• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.
so any of you guys pro TPP?

Also do you think it would be easy for Canada to bail on it.... will this new government abide by it and endorse it even if we get a bunch of people against it
 

CazTGG

Member
so any of you guys pro TPP?

Also do you think it would be easy for Canada to bail on it.... will this new government abide by it and endorse it even if we get a bunch of people against it

Completely against it myself, especially if it means messing with milk.

In all seriousness, the TPP is just a mess that, as far as I know, does not benefit people that reside in Canada, especially not in the area of copyright law. As for bailing on it, I don't know if that's possible at this point considering Justin Trudeau seems to be in favor of pushing it through. If it goes through without bail or in spite of the opposition, the best possibility is for some amendments to be made to it that makes it more favorable than it is in its current state but it's likely too little, too late for that to happen. Maybe it's just the defeatist in me speaking, but that's my two cents on the matter.
 
Completely against it myself, especially if it means messing with milk.

In all seriousness, the TPP is just a mess that, as far as I know, does not benefit people that reside in Canada, especially not in the area of copyright law. As for bailing on it, I don't know if that's possible at this point considering Justin Trudeau seems to be in favor of pushing it through. If it goes through without bail or in spite of the opposition, the best possibility is for some amendments to be made to it that makes it more favorable than it is in its current state but it's likely too little, too late for that to happen. Maybe it's just the defeatist in me speaking, but that's my two cents on the matter.

yeah and the official Opposition of the new government is the crazy guys that got is in this deal in the first place :/ .... the only way is to somehow have this issue explode into a major internet viral scenario



There is a bunch of crazy things in this deal from work safety to Veto powers and break apart work independence from other country policies... Privacy, Healthcare, generic drug in danger, the list goes on and on
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Was there a budget that was passed before the election? I'm trying to find out if the tax on tampons was actually removed in Canada or if they just voted to remove it but never actually did anything.
 

Stet

Banned
so any of you guys pro TPP?

Also do you think it would be easy for Canada to bail on it.... will this new government abide by it and endorse it even if we get a bunch of people against it

A good TPP deal would be amazing for our economy, and would do a lot to take us away from the reliance on oil exports to sustain our dollar.

This is not that deal.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
so any of you guys pro TPP?

Also do you think it would be easy for Canada to bail on it.... will this new government abide by it and endorse it even if we get a bunch of people against it
It makes me sick. I know that Trudeau will sell us out so my only hope is Clinton or Trump in America.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
I don't think that adding 20 years to copyright is really that crazy. I don't know what the optimal copyright term is, but it's definitely not a big enough deal to warrant rejecting a huge trade deal over.

Anyway, here's an argument that the TPP is really 4 deals that should be voted on and considered separately. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...le-yes-vote/sZd0nlnCr18RurX1n549GI/story.html

The first is a free-trade deal among the signatories. That part could be signed today. Tariff rates would come down to zero; quotas would drop; trade would expand; and protectionism would be held at bay.
The second is a set of regulatory standards for trade. Most of these are useful, requiring that regulations that limit trade should be based on evidence, not on political whims or hidden protectionism.
The third is a set of regulations governing investor rights, intellectual property, and regulations in key service sectors, including financial services, telecommunications, e-commerce, and pharmaceuticals. These chapters are a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Their common denominator is that they enshrine the power of corporate capital above all other parts of society, including labor and even governments.
The fourth is a set of standards on labor and environment that purport to advance the cause of social fairness and environmental sustainability. But the agreements are thin, unenforceable, and generally unimaginative. For example, climate change is not even mentioned, much less addressed boldly and creatively.
 

Azzanadra

Member
It makes me sick. I know that Trudeau will sell us out so my only hope is Clinton or Trump in America.

What. Do people actually think Trump will win the republican candidacy, let alone even having a chance to become the President?

Clinton will be the next president, there's no doubt about it.
 
What. Do people actually think Trump will win the republican candidacy, let alone even having a chance to become the President?

Clinton will be the next president, there's no doubt about it.

With the other candidates bending over backwards to destroy themselves, a Trump nomination is entirely within the realm of possibility.

I am skeptical that a president Clinton would actually do anything to block TPP though.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
What. Do people actually think Trump will win the republican candidacy, let alone even having a chance to become the President?

Clinton will be the next president, there's no doubt about it.

I do think that Trump will win as the Republican and I think he has a chance at beating Clinton. In either case, I hope they stick to their word and kill the deal.
 
hahahahahahahaha Clinton is the most pro Wall Street candidate from both parties.

as for Rubio or Bush, both of them would keep TPP

Trump and Carson have no chance of becoming GOP nominee
 
hahahahahahahaha Clinton is the most pro Wall Street candidate from both parties.

well, no, she's easily less "pro Wall Street" than the whole of the GOP if she wants to keep the only regulations passed since 2007 in place

Trump and Carson have no chance of becoming GOP nominee

Trump has literally been leading with 25% or more of the vote since one month after he entered the race and easily has the most robust campaign infrastructure in at least the first two states.

Donald Trump will be the next Republican Nominee for President
and Hillary Clinton will be the next President
 
Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States of America.
Neofaf, hear me now.

I bet my account, (yes I am making an account bet)

I bet my account that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States of America.


If Hilary Clinton does not win the Presidency in 2016, then neogaf can perma ban me forever.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Neofaf, hear me now.

I bet my account, (yes I am making an account bet)

I bet my account that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States of America.


If Hilary Clinton does not win the Presidency in 2016, then neogaf can perma ban me forever.
giphy.gif

Did my post not read familiar?
 
well, no, she's easily less "pro Wall Street" than the whole of the GOP if she wants to keep the only regulations passed since 2007 in place



Trump has literally been leading with 25% or more of the vote since one month after he entered the race and easily has the most robust campaign infrastructure in at least the first two states.

Donald Trump will be the next Republican Nominee for President
and Hillary Clinton will be the next President

I don't know how Republican primaries work. Do you only need a plurality of votes or a majority of votes to become the nominee? Because if you need a majority, then Trump is definitely not winning. There are more Republicans who hate him than like him. His support is 30% but his disapproval among his own party is like 50%.
 
Do any of you really believe the Obama Trade Agreement will ever pass the US congress? You know, the one that just intentionally blocks anything he ever tries to do.
 
Do any of you really believe the Obama Trade Agreement will ever pass the US congress? You know, the one that just intentionally blocks anything he ever tries to do.

with the different factions inside the Republican party, it is too difficult to gauge what the hell is going on between the Rinos vs the Tea Partiers in that the GOP.
 
hahahahahahahaha Clinton is the most pro Wall Street candidate from both parties.

as for Rubio or Bush, both of them would keep TPP

Trump and Carson have no chance of becoming GOP nominee

Bush has no chance of being the nominee and Rubio might end up in jail by the time this is all over. Trump has a much higher chance at being the nominee than both of them.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Bush has no chance of being the nominee and Rubio might end up in jail by the time this is all over.

I think this is what happens when you pay too much attention to day-to-day news (so you're getting a ton of coverage of Rubio's credit card scandal) and not enough to the big picture. There's essentially no chance that based on what has currently been reported, Marco Rubio will end up in jail.

Trump has a much higher chance at being the nominee than both of them.

Again, paying too much attention to day-to-day polling and not enough to the big picture.
 

Silexx

Member
Walpurgis wasn't banned for something in this thread, was he? (I can't check because while neogaf.com isn't blocked at work, for some reason the search function is.)
 

subrock

Member
Do any of you really believe the Obama Trade Agreement will ever pass the US congress? You know, the one that just intentionally blocks anything he ever tries to do.
I think there was a law change recently that changed it so voting on trade agreements in congress only requires a simple 50%+1 majority and also something to do with removing the filibuster mechanism. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)
 
Bush has no chance of being the nominee and Rubio might end up in jail by the time this is all over. Trump has a much higher chance at being the nominee than both of them.

I dislike Jeb allot and I hope he fails.
The guy still has the backing of the establishment, I wouldn't underestimate the weight of the establishment wishing to block Trump or Carson

If Jeb keeps sinking, Rubio might be chosen as an option among the establishment
 

winjet81

Member
Love this thread!

Anyone know the timeline for Trudeau to implement the income tax and child benefit changes that were promised?

Is it plausible that these changes will be in place by January 1st... or is it more realistic that the changes will be made sometime in Q1/Q2 2016, and then retroactive to the 1st of the year?
 

Silexx

Member
Love this thread!

Anyone know the timeline for Trudeau to implement the income tax and child benefit changes that were promised?

Is it plausible that these changes will be in place by January 1st... or is it more realistic that the changes will be made sometime in Q1/Q2 2016, and then retroactive to the 1st of the year?

Trudeau is going to call back Parliament on Dec 3rd specifically to get those tax changes through. So the intention is there at least.
 
Well December is prime time

we can also get some things happening in France and Turkey this month for those two summits (like TPP for the G20? and Climate stuff for Paris)
 

explodet

Member
I forgot I had taken this screenshot of Youtube's CBC stream just before the election started.

gTSozBE.png


This is the future of our democracy.
 
I don't know how Republican primaries work. Do you only need a plurality of votes or a majority of votes to become the nominee? Because if you need a majority, then Trump is definitely not winning. There are more Republicans who hate him than like him. His support is 30% but his disapproval among his own party is like 50%.

you need a majority, and for at least the first month no one's going to come anywhere close - certainly not the establishment darlings, considering they're consistently polling in single digits in the February primaries

(that having been said, regarding the actual subject of this conversation I have no goddamn clue if the TPP's actually going through, which is probably a slight net benefit for Canada, at least)
 

Cocaine_

Neo Member
you need a majority, and for at least the first month no one's going to come anywhere close - certainly not the establishment darlings, considering they're consistently polling in single digits in the February primaries

(that having been said, regarding the actual subject of this conversation I have no goddamn clue if the TPP's actually going through, which is probably a slight net benefit for Canada, at least)

Didn't Trump say if he doesn't win the primaries then he will run as an independent?
 

explodet

Member
Didn't Trump say if he doesn't win the primaries then he will run as an independent?
They made him sign something promising he wouldn't.

It's not a contract or anything though, and it's completely non-binding. If he gets pissed off enough he could still do it.
 

maharg

idspispopd
you need a majority, and for at least the first month no one's going to come anywhere close - certainly not the establishment darlings, considering they're consistently polling in single digits in the February primaries

(that having been said, regarding the actual subject of this conversation I have no goddamn clue if the TPP's actually going through, which is probably a slight net benefit for Canada, at least)

I don't know how Republican primaries work. Do you only need a plurality of votes or a majority of votes to become the nominee? Because if you need a majority, then Trump is definitely not winning. There are more Republicans who hate him than like him. His support is 30% but his disapproval among his own party is like 50%.

The primary process is actually quite complex and there's no easy answer to this question. Individual states may allocate their delegates as either winner take all or proportionally, and then once the voting at the convention actually starts and candidates start falling off those delegates may be released or bound to vote in particular ways. Honestly, the whole thing is a mess and anyone who claims they can divine the outcome in advance is selling snake oil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Process
 

explodet

Member
Iowa is only good now for generating pictures of US politicians deepthroating corn dogs to be shown on the Daily Show.

All we get are cowboy hats at the Calgary Stampede.
 

Boogie

Member
I like your member tag.

As a Canadian with a second passport, I am breathing a sigh of relief here. I know it would have never affected me, but it's pretty terrifying that if I ever got into trouble with the law, I could be shipped off. I know it's supposed to be used only for extremist offenses, but who knows what will be considered "extremist" in 30 years, and if we have situations where Canada would be effectively deporting people to their other countries for political reasons.

It wasn't "supposed" to be used only for terrorism offences.

It was, as written, only able to be used for terrorism offences.

Under that law, you couldn't "be shipped off" for "getting into trouble with the law." You could be shipped off for being convicted by a judge, or a jury of your peers, of a terrorism offence, and sentenced to more than five years in prison.

Your concern, as expressed above, seems to demonstrate so little faith in Canadian society that you could foresee, through this law, within 30 years, people getting convicted of terrorism offences and sentenced to more than 5 years in prison for "political reasons."
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Your concern, as expressed above, seems to demonstrate so little faith in Canadian society that you could foresee, through this law, within 30 years, people getting convicted of terrorism offences and sentenced to more than 5 years in prison for "political reasons."

While it's definitely true that abuse would be highly unlikely as written, the law seems to demonstrate so little faith in Canadian society that it could forsee terrorists being convicted, getting out of jail, an...d going right back to terrorizing while the Canadian welfare state subsidizes them... and the way to solve that is some Napoleonic-era practice of exiling them into the wastelands of Darkest Syriastan... and that none of this applies to single-citizenship Canadians??? but does apply to dual-citizenship Canadians who got their citizenship from birth and never went to their other home country???

My objections are two-fold:
1) I think you can improve the law by just exiling every Super Terrorist. Put them on St. Helena or Syria or on a mountain somewhere or send them to the moon. Why does citizenship status matter? Is it because we can't find someone to take our terrorists, but the law solves this by exiling only those we can guarantee someone else would take? What if Syria passed a law to strip Syrian citizenship of Syrian dual-citizens convicted of terror abroad? Now you have stateless terrorists that no one will take. Should we just fly them around the world on a plane that gets refueled mid-air or something?

2) Why shouldn't laws that apply to terrorists apply to mass murderers like Paul Bernardo? I don't want him any more than I want some 19 year old ISIS wannabe. Like, I'm not saying it should apply to routine crimes, but when we're in the sphere of catastrophic and abhorrent crimes, why not apply it to other dangerous offenders who committed mass casualty or multi-casualty attacks?
 

Boogie

Member
Can we get a constitutional amendment preventing stripping people of citizenship? Like honestly that should just never happen,

Never never?

What about someone who obtains citizenship by false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances during the process by which they obtained citizenship in the first place? :p
 

Boogie

Member
the law seems to demonstrate so little faith in Canadian society that it could forsee terrorists being convicted, getting out of jail, an...d going right back to terrorizing while the Canadian welfare state subsidizes them

....yup, I could have seen that. Especially considering some of the sentences for the Toronto 18 ringleaders were too light until they were toughened on appeal from the Crown.

edit: For example:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-canadian-plot-dies-fighting-in-syria-reports

... and the way to solve that is some Napoleonic-era practice of exiling them into the wastelands of Darkest Syriastan...

But fair point.

and that none of this applies to single-citizenship Canadians??? but does apply to dual-citizenship Canadians who got their citizenship from birth and never went to their other home country???

And doubly fair point.

I was always against C-24 myself, for the record, for reasons not far from your criticism above.

But the paranoid fear-mongering that it has inspired just drives me crazy. Especially when people probably never bother to read the damned law itself.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
....yup, I could have seen that. Especially considering some of the sentences for the Toronto 18 ringleaders were waaay too light until they were toughened on appeal from the Crown.

Well, I mean, I think we can have the debate that splits-hairs on the appropriate level of punishment or whatever, but I feel like prima facie trust in the expert judicial system should be higher than trust of demagoguing politicians passing anti-criminal laws.

This has the weird result of me taking an anti-liberal position (elite institutions are more credible than those directly accountable to the public) to get a left-progressive result (against a tough-on-crime measure).

(don't bother responding to my edits, I think we're somewhat on the same page here and I was just trying to tease out whether we were or not)
 

maharg

idspispopd
I have that little faith, personally. Slippery slopes make bad arguments in general, but history is replete with political institutions falling down them, often in spans of much less than 30 years. A precedent for foreign convictions leading to exile is more than likely to be used for broader things over time.
 
Never never?

What about someone who obtains citizenship by false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances during the process by which they obtained citizenship in the first place? :p

Yeah, I'm rather in favor handing out citizenship like candy to anyone who lives here so I'm fine with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom