Jagmeet Singh needs get his ass into Parliament post haste

279 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

So far I haven't heard any complaints from his constituents.

Neither have we heard complaints from NDPers despite making an issue with Trudeau. And before people start saying "he isn't an elected MP" he is an elected MPP and still has not resigned, even as he starts his six week tour on Monday. Asked today he still says he is getting around to resigning.

Again I don't see a problem with it. My only issue is that its disengenous for people here to say it is inapproprite for Trudeau to tour the country on the federal dime (as an elected MP). But it is okay for Jagmeet to do the same, on the dime of a different level of government!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If you don't see a problem with it, stop belaboring it.  

Basically, you hate the idea that the NDP is seen as the party of conscience.  It is seen that way because, while it is not uncompromised, it has never had anything close to the deprivations of the other parties.

It never had a leader who wrote a doctoral dissertation in support of the idea that "Canada should remain a white man's country" (as Mackenzie King did at Harvard), or who blocked Jewish refugees from finding sanctuary from Hitler during World War II(as Mackenzie King did as prime minister);

It never hired thugs to violently suppress protests of the unemployed(as the Tories did under R.B. Bennett in the Thirties) or strong labour unions(as St. Laurent did in the late Forties, when he sent in goons with baseball bats to break the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers union by breaking the heads of union members);

It never ran an entire jurisdiction as a religious dictatorship(as the Union Nacionale did in Quebec from 1944 to 1960);

It never had a leader who referred to abortion as a "frivolous choice"(as Elizabeth May did IN THIS CENTURY);

It never pandered to anti-Muslim paranoia (as the Harpercons and the Bloc did in '15);

And in 1970, when it mattered, the NDP was the only party that defended civil liberties by voting against the unnecessary implementation of the War Measures Act in 1970.

This matters. Massively.

 

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So far I haven't heard any complaints from his constituents.

Neither have we heard complaints from NDPers despite making an issue with Trudeau. And before people start saying "he isn't an elected MP" he is an elected MPP and still has not resigned, even as he starts his six week tour on Monday. Asked today he still says he is getting around to resigning.

Yes, I think we are all very much aware that Jagmeet Singh is not being criticized for stuff that Justin Trudeau was criticized for. It is not so much that people have changed their minds but more that people were disillusioned by Trudeau's win not only despite those things he was criticized for but because of them. It's not like we are talking about criminal behavior that if adopted would indicate corruption. It's just political tactics and there is nothing dishonest about it. During the 2015 campaign they thought it was a weakness that would help them defeat Trudeau. Turned out they were wrong. Because of that they see no reason to avoid some similarities in their current candidate because obviously it was not of concern to Canadians.

What is it you expect? You want people to admit they were wrong? They weren't much wrong about Trudeau. They were wrong about voters. They thought voters would care about things that voters don't care about. Now they know voters don't care if the leader takes a seat in the house at first opportunity. Given that voters don't care about that it is wiser for Jagmeet Singh to work on rebuilding the party base. If fact like the Liberals, there has been growing discontent at the grassroots level. Loyal members, people like Sean, were ignored. It is essential to grow the grassroots and get people enthused about the party again. That is probably what the majority of people who voted NDP want him to do.

Yes, he said he is going to resign his seat. No he hasn't done it yet. Yes some people here got on Trudeau's case about it. Do you remember their names?  It's not the responsibility of NDP supporters in general to defend or condemn something someone said in 2015.

Current posters don't seem to have a problem with the points you have brought up. Why are you repeating the same points over and over and over and over again as though no one has responded to you? What is it you want posters to say?

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

What is it you expect? You want people to admit they were wrong? They weren't much wrong about Trudeau. They were wrong about voters. They thought voters would care about things that voters don't care about. Now they know voters don't care if the leader takes a seat in the house at first opportunity. Given that voters don't care about that it is wiser for Jagmeet Singh to work on rebuilding the party base. If fact like the Liberals, there has been growing discontent at the grassroots level. Loyal members, people like Sean, were ignored. It is essential to grow the grassroots and get people enthused about the party again. That is probably what the majority of people who voted NDP want him to do.

I'll repeat what Charlie Angus said. You don't grow the grassroots by lifting Trudeau 2015 strategy/campaign for the 2019 campaign. The fact that people don't seem to think there is something wrong with that, shows no lessons have been learned from 2015.

Sean in Ottawa

MM as a Liberal, perhaps you remember Martha Hall Findlay's attacks on Trudeau which were part of the leadership race. Do you want to debate these now? How do you feel about using her words against Trudeau now? Otherwise, your use of leadership campaign rhetoric is hypocritical.

The other candidates went after Singh accusing him of being superficial and non-committal as that was assumed to be his weakness. Now he has a chance to prove those people wrong. If you were not just here to campaign against the NDP you would wait for a reason to use this against him rather than pushing it now.

There always is a debate in a party over leadership and this disagreement is part of a democratic process. 

The NDP has some work to do but you are not the judge as you are not a potential NDP voter -- you are a Liberal hyper-partisan activist. The NDP will never reach you and has no reason to want to try. Your accusations are exaggerated and clearly insincere from any constructive viewpoint. I cannot imagine that you think your posts here are convincing anyone other than others, like you, who never ever were potential NDP voters.

The NDP has a debate among potential NDP supporters. This debate may be on leadership and policy and style and priorities. Potential NDP voters may disagree and hopefully come to some fairly unifying position. But you are not part of that. You are the negative activist whose one-note song is predictable and tiresome

Sure, we cannot tell the future yet. Singh mght be a success or a failure. He may do something great or he may tread to the middle and not offer a real alternative. But we don't know that yet as he is just starting. You attacking him before he does anything worthy of attack is trolling. You are provoking conflict without any desire for conversation, resolution or interest in anything happening now. You are in opposition looking for a justification rather than being critical looking to be constructive. It is okay to be skeptical and to be critical but you have exposed your motivation for what it is and spent any credibility you could ever have expected to have here in the process. You are nothing more than a Liberal activist -- I think a self-appointed one since if anyone were paying you they would already have told you that you were doing more harm than good.

Many people will debate and come to conclusions as we see the perfomance of the new leader and some speakers will be Liberals but even the Liberals are not spamming this site with the same tired and baseless accusations over and over as if they would hope to change anyone's minds. This is why you are being treated as you appear -- as someone whose motivation can only be to annoy since you have made sure that you could do no more than that.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa you are the same person that said about Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

So I don't think you can offer an unbiased opinion on Jagmeet lifting the Trudeau playbook for 2019. Though I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa you are the same person that said about Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

So I don't think you can offer an unbiased opinion on Jagmeet lifting the Trudeau playbook for 2019. Though I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Ummm, the 2019 campaign isn't even close to being kicked off so how can you accuse him of lifting something from Trudeau? Singh was just elected leader. He did not lift his hair or his youth or his snazzy dressing from Trudeau. That he shares those attributes with Trudeau doesn't mean that is why people will or would vote for him. Sean's implication at the time was that those are the only qualities Trudeau had. Those are not the only qualities Singh has therefore just because he said that about Trudeau doesn't mean he has to think the same of Singh.

How the hell did you go back far enough to find such a quote? Why do you care? I never agreed with Sean or a lot of other people here on Trudeau. I always said they were underestimating him even when he was at the bottom of the polls. Trudeau had stronger qualities than they realized. Nevertheless Jagmeet Singh is head and shoulders above where Trudeau was when he entered into the first leadership debate of the campaign in 2015. I cringed when he completely ignored the question and launched into a campaign style speech. That will never happen to Jagmeet Singh. I suspect we will hear more from Singh while he is on tour because he is already a good public speaker. Trudeau spoke so poorly it was difficult to fathom that he was being paid thousands of dollars to give speeches. It was obviously his name not his talent as a speaker that got him the gigs giving him a celebrity type persona or image. Trudeau had been a sitting MP for years and had not distinguished himself politically.

Your fixation on the qualities that Trudeau and Singh share ignore the very significant difference in their backgrounds. For Singh, there are reasons beyond the superficial to support him so there is no reason to assume the superficial factors drove his support. With Trudeau it was more difficult to find reasons beyond the superficial to support him. In fact throughout the election campaign I was clear that Trudeau was winning against Harper and Mulcair, not the Liberals against the Conservatives and NDP, therefore a change in leadership would completely change the equation.

Trudeau was underestimated but that doesn't mean people were wrong about all his weaknesses. He just had some unexpected strengths two of which were a crack campaign team and marketing firm.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa you are the same person that said about Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

So I don't think you can offer an unbiased opinion on Jagmeet lifting the Trudeau playbook for 2019. Though I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Ummm, the 2019 campaign isn't even close to being kicked off so how can you accuse him of lifting something from Trudeau? Singh was just elected leader. He did not lift his hair or his youth or his snazzy dressing from Trudeau. That he shares those attributes with Trudeau doesn't mean that is why people will or would vote for him. Sean's implication at the time was that those are the only qualities Trudeau had. Those are not the only qualities Singh has therefore just because he said that about Trudeau doesn't mean he has to think the same of Singh.

How the hell did you go back far enough to find such a quote? Why do you care? I never agreed with Sean or a lot of other people here on Trudeau. I always said they were underestimating him even when he was at the bottom of the polls. Trudeau had stronger qualities than they realized. Nevertheless Jagmeet Singh is head and shoulders above where Trudeau was when he entered into the first leadership debate of the campaign in 2015. I cringed when he completely ignored the question and launched into a campaign style speech. That will never happen to Jagmeet Singh. I suspect we will hear more from Singh while he is on tour because he is already a good public speaker. Trudeau spoke so poorly it was difficult to fathom that he was being paid thousands of dollars to give speeches. It was obviously his name not his talent as a speaker that got him the gigs giving him a celebrity type persona or image. Trudeau had been a sitting MP for years and had not distinguished himself politically.

Your fixation on the qualities that Trudeau and Singh share ignore the very significant difference in their backgrounds. For Singh, there are reasons beyond the superficial to support him so there is no reason to assume the superficial factors drove his support. With Trudeau it was more difficult to find reasons beyond the superficial to support him. In fact throughout the election campaign I was clear that Trudeau was winning against Harper and Mulcair, not the Liberals against the Conservatives and NDP, therefore a change in leadership would completely change the equation.

Trudeau was underestimated but that doesn't mean people were wrong about all his weaknesses. He just had some unexpected strengths two of which were a crack campaign team and marketing firm.

And given that Justin led his party to a solid majority in 2015, why do you even still care what people said about him then, Mighty?  What is there for you to bear a grudge about here?  

WWWTT

@Pondering

Whats the matter? I asked you to google Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump. 

Guess the corporate media circus freek side show that came up on the computer screen was a little “too much in your face” hey Pondering!  

Thats all Canada has for a PM now, a corporate media circus freek side show darling Justin Trudeau!

Does someone want to try to explain to me how this corporate media circus freek side show darling is supposed to be an improvement over Harper?

Mighty Middle

Well if Jagmeet plans to lift the 2015 Trudeau playbook for the 2019 election I guess that saying is true. That "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

@Pondering

Whats the matter? I asked you to google Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump. 

Guess the corporate media circus freek side show that came up on the computer screen was a little “too much in your face” hey Pondering!  

Thats all Canada has for a PM now, a corporate media circus freek side show darling Justin Trudeau!

Does someone want to try to explain to me how this corporate media circus freek side show darling is supposed to be an improvement over Harper?

Neither Harper nor Mulcair would have legalized cannabis. Both Harper and Mulcair were set on zero deficits as their primary goal. Actually PR is the NDP's primary goal. Zero deficit was the NDPs second goal elevated to the first during the election campaign.  Some posters seem to think everyone should just automatically vote NDP regardless of their platform or ability to deliver. The NDP offered me squat last election. The NDP was a wannabe Liberal Party under Mulcair. Since 2005 or before the NDP's goal has been exactly the same as the Liberals and Conservatives. Win the election.

At this time I will most likely vote NDP in 2019 but so far that is not due to anything the NDP has done in the past decade to win my support.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Well if Jagmeet plans to lift the 2015 Trudeau playbook for the 2019 election I guess that saying is true. That "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

That's a big if. He has some pretty strong criticisms of Trudeau so I don't think his platform will be at all similar. Trudeau's campaign wasn't particularly original.

I do understand what you are saying about NDPers attitude that they are the dividing line between left and right and are automatically morally superior to anyone who would even consider voting Liberal. I just don't think this issue is the way to "prove" that the NDP is no better. Maybe under Jagmeet Singh they will be better. We will know soon enough. Singh needs a bit of time to take control of the party before being judged.

WWWTT

Pondering wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

@Pondering

Whats the matter? I asked you to google Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump. 

Guess the corporate media circus freek side show that came up on the computer screen was a little “too much in your face” hey Pondering!  

Thats all Canada has for a PM now, a corporate media circus freek side show darling Justin Trudeau!

Does someone want to try to explain to me how this corporate media circus freek side show darling is supposed to be an improvement over Harper?

Neither Harper nor Mulcair would have legalized cannabis. Both Harper and Mulcair were set on zero deficits as their primary goal. Actually PR is the NDP's primary goal. Zero deficit was the NDPs second goal elevated to the first during the election campaign.  Some posters seem to think everyone should just automatically vote NDP regardless of their platform or ability to deliver. The NDP offered me squat last election. The NDP was a wannabe Liberal Party under Mulcair. Since 2005 or before the NDP's goal has been exactly the same as the Liberals and Conservatives. Win the election.

At this time I will most likely vote NDP in 2019 but so far that is not due to anything the NDP has done in the past decade to win my support.

LOL! Guess you really didn’t like it when you googled Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump judging by the way you evade the corporate media circus freek side show! Oh no no no, I’m not going to get trolled into playing your game of what could have been and resurrecting the ghost of Mulcair 2015!  Let the corporate media circus freek side show continu, the show must go on!

Debater

WWWTT, I agree with you that The Trudeau Government has not lived up to some of its promises and has been a disappointment.

However, there are some important differences between Trudeau and Harper.

1) The Trudeau Government believes in science & climate change.

2) The Trudeau Government believes in giving an equal number of cabinet positions to women and doesn't appoint almost all men the way Harper did.

3) The Trudeau Government is supportive of LGBT rights, and passed a Trans Rights protection bill.

4) The Trudeau Government legalized doctor assissted suicide.

5) The Trudeau Government is in the process of legalizing marijuana, although some of the details are certainly not perfect.

Although the Trudeau Government will have to account to progressive voters in 2019 for some of its lacklustre progress, I don't think many progressives would want to go back to the Harper Government.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa you are the same person that said about Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

So I don't think you can offer an unbiased opinion on Jagmeet lifting the Trudeau playbook for 2019. Though I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

So you can look back and lift out of context. Cool.

I stand by what I said Justin Trudeau did not have substance to compare him with his father other than bloodline.

You have made no connection at all to the discussion I have made about Singh. I have pointed out that your attack is without any substance. I amve also pointed out the Mr. Singh for better or worse is largely an unknown quantity. I am hopeful but undecided about him -- it will take time to tell. You  are the one here trying to make a partisan political point -- but without any foundation.

I have been clear about Trudeau as someone who gained adoration based on pedigree without having earned it on substance running for a party with a record for over promising and underdelivering -- and proud to be that (run from the left govern from the right is a very Liberal expression of what they do.

The problem is also that you are not contributing here -- you are just rewording the same idea without anything new provoking. You don't have to like what I say but I have delivered a lot of substance to support it here.

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

LOL! Guess you really didn’t like it when you googled Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump judging by the way you evade the corporate media circus freek side show! Oh no no no, I’m not going to get trolled into playing your game of what could have been and resurrecting the ghost of Mulcair 2015!  Let the corporate media circus freek side show continu, the show must go on!

What am I evading? I think that the mainstream media is a tool of neoliberalism although the argument can certainly be made that it's a circus. I really don't get why seeing Trudeau and Ivanka together is supposed to bother me. Care to enlighten me? What is your train of thought with that? I'm not avoiding it. I just don't get your point or your apparent hostility for that matter.

You asked me how Trudeau was better than Harper and I answered you.

WWWTT

Debater wrote:

WWWTT, I agree with you that The Trudeau Government has not lived up to some of its promises and has been a disappointment.

However, there are some important differences between Trudeau and Harper.

1) The Trudeau Government believes in science & climate change.

2) The Trudeau Government believes in giving an equal number of cabinet positions to women and doesn't appoint almost all men the way Harper did.

3) The Trudeau Government is supportive of LGBT rights, and passed a Trans Rights protection bill.

4) The Trudeau Government legalized doctor assissted suicide.

5) The Trudeau Government is in the process of legalizing marijuana, although some of the details are certainly not perfect.

Although the Trudeau Government will have to account to progressive voters in 2019 for some of its lacklustre progress, I don't think many progressives would want to go back to the Harper Government.

ya and for the most part, under federal conservative federal governments the NDP has held the most seats! You think the NDP is stupid and have not noticed this trend?  In 2015 the conservatives stopped using the US dollar and trading directly currency exchange with China and rmb.  Sure Harper couldn’t be everything for everyone but to say he didn’t take one of the best shots and gave US imperialism a fucking solid kick in the fucking nuts is to be completely ignorant of what imperialism is!  I should also note that Brian Mulroney made a real brave stand against British imperialism to help the Battered and oppressed peoples of South Afrika. 

But it sounds like you want to play this troll game where one group of people or a particular cause is more important than another. Nice bait job debater. 

Sounds like you don’t want to talk about what comes up on your computer screen when you google Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump. 

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa this is a discussion forum, not an echo chamber.

Debater

WWWTT wrote:

Debater wrote:

WWWTT, I agree with you that The Trudeau Government has not lived up to some of its promises and has been a disappointment.

However, there are some important differences between Trudeau and Harper.

1) The Trudeau Government believes in science & climate change.

2) The Trudeau Government believes in giving an equal number of cabinet positions to women and doesn't appoint almost all men the way Harper did.

3) The Trudeau Government is supportive of LGBT rights, and passed a Trans Rights protection bill.

4) The Trudeau Government legalized doctor assissted suicide.

5) The Trudeau Government is in the process of legalizing marijuana, although some of the details are certainly not perfect.

Although the Trudeau Government will have to account to progressive voters in 2019 for some of its lacklustre progress, I don't think many progressives would want to go back to the Harper Government.

ya and for the most part, under federal conservative federal governments the NDP has held the most seats! You think the NDP is stupid and have not noticed this trend?  In 2015 the conservatives stopped using the US dollar and trading directly currency exchange with China and rmb.  Sure Harper couldn’t be everything for everyone but to say he didn’t take one of the best shots and gave US imperialism a fucking solid kick in the fucking nuts is to be completely ignorant of what imperialism is!  I should also note that Brian Mulroney made a real brave stand against British imperialism to help the Battered and oppressed peoples of South Afrika. 

But it sounds like you want to play this troll game where one group of people or a particular cause is more important than another. Nice bait job debater. 

Sounds like you don’t want to talk about what comes up on your computer screen when you google Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump. 

WWWTT, I already said above that I agreed with you that the Trudeau Government has not lived up to some of its promises and has not fulfilled its promise of "real change" to the extent that it promised.

I've been critical of Trudeau & the Liberals over the past few years, including explaining how I quit my local Liberal riding association in 2014 after Trudeau & his team fixed the nomination in favour of a star candidate.  I didn't vote Liberal in the last election.

What I was saying is simply that there are *some* progressive differences between Trudeau & Harper, and that most progressive voters probably aren't too interested in going back to the Harper Years.

Pondering

Okay I googled again so I could bring what I found here. It seems the media is trying to suggest there is something going on between Ivanka and Trudeau in the headlines but when you read the article it turns out they attended the events with their spouses. Looks like sensationalism to me.

Justin Trudeau talks Donald Trump at Washington gala as first ...

www.torontosun.com/.../justin-trudeau-talks-donald-trump-at-washington-g......

6 days ago - WASHINGTON — With Ivanka Trump looking on, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explained why he's hoping to get her father to include ...

Trudeau Put In Awkward Spot At Washington Gala As Ivanka Trump ...

www.huffingtonpost.ca/.../trudeau-put-in-awkward-spot-at-washington-gala......

6 days ago - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump are shown during the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit and Gala in Washington, D.C., ...

Justin Trudeau and Ivanka Trump Just Can't Stay Away from Each ...

https://www.vanityfair.com/.../justin-trudeau-ivanka-trump-fortune-most-......

5 days ago - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, may be the shining beacon of liberalism in North America, but he keeps wasting his sparkle on Ivanka ...

Why Justin Trudeau prefers Ivanka to Donald Trump: Delacourt ...

https://www.thestar.com › News › Insight

Oct 6, 2017 - Ivanka Trump and Justin Trudeau in a roundtable discussion with female executives in February. The PM is headed to a Fortune gathering ...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Yeah...from Pondering's description it doesn't sound like there's anything there.  It's not all that noteworthy that the two of them would turn up at the same parties now and then.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Yeah...from Pondering's description it doesn't sound like there's anything there.  It's not all that noteworthy that the two of them would turn up at the same parties now and then.

I have been reading the same things. I don't see the point of the media trying to make something of this. These journalists are worse than clickbait. They create stories that damage their vocation and feed Trump's all news he does not like is fake news thing. If Trudeau were to be unfaithful in his marriage our celebrity culture would be all over the specifics. There is no indication of this at all.

Sean in Ottawa

The problem with Trudeau and science is that he is nice and listens but, so far, his government is not coming across with tangible support. Scientists like being listened to but are running out of patience.

I work in communications in this area and hear from them every day.

There is a political problem but it is not entirely partisan. When it comes to science what is needed is sustainable predictable discovery funding. Politicians have trouble with this because no joy from headlines comes from this in time for the next election. They either neglect it or the fund specific applied programs to get credit. I saw this because governments of all stripes, both provincial and federal, have been less than great for the community for the last couple decades. Politicians support short term payoffs but it is very hard to get them to fund long term things that won't deliver in time to take the credit. Canada has opportunities in science but we cannot get the long-term funding.

There is a Health Research Caucus with members from the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. I can tell you that these members, including Senators and MPs are fairly closely aligned when it comes to funding and there is a lot of cross party support.

The current government has been a huge disappointment. Some in the science community are very upset – the last budget did very little and it was supposed to be the innovation budget. There are two reasons people are not as vocal. The first is that many in the community do feel that the Conservatives were worse – even though the record for the Liberals in science has not been much (if at all) better so far. They fear assisting a return to the Conservatives. The second is that many believe that the Liberals want to help but due to the election of Trump have been forced to spend this money on military to respond to pressure from the Trump Administration or to manage economic difficulty from there due to NAFTA.

I think the science community has a little patience left for the Liberal government and would forgive them – if the next budget does something. However, it will be increasingly difficult to manage if the Liberals do not come across in the next budget.

I also think that there is no party now that can lay claim to being friendly to science – even if the Conservatives can be said to be unfriendly. The community is hoping the Liberals will turn this around and are reluctant to make enemies of them. But the investment Canada needs to prevent falling even further behind has not been made. The investments to keep early and mid-career researchers here has not been made. There are people of all parties who want to change this but the change has not come.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have been reading the same things. I don't see the point of the media trying to make something of this. These journalists are worse than clickbait. They create stories that damage their vocation and feed Trump's all news he does not like is fake news thing.

It makes it very difficult to defend mainstream news at this point. They really are no better than The National Enquirer or Entertainment Tonight. They rely heavily on violence or tragedy not that those shouldn't be covered. I've noticed for a long time that they avoid fact-checking by saying "X said".

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

Yeah...from Pondering's description it doesn't sound like there's anything there.  It's not all that noteworthy that the two of them would turn up at the same parties now and then.

lol ya I think you meant to wright “from pondering’s edit job” there’s nothing there!  Justin is nothing more than a corporate media circus freak side show darling! Just like Rob Ford was actually. The only difference is that Justin is the “American idle “ version. At least Rob Ford actually brought some authenticity to being a freek show!

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Yeah...from Pondering's description it doesn't sound like there's anything there.  It's not all that noteworthy that the two of them would turn up at the same parties now and then.

lol ya I think you meant to wright “from pondering’s edit job” there’s nothing there!  Justin is nothing more than a corporate media circus freak side show darling! Just like Rob Ford was actually. The only difference is that Justin is the “American idle “ version. At least Rob Ford actually brought some authenticity to being a freek show!

I didn't edit anything. It was a straight cut and paste from the top of google. If I missed any links by all means do point them out.

I have no problem with your perception of Trudeau or preference for Rob Ford but I am taking issue with your reference to his being a "circus freak side show". People with various disabilities and illnesses were the so called "circus freaks" of the past and it's disrespectful (in my opinion) to use them as an insult. You could call him vapid or shallow or any number of things.

You have also suggested that a couple of regulars were trolling which made no sense in the context the accusations were made in. If anyone is trolling, it appears to be you, but not very well because you seem to be the only person that is upset about anything.

 I think you meant "write" not "wright". Also, "American idle" is spelled Idol although idle would be mildly amusing word play if it wasn't just an error.

Sean in Ottawa

I am not sure if everyone is speaking about the same thing -- on the one hand there are the criticisms of Trudeau generally, and I agree with a number of them. On the other there is this speculation about him being with daughter Trump. The later argument seems to be not only ridiculous but also damaging to journalism because journalism is being attacked and important stories are being called fake. In this context, stories that lack foundation and seem to border on slander and innuendo are very unhelpful. I don't see any benefit in people here getting involved in them except to denounce this. While Trudeau may be the current target, the real target is ultimately anythign that is real and the strategy is to flood the airwaves with enough garbage that everything you do not like will be called garbage. You can see the MO used by the Trump followers and Trump himself every day.

WWWTT

@Pondering

Ya actually Justin is the latest CANADIAN CORPORATE MEDIA circus freak side show darling. But I guess when you start editing out critical words forming parts of phrases, anything can meam anything at that point.

And when the debate then turns to grammar, well that pretty much just means that you are implying that I am less inteligent, and that somehow a spelling error that I may have made discredits any legitimacy that my views may have.

So in summary, it sounds like you feel that the media and Justin Trudeau should not be criticised, but hey it's perfectly A OK to to attack the inteligence of another poster.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

  If anyone is trolling, it appears to be you, but not very well because you seem to be the only person that is upset about anything.

 I think you meant "write" not "wright". Also, "American idle" is spelled Idol although idle would be mildly amusing word play if it wasn't just an error.

Pondering pay this troll no mind. Not worth the time.

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:
And when the debate then turns to grammar, well that pretty much just means that you are implying that I am less inteligent, and that somehow a spelling error that I may have made discredits any legitimacy that my views may have.

No need. Your views are discredited because they lack any substance.

WWWTT wrote:
So in summary, it sounds like you feel that the media and Justin Trudeau should not be criticised, but hey it's perfectly A OK to to attack the inteligence of another poster.

Given that spell check exists it was your silliness I was pointing out not your lack of intelligence.

Lastly, I told you to go ahead and call him vapid or shallow. Those are not compliments. You seem to think insulting Trudeau will bother me. It doesn't. I got what I wanted. He won the election and cannabis will be legal in under a year. Unless he comes up with another really good offer I'm voting NDP next time around.

If you want to blast Trudeau be my guest. This "attack" if you can even call it that is about as strong as a wet paper bag.

Getting back to Jagmeet Singh and speaking of the media:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/15/jagmeet-singh-parmar-question-ra...

Jagmeet Singh Suggests CBC's Insistent Questioning About Alleged Terrorist Was Racist

The headline makes it seem as though Singh introduced the topic when in fact he was responding to a question that was not quoted in the article.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh thinks a controversial CBC interview in which he was asked repeatedly to denounce the veneration of alleged Air India mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar was racist.

"Should I just say 'yes' directly? I think there was definitely some sort of clear problematic line of thought behind that question, so I'm definitely concerned with it," he told reporters Sunday when asked if he felt the questions were racist.

Reading the article the questioning was outrageous if not racist. He answered the question multiple times.

Earlier this month, CBC journalist Terry Milewski, who spent much of his career following the Air India investigation, asked Singh to denounce those in the Sikh community who hang pictures of Parmar — a man believed responsible for the worst terrorism act affecting Canadians — and who celebrate him as a martyr.

He never went to trial because he was shot and killed by police. The people that hang is portrait believe him to be innocent. From the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talwinder_Singh_Parmar his death is questionable and recordings were erased. To expect Singh to declare him guilty and denounce those who hang is portrait was unreasonable.

During the CBC interview on the "Power & Politics" show, Singh did not address Milewski's question directly. He denounced the violence but did not denounce the posters of Parmar. Milewski asked him five times.

He did answer directly:

"I don't know who is responsible," Singh told Milewski. "But I think we need to find out who is truly responsible, we need to make sure that the investigation results in a conviction of someone who is actually responsible. And we need to, as a society, collectively, unequivocally denounce any time innocent lives are lost. That is something unacceptable.

"All Canadians stand together united against any forms of violence, terror against Canadians, and, in fact, against anyone around the world."

So the answer is no he is not going to denounce people who hang Parmar's portrait and it was an inappropriate and inflamatory question.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering pay this troll no mind. Not worth the time.

You're right. It's just so easy.

Sean in Ottawa

Hello Pondering (or anyone else), You mentionned the spell check. I type quickly and often omit or reverse letters. I do like spell check but have not been able to get it to work on this site. If you know how to make that happen can you let me know?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Yeah...from Pondering's description it doesn't sound like there's anything there.  It's not all that noteworthy that the two of them would turn up at the same parties now and then.

lol ya I think you meant to wright “from pondering’s edit job” there’s nothing there!  Justin is nothing more than a corporate media circus freak side show darling! Just like Rob Ford was actually. The only difference is that Justin is the “American idle “ version. At least Rob Ford actually brought some authenticity to being a freek show!

Look...hardly anybody here is a Justin fan.  But it sounded like you were implying that Justin is having an affair with Ivanka.  He'd never be stupid enough to go there, if for no other reason than he'd never be THAT reckless about getting on Trump's bad side.  That's why nobody else sees anything in the links you posted.  We know the guy's a creature of the media and corporate power...there's nothing new in either of those assertions.

Rev Pesky

Is it worth mentioning that whenever the NDP has become the government, they have abandoned their 'grass roots' as fast as they could. Having seen a few NDP governments here in BC, I can tell you that whatever integrity voters think the NDP has, in reality NDP rhetoric is just as distant from actual outcomes as any of the other parties.

Elections are good, and I'm glad we have them, but anyone who thinks great strides can be made just by electing someone is dreaming. Progressives have to be prepared to put just as much pressure on an NDP government as they would a Liberal or Tory government.

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Yeah...from Pondering's description it doesn't sound like there's anything there.  It's not all that noteworthy that the two of them would turn up at the same parties now and then.

lol ya I think you meant to wright “from pondering’s edit job” there’s nothing there!  Justin is nothing more than a corporate media circus freak side show darling! Just like Rob Ford was actually. The only difference is that Justin is the “American idle “ version. At least Rob Ford actually brought some authenticity to being a freek show!

Look...hardly anybody here is a Justin fan.  But it sounded like you were implying that Justin is having an affair with Ivanka.  He'd never be stupid enough to go there, if for no other reason than he'd never be THAT reckless about getting on Trump's bad side.  That's why nobody else sees anything in the links you posted.  We know the guy's a creature of the media and corporate power...there's nothing new in either of those assertions.

No I never intended to imply anything beyond what the corporate media itself is implying. I'm sure Justin is a good loving father and husband (but perhaps an argument can be made there since he has somewhat shelved his family for politics).

However I see that this thread has disintergrated into thread drift and acusations of trolling. I'm sure if Jagmeet were here, his responce would be something like "we love you, we welcome you" not " don't pay any attention to this troll, he's not worth your time".

If Jagmeet keeps being Jagmeet, he'll do just fine and lift the NDP party to the higher level it deserves.

Sean in Ottawa

I have no doubt that Trudeau considers what he is doing is a calling. He has said that his party was in desperate shape and he jumped in before the time he wanted to. I think in this context he seems to be doing the best for his family he can and while I have many criticisms of his party and his politics, I cannot say that I see anything to criticize about his behaviour with his family. All politicians ask their family for sacrifice as public life is a burden as well as a privelege. From the outside they look like a nice family. This is why the articles suggesting otherwise, I think bring us to a place that is not at all fair or reasonable.

I think that all Canadian leaders are worried about the impacts of what Trump may do with respect to Canada and I suspect that they are trying every way possible to influence the US administration. The circumstances are different given the dysfunction there and this has lead to attempts to reach Trump any way possible. I have nothing to criticize about these attempts by the Prime Minister to get as close as possible in any way to this erratic and dangerous President to mitigate what he is doing. This is a difficult and dangerous time for Canada and I am sure that everyone is approaching things understanding that we are in a difficult position. You will notice that some who have been more critical from other parties have been more careful and are trying to be more helpful in spite of their differences.

I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy. In these uncertain and difficult economic times the government giving a tax cut like this to anyone who is not really struggling is a mistake. A bump in the basic exemption would have been a better move. But this is politics and the Liberals do not have the same priorities I have, despite thier rhetoric.

I think any attempts to go after Trudeau's family will come at the cost of these legitimate concerns about the direction of this neo-Liberal government in the guise of being progressive.

These distractions -- these non-policy attacks on Trudeau which ought to have been largely replaced, upon his election, with more direct policies differences,  as they distract from those. I also find that stuff like what we have seen from Mighty Middle here is a distraction from the other direction where he shouts over current policy problems or attempts to discuss NDP directions, with snark about what the NDP said years ago or petty accusations coming from differences between federal and provincial wings of the party lead by different leaders or comparing what the party is saying now to failed messages from 2014-2015 and statements that really do not compare very well at all.

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa I disagree. I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does. I would never want such a person to lead the country! I'm not ever going to appologize for such a person! And about the corporate media circus freek side show, Justin is in no way a victim of the corporate media, he plays it up and invites it with open arms! He takes every single opportunity to encourage it! There are many examples of him using his family in this regards. His wife as well has embrased the corporate media! Justin has also used charities to only promote himself, tons of examples!

Rev Pesky

From WWWTT:

I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does.

Which, if strictly followed by everyone would mean their couldn't be any politicians, in that all politicians have a family.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa I disagree. I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does. I would never want such a person to lead the country! I'm not ever going to appologize for such a person! And about the corporate media circus freek side show, Justin is in no way a victim of the corporate media, he plays it up and invites it with open arms! He takes every single opportunity to encourage it! There are many examples of him using his family in this regards. His wife as well has embrased the corporate media! Justin has also used charities to only promote himself, tons of examples!

You are talking about what you would do but you are not a political leader. Being a political leader is about, for a part of your life, having to sacrifice some of what you would give to your family. It is impossible to expect otherwiswe. This is a reason many people do not go intot politics or have to get out. mIt is not a valid criticism asit is virtually universal among people at that level in politics and it is a job requirement -- sorry you are wrong there. People do this with discussions with their families that are private. The family may be very supportive of the decision as these are motivated people. The family does gain in many respects this sacrifice can in the end provide huge advatnages for the family -- Pierre Trudeau's service made Justin Trudeau's present career possible.

Also you don't know enough of the detail of what this or any other political family does to criticize from where you stand. This is not your role or responsibility. There are people with more knowledge than you closer to them. Your distraction in this direction is unhelpful to them and to the country.

The media style of the PM with respect to policy is something we can speak about. With respect to his family it is none of your business so long as there is no abuse or concern from them. Let's discuss the policies for the country that get too little attention in this and let Trudeau, who has more than enough resources and advisers to figure out the implications on his family. As a child of a PM for many years, I think he knows more about this than you do. Diverting attention to this draws it away from what we need to be talking about.

Now you might want to before you move on to what we need to talk about consider your contradiction: you say he has used his family, yet you say his wife embraced this. So for Trudeau this is a family business and his wife is a more-than-willing participant. His wife wants to participate and is getting something out of this (and we can list those things if you need). With respect to his wife, our consideration ought to be the implications on the public, events, the appropriateness to us of her interventions not the implication on her family. With respect to his kids, you have got to be kidding. I bet he knows more than anyone how to make this enriching and exciting for a child. Trudeau's family are not losing here.

I want to say that there is some lack of consideration of her autonomy in your comments in this that comes across as disturbing to me.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From WWWTT:

I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does.

Which, if strictly followed by everyone would mean their couldn't be any politicians, in that all politicians have a family.

Frankly there is some implied sexism in this. The assumption being made is that this is something the family is being forced to do, particularly "the wife."

Trudeau's wife is capable of the same motivations as he has and her willingness does not need to be considered a sacrifice for him -- but rather something they are doing together.

I can say that I would have been willing to consider politics at one time. I would only have done so with a partner that wanted the same. Trudeau may have such a partner. To imply that you know better smacks of sexism and arrogance. Sorry buyt the more I think about this the more this becomes clear to me. The old days of a usually male politician inflicting this on family are gone if they ever really were there. Assuming that a person is doing a disservice to their family by getting involved in politics assumes the family is otherwise not interested, involved and wanting it. That is 19th century thinking.

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 -- sorry you are wrong there. 

I'm expressing my opinion and my values that many people around the world share to even an greater extent than I. 

https://www.themuse.com/advice/5-habits-working-parents-should-abandon-i...