Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Quote:

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

We're not seeing either of these stands from the Liberals in this Trudeau campaign.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:
...We're not seeing either of these stands from the Liberals in this Trudeau campaign.

Fair enough, but I don't really care about the Liberal party. I do care about the NDP.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

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? 

I think it's slightly more balanced because they didn't ditch Andrew Leslie for denouncing Israeli military action in Gaza.

I appreciated Trudeau's rapid response to the soccer hijab ban and the Charter of Values neither of which has anything to do with Palestine but does suggest a more balanced approach and more concern for minority rights than Mulcair's to me. That's just my personal sense of them from the little we know. It's opinion not fact.

mark_alfred

Rev Pesky wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
...We're not seeing either of these stands from the Liberals in this Trudeau campaign.

Fair enough, but I don't really care about the Liberal party. I do care about the NDP.

You're posting in the wrong thread then.

terrytowel

For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

With a platform that is more left than the NDP, that is a direct appeal to NDP voters.

Wonder how long before Shirley Douglas enters the campaign to slam Trudeau remarks. Surprised she hasn't done so already.

Ciabatta2

"you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

That's a killer line.  Ouch.  I wonder how long until the NDP aristocrats start grumbling publicly.

But Justin will have to be careful if he keeps saying that, as in reality he's the one keeping most of Harper's stuff in place.  The NDP isn't going to run a deficit, but they're going to get rid of a lot of the Harper stuff too.  (But, in reality, noneof this matters.  It is all about perception and the Liberals are killing it.)

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

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? 

I think it's slightly more balanced because they didn't ditch Andrew Leslie for denouncing Israeli military action in Gaza.

Leslie wasn't condemning it from a Palestian human rights perspective.  Rather, he was viewing it from a soldier's perspective (he even referenced the book "Art of War" by Sun Tzu).  It's almost as if he saw it as a PR failing of the Israeli army.  From his statements, it appears he doesn't give a rats ass about Palestian Human Rights.

Leslie wrote:
They [Hamas] want Israel to, essentially, fall into the trap of igniting world opinion against them, by killing civilians.
So, if you know that — and the Israeli Army and the political system are quite astute, because they’ve had to live in that awful part of the world for quite some time, so they know what’s going on — don’t do what your enemy wants you to do.

By shooting at civilians, Israel made a tactical error in their righteous war, according to Leslie.  They did what the "enemy wants you to do."  He's scorning them for losing a PR battle.

 

Regarding that incident, here's what Trudeau had to say,

Trudeau wrote:

OTTAWA – The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the situation in Israel and Gaza:

“The Liberal Party of Canada strongly condemns Hamas’ rejection of the Egyptian ceasefire proposal and its rocket attacks on civilians.

“Israel should be commended for having accepted the ceasefire proposal, and demonstrating its commitment to peace. The Liberal Party of Canada, and many in the international community including the United States, the U.N. Security Council, and the Palestinian Authority, had urged a ceasefire that could have ended the tragic civilian loss of life in Gaza and the suffering of Israelis under terrorist attack.

“Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.”

He doesn't even mention Israel's massive ground operation.  Balanced?  I think not.

mark_alfred

terrytowel wrote:

For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.

Ciabatta2

Of course the actual substance of the proposals is a sham.  But what matters is the messaging.

Trudeau - stimulus

Harper - stay the course

NDP - ??????

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.

He said he was going to tax the rich (the 1%) which is another past NDP policy the Libs have poached.

Ciabatta2

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.

He said he was going to tax the rich (the 1%) which is another past NDP policy the Libs have poached.

But reduce taxes in the middle.

mark_alfred

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.

He said he was going to tax the rich (the 1%) which is another past NDP policy the Libs have poached.

But that's not to increase revenue for government programming.  That's to provide a tax cut to upper middle income people.  It's revenue neutral.  So, there's no increase in government revenue.  Thus, according to Trudeau's own logic, he cannot be progressive.

KarlL

Curses.  Another friggin double post, though I think I have now figured out how to avoid them.

KarlL

I'm having trouble following that logic, Mark.  I am no economist but as far as I understand the arithmetic:

Spending Capacity = Revenues + Debt Financing  

If Trudeau is the only leader agreeing to allow a deficit, then he will have the second part (debt) with which to pay for program spending (along with the same revenue increase from economic growth that all parties can rely upon).  I know that increased debt will reduce revenues over time as interest rates rise due to the bigger demand for debt but in the near term, deficit-financing some spending allows for a freer hand than a balanced budget commitment.

That means that Tom Mulcair has to rely only on increased revenues from growth, like the others, plus what he can get out of corporate tax increases, having ruled out personal tax increases (unless I have missed something).  Corporate Income Tax is big but at $40 billion, is eclipsed by Personal Income Tax at $150 billion, so there is probably some upper limit on CIT, especially in the first year or two, during which he has promised a balanced budget.

 

 

 

terrytowel wrote:

For the second time Justin Trudeau says "you can't be Tommy Douglas on Stephen Harper's budget"

To my knowledge there are no revenue increases in Trudeau's proposals, meaning he cannot be progressive according to his own logic.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
...We're not seeing either of these stands from the Liberals in this Trudeau campaign.

Fair enough, but I don't really care about the Liberal party. I do care about the NDP.

You're posting in the wrong thread then.

Pardon me, I didn't bring up the issue of the comparative integrity of the Liberal party and the NDP. I did address it, and I'll address it as many times as I want. In any case, what is was all about was the moral failure of the Liberals who tailored their message to avoid being attacked. I merely pointed out the NDP did precisely the same thing. And by the way, they're doing it again. See Shawn Dearn...

mark_alfred

KarlL, given that there's no new long term revenue from taxation, then essentially it's the same budget as Harper had.  According to Trudeau's own thesis, you can't be progressive (be Douglas) on a Harper budget.  There's minor debt financing that lasts a few years ($10B each year, totalling $30B), to be presumably balanced in 2019.  He assumes new revenue will sprout from this to be able to balance everything (or, and more likely, assumes oil prices will climb back up by then).  I'm skeptical.  It will be interesting to see the costed platform.  Again, while there's some minor debt financing for a few years, there's no new long term tax revenue for programming that I've heard from Trudeau's announcements.

quizzical

wow, Torontonians want the Olympics?

Liberals would partner with Toronto on Olympics: Justin TrudeauCampaigning in Toronto Wednesday, the leader said major questions remain about a bid, but that his party would be willing to work with Toronto to host an event that would showcase an “extraordinary” city and country.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/09/liberals-would-partner-wit...

 

KarlL

Your point is entirely fair, Mark.

Trudeau has only referred to deficit-financing infrastructure spending.

I guess that I would say that if a deficit is permissible for one good piece of public policy then it is probably stretchable for other good public policy, whereas a "no deficit" policy is kind of finite.

It is all Monopoly Money if truth be told at this point, for all parties. They will figure it out on the fly if elected.

Stockholm is on anther thread saying that Conservative voters will more likely vote NDP than Liberal because of contempt for Trudeau and I agree that that is their likely direction. It is odd though, that they may actually have a greater affinity for the NDP platform position as well, distant though they still are.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
  1. Man, I just can't belive all the garbage being posted on here. You know in 2011, there were no LIibs here (ok, I forgot, hello Debter! Cool). Now, they're coming out of the woodworks. You guys are obviously worried. Good!
Pondering

Trudeau will also have increased revenues from marijuana legalization. 

In a recent interview on CBC's The Lang & O'Leary Exchange, economist and professor Mike Moffatt said legalizing marijuana is a good policy for lawmakers in Canada to consider....

Estimates suggest that the state of Colorado raked in more than $2 million in taxes from recreational marijuana sales in the first month after the law was implemented. That works out to about 40 cents for each of the state's 5.2 million residents. 

Extrapolating those numbers elsewhere, the cash-strapped government of Ontario would be looking at $5 million in tax revenue, across 13 million residents. That works out to $60 million a year.

"Over time that could increase to about $1 billion a year [across the country]," Moffatt said.

Legalization could help on the other side of the ledger, too, as the $2 billion a year that Statistics Canada says we currently spend enforcing various drug laws would be significantly reduced, Moffatt said.

Those figures don't include other spin-off economic benefits surrounding the industry, or societal benefits such as a corresponding reduction in crime, as marijuana use moves out of the shadows.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marijuana-legalization-would-be-tax-bona...

The article also fails to note the research bonanza. 

mark_alfred

Joy Davies is "stepping down".  She joins the many, of all parties, who were a tad too expressive on social media over the years. link

quizzical

so much for Justin's stance on legalizing pot. the  election is not over and we already know here in BC it's NOT going to happen. we  just watched him kick out a candidate for speaking pro-marijuana on her facebook page.

Jacob Two-Two

Justin was never going to legalise weed. Never. It's just as reliable as his promise to have free and fair nominations. He broke that promise almost as soon as he made it.

Pondering

Nonsense, the problem is that she said marijuana smoke was not damaging to children. I still don't think she should have had to resign but it was a more than her just being pro-pot. Trudeau intends to legalize marijuana for adults not children. He is already treading a fine line and his reasoning is based on making it more difficult for minors to get marijuana. It's like when prohibition was being overturned, the argument that it's fine if parents drink around their kids would have sounded reckless even if they only meant that a glass of wine with dinner was fine even if the kids were present. 

quizzical

it was a heads up when Justin refused to let Jodie Emery run. this is the final concrete proof needed the Liberals  and Justin were blowing THCless smoke up our collective asses. 

Pondering

One has nothing to do with the other. Planning to legalize pot does not require the Liberal party to accept every pro-pot candidate. In fact to get the chance to legalize pot he can't seem extreme.  Emery was a sole issue candidate. She was supporting the party solely based on their stance on pot. It is fair for a party to require a representative that supports them more broadly than on just one issue. 

Talking about pot and children when part of Trudeau's reasoning is to keep pot away from children undermined his message. To legalize pot he first must get elected. He isn't a pot crusader. He is the leader of the Liberal party presenting legalization as a sensible plan to keep it away from minors.

Trudeau has not backed away from his commitment to legalization. 

The NDP should have taken the side of legalization. They did not. Instead Mulcair went with the oregano argument and would not make a firm commitment instead proposing decriminalization and more study. The NDP will just have to wear that decision. 

The platforms will be costed, and I think it's fair to predict that the profits from legalization will be funneled into something of social benefit. That is why I believe the Liberals will move forward on legalization. It's obviously just a matter of time at this point. Legalization is a no brainer and an easy issue to get a little ahead of the game on. Being the first developed country to fully legalize will bring economic benefits. 

Meanwhile:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/boswell-mulcairs-missed-opportunity

Mulcair has a mean streak. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh brother, Angry Tom again Pondering. Really? Yeah, yeah, I know. LPC good; NDP, bad! Trudeau, Jesus, Mulcari, SATAN!!!!!!!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh brother, Angry Tom again Pondering. Really? Yeah, yeah, I know. LPC good; NDP, bad! Trudeau, Jesus, Mulcari, SATAN!!!!!!!

Has anyone ever remarked on how excitable you are?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh brother, Angry Tom again Pondering. Really? Yeah, yeah, I know. LPC good; NDP, bad! Trudeau, Jesus, Mulcari, SATAN!!!!!!!

.

Pondering, you're still deflecting! Don't worry about me, worry about yourself. "Has anyone ever remarked on how excitable you are?"...... What are you going to tell me next, calm down, or else I'll give myself the vapours? If I was a woman, and a man said what you said to me, that would be called sexist Pondering. That's a patronizing, chavinistic, and sexist remark Pondering. Shame on you 

quizzical

i think it's bs pondering. marijuana medicinals are helping children and kicking a candiates ass to the curb hows no way in hell is Trudeau going to legalize anything.

 

can't wait to see his costings....lmao

mark_alfred

Davies did say that marijuana in a household with kids is fine.  She further stated that pregnant women who smoke pot have smarter children.  And she said the Canadian Cancer Society was controlled by big pharma.  Such statements might provide a distraction, so it makes sense that the Libs would request that she withdraw (assuming that happened, which, let's be frank, it certainly did).

PS, I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Rev Pesky

quizzical wrote:

it was a heads up when Justin refused to let Jodie Emery run. this is the final concrete proof needed the Liberals  and Justin were blowing THCless smoke up our collective asses. 

I wouldn't put too much faith in this analysis. Marc Emery's politics are a bit strange, and even though that doesn't necessarily carry over to his wife's politics, neither of them really belong to any political persuasion but their own. Jodie Emery has run for the BC Marijuana Party, the Green Party, and the attempted run for the Liberals. Even though she addresses issues other than pot, my impression is that she attaches herself to political parties, not so much for the  party's stance, as for the opportunity to push her own politics. In the past, Marc Emery has propounded some pretty right-wing positions on issues other than pot.

Usually when someone attempts to get the nomination for a particular party, you assume that they support that party more or less overall. In the case of Jodie Emery I don't see that. Besides, she was going to run in Vancouver-East which is pretty much given to be NDP. Marc Emery's politics are even more spread out. He's supported the BCMP, the NDP, Libertarian Party, Freedom Party, you name it, he's been there.

That doesn't mean I don't respect what Marc and Jodie have done re: marijuana. They have pursued legalization at considerable personal sacrifice, and in the end that has helped to bring us to the point we're at. I just don't think they're really in favour of any specific party. They see politics as an opportunity to push their own agenda. Whatever the specific position of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party, I completely understand that they don't want a potential loose cannon rolling around the deck.  

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh brother, Angry Tom again Pondering. Really? Yeah, yeah, I know. LPC good; NDP, bad! Trudeau, Jesus, Mulcari, SATAN!!!!!!!

.

Pondering, you're still deflecting! Don't worry about me, worry about yourself. "Has anyone ever remarked on how excitable you are?"...... What are you going to tell me next, calm down, or else I'll give myself the vapours? If I was a woman, and a man said what you said to me, that would be called sexist Pondering. That's a patronizing, chavinistic, and sexist remark Pondering. Shame on you 

There is nothing to deflect in your comments Arthur. You just rant. Both men and women can be excitable and can rant. I couldn't care less whether or not you calm down. I was just making an observation because your "comment" is so over the top. 

I agreed with the author of the article. I've never seen the "angry Tom" the media keeps alluding to. I think he exhibits a certain ruthlessness.

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.

What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did. 

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:
...What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did. 

 

I agree. I almost feel sorry for the guy in that I don't think he thought what he did was that bad. I don't think he was intentionally trying to be disgusting (like, for instance, the fast food chefs who put bad stuff in your food). On the other hand, him and the phantom caller do kind of illustrate the sort of people that are attracted to the Conservative Party.

I don't want to get rid of Harper because one of his candidates peed in a cup, I want him gone because his government has been mean, spiteful, viscious, launching personal attacks on their 'enemies, ignoring science, ignoring the law of the land, doing their best to ignore the Supreme Court, having the worst foreign policy we've ever seen, just overall being the most mean-spirited. obstinately stupid government this country has ever had.

I have my arguments with the policy direction of the NDP, but I think it's time to let them cut their teeth on the government benches. They may do well, they may fail, but they couldn't possibly be worse than this unholy conglomeration of social conservatives and economic neophytes cobbled together from the old Reform and Progressive Conservative parties. 

Jacob Two-Two

Are you guys serious? I found his behaviour so bizarre the only way I can make sense of it is that he gets a weird thrill from doing this. Because the version where he had to go so badly that he couldn't make it to the bathroom is just crazy. Nobody that has bladder issues that severe is going around to people's houses doing repairs. I didn't think he was stupid or gross. I thought he was monumentally creepy.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Are you guys serious? I found his behaviour so bizarre the only way I can make sense of it is that he gets a weird thrill from doing this. Because the version where he had to go so badly that he couldn't make it to the bathroom is just crazy. Nobody that has bladder issues that severe is going around to people's houses doing repairs. I didn't think he was stupid or gross. I thought he was monumentally creepy.
 

In which case he needs mental health care. I'm with Rev Pesky in terms of his description of the Harper government. If Harper did a thing like that I would have no mercy for him given the death and destruction he has visited on others.  I don't blame whomever dug that up and exposed what this man did. To some extent it is his own fault for running for office. I just think he paid enough for his sin. 

Politics is all about selling the public on who you are as a leader. Harper sold himself as the boring accountant. A man who would take care of the books and do little else. He kept that image for a long time because the economy did seem okay so he did well against Dion and Ignatieff who were uninspired leaders. Even now Harper is doing quite well considering what he has done to Canada. That is why his interview with Mansbridge was so flat, Harper is going for boring and steadfast. Now people are seeing that he isn't just a boring accountant, he is without human compassion, and that is a fatal flaw in a leader.

 

Ciabatta2

Could the homeowner have occupied the bathroom?  I've definitely peed in a sink or two in my time.

Rev Pesky

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Are you guys serious? I found his behaviour so bizarre the only way I can make sense of it is that he gets a weird thrill from doing this. Because the version where he had to go so badly that he couldn't make it to the bathroom is just crazy. Nobody that has bladder issues that severe is going around to people's houses doing repairs. I didn't think he was stupid or gross. I thought he was monumentally creepy.

Well, perhaps you're right. Bance is the only person who knows what was going through his mind when he did it, and we're not likely to ever be privy to that information (pun intended - in fact maybe he thought it would get him a gig on the Privy council...).

In the overall scheme of things it's a side issue. Bance is gone and won't be coming back (politically). Now I think we concentrate on getting rid of the Conservative government.

Sean in Ottawa

The article suggestingMulcair should have been forgiving about someone peeing in a customer's cup has got to be up there with the most stupid, partisan drivel we are seeing from people who claim to be journalists.

To suggest that this could be forgivable would have made Mulcair a laughing stock. Mulcair's comments served to make a little humour of it becuase there is no much else you can do. To see that crap article brought into this thread just emphasizes the illogical twist among Liberal partisans. Without thinking how absolutely stupid they sound, Liberals cheer any criticism of Mulcair. Obviously they can't imagine what things look like without Liberal-red coloured glasses.

And yes, it is reasonable that a person running for public office would be ridiculed for doing such a stupid thing -- and for being so absolutely stupid as to run for public office 2-3 years after having been outed for being a gross pig on the national TV network -- somehow thinking this would not come up.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The article suggestingMulcair should have been forgiving about someone peeing in a customer's cup has got to be up there with the most stupid, partisan drivel we are seeing from people who claim to be journalists.

To suggest that this could be forgivable would have made Mulcair a laughing stock. Mulcair's comments served to make a little humour of it becuase there is no much else you can do. To see that crap article brought into this thread just emphasizes the illogical twist among Liberal partisans. Without thinking how absolutely stupid they sound, Liberals cheer any criticism of Mulcair. Obviously they can't imagine what things look like without Liberal-red coloured glasses.

And yes, it is reasonable that a person running for public office would be ridiculed for doing such a stupid thing -- and for being so absolutely stupid as to run for public office 2-3 years after having been outed for being a gross pig on the national TV network -- somehow thinking this would not come up.

Not rubbing salt in someone's wound does not mean they have been forgiven. It just means the wound is severe enough punishment. 

The article didn't make a big deal of it, just mentioned it was a missed opportunity, not that it makes Mucair evil. 

Pondering

This seemed like a good time to reboot now that the writ has been dropped.

cont. from http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/trudeau-campaign-2015-part-2

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/03/harper-justin-and-mulcair_n_7929...

Harper is disrespectfully referring to Trudeau by his first name and making a point of it. Mulcair has also beein condescending to Trudeau.

Between Harper and Mulcair they have painted Trudeau as a dufus. Trudeau is going to prove them wrong on Thursday night during the Maclean's debate.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.

What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did.

If this man wasn't a candidate for political office and just a contract worker caught in a hidden camera sting, would anybody here show sympathy for him or his career being ruined?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.

What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did.

If this man wasn't a candidate for political office and just a contract worker caught in a hidden camera sting, would anybody here show sympathy for him or his career being ruined?

This only became news because he is running for office. This wouldn't be happening to a regular worker. I am not saying he should continue to run for office. Political parties really need to improve their research skills. There is a good chance his handyman business is heavily damaged if it can survive at all. Just saying that is sufficient punishment for the crime of peeing into a coffee mug.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
mark_alfred

Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau's handpicked economics guru/star candidate, would have let the Big 3 automakers go bankrupt at cost of thousands of middle class jobs.  This is even worse than Stephen Harper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db5-YgIIkb0

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.

What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did.

If this man wasn't a candidate for political office and just a contract worker caught in a hidden camera sting, would anybody here show sympathy for him or his career being ruined?

This only became news because he is running for office. This wouldn't be happening to a regular worker. I am not saying he should continue to run for office. Political parties really need to improve their research skills. There is a good chance his handyman business is heavily damaged if it can survive at all. Just saying that is sufficient punishment for the crime of peeing into a coffee mug.

Seems I have to turn on your posts to see what is going on in some threads.

But what an absolute joke this post is like so many of yours -- This should go in a hall of fame for being completely goofy.

The pee in a cup story WAS a national story. When I saw the story was him I remembered seeing the original episode a couple years ago. Marketplace is one of the most popular CBC programs and in fact this story, if I remember correctly, was teased on the national news becuae it was so shocking that a contractor would do this. Marketplace is not just news it is national news on one of the most popular investigative news programs in the country on the national broadcaster.

To say that this could be a non-story if the person was not running for office is truly goofy because it already was exactly that -- when he was a nobody.

To say that it should not be a second news story -- worthy of comment and ridicule -- when this idiot who made a national news story becuase he was so crude and stupid decided to run for public office thinking nobody would remember his last 5-minutes of fame -- is also goofy.

Let's just say urinating on camera in a customer's kitchen in their mug is not a good political career move. I think it is safe to say that nobody (with any judgement) would be expected to consider that such a person could make a move to politics. And only the clueless would think that trying for a political career after that would not be news.

The fact that he thought he could win an election after doing that is perhaps a bigger story even than the fact he actually did it in the first place. This we can see by the fact that urinating in a cup was national news in Canada but running for office after was international news:

USA: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canadian-candidate-urinate...

UK: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/canada-conservative-party-u...

Ireland: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/video-canadian-conservative-candidate-c...

Reuters: http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAKCN0R71YJ20150907

There is no kicking him when he was down factor here --  the story is already international news. To make a joke at the Conservative party's expense and connect it to other stories would be expected in an election campaign that he was running. It is hardly a low blow.

Pondering's very, very silly partisan crap is usually just annoying but this time it is a laugh riot. I am so glad I did not miss this one.

 

pookie

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
I felt Mulcair's quip about "trickle down economics" was funny.  It was just a cute quip directed to the Conservatives.  I didn't see anything mean about it.

Yeah, really the excuse that "he's a labourer and they tend to make unconventional choices," I'm sorry, but no. Parents teach their children by the age of 5 how to properly use a bathroom, and that behaviour is simply inexcusable. If that's the best one can do to demonstrate an "angry Tom," it's pretty weak.

What he did was wrong and disgusting but it's not like the cup would have been used without being washed. It was gross but the man's career maybe ruined, not just politically. He's been humiliated. I think he has paid the price for what he did.

If this man wasn't a candidate for political office and just a contract worker caught in a hidden camera sting, would anybody here show sympathy for him or his career being ruined?

This only became news because he is running for office. This wouldn't be happening to a regular worker. I am not saying he should continue to run for office. Political parties really need to improve their research skills. There is a good chance his handyman business is heavily damaged if it can survive at all. Just saying that is sufficient punishment for the crime of peeing into a coffee mug.

Seems I have to turn on your posts to see what is going on in some threads.

But what an absolute joke this post is like so many of yours -- This should go in a hall of fame for being completely goofy.

The pee in a cup story WAS a national story. When I saw the story was him I remembered seeing the original episode a couple years ago. Marketplace is one of the most popular CBC programs and in fact this story, if I remember correctly, was teased on the national news becuae it was so shocking that a contractor would do this. Marketplace is not just news it is national news on one of the most popular investigative news programs in the country on the national broadcaster.

To say that this could be a non-story if the person was not running for office is truly goofy because it already was exactly that -- when he was a nobody.

To say that it should not be a second news story -- worthy of comment and ridicule -- when this idiot who made a national news story becuase he was so crude and stupid decided to run for public office thinking nobody would remember his last 5-minutes of fame -- is also goofy.

Let's just say urinating on camera in a customer's kitchen in their mug is not a good political career move. I think it is safe to say that nobody (with any judgement) would be expected to consider that such a person could make a move to politics. And only the clueless would think that trying for a political career after that would not be news.

The fact that he thought he could win an election after doing that is perhaps a bigger story even than the fact he actually did it in the first place. This we can see by the fact that urinating in a cup was national news in Canada but running for office after was international news:

USA: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canadian-candidate-urinate...

UK: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/canada-conservative-party-u...

Ireland: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/video-canadian-conservative-candidate-c...

Reuters: http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAKCN0R71YJ20150907

There is no kicking him when he was down factor here --  the story is already international news. To make a joke at the Conservative party's expense and connect it to other stories would be expected in an election campaign that he was running. It is hardly a low blow.

Pondering's very, very silly partisan crap is usually just annoying but this time it is a laugh riot. I am so glad I did not miss this one.

 

I know I'm another persona non grata here but...I sorta get what Pondering is saying.

I think the guy is an idiot and the story is bizarro but...it's small potatoes.  I don't care how much international news stories go for it.  

That said, I think Mulcair getting a chuckle at his expense was completely understandable.  

mark_alfred

The chuckle was more at the Conservative Party's expense, and at right-wing economics in general with the irreverent tease about trickle down economics.  Anyway, fascinating that THIS becomes the topic of debate within a thread about Trudeau's campaign.  Is Trudeau doing absolutely nothing worth while talking about?

Pages