Tough Justin
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
Obviously (now) I was addressing the comment made by Squeezer… it’s no big deal, but…
Regarding your last paragraph. We’ve been over that. You’re a devil you know type. How’s that worked historically. It hasn’t….ever..To suggest I’m not aware of PPs potential shortcomings. Well that would be like your first paragraph. Misplaced. Any misgivings you have about PP and or the cons. Today…purely suppositions.Whereas we know……
I guess, we might best sum that up as…Cross that bridge when we get there…There as reasons adages contain wisdom, and stand the test of time.
Last edited:
So you've never heard PP talk, you don't what any of his positions are, and you aren't going to bother to examine any of that until after you've voted for him and he's been leader for awhile, is that what you're saying? You refuse to look at him critically now because he's not in power, and only his actions after coming to power matter? So if he had a criminal record for cannibalism from when he ate 3 children, is irrelevant because you hate the current guy? And you don't consider any of the other parties either? Only PP or Justin?
This is basically what you're telling me. You can't say anything bad about PP. As far as you're concerned, he can't have done anything bad because he's never been the PM. So before Justin's first term, you didn't have anything negative to say about him either? You've got nothing negative to say about Jagmeet now?
Your comments are ridiculous and I don't believe that's how you actually operate. I do not believe for one second that you have no negative thoughts about any politician until they come to power.
Except you're saying you'll cross that bridge only after you've already crossed it. Once you've handed someone power, you can't take it back. The bridge will already have been crossed by the time you decide to examine it.
how’s it worked Dinklemouse…
It’s not, it’s never. By all means, show me one admin, provincial or federal…that has ever, done better after…….
And I will also suggest.
There’s not much damage that can’t be reversed or undone after 4 years….but 8 or 12?
/points at Trump
/points at Ontario today.
Last edited:
you seem willing to overlook PP greatest strength: He is not Justin Trudeau & Justin has to go
Lol Thanks for proving my point?
Upset with Ontario today, are you? Gee, maybe when Wynne "needed to go" (and she really did), people should have taken my advice instead of yours and listened to what Ford was saying (and doing) before handing him the Premiership. By your logic Ford was an excellent choice because he wasn't Wynne and we didn't know how bad he would be. Except anyone with a brain who took a beat to think about it knew he was going to be a disaster.
So yeah, my method has left me feeling pretty good about my choices. Apparently yours leaves room to be desired.
Well now, let us see what Harper left Justin with, shall we?
Economic performance and policy during the Harper years - Policy Options
This is an expanded version of a chapter in The Harper Factor: Assessing a Prime Minister’s Policy Legacy, edited by Jennifer Ditchburn and Graham Fox.
policyoptions.irpp.org
Interest rates and Canadian monetary policy
Lower interest rates during the Harper years, shaped by monetary policy from the Bank of Canada, contributed to growth by lowering the cost of servicing debts for households, businesses and governments and boosting domestic asset prices and net worth. The target overnight rate reached a peak of 4.5 percent in July 2007 and started a steep slide in January 2008 before reaching 1 percent or less in 2009-15. It must be emphasized that the slide in interest rates since 2007 was part of a global phenomenon of monetary policy loosening. In fact, the (real) Canada-US short-term interest rate differential turned somewhat in favour of Canada in 2008 and remained so until 2015.
Because of the low and declining interest rates, household debt service payments continued to trend downward relative to disposable income even as the debt-to-income ratio rose substantially. At the same time, lower interest costs relative to government revenues gave more room to the Harper government (and to provincial governments) for spending on direct programs and transfers and for reducing taxes without increasing the federal (or provincial) deficit (figure 6).
WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD ON, did Harper cause the housing bubble? Hmmmmm, the righties seem to blame Justin, Hmmmmm...
Cost competitiveness
A substantial loss of Canadian cost competitiveness depressed Canadian real net exports and hence real GDP in the Harper government years relative to 1984-2005. Along with the increased presence of China as a competitor in the US market, it contributed to a fall in Canada’s market share of US manufacturing imports. That loss of competitiveness contributed to a significant widening of Canada’s current account deficit relative to GDP during the Harper government years, more than offsetting the effect of a rise in the terms of trade during the period.
Measured in terms of unit labour costs (in US dollars) in Canada versus costs in the US (relative to the 1984-2005 average), a loss of Canadian cost competitiveness in the business sector emerged in 2004 (3.7 percent). This loss (represented by the black line in figure 5) grew to a peak of 49 percent in 2011 before retreating to 16 percent in 2015. A substantial appreciation of the Canadian dollar accounted for 70 percent of the total loss of competitiveness during 2006-15 relative to 1984-2005. This appreciation was largely driven by a sharp increase in commodity prices, notably oil prices. A slower rate of labour productivity growth in the business sector relative to the US, which on its own would have accounted for 50 percent of the competitiveness loss, was nearly half offset by slower wage growth in Canada (figure 5).
While greatly reducing taxes overall, the Harper government decreased its relative reliance on broad-based consumption taxes and increased its relative reliance on income taxes. (Between fiscal years 2005-06 and 2014-15, federal tax revenues fell from 13.3 percent of GDP to 11.6 percent. At the same time, the share of federal revenues represented by taxes on goods and services, largely GST, fell from 21 to 17 percent.)
This broad structural shift, which reversed the thrust of the Mulroney government tax reform, was somewhat detrimental to long-term growth because it limited the scope for reductions in personal and corporate income taxes that would have been more favourable to long-term growth than reductions in consumption taxes. Notably, some of the high effective marginal rates of personal income tax (and rates of clawback of personal transfer payments) could have been reduced more had the GST rate not been reduced from 7 to 5 percent. Lower effective marginal rates of income tax would have enhanced incentives for individuals to work and save. Importantly, however, the federal government provided the incentives needed for Ontario to join the harmonized sales tax, thereby enhancing economic efficiency.
The Harper government introduced a large number of micro tax measures that should have somewhat strengthened tax compliance and in so doing generated fiscal savings for the government. (See table A5.4 of the 2015 budget document for the list of integrity tax measures introduced since 2010.) Moreover, it announced in the 2013 budget the rationalization of several business tax preferences over the subsequent several years.
Overall, these measures should buttress the integrity of the tax system, although the reduction in the small business tax rate announced in the 2015 budget certainly does not.
On the other hand, the Harper government introduced a large number of “boutique” tax preferences targeted to special groups (such as transit and sports equipment credits). These introduced unwarranted complexity and inefficiency into the system. A reduction of general rates of comparable magnitude would have been economically (although not necessarily politically) preferable.
The Harper government introduced on a restricted basis two measures that began to fundamentally change the structure of the personal income tax system: income splitting and the tax-free savings account (TFSA). On income splitting, the government first permitted pension income splitting, effective as of the 2007 tax year. Then in October 2014 it announced limited income splitting for couples with children under the age of 18, effective as of the 2014 tax year. These income-splitting measures have resulted in a partial shift from an individual-based system to a family-based one for certain groups but not others, while leaving in place the progressive rate structure designed for individual-based taxation. Whether the individual-based system is preferable to a well-structured family-based one is a matter of debate, but it is clear that by introducing limited income splitting the Harper government has left Canada with a hybrid system in urgent need of reform
It seems to me Justin inherited a mess from a Harper Conservative Government and then had to deal with a pandemic which was a worldwide issue. Just to compare, Justin was re-elected for his performance during Covid and so was Dougie while his counterpart in the US was turfed and cried like a fat baby all the way back to Mar o Lago.
It is your right to vote for Pee Pee, and it is my right to vote for Justin so let the cards fall where they may. Is Justin perfect, no, is any politician perfect, NO but I will take Justin over a puddle of piss who courts convoy twats and supremacists any day of the week, month, and year!
Last edited:
Well argued.Well now, let us see what Harper left Justin with, shall we?
Economic performance and policy during the Harper years - Policy Options
This is an expanded version of a chapter in The Harper Factor: Assessing a Prime Minister’s Policy Legacy, edited by Jennifer Ditchburn and Graham Fox.
Interest rates and Canadian monetary policy
Lower interest rates during the Harper years, shaped by monetary policy from the Bank of Canada, contributed to growth by lowering the cost of servicing debts for households, businesses and governments and boosting domestic asset prices and net worth. The target overnight rate reached a peak of 4.5 percent in July 2007 and started a steep slide in January 2008 before reaching 1 percent or less in 2009-15. It must be emphasized that the slide in interest rates since 2007 was part of a global phenomenon of monetary policy loosening. In fact, the (real) Canada-US short-term interest rate differential turned somewhat in favour of Canada in 2008 and remained so until 2015.
Because of the low and declining interest rates, household debt service payments continued to trend downward relative to disposable income even as the debt-to-income ratio rose substantially. At the same time, lower interest costs relative to government revenues gave more room to the Harper government (and to provincial governments) for spending on direct programs and transfers and for reducing taxes without increasing the federal (or provincial) deficit (figure 6).
WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD ON, did Harper cause the housing bubble? Hmmmmm, the righties seem to blame Justin, Hmmmmm...
Cost competitiveness
A substantial loss of Canadian cost competitiveness depressed Canadian real net exports and hence real GDP in the Harper government years relative to 1984-2005. Along with the increased presence of China as a competitor in the US market, it contributed to a fall in Canada’s market share of US manufacturing imports. That loss of competitiveness contributed to a significant widening of Canada’s current account deficit relative to GDP during the Harper government years, more than offsetting the effect of a rise in the terms of trade during the period.
Measured in terms of unit labour costs (in US dollars) in Canada versus costs in the US (relative to the 1984-2005 average), a loss of Canadian cost competitiveness in the business sector emerged in 2004 (3.7 percent). This loss (represented by the black line in figure 5) grew to a peak of 49 percent in 2011 before retreating to 16 percent in 2015. A substantial appreciation of the Canadian dollar accounted for 70 percent of the total loss of competitiveness during 2006-15 relative to 1984-2005. This appreciation was largely driven by a sharp increase in commodity prices, notably oil prices. A slower rate of labour productivity growth in the business sector relative to the US, which on its own would have accounted for 50 percent of the competitiveness loss, was nearly half offset by slower wage growth in Canada (figure 5).
While greatly reducing taxes overall, the Harper government decreased its relative reliance on broad-based consumption taxes and increased its relative reliance on income taxes. (Between fiscal years 2005-06 and 2014-15, federal tax revenues fell from 13.3 percent of GDP to 11.6 percent. At the same time, the share of federal revenues represented by taxes on goods and services, largely GST, fell from 21 to 17 percent.)
This broad structural shift, which reversed the thrust of the Mulroney government tax reform, was somewhat detrimental to long-term growth because it limited the scope for reductions in personal and corporate income taxes that would have been more favourable to long-term growth than reductions in consumption taxes. Notably, some of the high effective marginal rates of personal income tax (and rates of clawback of personal transfer payments) could have been reduced more had the GST rate not been reduced from 7 to 5 percent. Lower effective marginal rates of income tax would have enhanced incentives for individuals to work and save. Importantly, however, the federal government provided the incentives needed for Ontario to join the harmonized sales tax, thereby enhancing economic efficiency.
The Harper government introduced a large number of micro tax measures that should have somewhat strengthened tax compliance and in so doing generated fiscal savings for the government. (See table A5.4 of the 2015 budget document for the list of integrity tax measures introduced since 2010.) Moreover, it announced in the 2013 budget the rationalization of several business tax preferences over the subsequent several years.
Overall, these measures should buttress the integrity of the tax system, although the reduction in the small business tax rate announced in the 2015 budget certainly does not.
On the other hand, the Harper government introduced a large number of “boutique” tax preferences targeted to special groups (such as transit and sports equipment credits). These introduced unwarranted complexity and inefficiency into the system. A reduction of general rates of comparable magnitude would have been economically (although not necessarily politically) preferable.
The Harper government introduced on a restricted basis two measures that began to fundamentally change the structure of the personal income tax system: income splitting and the tax-free savings account (TFSA). On income splitting, the government first permitted pension income splitting, effective as of the 2007 tax year. Then in October 2014 it announced limited income splitting for couples with children under the age of 18, effective as of the 2014 tax year. These income-splitting measures have resulted in a partial shift from an individual-based system to a family-based one for certain groups but not others, while leaving in place the progressive rate structure designed for individual-based taxation. Whether the individual-based system is preferable to a well-structured family-based one is a matter of debate, but it is clear that by introducing limited income splitting the Harper government has left Canada with a hybrid system in urgent need of reform
It seems to me Justin inherited a mess from a Harper Conservative Government and then had to deal with a pandemic which was a worldwide issue. Just to compare, Justin was re-elected for his performance during Covid and so was Dougie while his counterpart in the US was turfed and cried like a fat baby all the way back to Mar o Lago.
It is your right to vote for Pee Pee, and it is my right to vote for Justin so let the cards fall where they may. Is Justin perfect, no, is any politician perfect, NO but I will take Justin over a puddle of piss who courts convoy twats and supremacists any day of the week, month, and year!
I wasn’t going to respond to this but given your last…what part of I don’t much care about the next admin is beyond your inadequate critical reasoning skills?
What part of anything you say about PP today is purely guesswork. Supposition…you have no basis, none nada zippo, to measure him and the cons, for the very simple reason…He’s not in power. You don’t know what he will/won’t do…The house is burning down around you and you’re worried about who the next caretaker is….that’s smart….
If he goes off the rails I can vote for someone else in 4 years. And if others do as well, like Trump he will be turfed…before the damage is so bad, it’s extremely hard, if not impossible to fix…like Ontario today because it took almost 14 years before too many like you who thought they were smart, and the electorate engaged their brains…watched the house burn down….
Think much Mouse sized brain?
Further if we are comparing two figure heads, caretakers, against one another and neither are stellar choices. See above. We know one is unsuitable. We know the damage he has done is getting pretty bad……….rocket science for people with critical reasoning skills that rival a tinkle mouses…
And if we are comparing two parties because behind the figure heads, who really anre no more than caretakers, are teams of strategists and more….when was the last time a platform meant Jack. They all promise the world, but deliver little…
Yeah, your a mental midget.
Last edited:
i would disagree as the leaders are not just caretakers
the liberal party of Justin Trudeau is not the liberal party of Jean Creitian / Paul Martin
the common sense / pragmatic approach of the the latter has been supplanted by ideological driven decision making of the former
the liberal has also taken a huge step to the left
one could argue it was/ is Gerald Butts who is responsible for the changes as Justin Trudeau is too stupid to implement such a transformation
either way, the change has been a disaster for Canada and Justin has to go
And what part of the question "Do you just vote for the current guy if you're happy with things ie randomly vote for any opposition if you're not?" are you struggling to understand and answer? Surely it you can't say anything bad about PP better he's not in power, you also can't say anything bad about Singh or May? So how do you choose which to vote for?
We know what he says he will do. We know what actions he's taken in his role as Opposition Leader. Let me recommend a book to you: "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. Germans in the 30s has plenty of warnings about what Hitler was liked. Perhaps they should've headed some of them. Closer to home, there were plenty of warnings about Ford. Perhaps some of the options who voted for him should've headed those warnings. PP isn't Hitler, and he's not Ford either, but you ignore his words and actions before he's elected at the peril of the entire nation.
But why him? Why not any of the other parties? They're equally flawless, aren't they? What if there are better options? What if, no matter how upset you are with he current guy, he's still better? You're rather have a worse 4 years than just listen to people?
All the time, you should try it. For example, before I vote I think about the candidates and their past behavior and performance.
Great! If neither is a stellar choice, then why have you been fighting so hard against the very thing that started this discussion when you could just have said something negative about PP?
Uh. The PMO in Canada has far more power over Canada than the President has over the US. Who leads the country absolutely matters.
Lol Oh no! A stranger on the internet said something mean about me!
I'm heartbroken!And what part of the question "Do you just vote for the current guy if you're happy with things ie randomly vote for any opposition if you're not?" are you struggling to understand and answer? Surely it you can't say anything bad about PP better he's not in power, you also can't say anything bad about Singh or May? So how do you choose which to vote for?
We know what he says he will do. We know what actions he's taken in his role as Opposition Leader. Let me recommend a book to you: "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. Germans in the 30s has plenty of warnings about what Hitler was liked. Perhaps they should've headed some of them. Closer to home, there were plenty of warnings about Ford. Perhaps some of the options who voted for him should've headed those warnings. PP isn't Hitler, and he's not Ford either, but you ignore his words and actions before he's elected at the peril of the entire nation.
But why him? Why not any of the other parties? They're equally flawless, aren't they? What if there are better options? What if, no matter how upset you are with he current guy, he's still better? You're rather have a worse 4 years than just listen to people?
All the time, you should try it. For example, before I vote I think about the candidates and their past behavior and performance.
Great! If neither is a stellar choice, then why have you been fighting so hard against the very thing that started this discussion when you could just have said something negative about PP?
Uh. The PMO in Canada has far more power over Canada than the President has over the US. Who leads the country absolutely matters.
Lol Oh no! A stranger on the internet said something mean about me!
Well that was a long drawn out affair to brainwash your own mind and convince yourself Justin Trudeau is “ok”Well now, let us see what Harper left Justin with, shall we?
Economic performance and policy during the Harper years - Policy Options
This is an expanded version of a chapter in The Harper Factor: Assessing a Prime Minister’s Policy Legacy, edited by Jennifer Ditchburn and Graham Fox.
Interest rates and Canadian monetary policy
Lower interest rates during the Harper years, shaped by monetary policy from the Bank of Canada, contributed to growth by lowering the cost of servicing debts for households, businesses and governments and boosting domestic asset prices and net worth. The target overnight rate reached a peak of 4.5 percent in July 2007 and started a steep slide in January 2008 before reaching 1 percent or less in 2009-15. It must be emphasized that the slide in interest rates since 2007 was part of a global phenomenon of monetary policy loosening. In fact, the (real) Canada-US short-term interest rate differential turned somewhat in favour of Canada in 2008 and remained so until 2015.
Because of the low and declining interest rates, household debt service payments continued to trend downward relative to disposable income even as the debt-to-income ratio rose substantially. At the same time, lower interest costs relative to government revenues gave more room to the Harper government (and to provincial governments) for spending on direct programs and transfers and for reducing taxes without increasing the federal (or provincial) deficit (figure 6).
WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD ON, did Harper cause the housing bubble? Hmmmmm, the righties seem to blame Justin, Hmmmmm...
Cost competitiveness
A substantial loss of Canadian cost competitiveness depressed Canadian real net exports and hence real GDP in the Harper government years relative to 1984-2005. Along with the increased presence of China as a competitor in the US market, it contributed to a fall in Canada’s market share of US manufacturing imports. That loss of competitiveness contributed to a significant widening of Canada’s current account deficit relative to GDP during the Harper government years, more than offsetting the effect of a rise in the terms of trade during the period.
Measured in terms of unit labour costs (in US dollars) in Canada versus costs in the US (relative to the 1984-2005 average), a loss of Canadian cost competitiveness in the business sector emerged in 2004 (3.7 percent). This loss (represented by the black line in figure 5) grew to a peak of 49 percent in 2011 before retreating to 16 percent in 2015. A substantial appreciation of the Canadian dollar accounted for 70 percent of the total loss of competitiveness during 2006-15 relative to 1984-2005. This appreciation was largely driven by a sharp increase in commodity prices, notably oil prices. A slower rate of labour productivity growth in the business sector relative to the US, which on its own would have accounted for 50 percent of the competitiveness loss, was nearly half offset by slower wage growth in Canada (figure 5).
While greatly reducing taxes overall, the Harper government decreased its relative reliance on broad-based consumption taxes and increased its relative reliance on income taxes. (Between fiscal years 2005-06 and 2014-15, federal tax revenues fell from 13.3 percent of GDP to 11.6 percent. At the same time, the share of federal revenues represented by taxes on goods and services, largely GST, fell from 21 to 17 percent.)
This broad structural shift, which reversed the thrust of the Mulroney government tax reform, was somewhat detrimental to long-term growth because it limited the scope for reductions in personal and corporate income taxes that would have been more favourable to long-term growth than reductions in consumption taxes. Notably, some of the high effective marginal rates of personal income tax (and rates of clawback of personal transfer payments) could have been reduced more had the GST rate not been reduced from 7 to 5 percent. Lower effective marginal rates of income tax would have enhanced incentives for individuals to work and save. Importantly, however, the federal government provided the incentives needed for Ontario to join the harmonized sales tax, thereby enhancing economic efficiency.
The Harper government introduced a large number of micro tax measures that should have somewhat strengthened tax compliance and in so doing generated fiscal savings for the government. (See table A5.4 of the 2015 budget document for the list of integrity tax measures introduced since 2010.) Moreover, it announced in the 2013 budget the rationalization of several business tax preferences over the subsequent several years.
Overall, these measures should buttress the integrity of the tax system, although the reduction in the small business tax rate announced in the 2015 budget certainly does not.
On the other hand, the Harper government introduced a large number of “boutique” tax preferences targeted to special groups (such as transit and sports equipment credits). These introduced unwarranted complexity and inefficiency into the system. A reduction of general rates of comparable magnitude would have been economically (although not necessarily politically) preferable.
The Harper government introduced on a restricted basis two measures that began to fundamentally change the structure of the personal income tax system: income splitting and the tax-free savings account (TFSA). On income splitting, the government first permitted pension income splitting, effective as of the 2007 tax year. Then in October 2014 it announced limited income splitting for couples with children under the age of 18, effective as of the 2014 tax year. These income-splitting measures have resulted in a partial shift from an individual-based system to a family-based one for certain groups but not others, while leaving in place the progressive rate structure designed for individual-based taxation. Whether the individual-based system is preferable to a well-structured family-based one is a matter of debate, but it is clear that by introducing limited income splitting the Harper government has left Canada with a hybrid system in urgent need of reform
It seems to me Justin inherited a mess from a Harper Conservative Government and then had to deal with a pandemic which was a worldwide issue. Just to compare, Justin was re-elected for his performance during Covid and so was Dougie while his counterpart in the US was turfed and cried like a fat baby all the way back to Mar o Lago.
It is your right to vote for Pee Pee, and it is my right to vote for Justin so let the cards fall where they may. Is Justin perfect, no, is any politician perfect, NO but I will take Justin over a puddle of piss who courts convoy twats and supremacists any day of the week, month, and year!
I could end this after one statement that should have everyone on edge spoken by Trudeau “ I don’t care about monetary policy” he’s the PM of a G7 country and he doesn’t care about monetary policy? And you try to blame previous governments? How long has he been in power, oh that’s right just since 2015 not enough time to get the country on the right track to“sunny ways”
What a Joke.
Let’s look at his time in power what has he done? Oh right I forgot that he’s added and never increased the carbon tax, as was the liberal promise that it would not increase right. Nope even during Covid he increased the carbon tax oh not once but twice in one year and that has no effect to the disposable income Canadians have. So JT didn’t cause any problems with the Canadian economy.
Oh and that fact JT said “ budgets will balance themselves” like that’s happen correct, wrong again another red flag when the PM makes a comment like that… I know my budget and everyone’s budget balances at some point correct?
And speaking of budget how about the fact that JT has spent since he’s been in power more than any other PM ever, wait for it because that’s bad on it’s own however when you look at his spending he has actually out spent all other PMs that have been in office combined. Let me say that again COMBINED! Before you say oh a large part of that has to do with Covid let me remind you that even the governments own auditor stated that less than half of what was spend in the two years of Covid was for Covid support and relief, again less than half.
I could go on about his dishonestly, lies, and scandals but I am sure that still would not be enough to have you open your eyes to what’s really going on. He is a PM who is made fun of world wide and a disgrace to Canadians on the world stage.
it’s time for a change and I have voted for liberal in the past but this guy is out to lunch or vacation again!
Last edited:
Go back and read the whole thread. He's not ok. He's a disaster. I put out a whole laundry list of why he's a disaster. I'm not voting for him next election. But I'm not voting for PP either. But if they were the only two options available, I would vote for Justin over PP because I think PP is worse.
I asked people to show they're objective and say a single bad thing about PP. He's a politician, afterall. But as you just did, all they can do is go on about how bad Justin is.
But that's the entire point: I have yet to see anyone that speaks out about how they don't want PP say they think Justin is a flawless saint that can all be objective and point out Justin's flaws.
You don't think it's strange how many refuse to do so? That doesn't concern you?
But then your rush to take Not getting younger's side? A guy who claims to form no opinions about anyone until after they're running the country? You don't think that's a ridiculous stance?
I've never argued anything different with anyone on here. So try again.
They are all lying, but JT has been the worst PM ever and as bad as anyone may think PP is, I don’t believe ( my opinion ) that he could be worst than JT, if PP gets in and starts to manage the spending even a little that would help, we need to stop the bleeding because if there isn’t a change we are headed down the same path as Venezuela due to JTs ideology Canada will be decimated.
And as far as reading your post again, it isn’t that I need to read it again but rather people need to stop blaming others especially after 8 years in office. As a leader you need to step up and lead not authoritarian but a real leader who listens, analyzes , weights the outcomes that is best for the people as a whole not individuals or lobby groups. So I am not interested in the blame game if the past, we see what’s happening now and trust me this is t SUNNY DAYS.
I am so tired of heading about the past and who’s to blame rather than taking responsibility for the situation we are in now.
I would love to see a government bring in a system that any major decisions are brought to a referendum to the people such as budget.
Much could be said of yours. Aren’t you the one that posted a video without checking to see if there might me more it? Especially given the source?
Don’t let your emotions overrule logic..you too might want to engage your your brain..
And as far as Dinklemouse goes. He’s allowed his opinions too. The problem will start when he forgets that I am as well, I allowed the first “critical thinking” comment go, I won’t again, and I will fire back. Or have you allowed your emotions once again to cloud logic..
Engrish prease. I don't recall what video you are referring to.
"I know you are but what am I" is your response?
Memory problems as well
You do when you post a reply to me saying I'm justifying Justin being an ok PM though.
It's also interesting that all I hear from PP is the blame game though and that's the very thing you're upset about. Well, that and how he's going to overstep the authority of the PMO.
Can you name something you don't like about PP? Are you going to show the objectivity others can't?
"I don't consider someone's campaign at all when I vote for them because they're not in power yet and therefore nothing matters" is not critical thinking. It's either inane or an outright lie. So you'd vote for Elizabeth Rowley, leader of the Communist Party or Canada? She's never been in office, ergo there's no reason not to using your version of "critical thinking". Of course you wouldn't. You're making up excuses to either avoid being objective, or to avoid showing you're incapable of it.
