Trudeau's Political Suicide?

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
indigo 007 indigo 007's picture
Trudeau's Political Suicide?
lagatta4

O'Leary grew up in Montreal, but doesn't speak French. Such people existed generations ago, but he was born in 1954, not 1924.

I'm not a Liberal, and no Trudeau fan, but positing that contemptuous piece of shit isn't serious.

And isn't he the guy who wanted to outlaw UNIONS?????? Unfortunately, I'm all out of rotten fruit, but I live close to Jean-Talon Market and can easily find some ammunition in their dumptsers. What rotten fruit of veg is the worst on expensive suits?

josh

The piece read more like an angry letter to the editor than a reasoned argument. How many people really base their vote on electoral reform anyway.

lagatta4

Those who do don't vote for the Cons.

I'm not at all surprised that Trudeau is breaking his promises. That is what the Liberals do. But little as I like Trudeau, his government remains a relief with respect to the previous one.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Is it just a coincidence that you keep posting links to blog articles by the otherwise unkown Robert Billyard, or are you his publicist?

Unionist

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Is it just a coincidence that you keep posting links to blog articles by the otherwise unkown Robert Billyard, or are you his publicist?

It's also annoying that he has opened at least half a dozen threads like this, linking to not-very-insightful pieces by Robert Billyard - and never once offering a comment. I don't know why any even engages conversations here.

Sean in Ottawa

The article, despite saying little, is a contradiction. In fact other than minimally set up its contradiction, it says nothing else.

He calls this is a suicide which is the most extreme possible intentional self-harm.

Then he goes on to say that in Canada you can get away with this, that there is no protest in his party. He admits that this is a tradition of the Liberal party:

"The prime minister has failed to effectively manage even the time-worn trickery of the Liberal Party. This is to campaign left and govern right, and secondly, to discard campaign promises like yesterday’s dead fish."

After that, without any evidence or argument, he suggests that Trudeau cannot get away with this after all and the writer flips over to say Trudeau will lose to O'Leary.

Apart from some excessively tedious purple prose, this article is a pathetic piece that would not pass a Polysci 101 first essay.It would embarass a student.

The writer of course has been able to say that in Canada you can get away with this, AND that Trudeau will lose to O'Leary becuase of this and so will he be correct no matter what happens so long as you pick the quote selectively enough.

We see people write better on this site who do not pretend to be writers.

indigo 007 indigo 007's picture

Hi Sean,

 

I am pleased you are such a devoted fan of mine.

 I somehow had the impression these forums are supposed to be about content and issues and not trashing each other’s work.  You may not like what I write or my style of writing but we just do the best we can.

  It has been my experience on forums and comment sections that those who indulge in trash talk, abusive and flippant comments, and off topic criticism are merely confirming they have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.  Then too, maybe they are just plain lazy and uninformed.

 The challenge here for you is to write something on topic that I find worth reading and edifying.

 You might even be so bold as to post your comment on my site, as that is one on the main reasons it is there.

 I look forward to your reply.

 Regards, Robert Billyard      

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

I'm not at all surprised that Trudeau is breaking his promises. That is what the Liberals do. But little as I like Trudeau, his government remains a relief with respect to the previous one.

Maybe where you live certainly not where I live.

lagatta4

kropotkin, I think it is fairly clear that I'm not a Liberal or a Liberal supporter. I've never voted for them in my life, and campaigned AGAINST Trudeau in the last elections. And we are going to face exactly the same problems with the Liberals pushing through pipelines and petroleum ports as you do where you live. There have been demos and marches in tiny towns on the Lower South Shore here, Coule Pas chez nous, Élan global...

Only a relief in terms of less slashing of funds and, for the moment, not the same degree of repression of scientists and environmentalists. Which can swiftly change as they push their petroleum plans forward.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I don't like the article because of the writer's contempt for the Canadian electorate, who are often faced with "lesser of evils" choices.

Sean in Ottawa

I would appreciate it if the writer, who is the OP just said when creating a thread fo one of his blogs -- here is another blog I wrote so we don't end up commenting about the work of a person who is part of this community without knowing it. (And then dealing with him later when he does not like the review.)

Pondering

Rev Pesky I'm impressed. That is an excellent tip that I will remember.

Sean in Ottawa

indigo 007 wrote:

Hi Sean,

 

I am pleased you are such a devoted fan of mine.

 I somehow had the impression these forums are supposed to be about content and issues and not trashing each other’s work.  You may not like what I write or my style of writing but we just do the best we can.

  It has been my experience on forums and comment sections that those who indulge in trash talk, abusive and flippant comments, and off topic criticism are merely confirming they have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.  Then too, maybe they are just plain lazy and uninformed.

 The challenge here for you is to write something on topic that I find worth reading and edifying.

 You might even be so bold as to post your comment on my site, as that is one on the main reasons it is there.

 I look forward to your reply.

 Regards, Robert Billyard      

Wow how interesting. You post an article and do not say it is yours. I wrote ON TOPIC critiquing the article. Had I known it was yours I would not have replied if I did not have something nicer to say.

I think your approach borders on trapping people -- posting an article looking for comment without saying it is your own and then getting offended when you don't like the review.

I did think the article was poor but my comments were not trashing you as I had no idea the article was yours. I did not trash the author of the article either as I was not familiar with the author.

Is your paragraph about trash talking meant to be about me? If so, you are the only one trash-talking a person. I was reviewing an article.

How I could be a fan of a person from one article I did not like, or be presumed to be speaking about a person when that person was never connected to the article?

Next time -- why don't you just say -- here is something I wrote?

If you do not want to be identified, do not come back and connect yourself to it once you have entrapped people into a review of yourself rather than some article you found.

I did write a scathing review of the article and I stand by my review.

As for forums being about content -- yes they are. You posted an article which I discussed. It is your problem that you did this in the way you did. I was on topic and had no idea I was talking about the work of someone here.

I did find this strange "The challenge here for you is to write something on topic that I find worth reading and edifying."

Not at all. I do not write for one person otherwise I would send a personal message. My challenge is not to write something you find interesting. People do not post just for the author of the opening post, they share their opinion with anyone who wants to read. So perhaps you are a little confused about the point rather than me.

If you want to just get compliments then this is not the place to do it. Take it to your friends and family. People here will consider and give a real opinion but you must be prepared for whatever that is.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

kropotkin, I think it is fairly clear that I'm not a Liberal or a Liberal supporter. I've never voted for them in my life, and campaigned AGAINST Trudeau in the last elections. And we are going to face exactly the same problems with the Liberals pushing through pipelines and petroleum ports as you do where you live. There have been demos and marches in tiny towns on the Lower South Shore here, Coule Pas chez nous, Élan global...

Only a relief in terms of less slashing of funds and, for the moment, not the same degree of repression of scientists and environmentalists. Which can swiftly change as they push their petroleum plans forward.

Sorry but in all the important issues he is at least as bad as the Cons only he smiles while he screws people over. Indigenous people can't even get Human Rights rulings upheld. He has okayed Site C, LNG and Kinder Morgan, His Ministers are talking tough about using the military to remove protestors from unceded lands. The new relationship with the people working for the government was really nice. His Treasury Board just didn't pay them and it seems that fixing the problem was not a priority. He is selling massive amounts of arms to Saudi Arabia. Etc Etc.

I know yo are not a Liberal and never implied you were I am just disagreeing that he is any better. Personally I hate hypocrites worse than in your face assholes. IMO Harper was an asshole and Trudeau is a hypocrite and a two faced liar.  I actually dislike him at least as much as Stevie. The arrogance oozes out of his pores like it did his Dad except his Dad was an intellectual not an selfie model.

Rev Pesky

indigo 007 wrote:
... The challenge here for you is to write something on topic that I find worth reading and edifying.

 You might even be so bold as to post your comment on my site, as that is one on the main reasons it is there.

 I look forward to your reply.

 Regards, Robert Billyard      

I found this quite amusing.

Mr. Billyard, it is not up to Sean, or anyone else to write something you find worth reading. You may find nothing worth reading, but that's your problem, not ours.

And I agree completely with Sean in this. You wrote, then posted, the piece without telling anyone you were the author. That is a good way of gauging reaction to your deathless prose, but then you give it away when you emerge to castigate someone for their criticism.

You have a choice, you can either ignore the criticism, or you can use it to improve your writing skills. But don't post something anonymously then jump out at the first signs someone doesn't think much of your writing. It's pretty much guaranteed to cause people to ignore your future writings.

I read the article, and didn't think much of it eiher. I will try to offer some advice on improving it.

The simplest way to improve your article is to get out your red pencil, and cross out all of the adjectives. Adjectives are fun words to use, but they don't improve either the readability or the sense of the article. If you start by removing all adjectives, you get down to the point you are trying to make.

It may be only my opinion, but it is my opinion, that adjectives obfuscate rather than clarify. A very few well-placed adjectives can add a bit of spice to an article, but like all spices, they're more effective when used sparingly.

Once you have removed the adjectives, it's easier to see whether there are internal contradictions in the article. Sean pointed out a couple, which means he read your article fairly closely. You should thank him for that, I couldn't fight my way through it.

One final piece of advice. If you don't want criticism, don't ask for it. Criticism can be a very useful tool for the writer, but it can also have a sharp edge. If you're not prepared to deal with that sharp edge, it's better to just write your stuff, post it, and leave it at that.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

lagatta4 wrote:

kropotkin, I think it is fairly clear that I'm not a Liberal or a Liberal supporter. I've never voted for them in my life, and campaigned AGAINST Trudeau in the last elections. And we are going to face exactly the same problems with the Liberals pushing through pipelines and petroleum ports as you do where you live. There have been demos and marches in tiny towns on the Lower South Shore here, Coule Pas chez nous, Élan global...

Only a relief in terms of less slashing of funds and, for the moment, not the same degree of repression of scientists and environmentalists. Which can swiftly change as they push their petroleum plans forward.

Sorry but in all the important issues he is at least as bad as the Cons only he smiles while he screws people over. Indigenous people can't even get Human Rights rulings upheld. He has okayed Site C, LNG and Kinder Morgan, His Ministers are talking tough about using the military to remove protestors from unceded lands. The new relationship with the people working for the government was really nice. His Treasury Board just didn't pay them and it seems that fixing the problem was not a priority. He is selling massive amounts of arms to Saudi Arabia. Etc Etc.

I know yo are not a Liberal and never implied you were I am just disagreeing that he is any better. Personally I hate hypocrites worse than in your face assholes. IMO Harper was an asshole and Trudeau is a hypocrite and a two faced liar.  I actually dislike him at least as much as Stevie. The arrogance oozes out of his pores like it did his Dad except his Dad was an intellectual not an selfie model.

Criticism is pointless unless there is an alternative that would be better. Convincing people the Liberals are typical politicians is the easy part.

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:

The simplest way to improve your article is to get out your red pencil, and cross out all of the adjectives. Adjectives are fun words to use, but they don't improve either the readability or the sense of the article. If you start by removing all adjectives, you get down to the point you are trying to make.

It may be only my opinion, but it is my opinion, that adjectives obfuscate rather than clarify. A very few well-placed adjectives can add a bit of spice to an article, but like all spices, they're more effective when used sparingly.

Once you have removed the adjectives, it's easier to see whether there are internal contradictions in the article. Sean pointed out a couple, which means he read your article fairly closely. You should thank him for that, I couldn't fight my way through it.

One final piece of advice. If you don't want criticism, don't ask for it. Criticism can be a very useful tool for the writer, but it can also have a sharp edge. If you're not prepared to deal with that sharp edge, it's better to just write your stuff, post it, and leave it at that.

Brilliant, Rev Pesky. Thank you! I think that belongs in the Babble Hall of Fame.

 

Unionist

montrealer58 wrote:

I don't like the article because of the writer's contempt for the Canadian electorate, who are often faced with "lesser of evils" choices.

Antoher excellent critique - fully agree!

Who would have thought that yet another of indigo's "here's a link, no comment, what do you think?" threads would produce so much of value!