Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

I think they're already trying. They're just laying the ground work now. 2019 will be a shit show. But ill wait and see on the conservative party leadership race.

this is political suicide if any Conservative would do this.

Ukrainian-Canadians are an important constituency in Western Canada.
+
the whole Arctic Sovereignty issue was a big thing for Harper who did not trust Russia in the Arctic waters
+
Harper was very vocal about being mad about Russia's annexing of Crimea.

there is a consensus among the CPC and LPC about Canada's support of Western Democracies, NATO and distrust of Russia.

 

[LakeEarth]

Did you guys read this? The President of the Cora restaurants chain, and son of the foundress Cora Tsouflidou, was kidnapped wednesday night by two guys. He was found alive with minor injuries in a ditch at around 6 a.m. the following morning.

So weird. I wonder what was their motive. Money? Or maybe it was personal?

They were holding him hostage until they expanded Cora's business hours passed 3pm. Sometimes I want eggs and fruit at night, you fucking assholes!!

Spoiler

As someone who has relatives that went to school under fake names due to a rich dad, I'm very glad he was found alive.

 

[Pedrito]

this is political suicide if any Conservative would do this.

Ukrainian-Canadians are an important constituency in Western Canada.
+
the whole Arctic Sovereignty issue was a big thing for Harper who did not trust Russia in the Arctic waters
+
Harper was very vocal about being mad about Russia's annexing of Crimea.

there is a consensus among the CPC and LPC about Canada's support of Western Democracies, NATO and distrust of Russia.

You could have said the exact same thing about the Republicans a year ago and here we are. That being said, I agree that it's doubtful the CPC would change its stance.

 

[djkimothy]

Some decent news guys?

Unemployment down to 6.6%.

Employers added 15,300 jobs last month, Statistics Canada said on Friday, topping economists' expectations for 2,500. The gain was driven by a hefty 105,100 increase in full-time hiring, offseting a 89,800 drop in part-time positions.

 

[CazTGG]

I think they're already trying. They're just laying the ground work now. 2019 will be a shit show. But ill wait and see on the conservative party leadership race.

Have any of the CPC leadership hopefuls said anything about Russia or Putin? That seems like a more pressing issue than getting angry about a carbon tax.

You could have said the exact same thing about the Republicans a year ago and here we are. That being said, I agree that it's doubtful the CPC would change its stance.

To add to this, recall how we were once expecting the NDP to win the last election but we ended up with a Liberal majority. Nothing is set in stone, especially in the era of Kremlin election interference.

 

[gutter_trash]

You could have said the exact same thing about the Republicans a year ago and here we are.

LOL so true.

but our parliamentary system gives a party the ability to do a Caucus Revolt and oust their leader.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Have any of the CPC leadership hopefuls said anything about Russia or Putin? That seems like a more pressing issue than getting angry about a carbon tax.

The only comment I saw from the Conservatives about the Freeland stuff was from their foreign affairs critic Peter Kent:

“It is unacceptable. It seems they are trying smear a minister with historical detail that has probably been misrepresented,” he said. “It is unfair and it is typical of what we have seen in other countries and it has nothing to do with her ability to represent Canada.”

I haven't seen anything official from the NDP, but anecdotally, the NDPers I know are much, much more pro-Russia than any Conservatives.

 

[SRG01]

Gotcha. I was going to question why they'd do that, then I looked at their financials. As far as I can tell, the final 2016 report isn't out yet, but the PCs ended 2015 more than $1m in the hole, and last year they only raised half a million dollars. Wildrose, meanwhile, finished 2015 with a modest surplus, and then raised $2m last year.

So Kenney really is relying on Wildrose being good faith partners in any merger, and not just letting the PC Association of Alberta (or its successor) go bankrupt.

EDIT: Just saw your edits -- I'm eager to read what people more knowledgeable on this than me have to say!

EDIT2: So if I'm understanding that correctly, the PCs are basically relying on Jason Kenney raising so much money for his leadership campaign that they can afford to pay off their outstanding debt, then they close up shop. I don't get what Wildrose gets out of a merger (or whatever you want to call both parties winding down to start a brand new party), though, since they almost definitely have no outstanding debt, and they'd have to turn over all their excess millions to Elections Alberta. It'd be 100% premised around the rockstar allure of Jason Kenney which is a...questionable notion, to put it mildly.

Also... the 'Rosers completely hate the PCs so they'd demand more influence and control -- which is why Brian Jean is now jockeying to be the head of the new body.

The other wrench in this problem is that there is a not-insignificant portion of the existing PC membership that completely hate Jason Kenney. Any merger of the right will lead to the centrists leaving -- to which party would be the biggest question of the next election. Is there a scenario where they'd leave to a more palatable party, say the Alberta Party or even the NDP? Possibly, but the Alberta party recently changed their constitution to prevent hijacks of any sort.

 

[gabbo]

Also... the 'Rosers completely hate the PCs so they'd demand more influence and control -- which is why Brian Jean is now jockeying to be the head of the new body.

The other wrench in this problem is that there is a not-insignificant portion of the existing PC membership that completely hate Jason Kenney. Any merger of the right will lead to the centrists leaving -- to which party would be the biggest question of the next election. Is there a scenario where they'd leave to a more palatable party, say the Alberta Party or even the NDP? Possibly, but the Alberta party recently changed their constitution to prevent hijacks of any sort.

Is he that unpopular out west? I always assumed my dislike of him had to do my perception of him being a smarmy fake who played to immigrants in really disgusting ways for votes in the 905, but also because im a left leaning (recent grad) from ontario and maybe that played into it somehow.

 

[SRG01]

Is he that unpopular out west? I always assumed my dislike of him had to do my perception of him being a smarmy fake who played to immigrants in really disgusting ways for votes in the 905, but also because im a left leaning (recent grad) from ontario and maybe that played into it somehow.

A not-insignificant portion of Alberta voters regard him as an opportunist, as he's a career politician who didn't give up his federal paycheck until the last moment, as well as the tactics by his campaign during the PC leadership race. Sadly, many people don't know the latter but have certainly heard of the former.

He also stuck out like a sore thumb during one of the Conservative barbeques during the Stampede -- wearing cowboy attire and all. And, if I remember correctly, wasn't that warmly received.

 

[maharg]

I think it's pretty unlikely he ends up the leader of the 'merged' party anyways. Jean or Fildebrandt would probably run away with it. If it's the latter, it'll be bozo eruptions all day every day.

 

[bremon]

At that meeting I attended at my MPs office, a number of issues were raised by other constituents and I can't recall the details, but somewhere along the lines there was some reminiscing about Brian Mulroney's PCs and my MP laid the blame for a lot of his failures and his legacy at the feet of the Liberals. He was basically described as a guy who had to come in and clean up a mess and make adult decisions to clean up after the kids who were running the playground. Anyone have any explanations for me as to how that could be the case? I've never heard anyone (including my rural PC voting relatives I grew up listening to) have any real positive things to say about Mulroney era PC.

 

[SRG01]

At that meeting I attended at my MPs office, a number of issues were raised by other constituents and I can't recall the details, but somewhere along the lines there was some reminiscing about Brian Mulroney's PCs and my MP laid the blame for a lot of his failures and his legacy at the feet of the Liberals. He was basically described as a guy who had to come in and clean up a mess and make adult decisions to clean up after the kids who were running the playground. Anyone have any explanations for me as to how that could be the case? I've never heard anyone (including my rural PC voting relatives I grew up listening to) have any real positive things to say about Mulroney era PC.

The Mulroney-era PCs suffered from several problems including: that they were essentially a Central/Eastern Canadian-based party, giving the narrative of 'The West Wants In' more strength; that they pursued the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords; that the recession was deepening, hitting the west pretty hard; and that he implemented the GST.

Additional reasons may include parts of the Bloc coming from the old PCs, but that's probably irrelevant...

 

[matthewwhatever]

I think it's pretty unlikely he ends up the leader of the 'merged' party anyways. Jean or Fildebrandt would probably run away with it. If it's the latter, it'll be bozo eruptions all day every day.

I don't know much about Fildebrandt, but would he be palatable to the broader Alberta electorate? All I know about him comes from the few times he pops up in the national news, but he seems like a pretty extreme guy, even for Wildrose.

At that meeting I attended at my MPs office, a number of issues were raised by other constituents and I can't recall the details, but somewhere along the lines there was some reminiscing about Brian Mulroney's PCs and my MP laid the blame for a lot of his failures and his legacy at the feet of the Liberals. He was basically described as a guy who had to come in and clean up a mess and make adult decisions to clean up after the kids who were running the playground. Anyone have any explanations for me as to how that could be the case? I've never heard anyone (including my rural PC voting relatives I grew up listening to) have any real positive things to say about Mulroney era PC.

Mulroney's legacy is complicated. He did inherit a bit of a financial mess from Pierre Trudeau, but he didn't do much to fix anything beyond unstrategic cuts (and the mess he left for Chretien was even worse). On the positive side, he brought in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, led the international push against apartheid, and enacted the most stringent environmental laws Canada has ever had. Unfortunately, he also bought into the separatist myth of Quebec not being an equal partner in Confederation, and led two rounds of constitutional negotiations (Meech Lake and Charlottetown) that nearly tore the country apart. I think there's a good argument to be made that if he's not the best Conservative PM we've ever had, then he's second behind Macdonald...but at the same time, that still puts him behind Laurier, Pearson, Chretien, King, St. Laurent, and probably Pierre Trudeau (and it's still too early to judge the younger Trudeau). So Mulroney's a much better PM than people give him credit for, but saying he cleaned up anything is overstating things.

 

[maharg]

Fildebrandt would be very unpalatable to the electorate, but he's who the core wildrose membership would love to have as premiere more than anyone else. Because of that he's both ascendant in the party and virtually untouchable by the more sensible people in the party (including Jean). If he's not leader at some point I'll eat a hat.

 

[bremon]

Thanks for the explanation on Mulroney guys, much appreciated.

Re: Fildebrandt he seems like the typical right-wing type who can do no wrong in the eyes of their constituents. The only real reason I know who he is is because he was suspended for engaging with one of his redneck constituents who used some derogatory language towards Kathleen Wynne when she was here. He was suspended for an "indefinite" amount of time btw, which definitely wasn't longer than a few days.

 

[CazTGG]

While he's the most competent of all the Conservative PMs we've had (Macdonald's' failures prevent me from considering him to be a good leader, especially when his racist policies have such a staggering legacy i.e. when it comes to immigration policies, MacDonald set a precedent for immigration favoring white Europeans that lasted until the 1980s), Mulroney is a fairly middling Prime Minister overall and on the lower end when it comes to long-term leaders. There's no argument to be had over his solid environmental policies (even if Stephen Harper removed a fair amount of it with many of his deregulatory policies) and NAFTA but his mishandling of two referendums that nearly lead to Quebec pulling a Brexit cannot be overlooked nor should one forget how quick Mulroney was to cozy up to Ronald Reagan. Say what you want about Pierre Trudeau's outspoken nature damaging U.S./Canada relations, the concerns he had with Reagan were well worth speaking up about.

 

[SRG01]

While he's the most competent of all the Conservative PMs we've had (Macdonald's' failures prevent me from considering him to be a good leader, especially when his racist policies have such a staggering legacy i.e. when it comes to immigration policies, MacDonald set a precedent for immigration favoring white Europeans that lasted until the 1980s), Mulroney is a fairly middling Prime Minister overall and on the lower end when it comes to long-term leaders. There's no argument to be had over his solid environmental policies (even if Stephen Harper removed a fair amount of it with many of his deregulatory policies) and NAFTA but his mishandling of two referendums that nearly lead to Quebec pulling a Brexit cannot be overlooked nor should one forget how quick Mulroney was to cozy up to Ronald Reagan. Say what you want about Pierre Trudeau's outspoken nature damaging U.S./Canada relations, the concerns he had with Reagan were well worth speaking up about.

What about Joe Clark? He was pretty awesome, despite his short tenure...

 

[matthewwhatever]

I love Joe Clark. I deeply respect Joe Clark. I was fortunate enough to work on Joe Clark's comeback leadership campaign.

The last thing Joe Clark's time as PM could be described as is "competent."


(He went on to be a pretty exceptional foreign minister, though.)

 

[Pancake Mix]

While he's the most competent of all the Conservative PMs we've had (Macdonald's' failures prevent me from considering him to be a good leader, especially when his racist policies have such a staggering legacy i.e. when it comes to immigration policies, MacDonald set a precedent for immigration favoring white Europeans that lasted until the 1980s),

1970's actually.

People were racist. Every single PM, either Tory or Liberal, through the 1950's likely supported that policy, and similar policies would have been instituted by someone else if he hadn't.

Hard to place a policy on him that would have caused nobody to bat an eyelash at the time. Probably more appropriate to blame that on society instead.

 

[CazTGG]

1970's actually.

People were racist. Every single PM, either Tory or Liberal, through the 1950's likely supported that policy, and similar policies would have been instituted by someone else if he hadn't.

"Everyone's a little racist" is not an excuse for Macdonald acting the way he did and enacting the policies he did. Not only does it undermine the efforts made by those who publicly opposed actions partaken by Macdonald's Parliament like George L. Mackay who opposed the Chinese Head Tax (to say nothing of opposition to any earlier head tax during the pre-Confederation era like in 1865 where one was challenged and defeated in the House of Assembly of Vancouver Island on the grounds that it would be bad for business), not only does it come across as an attempt to normalize his racism but it removes any responsibility Macdonald bears for his actions because "that's just how things were back then" in the same way that people try to whitewash how horrible slavery was in the United States and Canada (This post is already longer than intended so just look up Marie Joseph Angelique if you have the time) as being a product of the time. Macdonald didn't have to create the Chinese Head Tax just as Mackenzie King didn't have to introduce interment camps during World War I (Ukranian) and World War II (Japanese). That doesn't change the fact that they did and that both actions are a stain on their respective time serving as Prime Ministers. However, Macdonald was the one who set the precedent for the enactment of racial policies based on his racist beliefs in the "Aryan character of British America" and how best to prevent its destruction. This is not to excuse future PMs for the actions they would partake in, rather it's to illustrate that his actions were the basis for future Prime Ministers to build upon with their own exclusionary, pro-white European legislation in the same way that the United States' electoral college and 3/5ths compromise marks the beginning of various decisions made by the federal government to appease slave states in the south, decisions whose legacy would later lead to the creation of segregation laws.

Hard to place a policy on him that would have caused nobody to bat an eyelash at the time. Probably more appropriate to blame that on society instead.

John A. Macdonald was the one who introduced race and racism to Parliament by stating that "the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed" if the Chinese were given the right to vote and run for positions as members of Parliament. He is responsible for authorizing the Davis Report and beginning the horrible residential schools as a means to "kill the Indian in the child" because he considered the indigenous population to be savages that needed to be rescued:

We have done all we could to put them on themselves; we have done all we could to make them work as agriculturists; we have done all we could, by the supply of cattle, agricultural implements and instruction, to change them from a nomadic to an agricultural life. We have had very considerable success; we have had infinitely more success during our short period, than the United States have had during twenty-five years. We have had a wonderful success; but still we have had the Indians; and then in these half-breeds, enticed by white men, the savage instinct was awakened; the desire of plunder - aye, and, perhaps, the desire of scalping - the savage idea of a warlike glory, which pervades the breast of most men, civilized or uncivilized, was aroused in them, and forgetting all the kindness that had been bestowed upon them, forgetting all the gifts that had been given to them, forgetting all that the Government, the white people and the Parliament of Canada had been doing for them, in trying to rescue them from barbarity; forgetting that we had given them reserves, the means to cultivate those reserves, and the means of education how to cultivate them - forgetting all these things, they rose against us.

What you're saying is grossly ignorant and dangerous at best. John A. Macdonald was the one who introduced these racial policies to Parliament. Those policies are a part of his legacy as Prime Minister and should not be downplayed. It should be continually remembered for the horrors it caused at the time and what it laid the groundwork for in the future.

 

[Pancake Mix]

"Everyone's a little racist" is not an excuse for Macdonald acting the way he did and enacting the policies he did. Not only does it undermine the efforts made by those who publicly opposed actions partaken by Macdonald's Parliament like George L. Mackay who opposed the Chinese Head Tax (to say nothing of opposition to any earlier head tax during the pre-Confederation era like in 1865 where one was challenged and defeated in the House of Assembly of Vancouver Island on the grounds that it would be bad for business), not only does it come across as an attempt to normalize his racism but it removes any responsibility Macdonald bears for his actions because "that's just how things were back then" in the same way that people try to whitewash how horrible slavery was in the United States and Canada (This post is already longer than intended so just look up Marie Joseph Angelique if you have the time) as being a product of the time. Macdonald didn't have to create the Chinese Head Tax just as Mackenzie King didn't have to introduce interment camps during World War I (Ukranian) and World War II (Japanese). That doesn't change the fact that they did and that both actions are a stain on their respective time serving as Prime Ministers. However, Macdonald was the one who set the precedent for the enactment of racial policies based on his racist beliefs in the "Aryan character of British America" and how best to prevent its destruction. This is not to excuse future PMs for the actions they would partake in, rather it's to illustrate that his actions were the basis for future Prime Ministers to build upon with their own exclusionary, pro-white European legislation in the same way that the United States' electoral college and 3/5ths compromise marks the beginning of various decisions made by the federal government to appease slave states in the south, decisions whose legacy would later lead to the creation of segregation laws.



John A. Macdonald was the one who introduced race and racism to Parliament by stating that "the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed" if the Chinese were given the right to vote and run for positions as members of Parliament. He is responsible for authorizing the Davis Report and beginning the horrible residential schools as a means to "kill the Indian in the child" because he considered the indigenous population to be savages that needed to be rescued:

What you're saying is grossly ignorant and dangerous at best. John A. Macdonald was the one who introduced these racial policies to Parliament. Those policies are a part of his legacy as Prime Minister and should not be downplayed. It should be continually remembered for the horrors it caused at the time and what it laid the groundwork for in the future.

The bolded is all I disagree with. He was not unique in those beliefs, nor was he the first 19th century figure to give them clout, which is why the head tax became a thing. I just don't think there's much point to blaming bigotry on one 19th century figure. He'd didn't introduce it or anything, just played to a xenophobia that was already there. He was not alone in doing so.

It's certainly a stain on him, but pretty much every Canadian PM until the 1970's had similar thoughts and it would have gotten traction anyway like it did in the other dominions (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), so I'm not about to pretend one man was responsible in any way just because he was a particularly powerful and outspoken bigot. There were a lot of those back then. It's pointless revisionism to pretend that Canada would have somehow been different than what became the other dominions if he hadn't been prime minister. Doesn't pass as plausible at all.

He wasn't a great prime minister, partially because of that, but he didn't really set a precedent of any kind, it was already there.

 

[firehawk12]

The NDP debate audio is jank. I feel like typically you can at least hear the politician speak in French before the translator talks over them in English. lol

 

[Sean C]

He wasn't a great prime minister, partially because of that, but he didn't really set a precedent of any kind, it was already there.

Macdonald was the most important Canadian statesman of the 19th century. He absolutely had flaws, some reflective of the times and others particular to himself, but I would have a very hard time not rating him as a great prime minister, all things considered.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Macdonald was the most important Canadian statesman of the 19th century. He absolutely had flaws, some reflective of the times and others particular to himself, but I would have a very hard time not rating him as a great prime minister, all things considered.

WTF. MacDonald was a grade A asshole, a genocidal monster.

 

[diaspora]

WTF. MacDonald was a grade A asshole, a genocidal monster.

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[gutter_trash]

The NDP debate audio is jank. I feel like typically you can at least hear the politician speak in French before the translator talks over them in English. lol

Any site available without translation?

 

[firehawk12]

Any site available without translation?

No clue, I just watched the CBC Youtube stream.

Silliest question was "who is your favourite band".

I think the weird thing was just everyone dropping Jack Layton's name. I mean, I get it, and I suppose it's a "fuck you" to Mulcair, but it also seems.. I dunno, a bit too soon to start using his memory as a rhetorical tool.

 

[AuthenticM]

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

I think "genocidal monster" and "great prime minister" are.

 

[CazTGG]

I think "genocidal monster" and "great prime minister" are.

But guys, lots of people were racist back then!

Spoiler

sarcasm, obviously.

So how many times was Jack Layton and/or Tommy Douglas invoked in the NDP debate?

 

[matthewwhatever]

No clue, I just watched the CBC Youtube stream.

Silliest question was "who is your favourite band".

I think the weird thing was just everyone dropping Jack Layton's name. I mean, I get it, and I suppose it's a "fuck you" to Mulcair, but it also seems.. I dunno, a bit too soon to start using his memory as a rhetorical tool.

They've been using Layton as a rhetorical tool since shortly after he died. Even Mulcair himself invoked Jack pretty frequently. I vaguely remember some NDPers being pissed off when they claimed that Trudeau was appropriating Layton's memory when he said something about hope over fear, since they thought it was theirs.

I kind of get why they'd do it -- he's by far their most successful leader -- but the further 2011 drifts into the past, the more it's going to sound like them desperately clinging to past glories.

 

[firehawk12]

Layton is the new Reagan. lol

 

[Sean C]

Edit.

 

[Sean C]

WTF.

He was the dominant influence over the country's constitution, and served as PM for almost all of the country's first 25 years, in which period he forged the national government and did a lot to shape national identity.

 

[diaspora]

Macdonald was the most important Canadian statesman of the 19th century. He absolutely had flaws, some reflective of the times and others particular to himself, but I would have a very hard time not rating him as a great prime minister, all things considered.

Because what I see is important, which is true. In spite of him being extremely problematic.

 

[gutter_trash]

He was the dominant influence over the country's constitution, and served as PM for almost all of the country's first 25 years, in which period he forged the national government and did a lot to shape national identity.

meh, he was just a Tory subjugated to the Crown and expressed little inteest in a new identity but subjugation

on his tomstone:
"As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born — a British subject I will die"

 

[SRG01]

They've been using Layton as a rhetorical tool since shortly after he died. Even Mulcair himself invoked Jack pretty frequently. I vaguely remember some NDPers being pissed off when they claimed that Trudeau was appropriating Layton's memory when he said something about hope over fear, since they thought it was theirs.

I kind of get why they'd do it -- he's by far their most successful leader -- but the further 2011 drifts into the past, the more it's going to sound like them desperately clinging to past glories.

Isn't it akin to invoking Ed Broadbent, another important figure in the NDP's history?

 

[CazTGG]

Layton is the new Reagan. lol

Naw, Layton actually did more than make people feel good/give Trump his 2016 campaign slogan.

They've been using Layton as a rhetorical tool since shortly after he died. Even Mulcair himself invoked Jack pretty frequently. I vaguely remember some NDPers being pissed off when they claimed that Trudeau was appropriating Layton's memory when he said something about hope over fear, since they thought it was theirs.

I kind of get why they'd do it -- he's by far their most successful leader -- but the further 2011 drifts into the past, the more it's going to sound like them desperately clinging to past glories.

I don't see the issue with invoking them in of itself, it's pretty common for political party members to invoke their more successful leaders after several decades like the Liberal Party of Canada invoking Pierre Trudeau & Mackenzie King, the Republicans in the U.S. invoking Lincoln (despite the whole party swap during the FDR era), UK Conservative Party invoking Churchill and so on.

 

[Sean C]

meh, he was just a Tory subjugated to the Crown and expressed little inteest in a new identity but subjugation

on his tomstone:
"As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born — a British subject I will die"

The idea of a separate Canadian national identity only really took root during/after the First World War. Nobody (in English Canadian circles, anyway) was talking about a separate national identity at that point; they were pleased as punch to belong to the greatest empire in the world.

Because what I see is important, which is true. In spite of him being extremely problematic.

Macdonald successfully knitted together several vast and disparate territories into a single, functioning polity (even if, toward the end of his tenure, some cracks were starting to show as a result of the Riel Rebellion, which ultimately cleared the way for Laurier to usher in a new political alignment after the old man died). That's a tremendous achievement by any reasonable measure.

 

[gutter_trash]

No clue, I just watched the CBC Youtube stream.

Silliest question was "who is your favourite band".

I think the weird thing was just everyone dropping Jack Layton's name. I mean, I get it, and I suppose it's a "fuck you" to Mulcair, but it also seems.. I dunno, a bit too soon to start using his memory as a rhetorical tool.

found it in CSPAN archives.... the floor option is there for bilinguals like me who hate translators

http://www.cpac.ca/en/digital-archives/

here is my ranking for the 3 English's speakers mastery of French (excluding Caron):

1-Asthon (very good, best of the three English speakers. Sounds like an Anglo who had French Immersion)
2-Julien (good, Jack Layton level of French)
3-Angus (passable, on par with Harper of 2003 but Angus has a better sense of humour)

as for Caron's English, his accent is noticable but his quality is way way better than Maxime Bernier's and Steven Blaney 's

 

[maharg]

I don't excuse today's brand of racism with "everyone thinks like that" and I don't really see why I should excuse it in the past, within the context of either now or then, either. Whether other people were awful at the time or not, all the powerful political figures of early Canada were complicit and often active in building Canada on a racist foundation that persists until today. They weren't the first nor the last, but they are absolutely a part of that history and I think it's really really important to recognize that. A lot.

I honestly think people should question the value of founding mythologies more. What does venerating MacDonald bring to my life today? Certainly, what does valuing his accomplishments over his crimes do for my life today except make me feel unreasonably good about my country, with all the things it's done wrong?

We should strive to be better. Part of that is recognizing where we have done wrong.

 

[Sean C]

I don't excuse today's brand of racism with "everyone thinks like that" and I don't really see why I should excuse it in the past, within the context of either now or then, either. Whether other people were awful at the time or not, all the powerful political figures of early Canada were complicit and often active in building Canada on a racist foundation that persists until today. They weren't the first nor the last, but they are absolutely a part of that history and I think it's really really important to recognize that. A lot.

I'm an historian, by training. Nowhere have I suggested that the negative aspects of the country's earlier leaders should be ignored; but giving primacy to those negative aspects is no more balanced than ignoring them. Macdonald's accomplishments were considerable, and the nation as it exists today, both good and ill, derives heavily from the work he did. The same is true of all the great or near-great early leaders (Laurier -- who, incidentally, was probably less progressive in respect to aboriginal peoples than Macdonald was; Macdonald gave many aboriginals the right to vote, which Laurier rescinded, and wouldn't be restored until Diefenbaker); Borden, and King).

 

[maharg]

Maybe it looks that way from the perspective of a historian, but from outside that particular field it's pretty rare for the negative aspects of 'founding fathers' to be considered in my experience. Particularly in lists of "great PMs", which almost exclusively focus on positive achievements with little consideration for whose backs they were built on.

It would be unbalanced to focus on the negative if it were something that was done all the time. It isn't. Our history -- as taught in schools or discussed in newspapers, magazines, and online forums -- is incredibly whitewashed and scrubbed clean of negative implications to the point that most people consider it a boring triumph of niceness.

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ndidate-from-liberal-mp-race/article34278156/

Trudeau had a direct hand in blocking ''borough mayor'' city councilor Allan DeSousa in Saint-Laurent's nomination. Motives have not been revealed but we can easily jump to conclusions why.

IMO, a party should have the liberty to block candidates for a ridding nomination who the deem not helpful to the party

 

[Pedrito]

If Trudeau wants to parachute his favorite candidates/friends in ridings and make sure they win (LOL), he can do that easily by just dropping all pretenses of having open nominations. Alas, he wants to play Mr. Democacry. He can't have "le beurre et l'argent du beurre".

 

[imBask]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ndidate-from-liberal-mp-race/article34278156/

Trudeau had a direct hand in blocking ''borough mayor'' city councilor Allan DeSousa in Saint-Laurent's nomination. Motives have not been revealed but we can easily jump to conclusions why.

IMO, a party should have the liberty to block candidates for a ridding nomination who the deem not helpful to the party

I wonder if you would've said the same thing if the NDP had done the same thing 🤔

 

[gutter_trash]

I wonder if you would've said the same thing if the NDP had done the same thing 🤔

I don't hate the NDP, just Thomas Mulcair

 

[Silexx]

If Trudeau wants to parachute his favorite candidates/friends in ridings and make sure they win (LOL), he can do that easily by just dropping all pretenses of having open nominations. Alas, he wants to play Mr. Democacry. He can't have "le beurre et l'argent du beurre".

This. No one argues that Trudeau doesn't/shouldn't have the power to block nominations, but he specifically ran on his party having "open nominations" and leaving it to voters to decide their candidates.

 

[imBask]

I don't hate the NDP, just Thomas Mulcair

hey, see there are things we can agree on

 

[gutter_trash]

This. No one argues that Trudeau doesn't/shouldn't have the power to block nominations, but he specifically ran on his party having "open nominations" and leaving it to voters to decide their candidates.

that was a huge mistake on his part, a rookie mistake if I might at.

he painted himself in a box with such a ideological stance that it erases strategic practicality.

a more experienced leader would not have blindly said ''open nominations''; now he is learning the hard way when he really wants to push for a preferred candidate.

Not many open seats left in the Western half of Montreal for 2019; Yolande James should try the Outremont challenge LOL.