Apologists? So what, agreeing with him in anyway shape or form makes you an apologist? Criticizing people for bringing up election shit or pipelines or WE Charity shit in a thread completely and utterly unrelated to that is being apologist? No.
It's not about being an "apologist" and no one is making a hero of him. You can appreciate the work he has done and not be an "apologist." You can be annoyed at the discourse of this thread when he makes very valid points during his UN speech but instead of discussing that, people in this very thread ignore that and immediately bring up things completely unrelated to his speech because as Annubis said, he doesn't pass the purity test. He went ahead with the pipeline (even though he really had no choice because of past governments) so that must mean he is against climate change proposals and we can't trust him on anything and that he shouldn't even be talking about it. Oh, the WE Charity stuff? Yep, can never trust the guy. Forget the good stuff he's done or the incredible work he and the government has done to lead us through Covid because he didn't recuse himself from it. Oh, he's rightfully criticizing the Russian government for poisoning major opposition figures and engaging in election interference and the Chinese government for their human rights abuses and concentration camps. Nah, let's not talk about that because he can't be trusted because he reneged on election reform! Fuck that guy! Keep your mouth shut!
And to be clear, I'm not saying you aren't allowed to criticize Trudeau cause I agree, he has done some questionable shit and we should always be critical of our government. But I think there is a time and place for that, but a thread about his pretty valid UN speech isn't really the place for it because now this thread has turned into his domestic shit instead of his speech, aimed at the entire world. On topic however, I think his speech was great. I wish more world leaders would see things the way he does cause he's absolutely right. We've relied to long on old institutions that haven't really changed with the times and it's time the world comes together to modernize some of these things in relation to our modern emergencies such as climate change and social injustice.
Here's the thing: Trudeau's domestic record doesn't purely exist in the domestic sphere and isn't unknown to the UN and world leaders. Because despite the fact that it is publicly available, this is an address to the United Nations and world leaders, not the world population. So his domestic record correlates to how his speech will potentially be received. If Canadians are calling out inconsistencies and hypocrisies between his positions in his speech and his domestic record, you don't think his audience, who are undoubtedly kept up to speed of his record at home, won't see things in a similar light?
I agree that the speech was great, that everything he said is true, and I agree that many criticisms made in the thread aren't framed in a way that's entirely on-topic or helpful. But if his primary audience for that speech has ample reason to question his credibility, what good is a speech that can be so easily written off due to lack of credibility?
Good speech, patiently waiting for Trudeau to veer hard left.
At least now I know one of the things you'll be doing in the nursing home.
The Conservatives won the popular vote in the last election, and would have likely have also won that same election if proportional representation had been in place.
Just as an aside that I won't address further in the thread, I promise, their "popular vote" was not a majority. Under MMP, for example, it would have only resulted in 34% of seats and not enough potential allies in Parliament to form a government; based on their usual vote percentages, this would be repeated in every election of the past 15 years and every future election without a massive change to their platform. Under STV, for another example, the Conservatives would have been entirely unable to sweep the prairies like they did.
So this commentary you just provided on the subject is either due to a misunderstanding of how proportional representation actually works or it's fear-mongering nonsense. I sincerely hope it's the former.
