Mediaboss Marketing

;

Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr, 30, is seen in Mississauga, Ont., on July 6, 2017.

Support for the Liberal government is still strong among Canadians, despite backlash following the Omar Khadr settlement.

A poll conducted by Abacus Data found that if an election was held today, 43 per cent of decided voters would vote for the Liberal Party, while 31 per cent would vote for Conservatives, and 16 per cent would opt for the NDP. For context, Liberals garnered 40 per cent of votes to win the October 2015 federal election.

Thursdays poll, which was conducted after news broke of the governments$10.5-million settlementwith Khadr, reveals 48 per cent of Canadians approve of Justin Trudeaus government while 34 per cent disapprove.

WATCH:Trudeau remains firm that paying out Omar Khadr the better option

Many Canadians have voiced outrage that the Liberal government granted Khadr a Canadian citizen who spent 10 years in Guantanamo Bay settlement money and an apology for any wrongful treatment.

But Abacus Datas CEO David Coletto explained the aftermath of the Khadr controversy hasnt changed much for the government.

So far, even in the direct aftermath of the decision to settle with Omar Khadr, we find little evidence of a shift in public affinity for the PM or the federal government, he said in a press release.

READ MORE:Canadians donate to family of slain U.S. soldier in wake of Omar Khadr settlement

Despite a series of difficult decisions by the federal government, we find little evidence that Canadians feel any worse about the government today than they did in May.

Approval of the government is mostly uniform across the country, except for thePrairie provinces Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan where more respondents disapprove than approve of the Liberals.

READ MORE:Fake news broadcast by media-bashing Tory MP deleted from Facebook

The highest approval rating is in Atlantic Canada at 60 per cent. The lowest is in Alberta at 37 per cent.

The Abacus Data report goes on to say that reasons for support largely centre on the economy, which many Canadians believe is picking up steam. About 68 per cent of Canadians believe the economy is growing the highest number since the 2015 election.

WATCH:Tory leader Andrew Scheer talks Omar Khadr

Coletto noted that these results confirm a new era of Canadian politics, where the governments performance is constantly compared to U.S. President Donald Trumps administration. He explained that this leaves the Conservatives with a complicated task.

READ MORE:Omar Khadr payout: 71% of Canadians say government made the wrong call

Very few Canadians are looking for a Canadian version of Trump or even Trump-lite, he said.

So, the choice for Conservative politicians is how to criticize this governments fairly popular agenda, distance itself from the Trump administration, while at the same time offering a positive alternative to Trudeau and his team.

While the Khadr case may not have affected Trudeaus approval or support, a recent poll by the Angus Reid Institute did find that most Canadians disapproved of Trudeaus handling of the case.

WATCH:Judge dismisses request to freeze Omar Khadrs assets

According to the July poll, 71 per cent of Canadiansthink the Liberal government should have fought a legal case with Khadr rather than settling out of court. They added it should have been left to the courts to decide if Khadr was wrongfully imprisoned.

Only 29 per cent of Canadians thought the Liberals did the right thing by offering an apology and compensation to Khadr.

The Abacus Data poll was conducted online between July 14 and 18, 2017, and completed by 2,036 Canadians. The poll is considered accurate+/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20.

2017Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Continue reading here:
Liberals' support still strong despite Khadr settlement: poll - Globalnews.ca

Liberals don't just hate President Trump; lots of them don't even like the idea of being in the company of his supporters.

That's the big takeaway from a new Pew Research Center survey, which is just the latest indicator of our remarkably tribal and partisan politics. And when it comes to Trump, it's difficult to overstate just how tribal the left is and how much distaste he engenders. Indeed, that distaste apparently extends even to people whodecided they would like to vote for Trump.

The poll shows almost half of liberal Democrats 47 percent say that if a friend supported Trump, it would actually put a strain on their friendship. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters more broadly, the number is 35 percent. White and more-educated Democrats are more likely to feel that it's tough to even be friends with a Trump supporter.

And while partisanshipand tribalism are pretty bipartisan things in American politics today, Democrats are actually substantially less able to countenancefriends who supported the wrong candidate:Just 13 percent of Republicans say a friend's support of Hillary Clinton would strain their relationship.

Part of the reason for the imbalance is likely that liberals tend to live in more homogeneous places and don't even associate with conservatives. Another Pew study last year showed a whopping47 percent of people who planned to vote for Clinton didn't have any close friends who were Trump supporters. By contrast, 31 percent of Trump supporters said they didn't have any friends who backed Clinton.

Because of the way our population is sorted, with liberals clustered in urban areas and Republicans more spread out, Democrats tend to be more insulated from dissenting political voices. So perhaps it's no surprise that they don't hear and don't want to hear those voices coming from their friends' mouths.

The prevalent belief on the left that Trump isn't just a bad president or person, but is also racist, xenophobic and misogynistic is undoubtedly at play here too. And at one point during the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton even suggested half of Trump's supportersweredeplorables who were also racist or xenophobic or misogynistic. (Her campaign later clarified that she meant only people at Trump's rallies. But still.)

Despite that, it's noteworthy just how many people think supporting the nominee of a major American political party reflects poorly upon the people they know. Fully 46 percent of Americans who voted for president chose Trump, and that isn't really an acceptable position for a friend to take for half of liberal Democrats.

One final data point from the new Pew study: 68 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters say they find it stressful and frustrating to talk to people who have a different opinion of Trump. About half 52 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning voters say the same.

When people ask why politicians in Washington can't get along, this is why: Americans can't even talk to each other about politics anymore withoutgetting flustered.

More:
Nearly half of liberals don't even like to be around Trump supporters - Washington Post

Hamburg, Germany, July. As world leaders gather for the G20 summit, far-left anti-fascist (antifa) rioters set fire to cars and property, terrorize residents and injure more than 200 police officers attempting to keep the peace. Did you miss it? CNNs initial reports referred to the protesters as eclectic and peaceful.

But you need not cross the shining seas to experience violence, destruction of property and a general dismantling of liberal values from the political left. You could simply visit Americas elite college campuses like Yale or Middlebury or Berkeley, where tomorrows leaders attempt to shut down conservative voices with protest or riots. At Middlebury, rioting students landed liberal professor Allison Stanger in a neck brace for the crime of defending a conservative academics right to speak. At Berkeley, mobs of students created a war zone ahead of a planned visit from conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, injuring Trump supporters and causing $100,000 in damages.

Or head to Portland, Ore., one of the most liberal cities in the nation in the heart of the progressive Pacific Northwest, which this month Politico labeled Americas Most Politically Violent City. The progressive paradise where Republicans are virtually an extinct species has witnessed millions in damages attributed to the same types of anti-fascists-in-name-only that kept Hamburg residents paralyzed in fear this month. A counter-protest to a planned pro-Trump rally landed 14 antifa in jail for attacking the police with explosives and bricks.

Witness the blood-soaked congressional baseball field in Alexandria, Va., site of the June attack on U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and other Republicans batting up for their annual bipartisan game. James Hodgkinson, a fervent supporter of progressive politics, showed up to the field with a rifle, a handgun and a hit list of Republicans. As Scalise fought for his life, MSNBC host Joy Reid felt conflicted: The attempted assassination was a delicate thing because of Scalises conservative views like opposition to gay marriage. Are we required in a moral sense to put that aside in the moment? she wondered. Yes, Joy, you are. The shooting of a mainstream, congressional Republican leader is reprehensible, and in no way justifiable.)

Now cross the Potomac and visit the halls of Congress, where Democratic lawmakers have accused Republicans of murder for supporting an overhaul to the spiraling, ruined Obamacare program, which by next year will leave dozens of counties without a single option for insurance. Reasonable people can disagree about how much our Medicaid program should grow without comparing the Republican bill to 9/11, as Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, did recently. Or saying the health care bill is paid for with blood money of dead Americans, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted shortly after the Scalise attack. If our sitting senators dont act more responsibly, who will?

Instead of retweeting, liberals who care about preserving our political system should be outraged that these are the standard-bearers of their party.

Nobody is directly responsible for a shooting except the shooter, and nobody throws a brick except the person who picks it up. No side has a monopoly on political violence. There are loonies at the fringes of every political movement mentally ill, perturbed and paranoid who can be stirred toward violence or dissuaded from it.

But when we have Democratic senators accusing political opponents of murder, when our college campuses descend into assault zones for conservative speakers (or those who defend them), when our major cities become playgrounds for far-left rioters and the news media gloss over it, we move toward a more violent and fractured society, not a safer one.

If gay people were pouring into bars and punching straight people, I as a gay man would speak out. If Jews were propagating terror in the name of our religion, I would condemn it vociferously. And when violence has come from the conservative side, I dont hesitate to stand against it. But its not.

There have been no right-wing groups storming campuses and flinging feces at speakers we dont like; no tea party mobs destroying property, assaulting police officers, and paralyzing our major cities; and no Republican senators calling their colleagues murderers just weeks after a political assassination attempt.

From Portland to New Haven to Washington, the violence were witnessing is largely a product of the hard left, and the reaction from mainstream liberals mostly silence, dismissiveness, equivocation means it will continue to flourish.

To move toward a less violent and hyper-charged society, we must be clearheaded about violence where we see it, and not avoid the subject. We must condemn it without conditions.

If you think Republicans are murderers, youre an extremist. If youre trading in that kind of rhetoric just to shut the other side up or raise a buck, youre giving cover to extremists. And if you object to political violence but fail to speak out, your weakness is causing our society to fracture.

Its time for liberal America to speak out against violence and the rhetoric that incites it.

Tribune Content Agency

Albert Eisenberg is the former communications director for the Philadelphia Republican Party.

See the original post here:
Liberal America has a political violence problem - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune

By Andrew Hartman By Andrew Hartman July 20 at 6:00 AM

Andrew Hartman is professor of history at Illinois State University and author of two books: "A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars" and "Education and the Cold War: The Battle for the American School."

The left is back and millennials are leading the way. Socialism was the most searched word on the Merriam-Webster website in 2015, and a 2016 poll showed that 43 percent of Iowa Democrats described themselves as socialists. Despite the setback of President Trumps electoral victory, the left continues to grow. Publications like the magazine Jacobin, launched by millennial Bhaskar Sunkara, now reach more than 1 million website visitors each month.

But the millennial left is not a return to the New Left of the 1960s the student radicals, hippies and Yippies who raised hell in their efforts to end the Vietnam War and change American culture to make it less racist and sexist and more authentic. Rather it invokes the ideas of the Old Left of the 1930s the militant labor unions, socialists and even communists who, in the context of the worst economic depression in American history, sought a genuine alternative to capitalism.

The Old Left of the 1930s grew out of a 19th-century socialist movement and focused its political energy on the problems of capitalism. It was also deeply critical of Franklin D. Roosevelts brand of liberalism. Although Roosevelt championed the common man and pushed through New Deal reforms that became the bedrock of 20th-century American social democracy, the 1930s left criticized FDR and liberals for the compromises they made with capitalism.

The gulf between liberalism and Old Left ideas socialist ideas has only grown since the 1930s. Unlike liberals, who emerged from the 1960s prioritizing the political freedoms associated with individual rights, the socialist left has posited that most people the working class remain effectively powerless if capitalists control work, wages and welfare. In their view, the lefts mission the reason for its existence ought to be expanding the idea of political freedom to include economic freedom. This historical distinction between liberalism and socialism has resurfaced with the millennial left.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made waves as a democratic socialist presidential candidate. Here's what you need to know about being a democratic socialist and how it's different from socialism. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

One of the better representations of the millennial left is Chapo Trap House, a wildly popular podcast that boasts the most paid subscribers on Patreon. Around 15,000 people pay $5 per month for weekly subscriber-only episodes, in addition to the tens of thousands of listeners who tune in to the episodes Chapo makes public. Founded in March 2016, the podcast is a sometimes hilarious, often angry, mostly smart and always irreverent conversation about politics and culture.

Sincere in its democratic socialist leanings, Chapo is best known for its mocking and sarcastic tone, made clear by its very title, which combines a reference to Mexican drug lord Joaqun El Chapo Guzmn with the hip-hop slang term for a drug house (trap house). While it often takes on Trump and the alt-right with a sense of comedic genius, Chapo saves its most derisive material for the libs.

At first blush, the most obvious model for this iteration of the millennial left is the New Left of the 1960s young activists who attacked the hypocrisy of liberals with similar tactics. And indeed, Chapo could easily be mistaken for the Internet Age version of the Yippies the Youth International Party, led by 1960s left-wingers Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, famous for theatrical political high-jinks. In 1968, the Yippies playfully advanced a pig for president, Pigasus the Immortal, and advocated group joint-rolling and nude grope-ins for peace.

But actually, the Chapo left advocates for Old Left socialism.

In the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of workers joined the mass labor unions of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Even the Communist Party, always suspect in American political life, enjoyed a surge in its American ranks thanks to the relatively common view that the Great Depression sounded the death knell of capitalism.

The 1930s left critiqued the limits of New Deal reforms. Some Old Leftists wanted workers to have complete autonomy in their workplaces. Still others, inspired by Soviet Russia, wanted the working class to control the state and command the economy. Many leftists did not go that far, yet at the very least wanted what they called industrial democracy a political and economic system accountable to the needs and desires of the industrial working class. New Deal liberals, who seemed to prefer technocratic tinkering, were considered barriers to such a left-wing vision of America.

Chapos commentary during the 2016 presidential campaign exposed just how much millennial left ideology resembles 1930s left ideology. Chapo attacked Hillary Clinton and the centrists who have dominated the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992. To the Chapo left, Clinton represents the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party. Neoliberalism, from their perspective, is a term of derision for a political philosophy that combines support for things leftists like, such as racial diversity, alongside ideas that run counter to everything they believe, such as the notion that the market is the best mechanism for sorting social goods like education.

In this view, the role of Clinton Democrats is to administer the decline of the New Deal, not fight for its expansion through different means. For example, instead of advocating for single-payer health care, Democrats passed Obamacare, a largely ineffective market-based solution. Instead of helping unions build a mass movement that might reshape American society to the benefit of millions, they see the Democratic ethos as technocratic and meritocratic.

Which is why Chapo has dedicated entire episodes to lambasting The West Wing, Aaron Sorkins popular television show that fetishizes the liberal view that a smart, dedicated, well-meaning elite will save us from right-wing Neanderthals. As Chapo often makes clear, this is a naive understanding of politics that ignores power, thus helping facilitate Republican domination.

Chapo reflects the broader generational divide on the left side of the American political spectrum between millennials and their neoliberal predecessors. Like their Depression-era forerunners, Chapo-listening millennials have moved closer to socialism in response to an economic crisis. Millennials are likely to be worse off economically than their parents or grandparents, especially those who have become job-seeking adults in the years since the Great Recession of 2008. A left-wing political response to such conditions makes sense.

A podcast does not make the left, any more than little magazines made the Old Left. But in the same way that historians now think about The Masses, Max Eastmans experimental little magazine that gave voice to the hopes and dreams of the socialist left in the years proceeding World War I, we might come to think about Chapo as the voice of a new left, the millennial left, coming into being.

See more here:
The millennial left's war against liberalism - Washington Post

However disappointed Full Frontal With Samantha Bee was with Donald Trumps presidential victory, the show has remained skeptical of just how much the #Resistance thats sprung up since his inauguration will accomplish. And in its July 19 episode, the show took aim at one Resistance goal in particular: impeachment.

In a segment taped at a recent march for impeachment in Los Angeles, Full Frontal correspondents Mike Rubens and Ashley Nicole Black talked to some of the outraged liberals protesting the Trump administration by advocating for their wildest dream of getting the president kicked out of office.

What was the day you decided that Trump should be impeached? Black asked one woman, who immediately insisted that she was certain on day one that it needed to happen. So its not so much that you wish for impeachment, Black responded, as it is that you wish for a different outcome to the election.

Outlining exactly how hard the road to impeachment is especially given that the process relies on broad bipartisan support Rubens then provided a handy reality check by pointing out that more presidents have been removed from office by cholera than impeachment.

You do realize that being a dick is not an impeachable offense? Black asked a different protester, who countered, It should be.

Its not exactly that Full Frontal disagrees that Trump is unfit for office; its more that the show doesnt believe marching in support of impeachment is actually going to solve anything. Maybe the allure of an impossible dream was much easier to get behind than the reality of fighting for incremental change, Rubens mused in his voiceover, his tone joking even as his words were grounded in palpable frustration.

Rubens and Black therefore attempted to guide protesters efforts toward a more practical approach with signs like Go Vote! and Pay attention to local elections! a strategy that falls right in line with Full Frontals demonstrated insistence of pointing out the power of local politics to shape Americas policies.

Original post:
Full Frontal With Samantha Bee confronts liberals who #resist by fantasizing about impeachment - Vox