Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

Since Mulcair has been leading, HuffPost has gone from mildly biased to trying to influence the agenda full on.

Note how some of these other headlines covered the same rally:

HuffPo not only zeroes in on the hecklers, but completely buries the context.

The Trudeau campaign can count on more slime from Ryan Maloney and Althia Raj.

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Since Mulcair has been leading, HuffPost has gone from mildly biased to trying to influence the agenda full on.

Note how some of these other headlines covered the same rally:

HuffPo not only zeroes in on the hecklers, but completely buries the context.

The Trudeau campaign can count on more slime from Ryan Maloney and Althia Raj.

I watched the clips. That is what I based my impressions on, not headlines. Canadians will see the leaders in action. How they respectively handle hecklers reveals their personalities. As the campaign heats up we will see more and more of their personalities.

josh
socialdemocrati...

Again, it's not hard to see the various strategies the Trudeau campaign is trying to achieve: deflect from the ways they've veered to the right, make this about personality and style, and raise the spectre of separatism. The talking points trickle down through the staffers who now work as journalists. It's tired.

jjuares


I don't know but as someone who lived in Sask during TC's years I would have to say he might suggest that mice should never trust cats no matter what they say.

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Again, it's not hard to see the various strategies the Trudeau campaign is trying to achieve: deflect from the ways they've veered to the right, make this about personality and style, and raise the spectre of separatism. The talking points trickle down through the staffers who now work as journalists. It's tired.

There is nothing to deflect. His right wing policies are known as are Mulcair's.

socialdemocrati...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/24/holding-montreal-island-se...

Chantel Hebert notes that the Liberals might be doing so poorly in Quebec they might even lose seats, instead of gaining.

So what do the Liberals promise?

over the weekend, the party made public a four-page letter to Premier Philippe Couillard designed to highlight Trudeau’s openness to the demand for a more collegial relationship with the federal government. 

It included a promise to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs with full compensation in areas of provincial jurisdiction and an acknowledgement of Quebec’s “unique” character and its government’s “specific responsibilities” in the areas of language and culture.

The Trudeau campaign in a nutshell: when on top, act like a conservative party. When on the bottom, act like a progressive party. When people lose trust in you, make desperate attacks.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/24/holding-montreal-island-se...

Chantel Hebert notes that the Liberals might be doing so poorly in Quebec they might even lose seats, instead of gaining.

So what do the Liberals promise?

over the weekend, the party made public a four-page letter to Premier Philippe Couillard designed to highlight Trudeau’s openness to the demand for a more collegial relationship with the federal government. 

It included a promise to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs with full compensation in areas of provincial jurisdiction and an acknowledgement of Quebec’s “unique” character and its government’s “specific responsibilities” in the areas of language and culture.

The Trudeau campaign in a nutshell: when on top, act like a conservative party. When on the bottom, act like a progressive party. When people lose trust in you, make desperate attacks.

Heh!  It'll be interesting to see how Pondering spins this one.

Jacob Two-Two

Well, clearly she'll denounce the Liberal party and withdraw her support, right? I mean, asymmetrical federalism is one of the small irrelevant nitpicks that she keeps holding up as deal breakers for the NDP, so obviously she would have the same standards for the other parties, right? I mean, it's not as if she's a shameless partisan sycophant who is dripping with double standards in every word she writes. Right? Right?

Oh... right.

mark_alfred

Laughing

mark_alfred

Trudeau's letter to Premier Couillard of Quebec stated,

Trudeau wrote:
Fiscal federalism

[..]

As for the provinces’ right to opt out with full compensation, I believe that is a principled and well-established practice within the Canadian federal framework. The 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement and the 2004 Health Accord confirm this.

Hébert basically felt that this letter is a sign that Trudeau's Libs are truly frightened of being wiped out in Quebec.

Hébert wrote:

All in all, Trudeau is committing to a more flexible approach to federalism and Quebec than that of his father.

Time will shortly tell whether those overtures amount to too little, too late.

The Liberals can hardly give up on Quebec without giving up on a victory in October. But unless the party’s numbers improve, holding the thin Montreal red line and saving Trudeau’s seat (and possibly his leadership) will take absolute precedence over bringing the Liberals back from the dead in the rest of the province.

I feel Trudeau made an error in the last debate.  He figured that going after Mulcair on the sovereignty issue would boost his Ontario numbers without overly hurting his Quebec numbers.  His Ontario numbers were boosted by a couple percent*, but it caused a larger gap btw them & the NDP in Quebec.  So they're now going to have to waste valuable time campaigning even more in fortress Montreal, where even Papineau could become a concern.  It's like Ignatieff all over again who alienated Quebec.

_____

* I suspect the gain in Ontario won't last.  Sovereignty isn't a huge concern.  Economy and a more positive change are.  False fear-mongering over sovereignty is just a negative distraction that, if Trudeau has any smarts, he'll avoid doing in the future.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh Pondering....tick, tick, tick.....Smile

mark_alfred

After reading Hébert's article, I became curious about the Montreal ridings.  I checked out the Babble thread Montreal ridings and candidates 2015.  It's very interesting.  There's a lot of good information there.  The Babblers there are skeptical that Papineau could be lost, but they feel it's not impossible, since Anne Lagacé Dowson is a popular candidate.  If a few factors come into play, then Trudeau may have to spend a lot of time just campaigning to save his own seat.

 

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well, clearly she'll denounce the Liberal party and withdraw her support, right? I mean, asymmetrical federalism is one of the small irrelevant nitpicks that she keeps holding up as deal breakers for the NDP, so obviously she would have the same standards for the other parties, right? I mean, it's not as if she's a shameless partisan sycophant who is dripping with double standards in every word she writes. Right? Right?

Oh... right.

That something is small and irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. It's very disappointing to me that no matter which main party wins under them there would be no new programs like Canada-wide UIC or medicare both of which can be further undermined if the parties are being sincere. 

The only tin lining to this clould is that at least the Liberals aren't singling out Quebec.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh Pondering....tick, tick, tick.....Smile

Well excuse me for taking a break. I didn't realize the clock was ticking.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well, clearly she'll denounce the Liberal party and withdraw her support, right? I mean, asymmetrical federalism is one of the small irrelevant nitpicks that she keeps holding up as deal breakers for the NDP, so obviously she would have the same standards for the other parties, right? I mean, it's not as if she's a shameless partisan sycophant who is dripping with double standards in every word she writes. Right? Right?

Oh... right.

That something is small and irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. It's very disappointing to me that no matter which main party wins under them there would be no new programs like Canada-wide UIC or medicare both of which can be further undermined if the parties are being sincere. 

The only tin lining to this clould is that at least the Liberals aren't singling out Quebec.

You made a huge deal out of this Pondering. It was your raison d'etre for hating Mulcair. Trudeau shows he'll play the same game, and you say, oh, ok, if Justin is fine with that, then its ok, because its Justin. Admit it, you'd support the Liberals regardless, because you're a Liberal, always been a Liberal, always voted Liberal. No one on here believes you've ever voted any other way. You're a partisan who showed up on this board mysteriously after Justin won. You have an agenda, and you're shamelss. That's why no one here takes anything you write with any seriousness at all I say it again, you're not fooling anyone here at all. You should try to stop believing your own propaganda.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh Pondering....tick, tick, tick.....Smile

Well excuse me for taking a break. I didn't realize the clock was ticking.

Well what do you know, the Peanut Gallery speaks!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

You made a huge deal out of this Pondering. It was your raison d'etre for hating Mulcair. Trudeau shows he'll play the same game, and you say, oh, ok, if Justin is fine with that, then its ok, because its Justin. Admit it, you'd support the Liberals regardless, because you're a Liberal, always been a Liberal, always voted Liberal. No one on here believes you've ever voted any other way. You're a partisan who showed up on this board mysteriously after Justin won. You have an agenda, and you're shamelss. That's why no one here takes anything you write with any seriousness at all I say it again, you're not fooling anyone here at all. You should try to stop believing your own propaganda.

It's still a huge deal and very disappointing. Point me to a party that won't allow parties to opt out of national programs. I don't know what the Green position is. Also, I don't hate Mulcair, just his politics.

P.S. What the heck is mysterious about the timing of when I joined the board? Trudeau became leader in April, I joined in June. One has nothing to do with the other. Have you made your tinfoil hat yet?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No Pondering but I have for you, what's your mailing address. And you're deflecting; the issue is your attack on the NDP for having the same  position This simply shows you are two-faced, will say anything, and thinnk you are so much smarter then any of us that we won't noitce. That's why we don't respect you. Remember all your ranting about pensions, what, that doesn't matter now. You are such a gigantic hypocrite!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Come on Pondering. Are you OK now with Justin letting Quebec screw around with your pension because its Justin? Answer the damn question for once.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
That something is small and irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. It's very disappointing to me that no matter which main party wins under them there would be no new programs like Canada-wide UIC or medicare both of which can be further undermined if the parties are being sincere. 

The only tin lining to this clould is that at least the Liberals aren't singling out Quebec.

Clever.  What you previously identified as a deal breaker is downgraded to a disappointment and turns into an argument that all the parties are the same, so may as well vote Liberal.  Of course, the parties are not the same.  Bill C-51, child care, corporate taxation, personal taxation, electoral reform, minimum wage, etc., have some differences.  The differences aren't gigantic, but there's some differences. 

But anyway, this thread isn't about policy, it's about the campaign.  And my take on Trudeau's letter to Quebec Premier Couillard, embracing asymmetrical federalism, is that they're worried about losing too many of their Quebec seats.  It reminds me of their decision to support Bill C-51, which they did because polls initially showed great favour to it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Come on Pondering, your silence is DEAFENING. You've insulted me over and over again and belitttled me countless times. So what about it? Trudeau has now side OK, if you want to screw around with pensions Quebec, go right ahead. You ranted and raved about this over and over and now i've asked you twice to explain why this is OK? Come on, I know you think I'm a clown and no where as intelligent as I am. So explain it to me. like the child you think I am, tell me why its OK if Quebec screws around with your pension now. Go ahead. I'm waiting. What are you waiting for?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
No Pondering but I have for you, what's your mailing address. And you're deflecting; the issue is your attack on the NDP for having the same  position This simply shows you are two-faced, will say anything, and thinnk you are so much smarter then any of us that we won't noitce. That's why we don't respect you. Remember all your ranting about pensions, what, that doesn't matter now. You are such a gigantic hypocrite!

No, you just mis-classified me from the start. I am not a Liberal Supporter. I am voting for the party that offers me more of what I do want and less of what I don't want. I am more pissed off at the NDP than at the Liberals because the Liberals have always been a centrist party. Now I have two centrist parties to choose from. The NDP or the Liberals. Now that the Liberals have joined the NDP in not using federal funds to gain compliance from the provinces in federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdictions that is one less reason to vote Liberal, but it is not a reason to vote NDP as their position isn't any better for me as I live in Quebec.

I have two leaders to choose from. I don't hate Mulcair but I don't like his leadership of the NDP nor his priorities. I didn't like his using the women who were sexually harassed and abused as a tool to attack the Liberals and I don't like his using the women's issues debate as a political football. I don't like his raising the issue of the Sherbrooke Declaration to pander to separatists in Quebec and I don't want the Unity Act to be passed into law. I didn't appreciate Mulcair's hesitency in condemning the soccer hijab ban nor the Charter of Quebec Values. Trudeau is inexperienced but in my opinion he is more sincere and more open-minded which are qualities I appreciate.

Other people, including yourself, see those issues from a different perspective, which is fine. Your behavior is obnoxious but not unexpected.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Come on Pondering. Are you OK now with Justin letting Quebec screw around with your pension because its Justin? Answer the damn question for once.

No I'm not. I'm not okay with the NDP doing it and I am not okay with the Liberals doing it. I'm not okay with any party doing it. I vote for the lesser of evils in political parties as there is no party that adequately reflects my preferences.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
No Pondering but I have for you, what's your mailing address. And you're deflecting; the issue is your attack on the NDP for having the same  position This simply shows you are two-faced, will say anything, and thinnk you are so much smarter then any of us that we won't noitce. That's why we don't respect you. Remember all your ranting about pensions, what, that doesn't matter now. You are such a gigantic hypocrite!

No, you just mis-classified me from the start. I am not a Liberal Supporter. I am voting for the party that offers me more of what I do want and less of what I don't want. I am more pissed off at the NDP than at the Liberals because the Liberals have always been a centrist party. Now I have two centrist parties to choose from. The NDP or the Liberals. Now that the Liberals have joined the NDP in not using federal funds to gain compliance from the provinces in federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdictions that is one less reason to vote Liberal, but it is not a reason to vote NDP as their position isn't any better for me as I live in Quebec.

I have two leaders to choose from. I don't hate Mulcair but I don't like his leadership of the NDP nor his priorities. I didn't like his using the women who were sexually harassed and abused as a tool to attack the Liberals and I don't like his using the women's issues debate as a political football. I don't like his raising the issue of the Sherbrooke Declaration to pander to separatists in Quebec and I don't want the Unity Act to be passed into law. I didn't appreciate Mulcair's hesitency in condemning the soccer hijab ban nor the Charter of Quebec Values. Trudeau is inexperienced but in my opinion he is more sincere and more open-minded which are qualities I appreciate.

Other people, including yourself, see those issues from a different perspective, which is fine. Your behavior is obnoxious but not unexpected.

Pondering you are simply not being truthful We all know that you have never voted anything other then Liberal. OK, so you don't have a party membership, so what? You still have always voted only Liberal. No one belives here that you have ever voted any other way. Why you keep insisting on the contary simply shows you don't respect any of us enough to be forth right. As to the issue about the female MPs, you have already been set staright on this over and over; its not my fault that you can't admit you are wrong and not being forthright. As to your other assertion, taht would have been true if Mulcair hadn't said he wouldn't debate without Harper. As to me being obnoxious, as Reagan said, "there you go again". You just once more show your outright contempt for me. OK. But it doesn't change the fact you haven't answered my question, What about your pension Pondering? Well? Well? The silence on that is DEAFENING. You are a gigantic hypocrite.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

From Dictonary.com:

adjective 1. highly objectionable or offensive; odious: obnoxious behavior. 

So Pondering, do you find me offensive and odious?

Why don't you just say it. I'll be honest, I don't like you either. But I think you know that. You are disiengenuous. And think that none of us kow it because you think you are smarter than all of us.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
Clever.  What you previously identified as a deal breaker is downgraded to a disappointment and turns into an argument that all the parties are the same, so may as well vote Liberal.  Of course, the parties are not the same.

Dishonest. I did not claim the parties were all the same in every regard, only that they are now the same in that particular regard.

mark_alfred wrote:
But anyway, this thread isn't about policy, it's about the campaign.  And my take on Trudeau's letter to Quebec Premier Couillard, embracing asymmetrical federalism, is that they're worried about losing too many of their Quebec seats.

Threads on babble are not that strict. I agree on the motivation of Trudeau's letter to Couillard only I don't think it qualifies as asymmetrical federalism as all the provinces are granted the opt-out priveleges not just Quebec.

mark_alfred wrote:
It reminds me of their decision to support Bill C-51, which they did because polls initially showed great favour to it.

Yes and they didn't want to give Harper the opportunity to use it to portray them as soft on terrorism. I liked how candid Trudeau was on his motivation for voting for it but with caveats. It's refreshing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh that is so cute Pondering.

"I don't think it qualifies as asymmetrical federalism as all the provinces are granted the opt-out priveleges not just Quebec."

How did you manage to bend yourself into a pretzel coming up with that beaut without snapping your back?

By the way, what about your pension Pondering? I guess it doesn't matter if you even lose it now because Justin is the PM, right? Well, how about it? Answer the damn question for once. What's the matter, don't have an answer?

 

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
It reminds me of their decision to support Bill C-51, which they did because polls initially showed great favour to it.

Yes and they didn't want to give Harper the opportunity to use it to portray them as soft on terrorism. I liked how candid Trudeau was on his motivation for voting for it but with caveats. It's refreshing.

Trudeau voting for Bill C-51 was gutless, not refreshing.  It's an unnecesary violation of people's rights, IMO (but feel free to make the case as to why Bill C-51 is necessary, if you like). 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

From Dictonary.com:

adjective 1. highly objectionable or offensive; odious: obnoxious behavior. 

So Pondering, do you find me offensive and odious?

Why don't you just say it.

I did just say it.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Come on Pondering, your silence is DEAFENING.

You posted at 12:59, 1:33, and 1:52. This isn't a chat window. It's rather a shock to have anyone on this board accuse me of being too silent.This will be my last post for a little while because I do have other things to do.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
You've insulted me over and over again and belitttled me countless times. 

You have a lot of nerve. You've been attacking me for years calling me a liar and a coward.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
  So what about it? Trudeau has now side OK, if you want to screw around with pensions Quebec, go right ahead. You ranted and raved about this over and over and now i've asked you twice to explain why this is OK?

It's not okay.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Come on, I know you think I'm a clown and no where as intelligent as I am. So explain it to me. like the child you think I am, tell me why its OK if Quebec screws around with your pension now. Go ahead. I'm waiting. What are you waiting for?

It's not okay. I'm not happy about it. If the NDP reverses their policy on the Sherbrooke Declaration I would definitely reconsider my vote despite my misgivings.

I don't think you are a clown but I do think you have a temper and that you indulge it.

 

NDPP

JDL Canada To Protest Fundraiser For Justin Trudeau

http://www.jdl-canada.com/2015/08/18/jdl-canada-to-protest-fundraiser-fo...

"On August 26th Barry Sherman will hold a major fundraising reception in his Toronto home for Justin Trudeau. It is absolutely wrong for a leading philanthropist in the Jewish community to support a man that would support the regime of Iran.

Many people have contacted the JDL and have asked for our engagement. The Jewish Defence League will therefore have a picket outside the fundraiser for Justin Trudeau..."

Another Zionist intervention in Canadian political affairs

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

From Dictonary.com:

adjective 1. highly objectionable or offensive; odious: obnoxious behavior. 

So Pondering, do you find me offensive and odious?

Why don't you just say it.

I did just say it.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Come on Pondering, your silence is DEAFENING.

You posted at 12:59, 1:33, and 1:52. This isn't a chat window. It's rather a shock to have anyone on this board accuse me of being too silent.This will be my last post for a little while because I do have other things to do.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
You've insulted me over and over again and belitttled me countless times. 

You have a lot of nerve. You've been attacking me for years calling me a liar and a coward.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
  So what about it? Trudeau has now side OK, if you want to screw around with pensions Quebec, go right ahead. You ranted and raved about this over and over and now i've asked you twice to explain why this is OK?

It's not okay.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Come on, I know you think I'm a clown and no where as intelligent as I am. So explain it to me. like the child you think I am, tell me why its OK if Quebec screws around with your pension now. Go ahead. I'm waiting. What are you waiting for?

It's not okay. I'm not happy about it. If the NDP reverses their policy on the Sherbrooke Declaration I would definitely reconsider my vote despite my misgivings.

I don't think you are a clown but I do think you have a temper and that you indulge it.

 

What a stretch! It took me three tries to get you to reply, and you didn't until after I called you out again after replying to another poster. You don't like toengage unless you think you can win. Sure its OK if Trudeau says it. Prove me wrong; tell us you're voting Green now. Or, admit the issue of YOUR pension was simply a red-herring. As for me attacking you, you were the first to use dismisive language. I remember that clearly, you haven't the high ground here, though as typical, you think you do. You always think you do. You think I have a temper because I reply to your posts? What? Then I guess then everyone else does? And n0,, you didn't say it, you try to onfuscate. Tryg looking in the mirror and ask yourself whether or not you are disingenous. Listen closely to the reply; you'll be surprised. Don't try to lecture me. You haven't anything that supports your case. And stop trying to play the victim. That's all you ever do. You're always the victim. Its always someone else's fault.

mark_alfred

Seems Trudeau is inspired by Paul Martin, given their last presser together.  Here's a reminder of what Paul Martin was about:  link

socialdemocrati...

You can feel the disappointment and confusion among Liberal supporters. It's not nearly as bad as Bill C-51, and so it won't have anywhere close to the same impact. But I wouldn't doubt the Trudeau campaign making more frustrating policy announcements as the campaign gets more desperate.

 

Sean in Ottawa

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

You can feel the disappointment and confusion among Liberal supporters. It's not nearly as bad as Bill C-51, and so it won't have anywhere close to the same impact. But I wouldn't doubt the Trudeau campaign making more frustrating policy announcements as the campaign gets more desperate.

 

Sure -- that said the optics of the NDP pulling out of a debate on women's concerns is a negative. I don't care if Harper is not going. Mulcair is getting some spectacularly bad advice on this. That debate should be attended by the NDP with or without Harper. No benefit not going and a lot of downside.

trotwood73

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sure -- that said the optics of the NDP pulling out of a debate on women's concerns is a negative. I don't care if Harper is not going. Mulcair is getting some spectacularly bad advice on this. That debate should be attended by the NDP with or without Harper. No benefit not going and a lot of downside.

I posted in another thread. It was announced today that the debate is going forward in a one-on-one interview format.

NDP Statement on the Up for Debate proposal to discuss women's issues [source: NDP website]

Up for Debate campaign moving forward to plan b to ensure women are a focus in elections [source: Upfordebate.ca]

 

 

felixr

Justin Trudeau accuses Tom Mulcair of ‘austerity’ over balanced budget pledge

This is hilarious, what do the Liberals call the 1990s? Massive cuts in the face of massive surpluses

+ a permanent GST

+ massive corporate tax giveaways

Yes, Comrade Trudeau, the Liberals are the party of anti-austerity Undecided

bekayne

felixr wrote:

Justin Trudeau accuses Tom Mulcair of ‘austerity’ over balanced budget pledge

This is hilarious, what do the Liberals call the 1990s? Massive cuts in the face of massive surpluses

+ a permanent GST

+ massive corporate tax giveaways

Yes, Comrade Trudeau, the Liberals are the party of anti-austerity Undecided

So, another of those "we'll balance the budget by finding loose change beind the couch" pledges?

mark_alfred

It's ironic that Martin, king of slash, burn, and offload, was beside Trudeau while Trudeau said this stuff.  New Democrat candidate Andrew Thomson stated,

Andrew Thomson wrote:
"Paul Martin didn't balance budgets, he offloaded the burden onto the provinces," said Thomson, who served under former premier Lorne Calvert. "He cut $25 billion over three years -- and much of the pain fell on lower-income Canadians."

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

It's ironic that Martin, king of slash, burn, and offload, was beside Trudeau while Trudeau said this stuff.  New Democrat candidate Andrew Thomson stated,

Andrew Thomson wrote:
"Paul Martin didn't balance budgets, he offloaded the burden onto the provinces," said Thomson, who served under former premier Lorne Calvert. "He cut $25 billion over three years -- and much of the pain fell on lower-income Canadians."


Every Liberal comment I have ever read about Martin brims with pride about his record. I don't get that. Now there have been NDP gov. that have slashed and burned. Many NDP supporters will rationalize but rarely do they defend it with the fulsome praise Liberals reserve for Martin.

Jacob Two-Two

Because the media wholely bought into ther bullshit notion that Martin balanced the budget, so they feel safe repeating it forever as a positive. It doesn't have to be real for a Liberal to brag about it. Really, it's better if it isn't. Reality has a way of involving facts and figures. Bragging about totally made-up stuff never has that problem.

felixr

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

It's ironic that Martin, king of slash, burn, and offload, was beside Trudeau while Trudeau said this stuff.  New Democrat candidate Andrew Thomson stated,

Andrew Thomson wrote:
"Paul Martin didn't balance budgets, he offloaded the burden onto the provinces," said Thomson, who served under former premier Lorne Calvert. "He cut $25 billion over three years -- and much of the pain fell on lower-income Canadians."


Every Liberal comment I have ever read about Martin brims with pride about his record. I don't get that. Now there have been NDP gov. that have slashed and burned. Many NDP supporters will rationalize but rarely do they defend it with the fulsome praise Liberals reserve for Martin.

+1

Pondering

trotwood73 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sure -- that said the optics of the NDP pulling out of a debate on women's concerns is a negative. I don't care if Harper is not going. Mulcair is getting some spectacularly bad advice on this. That debate should be attended by the NDP with or without Harper. No benefit not going and a lot of downside.

I posted in another thread. It was announced today that the debate is going forward in a one-on-one interview format.

NDP Statement on the Up for Debate proposal to discuss women's issues [source: NDP website]

Up for Debate campaign moving forward to plan b to ensure women are a focus in elections [source: Upfordebate.ca]

So no debate, just interviews, but that's great for Trudeau anyway. He named prostitution as violence against women. He has an academic background in English lit and teaching, both disciplines dominated by women and disciplines in which feminism is a topic.

I look forward to seeing how each of them do.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, get off your high horse, a recent study says that women working in the sex trade have high self esteem. Try following people like MistressMaitesse on twitter. You don't have a clue about what you are speaking; you are simply being patrnalistic in the way that  man are about abortion. You are paternalistic, and mysoginistic. Trudeau is tone deaf, and so are you.

MegB

AC, you need to seriously back off.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
Trudeau voting for Bill C-51 was gutless, not refreshing.  It's an unnecesary violation of people's rights, IMO (but feel free to make the case as to why Bill C-51 is necessary, if you like).

I believe I have stated multiple times that I am against C-51. I didn't say voting for it was refreshing, telling the truth about why he did was the refreshing part not to mention amusing. I still await the details on what parts of C-51 he will change.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

He'll only keep the good parts.

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

He'll only keep the good parts.


Those would be the quasi-fascist parts not the full blown fascist segments.

jjuares

This campaign is going to be even uglier. One of Trudeau's star candidates it is alleged is going to run a campaign highlighting the fact that the NDP candidate is not a mother. Freeland's (liberal)campaign is denying it but the editor claims he double checked with the campaign himself.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-freeland-campaign-sa...

Pondering

O’Born says the paraphrased statement is incorrect.

“I’ve contacted the Ricochet and have asked for a correction,” O’Born said in an email to The Gargoyle.

“I would never say anything about highlighting the family status of any other candidate because it isn’t relevant. Such a view would be reprehensible and has no place in any campaign.

Ricochet is a gossip rag.

Pages