Populism Rising in Canada?

2 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Oddly enough, Trump shouldn't be counted among them under this definition, because he has been sticking to his campaign promises like a slug to a tiled bathroom wall.

Did Mexico pay for the wall?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Did Mexico pay for the wall?

 

Did I use past simple tense? He's only halfway through his term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rodent said:

Elected officials should theoretically be by the people, for the people. So, "What need to be done", is  exactly whatever the people want done, by definition. 

You are of course right on the definitions. Sorry that I was not clear. 

I just meant that there seems to be a group of politicians that deliberately focus on policies that has public appeal, but in reality these policies does not benefit the groups that they appeal to. 

for clarity I will give a neutral example from Denmark : Our nationalist party (the most visible one) won a lot of support for their stance on taxation of property. Particularly amongst the blue collar middle class. What is interesting and sad is that it particularly the lower middle class and poor that would benefit from moving taxation from income tax to property (we already tax other forms of capital, which makes this even more crazy). It would be good for society as a whole - it would promote social mobillity in that people would see a lot more benefit of hard work. Why not do it then? Extremely hard to sell to people that a shortterm loss can lead to a longterm gain. And why should they? it is easier to blame immigrants for all the worlds voes. 

@Marina Schwarz see above to for clarity although I think you probably knew what I meant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Did Mexico pay for the wall?

 

Maybe they have and we just don't know it yet?  What exactly did Mexico lose during the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement negotiations?  You might find President Trump waiting to tally those results in a few years when the wall is finished.  And, as @Marina Schwarz (Demon Schwarz to us mortals) pointed out, he's got 6 years to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

You are of course right on the definitions. Sorry that I was not clear. 

I just meant that there seems to be a group of politicians that deliberately focus on policies that has public appeal, but in reality these policies does not benefit the groups that they appeal to. 

for clarity I will give a neutral example from Denmark : Our nationalist party (the most visible one) won a lot of support for their stance on taxation of property. Particularly amongst the blue collar middle class. What is interesting and sad is that it particularly the lower middle class and poor that would benefit from moving taxation from income tax to property (we already tax other forms of capital, which makes this even more crazy). It would be good for society as a whole - it would promote social mobillity in that people would see a lot more benefit of hard work. Why not do it then? Extremely hard to sell to people that a shortterm loss can lead to a longterm gain. And why should they? it is easier to blame immigrants for all the worlds voes. 

@Marina Schwarz see above to for clarity although I think you probably knew what I meant. 

You see, this is what keeps coming back as a theme in your writings: You don't really think the government should do what the voting public wants.  You believe the government should do what the government thinks is good for the people, especially if it aligns with what you as a real smart, educated guy believe.  I'm afraid that you may have trouble convincing many Americans that that is what is best for them.  @Rodent's comment speaks to American ideas of what our government should be doing for us.  Sometimes you are on the winning side of an election and we will accept that the winners get what they want.  Sometimes you are on the losing side, and we will accept that the winners get what they want, until the next election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

You see, this is what keeps coming back as a theme in your writings: You don't really think the government should do what the voting public wants.  You believe the government should do what the government thinks is good for the people, especially if it aligns with what you as a real smart, educated guy believe.  I'm afraid that you may have trouble convincing many Americans that that is what is best for them.  @Rodent's comment speaks to American ideas of what our government should be doing for us.  Sometimes you are on the winning side of an election and we will accept that the winners get what they want.  Sometimes you are on the losing side, and we will accept that the winners get what they want, until the next election.

fair enough. I can see how that would come across. I think I need to take an English writing class so I can convey my thoughts better.

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

fair enough. I can see how that would come across. I think I need to take an English writing class so I can convey my thoughts better.

I'm not sure, Rasmus.  I think you might actually believe.  Anyway, as I've stated before, where you live is very different from the U.S., so it's very possible that you have experienced government that works pretty much the way we all wish it would.  Now, try Washington D.C.: You've got to watch the bastards or they'll run roughshod all over everything and everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'm not sure, Rasmus.  I think you might actually believe.  Anyway, as I've stated before, where you live is very different from the U.S., so it's very possible that you have experienced government that works pretty much the way we all wish it would.  Now, try Washington D.C.: You've got to watch the bastards or they'll run roughshod all over everything and everyone!

I believe in democrazy. I do however have a problem with how certain groups of politicians from left and rigth tends to exploit easy-to-sell messages when the reality of those is that it contradicts the best interest of the people that voted for them. A generalization I know as I of course cannot know what is in best interest of each individual if any at all. 

I the example of taxation of property in Denmark. All analysis I have seen says that it would be to financial benefit of the groups that are most against it. Those analysis' could be worng, I admit, but there is a good chance they are rigth. Why the groups against then? Is it because they deliberately do not want financial benefit? If that is the case then fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Maybe they have and we just don't know it yet?  What exactly did Mexico lose during the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement negotiations?  You might find President Trump waiting to tally those results in a few years when the wall is finished.  And, as @Marina Schwarz (Demon Schwarz to us mortals) pointed out, he's got 6 years to go.

You're as bad as my Romanian husband when it comes to Trump, seriously. Six more years is what he sees, too, and he doesn't even follow everything! Outrageous.

Rasmus, I understand. That's the populism par excellence every sane person should fight. And @Dan Warnick's right, you do live in a place where government works as close to how it should as we could all hope. But it takes centuries to make it work that way. Sad for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You're as bad as my Romanian husband when it comes to Trump, seriously. Six more years is what he sees, too, and he doesn't even follow everything! Outrageous.

Rasmus, I understand. That's the populism par excellence every sane person should fight. And @Dan Warnick's right, you do live in a place where government works as close to how it should as we could all hope. But it takes centuries to make it work that way. Sad for us.

Oops, you did say halfway through his term, didn't you.  I guess I read: half way through his "first" term.  I do think he'll go all the way, and I've got a couple of reasons why, too.

1.  His base made a commitment to try anything but the normal crap they've been getting for the last 30-odd years (especially not Hillary).  This may be their only chance at that.  One thing for certain about U.S. politics: You don't get to have what you want for very long.

2.  His opponents are actually letting him be the guy they can blame for getting the nastier things done, that they want to see done, but would never dare do on their own!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I married to you, Dan?! Creepy. But also nice to see rational thinking at its best. Mr. Schwartz sends his regards. In a good way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Am I married to you, Dan?! Creepy. But also nice to see rational thinking at its best. Mr. Schwartz sends his regards. In a good way.

That is creepy.  LOL!  Why do I feel this weird guilt, like I've just been caught having a cyber affair?  LOL!  All the best to your 2nd in command.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oops, you did say halfway through his term, didn't you.  I guess I read: half way through his "first" term.  I do think he'll go all the way, and I've got a couple of reasons why, too.

1.  His base made a commitment to try anything but the normal crap they've been getting for the last 30-odd years (especially not Hillary).  This may be their only chance at that.  One thing for certain about U.S. politics: You don't get to have what you want for very long.

2.  His opponents are actually letting him be the guy they can blame for getting the nastier things done, that they want to see done, but would never dare do on their own!

I have a very similar take as to the reason there will a 2nd term for President Trump with a slight twist. There are those who want to get the nastier stuff done through our current President but also reap the financial gains come mid 2019. 

Then when they are done, President Trump's legacy will be ruined by an environmental catastrophe come 2023. How I come to this conclusion is what has done up to this point.

1. Turned back with executive order drilling in USA.

2. The Bureau of Land Management has reduced the protest time of land lease drilling rights from 30 days to 10 days.

3. Continued dive of price of oil to make it hard for OPEC oil to turn insane profits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Maybe they have and we just don't know it yet?  What exactly did Mexico lose during the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement negotiations?  You might find President Trump waiting to tally those results in a few years when the wall is finished.  And, as @Marina Schwarz (Demon Schwarz to us mortals) pointed out, he's got 6 years to go.

Probably not much - Canada came out fine.

We can disagree on the 6 more years part. I don't think he will get reelected, plus he is 72 years old already and might get sick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites