Category Archives: Liberal

Premier Christy Clark had hoped to head into this springs election running on a new provincial budget infused with billions from a thriving liquefied natural gas industry. She will have to settle for something far less.

On Tuesday, Ms. Clarks Liberal government tabled its final fiscal plan before this Mays provincial showdown and, as expected, it had a bit of something for everyone: corporate and personal tax and fee cuts, health and educating funding hikes, and a range of other spending increases that allows the government to ingratiate itself to an array of constituents.

Make no mistake: this is a document most provincial governments would still be thrilled on which to campaign. For starters, it marks the fifth consecutive balanced budget the Liberals will have submitted, a stretch of first-rate fiscal stewardship unparalleled in the country. The provinces debt-to-GDP ratio is 16.1 per cent which compares to 40.3 per cent for Ontario and 48 per cent for Quebec. It is the only province in the country with a Triple A credit rating.

B.C. promises to cut health premiums in half with pre-election budget

What you need to know about B.C.s latestbudget

New budget does little to help B.C. home buyers

As Finance Minister Mike de Jong noted, this is not just about holding bragging rights. The difference in that credit rating and those debt figures compared to those of a province like Ontario amounts to a savings of about $2-billion a year in interest costs. That is a lot of program spending.

The government deserves plaudits, as well, for continuing to diversify not just its economy but its trade markets, too. For instance, only 53.9 per cent of B.C.s trade is now with the U.S., compared to 86.3 per cent for Alberta and 80.9 per cent for Ontario. Those percentages take on a more ominous hue when you consider the protectionist trade winds currently emanating from south of the border. Meantime, B.C. created the most jobs in Canada last year as well.

All of this is important. The B.C. Liberals are a coalition of conservative and liberal-minded voters. To keep the conservative wing happy, the Clark government has had to demonstrate it knows how to run an economy, or at least, knows how not to ruin one. It has taken some heat along the way for some of the more ruthless spending decisions it has made in the name of balancing budgets. This has been an important aspect of maintaining the support of conservatives in the province. But the Premier knows she needs to appeal to voters beyond that group as well, especially ones in the mushy ideological middle.

She believes this budget does that. Others may not.

In the weeks leading up to it, Ms. Clark hinted that a significant tax cut was coming. It ended up being a somewhat underwhelming reduction to MSP premiums. It doesnt take effect until next January, while the announced small business corporate tax cut occurs immediately which perhaps speaks to the Liberals priorities. The government has significantly boosted spending in the ministries of education and children and family development, but in both cases it was virtually forced into it; in the instance of education by the courts and in child protection by relentless public criticism and damaging reports.

This is not a government that could in any way be described as warm or sensitive.

Of course, this has always been where the Opposition New Democrats have tried to set themselves apart from the Liberals mostly to little avail. But they will try again.

The New Democrats intend on making a $10-a-day daycare strategy a centrepiece of its election platform, something the Liberals have no interest in touching. The Liberals will also face criticism from the Opposition for not raising welfare rates in this budget, maintaining a hardened position on this line item it has held for a decade. The NDP will almost certainly make other choices on the social welfare side of the ledger that the Liberals resisted in this budget.

At the end of the day, however, the Liberals insist that the upcoming election will be fought on the same fundamental voter concerns as the last one: which party is best for creating jobs and growing the economy, and which party can best be trusted to navigate the often tricky and perilous economic times in which we live.

Ms. Clark is betting this budget, and the four that preceded it, make the case that that party is hers.

Follow Gary Mason on Twitter: @garymasonglobe

Read the original:

BC Liberals make re-election pitch with fifth straight balanced budget - The Globe and Mail

Billionaire Predicts Liberal Arts-Driven Future Inside Higher Ed Asked if this means students should major in finance, he rejected the idea, predicting "much greater demand for liberal arts majors" in 10 years than there will be for those who study programming and maybe engineering. It will be those with true ...

Read the rest here:

Billionaire Predicts Liberal Arts-Driven Future - Inside Higher Ed

There is an old story in politics from the 1950s, where Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson is approached by a confident aide who tells him that he has the thinking people on his side, to which Stevenson replies, ah, but I need a majority. Liberalism is rooted in condescension, which is hidden under the veneer of tolerance andsupportingfree speech. It is actuallyremarkable: a group of overly indoctrinated individuals have managed to successfully polish a turd--until now.

For liberals, Hillary Clinton was so amazingly qualified to be president. She could have been the first female president, and she had a long history of publicservice etc. except no one liked her. No one has ever really liked Hillary except hard-core liberals, and theyre not the majority of the country. She was also dishonest, inauthentic, not trustworthy, and overly secretive. These characteristics were hurled at her in the 1990s, and rehashed when her campaign stumbled endlessly trying to explain how her unsecure and unauthorized private email server was okay for her to use for official business secretary of state. The ethical quid pro quo allegations at the Clinton Foundationwere also another source of heartburn for the campaign. Though there was an absence of hard evidence, it appears a pattern as common: good things happened to big donors to the Clinton Foundation. Just take a look at the Rosatom takeover of Uranium One as an example. All feed into the notion that voters couldnt trust Hillary, that she was in it for herself, and that she was a typical politician:all talk, no action. She lost in one of the biggest political upsets in American history.

As liberals deal with ruins of their movement and the Democratic Party struggles to find its way out of political exile, theyre lashing out at Trump voters, even reluctant ones who theycould flip in 2020. Those who out themselves are then besieged by judgment by the urban-based elite, who still haven't noticed that their way of thinking failed to win over voters. In fact, it was the opposite; millions of Obama voters voted for Trump. Talk about compounding the suck that is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So, as liberals think theyre gaining ground with a Tea Party of their own (i.e. town hall protests)and continue to embrace identity politics because nothing says insanity than smashing your face against the same wall twice for a different result, they also have to know that its only emboldening Trump voters. The New York Times had an article that showed how even Democrats from the Clinton era are sick of the progressive antics that have taken over their party, namely that fact that BillClinton pretty much reiterated much of what Trump said about immigration. The only difference is that Bill was lauded for it; Trump is smeared as a racist. It also delves into how dating is becoming a game of cloak and dagger for some, with dates lying to their friends about political affiliations to avoid being shunned. While others make it very clear that theyre not interested in Trump supporters. So, in liberal America, your vote is all that defines you. And they say the GOP has an outreach problem.

ViaNYT:

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.

[]

Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed.

Protests and righteous indignation on social media and in Hollywood may seem to liberals to be about policy and persuasion. But moderate conservatives say they are having the opposite effect, chipping away at their middle ground and pushing them closer to Mr. Trump.

[]

Conservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trumps encouragement. But if political action is meant to persuade people that Mr. Trump is bad for the country, then people on the fence would seem a logical place to start. Yet many seemingly persuadable conservatives say that liberals are burning bridges rather than building them.

[]

It is tempting to blame Mr. Trump for Americas toxic political state of mind. He has wreaked havoc on political civility and is putting American democratic institutions through the most robust stress test in decades. But many experts argue that he is a symptom, not a cause, and that the roots go deeper.

[]

The Democratic Party has changed so much that I dont even recognize it anymore, she said. These people are destroying our democracy. They are scarier to me than these Islamic terrorists. I feel absolutely disgusted with them and their antics. It strengthens peoples resolve in wanting to support President Trump. It really does.

Polling data suggest many center-right voters feel the same way. The first poll by the Pew Research Center on presidential job performance since Mr. Trump took office showed last week that while he has almost no support from Democrats, he has high marks among moderates who lean Republican: 70 percent approve, while 20 percent disapprove.

Looks like liberals are doing a bang up job getting Trump that second term, especially those who work in Hollywood.

Milo Now OUT at CPAC After Shocking Video Emerges

Calls to Boycott Wegmans Backfire as Stores Sell Out of Trump Wine

View original post here:

NYT: Yep, Liberal Tantrums and Identity Politics Are Helping Trump (Secure That Second Term) - Townhall

I believe that words are important. We should be precise in our use of language and understand what it is we mean when we choose our words.

A word that does not, in my opinion, exemplify precision is used in political context. Tis word is liberal. It doesnt mean much these days. It is so particular to each individuals perspective of the world that it holds little universal value. It is a placeholder for deeper analysis of our beliefs, and it only manages to communicate a vague notion about which group we identify with, not the more nuanced reality of who we are.

I say this not to come off as pretentious but in an attempt to convince others that saying Im liberal provides an image that is unclear and misleading at best and deceitful at worst. This word is contaminated by various perceptions of its meaning. One person might say Im liberal and belong to a labor union. Another person might also identify as liberal but scoff at organized labor.

When people call themselves liberal, they assign themselves to one group or the other. The opposite in this scheme is typically conservative, and this word lacks meaning as well, but for now lets focus on the word liberal. One usually chooses to be liberal because of their parents or friends views but might not takethe time to investigate the deeper understanding of this label. What does liberal really mean? Do I share the same views as other liberals? Liberal divides us into in-groups and out-groups. Ultimately, I believe this word confines philosophical and political conversation into two camps and impedes introspection.

Let us explore this word and the philosophy behind it. Classical liberalism refers not to the policies espoused by the Democratic Party, some of which are wider freedoms for same-sex couples and a larger welfare state, but to political and economic freedom. This means a hands-off approach to the economy and to civil liberties. When one thinks of liberalism, one should think of figures like John Locke and Adam Smith. The actions of 20th century liberals like Franklin Delano Roosevelt would surely be seen as oppressive overreach by classic liberals. To call oneself a liberal today requires believing that the free market requires little to no government intervention. Most people dont mean that they are classically liberal.

Sure, words sometimes change in meaning. Today, some people use literally as an adverb that exaggerates a verb or noun. When used in this way, they mean something is figurative, not literal. But the word literally provides more hyperbolea stronger, bolder metaphor than to say figuratively. The problem is that one person sees literally as meaning exactly or strictly as the word suggests, but the other sees the word as an intensifier. The problem is that these people are playing different games with language.

This idea of a language game was formed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian-British philosopher. He focused on language and communication throughout his life, specifically our failure to communicate. He believed that miscommunication occurs when people are playing different language games. These language games refer to the different ways we use words as tools in our communication with others. For instance, one type of game might involve discussing facts. The sentence The Gateway Arch is 630 feet tall deals with a game of facts. You never listen to what Im saying is a sentence that deals not with facts but expresses an emotion. One feels as though the other does not pay them enough attention.

These games are used for different purposes, and when two people are playing different language games and also do not recognize the differences in the games that they are playing, the meaning of the message is lost. When someone describes themselves with the vague adjective liberal or conservative, there is ambiguity as to what game they are playing and what they really mean when they use one of these words.

I believe that we should describe ourselves accurately and take more time to find out what it is we really believe rather than connecting ourselves with an in-group and an out-group. Todays version of liberal, even if you distinguish between social and the economic issues, is not descriptive enough to convey the complexity of ones views. Giving a language monopoly to this word sacrifices clarity for simplicity, but this simplicity reduces our meaning too far. Saying Im liberal only causes miscommunication.

Go here to see the original:

Why I do not call myself a liberal - The University News

Malcolm Turnbull says preference allocations, such as the WA governments deal with One Nation, are not value judgments. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Malcolm Turnbull says entering a preference deal with One Nation doesnt mean the Liberal party supports One Nation, as a new poll shows a majority of voters disapprove of a deal between the Liberals and Pauline Hansons party in Western Australia.

Turnbull told Bloomberg TV on Tuesday that preference allocations were political calculations designed to maximise the performance of the Liberal party, not value judgments.

Asked about the Liberal partys decision in WA to preference One Nation ahead of its alliance partner, the Nationals, in some areas, the prime minister said: Well its important to understand ... that in most parts of Australia we have a compulsory preferential voting system, where you have to number a square next to each candidate on the ballot paper so there will always be the allocation of preferences.

But just because preferences are directed to a party doesnt mean that you support them quite the contrary.

His comments come as the latest Guardian Essential poll says 38% of people disapprove of the deal between the Liberal party and One Nation in WA, while 29% approve. But, among Liberal voters, 43% approved of the arrangement and 25% disapproved.

The deal in the west has also been criticised by the federal Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce. In an interview with Guardian Australia last week, Joyce warned that anti-Islamic statements, such as the ones espoused by One Nation, could harm Australian trade deals.

He said he would give instructions not to preference Hansons party before the Liberal party in federal seats.

The deal in WA parts ways with John Howards dictum in 2001 that One Nation should be put last on Liberal how-to-vote cards and some Liberal moderates are concerned preferencing One Nation will help entrench Hanson in the Australian political mainstream, creating a long-term problem for the Coalition parties.

The Australian on Tuesday reported that One Nations Queensland leader, Steve Dickson, wanted positions in the ministry in return for supporting the LNP in the state election, which is expected later this year.

Dickson, who recently defected from the LNP to lead One Nation in Queensland, said policy and positions would be a condition of support for an LNP minority government in the state.

One Nations strong performance in recent polls suggests the party will do well in Queensland. A recent poll had the party on track to better its result of 11 seats in the 1998 state election.

Howard last week abandoned his own 2001 instruction to put Hanson last, saying he fully understood the decision in Western Australia for the state election.

Everyone changes in 16 years, he said. Trying to understand that decision and decisions that were taken by various iterations of the Liberal party 15 or 16 years ago is ridiculous.

This is a different set of circumstances. I think its entirely sensible that the party has done whats its done.

Since the deal was struck in WA, a number of federal ministers have lined up in support, with some advancing arguments that One Nation is more sophisticated than it was 20 years ago.

Continue reading here:

Malcolm Turnbull says WA deal doesn't mean Liberal party supports One Nation - The Guardian

The Liberal Democrats are likely to adopt as official policy a move to quash all historical sex-work convictions including brothel-keeping, soliciting business and kerb-crawling.

The move to wipe convictions from peoples records will be included in a key motion at Lib Dem spring conference as part of the partys wider drive to decriminalise sex work, while strengthening laws against non-consensual activity.

It will also cement official policy to oppose Government plans to introduce an age-verification process for people wishing to access online pornography, currently passing through the House of Lords.

Lib Dem Leader Tim Farron thinks the quashing of all previous convictions is a critical element in the drive to decriminalise sex work, something which overall will help reduce risks faced by women and men in the industry.

The partys home affairs spokesman Lord Paddick said: As a former police officer I know what works and the current laws around prostitution do not. They might sound tough but they dont protect people. The police should be focusing their resources on the very real crimes of trafficking and coercion rather than policing consenting adults.

Sex workers face enormous discrimination and are more likely to fall victim to crime and violence simply because the law criminalises them. We should target our policies and efforts at reducing harm not wasting police time and creating barriers that stop vulnerable people seeking help.

The former Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner said: That's why Liberal Democrats are proposing to take these outdated laws off the statute book. I believe it is time for an informed debate on this complex issue and I want my party to be leading that debate.

The motion to be voted on at the conference in late March would quash past convictions for anything that would be decriminalised under the new system.

That would include brothel keeping, which the party believes prevents sex workers from getting together to work in a safe space, solicitation, seen as something that pushes sex workers to take risks to secure business, and also kerb-crawling.

As well as decriminalising sex work activity, the motion seeks to refocus laws on tackling non-consensual activity including trafficking, child prostitution and pimping, and would see a strengthening of measures against coercion into sex and sex work on the grounds of fear, force, or fraud.

In addition, the policy would set up additional support for people trying to leave sex work, including through housing authorities, healthcare providers and places where education and training are available.

The Digital Economy Bill, which continues its passage through Parliament this week, will force pornographic websites to add age-verification checks that will not let people watch videos until they sign up through a special process, that would involve giving personal details.

But the motions says the party believes the checks to be illiberal, to pose a severe danger to privacy, and to be fundamentally unworkable.

There have been a string of hacking attacks on internet pages, such as dating websites, which have seen peoples personal data stolen, spread across the internet and even used as means for blackmail.

In 2016 users of elite dating site Beautiful People had their sexual preferences and personal messages splashed across the internet after being hacked. A year earlier users of the Ashley Madison website, which offered married people the chance of infidelity, had users details hacked and posted online.

Continue reading here:

Liberal Democrats move to quash all historical sex-work convictions of prostitutes and punters - The Independent

Why do politicians have to ruin everything?

Over the weekend the WA Liberal Party launched their campaign for the upcoming state election where theyre hoping to win a third term in office. You could say they are hoping to win One More Time.

Somegenius idiot staffer clearly thought the One More Time imagery was so politically powerful and evocative, they came up with the idea to soundtrack the campaign launch to Daft Punks One More Time.

And so the worst 34 seconds in Australian political history was born.

Its immediately clear that none of these people have ever heard Daft Punk before. Literally no one, until now, hasclappedalong to One More Time in the 16 years of its existence.

And no one, absolutely no one, has danced to Daft Punk while campaigning for a motorway extension to fix congestion.

The most anachronistic moment in dance music, ever?

This bloke is absolutely stoked though, look at his face:

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck what a tune!! Old Liberal man.

Hes so excited he even high fives this other guy.

Hahaha were so white

Okay, so turns out theres one person at this campaign launch who has heard the track before. This legend actually sings along to the chorus and even throws up her finger in the air in the classic Its the bit where they sing One more time so I should throw my finger in the air to indicate that manner. This lady for Premier, I reckon.

But theres one guy who is clearly feeling as confused and horrified as the rest of the country. Meet Jim Seth, WA Liberal candidate for Bassendean:

White people, smh

Theres a lot to unpack about Jim. Why is he wearing a giant ribbon? Why is he theonlyperson wearing a giant ribbon? Why does his ribbon have his name on it? You can tell from the look in his eyes that he wants out.

Save me, Im Jim.

The thing about Jim is that hes a baller. Here he is hosting a Bollywood dance workshop fundraiser, to help teach his white friends in the Liberal Party how to dance to some sick Punjabi tunes:

Imagine being Jim and going to all the effort to school your mates on how to dance properly, and then watching them clap and awkwardly shuffle along to a track as defining as One More Time. Its enough to make you weep, which is probably what Jim did as soon as the camera panned away.

Its hard to know who should be more offended by this campaign launch monstrosity. Daft Punk, Jim Im Jim Seth, or the poor, poor voters of WA.

Read more here:

These Liberal Politicians Dancing To Daft Punk Is Absolutely The ... - Junkee

LIBERAL 53, GREAT BEND 24 LIBERAL Western Athletic Conference leader Liberal outscored Great Bends girls 19-2 in the fourth quarter to roll past the Panthers 53-24 in Saturdays showdown for first place. Carly Dreiling scored seven points as Great Bend (10-9, 5-2) lost back-to-back games against Dodge City and Liberal to drop into second place. Liberal (14-4, 5-1 WAC) plays Garden City and Dodge City next week. Great Bend led 7-2 in the first quarter. Liberal used scoring runs in each quarter, 11-0 in the first; 9-0 in the second period; 7-0 in the third quarter; and 19-2 in the fourth period. Liberals Jada Mickens scored 14 points. The Panthers made 8 of 45 field goals, a 17 percent clip. Liberal dominated the boards 36-12. All night long we struggled to knock down shots, said Great Bend coach Carrie Minton. Liberal dominated the boards. It was a rough night.

Great Bend 7 8 7 2 24 Liberal 13 9 12 19 53 GREAT BENDCarly Dreiling 7, Carley Brack 6, Shailey Clark 4, Kate Warren 4, Keely Ireland 3. LIBERALMickens 14, Gonzales 9, Mullens 8, Gilmore 7, Lucero 4, Rush 3, Lucero 4, Hornya 3, Hay 2.

WESTERN ATHLETIC GIRLS Liberal 5-1 14-4 Great Bend 5-2 10-9 Hays High 3-3 10-8 Dodge City 2-4 6-12 Garden 1-6 5-14

FRIDAYS GAMES Dodge City 43, Great Bend 37 Hays High 51, Garden City 42

SATURDAYS GAME Liberal 53, Great Bend 24

Excerpt from:

Liberal girls beat Great Bend for first place - Great Bend Tribune

Thousands of Canadians took part in a massive protest against President Trumps travel ban on Muslims during the National Day of Action against Islamophobia and White Supremacy in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on February 04, 2017. (Creative Touch Imaging Ltd./NurPhoto/Getty Images)

Jol Lightbound didnt much want to talk with me last Friday afternoon. But the rookie Liberal MP happened to be on duty in the House, after most MPs have headed home for the weekend, and he agreed to step out of the mostly empty chamber into the almost entirely empty foyer of the Commons. When I told him I wanted to ask him questions about what he had experienced since six Muslim men were shot dead in his riding on Jan. 29, while they were praying in the mosque called the Centre Culturel Islamique de Quebec, Lightbound replied in a flat, fatigued voice that he was sick of talking about it.

We sat down anyway on a stone bench in an alcove off a nearby hallway. Lightbound is a good talker. Everybody had seen that in his TV interviews outside the mosque after the shooting. And he again stood out in the often bitter debate in the House this past week over whats called Motion 103, introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid to condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. Many Conservatives opposed the motion on the grounds that the word Islamophobia isnt well defined, and thus the motion might somehow stifle legitimate criticism of Islamic extremism.

RELATED: Liberal MPs, Muslim community face verbal attacks over M-103

Lightbound was first elected MP for the Louis-Hbert riding in 2015. He was born in Toronto, but grew up in Sainte-Foy, where he returned to try his hand at politics following a stint working at the Montral firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, after he graduated from McGill Universitys law school. This is our conversation, edited for length and clarity:

I think its been for me the most challenging weeks of my life. Thats for sure. Not only was our community as a whole in Quebec City, and my riding, affected, I was affected personally. I have friends who go to the mosque; my very good friends mother left 30 minutes before the shooting. So just the shock of it, not just as a politician, but as a human being. It was it was a big shock. And having to deal with all that comes with it. As a politician it was also a challenge for sure.

I think Quebec City, if you look at the statistics, is not as diverse as metropolitan areas like Montreal or Toronto, for instance. But there are neighborhoods, and if you look, youll find that there is great diversity. In my neighborhood where I grew up it was particularly evident. I was raised in an apartment buildingand this is something I said in the Housewith Bosnians, with Muslim friends, Arabs, Asians. So it was very diverse. It was like the UN, my apartment building where I grew up.

Well, I think, on the one hand, I was very pleased by the reaction in my immediate region and in my community. I think weve seen an outpouring of support and solidarity, and people starting to talk to one another and reaching out to one another and focusing on the humanity that unites us, instead of that differences sometimes we get distracted by. Weve seen the vigilsthousands and thousands of people. In my office, weve received countless messages and phone calls of solidarity for the community. So this has been this has been very pleasing to see. Regardless of perhaps the tone of the debate that weve had in the House this week, I still think that some light might shine out of all of this.

RELATED: The Tories approach a point of no return

I was surprised and saddened to some extent that weve had this debate this week in the house about a motion which should have garnered the support of all members, just like it did back in October when the House unanimously condemned Islamophobia. And what sickens me most is there has been such misinformation spread about this motion, which is not a bill and does not restrict free speech. Its more of a symbolic gesture than anything else. I thought for once that we might unite than not have anyone try to use this for political purposes. I think this should rise way above partisan politics.

For sure. In a country where free speech is enshrined in the Charter, we can always have these debates, so long as theyve done in a responsible manner or not so as to spread fear, intolerance, and hatred. The motion isnt in any way, shape or form restricting free speech. So I fail to see why weve had this big argument.

RELATED: In Quebec City, a moment of painful truth

Well, I think for the Muslims in my community and my Muslim friends, theyve told me about this way before Jan. 29, 2017. So this event in Quebec City was a tragedy that occurred, but the problems that theyre facing, they faced for years. What theyve observed is that theyve kind of been taken hostage by a minority who claim to be acting on behalf of Islam but are not. A lot of generalizations have been pushed, sometimes by mainstream media, sometimes on social media, sometimes by politicians. Theyve seen the world change around them for the worse over the years. I think it probably started on 9/11. Weve had all sorts of incidents happen around the world and weve been fed easy answers to complex questions.

When I was thinking about this whole event, and how I think there has been a climate where Muslims face growing ostracization and stigmatization, I reflected on when I was a kid. We didnt see Muslims. We didnt perceive them as such. We saw our friends, our coach, our neighbours. And I think there is a collective reflection to be had on what kind of prejudices weve allowed to take hold within us. The majority of the population is open and tolerant, but we have were not immune to these feelings which weve observed around the western world. Yes, in the U.S., but around the western world.

No. I think for the most part, we won on these values. Prime Minister Trudeau has always been very adamant in his defense of openness and pluralism and tolerance, and we won a majority government. And I think the NDP shares the same values. I can speak for my generation. Im a millennial, and I can see from the support that I get from millennials across Quebec, I think we share an openness to the world.

Continued here:

Talking 'Islamophobia' with Liberal MP Jol Lightbound - Macleans.ca

Activists have already circled a number of Senate Democrats who have failed to meet their standards, including vulnerable and increasingly rare red-state Democrats. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters

On the evening Donald Trump announced his supreme court nominee, thousands of protesters gathered outside of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumers Brooklyn apartment. They chanted Just vote no and Obstruct while carrying signs Get a spine, Chuck and a prop skeleton to illustrate their point.

The protesters are part of a sudden swell of liberal activism that has drawn millions to city streets and airport concourses across the US, in a startling show of resistance to Trumps presidency. Emboldened by this groundswell, some progressives have started using the word primary as a verb and as a threat.

For Democrats in Washington, many of whom are still surprised by the scale and furiousness of backlash, the challenge is how to convert this energy into electoral success.

Schumer has significantly slowed the pace of Trumps cabinet confirmations and excoriated many of the presidents nominees. But the activists outside Schumers home on that January night were unimpressed by his votes in favor of Trumps nominees to represent the US in the UN and to lead the Pentagon, CIA and Department of Homeland Security.

Our message to Democrats is simple: fight Trump or well find someone who will, said Waleed Shahid, a co-founder of the progressive group All of Us and a former organizer with the Bernie Sanders campaign. This week, the group launched the political action committee We Will Replace You, the latest in a series of projects to warn Democrats that failures to oppose Trumps agenda will have consequences.

Our message to Democrats is simple: fight Trump or well find someone who will

The group argues that Democrats need exercise the little political power they still have. The activists have a long list of demands: votes against all Trump appointees, opposing his supreme court nominee, using congressional procedures to bring all business to a crawl to block Trumps agenda and demand Steve Bannon be fired. Elected officials, they say, should publicly support impeachment if Trump is found to have broken the law or violated the constitution.

The activists have already circled a number of Senate Democrats who have failed to meet their standards, including vulnerable and increasingly rare red-state Democrats, such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Both Democrats are up for re-election in 2018.

The Democratic party establishment wants the support of the Tea Party of the left but they dont want to earn it, Shahid said, alluding to the 2010 movement that mobilized rightwing activists, confronted moderate Republicans and helped the party take control of the House in a wave.

They say they love the grassroots activism, but they dont want to take the next step and challenge the Democratic leadership.

Their demands puts leaders such as Schumer in a bind. Shut out of power in Washington, public shows of support are arguably his partys most powerful weapon, but he must also worry about the lawmakers in his caucus facing elections in states where Trump won.

Democrats must defend 23 Senate seats in the 2018 election cycle, 10 from states that Trump won in November. Already, outside groups have targeted these vulnerable red-state Democrats to try to soften their opposition to Trumps nominees for the cabinet and supreme court.

Activists threatening to primary Democrats live in a bubble. They have no idea how to win places that arent sky blue

The activists threatening to primary Democratic candidates live in a bubble, said Jim Kessler, a former Schumer aide and co-founder of a centrist thinktank, Third Way. They have no idea how to win in places that arent sky blue already.

Kessler believes the path back to power will require the Big Tent party to grow geographically, and not just move sharply to the left with its demands. In his view, red-state Democrats are an endangered species worth protecting not threatening.

The activists campaign says its goal is not necessarily to primary the candidates and that the threat becomes a tool that successfully pushes Democrats to fight Trump harder.

Blanket obstructionism has proven to be a tall order even for progressive politicians from safely Democratic states. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a progressive favorite from Massachusetts, has already been forced to defend her vote for Ben Carson for secretary of housing and urban development.

A number of activists who support using this tactic agreed that the real test will be the supreme court battle. Senate Democrats have the ability to filibuster Trumps nominee, Neil Gorsuch, meaning that Republicans need to earn support from at least eight Democrats to confirm Gorsuch unless the controlling party changes the rules.

This nominee cannot be allowed to ever take the oath of office. It just cannot be allowed to happen, said Anthony Rogers-Wright, a Seattle-based climate and environmental activist who was a surrogate for the Sanders campaign.

If any Democrat does not take part in a mass filibuster theyre disqualified.

Already, a handful of senators have flatly refused to support Gorsuch, arguing that Republicans stole the seat from Barack Obama when they refused, for a record 293 days, to hold a hearing for his nominee, Merrick Garland. But more have said Gorsuch deserves a fair hearing, and that they will wait to hear more about his views and background before making a decision.

View post:

Liberal voters warn Democratic officials: resist Trump or be replaced - The Guardian