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.

Liberal leadership race

1043 replies [Last post]

Comments

socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Don't worry. I think there's plenty of Liberals who could muster up the grand vision to turn the clock back to good ol' 2006, plus a failure to do anything about 2% higher unemployment, plus a slew of painful cuts to social programs.

The only question is how many promises would they break. I'm sure there's lots of Harper policies they could campaign against and then quietly accept.

Nah, Canada isn't gonna fall for that again. Not in 2015.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
janfromthebruce wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.

Mulcair has said he doesn't believe in legalizing marijuana, but doesn't believe people should go to jail for possessing small amounts of it.

 

Last time I checked the NDP is a democratic organization and not so top down and driven by "the leader".

I realize that, but personally I would doubt that as Prime Minister Mulcair would implement a policy he is totally against. That's just my opinion, many people think the NDP will live up to all policies the grassroots decide.

Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

So PSS, you know what is in Tom Mulcair's mind eh? You think that the Party's membership can be bullied and led around by sheep eh? Why is it over and over again, that new posters emerge here, tell us they are non partisan, and then spend most of their time talking about the Libs? I don't care what you write, but I don't think you are being honest about yourself or your motivations. Look, I can read minds too!


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Don't worry. I think there's plenty of Liberals who could muster up the grand vision to turn the clock back to good ol' 2006, plus a failure to do anything about 2% higher unemployment, plus a slew of painful cuts to social programs.

The only question is how many promises would they break. I'm sure there's lots of Harper policies they could campaign against and then quietly accept.

Nah, Canada isn't gonna fall for that again. Not in 2015.



Thanks SD!


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
It's no wonder the babble section on this site seems to be dying off when new posters can't make comments without being critsized.

Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

PoliSciStudent wrote:
It's no wonder the babble section on this site seems to be dying off when new posters can't make comments without being critsized.

Who says the comments section is dying? You? If you post something, and people disagree, don't expect them to sit by and say nothing. I said you are trying to read Mulcair's mind, and I said you don't know what he thinks. What you are really saying is either, I don't think Art you are worth any of my time, or, I don't have a come back.

I have noticed on this site, that there is a particular type of poster that calls themselves netural and then starts writing things that are almost entirely supportive Lib. I have been watching this kind of behaviour all of my life. I don't care who you support, but what I care is that you be honest about who and what you are. That is all. I sign all my posts in my local newspaper with my real name, am always honest and open about where I am coming from, and use my real name every where else I post. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to use the same level of transparency.

If that is a problem, it certainly isn't one for me.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Arthur Cramer wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
It's no wonder the babble section on this site seems to be dying off when new posters can't make comments without being critsized.

Who says the comments section is dying? You? If you post something, and people disagree, don't expect them to sit by and say nothing. I said you are trying to read Mulcair's mind, and I said you don't know what he thinks. What you are really saying is either, I don't think Art you are worth any of my time, or, I don't have a come back.

I have noticed on this site, that there is a particular type of poster that calls themselves netural and then starts writing things that are almost entirely supportive Lib. I have been watching this kind of behaviour all of my life. I don't care who you support, but what I care is that you be honest about who and what you are. That is all. I sign all my posts in my local newspaper with my real name, am always honest and open about where I am coming from, and use my real name every where else I post. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to use the same level of transparency.

If that is a problem, it certainly isn't one for me.

I was going to respond to you anymore, like I previously said, but seeing you keep responding my posts I will. My opinion is that I don't think Mulcair, like any PM, will implement a policy they have publicly stated they don't agree with. You don't like that then to bad, it doesn't make me a secret supporter of another party because I have that view of Mulcair. As for the commention section I have been reading it for a while and the comments have slowed down considerably, maybe it's just because it is Summer. However, people like you don't make it very welcoming for people to comment. I have commented on many different forums, some partisan, with people of all different parties and even though my views were different then theirs they weren't critical like you. Conservative supporters have been more tolerant then you, despite us having big differences on policies.

Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Yeah, good old, bad old me, some guy in his 50s who lives in Winnipeg. Yep, be very afraid of me. I won't apologize for being critical. You can be critical of mine all you want; the problem is, you always add nasty to what you write back. I have been around long enough to know that the Libs and the Tories are no Damn good. I am also tired of putting up with all the garbage people post of PC or Lib bent in the expectation that no one will call them out. That has been a real problem for the NDP. Tom seems to get this. If you think I am rough, well, that is laughable. As to your comments regarding not repsonding to what I said, it proves what I suspected about you. Guys like you love to hand it out, but you can't take it. I never treated you with the disdain you have shown for me. The fact that you responded the way you did showed just how little regard you have for me, and how little you understand about treating people with respect. So, don't try and pin this on anyone but yourself. Look in the mirror for once.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, good old, bad old me, some guy in his 50s who lives in Winnipeg. Yep, be very afraid of me. I won't apologize for being critical. You can be critical of mine all you want; the problem is, you always add nasty to what you write back. I have been around long enough to know that the Libs and the Tories are no Damn good. I am also tired of putting up with all the garbage people post of PC or Lib bent in the expectation that no one will call them out. That has been a real problem for the NDP. Tom seems to get this. If you think I am rough, well, that is laughable. As to your comments regarding not repsonding to what I said, it proves what I suspected about you. Guys like you love to hand it out, but you can't take it. I never treated you with the disdain you have shown for me. The fact that you responded the way you did showed just how little regard you have for me, and how little you understand about treating people with respect. So, don't try and pin this on anyone but yourself. Look in the mirror for once.

You have alleged that I'm a supporter of another party right from the start. It's not my fault you have issues with other parties and can't understand if some NDP voters don't think like you. Not all members of the party like Tom Mulcair, does that make them any less a New Democrat. I don't have an issue with the man but I highly doubt he's going to implement policies he doesn't agree with.

Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Well PSS. your last point is a valid one, and I may have made a wrongful assumption. So, I apologize for that. But I pretty much stand by the rest of what I said. No, I do stand by the rest of what I said. As I said, be polite and respectful and you'll get it back. But considering how you responded to some of my posts, I don't otherwise feel a need to apologize for anything else.

I didn't ask you not to comment but to be respectful and polite. That is the Golden Rule, and its a pretty easy one to follow.

That was ALL I was saying.


pookie
Online
Joined: Dec 13 2005

Arthur, do you think you have been "polite and respectful" on this thread? 

Seriously?

 

 


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003
Arthur, I'm just reading this thread now and I have to ask you to please back off PSS. He is welcome to his opinion and has not posted anything against babble policy. If you disagree with his analysis of the Liberal party, do it without (what I see as) hectoring and berating him, please. PoliSciStudent, welcome to babble.

Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Catchfire, I think the word of hectoring is a bit extereme, and overall, I don't agree with your assessment. But ok, in the interest of this place working, I'll back off. But I don't feel badly about anything I have written. But that is your judgement, and I respect it.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So PSS, you know what is in Tom Mulcair's mind eh? You think that the Party's membership can be bullied and led around by sheep eh? Why is it over and over again, that new posters emerge here, tell us they are non partisan, and then spend most of their time talking about the Libs? I don't care what you write, but I don't think you are being honest about yourself or your motivations. Look, I can read minds too!

Imagine the audacity of a poster talking about the Liberals in a thread entitled Liberal leadership race.

Babble is really going down hill compared to last year when there were four or five different threads all looking at the entrails of various candidates and all non-NDP types were regularly vilified for either being to right wing or too left wing. 

So far Arthur IMO you have been exceedingly rude because you think PSS is a Liberal.  Even if he/she is I personally don''t think Liberals need to be attacked for posting their thoughts. Even at this NDP "affiliated" site.

I do not think the study of politics is a science and my degree is in political studies.


pookie
Online
Joined: Dec 13 2005

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I do not think the study of politics is a science and my degree is in political studies.

LOL!  Well, that's what McGill calls my degree so I can understand PPS' moniker.


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Well, K1951, you are entitled to your opinion. I'll respect Catchfire's request, but I don't regret anything I have written.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

I'm going to see if my university can rename my degree "Literature science." Actually, come to think of it, my Masters is an MSc, 'cause that's how the Scots do it, for some reason. Bad ass.

Anyway, we can probably get this thread back on track now. My vote for Liberal leader: Thomas Mulcair. Discuss. [/troll]


pookie
Online
Joined: Dec 13 2005

I think Dominic Leblanc would be an interesting choice (tho I understand his weaknesses) and certainly better than Justin Trudeau.


Michael Moriarity
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

Catchfire, you failed to include a [troll] tag to match the [/troll] at the end of your post. Most simple parsers (like me) would interpret that to mean that every word of your post was trolling. Is that what you really meant?


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Actually, Michael Moriarty, I have never used the [troll] tag in any post. I guess that means every word I've ever written on babble has been trolling. Which isn't far from the truth, I suppose...


Left Turn
Online
Joined: Mar 28 2005

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Don't worry. I think there's plenty of Liberals who could muster up the grand vision to turn the clock back to good ol' 2006, plus a failure to do anything about 2% higher unemployment, plus a slew of painful cuts to social programs.

Why should I worry about a party I don't support?  I merely outlined a positioning for the Liberals that would have them campaign on something other than what the Conservatives will campaign on (becasue we need a second Conservative Party like I need a hole in my head), without campaigning on the same turf as the NDP.

In other words, a positining that would have them target fiscally conservative, socially progressive voters, rather than fishing for soft NDP votes.

It would involve a core promise of a hiring freeze and no new spending until the budget is balanced. It would also involve a promise to balance the budget without cutting transfers to the provinces or the federal social wage (EI, CPP, OAS, student loans), or funding for other core programs such as the CBC.

It would involve a promise that Canada would not host any leaders summits requiring large security budgets; that the F35 program would be cancelled without any replacement; and that there would be no infrasturcture stimulus programs where bureaucrats take grant applications from NGOs and then decide which applications to approve based in part on whether they like the organization that submitted the proposal.

It would possibly involve a promise to cut funding for programs such as research grants and regional economic development, if such cuts would be needed to balance the budget without cutting core government spending.

It would involve campaigning on reinstating the following government programs once the budget is balanced: Newfoudland's search and rescue capacity, the environmental disaster cleanup teams, the Kits Point Coast Guard, and the court challenges program, but nothing else; and to plow all other money into debt reduction.

It would involve campaigning on giving control of the approval process for energy projects back to the National Energy Board; of scrapping the no-fly list; and of getting rid of Harper's mandatory minimum sentences.

It would involve a promise of no further tax cuts, but also of no tax increases.

It would specifically involve NOT campaigning on the traditional NDP turf of increasing social program spending, so it would mean not promising to undo Harper's cuts to the social wage.

In short, having the Liberals campaign on a platform they might actually implement, without campaigning as a second Conservative Party.

The reason I have no idea who the Liberals have who could campaign on such a platform, is because most Liberals could not resist the urge to campaign on a combination of income tax cuts and modest increases in social spending.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So PSS, you know what is in Tom Mulcair's mind eh? You think that the Party's membership can be bullied and led around by sheep eh? Why is it over and over again, that new posters emerge here, tell us they are non partisan, and then spend most of their time talking about the Libs? I don't care what you write, but I don't think you are being honest about yourself or your motivations. Look, I can read minds too!

Imagine the audacity of a poster talking about the Liberals in a thread entitled Liberal leadership race.

Babble is really going down hill compared to last year when there were four or five different threads all looking at the entrails of various candidates and all non-NDP types were regularly vilified for either being to right wing or too left wing. 

So far Arthur IMO you have been exceedingly rude because you think PSS is a Liberal.  Even if he/she is I personally don''t think Liberals need to be attacked for posting their thoughts. Even at this NDP "affiliated" site.

I do not think the study of politics is a science and my degree is in political studies.

Well I have every intention of telling people I am a scientist when I finish my degree!

Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/08/dear-ms-coyne/ http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.ca/2012/08/the-liberal-party-of-canada-p... Hell most be cold, because a Liberal candiate just told the truth about her party. I also note its obvious she's trying to play up outsider angle, basically trying to pull a Mulcair , running against party establishment, but she's no Mulcair. She embarrassed the Liberals seriously and further damaged them with the public, while Mulcair merely ruffled a few feathers over imagine/language issues. She doesn't get the differences in tactics, why his worked and why she's shooting the Liberals in the foot.

Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2012/08/rise-teenage-jesusor-fall.html?m=1 I love that even Big City Liberal calls Justin Teenage Jesus. And that walking into a rake statement had me LMAO. If its true that Justin plans to have all his campaign bosses 40 or under then he probably is riduculous enough to behind Liberalwho after all. I know Big City Liberal gets this info from Warren Kinsella, who has a history of lashing out at exbosses, but he was crowing about Justin not long ago and is busy on team Dalton so I don't think this is his usual bitterness. If Justin is this much of a disaster he may actually lose the Liberal leadership race and seeing thier symbol so publicly humiliated when it seemed such a sure thing would be devastating to the Liberal Party. I feeling better about Justin running everyday it seems, but media obsession over him will be annoying, and a distraction from what's really important, NDP vs. Tory.

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Potential Grit leadership candidates should 'stay home' if they can't raise half a million dollars: Sgro

PARLIAMENT HILL—If prospective Liberal leadership candidates can’t raise at least $500,000 to enter the party race set to begin in November they should “stay home,” veteran Liberal MP Judy Sgro says.

Ms. Sgro (York West, Ont.), commenting on questions several prospective contenders have raised about elements of the leadership contest rules, also told The Hill Times if any Liberal who can’t cough up the $75,000 entry fee the party has set, “it’s telling you that there is no space for you.”


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

I guess their "backers" and who the Liberals "really represent" are those with deep pockets. Having said that, they have previous leader candidate who still have not paid off their previous leadership debts and it's bringing a "negative lens" to this leadership campaign - something the libs want to be removed from the public view.

They are also suffering from "leadership campaign fatigue" having had 3 since 2006 (or is that 4 - lost track). but 1/2 a million dollars is a lot of "fund raising" for a 3rd party leadership candidate. cough


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Hebert has noticed that the Conservatives are focussing their attacks mostly against the NDP and generally ignoring the Liberals.  She concludes that the Conservatives figure that Trudeau is the likely successor, which would enable the NDP to become the main opponents of the Conservatives (IE, the public would view the NDP as the opposition who could be most trusted with the economy).  Thus, the Conservatives are now focussing on the NDP as the major threat, since Rae is out of the picture.

Hebert wrote:
As an aside: If Justin Trudeau is to vault from the Liberal back rows to become party leader, the NDP has a better than fighting chance of beating the Liberals at the economic game.

It seems Conservative strategists have come to the same conclusion.

Since Parliament reopened on Monday, the Conservatives have thrown everything but an imaginary kitchen sink at the NDP.


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/20/elizabeth-may-ndp-heckling_n_190...

"Elizabeth May: NDP Heckling Put An End To My Question"; May also tweeted "There's a first. I couldn't finish my question due to heckling from the NDP. So much for Jack Layton's call for civility. #cdnpoli"

Does this hurt the NDP badly and bolster Trudeau? Did anyone see this? I have no doubt May is being hypcrticial but I am not happy about this.

Thoughts?


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/20/elizabeth-may-ndp-heckling_n_190...

"Elizabeth May: NDP Heckling Put An End To My Question"; May also tweeted "There's a first. I couldn't finish my question due to heckling from the NDP. So much for Jack Layton's call for civility. #cdnpoli"

Does this hurt the NDP badly and bolster Trudeau? Did anyone see this? I have no doubt May is being hypcrticial but I am not happy about this.

Thoughts?

I watched the video and she sat down after two seconds of groans ("heckling" in her mind) muttering "I can't be heard."  The fact that I heard everything she said including her mutter indicated to me that she was wrong in her assessment (she clearly could be heard.)  Also, her question seemed to have been asked, rather than unfinished.  It's too bad that the video did not include Mulcair's response. 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

May seems to love playing the victim card. Its always "poor me, those big boys in the NDP keep being mean to me - don't they know that I'm allowed to treat them like shit, but they have to walk on egg shells around me because I AM QUEEN Elizabeth". She makes me want to VOMIT!


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