophobe; and all done with his own mouth.
There is almost nothing I hate more than hearing lefties arguing about who is a progressive and who isn't. You don't hear the Conservatives doing that, and it gives them a big advantage. When will we learn?
Take it from the last legitimate POTUS and Justin's BFF.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/06/barack-obama-progressives-circular-firing-squad-democrats
"All or nothing" usually leaves you with... nothing.
I guess fact checking and critical questions only happen during writ period, which is a real shame and something Canada needs to fix.
Katie Simpson just tried to ask Scheer's latest bozo bimbo about being BFFs with Faith Goldy and vile comments she made about French people in a video unearthed by the Liberal war room.
She sped off in a car and refused to answer questions. I'm guessing that getaway car wasn't a Doug Ford Bronco.
The debate was far from boring, I found it surprisingly entertaining. Jagmeet Singh surpassed my expectations, showing a massive improvement over his leadership race debates.
It was clear where all the parties stand.
I'm not the biggest fan of Jagmeet, I'm not impressed with his treatment of Erin Weir, but I think he has a good chance to beat Trudeau when they debate.
And trying to pressure people into voting Trudeau by using the scary Tories, when we wouldn't be in this situation if Trudeau had actually kept his electoral reform promises, is wrong. In fact being able to use the Tories as blackmail is entirely why he broke his word in the first place.
This vote Liberal to the stop the Tories tactic will back fire this time, and just make people angry, because all it does is remain people of his broken promise and show why he broke it for his own benifit in the first place.
There will always be a Tory boogie man for the Liberals to exploit, if we give into the blackmail this time, the Liberals will own us forever.
Also I'm surprised you didn't applaude Singh for firing most of his shots at Scheer and saying he would not support a Tory minorityminority, and critizing the Greens for saying they would. I'd think that would make you happy?
Actually yes I do,Conservitives have their own in fighting and competing camps, like Libertarians vs Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives vs Red Tories and so on. They even have a term for each othet cuckservstive for those they don't feel are right wing enough.
I mean the CPC broke into two parties the CPC and PPC.
I'd be happier with the Liberals "owning" instead of the fringe having outsize influence to "own the Libs." I prefer sensible moderation rather than revolutionary impulses with no plan that end up breaking the bank. Apparently that view is dwindling in popularity. (I'm already dreading the prospect of Sanders vs. Trump.) But I am so sick and tired of the electoral reform meme. Come to an agreement about which reform system you want -- oh, right, PropRep or bust! Give the people what they want! Call me an elitist, but sometimes the will of the people is flat-out wrong. Don't dismiss the pitfalls of PropRep that Trudeau warned about when he walked away from the whole shitshow that the NDP and Cons made of it. How many referendums has it passed in already? That's what I thought.
It was a stupid and naive commitment for him to make, because now it's become a gnawing meme that the obsessives won't let go of. Or maybe the stupid mistake was for him to reach across the aisle seeking "common ground," expecting the angry opposition not to sabotage it and then leave him taking the blame. He should have just used his majority to ram through ranked ballots. They would have called him a dictator anyway and then moved on to something else. Instead he tried to work together and his enemies blew it all up.
If you really want to get rid of the scary Tories and confine them to their barren wasteland in flyover country, you'd support ranked ballots. But you don't. You want "democracy" as mob rule, which means the Reformacon cult would still have some sort of representation rather than be consigned to the permanent exile they so richly deserve. You also want the lunatic fringe to have an outsize role in setting the agenda in Parliament. You want a combination of mob rule and minority rule. PropRep is working out real great in Germany, Italy and Israel, I notice? You're OK giving the people what they want even if what they want turns out to be the AfD?
What if Max got 5% of the vote and 17 seats, official party status? That's what Trudeau was trying to caution about when he mentioned Kellie Leitch starting her own party. His prediction turned out to be correct but you don't want to admit that. You just want to "hold him accountable." Well, OK. That's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it works out for you.
Electoral reform isn't a panacea for Canada's problems and might even make them worse. You might get your wish in October if the current numbers hold, the Liberals end up in 1972-style minority and Trudeau fils is forced to bend on the issue if he wants to keep his job. That's a preview of what you'll get with PropRep, but OK as long as the "little guy" gets all the decision-making power? You say you don't want "false majority" governments of 30-some-odd percent of the vote, but why should 10-15% or less get to overpower the rest? You realize the math doesn't make any sense? Minority government clusterfucks are what PropRep brings about in perpetuity. Do you just want chaos for its own sake?
Yes, Harper got in with FPTP and Boris wasn't even really "elected" and ranked ballots didn't stop the LNP bogans in Australia. Trump got in with an extremely archaic form of FPTP that is literally a lingering legacy of slavery. But if you're thinking PropRep will bring utopia, you're mistaken (and, I should add, a black president managed to win both the popular vote and electoral college twice). Let me remind you: Once upon a time, a certain fringe candidate in a multiparty system ended up elevated to the highest levels of power under a weak coalition after winning 32% of the vote. Result: 100 million people died. Don't come crying to Trudeau when another weak coalition elevates Chancellor Bernier and he puts forth his own Enabling Act. If you like your electoral reform, you can keep your electoral reform. Because it's 1933.
Jackie,
You really spell out the issue. Thank you!
All that's WRONG with PropRep--as proved time and again in practice in the real world.
I, like many others, thought it seemed/sounded like a good idea, myself, when electoral reform was first proposed.
On closer examination & deeper understanding, I soon realized that, of all the possible approaches to voting in a democracy, PropRep is the WORST.
Accordingly, I don't blame Trudeau for walking away from his pledge, when pushed in this unpalatable direction. He was wise and principled and courageous to do so. Takes the heat--rather than eat that Sh**cake.
The zealots won't listen, though. See for example this shitshow of a Reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/d4eyn0/proportional_representation_would_make_all_votes/
They are pathologically obsessed with forcing a fringe agenda on the sensible middle. Because "muh democracy." It's populism pure and simple, who are you "elites" to decide what views should be represented, who are you "elites" to decide what views are extreme, blah blah blah.
Read through the comments. Over and over again their only point is that they want all voices to count, even the "extreme" ones. Note that some of the most vocal proponents of PropRep are, in fact, the PPC. No surprise since PropRep is basically the electoral equivalent of free-market libertarians' asinine "marketplace of ideas." If Nazis gain power? Well, hat's just Triumph (or Trump) of the Will.
PropRep obsessives are barbarians at the gates.
Hi Jackie,
while I can't disagree with you re what I see per the sample thread you supplied: "It's populism pure and simple, who are you "elites" to decide what views should be represented, who are you "elites" to decide what views are extreme, blah blah blah...."
I've always thought of Populism differently and not necessarily a negative thing. The People's needs are not always unworthy. In that I don't assume that the people's nastiest impulses are intrinsic to it and automatically come with it. Populism doesn't have to mean MEAN and nasty; essentially indecent.
For example, the populism of Bernie Sanders caught on so, because of the economic drivers at the heart of it--not the rest of the **it. The BS populist movement appealed to many of the same folks as Trump's, but MINUS the racist etc appeals to people's worst and nastiest human impulses. The populism of Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind as another such positive example.
The people are easily made a mob, but then I think of the millions that have made successful peaceful protests.
Post a Comment