Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

615 posts / 0 new
Last post
ajaykumar

Remember when the NDP was begging for cash "donate now to watch a hockey game with mulcair" event? He draws beautifully. Keep on raising money liberals!

nicky

Sean you just inspired Pondering to donate the full $53,024 in order to get a picture of her idol.

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:

Sean you just inspired Pondering to donate the full $53,024 in order to get a picture of her idol.

Sketch is not of Trudeau but by Trudeau. It is not bad -- if you had a grade 7 student do this you would be proud.

I imagine Trudeau would do more than send a postcard for $53,024. Might even come over and cook you a meal. Some might like that.

**

Unrelated to this -- I am getting tired of the 5+ times a day appeals for cash that I don't have.

 

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am getting tired of the 5+ times a day appeals for cash that I don't have.

Just ride it out patiently and it will all go away by tomorrow morning.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If any Liberals get one of these -- please tell us what it actually looks like. I sure won't waste the money.

As I mentioned in another thread, I somehow got on a list of potential Liberal donors. I didn't sign up with them intentionally, but some time last summer I started getting emails asking for donations. Mostly, there have been 1 or 2 a week, but in the run up to quarterly deadlines, there have been several per day. The drawing by J.T. which I am missing out on looks like this:

Drawing by Justin

Jacob Two-Two

I wonder how many of these groupies would put that on their wall if it wasn't drawn by Justin. I'm guessing none. It's like the people who want to own a gum wrapper that was discarded by their favourite rock star.

I also just realised that this is another parallel to Justin's closest political analog: George Bush. Both are mediocre artists that generate undue interest due to their unearned fame.

ajaykumar

NDPers are just angry that among many talents our leader is also an artist ,while the only talent their leader has is how to get angry about everything.

Jacob Two-Two

Do you actually think that "Angry Tom" meme works with people? You're so cute.

See the thing about going negative is that it works great if people see the same faults you're promoting, but if they don't, it makes you look bad. The notion that Justin is "In over his head" is sticking because his own behaviour is giving that same impression. But nobody is looking at Mulcair and seeing an angry guy, so every time you repeat it, you look foolish.

I'll give you that one for free. No need to thank me.

NorthReport

Conservative Senator Manning mulls run for House seat in Avalon

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/03/30/conservative-senator-manni...

Pondering

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Adolf Hitler was an artist too!

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

Adolf Hitler was an artist too!

Wow, Adolf Hitler and Bush were both artists!  Well then it just goes to show what a bad influence it is to do art as a hobby. It should be banned. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

Thanks for schooling me on what original means. Since my father was an artist and I used to work in a gallery many years ago I really needed that.

Strange, I always understood original to mean that it was not a print. Limited meant a specified length of print run -- usually numbered. I always understood these to be specific meanings when speaking of art not necessarly the same as the language used in other areas like "limited time offer" etc. Funny that.

You have a lot of work ahead of you educating millions of Canadian artists and anyone who knows any of them. You best get to work. I suggest to save time you might want to do seminars, maybe take out advertising. The people who have actually been involved in art really need your help.

Let the Liberal Party save us all!

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

Thanks for schooling me on what original means. Since my father was an artist and I used to work in a gallery many years ago I really needed that.

Strange, I always understood original to mean that it was not a print. Limited meant a specified length of print run -- usually numbered. I always understood these to be specific meanings when speaking of art not necessarly the same as the language used in other areas like "limited time offer" etc. Funny that.

You have a lot of work ahead of you educating millions of Canadian artists and anyone who knows any of them. You best get to work. I suggest to save time you might want to do seminars, maybe take out advertising. The people who have actually been involved in art really need your help.

Let the Liberal Party save us all!

Trudeau isn't an artist selling his work so no need for them to use formal terms. I'm pretty sure everyone who donated understood that Trudeau wouldn't be making thousands of postcards each created by hand to mail out. They are obviously prints of an original not the original itself. They are limited edition because they won't be printed again. They don't have to be numbered in order to use the word limited. 

Do you have a quote of any Liberal official suggesting that they were mailing out originals or numbered prints?

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Do you actually think that "Angry Tom" meme works with people? You're so cute.

Nothing was said about Mulcair. "NDPers are angry" isn't about Mulcair. 

Brachina

 NDPers have alot to be angry about, the Liberals and Tories have been abusing this country for far too long.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 NDPers have alot to be angry about, the Liberals and Tories have been abusing this country for far too long.

...and the NDP wants their turn. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

Thanks for schooling me on what original means. Since my father was an artist and I used to work in a gallery many years ago I really needed that.

Strange, I always understood original to mean that it was not a print. Limited meant a specified length of print run -- usually numbered. I always understood these to be specific meanings when speaking of art not necessarly the same as the language used in other areas like "limited time offer" etc. Funny that.

You have a lot of work ahead of you educating millions of Canadian artists and anyone who knows any of them. You best get to work. I suggest to save time you might want to do seminars, maybe take out advertising. The people who have actually been involved in art really need your help.

Let the Liberal Party save us all!

Trudeau isn't an artist selling his work so no need for them to use formal terms. I'm pretty sure everyone who donated understood that Trudeau wouldn't be making thousands of postcards each created by hand to mail out. They are obviously prints of an original not the original itself. They are limited edition because they won't be printed again. They don't have to be numbered in order to use the word limited. 

Do you have a quote of any Liberal official suggesting that they were mailing out originals or numbered prints?

It was advertised as an original limited edition of a Trudeau sketch.

If you are going to call it art the words for art apply. An original is the sketch, watercolour, oil etc. A print is a copy. A limited edition print is one with a specifric limited run -- not open ended like this.

But you are defending this becuase you are a Liberal not becuase there is any possible argument you can make to say that it is okay to call a copy of an original work an original or an open-ended number of unsigned copies limited.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

Thanks for schooling me on what original means. Since my father was an artist and I used to work in a gallery many years ago I really needed that.

Strange, I always understood original to mean that it was not a print. Limited meant a specified length of print run -- usually numbered. I always understood these to be specific meanings when speaking of art not necessarly the same as the language used in other areas like "limited time offer" etc. Funny that.

You have a lot of work ahead of you educating millions of Canadian artists and anyone who knows any of them. You best get to work. I suggest to save time you might want to do seminars, maybe take out advertising. The people who have actually been involved in art really need your help.

Let the Liberal Party save us all!

Trudeau isn't an artist selling his work so no need for them to use formal terms. I'm pretty sure everyone who donated understood that Trudeau wouldn't be making thousands of postcards each created by hand to mail out. They are obviously prints of an original not the original itself. They are limited edition because they won't be printed again. They don't have to be numbered in order to use the word limited. 

Do you have a quote of any Liberal official suggesting that they were mailing out originals or numbered prints?

It was advertised as an original limited edition of a Trudeau sketch.

If you are going to call it art the words for art apply. An original is the sketch, watercolour, oil etc. A print is a copy. A limited edition print is one with a specifric limited run -- not open ended like this.

But you are defending this becuase you are a Liberal not becuase there is any possible argument you can make to say that it is okay to call a copy of an original work an original or an open-ended number of unsigned copies limited.

Do you have a link to that advertisment or an actual quote? 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

Thanks for schooling me on what original means. Since my father was an artist and I used to work in a gallery many years ago I really needed that.

Strange, I always understood original to mean that it was not a print. Limited meant a specified length of print run -- usually numbered. I always understood these to be specific meanings when speaking of art not necessarly the same as the language used in other areas like "limited time offer" etc. Funny that.

You have a lot of work ahead of you educating millions of Canadian artists and anyone who knows any of them. You best get to work. I suggest to save time you might want to do seminars, maybe take out advertising. The people who have actually been involved in art really need your help.

Let the Liberal Party save us all!

Trudeau isn't an artist selling his work so no need for them to use formal terms. I'm pretty sure everyone who donated understood that Trudeau wouldn't be making thousands of postcards each created by hand to mail out. They are obviously prints of an original not the original itself. They are limited edition because they won't be printed again. They don't have to be numbered in order to use the word limited. 

Do you have a quote of any Liberal official suggesting that they were mailing out originals or numbered prints?

It was advertised as an original limited edition of a Trudeau sketch.

If you are going to call it art the words for art apply. An original is the sketch, watercolour, oil etc. A print is a copy. A limited edition print is one with a specifric limited run -- not open ended like this.

But you are defending this becuase you are a Liberal not becuase there is any possible argument you can make to say that it is okay to call a copy of an original work an original or an open-ended number of unsigned copies limited.

Do you have a link to that advertisment or an actual quote? 

Do I have to read the article to you?

I linked to it.

"As part of an 11th-hour bid to boost funds, the Liberal Party of Canada is offering donors a piece of “original artwork” by Leader Justin Trudeau."

...

If they could bring the month’s total contributions to $350,000 by midnight, the email promised, all March donors would receive the “beautiful, limited-edition original Justin Trudeau sketch as a postcard!” As of press time, the drive was still $53,024 short of the goal.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Original means he didn't copy it from someone else. It is his original work. Limited doesn't mean signed and numbered it just means the only people who will have it will be those who donated in March which they all know. It's just a postcard. There was no minimum donation. 

NDP supporters are sounding desperate criticizing such a small gesture to generate donations in one month. 

Thanks for schooling me on what original means. Since my father was an artist and I used to work in a gallery many years ago I really needed that.

Strange, I always understood original to mean that it was not a print. Limited meant a specified length of print run -- usually numbered. I always understood these to be specific meanings when speaking of art not necessarly the same as the language used in other areas like "limited time offer" etc. Funny that.

You have a lot of work ahead of you educating millions of Canadian artists and anyone who knows any of them. You best get to work. I suggest to save time you might want to do seminars, maybe take out advertising. The people who have actually been involved in art really need your help.

Let the Liberal Party save us all!

Trudeau isn't an artist selling his work so no need for them to use formal terms. I'm pretty sure everyone who donated understood that Trudeau wouldn't be making thousands of postcards each created by hand to mail out. They are obviously prints of an original not the original itself. They are limited edition because they won't be printed again. They don't have to be numbered in order to use the word limited. 

Do you have a quote of any Liberal official suggesting that they were mailing out originals or numbered prints?

It was advertised as an original limited edition of a Trudeau sketch.

If you are going to call it art the words for art apply. An original is the sketch, watercolour, oil etc. A print is a copy. A limited edition print is one with a specifric limited run -- not open ended like this.

But you are defending this becuase you are a Liberal not becuase there is any possible argument you can make to say that it is okay to call a copy of an original work an original or an open-ended number of unsigned copies limited.

Do you have a link to that advertisment or an actual quote? 

Do I have to read the article to you?

I linked to it.

"As part of an 11th-hour bid to boost funds, the Liberal Party of Canada is offering donors a piece of “original artwork” by Leader Justin Trudeau."

...

If they could bring the month’s total contributions to $350,000 by midnight, the email promised, all March donors would receive the “beautiful, limited-edition original Justin Trudeau sketch ********AS A POSTCARD**********!” As of press time, the drive was still $53,024 short of the goal.

Do you seriously think that donors misunderstood what they would be getting and thought that they would receive original art or numbered prints as postcards?

I will await the outcry from donors that they have been swindled. 

Sean in Ottawa

Deflection. I did not say that people could not see through this. I implied that it makes the Liberals and Trudeau look goofy and pretentious to oversell a postcard like that.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Deflection. I did not say that people could not see through this. I implied that it makes the Liberals and Trudeau look goofy and pretentious to oversell a postcard like that.

I think it's more pretentious to treat the wording of a single month's fund raiser as though it is a big deal. It was just an email to supporters to raise funds not a vernissage or attempt to commercialize his sketch. There are also some limited edition T-shirts with "Part of the Change" written on them if the postcards don't suit but you probably have to donate more for that as they are more valuable than the postcards.

NorthReport

NDP accuse Dominic LeBlanc of inappropriately using his public office to help the Liberal party of New Brunswick.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/02/dominic-leblanc-ndp-expenses_n_6...

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Deflection. I did not say that people could not see through this. I implied that it makes the Liberals and Trudeau look goofy and pretentious to oversell a postcard like that.

I think it's more pretentious to treat the wording of a single month's fund raiser as though it is a big deal. It was just an email to supporters to raise funds not a vernissage or attempt to commercialize his sketch. There are also some limited edition T-shirts with "Part of the Change" written on them if the postcards don't suit but you probably have to donate more for that as they are more valuable than the postcards.

I mentionned it as a humorous example of Liberal goofiness. I did not present this as a life-changing moment for anyone. It is your defence of this that gave it life and your apparant willingness to sacrifice whatever credibility you claim to have on such an obviously stupid mistake.

You are being insincere here when you minimize this as an email. This was a national news story and the Liberals meant it to attract attention in order to raise funds. I criticized the wording as Trudeau must have seen it and the Liberal brain trust created it. Surely any artist could have told them that there is no such thing as an original copy.

If there was an article claiming that Trudeau's stools were ugly I am sure you would jump in saying how pretty they are. And this exchange has just served to prove that -- although that was not what it was meant to do.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Deflection. I did not say that people could not see through this. I implied that it makes the Liberals and Trudeau look goofy and pretentious to oversell a postcard like that.

I think it's more pretentious to treat the wording of a single month's fund raiser as though it is a big deal. It was just an email to supporters to raise funds not a vernissage or attempt to commercialize his sketch. There are also some limited edition T-shirts with "Part of the Change" written on them if the postcards don't suit but you probably have to donate more for that as they are more valuable than the postcards.

I mentionned it as a humorous example of Liberal goofiness. I did not present this as a life-changing moment for anyone. It is your defence of this that gave it life and your apparant willingness to sacrifice whatever credibility you claim to have on such an obviously stupid mistake.

You are being insincere here when you minimize this as an email. This was a national news story and the Liberals meant it to attract attention in order to raise funds. I criticized the wording as Trudeau must have seen it and the Liberal brain trust created it. Surely any artist could have told them that there is no such thing as an original copy.

If there was an article claiming that Trudeau's stools were ugly I am sure you would jump in saying how pretty they are. And this exchange has just served to prove that -- although that was not what it was meant to do.

No matter which way you look at it it remains a petty overblown complain which is ironic as you started a whole thread about having separate forums so Liberals and NDP wouldn't always be bumping heads.

It was an offer to boost funding for one month and it succeeded. I very much doubt that there are any non-partisans who gave the wording a second thought. I think everyone understood exactly what was on offer and thought no farther on it than that. I think you are nit-picking in trying to place significance on a casual monthly fundraising offer that was assigned no more value than a t-shirt with a slogan on it. 

ajaykumar

NorthReport wrote:

NDP accuse Dominic LeBlanc of inappropriately using his public office to help the Liberal party of New Brunswick.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/02/dominic-leblanc-ndp-expenses_n_6...

 

 

ajaykumar

Nice

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Deflection. I did not say that people could not see through this. I implied that it makes the Liberals and Trudeau look goofy and pretentious to oversell a postcard like that.

I think it's more pretentious to treat the wording of a single month's fund raiser as though it is a big deal. It was just an email to supporters to raise funds not a vernissage or attempt to commercialize his sketch. There are also some limited edition T-shirts with "Part of the Change" written on them if the postcards don't suit but you probably have to donate more for that as they are more valuable than the postcards.

I mentionned it as a humorous example of Liberal goofiness. I did not present this as a life-changing moment for anyone. It is your defence of this that gave it life and your apparant willingness to sacrifice whatever credibility you claim to have on such an obviously stupid mistake.

You are being insincere here when you minimize this as an email. This was a national news story and the Liberals meant it to attract attention in order to raise funds. I criticized the wording as Trudeau must have seen it and the Liberal brain trust created it. Surely any artist could have told them that there is no such thing as an original copy.

If there was an article claiming that Trudeau's stools were ugly I am sure you would jump in saying how pretty they are. And this exchange has just served to prove that -- although that was not what it was meant to do.

No matter which way you look at it it remains a petty overblown complain which is ironic as you started a whole thread about having separate forums so Liberals and NDP wouldn't always be bumping heads.

It was an offer to boost funding for one month and it succeeded. I very much doubt that there are any non-partisans who gave the wording a second thought. I think everyone understood exactly what was on offer and thought no farther on it than that. I think you are nit-picking in trying to place significance on a casual monthly fundraising offer that was assigned no more value than a t-shirt with a slogan on it. 

My first post on this topic was a simple post showing a stupid comment from the Liberals. It was posted more due to the humour than the seriousness.

You may think that there is no pattern but a lot of other people think there is and that is why the comment was interesting. I'd like to think that Canada could elect a PM that is not Conservative and would not look like an idiot at least once a month. And yes -- that part IS a big deal.

It would have gone away if you did not insist on fighting down the line that Trudeau and the Liberals did not make a mistake here. This instead has turned into an exercise in just how far you are prepared to defend an obvious mistake.

The comment I made was fine and in proportion. The lack of proportion has come from your responses. The story no longer is about this very stupid mistake from Trudeau and the Liberals that had as much entertainment value as anything else, but the lengths you will go to to pounce on anything on this site that does not adore your saviour.

This is politics. Thy saviour is going to get some political knocks from opponents when he and/or his party say stupid things. Guess what, this site is not going to get purged of those who are opponents of the Liberals and you will need to put up with it.

I suggested seperate forums so that each could share posts without people like you fighting to prove that their leader can do no wrong or smears from people like you as you have done in other threads.

Now what I said was true and backed up. You demanded I back it up again and I did from the very link I posted in the first place. Now that you have nowhere else to go you do this.

Here is the big deal:

1) Trudeau is not perfect.

2) He will get criticized.

3) Not every criticism can be refuted (see point 1)

4) You don't have to police this site for unLiberal comments becuase it is NOT a LIBERAL site but one with other views as well

 

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Here is the big deal:

1) Trudeau is not perfect.

Exactly, as Rob Ford always says

"Are you perfect? Well it is wonderful that you are perfect. But I never said I was perfect. I wasn't elected to be perfect"

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Here is the big deal:

1) Trudeau is not perfect.

Exactly, as Rob Ford always says

"Are you perfect? Well it is wonderful that you are perfect. But I never said I was perfect. I wasn't elected to be perfect"

My comment is not a criticism of Trudeau, it is directed at his adoring fans who attack anyone and any comment that suggests that he is not perfect.

These same fans when you put it this way will admit that he is not perfect but they will have a fit if you try to provide any examples of that. So apparently his imprefections are not to be discussed or are to be accepted without examination as so insignificant that he is virtually perfect.

NorthReport

NDP fire back at Liberals over partisan use of parliamentary resources

The NDP is seeking an investigation into Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's alleged improper use of parliamentary premises for partisan purposes.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/04/09/ndp-fire-back-at-liberals-ov...

Brachina

 The Liberals are petty a disgusting.

nicky
Pondering

nicky wrote:
For our Justin groupie friends:
">http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.ca/2015/04/the-five-stages-of-trudeaumania...

Stage 4. Bargaining
You know what’s really awesome? Coalition governments. All the really cool countries in Europe have these, why not Canada? It’s time we put aside our boring, bland “British” system we’ve been using for the past 150 years or so and embrace the exciting world of politics Italian-style. It’d be fun! Or let’s try implementing other cool democratic reforms, such as mandatory voting or banning negative ads or Rep by Pop. Remember no idea to radically transform our democracy is too ridiculous or too strange, if it helps Trudeau achieve his destiny.

Except it's the NDP and supporters promoting a coalition and PR not the Liberals.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

4) You don't have to police this site for unLiberal comments becuase it is NOT a LIBERAL site but one with other views as well

This is a thread about Trudeau's campaign. It's not "policing" to offer an opinion on your criticism. The MSM had fun with it which was to be expected. They did not accuse him of being unfair to or belittling professional artists.

 

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

NDP fire back at Liberals over partisan use of parliamentary resources

The NDP is seeking an investigation into Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's alleged improper use of parliamentary premises for partisan purposes.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/04/09/ndp-fire-back-at-liberals-ov...

The NDP is desperately trying to sling mud at nothing.

Caucus meetings are partisan by nature. The meeting rooms are provided by the house based on party affiliation.

MP allowances are to serve all constituents within the particular riding and constituency offices are to serve all constituents regardless of party affiliation.

They are also trying to attack Dominic LeBlanc with zero evidence of wrongdoing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/02/dominic-leblanc-ndp-expenses_n_6...

LeBlanc told HuffPost that he volunteered on the provincial campaign and that the New Brunswick Liberals provided him with a cellphone and email, and covered all his hotel costs, per diems and travel expenses.

“All of those expenses were paid directly by the provincial party,” he said. “I did not use the House of Commons resources at all to support anything I did on the provincial campaign.”

It was the administration that alerted the house to what they thought were questionable expenses. The BOIE didn't go fishing. Whether or not the response was proportionate or justified will be decided by the courts.

The NDP trying to randomly smear the Liberals without any evidence is weak and will fail. They make themselves look ridiculous.

NorthReport
Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Justin Trudeau's meagre performance

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-justin-trud...

Yet another article pointing out Trudeau is treading water and will continue to do so until he releases a platform.

In short, Canadians may have a reason to vote against the Conservatives, but have yet to be given a reason to vote for the Liberals. Perhaps in the next six months Trudeau will give them that reason; right now, he looks like he’s treading water.

Notice the NDP wasn't even mentioned as a competitor. The assumption is that the contest is between Harper and Trudeau.

Pondering

I think this quote deserves to be in this thread.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/for-the-record-justin-trudeau-on-liberty...

We haven’t always been at our best. We have had many failures, the most pernicious and invidious of which is still very much with us: the second-class citizenship of indigenous peoples.

There are other dark episodes: the Chinese head tax, the internment of Ukrainian, Japanese, and Italian Canadians during the First and Second World Wars, our turning away boats of Jewish or Punjabi refugees, our own history of slavery. No Irish need apply. We don’t speak French here, so “speak white.” The discrimination faced by Greek and Portuguese Canadians in this very city.

For each and every one of these, we look back with regret and shame. And we should.

But we should also learn from them. Mackenzie King ordered those internments because they were popular. In fact, he did it despite evidence from the RCMP and Defence that they were unwarranted. He did it because people were afraid.

When I talk to young people today about these episodes, they can hardly believe they happened. It doesn’t sound possible, not in Canada.

So we should all shudder to hear the same rhetoric that led to a “none is too many” immigration policy toward Jews in the ’30s and ’40s, being used to raise fears against Muslims today.

I agree with Trudeau that it is important to remember our past to avoid replicating it with a modern version.

I am especially encouraged by the acknowledgement that indigeneous people in Canada are second class citizens.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Justin Trudeau's meagre performance

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-justin-trud...

Yet another article pointing out Trudeau is treading water and will continue to do so until he releases a platform.

In short, Canadians may have a reason to vote against the Conservatives, but have yet to be given a reason to vote for the Liberals. Perhaps in the next six months Trudeau will give them that reason; right now, he looks like he’s treading water.

Notice the NDP wasn't even mentioned as a competitor. The assumption is that the contest is between Harper and Trudeau.

Your assumption based on faulty logic.

The article is about the Liberal leader and references the PM are obvious. It has nothing to do with the NDP as the NDP does not fit either narrative -- there are few reasons to vote against the NDP and there are reasons to vote for it since the party has been talking policy -- another of the gratuitous attacks on the NDP that are the real character of your posts unlike what you are pretending in the reactions thread. It is clear to everyone why you are here and what your agenda is.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Justin Trudeau's meagre performance

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-justin-trud...

Yet another article pointing out Trudeau is treading water and will continue to do so until he releases a platform.

In short, Canadians may have a reason to vote against the Conservatives, but have yet to be given a reason to vote for the Liberals. Perhaps in the next six months Trudeau will give them that reason; right now, he looks like he’s treading water.

Notice the NDP wasn't even mentioned as a competitor. The assumption is that the contest is between Harper and Trudeau.

Your assumption based on faulty logic.

The article is about the Liberal leader and references the PM are obvious. It has nothing to do with the NDP as the NDP does not fit either narrative -- there are few reasons to vote against the NDP and there are reasons to vote for it since the party has been talking policy -- another of the gratuitous attacks on the NDP that are the real character of your posts unlike what you are pretending in the reactions thread. It is clear to everyone why you are here and what your agenda is.

The author doesn't discuss the possibility of Mulcair overtaking Trudeau based on his performance, only of how it affects Trudeau's standing in relation to Harper.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Justin Trudeau's meagre performance

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-justin-trud...

Yet another article pointing out Trudeau is treading water and will continue to do so until he releases a platform.

In short, Canadians may have a reason to vote against the Conservatives, but have yet to be given a reason to vote for the Liberals. Perhaps in the next six months Trudeau will give them that reason; right now, he looks like he’s treading water.

Notice the NDP wasn't even mentioned as a competitor. The assumption is that the contest is between Harper and Trudeau.

Your assumption based on faulty logic.

The article is about the Liberal leader and references the PM are obvious. It has nothing to do with the NDP as the NDP does not fit either narrative -- there are few reasons to vote against the NDP and there are reasons to vote for it since the party has been talking policy -- another of the gratuitous attacks on the NDP that are the real character of your posts unlike what you are pretending in the reactions thread. It is clear to everyone why you are here and what your agenda is.

The author doesn't discuss the possibility of Mulcair overtaking Trudeau based on his performance, only of how it affects Trudeau's standing in relation to Harper.

There's a great sale on at Food Basics.

I just thought I would make a comment more closely related to the quote than you did.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Your assumption based on faulty logic.

The article is about the Liberal leader and references the PM are obvious. It has nothing to do with the NDP as the NDP does not fit either narrative -- there are few reasons to vote against the NDP and there are reasons to vote for it since the party has been talking policy -- another of the gratuitous attacks on the NDP that are the real character of your posts unlike what you are pretending in the reactions thread. It is clear to everyone why you are here and what your agenda is.

Pondering wrote:

The author doesn't discuss the possibility of Mulcair overtaking Trudeau based on his performance, only of how it affects Trudeau's standing in relation to Harper.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There's a great sale on at Food Basics.

I just thought I would make a comment more closely related to the quote than you did.

I don't think saying a National Post editorialist doesn't consider the NDP a threat to Trudeau is a gratuitous attack on the NDP.

Just out of curiousity why am I here and what is my agenda?

That a party is "talking policy" is not a reason to vote for them and there are plenty of reasons to vote against them. I am personally confident that the Liberals will release a platform before the election and that it will contain policy therefore voters will have an opportunity to compare them.

PS. Either the NDP platform is very meagre or they are holding back most of it.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering it is. The topic of the article was the Liberal party and it referenced the government. the issue was not one that affected the NDP. Not mentionning the NDP in an article talking about the Liberals is not a comment on the NDP.

Your agenda is obvious-- it is what you spend almost all your posts on: Promoting the Liberal party and fighting with anyone who has the audacity to challenge you.

I don't care what you think of the NDP platform. It has key elements that are getting attention and respect from those who are potential voters. It does not matter how it is received by Ultra Partisan Liberal boosters (UPLIB) as they are not the NDP's target voters.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering it is. The topic of the article was the Liberal party and it referenced the government. the issue was not one that affected the NDP. Not mentionning the NDP in an article talking about the Liberals is not a comment on the NDP.

Your agenda is obvious-- it is what you spend almost all your posts on: Promoting the Liberal party and fighting with anyone who has the audacity to challenge you.

I don't care what you think of the NDP platform. It has key elements that are getting attention and respect from those who are potential voters. It does not matter how it is received by Ultra Partisan Liberal boosters (UPLIB) as they are not the NDP's target voters.

The article was not about the Liberal party in general. It was about Trudeau's electoral prospects. Mentioning only one of Trudeau's opponents suggests the author does not think the other one is a threat otherwise they would be part of any conversation on Trudeau's electoral future.

You have confidence that the NDP is reaching voters with key elements that will win their support. I don't. Neither of us has any control over which of us is right. I ask myself where a bookie would be placing his bets. The situation will play itself out and like the bookie we will have to accept the results as "the truth". 

With the Duffy trial unfolding now, and the auditors report coming out in June, we shall soon see what if any effect these scandals will have on the three parties.

 

 

NorthReport

Problems seem to follow Trudeau wherever he goes.

So much for a clean open alternative to Harper, eh!

Bertschi files suit against Trudeau over Orléans Liberal nomination

http://www.canada.com/news/Bertschi+files+suit+against+Trudeau+over+Orl%...

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Problems seem to follow Trudeau wherever he goes.

So much for a clean open alternative to Harper, eh!

Bertschi files suit against Trudeau over Orléans Liberal nomination

http://www.canada.com/news/Bertschi+files+suit+against+Trudeau+over+Orl%...

The allegations in the statements of claim have not been proved in court and had not been served on any of the defendants, more than three weeks after they were filed in court. A notice of action, filed in the defamation case in February, has also not been served, court records show.....

Bertschi said he was confident in the court process and said the defendants would be served when his lawyer, Charles Gibson, saw fit. Gibson did not return a call requesting comment.

Bertschi seems to have a habit of threatening lawsuits then not following through.

Bertschi, who ran unsuccessfully for the party in Ottawa-Orléans in the 2011 election, was told in November that he could not seek a Liberal candidacy again because of unpaid debts from his 2013 leadership campaign and an undisclosed defamation action against a U.S. gossip website.

.....

The letter cited an alleged failure by Bertschi to pay off the debt he incurred challenging Trudeau for the leadership and his failure to declare the lawsuit he launched against TheDirty.com, which was later abandoned.

....

Bertschi claims he was ahead of schedule on a debt-repayment plan approved by the party and said the litigation against the website had been discontinued by the time he applied to become a candidate.

I suspect the question was "have you been involved in any lawsuits" not "are you presently involved in a lawsuit". Discontinuing litigation doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Having the previous debt paid was a requirement to run again. Making a longer payment schedule accepted by the party doesn't mean the requirement has been met from the perspective of running.

By disqualifying Bertschi, Trudeau and his aides did not respect the principles of the constitution and “failed to act fairly, reasonably and in good faith in administrating a fair nomination process and in failing to respect the recommendations of the Green Light Committee,” he alleges.

From the Liberal Constitution, page 37:

(2) If the National Campaign Committee or the Leader, acting in their absolute discretion, declines to approve a person to be the candidate of the Party in the next election, then that person is not eligible for selection as a candidate of the Party for election to the House of Commons. The decision of the National Campaign Committee or the Leader is not reviewable by the Permanent Appeal Committee.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2010/05/lpc-2009-constitution-en.pdf

The Leader has absolute power to accept or decline a candidate. He doesn't need a reason.

Was Bertschi involved in a lawsuit he didn't report?  Yes

Was Bertschi's debt paid off? No

There was no deflamation and the Liberal party was in no way required to accept him as a candidate.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

In most parties the leader has absolute discretion over candidates. They have to sign the nomination papers.

The item in the Liberal constitution simply reflects the reality of the Elections Canada regulations. In the absence of said regulation, the leader of any party could sign or not sign.

 

NorthReport

The big problem for the Liberals is it smells just like the Eve Adams fiasco, and it's rubbing off in a negative way on Trudeau. He promised to be open and clean and is turning out to be anything but.

Pages