I have to say, it is ironic that everyone is against capitalism when Pearl Jam is a rich entity because they sell their talents. Pearl Jam is a business. I wish people were not overtaxed so, like PJ, we could give our money to causes we want to, not the government to put it where they want. It is too much like a nanny state. The more they tax us, the less disposable income we have to help the less fortunate
Oh stop it already. No one is against capitalism. No one is assuming you love harper, but if they do, its because you keep defending him and/or continue to keep it a big secret who you do support. Guess what? No one gives a shit.
I def wouldn't say no one is against capitalism....personally, I think we all should be against it in the form it takes now....Does that mean PJ is wrong for being a part of it? No....because we all are. The part people should 'stop', IMO, is the presumption that anyone thinks PJ is not a business - we all know that, so it shouldn't be constantly thrown in leftist's faces as if we don't understand how it works (yes, there are some people who think the PJ posturing of the early 90's translates into current practice, but they're usually people who have barely followed the band over the last 20 years).....Also, I wish people (1TK in this case) would stop with the libertarian thought line of acceptance that trickle down economics just doesn't work....but for some reason it would work in regards to charity....
Also....since we're talking ideology, and 1TK and Thirty are talking Argentina and Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine...I'll bring up another Klein work that I've mentioned here a few times (I've never had anyone mention that they've actually watched it yet)....she did an awesome doc in 04 about Argentina's collectivist movement, called La Toma (or The Take)....it's an example of how the movement actually saved people after the chaos of an economy destroyed not by socialist/leftists as 1TK said, but by neoliberalism...
It watched most of this. I do not feel that blaming neoliberalism is the answer. It is far more complicated. While privatizing everything so quickly probably caused many of the problems, it would appear to me that it happened to quickly. Complete deregulation ia bad idea, I believe we can all concur.
Interestingly, Kirschner and his wife have been in power since this documentary. Their (Her as he passed away) net worth has risen from 7,000,000 to 81,000,000. The Argentine authorities have audited her and have stated the numbers "don't stack up".
My take after watching this film, the real reason the average Argentine suffered due to corruption. The banks were in it with the corporations.
Laws in Canada protect us from this, and perhaps Harper was leaning towards complete deregulation, who knows? Would have been a tough sell after 2008 though.
But the one thing I can say about the Argentine workers who occupied those factories, they are amazing people. They did not sit around and bemoan the system and collect welfare. They did something. They made it happen, and I applaud them
Another good point in the movie, is simply railing AGAINST something is easy. What are you protesting FOR? This is why I will say it again, Canada walks the fine line between capitalism and socialism better than any other country in the world. I want to ensure my fellow citizens have a safety net, yet not be taxed to the point I cannot afford things in life I enjoy (ie rolling Pearl Jam on foreign concert tours, taking the kids once a year to an all-inclusive, etc.). Don't take away the most important thing to us, and that is memories.
All is quiet from the folks here since the election. What are the chances any of the 25 000 will be settled in trudeaus or John McCallums riding?
Pretty good I guess? But why do you ask? What difference does it make? They should be settled wherever it works best for the refugees. 2700 to Metro Vancouver. People are working hard to work out how to make it happen.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All is quiet from the folks here since the election. What are the chances any of the 25 000 will be settled in trudeaus or John McCallums riding?
Pretty good I guess? But why do you ask? What difference does it make? They should be settled wherever it works best for the refugees. 2700 to Metro Vancouver. People are working hard to work out how to make it happen.
Pretty good I guess? Not a very strong answer. Why do you ask? It's a fair question of a campaign promise. What difference does it make? Politicians can make campaign promises with a NIMBY approach, just as they can award government contracts to businesses in their own ridings.
Where does the random number of 2700 to metro Vancouver come from? How do you know people are working hard to make it happen? (Getting into the theme of asking lots of questions )
All is quiet from the folks here since the election. What are the chances any of the 25 000 will be settled in trudeaus or John McCallums riding?
Pretty good I guess? But why do you ask? What difference does it make? They should be settled wherever it works best for the refugees. 2700 to Metro Vancouver. People are working hard to work out how to make it happen.
Pretty good I guess? Not a very strong answer. Why do you ask? It's a fair question of a campaign promise. What difference does it make? Politicians can make campaign promises with a NIMBY approach, just as they can award government contracts to businesses in their own ridings.
Where does the random number of 2700 to metro Vancouver come from? How do you know people are working hard to make it happen? (Getting into the theme of asking lots of questions )
Not a strong answer? Why should I have a strong answer? I have no idea if refugees will be going to those ridings. I never heard that his campaign promise was that a bunch of refugees would specifically be going to his own riding. Did you read that somewhere? I don't really care either way. Are you suggesting that Trudeau would somehow be benefitting financially for his own riding by bringing refugees into it?? If so, please explain, because that makes no sense to me. It's not a random number - I heard that 2700 of the 25,000 are being sent to metro Vancouver on the morning news. I can say that's accurate, but it's what is being officially reported. I know people are working hard to make it happen because I have been watching interviews on the news and reading articles about it. The people who are working to get it done aren't doing it in secret. There are info sessions, there is a settlement office that's been set up, the mayors are talking to various groups, the school boards are making sure there are spaces for the kids, they have worked out how much welfare each refugee will be getting when they arrive ($650/refugee/month apparently), etc.
Is there some kind of point you are trying to make? I'm honestly not sure.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I just returned to the country. A little behind on the news. No need to get so angry.
You made a post, I had some questions.
To answer your multiple questions:
- No it was not a strong answer - The other poster asked a specific question and your response was "pretty good I guess". In other words, you have no idea, which is a strong definitive answer. - no I don't think or read anywhere Trudeau would be benefitting financially from refugees in his own riding. The point is, will any actually go to his riding or is he going to solve these problems in a "not in my back yard (NIMBY) way. - the point I was trying to make was you asked a bunch of questions to a poster who is asking legitimate questions surrounding a campaign promise.
I have not commented much on the refugee issue because it is a moot point. 25000 is not going to make a dent in the number of people trying to flee that war zone. Germany is the only country which has stepped up to the plate. The fact that Trudeau is being hailed as some sort of hero for doing this is laughable. Just my opinion.
I'm not angry. Why do you think I am? Are you reading my posts using some kind of angry voice in your head or something?
So you think helping 25,000 people isn't worthy of praise because it's not a big enough number?
Whether or not refugees end up in Trudeau's riding is completely irrelevant. Totally. I have no idea why you're even thinking about it. But I seriously doubt he in particular would have that "not in my backyard" attitude. Nothing in his entire life has ever indicated that he would feel that way. Quite the opposite.
I feel like you are just grasping at straws, trying to find a way to make this negative and somehow try to show that Trudeau should be criticized for it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
- I have no angry voices in my head - Trudeau isn't helping 25000 people, Canadians in general are ($650 a month is from taxpayers). - we could help a lot more yes. The praise is unwarranted - I wasn't thinking about it, pjfanwillneverleave was. You responded to his post and I was explaining what you were not understanding (that is where all your questions come from no?) - it is not a negative, but giving Trudeau credit for a campaign promise he cannot deliver on is foolishness. It's easy to make promises, hard to deliver
- I have no angry voices in my head - Trudeau isn't helping 25000 people, Canadians in general are ($650 a month is from taxpayers). - we could help a lot more yes. The praise is unwarranted - I wasn't thinking about it, pjfanwillneverleave was. You responded to his post and I was explaining what you were not understanding (that is where all your questions come from no?) - it is not a negative, but giving Trudeau credit for a campaign promise he cannot deliver on is foolishness. It's easy to make promises, hard to deliver
You think praise for helping 25,000 people is unwarranted? Oooookay. Wtf? Can't say anything to that. Seems a bizarre thing to say. Obviously Trudeau is not single handedly helping them. But he is actually directly responsible for it happening at all. Not sure what you mean about giving credit to him for a promise he can't deliver. It is happening. The wheels have already started turning. It's actually going forward. You said that you haven't even been following this on the news. Maybe you should catch up? While the promise is certainly hard to deliver (no one ever said it would be easy), and while there will almost certainly be hitches along the way, as this is a very complicated process involving a lot of people, it is happening.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
- Yes I believe the praise is unwarranted. When I do nice things for friends, family, people I don't know or a homeless dog I don't expect (or deserve) praise or admiration for it. A politician, who spends taxpayers money to perform good deeds, should deflect the praise to the public they serve. - I'm not sure how to answer the Wtf question - Your suggestion that I begin to catch up on the news is insightful and I will give it serious consideration.
Trudeau promised 25000 refugees by the end of the year. It was a campaign promise he made that "is certainly hard to deliver".
You are certainly correct in stating Trudeau is not single handedly helping them, however you are incorrect in stating without him there would have been no help at all. The previous government promised to bring in 10000 refugees. They may have allowed more to come over in the future. Obviously we will never know.
Finally, the people directly responsible for this happening is the electorate who voted in the Liberal majority. This was one of their campaign promises.
I meant that Trudeau is directly responsible for getting 25,000 refugees to Canada (yes, vs 10,000), and MUCH faster than it would have been done otherwise, and in this case, speed is extremely important. And I absolutely did not state that without Trudeau there would have been no help at all. No one said that. You made it up and then imagined that I said it I guess. Giving credit to Trudeau for seeing that this happens does not detract from all the credit deserved by everyone else. As far as the deflecting the praise comment.... I don't even know why you said that. As though you think Trudeau is being greedy with any credit being given to him. There is nothing to suggest he will not give all the credit he can to everyone involved.
The people who voted in the Liberal party are actually indirectly responsible for this happening. Trudeau is directly responsible for it going ahead.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Trudeau is not directly responsible for it. He made a campaign promise that his top political advisors told him would help receive votes. The advisors saw an opportunity with the public outcry over a photo of a child washed up on a beach. This is good politics, people often vote with emotion. The advisors vetted the numbers with "experts" and asked if it was achievable to get 25000 refugees through the process by the end of the year. The experts said it was possible. Trudeau makes public this campaign promise.
The voters with empathy look at the alternatives and think nothing will be done, so they flock to the Liberal camp. So, the voters are directly responsible for helping these refugees because i) they voted for the Liberals who promised to do this ii) it is not Trudeau's money which pays for the process of bringing the refugees over, it is the Canadian Taxpayer iii) it is not Trudeau who will fork over $650/Month times 25000 in welfare to these refugees, it is the Canadian Taxpayer
Trudeau is the PM. He is going to take all the credit he can get. He wants to be popular. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not pay close attention to politics. Half of his cabinet ministers are women, you think he did that for any other reason than to be popular? Trudeau may never be a great PM, but he is actually a better politician than I gave him credit for. He has been coached very well the past 8 months. The stupid, asinine sound bites have ceased.
Gee, thanks for walking me through the process. Trudeau is still directly responsible for it, lol. It doesn't matter how or why he did it. But I actually don't even know why you are harping on about him taking credit for it, him wanting to be popular, blah blah blah. So you NEVER EVER give any credit to a politician no matter what? Is that what you're saying?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I wasn't "harping" on him for anything. My belief is politicians are elected to serve us, the citizens. I look through the popularity contest and the flash and the left wing media BS and hold politicians accountable for their actions. I give credit to politicians where credit is due. This is not one of those times in my opinion. He may have bit off more than he can chew. Politicians who promise and cannot deliver are a dime an dozen.
I have always been one to criticize or praise pms when due. This redux thread has a feel of love trudeau this guy can do nothing wrong. It's the indicative mantra of the bleeding heart liberals for the next 4yrs. We truly are left without Harper.
From my American perspective, this redux thread has much more of a sour grape, sore loser feel than loving Trudeau. It reminds me of when Obama was first elected, the criticism started before he was in the door. You can't judge a PM daily, you have to at least give them time to DO SOMETHING good or bad.
^^^^^ How is tat any different from the love affair of the electorate praising him when he has been in office for a week? You can't praise a PM daily, you at least have to give them time to DO SOMETHING. good or bad.
A couple of us are just trying to balance this thread out! We are going to hold him accountable and remind everyone of his campaign promises. I am not going to commend him for his gimmicky stuff (cabinet appointments are half women, fixing up 24 Sussex, etc.).
I do like that he has unmuzzled the scientific community and insists his government be more open, although I think this tactic is mainly a sloppy French kiss to an adoring (already liberal leaning) media. It will be interesting how that relationship endures when the first scandal hits.
I have always been one to criticize or praise pms when due. This redux thread has a feel of love trudeau this guy can do nothing wrong. It's the indicative mantra of the bleeding heart liberals for the next 4yrs. We truly are left without Harper.
I feel like you're just completely reading into it incorrectly and with extreme bias.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have always been one to criticize or praise pms when due. This redux thread has a feel of love trudeau this guy can do nothing wrong. It's the indicative mantra of the bleeding heart liberals for the next 4yrs. We truly are left without Harper.
From my American perspective, this redux thread has much more of a sour grape, sore loser feel than loving Trudeau. It reminds me of when Obama was first elected, the criticism started before he was in the door. You can't judge a PM daily, you have to at least give them time to DO SOMETHING good or bad.
Agreed. Serious sour grapes.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have always been one to criticize or praise pms when due. This redux thread has a feel of love trudeau this guy can do nothing wrong. It's the indicative mantra of the bleeding heart liberals for the next 4yrs. We truly are left without Harper.
From my American perspective, this redux thread has much more of a sour grape, sore loser feel than loving Trudeau. It reminds me of when Obama was first elected, the criticism started before he was in the door. You can't judge a PM daily, you have to at least give them time to DO SOMETHING good or bad.
Agreed. Serious sour grapes.
But I am going to be honest... it's kind of amusing.
This has degenerated into a Royal Canadian Air Farce Tim Horton's conversation.
Holding the PM accountable for his campaign promises is what I do, and always will do. Keeping an eye on thieves who want to play Robin Hood is in my best interests
Lol! He'd probably freeze their panties with one icy glance.
The part in the article that surprised me: That the APEC organizers actually had to ask JOURNALISTS not to shriek and gush over him. Wtf? Anyway, I think any kind of positive attention can only benefit Canada in bigger ways. The more attention Trudeau gets the better, as long as it stays positive. The fact that Trudeau actually is easy on the eyes affects me in no way personally, but it doesn't hurt either, ha.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
really - we are going to sign a deal that allows foreign corporations sue us if we make laws that protect our environment and health ... figures harper would negotiate something this nefarious ... what a douchebag ... really hoping Libs don't pass this travesty ...
really - we are going to sign a deal that allows foreign corporations sue us if we make laws that protect our environment and health ... figures harper would negotiate something this nefarious ... what a douchebag ... really hoping Libs don't pass this travesty ...
Yeah, it's bad. Harper is such an asshole, seriously. I'm hoping the Libs do something here... haven't heard anything too promising about this so far though.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have not read the TPP, but I would say the fearmongering of corporations suing over regulations is a little overstated. From our federal website:
Regulatory Coherence Chapter Governments use regulations to achieve a range of policy objectives, such as ensuring the health and safety of their citizens, protecting the environment and protecting consumers. While the vast majority of regulations are designed to achieve non-trade-related objectives, they can also have the unintended effect of restricting or distorting trade. As tariffs have decreased globally, regulatory and other non-tariff barriers are the hurdles that Canadian exporters are increasingly facing when attempting to gain access to foreign markets. For example, regulatory changes implemented without adequate prior notification to foreign companies can severely restrict market opportunities in a given country, and can also provide an unfair advantage to domestic firms. Poorly developed regulations also create unnecessary trade barriers (“red tape”), as well as increasing costs for consumers.
The TPP Agreement provides for greater regulatory coherence by promoting transparency and more predictable access.It does so by fostering cooperation and early engagement in the regulatory approaches between TPP partners. Greater transparency and central coordination will provide Canadian exporters, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with greater predictability regarding foreign regulatory frameworks and their enforcement.
Technical Summary of Negotiated Outcomes: Regulatory Coherence Chapter
Enhances transparency and good regulatory practices, with a view to improving governance while taking the legitimate policy objectives of each country into account. The Agreement contains mechanisms to facilitate regulatory coordination between government ministries/departments (e.g. establishing a central coordinating body) in order to prevent conflicting or duplicative regulations from being developed. Contains provisions on good regulatory practices, such as: using regulatory impact assessments to help inform interested stakeholders of the nature of a regulation, the problems being addressed, alternatives being considered and overall costs and benefits; ensuring that new regulatory measures are easy to understand and publicly available where appropriate; and issuing public notices of future regulatory measures. Contains provisions on cooperation with other TPP Parties (e.g. information exchanges). Establishes a Committee on Regulatory Coherence that will consider issues associated with the implementation and operation of this Chapter, including developments in the area of good regulatory practices.
I read this as simply a way to prevent corruption by the foreign governments from ramming through legislation to inhibit the foreign corporation (instead of tariffs or embargoes). This kind of activity flies in the face of free trade. The idea is that the government of, let's say Peru, gives foreign exporters an achievable grace period to adhere to the new regulations.
(Alberta recently levied a 1.60 tax per 6 pack on any craft beer brewed east of Saskatchewan. That's arbitrary and unfair. Worst of all, they gave them NO warning. This is in our own country! Some Brewers in Ontario are pulling their beer from Alberta shelves)
Interestingly, the TPP tackles things like corruption and child labour. In fact, I really think this will help some of the nations (Peru, Chile, Brunei, Vietnam) improve their living/working standards. I was in Santiago this month and believe me, there are some very poor areas there.
Anyways, that's just my two cents, not really sure it's as scary as some ferocious Anti-Harper, Anti-neocon, Anti-Corporatïon, Anti-U.S., anti-global market, anti-free trade people would have you believe.
^^^^^ I fully expect the Liberals to ratify the agreement. Trudeau has given no indication they won't. There are some people (particularly in the U.S.) who are concerned free trade agreements really only benefit the wealthy and diminish the middle class by exporting those jobs to other countries. I do not argue this point (although I think it is over-exaggerated).
On the other hand, I would say it helps some countries which are less developed create more jobs and diminish poverty.
One thing is for sure, you will see less "Made in China" products and more "Made in Peru", "Made in Vietnam", "Made in Brunei"', "Made in Chile" products.
Those of you who support human rights, would you rather buy your goods from Chile or China?
I suppose these would be the same people (like Trudeau) who have a gripe against pipelining the Canadian oilsands bitumen to the west coast but have no problem with Saudi oil being shipped to Eastern Canada in large tankers. I know the Saudis human rights record is, ahem, exemplary
Comments
What are the chances any of the 25 000 will be settled in trudeaus or John McCallums riding?
While privatizing everything so quickly probably caused many of the problems, it would appear to me that it happened to quickly. Complete deregulation ia bad idea, I believe we can all concur.
Interestingly, Kirschner and his wife have been in power since this documentary. Their (Her as he passed away) net worth has risen from 7,000,000 to 81,000,000. The Argentine authorities have audited her and have stated the numbers "don't stack up".
My take after watching this film, the real reason the average Argentine suffered due to corruption.
The banks were in it with the corporations.
Laws in Canada protect us from this, and perhaps Harper was leaning towards complete deregulation, who knows? Would have been a tough sell after 2008 though.
But the one thing I can say about the Argentine workers who occupied those factories, they are amazing people. They did not sit around and bemoan the system and collect welfare. They did something. They made it happen, and I applaud them
Another good point in the movie, is simply railing AGAINST something is easy. What are you protesting FOR? This is why I will say it again, Canada walks the fine line between capitalism and socialism better than any other country in the world. I want to ensure my fellow citizens have a safety net, yet not be taxed to the point I cannot afford things in life I enjoy (ie rolling Pearl Jam on foreign concert tours, taking the kids once a year to an all-inclusive, etc.). Don't take away the most important thing to us, and that is memories.
Why do you ask? It's a fair question of a campaign promise.
What difference does it make? Politicians can make campaign promises with a NIMBY approach, just as they can award government contracts to businesses in their own ridings.
Where does the random number of 2700 to metro Vancouver come from? How do you know people are working hard to make it happen? (Getting into the theme of asking lots of questions
I never heard that his campaign promise was that a bunch of refugees would specifically be going to his own riding. Did you read that somewhere? I don't really care either way. Are you suggesting that Trudeau would somehow be benefitting financially for his own riding by bringing refugees into it?? If so, please explain, because that makes no sense to me.
It's not a random number - I heard that 2700 of the 25,000 are being sent to metro Vancouver on the morning news. I can say that's accurate, but it's what is being officially reported.
I know people are working hard to make it happen because I have been watching interviews on the news and reading articles about it. The people who are working to get it done aren't doing it in secret. There are info sessions, there is a settlement office that's been set up, the mayors are talking to various groups, the school boards are making sure there are spaces for the kids, they have worked out how much welfare each refugee will be getting when they arrive ($650/refugee/month apparently), etc.
Is there some kind of point you are trying to make? I'm honestly not sure.
I just returned to the country. A little behind on the news. No need to get so angry.
You made a post, I had some questions.
To answer your multiple questions:
- No it was not a strong answer
- The other poster asked a specific question and your response was "pretty good I guess". In other words, you have no idea, which is a strong definitive answer.
- no I don't think or read anywhere Trudeau would be benefitting financially from refugees in his own riding. The point is, will any actually go to his riding or is he going to solve these problems in a "not in my back yard (NIMBY) way.
- the point I was trying to make was you asked a bunch of questions to a poster who is asking legitimate questions surrounding a campaign promise.
I have not commented much on the refugee issue because it is a moot point. 25000 is not going to make a dent in the number of people trying to flee that war zone. Germany is the only country which has stepped up to the plate.
The fact that Trudeau is being hailed as some sort of hero for doing this is laughable. Just my opinion.
So you think helping 25,000 people isn't worthy of praise because it's not a big enough number?
Whether or not refugees end up in Trudeau's riding is completely irrelevant. Totally. I have no idea why you're even thinking about it. But I seriously doubt he in particular would have that "not in my backyard" attitude. Nothing in his entire life has ever indicated that he would feel that way. Quite the opposite.
I feel like you are just grasping at straws, trying to find a way to make this negative and somehow try to show that Trudeau should be criticized for it.
- Trudeau isn't helping 25000 people, Canadians in general are ($650 a month is from taxpayers).
- we could help a lot more yes. The praise is unwarranted
- I wasn't thinking about it, pjfanwillneverleave was. You responded to his post and I was explaining what you were not understanding (that is where all your questions come from no?)
- it is not a negative, but giving Trudeau credit for a campaign promise he cannot deliver on is foolishness. It's easy to make promises, hard to deliver
Obviously Trudeau is not single handedly helping them. But he is actually directly responsible for it happening at all.
Not sure what you mean about giving credit to him for a promise he can't deliver. It is happening. The wheels have already started turning. It's actually going forward. You said that you haven't even been following this on the news. Maybe you should catch up? While the promise is certainly hard to deliver (no one ever said it would be easy), and while there will almost certainly be hitches along the way, as this is a very complicated process involving a lot of people, it is happening.
- I'm not sure how to answer the Wtf question
- Your suggestion that I begin to catch up on the news is insightful and I will give it serious consideration.
Trudeau promised 25000 refugees by the end of the year. It was a campaign promise he made that "is certainly hard to deliver".
You are certainly correct in stating Trudeau is not single handedly helping them, however you are incorrect in stating without him there would have been no help at all.
The previous government promised to bring in 10000 refugees. They may have allowed more to come over in the future. Obviously we will never know.
Finally, the people directly responsible for this happening is the electorate who voted in the Liberal majority. This was one of their campaign promises.
Giving credit to Trudeau for seeing that this happens does not detract from all the credit deserved by everyone else. As far as the deflecting the praise comment.... I don't even know why you said that. As though you think Trudeau is being greedy with any credit being given to him. There is nothing to suggest he will not give all the credit he can to everyone involved.
The people who voted in the Liberal party are actually indirectly responsible for this happening. Trudeau is directly responsible for it going ahead.
This is good politics, people often vote with emotion.
The advisors vetted the numbers with "experts" and asked if it was achievable to get 25000 refugees through the process by the end of the year.
The experts said it was possible. Trudeau makes public this campaign promise.
The voters with empathy look at the alternatives and think nothing will be done, so they flock to the Liberal camp.
So, the voters are directly responsible for helping these refugees because
i) they voted for the Liberals who promised to do this
ii) it is not Trudeau's money which pays for the process of bringing the refugees over, it is the Canadian Taxpayer
iii) it is not Trudeau who will fork over $650/Month times 25000 in welfare to these refugees, it is the Canadian Taxpayer
Trudeau is the PM. He is going to take all the credit he can get. He wants to be popular. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not pay close attention to politics. Half of his cabinet ministers are women, you think he did that for any other reason than to be popular?
Trudeau may never be a great PM, but he is actually a better politician than I gave him credit for. He has been coached very well the past 8 months. The stupid, asinine sound bites have ceased.
Trudeau is still directly responsible for it, lol. It doesn't matter how or why he did it.
But I actually don't even know why you are harping on about him taking credit for it, him wanting to be popular, blah blah blah. So you NEVER EVER give any credit to a politician no matter what? Is that what you're saying?
We agree to disagree.
I wasn't "harping" on him for anything. My belief is politicians are elected to serve us, the citizens.
I look through the popularity contest and the flash and the left wing media BS and hold politicians accountable for their actions.
I give credit to politicians where credit is due. This is not one of those times in my opinion.
He may have bit off more than he can chew. Politicians who promise and cannot deliver are a dime an dozen.
I'm surprised a "Trudeaumania redux" thread hasn't been created yet
It reminds me of when Obama was first elected, the criticism started before he was in the door. You can't judge a PM daily, you have to at least give them time to DO SOMETHING good or bad.
How is tat any different from the love affair of the electorate praising him when he has been in office for a week? You can't praise a PM daily, you at least have to give them time to DO SOMETHING. good or bad.
A couple of us are just trying to balance this thread out!
I do like that he has unmuzzled the scientific community and insists his government be more open, although I think this tactic is mainly a sloppy French kiss to an adoring (already liberal leaning) media. It will be interesting how that relationship endures when the first scandal hits.
Aren't you glad Trudeau won? I sure am.
Holding the PM accountable for his campaign promises is what I do, and always will do.
Keeping an eye on thieves who want to play Robin Hood is in my best interests
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-apec-admirers-apechottie-shrieks-1.3325845
The part in the article that surprised me: That the APEC organizers actually had to ask JOURNALISTS not to shriek and gush over him. Wtf?
Anyway, I think any kind of positive attention can only benefit Canada in bigger ways. The more attention Trudeau gets the better, as long as it stays positive. The fact that Trudeau actually is easy on the eyes affects me in no way personally, but it doesn't hurt either, ha.
really - we are going to sign a deal that allows foreign corporations sue us if we make laws that protect our environment and health ... figures harper would negotiate something this nefarious ... what a douchebag ... really hoping Libs don't pass this travesty ...
I'm hoping the Libs do something here... haven't heard anything too promising about this so far though.
Regulatory Coherence Chapter
Governments use regulations to achieve a range of policy objectives, such as ensuring the health and safety of their citizens, protecting the environment and protecting consumers. While the vast majority of regulations are designed to achieve non-trade-related objectives, they can also have the unintended effect of restricting or distorting trade. As tariffs have decreased globally, regulatory and other non-tariff barriers are the hurdles that Canadian exporters are increasingly facing when attempting to gain access to foreign markets. For example, regulatory changes implemented without adequate prior notification to foreign companies can severely restrict market opportunities in a given country, and can also provide an unfair advantage to domestic firms. Poorly developed regulations also create unnecessary trade barriers (“red tape”), as well as increasing costs for consumers.
The TPP Agreement provides for greater regulatory coherence by promoting transparency and more predictable access.It does so by fostering cooperation and early engagement in the regulatory approaches between TPP partners. Greater transparency and central coordination will provide Canadian exporters, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with greater predictability regarding foreign regulatory frameworks and their enforcement.
Technical Summary of Negotiated Outcomes: Regulatory Coherence Chapter
Enhances transparency and good regulatory practices, with a view to improving governance while taking the legitimate policy objectives of each country into account.
The Agreement contains mechanisms to facilitate regulatory coordination between government ministries/departments (e.g. establishing a central coordinating body) in order to prevent conflicting or duplicative regulations from being developed.
Contains provisions on good regulatory practices, such as:
using regulatory impact assessments to help inform interested stakeholders of the nature of a regulation, the problems being addressed, alternatives being considered and overall costs and benefits;
ensuring that new regulatory measures are easy to understand and publicly available where appropriate; and
issuing public notices of future regulatory measures.
Contains provisions on cooperation with other TPP Parties (e.g. information exchanges).
Establishes a Committee on Regulatory Coherence that will consider issues associated with the implementation and operation of this Chapter, including developments in the area of good regulatory practices.
I read this as simply a way to prevent corruption by the foreign governments from ramming through legislation to inhibit the foreign corporation (instead of tariffs or embargoes). This kind of activity flies in the face of free trade. The idea is that the government of, let's say Peru, gives foreign exporters an achievable grace period to adhere to the new regulations.
(Alberta recently levied a 1.60 tax per 6 pack on any craft beer brewed east of Saskatchewan. That's arbitrary and unfair. Worst of all, they gave them NO warning. This is in our own country! Some Brewers in Ontario are pulling their beer from Alberta shelves)
Interestingly, the TPP tackles things like corruption and child labour. In fact, I really think this will help some of the nations (Peru, Chile, Brunei, Vietnam) improve their living/working standards. I was in Santiago this month and believe me, there are some very poor areas there.
Anyways, that's just my two cents, not really sure it's as scary as some ferocious Anti-Harper, Anti-neocon, Anti-Corporatïon, Anti-U.S., anti-global market, anti-free trade people would have you believe.
I fully expect the Liberals to ratify the agreement. Trudeau has given no indication they won't.
There are some people (particularly in the U.S.) who are concerned free trade agreements really only benefit the wealthy and diminish the middle class by exporting those jobs to other countries. I do not argue this point (although I think it is over-exaggerated).
On the other hand, I would say it helps some countries which are less developed create more jobs and diminish poverty.
One thing is for sure, you will see less "Made in China" products and more "Made in Peru", "Made in Vietnam", "Made in Brunei"', "Made in Chile" products.
Those of you who support human rights, would you rather buy your goods from Chile or China?
I suppose these would be the same people (like Trudeau) who have a gripe against pipelining the Canadian oilsands bitumen to the west coast but have no problem with Saudi oil being shipped to Eastern Canada in large tankers. I know the Saudis human rights record is, ahem, exemplary