• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
This mess is just another demonstration of the devolution of maturity among contemporary adults.  People raised to adore snarky rude irreverent childish "gotcha" journalism and late evening comedy shows are going to be snarky rude irreverent childish adults in their dealings.
 
Plenty of blame to go around, for sure.

Highlights?

Biggest critique to the Speaker for failing to maintain (enforce) decorum an respectful conduct.  If no compliance, have the Seargant-At-Arms take the Mace and collect the pages, and suspend the session for the day.

Biggest (such as it is) kudos to...Uugh, can't believe I'm about to say this...Elizabeth May for an attempt to get people to look introspectively and, procedure contravention by the PM notwithstanding, avoid stooping to 'World Cup soccer' standard of knee-clutching, diving and rolling around on the pitch after perceived targeted personal attack.

Canadian citizens deserve more from their elected representatives...ALL of them!
 
Good2Golf said:
.....

Biggest critique to the Speaker for failing to maintain (enforce) decorum an respectful conduct.  If no compliance, have the Seargant-At-Arms take the Mace and collect the pages, and suspend the session for the day.

....

Amen to that one.  As I noted upthread, other speakers, in other parliaments have had no difficulty chucking members out on their heads.  I'm concerned that Speaker Regan, Liberal, reflexively thinks of PM Trudeau as his boss and not that MP Trudeau sits at the sufferance of the House and its Speaker.

The other thing that attracted my attention was in Round 2, when the PM went back to the NDP benches and intentionally waded through the crowd that he could have bypassed, the number of Liberal members who left their benches to take the floor while the PM and Tom Mulcair were exchanging words.  Hockey is apparently embedded in the Canadian psyche.

Lots of screw ups here, but the biggest ones are by a combative PM and an ineffectual Speaker.

 
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-polls-elbow-1.3599179
The altercation in the House of Commons last week between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of the opposition captured Canadians' attention, but two polls published this week suggest a majority of those Canadians have shrugged it off like a wayward elbow on a crowded subway.

The latest poll, conducted by Ipsosfor Global News, shows that 63 per cent of Canadians feel the tusslewas "no big deal," a "momentary lapse of judgment" on the part of the prime minister, and that "we should all just move on."

These feelings were particularly strong among Canadians who were following the issue.

And many Canadians have been. Ipsos found that 37 per cent of Canadians were following it and that, overall, 83 per cent were aware of it having occurred.

These numbers echoed those of a poll conducted by Abacus Dataimmediately after the commotion in the House of Commons. According to Abacus, 40 per cent of Canadians were following the story very or somewhat closely, while 82 per cent were aware of it in some way.

But both polls came to the conclusion that the impact of Trudeau's elbow was minimal on Canadian public opinion, and that those Canadians who were most offended by it were those that were already predisposed to disliking the prime minister.

While Ipsos found that 37 per cent of Canadians felt Trudeau had "no excuse" and that the scuffle in the House raised "serious questions about his maturity and judgment," almost half of those were Conservative voters. A narrow majority of New Democrats leaned towards the altercation being "no big deal."

Abacus Data, which was in the field before and after the tumult, found no impact on Canadians views of Trudeau concerning whether he "sets a good example for young people" or "genuinely cares about other people." There was an impact on the question of his ability to handle stress well, however — that dropped to 74 per cent from 83 per cent.

Abacus also asked whether the ruckus had any impact on their views of Trudeau. Just over two-thirds, or 71 per cent, said it had no impact, while 23 per cent said it changed their opinion for the worse. But again, this was largely among Conservatives, 45 per cent of whom said it changed their views of Trudeau for the worse, compared to just 23 per cent of New Democrats.

No impact on approval, voting intentions

Nevertheless, the fact that anywhere from a quarter to two-fifths of Canadians — depending on the poll wording and methodology — see the "Elbowgate" events in a negative light (including a number of Liberal supporters) is not good news for Trudeau.

The danger exists for the governing party that events like these happen again in the future, creating a perception among Canadians that what happened in the House last week was not a singular event, but rather part of a larger pattern. Needless to say, it would have been better for the Liberals had it not occurred in the first place.

But in the short term, there has been no impact on Canadians' views of the government. Abacus found that the government's approval rating was 54 per cent over their entire time in the field, and was actually higher (though not significantly) after the fracas in the House. Ipsos, which did not give respondents the option of being undecided, put the government's approval rating at 62 per cent.

Both polls also put support for the Liberals among decided voters at 46 per cent, well in line with surveys taken since the 2015 election and a number that held firm in Abacus's polling before and after the incident. The Conservatives trailed in the two polls at 27 and 30 per cent, with the New Democrats at 15 per cent.

In the court of public opinion, it appears that Trudeau and his Liberals have come out of "Elbowgate" virtually unharmed. Canadians seem to still be willing to give the new government the benefit of the doubt. The prime minister may not be so lucky next time.
Ya don't say
 
Altair said:
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-polls-elbow-1.3599179

Ya don't say

OK.


Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?


https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/733225580152285/

Complete BS, as Windmills and Solar Farms only produce a fraction of Germany's electricity, while nuclear and fossil fueled plants still provide the majority of Germany's power.

 
George Wallace said:
Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?


https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/733225580152285/

Complete BS, as Windmills and Solar Farms only produce a fraction of Germany's electricity, while nuclear and fossil fueled plants still provide the majority of Germany's power.
A Facebook meme not based on facts?
Casablanca_ClaudeRains_Shocked.jpg
 
George Wallace said:
OK.


Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?


https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/733225580152285/

Complete BS, as Windmills and Solar Farms only produce a fraction of Germany's electricity, while nuclear and fossil fueled plants still provide the majority of Germany's power.
look, distraction!
 
George Wallace said:
No distraction.  Just a sample of data that was collected; that is FALSE.
I'm sure that two separate polling firms, ipsos and Abacus were both very wrong.

That is clearly the most likely scenario, nothing to see here, move along.
 
George Wallace said:
OK.


Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?


https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/733225580152285/

Complete BS, as Windmills and Solar Farms only produce a fraction of Germany's electricity, while nuclear and fossil fueled plants still provide the majority of Germany's power.

Your argument was to bring up an arbitrary issue and state it's wrong without providing proof yourself? Well done.....
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Your argument was to bring up an arbitrary issue and state it's wrong without providing proof yourself? Well done.....

Not saying it is wrong.  Just making a commentary on the fact that these data collection methods are not always what they seem.
 
George Wallace said:
Not saying it is wrong.  Just making a commentary on the fact that these data collection methods are not always what they seem.

I think polling companies are different than Facebook memes.... trudeau's popularity has been sustained since they've managed to market him well. Nothing has managed to throw them off their intent, which helps too. That said, I don't understand the discontent with the "sunny ways"....why is being positive a bad thing?
 
The media has taken to calling him teflon in a few articles. There's so many of his faithful that would make excuses for him pushing a child into traffic. The red herring arguments about the NDP MP overreacting were fantastic. Not that this case is anywhere as serious as a sexual assault, but its the exact same culture that victim shames instead of making the sane decision that he was in the wrong, and that an "overreaction" doesn't negate that fact.
 
PuckChaser said:
The media has taken to calling him teflon in a few articles. There's so many of his faithful that would make excuses for him pushing a child into traffic. The red herring arguments about the NDP MP overreacting were fantastic. Not that this case is anywhere as serious as a sexual assault, but its the exact same culture that victim shames instead of making the sane decision that he was in the wrong, and that an "overreaction" doesn't negate that fact.

I think you nailed it on a bunch of points.

1. Trudeau's fanbase are still in love with him and fanatic enough that they won't let a little assault deter them.

Guaranteed the crowd that are saying it's no big deal would change their tune pretty quick if it was a matter of their spouse's supervisor grabbing them by the arm to move them or accidentally elbowing them while they were manhandling someone else.

2. Right again about attacking the victim. She used to be a barmaid so she should be used to it. She got in the way on purpose. "I'll come find you and smash you in the face then you'll have something to cry about you stupid **nt". Lots of classy reactions. 
 
Jarnhamar said:
I think you nailed it on a bunch of points.

1. Trudeau's fanbase are still in love with him and fanatic enough that they won't let a little assault deter them.

Guaranteed the crowd that are saying it's no big deal would change their tune pretty quick if it was a matter of their spouse's supervisor grabbing them by the arm to move them or accidentally elbowing them while they were manhandling someone else.

2. Right again about attacking the victim. She used to be a barmaid so she should be used to it. She got in the way on purpose. "I'll come find you and smash you in the face then you'll have something to cry about you stupid **nt". Lots of classy reactions.
attacking the victim? People on the Internet I'm guessing? Because people on the Internet on both sides of the spectrum are incredibly classy I guess.

The most I've seen in print is talking about how ridiculous regular Canadians will find the opposition making impact statements and how they feel unsafe at work now. Or that beautiful Lisa Raitt tweet on how it's supposed to be about believing women, intentionally or unintentionally linking trudeau with ghomeshi.

The worst thing about this is that Elizabeth may came out of this looking like the most responsible person in parliament that day.
 
So you're equating death threats with people saying they feel unsafe at work? You realize if he did that at a civilian employer he'd be fired, right? We don't even physically accost people in the CAF anymore, and we're in a profession that is supposed to be able to kill people. Focusing on others instead of the individual involved is just an attempt to disassociate guilt. We get it, people over reacted. People always overreact. That doesn't change one ounce of what happened, and how wrong it was.

There's a reason the sides of the house are separate by a certain distance, so members couldn't draw swords and fight. If Trudeau can't control himself, he shouldn't be in the Commons.
 
PuckChaser said:
So you're equating death threats with people saying they feel unsafe at work? You realize if he did that at a civilian employer he'd be fired, right? We don't even physically accost people in the CAF anymore, and we're in a profession that is supposed to be able to kill people. Focusing on others instead of the individual involved is just an attempt to disassociate guilt. We get it, people over reacted. People always overreact. That doesn't change one ounce of what happened, and how wrong it was.

There's a reason the sides of the house are separate by a certain distance, so members couldn't draw swords and fight. If Trudeau can't control himself, he shouldn't be in the Commons.
Sure he was wrong. He then apologized repeatedly. The member who was hurt accepted. Issue over.

Humans make mistakes.

As for death threats, you should see some of things PC WR members in Alberta want to do to rachel notley.

There are wackos in all parties,  people with no accountability on the Internet. Why are they even talked about?
 
PuckChaser said:
... its the exact same culture that victim shames instead of making the sane decision that he was in the wrong, and that an "overreaction" doesn't negate that fact.
:nod:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top