Politics

[OxfordTheCat]

Starting to see why Canadian conservatives feel like they’re just beating their heads against the wall? Not only do we have liberals , we’ve got French liberals ( the bloc) and more liberal than liberals ( ndp) now we’ve got liberals calling their leader a conservative

My better half knows the Mulroney girls and has been a guest with the kids at Stornoway, as both Erin and Rebecca attended the wedding.

I'm not sure we need an education in what a proper Canadian Conservative is.

But I can take a joke as well as the next guy.
I'll still drop you a line when we venture out your way this summer and give you a chance to scare me straight over a whiskey or three.

 

[mdwest]

"Conservative" isn't synonymous with "libertarian", "Republican", or "populist"

Churchill would be well left of US Democrats and unelectable other than in a novelty manner like Bernie.

It's just that the US spectrum is shifted so far to the right.
I don't begrudge Americans for it: The same isolationism that keeps less than half of them from owning a passport also reaches to the more educated in a different form of isolationism and general ignorance. US defaultism.

The type that now insists that running massive deficits, instituting tariffs, abandoning free trade, and just being generally boorish on the world stage is now the default "Conservative" position.

Perhaps in the continental US, but the rest of the world shrugs and looks forward. You'll have to excuse me for being a conservative of the traditional stripe. Not the one that was minted in 2016 and worships a cult of personality. We'll have to agree to disagree.

No one claimed conservative is synonymous with libertarian, republican, or populist (you're now trying to defend your position with a red herring (a misleading or distracting argument)..

populism is not a right or a left wing ideology.. its an ideology that frame politics as a struggle between "the people" and "the elite".. so who is elite vs who is the people is what matters.. sometimes the wealthy are "the elite".. sometimes the educated are "the elite".. etc.. and sometimes the wealthy are liberal.. sometimes the educated are liberal.. and sometimes they are conservative..

libertarian and republican define specific political parties.. whose positions change over time.. so, no shit, Churchill could be seen as a liberal by some in today's political scene (it would also depend on what time period you are referring to.. Churchill began his political career as a conservative.. then switched to the liberal party.. and then returned to the conservative party in the UK at the end of his career... JFK who was seen as a radical leftist by many in the 1960's would be a little right of center these days in modern politics.. as would many former leftists in the US.. the goal posts have been moved and what is culturally acceptable in the US (as well as much of the world) has changed over a period of decades.. and will continue to change over the decades to come..

Your analysis of why less than half of Americans own a passport demonstrates your complete ignorance of Americans and American culture... perhaps you should "show your work" as you demanded others do recently..

isolationism has little to nothing to do with passports.. the US has only recently (within the last decade) started to vere toward isolationism.. and yet in 1970 less than 5% of Americans held passports.. in the 80's it was roughly 15%.. by 2000 that number had only grown to 17%.. and yet today +/- 48% of Americans hold passports (the number is increasing exponentially every year over the last 20 despite a leaning toward isolationism for +/- the last 10-12 years)..

Contrast that with "globalism" not really becoming a thing until the mid 90's.. and the US being considered to be a globalist nation and on the leading edge of globalism pretty much from the onset of the concept (right about the time you see an explosion in passports in the US).. with NAFTA, a sharp rise in multi-national corporations started in the US, political shifts by both Clinton and Bush toward globally oriented foreign policy.. and your isolationism argument loses all merit.. its nothing more than hot air from someone clearly uninformed, and completely uneducated in the topic that they want to speak to...


you did however claim that because Carney was a Goldman Sachs executive that its non sequitur (doesn't follow any logical statement or path) to believe he is anything other than a conservative..

which is fundamentally flawed.. and the sort of ridiculous statement I'd expect someone that huffs paint and still lives in their mothers basement to make... I thought you were better than that.. I suppose I could have been wrong..

its pretty clear you still havent bothered to read the definition of political conservatism from any reasonable source if you believe Carney to be a conservative of "traditional stripe"... or if you hold beliefs similar to Carneys that you are a conservative of any "traditional stripe"..

Perhaps less bullshit and more fact based analysis would do you well..

 

[OxfordTheCat]

You literally posted about dictionary definitions.
And I was speaking more generally, as in @WAB noting we have differing definitions - which is natural and fair. Merkel's party is right wing in Europe. Canada's CPC under a back bencher reform stooge in Poilievre is still further left than American Dems. The more telling point is your reaction to that observation. That Americans view left right politics through a myopic lens shouldn't be news.

And your reduction (after much bloviating and some rudimentary, and typically superficial, and dare I say American takes on Churchill) to 'mom's basement' level ad hominem is pretty ample evidence you're on a bit of a tilt. What was that the other night - come back when you sober up?

Feel free to grow and concede a point when it's taken on you.
I'm happy to learn when a point is made, as I have in this thread here and there. Some (many?) from you. I'm working my way through a book recommendation as we speak.

You've just made a bit of a fool of yourself with that one. But it happens. This is, after all, the internet.

At the end of the day, I'm not the one absolutely desperate to turn "fact based analysis" surrounding Trump to pretend he suddenly epitomizes sound, reasonable, and rational Conservative thought.

He's not.
He hasn't been.
And he won't be.

He's your guy, but he's not a Conservative.

More thought. Less emotion. Less team sport politics.
Whole point of this containment thread is expression and discussion, not consensus.

 

[mdwest]

Roughly a couple of hundred people on this forum know me personally.. more than a hundred have been in my home... Id venture a guess that to a man (and woman) they'd advise you that I am far from "on a bit of a tilt".. but don't take my word for it.. ask around..

I do however admit I don't suffer fools well, and will call one out every time they make ridiculous statements that are unfounded in any evidence or truth and try to declare them as they were facts..

you have a habit of doing exactly that.. so, don't be surprised when you continue to get called out when doing so..

Or.. feel free to bring evidence and facts to support your arguments.. you clearly told others to "do the work" yesterday... you could always hold yourself to the same standard..

FWIW, Im an equal opportunity caller outer.. and have on more than a few occasions raised points with people on the far right as well as those on the far left, and countless that fall somewhere in between when they present opinions as facts without any supporting evidence...

While you're clearly bitching about my responses to you.. I still haven't seen a single piece of evidence presented to support your statements... how about we start there before we decide who the fool is..

Or.. if you prefer, just keep blowing hot, unsubstantiated air.. and see how many people actually buy into your statements or care about your opinions..

 

[OxfordTheCat]

Also recognizing that I can't be on the highest of horses commenting about decorum while having to habitually edit my posts:

My strong preference is to weigh in while on the computer.
But immediately following the election I'm just tuning in sporadically from Barbados on my phone, and it leaves much to be desired.

 

[VertigoBE]

Yeah, another effort from Trump to solve a genuine problem in the most brain dead (but public and quick) way possible.

The pros: The US is in a bit of a demographic crisis, and we're not hitting replacement rates. Doing something about that ain't a bad idea if you don't want to be dealing with the problem China has now in 10-20 years.

The cons: Just giving people cash is patently stupid. It's not enough to provide for a child anyway, it's just an incentive towards no future planning, it'll mostly incentivize the part of the population that a. can't afford a kid in the first place, and b. already have them anyway. Totally pointless in every way.

As a (potentially) better approach, one of the eastern European nations, I forget which one, Hungary, maybe? Is also looking at this issue.

Their approach? Their population are reluctant to have children because they can't afford housing. A real concern for the middle class American as well. They can just about buy a house and cover a mortgage at 35 or so, but can't afford to do that and raise a child. Plus they don't want to have a kid until they own a place. Plus of course, the expendable funds to 'afford' a family are pretty tight until the mortgage is gone, by which time you're probably too old anyway.

So they're offering mortgages with very, very favorable terms (little down, very low interest) to families who plan to start a family. Still means tested, so default rates are no worse than any other mortgage, but very, very low monthly payments by comparison (think 2%APR vs 7%).

The deal is simple. Take this mortgage, have a kid within (I think) 5 years, you keep the favorable terms for the 30 years. Don't, and rates revert to standard market rates, and the government then sells the security onto the market as a normal mortgage.

I think that's a much better incentive structure for the young middle class American, who is primarily the group that simply aren't reproducing. It gives them a place to raise a kid young enough that it coincides with the time in your life you might want to start a family, and gives them a little bit less housing cost pressure so they can afford to do so. If they renege, no major loss, government subsidized mortgage rates for 5 years are a cost, but you can recoup some of it with whatever profit you can make selling on the higher interest mortgage backed security on the open market.

I would keep it very, very simple:
Let's say the standard income tax rate in a given country is a flat rate 30% tax rate.
The rate of births that are needed to keep the population in check is around 2.5, let's round to 3. (half a kid is just not very useful)

First child born: your personal income tax rate drops with 2%
Second child born: your personal income tax rate drops with an additional 3% (so 5% total)
Third child born: your personal income tax rate drops with an additional 5% (so 10% total)
No further deductions after the third. However when war and pestilence rules the land, the government could just add additional advantageous rates for the fourth, fifth, etc. child depending on how many children are needed.

Advantages:
Bloody easy to implement.
It gives benefits to only those that actually contribute to society (as they pay taxes)
Therefore you incentivize precisely those with the biggest income to have the most babies. Usually these are the smart, hard working, good citizens of society.

 

[OxfordTheCat]

Roughly a couple of hundred people on this forum know me personally.. more than a hundred have been in my home... Id venture a guess that to a man (and woman) they'd advise you that I am far from "on a bit of a tilt".. but don't take my word for it.. ask around..

I do however admit I don't suffer fools well, and will call one out every time they make ridiculous statements that are unfounded in any evidence or truth and try to declare them as they were facts..

you have a habit of doing exactly that.. so, don't be surprised when you continue to get called out when doing so..

Or.. feel free to bring evidence and facts to support your arguments.. you clearly told others to "do the work" yesterday... you could always hold yourself to the same standard..

FWIW, Im an equal opportunity caller outer.. and have on more than a few occasions raised points with people on the far right as well as those on the far left, and countless that fall somewhere in between when they present opinions as facts without any supporting evidence...

While you're clearly bitching about my responses to you.. I still haven't seen a single piece of evidence presented to support your statements... how about we start there before we decide who the fool is..

Or.. if you prefer, just keep blowing hot, unsubstantiated air.. and see how many people actually buy into your statements or care about your opinions..

One would think that of these legions of internet character references, were they of any character or particular standing, would probably agree that your comments are rude and crass. And that they demonstrate that for all the sermons about emotional responses you've been so eager to give, seems you're incapable of heeding your own advice.

Physician, heal thyself.

But please elaborate on where you would like me to "bring the facts" further, on matters almost wholly relating to opinion.

While also noting that you seem to operate and float not on fact, but on a self sustaining cloud of opinion and supposition when it comes to Trump and a few choice members of the inner circle.

Happy to elaborate to please your somewhat delicate sensibilities. And refusal to grasp an olive branch and find common ground when offered.

Please tell me what you'd have me elaborate on. Knowing based on your posts that I have more than a century of tenuous connection to draw on ala Halifax Explosion. Surely I can find something that will suffice.

Perhaps I'll ask a direct question back.
Let us know how and why you think Trump, and the actions of this administration, fit any definition of traditionally conservative. I'll be eager to see just how far and wide these particular goalposts will shift.

The only hot air being blown, and habitually so, are those that would bend every principle in their body to continue to defend Trump and his actions and claim they represent stoic conservatism somehow.

I'm just calling you out. Because like you claim, I also don't suffer fools.

You can have him as your guy. You can prefer him to Kamala. But you can't with a straight face claim he's the embodiment of conservative thought or any type of rationality and expect to be taken seriously except by those also enamoured by the cult of personality for the moment.

I suspect a good many of those hundreds you refer to are in the same boat. You're just the spokesman here claiming everything he does is 8d chess and anyone who would question it or his credentials as a Conservative political thinker is in the wrong.

With appropriate respect to you and your imagined Internet credentials, I find them wanting.

You're free to find mine wanting as well, as you obviously do, and I'm fine with it. I'm more trying to point out the foolishness of you doubling down on them and leaning on them.

 

[OxfordTheCat]

In a change of pace, does anyone actually know what the hell is going on between the two nuclear powers currently exchanging artillery fire?

 

[mdwest]

lets see...

we can start with your isolationism passport commentary.. that has been clearly been demonstrated as incorrect...

what you stated was: "The same isolationism that keeps less than half of them from owning a passport"

if you believe that the reason.. lets see some evidence of it from a reputable source..

the facts are that passports didn't become necessary for international travel until just after WWII.. and that until the 80's less than 5% of Americans held passports.. and then the numbers almost tripled inside just a few years... then stayed stagnant until after 2001.. and then have grown by leaps and bounds ever since...

the facts are.. that until 9/11 much of the Western Hemisphere didn't require US Citizens to have passports to enter their countries.. US Citizens could visit Canada, Mexico, most of the Carribean, most of Central America, and a few countries in South America with nothing more than a drivers license.. so there wasn't a whole lot of motivation for US Citizens to obtain passports.. The US is a large country, with a large population, and a lot to do.. neighboring countries offer even more to do and at very low costs for American travelers and for American businessmen.. Europe and other destinations however arent nearly as attractive to American travelers.. only about 1/3 of American international travelers visit Europe each year.. Most prefer Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean..

94M+ Americans traveled abroad in 2024.. 98M+ traveled abroad in 2023.. that's just under 1/3 of the entire US population..

After 9/11 passports became necessary.. therefore there was a huge uptick in passport procurement.. otherwise we'd likely still be sitting at 15-20%...



Lets compare that to Canada..

The stats Im seeing say that roughly 50% of Canadians travel each year.. but only about 20% of those travelers will travel abroad.. and that about 15% of Canadians have never left Canada.. (the numbers arent all that far off from US numbers.. especially when you factor in US disposable / discretionary income and the ability to travel)....

So.. .is Canada also isolationist?

Or did you just say some unfounded BS about American culture that you cant substantiate?


We can move on to your next unfounded statement once this one is resolved..

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

My better half knows the Mulroney girls and has been a guest with the kids at Stornoway, as both Erin and Rebecca attended the wedding.

I'm not sure we need an education in what a proper Canadian Conservative is.

But I can take a joke as well as the next guy.
I'll still drop you a line when we venture out your way this summer and give you a chance to scare me straight over a whiskey or three.

Lately it’s been rum , fisherman’s helper made in n.s

I could still find a quart of 3 of whiskey though in the name of diplomacy.

For those a little more brave pinkdeath is a local specialty it’s basically strawberries at 110 proof.

Also recognizing that I can't be on the highest of horses commenting about decorum while having to habitually edit my posts:

My strong preference is to weigh in while on the computer.
But immediately following the election I'm just tuning in sporadically from Barbados on my phone, and it leaves much to be desired.

It’s annoying to only use a phone , it’s all I use as well as I can have it home or on the boat. Investing in a computer just to argue politics seems counterintuitive to me though so I stick with a phone.

 

[mdwest]

In a change of pace, does anyone actually know what the hell is going on between the two nuclear powers currently exchanging artillery fire?

I typically hate NPR... but this isnt a horrible article on India-Pakistan...

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/nx-s1-5389777/tensions-escalate-as-pakistan-calls-indias-operation-an-act-of-war

Ive spent a good bit of time in Pakistan, and a little bit of time in India over the years (although I haven't been to either in over a decade)... while the two governments very clearly hate and distrust each other, I honestly didn't see this happening.. they have historically been able to talk themselves off the proverbial ledge and not escalate things anytime in recent history when things have started to get ugly.. Border units in both Pakistan and India are even somewhat friendly toward each other at certain check points..

 

[mdwest]

Also recognizing that I can't be on the highest of horses commenting about decorum while having to habitually edit my posts:

My strong preference is to weigh in while on the computer.
But immediately following the election I'm just tuning in sporadically from Barbados on my phone, and it leaves much to be desired.

Completely concur... I have the same problem..

No harm - no foul in post edits..

Im guilty of everything from typos to bad cut and paste, etc..

 

[LivingTheDream]

In a change of pace, does anyone actually know what the hell is going on between the two nuclear powers currently exchanging artillery fire?

Dude I am have been shocked how little coverage there is on that. I am having to go down the rabbit hole on Reddit.

 

[mdwest]

Dude I am have been shocked how little coverage there is on that. I am having to go down the rabbit hole on Reddit.

I expected India to do something after the terrorist attack a few weeks ago by a group of Pakistan based bad guys in Kashmir.. but I expected the action to be relatively minor... and then the two governments would find a way to de-escalate..

Al Jazeera seems to be giving it more coverage than the big EU and US news agencies.. and while sometimes Indian news agencies are decent, clearly they're biased on this one..

 

[OxfordTheCat]

Approximately 46% of US citizens have a passport.
70% of Canadians do. That was my point. And facts confirm. If o it want to tilt at that particular windmill, have at it

By your numbers, 98m Americans traveled. Out of 340m
30m Canadians traveled. Out of 40m

The math is left as an exercise to the reader, as the old, before the fancy new curriculum, schoolbooks used to say.

I'm not sure it's the damming indictment that you imagine it to be.
And I certainly don't dispute that there is a preventative of Americans that are well traveled (look at the forum we're on). But to claim its a norm is folly.

I'll cut through the chaff and ask directly, do you believe that the average American is as well educated or informed on international matters, or as well traveled as their first world Canadian or European counterparts?

My position is that they're not.
Demonstrably.

 

[OxfordTheCat]

I expected India to do something after the terrorist attack a few weeks ago by a group of Pakistan based bad guys in Kashmir.. but I expected the action to be relatively minor... and then the two governments would find a way to de-escalate..

Al Jazeera seems to be giving it more coverage than the big EU and US news agencies.. and while sometimes Indian news agencies are decent, clearly they're biased on this one..

On the aircraft shot down?

While I can see the usual exchange of artillery on unmanned observation posts as a throwback to the previous decades, the fact that civilians are being killed, and the accusations of strike aircraft seem to be an escalation?

Also - curious on your opinion. Who is the most reliable source in the region?

My default would be to BBC

 

[mdwest]

Are you comparing apples to apples there?

did 30M Canadians travel abroad? the numbers I just read said only 20% traveled outside of Canada.. and that almost 10% traveled to the US...

If we're counting how many Americans traveled in total, that number is going to get pretty close to 100% among those financially capable..



Regardless, when 1/3 of a country travels abroad every year, and the number of passports increase 300% inside a 20 year window... that hardly supports your argument of isolationism being the cause for the low number of passports or the implication that Americans don't travel abroad..

Again, until 2001 you didn't need a passport to visit the overwhelming majority of international destinations that Americans travel to.. so passports are actually something of a new thing in the US... there are 3 living generations of Americans that traveled abroad multiple times in their lives before ever needing a passport.. pre-2001 they simply weren't necessary unless you wanted to visit the Eastern Hemisphere..

And until the last couple of years more than half the world didn't require US Citizens to obtain visas to travel to the country..

 

[mdwest]

I'll cut through the chaff and ask directly, do you believe that the average American is as well educated or informed on international matters, or as well traveled as their first world Canadian or European counterparts?

My position is that they're not.
Demonstrably.

That would depend on the definition of "average"... and also "educated"..

54% of people over the age of 25 have at least one degree in the US... contrasted by 34% of Canadians.. or 33% of Brits..

but comparing our educational system to EU and commonwealth systems is a bit of a challenge.. for example when you pursue a degree in the UK, almost the entirety of your coursework will be directly related to your degree field.. if you're pursuing a degree in "International Relations" in the UK.. almost everything you stuff will be directly tied.. vs in the US more than 50% of your classes will be "General Education" or "Electives" with the remaining half being specific to the field of study..

The belief is it creates a more "well rounded" student (which I personally find to be BS)..

FWIW both of my masters degrees are from UK universities.. while my bachelors and doctoral studies have been done at US schools.. so Ive got a pretty good feel for both systems (doctorate is still in progress)..

In terms of informal education, Americans certainly pay a whole lot less attention to whats going on outside of our borders than most Europeans and Canadians that I know... 9/11 changed that a lot.. and the internet and access to European news like Sky, BBC, etc has improved things a lot.. but Americans in general are much less interested in whats happening in Ottowa or London or Brussels than others are interested in whats happening in DC...

But again.. you have to be careful to correctly compare and contrast the two... the US is a big country.. what is happening 2 states over in the US is at times very similar to whats happening 2 countries over to a European.. what Californias courts and governor does has the ability to impact what life looks like in Wyoming just a few years later.. and when your country isn't just dimentionally large, but also dominates the global economy, heavily influences regional and global geo politics, etc.. of course everyone else is paying attention to you.. but whats going on in Latvia might not be as interesting or important to a guy in Alabama since what Latvia does will likely have little to no impact on life in Alabama anytime in the near future..

When it comes to internationally traveled, there is no doubt in my mind that the "common" European is significantly more traveled than the "common" American... but again, you have to be careful to do reasonable comparisons.. Traveling between France and Spain is about as easy and as cost effective for a European working class person as traveling between Louisiana and Texas in the US.. The US is a large country and extremely diverse culturally and physically.. people from NY are completely unlike people from California, which are completely unlike people from Texas.. which are completely unlike people from Boston (much like I would guess a French Canadian from Montreal Quebec is likely a very different person than a rural guy from central Alberta..

That said.. where things change is with the upper end of the American middle class and above... They have more discretionary income than the overwhelming majority of the world.. and have not only the financial means but also the desire to travel and see the world (by in large.. there are obviously exceptions).. and because we as a nation have been leaders in globalization, international travel for business is also very common.. While it might be common for an upper middle class German or Italian, etc to see most if not all of Europe and a few other places in his lifetime, you take his American counterpart and you might be amazed at how many more passport stamps the American has..

I'll use myself as an example.. I am not among the "elite".. but I am comfortably on the upper end of the American middle class.. and have worked in an industry that has required extensive travel for more than 2 decades.. Ive managed to fill 4x double paged passports in just the last 20 years, made more than 500 international trips (between business and pleasure), and have seen 112 countries the last time I bothered to count different visas, stamps, etc.. Ive amassed a little more than 3M air miles between various airlines and if I had to guess picked up another 1M or more on chartered aircraft, and I don't have a clue how many more on military aircraft.. If you accumulate all of the time I have spent outside the US in my lifetime my best guess is I have lived abroad for 5 years or more.. and that's without me ever actually having a home address outside of the US..

So.. while I completely acknowledge that I am not the typical American.. I'd venture a guess that Im significantly more traveled than 99%+ of the world to include Europeans and Canadians..

And there are a whole lot of others out there like me.. just here in Dallas alone (although most of their numbers might not be quite as high)..

 

[Wheels]

On the aircraft shot down?

While I can see the usual exchange of artillery on unmanned observation posts as a throwback to the previous decades, the fact that civilians are being killed, and the accusations of strike aircraft seem to be an escalation?

Also - curious on your opinion. Who is the most reliable source in the region?

My default would be to BBC

I can’t speak directly to the india/Pakistan situation but in tanzania where international programming is limited Al jazerra used to give way better information than bbc and sky news. This was a few years back so things may have changed.

 

[CJW]

This travel argument is ridiculous from the start. If Europeans want to see any sort of different landscape or go further than a few hours away from their home they HAVE TO go to a different country. Meanwhile Americans are spoiled for choice as to what they can see and experience while staying within their own borders. Major mountain ranges, deserts, beaches galore, rugged coastlines, huge, tiny and everything in between national parks, rainforests, wetlands, 5 giant lakes, dense northern forests of north central and north eastern America, beautiful rolling hills, the great plains, creek and river bottoms of the central America. Then we have the pure rugged beauty of Alaska and remoteness of Hawaii.

Quit acting like Europeans, Canadians or whoever are traveling internationally because of some sort of intellectual superiority.