Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

pookie wrote:

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.  

And Mulcair did not try to make it more than small potatoes -- he used it as low-hanging fruit for a well-deserved shot at the Conservatives. Pondering was beying her hyper partisan self in trying to make this into a criticism of Mulcair. That's the point. It was Pondering who was making the Mulcair joke a bigger issue here.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
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?

Trudeau who?

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

LOL, but you just had to know what was going on because the subject of a man peeing in a cup and how it was handled is such an important political discussion you had to get your two cents in, so much so that resigned yourself to having to read my posts. Really it's that you can't resist another opportunity to insult me.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

And yet it had faded into history, so much so that the instant he became a candidate the media did not read his name and immediately think "woah, that's the dude from Marketplace that peed in a mug!" No one in the NDP noticed it was him either.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

<sigh> back to the straw man arguments. I didn't say it shouldn't have been reported. I said having it reported nationally in a much higher profile manner and having to withdraw his candidacy and losing business was sufficient punishment for his transgression.

I don't agree that on top of that he should also be ridiculed.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

It is absolutely kicking him when he was down as you just pointed out the story went international. It is not at the expense of the Conservatives, it is at the expense of the man being used.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

Maybe he should have known that it would be uncovered but that doesn't change the fact that he has been humiliated and is probably still having a really difficult time dealing with the fall-out.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

You don't miss any of my posts. I've known for a long time your only purpose in reading my posts is to look for some means of ridiculing me usually through wild exageration and straw man arguments.

I think Mulcair's comment was mean-spirited, and you all act like I called him the devil's right hand, and even if I had, so what? Surely you can trust readers to form their own opinions of Mulcair. It's not like people are going to read what I said and just agree. Do you think the entire election rides on a passing comment from me? Think maybe you are over-reacting a tad?

I feel compassion for people so broadly and publically humilitated. It causes teenagers to commit suicide. I imagine it might cause the same for some adults too. Children and young people learn how to treat one another from our example. To raise compassionate children that is what they must observe in the world around them.

It was funny, but it was also a cheap shot.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

LOL, but you just had to know what was going on because the subject of a man peeing in a cup and how it was handled is such an important political discussion you had to get your two cents in, so much so that resigned yourself to having to read my posts. Really it's that you can't resist another opportunity to insult me.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

And yet it had faded into history, so much so that the instant he became a candidate the media did not read his name and immediately think "woah, that's the dude from Marketplace that peed in a mug!" No one in the NDP noticed it was him either.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

<sigh> back to the straw man arguments. I didn't say it shouldn't have been reported. I said having it reported nationally in a much higher profile manner and having to withdraw his candidacy and losing business was sufficient punishment for his transgression.

I don't agree that on top of that he should also be ridiculed.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

It is absolutely kicking him when he was down as you just pointed out the story went international. It is not at the expense of the Conservatives, it is at the expense of the man being used.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

Maybe he should have known that it would be uncovered but that doesn't change the fact that he has been humiliated and is probably still having a really difficult time dealing with the fall-out.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
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.

You don't miss any of my posts. I've known for a long time your only purpose in reading my posts is to look for some means of ridiculing me usually through wild exageration and straw man arguments.

I think Mulcair's comment was mean-spirited, and you all act like I called him the devil's right hand, and even if I had, so what? Surely you can trust readers to form their own opinions of Mulcair. It's not like people are going to read what I said and just agree. Do you think the entire election rides on a passing comment from me? Think maybe you are over-reacting a tad?

I feel compassion for people so broadly and publically humilitated. It causes teenagers to commit suicide. I imagine it might cause the same for some adults too. Children and young people learn how to treat one another from our example. To raise compassionate children that is what they must observe in the world around them.

It was funny, but it was also a cheap shot.

Wow -- you can't even tell when someone is ridiculing your posts.

And no-- I absolutely am not going to feel sorry for a person who goes into a client's house and pees in their cup-- barely rinses it.

Wow -- to compare this creep to bullied kids -- that's a new low -- even for you.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
And Mulcair did not try to make it more than small potatoes -- he used it as low-hanging fruit for a well-deserved shot at the Conservatives. Pondering was beying her hyper partisan self in trying to make this into a criticism of Mulcair. That's the point. It was Pondering who was making the Mulcair joke a bigger issue here.

What Harper deserves is to answer for his record and to go down in ignominy for it.

No, all I said is that it was mean-spirited. Then a bunch of you freaked out like it was a huge deal. I get accused of being a cheerleader but you guys are fanboys. If I reacted like you do to every negative comment that gets flung at Trudeau I would be exhausted.

This is an election campaign. Everything Mulcair says and does tells us what kind of man he is be it dressing up as angry bird or taking cheap shots.

I think the comment was mean-spirited, you don't, it's a matter of opinion. I didn't say it was a huge deal and disqualified him from office. I tend towards being empathetic so I think about how this man feels, what he is going through. In contrast Mulcair is riding high. He didn't need to make this joke. He was just being clever. I don't think Mulcair was thinking about how this man must feel.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
And Mulcair did not try to make it more than small potatoes -- he used it as low-hanging fruit for a well-deserved shot at the Conservatives. Pondering was beying her hyper partisan self in trying to make this into a criticism of Mulcair. That's the point. It was Pondering who was making the Mulcair joke a bigger issue here.

What Harper deserves is to answer for his record and to go down in ignominy for it.

No, all I said is that it was mean-spirited. Then a bunch of you freaked out like it was a huge deal. I get accused of being a cheerleader but you guys are fanboys. If I reacted like you do to every negative comment that gets flung at Trudeau I would be exhausted.

This is an election campaign. Everything Mulcair says and does tells us what kind of man he is be it dressing up as angry bird or taking cheap shots.

I think the comment was mean-spirited, you don't, it's a matter of opinion. I didn't say it was a huge deal and disqualified him from office. I tend towards being empathetic so I think about how this man feels, what he is going through. In contrast Mulcair is riding high. He didn't need to make this joke. He was just being clever. I don't think Mulcair was thinking about how this man must feel.

Baloney Pondering, we all know you hate Mulcair. You'll use any excuse to attack. Stop pretending you care. Its not about that. For you its solely about takng shots at Mulcair, or the NDP. Its one or the other. Your posts have never been about anything else. Everyone here knows what you think. I'm surprised after a year or more on this board you still think you're fooling any of us.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

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.

Pondring you are one of the most insenstive and socially inept people I have ever met. My comment was sarcasm. You dismissed it as an emotional rant. That's reverse sexism. You owe me an apology. Your are chavinistic, and sexist.

Jacob Two-Two

It's not reverse sexism. That's just silly.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Wow -- you can't even tell when someone is ridiculing your posts.

And no-- I absolutely am not going to feel sorry for a person who goes into a client's house and pees in their cup-- barely rinses it.

Wow -- to compare this creep to bullied kids -- that's a new low -- even for you.

I didn't compare him to bullied teens, I compared the pain of being publically humiliated.

I doubt he expected someone to use the mug without it being washed, most likely in a dishwasher. It is the idea of it that is gross rather than it being a physically harmful or threatening act.

Your message-board vendetta and lack of self-control (a trait you might share with the subject of this dispute) makes you ridiculous. Your posts are pompous and petulant neither of which impress me although perhaps it impresses others.

Let's see if you recognize ridicule as poorly as you dish it out.

pookie

mark_alfred wrote:

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?

On thread drift, I think that ship sailed about, oh, three years ago.

pookie

I mean, most Trudeau threads eventually become about Liberal fifth columnists on rabble anyway.

Pondering

ROFLOL, I was wondering if Mulcari was some evil person I had never heard of, Like Hitler only less infamous. I just realized it was a typo. LOL

P.S. Is it possible to ridicule oneself and if so is it mean?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Wow -- you can't even tell when someone is ridiculing your posts.

And no-- I absolutely am not going to feel sorry for a person who goes into a client's house and pees in their cup-- barely rinses it.

Wow -- to compare this creep to bullied kids -- that's a new low -- even for you.

I didn't compare him to bullied teens, I compared the pain of being publically humiliated.

I doubt he expected someone to use the mug without it being washed, most likely in a dishwasher. It is the idea of it that is gross rather than it being a physically harmful or threatening act.

Your message-board vendetta and lack of self-control (a trait you might share with the subject of this dispute) makes you ridiculous. Your posts are pompous and petulant neither of which impress me although perhaps it impresses others.

Let's see if you recognize ridicule as poorly as you dish it out.

Love how you like to crap on when you know nothing about what you are talking about. The mug was picked up out of a sink and barely rinsed and put back.

The rest of your post is utter garbage and petulant. I don't come here to read your posts. I keep a block on them most of the time and turn it off when there are too many posts others are responding to. In this case I left it off.

Interacting with you is an extreme waste of time which is why I avoid it more and more. You poison so many threads though that I have dialled back the amount of time I spend on this site altogether becuase most threads that I might otherwise be interested in  turn into arguments with you over your bullshit.

Comparing me to a person who pisses in a mug is pretty low and if it were anyone but me you would be told to stop. If it were not established that you are allowed personal attacks on babble, thanks to the disgusting double standard of the moderators, I would make a complaint. That they allow this reflects on them as well as you.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't come here to read your posts. I keep a block on them most of the time

To be fair, isn't that like a conservative Christian using a porn-blocker on their computer "most of the time"?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't come here to read your posts. I keep a block on them most of the time

To be fair, isn't that like a conservative Christian using a porn-blocker on their computer "most of the time"?

Not quite --If ponderings posts were not in the middle of other discussions I want to follow I would block and forget.

As it is, they can be ignored at times and at other times they make discussions look like a redacted document that is hard to follow.

This is the reason why many days I just don't come here anymore.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't come here to read your posts. I keep a block on them most of the time and turn it off when there are too many posts others are responding to. In this case I left it off.

Interacting with you is an extreme waste of time which is why I avoid it more and more. You poison so many threads though that I have dialled back the amount of time I spend on this site altogether becuase most threads that I might otherwise be interested in  turn into arguments with you over your bullshit.

This is the Trudeau campaign thread and the topic you just couldn't resist concerns a man peeing in a mug. Hardly scintillating political discussion.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
If it were not established that you are allowed personal attacks on babble, thanks to the disgusting double standard of the moderators, I would make a complaint. That they allow this reflects on them as well as you.

Wow, LOL, not content with insulting me, you insult the moderators too.

Here's the thing. They aren't idiots. They can tell that the intent of your posts is to insult me (as can everyone else) so when I insult you back they aren't going to jump in to save your hide. Wording yourself so that you are insulting my posts is not cleverly staying within the letter of the rules. They can still tell that your intent is to insult me just like I can. I just respond directly rather than playing your game. It's not that I am "not guilty" it's that you are guilty of attacking me first so I don't get faulted for calling you out. You start every single confrontation we have without exception.

I offered you an olive branch more than once which you refused. A truce is always available but as far as I can tell you don't want one. As long as you are intent on insulting me I'm going to insult you right back.

There is absolutely nothing preventing you from spending as much time as you like on this board. I participate in two or three threads at a time, most of the time only one or two if I am heavily involved in the discussion. I've participated in an NDP thread or two recently but I mostly avoid the main ones, like the Mulcair Campaign thread unless I have something nice to say.

I ask for no such consideration in this thread or any other but I don't have to put up with your transparent insults. I call you out which you find infuriating which makes it all the more fun. All you have to do is stop insulting me then I can't insult you either. You just can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think it's a shame that you are contributing less to the board than you used to because your political analysis is often interesting and I know that some members miss you. You're a good writer. You give me too much power by staying away based on my presence on the board.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not quite --If ponderings posts were not in the middle of other discussions I want to follow I would block and forget.

Why not just block what can be blocked by software and ignore the rest?  And if the rest cannot be ignored, why bother with the block at all?

I'm not saying this because I tend to agree with Pondering, nor to defend her views on this or that, but this is starting to just look passive-aggressive.  You make it clear that you've used software to "block" her, but if you read something she said as part of someone's quoted response then curiousity gets the better of you and you respond, while at the same time mentioning how you're TRYING to block her out, but apparently can't.

We can put a man on the moon, but we still can't protect you from having to read (and respond to) Pondering's words.

Rev Pesky

 

mark_alfred wrote:

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

I'm no fan of Chrystia Freeland, but she was absolutely right. Even a cursory look at General Motors, for instance, would show how they engineered their own collapse at the expense of the shareholders. While GM Corp was losing their shirt, GMAC, the financer of their lease business which was largely owned by bondholders, were making out like bandits. In the year 2000 GM stock was selling around US$95. By 2008 that had dropped to under US$1. This didn't happen overnight, It was a more or less steady decline from 2000 on. They were losing billions per year while at the same time, GMAC was raking it in. Here's a report from 2005 from CNN Money:

 

Quote:
The world's largest automaker has been battered by all kinds of bad news -- it's lost $3.8 billion through September, its sales and market share are sinking and rating agencies cut its debt to "junk" bond status. This week analysts at credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's said that chances of a bankruptcy at the automaker were "not far fetched."

...While GM's core automotive operations struggle, GMAC, its finance unit, has been going strong. The unit is on course to deliver record profits in the neighborhood of $3 billion this year

Ezra Merkin, one of Bernie Madoff's 'recruiters', was chair of GMAC during this time. In any case, the bankruptcy of GM was long fortold by the time 2008 came along. That's when the governments of Canada and the USA intervened, and, using tax dollars bailed out the wealthiest of the wealthy. Any reasonable person looking at the whole scenario would see it for what it was, highway robbery. In the end, GM went bankrupt anyhow, fleecing the existing shareholders, then used TARP money to start up again, using taxpayer dollars. Nice work if you can get it.

6079_Smith_W

Wide margin of error, but still:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-in-trouble-in-pap...

Might be good news for those in the conservative wing of the party. Having him lose, and having to pick a new leader would be a handy way of campaigning from the centre and governing from the right (that is, holding Harper's coat in an even more cosy way than they have already).

 

bekayne

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Wide margin of error, but still:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-in-trouble-in-pap...

Might be good news for those in the conservative wing of the party. Having him lose, and having to pick a new leader would be a handy way of campaigning from the centre and governing from the right (that is, holding Harper's coat in an even more cosy way than they have already).

 

Also an NDP poll

Pondering

The NDP poll indicates the NDP is going to win? What a shocker.

Jacob Two-Two

I don't trust many pollsters, but even I don't think CROP is going to throw it's reputation away just because the NDP commissions a poll from them, and I believe their reputation is pretty good in Quebec. If a polling company has a history of putting out inflated numbers for a certain party, (like Forum for Liberals) then by all means call them on it, but I've never noticed that about CROP. The fact that a political party commissioned a poll from them does not automatically make the poll invalid. Well, not unless you're a mindless partisan, that is.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The NDP poll indicates the NDP is going to win? What a shocker.

Quick question:  if a party commissions a poll, do they get to specify the results??

Rev Pesky

There are so many different ways to rig polls, what questions you ask, the order you ask them in, the way you interpret the results, that yes, you can specify the results.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There are so many different ways to rig polls, what questions you ask, the order you ask them in, the way you interpret the results, that yes, you can specify the results. 

I've always been fascinated by survey methodology, so I don't disagree on principle.

But did the NDP try to drop a Jedi Mind Trick on respondents?  The flip side of a critical eye on methodology is that one can't just say "there are ways of playing tricks"... you need to show that tricks were played.

How did the NDP game this?

Jacob Two-Two

Is that what happens when you commission a poll, though? Do you get to set all those parameters? And if such a poll would produce bad results, do you think a polling company with an excellent reputation for accuracy would throw that reputation away for a few bucks? It would make sense if we were talking about those Mainstreet clowns, but not in the case of CROP. There is no incentive for them to put together bad polls and lose their credibility.

6079_Smith_W

Geez. I thought I might sidetrack all the bafflegab by saying "wide margin of error, but".

We are a month away from the election; of course this isn't written in stone, but it does raise the question.

My actual point was: who is going to have the reins of power  (and possibly the balance of power) if he DOES lose his seat. To my mind there are probably some Liberals who wouldn't be at all upset by that.

 

 

 

Pondering

As I understand it when a leader loses their seat but the party wins someone else steps aside so the leader can win their seat.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/what-happens-now-th...

Yes, if you commission a poll you get to determine the questions and what order they are given in. Polling companies are judged on how close they are to the results on election day. There is no way to check if earlier polls were accurate or not because there is no election to test them against.

The NDP budget got a thumbs down form Kevin Page.

Ciabatta2

Yeah Kevin Page though isn't exactly an independent voice anymore.  An assessment from him isn't the third-party review it used to be.

jjuares

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Geez. I thought I might sidetrack all the bafflegab by saying "wide margin of error, but".

We are a month away from the election; of course this isn't written in stone, but it does raise the question.

My actual point was: who is going to have the reins of power  (and possibly the balance of power) if he DOES lose his seat. To my mind there are probably some Liberals who wouldn't be at all upset by that.

 

 

 


If Trudeau loses his seat they persuade a MP in a safe Liberal seat to step down. This has happened to a lot of leaders, King, Douglas, Getty to name just a few.

Jacob Two-Two

If Justin doesn't win, (and he won't) then he won't be leader anymore. If he does lose his seat, that's it for him and politics. Poor guy might have to start working for a living.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Yeah Kevin Page though isn't exactly an independent voice anymore.  An assessment from him isn't the third-party review it used to be.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/14/former-parliamentary-watch...

By: Joanna Smith Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Wed Jan 14 2015

OTTAWA—Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page will play a role in ongoing efforts by the New Democrats to convince Canadians they can be trusted to manage the economy.

Page will deliver a speech at the NDP caucus strategy session this Friday, in which he plans to undermine the idea that the Conservatives have been sound fiscal managers while in government.

“I think it has been a great confabulation, that they are great fiscal managers,” Page, now a political studies professor at the University of Ottawa, said in an interview Wednesday.

Brachina

 It really depends if Marc Garneau keeps his seat, if he does, he'll basically inherit from Trudeau, if not Chaos.

 

 Small chance says Trudeau sticks around, after all, the priveldges of being Liberal Leader without the responsiblities of being an MP sounds right up Trudeau's creek.

Jacob Two-Two

So he thinks the Cons suck, and doesn't like the NDP budget... What does he think about the Liberal numbers? Oh right. There are none. As always, the Libs try to avoid criticism by having nothing to say.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I think the timing of the poll was to throw Trudeau off during the debate. Call it political psychological terrorism courtesy of the NDP. It will be interesting to see how the national polls respond if at all to the news in Papineau.

Brachina

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
So he thinks the Cons suck, and doesn't like the NDP budget... What does he think about the Liberal numbers? Oh right. There are none. As always, the Libs try to avoid criticism by having nothing to say.

 

 The Liberals keep acting like 10 billion dollar deficits are all they have to say when asked about acosted plan.

Pondering

Trudeau's campaign has been highly disciplined. The majority of people only firm up their choice in the last week or so of the campaigns. That is what made the orange crush possible. The Liberals will release their budget before the election. It will contain surprises. The NDP hasn't played all their marbles either. They too will have more announcements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/16/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue_n...

Colorado’s Department of Revenue reports it collected $69.9 million U.S. in marijuana revenue in the year from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. In that same period, the state collected $41.8 million in alcohol revenue.

“It’s crazy how much revenue our state used to flush down the drain by forcing marijuana sales into the underground market,” said Mason Tvert, communications director at the Marijuana Policy Project, in a statement.

“It’s even crazier that so many states are still doing it. Tax revenue is just one of many good reasons to replace marijuana prohibition with a system of regulation.”

Colorado legalized, regulated and taxed weed after voters in the state approved a ballot initiative in 2012 to end the prohibition.

The state charges a 15 per cent marijuana excise tax (which goes to building schools), a 10 per cent “marijuana special sales tax” and a 2.9 per cent retail and medical tax. It has an alcohol excise tax of 8 cents per gallon on beer, 7.33 cents per litre on wine, and 60.26 cents per litre on hard liquor....

It’s hard to say whether Canada could generate similar levels of marijuana revenue, because Colorado relies to an extent on marijuana tourists from around the country.

In some of the popular ski towns around the state, tourists reportedly account for 90 per cent of marijuana sales. Canada could count on some marijuana tourists if it legalized, but if more U.S. states follow, the tourism effect could be minimal in the longer run.

Trudeau is not done playing this card and Canada's potential is greater because the US still isn't legalizing federally. Canada would be the first G20 country to legalize. Medical research of cannabis and industrial applications for hemp would develop rapidly because the plant has enormous potential for everything from cancer treatment to paper to building materials.

https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html

Cannabis sativa is extremely unusual in the diversity of products for which it is or can be cultivated. Popular Mechanics magazine (1938) touted hemp as “the new billion dollar crop,” stating that it “can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane.” Table 1 presents the principal products for which the species is cultivated in Europe, all of which happen to be based on fiber. This presentation stresses the products that hold the most promise for North America, which also include a considerable range of oilseed applications (Table 2; Fig. 1).

 

 

mark_alfred

Brachina wrote:

The Liberals keep acting like 10 billion dollar deficits are all they have to say when asked about acosted plan.

The Libs also say that with low interest rates, now is the time to borrow to invest, and this will get change to people quicker than the NDP.  My opinion is that what the NDP have proposed, that being:  raising corporate taxes along with other changes to taxation for increasing government revenue, along with bringing the troops back, setting up universal child care, dedicating a portion of the gas tax to increased infrastructure spending, setting up a national revenue-neutral cap and trade system (in cooperation with what the provinces currently have), is more significant change than anything the Liberals have presented so far.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau's campaign has been highly disciplined. The majority of people only firm up their choice in the last week or so of the campaigns. That is what made the orange crush possible. The Liberals will release their budget before the election. It will contain surprises. The NDP hasn't played all their marbles either. They too will have more announcements.

True.  The Libs have hinted in the past about child care spaces, so I expect something (though I doubt it will be as ambitious as the NDP's plan).  The NDP or Libs may have something about pharmacare.  Who knows?  We'll see.  Environmental initiatives also might be coming from either of them.

Policywonk

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau's campaign has been highly disciplined. The majority of people only firm up their choice in the last week or so of the campaigns. That is what made the orange crush possible. The Liberals will release their budget before the election. It will contain surprises. The NDP hasn't played all their marbles either. They too will have more announcements.

True.  The Libs have hinted in the past about child care spaces, so I expect something (though I doubt it will be as ambitious as the NDP's plan).  The NDP or Libs may have something about pharmacare.  Who knows?  We'll see.  Environmental initiatives also might be coming from either of them.

Hinted? The Liberals first proposed a national child-care plan in the 1993 little red book.

Pondering

Policywonk wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau's campaign has been highly disciplined. The majority of people only firm up their choice in the last week or so of the campaigns. That is what made the orange crush possible. The Liberals will release their budget before the election. It will contain surprises. The NDP hasn't played all their marbles either. They too will have more announcements.

True.  The Libs have hinted in the past about child care spaces, so I expect something (though I doubt it will be as ambitious as the NDP's plan).  The NDP or Libs may have something about pharmacare.  Who knows?  We'll see.  Environmental initiatives also might be coming from either of them.

Hinted? The Liberals first proposed a national child-care plan in the 1993 little red book.

I believe he is referring to this campaign. If swing voters cared about party history they wouldn't be swing voters.

Brachina

mark_alfred wrote:

Brachina wrote:

The Liberals keep acting like 10 billion dollar deficits are all they have to say when asked about acosted plan.

The Libs also say that with low interest rates, now is the time to borrow to invest, and this will get change to people quicker than the NDP.  My opinion is that what the NDP have proposed, that being:  raising corporate taxes along with other changes to taxation for increasing government revenue, along with bringing the troops back, setting up universal child care, dedicating a portion of the gas tax to increased infrastructure spending, setting up a national revenue-neutral cap and trade system (in cooperation with what the provinces currently have), is more significant change than anything the Liberals have presented so far.

 Yep, Harper did the exact same thing in 2008 during the fincial crises and how much of a lasting impact will that have generations from now? It will be forgotten. Mulcair's goal is to build lasting institutions that are built to survive the test of time like Tommy Douglas did with universal healthcare in Sask. Douglas didn't rack up massive deficts he had balanced budgets and built the foundation for institutions like healthcare and various crown corporations amoung other things, but he didn't do all that in a single term! It created universal healthcare in Canada over several terms in office and inspired other Premiers and eventually the federal government to work on they're healthcare projects at the same time.

 

 I'm just going to say it, you can't understand Mulcair's NDP platform (what we know of it) until you look at how Tommy Douglas ran his government, only then can you fully grasp and understand Mulcair's long term vision and how patient and visionary he really is. If someone is all about instant gratification with no long term out look and no concern for the future at the end of Justin's term by all means support Justin who has basically promised to start out governing like his father and then finish off by making massive cuts like Paul Martin. Justin said the future starts right now, but I've seen the consquences of that short sighted perpective far, far too many times in my life, and I can tell you from personal experience, that the end of the ride you more or less end up back where you started, its a hell of a ride, but it goes back to the same situation.

 

 This debate ended up bringing me such clarity on Mulcair's vision for the future. 

Jacob Two-Two

But they didn't release a budget before the economic debate, did they? Y'know when people could call them to account for it in a public forum. Why not? Could it be that they know their numbers don't add up? If you know your budget is pure hogwash, it makes sense to wait until the very last possible minute to release it, giving your opponents the minimum possible length of time to point out its flaws. Very typical of the Liberals. Always speak in generalities, never give specifics, so later you can claim that you really meant something else entirely. Bullshit artists is all they are. Never leaders.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
True.  The Libs have hinted in the past about child care spaces, so I expect something (though I doubt it will be as ambitious as the NDP's plan).  The NDP or Libs may have something about pharmacare.  Who knows?  We'll see.  Environmental initiatives also might be coming from either of them.

Now that I follow politics more closely I see how difficult it is to predict how swing voters will react once they start paying closer attention. It seems the people who watch debates are the decided. Swing voters, rather than paying closer attention, are paying less attention until the end of the campaign when all the pitches have been fully released.

During both debates I have found it difficult to put myself in the place of undecided voters. I thought Trudeau proved himself a contender in the first debate but I didn't think his performance as was good as the reviews he got.

In the second debate I place Harper as the clear loser in that although he appealed to his base he said nothing that to me would sway swing voters back into his camp. I am cautiously optimistic that he will stay in third place which means either Trudeau or Mulcair will be our next PM.

Between Mulcair and Trudeau I think it's a real crap shoot. It's like they can't be measured against each other because they offer such different strengths and weaknesses. For that reason it will depend very much on the mood of the electorate on October 19th and even then it can't be predicted. Who is the agent of change? The NDP because they have never taken power federally or Trudeau because he represents generational change? Will they trust Mulcair more as a steady hand on the tiller because of his personal experience and maturity or the Liberal party as having long experience as the federal government?

Jacob Two-Two

Hopefully they do their homework, since the Lib's long history is one of corruption and criminal behaviour. Once you look at the substance, the Liberal party has nothing going for it.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Hopefully they do their homework, since the Lib's long history is one of corruption and criminal behaviour. Once you look at the substance, the Liberal party has nothing going for it.

But Jacob, Pondering has stated many times that the voters pay no attention to the Liberals' past transgressions. They only pay attention to past glories such as "having long experience as the federal government".

terrytowel

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Hopefully they do their homework, since the Lib's long history is one of corruption and criminal behaviour. Once you look at the substance, the Liberal party has nothing going for it.

But Jacob, Pondering has stated many times that the voters pay no attention to the Liberals' past transgressions. They only pay attention to past glories such as "having long experience as the federal government".

Look at the Ontario Liberals. Gas Plants, E-Health, Ornge Ambulance, Mars, Deleted emails, under OPP investigations and they still won a majority!

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Hopefully they do their homework, since the Lib's long history is one of corruption and criminal behaviour. Once you look at the substance, the Liberal party has nothing going for it.

But Jacob, Pondering has stated many times that the voters pay no attention to the Liberals' past transgressions. They only pay attention to past glories such as "having long experience as the federal government".

I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary but voters were well aware of Liberal history when Trudeau was riding high in the polls and they are still fully aware of Liberal history. It's not a new revelation that is suddenly going to start swaying voters.

I know I am partisan so I have no idea if others share my reaction but it comes across as weak to me. He has to resort to holding Trudeau responsible for things that didn't happen under his watch. It's an appeal to party politics which I don't think works because if swing voters thought party identity was a deciding factor they would support a particular party.

The effect of more general experience as in the Liberals have a long history is akin to the Rachel Notley win in Alberta only bigger. There is no denying that the NDP never having been in power federally is something the NDP has had to overcome and it remains a challenge just as Trudeau's non-traditional experience is a barrier he has had to overcome and must still work on. If Trudeau had a thicker resume or if the NDP had been in power federally in the past it could easily give one or the other the advantage that would put them over the top.

Pondering

There has been some comment that Trudeau and Mulcair's position on the F 35s is identical. They are not.

Trudeau, however, stood his ground, saying there are other, less expensive, proven options already flying that would meet the requirements to replace the CF-18s.

One of Trudeau's foreign policy advisers, the retired Lt-Gen. Andrew Leslie who is running as a Liberal candidate in an Ottawa riding, said any of the other aircraft options would cost 15 to 30 per cent less than the F-35.

The savings, he said, would be spent on upgrades for the navy, which he characterized as being in a state of "crisis."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/21/harper-mulcair-blast-trudeau-for...

versus

Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair both blasted Justin Trudeau for announcing a day earlier he would scrap the multibillion-dollar purchase of 65 F-35 stealth fighters to replace the current aging fleet of CF-18s, and reinvest the savings into the navy.

Not the same. There was some suggestion that Trudeau ruling out the F-35s could open him up to legal issues or inappropriately makes determinations that should only be made during the procurement process.

I disagree because the costs and issues with the F-35s are well-established and there is nothing unreasonable about a country deciding they are too expensive and existing aircraft with a proven track record can better fulfill the needs of our armed forces.

quizzical

not if a contract has been signed......

Pages