Canadian Politics

What's so bad about an expense scandal? There are so many other things to hold against Harper.

Screwing the country over is totally ok. But waste money? Now you're betraying conservative principles.

edited 26th Dec '13 3:06:58 PM by nightwyrm_zero

Watergate and Iran-Contra were much worse than a fucking expense scandal. One involved bugging the offices of the opposition party. The other involved funding a terrorist organization behind Congress' back.

Expense scandal? That's like Al Capone getting jail time for not paying taxes.

edited 26th Dec '13 3:12:22 PM by Sledgesaul

Harper's staff (no proof, yet, that he was directly involved but he's a known micromanager) may have committed bribery and extortion, so its not just an expenses scandal. And Harper got elected, particularly in the West, on a platform of cleaning up the Senate, so it looks really bad for him to start an even bigger scandal.

Harper/his party got away with probable (like a 20 something staffer has the resources to pull off a major robo call scheme) Election Fraud. And the G20 crackdown. And a Afghan torture scandal. This is sticking because its easy for people to understand and frankly I don't care what crime/scandal/policy/mistake brings Harper down, so long as he falls.

edited 26th Dec '13 3:16:11 PM by Rationalinsanity

Bribery and extortion in what way?

edited 26th Dec '13 3:23:36 PM by Sledgesaul

Mainly in giving Duffy and others money to stay quiet and pay off the expenses without getting noticed while threatening them with political and legal retaliation if they refused.

What G20 crackdown?

Harper had the Toronto police (which he has no official control over) use excessive force on peaceful protestors. The guy in charge got a Cabinet position later, but I can't remember his name.

Again, expenses scandal pales in comparison to the other shit Harler has done. How big are the chances that the right wing will turn on him due to this?

That isn't likely to happen to him. Our hopes lie in the swing voters seeing Harper for who he is and Trudeau rallying the Liberal base to eek out a win. Harper controls the Tories and that won't change unless he loses an election (or loses their majority) or openly does something truly damning.

I know Trudeau has name recognition and popularity, but is he at all as capable as Mulcair at beating Harper?

I don't know very many people who are enthusiastic about Mulcair. Trudeau has superior brand recognition and he's been riding that pretty hard.

edited 26th Dec '13 4:12:07 PM by majoraoftime

Trudeau-Mulcair is Kennedy-Nixon. The younger, more appealing to the eyes youngin vs the older, uglier shifty-eyed asshole. I'd say it's an apt description.

I feel bad for Mulcair as it's impossible to carry the torch after Jack, but on the other hand there's things he could be doing better.

I'd be happy if he holds on to the gains of the last election and the Liberals roll to minority over former Tory seats. A new political centre between the NDP and the Grits, that I can live with.

We can at least take solace in the Bloc Québécois no longer being a viable party.

Harper government cutting more than $100 million and 500 jobs at the DFO, against advice from water-protection experts

edited 27th Dec '13 7:21:12 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Because Harper is clearly an asshole, of course.

For now. Quebec is infamous for pulling electoral curveballs. Over the course of their history they've turfed every previous and contemporary party that ran in the province. Except the NDP but give them an election cycle or two.

And maybe we could all learn a thing or from them, instead of playing musical chairs every election between two (now possibly three) parties.

The Bloc would be a more viable party if they weren't so adamant about separation from the mainland. The natives have their own province, so they can shove it.

edited 27th Dec '13 8:42:03 PM by Sledgesaul

The Bloc exists to press the issue of Quebec's status, if you ignore their positions on separation they are a pretty normal center-left party.

Leave Quebec alone. They don't want separatism as opposed to the politicians.

I've noticed that people in parts of Canada west of Quebec don't tend to like Quebec much. Mostly because of the obsession the Quebec government has with the French language (which exists in most French speaking areas really) but also because of the Bloc's obsession with Separatism. The Bloc also has a reputation for constantly whining and demanding more from the rest of the country because Quebec is "special".

I personally feel the same about Quebec as I do about the Yukon. I'm basically indifferent, but if they left Canada, the results would probably be pretty bad.

edited 30th Dec '13 3:37:43 PM by Zendervai

Oh, I gotta ask: did you think Trudeau went overboard with the War Measures Act in the October Crisis over separatists?

No, absolutely not. The FLQ were setting off bombs in public places, kidnapping people and committing at least one political assassination. They needed to be crushed and Trudeau found the most even handed way to do so. The worst that happened to most people was that they were temporarily arrested; and the ones that actually went to prison were guilty as sin.

I'm kinda torn because we've done much worse with less justification in the War on Terror without invoking any such Act, and yet I can't help but wonder if Trudeau's actions set a precedent.