Don't underestimate Justin Trudeau

197 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

To be fair, Rev, it took even you five weeks.

To be fair, I posted when I saw it, and not a moment before.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

And the younger women population.

Not one person on a 'progressive' board pointed out the sexism in this post? You're slipping, folks.

I did miss it, but in my defense this sort of crack against Trudeau that insults women or voters in general is very common. Another favorite is calling people "shills" for supporting Trudeau while supporting Mulcair whose policies are almost indistinguisable is not shilling. This appears to be because Mulcair leads the NDP so all hail the leader.

I on the other hand have become very disillusioned by the NDP which I used to assume was the progressive party not realizing it was just their brand not an actual devotion to progressive behavior or ideals.

Whenever I point out anything non-progressive about the NDP, provincial or federal, the response is always, the Liberals are no better or that they are worse as though that is a defence. Things I've been saying for years are coming true but I won't get credit for having understood the lay of the land. I will be condemned for it.

Before Trudeau was even elected leader of the Liberals he said he prefers to be under-estimated and it has always worked to his advantage. While everyone was full of glee over the "not ready" ads and the NDP was buying into it so much that they labeled themselves as "ready for change" and joined in I knew it would backfire.

During the Munk debate Mulcair make some snide remark about Trudeau's lines being scripted which is an insult to viewers intelligence. Does Mulcair seriously think we don't know his lines are scripted? Apparently, we are supposed to believed Mulcair doesn't have any advisors or speech writers.

 

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:
...I did miss it, but in my defense this sort of crack against Trudeau that insults women or voters in general is very common. 

No need to apologize. What I was really doing was pointing out that NDP supporters were apparently okay with a sexist remark as long as it was aimed at Justin Trudeau. 

I've pointed out several times that I am not a Liberal supporter, having voted for the NDP provincially and federally for as long as I can remember. Having said that, there are legitimate arguments one can make about Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party.

Arguments based on how he looks, who his parents are and how much money his father left him are not included on the 'legitimate' side. They are not one iota different than the Conservative 'nice hair, though' ads which has the not so hidden assumption that voters are dumb enough to be taken in by looks.

If that's really the way NDP supporters feel, that it's all about looks and not about platform, that it's all about getting elected, then I suggest that next chance they get, elect a better looking leader. Then you won't have to spend your time complaining about how some other party leader looks. 

pookie

+1

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

And the younger women population.

Not one person on a 'progressive' board pointed out the sexism in this post? You're slipping, folks.

I did miss it, but in my defense this sort of crack against Trudeau that insults women or voters in general is very common. Another favorite is calling people "shills" for supporting Trudeau while supporting Mulcair whose policies are almost indistinguisable is not shilling. This appears to be because Mulcair leads the NDP so all hail the leader.

I on the other hand have become very disillusioned by the NDP which I used to assume was the progressive party not realizing it was just their brand not an actual devotion to progressive behavior or ideals.

Whenever I point out anything non-progressive about the NDP, provincial or federal, the response is always, the Liberals are no better or that they are worse as though that is a defence. Things I've been saying for years are coming true but I won't get credit for having understood the lay of the land. I will be condemned for it.

Before Trudeau was even elected leader of the Liberals he said he prefers to be under-estimated and it has always worked to his advantage. While everyone was full of glee over the "not ready" ads and the NDP was buying into it so much that they labeled themselves as "ready for change" and joined in I knew it would backfire.

During the Munk debate Mulcair make some snide remark about Trudeau's lines being scripted which is an insult to viewers intelligence. Does Mulcair seriously think we don't know his lines are scripted? Apparently, we are supposed to believed Mulcair doesn't have any advisors or speech writers.

 


More bullshit spewed by a clear partisan that defends everything with "you are all against me whah" everytme you get called out. See the great activity on this board..yeah you killed it as I am sure you are proud of.

Ciabatta2

That's why they come here.  Operation success.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:

That's why they come here.  Operation success.

I see conspiracy theories are alive and well on "the left". 

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

That's why they come here.  Operation success.

I see conspiracy theories are alive and well on "the left". 

"The left" Is that baiting again. Uncommon Senses.

Pondering

edited to say, nevermind, not worth it.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

5.4 percent increase facebook like for Justin Trudeau

313 k total likes

2.4 percernt increase facebook likes for Tom Mulcair

93 k likes

 

Theres no doubt that the liberals have hte momentum right now, sadly.

A photo of Kim Kardashian's egg salad sandwich:  1.9 million likes.

Will the sandwich be the dark horse of Election 2015?

As I recall, a photo distributed by Kim Kardashian and her communications team "broke the internet." It was not a photo of her egg salad sandwich.

takeitslowly

Obviously, not everyone who voted for the NDP underestimated him, thats why i created this thread.

 

And yeeeeeeeeeeeeah Justin Trudeau's good look has nothing to do with anything.  The only thing I was wrong in saying was that it only influenced women. Thats sexist. Trudeau holding a young baby is a marketing ploy that attracts all type of heteronormative families and those who hold traditional beauty standard.

Pondering

You should have added, and don't over-estimate Mulcair.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/12/Understanding-Tom-Mulcair/

Instead of sticking with the NDP's existing position, or embracing legalization, Tom had committed to a new information-gathering process with an uncertain result. In doing so, he revealed two strong and often intertwined aspects of his identity: a deep commitment to progressive values, and an equally deep commitment to evidence-based decision-making. Most people in the room did not realize it, but Tom had just said that an NDP government was prepared to legalize marijuana -- if the latest science supported such.

I want a leader that is in touch with the present. The evidence is already in. There was never any reason to make cannabis illegal in the first place. There are plenty of informed members within the NDP. A couple of years ago 6 ridings wanted a vote on marijuana legalization.

Then there is this:

The NDP caucus took several weeks to study the "Anti-terrorism Act, 2015," including consultations with legal and security experts. This enabled them to form the considered view that the bill was vague and imbalanced; that it empowered security agencies to collect much more information about Canadians in ways that compromised their fundamental privacy rights, and that it would likely end up being struck down by the courts. Tom then announced the NDP would vote against Bill C-51, despite polls that showed more than 80 per cent of Canadians supported the legislation. And in the next few months, public opinion on Bill C-51 changed dramatically, pushing the NDP into a potential winning position.

Only that isn't exactly how it happened:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1843737/given-the-power-mulcair-would-amend-an...

OTTAWA —Though vehemently against the bill, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, if in power, would not necessarily scrap the Conservative’s “anti-terror” bill — but he would definitely change it, he said in an interview Sunday.

“We are very concerned with this bill,” Mulcair said on The West Block with Tom Clark. “We’re worried about the scope. And, frankly, we’re worried about the lack of oversight.”

Mulcair waited until the papers were full of condemnation of the bill before deciding to say he would repeal it.

The courts are the ultimate mechanism for evidence-based decision-making. Tom consequently had to support the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling that a woman has the right to wear the niqab during a citizenship ceremony after showing her face to an official in private. He was careful to express his personal discomfort with the niqab, but resolutely defended the principle of the rule of law against harsh attacks by Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe.

Yes, unlike Trudeau who went with condemning it based on neither a husband nor the state having the right to tell women what to wear.

When Tom promises a rigorous environmental impact assessment that includes down-stream impacts such as climate change, it is because he will not impose his personal views -- including, perhaps, that the expansion of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline is incompatible with principles of sustainable development -- on an issue that can be resolved fairly and objectively through process. He has taken the same position with regards to the proposed Energy East Pipeline, insisting on a rigorous environmental impact assessment there also.

True, he puts much less emphasis on social licence inferring that as long as strict environmental review is passed social licence will be given.

From a policy perspective, Trudeau's new position is unwise. Arbitrarily excluding the F-35 is inconsistent with the principle of an open competition. It might provoke manufacturer Lockheed Martin to mount a legal challenge, delaying the procurement for years.....

Demanding but legitimate requirements could be set for range, acceleration, speed and mobility, so as to obtain a plane that can patrol vast Arctic expanses and prevail in aerial combat against Russian or Chinese planes. These requirements would disadvantage the F-35, which, as a consequence of its reduced radar profile, has relatively small internal fuel tanks and a wide fuselage that reduces range, acceleration and speed.

A Mulcair government would necessarily set a budget limit for the acquisition of new planes, as well as the minimum number required. This may also disadvantage the very costly F-35, which because of the recent drop in the Canadian dollar can no longer meet the $9-billion limit set by the Harper government for the 65 planes it wants to buy.

Right, and we already know enough about the C-35 to know without further study that it does not meet our requirements. Not considering products that don't meet the requirements cannot prompt lawsuits.

Tom had written for the French version of Andrew Nikiforuk's prize-winning book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent:

Being responsible towards future generations literally means being accountable from both a moral as well as a legal standpoint. In 2010, we know that it is impossible to maintain this [tarsands] development without seriously affecting the health of human beings and without destroying important ecosystems forever.

This is the Tom Mulcair who I know and admire: a potential prime minister who respects law and science, is true to himself, and pays no attention to polls.  [Tyee]

What does Mulcair think Energy East is for?

Rev Pesky

takeitslowly wrote:
... Trudeau holding a young baby is a marketing ploy that attracts all type of heteronormative families and those who hold traditional beauty standard.

Are you saying that heteronormative families are the only ones that have  babies? I could introduce you to at least two lesbian women who've had children, and presumably loved them very much. And as for kissing babies, that's about as old school politics as you can get. Trudeau ain't the first, and is unlikely to be the last.

As far as traditional beauty standard, there certainly is one. but, like many other aspects of human existence, it's not something you can talk someone into. You find something beautiful, or you don't. I remember something my dear mother said once. It was a more of less off-hand comment, but one which has stuck with me over the years. She was commenting on the dress of young girls (well, young to her). The get-up was that sort of slouchy, baggy look (which by the way, is perfectly fine with me), and Mom commented on how it hid some features, but then went on to say, "You can still tell the pretty ones, of course."

Like it or not, it is a fact of evolution that some people are more attractive than others. And it is gender equal. Women find some men more attractive, and men find some women more attractive (and the same for whatever ever gender suits your fancy). And it is true all over the animal world as it is true with humans.

It is true that with maturity comes the realization that outer beauty doesn't necessarily mean inner beauty. It doesn't mean you change you idea of what's beautiful, it just means you become aware of beauty's limitations.

As a person without much in the way of good looks, I have often felt sorry for people who are physically beautiful simply because so much is expected of them at the same time as so many are jealous of their looks. You can be responsible for many things in this life. Your looks are not one of them (unless you've gone the plastic surgery route, which is not what we're talkng about here).

Helen of Troy and Paris were beautiful 2500 years ago, and they're still beautiful today. I don't think standards of beauty have changed much over the years.  

 

 

Rev Pesky

Well, no one is going to be underestimating Justin Trudeau any more. He's Prime Minister, Harper is resigned, and Mulcair is probably not far behind.

 

lagatta

I wonder what Trudeau will do to address the dire poverty in parts of the riding where he was elected. By many estimates, Papineau is the third poorest riding in Canada.

Jacob Two-Two

Photo-ops. The universal panacea.

lagatta

Yes, the Radio-Canada morning show says Justin is now at Jarry métro station, shaking hands with dull normals going to work. Don't know if he wore his $20,000 watch for the occasion. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled at the downfall of Harper. But I HATE entitled rich kids.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

IF the Liberals keep a handful of their promises,I'm all good -- for now. But I'm not holding my breath.

I'd be lying if I were to say I'm disappointed. Buh-bye Mussolini. Today is a great day.

What is disappointing is the fate of the NDP who deserved A LOT better than what they got.

Anyhow,it is what it is for at least 4 years. There's more hope in them than another 4 years of Harpo and his Republican Party.

Rev Pesky

lagatta wrote:

Yes, the Radio-Canada morning show says Justin is now at Jarry métro station, shaking hands with dull normals going to work. Don't know if he wore his $20,000 watch for the occasion. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled at the downfall of Harper. But I HATE entitled rich kids.

I don't want to be too argumentative, but what makes you call Justin Trudeau a rich kid. To begin with, he's certainly not a kid. He's four years older than Joe Clark was when Clark became Prime Minister, and so far as I know, he's not that rich. He did get a legacy from his father, but my understanding is that was around a million dollars. Yes, I wish I had a million, but let's put it into context. If you own a house in Vancouver, you have a million dollar estate. That includes a lot of working class people living on the east side of Vancouver.

I remember when Patrick Brazeau challenged Justin Trudeau to a boxing match. I don't really remember how it started, but it ended up raising money for charity. I do remember that everyone thought Brazeau was going to win, including Brazeau himself. Let the record show that Trudeau cleaned Brazeau's clock. The fight was stopped in the third round after Brazeau took two standing eight counts.

It seems to me that a lot of the people posting here have mistaken appearances for reality, just as Brazeau did. Trudeau looks young, but he's only a few short years away from being 50 years old. He appears to be a neophyte, yet he has a lifetime of experience very close to the political world. Lest we forget, he gets his politics from both sides of his family. His father was the Prime Minister, but his maternal grandfather was a long-time Liberal cabinet minister. It would be difficult to grow up in those surroundings without picking up some pretty serious political know-how.

Brazeau underestimated Trudeau, Harper underestimated Trudeau, and Mulcair underestimated Trudeau. Brazeau is gone, Harper is gone, and Mulcair is soon to be gone, and Trudeau is Prime Minister. Not a bad score for an entitled rich kid with no substance.

I guess the moral of this story is, never take looks at their face value (pun intended), there might actually be something lurking behind those looks.

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the people posting here have mistaken appearances for reality, just as Brazeau did. Trudeau looks young, but he's only a few short years away from being 50 years old. He appears to be a neophyte, yet he has a lifetime of experience very close to the political world. Lest we forget, he gets his politics from both sides of his family. His father was the Prime Minister, but his maternal grandfather was a long-time Liberal cabinet minister. It would be difficult to grow up in those surroundings without picking up some pretty serious political know-how.

Brazeau underestimated Trudeau, Harper underestimated Trudeau, and Mulcair underestimated Trudeau. Brazeau is gone, Harper is gone, and Mulcair is soon to be gone, and Trudeau is Prime Minister. Not a bad score for an entitled rich kid with no substance.

I guess the moral of this story is, never take looks at their face value (pun intended), there might actually be something lurking behind those looks.

Bang on.

Pondering

It is ironic that those most contemptuous of judging people by appearances did exactly that.

josh

I always get a kick out of the pundit class/political commentariat. Trudeau was a lightweight, now he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

terrytowel

What if the watch was a gift from his late father, and he wanted to wear it the day after the election. To honor him. Would you think less of him?

nicky

Never overestimate Terryt...l's ability to say something worthwhile.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Scary thought of the day: Junior thinking on his own!

terrytowel

Misfit wrote:
Scary thought of the day: Junior thinking on his own!

Misfit & the majority of Trudeau haters agree with Doug Ford. Trudeau is not even qualified to be a floor sweeper let alone be PM.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=727693&playlistId=1.2611416&binId=1.8...

Correct Misfit?

Pondering

Something the left and right seem to share is distain for everyone else.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

Something the left and right seem to share is distain for everyone else.

Well Doug Ford already said that 47% of Ford Nation support come from NDP supporters, so who knew most babblers here support the Fords.

pookie

I don't know where else to put this, so I will put it here.

To me, the most stunning upset in this campaign was Catherine McKenna's defeat of Paul Dewar in Ottawa Centre.  I live in this riding (which is actually pretty big) and Dewar has been dominant here for years.  Also a pretty good constituency MP.  I know he is seen as too much of a hawk by some on babble, but he is a very smart, savvy politican.  O-C always outperforms the rest of the country in turn-out, but this time the results were staggering: 82% of voters!  And at last count McKenna won by 5,000 votes.

That fight seems emblematic of what Trudeau was able to do.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trudeau is inviting Elizabeth May to the Climate talks.

This would never happen with Herr Harper.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Trudeau is inviting Elizabeth May to the Climate talks.

This would never happen with Herr Harper.

That's wonderful. She must be thrilled. Trudeau said he is a consensus builder. Including the premiers of the provinces and May will help tremendously. 

gadar

Now if only the Liberal party had taken advice from armchair pundits like me and elected a real leader like Marc Garneau or somebody. This Trudeau boy has nothing except his hair going for him.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well Doug Ford already said that 47% of Ford Nation support come from NDP supporters, so who knew most babblers here support the Fords.

Math-wise, 47% isn't "most".

Who said you'll never use math after high school?

mark_alfred

Interesting about the Fords.  It does make me think that initially Harper seemed to be looking to diminish the Libs and stage a winning battle against the NDP instead.  But, when the Libs made large gains in Ontario, with the NDP still strong in Quebec and BC, Harper knew a decision had to be made.  A potential Lib-NDP coalition would be dangerous to the multinational corporate agenda.  He had to drive a wedge between the NDP and its Quebec supporters, and he had to make the Cons look so unappealing to strategic urban voters that they would abandon the NDP for the Libs.  So he popped the poison pills of the niqab and Ford for the sake of ensuring the social democratic NDP didn't get a stake in power. 

Pondering

gadar wrote:

Now if only the Liberal party had taken advice from armchair pundits like me and elected a real leader like Marc Garneau or somebody. This Trudeau boy has nothing except his hair going for him.

LOL, if they took your advice they would have lost the election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/25/justin-trudeau_n_8382304.html?ut...

This was generational change.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Interesting about the Fords.  It does make me think that initially Harper seemed to be looking to diminish the Libs and stage a winning battle against the NDP instead.  But, when the Libs made large gains in Ontario, with the NDP still strong in Quebec and BC, Harper knew a decision had to be made.  A potential Lib-NDP coalition would be dangerous to the multinational corporate agenda.  He had to drive a wedge between the NDP and its Quebec supporters, and he had to make the Cons look so unappealing to strategic urban voters that they would abandon the NDP for the Libs.  So he popped the poison pills of the niqab and Ford for the sake of ensuring the social democratic NDP didn't get a stake in power. 

But Trudeau condemned the niqab ban before Mulcair did and more strongly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/25/justin-trudeau_n_8382304.html?ut...

In Quebec, the Liberals ran radio and television ads noting that Mulcair’s daycare plan would offer them nothing new, while Trudeau would provide more generous children’s benefits.

Third, the Liberals stressed that Mulcair agreed with Harper and opposed many progressive elements of the Liberal platform. The party’s focus groups had found that people thought the Liberals’ platform, which tilted left, actually belonged to the NDP.

Debater

pookie wrote:

I don't know where else to put this, so I will put it here.

To me, the most stunning upset in this campaign was Catherine McKenna's defeat of Paul Dewar in Ottawa Centre.  I live in this riding (which is actually pretty big) and Dewar has been dominant here for years.  Also a pretty good constituency MP.  I know he is seen as too much of a hawk by some on babble, but he is a very smart, savvy politican.  O-C always outperforms the rest of the country in turn-out, but this time the results were staggering: 82% of voters!  And at last count McKenna won by 5,000 votes.

That fight seems emblematic of what Trudeau was able to do.

There were at least 3 factors that caused Ottawa Centre to go Liberal:

1.  Catherine McKenna herself.  Unlike the last couple of Liberal candidates in the riding, she worked very hard and knocked on thousands and thousands of doors.  This was noted by Diana Swain on CBC Election Night.

2.  The Trudeau Wave & the general polling trends.  Going into Election Day, the Liberals were well in the lead in Ontario, and way, way ahead of the NDP, particularly in areas like Eastern Ontario and the Ottawa area.

3.  Ottawa Centre has a lot of civil servants and other organizations that have been persecuted by the Harper Cons and they saw this as an opportunity to send a message.  (The same thing happened across the Ottawa river on the Quebec side where the Liberals won Pontiac, Hull-Aylmer & Gatineau by 2-1 margins).

I was expecting Paul Dewar to win narrowly, but it wasn't a total shock that McKenna won because while Broadbent had won the seat in 2004 when the Liberals dropped to a Minority, it tends to be a seat that has voted Liberal historically when there is a Liberal Majority.  The possibility always existed for it to go back to the Liberals, although I think most people thought it wouldn't happen until 2019.

lagatta

Elsewhere I've said that Trudeau fils isn't particularly young; older than Joe Clark and about the same age as JFK and Tony Bliar when they were first elected to head of state/government. One can be a spoilt rich kid at 60.

Unlike most of his fans, I've spoken with Trudeau several times (defending community associations, and at community events including the fight against a handful of racists trying to block a residential centre for Inuit people coming south for hospital care).

Beyond that, I have no reason to debate hardcore Liberal Party supporters, any more than I'd debate Con supporters. The corporate parties have enough MSM to defend them; rabble was founded as a counterweight to those.

Come on in -- we're glad you're here. rabble.ca was built on the efforts of progressive journalists, writers, artists and activists across the country. We launched rabble on April 18, 2001, just before the protests against the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, and leapt onto the Net with the kind of coverage you could only get from the point of view of the rabble.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Well Doug Ford already said that 47% of Ford Nation support come from NDP supporters, so who knew most babblers here support the Fords.

Math-wise, 47% isn't "most".

Who said you'll never use math after high school?

Given that it is possible that not all NDP supporters are on babble, it is possible that most babblers are also Ford supporters even if less than half of overall NDP supporters are Ford friendly. For instance, if there were 3 NDP supporters on babble, and 2 of them were also Ford supporters, even though they'd represent only a tiny portion of overall NDP supporters, they would still be most of the babblers supporting the NDP. In that the original statement doesn't require the babblers to be NDP supporters, it's even more possible (sorry, non-NDP supoorting babblers, remember this is just for the sake of example).

It is, however, very unlikely. I think it's most likely that you'd have a hard time finding a single Ford supporter on babble. Just in case, perhaps someone could start up a "I'm an NDP supporting Babbler who also supports the Fords" thread...Hey, where'd everybody go?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Yep! Count on him to continue to surround himself with guys like this, http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/29/liberal-lobbyist-loses-bid-to-gut-lobbyin...

Its how Liberals roll!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

And to do things of similiar effect, like this, http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/10/29/full-steam-ahead-for-h...

. P3s anyone? Bread and ciruses. TRUDEAUMANIA!

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

And to do things of similiar effect, like this, http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/10/29/full-steam-ahead-for-h...

. P3s anyone? Bread and ciruses. TRUDEAUMANIA!

Hey Arthur, you let that extra space at the end creep into the url link again. Anyway, here's a working url (without the space at the end):

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/10/29/full-steam-ahead-for-h...

ETA:  expect divestments like this and similar labour issues that Ontario is having with teachers to creep up with Trudeau's government.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Bang on analysis again Mark! Its ineveitable. He can't pay for his promsies either. On top of that, he won't keep most of them. EVERYONE know that, even the Lib sycophants on here! Thanks for fixing the link friend! Keep fighting the good fight!

quizzical

lagatta wrote:
Beyond that, I have no reason to debate hardcore Liberal Party supporters, any more than I'd debate Con supporters. The corporate parties have enough MSM to defend them; rabble was founded as a counterweight to those

really.....then why the hell have all the Liberals been allowed here to spew the same BS the MSM does?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

quizzical wrote:

lagatta wrote:
Beyond that, I have no reason to debate hardcore Liberal Party supporters, any more than I'd debate Con supporters. The corporate parties have enough MSM to defend them; rabble was founded as a counterweight to those

really.....then why the hell have all the Liberals been allowed here to spew the same BS the MSM does?

Who knows! As to this stuff about May and the Premiers, and consensus, sure, just like Obama. Corporatist solutions that only help the wealthy and Corproations. He's going to run the Obama play book. Christ! And of course May would be happy, it feeds her ego, and besides, everyone KNOWs she's really a Liberal. Wonder when she's corssing the floor?

lagatta

Arthur, there is the matter of freedom of speech. Now, in this case it is not an absolute - it isn't the same thing as having the secret police knock on your door at dawn. I have no right to be published in any given media outlet, even this one. It is a delicate balance for the mods to ensure a healthy debate - including people who are far from progressive - while taking measures to stop rightwing, Liberal or other trolling.

Pages