Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)

355 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

Debater wrote:

Unifor welcomes the motion to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377

OTTAWA, Jan. 28, 2016 /CNW/ - Unifor commends the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377.

---

Full article:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/unifor-welcomes-the-motion-to-repea...

A good thing.  The trudeaumetre has this as "in progress":  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/2601

I don't think the Liberals will be perfect when it comes to unions, or be their best friend, but this does show that the Liberals are different from the Conservatives.

The Conservatives are angry about this and are threatening to hold up the repeal in the House of Commons this week.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

bagkitty wrote:

Just 'cause these things occur to me, shouldn't the site be called Trudeaumeter (a device to measure) rather than Trudeaumetre (a unit of measurement).

You are a nitpicker after my own heart, bagkitty. I can't remember how many times I've thought the same thing, but refrained from mentioning it. Laughing

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

monty1 wrote:

Perfect opportunity for the NDP to show what theyl're made of in parliament. 

Don't blow it boys, you can't afford many more mistakes!

I'll be shocked if the NDP doesn't support these pro-union measures.

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Talking about sticking things in pipes and smoking it. LEGALIZE CANNABIS ALREADY!

Goddammit.

The kid made a promise he knew he couldn't keep and no intention of keeping. Forget it, it ain't happening.

 

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Talking about sticking things in pipes and smoking it. LEGALIZE CANNABIS ALREADY!

Goddammit.

The kid made a promise he knew he couldn't keep and no intention of keeping. Forget it, it ain't happening.

I think your 100% right. 

Pot promise. F35 promise. Bombing in Syria promise. Refugee promise. 

All promises made to secure votes when they knew full well they couldn't make good on those promises.  And really what can we do about it?  Nothing.  Come 4 years there will be more super promises that people are all too happy to lap up. 

monty1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Perfect opportunity for the NDP to show what theyl're made of in parliament. 

Don't blow it boys, you can't afford many more mistakes!

I'll be shocked if the NDP doesn't support these pro-union measures.

Great topic on which to place your bets Michael! 

The Liberals turn turtle?

The NDP get to take the high road?

The Liberals and the NDP stand together solidly with the Conservatives standing alone in opposition?

The NDP claim that they would rather Trudeau leave the 6 bombers in as opposed to the alternative? Would the party faithful here buy this one if ol Tom tried it out?

Debater

Michael Moriarity wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Perfect opportunity for the NDP to show what theyl're made of in parliament. 

Don't blow it boys, you can't afford many more mistakes!

I'll be shocked if the NDP doesn't support these pro-union measures.

Well, yes, I would assume the NDP will support the Liberals in repealing the Conservative anti-union legislation, particularly since Unifor has released a statement in favour of the Liberal plan to do so.

The Conservatives have already announced that they will oppose the repeal attempt, and there is a column at iPolitics.ca accusing Justin Trudeau of being too close to unions.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

monty1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Monty, the desire of New Democrats to show any leeway to Trudeau and his thugs disappeared the night he tried to assume the mantle of Jack Layton (blessed be his memroy), and totatlly, arrogantly, dismissed the NDP, its leaders, and all of its members and its supporters. Sorry, if you are having issues with the hostility and animus that New Democrats feel for the Liberals and Le Dauphin, some self reflection might be in order. Look in the mirror, Mac.

Hey Mac, maybe you think that the people around here are the NDP, but sorry, they're not. You'll find a lot of NDP members supporting Trudeau, and even moreso than in the election. Where does all Trudeau's support come from. It's not all from the Conservatives and there's little doubt Trudeau has it now.

Voters aren't as dogmatic in their politics as you may think. Trudeau has offered an agenda that pleases most NDP supporters by the looks of it. That's the issue. What can the NDP do to get them back? That may change as we go forward and as I have said, the Liberals may once agian be black cats or white cats.

Look, you tone deaf, ponticiating politico, did you even read my post? Did you understand it? I said the hostility we feel towards liberals, like you, is because of the idiotic and arrogant, stupid things you and your party do. Trudeau assumed Jacks (blessed be his memory) and he did it full well knowing how hurtful it would be to Ollivia, and anyone who cared about Jack. It summed up what is wrong with you, your fellow LPC sycophants, and the LPC in general. It isn't even tone defness; its just plain arrogance. Canada's Natural Governing Party, eh? The problem is, you guys actually believe that!

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mac!

I have to make it clear that the Liberals aren't my party but they 'are' my govenment. Otherwise I'll ignore your continuing rudeness. You need to get used to the idea that you can't stamp your foot and demand agreement with your ideas. 

You are so projecting. So if you oppose Libs then  you are being childish? Isn't the line Obama be using to keep the Democratic Party's Progressive Cuacus in line? You are so projecting. As to rudeness, were you laughing to yourself when you typed that? Amazing!

monty1

Paladin1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Talking about sticking things in pipes and smoking it. LEGALIZE CANNABIS ALREADY!

Goddammit.

The kid made a promise he knew he couldn't keep and no intention of keeping. Forget it, it ain't happening.

I think your 100% right. 

Pot promise. F35 promise. Bombing in Syria promise. Refugee promise. 

All promises made to secure votes when they knew full well they couldn't make good on those promises.  And really what can we do about it?  Nothing.  Come 4 years there will be more super promises that people are all too happy to lap up. 

The Canadian people are a tolerant lot and will see all those promises you named in a charitable way. Fo instance, the pot promise is coming, the F35 promise will be kept if it's still feasible, the bombing in Syria promise is pending and could hinge on the possibility of Trudeau being excused from keeping the promise, and the refugee promise has become a nothing issue of the oppostion blowing smoke. The people are completely divided on whether they want the promise to be kept or abandoned. Either way it's a dead issue that won't be able to be used against Trudeau. 

Just the fact Paladin, just the facts.

*if he doesn't bring the 6 bombers home then I will scream bloody murder, but then who cares what I think?

mark_alfred

Paladin1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Talking about sticking things in pipes and smoking it. LEGALIZE CANNABIS ALREADY!

Goddammit.

The kid made a promise he knew he couldn't keep and no intention of keeping. Forget it, it ain't happening.

I think your 100% right. 

Pot promise. F35 promise. Bombing in Syria promise. Refugee promise. 

All promises made to secure votes when they knew full well they couldn't make good on those promises.  And really what can we do about it?  Nothing.  Come 4 years there will be more super promises that people are all too happy to lap up. 

It's the Liberal's ability to write great captivating fiction that makes them Canada's natural governing party.  From their best selling Red Book in '93 to 2015's Real Change: A New Plan For a Strong Middle Class, they've always thrilled.  I can hardly wait to see what exciting yarns they'll spin in their upcoming 2019 novella.

Paladin1

The F35 promise was already broken. Trudeau said the expensive F35 would be removed from the list of possible replacement aircraft however the MND has already said they won't be able to keep that promise and it looks like the F35 is back in the running.

[ ref: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/defence-minister-backs-off-libe... ]

 

The thing I wonder about the pot promise isn't so much will it happen or not. Canada signed those 3 treaties or whatever, my question is did the Liberals know about that and not bother to mention it when they were looking for votes OR did they not even bother to research the issue before making that promise and had no idea about it?

 

The bombing in Syria promise. That's a shady one because he still kinda sorta hasn't really broke it but like mentioned above they really made it sound like the bombers would be pulled out within weeks. Days even. Were in to months now.

 

We all know what happened with the refugees. It bothers me that ALL the parties made promises to get votes and didn't show  that they've done actual research or spoke to experts on how to accomplish it properly.

 

Ah yes facts, they have a habit of getting in the way of my great ideas.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

It seems to me Pondering, that when you talk about "what Canadians want", its what YOU think it iss they want!

Well duh, it wouldn't be what someone else thinks Canadians want. That is my opinion based on polls that included strength of feeling and my overall perception

Strongly approve are people involved in the industry in some manner including johns, MRA types even if they don't use the services, free market types, libertarians and much of the LGBT community + many progressives/activists and "sex positive" feminists.

Strongly disapprove, Traditional feminists, radical feminists, anti-violence against women groups,religious and conservative types.

That probably covers from 20 to 40% of the population. The other 60 to 80% may have a perference but doesn't feel strongly either way.

If I were a political strategist I would look at those numbers and stay away from the topic with a 10 foot pole. There is much more to lose than to gain.

Pondering

Jack Layton's Letter:

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement:

"Let me tell you that for the solution of these problems you have a safe guide, an unfailing light if you remember that faith is better than doubt and love is better than hate. Banish hate and doubt from your life. Let your souls be ever open to the promptings of faith and the gentle influence of brotherly love. Be adamant against the haughty, be gentle and kind to the weak. Let your aim and purpose, in good report or ill, in victory or defeat, be so to live, so to strive, so to serve as to do your part to raise even higher the standard of life and living..."

Trudeau did not steal anything from Layton. If he "stole" it, it was from Laurier, one of his favoritre Prime Ministers.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

monty1 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Perfect opportunity for the NDP to show what theyl're made of in parliament. 

Don't blow it boys, you can't afford many more mistakes!

I'll be shocked if the NDP doesn't support these pro-union measures.

Great topic on which to place your bets Michael! 

The Liberals turn turtle?

The NDP get to take the high road?

The Liberals and the NDP stand together solidly with the Conservatives standing alone in opposition?

The NDP claim that they would rather Trudeau leave the 6 bombers in as opposed to the alternative? Would the party faithful here buy this one if ol Tom tried it out?

Well, I can assure you that I am in favour of Canada taking as little part in imperial wars as possible. In particular, I condemn all 3 parties for supporting any participation in the so-called war against ISIS. I support humanitarian aid for the victims, but no military action. Also, I should point out that I am not really a "party faithful", more like a fellow traveller. I personally think anarcho-syndicalism is what we should be working towards, and if we ever get real proportional representation, I'll be gone to a further left party in an instant.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Jack Layton's Letter:

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement:

"Let me tell you that for the solution of these problems you have a safe guide, an unfailing light if you remember that faith is better than doubt and love is better than hate. Banish hate and doubt from your life. Let your souls be ever open to the promptings of faith and the gentle influence of brotherly love. Be adamant against the haughty, be gentle and kind to the weak. Let your aim and purpose, in good report or ill, in victory or defeat, be so to live, so to strive, so to serve as to do your part to raise even higher the standard of life and living..."

Trudeau did not steal anything from Layton. If he "stole" it, it was from Laurier, one of his favoritre Prime Ministers.

I've never seen this quote before, and I must say "faith is better than doubt" is the opposite of the principle I base my entire life on. I doubt I would have gotten along well with Laurier.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau did not steal anything from Layton. If he "stole" it, it was from Laurier, one of his favoritre Prime Ministers.

Oh bullshit.  Trudeau even cited Layton's name.  It was offensive.

Quote:
“Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton. It is the negative, divisive party of Thomas Mulcair,” Trudeau said in Bourassa.

Stealing a line from Layton’s famous death-bed letter to Canadians, Trudeau added: “It is the Liberal Party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angers-ndp-by-quoting-jac...

Pondering

Trudeau said he would end the bombing mission but gave no timeline.

Recently, this past week, Sajjan stated that the bombing mission would end as soon as the replacement contribution is up and running. As I understand it the cabinet will meet soon to decide what that will be. After that a time table will be set for the new deployment. That is when we will know when the bombers are coming home.

This is much longer than I expected it to be but as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise as long as the above happens and we don't send any more bombers during Trudeau's mandate.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
Pondering wrote:
Trudeau did not steal anything from Layton. If he "stole" it, it was from Laurier, one of his favoritre Prime Ministers.

Oh bullshit.  Trudeau even cited Layton's name.  It was offensive.

Quote:
“Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton. It is the negative, divisive party of Thomas Mulcair,” Trudeau said in Bourassa.

Stealing a line from Layton’s famous death-bed letter to Canadians, Trudeau added: “It is the Liberal Party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear.”

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angers-ndp-by-quoting-jac...

thanks for catching the bs loop mark_alfred and showing it for what it was!!!!

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau did not steal anything from Layton. If he "stole" it, it was from Laurier, one of his favoritre Prime Ministers.

Oh bullshit.  Trudeau even cited Layton's name.  It was offensive.

Quote:
“Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton. It is the negative, divisive party of Thomas Mulcair,” Trudeau said in Bourassa.

Stealing a line from Layton’s famous death-bed letter to Canadians, Trudeau added: “It is the Liberal Party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angers-ndp-by-quoting-jac...

Layton still didn't own the line. I can see why it upset members of the NDP but that letter of Layton's was a political act. Trudeau was making the point that the NDP was no longer the party of Layton.

Trudeau's "sunny ways" also came from Laurier.

In hindsight it's clear Trudeau was declaring his intent to take the positive optimistic role for himself displacing Layton. The NDP should have taken heed and taken that into account when planning the campaign.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau said he would end the bombing mission but gave no timeline.

This is much longer than I expected it to be but as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise as long as the above happens and we don't send any more bombers during Trudeau's mandate.

Yeah yeah.  As long as they don't send a thousand more bombers now (or maybe...hey, let's not be closed minded) but set a firm date of sometime, maybe 2018, to "end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," then presumably "as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise."

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau said he would end the bombing mission but gave no timeline.

This is much longer than I expected it to be but as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise as long as the above happens and we don't send any more bombers during Trudeau's mandate.

Yeah yeah.  As long as they don't send a thousand more bombers now (or maybe...hey, let's not be closed minded) but set a firm date of sometime, maybe 2018, to "end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," then presumably "as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise."


Well if he goes past March 31 he obviously has broken the promise because at that point he would be giving a committment on the bombing timeline beyond even Harpers.

quizzical

i just keep getting the feeling of desperation from the Liberals here.
the way they're talking ya wouldn't think they would be exuding desperation but yet they are....wow.

things must be rocky behind the scenes.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau did not steal anything from Layton. If he "stole" it, it was from Laurier, one of his favoritre Prime Ministers.

Oh bullshit.  Trudeau even cited Layton's name.  It was offensive.

Quote:
“Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton. It is the negative, divisive party of Thomas Mulcair,” Trudeau said in Bourassa.

Stealing a line from Layton’s famous death-bed letter to Canadians, Trudeau added: “It is the Liberal Party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angers-ndp-by-quoting-jac...

Layton still didn't own the line. I can see why it upset members of the NDP but that letter of Layton's was a political act. Trudeau was making the point that the NDP was no longer the party of Layton.

Trudeau's "sunny ways" also came from Laurier.

In hindsight it's clear Trudeau was declaring his intent to take the positive optimistic role for himself displacing Layton. The NDP should have taken heed and taken that into account when planning the campaign.

No the real issue was the mocking and gloating smearing of Jack "blessed be his memory" that is the issue. Trudeau was patronizing, mocking and dismissive in his very 1%er, eltist, LPC way. That's the issue! He's a nasty Bastard, and a punk!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I can understand people hating the Liberals but to call Trudeau a nasty bastard?

Calm down and come back down to planet Earth.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau was making the point that the NDP was no longer the party of Layton.

That's not only bullshit but really offensive.

Pondering

That's odd quizzical because I see desperation in the inflated complaints and accusations of promise-breaking. The polls are showing clear sailing for Trudeau. He has exceeded expectations and gained support since his election. People are expressing happiness and relief. To Rex Murphy's dismay nobody cares that Trudeau is "breaking promises".  Most are happy with his leadership and want to get on with their lives and be happy. The decade of darkness is over.

The greatest threat is that CETA, and following that TPP, will be ratified. The second greatest threat is that parts of EE will go live.

The sexist insult of Trudeau is just silly. Everyone knows his parents were married.

mark_alfred

jjuares wrote:

Well if he goes past March 31 he obviously has broken the promise because at that point he would be giving a committment on the bombing timeline beyond even Harpers.

No need for them to go past that date.  They promised if elected that they would stop doing what the Conservatives were doing and refocus the engagement in Iraq.  They've been elected and in power for 89 days, and have still not ended the combat mission in Iraq and refocussed it.  Broken promise, as the trudeaumetre.ca rightly identified:

End Operation IMPACT (airstrikes against ISIS targets by Canadian CF-18s in Syria and Iraq).

Those with Trudeau and/or Liberal sympathies should own up to reality.  This is a broken promise.  Trudeau was elected to be real change from Harper, and in that he said he'd refocus the war effort in Iraq/Syria from bombing to training.  HE'S STILL BOMBING 89 DAYS LATER!  What is wrong with those with Liberal and/or Trudeau sympathies that they'd give him a pass on this?

I dunno.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

The sexist insult of Trudeau is just silly. Everyone knows his parents were married.

While I think calling Trudeau a bastard is a bit low it is Arthur after all and we all know he has a thing for hyperbole.

However your statement is inane since at birth the only thing anyone knows for sure is who the birth mother of a child is. If you have the DNA tests to show he was Pierre's son and not someone else's then you can definitively make that statement. Since I haven't seen the DNA results, for all I know he might be Mick's lad even if we didn't hear about the affair until years later.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

That's odd quizzical because I see desperation in the inflated complaints and accusations of promise-breaking. The polls are showing clear sailing for Trudeau. He has exceeded expectations and gained support since his election. People are expressing happiness and relief. To Rex Murphy's dismay nobody cares that Trudeau is "breaking promises".  Most are happy with his leadership and want to get on with their lives and be happy. The decade of darkness is over.

 

Agree totally on what I've quoted above . I've cut the crap about Trudeau's parents. The worst thing that could happen to the NDP is if the Liberals publicly allow them to amend some Liberal Bill leftwards which will show cooperation. That would push the suspicion amongst the people over the edge in making it look like we don't need the NDP anymore. 

We on the left know what we want and it doesn't matter under which party name it finally starts coming to us. However, I see a sincerity in Trudeau that you may not see yet and the NDP supporters around here will likely never see. It doesn't matter, they are the few IMO. Trudeau can start showering them with gifts and they still won't like him. If they would go with him they would make that possible. Especially on being very vocal on bringing home those damn 6 bombers.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau was making the point that the NDP was no longer the party of Layton.

That's not only bullshit but really offensive.

Have you seen the NDP website recently? The Layton NDP was no longer the party of Broadbent and the Mulcair NDP are no longer the party of Layton. If you find reality offensive it doesn't make it any less true.

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Well if he goes past March 31 he obviously has broken the promise because at that point he would be giving a committment on the bombing timeline beyond even Harpers.

No need for them to go past that date.  They promised if elected that they would stop doing what the Conservatives were doing and refocus the engagement in Iraq.  They've been elected and in power for 89 days, and have still not ended the combat mission in Iraq and refocussed it.  Broken promise, as the trudeaumetre.ca rightly identified:

End Operation IMPACT (airstrikes against ISIS targets by Canadian CF-18s in Syria and Iraq).

Those with Trudeau and/or Liberal sympathies should own up to reality.  This is a broken promise.  Trudeau was elected to be real change from Harper, and in that he said he'd refocus the war effort in Iraq/Syria from bombing to training.  HE'S STILL BOMBING 89 DAYS LATER!  What is wrong with those with Liberal and/or Trudeau sympathies that they'd give him a pass on this?

I dunno.


We should never forget that even this broken promise wasn't go to remove us from this war it was just going to change the nature of our participation. I saw this as an inadequate promise to begin with and now they won't even keep it.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The sexist insult of Trudeau is just silly. Everyone knows his parents were married.

While I think calling Trudeau a bastard is a bit low it is Arthur after all and we all know he has a thing for hyperbole.

Authur got a pass because he is diehard NDP not because he is known for hyperbole. Calling Trudeau a bastard wasn't low it was stupid and sexist. He wasn't thinking of the meaning of the word he just wanted to say something ugly and insulting about Trudeau.

monty1

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau said he would end the bombing mission but gave no timeline.

This is much longer than I expected it to be but as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise as long as the above happens and we don't send any more bombers during Trudeau's mandate.

Yeah yeah.  As long as they don't send a thousand more bombers now (or maybe...hey, let's not be closed minded) but set a firm date of sometime, maybe 2018, to "end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," then presumably "as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise."

Well if he goes past March 31 he obviously has broken the promise because at that point he would be giving a committment on the bombing timeline beyond even Harpers.

That is true juares, and that is a reasonable position you have now adopted. 

And this is progress I'm pleased to note because we are seeing eye to eye on the matter. I like to think of it as the NDP and the Liberals seeing eye to eye but we're not quite there yet. And fwiw, when he does bring them home, it won't please the NDP in an open and public way at least. It may not even please some privately because we still haven't rooted out who Rex Murphy's majority supporters really are. 

jjuares

monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau said he would end the bombing mission but gave no timeline.

This is much longer than I expected it to be but as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise as long as the above happens and we don't send any more bombers during Trudeau's mandate.

Yeah yeah.  As long as they don't send a thousand more bombers now (or maybe...hey, let's not be closed minded) but set a firm date of sometime, maybe 2018, to "end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," then presumably "as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise."

Well if he goes past March 31 he obviously has broken the promise because at that point he would be giving a committment on the bombing timeline beyond even Harpers.

That is true juares, and that is a reasonable position you have now adopted. 

And this is progress I'm pleased to note because we are seeing eye to eye on the matter. I like to think of it as the NDP and the Liberals seeing eye to eye but we're not quite there yet. And fwiw, when he does bring them home, it won't please the NDP in an open and public way at least. It may not even please some privately because we still haven't rooted out who Rex Murphy's majority supporters really are. 


I didn't just now " adopt" this position. I have been saying this all along even though people lime yourself have been concentrating on the airplanes. As I have said many times I want us out, period. And we don't see eye to eye at all.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

That is true juares, and that is a reasonable position you have now adopted. 

And this is progress I'm pleased to note because we are seeing eye to eye on the matter. I like to think of it as the NDP and the Liberals seeing eye to eye but we're not quite there yet. And fwiw, when he does bring them home, it won't please the NDP in an open and public way at least. It may not even please some privately because we still haven't rooted out who Rex Murphy's majority supporters really are. 

jjuares wrote:

I didn't just now " adopt" this position. I have been saying this all along even though people lime yourself have been concentrating on the airplanes. As I have said many times I want us out, period. And we don't see eye to eye at all.

Come on now admit it Monty is the most influential poster that this board has ever had. We all just hang on his every word and eventually we will all become like him because his views are the only views that really make sense. You are just proving how mindlessly partisan you must be if you don't agree with Monty the Perfect Pundit.

monty1

jjuares wrote:
monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau said he would end the bombing mission but gave no timeline.

This is much longer than I expected it to be but as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise as long as the above happens and we don't send any more bombers during Trudeau's mandate.

Yeah yeah.  As long as they don't send a thousand more bombers now (or maybe...hey, let's not be closed minded) but set a firm date of sometime, maybe 2018, to "end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," then presumably "as no specific date was given I don't consider it a broken promise."

Well if he goes past March 31 he obviously has broken the promise because at that point he would be giving a committment on the bombing timeline beyond even Harpers.

That is true juares, and that is a reasonable position you have now adopted. 

And this is progress I'm pleased to note because we are seeing eye to eye on the matter. I like to think of it as the NDP and the Liberals seeing eye to eye but we're not quite there yet. And fwiw, when he does bring them home, it won't please the NDP in an open and public way at least. It may not even please some privately because we still haven't rooted out who Rex Murphy's majority supporters really are. 

I didn't just now " adopt" this position. I have been saying this all along even though people lime yourself have been concentrating on the airplanes. As I have said many times I want us out, period. And we don't see eye to eye at all.

Sorry but if we don't see eye to eye on this issue then I don't know where the difference is? I want Canada to have no part in the US led war either. Couldn't that be assumed by you at this point in the game? Or has there been far too much emphasis on trying to stop me from voicing my opinions for you to even notice?

The applicable words that apply are "you don't see this as a broken promise", even though you seem to contradict yourself again in your later post. I'll ignore the later one for now.

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

That is true juares, and that is a reasonable position you have now adopted. 

And this is progress I'm pleased to note because we are seeing eye to eye on the matter. I like to think of it as the NDP and the Liberals seeing eye to eye but we're not quite there yet. And fwiw, when he does bring them home, it won't please the NDP in an open and public way at least. It may not even please some privately because we still haven't rooted out who Rex Murphy's majority supporters really are. 

jjuares wrote:

I didn't just now " adopt" this position. I have been saying this all along even though people lime yourself have been concentrating on the airplanes. As I have said many times I want us out, period. And we don't see eye to eye at all.

Come on now admit it Monty is the most influential poster that this board has ever had. We all just hang on his every word and eventually we will all become like him because his views are the only views that really make sense. You are just proving how mindlessly partisan you must be if you don't agree with Monty the Perfect Pundit.

That wasn't called for and it's just another groundless personal attack. I won't report it this time becasue I think rational discussion is a better cause. In fact, juares and I are in agreement on Canada's role in the US led wars. None!! That makes you the odd man out by the looks of it.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:
However, I see a sincerity in Trudeau that you may not see yet and the NDP supporters around here will likely never see. It doesn't matter, they are the few IMO.

I've seen it from day 1. A man of his class does not become a school-teacher if he is a seeker of wealth and power. Trudeau sr. was a hands on father and raised his sons to be physically fearless and confident in their character and abilities in general. His every move scrutinized from birth Trudeau jr. had to learn to be comfortable in the spotlight. He was born to it.

I don't agree at all with Trudeau on trade deals and some other issues but I believe he sincerely supports them because he thinks it is in Canada's best interests. He is equally sincere when he says FN children have a right to the same level of educational funding as any other Canadian child.

In BC, when challenged by university students on Bill C-51 he told the truth which I found very amusing but others considered awful. He said they felt the Conservatives were looking to make it into an election issue and Trudeau didn't want national security used as a political football. Trudeau supported some aspects of the bill but not others. As Harper had a majority it would have passed either way and the bill was popular with Canadians. So, Trudeau decided they would vote for the bill but promise ammendments if they were elected.

It turned out to be the wrong decision politically but it also illustrated Trudeau's instinct for honesty. His support for marijuana legalization showed his opinion can be swayed.

He voted for maintaining the gun registry but stated he will not reopen the debate because it's too divisive and there are many more issues to be addressed that Canadians are in greater agreement on.

The Conservatives and the NDP tried to paint a picture of Trudeau as an immature airhead rich boy playing at politics because he thought he was entitled to be PM even though he had no qualifications. That's why I was so confident that when he came out swinging they wouldn't know what hit them.

It was really odd because from when he first became leader the Brazeau fight served as a metaphor and revealed Trudeau's strategy, laid bare for all to see.

How could anyone think that someone with two university degrees is stupid? He earned degrees in English lit. and teaching and studied environmental geography at the masters level. He was mocked for having been a snowboard instructor but he was also a bouncer. That was characterized as unaccomplished having not done anything "serious", as being unable to commit.

In 11 weeks he went from 3rd to 1st with a majority. They never saw him coming. From what I can see the NDP is still in denial and still stuck in 90s politics. Trudeau took the youth vote from the NDP and it wasn't pot legalization that did it, at least not in the sense NDP supporters sometimes infer.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:
However, I see a sincerity in Trudeau that you may not see yet and the NDP supporters around here will likely never see. It doesn't matter, they are the few IMO.

I've seen it from day 1. A man of his class does not become a school-teacher if he is a seeker of wealth and power. Trudeau sr. was a hands on father and raised his sons to be physically fearless and confident in their character and abilities in general. His every move scrutinized from birth Trudeau jr. had to learn to be comfortable in the spotlight. He was born to it.

I don't agree at all with Trudeau on trade deals and some other issues but I believe he sincerely supports them because he thinks it is in Canada's best interests. He is equally sincere when he says FN children have a right to the same level of educational funding as any other Canadian child.

In BC, when challenged by university students on Bill C-51 he told the truth which I found very amusing but others considered awful. He said they felt the Conservatives were looking to make it into an election issue and Trudeau didn't want national security used as a political football. Trudeau supported some aspects of the bill but not others. As Harper had a majority it would have passed either way and the bill was popular with Canadians. So, Trudeau decided they would vote for the bill but promise ammendments if they were elected.

It turned out to be the wrong decision politically but it also illustrated Trudeau's instinct for honesty. His support for marijuana legalization showed his opinion can be swayed.

He voted for maintaining the gun registry but stated he will not reopen the debate because it's too divisive and there are many more issues to be addressed that Canadians are in greater agreement on.

The Conservatives and the NDP tried to paint a picture of Trudeau as an immature airhead rich boy playing at politics because he thought he was entitled to be PM even though he had no qualifications. That's why I was so confident that when he came out swinging they wouldn't know what hit them.

It was really odd because from when he first became leader the Brazeau fight served as a metaphor and revealed Trudeau's strategy, laid bare for all to see.

How could anyone think that someone with two university degrees is stupid? He earned degrees in English lit. and teaching and studied environmental geography at the masters level. He was mocked for having been a snowboard instructor but he was also a bouncer. That was characterized as unaccomplished having not done anything "serious", as being unable to commit.

In 11 weeks he went from 3rd to 1st with a majority. They never saw him coming. From what I can see the NDP is still in denial and still stuck in 90s politics. Trudeau took the youth vote from the NDP and it wasn't pot legalization that did it, at least not in the sense NDP supporters sometimes infer.

Excellent post from my POV and thank you for it. Some of the facts on Trudeau are new to me. In any case, I have no initial disagreement but it's going to be interesting to hear the NDP'ers tear it apart.

I don't want to see the end of the NDP but I can imagine how Trudeau will now see that as idiologically correct if he can take the good part and make it Liberal. From the POV of not harming the leftist agenda which he will look after but also to ensure that the left isn't going to be beaten back by division amongsts ourselves. 

So even though I have always been an NDP'er myself, I'm coming to the conclusion very quickly that they are now background noise. I obviously hope that I don't live to regret that?

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

That is true juares, and that is a reasonable position you have now adopted. 

And this is progress I'm pleased to note because we are seeing eye to eye on the matter. I like to think of it as the NDP and the Liberals seeing eye to eye but we're not quite there yet. And fwiw, when he does bring them home, it won't please the NDP in an open and public way at least. It may not even please some privately because we still haven't rooted out who Rex Murphy's majority supporters really are. 

jjuares wrote:

I didn't just now " adopt" this position. I have been saying this all along even though people lime yourself have been concentrating on the airplanes. As I have said many times I want us out, period. And we don't see eye to eye at all.

Come on now admit it Monty is the most influential poster that this board has ever had. We all just hang on his every word and eventually we will all become like him because his views are the only views that really make sense. You are just proving how mindlessly partisan you must be if you don't agree with Monty the Perfect Pundit.


Foolish me. I forgot that he gets to decide what's reasonable.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Just 'cause these things occur to me, shouldn't the site be called Trudeaumeter (a device to measure) rather than Trudeaumetre (a unit of measurement).

You are a nitpicker after my own heart, bagkitty. I can't remember how many times I've thought the same thing, but refrained from mentioning it. Laughing

*Takes a bow*

I think it falls under my Law #87 - all internally produced documents will contain at least one major gaffe and several typos - the number of typos increasing if the group putting out the document is involved with printing or publishing. I am still working on a formal Law to encompass the naming of astroturf groups.

[ETA: the gaffe in this case being the failing to distinguish between metre and meter]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This is a great piece about Trudeau's "town hall" on CBC. He shows his grasp of economics and poverty is completely in tune with the Fraser Institute. But its okay I guess since I hear that sometime later in his mandate he is going to have more progressive people in the economic portfolios.

Trudeau the Lesser wrote:

"A number of provinces are looking at raising the minimum wage across the board. There's always a question of whether or not that has the impact that everyone would like to have. Maybe everything just gets more expensive or we have jobs leaving. We have to be very careful about that."

http://www.pressprogress.ca/justin_trudeau_told_a_struggling_worker_he_n...

 

Progressive economists cite it as one of the most effective ways of dealing with economic disparity.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/case-increasing-m...

The idea that raising the minimum wage causes job loss is just not true even if Trudeau claims it is.

Quote:

This report conducts a wide empirical study of Canadian employment data in search of any evidence that higher minimum wages reduce employment or increase unemployment. It examines the relationship between minimum wages and employment in all ten Canadian provinces between 1983 and 2012, and finds no consistent evidence that minimum wage levels affect employment in either direction. Instead, the research concludes that employment levels are overwhelmingly determined by larger macroeconomic factors.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/dispelling-minimu...

 

 

 

Pondering

That would be an excellent topic for the NDP to attack Trudeau on but they wouldn't get into the meat on it. Mulcair would just bring up their 15$ an hour for federal workers ploy without addressing provincial minimum wages or the points made in that argument concerning impact on prices etc.

quizzical

pondering please......just stop. this thread is about Justin and the |Liberals there are like 10 other NDP threads. i appreciate your sticking to the topic you manage to do it in the feminism forum so i know you can. thank you.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pondering please......just stop. this thread is about Justin and the |Liberals there are like 10 other NDP threads. i appreciate your sticking to the topic you manage to do it in the feminism forum so i know you can. thank you.

Yes, and I wish the NDP would attack him on this, don't you?

 

PS, it's about whether or not he is keeping his platform commitments not about him in general so the minimum wage discussion is off topic.

quizzical

lol  i spoke specifically re the NDP had many threads....this is tracking Trudeau and the Liberals not what the NDP should do. bring it up in a NDP thread.

monty1

quizzical wrote:

lol  i spoke specifically re the NDP had many threads....this is tracking Trudeau and the Liberals not what the NDP should do. bring it up in a NDP thread.

I'm with Pondering on this issue because it's so dismally true that past practice is to say what you want on any thread, any time and spam that isn't even close to being as on-topic as Pondering's remarks. But if you think we need to have some housecleaning done then why not ask the mods to get serious about it and ask you and your buddies to stop it too. 

MegB

bagkitty wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Just 'cause these things occur to me, shouldn't the site be called Trudeaumeter (a device to measure) rather than Trudeaumetre (a unit of measurement).

You are a nitpicker after my own heart, bagkitty. I can't remember how many times I've thought the same thing, but refrained from mentioning it. Laughing

*Takes a bow*

I think it falls under my Law #87 - all internally produced documents will contain at least one major gaffe and several typos - the number of typos increasing if the group putting out the document is involved with printing or publishing. I am still working on a formal Law to encompass the naming of astroturf groups.

[ETA: the gaffe in this case being the failing to distinguish between metre and meter]

Gaffe duly noted and corrected.

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
This is a great piece about Trudeau's "town hall" on CBC. He shows his grasp of economics and poverty is completely in tune with the Fraser Institute. But its okay I guess since I hear that sometime later in his mandate he is going to have more progressive people in the economic portfolios.

Trudeau the Lesser wrote:

"A number of provinces are looking at raising the minimum wage across the board. There's always a question of whether or not that has the impact that everyone would like to have. Maybe everything just gets more expensive or we have jobs leaving. We have to be very careful about that."

http://www.pressprogress.ca/justin_trudeau_told_a_struggling_worker_he_n...

 

Progressive economists cite it as one of the most effective ways of dealing with economic disparity.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/case-increasing-m...

The idea that raising the minimum wage causes job loss is just not true even if Trudeau claims it is.

Quote:

This report conducts a wide empirical study of Canadian employment data in search of any evidence that higher minimum wages reduce employment or increase unemployment. It examines the relationship between minimum wages and employment in all ten Canadian provinces between 1983 and 2012, and finds no consistent evidence that minimum wage levels affect employment in either direction. Instead, the research concludes that employment levels are overwhelmingly determined by larger macroeconomic factors.

">https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/dispelling-minimu...

good article thank you kropotkin. 1 person lol got to ask Justin question(s).

in the arms of corporations who make the most and pay the least.

 

Pages