babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Get ready for Justin-mania!

425 replies [Last post]

Comments

Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

Unionist wrote:
... we can just ask you and Ipsos-Reid what we really think, in a Toronto press release! Thank you!

Well... if you look at the matter dispassionately, ONLY 30% of Quebeckers state that the threshold for a "yes" vote in a referendum should be 50% +1 in the Ipsos poll.

More tellingly, that figure has also been corroborated by Quebec's own CROP pollster confirming concurrently that ONLY 28% of Quebeckers would currently support a sovereignty referendum.

Makes logical sense.

Just sayin'.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Centrist wrote:

Unionist wrote:
... we can just ask you and Ipsos-Reid what we really think, in a Toronto press release! Thank you!

Well... if you look at the matter dispassionately, ONLY 30% of Quebeckers state that the threshold for a "yes" vote in a referendum should be 50% +1 in the Ipsos poll.

Um... what exactly was the question and the context? Just askin'. Was it a "clear question" like this other one from your same link:

Ipsos-Reid, not trying to put words in anyone's mouth at all, wrote:
"If the Parti Québécois wins the election, it will be bad for the relationship between the federal government and Quebec because the Prime Minister is not from Quebec."

LaughingLaughing I did not make that up! I could never have done as well if I were trying to satirize it.

Quote:
More tellingly, that figure has also been corroborated by Quebec's own CROP pollster confirming concurrently that ONLY 28% of Quebeckers would currently support a sovereignty referendum.

How exactly does that "corroborate" a conclusion that Québec should not have the right to separate without 60 or 70% majority? You're saying that even if only 28% would vote "yes" if it were held today (though I haven't seen the exact question), the other 72% would not recognize 50%+1? Do you think my support and Tom Mulcair's support for 50%+1 is connected with how we would personally vote in a referendum?

Quote:
Makes logical sense.

How extremely sad - your use of the words "logical" and "sense".


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Ken Burch wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Ippurigakko wrote:

Aboriginal ppl wont vote Justin because of his dad disagreed on Aboriginal land claims! And He not even put the word First Nation instead of Indian.

 

 

I agree, that part of the Trudeau legacy was left wanting. One was left with the impression that he wasn't serious about negotiating anything of substance. The Liberals attempted to redress that with the Kelowna Accord, but political opportunism got in the way. Let's see what Justin has to offer First Nations, who are right to be skeptical.

Let's go over this ONE MORE TIME, shall we?

Even if the NDP had backed Martin on the no-confidence motion, the Liberals would STILL have fallen by a margin of 153-151.  It was mathematically impossible for the Liberals to survive once the Bloc committed to backing the motion. 

It was never the NDP's fault that Harper came to power...it was the Bloc who made that happen.  So give the "political opportunism" thing a rest.  The actual parliamentary math proves the NDP wasn' t to blame.

Thanks for posting this Ken, great job! Autoworker, give it a rest for once.


Oh, and by the way, I am under the impression you are a Lib, which is ok? But I have to ask, why would a Union man, assuming you really are an autoworker, support the Libs, a party that has been hostile to the interests of wokers, form wage and price controls to so called EI "reforms"? I mean serioulsy, if you are what your name implies and I am reading your political senstivities right, how about an explanation. I would love to know whay an worker would vote a party that has the interests of Corporatons, at the center of its very being. If am wrong about anything, I would truly welcome the correction. But frankly, I am getting a little tired of hearing why it is good for workers to vote for a LPC that has historically run left and governed right. Over to you.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Oh, and by the way, by the way, here is an example of what Liberal Prime Misters think of working Canadians who protest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBJp0yJvsY


Anyone want to share a "Shawinigan Handshake"?


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

Unionist wrote:
Um... what exactly was the question and the context? Just askin'.

Oh come on. Don't be silly. With my previous link, you have access to the same full Ipsos questions/tables that both I and everyone else does.

In any event, since you have obviously read the question on Quebecers minimun threshold on the "yes" question, but apparently attempt to pervert same, here it is for other Babblers:

Quote:
If the Parti Quebecois wins power on September 4th, it is unclear when or if a referendum on Quebec separation will occur. However, the party says they are committed to holding another referendum. A federal law, the Clarity Act, says that if there is another referendum, the rest of Canada would be compelled to negotiate the terms of a break-up with Quebec if a 'clear majority' of Quebecers supports separation in the referendum. The meaning of that term, 'clear majority', is not defined. In your view, what percentage

Now you obviously have attempted to obfuscate same here on another Ipsos question:

Quote:
Unionist - If the Parti Québécois wins the election, it will be bad for the relationship between the federal government and Quebec because the Prime Minister is not from Quebec."

 LaughingLaughing I did not make that up! I could never have done as well if I were trying to satirize it.

Fer chrise sakes. You would have a bit more credibility if you would be honest with both yourself and us Babblers. Really. Here's the REAL question that you are referring to:

Quote:
If the Parti Quebecois wins the election, it will be bad for the relationship between the federal government and Quebec because...] If the Parti Quebecois wins the election, it will be the first time in nearly a decade that Quebec is run by a party that advocates separatism, which could strain the relationship between the Federal Government and Quebec. In the past, when the PQ was in power, the Canadian prime minister was from Quebec and led a party that had strong representation in Quebec. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from Calgary and only five Conservative MPs are from Quebec. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements.

BTW, 42% of Quebecers disagreed with that question, with only 36% "somewhat" agreeing.

Quote:
Unionist - the other 72% would not recognize 50%+1?

Ummmmmmmm... if 72% of Quebecers oppose a sovereignty referendum, the remaining 28% would support same. So how can you get 51% out of 28%??? Not even Einstein would be able to accomplish that mathematical feat!

Instead of trying to run around and around the bulls eye on a target, why don't ya just be honest with both yourself and Babblers and state that you are a separatist! And that you don't like current public opinion in Quebec. And that you are one of the 28% of Quebecers in the CROP poll that supports a sovereignty referendum in Quebec. As well as the 50% +1 majority. Simple as that.

C'mon. With your response, it's obvious that you are implying that I'm an idiot and other Babblers on here are as well. Again, just common sense. ;)

In that vein, why don't ya change your moniker from "unionist" to "separatist"? :P


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Well Arthur if you can find an answer to this puzzle more power to you.  The stats show that the Liberals usually get more votes from union households that the NDP does.  I can't cut and paste out of this book format but it says that even the Alliance out polled the NDP by a 2 to 1 ratio in union homes in 2000.  An upsurge in union homes voting for the NDP was a part of their breakthrough last time but historically the NDP has never won a plurality of union homes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=J3gyone9_kUC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=canadi...

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I would love to know whay an worker would vote a party that has the interests of Corporatons, at the center of its very being. If am wrong about anything, I would truly welcome the correction.

 


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

It would be good to have better updated information. I doubt very much that stats from 2000 are relevant in 2012 as much has changed. Since that time, Liberals showed that they aren't progressive when it comes to supporting worker's rights and collective bargaining. Dion got booed off the stage in 2008 at a rally by CAW members as Libs didn't support NDP anti scab legislation when they said they would. It was a minority situation and it would have passed. The Bloc did.

Canadian workers finally woke up to the fact that the Liberals, a party for the upper middle professional class just didn't represent them - fake left again just didn't cut it.


autoworker
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2008
@Arthur Cramer: FYI: I have the same union jacket that Buzz Hargrove gave to Paul Martin (I wonder if he ever wore it).

Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

autoworker wrote:
@Arthur Cramer: FYI: I have the same union jacket that Buzz Hargrove gave to Paul Martin (I wonder if he ever wore it).


Well, I know from how you have reacted to my posts that you basically don't have any regard for me or what I write. Ok that's fair. I mean, I  KNOW that aside from having an opinion, and working my butt off as a volunteer for the NDP, I am really not anyone I get that. I have NEVER held any illusions otherwise.

But honestly, I have NO idea what your post means, and I see you still haven't answered anything I wrote you. Its one thing to post whatever the hell you want on these boards, but quite another to explain why you write what you do, which is something pretty much everyone else on this board does very regulalrly.

So how about? I am assuming you are a union man with decided LPC biases. Most everyone posting here has no idea why any working person in their right mind would vote LPC. And, I have already explained it.

So instead of posting some opaque, seemingly clever respone, how about educating me a little? I will never accept there is any other party to vote for then the NDP, but I'd sure like to at least understand why "Union guys/gals", throw the only party that truly has their interests at heart "under the bus", to use that stupid vernacular over and over. Back to you. Ingnore it if you want but I am giving you a chance to explain why my thinking is screwed up. And, I am not kidding. Let me have it. I'm a big boy, and I can take it.


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

Arthur!

I don't know about you, but 'autoworker' is sounding more and more like 'debater'.

Remember THAT Liberal Party shill?

 


autoworker
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2008
Justin claims that he's about 'authenticity'. If so, is the popular quest in search of artifact or gestalt?

jjuares
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2012

David Young wrote:

Arthur!

I don't know about you, but 'autoworker' is sounding more and more like 'debater'.

Remember THAT Liberal Party shill?

 

I noticed that too. Not only are there similarities in content but stylisticallly also.

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

For the information of several people above, it is against babble policy to speculate about someone's identity or whether two handles are being used by the same person, etc.

For your further information, Liberal Party supporters, members, etc. are allowed to post here. Same with Conservative Party, Green Party, Bloc Québécois, etc. We judge people by their stands and views, not by how noisily they cheer for one party or another.

This is not an NDP-lovers' board. If it ever became that, I would set up my own board to make fun of it.

 


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/10/team-trudeau-lets-talk-about-how-we-ma... Warren Kinsella appears to be fueding with the Trudeau camp and for once up doesn't appear to Warrens fault, but rather arrogance on the part the Trudeau camp, which bobes well for us. The metaphorical tea leaves I reading hint that Trudeau will alienate, toss aside many of the Liberals most experience and talented people, seeing them as the old guard, instead of a balanced approach of mixing idea approaches and people with respect for experience and age. We see how that works out, but if he over values his popularity with youth and insults the boomers and in turn looks like a wannbe has been to young people when his numbers drop it'll be a disaster.

janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

The problem with being one with the youth is that Trudeau was never from the middle class and thus trying so hard to wrap himself up in those quaint middle class values is funny. He's a rich kid whose hard early life of learning middle class values was having "to borrow money from his rich friends for dates". Yes that must have been a real hard life lesson that we all relate to - not.

He also has absolutely nothing in common with the occupy movement young people. In fact, the Liberals kept a wide path from those "youth" and occupers", just in case they get taunted by their rich corporate backers.

The remaking of Trudeau is laughable.


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
That is true, much as I loathe the expression "middle-class", or rather the utterly meaningless concept it has become, encompassing everyone but the destitute and the 1%.

jjuares
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2012

Unionist wrote:

For the information of several people above, it is against babble policy to speculate about someone's identity or whether two handles are being used by the same person, etc.

 

 

My Reply 

You are obviously referring to me. If is against policy then I obviously need to aplogize and I will do so willingly and gladly. But just one question before I do so. Could you please point out to me where it says this is against "babble policy". I have read the babble policy and could not find it but I am sure it is there because you said it was. And if you say it is against policy, it must be because posting inaccurate infomation is definitely against babble policy ( I found that part).  And if it wasn't there you would be breaking babble policy. I am sure you would never do that which you accuse others of doing.

 


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

autoworker wrote:
Justin claims that he's about 'authenticity'. If so, is the popular quest in search of artifact or gestalt?

Well autoworker, that sounds very sophisticated and intelligent. But to be honest, I don't know what the hell you are talking about! Care to elaborate? And I ask again, how about it. I honestly would like to know why a union man would vote Libearl, Buzz Hargrove notwithstanding.

As to Babble policy, I have no problem with Libs or even Tories posting here, but if you do, then expect to have people challenge you to justify your beliefs. This is a board for debate; expect debate.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Did anyone listen to CCC today? Did anyone who did hear if anyone got through who was not a supporter? I got through, was told I would be next, waited 40 minutes, and then got cut off followed by 2 more pro JT calls? Does anyone honestly not think the CBC has decided to through its stake in with JT and the LPC?


ETA: Rex Murphy actually was saying once he became LPC leader, JT would have to show his worhtiness of leader of the Oppostion in the current Partliment. Did I miss something. Were there a whole bunch of unnannounced by-elections which the Libs won and the NDP lost?

ETA 2: Checkup topic headline today, "Does Justin Trudeau owe his appeal to celebrity or a new direction in Canadian politics? (with online chat)" - all I can say is, "for crying out loud". Are they going to show his Coronation on TV too? Absolutely, asstoundingly amazing!

There is simply no maturity at all involved in this discussion. Disgusting. Truly, totatlly disgusting.


Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

babble policy, i thought it says "Layton-lovers (dippers)" not liberal or other? kinda confuse?


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Ippurigakko wrote:

babble policy, i thought it says "Layton-lovers (dippers)" not liberal or other? kinda confuse?

"Or Harper harpers, talk about it here".


autoworker
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2008
Artifact/gestalt: the cultural differentiation between the candidate and his hair, and which blow dries the whole mind/body experience.

Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

janfromthebruce wrote:

The problem with being one with the youth is that Trudeau was never from the middle class and thus trying so hard to wrap himself up in those quaint middle class values is funny. He's a rich kid whose hard early life of learning middle class values was having "to borrow money from his rich friends for dates". Yes that must have been a real hard life lesson that we all relate to - not.

 

Borrowing money because you never carry cash...isn't that what THIS family does?


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

autoworker wrote:
Artifact/gestalt: the cultural differentiation between the candidate and his hair, and which blow dries the whole mind/body experience.

I really don't understand what point it is you are trying to make.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

It's as if he's suddenly turned into a Zenbot or something.


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

Ken, now that was funny.


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012

felixr
Offline
Joined: May 6 2012

One of the most disgusting trends in Canadian politics these days is the stream of Liberal commentators fanning the fears of a national unity crisis. The thing that baffles me the most about this is the thought that it might somehow benefit the Liberals if not Canada. It wasn't just the Bloc that was wiped out in 2011. It was the Liberals too. The NDP decimated their votes and their rank to historic lows as well.

And yet, now that a federalist or post-sovereigntist (e.g. Claude Patry) party has conducted a broad sweep of Quebec, the histrionics begin. Frank Graves should be ashamed of himself and the basest of denominators that he panders to. If there is a national unity crisis, maybe it will be the last nail in the coffin of his beloved Liberal party as the federalist NDP comes to the rescue of Quebec's national interests AND a united Canada.

As for Trudeau, how does he explain his lets not pit West vs. East comments/vision in light of those Liberals avidly preaching another unity schism in Quebec. "United we stand" my big red Liberal ass!


adma
Online
Joined: Jan 21 2006

felixr wrote:

One of the most disgusting trends in Canadian politics these days is the stream of Liberal commentators fanning the fears of a national unity crisis.

Well, of course it's about "unity".  For you see, Cons and Dippers represent "polarities".  By claiming to straddle and encompass said polarities, Libs represent "unity".  Thus, maybe it can be argued: the crisis is theirs, not ours...


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Yes, and in Mulcair muzzle-mania:

Quote:

Just down the Commons aisle from Trudeau sit 18 neophyte New Democrat MPs, all 30 and under — indeed, a handful still in their early 20s. They arrived on a gust of enthusiasm after the last election, but, so far, haven’t made much discernible difference in how politics, or the House, works.

To be fair, many were stunned to be elected in the first place and they face a steep learning curve. Political life can be a minefield for the ill-prepared, so a little humility and caution are well-advised.

Still, it is discouraging to see these potentially interesting new recruits dutifully reciting the typically tendentious “questions” written for them, applauding on cue, and following their more experienced mentors around like toddlers on a rope line.

Just as jail is “crime school” for young offenders, the Commons is increasingly an academy dedicated to turning independent-minded idealists into predictable partisans.

No matter the party, the most compliant are promoted; the most aggressive get the media profile.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments