Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ciabatta2

josh wrote:
Ciabatta2 wrote:

(An aside, what was so interesting about the Gang of 34 was that it was such a classist move on the part of members of the the party that is supposed to recognize the limiting factors of class in economics.  What a beaut from that crowd.)

Yeah, how bourgeois of them to try to prevent the election of someone who wanted to turn Ontario into Scott Walker's Wisconsin.

I wasn't aware that Horwath wanted to strip public servants of collective bargaining rights, implement right to work legislation, and politicize public university funding, as well as oppose abortion and same sex marriage but promote gun rights.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I disagree that Mulcair's statement was a lie. Both the Liebrals and the NDP are doing in part what they had to do.

Whether or not Mulcair's statement was "doing what he had to do" has nothing to do with its veracity. Harper has run a deficit the entire time he has been in power. The only way Mulcair can get to a balanced budget in one year is by causing a lot of pain. I think he knows that and knows that when the time comes around he won't do it and he will blame on the Conservatives hiding stuff.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Liberals running from the left is a desperate gamble but the only remaining card. It is risky becuase Trudeau who has run from the right for a year is not credible...Don't expect Trudeau to criticize Mulcair from the left in the House either. If he is ahead of the CPC he will try to bury them so he will tack right after the election.

Trudeau has not been running from the right. The NDP and Cons keep trying to deny that the centre exists while desperately trying run from it. The centre is the Liberals natural home.

This whole fixation on right and left is immaterial to the average voter. The fact is running a deficit right now is inevidable, not "tacking left". While it is true that there are many Conservative expenses that can be dropped a year is not enough time to turn the ship of state around, certainly not while introducing national daycare and increasing support to First Nations.

I think a lot (not all) of tax breaks associated with oil are for new developments and new equipment not day to day operations. Not paying enough in advance for clean-up is considered a subsidy too. Given the current state of the oil industry the NDP is not going to be able to extract much money from the industry to pay for anything.

Trudeau has had an economic team with members from multiple disciplines, not just finance, working on his economic program. His choices are not "last minute".  Trudeau will be well prepared for the Globe and Mail debate on the economy. It will show.

jjuares

The problem with the Liberal plan to get us out of the deficit is timing. The American economy is growing by almost 4% so that should positively affect us at some point as will the falling dollar to some extent. So the 10 year infrastructure won't have much effect on the recession. There would have to be a lot of shovel ready projects with the bidding process in place etc for it to impact at the right time.

So as a Keynsian strategy it may have little merit. However, I do like some of the priorities in their plan eg transit and in my city that would do some good. Our LRT expansion is going at a snails pace.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

If the question of running deficits during an economic downturn comes up, which it very likely will, Mulcair, Harper, and Trudeau, will all admit that deficit budgeting cannot be ruled out.

It has come up, we are in a recession, Mulcair said so, and he is ruling out running a deficit. (A recession is "an economic downturn")

nicky

.@thomasmulcair just predicted his #ndp candidate would defeat @JustinTrudeau in papineau riding. #elxn42 #cdnpoli

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

If the question of running deficits during an economic downturn comes up, which it very likely will, Mulcair, Harper, and Trudeau, will all admit that deficit budgeting cannot be ruled out.

It has come up, we are in a recession, Mulcair said so, and he is ruling out running a deficit. (A recession is "an economic downturn")

Except it's only Canada, due to over-reliance upon resource extraction and an unwillingness to hike government revenues via fair taxation (aka making corporations to pay their fair share.)  We're not talking about a need for stimulus here.  Just a refocus in government priorities. 

ctrl190

An ongoing problem I've noticed with the Liberal campaign is it's isolation from the Canadian electorate. Their campaign language consists of inside baseball. How many Canadians outside of the Annex and Westmount know what "austerity" is? For a candidate who initially reinvigorated the grassroots of the party and performed outreach to new constituencies, Trudeau's language reeks of insularity and privilege.

Pondering

ctrl190 wrote:
An ongoing problem I've noticed with the Liberal campaign is it's isolation from the Canadian electorate. Their campaign language consists of inside baseball. How many Canadians outside of the Annex and Westmount know what "austerity" is? For a candidate who initially reinvigorated the grassroots of the party and performed outreach to new constituencies, Trudeau's language reeks of insularity and privilege.

Practically everyone who votes knows austerity means cut-backs even if they could not define the word. Trudeau is not coming across at all elitest despite the best efforts of detractors.

terrytowel

What I find interesting is that the Liberals and the NDP are using the same playbook Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath used in last years Ontario election.

Wynne went to the extreme left and advocated big spending. While Horwath went to the centre-left (some would argue right) to go after the Rob Ford/Tim Hortons/Toronto Sun voters. By advocating lower taxes (removing the HST off home heating).

We all saw how that turned out and here we are a year later and these moves seem to be lifted from the exact playbook from last years Provincial election.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It has come up, we are in a recession, Mulcair said so, and he is ruling out running a deficit. (A recession is "an economic downturn")

Except it's only Canada, due to over-reliance upon resource extraction and an unwillingness to hike government revenues via fair taxation (aka making corporations to pay their fair share.)  We're not talking about a need for stimulus here.  Just a refocus in government priorities. 

The stock markets are roiling everywhere. Nothing has really changed since 2008 in terms of stabilizing markets. We are still in neoliberal quicksand worldwide, not just in Canada. We have no idea where oil prices are going. The entire last decade has been in deficit. It is irresponsible to promise a balanced budget in one year.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
The problem with the Liberal plan to get us out of the deficit is timing. The American economy is growing by almost 4% so that should positively affect us at some point as will the falling dollar to some extent. So the 10 year infrastructure won't have much effect on the recession. There would have to be a lot of shovel ready projects with the bidding process in place etc for it to impact at the right time. So as a Keynsian strategy it may have little merit. However, I do like some of the priorities in their plan eg transit and in my city that would do some good. Our LRT expansion is going at a snails pace.

Regardless of the timing we have a huge infrastructure deficit. The Liberal focus on:

Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastruc...

These are investments that will pay off for Canadians and boost the economy regardless of the timing.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

terrytowel wrote:

What I find interesting is that the Liberals and the NDP are using the same playbook Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath used in last years Ontario election.

Wynne went to the extreme left and advocated big spending. While Horwath went to the centre-left (some would argue right) to go after the Rob Ford/Tim Hortons/Toronto Sun voters. By advocating lower taxes (removing the HST off home heating).

We all saw how that turned out and here we are a year later and these moves seem to be lifted from the exact playbook from last years Provincial election.

Does this mean that it is no longer OVER for JT and the Libs? Are they going to spring back to life, like the phoenix from the ashes, and crush Mulcair's NDP just like Wynne crushed Horwath? If not, what is your point in spamming several threads with this post?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
The stock markets are roiling everywhere. Nothing has really changed since 2008 in terms of stabilizing markets. We are still in neoliberal quicksand worldwide, not just in Canada. We have no idea where oil prices are going. The entire last decade has been in deficit. It is irresponsible to promise a balanced budget in one year.

That's just silly.  For economic recovery, there's no need for Trudeau's proposal.  However, Trudeau's proposal could help cities deal with aging infrastructure a bit faster.

The real question this election is which party will pursue increases in revenue and invest in fixed cost items like universal child care.  The answer there is the NDP.

josh

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
The problem with the Liberal plan to get us out of the deficit is timing. The American economy is growing by almost 4% so that should positively affect us at some point as will the falling dollar to some extent. So the 10 year infrastructure won't have much effect on the recession. There would have to be a lot of shovel ready projects with the bidding process in place etc for it to impact at the right time. So as a Keynsian strategy it may have little merit. However, I do like some of the priorities in their plan eg transit and in my city that would do some good. Our LRT expansion is going at a snails pace.

Regardless of the timing we have a huge infrastructure deficit. The Liberal focus on:

Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastruc...

These are investments that will pay off for Canadians and boost the economy regardless of the timing.

Has nothing to do with the merits of the proposals. If Mulcair had proposed what Trudeau did, many on here who are attacking it now would be praising it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

terrytowel

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Does this mean that it is no longer OVER for JT and the Libs? Are they going to spring back to life, like the phoenix from the ashes, and crush Mulcair's NDP just like Wynne crushed Horwath? If not, what is your point in spamming several threads with this post?

No I'm just making an observation. That is allowed around here isn't it?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Does this mean that it is no longer OVER for JT and the Libs? Are they going to spring back to life, like the phoenix from the ashes, and crush Mulcair's NDP just like Wynne crushed Horwath? If not, what is your point in spamming several threads with this post?

No I'm just making an observation. That is allowed around here isn't it?

Sure it's allowed, but it is also allowed to show that your "observation" is totally pointless. If anything, it demonstrates that your inflexible and shallow method of analysis by naive pattern matching is useless.

terrytowel

Yes but I'm not the only one who is making this observation as there are a few editorials out there that is noticing the similarity between this election and last years Ontario election. So I don't think it is pointless as other pundits are seeing the similarities.

Unless you believe we all should be preaching to the converted.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Yes but I'm not the only one who is making this observation as there are a few editorials out there that is noticing the similarity between this election and last years Ontario election. So I don't think it is pointless as other pundits are seeing the similarities.

Unless you believe we all should be preaching to the converted.

I think we all should be trying to make cogent points that relate to the outcome of this election in some way. You have already admitted that is not the case in this instance, so what are you saying is the point? And don't say, "it's just an observation", we've been through that already. Even if a hundred pundits make a pointless statement, it remains pointless. 

terrytowel

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I think we all should be trying to make cogent points that relate to the outcome of this election in some way. You have already admitted that is not the case in this instance, so what are you saying is the point? And don't say, "it's just an observation", we've been through that already. Even if a hundred pundits make a pointless statement, it remains pointless. 

OK fair enough

jjuares

josh wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
The problem with the Liberal plan to get us out of the deficit is timing. The American economy is growing by almost 4% so that should positively affect us at some point as will the falling dollar to some extent. So the 10 year infrastructure won't have much effect on the recession. There would have to be a lot of shovel ready projects with the bidding process in place etc for it to impact at the right time. So as a Keynsian strategy it may have little merit. However, I do like some of the priorities in their plan eg transit and in my city that would do some good. Our LRT expansion is going at a snails pace.

Regardless of the timing we have a huge infrastructure deficit. The Liberal focus on:

Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastruc...

These are investments that will pay off for Canadians and boost the economy regardless of the timing.

Has nothing to do with the merits of the proposals. If Mulcair had proposed what Trudeau did, many on here who are attacking it now would be praising it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.


Well of course they would because most people are partisans so you attack the NDP and we attack the Liberals. My point was simply as a way to get out of e recession it will not work due to timing. However, if the basis of the proposal is to generate long term growth and improve the quality of life and the environment it has merit. Unfortunately I don't for a millisecond believe the Liberals would do it. I'm sorry but anyone who votes Liberal on the basis of their promises deserves to be disappointed. Just look at Chretien's record.

sherpa-finn

Somewhere above I suggested that the big Liberal announcement about deficits was a sign of political desperation, grasping for a big policy announcement to try and get their campaign back on track. 

Pondering responded: Running a deficit to grow the economy has been planned for a very long time. It's the basis for "the budget will balance itself" clip.

To which I can only presume that to a Liberal, "a very long time" means since the middle of July. Because that's when:

"Trudeau again slammed the Harper government for its economic policy, accusing the government of back-loading infrastructure investments and continuing tax breaks for the wealthiest Canadians.Trudeau also vowed not to run a deficit if elected prime minister in October.

“I’ve committed to continuing to run balanced budgets,” he said. “In fact, it is Conservatives who run deficits, Liberals balance budgets. That’s what history has shown.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/19/trudeau-attacks-harper-on-the-econo...

This was no long-term calculated strategic policy initiative. It was a seat-of-the-pants bit of mid-campaign improv, in the face of unrelentingly bad polling numbers. Call it what you will - a death bed conversion or a Hail Mary pass - we can rest assured that the Lib brain trust never imagined for a minute they would be sitting in 3rd place at 25% on Labour Day.  They're scrambling, and it shows. 

Pondering

Okay, you're right, I missed that declaration. Be that as it may be, Trudeau is now promising a deficit.

sherpa-finn

C'mon, Pondering - give me a little credit. It wasn't just "that" declaration. Here is Trudeau saying exactly the same thing back in April, reported in the National Post as a key moment in the public roll out of the long-awaited Liberal economic platform:

Trudeau promises to nix Tory tax-free savings boost and balance budget if elected in the fall

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-promi...

So what exactly happened between April and August that would have prompted such a complete reversal of economic policy .... you tell me.

And it didn't have anything much to do with the price of oil, I can assure you.

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:

C'mon, Pondering - give me a little credit. It wasn't just "that" declaration. Here is Trudeau saying exactly the same thing back in April, reported in the National Post as a key moment in the public roll out of the long-awaited Liberal economic platform:

Trudeau promises to nix Tory tax-free savings boost and balance budget if elected in the fall

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-promi...

So what exactly happened between April and August that would have prompted such a complete reversal of economic policy .... you tell me.

And it didn't have anything much to do with the price of oil, I can assure you.

I said I missed that declaration, not just the one time, I didn't know that Trudeau had specifically promised a balanced budget. As to what changed, the stock market crashed and oil prices haven't rebounded but regardless of that if he is promising it because he thinks it will be a more popular position how is that different from the NDP moving to the centre to get elected? Political parties come up with the policies they think will get them elected.

Pondering

By the way, a Trudeau rally was interrupted by climate change activists again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/28/climate-change-activists-interru...

At first, Trudeau seemed startled to see them, but took the microphone over to Quigley and in response he said his plan was to gather all of Canada's premiers and take them to Paris in order to present a united front.

Quigley and Laura Cameron say they weren't satisfied with the answer and hoped to hear some specific target numbers to reduce CO2 emissions.

Again Trudeau gave them a platform instead of chastising them for being disrespectful.

I think Trudeau is going to continue doing well on the campaign trail and that it will be reflected in his numbers. I hope the polls are going to be weekly now.

Pondering

On Harper hiring ex-soldiers as security:

Alex Marland, a political science professor at Memorial University in St. John’s, N.L., said the presence of security at campaign events is part of a greater conversation about modern campaigns and message control.
“The reality is that all political parties know that what can happen is you can have one person come out, make a wayward remark or engage in something and all sorts of election planning and discussion goes completely amuck,” Marland said.
“These things are so tightly scripted, they’re so focused, they’re quite frankly quite boring, that all of a sudden it introduces a level of drama that the media, understandably, will chase.”
Marland said technology is a major consideration because everyone in the room has a cellphone and leaders are under the microscope.
“Every political party is absolutely trying to avoid going off script, ever,” he said. “The whole point about having security at these things to is try to avoid somebody else, who has their own agenda … destabilizing the agenda that you have.”
Campaign events are not the “public open forums” that some people may think they are, he added.

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/ex-soldiers-now-guarding-again...

The NDP approach, Mulcair uses First Nations as a shield against EE protesters:

The protesters repeatedly chanted "stop Energy East" as Mulcair spoke to about 1,000 supporters. The proposed TransCanada pipeline would carry 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in New Brunswick.

Mulcair initially joked that as the second-oldest of 10 kids he was well-versed in speaking over people.

But he apparently had enough when the heckling continued through a passage of the speech dealing with Aboriginal issues.

"Listen, I'm more than willing to put up with your screaming but I'm talking about First Nations," Mulcair said. "Can you show a little bit of respect please?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/21/mulcair-energy-east-hecklers-fir...

Trudeau's approach:

Two climate change protesters interrupted Justin Trudeau's speech in Montreal Friday evening when they stepped out of the crowd behind him. The Liberal leader let them ask him a question.

As demonstrator Julianna Duholke unveiled a sign that said "Votons pour le climat" or "Vote for the climate," Trudeau said "excellent question" and approached them with his microphone. 

The protesters asked Trudeau what his emissions reduction target would be for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris in December if a Liberal government were to be elected. Trudeau praised the pair's passion and talked about the importance of the issue, but didn't provide a number.

"I am committed to showing up with all premiers to take on the target we need which is to prevent the two degrees of warming that scientists across the world are looking at as catastrophic," he said. 

"We need to step up. We need to work and respect with the provinces that are already putting prices on carbon, we need to make sure we are creating economic growth in a way that protects future generations and that's what we're going to do. Thank you very much." ​

The audience applauded Trudeau's response, his speech ended and the two protesters walked off stage.

The encounter mirrored a similar incident last November, in which Trudeau asked a group demonstrating against the Energy East pipeline to "take a moment to explain" their position.

Deholke and fellow protester Sam Quigley told CBC News after the exchange they were glad Trudeau answered — but weren't satisfied with his response.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-takes-climate-change-ques...

Harper and Mulcair silence opposition. Trudeau shows respect and gives a platform.

mark_alfred

I think at the Liberal event security removed them after they were given their moment in the spotlight, though, whereas protesters at the NDP event were allowed to stay.  Thus, it was a more honest interaction.  Trudeau patronizing the protesters hardly makes him the better leader.

Ciabatta2

This is ridiculous.  Trudeau managed two people on stage, and still didn't answer their question and presented zero platform.  Mulcair let protestors protest until he got to the First Nations part and they got disrespectful.  

Your posts are just so vapid it is tough to take.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:

This is ridiculous.  Trudeau managed two people on stage, and still didn't answer their question and presented zero platform.  Mulcair let protestors protest until he got to the First Nations part and they got disrespectful.  

Your posts are just so vapid it is tough to take.

Vapid though my thoughts may be I think the way in which these situations are handled broadcasts leadership styles that will impact the campaign outcomes.

The protesters didn't "get disrespectful".  They had been chanting throughout, hence Mulcair's comment that he didn't mind speaking over them. Mulcair switched topics then used that to shame the protesters for not stopping.

For Mulcair to use talking about First Nations issues as a means of shaming the protesters was disrespectful. First Nations are on the side of the protesters who are against pipeline expansion.

All the political parties support pipelines so that part is a wash. Placing myself in the shoes of the climate change protesters, I would prefer Trudeau's treatment than either Harper's or Mulcair's.

The Liberals aren't a leftest party but neither is the NDP. Environmentalists are better off with Trudeau because at least he won't be looking for ways to shame or humiliate them.

Mulcair could have addressed them prior to launching into the First Nations part of his speech. Instead he ignored them and then got angry.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Today, on "The House"of fear' and Bill C-51Arbour had equally strong words for the government's controversial anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51, which was passed into law in June.

C-51 is now law: 5 things that changeC-51 sees charter challenge from civil liberties, press freedom advocates

'No prosperity without security,' says public safety minister

"You hear Canadians say, 'I don't care all that much, I don't have anything to hide,'" Arbour said of the law that will result in more personal information being shared between government departments under the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act.

"Privacy is not there to protect bad people who have done bad things," said Arbour, whose daughter Emilie Taman is the NDP candidate for Ottawa-Vanier.

"It's there to protect the scope for people to have their own spiritual, personal, intellectual, political life without that being exposed to the public if they don't want to."

Arbour expects constitutional challenges to the legislation, and said she found the position of the Liberal Party — which voted for the bill but vowed to repeal or amend parts of it — to be "enormously disappointing."

"I think it was very hard to mobilize against something where people didn't feel immediately threatened," she said. "And of course the politics of fear, as usual, worked. The Liberals expressed some misgivings but weren't prepared to go the distance and oppose it." 

Anyone care to challenge her on it, and explain why, first, Trudeau was right, and second, in the face of such commentary from this respected Supreme Court Justice, he should be Prime Minister?

Go ahead.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/refugee-crisis-changes-the-tone-of-the-...

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Privacy is not there to protect bad people who have done bad things," said Arbour, whose daughter Emilie Taman is the NDP candidate for Ottawa-Vanier.

.....

Arbour expects constitutional challenges to the legislation, and said she found the position of the Liberal Party — which voted for the bill but vowed to repeal or amend parts of it — to be "enormously disappointing."

"I think it was very hard to mobilize against something where people didn't feel immediately threatened," she said. "And of course the politics of fear, as usual, worked. The Liberals expressed some misgivings but weren't prepared to go the distance and oppose it." 

Anyone care to challenge her on it, and explain why, first, Trudeau was right, and second, in the face of such commentary from this respected Supreme Court Justice, he should be Prime Minister?

Go ahead.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/refugee-crisis-changes-the-tone-of-the-...

Trudeau could not have stopped the bill as Harper has a majority. He made a calculated decision to vote for the bill because he supports some aspects and committed to changing other aspects if he is elected. Voting against the bill would have suggested he was against the entire thing which he isn't. Mulcair has promised to repeal the entire bill.

Both are valid positions for the political parties to take, neither is right or wrong in an absolute sense. It is possible to amend the bill so that it doesn't contravene the charter. It is up to voters to decide which approach they prefer. It appears Trudeau's support for C-51 did hurt him so it looks as though voters prefer the NDP approach on that file. Ultimately it is voters who will decide who is and isn't fit to be PM based on multiple factors.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Your response is nonsensical Pondering based on the fact Trudeau said he voted for it because he didn't want to be attacked by Harper. It is LPC spin, and yours, to say its about making changes, versus the REALITY that Trudeau voted for it because of preceived polical ramification. Your post proves you will say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to explain away ANYTHING the Liberals do. I KNEW you'd post a response like this. It simply proves you are a pure partisan Liberal, who will say anything to get Le Dauphin elected. I am all for discussion, but you know full well Arbor was right; you deflected to try and explain away her Scholarly, and Judicial critique of Justin's outright FAILURE on this. I am NOT surprised by your reply at all.

takeitslowly

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-terrorism-bill-to-be-supported-by-l... Trudeau said he wants to see the bill changed to include better oversight for CSIS and regular reviews of its measures. But, he said, his party will vote for Bill C-51 even without amendments. "This bill can be improved. But on the whole it does include measures that help keep Canadians safe," Trudeau said. "Matters of national security should be beyond partisanship." According to his reasoning, the liberals would still vote for bill c 51 even if Harper had a minority government, not a majority.

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-terrorism-bill-to-be-supported-by-l... Trudeau said he wants to see the bill changed to include better oversight for CSIS and regular reviews of its measures. But, he said, his party will vote for Bill C-51 even without amendments. "This bill can be improved. But on the whole it does include measures that help keep Canadians safe," Trudeau said. "Matters of national security should be beyond partisanship." According to his reasoning, the liberals would still vote for bill c 51 even if Harper had a minority government, not a majority.

In a minority situation Trudeau could have insisted on the amendments he wanted.

AC is also right in that the political ramifications of not supporting it also played a part in his decision.

Jacob Two-Two

Him and his party voted a bill into law that made Canada a police state and then stated publicly that they did it so the Cons wouldn't attack them over it. There's no talking around that. It is shallow, cynical, arrogant, and cowardly all at once. The very opposite of leadership on every level. Our rights and freedoms just went up in smoke and Justin jumped right on the bandwagon so that he wouldn't have to endure the indignity of attack ads. This guy doesn't give a shit about his country.

Jacob Two-Two

And even with the Liberal party's amendments it would still be the worst piece of legislation ever passed in the house of commons, so who cares whether they come through on them or not (though the smart money says not). It's always the same pattern: the Cons stick a six-inch knife in your back and the Libs take it out three. The knife's in your back either way.

quizzical

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Him and his party voted a bill into law that made Canada a police state and then stated publicly that they did it so the Cons wouldn't attack them over it. There's no talking around that. It is shallow, cynical, arrogant, and cowardly all at once. The very opposite of leadership on every level. Our rights and freedoms just went up in smoke and Justin jumped right on the bandwagon so that he wouldn't have to endure the indignity of attack ads. This guy doesn't give a shit about his country.

i like your depiction but i believe they voted for it 'cause they want it in place too. they serve the same masters.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Him and his party voted a bill into law that made Canada a police state and then stated publicly that they did it so the Cons wouldn't attack them over it. There's no talking around that. It is shallow, cynical, arrogant, and cowardly all at once. The very opposite of leadership on every level. Our rights and freedoms just went up in smoke and Justin jumped right on the bandwagon so that he wouldn't have to endure the indignity of attack ads. This guy doesn't give a shit about his country.

Right, and the NDP makes all their decisions based on morality, not. Why is the NDP supporting free trade deals that are bad for Canada? Why is the NDP supporting Energy East? Political parties make calculated decisions all the time about what they have to do to win an election.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Right, and the NDP makes all their decisions based on morality, not. Why is the NDP supporting free trade deals that are bad for Canada? Why is the NDP supporting Energy East? Political parties make calculated decisions all the time about what they have to do to win an election.

And this, my friends, sums up the LPC and its partisans approach to governance. I couldn't have written it better myself!

 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Right, and the NDP makes all their decisions based on morality, not. Why is the NDP supporting free trade deals that are bad for Canada? Why is the NDP supporting Energy East? Political parties make calculated decisions all the time about what they have to do to win an election.

And this, my friends, sums up the LPC and its partisans approach to governance. I couldn't have written it better myself!

It also sums up the NDP and their partisans who also make choices based on electability. Ya know, like taking down the NDP policy book and worshipping balanced budgets.

Jacob Two-Two

Of course, Pondering. Promising balanced budgets and taking away the rights and freedoms of all Canadians are precisely the same morally. How did all us NDP partisans miss that? I guess it's just our biases that prevent us from seeing things as clearly as you.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Of course, Pondering. Promising balanced budgets and taking away the rights and freedoms of all Canadians are precisely the same morally. How did all us NDP partisans miss that? I guess it's just our biases that prevent us from seeing things as clearly as you.

I never said they were the same thing. The part that is the same is political parties making decisions based on political expediency. The rights and freedoms of Canadians cannot be taken away because we have the Supreme Court to appeal to. The Liberal platform will include amendments to the bill which they will put in place if elected. It was the wrong decision to support it and it backfired causing some serious damage. The people for whom it was a deal breaker won't vote for him.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

I never said they were the same thing. The part that is the same is political parties making decisions based on political expediency.

So you agree that the Liberals voting for C-51 is far worse than anything the NDP has ever done, and thus by extension, the Liberal party is far worse than the NDP, morally speaking? Good to know, but it turns your constant defense of them into total gibberish, but then that's never been a problem for you.

Quote:

The rights and freedoms of Canadians cannot be taken away because we have the Supreme Court to appeal to.

Yes, we need the Supreme Court of Canada to step in and protect us from the Liberal Party of Canada. And this is the party you support.

Quote:

The Liberal platform will include amendments to the bill which they will put in place if elected.

And even with those amendments it will still be a shocking and inexcusable curtailment of our rights. So why do you keep bringing it up? Because you're desperate to be an apologist for anything and everything the Liberal party does, no matter how unconscionable? That's the only explanation that makes sense.

Quote:

It was the wrong decision to support it and it backfired causing some serious damage. The people for whom it was a deal breaker won't vote for him.

Yes, my point is that it isn't a deal-breaker for you, while to point to things like the Sherbrooke Declaration as a deal-breaker for the NDP. The vastness of the cognitive dissonance you display is staggering. If you mean the things you say, one can only conclude that you have a breathtaking lack of perspective, but it's far more likely that you're just full of shit and don't really care about any issue, except defending the corrupt Liberal Party at all costs.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
but it's far more likely that you're just full of shit and don't really care about any issue, except defending the corrupt Liberal Party at all costs.

To be fair, she's also fighting "the oligarchs", J22.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Of course, Pondering. Promising balanced budgets and taking away the rights and freedoms of all Canadians are precisely the same morally. How did all us NDP partisans miss that? I guess it's just our biases that prevent us from seeing things as clearly as you.

I never said they were the same thing. The part that is the same is political parties making decisions based on political expediency. 

Actually, when the majority disagrees with you on a particular political position (and C-51 did have majority support when it first came out) the politically expedient thing to do is to support the majority opinion "with resevations," not to contradict it completely.

But I'm glad you have confidence in the Supreme Court to stop any government over-reaching. I guess we don't have to worry about Harper's assaults on democracy, considering the number of times the courts have ruled against him?

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
  So you agree that the Liberals voting for C-51 is far worse than anything the NDP has ever done, and thus by extension, the Liberal party is far worse than the NDP, morally speaking? Good to know, but it turns your constant defense of them into total gibberish, but then that's never been a problem for you.

No I don't. Had the Liberals voted against C51 it would still have passed. It made no practical difference. They didn't write it and if they are elected they will change it.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Yes, we need the Supreme Court of Canada to step in and protect us from the Liberal Party of Canada. And this is the party you support.

No, because the bill would have passed anyway because Harper has a majority. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
And even with those amendments it will still be a shocking and inexcusable curtailment of our rights. So why do you keep bringing it up?

You don't know that, and you are the one fixated on C 51.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Yes, my point is that it isn't a deal-breaker for you, while to point to things like the Sherbrooke Declaration as a deal-breaker for the NDP. The vastness of the cognitive dissonance you display is staggering. If you mean the things you say, one can only conclude that you have a breathtaking lack of perspective, but it's far more likely that you're just full of shit and don't really care about any issue, except defending the corrupt Liberal Party at all costs.

If the Liberals win the election they will change the bill to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the NDP wins they will repeal it. So from my perspective the matter is settled.

I'm not going to have the Sherbrooke Declaration argument all over again. It's been done to death.

You don't trust the Liberals no matter who the leader is, I don't trust Mulcair's NDP. It's pretty much a dead end. Neither of us is going to convert.

The difference between us is that I can see people who vote for/support different political parties as good people even if I think they are misguided. Your enmity and arrogance radiate off you.

 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Actually, when the majority disagrees with you on a particular political position (and C-51 did have majority support when it first came out) the politically expedient thing to do is to support the majority opinion "with resevations," not to contradict it completely.

Yes, which is what Trudeau did. In this case Mulcair bet that he had to oppose it more categorically to stay in good with his base. As Harper has taught us it is not all about majorities.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
But I'm glad you have confidence in the Supreme Court to stop any government over-reaching. I guess we don't have to worry about Harper's assaults on democracy, considering the number of times the courts have ruled against him?

I do have confidence in the Supreme Court. They have thwarted Harper multiple times in standing up for our rights under the Charter. Even though he appointed many of the judges they still refused to do his biding. Harper is the Conservative's swan song. That demographic is splintering and shrinking. They will be absorbed federally by the NDP, the Liberals and the Greens leaving Harper's Conservatives a shadow of what they pretended to be. All that will be left  of the Conservatives is the Reform Party.

Jacob Two-Two

Oh no, Pondering. The fact that you defend the Liberal Party just makes you easy to clobber, like a pinata, since the Liberals are fundamentally indefensible. But that's not why I dislike you. No, my constant disrespect and open contempt of you is entirely personal. You are a person who habitually makes arguments that you know to be false. You are a person who is deliberately manipulative to try and goad people emotionally. You are a person of low character who is unworthy of respect. It wouldn't matter if you were here to promote the George Foreman Grill, I would still despise the way you do it.

The fact that you're a scumbag just dovetails nicely with the fact that you're a Liberal, but Liberal or not, you would still be a scumbag.

Pondering

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-want-a-new-pm-pol...

So far, the Léger poll suggests support for the NDP remains relatively softer than that of its rivals. Nearly half (49 per cent) of NDP voters said they could still change their minds, which is more than Liberal voters (41 per cent).

On the other hand, only 29 per cent of Conservative voters said they could still change their minds.

Mr. Léger added that New Democrat supporters are the most likely, at 42 per cent, to say they will be “voting against another party” in this election, compared with 31 per cent for Liberal voters. He said this suggests that more NDP supporters are “strategic voters” who could shift to another party depending on the evolution of the election campaign.

So 42% of NDP voters are ABC voters and 49% say they could still change their minds. So, the NDP base is still somwhere around 16%. Do continue denigrating anyone who considers voting Liberal a valid choice.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

No I don't. Had the Liberals voted against C51 it would still have passed. It made no practical difference. They didn't write it and if they are elected they will change it.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Yes, we need the Supreme Court of Canada to step in and protect us from the Liberal Party of Canada. And this is the party you support.

No, because the bill would have passed anyway because Harper has a majority. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
And even with those amendments it will still be a shocking and inexcusable curtailment of our rights. So why do you keep bringing it up?

You don't know that, and you are the one fixated on C 51.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Yes, my point is that it isn't a deal-breaker for you, while to point to things like the Sherbrooke Declaration as a deal-breaker for the NDP. The vastness of the cognitive dissonance you display is staggering. If you mean the things you say, one can only conclude that you have a breathtaking lack of perspective, but it's far more likely that you're just full of shit and don't really care about any issue, except defending the corrupt Liberal Party at all costs.

If the Liberals win the election they will change the bill to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the NDP wins they will repeal it. So from my perspective the matter is settled.

I'm not going to have the Sherbrooke Declaration argument all over again. It's been done to death.

You don't trust the Liberals no matter who the leader is, I don't trust Mulcair's NDP. It's pretty much a dead end. Neither of us is going to convert.

The difference between us is that I can see people who vote for/support different political parties as good people even if I think they are misguided. Your enmity and arrogance radiate off you.

When something is wrong, it is important for people to speak up and act up.  The more who do so, the easier it is to gain momentum to stop what's wrong.  The NDP, along with many judges, past prime ministers, the Green Party, and others, have helped turn the tide against this awful piece of legislation.  If the NDP had acted like the Liberals, it would have made it hopeless to reverse this law.  By taking a principled stand, the NDP have given a focus for those who do not wish to have a severe loss of civil liberties now (rather than when, years later, it goes through the courts, as you bizarrely suggest is the solution).

Trudeau was incredibly wrong on Bill C-51.  By contrast, he, along with the NDP, is right about the refugee situation.  And it's important to speak up and act up as opposition to put more pressure, along with mobilizing the public, upon government to do the right thing.  Trudeau is doing okay with his statements about the Syrian refugee crisis.  But he failed miserably (miserably!) with Bill C-51.  Someone who cannot speak up for human rights is not qualified to be prime minister.

Pages