Politics in 2017

[McG]

... the Senate issue are problems of his own making.

Yep.  And it would seem experts are not in agreement on his opinion over what the Senate can/cannot do with government initiated budget bills.  I personally prefer to think he is wrong on this topic, and I am disappointed the Senate did not stand its ground on the proposal to split the budget bill into two parts.  The Liberal election platform included opposition to omnibus bills slopped on top of budget bills; it would have been nice to see the Senate hold them accountable to that promise.

PM's claim Senate can't amend budget bills contains 'some baloney'
Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
CTV News
Published Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:10AM EDT

"The issue around budgets, of course, is it's the House of Commons that votes on budgetary measures, and the Senate is, of course, welcome to look at it and make recommendations. But the legitimacy happens from the House of Commons on this."  -- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, interview with Global TV's West Block, broadcast June 18, 2017

The House of Commons and the Senate sent each other snarky messages last week in a dispute over which chamber of Parliament has the ultimate authority over money bills.

MPs from all parties in the Commons summarily rejected amendments the Senate had made to Bill C-44, legislation to implement the measures in last March's federal budget, informing the upper house that the amendments "infringe upon the rights and privileges of the House."

The message was consistent with the prime minister's previous, repeated warnings that only the elected Commons has the "legitimacy" to decide budgetary matters and that the unelected Senate has no business trying to rewrite a budget bill.

Senators eventually acquiesced to the will of the elected chamber and dropped their insistence on the amendments but, at the same time, they took the unprecedented step of reasserting their right to make such amendments.

"The Senate confirms its privileges, immunities and powers as provided under the Constitution to amend legislation, whatever its nature or source," senators informed the Commons in a message supported even by Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate.

"We asserted our rights as a Senate, as an institution, with respect to our role and responsibilities on all legislation," Harder said, emphasizing the word "all."

So, who's right?

The Facts

The Senate's friskiness on C-44 has prompted hyperventilating in some quarters that Trudeau's more independent, less partisan chamber of sober second thought is coming back to bite him and taking the country down the road to a potential constitutional crisis.

But the fact is that the dispute over the Senate's power to amend money bills dates back 150 years, to the very first standing orders or rules adopted by the House of Commons at Confederation.

According to the annotated standing orders of the House of Commons, the elected chamber immediately proclaimed its pre-eminence over all financial matters and asserted that financial legislation could not be altered by the Senate. That rule -- standing order 80(1) -- was based on the text of a resolution passed by the British House of Commons in 1678 and it remains on the books to this day.

Senators have never accepted this limitation on their powers.

After numerous disputes, a special committee of the Senate was created in 1918 to consider the issue. It concluded that the Senate "has and always had since it was created" the power to amend financial bills, provided that such amendments did not increase spending or taxation.

The power to amend money bills "was given as an essential part of the Confederation contract," the committee said. Moreover, it said the Commons' claim to the same exclusive rights and privileges over money bills as enjoyed by its U.K. counterpart was "unwarranted" under the provisions of Canada's Constitution.

Sect. 53 of the Constitution stipulates that money bills "shall originate in the House of Commons." While that prohibits the Senate from initiating money bills, senators maintain it doesn't stop them from amending or even defeating them.

As Sen. Joe Day, leader of the independent Liberals, put it during debate on C-44: "The standing orders or rules of one chamber cannot prescribe or limit the constitutional powers of Parliament's other chamber."

The Senate has frequently flexed its legislative muscle in defiance of the Commons' claim to pre-eminence in financial matters. But the House's response to such Senate impertinence has been inconsistent over the years.

"Since Confederation, the Senate has regularly asserted the right to amend money bills," notes the "House of Commons Procedure and Practice," second edition.

"In some instances, the House of Commons has rejected the Senate's amendments and claimed its financial privilege. On other occasions, however, the House has waived its privileges and accepted the Senate amendments ... However, the House has, on occasion, accepted or rejected amendments with no reference made to its privileges whatsoever."

Six months ago, Finance Minister Bill Morneau asked the Senate to use its power to amend money bills -- a power his government now claims doesn't exist -- to remove controversial changes to the Bank Act from a budget implementation bill.

The Experts

Last week, independent Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal, a constitutional expert in his own right, mischievously challenged the government to refer the issue of which chamber has authority over money bills to the Supreme Court.

Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional authority, suspects the failure to ever seek a court ruling on the subject is deliberate, designed to leave governments with the flexibility to accept or -- in the case of Morneau and the Bank Act -- request Senate amendments when it suits them.

"It does look as though the value of flexibility in practice will ward off any attempt to get a court ruling," he said.

In the absence of a court ruling, Hogg is uncertain how a court might interpret sect. 53 of the Constitution and whether it limits the Senate's power to amend financial bills.

"On this one, I am not confident about the correct interpretation," he said.

"But I would lean in the direction of the House of Commons' position on the basis that a bill that has been amended by the Senate has not wholly 'originated' in the House of Commons."

University of Waterloo political scientist Emmett Macfarlane leans in the other direction.

"Sect. 53 only limits where money bills can originate, which is in the House of Commons. So it is true that the Senate enjoys the formal power to amend or even defeat money bills and I would be surprised if a court were to rule differently," he said.

University of Regina political scientist Howard Leeson said he too would "tend to side with the Senate."

"I believe that there is nothing in the plain reading of sect. 53 to prevent it," he said, adding that it would be "interesting to see this tested in the Supreme Court."

The Verdict

Trudeau's assertion that only the House of Commons has the "legitimacy" to decide budgetary matters is a matter of dispute that has been raging between the two houses of Parliament for 150 years. Experts are divided over which chamber is correct.

For these reasons, Trudeau's assertion scores a rating of "some baloney." [/size] 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-s-claim-senate-can-t-amend-budget-bills-contains-some-baloney-1.3481685

 

[Kat Stevens]

On behalf of all my brother siblings in socialism in the People's Democratic Republic of Albertastan, I would like to welcome the newly created British Columbian Soviet Republic to the glorious future as part of the Western Canadian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

 

[Lightguns]

On behalf of all my brother siblings in socialism in the People's Democratic Republic of Albertastan, I would like to welcome the newly created British Columbian Soviet Republic to the glorious future as part of the Western Canadian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Pfft, I am in New Brunswick, you all are just fresh meat.........

 

[PuckChaser]

Remember how we all laughed at the US and their government shutdown over budget bills? Our PM has almost created the exact same gongshow. The newly appointed senators are even banding together to decry the constant cabinet minister lobbying outside the Senate chambers.

 

[Lightguns]

It seems we are heading back to the early nineties.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-financial-crisis-warning-signs-2017-6

 

[McG]

A recent article that I happen to agree with and explain my sentiments on this particular issue.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-canadians-feel-for-aboriginals-but-our-patience-for-too-many-insults-has-limits/wcm/0ceac263-d2b2-4619-a8af-1ac4f9fa60ee 

John Robson: Canadians feel for aboriginals, but our patience for too many insults has limits
Aboriginal activists should remember that the public to whom their appeals for reconciliation are addressed is not a faceless line of abusive residential school staff

It seems the federal Liberals are starting to pay a price for their arrogance. It is a cautionary tale for others including aboriginal militants whose scornful response is helping take the shine off Trudeaupia.

The Liberals were remarkably conceited to suppose their sunny ways and blithe ignorance of reality would, among other things, enable them to solve all problems with the descendants of Canada’s pre-European inhabitants. But the fault is not entirely theirs.

As the National Post noted, Aboriginal Day, a classic from the ministry of symbolism, went sour fast for the Liberals. Including rededication of the old U.S. embassy across from Parliament Hill as some sort of aboriginal space being met with sneers: “Indigenous architects called the building a ‘hand-me-down’ and not ‘culturally appropriate space’” and the chair of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Indigenous Task Force “said Ottawa should pay for the construction of a building that Indigenous architects design.”

You’re welcome. Besides, what would be “culturally appropriate”?

Presumably the idea is not to create a pre-contact structure, a longhouse or teepee without furnace, electricity or running water. These indigenous architects, in a profession unknown before 1534, drive cars, own smartphones, issue press releases and generally live like the rest of us in the full flood of modernity. But that’s not the point.

The point is to bow to whatever demand is made without presuming to analyze its logic. Hence NDP MP Romeo Saganash declaring himself insulted and frustrated not to be permitted to speak only Cree in the House of Commons “because my language has been spoken for 7,000 years.”

This claim is manifestly false. The Cree that Saganash speaks today cannot possibly long predate Latin or Sanskrit. Especially in non-literate societies, language is dynamic and fast-changing and becomes barely recognizable after centuries, let alone millennia. Nor did various First Nations occupy their traditional territory for millennia before white people showed up and got violent.

Another recent victim of political correctness (which is itself a European cultural imposition) was the Governor General, despite his manifest sympathy for aboriginal causes, because he called aboriginals “immigrants.” Some zealots actually seem to deny that humans entered North America across the Bering Strait at all. Others apparently believe they all came across at once, fanned out equitably to places the Creator assigned them, then lived in peace and harmony with one another and nature.

They didn’t. They came in waves and spread out in waves, frequently displacing earlier settlers violently. Where is the “Dorset culture” today? Or the Laurentian-speakers Cartier found at Hochelaga but Champlain did not? An excruciating piece in Canada’s History magazine just claimed that before European contact “Life here in Turtle Island was self-determining – the rivers ran as rivers, the elk roamed as elk, and the many nations of Indigenous peoples charted their own paths to the future…. Everything had the right to life. The deer had an inherent right to life… to live in a healthy home and to raise its children in a kind and loving way. The peoples of this land, too, had the right to life…”

The author admits people killed deer, albeit respectfully. But nowhere does his piece mention war, torture, sex slavery or any of the other all-too-human things ordinary Canadians know happened in this non-Eden despite the exquisite PC grovelling that is instinctive among our political and cultural elites.

In his ill-fated announcement of the new aboriginal cultural centre in the old U.S. embassy, Prime Minister Trudeau said “No relationship is more important to this government than that with the indigenous peoples.” Bosh. The most important relationship for any government is with all the citizens in whose name, for whose benefit and with whose permission it governs.

By the same token, aboriginal activists should try to remember that the Canadian public to whom their appeals for reconciliation and justice are ultimately addressed, often in peremptory language, is not a faceless line of Jeffrey Amherst clones and abusive residential school staff. A great many of us, or our ancestors, came here fleeing oppression and sometimes encountered it on arrival too, and have long tales of historical woe of our own about which nothing can ever be done.

I speak not only of non-white Canadians. What of Canadian descendants of survivors of the Holocaust, Stalinism, the Armenian genocide or even just French religious persecution?

Most Canadians are heartbroken at the difficulties that afflict so many aboriginals today and bitterly regret the history that brought this misery. But most of us had nothing to do with it, have sad stories of our own ancestors, and will tire of every open hand being met with open insult like a “reoccupation” of Parliament Hill to spoil the Canada Day mood, of every concession bringing new demands.

Peddling false history from within the mantle of victimhood is perilously arrogant for those who claim special treatment based on history. So beware.

Hubris does not only bring nemesis to white politicians. 

 

The National Post had a few articles along that theme of minority politics/relations and national identity.  I assume the catalyst, for these opinion pieces, was all the media coverage given elements of the aboriginal community using the media to celebrate their intent to "resist Canada 150" and a number of university student councils/unions that passed motions following in the same step.  I think Rex Murphy got it right - the country is on a divisive path of identity politics, and our leaders should instead be offering a narrative that is more unifying.

Celebrating ‘diversity’ will only divide us, but celebrating Canada's unity keeps us strong
Identity politics aligns with diversity, and it is emphatically not our strength. Identity politics is a flight from commonality and unity
Rex Murphy
National Post

The celebration of Canada’s 150th should be an excellent time to mildly parse a few of our national values, as the current phrase has it. Particularly the elevation of “diversity” as the king and signature of our ways and being.

Justin Trudeau is fond of the aphorism that diversity is our strength. That’s far too much to claim. There are many things, processes or ideas that could equally claim the same predicate. “Education is our strength” could easily be seen as an even stronger motto. For is it not true that a good education seeds the mind for the healthy tolerance that enables diversity in the first place?

A healthy economy being our strength is another very defensible observation. What is more likely to sharpen social and political tensions than a failing economy? For the most current illustration of this obvious point, look at Venezuela, where its collapsed socialist economy pushes the country to the edge of civil war.

Or we could equally say the land is our strength. Its beauty, resources, scope and range of Canadian nature, combined with our sense of communion with the land, counts as something inexpressibly but undeniably special. Even the Liberal party has saluted the land as a patriotic bond. Not to score political points on our anniversary day, but did not the Liberals run a whole election campaign—that of 1972—on the very motto, “The Land is Strong.”

There is no doubt that diversity is a good thing, but it doesn’t operate as a definitional virtue of our country. Furthermore, the current highlighting of diversity also carries with it rather too easily a self-congratulatory ambiance, being in fact the very kind of “patriotic” boasting that we proudly boast we do not boast of. “No flag-wavers we, like those Americans … but are we ever tolerant!”

Nor is diversity singularly a Canadian social virtue. Other countries are diverse too, their citizens just as virtuously open to others as we are. Neither being Canadian born, nor by virtue of acquired Canadian citizenship, does some peculiar alchemy invest us with an inherently superior tolerance to that of, say, Chinese, American or African heritage or citizenship.

It may be a pleasurable paradox that all we have in common is our differences, but it cannot survive any translation into reality. No country, no nation, is founded on the differences it contains. And so it is with Canada 150, years after its birth in Confederation. Celebrating our differences doesn’t really mean very much, aside, again, from the facile moral uplift the slogan offers, unless it proceeds from a common, shared and unified understanding of ourselves as a nation.

I think the thing we have in common, as a nation, is our strength. At the very least, I’ll claim that “unity is our strength” holds as much truth and force as the more frequent assertion on diversity. One part of that understanding is that we value the possibilities that “difference” opens up to our country. This celebration of difference issues from the deeper continuities and commonalities that have threaded our growth over the last 150 years, and includes the relatively fresh embrace of a many-cultured idea of ourselves.

Diversity is not static. It can quickly turn in on itself. The recent growth of identity politics fastens on the particularity of difference—whether sexual, ethnic or religious. It nurtures an intense fealty, in some cases aggressively so, to the special, or “distinguishing” character of a particular identity, which is very close to faction.

It leads in educational settings to demands that the particularity govern education itself, the idea that one’s identity group must find near-perfect reflection in curricula and instructors. It elevates what I’d call atomistic identity, the individual’s perception of his or her personal identity asserted to be the primary counter in the political and social domain. Personal identity is always built around contrast or competition with other “identities.”

It is a flight from commonality and unity. A nation is much more than a block of self-contained units incapable, by the tenets of identity politics, of any full communication with the other units. Identity politics is a self-sealed universe, incapable by its own doctrine of any complete communication with any other different identity. Nonsense, of course, for the most fundamental and largest identity is that we are all human, and thus regardless of background, sexuality or skin colour we always have more in common than not.

Identity politics aligns with diversity, and it is emphatically not our strength. Diversity has to begin in the mind, and has to be more than an ever-expanding set of categories and sub-categories tethered to their own experiences as the limit of educational or political horizons.

It would be my hope then that today, of all days, we seek and celebrate all that we have in common: the unity of our experiences as Canadians. Belong, of course, to your particular groupings, regions and cultures. But in the spirit of that fine man Peter Lougheed, who—though the very emblem of one culture and one region, Alberta—saw in that identity a path to a more intense and wider fealty, that of being Canadian first. 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-celebrating-diversity-will-only-divide-us-but-celebrating-canadas-unity-keeps-us-strong/wcm/a314b7b4-414e-4638-809d-59be8465bb6f

... and there was also this:

The dangers of Canada shaming on the day of our birthday
Canada Day celebrations were almost as cloying the CBC's self-congratulatory zeal — but they were equally muted by a shaming of national pride over the country's colonial past
Christie Blatchford
National Post

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-dangers-of-canada-shaming-on-the-day-of-our-birthday/wcm/feea7aa5-f7d8-4e33-b4bb-1cb97337218e 

 

[George Wallace]

Number One with a Bullet:

http://sharedhit.com/10-most-corrupt-politicians-in-the-world-number-1-will-shock-you/10/

 

[Scott]

Number One with a Bullet:

http://sharedhit.com/10-most-corrupt-politicians-in-the-world-number-1-will-shock-you/10/

Click bait as a source?

Really?

 

[George Wallace]

Click bait as a source?

Really?

It is the Internet after all..... [

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It is the Internet after all..... [

 

[George Wallace]

I think it got lost in translation.....  [

 

[The Bread Guy]

Click bait as a source?

Really?

The magic of the internet:  you can always find ANYTHING you want to say there!

 

[Scott]

The magic of the internet:  you can always find ANYTHING you want to say there!

Don't make me meme you!

 

[Blair Gilmore]

I was fortunate to meet three top Canadian political movers and shakers this past week, Andrew Scheer, the CDS, and LGen (Ret'd) Romeo Dallaire. It is always good to meet people like this in person to gain the full measure of the person. A couple of quick facts, Scheer is a tall man, army CDS men are all short, and Mr. Dallaire still has some fire in the belly. If you're interested in my full impressions of these accomplished Canadians, you can read about it below:

Apologies but the moderators would rather the full post instead of a link outside of this forum. Let me know if you would prefer the full text here or if you would rather a link.

Men to Aspire To

I was fortunate this week to meet three men whom I would confer celebrity status to. What is depressing is in all likelihood very few Canadians would be unable to identify them and what they are known for. How about you, could you name the Leader of the Official Opposition, the CDS and the former senator best known for his work to rid the world of child soldiers?

I drove an hour to meet Andrew Scheer at a Conservative BBQ out in Brookfield, NS last Monday. He was in my top three for my balloting choices for the new leader and I wanted to see what kind of man he was in person. Well, he’s a tall fellow. For some reason that doesn’t come across when you see him on TV during House of Commons question periods. He’s definitely a family man who has a passel of kids, five, all about 12 and younger. I had a chance to say hello to his wife and had a few words with the older son, who I found to be quite intelligent and able to hold a conversation. Mr. Scheer did the obligatory speech for the crowd but kept it short and light. When I shook his hand, I had to rib him about his Roughriders losing to my Bombers during the inaugural game at the new Regina stadium. All in all, he seems like a decent prairie boy and I am happy he is the new Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Through my Royal United Services Institute of NS connections, I was able to attend the Chief of Defence Staff’s unplugged talk about the new Canada Defence Policy. General Jonathan Vance has an impressive pedigree starting from joining back in the 80’s, to commanding troops in Afghanistan, to making it as the top soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is not a tall man but neither were his army predecessors Gen Rick Hillier or Gen Walt Natynczyk. I have met a few CDS’s over the years, the first one at CFB Summerside, PEI. I got to carry Gen John de Chastelain’s briefcase for a short period of time while he was visiting the air base. Gen Hillier was attending an Officer’s Mess function at 19 Wing Comox in support of a Boomer’s Legacy event. He definitely held rock star status. As for Gen Natynczkk, I was the OPI for a large mess function in his honour. He had been up for a flight with the Snowbirds and was a little green around the gills from the experience. It is always good to hear from these movers and shakers of the military as their vision by definition shapes the future of the military. Gen Vance is a consummate public speaker and was firm in his belief that contrary to the skeptics, the Defence Policy will hold the CAF in good stead for the next twenty years. I also liked the fact that he had little patience for a retired Major who was spouting nonsense over the recent ‘Proud Boys’ incident. I liked what I heard from the CDS and I feel the CAF is in good hands.

The last man that I was honoured to meet in person for the third time in my life, was LGen (Ret’d) Roméo Dallaire. It was close to a decade ago when I first met him giving a talk about Rwanda and child soldiers at the Syd Williams Theatre in Courtenay, BC. He took the time to greet as many people as he could to sign copies of his ‘Shake Hands with the Devil’ or to listen to your comments. It was obvious to me that he had the ghosts of a million Rwandans on his conscience. I met him again when he and a group of fellow senators came through Venture, the RCN training school in Esquimalt, BC for MARS officers, for a tour. Now, a few years later, I jumped at the chance to meet him again as he was giving a talk about his Dalhousie University program, Veteran Trainers for the Eradication of Child Soldiers (VTECS). Again, it must be a thing with army officers, he is not a large or tall man. Simultaneously, he comes across as frail and tough as nails. You can tell that he memorized his talking points long ago and they come off his tongue as old, familiar friends. He is also a man who doesn’t brook any guff and adroitly told a questioning twerp to ‘F’ himself after accusing him of war crimes. It has become popular for the supporters of the Rwandan perpetrators of the genocide to twist the massacre to shift blame to the retired general. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked along with the blame that the general was responsible for the deaths of ten Belgian peacekeepers at the start of the genocide. It is disheartening that along with the ravages of his PTSD, the man must put up with these unfounded accusations. As for his PTSD, according to his last book, ‘Waiting for First Light’, it seems as if death may be his only final release. I was quite impressed with the book and felt it was the best of his three works to date. I made a point to handwrite a thank you note and was able to deliver it to him at the end of the presentation. There was recognition in his face when we shook hands, even though our past meetings were very brief. I would have to say that he is a hero of mine and it has been a pleasure to make his acquaintance.

I have been a student of leaders of men for many decades. Hence, I have no interest in the show boaters or narcissistic selfie takers. It is a good week when you can meet powerful men in person to see what they are made of.

 

[a_majoor]

I notice that the apolitical friends I have outside of the army are all furious about the payout to Onar Khadar. If this sort of anger is sustained (or stoked by the opposition), then the Liberals could be facing some real problems in the election.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That election,  sadly, is a ways off.  Will this still be a hot button topic for folks (myself excluded) come then?  I will be expressing my displeasure at the ballot box without question but I'm not sure about the general public.

 

[a_majoor]

While I agree about the time frame, there may also be an accumulation of outrage combining events like this, the "Refugees" (I witnessed another outpouring of anger over that from people as varied as a Bangladeshi taxi driver in Kingston to my own wife) and the possibility of some terrorist events taking place in Canada (like the would be jihadi who was killed in Strathroy in August 2016, and event I'm sensitive to because his apparent target was the Galleria Mall in London, ON where my son was at the time).

Remember Donald Trump became President because he read the growing frustration of American working and middle class people over issues like security, jobs and immigration and could articulate these issues in forms which translated well into Social Media and could be given directly to millions of potential voters (MAGA, ripping up unfair trade deals, building a wall). If enough of Canada's middle and working class are feeling frustrations about Liberal mismanagement (and especially if they are feeling the consequences in the form of lowered income, reduced purchasing power, diminished opportunities and feeling insecure against terrorism), then this approach will have dividends for the opposition, if they are willing to tailor their approach and not "just" try to play Trump lite.

 

[ModlrMike]

I notice that the apolitical friends I have outside of the army are all furious about the payout to Omar Khadar. If this sort of anger is sustained (or stoked by the opposition), then the Liberals could be facing some real problems in the election.

That election,  sadly, is a ways off.  Will this still be a hot button topic for folks (myself excluded) come then?  I will be expressing my displeasure at the ballot box without question but I'm not sure about the general public.

It may not matter in the end. I wager within the first week of the writ being dropped, the self described enlightened faction will throw out the "R" word and set the tone for the entire campaign.

 

[mariomike]

(like the would be jihadi who was killed in Strathroy in August 2016, and event I'm sensitive to because his apparent target was the Galleria Mall in London, ON where my son was at the time).

Do you have a source for that?

If you do, I will add it to this discussion,

RCMP prevent attack - 10 Aug 2016 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/123793.25
7 pages.

Aaron Driver "intended target"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22aaron+driver%22+%22intended+target%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=dX1iWYOuFYiR8QfvjoCQCg&gws_rd=ssl

 

[jollyjacktar]

the possibility of some terrorist events taking place in Canada (like the would be jihadi who was killed in Strathroy in August 2016

Remember Donald Trump

The wannabe was home grown though, not an import and I can't lay him at the PMs feet.  I truly hope we don't have a serious incident here but should that happen I believe it will depend upon the circumstances and response to it that will be judged at the ballot box. 

It also will depend upon what the POTUS  does and world events between now and then.  The country may want more Donald here  by a Team Blue win but then it might be a poisonous idea too.  For my thinking right now there's too many imponderables from here to there.  If a week is a long time in politics, the stretch to 2019 is an eternity.