Jagmeet Singh - Trudeau Liberal Government Lied To Canadians About Electoral Reform

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Trudeau has genuine vulnerabilities that will grow every election going forward. Those vulnerabilities extend to both the Liberal and Conservative parties as well. 

Under Harper's watch and under Trudeau's watch income inequality has grown. Automation is predicted to wipe out more jobs. Morneau said we have to get used to precarious employment. 

Under both our carbon emissions have grown. We need to actively transform our energy use. 

Pharmacare is another big one. Trudeau's program is fake pharmacare. Medicare works because it is single payer. 

These are issues now, they will be issues in October, and the situation will be even worse in 2023. Emissions will be higher. Income inequality will be greater. The urgency to act on climate change will be ever increasing. 

What will 2027 be like if the Liberals and Conservatives keep bouncing control back and forth? What issues will be most important then? My bet is income inequality/economy and climate change. 

Trudeau didn't do the electoral reform thing, he pressured Raybould to give SNC a DPA, he made a fool of himself in India, these things will pale in the couple of weeks before the election when swing voters make up their minds. They will be thinking about the platforms and which will most benefit them. 

I am not sure you said it in this thread, might be another, but you suggested that while individually it might not make a difference these scandals add up in time and you are right, they do, typically around the 7 to 10 year mark. 

In 2019 the parties with a plausible chance of winning are the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Of those three the NDP is a longshot at best if you put it to bookies. (These are opinions not facts just in case anyone is confused on that point)

The more likely outcome is that we will be looking at a Liberal or Conservative government. My hope is that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will win a majority. 

My opinions and my disagreements with you are not rooted in secretly supporting the Liberals or in being an inner Liberal that cannot be denied. 

You've gotten quite personal in speculating on my motivations rather than addressing the arguments I have presented. If my arguments are so terrible they should be easy to critique without speculation or accusations concerning my motives. You are behaving like a condescending jerk. 

My point has been and remains, there are much more important issues for the NDP to be using their very limited communication time to focus on. There is a gaping hole in the bottom of the boat. What is splashing over the sides is a distraction. It's life-jacket time. Trudeau is a dangerous opponent and people are underestimating him again, just like in 2015 when his numbers were low. 

In 2015 posters were saying Canadians had seen the light and realized that Trudeau was shallow and incompetent and that Mulcair was a statesman in comparison. Now that they realized it they would never swing back to Trudeau. Trudeau was such a paltry opponent Mulcair could ignore and belittle him. 

Back then my prediction that Trudeau was going to win, even when he was in third place, was scoffed at and dismissed as cheerleading because I supported Trudeau against Mulcair and Harper, although many of you saw it as support for the Liberals. 

Turns out I was not cheerleading, Trudeau was being wildly underestimated and he did win the election. I am not cheerleading this time either. 

The issues of the present and future are income/wealth inequality and climate change/pollution. 

https://ejfoundation.org/reports/climate-displacement-in-bangladesh

Two-thirds of Bangladesh is less than five metres above sea level.

28% of the population of Bangladesh lives on the coast, where the primary driver of displacement is tidal flooding caused by sea level rise.

By 2050, with a projected 50 cm rise in sea level, Bangladesh may lose approximately 11% of its land, affecting an estimated 15 million people living in its low-lying coastal region.

The process of salinisation has been exacerbated by rising sea levels. Coastal drinking water supplies have been contaminated with salt, leaving the 33 million people who rely on such resources vulnerable to health problems such as pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, acute respiratory infections and skin diseases. 

I won't go hunting for quotes on growing wealth and income inequality but I don't expect that to start shrinking under Liberal or Conservative governments so I am reasonably certain these problems will also grow. 

Pondering

My posts are long enough without being quoted in full so you can make a snide remark. It isn't just rude and disrespectful to me it is also disrespectful to anyone reading the thread. You could just put "in response to post # 999"  and still have the opportunity to be rude and insulting towards me. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

About 3 percent nitrogen, 2 percent phosphorus, and 1 percent potassium (3-2-1 NPK) -  also  high levels of ammonia and potentially dangerous pathogens...

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau has genuine vulnerabilities that will grow every election going forward. Those vulnerabilities extend to both the Liberal and Conservative parties as well. 

Under Harper's watch and under Trudeau's watch income inequality has grown. Automation is predicted to wipe out more jobs. Morneau said we have to get used to precarious employment. 

Under both our carbon emissions have grown. We need to actively transform our energy use. 

Pharmacare is another big one. Trudeau's program is fake pharmacare. Medicare works because it is single payer. 

These are issues now, they will be issues in October, and the situation will be even worse in 2023. Emissions will be higher. Income inequality will be greater. The urgency to act on climate change will be ever increasing. 

What will 2027 be like if the Liberals and Conservatives keep bouncing control back and forth? What issues will be most important then? My bet is income inequality/economy and climate change. 

Trudeau didn't do the electoral reform thing, he pressured Raybould to give SNC a DPA, he made a fool of himself in India, these things will pale in the couple of weeks before the election when swing voters make up their minds. They will be thinking about the platforms and which will most benefit them. 

I am not sure you said it in this thread, might be another, but you suggested that while individually it might not make a difference these scandals add up in time and you are right, they do, typically around the 7 to 10 year mark. 

In 2019 the parties with a plausible chance of winning are the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Of those three the NDP is a longshot at best if you put it to bookies. (These are opinions not facts just in case anyone is confused on that point)

The more likely outcome is that we will be looking at a Liberal or Conservative government. My hope is that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will win a majority. 

My opinions and my disagreements with you are not rooted in secretly supporting the Liberals or in being an inner Liberal that cannot be denied. 

You've gotten quite personal in speculating on my motivations rather than addressing the arguments I have presented. If my arguments are so terrible they should be easy to critique without speculation or accusations concerning my motives. You are behaving like a condescending jerk. 

My point has been and remains, there are much more important issues for the NDP to be using their very limited communication time to focus on. There is a gaping hole in the bottom of the boat. What is splashing over the sides is a distraction. It's life-jacket time. Trudeau is a dangerous opponent and people are underestimating him again, just like in 2015 when his numbers were low. 

In 2015 posters were saying Canadians had seen the light and realized that Trudeau was shallow and incompetent and that Mulcair was a statesman in comparison. Now that they realized it they would never swing back to Trudeau. Trudeau was such a paltry opponent Mulcair could ignore and belittle him. 

Back then my prediction that Trudeau was going to win, even when he was in third place, was scoffed at and dismissed as cheerleading because I supported Trudeau against Mulcair and Harper, although many of you saw it as support for the Liberals. 

Turns out I was not cheerleading, Trudeau was being wildly underestimated and he did win the election. I am not cheerleading this time either. 

The issues of the present and future are income/wealth inequality and climate change/pollution. 

https://ejfoundation.org/reports/climate-displacement-in-bangladesh

Two-thirds of Bangladesh is less than five metres above sea level.

28% of the population of Bangladesh lives on the coast, where the primary driver of displacement is tidal flooding caused by sea level rise.

By 2050, with a projected 50 cm rise in sea level, Bangladesh may lose approximately 11% of its land, affecting an estimated 15 million people living in its low-lying coastal region.

The process of salinisation has been exacerbated by rising sea levels. Coastal drinking water supplies have been contaminated with salt, leaving the 33 million people who rely on such resources vulnerable to health problems such as pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, acute respiratory infections and skin diseases. 

I won't go hunting for quotes on growing wealth and income inequality but I don't expect that to start shrinking under Liberal or Conservative governments so I am reasonably certain these problems will also grow. 

This is all beside the point -- the political challenges are not controversial. It seems like you are wanting to change the focus from some aggravating arguements you made that did not go well to some firmer ground as you sometimes do.

The reaason you get such disrespect is this posting style where you enter a topic put in a bunch of nonsense and not back down when it is proven to be such. Then you come back and pretend that really the conversation was about something else. You go on and on like the movie groundhog day where you walk away from a losing argument and then reserect it a while later when you figure enough time has gone by that all the responses will have blown over. Instead of respond you just wait out what anyone says and ignore it.

I am one of many people who get exasperated when you slide through your four tactics 1) going on with post after post ignoring what anyone says 2) leaving an argument that you have lost aside for a while and then coming back to completely ignore any of the intervening discussion as if it did not happen 3) changing the topic to pretend that it really was about something else 4) when all else fails playing the victim.

The most recent disagreement in this thread was largely about your predictions that the replacing FPTP is not a big deal rather than a sleeper issue that would come up in the event that the Liberals try to use it to bring vote to them as they usually do when in trouble. Here above is your summary -- with the entire point of the conversation gone and replaced with a pile of stuff not raised in this thread and not a topic of debate.

It becomes too exhausting to be polite and indulge you for another trip around the merry-go-round so a rude comment sums up the response more efficiently. You will get fewer nasty comments if you actually engage with what people are saying to move the conversation forward rathe rthan this eternal circling back and bobbing and weaving. Essentially you punish anyone who tries, for a time, to be constructive and engage with you until the give up and then just attack you to break this monotony brought on by your tactics.

Pondering

This statement of yours makes no sense:

The most recent disagreement in this thread was largely about your predictions that the replacing FPTP is not a big deal rather than a sleeper issue that would come up in the event that the Liberals try to use it to bring vote to them as they usually do when in trouble. 

Correct! It isn't a sleeper issue and it isn't a big deal to most people. The Liberals certainly don't usually use it when they are in trouble. I think you might be referring to strategic voting. Unlike you I will focus on what you are actually trying to say. The Trudeau campaign will not use that approach. If it is used by supporters or individual MPs on the sly it will not be attributed to Trudeau. Bringing up the fact that Trudeau promised electoral reform won't matter. People voting Trudeau to stop Scheer will still do so. 

  • I don't believe that PR or electoral reform is a topic swing voters care about therefore I think it is a waste of limited media attention for Singh to attack Trudeau on it.
  • I don't believe the old mandras "the liberals are liars! the liberals bait and switch!" are successful political arguments as they get tried pretty much every election and so far have failed to resonate. 
  • Voters have limited attention spans. Trudeau has said "the middle class and those striving to join it" thousands of times along with "balance the economy and the environment". I believe the NDP has to focus equally hard on limited messaging.  
  • You accused me of being supportive of Trudeau and the Liberals. To counter your accusation I raised the issues on which not only Trudeau but both the Liberal and Conservative parties as well are vulnerable on and will still be vulnerable on in 2023 and 2027. Income/wealth inequality and climate change.

Double posting long posts without even referencing the contents is offensive which is something you know therefore is deliberate. 

You have not been deputized to speak for the many. I am pointing out your nasty comments not nasty comments in general. Your personal attacks and temper tamtrums are a reflection of your character. 

It doesn't even matter whether or not you are correct in your assessment of me. Your behavior is out of line. It is rude, condescending and deliberately abrasive. Pretty much the definition of a......well I could think of a lot of words that fit but I think it is more fun to let people fill in the blank. 

Maybe I should save that quote so I can regularly accuse you of saying the Liberals use PR as an argument when they are losing and state your opinion as fact when it is not. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

This statement of yours makes no sense:

The most recent disagreement in this thread was largely about your predictions that the replacing FPTP is not a big deal rather than a sleeper issue that would come up in the event that the Liberals try to use it to bring vote to them as they usually do when in trouble. 

Correct! It isn't a sleeper issue and it isn't a big deal to most people. The Liberals certainly don't usually use it when they are in trouble. I think you might be referring to strategic voting. Unlike you I will focus on what you are actually trying to say. The Trudeau campaign will not use that approach. If it is used by supporters or individual MPs on the sly it will not be attributed to Trudeau. Bringing up the fact that Trudeau promised electoral reform won't matter. People voting Trudeau to stop Scheer will still do so. 

  • I don't believe that PR or electoral reform is a topic swing voters care about therefore I think it is a waste of limited media attention for Singh to attack Trudeau on it.
  • I don't believe the old mandras "the liberals are liars! the liberals bait and switch!" are successful political arguments as they get tried pretty much every election and so far have failed to resonate. 
  • Voters have limited attention spans. Trudeau has said "the middle class and those striving to join it" thousands of times along with "balance the economy and the environment". I believe the NDP has to focus equally hard on limited messaging.  
  • You accused me of being supportive of Trudeau and the Liberals. To counter your accusation I raised the issues on which not only Trudeau but both the Liberal and Conservative parties as well are vulnerable on and will still be vulnerable on in 2023 and 2027. Income/wealth inequality and climate change.

Double posting long posts without even referencing the contents is offensive which is something you know therefore is deliberate. 

You have not been deputized to speak for the many. I am pointing out your nasty comments not nasty comments in general. Your personal attacks and temper tamtrums are a reflection of your character. 

It doesn't even matter whether or not you are correct in your assessment of me. Your behavior is out of line. It is rude, condescending and deliberately abrasive. Pretty much the definition of a......well I could think of a lot of words that fit but I think it is more fun to let people fill in the blank. 

Maybe I should save that quote so I can regularly accuse you of saying the Liberals use PR as an argument when they are losing and state your opinion as fact when it is not. 

You are passive aggressive and these tactics have been raised by many people.

What you said was correct is only correct as a reflection of what you argued over and over and over and then ignored in your summary. It is not well founded at all. Particularly EVERY time the Liberals have difficulty in the last days they call on supporters of the NDP to help them stop the Conservatives. I won't waste time looking for examples of this since you never accept evidence and nobody else here needs any as they all know this to be true. You wear people down until they blow up with you. I cannot count the number of times that you have engaged in this behaviour and then whined about somebody being nasty. I think you have had this kind of exchange with about a dozen people here by now but it is always the other person but never you.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are passive aggressive and these tactics have been raised by many people.   

You continue to quote long posts in their entirety and call me passive aggressive. I'm being very direct. 

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP. 

My contention is that it is a waste of time therefore counter-productive.  

You accused me of being driven by support for Trudeau and being Liberal even though I have been very clear that I support Singh and that I am not a Liberal nor an NDPer. That is a personal attack not a debating point.

To prove I am not secretly supporting Trudeau I pointed out what I consider to be greater Trudeau vulnerabilities which you then interpret as changing the subject. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 The most recent disagreement in this thread was largely about your predictions that the replacing FPTP is not a big deal rather than a sleeper issue that would come up in the event that the Liberals try to use it to bring vote to them as they usually do when in trouble.  

I never claimed PR or electoral reform wasn't a big deal. It isn't a priority for voters. It's a hard sell. You misrepresent my views "forcing" me to clarify.

You misspoke and haven't even bothered to clarify what you meant. When I misspeak I am attacked. When I clarify it is rejected as "changing what I said".  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 What you said was correct is only correct as a reflection of what you argued over and over and over and then ignored in your summary. It is not well founded at all.  

I ignored nothing in my summary. You haven't addressed my argument which is centred on the importance of narrow focus and repetition to reach voters who pay little attention to politics between elections.

Whatever can be said about my so-called "tactics" they don't include attacking other posters. 

If you attack me again it is my right to defend myself when I have the time and patience which could be a day a week or even a month. 

Speculating on the motives of posters, misrepresenting their views, nitpicking over phrasing, and taking words out of context to change or obsure their meaning are invalid debating tactics. They undermine reasoned discussion and destroy threads.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP. 

I’m not sure what is the  “primary goal” you are referring to? Is the primary goal of the NDP that you’re referring for the NDP to accuse Trudeau of lying over electoral reform or is the primary goal you’re referring to for the NDP to establish electoral reform?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are passive aggressive and these tactics have been raised by many people.   

You continue to quote long posts in their entirety and call me passive aggressive. I'm being very direct. 

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP. 

My contention is that it is a waste of time therefore counter-productive.  

You accused me of being driven by support for Trudeau and being Liberal even though I have been very clear that I support Singh and that I am not a Liberal nor an NDPer. That is a personal attack not a debating point.

To prove I am not secretly supporting Trudeau I pointed out what I consider to be greater Trudeau vulnerabilities which you then interpret as changing the subject. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 The most recent disagreement in this thread was largely about your predictions that the replacing FPTP is not a big deal rather than a sleeper issue that would come up in the event that the Liberals try to use it to bring vote to them as they usually do when in trouble.  

I never claimed PR or electoral reform wasn't a big deal. It isn't a priority for voters. It's a hard sell. You misrepresent my views "forcing" me to clarify.

You misspoke and haven't even bothered to clarify what you meant. When I misspeak I am attacked. When I clarify it is rejected as "changing what I said".  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 What you said was correct is only correct as a reflection of what you argued over and over and over and then ignored in your summary. It is not well founded at all.  

I ignored nothing in my summary. You haven't addressed my argument which is centred on the importance of narrow focus and repetition to reach voters who pay little attention to politics between elections.

Whatever can be said about my so-called "tactics" they don't include attacking other posters. 

If you attack me again it is my right to defend myself when I have the time and patience which could be a day a week or even a month. 

Speculating on the motives of posters, misrepresenting their views, nitpicking over phrasing, and taking words out of context to change or obsure their meaning are invalid debating tactics. They undermine reasoned discussion and destroy threads.

This is getting ridiculous:

1) I quote whole posts either when the person is runninag away from what they have said previously or takes things out of context. You do both. It has nothing to do with being passive aggressive and I have only explained this since you have called it out.

2) You are trying to have it both ways in the same post (again reason for #1). Here you say: the broken promise is "waste of time therefore counter-productive" you have also said that you do ot think this issue will come up. Then you whine about my characterization that you are claiming this is not a big deal. You ignore the entire issue of what you admit this thread is about in your stupid summary of the thread. Yet you claim I mispoke. Well.

3) Interesting that you have been a self declared Trudeau fan and that you are here twisting logic to defend a statement that his broken promise will not amount to anything as best you can and yet you consider a question about your loyalty to the Liberals to be a personal attack. Well.

4) I did not set out to prove that you are "secretly" supporting Trudeau. I simply pointed out the effect of what you are doing. I advanced nothing claiming it was proof. Frankly I don't want to wade so deep into your stuff here to do that. Speculation on this was pretty light given that I really do not give a shit. I do not know wjo you are or respect the crap you post here enough to try to dissect what you do enough to declare proof. Normally I seek to respond only to your latest bullshit and decline to go back and re-read the shit you have written before. I could not care less who you support, except your denials are interesting. I would be happier that you would bring your tortured illogical posts to help Trudeau than associate it with anything else. I do not consider anything you do when it comes to partisan politics to be productive. I have slightly more respect for you when you are off your partisan politics stuff.

5) I usually get involved in your posts when you post some completely false statement. Fights usually come from that since you do not engage in facts.

6) You claim I mispoke and never said how. I disagree. I haven't the foggiest idea of how you call my characterization that you are claiming that the promise being broken is not a big deal when you have repeated this propaganda point about ten times. Perhaps my paraphrasing was problematic for you but it was not in quotes -- My consideration is that when you say over and over that it will have no effect on the election and nobody cares you are saying it is not a big deal.

7) You say I have not addressed the argument  "which is centred on the importance of narrow focus and repetition to reach voters who pay little attention to politics between elections." What rubbish. I laid out at length how it is only a small group of people who are the swing voters. The small minority make all the difference and they are the ones that will be offended when the Liberals ask for their support. This is that part where you ignore what people say -- come back later and then resume as if they never said it and then require that they repeat it for you or you claim that your latest BS has not been respondied to. This is the tactic many people have called you out for here. We are not talking single digits of people. Yet you ignore them all.

8) Yes I do post long at times. But I engage with what people ahve said. It is the reason that I get into trouble with you becuase I actually tie what is being said to a conversation. It is tiresome having to loop around the circle everytime you decide to come back to a topic without actually reading what was said the last time you took an interest.

9) Here is the pretzle logic. You calim to be taken out of context yet you claim that I post the entire quote. I do this becuase you lie about the context. This is something you do so often. You have trained me to have a habit of leaving whole posts due to this bullshit. Yet somehow the entire post is out of context? Why don't you choose which direction of deflection you want to go on as these alternative contradictions seem to be failing.

10) I do not obscure your meaning. You do this yourself. I try harder than I should to figure out what the heck you are saying and quote it in its entirety to avoid this bullshit of you claiming that I took something out of context to obscure the meaning. This is something you do and pretend that others do.

You undermine reasoned discussion and destroy threads.

Pondering

I was considering starting another thread or discussion on the behaviors I listed at the end of the same post you are referring to.

Speculating on the motives of posters, misrepresenting their views, nitpicking over phrasing, and taking words out of context to change or obsure their meaning are invalid debating tactics. They undermine reasoned discussion and destroy threads.

I considered using my own sentence quoted below as an example of  the type of sentence that gets picked on. I decided I should use real examples. Now it is one. 

Pondering wrote:

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP. 

JKR wrote:
I’m not sure what is the  “primary goal” you are referring to? Is the primary goal of the NDP that you’re referring for the NDP to accuse Trudeau of lying over electoral reform or is the primary goal you’re referring to for the NDP to establish electoral reform?

You understood what I was saying. This is an example of nitpicking and deliberate misinterpretation all in one. That is destructive to reasoned discussion and in my view amounts to trolling. Your question is not genuine. 

You, Sean, a couple of others, use these tactics when you disagree with me and you often gang up on me to do it. 

Once I have been attacked for a while I am accused of having changed the topic while being told if you all think I am wrong it must be so therefore I must admit it. 

Each year that has passed I have gotten better at fending you off. Every once in awhile I take a big leap forward. Once was when it genuinely stopped upsetting me. Emotion got in the way and led me to respond impulsively with a counter attack or ill thought our defence placing myself in the wrong. It also obscured who started it. So that was my second leap forward. Trying to limit myself to self-defence.  

That JKR used the exact sentence I thought could be used to attack me tells me I am on the right track. I think in future I am going to try to identify the tactic being used instead of trying to defend myself from it and wasting time answering insincere questions. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Pondering wrote:

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP. 

JKR wrote:

I’m not sure what is the  “primary goal” you are referring to? Is the primary goal of the NDP that you’re referring for the NDP to accuse Trudeau of lying over electoral reform or is the primary goal you’re referring to for the NDP to establish electoral reform?

You understood what I was saying. This is an example of nitpicking and deliberate misinterpretation all in one. That is destructive to reasoned discussion and in my view amounts to trolling. Your question is not genuine. 

Why do you think you can read my mind? I am not clear about what you are saying. My guess is that you meant a primary goal of the NDP is to establish electoral reform but I’m not sure. Because of previous discussions I don’t feel comfortable replying to your comments without being clear about what you’re saying. I think you tend to read other people’s minds, often pejoratively. Why not clarify what you’re saying as it would only take a sentence or two?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I was considering starting another thread or discussion on the behaviors I listed at the end of the same post you are referring to.

Speculating on the motives of posters, misrepresenting their views, nitpicking over phrasing, and taking words out of context to change or obsure their meaning are invalid debating tactics. They undermine reasoned discussion and destroy threads.

I considered using my own sentence quoted below as an example of  the type of sentence that gets picked on. I decided I should use real examples. Now it is one. 

Pondering wrote:

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP. 

JKR wrote:
I’m not sure what is the  “primary goal” you are referring to? Is the primary goal of the NDP that you’re referring for the NDP to accuse Trudeau of lying over electoral reform or is the primary goal you’re referring to for the NDP to establish electoral reform?

You understood what I was saying. This is an example of nitpicking and deliberate misinterpretation all in one. That is destructive to reasoned discussion and in my view amounts to trolling. Your question is not genuine. 

You, Sean, a couple of others, use these tactics when you disagree with me and you often gang up on me to do it. 

Once I have been attacked for a while I am accused of having changed the topic while being told if you all think I am wrong it must be so therefore I must admit it. 

Each year that has passed I have gotten better at fending you off. Every once in awhile I take a big leap forward. Once was when it genuinely stopped upsetting me. Emotion got in the way and led me to respond impulsively with a counter attack or ill thought our defence placing myself in the wrong. It also obscured who started it. So that was my second leap forward. Trying to limit myself to self-defence.  

That JKR used the exact sentence I thought could be used to attack me tells me I am on the right track. I think in future I am going to try to identify the tactic being used instead of trying to defend myself from it and wasting time answering insincere questions. 

 

If you trace the fights you have had here back over the years you will find a different story than what supports your victimhood. Usually you end up in a fight with a different person each time. Usually one person gets sucked down the rabbit hole at a time. Eventually they give up and walk away and then you fight with someone else. This is not ganging up -- this is having the same effect with the same type of result with one person after another. Eventually they do hold you in contempt and you get a group opinion but it is rare that your fights are with more than one at a time. You seem to have a need to have these fights and as soon as one person gives up you drive anohter around the bend until they enter your chamber of horrors.

For the most part when people engage with you everyone else, including those who engaged with you previously, get upset and hate it. Most of the time people send messages around begging people to stop engaging with you becuase you are not worth the time and people are sick of the fight. And then sometimes you go and drive the person asking for restraint over the edge and it is a different set of people trying to calm things down.

When people fight with you not only are others not ganging up but they want it to stop becuase everyone knows how you have an unending stream of bullshit and that nobody putting forward logic or facts can outlast this stream.

Now you are angry with me. Just cast your mind back three months ago and consider the people you were fighting with then. Mostly they are quiet now. I was not in a fight with you then -- it was other people. Even then I actually defended you.

Before when I ignored your posts you got your aggravation fix with someone else.

When people are not fighting with you they are actually nervous of getting into this shit with you. There are many people who treat you with kid gloves because you produce a stream of bullshit that nobody other than you can sustain. so people walk away and you move on to the next person.

Most of us who are caught -- first we are ashamed at going down one of your ridiculous and pointless rabbit holes where logic and facts have no hope of winning and yet we are tempeted to do it from time to time becuase what you post is so contradictory, or factually wrong or logically absurd that we think we can set it right and have the thread move on without it being derailed. But you prove us wrong, that logic and facts can never ever win. And then after a bit of bullshit you hold yourself up like some holy martyr of some religion all innocent like.

No, people who are not invloved tend not to have the energy or time to get into your fights. Usually it is you and one other person with everyone else repulsed and angry at both you and whatever sucker you got to dance with you. Once in a while you will catch two at once. But no, this is not a ganging up situation. Nobody, even the person who are slamming with your passive aggressive, endless stream of shit wants to be there. The problem is they are by then so angry they don't want to let the bullshit win.

But I realize why you must see a conspiracy and gang up here. If you did not see it in this twisted way you would see that you have the same relationship with person after person here due to your own posting. You cannot admit they are unrelated becuase that would mean it is something you are doing.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I love this thread. Please keep up the insightful debate Pondering and Sean, it is a delight to behold.

Pondering

My next post will be on topic.

Four of you use the tactics I am accusing you of Sean. I have differences of opinion, even heated ones, with many posters but only four of you use one or more of the tactics I mentioned. Everyone else deals with the arguments I am presenting.

I am not angry. I literally laughed out loud reading your last post. Mostly I roll my eyes.

Sean said:   You seem to have a need to have these fights and as soon as one person gives up you drive anohter around the bend until they enter your chamber of horrors…...Most of the time people send messages around begging people to stop engaging with you…... And then sometimes you go and drive the person asking for restraint over the edge and it is a different set of people trying to calm things down……

Most of us who are caught -- first we are ashamed at going down one of your ridiculous and pointless rabbit holes where logic and facts have no hope of winning and yet we are tempeted to do it from time to time becuase what you post is so contradictory, or factually wrong or logically absurd that we think we can set it right and have the thread move on without it being derailed….

You poor men. I am a message board siren forcing you to retreat to your clubhouse then tempting you to return. That isn't a conspiracy. It's a bunch of drama kings.

JKR, I don't accept your excuse. 

Soundtrack - Titanium------------ mwa ha ha.

 

Pondering

That politicians don’t keep all campaign promises is so common it is a cliché. That Trudeau didn't keep all his campaign promises is not new information.

If PR is important to someone they already know Trudeau didn't deliver. If people think that makes him a liar then they already think it.

If they don't it comes across as a typical politician trying to win by blackening the character of his opponent.

The NDP just lost the referendum on PR in BC. From polling numbers it looks like the one in PEI won't pass either.

Trudeau’s reasoning (excuse) for not moving forward was lack of consensus on an alternate system. He is not wrong.

Trudeau has actual vulnerabilities to attack. This is not one of them. Inequality and climate change are.

The NDP have no new arguments on PR. Even if it is the best system ever current arguments have failed to convince. It's time to try to figure out why. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR, I don't accept your excuse. 

I don’t recollect making one but evidently since you seem to be such a great mind-reader on this discussion board, maybe I did!?!?  You remind me of the Amazing Kreskin but unfortunately with much less accuracy and much more negativity toward others  :(  

The “not so Amazing Kreskin?”

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

My next post will be on topic.

Four of you use the tactics I am accusing you of Sean. I have differences of opinion, even heated ones, with many posters but only four of you use one or more of the tactics I mentioned. Everyone else deals with the arguments I am presenting.

I am not angry. I literally laughed out loud reading your last post. Mostly I roll my eyes.

Sean said:   You seem to have a need to have these fights and as soon as one person gives up you drive anohter around the bend until they enter your chamber of horrors…...Most of the time people send messages around begging people to stop engaging with you…... And then sometimes you go and drive the person asking for restraint over the edge and it is a different set of people trying to calm things down……

Most of us who are caught -- first we are ashamed at going down one of your ridiculous and pointless rabbit holes where logic and facts have no hope of winning and yet we are tempeted to do it from time to time becuase what you post is so contradictory, or factually wrong or logically absurd that we think we can set it right and have the thread move on without it being derailed….

You poor men. I am a message board siren forcing you to retreat to your clubhouse then tempting you to return. That isn't a conspiracy. It's a bunch of drama kings.

JKR, I don't accept your excuse. 

Soundtrack - Titanium------------ mwa ha ha.

 

uhuh -- a retreat into victimhood and conspiracy theories about grand plots by men to attack you.

I guess easier than to admit you had problems with four people who happen to be men. Of course you have to leave out the women you have pissed off and who have engaged with you in a similar way (I can think of two right off) here as it does not fit the present theory of victimhood. Pathetic. and since women are often victims because they are women this is offensive. But we know there are no lows you won't stoop to.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

I don’t recollect making one but evidently since you seem to be such a great mind-reader on this discussion board, maybe I did!?!?  You remind me of the Amazing Kreskin but unfortunately with much less accuracy and much more negativity toward others  :(  

 To clarify, I don't believe you. 

Your stated confusion is defining the primary goal in my grammatically incorrect statement. 

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP.

Readers can easily decide for themselves if the grammatical error creates enough confusion to require clarification. (Hint, a goal is something that has not yet been achieved.)

Sean, I already noted I'm not at all upset. There are no victims here. Your dramatic tales of resistance, capituation and shame while you take turns attempting to hold each other back sounds like a support group not a conspiracy. Your pain sounds so genuine I almost feel guilty for laughing but it is absurd. 

As a norm when women disagree with me they are focused on countering my argument. Everyone can slip up in the heat of the moment but habitually they do not use the tactics I listed. Nor do all men. 

Kropotkin doesn't parse sentences. He doesn't read posts looking for some detail to nitpick over. He addresses the meat of what I am saying and occasionally blasts me and calls me a fool or something along those lines and that's the end of it.  

I never have to tell him to quote me, or not to paraphrase. I never have to re-explain myself over and over due to misrepresentation. He always seems to understand what I am saying. If he gets it wrong and I say "that isn't what I meant" then explain what I did mean he accepts the clarification and viciously rips it apart if need be. 

I found this conversation about invalid debate tactics and posting styles interesting and at times funny. I am pleased that going forward I think I will identify invalid tactics more quickly rather than falling into the trap of trying to explain, defend and reword sentences to clarify etc. 

It was a good mental exercise. In my opinion I not only defended well I turned the tables on you. 

I developed a good summary of where I stand on calling Trudeau a liar with supporting logic. People may not agree with me but those reading it in good faith understand my reasoning. 

I'm fine but if you aren't I highly recommend music for changing your mood. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

 To clarify, I don't believe you. 

Why do you think I would go out of my way to lie about something so inconsequential and unimportant? I think you might be having a persecutory delusion about what I stated. I’m not trying to persecute you. I honestly believed what I stated.

Pondering

JKR,  I'm not going to speculate as to your motivation nor defend my mental health. That's the rabbit hole and I am not getting dragged into it. 

Unionist

Pondering - please lay off JKR. Before he ever posted his question (and that's all it was), I read your statement and wondered exactly the same thing. It wasn't clear what you were saying "has become a primary goal for the NDP". When JKR asked, you attacked him, and are now calling him a liar. I understand it must feel rotten being piled on by a bunch of people (and yes, you have experienced that here). But please don't ascribe ill-will and mendaciousness as your first line of response.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR,  I'm not going to speculate as to your motivation nor defend my mental health. That's the rabbit hole and I am not getting dragged into it. 

I guess what you’re saying is that you don’t want to have a detrimental conversation. I’d agree with that.

[I have wondered if conversations on Babble are intrinsically unproductive and that maybe they’re mostly about inflating ones ego instead of helping the world. I think it’s fair to say that there is much more negativity here than positivity.]

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Pondering - please lay off JKR. Before he ever posted his question (and that's all it was), I read your statement and wondered exactly the same thing. It wasn't clear what you were saying "has become a primary goal for the NDP". When JKR asked, you attacked him, and are now calling him a liar. I understand it must feel rotten being piled on by a bunch of people (and yes, you have experienced that here). But please don't ascribe ill-will and mendaciousness as your first line of response.

I think you make a very good point about it being difficult for a person to deal with being piled on by a bunch of people. I think the style of a conversation is as important, maybe even more so, than the content of a conversation. Maybe if we could fix our microcosm our macrocosm would be easier to deal with?

Pondering

I stand by my interpretation. I presented my final take in post 68. 

Another esoteric discussion on how these situations arise is a rabbit hole. 

In future when I read a post like #45 I will not respond beyond calling it out as a personal attack. Same goes for what I now recognize as subtle debating tactics intended to insult, annoy or frustrate. 

I'm here to discuss politics and related topics. My last on topic post is #65.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I stand by my interpretation. I presented my final take in post 68. 

Another esoteric discussion on how these situations arise is a rabbit hole. 

In future when I read a post like #45 I will not respond beyond calling it out as a personal attack. Same goes for what I now recognize as subtle debating tactics intended to insult, annoy or frustrate. 

I'm here to discuss politics and related topics. My last on topic post is #65.

It was a response to what you posted about what you posted.

Still no nothing about you personally and am still not interested.

Pondering

Having slept on it I will summarize for anyone coming in late or feeling confused.

Post #45      Sean launched the first of numerous personal attacks.

Post #58     JKR intervened appearing as though he was trying to get back on topic but doing it by requesting clarification on a grammatically incorrect sentence. I recognized it as an insincere tactic intended to deflect by getting me repeating myself. (something that annoys other posters.)

Post #69    I didn't take the bait so JKR reverts to a direct flame suggesting I have mental issues. I still don't take the bait.

Post #71    Unionist accuses me of calling JKR a liar saying he too was uncertain of my meaning and I should be nicer while agreeing that I do get piled on in order to appear even-handed and reasonable. I don't take the bait.

Unionist did not chastise Sean for his repeated broad attacks nor JKR for the flame. 

Post #72 and 73    JKR puts on his reasonable hat also generalizing the discussion to deflect.

So we are now off the topic of Sean's personal attacks and JKR's attempts at deflection and starting a flame war along with Unionist's accusation.

I'm not buying it. I'm semi-expecting buddy #4 to pop in to support the esoteric discussion on how this sort of thing happens but he is generally less involved.  Just a bunch of men who use trolling tactics when they get frustrated then jump in to protect each other. Calling it a conspiracy would be flattery.

You are all intelligent, clever, well-informed men who have contributed a great deal to this board. You use that as a shield.

When any of you 4 use these tactics to attack anyone on the board, even an asshole, if I catch on I will call you out. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Having slept on it I will summarize for anyone coming in late or feeling confused.

Post #45      Sean launched the first of numerous personal attacks.

Post #58     JKR intervened appearing as though he was trying to get back on topic but doing it by requesting clarification on a grammatically incorrect sentence. I recognized it as an insincere tactic intended to deflect by getting me repeating myself. (something that annoys other posters.)

Post #69    I didn't take the bait so JKR reverts to a direct flame suggesting I have mental issues. I still don't take the bait.

Post #71    Unionist accuses me of calling JKR a liar saying he too was uncertain of my meaning and I should be nicer while agreeing that I do get piled on in order to appear even-handed and reasonable. I don't take the bait.

Unionist did not chastise Sean for his repeated broad attacks nor JKR for the flame. 

Post #72 and 73    JKR puts on his reasonable hat also generalizing the discussion to deflect.

So we are now off the topic of Sean's personal attacks and JKR's attempts at deflection and starting a flame war along with Unionist's accusation.

I'm not buying it. I'm semi-expecting buddy #4 to pop in to support the esoteric discussion on how this sort of thing happens but he is generally less involved.  Just a bunch of men who use trolling tactics when they get frustrated then jump in to protect each other. Calling it a conspiracy would be flattery.

You are all intelligent, clever, well-informed men who have contributed a great deal to this board. You use that as a shield.

When any of you 4 use these tactics to attack anyone on the board, even an asshole, if I catch on I will call you out. 

You calling this a summary is a misnomer -- it is a salespitch of how you want others to see it.

You win becuase nobody can keep this shit going longer than you. It has nothing to do with you being right on anything.

I will let everything go except one thing: saying someone has a delusion is not always saying they have a mental condition: a delusion is not necessarily a delusion disorder. Yes, delusions can be caused by a mental health condition but not exclusively. If you want to disagree with that, it does not mean you can impose your definition not only on the person who used it but also another person who did not respond.

So now just fucking stop. Please. You win -- too damn tired.

Unionist

I was the first one in this thread, on April 15, to question the usefulness of "Trudeau broke his promise, he lied about electoral reform!"

I was pleased to see that Pondering, a couple hours later, had the same viewpoint. Moreover, she went on to analyze in much more detail and back up her (our) opinion with facts and solid arguments.

Sadly, misunderstandings, combined with thin skins, led to war - as is so often the case, without any rational justification for war.

If we recognize this, is there a way to call a truce? A meaningful one, where we forgive each other and move back to cooperative conversation in a common goal?

Asking for a friend.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

I was the first one in this thread, on April 15, to question the usefulness of "Trudeau broke his promise, he lied about electoral reform!"

I was pleased to see that Pondering, a couple hours later, had the same viewpoint. Moreover, she went on to analyze in much more detail and back up her (our) opinion with facts and solid arguments.

Sadly, misunderstandings, combined with thin skins, led to war - as is so often the case, without any rational justification for war.

If we recognize this, is there a way to call a truce? A meaningful one, where we forgive each other and move back to cooperative conversation in a common goal?

Asking for a friend.

 

things were a discussion untill they started to go downhill in post 43. there it was asserted that the Liberals did not break a promise but just didn't do what I wanted. Like this was no longer a fact observed by others but something in my imagination. This got worse and worse with the next posts and I'll tell you what -- I am not interested in continuing. forgiving? -- no. I am still pissed at this but too exhausted to continue.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

If we recognize this, is there a way to call a truce? A meaningful one, where we forgive each other and move back to cooperative conversation in a common goal?

Yes absolutely. I know I am not perfect and can unintentionally offend, frustrate or aggravate. I respect all of you without exception as important contributors on the forum. 

WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love this thread. Please keep up the insightful debate Pondering and Sean, it is a delight to behold.

I don’t know if I should laugh or get seriously angry at you for encouraging this painfully endless drift with your comment?

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

....things were a discussion untill they started to go downhill in post 43. 

Sean if I insulted you it was unintentional and I apologize for it. It is difficult to always word things correctly. 

We, and a few others here, are tenacious in our arguments and feel very strongly about our positions. I believe that is because we are genuinely progressive. We really do want the world to be a better place. That leads us to word ourselves strongly in support of whatever position we hold and become impatient or frustrated when others disagree or don't understand. 

I very much appreciate the olive branch from Unionist and friend of a truce. I don't need you to agree although it would be nice. 

Setting aside my framing of what happened I think I do understand the dynamics. I don't think there was ever any malicious intent. 

It takes two to tango, and in some cases more. A long time ago I read something very true. We can't change the behavior of others, only our own. I cannot prevent myself from inadvertently insulting you because it is inadvertent. I can refuse to engage in a self-defence beyond a simple rejection.

My posts are very long. I try not to be wordy but I fail 99% of the time even though I do edit out entire paragraphs. When someone is faced with that wall of text a second time my hunch is they are scrolling past so fast they don't notice any comments you add to the bottom. 

For your own sake if not theirs put what you have to say first. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love this thread. Please keep up the insightful debate Pondering and Sean, it is a delight to behold.

I don’t know if I should laugh or get seriously angry at you for encouraging this painfully endless drift with your comment?

When I was perusing the back and forth rants I was not sure whether to laugh or cry so I opted for going for the laugh.

Pondering

In future this will not happen again. I am only responding this time because I am trying to restrict the conversation to this thread. I am making one more final post (Is this the third?) to deal with JKR's comments. After that he has the last word. No matter what he says I will not respond. If anyone else wants to comment I will not respond to them either. 

I do believe Unionist and friend are as sincere as I am in wanting this destructive pattern to stop so offered me a truce. A truce is not an admission of guilt nor a surrender. It means we see a pattern that we don't want to be a part of.

This is the exchange that began my disagreement with JKR. Because I was already in conflict with Sean and see JKR as his friend I did not take his question at face value. 

Pondering wrote:
(Post 57)

This thread is about Jagmeet Singh accusing Trudeau about lying over electoral reform which has become a primary goal for the NDP.  

JKR wrote:
(post 58)I’m not sure what is the  “primary goal” you are referring to? Is the primary goal of the NDP that you’re referring for the NDP to accuse Trudeau of lying over electoral reform or is the primary goal you’re referring to for the NDP to establish electoral reform?

Pondering wrote:

(Post 60 incomplete quote) You understood what I was saying. This is an example of nitpicking and deliberate misinterpretation all in one. That is destructive to reasoned discussion and in my view amounts to trolling. Your question is not genuine. 

JKR wrote:
(post 61) ​Why do you think you can read my mind? I am not clear about what you are saying. My guess is that you meant a primary goal of the NDP is to establish electoral reform but I’m not sure. Because of previous discussions I don’t feel comfortable replying to your comments without being clear about what you’re saying. I think you tend to read other people’s minds, often pejoratively. Why not clarify what you’re saying as it would only take a sentence or two?

Several of my posts have been on topic yet you chose not to address those. Instead you picked out an isolated sentence in a post responding to personal attack rather than a post presenting an argument on electoral reform in relation to the NDP. 

You could have responded by saying something like:

  • Electoral reform is a major goal of the NDP but accusing Trudeau of lying over electoral reform certainly isn't so I will respond to the first interpretation. 

In my own opinion your question was not intended to to start a productive conversation on NDP goals concerning electoral reform. I believe your purpose was to point out a sentence in which I was unclear to deflect from Sean's comments and to involve me in a fresh pointless back and forth in which I repeatedly state my views. 

After some exchanges back and forth I stated that I do not believe you.  

JKR wrote:
(Post 69) Why do you think I would go out of my way to lie about something so inconsequential and unimportant? I think you might be having a persecutory delusion about what I stated. I’m not trying to persecute you. I honestly believed what I stated.

In my opinion suggesting someone is having a persecutory delusion is casting aspirations on their mental health and is intended to insult.

Saying I don't believe you is not calling you a liar.  You could add information that would change my mind. 

I appreciate my truce with Unionist and friend and I am willing to call a truce with anyone who wants one but I don't need one to prevent this from happening in future. 

In future I will not respond to what I consider to be baiting comments nor identity them. I just won't bite. 

If my views are expressed inaccurately through paraphrasing I will only state that it is not an accurate reflection of my views without attempting to clarity. If needed I will just put the post # of one that does reflect my views. 

Pondering

On the topic of calling Trudeau a liar for breaking his campaign promise on electoral reform, it is not the only campaign promise he broke.

4 years was enough to deliver on his faux pharamcare. He may still do it just before the election to brag about it but it shouldn't even be called pharmacare if it doesn't apply to everyone. 

Boil water advisories on reserves have not ended. 

I'm sure there must be others. By using electoral reform as the issue to call him out as a liar the NDP sends the message that electoral reform was the most important promise not kept. 

The point has been made that electoral reform could become an issue during the campaign and that the percentage of voters who went Liberal rather than NDP because they believed he would deliver PR. 

I didn't believe Trudeau would follow through so I would imagine many NDP supporters didn't believe it either. Assuming that still represents a significant number of voters these are people who are already well aware that the Liberals didn't follow through on electoral reform much less deliver PR. 

The promise of PR should certainly be an aspect of the NDP platform. It will attract supporters but not repel non-supporters because most are unaware so don't pay attention to it as an issue unless it is highlighted. The referendums in PEI and BC are recent. Voters in those provinces will see it as a losing issue.

We are in an image building phase of the upcoming election. It is a time when raising the profile of the leader is key as well as setting the lead issues to campaign on. 

Singh's messages at this time should be positive and focused on issues that resonate with Canadians. 

We are far out enough that this one statement is not going to brand Singh but it is still a lost opportunity to highlight the right issues. 

People who voted Liberal and don't support PR will see Trudeau being called a liar over it as character assasination even if they are disappointed in Trudeau's performance and are considering moving to the NDP. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Saying I don't believe you is not calling you a liar.  You could add information that would change my mind. 

I don’t believe you.

Sean in Ottawa

 

Thank you for this. I will leave it at that for now -- but thank you.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

....things were a discussion untill they started to go downhill in post 43. 

Sean if I insulted you it was unintentional and I apologize for it. It is difficult to always word things correctly. 

We, and a few others here, are tenacious in our arguments and feel very strongly about our positions. I believe that is because we are genuinely progressive. We really do want the world to be a better place. That leads us to word ourselves strongly in support of whatever position we hold and become impatient or frustrated when others disagree or don't understand. 

I very much appreciate the olive branch from Unionist and friend of a truce. I don't need you to agree although it would be nice. 

Setting aside my framing of what happened I think I do understand the dynamics. I don't think there was ever any malicious intent. 

It takes two to tango, and in some cases more. A long time ago I read something very true. We can't change the behavior of others, only our own. I cannot prevent myself from inadvertently insulting you because it is inadvertent. I can refuse to engage in a self-defence beyond a simple rejection.

My posts are very long. I try not to be wordy but I fail 99% of the time even though I do edit out entire paragraphs. When someone is faced with that wall of text a second time my hunch is they are scrolling past so fast they don't notice any comments you add to the bottom. 

For your own sake if not theirs put what you have to say first. 

Pages