Politics in 2018

[PPCLI Guy]

That photo of him looking stupid with his helmet on backwards never gets old with me.  I can only hope the present selfie loving denizen will provide a similar faux pas one day.

I know that I have said this before, but ALL of the shame in this picture lies with the military.  This should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should never have been photographed.  WE failed our government and our people on that day.

 

[ModlrMike]

Its also interesting that he went in his first year in office, in a minority government.

Not only that, it was his first foreign trip. (Mar 11-12, 2006)

 

[jollyjacktar]

Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.

I have a photo of Harper handing me an IceCapp on the Boardwalk in 09 during his visit.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I know that I have said this before, but ALL of the shame in this picture lies with the military.  This should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should never have been photographed.  WE failed our government and our people on that day.

Didn't fail me one little bit or make me feel shameful.  Leave me out of your "WE", thank you.  If he hadn't been such a shit to the military l might feel some pity.  But alas....

 

[Good2Golf]

I know that I have said this before, but ALL of the shame in this picture lies with the military LdSH.  This should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should never have been photographed.  WE failed our government and our people on that day.

Agree with the sentiment against deliberate and unprofessional behaviour that only served to further the PM’s set against the military.  Those who set the PM up to look stupid, whether or not they (he) were (was) a fan of PMJC’s policies, knew full well what they/he were/was doing. :not-again:

:2c:

G2G

 

[FSTO]

Agree with the sentiment against deliberate and unprofessional behaviour that only served to further the PM’s set against the military.  Those who set the PM up to look stupid, whether or not they (he) were (was) a fan of PMJC’s policies, knew full well what they/he were/was doing. :not-again:

:2c:

G2G

JC was a total arsehat towards the military and I still laugh at the picture but you are right is shouldn't of happened. Reminds me of a story about Paul Hellyer's visit to Bonnie. Supposedly when he was to be flown off, the pilot comes out to the aircraft acting like he's blind, deaf and dumb. Everyone else thought it was hilarious but many felt that the RCN in general and the RCN fixed wing community in particular sealed their demise with that stunt.

We in the military community love to play tricks on our fellow travellers but it seems that many of our political leaders have no ability to laugh at themselves. They have the power over us and we should tread carefully around their delicate sensibilities. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Harper was nothing if not efficient.  They won elections with an extremely efficient vote spread almost ideally over the country to give them the seats they needed.  The CPC policies were specifically targeted to get maximum effect from small groups that could win in specific ridings and move them over to the CPC.  Policies like the GST cut (not very conservative cutting a consumption tax vs income tax), choice in childcare and the sports/music for your kids tax cuts.  Supporting the military would not move votes in strategic ridings.

The investment in the military was not paying off from the years previous and the war was not a popular subject.  I suspect "Harper the strategist" was frustrated by that.  So, doing what the Conservatives under him always did, they pivoted.  It wasn't like they were going to lose votes to the Liberals and NDP because they stopped supporting the military as it was obvious that the Liberals or NDP wouldn't do that either.  And it turns out that was exactly what happened; with the military (moral) support maybe even becoming a liability to them (Party of the Afghan war, F-35 sole source contract etc...).

I believe that he misjudged the demographics though.  The millenials are voting now.  And like most young adults who have nothing to protect they vote left.  It's a pretty standard voting pattern that you get more conservative as you get older.  There is also the increases in urban density and urban voters tend to vote more left as well.  And of course there was fatigue and the perception that the CPC were mean people (Canadian values...*facepalm*).

But to be fair a there were some good things from the Harper gov't for the military.  We took delivery of new tanks; the LAV UP program went ahead; the NSPS now NSS was started; C-17, new Hercs and Chinooks were purchased.  Cyclone was kicked down the field despite the temptation to cancel it.  They kept the subs under similar temptations.

Good post but one point Underway.  The Afghan War was a Liberal venture in all respects that the CPC inherited upon election. 

It is often cited as a Conservative venture, much like the NVC.  Both of which, in actuality, lay squarely at the feet of the LPC.

 

[Underway]

Good post but one point Underway.  The Afghan War was a Liberal venture in all respects that the CPC inherited upon election. 

It is often cited as a Conservative venture, much like the NVC.  Both of which, in actuality, lay squarely at the feet of the LPC.

I agree that it was LPC venture however the Conservatives really didn't go out of their way to point that out did they.  They jumped in and supported the war with both feet tied together with yellow ribbons.  When he was Prime Minister was when the war got very hot as well (2006 onwards).  The majority of casualties happened when he was in charge. The Manley panel was an excellent way to ensure that the Liberals didn't get off scott free either (again a brilliant strategic decision by the Harper gov't) and ensure that the military got all those new tanks and aircraft needed without a big fight from the public or the opposition.

Rightly or wrongly I believe that the public perception of the Harper gov't was that the Conservatives through their own designs were the war party.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree that it was LPC venture however the Conservatives really didn't go out of their way to point that out did they.  They jumped in and supported the war with both feet tied together with yellow ribbons.  When he was Prime Minister was when the war got very hot as well (2006 onwards).  The majority of casualties happened when he was in charge. The Manley panel was an excellent way to ensure that the Liberals didn't get off scott free either (again a brilliant strategic decision by the Harper gov't) and ensure that the military got all those new tanks and aircraft needed without a big fight from the public or the opposition.

Rightly or wrongly I believe that the public perception of the Harper gov't was that the Conservatives through their own designs were the war party.

One has to remember the war heated up for Canada because we were moved from Kabul to Kandahar.  Which was a political move made by the LPC in power at that time. 

The CPC had no choice but to carry on now that we were in with both feet.  Alliances and external pressures and all.

But you are correct the public perception of the CPC as the instigators of our Afghan mission wholly incorrect.

 

[mariomike]

This can go in US or Canadian politics.

QUOTE

Donald Trump becomes the first president in 40 years not to visit Canada in his first year
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/12/30/donald-trump-becomes-the-first-president-in-40-years-not-to-visit-canada-in-his-first-year.html

END QUOTE

 

[Edward Campbell]

This can go in US or Canadian politics.

QUOTE

Donald Trump becomes the first president in 40 years not to visit Canada in his first year
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/12/30/donald-trump-becomes-the-first-president-in-40-years-not-to-visit-canada-in-his-first-year.html

END QUOTE

It takes two to tango ...

State visits, even head-of-government level visits are complex diplomatic and political thingies, each requiring both an invitation and an RSVP. President Trump cannot be blamed for not visiting Canada if he has not been invited. I recall, in the first blush of 2017, that there were rumours that President Trump would be invited to London, even <gasp> to address parliament ...  :blah: That fell by the wayside, too. The number of countries willing to invite Donald Trump for an official visit seems to be dwindling; he is NOT a political asset to many (most?) Western leaders ... he's always welcome in China because he always makes Xi Jinping look, in comparison, a little less like a serious threat to liberal-democratic values and interests. 

 

[Altair]

Happy 2018 everyone!

You too, and may our disagreements and debates be polite and respectful into 2018

 

[Journeyman]

.....may our disagreements and debates be polite and respectful ....

I keep hoping for "informed"... (kind of like Diogenes' search for an honest man, I guess)

 

[dapaterson]

I keep hoping for "informed"... (kind of like Diogenes' search for an honest man, I guess)

If we assume that philosophers know themselves, it's telling that Diogenes kept looking

 

[Remius]

I keep hoping for "informed"... (kind of like Diogenes' search for an honest man, I guess)

I always find that some people consider “informed” being something that only conforms to their point of view and anything else is “uninformed”.

 

[Journeyman]

I always find that some people consider “informed” being something that only conforms to their point of view and anything else is “uninformed”.

Perhaps you misunderstand.  There are several people on this site, for example, who are ALWAYS mindlessly anti-Trump/Trudeau/etc or equally mindlessly pro-Trump/Trudeau/etc.  Sometimes they post sources for their views, which can be assessed for balance, veracity, relevance, etc.... but not often.  Quite frankly, I tend to dismiss most of those people out of hand.

By "informed" I mean the views of people who read widely (yes, even sources that are painfully biased in order to get opposing perspectives).  They then assess those readings based on the factors I just mentioned, plus history, cultural conditions, technology.... any relevant factors, then form their own informed opinion.

That I would much rather read, even if I'm prone to disagree based upon my own ever-revised thoughts.

YMMV

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.

PM Harper not only went to Kuwait and ate with the troops etc he went to Erbil and not just to the Cdn location. He was in the city, close to the ISIS held ground.  He took it in with his own eyes and took time to share breakfast with the people there.  After the election the only visits were from talking heads who didn’t even understand what was happening.  We gathered at the HAS we worked out of to have the Div commander tell us we were a one of a kind asset in the coalition and no one else was doing what we were in a similar airframe.  Ironically he said all of this with an American P-3 AIP directly behind him as he faced us.  I always wondered if he wonder d what some of us were smirking about.  You don’t need a helmet on backwards to make yourself look stupid. 

 

[ballz]

Maybe this is par for the course after a change in governments, I'm not sure because the former PM Harper was the only PM for literally all of my adult life up until Nov 2015.... but why is Harper the bar upon which we measure Trudeau? Why is the former PM Harper, who has not held the reigns for over 2 years now, still being brought up at all, especially by CPC supporters?

I get irritated every time I hear the Liberals bring up the former CPC government's shortcomings, it makes me want to jump through the TV when PM Trudeau references Stephen Harper and essentially makes Stephen Harper the bar for his own performance... and it only makes it worse for the CPC party and their supporters* when they actually allow that kind frame to control the narrative, much less actively play that same card.

Sorry for the tangent, but it feels like we've spent pages comparing the two... again.

*of which, I'm not sure I can honestly say I identify with at this point in time. The only thing Andrew Scheer has that I like about him is that he's not Justin Trudeau... that's pretty weak.

 

[dapaterson]

I get irritated every time I hear the Liberals bring up the former CPC government's shortcomings, it makes me want to jump through the TV when PM Trudeau references Stephen Harper and essentially makes Stephen Harper the bar for his own performance... and it only makes it worse for the CPC party and their supporters* when they actually allow that kind frame to control the narrative, much less actively play that same card.

For the first mandate after tossing out a prior government, everything bad is their fault, everything good is due to your brilliance.

For the second mandate, all good is due to you, and all bad is due to world economic or political considerations outside your control, but if you look with squinted eyes at some absurd metric that no one cares about, all is wonderful.

Entering the third election, you promise, well, essentially the same things you promised two cycles ago and never delivered on. The true believers will rejoice and shout down anyone who points out that it's the same stuff, eight years later.

Your experience may vary...

Sorry for the tangent, but it feels like we've spent pages comparing the two... again.

*of which, I'm not sure I can honestly say I identify with at this point in time. The only thing Andrew Scheer has that I like about him is that he's not Justin Trudeau... that's pretty weak.

Good news!  Scheer isn't Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff or Jagmeet Singh, either.

 

[Jed]

Maybe this is par for the course after a change in governments, I'm not sure because the former PM Harper was the only PM for literally all of my adult life up until Nov 2015.... but why is Harper the bar upon which we measure Trudeau? Why is the former PM Harper, who has not held the reigns for over 2 years now, still being brought up at all, especially by CPC supporters?

I get irritated every time I hear the Liberals bring up the former CPC government's shortcomings, it makes me want to jump through the TV when PM Trudeau references Stephen Harper and essentially makes Stephen Harper the bar for his own performance... and it only makes it worse for the CPC party and their supporters* when they actually allow that kind frame to control the narrative, much less actively play that same card.

Sorry for the tangent, but it feels like we've spent pages comparing the two... again.

*of which, I'm not sure I can honestly say I identify with at this point in time. The only thing Andrew Scheer has that I like about him is that he's not Justin Trudeau... that's pretty weak.

I totally agree with all your comments up to the last sentence.

What is pretty weak is Justin Trudeau's proven record. You have to go far and wide to match the inane behavior and piss poor leadership coming from Canada's current Prime Minister. For people to deny the obvious are basic human flaws were they choose not to accept reality for their own reasons.