One day Justin Trudeau is musings about his admiration for the Chinese dictatorship, the next he’s lamenting that Canada works better when Quebecers rather than Albertans are running the country and, of course, you’ll remember him opining about the need to discover the roots of the Boston terror attack at a time when the identities and the motives of the bombers weren’t even known.
The Leader of the federal Liberals seems to have trouble thinking through his pronouncements before uttering them. His most recent head-shaker was this definition of middle-class: “People who live off their incomes are the middle class, and those who live off their assets, their portfolios, their trust funds are not.”
According to Trudeau’s definition, I’m not middle-class even though my income doesn’t qualify me as either a low-income or high-income earner—I’m retired and live off my assets. And, by his crazy logic, bank presidents are members of the middle-class.” Go figure.
How can Justin Trudeau be taken seriously as prime ministerial material if he isn’t even able to give a working definition of “middle-class that makes sense—is logical and fits today’s reality?” His speeches are filled with references to the middle-class and how he wants to make their lives better, but he seems unable or unprepared to define that group in terms of an income range. Instead we get the nonsense I quoted above.
Trudeau doesn’t strike me as a fool, so what gives? Why do his seemingly off-the-cuff remarks come out like they are half-baked? Is it that he simply lacks mental discipline and good judgement, or has he been so fawned over and indulged for years that he feels he can just spout off and people will never question his words?
I don’t know about you, but I can’t work up any enthusiasm for this guy as prime minister. He seems to lack gravis—the sort of intellectual heft one expects to see in the holder of that office.