Dutch01

So a little of column a and a little of column b? I'll buy that for a dollar ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're right, but I think one party has done it more and "better" in past elections, and it finally caught up to them this election. It was a specific Liberal strategy not to go negative: "The seeds of the Liberal victory were sown in July, when the party ran third in polls behind the left-leaning New Democratic Party and the Conservatives. Before the campaign began on Aug. 2, Liberal strategists said Trudeau was being advised to go negative to counter the bruising Conservative ads that he was just not ready. But his inner circle, including campaign co-chairs Katie Telford and Dan Gagnier, principal adviser Gerald Butts, and chief of staff Cyrus Reporter, backed Trudeaus position that they should focus on the positive, as they see it. "We were not surprised by the negative ads. It wasnt a new thing. But Justin Trudeaus optimistic high-road approach struck a chord, said Chrystia Freeland, a Liberal member of parliament. The strategy was to portray a sunny personality through ads, speeches and personal contact with ordinary people." Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SE08H20151020 Is possible they had a better read on the electorate than Harpers campaign team. It's also possible it was a "Hail Mary" from back in third place and they got lucky. It appears to me though that Trudeau was able to frame the choice as one between positive and negative, and the electorate chose positive.

That's funny, I didn't see the Libs or NDP spending millions on purely negative attack ads. Also, there aren't even remotely close to enough "union lackeys" to give someone a majority.. Trudeau won by the same +/- 40% majority that Harper did. That's a whole lot of Canadians who don't agree with you. A big reason why Harper lost is because Canadians rejected negativity and fear tactics.

Hey, I never said the Western leaders weren't horrible too!

While you may think they have some redeeming qualities, and that may be true, they were almost universally recognized by their own people to be cruel despots. They sponsored terrorism, kidnapped, tortured and murder political opposition, and stole from their nation to enrich themselves. By that measure at least, they were horrible.

Fixed that for you....

I'm pretty sure he was saying Saddam and Gaddafi were horrible, not the general public.

I don't agree with this at all. To hear Harper tell it, Justin was "just not ready", and the sky would fall on election night if we voted for him. The PC's spent more money and time on attack ads and negative politics than in any other Canadian election I can recall. Canadians didn't buy it, and now the conservative party is on the outside looking in. They couldn't even muster opposition status, so soundly were they rejected. The Liberals accused Harper of eroding basic rights and freedoms, and they were correct (see Bill C51). They accused Harper of being divisive, and they were correct. They accused Harper of being behind the times, and for me personally, this is reflected in the fact he ignores science and the will of the people because of his personal beliefs (on issues such as the drug war for example). However, when science didn't suit his agenda, as in the case of climate change, he just dismissed science and muzzled our scientists so they couldn't tell Canadians the truth. This is not a man fit to lead. People who put belief ahead of science and fact are fundamentalists and no different than the Saudi's. The jury is still out on Trudeau, at least for anyone with on open mind. Time will tell.

I been there, done that, when I was young(er) and naive, and held my nose while I voted for Harper. The Liberals are not my party, so I won't be let down. I follow the long Canadian tradition of voting for the "least worst" option. This time around, I felt the Liberals were the "least worst". That doesn't mean they get a rubber stamp from me, and I will not be surprised if they don't live up to their promises (like every other governing party in my lifetime).

You're accusing the Liberals of being the ones fear mongering? Where have you been for the last ten years under Harper? That guy fear mongers with the best of them.....

Credit where credit is due - great post moxie!

If we didn't attempt anything because others said it was impossible, we would never accomplish anything. I believe if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the government. If you did vote, you have the right to complain. An effective opposition is as important to governance as an effective government. The problem as I see it is that crying that the sky is falling on every issue is not being an effective opposition. In the USA, the GOP is willing to filibuster or any other tactic they can to actually stop the government from functioning. This is contrary to the will of the people, who elected Obama. I think this has hurt the Republican image in the minds of millions of Americans. It doesn't serve the Republican interest, or the country's interest to be that way.

I'm not sure that's accurate, both parties have arms length media puppets. I don't watch CNN but they few times I have seen it they were slagging Obama. To be fair, I see both parties doing it, not just the GOP.

He's in a "no win situation" there though. If he tries to keep the promise he's pilloried for "ramming it through". He instead decides to delay the plan to allow for more time to process security checks, which the conservatives were demanding, and now they're rubbing their hands and saying "see he broke a promise". You can't have it both ways. When Harper had a majority it was okay to say "but he had a majority so this is what Canadians want", but now that "the other guy" has a majority and the shoe is on the other foot, I'm seeing a lot of foot stamping going on. I'm not loyal to either party, I try to focus on the issues, but I have to admit to a bit of schadenfreude right now.

Great quote. I'm in favour of doing something rather than nothing, but I have little faith in government (of any political party) to manage it properly. The theory behind paying more is that it will create an incentive for people to move away from oil dependence and towards green technologies. I think it's a shame if the government doesn't use any additional revenues generated for environmental related spending though. It should not just go into the general revenue slush fund never to be seen again.

Obama was saying they are geographically contained, and that is still factually correct. I will concede the timing was bad in terms of optics. The problem is the USA doesn't have news organizations trying to educate citizens on the news. They have partisan controlled media attack machines that don't really care about the truth so long as they score points on Obama.

It is this kind of mean-spirited, partisan attitude that Canadians overwhelmingly rejected when they gave Trudeau his majority. We've had a decade of US style fear mongering and negativity. The election results show Canadians are tired of it and want a change. Republicans (oops, I mean conservatives) are in the minority now, and they will not hold power again as long as partisanship is prioritized over governance. Sorry to single you out moxie, there are plenty of other comments here in the same vein over the last few weeks. I could have quoted many others. The bottom line is if you find yourself on the outside looking in, you can't get back inside by doubling down on mean. Or maybe you can, but that's not a Canada I ever want to see.

Thank you I may take you up on that one day! Always nice to meet new peeps and explore new water...

I did not specify a time, I only point out that it does not take 1,008 hours (6 weeks) to do a single background check. And Harper got lots of things done, it's just that not many of those things were good for Canadians.

The file might sit in the department for six weeks, but I guarantee you it doesn't take that long. Most of the time it's sitting on a desk somewhere being ignored. These bureaucrats have to drag each one out or it will look like they are "too efficient" and they'll end up with a staff or budget cut.

The stuff just hit the fan for real! Turkey (a NATO member let me remind you) just shot down a Russian fighter. Looks like the boys may get their war after all.

DRIFTER, I had previously seen estimates of 30,000 soldiers, so I was skeptical of your number. This is the first article I googled, I don't know the source from Adam, but it seems to lean closer to your number than mine: http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/how-many-fighters-does-the-islamic-state-really-have/ This is higher than I thought, all the more reason for their neighbors to clean up their street asap. Thanks for the info. As for their magazine, Dabiq, I've heard it is very slick and professional, and available in several languages. A small point of clarification though, it is only published online. (The following is not directed at you DRIFTER, just a general comment) I suppose it's different where I live than a lot of you guys "up north". I live in Markham, which as far as I know is the most multicultural city in Canada. There are things I don't like about it, mostly that I don't like big cities period. I'm not big on noise our crowds. I like the sound of the forest. Anyways, when my Son moves out (years still to go), I'll be heading to the Kawarthas or further northeast most likely. Anyways one thing I do love about it is how diverse it is. I fish with lots of guys from Trinidad, Peru, China, etc. I can get amazing sushi, Shawarma, kabobs, you name it. And I'll tell you what, there are some really pretty women here too. My Son has friends from all over the world, and he actually told me, unsolicited, that he was happy he lived in Markham or he wouldn't have met them. It's his generation that I hope can fix the mess the world is in because I don't think ours will. These kids don't look around the classroom and see "different" people. They look around the classroom and see their own people - Canadians. I say give them a chance to do it their way, we're not going to be around long enough to see how it turns out. It's their world now, we're just borrowing it.

Looks like fun! I wish I had a sled, walking sucks....

Chris Christie wants to double down on the war on drugs. The USA spend more on marijauana prohibition than NASA. Think about that. One of the premier scientific bodies in the world is less important to the USA than keeping people from using a plant to feel better. Chris Christie is out of touch. PS: not trying to open up the drug war can of worms!

Fair enough point, however I've seen direct quotes from RCMP and CSIS directors saying they can do it quite readily. That's IF you take them at their word!