NDP leadership race 4

1774 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Good article by Tom Parkin:  http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/01/justin-trudeau-has-met-his-match-in...

In a press scrum the other day, Singh said that they had picked a House Leader (or Deputy Leader) that they would announce in the next day or two.  I am curious who it will be.  Possibly Cullen, though maybe Caron.  Not sure.

mark_alfred

Mighty Middle wrote:

Meanwhile CBC Terry Milewski is being accused on twitter for asking a racist question to Jagmeet Singh earlier today.

Terry Milewski‏ is a bit of an attack dog.  However, I feel Jagmeet did very well in the interview.  Good to see that Jagmeet can hold up in the face of aggressive questioning.  Here is the full interview:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1060031555866

pietro_bcc

mark_alfred wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Meanwhile CBC Terry Milewski is being accused on twitter for asking a racist question to Jagmeet Singh earlier today. Watch at link below and decide for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pECUO77djg

Terry Milewski‏ is a bit of an attack dog.  However, I feel Jagmeet did very well in the interview.

I agree that the line of questioning was racist, if Milewski had a reason for asking those questions that was related to Singh (ie. "in the past you made this statement regarding the bombing, has your view changed") that would be different, but that's not what he did.

That being said Singh initially refusing to be on the show without having the questions submitted beforehand and his refusal to be clear, essentially trying to filibuster the interview by answering a question no one asked him and being mealy mouthed when he finally did denounce those who made the posters hailing the Air India bomber as a martyr, rather than just being unequivical and strong in denouncing those losers, wasn't very becoming of a federal party leader. In anycase its his first day so I won't judge him too harshly on his media skills, he'll have time to improve.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Basement Dweller wrote:

The NDP seats in Quebec were in danger, regardless of who of the top three won. Singh will at least do better than Angus or Ashton would've.

Maybe better than Angus...but why Ashton?  Her ideas would resonate with a lot of the young activists types in Quebec.

mark_alfred

I did edit my post about the Milewski‏ interview, to include the full interview rather than just the clip that Mighty Middle wanted to focus on.  The full interview shows that Jagmeet can hold up in the face of aggressive questioning.  He did quite well in the interview.  Figure I may as well repost the link:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1060031555866

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

Singh Win a New Dawn for NDP, a Nightmare for Trudeau

Hip, new leader could erode Liberal urban base in Toronto and Vancouver, and Tories might pick up three-way splits.

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/10/03/Singh-Win-a-New-Dawn-for-NDP/

and Tories might pick up three-way splits.

So Singh is good news for the Conservatives then?

That's what many progressives are going to worry about.

SeekingAPolitic...

NorthReport wrote:

 

Do you mean like the disabled voters who received a disability income increase only to have to have their bus pass taken away at the same time by the Liberals? 

Rev Pesky wrote:

From pietro_bcc:

Singh will gain seats in Ontario and BC...

Not necessarily in BC. There is an NDP government now in BC, and I suspect by the time of the next federal election the local electorate will have had enough NDP to last them for a while.

NR are talking about Ontario, news to me about the bus passes.  I know locally we have been agaitaing for a low income bus passes.  As far as I know bus issue munipical issues so each city sets own policy.  Could explain more about the bus passes being a taken away, maybe things have changed since I lobbied city counsel about the issue in my community.  Just curious.

Debater

In NDP leadership race, Charlie Angus was dealt the hardest blow

The Timmins-James Bay MP did not expect to become the NDP’s new leader on Sunday, but nor was his team prepared for a crushing and definitive defeat

Chantal Hébert

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/03/in-ndp-leadership-race-ch...

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Singh Win a New Dawn for NDP, a Nightmare for Trudeau

Hip, new leader could erode Liberal urban base in Toronto and Vancouver, and Tories might pick up three-way splits.

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/10/03/Singh-Win-a-New-Dawn-for-NDP/

So more like a new dawn for the Conservatives?

josh

Debater wrote:

In NDP leadership race, Charlie Angus was dealt the hardest blow

The Timmins-James Bay MP did not expect to become the NDP’s new leader on Sunday, but nor was his team prepared for a crushing and definitive defeat

Chantal Hébert

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/03/in-ndp-leadership-race-ch...

Angus did flop, but Hebert's view of "forward looking" obviously doesn't include economic policy.  Gender, nationality, ethnoreligion.  Not a word about challenging the neo-liberal economic order.  Which is just what insiders, including the media, want.

Rev Pesky

From NorthReport:

Do you mean like the disabled voters who received a disability income increase only to have to have their bus pass taken away at the same time by the Liberals? 

I'll just point out that after years of the most corrupt government British Columbia has seen, the NDP couldn't even squeeze a small majority out of the voters. Now they have Andrew Weaver sniping from the sidelines, saying the NDP promises are 'irrelevant', and the NDP is 'hypocritical' for their political appointments.

And while the BC NDP is part of the national party, the BC Liberals are not. The BC Liberals use the name as one of convenience for what is a coalition. Thus whatever dislike the voters have for the BC Liberals doesn't reflect on the federal Liberal party.

And speaking of broken promises, it took all of a couple of weeks for the $400/year renters rebate the NDP promised to evaporate. 

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Niki Ashton should feel proud of her showing.  She more than doubled her raw vote totals and tripled her share of the vote from 2012.  This is especially impresssive when you factor the incredible level of irrational, dismissive, condescending hostility her campaign generated among the NDP Right.  And at this point, everyone who tried to dehumanize her by calling her "robotic" and who acted as if she had no business even running at all owes her a huge apology.  She grew immeasurably in stature in this campaign and has earned the respect of all for her performance and the strength of her message.  We have not seen the last of her.

Jesus... she got 17% of the vote and you think it's some big Ashton win?  Get a grip.  And sadly, she'll be around for awhile.  But I doubt she'll ever be leader.  Thank god.  Far too many New Democrats dislike her.

Unlike Angus and Caron, she met, and actually exceeded, her poll numbers.  It wasn't a big win, and KB never claimed it was.  Only an arse such as yourself would read it that way.

joshy a little touchy?  Awww.  So now it's expectations with poll numbers that were NOT accurate overall?  HAHAHA  Omg... priceless.

Hunky_Monkey

Rev Pesky wrote:

From pietro_bcc:

Singh will gain seats in Ontario and BC...

Not necessarily in BC. There is an NDP government now in BC, and I suspect by the time of the next federal election the local electorate will have had enough NDP to last them for a while.

The NDP did better in NS federally in 2011 after the NDP was elected in 2009 provincially.  We actually picked up a seat and almost a fourth.  It all depends how Horgan does from here on in.  

Hunky_Monkey

Ken Burch wrote:

Basement Dweller wrote:

The NDP seats in Quebec were in danger, regardless of who of the top three won. Singh will at least do better than Angus or Ashton would've.

Maybe better than Angus...but why Ashton?  Her ideas would resonate with a lot of the young activists types in Quebec.

How many young activist types are there in Quebec out of over 8 million?  

R.E.Wood

I miss about 150 posts, and what do I come back to? MM repeating the exact same tired argument from the previous hundreds of posts (MM's just a Liberal lurking here trying to troll us all)... Hunky being a rude ass & now mocking and laughing at other members... NR back in cheerleading mode (instead of former depressed "NDP are all losers" mode)... and Sean (who is one of the most truly insightful and consistently thoughtful members here) reduced by MM's constant idiocy to bashing his head against a Liberal brick wall.

What fun. Think I'll take a break for a while again.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Basement Dweller wrote:

The NDP seats in Quebec were in danger, regardless of who of the top three won. Singh will at least do better than Angus or Ashton would've.

Maybe better than Angus...but why Ashton?  Her ideas would resonate with a lot of the young activists types in Quebec.

How many young activist types are there in Quebec out of over 8 million?  

Huge numbers of them, actually. The generation who started in the tuition protests-a group who would have voted overwhelmingly NDP in 2015 had it not been for Mulcair refusing to allow his MPs to publicly support their cause-are working in anti-austerity, indigenous rights, climate justice and LGBTQ rights activism.  

Why dismiss them?  Why would you want the NDP to dismiss them?  It's not as though there's any large bloc of people who can be won over if only the NDP message is "we hate that lefty crap as much as you do".

BTW, in case you've not noticed, Singh's four policy priorities are sharply to the left of those of Mulcair's, and those of yours, most likely.  It's impossible to believe that a person who's as contemptuous of left activists as you are would significantly disagree with Andrew Scheer.

Your guy won on the first ballot.  Congratulations to him.  Congratulations to you.  Given that the race is over, why are you still lashing out at other leadership candidates and their supporters?  Shouldn't you be celebrating and reaching out to them.  What have you possibly got to be this bitter about?  Why are you working for division rather than unity?

NorthReport

A few oversights. The NDP are ready to go with the renter's rebate but they don't have a majority government the Greens are holding it up and as well who do you think the NDP should appoint to political positions: their enemies? All you are doing is regurgitating the rightwing media talking points

Rev Pesky wrote:

From NorthReport:

Do you mean like the disabled voters who received a disability income increase only to have to have their bus pass taken away at the same time by the Liberals? 

I'll just point out that after years of the most corrupt government British Columbia has seen, the NDP couldn't even squeeze a small majority out of the voters. Now they have Andrew Weaver sniping from the sidelines, saying the NDP promises are 'irrelevant', and the NDP is 'hypocritical' for their political appointments.

And while the BC NDP is part of the national party, the BC Liberals are not. The BC Liberals use the name as one of convenience for what is a coalition. Thus whatever dislike the voters have for the BC Liberals doesn't reflect on the federal Liberal party.

And speaking of broken promises, it took all of a couple of weeks for the $400/year renters rebate the NDP promised to evaporate. 

NorthReport
NorthReport
Rev Pesky

From NorthReport:

All you are doing is regurgitating the rightwing media talking points.

In fact both of the points I brought up were Andrew Weaver's talking points. You know Andrew Weaver, the leader of the BC Green party, which is in a coalition with the NDP.

NDPP

Canada's Prime Minister is Joining America's Most Successful Women

http://fortune.com/2017/10/03/justin-trudeau-fortune-mpw-2017/

"It's official: Canada's most famous feminist is coming to Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit..."

brookmere

Rev Pesky wrote:
You know Andrew Weaver, the leader of the BC Green party, which is in a coalition with the NDP.

It's not a coalition. If it were, Weaver would be a cabinet minister and subject to cabinet solidarity, and he would be enforcing solidarity from his caucus. The Greens are an opposition party and acting like one. IMHO they chose the prop up the NDP over the Liberals because the NDP was more likely to actually deliver on proportional representation.

NorthReport

Correct

Rev Pesky

From NorthReport:

Correct.

Semantic difference?

NDP/Green power sharing agreement

British Columbia's NDP government has set aside more than $260,000 a year in public money to maintain a power-sharing agreement that is keeping it alive in the minority legislature.

...The New Democrats took power over the summer after signing a deal with the Greens, who committed to support the government in confidence votes in exchange for a list of policy commitments.

To keep the deal together, the new government set up a confidence and supply-agreement secretariat within the Premier's office, appointing Donna Sanford – the sister of senior campaign official Glen Sanford – as executive director. The secretariat's role is to ensure the Greens are properly consulted on policies and legislation.

I call it coalition, you call it...?

Sean in Ottawa

Caron as choice in the house is solid.

Misfit

I was hoping for Guy Caron. i'm sorry he did so poorly. I think he's going to be a good DL in the house.

NorthReport

Good first move by Jagmeet

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

I call it coalition, you call it...?

potato?

Technically it's called a "confidence and supply agreement" but many here in BC are viewing it as a "coalition." 

Since they are not conservative, the NDP-Greens did not get married in church but instead they eloped and went common-law. They also decided on hyphenated names, NDP-Green and Green-NDP.

Hunky_Monkey

Ken Burch wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Basement Dweller wrote:

The NDP seats in Quebec were in danger, regardless of who of the top three won. Singh will at least do better than Angus or Ashton would've.

Maybe better than Angus...but why Ashton?  Her ideas would resonate with a lot of the young activists types in Quebec.

How many young activist types are there in Quebec out of over 8 million?  

Huge numbers of them, actually. The generation who started in the tuition protests-a group who would have voted overwhelmingly NDP in 2015 had it not been for Mulcair refusing to allow his MPs to publicly support their cause-are working in anti-austerity, indigenous rights, climate justice and LGBTQ rights activism.  

Why dismiss them?  Why would you want the NDP to dismiss them?  It's not as though there's any large bloc of people who can be won over if only the NDP message is "we hate that lefty crap as much as you do".

BTW, in case you've not noticed, Singh's four policy priorities are sharply to the left of those of Mulcair's, and those of yours, most likely.  It's impossible to believe that a person who's as contemptuous of left activists as you are would significantly disagree with Andrew Scheer.

Your guy won on the first ballot.  Congratulations to him.  Congratulations to you.  Given that the race is over, why are you still lashing out at other leadership candidates and their supporters?  Shouldn't you be celebrating and reaching out to them.  What have you possibly got to be this bitter about?  Why are you working for division rather than unity?

Are you just being obtuse?  And now Singh is far to the left of Mulcair?  Wait, I thought Singh was a right-wing Liberal?  Could you please try to be at least consistent, Ken?

As for left activists, if you think there's enough of them to sway elections or even seats, I've got some prime swampland in Florida to sell ya.  That's my point.  They're a tiny percentage of the voting population.

Can you give us concrete examples, and I assume you have many, where Mulcair did not side with climate "justice" or LGBT rights or indigenous rights, etc?  I expect a long list... but doubt you'll be able to provide.

Hunky_Monkey

NorthReport wrote:
">https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/niki-ashton-blames-sexism-for-th...

I spoke with four New Democrats today who are women - two Angus supporters, one Singh, and one Caron.  All four of them laughed at this.  While women surely face sexism in public life, the other factor is that even women can be unlikable candidates, run poor campaigns, etc.  That's Ashton.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Ashton wasn't unlikeable, and significantly improved her performance.  And the race is over, so why are you STILL negging her?  Move on, already.

I didn't claim that Mulcair hadn't backed those causes(though he spent more time backing the right-wing cause of a balanced budget, something he should never have led with since the voters clearly wern't demanding it in 2015).  What I said was that, for no good reason, he refused to allow his MPs to publicly support the student tuition protests, protests that were only opposed by complete reactionaries.  You can't deny that his insistence on caucus silence(extending to barring MPs from even wearing the student solidarity symbol of a red square on their coats) on that issue did nothing but damage to the party.  It started driving people away, and there was no political benefit to his insistence on that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Singh won, and his emphases seem to be to the left of Mulcair and better than anyone had any reason to expect-the natural assumpton when he declared was that he would be to the right of the other candidates-that's the only reason the party establishment would have supported him-they wanted to prevent any change.

I hope he defies their wishes and creates internal democracy in the party.  It's time for that and nothing but good would come from it.  The party workers should decide policy and candidate selection should be left up exclusively to the riding associations.

Hunky_Monkey

Ken Burch wrote:

Ashton wasn't unlikeable, and significantly improved her performance.  And the race is over, so why are you STILL negging her?  Move on, already.

I didn't claim that Mulcair hadn't backed those causes(though he spent more time backing the right-wing cause of a balanced budget, something he should never have led with since the voters clearly wern't demanding it in 2015).  What I said was that, for no good reason, he refused to allow his MPs to publicly support the student tuition protests, protests that were only opposed by complete reactionaries.  You can't deny that his insistence on caucus silence(extending to barring MPs from even wearing the student solidarity symbol of a red square on their coats) on that issue did nothing but damage to the party.  It started driving people away, and there was no political benefit to his insistence on that.

So Tommy Douglas, in opposition to deficits, was right-wing?  Interesting.  Good to know.  

And I think you've had a little too much kool-aid from the Socialist Caucus.  

nicky

Trudeau wanted deficits but no corporate tax increases. This supposedly was left wing.

Mulcair wanted similar levels of spending but no deficits because he wd make up the difference with corporate tax hikes. And that supposedly was right wing?

Please explain that Ken?

brookmere

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
So Tommy Douglas, in opposition to deficits, was right-wing?

Tommy Douglas ran deficits. You or anyone else interested are welcome to argue whether this means Douglas was truly in opposition to deficits.

His policy was to run balanced budgets when feasible, which he did. This is something entirely different from running balanced budgets every year regardless of circumstances, and more so when combined with no personal income tax increases for anyone. And still more so when your level of government isn't receiving fiscal transfers from above.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Ashton wasn't unlikeable, and significantly improved her performance.  And the race is over, so why are you STILL negging her?  Move on, already.

I didn't claim that Mulcair hadn't backed those causes(though he spent more time backing the right-wing cause of a balanced budget, something he should never have led with since the voters clearly wern't demanding it in 2015).  What I said was that, for no good reason, he refused to allow his MPs to publicly support the student tuition protests, protests that were only opposed by complete reactionaries.  You can't deny that his insistence on caucus silence(extending to barring MPs from even wearing the student solidarity symbol of a red square on their coats) on that issue did nothing but damage to the party.  It started driving people away, and there was no political benefit to his insistence on that.

So Tommy Douglas, in opposition to deficits, was right-wing?  Interesting.  Good to know.  

And I think you've had a little too much kool-aid from the Socialist Caucus.  

I have nothing to do with the Socialist Caucus, and it's time you stopped implying that everybody to the left of your comfort zone is a Trotskyist.

In the Thirties and Forties, it was possible to do social democracy with a balanced budget-though Tommy basically gave up trying to balance the budget as soon as he got in, and the voters made it clear that they didn't care by repeatedly re-electing his government.  

It's not possible to do social democracy or anything even vaguely progressive now if you have to balance the budget every year-the Chretien years proved and the Bob Rae era in Ontario proved THAT for the rest of eternity-and unless the Bank of Canada and the rest of the commanding heights are nationalized, it will never be possible to do social democracy on a balanced budget again.  What's the point of even bothering to promise that when balancing the budgets serves no worthwhile purpose anymore, when it just gives the financial sector one more means of forcing a left-of-center government to give up being significantly different from the right-of-center government it defeated to get into power.

josh

brookmere wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
So Tommy Douglas, in opposition to deficits, was right-wing?

Tommy Douglas ran deficits. You or anyone else interested are welcome to argue whether this means Douglas was truly in opposition to deficits.

His policy was to run balanced budgets when feasible, which he did. This is something entirely different from running balanced budgets every year regardless of circumstances, and more so when combined with no personal income tax increases for anyone. And still more so when your level of government isn't receiving fiscal transfers from above.

Thank you for correcting Mr. Blairite's hoary talking point.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

People say that Canada is a resources and manufacturing-based economy. The fact is, more than 50% of the profits in this country are made by the financial industry. Those profits flow through to every pensioner with a private and/or CPP/QPP pension. Profits for financials increase as consumer debt, mortgages, and government debt go up. 

We may actually conclude that Canada is a debt-based economy.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's interesting to me that if a secular voter isn't keen on religious candidates and politicians, the common responses include "but they mostly respect the separation of church and state" or "but religions have done great things for the people" or "but Tommy Douglas!".

We rarely even seem to ask why it is that religious voters have such a strong aversion to an atheist candidate that for all intents and purposes, every candidate needs to be prepared to bend the knee for some or other deity.  Why do religious types evidently mistrust atheists that much?

Because atheists don't believe in a supreme being that will punish them for eternity if they don't try to be good. Many religeous types don't believe that people can be moral without religion.

Pondering

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

On the topic of which candidate Trudeau was most scared of and whether he is scared of Singh.

He's not afraid of anyone in the NDP, the NDP is a spot of lint on his suit jacket as far as he's concerned. He sees his competition as the conservatives and to be fair we haven't earned fear from any party.

Since you were dead wrong in your predictions on this race... Singh would place third... I venture to guess you're wrong about this too.

I predict we're looking at a minority govenrnment in 2019.  The Liberals have around a 15 seat majority.  It's not much.  And Zoolander and his team know that.  Sooner than later, they'll go after Singh in some way to try not to lose seats to the NDP.

No they won't. Trudeau is going to stick with his winning brand. His 2019 campaign has been in the works since the day after the 2015 election. He will campaign on his economic record and international image.

The media is pushing the narrative that Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau are similar in ways that will influence voters. They do have some similarities but they are not similarities that voters will base their choice on.

It's possible the Liberals will be reduced to a minority but I think they will get another majority that could be increased or decreased depending on events. That isn't to say the NDP should give up or not try as hard. Quite the contrary. I'm saying don't underestimate the competition. That is what the NDP and Conservatives did in 2015.

JS gave Guy Caron a prominent position. He has said that inequality is a primary issue. I'm willing to give him time. He is doing the right thing (in my opinion) in focusing on traveling the country and building the grassroots. Now is not the time to present an election platform any more than it was for Trudeau when he was elected leader. So far he has the basics. In my opinion he is starting off strides ahead of Trudeau in terms of his background as a lawyer and politician. The NDP has to challenge Trudeau on the economy. JS has spoken up for fair trade over free trade and I do think that is the best, possibly the only way, to undermine Trudeau.  (the broken promises angle doesn't work).

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Regardless of whether you see "multiculturalism" as a lie or as merely an unfulfilled dream, fact is it was a goal that led a lot of immigrants to connect less with the economically driven  politics of the New Democrats, and more with the culturally driven politics of the Liberals.

Trudeau won the election based on economics and being mainstream not culture. The Conservatives were in first place for a while during the election as was the NDP. Thinking of voters as Liberals or Conservatives or NDPers and thinking that a vote means the voter has bought into the ideology of a party is self-defeating. Some NDPers speak of the NDP taking votes away from the Liberals as though the Liberals now own the support of everyone who voted for them and that support has to be "won" away from the Liberals or other support has to be "won" away from the Conservatives.

The voters who decide the election will decide during the election period who they will vote for. Historically Canadians seem to stick with the incumbent based on "the devil you know" principle and general competence until they have had about 10 years after which if someone else looks able to run the country they get a shot.

The beginning of the end for Mulcair was his promise to balance the budget every year, something not even the Conservatives managed, while delivering national daycare, something that was meaningless to Quebecers.

Conservatives had done a good job winning over immigrants based on social conservatism until they were exposed when trying to play to their base when they were losing. Even so they would have won if neither the Liberals nor the NDP seemed credible as economic managers. As soon as the Liberals looked credible on the economy and Trudeau looked minimally credible as a PM Liberal support took off because people were tired of Harper.

I don't recall the Liberals attacking Harper or the Conservatives very much. Trudeau focused on his positive messages and selling the Liberals not attacking the other parties.

In Jagmeet Singh the NDP has a credible leader. Next they need a credible platform that is economically feasible. Trudeau has given the Parliamentary Budget Officer a new task in evaluating the platforms of the contenders during elections. I think it's a booby trap or certainly intended to make it more difficult for other parties to challenge the Liberals on the economy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That isn't to say the NDP should give up or not try as hard.

Damn!  Too late.  I just received a fancy orange mailer from the NDP telling me that Trudeau is too awesome and they're giving up.  It's just too late now, with only years until the next election, and they feel that their time and energy could be better spent returning party donations, cleaning their HoC seats for the incoming new Liberals, and winding down business.  I see that the domain name "ndp.ca" is now for sale on GoDaddy.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
That isn't to say the NDP should give up or not try as hard.

Damn!  Too late.  I just received a fancy orange mailer from the NDP telling me that Trudeau is too awesome and they're giving up.  It's just too late now, with only years until the next election, and they feel that their time and energy could be better spent returning party donations, cleaning their HoC seats for the incoming new Liberals, and winding down business.  I see that the domain name "ndp.ca" is now for sale on GoDaddy.

Cheap shot. You pick out a phrase completely ignoring the actual argument being presented. Mocking me may give you the giggles but it won't help your cause assuming you support the NDP.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Don't be too offended, Pondering.  It wasn't meant as a surgical strike. 

But really, we're not even half way between election cycles.  The Liberals aren't giving up.  The NDP isn't giving up, the Cons aren't giving up, and the Patriotic People's Christian Animals for Marijuana Party isn't even giving up.  We're literally about two years away from any party, no matter how small and insignificant, throwing in the towel.

WWWTT

I’m starting to realize that there’s not enough appropriate threads for babblers. I constantly would pass this thread after Jagmeet won. And I would notice that posters kept posting. Out of curiosity I checked it out again and sure enough this thread is now just a free fall for whatever is federal Canadian politics

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Don't be too offended, Pondering.  It wasn't meant as a surgical strike. 

But really, we're not even half way between election cycles.  The Liberals aren't giving up.  The NDP isn't giving up, the Cons aren't giving up, and the Patriotic People's Christian Animals for Marijuana Party isn't even giving up.  We're literally about two years away from any party, no matter how small and insignificant, throwing in the towel.

That's a relief...the voices of patriotic Christian animal potheads need to be heard.  Just the other day, this grizzly bear pinned me down with one paw, held a spliff filled with Rocky Mountain Red in the other and said "hey man...(tokes)love your country(toke)and can I tell you about Jesus?"

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You let him tell you about Jesus tho, right?  :)  Apex predators make the best evangelists.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Don't be too offended, Pondering.  It wasn't meant as a surgical strike. 

But really, we're not even half way between election cycles.  The Liberals aren't giving up.  The NDP isn't giving up, the Cons aren't giving up, and the Patriotic People's Christian Animals for Marijuana Party isn't even giving up.  We're literally about two years away from any party, no matter how small and insignificant, throwing in the towel.

Maybe you think I don't deserve respect, or maybe you think everything I had to say was worthless, but then why bother responding at all? Why be snide?  Did you not like this part of my post?

In Jagmeet Singh the NDP has a credible leader. Next they need a credible platform that is economically feasible. Trudeau has given the Parliamentary Budget Officer a new task in evaluating the platforms of the contenders during elections. I think it's a booby trap or certainly intended to make it more difficult for other parties to challenge the Liberals on the economy.

Do you agree or disagree that economic management is a major if not the most significant motivator in elections?  Do you agree or disagree that the measure is intended to make it more difficult for the opposition parties? Do you think it could be turned into an advantage? Do you not like my support for Jagmeet Singh?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering, I doubt that anyone here would dispute the idea that economic management plays a significant role in the decisions of any electorate in any election.  Not sure why you think people here would question that.

Caissa

Given that the leadership race is over, might it not be prudent to close this thread?

Pages