Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
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).

Yup. This is the opposite of what happened in the US, where the Democrats essentially supported the Iraq war initially, then started to (maybe) oppose the war once popular support for it collapsed. As a result, the Republicans were able to (accurately) portray the Democrats as weak flip-floppers and the Democrats were not able to capitalize on this important issue. Had the NDP supported C-51, it would have gone forward much more strongly and there would have been little to stop it.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

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.

No kidding. For almost the entire country's history, when people want to replace the PCs, they voted Liberal. It's only within the last 4 years that the rise in the viability of the NDP, combined with growing evidence that the Liberals govern like right-wingers when left to their own devices, that people have felt a confidence that they have other options. Yes, the NDP has more work to do to convince people to support them, and yes the NDP should not take its eye off the ball just yet, but given the number of Liberals who have announced support for the NDP over C-51, I think the party is off to a good start.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

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.

You're deflecting. Mulcair's promise is based on finding revenue. When your party cuts, it does it by scrwing the poor. There's a HUGE difference. Come Hell, or, High Water, right, Pondering?

nicky

Pondering, in introducing Bill C-51 Stephen Harper sought to scare the Canadian public. The first person he succeeded in scaring was Justin Trudeau.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

But Trudeau did speak up about the parts that he felt contravened or rights. He did say it needed to be amended to comply with the charter and should have parliamentary oversight.

The NDP did not "make it possible" to reverse it.

I did not suggest the courts are a solution. I said the Liberals, if elected, will repeal the parts that contravene our rights. Aside from that we also have the courts.

You support the NDP party, and Mulcair as it's leader. You would be equally loyal had someone else won. I currently support Trudeau and by extension the Liberal party. 2019 could be an entirely different story. I won't feel betrayed if Trudeau doesn't keep all his promises, just disappointed. If Mulcair signs on to the trade deals as is, many NDP supporters will feel deeply betrayed (I think) but I won't because I more than half expect it.

I don't buy the NDP as the party of social justice and morality. This is the provincial party not the federal though from what I hear the relationship is closer than for other parties.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/01/manitoba-child-services-first-na...

WINNIPEG — The children's advocate for Manitoba's First Nations says social workers are seizing an average of one newborn baby a day and "shoving them anywhere."

Cora Morgan told The Canadian Press that she was with a mother in hospital on Monday when Child and Family Services took the woman's three-day-old son. The only reason given was that the mother had been a ward of family services until she was 18, Morgan said.

"It was heart-wrenching,'' she said. "It just seemed so utterly heartless."

Manitoba is seizing a record number of newborns - as many as 40 in one month from one downtown Winnipeg hospital - rather than supporting parents, Morgan said.

Numbers tabled in the legislature in May show that, between 2008 and 2014, Manitoba has consistently apprehended between 318 and 388 newborns a year.

The infants are being taken into care without any assessment of the parents or their ability to care for the child, she said.

If a Liberal party were doing that you would all be outraged and condemning the Liberals provincially and federally. Because it's the NDP it will be ignored. That's fine, but I don't by the NDP as an automatically morally superior party.

I am still unhappy about the Sherbrooke Declaration but now that Trudeau has said he will allow all the provinces to opt out of programs that aspect is no longer in play. Now it's more of an annoyance, still a negative but not a deal breaker.

The issue of marijuana legalization is important to me on multiple levels. I do believe it would be an economic boon to Canada, not because of recreational use but because of all the other uses. It is also evidence passed decision-making and correcting a long- standing injustice.

The Liberals have to live with the decisions they made out of political expediency but that is also true of the NDP which also includes their categorical insistence on not running a deficit.

It was Trudeau that without hesitation, condemned the soccer hijab ban and the Quebec Charter of Values recognizing it for what it was immediately. That among other things showed character to me as did his suspension of the two MPs accused of personal misconduct. Trudeau strikes me as a man of today, Mulcair strikes me as old-fashioned with his references to smoking oregano in his youth and his pushing of the Sherbrooke Declaration and even the" balanced budget so we don't burden future generations narrative."

 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
No kidding. For almost the entire country's history, when people want to replace the PCs, they voted Liberal. It's only within the last 4 years that the rise in the viability of the NDP, combined with growing evidence that the Liberals govern like right-wingers when left to their own devices, that people have felt a confidence that they have other options. Yes, the NDP has more work to do to convince people to support them, and yes the NDP should not take its eye off the ball just yet, but given the number of Liberals who have announced support for the NDP over C-51, I think the party is off to a good start.

My point is that support could be lost in part by denigrating anyone who considers voting Liberal. The whole "Liberals are the spawn of the devil" thing so anyone who votes for them is a devil worshipper or an idiot is not a convincing argument and can backfire because no one likes being told they are devil worshipper or idiot if they considering voting Liberal.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

But Trudeau did speak up about the parts that he felt contravened or rights. He did say it needed to be amended to comply with the charter and should have parliamentary oversight.

The NDP did not "make it possible" to reverse it.

Not really.  Trudeau said he believed in balance between security and rights.  He said he wanted a sunset clause and more oversight.  He never spoke of the issues about the Charter.  That said, I note the Lib's recently released proposed amendments finally did address the warrants issue, which is good.  This is due to public pressure, which is good. And the way to build public pressure is to speak out against that which is wrong, regardless of current polling, which the NDP did.  The NDP, by promising to revoke this unnecessary and wrongful legislation, has made it possible to reverse it.  Those who want this wrongful legislation gone have a concrete choice.

nicky

Pondering, Justin only says and thinks what Gerald Butts tells him to say or think. Gerald thought he was being clever over C-51 but it came back to bite the Liberals big time. We have never had such an empty vessel as leader of a major federal party.

nicky

Pondering, does Jutin really wear a $20,000 watch?

 

mark_alfred

Pondering

I couldn't care less how much Trudeau's watch costs and it's a lie that he is against a 15$ minimum wage. That is just yet another deliberately dishonest NDP attack. Very Harperish.

mark_alfred wrote:
Not really.  Trudeau said he believed in balance between security and rights.  He said he wanted a sunset clause and more oversight.  He never spoke of the issues about the Charter.  That said, I note the Lib's recently released proposed amendments finally did address the warrants issue, which is good.  This is due to public pressure, which is good. And the way to build public pressure is to speak out against that which is wrong, regardless of current polling, which the NDP did.  The NDP, by promising to revoke this unnecessary and wrongful legislation, has made it possible to reverse it.  Those who want this wrongful legislation gone have a concrete choice.

Okay, I understand you better now. It was a smart choice on the part of the NDP as is their unequivocal rejection of military adventurism. It is a good thing for everyone, regardless of who they vote for, that there is a political party speaking up on those issues and providing a different perspective. However little the NDP has said about it, it is also good that there is at least some criticism of the investor state privileges in trade deals. I wish Canadians cared more about it.

PS. Link to amendments

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/03/C-51.pdf

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Please Pondering, the issue is that Trudeau voted for it so Harper couldn't atak him. The rest is meaninless. He's morally bankrupt, his party is morally bankrupt, and pretty much anyone who would support him based on this truth needs to b asking themselves why. What will be the bext thing that the Libs will cover their asses when people need leadership. Its a morally bankrupt, untrustworthy, cowardly party, that no one in their right mind would support, period!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Please Pondering, the issue is that Trudeau voted for it so Harper couldn't atak him. The rest is meaninless. He's morally bankrupt, his party is morally bankrupt, and pretty much anyone who would support him based on this truth needs to b asking themselves why. What will be the bext thing that the Libs will cover their asses when people need leadership. Its a morally bankrupt, untrustworthy, cowardly party, that no one in their right mind would support, period!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

And on top of all of this, Pondering, LOUISE ARBOR said Justin FAILED votin for C51; she said its too flawed! Or do you know better then a fomer, very respected, Supreme Court Judge! Oh, wait a moment, you think you do! My bad! Sorry!

nicky

Yes Pondering, I fully accept that you "couldn't care less" about any hypocricy or mendacity on the part of Justin. It is appparent that you will excuse or deny any shortcoming the rest of the world may see in this shallow, calllow and self-important medocrity.

Rev Pesky

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Please Pondering, the issue is that Trudeau voted for it so Harper couldn't atak him. The rest is meaninless. He's morally bankrupt, his party is morally bankrupt, and pretty much anyone who would support him based on this truth needs to b asking themselves why. What will be the bext thing that the Libs will cover their asses when people need leadership. Its a morally bankrupt, untrustworthy, cowardly party, that no one in their right mind would support, period!

Frankly, a party that has turfed candidates based on cherry-picked quotes about Israel, and not allowed the candidacy to others because of their support for Palestinians (Paul Manly), is not standing on the moral high ground. What's their excuse for these actions? Well, so that Conservatives couldn't attack them. If Trudeau is morally bankrupt for his positions because he 'didn't want to be attacked', then Mulcair and his crew must be the same.  

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Please Pondering, the issue is that Trudeau voted for it so Harper couldn't atak him. The rest is meaninless. He's morally bankrupt, his party is morally bankrupt, and pretty much anyone who would support him based on this truth needs to b asking themselves why. What will be the bext thing that the Libs will cover their asses when people need leadership. Its a morally bankrupt, untrustworthy, cowardly party, that no one in their right mind would support, period!

Frankly, a party that has turfed candidates based on cherry-picked quotes about Israel, and not allowed the candidacy to others because of their support for Palestinians (Paul Manly), is not standing on the moral high ground. What's their excuse for these actions? Well, so that Conservatives couldn't attack them. If Trudeau is morally bankrupt for his positions because he 'didn't want to be attacked', then Mulcair and his crew must be the same.  

 

I put it to you Rev that there's a HUGE difference between the NDP's not allowing candidates based on their opinons on the Middle East versus a Political Party with a Leader who CHOSE to vote to abrogate Candian Civil Rights in the nameof poltical expediency. Spin it any way you want Rev, you're in no position to "preach" to anyone here, incuding me. Go sermonize somewhere else.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's ironic that any one here would take a swipe at a candidate's wealth when they are all wealthy.This includes Tom MUlcair. Take a stroll through his riding on Cote Ste-Catherine Road. A lot of people with expensive watches.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

alan smithee wrote:

It's ironic that any one here would take a swipe at a candidate's wealth when they are all wealthy.This includes Tom MUlcair. Take a stroll through his riding on Cote Ste-Catherine Road. A lot of people with expensive watches.

For me that isn't the issue' the issue is LPC partisans say who he's a school teacher like he's some kind of regular joe and pretend he's one of the guys. I agree that this is a non issue, but the counter is it'd be nice if Justin and the shills on this board would stop pretneind he comes from humble stock. Its bull!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I put it to you Rev that there's a HUGE difference between the NDP's not allowing candidates based on their opinons on the Middle East versus a Political Party with a Leader who CHOSE to vote to abrogate Candian Civil Rights in the nameof poltical expediency. Spin it any way you want Rev, you're in no position to "preach" to anyone here, incuding me. Go sermonize somewhere else.

There is a huge difference. The vote for C 51 had no practical impact because Harper has a majority so the bill would have passed anyway.

Blocking canditates based on criticism of Israel or defence of Palestinians does have an impact and is out of step with many NDP supporters.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

For me that isn't the issue' the issue is LPC partisans say who he's a school teacher like he's some kind of regular joe and pretend he's one of the guys. I agree that this is a non issue, but the counter is it'd be nice if Justin and the shills on this board would stop pretneind he comes from humble stock. Its bull!

Anyone in Canada who is unaware that Justin Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau therefore decidedly not middle-class is unlikely to vote. That he chose to become a teacher rather than a lawyer or economist or get into business is a credit to his character and an indication that he is not a snob unable to relate to middle class people which is what you try to infer when you focus on his wealth.

quizzical

but.. but.. but.. he is a snob, he can't relate and can ya say least amount of time needed to get a step above a BA degree.

and if i was going to think along long term planning lines for the future maybe they knew it would spin well.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If Justin Trudeau were some kind of oligarch or something, Pondering wouldn't be supporting him, she'd be fighting him!

nicky

Pondering says it is a credit to Justin's character that he chose to be a teacher rather than a lawyer. I suppose she would also say it is a credit to his character than he applied for law school but didn't have the marks to get in.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Yes Pondering, there IS a difference, but not the one you think. Louise Arbor herself said the Bill is so flawed it needs to be repealed and redone from scratch. And, if people saw it the way you did, the vote had no impact because Harper had a majority, you wouldn't rise every time to defned the Libs on this. You know  people consider this a major issue, despite YOUR spin. You know that the Libs continue to have to defend themselves, here and elsewhere. I think thou dost protest too much! And, once more, Justin said he voted for it because of political expediency, and unfortuantely for you, and, him, people know that too!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Look, I don't care about his G-d damn watch, but I care he tries to paint himself, and his syncophants here do the same, as just so oridnary working Joe while calling Mulcair and elitists Harper lovin', austerity lovin', Thatcherite. This is a classic example of how whiny you Libs really are. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. What did Chatal Hiebert say, something about "Liberal Party is acting like a spolled child"! Oh yeah, she did!

Ciabatta2

I don't diagree wiht Mr. Magoo, Pondering's support for Trudeau is without critical thought, but this is a bit of a pileon, no?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yes Pondering, there IS a difference, but not the one you think. Louise Arbor herself said the Bill is so flawed it needs to be repealed and redone from scratch. And, if people saw it the way you did, the vote had no impact because Harper had a majority, you wouldn't rise every time to defned the Libs on this. You know  people consider this a major issue, despite YOUR spin. You know that the Libs continue to have to defend themselves, here and elsewhere. I think thou dost protest too much! And, once more, Justin said he voted for it because of political expediency, and unfortuantely for you, and, him, people know that too!

How many times do I have to say he was wrong to vote in favor of C 51? It is simply misleading to infer he could have stopped it if he had voted against it.

The NDP position is that they will repeal the bill if elected. You say Louise Arbor agrees so Mulcair has excellent support in that decision.

The Liberals have instead written amendments which can be criticised as insufficent by activists. So far I haven't heard about any short-comings so I look forward to hearing where they have missed the mark.

Yes, the bill would pass no matter what he did, so out of political expediency he chose to vote in favor with reservations because he does support some aspects of the bill.

Voters will have an opportunity to contrast the positions and decide how to vote accordingly.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Look, I don't care about his G-d damn watch, but I care he tries to paint himself, and his syncophants here do the same, as just so oridnary working Joe

I think I first noticed this during municipal elections (when we got an ass-load of pamphlets and other promotional materials from candidates) and I don't even think it's particularly partisan -- they all seem to do it -- but have you ever noticed how many (male) candidates' photos show them in a nice white shirt, possibly with the tie loosened, but always with the shirtsleeves rolled up?

Business up top, party on the arms.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Look, I don't care about his G-d damn watch, but I care he tries to paint himself, and his syncophants here do the same, as just so oridnary working Joe

I think I first noticed this during municipal elections (when we got an ass-load of pamphlets and other promotional materials from candidates) and I don't even think it's particularly partisan -- they all seem to do it -- but have you ever noticed how many (male) candidates' photos show them in a nice white shirt, possibly with the tie loosened, but always with the shirtsleeves rolled up?

Business up top, party on the arms.

Well, maybe I don't understand the image, but I always thought that the "sleeves rolled up" look was supposed to indicate that this man is ready to pitch in and do physical labour, get his hands dirty you know, to support the cause we all hold dear. I never saw it as saying "Party on, Garth".

Rev Pesky

Arthur Cramer wrote:
...I put it to you Rev that there's a HUGE difference between the NDP's not allowing candidates based on their opinons on the Middle East versus a Political Party with a Leader who CHOSE to vote to abrogate Candian Civil Rights in the nameof poltical expediency. Spin it any way you want Rev, you're in no position to "preach" to anyone here, incuding me. Go sermonize somewhere else.

It was your contention that Trudeau's move was morally bankrupt because "he didn't want to be attacked". All I did was point out that the NDP's reason for turfing and denying candidates was precisely because "they didn't want to be attacked". The principle is precisely the same. Or you could find some other reason for the NDP's actions.

I have a funny feeling that if you polled the members of the NDP you might just find that a majority DO NOT think Wheeldon should have been sacked, and Manly denied the right to run in the nomination race. Which would leave your defense where? 

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:
...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...

Presumably this would also apply to the situation of Palestinian human rights.

mark_alfred

To get back to the thread topic, has the Trudeau campaign said anything about Palestinian human rights?

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

But hey, you're entitled think Trudeau is a powerful oligarch. I'm just not buying it.

Nothing goes over your head, does it Pondering? Your reflexes are too fast. You would catch it!

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If Justin Trudeau were some kind of oligarch or something, Pondering wouldn't be supporting him, she'd be fighting him!

Are you suggesting that Trudeau is an oligarch? The definition is pretty loose but I don't think Trudeau fits the description.

Trudeau is a multi-millonaire, but he isn't a billionaire or multi-billionaire. Want to know who rules the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadians_by_net_worth#Richest_Can...

As individual countries there is a lot we can do and that we control but ultimately it is the multi-billionaires who hold the serious power. I suppose there are no hard and fast rules as to who is and isn't an oligarch but even being a multi-billionaire isn't enough on it's own, at least to my mind. In my view most oligarchs do not become politicians.  At least within democracies people can win some battles against oligarchs if the politician wants to be re-elected but the overall structure of world wealth doesn't change. Even Keynisean economics is just a variation that may or may not suit oligarchs but they are pretty much untouched by such things. All just my opinion of course.

But hey, you're entitled think Trudeau is a powerful oligarch. I'm just not buying it.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
...I put it to you Rev that there's a HUGE difference between the NDP's not allowing candidates based on their opinons on the Middle East versus a Political Party with a Leader who CHOSE to vote to abrogate Candian Civil Rights in the nameof poltical expediency. Spin it any way you want Rev, you're in no position to "preach" to anyone here, incuding me. Go sermonize somewhere else.

It was your contention that Trudeau's move was morally bankrupt because "he didn't want to be attacked". All I did was point out that the NDP's reason for turfing and denying candidates was precisely because "they didn't want to be attacked". The principle is precisely the same. Or you could find some other reason for the NDP's actions.

I have a funny feeling that if you polled the members of the NDP you might just find that a majority DO NOT think Wheeldon should have been sacked, and Manly denied the right to run in the nomination race. Which would leave your defense where? 

Well Rev, this is a doozy. There's NOTHING you LIbs won't say, is there. Wrong! Trudeau decided to sell out Candian Civil Liberties in order to further his cause and that of the LPC. There is a huge difference here in terms of effect. Now don't get me wroing, as a Jew, I think that Israel is acting in a fashion that is similar to Aparthied and I have no use for the fact that the party establishment seems to want to prevent non Isrearl freindly candidates from running where they are open in their oppostion to what Israel is doing. But this an issue that is in no way related to what the LPC did and what Trudeau decided the LPC would do. You are grapsing at straws in typical LPC arrogance, tone deaf and unaware of the irony of your statements.

As to what other New Democrats may or not feel, you have no idea one way or the other. As far as the LPC is concerned, you have no way of knowing what is going on regarding this issue either. Just because it hasn't come up publically doens't mean it isnt an issue for the LPC. But I point out to you that your party in unmatached in the number of LPC officials and members who have abandionged it over C51. And again, Lousie Arbor herself, no shrinking violet where Israel is concerned, has condemed Trudeau's failure here.

You are simply another verison of Pondering. You stretch and scratch and bend yourself in a number of way simulatenously trying to establish equvialience. Its triesome. Your commentary is neither as sublte as you think it is, nor are you any smarter then the rest of us. But one things is for sure, it's nice to see that Pondering has one more admirere on this board. So go ahead, post away. But forget the equivalence argument; NO ONE here is being fooled by it.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
...I put it to you Rev that there's a HUGE difference between the NDP's not allowing candidates based on their opinons on the Middle East versus a Political Party with a Leader who CHOSE to vote to abrogate Candian Civil Rights in the nameof poltical expediency. Spin it any way you want Rev, you're in no position to "preach" to anyone here, incuding me. Go sermonize somewhere else.

It was your contention that Trudeau's move was morally bankrupt because "he didn't want to be attacked". All I did was point out that the NDP's reason for turfing and denying candidates was precisely because "they didn't want to be attacked". The principle is precisely the same. Or you could find some other reason for the NDP's actions.

I have a funny feeling that if you polled the members of the NDP you might just find that a majority DO NOT think Wheeldon should have been sacked, and Manly denied the right to run in the nomination race. Which would leave your defense where? 

Well Rev, this is a doozy. There's NOTHING you LIbs won't say, is there. Wrong! Trudeau decided to sell out Candian Civil Liberties in order to further his cause and that of the LPC. There is a huge difference here in terms of effect. Now don't get me wroing, as a Jew, I think that Israel is acting in a fashion that is similar to Aparthied and I have no use for the fact that the party establishment seems to want to prevent non Isrearl freindly candidates from running where they are open in their oppostion to what Israel is doing. But this an issue that is in no way related to what the LPC did and what Trudeau decided the LPC would do. You are grapsing at straws in typical LPC arrogance, tone deaf and unaware of the irony of your statements.

As to what other New Democrats may or not feel, you have no idea one way or the other. As far as the LPC is concerned, you have no way of knowing what is going on regarding this issue either. Just because it hasn't come up publically doens't mean it isnt an issue for the LPC. But I point out to you that your party in unmatached in the number of LPC officials and members who have abandionged it over C51. And again, Lousie Arbor herself, no shrinking violet where Israel is concerned, has condemed Trudeau's failure here.

You are simply another verison of Pondering. You stretch and scratch and bend yourself in a number of way simulatenously trying to establish equvialience. Its triesome. Your commentary is neither as sublte as you think it is, nor are you any smarter then the rest of us. But one things is for sure, it's nice to see that Pondering has one more admirere on this board. So go ahead, post away. But forget the equivalence argument; NO ONE here is being fooled by it.

Actually you are the one twisting yourself into a pretzel to prove that C 51 passed because the Liberals voted for it and in your opinion we should all be outraged and think it's the worst thing ever and that it reveals some shocking truth about the party.

There is no need for all this overwrought condemnation. I searched but all I could find was the following.

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."

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

For you this is a "deal-breaker" item. If many people agree with you then the Liberal Party will fail to get them back. I suspect you are angry because you are afraid that for other people it isn't a "deal-breaker".

 

 

Pondering

The Mansbridge interviews have begun. Harper's was last night, here is Trudeau's. 

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV%20Shows/The%20National/ID/2675137335/

Impossible to tell how it will be recieved by the general public but I think very well.

I could have done without the quacking.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh Pondering, you must have watched a different interview. Trudeau screwed up on ISIS and Westminster system. He's  young, shallow and inexperienced, and that interview showed it! Nope, not going to go well for him.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
...I put it to you Rev that there's a HUGE difference between the NDP's not allowing candidates based on their opinons on the Middle East versus a Political Party with a Leader who CHOSE to vote to abrogate Candian Civil Rights in the nameof poltical expediency. Spin it any way you want Rev, you're in no position to "preach" to anyone here, incuding me. Go sermonize somewhere else.

It was your contention that Trudeau's move was morally bankrupt because "he didn't want to be attacked". All I did was point out that the NDP's reason for turfing and denying candidates was precisely because "they didn't want to be attacked". The principle is precisely the same. Or you could find some other reason for the NDP's actions.

I have a funny feeling that if you polled the members of the NDP you might just find that a majority DO NOT think Wheeldon should have been sacked, and Manly denied the right to run in the nomination race. Which would leave your defense where? 

Well Rev, this is a doozy. There's NOTHING you LIbs won't say, is there. Wrong! Trudeau decided to sell out Candian Civil Liberties in order to further his cause and that of the LPC. There is a huge difference here in terms of effect. Now don't get me wroing, as a Jew, I think that Israel is acting in a fashion that is similar to Aparthied and I have no use for the fact that the party establishment seems to want to prevent non Isrearl freindly candidates from running where they are open in their oppostion to what Israel is doing. But this an issue that is in no way related to what the LPC did and what Trudeau decided the LPC would do. You are grapsing at straws in typical LPC arrogance, tone deaf and unaware of the irony of your statements.

As to what other New Democrats may or not feel, you have no idea one way or the other. As far as the LPC is concerned, you have no way of knowing what is going on regarding this issue either. Just because it hasn't come up publically doens't mean it isnt an issue for the LPC. But I point out to you that your party in unmatached in the number of LPC officials and members who have abandionged it over C51. And again, Lousie Arbor herself, no shrinking violet where Israel is concerned, has condemed Trudeau's failure here.

You are simply another verison of Pondering. You stretch and scratch and bend yourself in a number of way simulatenously trying to establish equvialience. Its triesome. Your commentary is neither as sublte as you think it is, nor are you any smarter then the rest of us. But one things is for sure, it's nice to see that Pondering has one more admirere on this board. So go ahead, post away. But forget the equivalence argument; NO ONE here is being fooled by it.

Actually you are the one twisting yourself into a pretzel to prove that C 51 passed because the Liberals voted for it and in your opinion we should all be outraged and think it's the worst thing ever and that it reveals some shocking truth about the party.

There is no need for all this overwrought condemnation. I searched but all I could find was the following.

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."

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

For you this is a "deal-breaker" item. If many people agree with you then the Liberal Party will fail to get them back. I suspect you are angry because you are afraid that for other people it isn't a "deal-breaker".

 

 

My repsonse to your reply, you said, "I know you are, but what am I". What's next Pondering, "I'm rubber, you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you"?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

My repsonse to your reply, you said, "I know you are, but what am I". What's next Pondering, "I'm rubber, you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you"?

LOL, I never heard that second one before. LOL

Rev Pesky

Arthur Cramer wrote:
...Well Rev, this is a doozy. There's NOTHING you LIbs won't say, is there...

I've been quite clear on other threads, but just so you know, I have voted NDP for as long as I can remember. That would go back to the 1970's. So a Liberal I'm not.

But as long as we're here, lets take a look at the comparison between ignoring Palestinian human rights and Bill C-51. There is a difference. The difference is that we are protected by a constitution, and a Supreme Court. That court hasn't shown any deference to the Conservative government, to the point where Harper felt it necessary to launch a personal attack on Chief Justice McLachlin.

The Conservatives can write whatever legislation they want, it doesn't mean it will ever be enacted in the form written. They could choose to use the Notwithstanding clause, but they haven't so far, and I see no reason why they would in the future. In fact if they did, I think the outcry would effectively forestall them.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no such protection. The West Bank is being gradually eaten away by walls and settlements. Gaza Strip is nothing more than a outdoor prison. One government, even one as small as Canada, could have a tremendous effect by taking up the cause of Palestinian human rights. And it would be the right thing to do.

 

 

mark_alfred

Rev Pesky wrote:

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no such protection. The West Bank is being gradually eaten away by walls and settlements. Gaza Strip is nothing more than a outdoor prison. One government, even one as small as Canada, could have a tremendous effect by taking up the cause of Palestinian human rights. And it would be the right thing to do.

Are the Liberals proposing to do this in this campaign?

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
To get back to the thread topic, has the Trudeau campaign said anything about Palestinian human rights?

why would they the Liberals helped create Israel?

Pearson laid the whole groundwork for it's creation. 

bekayne

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
To get back to the thread topic, has the Trudeau campaign said anything about Palestinian human rights?

why would they the Liberals helped create Israel?

Pearson laid the whole groundwork for it's creation. 

Which the CCF under Coldwell supported

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no such protection. The West Bank is being gradually eaten away by walls and settlements. Gaza Strip is nothing more than a outdoor prison. One government, even one as small as Canada, could have a tremendous effect by taking up the cause of Palestinian human rights. And it would be the right thing to do.

Are the Liberals proposing to do this in this campaign?

No, the only point being made is that all political parties make choices based on political expediency.

It is entirely valid to be strongly against C 51 based on principles of freedom. Trudeau decided a powerless vote for C 51, which he does support parts of, was better than enduring Harper's attacks on being soft on terrorism. Mulcair took a long time to come out against it, long enough to see all the experts condemning it and bet his base would want him to oppose it unequivocally and his moderates wouldn't mind.

AC is trying to suggest it is proof that Mulcair and the NDP are morally superior to the Liberals. If that were true the NDP would be taking a much more progressive stance on all issues of morality.

I consider the Liberal position on Isreal and Palestine to be slightly better than the NDP and much more balanced than Harper's. General Andrew Leslie had some very harsh words to say about Israel's actions. When Trudeau was confronted and asked if he agreed he just responded that Leslie can speak for himself.

Leslie replied that every country has the right to defend itself and its people — a view expressed by Trudeau, Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair when discussing the situation in Gaza. Leslie asked for that "thought bubble" to remain over the conversation, and then went on to accuse the Israeli military of "firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children."

"You know what the body count is now," Leslie said, according to the transcript. "So Israel has actually lost the war."

Leslie told the woman that the terrorist group Hamas, not the Palestinian people, is the enemy.

"You're talking to a guy who has hunted terrorists for quite some time. You gotta kill them? You gotta kill them. Hey, I've got no problems with that," he said.

"But Palestinian women and children who are taking refuge in UN-designated compounds? Come on. 'Oh, it was an accident.' Sorry doesn't matter to anyone.

"Shooting dumb artillery close to children is dumb."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/04/andrew-leslie-israel-gaza-trudea...

He is one of Trudeau's top foreign affairs advisor. The Liberals will continue supporting Israel too much, but at there will be some balance and more importantly his top advisors have the freedom to speak their minds not just echo talking points and official policy.

mark_alfred

Did the Liberals pass a policy resolution on Palestinian human rights? 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Did the Liberals pass a policy resolution on Palestinian human rights? 

Not that I know of. Why do you ask?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Did the Liberals pass a policy resolution on Palestinian human rights? 

Not that I know of. Why do you ask?

If they don't even have a policy resolution on it, then how can you say that you "consider the Liberal position on Isreal and Palestine to be slightly better" than the other parties?  If there's no position that they hold, then they could just make it up on the fly, right? 

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no such protection. The West Bank is being gradually eaten away by walls and settlements. Gaza Strip is nothing more than a outdoor prison. One government, even one as small as Canada, could have a tremendous effect by taking up the cause of Palestinian human rights. And it would be the right thing to do.

Are the Liberals proposing to do this in this campaign?

 

I didn't say they were, and I don't believe they are. But that wasn't the point. The point was the difference between the loss of human rights due to Bill C-51, as opposed to the human rights situation of the Palestinians. My point was that whatever the intent of C-51 (which I agree should be tossed) it would mostly be declared unconstitutional. The government can enact legislation, but the human rights of Canadians are enshrined in the Constitution. No government law can overrule the Constitution unless the government is prepared to use the Notwithstanding Clause, and even then there are limits. So far the Harper government has not chosen to use 'notwithstanding', so I presume they're not likely to in the future (with luck we won't get the chance to find out).

I also argued that the Palestinians have no such protection, and even one small government taking their part would have a huge effect. Imagine the Government of Canada supporting one of those boats that tries to run the Israeli blockade.

A principled stand for Palestinian human rights would have a much larger effect than a stand against C-51

Pages