SILVER LYING PLAYBOOK - Republican Style

One thing was sure this last Canadian Federal Election, the Conservatives are no longer hiding the interference and influence of their Republican cousins in Canadian politics anymore.  If that doesn't worry you then I'd guess, like Conservative party leader Andrew "No Dice" Scheer, you too are part American.
It bothers me.  ALOT!
I'd rather a fully French citizen become Prime Minister of Canada than even a 1/4 American for the very simple reason that America has invaded us 3 times in our history and one President actually ran on a campaign called "54-40 or Bust" which was a declaration of hostilities against the very existence of Canada.
And, as Martin Lawrence wrote in his book THE PRESIDENTS AND THE PRIME MINISTERS, nearly everything America has done in the history of Canada-US relations has been hostile toward the existence and sovereignty of Canada.
Not to put a fine point on it, but I trust Americans with Canada's future about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat.
So rather than update my TOP SECRET CONSERVATIVE HANDBOOK I've begun researching a TOP SECRET REPUBLICAN HANDBOOK.  Fans of my Conservative book will note that the cover has at the bottom what I suggested the next logo for Canada's Conservative Party could be:

The book was published in 2015 but this wasn't a joke.  It was a satirical way of noting that the Modern Conservative in Canada was little more than a Republican cloaked in a Maple Leaf, and it's time to take that message home to them.
But the reason I haven't already written this is because wading into that swamp, and make no bones about it, the only swamp in Washington, DC is Republican made, takes a real toll on my psyche.
It's like hanging around with a bunch of Manic/Depressives, only they're the cynical, conspiracy laden-ed, tin-foil hat wearing type.
In short, it's exhausting!
So I'll share a link I'm using to research one angle of this new book, it's a bit of a give away because I'm going to apply these theories to a bunch of policy white papers to demonstrate how Conservatives, both real and imagined, think.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/communication-success/201908/8-ways-gaslighters-manipulate-and-control-relationships

And now back to the title of this post.  Don't worry, it's all connected.

Today the Conservative Party of Canada posted this:

I've nothing against seeing a silver lining when you're trying to keep your base energized but, the problem with this post is, as with everything Andrew Scheer and his Republican - sorry, I mean Conservatives - have stated in the last decade, it doesn't pass the smell test.

Worse still, it's basic math, meaning even a number challenged idiot like myself can prove it wrong.

In 2006 - the election where Stephen "Robot Boy" Harper first became Prime Minister of Canada, the Conservatives won 124 seats in a 208 seat House of Commons, while Paul "Mr Dithers" Martin's Liberals took 103 seats.  That means Martin formed an Official Opposition that had 83% as many seats as Harper and the Opposition side had 60% of the seats.

In 2019 - the election where Justin "Brownface" Trudeau was reduced to a Minority Government, the Liberals have taken 157 seats of a 338 seat House of Commons, while Scheer's Conservatives took 121 seats, and while that's almost as many seats as Harper had to form Government in a much smaller House, it means Andy heads a party that took only 77% as many seats as Justin did, and the Opposition side has only 54% of the seats.

Now the only place I know where 54% is higher than 60% is in Andrew Scheer and Donald Trump's addled brains.
But then, that's Gaslighting Method Number 6, isn't it?

CANADA'S GOVERNMENT for Americans

When I describe Canada's political system to my American friends I say:

EXECUTIVE: Imagine your Executive branch has no power, they're just a figure head, an official greeter, and instead of Veto's they just put the ceremonial stamp of approval on any bill that's been passed by the elected legislators. They aren't called President, that's our Governor General.

SENATE: Imagine your Senate is appointed, they aren't beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists because they don't face election. They do most of the committee work, taking bills passed into law by the House and working out the logistical implementation. It works best when they're former (experienced) legislators because they know the system, it works worst when they're semi-famous public figures who haven't a clue what the job is because they then cause Spending Scandals. One party has kicked their Senators out of the party so they aren't influenced by partisan politics. Another party that has never been in power says they don't want the Senate, but they haven't explained how the work will get done and they'll never form Government so it doesn't matter what they think. The third party will threaten to take their ball and go home every time things don't go their way, we just let them do that.

HOUSE: Now imagine your House of Representatives is the only place all the power is, your Speaker is called the Prime Minister, he actually has a vote like anyone else and he leads a Cabinet made up of people who are Ministers (instead of Secretaries) all of whom also sit in the House. There is a speaker but he's just a moderator. If the House has a majority of votes they pass their bills into Law after 4 rounds of debate. But we have 5 parties represented so if they don't have a majority there's a lot of wrangling, stuff still gets done but it has to be by compromise. It's a one stop shop and if the PM goes somewhere and agrees to something and has a majority in the House then he gets the job done, Unlike your President who then has to go back to the House and start a process of getting his deal approved.

There's no gridlock, no do-nothing sessions (unless its an unpopular minority government) and if they can't make it work then the whole thing is shut down and we have an election so the people can decide. It can happen within months of the previous election (if a very dysfunctional minority Government is elected) but no longer than 4 1/2 years after the last one.

WITHOUT ALBERTA

I've been to Alberta many times.  I lived there for 5 years.  I was there when the province abandoned the Federal Government and created their little artisinal boutique Reform Party.  I was there when the province feigned indignation when their regional little political movement failed to form Government and had to sit back in 4th place and listen to the Bloq Quebecois' Lucien Bouchard speak as the Leader of the Official Opposition in Parliament. 
In short, I witnesses the birth of the "Little Whiny Baby Wanting to Take Our Ball Home When We Don't Get Our Way" that is modern Alberta.
I'm not a fan.
So on election night, when the official spokesman of the "Big Whiny Baby" movement, Andrew "No-Dice" Scheer mentioned the Conservatives "won the popular vote" my sniff-detector went off.  The term "sniff-test" is a journalistic one referring to any statement a politician makes that carries a whiff of something foul and untrue about it.
The popular vote means nothing in a Westminster Parliament such as ours.  It wouldn't mean anything in a Regional Proportional Representation model either and if that surprises you then it proves you really haven't learned enough about PR to know whether you like it or not.
But that's for another day - very kind people who have said nice things about these posts have also reminded me I'm circumlocutious, so, back to the topic:

WITHOUT ALBERTA
I'm not going to talk about Wexit or Abexit or whatever nonsense the 63% of Albertans who didn't get their way this election call the stupid notion of Alberta leaving these days. 
Not this time.
Conservative support is largely saturated in Alberta and throughout the election we were watching these heavily skewed numbers make it look like the Nation was leaning Conservative when in fact Alberta was the bloated Conservative pissing pot weighing the nation down, and now that the final numbers are in I can demonstrate what that means.

WITHOUT ALBERTA - there were 14,472,789 votes cast.  14.4 Million.
And the House of Commons minus the Alberta seats has 304 members.

WITHOUT ALBERTA - the Liberals got 5,635,641 votes, the Conservatives 4,742,302 and the NDP 2,614,201 votes.  I'm not going to bother listing the other parties as they don't matter, even the Bloq, which got seats only because they too are concentrated in one area (the similarities between Alberta and Quebec agitate both equally so have fun with that if you can).
WITHOUT ALBERTA - those votes would've still given the Liberals 157 seats (exactly what they got); the Conservatives would've had only 88 (since 33 of their seats are in Alberta) and the NDP would have 24 (they'd lose that lone non-Conservative Albertan seat).  Since a House of Commons without Alberta has 304 seats then a Majority in that House requires only 152 and Trudeau, winning 157 would have a Majority.

NOTE THAT I HAVEN'T REMOVED SASKATCHEWAN which went entirely Conservative in their seat count for the same reason I didn't remove PEI which went entirely Liberal.  They may be symptoms of a problem, but they're not THE problem.

WITHOUT ALBERTA our Nation is clearly more equally represented and representative.  It's also more consistent with pockets going one way, and others going another.  Most importantly the results in the other 9 provinces and 3 territories better reflect the voting intentions of the Nation as a whole and by every measure Andrew "No-Dice" Scheer is still the biggest loser.

THE MYTH OF PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION

Let's put an end to the myth of Proportionate Representation, shall we?
In John Pepall's book AGAINST REFORM he correctly states three very important facts about PR in regards to Canada:
1. PR means endless Coalition or Minority governments, all of which under Westminster Parliamentary systems are either unstable or frequently shifting their priorities.
2. Canadians have repeatedly indicated they don't like Coalition and Minority governments because...
3. Coalition and Minority governments do not have any one party clearly responsible or to blame or accountable and therefore in every nation where they exist budgets are completely out of control.

If you think Harper's wasting of the $100 Billion Chretien/Martin paid off the debt was bad.  If you think Harper's further adding of $70 Billion to the debt through his nepotistic Canada Action Plan vote buying scheme was bad.
If you think Justin's $50 Billion investment in infrastructure that stimulated a stagnant economy was bad.
THEN imagine doing that PLUS trying to appease the additional demands of your coalition partners!!

The 4th reason Mr. Pepall gives against reform on all counts is that there's no way a political party can institute a political system reform without trying to put in, or exclude, a measure that benefits or hurts it.  None.  It's ridiculous to even expect that.

And the 5th reason Mr. Pepall gives against such reforms is that Canada is at the top of International Stability lists, Democratic Responsibility lists and at the bottom of Corruption Indexes.  In short, the system we have has ensured a stable, functioning and responsible democracy for 150 plus years so anyone wanting to change that is clearly trying to de-stablize us.

But let's pretend for a minute that a consensus is possible about PR.  That of the dozen or so possible systems out there, a majority of Canadians, or even Canadian politicians, could agree on one system.  There's no evidence of this being the case, and even when PR referendums have passed in places like BC no province has instituted one because none can get consensus on which method to adopt [see: item 4 for the reason why], but let's pretend that consensus on a Proportionate Representation system has occurred.

And because this is about myths, let's pretend a Regional Proportionate Representation system was in place, then, as pollster and the mind behind 338Canada.com, Philippe J. Fournier worked out in a recent article for MacLeans....

Under First Past The Post, right now the Liberals and Conservatives would each get around 132 seats.  They'd then need the NDP's 33 seats, the Greens 4 and the Bloq's 36 to either support or abstain from defeating them.

Under PPR, right now we'd see a minority government under Andrew Scheer with 112 seats, the Liberals would have 109, the NDP would have 61, the Bloq 23 and the Greens 32.  We'd have pretty much the same situation in government where 1 of the 2 main parties would need the smaller parties to either support or abstain from defeating them, but no one in Canada would have an MP that they elected or could turn to for help, and the country would never have a hope of having one party accountable for the decisions of the Government because this sort of mess would happen every damn election.

But at least the NDP and the Greens would have more seats - so that would make it all worth while, right?

Barf! 
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-338canada-projection-if-proportional-representation-was-real/

THE GOOD NEWS

Don't Panic!
The world will not end this year.  In fact I'm here to tell you that regardless of the outcome of Monday's Canadian Federal Election it's unlikely anyone will be affected for at least a year.
As of today, according to an aggregate of all polls, there is a zero percent chance of the Scheer Conservatives getting a Majority government, and while the two main parties are neck and neck in just about every measure at the moment, none of it really matters.

The most likely scenario right now is that Andrew Scheer becomes Canada's Prime Minister in a minority Conservative government.  So let's look at that:
In 2006 Stephen Harper formed government and despite claiming he would balance the books and cut, cut, cut he ended up spending $50 Billion more than planned that first parliament because he didn't have a majority.  Harper was a skilled tactician, a bully and a cunning negotiator and he couldn't do much more than make matters worse for the Federal coffers by cutting the GST 2%. 
I can't stress this enough, Andrew Scheer is no Stephen Harper.  If he forms government he's doing so in the most hostile parliament in Canadian history. 
By convention in Canada, if Scheer's party gets the most seats then he will be given the chance to form government but as the Canadian people won't want to go back to the polls any time soon, the most likely result of his government losing a non-confidence motion is the Governor General will turn to the other parties and ask if they can form a coalition.
Thing is, from day one I've been getting a Joe Clark vibe from Andy Scheer.  Except in Mr. Clark's case he had actually completed his degree, got a Masters in Political Science and gained the respect of people outside Ottawa as a journalist where he honed his ability to form sentences.
Andy is barely able to keep track of his own lies.
The point is a Scheer government will be, like it's leader, largely impotent.  The only hope he'll have to avoid an election and outlast Clark's 9 months is by conceding to the majority of the house and since he doesn't have the skill and cunning of Harper and isn't facing the shaky confidence of Paul Martin, don't expect he'll be even a third as effective.
And the last thing Scheer's government will need is a fight against the Government's unions.

The second most likely option is that Justin gets a minority.  He'll have two options.  Try to run it alone, meaning he'll need to stick to things that the NDP or Greens won't take offense to in order to avoid a non-confidence vote, or he'll need to copy his Dad's 1974 playbook and form a loose alliance with the NDP or Greens to get the plurality he needs to stay in power.  In both cases he's not going to be able to push anything through Parliament that's too ambitious or challenging unless he also takes a page from Harper's Minority playbook and gets the consensus on the Bills before they're put to the House.

Either way, despite all claims that minorities governments have been progressive, the only thing that's true of all 13 cases of them in Canadian history is you can kiss balancing the budget good-bye!  Too many hands with too many agendas and multiple bases to please are going to mean spending.

And sadly for Conservatives, I predict the next election will be within 12 months, Justin will still be around for it, Scheer won't and all the old-news crap they've been trying to use on him won't mean a thing, particularly if the scenarios happen in the sequence I've listed them, because if Canadians don't learn from this election what the cost of splitting the vote is, how important strategic voting is to keep Conservatives out of power is, then this country will get the government it deserves.

And God help us if we do!

THE FANTASY OF A MINORITY REPORT

There's a cute fantasy circulating around the internet right now.  It's the fantasy that minority governments are good things.  They're particularly popular among Unionists NDP supporters, like this one:

Well, I hate to crap on a wonderful fantasy but this is oft-repeated disinformation.

1. The Freedom of Information Act was brought in under Pierre Trudeau's majority government in 1983 as part of a NATO wide set of initiatives so that isn't even close to being correct.
2. The Canada Student Loans act was an update of the Dominion-Provincial Student Loan Program from 1939 so also a bogus claim.
3. Same-Sex Marriage came about under a majority government under Liberal Paul Martin, despite NDP's Jack Layton signing a coalition agreement with Harper and the Bloq to bring Martin's government down in favour of their own failed coalition.
4. The rest were brought in by Liberal Lester Pearson, a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, and would've been enacted them even sooner if he'd had a majority government.

Tommy Douglas' only valid part in any of this is that he introduced Universal Healthcare to Saskatchewan and was a proponent of it in the Federal Parliament, but since the committee that recommended it to the Government was begun by Progressive Conservative (and fellow Saskatchewaner) John Diefenbaker and passed into law under Pearson by 177 votes to 2 the NDP were irrelevant to its success by that point.

And our current Canada Health Act which ensured stability and accountability to Universal Healthcare in Canada was passed by Pierre Trudeau's majority in 1984.

The only thing all 13 minority governments have in common is that each and every last one of them blew the budget to hell, raising the debt at least 3 times faster than would've happened under a Majority government AND allowed the "allies" to point the finger of blame at each other the next election.

Minority Governments are not safe, good for productive.  They certainly aren't desirable.  At least not by any responsible citizen familiar with history.  But hey, if we actually learned the lessons of history instead of repeating the mistakes over and over again we wouldn't be on the verge of making half-American and Trump-Lite Conservative Andrew "I don't even know what the truth is anymore" Scheer our next Prime Minister!  Would we?

HOW VOTE SPLITTING HELPS CONSERVATIVES

Primarily Conservatives win elections using three tactics:  

The first is Gerrymandering.  

In America, the first requires that they control the Senate on any year ending in the number 1 (1991, 2001, 2011, 2021, etc).  The reason for this is the Senate controls the redrawing of election districts following their census, which is done every ten years.
Since whoever control the Senate gets to redraw the election map, by focusing on winning the Senate over the House of Representatives then, the Republicans get to gerrymander all the districts, typically to their benefit, thus making it easier for the Republicans to with both.
Funfact: Since 2000, the Republicans have only lost the House for a total of 4 years.

In it's simplest form gerrymandering is taking a pocket of Democratic voters and breaking them up, diluting their vote, into any surrounding pockets of Republican voters.  The idea being what might've been 5 Democratic districts now becomes 3 Republican ones and only 2 Democratic ones.

But this happens in Canada too.  In 2014, Harper's Conservatives added 30 seats to the House of Commons.  Dis-proportionally those seats were in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC, areas that are safe Conservative seats.
The rest were in areas of the country that Conservatives consider "Hot".
Mississauga got a new one and with it the city went from having basic shaped ridings to funny shaped ones.
The borders between the new ridings cut right through Liberal voting neighbourhoods, grouping them with larger populations of Conservatives and swing voters but the process of Gerrymandering is relatively simple, even in a complex multi-party environment like Canada.

GERRYMANDERING 101:
Say for example, each symbol represents a the political stripe of each neighbourhood in a city.  The city had 2 ridings but with a bit of population growth (as found in the census) the Government decides to make 3 ridings, and being Conservative they want to break up that pocket of Liberalism so they don't have 2 long-term safe seats anymore. 

The second is Attack Ads.  Attack ads are different from Negative Ads (which attack the policies of your opponent) in that they only go after the person you're campaigning against.  

Using the 2019 Canadian election as an example: Trudeau comparing Scheer's platform to Doug Ford's is a Negative ad (and wholly accurate), while Scheer bringing up things that Justin did before his Father and Brother died, before he was in politics, before he became Prime Minister, is an Attack ad.

In my opinion any party resorting to Attack Ads has nothing to offer.  Compare and contrasting platforms, while unpleasant to sit through all the time, are at least valid.
If Andrew Scheer and Doug Ford met in multiple strategy sessions and Scheer campaigned for Doug when the latter was running for Premier, then it's valid to question whether the disaster Doug has made of Ontario would be repeated on Canada if Scheer won.
Negative Ads at least help the voters identify whether they should vote for the types of policies a candidate supports.
Attack Ads means you have nothing to offer and you're a coward with the maturity of a High School mean girl.  Most of what you say is rumour and too often unfounded.  A candidate running Attack Ads is no different from a bully.

And that's how Andrew Scheer ran his very first campaign for the House of Commons in 2004.  He went up against the longest serving member of the HoC in history and was losing a tight race against this well respected member until he started spreading rumours that his opponent, Lorne Nystrom, was "soft on child porn".
There was nothing to substantiate this claim.  The Conservatives wanted tougher punishments for people caught with child pornography and Lorne wasn't Conservative.  The House had never voted on it so there was no way to know whethre Lorne was soft or not.
But Andy spread it and Andy won that election.  By only 861 votes.
Even the Conservative National Post described Scheer like this way:
"He was 25 years old. He wasn’t from the riding — he’d barely lived in the province two years — and his work experience amounted to little more than a gig busing tables and a few years in the office of a disgraced MP."
Scheer was picked to run against Nystrom because the Conservatives couldn't find anyone else willing to.  Seriously.  He was a hat holder.

The third method Conservatives use to win is Voter Suppression.

This too takes multiple forms.  It can be doing things that keep people who would vote Liberal/Democrat from being registered to vote.  Requirement of ID is a good one.  Since many poor people can't afford cars they don't have driver's licenses, which means most don't have picture ID.  If the Voter Registry requirements are rewritten so you have to have picture ID to vote then a lot of poor voters become disenfranchised.
In America this is also a way to suppress the Black and Hispanic vote, votes that typically go for Democrat candidates.  For the GOP that's a win/win.

But there are other ways to suppress voters.  And one that's become quite common on both sides of the border lately is the little known fact that Conservative voters are so fearful of progressive policies that they will vote Conservative even if they don't trust their candidate.  In study after study it was shown that Conservative voters believe ALL politicians are corrupt but at least theirs agree with their values.
However, those same studies show that Liberal voters expect a high standard from their candidates and won't vote if they don't believe their candidates are moral.

So by attacking ALL politicians Conservatives only discourage Liberal voters.

The election of Trump as President provides the best example of this.  Democrats who wanted Bernie Sanders, or were convinced Hillary was corrupt, stayed away from the polls.  It felt like a safe thing to do.  Even Trump thought Hillary was likely to win on Election night.

The 2011 Canadian Federal election, the one where Conservative Stephen Harper finally got his majority government, was also the Canadian Federal election with the lowest voter turnout.  So fewer people went to vote, and yes, the Conservatives had snuck into an omnibus bill additional restrictions for registering to vote (under the guise of preventing voter fraud even though the only confirmed instance of voter fraud in Canada this millennium was perpetrated by his candidates in the 2008 election, had nothing to do with voter ID and one of Harper's MPs ended up serving time for it).

But the 2011 election demonstrated just how effective splitting the Liberal vote is for Conservatives and that's the fourth method, which by the way only happens in places like Canada where there are multiple parties.

The Canadian Method 4 - VOTE SPLITTING:

According to the Gallagher Index the disproportionality of parliament in the 2011 election was 12.45, mainly between the Conservatives and NDP on the one hand, and the Liberal, BQ and Green parties on the other.  

From this we can see that the percentage of seats swung between the parties can be calculated as:

• Liberal to Conservative: 4.66%

• Liberal to NDP: 9.90%

That's a lot of splitting but what does it mean?  Well, almost all of it represents the undecided voter, a person in the center who either didn't go to vote or was convinced to change their vote from a Liberal one to a Conservative or New Democrat.

And while you'd think 9.9% of the Liberal vote going to the NDP wouldn't benefit the Conservatives, not only did it get Harper his majority, but it put Jack Layton as the Leader of the least effective Opposition in Canadian history, somehow being less effective at holding the government to task than Lucien Bouchard's BLOQ QUEBECOIS was in 1993.

And here's the kicker, Harper got his majority despite 5.24% of the seats leaving the Conservative column and going to the NDP.  So, do you still think the two parties have nothing in common?

When I wrote "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY NDP" in the Top Secret Conservative Handbook, I wasn't just editorializing.  Election after election have shown the Conservatives give only cursory swipes at the NDP because they don't threaten them and the stronger the NDP is the weaker the Liberals are and the better chance the Conservatives will get a majority.

And look at the Gallagher chart again.  Harper got almost 54% of the seats in the House of Commons with only 39% of the vote.  As of last night Scheer is within the margin of error for that same number.

Unless you're in one of the handful of ridings where the NDP, BLOQ or GREENS are second to the Conservatives, the only progressive vote that doesn't benefit Andrew Scheer is a vote for the Liberals.  And it's easy to tell what your riding is like: you can find it's latest tracking right here at 338Canada.com

COSTING CONSERVATIVES

Dr. Jennifer Robson (@JenniferRobson8), Associate Professor, AKC, Carleton U Teach: political mgt & policy. Research: social policy & poverty Prev: worked in gov & vol sector provided the following info on Andrew Scheer's finally released Conservative Platform. 

She posted the following on her twitter feed:

"New data folks. Scheer & the Conservatives keep claiming that 80% of "Canadians" are paying more taxes today than under the previous government. I've already commented, at length, on the problems with this claim (it's from a flawed study on ONLY families with kids, it ignores key credits.
I just spent some time looking at the CRA's data on ACTUAL federal taxes paid (not simulations or projections). I looked at 2014 (more indicative, IMHO of tax trends under the last government than 2015), adjusted values to constant $ & compared to most recent (2017 tax year) data.
In 2014, mean personal federal income taxes paid (BEFORE refundable credits & benefits) were $5,262.  In 2017, mean personal federal income taxes paid (BEFORE refundable credits and benefits) were $5,237. $5,237 is NOT bigger than $5,262.
If it were true, as the @CPC_HQ keep claiming, that 80% of Canadians are paying MORE then we shouldn't find that mean personal federal taxes are lower, in constant dollar terms. Remember folks, this is BEFORE refundable tax credits like child benefits, GST credit ++
Here are the CRA tables in case you want to do the math for yourself: Source for 2014: (CPI, 1=1.0883)

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket-2016-edition-2014-tax-year.html

and 2017:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket-2019-edition-2017-tax-year.html"

Learned people are looking at this and saying it's full of cat pooh.  Even the Conservative endorsing Globe and Mail has come out against it.  But Scheer will be Canada's next Prime Minister if people don't check their riding out at 338Canada.com and vote to keep them out of power.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO WAIVER - YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

The shortest way to describe what the Social Contract is uses JFK's famous line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
The slight difference between that and the Social Contract is this, replace the word "country" with "society".
The idea of the Social Contract is that we are caretakers of each other.  This actually was a founding principle for Canada.
Where the Americans had "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" we had "shared sacrifice, shared reward".
So the idea of a Social Contract is pretty simple.  You're not the only one here, you didn't get where you are by yourself, you need to keep that in mind.
When I was young I voted with the bias of dogma, partisanship and was I easily swayed by East/West tribalism.  I voted Conservative largely because out west you're told all the time "The West Wants In" and "The East Hates the West" and "Quebec is the spoiled child of Confederation".
It doesn't matter whether it's true.  It's part of the mythos of Western Canada and is as firmly entrenched now as it was decades ago when I was a child.
But it's a myth.
How do I know that?  Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, has been sniffing around Ontario and is already being whispered as campaigning to replace Andrew Scheer if Scheer doesn't form government.  Except Jason Kenney is also claiming Alberta may leave if Scheer doesn't form government.
Which is it, Jason?
So its clear that Mr. Kenney does not subscribe to the concept of the Social Contract.
And he's only in it for his own interests, which you can tell because right now, as I type this, he's playing both sides of the street, threatening to take his Province and go home, while vying for the top job in the party.

Now if I were still young I would probably vote Conservative.
I'm doing very well now and provided I ignore the fact the math that Andrew Scheer is pushing doesn't add up, and a lot of stuff he's promised was promised by his predecessor Stephen Harper, and didn't happen then either, provided I ignored all of that then on the face of it the Conservative Platform would benefit me very much.
What I'm saying is I'm very well off now.
I have boots, and bootstraps, and massive savings, and the ability to spend 4 grand on a Paris weekend at the drop of a hat, and spend hundreds at a comic shop on toys because of a whim, and buy all sorts of new things for the house, and get a brand new car which I can pay for in cash.
In fact, last year, for our 20th wedding anniversary, we spent $10,000 on one day!  We didn't need a loan, we didn't sweat the extravagance, and we had a blast.
It was one of the greates days of our lives together.
But I'm not in the 1%, or the 10%, or probably even the 25%, yet by every measure, if Scheer could keep even half of his promises I'd be better off voting for him.
But I'm not voting for Conservatives.
The reason why is because when I look back, every time I ran into difficulty there was a Conservative government working against me.
I was raised a single child in a single parent household, on welfare, at a time that was a rarity.
We moved from Ontario to BC when I was 7 because staying in Ontario meant I likely wouldn't get to complete my high school graduation, and my mother really wanted that for me.
Back then Ontario under Conservative Bill Davis would've cut me off at 16.
While NDP run BC on the other hand didn't have a Conservative leaning government and hadn't discovered austerity yet, and BC wouldn't until I was 20 years old, when they made it impossible for me to complete a University education because they wouldn't give a welfare kids student loans unless it was in a trade.
And every other time I had difficulty, what could've helped, what used to be there, no longer was and each time that was because of a Conservative government.
Now I've rarely worked with anyone who didn't think I was smart.  But that's all self-taught.
And my situation now is the result of those smarts being used to learn how to make my own boots, then my own bootstraps, then position myself so that even if a Conservative government got into power and cut thing I would be okay.
But that's me NOW.
I look at kids the age I was when we moved to BC and I can't find the extra-curriculum programs that kept me from getting into drugs or suffering from depression.  They're not there where Conservatives exist, because Conservative governments cut them and attack other parties whenever they try to reinstate them!
And even though they are the number one spot for access to the internet for the poor and a free source of books that helped kids like me make our own boots, the Libraries I used to self-educate at are right now being closed by Conservative governments in cutbacks.
And the super engaged teachers who made sure I didn't fall through the cracks have left public schools because of Conservative government cut backs.
So if I was a kid now, in a society that has experienced decades of Conservative cuts to benefit voters like myself, then I would likely have no option but to go into a trade.
And while that can be very rewarding, and we need them, it's not a skill set I have.
So instead of being very successful and respected for what I do I'd likely have been ruined by mistakes made in a job I had no business doing.
And I'd likely be bitter, depressed and dependent on drugs, alcohol or homeless because of it.
Instead, I vote Liberal now.  To slow those cutbacks, hopefully as I've seen with Trudeau, reverse some of the long-term selfish based damage we've done to the most vulnerable.  I vote Liberal because they're the closest to the center, a place a compromise where if we're going to go into debt it's going to be for infrastucture spending, not vote buying tax breaks for people like me.
I vote Liberal because I believe in the Social Contract, and except for a handful of seats in places like Hamilton and Vancouver Island, they're the only party that can stop more Conservative cuts.
Andrew Scheer's platform costing was released today.  It's heavy on cuts to infrastructure to pay for cuts to revenue from people in my tax bracket and higher.
It's... oh, what's the word, very Repuglican.

And that's not very Canadian to me, it's certainly not what I believe is required under out Social Contract.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservative-platform-unveils-billions-of-dollars-of-new-spending-cuts/

MORE COUNTERS TO CON CLAIMS

TRUDEAU IS THE WORST PM EVER/HE'S EMBARRASSED US ON THE WORLD STAGE
Nope, that's not how the world see him:
"...the cross-party consensus that Trudeau is slight and phony doesn’t survive even a cursory examination of his record. An independent assessment by two dozen Canadian academics found that Trudeau has kept 92 percent of his campaign promises, the most by any Canadian government in 35 years. He is measurably, demonstrably the most sincere and effective prime minister in living memory. He is the rare case of a man whose virtue-signaling has distracted from his real virtues."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trudeaus-progressive-style/599203/

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ANDREW SCHEER HAVING DUAL CITIZENSHIP
Not according to Andrew Schrew, who in 2005 said:
"I have a few quick questions for anyone who thinks that Michaelle Jean is a good choice to be our next GG.
1) What are her qualifications? What experience does she have that would assist her to carry out her duties as our head of state, including the potential to be a referee in a minority government situation?
2) Does it bother you that she is a dual citizen (France and Canada)? Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?"
As usual, Conservative questions apply as much to themselves as their intended target.  Unless he was testing the waters and when the hate bubbled up about Ms. Jean he decided it was best to keep his American citizenship to himself (and retain it all the way through his Speakership, a Leadership race and half way through an Election before being caught and then hinting he'd get rid of it (I bet he never does!).
https://web.archive.org/web/20051208133657/http://andrewscheermp.blogspot.com/

CINO LIE 1: TRUDEAU GAVE MILLIONS TO A TERRORIST

Snore.  This one is actually pretty easy.
In 1996, when Canadian born and raised Omar Khadr was 10, his Egyptian born father took him to Afghanistan and over the next six years indoctrinated him into becoming a child-soldier.
Canada has always argued child-soldiers are victims and should be treated as such and repatriated.  It's in the name: CHILD.
Most child-soldiers are too young to know anything but what they're told to do.  We've petitioned governments around the world to treat them as minors.
Until 2001 this wasn't a partisan issue.  Mulroney signed as many declarations supporting this as anyone Liberal PM's did.
When he was captured by the Americans during a 2002 firefight, where he was defending himself against invading soldiers who were shooting at him, we should've immediately demanded the then 15 year Canadian be returned to Canada.  We didn't.
We allowed the Americans to take him, put him in Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant and without trial or child services oversight we let them torture him for 8 years.
WE LET THAT HAPPEN TO A CANADIAN CITIZEN.  IF NOTHING ELSE THIS WOULD BE BAD.
Civil rights groups, many in AMERICA, argued that convicting the first minor since World War II to war crimes was unjust.  The Canadian Supreme Court agreed and long story short Omar was repatriated to Canada for the rest of his sentence.
BECAUSE WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS his case was brought forward by child rights advocates who using Canadian precedent sued the Federal Government.  Harper fought them, spending almost $11 Million on delaying tactics.  The case was heading for the Supreme Court of Canada.
When Trudeau was elected his Justice Minister - you may know her a Jody Wilson-Raybould, was asked by the PM to seek hypothetical advise from the Supreme Court on the likelihood of a Government win in this case.  The Court informally advised the Government of the Doctrine they would view the case under which clearly showed precedent wasn't on the Government's side.  Trudeau could've spent a further $10 Million fighting Kadhr's advocates.  He very likely would've lost and when he did the court would award Omar damages commensurate with his punishment, the failure of the Government to recover and protect him and then add to it because Omar had been a child.  The estimate was likely to be above $20 Million. 
CINO argue that it would've been better to waste more than $40 Million than admit we let a Canadian child-soldier down.  The world has seen this and we have no credibility on human rights issues with children any more because of Harper. 
Wait,what was that?
Yeah, the Canadian government would've lost more than $40 Million in a pointless fight before the Supreme Court of Canada because of Stephen Harper paid $10 Million to Maher Arar, a dual citizen the Americans detained and then shipped to Syria for a year of torture and imprisonment.  If dual-citizen adult Arar was owed $10 Million for just a year, why would Harper think his Government wouldn't owe anything to fully Canadian child-soldier and 8 year torturned and imprisoned Kadhr?

Because Arar was paid out by Harper and Kadhr was paid out by the Liberals.
Simple CINO logic.

This link explains further, not only everything Harper did wrong, but why the expense would've continued to climb until a settlement was reached.
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/07/11/whos-to-blame-for-the-khadr-payout-stephen-harper-mostly/?fbclid=IwAR35vfIZawlZnBMlshdY-qXAT3lEgcMdLKU9blWxeiWwYMmYYq7B0f6a9MI

EVERY COUNTER TO EVERY CON ARGUMENT

I've been accused of being a Liberal - which is hilarious to me since the only party I ever belonged to and campaigned for was the Federal Progressive Conservative Party.

What calls themselves Conservative in this country are actually Reform agents of destruction.  The lowest form of Repuglicans there are.  Populist.  These are people who don't care about facts or how much damage their policies do as long as long as they're in power and they're supported by Corporate America, the dark sinister side that doesn't want the economic system they're getting rich from upset.

That's not a conspiracy.  That's economic fact.  And I hate them for willing playing games that NAZI Joseph Goebbels invented more than 80 years ago.  I also hate that I have to be partisan to fight them but I'm not Liberal - I'm simply ANYONE BUT CONSERVATIVE.

And look, I know politicians have to think strategically at election, but for one to look a large group of their voters from his own riding in the eye when hearing them air their concerns and flatly state "I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T NEED YOUR VOTES TO WIN" is evil.  At the very least a Member of Parliament is supposed to give the illusion they represent everyone in their riding, not just the ones who voted for them.  Scheer has been repeated reported to have done with the Indigenous people in his riding.

And we saw that sort of spitefulness from Harper, a man who only spent taxpayer money on projects in ridings he won or thought he could.  

JUSTIN HATES ALBERTA

This is perhaps the easiest one to counter.  People accuse Justin of being the same as Harper, of not caring about ALBERTA, but even though Trudeau will likely lose every seat in Alberta this election AND it's cost him votes in BC and he's taken hits to his environmental credibility HE WILL CONTINUED to push for construction of the SECOND pipeline needed to get Alberta oil to market (NOTE TO ENVIRONMENTALIST: it's not new, just an additional one running beside an already existing pipeline) because he is Prime Minister of CANADA and that includes ALBERTA.

If Harper lost Alberta then they could sink into a fracking hole for all he cared. Modern Conservative spitefulness is another reason we must stop the them from regaining power at all cost.  

Which takes me to the idea of Strategic Voting:

I truly believe that in areas where the Greens could stop the Conservatives that both the NDP and Liberals should bow out - where the NDP could win both the Liberals and Greens should bow out - and where the Liberals could win both the NDP and Greens should bow out - unfortunately that sort of thing is both illegal except for secondary runs by Party Leaders and cuts people off from the representation and voting options that must be allowed in a democracy.

For the sake of brevity let's call the Modern Conservative (so named because they have nothing in common with traditional Conservatives) CINO because they are now nothing save Conservative-In-Name-Only.

Now CINO love their conspiracies and talking points and let's face it, as a group you won't find a hive mind as disciplined in the repetition of bullshit as the CINO.  From the US Version of "Lock Her Up" to the Canadian "Fake Feminist" they're awesome at endlessly repeating the same ill-conceived short sentences while blocking their ears with their fingers and making bleating sheep noises.

But the thing is, almost everything they say is BULLSHIT.  I don't like using profanity.  I feel it typically hides the creative in a sentence.  But I can't find a better word for what comes out of CINO mouth's and keyboard.  And it's not even good bullshit because things won't grow in it, just fester.

I've used this image before, it's a great graphic demonstrating perspective vs truth.  Traditional Conservatives would argue they see the circle, Liberals argue they see the square - neither is wrong, just selective and what many people accuse politicians of being liars about is simply this.  A platform that included both would never get elected. 

We know this because every time a party has tried to run a balanced, fair and all-encompassing platform they've been trounced.  Remember Pierre Trudeau's TRUDEAUMANIA?  His opponent was a man that everyone in the House of Commons considered the most decent, honest and hardest working politician in Canadian history, Robert Stanfield.  He ran a fair and honest campaign and his party got creamed!!

Now I said Traditional Conservative would argue the circle for simplicity.  It's blue.  The Modern Conservative (CINO) wouldn't bother.  They'd go out and gather metrics on which shape voters like best and if the answer to securing and retaining power said "Triangle" then despite the clear and obvious evidence before them a CINO would say it was a "Triangle" and that the Liberals were hypocrites for suggesting it was a square and anyone who thought it was a circle was in league with the UN.

I wish I was making this up, but it's exactly their playbook on nearly everything and if you did even a modicum of research on any issue they've ever made a claim about you'd see it so obviously you'd wonder what had been causing the fog on your brain all these years.

In short, CINO's are not being very clever or subtle about it.

Now I can handle my own against any piece of manure they spread, but most people just aren't that fast so here's Gary's Guide to Blocking CINO Bullshit (soon to be a best selling paperback and then eventually a Musical - Federal Arts Grant funding pending)

TRUDEAU IS OVER-SPENDING
Remember "the budget will balance itself"?  Conservatives love to mock that phrase from the 2015 election, except, as usual, it's only part of the quote.  The full quote was: "Stephen Harper has presided over the lowest economic growth since RB Bennett doesn’t obviously tell us anything except that Messrs. Harper and Bennett happened to be prime minister when the global economy went into the dumps..." “the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself”
This is entirely true.  LBJ paid more on the Great Depression and World War II debt than any prior president, fought an escalating Vietnam War AND an escalating program to put MAN ON THE MOON.  He did this because of the Civil Rights Act, which increased pay for Black workers and the Equal Rights Amendment which increased pay for Black and Women workers, who then paid more taxes to the Federal government, thus floating the boat and allowing the budget to balance itself. 
Economics are apparently too complicated for Conservatives to understand which is why they've contributed the highest amount to Canada's debt.

As a leading economist put it, austerity isn't the answer and debt is okay when investment is needed - this is what Trudeau is doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v8m-J8sgik&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR27MSlD8NuUVFTDKmtj9sCDc6mbmQZ2HOql6v39hwqKTFbqiocciRN-Uvo

TRUDEAU GAVE MILLIONS TO A TERRORIST

My full brief on this is here: https://truetory.blogspot.com/2019/10/cino-lie-1-trudeau-gave-millions-to.html

But an excellent article about why it's all HARPER'S FAULT is here:

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/07/11/whos-to-blame-for-the-khadr-payout-stephen-harper-mostly/?fbclid=IwAR35vfIZawlZnBMlshdY-qXAT3lEgcMdLKU9blWxeiWwYMmYYq7B0f6a9MI

TRUDEAU BROKE THE LAW/SNC CRIME/FAKE FEMINIST

1. Dealing with the last one first, just because a person has a public spat with a few people who happen to be women doesn't make them misogynist until and unless their focus of that conflict is gender based.  PERIOD.

2. The rest is just stupid people misunderstanding the law deliberately.  I'm sorry, but a Globe Journalist has no more comprehension of Canadian Legal Doctrine than the former Insurance Brokerage clerk that handed out license plates one summer and is leading the CINO party. 

EVERY LAWYER I'VE SPOKE WITH ABOUT THIS SAYS THE ETHICS COMMISSION IS WRONG!

And to highlight the case further they provided me this link to a summary written by one of the most esteemed legal experts in Canada.  It's dense so I'll put this one after my brief because most people will have a hard time getting past the headline (which frankly buries the lead a bit)

In short: No judicial review would support the idea that Trudeau broke the law.  Canadian law exists under what's called the Shawcross Doctrine meaning Trudeau was right to want to minimize the impact on the employees of SNC, who were innocent of the crime, WHILE Jody Wilson-Raybould (as Attorney General) and the public prosecutor were wrong NOT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT IMPACT. 

The reason this will never go anywhere, even if Scheer becomes PM and tries to make something of it, is because Ethics Commissioner Dion, by his own admission, “did not consider any arguments” on this question and “believe their decisions [Jody and Prosecutor] to be firmly entrenched in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

EXCEPT THAT, under the Shawcross Doctrine of Canadian law prosecutorial discretion is NOT ABSOLUTE!

A prosecutor sitting in her office, making such a decision alone, without broad consultation about numbers of innocent people affected and the intensity of those effects, is failing in her duty to determine the appropriateness of an agreement!

So JWR made the error not getting involved, Trudeau would never be found guilty of undo influence and Ethics Commission Dion further acknowledged, “Simply seeking to influence the decision of another person is insufficient for there to be a contravention of section 9.”

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/trudeau-was-protecting-innocent-victims-not-snc-lavalin-no-conflict-of-interest/304371?fbclid=IwAR1es1IxTHfXJEYEn4aLA0iF36yWYnw1MXOXiLWB2BnJS_2733X-qFN5Eco

CARBON TAX (PRICING) WON'T WORK
Aside from the fact BC has had one for years, so has Quebec and there's not even any evidence in Canada this is true but I'm just leaving this one to the experts.  Now if you're CINO changes are you don't trust facts or anything from a global entity because you think you know better.  I look forward to future civilizations pulling the oil your body becomes out of the ground for their plastics (PSSST - I'm calling you dinosaurs!):
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/09/23/news/pricing-pollution-wont-kill-growth-world-bank-report-finds

TRUDEAU IS A HYPOCRITE WITH FIRST NATIONS
The Trudeau is a hypocrit ______ is the CINO's favourite default template.
Remember facts don't matter to them, they know you're not going to check on their sources so they find what resonates, what feels true, what the COLBERT REPORT called "Truthiness" and they run with it.

According to the TrudeauMeter (https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org/), an independent academic tracking of his 2015 promises Justin has delivered on more things in the last 4 years than were done in the previous 10, is still working on many and even the things he's considered not to have delivered haven't been cancelled, just not completed.

When you consider the 150 year history of mismanagement by the Government of Canada on this issue ANY PROGRESS is to be credited and by his own admission Trudeau says more needs to be done and they are working toward doing it.

I'll also add, that a big impediment to progress is Provincial cooperation where it's needed which has not been forthcoming AND the fact we cannot treat each group of Indigenous people the same without making the same mistakes we're trying to correct.  This is a very complicated, systemic problem.  Anyone thinking there's a magic wand that could've corrected even a fraction of it in just 4 years is CINO.

BUT TRUDEAU IS CHALLENGING FIRST NATION CHILDREN'S HUMAN RIGHTS

Another piece of disinformation. During the campaign Ottawa challenging the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision ordering the federal government to compensate First Nations children impacted by the on-reserve child welfare system.

The critical part of that sentence is "DURING THE CAMPAIGN".

During an election period, a Caretaker Convention kicks in. The lawyers in the bureaucracy filed this motion because Government has been suspended for the Election. They have to do this in order to protect the next government’s option to challenge the decision if it so chooses. Cabinet hasn’t meeting to decide things.
This is done automatically so, for example, if Scheer forms the next Government, he isn't trapped by something he wouldn't have agreed to, but happened because no one was at the wheel of the ship of state to do something about it.

In each of these the situations are often more complicated than I'm able to communicate, but where I have them I've shared facts.  Seeing as foreign powers are working overtime to disrupt our government it's important to counter anything that isn't based on fact.

To believe otherwise is to submit to propaganda, CINO or otherwise.

WAS versus IS

Rumours are swirling around Conservative boards that another "Trudeau Killer" is about to drop. They were cackling in anticipation of it landing in today's Globe and Mail and then screaming "Fake News" when it didn't show.The coming attack is a lame old-news claim that's been circulating for decades that Trudeau was asked to leave West Point Grey for misbehavior.

Probably the reason it didn't come out is that several reputable Journalists, sniffing at it (or straight up told about it by Sun Media hack Warren Kinsella) contacted the then Dean of WPG and he responded with the attached.

But the fact Andrew Scheer's Conservatives are so desperate for a hit that they're digging into Trudeau's pre-political life, to a period where Trudeau was a playboy, to the period before his brother Michel tragically died and his father passed away - either of those two events being sufficient to wake up a young playboy and get him to re-evaluate his life, find a path and commit to it so continually trying to find dirt there simply demonstrates how desperate Conservatives truly are - highlights that Conservatives are devoid of any real policy or providing any real alternative to Trudeau.

I mean if I were running an election and INSTEAD of talking about the issues NOW or the merit of my policies and plans, SOME IDIOT kept dredging up embarrassing things I did last century, I'd be really miffed.

As an engaged voter I really do wish people would start chanting "WE DON'T CARE" whenever the Conservative do these desperate childish antics.

This isn't High School. Andy isn't trying to be Class President. He wants to run the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

And seeing as Conservatives love memes I've created the following which I hope this will help them realize the difference between WAS and IS so they can start focusing on NOW versus THEN.

And speaking of WAS versus IS - did you know as an American citizen ANDREW SCHEER not only had to take the Oath of Allegiance (meaning Trump is HIS president) but is registered for Selective Service with their military?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-draft-us-selective-service-1.5309002?cmp=rss

WHAT WAS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE...

As it did in the 2008 Election, the question has come up about the national allegiance of a leader for a Canadian political party, and not just any leader, one has the potential to be Canadian Prime Minister.  In fact this time it's not just allegiance but citizenship that's in question.

And this is a big deal.  In 2008, Conservatives hounded the candidate.  Attack after attack, because as far as Conservatives are concerned, you are either Canadian or you're not.  With us or against us!  That's the Conservative motto.

So I expect the outrage by Conservatives to kick into high gear now that it's come out that a 2019 Party Leader, and potential the next Prime Minister of Canada, is also an AMERICAN!
And he's had this dual citizenship the entire time he's been a Member of Parliament - which, for the record is 13 years!!  

But they won't.  They'll let this pass to.
Because the level of Conservative hypocrisy knows no bottom!
Not only did Andrew Scheer (who should forever be known now as #LyinAndy) fail to renounce his AMERICAN citizenship for the first 11 years he was a member of Canada's Parliament, not only did LyinAndy fail to renounce it when he was a member of Canada's Government under Stephen Harper, but he still hung onto it for the 2+ years he's been LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA!!
And did he tell the voters about it?  Did he come clean he was an AMERICAN?  No.  He hid that fact from the Canadian voter while seeking the highest position of government we have!!

So if Michael Ignatieff, a person who has only ever held Canadian citizenship, can be accused of JUST VISITING because he got a great teaching gig at an Ivy League University THEN surely someone who failed to renounce their AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP and could've picked up and left the country without even saying good-bye is even more suspect.

AFTER ALL, YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US, RIGHT?

So I expect Andrew Scheer will be stepping down as Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada now that's it come out he an American, not because he's been filing American taxes all this time but because....
He must've known it was a big deal - why else hide it from the voters!

I joked earlier but now I actually do need to ask for Scheer's long form birth certificate. Seriously, what else don't we know about the man who could be PM?

And they should look up KARMA because like Trump to the south it seems whatever they've accused others of they're way more guilty of it themselves - and as they say, what's good for the goose...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservative-leader-andrew-scheer-holds-dual-canadian-us-citizenship/

SWING AND A MISS / BALANCER ET RATÉ

This is the official Conservative take on last night's French Leaders Debate.
Most of the chatter on the internet seems to focus more on how painful it was to listen to Scheer speak French than any success he had but that isn't stopping the Conservatives from claiming they not only won it but got in a good sock dig too.  Because apparently, Andrew is still in High School.

This is my take on it.

I took a 2015 Political cartoon of Trudeau tossing Harper in the trash and put Scheer's grinning gob on it from another political cartoon.

They really do make it too easy.

x

OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE or POPULIST

Most people assume every politician lies.  Typically this is because one or two things they remember either didn't happen or didn't happen they way they originally understood.  It can also happen when their "news" source is in fact heavily invested in a certain politician partisan side winning (if your news NEVER criticizes your party then they're partisan).

And during elections a lot of things are thrown around.  Uninformed or misinformed voters mistake those as promises, after all they're listed on a party platform, right?
But students of political science know that each of those initiatives are presented during an election in order to determine which are popular and which are not.
NO POLITICIAN WILL EVER DELIVER ON EVERY IDEA THEY PITCH DURING AN ELECTION, NOR SHOULD THEY?
In 2004 the McGinty Liberals (Ontario) pitched an idea to build more but cleaner coal plants.  Their support in the community they planned to put it plummeted.  Their support in the communities around it plummeted.  Rather than lose the election they listened to the voters and then retracted the idea.

IF YOUR BOSS INTRODUCED A DUMB IDEA - SUCH AS MAKING YOU WORK 6 DAYS A WEEK BUT FOR 5 DAYS A WEEK PAY - YOU'D WANT THEM TO RECONSIDER IT.

Yet in our partisan environment, McGinty was attacked for listening to the electorate.  Think about that a minute.  A democratically elected leader was attacked for listening to what the voters in a democratic society were telling him.
That anyone saw that as a negative boggles the mind because seriously, what's the alternative?  Totalitarianism?
Of course, the attacks were largely coming from the party that wanted to replace him so that alone should've made their criticisms suspect.  But drama gets airplay and those attacks made the rounds like the Song of the Summer.

The point is, an election platform is filled with SUBJECTIVE ideas.  Some aren't possible but the party doesn't know that yet because until they're government they won't have all the facts they need.  Some aren't popular.
Smart parties retract those ideas, dogmatic ones will stick with a burning building until the embers cool.

The best example of SUBJECTIVE that I can give you is with this image:

ONE PARTY may look at this shape on the orange side and see a SQUARE, and because of that their perceptions and ideas will reflect the fact they see a Square.

ANOTHER PARTY may look at this shape on the blue side and see a CIRCLE, and because of that their perceptions and ideas will reflect the fact they see a Circle.

Neither is necessarily wrong, it's just SUBJECTIVE.
Subjective opinions are easier to argue because they're simpler than Objective ones.

OBJECTIVE looking means investigating the situation, looking at it from both perspectives, thinking about what both might mean, figuring out where the truth is and then using that broader perspective to make a decision.

WHO HAS TIME FOR THAT?

Well, that's the problem.  No one does.  So we end up finding "news" sources that don't upset us and sort of agree with our world view and that's why we end up being uninformed, then mis-informed and then manipulated.

BECAUSE IN THE 21st CENTURY IF YOU ONLY HAVE A LIMITED WORLD VIEW THEN THOSE WHO WANT CONTROL ARE USING METRICS ABOUT YOU TO MANIPULATE YOU.

This by the way, is what they mean when they say Russians were interfering in the 2016 US Election.  I've noticed many times on Twitter the accounts trolling one leader or the next have been active for less than a month, have almost no followers, use horrible English and except for trolling have made no posts.  That may not be a "bot", but it sure acts like one, and it's trying to stir up emotions for some sort of manipulation.

STATISTICALLY LIBERALS HAVE FIVE TIMES AS MANY BOT/TROLLS ATTACKING THEM AS CONSERVATIVES HAVE ATTACKING THEM.

Why?  Well, if they can't control the Liberals (they being Corporations and such) then they're going to manipulate you to vote for the party they do control.  Which takes us to the third and most dangerous point of view.
If it's not Objective and it's not Subjective then is POPULIST.

Using the above image as an example, where one side sees a Circle and the other sees a Square, a POPULIST approach says, "What shape will get me the most votes?" And if the answer is "TRIANGLE" then the Populist attacks the Circle and Square people for being liars and promotes their view of the world as being a TRIANGLE.

But don't kid yourself, they know the only options are Circle and Square.  They also know it doesn't matter if they're not the ones in control, so TRIANGLE it is.

And because polls showed more people like Triangles than Squares and Circles (or at least have come to distrust the Circle and Square people) then the POPULIST gets control.

And because "news" sources are so fragmented all they need to do is then keep repeating the Triangle philosophy while they either ignore the shape, or do whatever is cheapest and easiest to do with a Circle or Square.
The problem with all this is I'm not over-simplifying things.  Most Conservatives supporters of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper believe he was tough on crime, fiscally responsible, transparent, and accountable.  At least more so than the Liberals.
But on every point Harper was more secretive, wasted the entire $100 Billion that Martin/Chretien paid on the debt in half the time, and dodged responsibility every time he got into trouble through successive proroguings of Parliament, snap elections. and shortened Parliamentary sessions (so he could manage Canada through Cabinet as though he was a President).  

And Harper pushed through "tough on crime" legislation that any Grade 8 Social Study students knew would get killed by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutionally excessive yet NEVER ONCE tried to replace them, or even reinstate the laws he created that were struck down.  

By repeatedly passing unconstitutional laws Harper made Gay Marriage and Marijuana legal in Canada through a legislative approach more Libertarian than Conservative.

But his supporters didn't know it, because they only listened to the man who kept saying TRIANGLE.