Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

One thing is for sure, I have no use for the LPC or anyone who would consider voting for them. Period!

Well shout that loud and clear so anyone considering voting liberal knows the NDP doesn't want their votes.

Because one NDP member clearly speaks for the whole Party, Pondering. One example obviously makes a rule.

Arthur:

What happened last week, both in Alberta and in the HoC with C-51, has completely marginalized Trudeau and the LPC. There is no need to go on the attack.

The Liberal Party showed Canadians that they stand for nothing but political expediency and Canadians (even Liberal Party members) noticed. The Alberta results showed the NDP can win anywhere and that the momentum is on our side.

Let's put our focus on replacing Stephen Harper with a "strong, stable, majority" NDp government. 

Winston wrote:

What happened last week, both in Alberta and in the HoC with C-51, has completely marginalized Trudeau and the LPC.

No doubt the support of C 51 has hurt them but they are far from being completely marginalized. I think they made the wrong choice but I also think the reason he didn't change his stance was political. He would have been hurt more by not supporting it after he said he would. He would be portrayed as weak, a flip-flopper driven by the winds of public opinon. Instead he will present ammendments to it as part of his election platform so that it will comply with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The next six months is going to be exhausting for people who think every up and down defines the outcome of the election.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Love this Twitter thread, https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/597172763309178880 . Trudeau twitted bragging about paying for LPC attacks ads using LPC funds. Instead the thread has truned into an attack on Trudeau's vote for C51. Amazing number of Libs now voting NDP!

TRULY LOVE THIS!

ETA: Link works if you are first logged into Twitter. It is still much too early to say, but C51 support may be a big problem for Trudeau. Love seeing it get slapped back in his smug little face!

Interesting -- I tweat-- Trudeau twits.

Taxes are means tested. The higher the income the more you pay. The reason daycare is being proposed is not that children need daycare. It is to encourage women to enter the workforce. Women who are doctors and lawyers don't need help paying for daycare. Women in professions that don't pay as well do stay home because they can't afford daycare. Some women don't go to school because they can't afford daycare. It would be great if free daycare could become universal just as grade school is but right now even 15$ a day is too much for some women especially if they have multiple children. I think we should start with providing free daycare for the women who need it most.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Taxes are means tested. The higher the income the more you pay. The reason daycare is being proposed is not that children need daycare. It is to encourage women to enter the workforce. Women who are doctors and lawyers don't need help paying for daycare. Women in professions that don't pay as well do stay home because they can't afford daycare. Some women don't go to school because they can't afford daycare. It would be great if free daycare could become universal just as grade school is but right now even 15$ a day is too much for some women especially if they have multiple children. I think we should start with providing free daycare for the women who need it most.

Oh come on "Pondeting". Taxes are means tested? You'll say ANYTHING to protect Truedope! The ONLY person who believes what you're saying on here is you.

Taxes are means tested. That is what progressive taxation is. The less you make the lower percentage you pay right down to nothing. A flat tax would be universal.

Pondering wrote:

Taxes are means tested. That is what progressive taxation is. The less you make the lower percentage you pay right down to nothing. A flat tax would be universal.

It takes a truly twisted mind to conclude that progressive taxation is equivalent to means tested benefits. Sheesh.

Pondering wrote:

Taxes are means tested. The higher the income the more you pay.

No pondering, it is not based on what you can pay, its based on what you EARN. If you are having trouble understanding this, take a Basic Public Policy course.

Pondering wrote:

The reason daycare is being proposed is not that children need daycare. It is to encourage women to enter the workforce. Women who are doctors and lawyers don't need help paying for daycare. Women in professions that don't pay as well do stay home because they can't afford daycare.

Where do I even start with this? I mean really, where? Are you really about to revive that old Chestnut that professional women want to peruse their professions so they've conspired to influence social policy to persue "their dreams". Really? Are you aware of the number of children living in poverty, WITH WORKING PARENTS? Are you aware of the number of famillies that struggle to find daycare for their children because they have to work. I knew a very nice Fillipino women who worked at a muffin place. Her husband was a Welder. Between the two of them they barely earned  enough to pay the rent, feed themserlves, and look after their kids. The cost of daycare was leaving them with almost nothing. So what was it going to be for them? Using your logic, its stay at home and live in poverty. As to"women in professions that don't pay as well do stay home because the can't afford daycare", where did you get this from? What Academically peer-review studies are you referring to exatctly? I dare you to go and say this face to face to any Female New Democrat MP, or for that matter, most Female LPC MPs and then come back here and tell us how that went. I'm certain you wouldn't come back happy. By the way, this isn't the 1950s, and a woman's place is wherever she decides it is. Figure it out.

Pondering wrote:

Some women don't go to school because they can't afford daycare.

That is true, so? Then all the more reason for a national daycare program.

Pondering wrote:

It would be great if free daycare could become universal just as grade school is but right now even 15$ a day is too much for some women especially if they have multiple children.

That is true. The NDP should go for the gusto on this one; but then Justin will attack the NDP for being fiscally irresposible while continung to refuse to explain how he'll be able to  pay for it. I agree, Tom should go for it on this one. People will support him.

Pondering wrote:

I think we should start with providing free daycare for the women who need it most.

How much longer do we have to keep explaining to you why universality is needed to create societal acceptance for progrems that benefit those who need help the most? Answer, forever. I can ony assume you are being pruposefully obtuse. There is simply no other explanation for the twisted logic you use over and over trying to argue that means testing fixes everything. It is a generally accepted meme among Social Scientists, Economists, Political Scientists, Social Philosophers etc, who have explained how the idea of means testing emerged because Americans of Colour began to benefit from the same Social Welfare programs that helped poor Southern Whites prior to Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1965. You are choosing to align yourself with the forces of extremism, whether or knowingly or otherwise by willfully choosing to ignore this FACT of history. That is where means testing came from. It is about resentment. Its about the feeling someone is getting something for nothing. It has NOTHING TO DO with fereting out "non deserving beneficiaries". Why can't you understand this? I think the answer is because the Liberals are trying to sell means testing and you fall into line and parrot whatever they say. For you its about electing Liberals, just because, and the hell with what happens. I also think you naturally gravitate to this beause deep down, just like most Liberals, you are a fiscal neo-con. Balanced budgets, Flags of Convenience, STEAL from EI to laughingly claim to have "balanced the budget", and. the HELL WITH THE POOR!

Go ahead, try and sell this. It won't work because people are smarter then that. More importantly, they are not as selfishly cynical as you obviously think they are. No Pondering, I have NOTHING in common with you. You and your LPC cohorts ARE as much the enemy as Harper and his cronies.

What you are really about on this is that you are angry that the NDP has claimed this as their own. You wouldn't be chattering about this if it handn't been brought up by the NDP

This post of yours is just pure Partisan jibberish and nonsense!

Here is a shrewd observation made by someone on the Kinsella blog:

Christian says:June 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm

Warren, a while ago you cited Olivia Chow as a warning to the NDP. While there is some basis for that, I actually think it applies more to Justin Trudeau than Thomas Mulcair. As you probably (painfully) recall, Chow was seen as the inevitable front runner a year out from the municipal election. Similarly Justin was viewed that way. Than a few flubs, bad communications and hasty, and rushed policy roll outs later Chow began to weaken. Similar again to Justin. Throw in a couple polls that showed Tory gaining traction and momentum and BOOM! That was it. People didn’t care who could defeat Ford, they just wanted him gone and would support the person best perceived to do that. It was a permanent and massive switch of support from Chow to Tory. I see that scenario now playing out to the benefit of the NDP. I think the lesson to be learned from this – the lesson Team Trudeu failed to heed is that its a disaster to run a “front runner” campaign a full year out from an election. To put style ahead of substance and to try and be all things to all people. Voters, it seems, want 1) A credible alternative to a dispised incumbant; and 2) Policy ‘steak’ – not just sizzle (never mind if it may not be implementable just has to sound reasoned, thought out and credible). This was true for Torontonians and it seems Canadians

- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/06/team-trudeau-working-hard-for-a-win/#c...

Rokossovsky wrote:

However, and nonetheless, the $15 an hour pledge by the NDP is measurably better than the Liberal tax credit dodge, since it doesn't institutionalize a program, merely throws money at the problem, money which can easily be withdrawn the next time his Conservative buddies get into office. Universal Programs are far easier to adminster, and require no complex bureaucratic "means testing" and enforcement.

The Liberals stated they will be rolling out a means-tested daycare program. A central theme is developing defending transfer of wealth through targeted spending and progressive taxation.

Complex bureaucracy isn't a requirement of means testings in this day and age.

Pondering wrote:

You are the extremist. Universality has not protected medicare nor even our public school system.

You are right.  Universality has not protected medicare from Liberal govt cuts.

nicky wrote:

Here is a shrewd observation made by someone on the Kinsella blog:

.....

- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/06/team-trudeau-working-hard-for-a-win/#c...

The "anybody but Harper" drive is limited. When looking at the polls most people are not that upset with Harper and still consider him a steady hand on the wheel of the economy.

Most of the reasons I have for disliking the Mulcair NDP have to do with issues that other people either support the NDP on or are indifferent to. 

Bill C 51 still has majority support.

We do a lot of projecting about why support is rising or falling for the various parties but most people are only reading the headlines right now if that.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Universality has protected medicare from absolute destruction. The Conservatives have been forced to chip away at this incredibly popular program that has in many respects come to define Canada. Without universality, medicare would never have survived the 80s nevermind be around today to be the topic of debate.

Pondering does not believe in universality. Pondering is more conservative than many Conservatives on this point.

She is also clueless when it comes to understanding the basic relationship between progressive income tax and universal programs -- how they are essentially two sides of the same coin. But Pondering is not here to learn she is here to advocate on behalf of the Liberal party. I have been tempted to share a few of Ponderings greatest shits with a couple Liberals I know. But I don't really want them to come here to educate her. They are also delusional about Trudeau but they don't have Pondering's pronounced tendencies to Conservative ideology when it comes to the issues like universality.

Geeze you are so dogmatic. You should stick to expressing your own opinions rather than trying to express mine on which you are woefully ignorant. I support universality for medicare and pharmacare and dental care and even daycare at some point in the future.  I am taking exception to the theory that universality is the be all and end all of solutions and must be applied to absolutely everything all of the time. I even stated that I am support free public transportation which would be definition be universal. Ironic that you should call me clueless when you either don't understand what universality is or are too focused on your vendetta to register what you are reading.

You ignored the point that the NDP program is not universal unless everyone has access to it, and the NDP program does not guarantee access and the NDP will also allow means testing by any province that chooses to do so. Quebec has full opt-out priveleges. 

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to lambast the NDP for allowing means-testing in their daycare plan.

Let's not forget that means-tested Daycare means -- just for starters -- that if for any reason you are late on your taxes you will be denied access.

So for example -- custodial parents separated from a spouse and somewhat reliant on cooperation to finalize taxes would be denied means-tested daycare -- just when they would need the program most.

Now some may not be overly concerned about these people but they are not an insignificant number and are often the most vulnerable.

I have done a lot of work over the years trying to help people with limited means do their taxes -- this issue comes up often. It does get resolved, and there are ways to push the issue, but it can create significant delays in that first year of separation. This is the year the single parent might be trying to get back into the workforce and really need the daycare support.

There are other issues with this -- even with the cooperation there -- there can be serious issues where the previous year the joint income makes them ineligble and they have to wait for the next tax year to file on their own with only their own resources. To then qualify. There are loads of problems with means testing for essential services.

Then consider the kinds of issues you get into. Will the means testing program look only at top line income? Will it consider other expenses the person may have? What about if they were supporting a parent? What if they had an ill family member supporting them in Long Term Care? Of course these issues may come out in the following tax year but the nature of means testing is you look at the history rather than the present becuase the present cannot be proven. The last tax year is always the measurement.

It is possible to imagine a perfect means testing system. It is quite different to build one. And different again to rely on one when governments with different agendas come and go and tweak them to save money.

This is of course all on top of the previous arguments about universality that have all been said and ignored or dismissed by Pondering as this one is guaranteed to be.

Means testing is not cost effective either-- the point being that a progressive income tax system centralizes into a single system and provides for the adequate share of tax paid AFTER the fact so that all can be considered. We don't call that means testing becuase it is done after the fact not as a gateway to access.

Means testing of individual programs means the program has to include in its budget the means testing and do it before the fact based on infomration that can be out of date or irrelevant. It is also subject to behind the scenes political manipulation through regulation lacking the accountability you get when a program is designed for parliament. (Means testing particulars are handled by regulation rather than legislation brought to parliament.)

Means testing is bad policy for many reasons. It is also behind the scenes policy and policy based on out-of-date information. It is less accountable and less efficient. Ultimately it spends money on prequalifying rather than program delivery. It segments the population politically and causes people to fall through the cracks. It creates winners and losers with every program rather than services that we pay for based on ability to pay. And it is a cornerstone of conservative charity visions of program delivery to "deserving people" rather than a collective vision of government as a valuable force in all citizens' lives.

I am going to introduce another point here about universality. The analogy is the Jordan's Principle.

This principle is named after a child who died as levels of government squabbled about who should pay for his care (He was Aboriginal and had special needs -- the province and feds fought over who was obliged to pay for his care while he suffered). The principle is that you provide the care first and figure out any issues of payment later. It is called a "child first principle."

http://www.fncaringsociety.com/jordans-principle

Now when we are talking about daycare, some of these same principles do apply. This is an essential service that is not simply a right for the parents but also related to the safety and well-being of the child. A "child first" principle would see the program paid first and the tax system recover the money from the parents who can afford to pay: universality.

It means we do not wait for arguments about the right regulations, fights between the province and the feds and the parents and the province and the feds over who pays before the service is provided. Child first care means you deliver the service and then figure out through the tax system how it is being paid for -- not at the front end qualifying people and then dealing with those who fall through the cracks later.

Yes, I understand universality Pondering. You either do not, or you are by choice very conservative. I am not interested in splitting that hair as the result is the same. (Conservative by design or by ignorance.)

As for the idea that you are in favour of some universal programs like transportation but not for childcare -- I say shame on you.

Pondering wrote:

Malcontent wrote:

Personally I think the NDP will replace the Libs as a top 2 party.  The libs will eventually dissolve and Blue Libs will  go to cons or greens and orange libs to NDP... People are tired of the Liberal arrogance.  They will win a couple seats in BC federally but really the west is Con vs NDP with a token Green seat and Lib seat.

If that happens it will complete the transformation of the NDP into the old Liberals.

If you mean the "old" Liberals, like Pearson and Trudeau (the real one) whose policy was heavily shaped, and supported by the NDP in order to pass, you may be right -- I guess that means you will be voting NDP.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/72645

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Malcontent wrote:

Personally I think the NDP will replace the Libs as a top 2 party.  The libs will eventually dissolve and Blue Libs will  go to cons or greens and orange libs to NDP... People are tired of the Liberal arrogance.  They will win a couple seats in BC federally but really the west is Con vs NDP with a token Green seat and Lib seat.

If that happens it will complete the transformation of the NDP into the old Liberals.

If you mean the "old" Liberals, like Pearson and Trudeau (the real one) whose policy was heavily shaped, and supported by the NDP in order to pass, you may be right -- I guess that means you will be voting NDP.

That's the sad thing. So much of Pierre's legacy came from working with the NDP. People who celebrate the older Trudeau may actually be more at home politically with Mulcair than with the crooked insiders advising Justin. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said, I would prefer the NDP require no means testing but I accept that the reality is that this program will have to be negotiated with the provinces and as a new program it will be hard to find the money at the outset.

I would oppose a program that set out means testing as integral to the federal participation but that of course is the Liberal position not the NDP position.

The NDP allows for wealthier parents to get daycare spots while low income parents are denied. Given that it is hard to find the money for all I don't think it is right to favor higher income parents over lower income parents.

I want free daycare for all but until we can meet that standard I want subsidized daycare going to those most in need. That is lower income parents who would otherwise either be forced to remain at home or suffer disproportionately from the financial burden. Also, studies of the Quebec system have shown that lower income children benefit substancially from daycare unlike children from higher income families who are better able to enrich their children's environment and lifestyles. That means even if those children have mothers who stay home they would still benefit from daycare.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let's not forget that means-tested Daycare means -- just for starters -- that if for any reason you are late on your taxes you will be denied access.

So for example -- custodial parents separated from a spouse and somewhat reliant on cooperation to finalize taxes would be denied means-tested daycare -- just when they would need the program most.

Now some may not be overly concerned about these people but they are not an insignificant number and are often the most vulnerable.

I have done a lot of work over the years trying to help people with limited means do their taxes -- this issue comes up often.

Then I should think you would want those most in need to benefit whereas the NDP model favors the more well off like the old Quebec system it is modeled on. Being from Quebec I should think that Mulcair would have learned from it's mistakes.

Helping people to do their taxes does not make you an authority anymore than being a mother, paying for daycare or having lived in poverty makes me one.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-ups-the-price-in-public-da...

Parents will keep paying the same $7.30 daily rate for their children in public daycares, but households earning over $50,000 will have to dole out an “additional fee” — pegged to their income — when they file their income taxes.

The sliding-scale fee ranges from the base rate to $20 per child a day for families making more than $150,000, Family Minister Francine Charbonneau announced in the National Assembly.

The subsidy is taxed back so problem solved. Instead of having a 15$ fee for all parents who can access the system lower income parents pay as little as $7.30 while parents making more than 150K pay $20, hardly an unreasonable amount.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering may be a Liberal but she is clearly a conservative. The only question may be if she realizes how conservative she actually is. I have met many a conservative over the years who would never make the statements she has made. I supsect a good number of them have migrated to the Liberal party as the Conservatives drifted to the extreme.

Pondering is perhaps a political orphan -- attracted to the label of being progressive but without a desire or understanding of what being progressive means. Being in favour of means testing -- quite apart form partisan politics is one of those things that defines if you are progressive or not. If you favour universality over means testing chances are you may be a progressive. If you prefer means testing because you cannot trust or support a tax system to provide fairness and recoup program costs then you are a conservative. From there you can decide which party you want to support. This is clearly difficult for someone who wants to be seen as a feminist, wants to be seen as a progressive but has a conservative economic vision.

I do not "want to be seen as a feminist" I am a feminist and you are a pompous ass.

People do not have to follow your simplistic logic in choosing which party to support. I recall your complaint that the Liberals are non-ideological which you seem to think is an affront of some sort. All three parties are crowding the center. The NDP is not The Progressive Party of Canada. They have some progressive policies but NDP members are far more progressive than the party executive is.

I, and many other voters, will look to the platforms when campaign time comes around and decide which party has the best plan and which party they prefer to have running Canada for the next four years. You think that should be Mulcair and the NDP. Fair enough. The rest of us don't have to agree that the NDP is a special snowflake automatically more righteous than any other party.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Malcontent wrote:

Personally I think the NDP will replace the Libs as a top 2 party.  The libs will eventually dissolve and Blue Libs will  go to cons or greens and orange libs to NDP... People are tired of the Liberal arrogance.  They will win a couple seats in BC federally but really the west is Con vs NDP with a token Green seat and Lib seat.

If that happens it will complete the transformation of the NDP into the old Liberals.

If you mean the "old" Liberals, like Pearson and Trudeau (the real one) whose policy was heavily shaped, and supported by the NDP in order to pass, you may be right -- I guess that means you will be voting NDP.

Maybe or maybe I will be voting for the new progressive party that will be forced to split off from the NDP as the NDP embraces the center even more strongly. I would much rather see the split up of the Conservatives which seems more likely than ever after Peter MacKay's departure.

People seem to forget that polling numbers are for if an election were held today, not a projection of what will occur in October. Having said that if the numbers played out as they are today:

...an NDP/Liberal coalition government would be a very strong possibility but I still have a hard time seeing the Liberal executive accepting it. 24 of the 98 Liberal MPs might simply cross the floor to the NDP for a chance at forming government.

The catch is the election isn't being held today. It is being held after the writ is dropped and the campaigning goes into full swing.

Based on the latest poll numbers I don't see why Trudeau shouldn't just pack up and call it a day.

The Liberals are in no position to win no matter what they do.

Justin Trudeau its fait accompli

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said, I would prefer the NDP require no means testing but I accept that the reality is that this program will have to be negotiated with the provinces and as a new program it will be hard to find the money at the outset.

I would oppose a program that set out means testing as integral to the federal participation but that of course is the Liberal position not the NDP position.

The NDP allows for wealthier parents to get daycare spots while low income parents are denied. Given that it is hard to find the money for all I don't think it is right to favor higher income parents over lower income parents.

I want free daycare for all but until we can meet that standard I want subsidized daycare going to those most in need. That is lower income parents who would otherwise either be forced to remain at home or suffer disproportionately from the financial burden. Also, studies of the Quebec system have shown that lower income children benefit substancially from daycare unlike children from higher income families who are better able to enrich their children's environment and lifestyles. That means even if those children have mothers who stay home they would still benefit from daycare.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let's not forget that means-tested Daycare means -- just for starters -- that if for any reason you are late on your taxes you will be denied access.

So for example -- custodial parents separated from a spouse and somewhat reliant on cooperation to finalize taxes would be denied means-tested daycare -- just when they would need the program most.

Now some may not be overly concerned about these people but they are not an insignificant number and are often the most vulnerable.

I have done a lot of work over the years trying to help people with limited means do their taxes -- this issue comes up often.

Then I should think you would want those most in need to benefit whereas the NDP model favors the more well off like the old Quebec system it is modeled on. Being from Quebec I should think that Mulcair would have learned from it's mistakes.

Helping people to do their taxes does not make you an authority anymore than being a mother, paying for daycare or having lived in poverty makes me one.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-ups-the-price-in-public-da...

Parents will keep paying the same $7.30 daily rate for their children in public daycares, but households earning over $50,000 will have to dole out an “additional fee” — pegged to their income — when they file their income taxes.

The sliding-scale fee ranges from the base rate to $20 per child a day for families making more than $150,000, Family Minister Francine Charbonneau announced in the National Assembly.

The subsidy is taxed back so problem solved. Instead of having a 15$ fee for all parents who can access the system lower income parents pay as little as $7.30 while parents making more than 150K pay $20, hardly an unreasonable amount.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering may be a Liberal but she is clearly a conservative. The only question may be if she realizes how conservative she actually is. I have met many a conservative over the years who would never make the statements she has made. I supsect a good number of them have migrated to the Liberal party as the Conservatives drifted to the extreme.

Pondering is perhaps a political orphan -- attracted to the label of being progressive but without a desire or understanding of what being progressive means. Being in favour of means testing -- quite apart form partisan politics is one of those things that defines if you are progressive or not. If you favour universality over means testing chances are you may be a progressive. If you prefer means testing because you cannot trust or support a tax system to provide fairness and recoup program costs then you are a conservative. From there you can decide which party you want to support. This is clearly difficult for someone who wants to be seen as a feminist, wants to be seen as a progressive but has a conservative economic vision.

I do not "want to be seen as a feminist" I am a feminist and you are a pompous ass.

People do not have to follow your simplistic logic in choosing which party to support. I recall your complaint that the Liberals are non-ideological which you seem to think is an affront of some sort. All three parties are crowding the center. The NDP is not The Progressive Party of Canada. They have some progressive policies but NDP members are far more progressive than the party executive is.

I, and many other voters, will look to the platforms when campaign time comes around and decide which party has the best plan and which party they prefer to have running Canada for the next four years. You think that should be Mulcair and the NDP. Fair enough. The rest of us don't have to agree that the NDP is a special snowflake automatically more righteous than any other party.

I would have thought a feminist would rate universal childcare above universal public transit. But you can self identify as you wish.

No need to call me names There is just about nothing I would not think in terms of insults to you. I don't feel the need to print them here.

The rest of your post is not worth responding to especially as you selectively ignore anything else that has been said on the topic. Much of the above is more of the same bullshit you have been saying ignoring what others have written in reply. Hardly worth arguing with someone who simply does not listen except for an opportunity to launch into the same crappy Liberal talking points.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

This is for you Pondering, you old neo-con, blue Liberal, you!  http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/08/news/lawyer-blasts-%E2%80%9Cdictatorial-bill-c-51-ahead-senate-vote 

I've stated multiple times that I am against the bill in its entirety. I hope it does get challenged in court and defeated. I think the Liberals are wrong to support it. I am happy that they want to amend it and create more oversight.

Surprisingly the bill still has majority support amongst Canadians as per a poll that was posted here recently although the movement against it has had some impact. I hope the movement continues to grow and that more Canadians turn against it.

Every political party/leader makes tradeoffs, areas where they go with the flow and areas where they stand on principle. This is one where I wish the Liberals had stood on principle. It remains to be seen if it is one that will affect them politically or not.

Polls tell a partial story. For the most part they don't tell us why people vote the way that they do. The reasons that I support the Liberals over the NDP are in some cases the same reasons why other people support the NDP rather than Liberals.

I am still pretty confident that the Liberals are going to win the election but I must admit I have wondered why the NDP was not more successful for quite some time when I see the break-down polls of how people regard the NDP and Mulcair versus the other parties and leaders.

I will only weep if the Conservatives win so I am better off than you and many other NDP supporters.

I hope that if the Liberals do win that they are not as bad as you fear they will be and that they are as good as I hope that they will be.

Addressing others by name personally will cause people to take it personally and they might not take it the same way in which it was intended. If someone says a bad idea, I can attack the idea quite vehemently. It allows the other person the "I am always right" bias that it might not apply to them.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

This is for you Pondering, you old neo-con, blue Liberal, you!  http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/08/news/lawyer-blasts-%E2%80%9Cdictatorial-bill-c-51-ahead-senate-vote 

I've stated multiple times that I am against the bill in its entirety. I hope it does get challenged in court and defeated. I think the Liberals are wrong to support it. I am happy that they want to amend it and create more oversight.

Surprisingly the bill still has majority support amongst Canadians as per a poll that was posted here recently although the movement against it has had some impact. I hope the movement continues to grow and that more Canadians turn against it.

Every political party/leader makes tradeoffs, areas where they go with the flow and areas where they stand on principle. This is one where I wish the Liberals had stood on principle. It remains to be seen if it is one that will affect them politically or not.

Polls tell a partial story. For the most part they don't tell us why people vote the way that they do. The reasons that I support the Liberals over the NDP are in some cases the same reasons why other people support the NDP rather than Liberals.

I am still pretty confident that the Liberals are going to win the election but I must admit I have wondered why the NDP was not more successful for quite some time when I see the break-down polls of how people regard the NDP and Mulcair versus the other parties and leaders.

I will only weep if the Conservatives win so I am better off than you and many other NDP supporters.

I hope that if the Liberals do win that they are not as bad as you fear they will be and that they are as good as I hope that they will be.

Pondering, there is so much wrong with this post. First of all, what happens if the Libs don't win, eh, smarty-pants? Then what? You ALWAYS act like a LPC win is inevitable. Its part of the reason why I simply don't have anythig in common with you. What incredible arrogance. Oh by the way, don't make on of you absurd counter claims to this like "I never said the LPC was going to inevitably win", its false, based on the content of your post, I'm not so stupid as you obviusly think not to have recognzied what your posts infer. Secondly YOUR leader chose political expediency over doing the right thing; it was about polics and optics. Again, what happens if he doens't win? What would have happned if he had clearly said he was going to vote against the bill? You don't know, do you? You don't know how that woud have affected the Tory decision making process. It wasn't about "going with the flow", it was about doing the right thing. That is what you Libs are ENTIRELY about, going with the flow, its why I HATE your party. It stands for nothing, and its supporters, you for instance, seem very happy with that.

As for this "weeping", garabage, how partonizing, how arrogant, how insuting, how smug. You don't get it, I don't weep, because I respect the democratic process. The outcome is what it is, I oppose. If oppostion is what is seen as weeping by you, then that's truly YOUR problem. What hubirs, "Pondering".

As to the Libs not being as bad as the Tories, if that's your argument for voting LPC, that's pretty pathetic.

Yep,, I read you post, and its more of the same nonsense, double-speak, flim-flamming garbage that has characterized your preence. Plenty of noise signifying nothing.

You aren't that smart. Get over yourself.