Justin Trudeau Campaign 2015

889 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Two-Two

It's been explained to you in painstaking detail over and over and over why this nonsense is incorrect, but you will never admit it. That's the kind of person you are.

Oh, and the Liberals have experience in government all right. Experience lying, stealing and being corrupt. Oh, and Mulcair has experience governing and Justin doesn't. Is that significant too? Of course not. Facts are only relevent when they can be twisted to support your false claims. All those other facts can be easily dismissed.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So the knowingly false,baseless, smearing of the NDP continues. What's the matter, not convinced Le Dauphin cando it on his own? Childish.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So the knowingly false,baseless, smearing of the NDP continues. What's the matter, not convinced Le Dauphin cando it on his own? Childish.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:
Thomas Walkom is either lying or he's ignorant.  The NDP did not have the seats to save the Martin govt.  This isn't about political allegiance or ideology or "how I remembered it".  It is a fact based on the seat counts in parliament.

And the Walrus article, are they lying too? There wouldn't have been a vote to lose if it were not for the NDP.  Layton actively plotted with Harper weeks before the vote.

Even if all these people, including Maude Barlow, were lying, the memory of events Walkom has is the one most people have who lived through those years.

So from the perspective of campaigning, this one is a win for the Liberals. Most of those who remember will remember Layton being responsible because he happily claimed responsibility at the time. Those who don't remember and don't care will just be reminded of Liberal experience in government and that they did have a daycare plan.

Mulcair's approach is to try to convince people that he is administratively experienced while Trudeau is not therefore the NDP is ready to rule. 

That won't offset the fact that the Liberal party has the administrative experience which makes up for any lack of administrative experience on Trudeau's part. The notion that the Liberals wouldn't be ready to take the reins of power will backfire reminding people that it is the NDP that lacks experience governing.

It's normal to release a platform at the beginning of the official campaign. People may think that it's a good idea to release it earlier but they won't fault the Liberals for waiting because it is the norm. Many people only pay attention in campaign season. What will matter is the contents of the platform when it is released.

Mulcair's claim that he's the one that can fight Harper is empty of meaning. The campaign is the fight unless you are competing to be the opposition.

 

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It's been explained to you in painstaking detail over and over and over why this nonsense is incorrect, but you will never admit it. That's the kind of person you are.

Read the article:

http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

The painsaking detail that the NDP couldn't have changed the outcome of the non-confidence vote based on numbers is immaterial. The entire account of what happened makes clear the responsibility of the NDP because members of the NDP and progressive communities were angry about it. You can't erase history. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Oh, and the Liberals have experience in government all right. Experience lying, stealing and being corrupt. Oh, and Mulcair has experience governing and Justin doesn't. Is that significant too? Of course not. Facts are only relevent when they can be twisted to support your false claims. All those other facts can be easily dismissed.

I'm speaking from the perspective of campaigning and how these talking points are likely to impact voters. I think the NDP talking points will have no effect or will backfire and aid Trudeau and the Liberals.

Maybe I'm wrong and Mulcair's talking points will hit home and revive the NDP's fortunes.

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
wage zombie wrote:
Thomas Walkom is either lying or he's ignorant.  The NDP did not have the seats to save the Martin govt.  This isn't about political allegiance or ideology or "how I remembered it".  It is a fact based on the seat counts in parliament.

And the Walrus article, are they lying too? There wouldn't have been a vote to lose if it were not for the NDP.  Layton actively plotted with Harper weeks before the vote.

Even if all these people, including Maude Barlow, were lying, the memory of events Walkom has is the one most people have who lived through those years.

I would say at the very least that they are looking at politics through a regional prism where they see Ontario's political situation as interchangeable with the rest of the country while ignoring other regions, particularly Western Canada. I would also say that being in the media empire as they are that they believe they have more sway and influence over Canadians than they do in fact (It certainly has no sway out here, and there's a great deal of seats between Lake Superior and the Pacific Ocean). I would also say that they show an apalling lack of courage of their convictions, and are so worried about those Big Bad Conservatives that they can't effectively articulate a strong, progressive platform and defend it regardless of who is in office. That's what effective advocacy is, is keeping up your fight no matter what, but the second that the Conservatives are a threat, they panic as if the sun will stop shining, the moon will turn to blood, and the stars will fall from the sky and scorch the earth on impact. They also turn a blind eye depending on who is in office.

Jamey Heath explored this in Dead Centre. A couple of things he pointed out. The first is that Maude Barlow ran for the Liberal nomination in 1987 in an NDP-held seat in Ottawa, even though PCs had most of the federal seats. Fair enough, but how is it fair to criticize the NDP for trying to beat the Liberals, while not criticizing Barlow for taking on an NDP MP rather than a PC MP? The second is that while the Liberals were gutting social programs from 1993 to 1997, there was no "non-partisan" pressure or alliances dedicated to expose these cuts, and that had there been, the Liberals may have been reduced to a minority in 1997.

At the root of it is a mistaken belief that government always alternates between the Liberals and the Conservatives, and that if the Liberals lose, then the Conservatives must win, never allowing the idea of any alternatives to come in to play. This only entrenches the existing order.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Fair enough, but how is it fair to criticize the NDP for trying to beat the Liberals, while not criticizing Barlow for taking on an NDP MP rather than a PC MP?

It is fair to criticize her for that. The Walrus article pointed out the NDP conundrum stretching over decades.

When the Liberals are in a minority government the NDP is expected to and sometimes does use their leverage to push progressive legislation. The Liberals then get credit for being progressive.

During elections if the NDP focuses it's attacks on the Conservatives voters sometimes go Liberal strategically to avoid a Conservative win. If the NDP focuses it's attacks on the Liberals it ensures the NDP will get the maximum number of seats even if the Conservatives win.

There is no question that Layton precipitated the events that led to the non-confidence vote in November 2005. There is no question that there was progressive legislation on the table that failed to pass because of it. The article states that Layton's demands in his letter seemed designed to ensure there would be no agreement. NDP defenders say that Martin could have agreed to the terms which is literally true but it would have meant handing the government over to Layton and being PM in name only.

I think disagreement over who was responsible is valid but to suggest that people who hold Layton responsible are delusional or lying is ridiculous. Reducing the discussion to a single non-confidence vote is unreasonable and intellectually dishonest.

You ask "how is it fair to criticize the NDP for trying to beat the Liberals".

I am not arguing that the NDP is worse than the other parties. I am arguing that it is not as different as some claim it to be. The parties are controlled by the leader and the executive. NDP members are undoubtly more progressive than Liberal members (on average) but they are not in control of the party. The leadership is paying no attention to them at all as evidenced by Mulcair's embarassing oregano comments. There are well known and knowledgable members who were obviously not consulted.

In contrast the Liberals are recovering from a near death experience so they are paying attention to members. Not a lot, and not forever, but they are paying attention.

Voting NDP or left of is not the be all and end all of being progressive. So far Mulcair's NDP has been uninspiring. As liberal lite they don't interest me. General Andrew Leslie's comment on Israel was the most progressive comment on that topic. The Liberals will have a daycare program and other progressive programs in their platform.

The NDP has been working hard to convince everyone they are just liberal lite, not the party of social justice. It worked.

Now that it has worked they are reduced to pointing fingers and saying "but they lie and we don't so pick us" and old history.

For example, saying there is a third choice, people don't have to go back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives. We already know we can vote NDP. They are the official opposition. Pointing out the 150 year history of the two parties being in control of Canada is dumb. Most Canadians are pretty proud of what Canada has become in 150 years.

This time around focusing attacks on the Liberals will backfire. The Liberals have been out of power for a decade. Complaining about old history will just look like living in the past. Like the oregano comment, it will make him seem older. Attacking Trudeau himself won't work because he is establishing his own reputation and the attacks seem petty. 

The Liberals had to look inward when they courted death. I hope that the NDP can do the same and renew democracy within the party to come back stronger than ever and be the 21st century alternative to the Liberals.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
General Andrew Leslie's comment on Israel was the most progressive comment on that topic.

And should he be elected, he will fall into line just like every other non-Elizabeth May MP who gets elected.

Pondering wrote:
The Liberals will have a daycare program and other progressive programs in their platform.

That's nice. In Manitoba, we actually have a provincial program that the government has been working on with almost no help from the Conservatives or the Liberals. You haven't made a compelling argument to suggest that Trudeau is going to implement a national daycare program, given the number of times the Liberals failed to deliver on their previous promises.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

"Voting NDP or left of is not the be all and end all of being progressive"

Uh... actually..."Pondering", it is.

ETA: Pondeing wrote:

"I hope that the NDP can do the same and renew democracy within the party to come back stronger than ever and be the 21st century alternative to the Liberals."

No you don't; who do you think you're kidding? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're "pondering". Silly me.

 

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
That's nice. In Manitoba, we actually have a provincial program that the government has been working on with almost no help from the Conservatives or the Liberals. You haven't made a compelling argument to suggest that Trudeau is going to implement a national daycare program, given the number of times the Liberals failed to deliver on their previous promises.

There is no indication that voters agree with the NDP's opinion of the Liberal Party and I don't think that will change.

I think the talking points against the Liberals are so lame that they won't even respond.

I think if the NDP tries to say that the Liberals failed to pass daycare in the past the Liberals will ignore it and pundits will debate it in the papers laying the blame at the feet of the NDP like The Star did just at the mention of daycare in the NDP platform.

No matter how loudly the NDP proclaims the Liberals liars and thieves or insists they are just like the Conservatives it won't impact Trudeau's campaign at all.

If I am proven wrong you are welcome to say "I told you so". 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
That's nice. In Manitoba, we actually have a provincial program that the government has been working on with almost no help from the Conservatives or the Liberals. You haven't made a compelling argument to suggest that Trudeau is going to implement a national daycare program, given the number of times the Liberals failed to deliver on their previous promises.

There is no indication that voters agree with the NDP's opinion of the Liberal Party and I don't think that will change.

I think the talking points against the Liberals are so lame that they won't even respond.

I think if the NDP tries to say that the Liberals failed to pass daycare in the past the Liberals will ignore it and pundits will debate it in the papers laying the blame at the feet of the NDP like The Star did just at the mention of daycare in the NDP platform.

No matter how loudly the NDP proclaims the Liberals liars and thieves or insists they are just like the Conservatives it won't impact Trudeau's campaign at all.

If I am proven wrong you are welcome to say "I told you so". 

 

Pondering, your whole response is lame. All it is is talking points.

Jacob Two-Two

Translation: It doesn't matter if you're right, because the Liberals have successfully fooled everyone into believing you're wrong so the truth is irrelevant.

lagatta

Yes. the question is whether one can still vote NDP or whether a new, more left-wing party must be founded on the federal level. There is nothing remotely "progressive" about voting for a big-business party. And I share all of pondering's criticisms of the NDP and more. Eliminating the silly law banning marijuana is at least 40 years overdue. And Mulcair has reined in his caucus against Palestine. That is also because there are activists to rein in.

Voting for any party is not the be-all and end-all of being progressive, because a lot of our fight is in the streets, and in many forms and fora for activism. But voting for bourgeois parties takes activists here all the way back ... to what they have to face in the US, between voting for the "friendly face" of US military hegemony, or symbolic minor parties that never elect anyone (except in Vermont, I believe).

thorin_bane

Why didn't the liberals topple the conservatives on any of the 79 consecutive chances they had. Why did the Liberals scuttle the coaltion and be able to govern the country properly, instead of leaving harper in charge with nothing asked for? Thanks for citing promenant liberals while they failed to mention any of their own sins when it comes to harper. Entitled to their entitlements. And still mrs I can't let this drop I am right, the mods won't even warn you about trolling. Thanks MODS, You know my questions won't be answered because that is far more damning than any deflection about the NDP totally like totally destroying the progressive Martin(off shore billionaire) government.

Pondering

Thorin, I answered you here:

post # 39

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering?page=3#comment-1457645

That is where I will respond to any more hostile posts directed at me by you in this thread.

Debater

Let's stop re-hashing all of the arguments about who is responsible for the defeat of the Martin government.  Likewise, it's time to stop throwing blame around over the failed coalition to oust Harper.  There were mistakes made by Dion, Layton & Duceppe in that.  It was a mistake to have Duceppe at the signing ceremony.  It made it look like the BQ was going to be a formal partner in the coalition, and it gave Harper the ammunition to rile up the country against it.

As Lawrence Martin writes in "Harperland", Harper was actually becoming quite depressed and was getting ready to give up power, but once he saw Duceppe at the signing ceremony, he sprung back to life and he and John Baird and the rest of the Conservatives claimed there would be riots in the streets and that it would be undemocratic to have a coalition.  It fell apart after that.  It was a complex situation, and it was not the fault of one party that it didn't work.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So, Trudeau offers this, eh? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/15/trudeau-ei-premium-holiday_n_5825604.html

What, my taxcut is bigger then your taxcut? How sympbolic.

Fiscally Conservative, check. Socilally progressive? Pot, yes, Daycare, no. Socially progressive? No!

Libs and Tories are different? No. THE SAME! Liberal/Tory, SAME darn story!

ETA: OK Debater, here's a real chance to tell us why you vote Liberal, instead of Tory. Everyone here wants to know why you support the Libs, We want to discuss this issue of Lib versus NDP but we aren't able to because you won't tell us anything about yourself, and you never have. So, in the name of trying to foster real dialogue, how about telling us why you think Trudeau's proposal is different from Harpers? I don't see anythimg that tells us why Trudeau is different. Please extend all of us the courtesy here and answer the question for once.

Jacob Two-Two

It was absolutely the fault of the Liberals. The Bloc and NDP were ready to go and the Liberals backed out. They did much more to prop up Harper than tear him down during that parliament, because stopping Harper has never been a priority for them. If you pay attention to their actions rather than their words (which I know you never do Debater) than it is clear that they are more often allies than opponents. Their only dispute is which pig should be at the trough, red or blue. Anyone who votes Liberal to stop Harper is a fool, plain and simple. People did the same in 1992 when they rejected Mulroney's right-wing government, but the Liberal government they got was not the one that was promised. It was more right-wing than Mulroney's was. The same will happen this time. Liberals are liars. History shows conclusively that the things they promise are never the things they do.

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/15/trudeau-ei-premium-holiday_n_582...

Justin Trudeau says employers who hire additional workers should get a two-year holiday from paying employment insurance premiums for those employees...

Trudeau says his proposal would cost the same as the government's plan — $225 million — and create 176,000 jobs.

Trudeau says the Liberals will also probably support NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's proposal to introduce a $15-per-hour minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors.

The "no substance" attacks are falling flat and will continue to do so because Trudeau has taken numerous positions on issues and policies and continues to do so.

I bet the accusations of lack of platform are going to fall flat. Trudeau's numbers will not go down because he isn't copying Mulcair. His platform will be judged on it's merits whenever it is released.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/15/trudeau-ei-premium-holiday_n_582...

Justin Trudeau says employers who hire additional workers should get a two-year holiday from paying employment insurance premiums for those employees...

Trudeau says his proposal would cost the same as the government's plan — $225 million — and create 176,000 jobs.

Trudeau says the Liberals will also probably support NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's proposal to introduce a $15-per-hour minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors.

The "no substance" attacks are falling flat and will continue to do so because Trudeau has taken numerous positions on issues and policies and continues to do so.

I bet the accusations of lack of platform are going to fall flat. Trudeau's numbers will not go down because he isn't copying Mulcair. His platform will be judged on it's merits whenever it is released.

Pondering I am very, very, very HAPPY that Trudeau is embracing the very same Ronald Reagan, Teabagger ideas that have been such a dismall and disasterous failure in the United States. Keep it up Justin, you are doing a GREAT job!

Pondering

Quote:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/15/andrew-coyne-justin-trudeaus-great-run-put-to-the-test-as-focus-turns-to-policy/

The clearest signal of this has come from the NDP. Whatever the surface rhetoric, there is no mistaking the underlying message of last week’s caucus retreat: Trailing badly in the polls, having lost a string of byelections it might have been expected to win, the NDP has given up any hope of forming a government at the next election. The game now is to hold onto Official Opposition status. Operation Occupy the Centre has been called off. Operation Reclaim The Left is on.

I've been suspecting this for quite awhile. They are going for second place. They are going to try to destroy the Liberals to get it. They will fail miserably this time. I predict it will drive even more voters to Trudeau.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Let's stop re-hashing all of the arguments about who is responsible for the defeat of the Martin government.  Likewise, it's time to stop throwing blame around over the failed coalition to oust Harper.  There were mistakes made by Dion, Layton & Duceppe in that.  It was a mistake to have Duceppe at the signing ceremony.  It made it look like the BQ was going to be a formal partner in the coalition, and it gave Harper the ammunition to rile up the country against it.

As Lawrence Martin writes in "Harperland", Harper was actually becoming quite depressed and was getting ready to give up power, but once he saw Duceppe at the signing ceremony, he sprung back to life and he and John Baird and the rest of the Conservatives claimed there would be riots in the streets and that it would be undemocratic to have a coalition.  It fell apart after that.  It was a complex situation, and it was not the fault of one party that it didn't work.

I can agree with all of this-- with a little less partisanship here you could see that you don't have to be a Liberal to say this is true. The public reaction to Duceppe aided by the Conservative propaganda killed any political possibility for the coalition.

That was unfortunate since Duceppe was the leader of a party with one heck of a political mandate and whose members had every right to participate politically in the Chamber they were elected to.

It was horrific that Canadians could not recognize that Duceppe's position was minimal in the arrangment and completely legitimate. That set up a realization that the public was so ignorant that it would allow Canada's democratic processes to be seriously harmed. Harper has been taking care of business ever since.

No point going after Debater when he is right.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The public reaction to Duceppe aided by the Conservative propaganda killed any political possibility for the coalition.

That's ahistorical and subjective, Sean. When did the "public" get a chance to react and have any say in the matter? You're confusing Harper's propaganda with reality.

What actually happened is that Dion imploded (helped by certain forces within the Liberal party inner circle, who were terrified of the prospect of a coalition) and Ignatieff made some kind of deal (obviously) to support the budget in January, thus killing the coalition. Ignatieff, being a fool, got nothing for his efforts. And he compounded the suicidal damage in 2011, when he rejected a priori any notion of anti-Harper coalition. The "public" - certainly the Québec public - wanted nothing less than such a coalition, and massively switched to the NDP in order to make it happen. We know the rest.

 

 

NorthReport

Absolutely agree with Unionist.

Unfortunately the revisionist history nonsense just goes on and on and on.

 

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The public reaction to Duceppe aided by the Conservative propaganda killed any political possibility for the coalition.

That's ahistorical and subjective, Sean. When did the "public" get a chance to react and have any say in the matter? You're confusing Harper's propaganda with reality.

What actually happened is that Dion imploded (helped by certain forces within the Liberal party inner circle, who were terrified of the prospect of a coalition) and Ignatieff made some kind of deal (obviously) to support the budget in January, thus killing the coalition. Ignatieff, being a fool, got nothing for his efforts. And he compounded the suicidal damage in 2011, when he rejected a priori any notion of anti-Harper coalition. The "public" - certainly the Québec public - wanted nothing less than such a coalition, and massively switched to the NDP in order to make it happen. We know the rest.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I would disagree there-- the public perception was a reality even if it was based on propaganda fed by the Conservatives. It was so successful that to this day I hear people who otherwise support the NDP accepting parts of it.

Bullshit can be real.

And the point I am making is that perception and the associated ignorance that went with it, even aided as it was by propaganda, remains a very real threat.

In fact I think the greatest threat to Canada remains the depth of ignorance, lack of engagement and apathy of a critical mass of the public. I don't think you can address this problem at least until you recognize that it is there. The susceptability of the public to this kind of propaganda is an indication of a problem bigger than Harper and his loathsome party.

People do not buy everything that Harper sells but this one they were primed to buy due to prejudice, ignorance and more.

It is my opinion that things are getting worse rather than better. I don't think Harper would have gotten away as easily with that line thirty years earlier even when the first referendum was before us. I believe people's understanding of their political system is dumbing down at a steady pace.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I would disagree there-- the public perception was a reality even if it was based on propaganda fed by the Conservatives. It was so successful that to this day I hear people who otherwise support the NDP accepting parts of it.

Bullshit can be real.

I totally agree, Sean, that the propaganda had its effect and still might do (not here in QC of course) - my disagreement was with your conclusion that this killed the coalition. There was zero time for any public perceptions to have any effect on anyone. It was killed by: 1) Harper's influence over the G-G; and 2) the betrayal of the Liberal inner circle and their puppet Ignatieff.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I would disagree there-- the public perception was a reality even if it was based on propaganda fed by the Conservatives. It was so successful that to this day I hear people who otherwise support the NDP accepting parts of it.

Bullshit can be real.

I totally agree, Sean, that the propaganda had its effect and still might do (not here in QC of course) - my disagreement was with your conclusion that this killed the coalition. There was zero time for any public perceptions to have any effect on anyone. It was killed by: 1) Harper's influence over the G-G; and 2) the betrayal of the Liberal inner circle and their puppet Ignatieff.

I agree in that they betrayed Dion first but public opinion was against it by the time government reconvened. The holidays gave Harper a chance to ramp up opposition.

Pondering

Debater, I hope you don't mind that I ported this over from the http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/heres-stephen-harpers-plan-to-... thread.

It seemed better suited to the campaign discussion.

Debater wrote:
I think a Liberal Minority with the NDP holding the balance of power is something many more voters could agree upon.  I think it's the only arrangement that is likely to occur in 2015, other than another Harper win.  There's no evidence the NDP can win government thus far, and the Liberals aren't going to win a Majority unless there is another major Conservative collapse.

My prediction, I wouldn't rule out a majority. The Trudeau Liberals are at their floor right now. Between now and when the Liberal platform is dropped (probably at the beginning of the official campaign) there won't be much fluctuation beyond what we have seen over the past year. I don't think Mulcair is going to get much of a bounce from the early release of his platform and it will shrink rather than grow if there is one.

Attacks on Trudeau's light resume have had all the impact they ever will have. He is not going to make some huge fatal gaffe and the public doesn't care about the small ones.

You only have to listen to this interview to know that charges of lack of substance will fail. http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/listen/.

He is pitch-perfect. Right now he is only being exposed to people who listen to or watch political TV aside from short newsclips. I think he is going to pick up much more than his fair share of undecided voters.Undecideds are waiting for the campaigns. It may not be a second trudeaumania but it could come close enough that the media will be talking it up.

Few people will admit, even to themselves, that they will vote on the marijuana issue, which is why I think polls are underestimating the impact. It will tip BC once the reality hits that there is only one party committed to legalization. I thought the NDP might fold before the election but I no longer do after the oregano comments. With the media claiming it isn't affecting voters Mulcair and the executive committee will never be convinced to alter their position.

I don't know about seat analysis and vote spread so I am just going on instinct but I think people are going to take to him big.

Maybe Mulcair has something up his sleeve but the talking points I've seen so far don't seem like anything that could bite into Trudeau's support.

 

Pondering

Another score for the Trudeau campaign. He is going to get tons of press on this. There is a lovely picture on the article page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/16/ezra-levant-trudeau-photobomb_n_...

“What happened was Mr. Trudeau ran into the groom and groomsmen who asked him to take a few photos with the wedding party. Mr. Trudeau asked if he could kiss the bride on the cheek, and she happily agreed. It was a fun, lighthearted moment,”...

But the seemingly innocent peck on the cheek had Levant all hot and bothered.

“Look at the photo: a young beautiful bride half Trudeau’s age – he turns 43 this year. She’s dressed in white, it’s her special day,” Levant said. “Hers and her groom’s. And Trudeau kisses her. That’s what he does.”....

how Trudeau’s mom “didn’t like to wear panties back then.”...

Levant filled his rant with suggestions of inappropriate behaviour, accusing Trudeau of flouting the sanctimonious tenets of traditional marriage....

as Levant put it, “that sex comedy where slutty men go to weddings uninvited to bed the maids of honour.”

On Pierre Trudeau “Liona Boyd. Margot Kidder. Kim Cattrall. He banged every one, he was a slut,” Levant said.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I would disagree there-- the public perception was a reality even if it was based on propaganda fed by the Conservatives. It was so successful that to this day I hear people who otherwise support the NDP accepting parts of it.

Bullshit can be real.

I totally agree, Sean, that the propaganda had its effect and still might do (not here in QC of course) - my disagreement was with your conclusion that this killed the coalition. There was zero time for any public perceptions to have any effect on anyone. It was killed by: 1) Harper's influence over the G-G; and 2) the betrayal of the Liberal inner circle and their puppet Ignatieff.

There was also public opinion polling in the 2011 election indicating that not only were Canadians okay with Layton leading a coalition government, but that the public in general was starting to warm up to the idea of a second-place party forming the government.

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Another score for the Trudeau campaign. He is going to get tons of press on this. There is a lovely picture on the article page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/16/ezra-levant-trudeau-photobomb_n_...

“What happened was Mr. Trudeau ran into the groom and groomsmen who asked him to take a few photos with the wedding party. Mr. Trudeau asked if he could kiss the bride on the cheek, and she happily agreed. It was a fun, lighthearted moment,”...

But the seemingly innocent peck on the cheek had Levant all hot and bothered.

“Look at the photo: a young beautiful bride half Trudeau’s age – he turns 43 this year. She’s dressed in white, it’s her special day,” Levant said. “Hers and her groom’s. And Trudeau kisses her. That’s what he does.”....

how Trudeau’s mom “didn’t like to wear panties back then.”...

Levant filled his rant with suggestions of inappropriate behaviour, accusing Trudeau of flouting the sanctimonious tenets of traditional marriage....

as Levant put it, “that sex comedy where slutty men go to weddings uninvited to bed the maids of honour.”

On Pierre Trudeau “Liona Boyd. Margot Kidder. Kim Cattrall. He banged every one, he was a slut,” Levant said.

 


you understand the word progressive right. That includes not quoting a turd like levant when he uses the word slut, male or female in context.

clambake

Pondering wrote:

Another score for the Trudeau campaign. He is going to get tons of press on this. There is a lovely picture on the article page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/16/ezra-levant-trudeau-photobomb_n_...

 

Not sure why you felt this was worth posting other than to ilustrate that you celebrate this type of vapid, empty type of politics. 

Sean in Ottawa

Absolutely-- I think the negativity surrounded the BQ -- even though the BQ was never going to be part of that 2008 government

Pondering

clambake wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Another score for the Trudeau campaign. He is going to get tons of press on this. There is a lovely picture on the article page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/16/ezra-levant-trudeau-photobomb_n_...

Not sure why you felt this was worth posting other than to ilustrate that you celebrate this type of vapid, empty type of politics. 

Of course not. I was astonished at the things he said. I am assuming he will be in trouble over it. This thread is about the campaign and the attacks so far have been back-firing badly and actually aiding Trudeau. That is the result I expect from this bizarre attack. Trudeau's enemies seem bound and determined to help him.

nicky

Embedded image permalink

Pondering

LOL, nothing like a little black humour but I understand why NDP supporters are not amused. I don't believe in fate but Trudeau has been insanely lucky aside from his political instincts and his name. His decision to fight Brazeau was brilliant but he could not have known that Brazeau would become so high profile due to his involvement in the Senate scandal and the domestic assault he has been charged with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/15/patrick-brazeau-university_n_582...

Patrick Brazeau will be in court starting June 1, 2015, for a preliminary inquiry into charges of fraud and breach of trust stemming from his Senate expenses....The court blocked off 12 days for the preliminary inquiry, which lets the judge test the allegations and evidence before proceeding to a trial.

This will hurt Harper of course coming only 4 months before the election but it will also benefit Trudeau as everyone will be reminded of the beat down Trudeau gave Brazeau. The pictures will start floating around again. The "fighter" imagery Mucair is trying to claim as his own will be bestowed on Trudeau by a press chasing click magnet material.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Thanks, nicky, the funniest thing about that cartoon is that it is almost literally how the press, and especially pundits, habitually acts towards Mulcair and Trudeau. The hidden message, of course, is that at some point between now and the election, the public may actually notice this without any help from the press because it's just so obvious.

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:
Thanks, nicky, the funniest thing about that cartoon is that it is almost literally how the press, and especially pundits, habitually acts towards Mulcair and Trudeau. The hidden message, of course, is that at some point between now and the election, the public may actually notice this without any help from the press because it's just so obvious.

Like when they all supported Harper?

jjuares

Politically Trudeau's support of Harpers big adventure will do him harm as Harper extends the mission.

Brachina

http://www.leaderpost.com/touch/story.html?id=10213632

 Trudeau supports a Shun List because he's too lazy to think for himself and do his homework.

bekayne
Brachina

 More excuses for Trudeau. 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
http://www.leaderpost.com/touch/story.html?id=10213632

 Trudeau supports a Shun List because he's too lazy to think for himself and do his homework.

You seriously fell for that?

Quote:
By way of background, Harper's Conservatives have been (dubiously) attacking Trudeau for some time for visiting two Montreal-area mosques. On CTV's Question Period, Robert Fife put that talking point to Trudeau, and received this response:

"I'd actually like to ask the Prime Minister and his public safety minister, can he please give us a list of mosques that politicians shouldn't be visiting? I think it would be important for us to know."

That 's right: according to Trudeau, the Conservative government should use public resources to compile a list of organizations to be avoided for political purposes. (And it's hardly to his credit that Trudeau accepted the Conservatives' choice to single out one religion for attacks.)

He was being sarcastic, making fun of Harper. There are no mosques that politicians shouldn't visit.

If something illegal is going on at a mosque then it should be investigated, if not, then there is no reason for politicians not to go there.

 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 More excuses for Trudeau. 

At the time everyone asked why the Justice Minister wasn't arresting people at the mosque if it was such a hotbed of terrorism that Trudeau shouldn't have been there.

If Harper were to make up a list of mosques people shouldn't visit due to terrorist connections It raises the question why they are not being closed. If Harper actually gave him a list of mosques that shouldn't be visited it would beg the question why they were not being closed.

Sean in Ottawa

Brachina wrote:

http://www.leaderpost.com/touch/story.html?id=10213632

 Trudeau supports a Shun List because he's too lazy to think for himself and do his homework.

I read the Liberal comment as sarcasm-- is there any evidence it is anything but that?

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Brachina wrote:

http://www.leaderpost.com/touch/story.html?id=10213632

 Trudeau supports a Shun List because he's too lazy to think for himself and do his homework.

I read the Liberal comment as sarcasm-- is there any evidence it is anything but that?


Yes, I agree I saw the interview it clearly looks like he was being sarcastic. The next few sentences he mentioned engagement over and over again. I am not a fan of his but this looks like a silly criticism of him.

Pondering

bekayne wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/18/trudeau-open-letter-abortion_n_5...

Awww, the dinosaurs are upset...

Quote:
O’Brien, who quit the Grit caucus over the issue of same-sex marriage and is not a current Liberal party member, said he hopes Trudeau will be a “big enough man” to see his error and correct it.

But it gave Trudeau a chance to say this:

Justin Trudeau, MP        ✔ @JustinTrudeau Follow

The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights.

NorthReport wrote:

Harper attacks Trudeau; promises to address gun owner concerns
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/harper-attacks-trudeau-promises-to-addres...

Thanks that was pretty funny. Harper is turning into a caricature of himself if that is possible. Gun owners may not have liked the long gun registry but most are not militia types either. They may not draw the line in the same place as non-gun owners but they don't want a free for all either.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights" The NDP has made this part of its Offical Party Platfrom since 1971, "Pondering". Where were the Libs for almost 45 years.

Brachina

Pondering wrote:

bekayne wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/18/trudeau-open-letter-abortion_n_5...

Awww, the dinosaurs are upset...

Quote:
O’Brien, who quit the Grit caucus over the issue of same-sex marriage and is not a current Liberal party member, said he hopes Trudeau will be a “big enough man” to see his error and correct it.

But it gave Trudeau a chance to say this:

Justin Trudeau, MP        ✔ @JustinTrudeau Follow

The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights.

NorthReport wrote:

Harper attacks Trudeau; promises to address gun owner concerns
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/harper-attacks-trudeau-promises-to-addres...

Thanks that was pretty funny. Harper is turning into a caricature of himself if that is possible. Gun owners may not have liked the long gun registry but most are not militia types either. They may not draw the line in the same place as non-gun owners but they don't want a free for all either.

 

 I know some old men who are prochoice who are upset at the agist cheap shot. It becomes clearer that Justin has contempt for the older folks who are his greatest supporters.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
I know some old men who are prochoice who are upset at the agist cheap shot. It becomes clearer that Justin has contempt for the older folks who are his greatest supporters.

lol, really? It was in reference to the past when politicians were all old WASP men who forbade women from having abortions. Those days are gone. You seem to know some pretty sensitive guys.

As you noted, older "folks" are among his greatest supporters. If you are right and this is an affront to old "folks" then he will lose support. I doubt that will happen so will shall see how damaging this comment is.

I am pondering if I should start using the term "you young folk". 

Pages

Topic locked