08.27.2019 07:48 AM

Buses? Aren’t those for throwing uppity women under?

45 Comments

  1. Douglas W says:

    Are you kidding me? My first reaction, when I saw this. Does the Liberal braintrust (oxymoron, I know) truly think Canadians have completely forgotten how Justin Trudeau and his merry gang of thugs threw exemplary individuals under the bus? If the Opposition is any good, they’ll have a field day with this. Let’s see if they’re any good.

  2. Peter says:

    I remember back in the sixties or seventies the Queen’s staff were trying to cultivate an image of her relating easily to ordinary people. They had her walk a long a typical lower middle class street and approach a house, presumably spontaneously. When she knocked on the door and the woman answered, she said “I’m terribly sorry to disturb you like this…”, to which the woman replied “Oh, that’s alright, we’ve been expecting you for hours.”

  3. Fuck. Better than Barney The Purple Dinosaur.

    You’re at the top of your game. Smoked him!

  4. Nick M. says:

    Classic Trudeau.

    Watching this commercial is irritating.

    It’s not that Trudeau likes the idea of taxing higher incomes more, its that he likes to disqualify people from his programs if you pay too much tax.

    Let’s tax wage earners to create services, than deny them the service for paying too much to finance the service.

    That is what is wrong with his approach.

    • Miles Lunn says:

      It’s virtue signaling like his feminist credentials. As a rich white male fake SJW its his way of pretending he cares about middle class, but for him its all about looking good, not deep in his heart. Also unlike US, we don’t demand tax returns from PM, but my guess is that with good accounting both his and Morneau’s effective tax rate was not impacted by tax hike.

      Also could be a political tactic to trap the Tories. Taxing the rich is wildly popular, however most economists will argue once top rate goes above a certain level it causes more harm than good. At 53% in Ontario and Quebec for combined rates, probably most economist would say that does more harm than good, but Tories running on cutting taxes on the rich, creates a perfect foil for Liberals to play the class warfare, so that is what the Liberals would like to trip Tories up on, but probably won’t as doubt Tories will promise to cut top rates and like past federal cuts on them, it will only happen if several loopholes are closed and rate cuts offset those as what happened in 1971 (yes Pierre Trudeau cut tax rates for the rich twice and by large amounts too although broadened what was taxed), 1981, and 1987.

      • Peter says:

        Very good. One thing about political debates today is that both sides present their rhetoric in almost naive, childlike terms as if there were no history to rely on. There are no end of historical examples of what does and does not work regarding government intervention in the economy, yet many progressives seem to he happy to just chant “Tax the rich” or the like. There are also lots of examples of what can happen socially when income differentials get too large and the upper half lives openly like royalty, but too many conservatives just repeat rote shibboleths about markets, competition and the promises of the tax-cut fairy. It’s all quite reckless, and I think a lot of people sense it, even if they can’t necessarily articulate it.

        • Miles Lunn says:

          I think the real argument is many are just for tax the rich or cut taxes without deciding what is the optimal level. I am not blindly for one, I look at levels. In Canada I think tax rates on rich are too high, but in US I think they are too low. Likewise in Alberta, I think Notley was right to ditch the flat tax, but in Ontario rates are too high so its possible even to be for tax hikes in some provinces, cuts in others. I think not just on this issue but most we need more nuance and stop this whole charade of only going in one direction, but instead decide what is the optimal level on anything and work from there.

          I think on the income inequality, too many look to the US and since it is a serious problem there, they try to advocate same problems Democrats do while forgetting while it is an issue here, not at crisis levels like in US so only requires minor tinkering here not major overhaul. We see this on a lot of other issues too like health care where many oppose any private involvement less we have the horrible US system, forgetting most European are mixed and in some ways more public as they are more comprehensive (most cover majority of cost for prescription drugs and some cover dental care), but allow more private involvement at primary level. Left wants former without latter while right wants latter without former.

          I blame people’s short attention spans for this problem as people like 10 second answers not long explanations and unfortunately anything that can be put into a 10 second slogan rarely works out as the world is a complex place and we don’t live in a black and white world, its shades of gray.

          • Nick M. says:

            Bang on.

            My frustration is issues imported from the US has over taken over our Canadian conversation. And seems to be encouraged by our current government to divert from Canadian issues with made in Canada solutions.

          • Peter says:

            You’re right, Nick, and on healthcare they have the same problem. Both countries have a tough time improving their systems because there are so many fears and distorted, exaggerated perceptions in them about the weaknesses’ of the other’s system. Both would do well to stop focusing on the other and look to the many variations in Europe, most them superior to either Canada or the U.S.

  5. the real Sean says:

    It would be impossible to create a more fake, insincere public figure. Ring the bell and GTF of the bus.

  6. Full Retired Rambo says:

    The man never drank a Duff in his life.

  7. John says:

    Come on folks… this guy really look sincere

  8. Samantha Banks Quills says:

    Face the truth, the ad is on point: if we were Europeans who cannot say one thing about Canada, we’d think this guy is going to win. Anyway, this isn’t about the self interest of a politician standing on a bus; it’s about preventing Doug Ford style cuts from being exacted on federal level services. Scheer’s going to get a nasty surprise when people realize he’s a total parliamentary hack with no work experience, and a limited grasp of what leadership requires beyond the tom-foolery that got him his current job.

    • Douglas W says:

      Samantha, what about Justin: never held a meaningful job in his life; has embarrassed this country with his silly antics abroad, and has obstructed justice. And as for Ontario: the problem isn’t Doug Ford and his cuts. The problem is: Ontario pays one billion, two hundred million dollars a month to service the interest on its debt. How can a province with a rich and diversified economy, get this way?

    • Nick M. says:

      So if you are right, it’s pick your poison. Reduce public sector workforce or reduce private sector.

      My problem is Scheer is a radical Centrist. He is even Steven. Straight down the middle.

      Problem with government is once we expand it, we have. I idea how to undo the damage.

    • Doug says:

      Except Ford has delivered much in the way of service cuts and the Feds don’t provide much service directly to citizens. The supposed autism funding cuts were an attempt to redistribute the same pool of money to more people. School enrollment in Ontario has been declining since around 2000. Teaching jobs and funding should decline proportionately.

  9. Tanja Hunter says:

    Dear Mr Kinsella,
    I’m really hoping you’ll consider unblocking me on Twitter. As ugly as that place can be, I still go there regularly for my what’s-going-on fix.
    I was blocked by you a couple of months after Trump was elected, and I’m guessing you must have been pretty sensitive at the time. I may have said something to the effect that maybe it was time to get over it and move on. Truly, it wouldn’t have been put in a rude way, because I was raised better than that, and as I stated above, Twitter is ugly enough without my adding to it.
    Anyway, I’ve always found your viewpoints interesting, even though I don’t always agree with them. I’m tired of seeing your tweets commented upon by many of the people I follow, and then having to see if it was screen capped somewhere, or maybe set here on your website.
    You’re the only person who’s blocked me, and I like to keep things tidy. So thanks for your consideration.
    Happy trails.

    • Martin says:

      Morneau in our hood today guessing to announce that Danielle Takacs has been parachuted in to run again Brant. Strikes me as a waste of resources by the Liberal party but what do I know.

    • Douglas W says:

      Pupatello will beat Masse, and she’ll get a very senior cabinet portfolio. Probably Industry. Can see her getting serious consideration as the next party leader, when Justin eventually steps down. She’s that good.

  10. Jason says:

    I know JT is very unpopular on this website, and all political leaders to me appear quite insincere. But if you were to honestly compare this ad to the new Conservative one, where AS is not even taking toward the camera, not saying anything of substance in his off staccato way of speaking, I really don’t see a comparison.
    What I find interesting about this ad is it’s an attack ad dressed up like a positive ad. I wonder if we’ll see more of that.
    I’m just a bit suspicious that running against Harper is off the mark, given he’s not on the ballot anymore.
    Fair to hate on someone but I think a lot of people are currently blinded by it.

    • Warren says:

      The ads are fine as far as they go. But they lack credibility. Trudeau is a millionaire millionaire’s son – he doesn’t ride public transit. And Scheer has spent most of his professional life as a professional politician – he’s not credible when he claims to understand the economic anxieties of everyday Canadians.

      • Jason says:

        Agreed Warren- thanks for your reply. Always enjoy your website even when I don’t fully agree with all your PoVs.
        Hope you are enjoying the end of summer!

      • Montrealaise says:

        The Conservatives made a huge mistake when they chose Sheer as their leader (although Mad Max would have been worse). What about Lisa Raitt? She’s intelligent, articulate and tough, and I was very impressed by how she handled herself during the justice committee hearings on the JWR firing. I am convinced that is the party had chosen her, a majority for the Conservatives would have been assured.

        • Douglas W says:

          Gérard Deltell, the best person to lead the party. Why he isn’t Scheer’s Quebec lieutenant, is beyond me.

          • Douglas,

            Guess somebody thinks that they’ve got someone smarter already in the job. (Not.) With help from that guy, Scheer will soon enough need a therapist.

            U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E. What a simpleton. At least he boosted Liberal confidence in the province.

        • Montréalaise,

          They left their brains at the door when they wouldn’t change their bullshit interim rules so Rona could be drafted. Need I say more?

          • Fred from BC says:

            “They left their brains at the door when they wouldn’t change their bullshit interim rules so Rona could be drafted.”

            She was my pick as well. She could win.

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Erin O’Toole also would have been good as well as Rona Ambrose who couldn’t run, but some were hoping they would change rules. That being said at least with Bernier gone from the party, if Scheer messes up, the chances are the replacement will be an improvement not worse.

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I don’t think so much he is rich is the problem, its more he pretends to be something he isn’t. Relating to average people is a catch 22 in politics. We want politicians with experience and pretty tough to have the necessary experience and not be in at least top 5% income wise maybe even top 1% (note even backbench MPs are in top 2% in terms of salaries, while cabinet ministers are all in top 1%) so pretty much every PM is guaranteed to at time of election not be middle class. But at least those who grew up and lived part of the adult life in the middle class like Chretien, Martin, Mulroney, and Harper can relate to those in it as even if not middle class when PM, they remember what it was like.

        That doesn’t mean millionaire’s sons cannot run, but it looks phony to pretend to be something you are not. Otherwise run on other issues that play to strengths and perhaps maybe have some candidates with strong middle class backgrounds prepare the party’s policies and sell it rather than be a one man show.

  11. Nick M. says:

    What the public is not understanding is it’s taxing high income salaried employees when he talks about the 1%. Not trust fund wealth, not self employed who can sprinkle the wealth around to reduce taxes., and not dual incomes that would put you in the top 3% ish. And these high yielding wage earning positions can be temporary, like construction or oilfield worker who might be making nothing the following year.

    Then these high salaried employees will be denied the services because they pay too much in tax. That’s what is fundamentally wrong with Trudeau. Is excluding Canadians from programs because they pay too much tax. Like the new program for young homebuyers or the Universal Child Care benefit. (Amazing that the liberals have created a two tiered childcare benefit, what’s next two tiered Healthcare from the same liberals to penalize high income workers?)

    Second he is regulating it to make it so hard to try and join the middle class, yet entrenching the status of the established class. (ie Dairy Cartel, trust fund babies, Eastern Canada Engineering Firms, etc)

    Alberta is the land of economic migrants who came with very little. (No one moves to Alberta for the weather.) I believed that in Canada, the only way as an Engineer I could move out of moms basement was to move here. (I still believe that.) Trudeau’s strangling of Alberta is an attack on those who have left their families behind to try and enter the middle class. The imagery from here is he is ensuring the Laurentian Class dominate Canada for years to come is simply unjust.

    My belief is Trudeau is making people think that one can’t make it ahead in this country, and must be dependent on government subsistence to keep one afloat while the Old Money is laughing all the way to the bank.

    Let me enter the middle class dammit. Follow these easy to implement solutions to make us all better off.

    Let us income split. CMHC fees should be lowered because of the mortgage Stress test reduces the risk of default. Eliminate GST on new homes. Eliminate Renewable fuel requirements at the gas pump so less of the Rainforest is cut down (google Ethanol Amazon Deforestation). Remove the tax rebate for rich people to buy fancy vehicles. Increase the income tax exemption so low wage earners aren’t paying income tax at all, rather than the provinces increasing the minimum wage. Eliminate EI payroll tax for part time workers who can’t qualify for EI, cuz the second job disqualifies the benefits if they lose the first job. (Have employers pay the employees EI contribution for part time workers as an incentive to make workers full time.)

    No too expensive solutions that makes everyone happy and doesn’t cost a lot.

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Much like his father, he very much seems to have the attitude private sector doesn’t work and government is the solution. Only two areas he differs is he is a free trader (not protectionist, actually today most protectionist are on right not left unlike past) and he hasn’t talked about nationalizing any major industries (that was common in his father’s era, but only loony left today propose this).

      I think a social safety net is important and I don’t want us to be like the US is now with lack of one, but it is supposed to except for those incapable of working be a hand up not hand out. High levels of dependence on government is not a good thing and while market is imperfect, governments can create conditions to help people get ahead while helping those who fall behind.

      On top 1%, most think of wealthy bankers and CEOs, but that is actually the top 0.01%, not top 1% who are mostly high skilled professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers, dentists, veterinarians etc., and we need to make Canada a place where people in those areas want to move to, not leave. It’s easy to complain about the obscene wealth some have, but the problem is in Canada if you confiscated 100% of the income of the top 0.01%, you would only get a mere $10 billion and that is ignoring behavioral response and also provincial taxes and other aspects. Unlike US, we just don’t have that many that wealthy. Nonetheless I do think wealthy CEOs should stop giving excessive bonuses and raises as when others are facing hardships that creates a backlash and its how you get dangerous types like Jeremy Corbyn elected. So while taxing the Hell out of them won’t help get the government a lot of money nor will it improve the middle class, if people feel their pay is excessive you can get this backlash. Certainly if I were a wealthy CEO, I would pay myself well, but I wouldn’t be obscene like others and I would also tie raises to company profitability to rise and fall based on how well company performs. I think if a company has a really good year and is profitable and everyone including employees get sizeable bonuses, people are fine with CEOs getting big ones as a reward for success. What people rightly resent is when a company loses money and lays off workers, CEOs taking big bonuses. When that happens CEOs should be taking pay cuts not raises. I don’t know if there is anyway government can regulate this, but for their own self interest and society CEOs should do this.

      As for Laurentian Elites, I think Trudeau is less geographic and more your big city central urban elite. I don’t think his agenda goes over too well in rural small town Ontario, while in Vancouver proper it does (I live there). A lot in central urban areas tend to be caught up with the latest social justice causes like Trudeau and not the bread and butter issues most care about. Trudeau is more about the oppressed vs. oppressor and favouring the underdog over the big guy when in fact who is the little guy and big guy is less straightforward. Rather than just working on creating the conditions for a strong economy and helping those struggling, he seems to like to pick winners and losers.

    • Kris says:

      Excellent points
      Should be mandatory reading for the “Salamander” and the likes.

  12. the real Sean says:

    also couldn’t help but notice that one of the Papineau Public Transit Riders in one ad claims to be a resident of Mississauga in another ad… any word on whether ANY of the people in the ads are real?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*