Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Just caught the tag line, Having trouble telling Liberals and Conservatives apart? LOLLOLLOL 

You really think you are going to convince people that the Liberals and Conservative are the same! With the Liberals promising a deficit! Not likely. 

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Nothing was there for me either.  But maybe this is it:

That's good. It's the simple message the NDP needs to spread: "NDP will do this, the Conservatives won't." I notice that the headlines still say, "Mulcair promises this" rather than "Mulcair blasts other party leaders" which is a good sign.

A checklist like this is a good approach -- I don't think you have to say the Conservatives are the same -- just let the policies show that the NDP is different.

It is not a right-left thing to point out that Liberals are now in love with deficits as much as are Conservatives -- who only when cutting -- pretend different.

But the NDP should back up this more macro vision with ads instead of those stupid radio ads being discussed. The NDPneeds to show the courage and fight on its platform. The platform deserves support and has been the best part of the campaign -- Mulcair does not speak enough to the most important policies and neither do the ads. A focus on bashing Trudeau over small things could drive voters back to the Conservatives. The NDP must provide reasons to earn the support of voters not just bang away hoping to get whatever they can chip off the others.

Perhaps the problem is too many advisors who think in a US-style two-party election where you automatically pick up whatever support you bash off the other party.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Perhaps the problem is too many advisors who think in a US-style two-party election where you automatically pick up whatever support you bash off the other party.

I maintain that the federal party learned some bad lessons from the NDP success in Manitoba, particularly where it comes to treating your membership as a reserve for free labour at election time and cash, but more importantly, assuming that as the main party you can slide in when people are tired of the other guys, and overlooking the fact that the federal NDP is nowhere near as well established as their provincial counterparts in Manitoba.

Rev Pesky

jjuares wrote:
Please do not respond to the above post and let another thread be derailed. This is not only good for the discourse on this site but will have health benefits for you. In fact even reading the post above may do irreparable harm to your cognitive abilities.

I look at the thread title and it says it's about the Trudeau campaign. How do you think the post referenced could derail the thread, or was that just a joke?

 

jjuares

Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Please do not respond to the above post and let another thread be derailed. This is not only good for the discourse on this site but will have health benefits for you. In fact even reading the post above may do irreparable harm to your cognitive abilities.

I look at the thread title and it says it's about the Trudeau campaign. How do you think the post referenced could derail the thread, or was that just a joke?

 


Well if you look at the title it says "Trudeau campaign" not "Trudeau the saint" or "Trudeau the wise" or "Trudeau the all powerful" or "Trudeau the second coming of Christ." Just respond and you will see what I mean.

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuR7aQNpm9c]A fitting tribute to the Liberal's time in office throughout the 1990s.[/url]

Geoff

jjuares wrote:
Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Please do not respond to the above post and let another thread be derailed. This is not only good for the discourse on this site but will have health benefits for you. In fact even reading the post above may do irreparable harm to your cognitive abilities.

I look at the thread title and it says it's about the Trudeau campaign. How do you think the post referenced could derail the thread, or was that just a joke?

 

Well if you look at the title it says "Trudeau campaign" not "Trudeau the saint" or "Trudeau the wise" or "Trudeau the all powerful" or "Trudeau the second coming of Christ." Just respond and you will see what I mean.

He was born on Christmas Day, you know.

Jacob Two-Two

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuR7aQNpm9c]A fitting tribute to the Liberal's time in office throughout the 1990s.[/url]

Ha, when I clicked on that, Justin's elevator ad was playing before it. How appropriate.

Aristotleded24

Geoff wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Rev Pesky wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Please do not respond to the above post and let another thread be derailed. This is not only good for the discourse on this site but will have health benefits for you. In fact even reading the post above may do irreparable harm to your cognitive abilities.

I look at the thread title and it says it's about the Trudeau campaign. How do you think the post referenced could derail the thread, or was that just a joke?

 

Well if you look at the title it says "Trudeau campaign" not "Trudeau the saint" or "Trudeau the wise" or "Trudeau the all powerful" or "Trudeau the second coming of Christ." Just respond and you will see what I mean.

He was born on Christmas Day, you know.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpnXjIouvMw]Indeed he was[/url]

Pondering

LaPresse endorsed Trudeau 2 days ago.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/la-presse-endorses-trudeaus...

Justin Trudeau has picked up the first major editorial endorsement of the election, winning the support of a Montreal newspaper that had been cool to the Liberal Party in recent campaigns.

....

“Our choice is motivated by the leadership style of Justin Trudeau. In contrast to Mr. Harper, and to [NDP Leader Thomas] Mulcair to a point, Mr. Trudeau promotes a constructive approach to politics,” the editorial said. “He avoids personal attacks. He likes people, and they like him back. He has a bit of Laurier in him. … He is ready.”

La Presse said that under Mr. Harper, Canada was ruled by an “ultraconservative minority” that failed to find compromises on key issues. The editorial blasted the Conservative government’s handling of environmental matters, international affairs and its treatment of independent federal agencies such as Statistics Canada.

 

 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
LaPresse endorsed Trudeau 2 days ago.

i noted this in another thread along with the reality the last time la presse endorsed anyone it was Harper in 2006. so there ya go on what kind of taste la presse has.

Quote:
La Presse said that under Mr. Harper, Canada was ruled by an “ultraconservative minority”

and here they're just telling us Justin is ruled by a Conservative cabal not an "ultraconservative" one....lololol

 

Pondering

Whoops! Looks like Mulcair changed his mind on coalitions again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/08/harper-tpp_n_8265160.html?utm_hp...

With recent polls suggesting the Liberals may be solidifying their support under Trudeau, but not quite enough to win a majority, Mulcair gave no assurances that his New Democrats would work with a minority Liberal government in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mulcair appeared to push his party further away from his opponents, saying he has become less inclined since the campaign began Aug. 2 to be collegial.

"I've had a chance to know both of my adversaries, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau, in the House and I can tell you that I try always to have respect for my adversaries," Mulcair said.

"That respect, frankly, is under a great deal of strain these days," he added, accusing Trudeau of being too afraid to oppose the Conservatives on major policies and saying he was "appalled" at how Harper has run his campaign by "playing the politics of race."

Mulcair seems to be flailing all over the place now. Guess he's decided to ditch the centrist approach.

KarlL

He's reacting to seeing it all come crashing down around him.  A month or so ago he was the odds-on favourite for PM.  Now he's going to end up a distant third, with a loss of seats and huge diminution of his main value proposition - delivering Quebec.  

It wouldn't matter which party leader was going through that.  Nobody would be anything other than chippy about a question on supporting another leader. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Whoops! Looks like Mulcair changed his mind on coalitions again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/08/harper-tpp_n_8265160.html?utm_hp...

With recent polls suggesting the Liberals may be solidifying their support under Trudeau, but not quite enough to win a majority, Mulcair gave no assurances that his New Democrats would work with a minority Liberal government in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mulcair appeared to push his party further away from his opponents, saying he has become less inclined since the campaign began Aug. 2 to be collegial.

"I've had a chance to know both of my adversaries, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau, in the House and I can tell you that I try always to have respect for my adversaries," Mulcair said.

"That respect, frankly, is under a great deal of strain these days," he added, accusing Trudeau of being too afraid to oppose the Conservatives on major policies and saying he was "appalled" at how Harper has run his campaign by "playing the politics of race."

Mulcair seems to be flailing all over the place now. Guess he's decided to ditch the centrist approach.

Pondering, that was a disgusting post! You should feel some shame for it. Remember one thing Pondering, what goes around, comes around. And one other thing it shows, it is going to be almost impossible for the NDP to work with the Liberals; they're the ones doing everything they can to make this so, and I include you in that group.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whoops! Looks like Mulcair changed his mind on coalitions again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/08/harper-tpp_n_8265160.html?utm_hp...

With recent polls suggesting the Liberals may be solidifying their support under Trudeau, but not quite enough to win a majority, Mulcair gave no assurances that his New Democrats would work with a minority Liberal government in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mulcair appeared to push his party further away from his opponents, saying he has become less inclined since the campaign began Aug. 2 to be collegial.

"I've had a chance to know both of my adversaries, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau, in the House and I can tell you that I try always to have respect for my adversaries," Mulcair said.

"That respect, frankly, is under a great deal of strain these days," he added, accusing Trudeau of being too afraid to oppose the Conservatives on major policies and saying he was "appalled" at how Harper has run his campaign by "playing the politics of race."

Mulcair seems to be flailing all over the place now. Guess he's decided to ditch the centrist approach.

Pondering, that was a disgusting post! You should feel some shame for it. Remember one thing Pondering, what goes around, comes around. And one other thing it shows, it is going to be almost impossible for the NDP to work with the Liberals; they're the ones doing everything they can to make this so, and I include you in that group.

Mulcair will have no choice but to support a Liberal minority if that is the result of the election. Trying to force the Liberals into an agreement prior to the election was not taking the high ground.

There is nothing "disgusting" about the post. Mulcair has been very insulting and dismissive towards Trudeau. Now it looks like the NDP campaign plan imploded.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whoops! Looks like Mulcair changed his mind on coalitions again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/08/harper-tpp_n_8265160.html?utm_hp...

With recent polls suggesting the Liberals may be solidifying their support under Trudeau, but not quite enough to win a majority, Mulcair gave no assurances that his New Democrats would work with a minority Liberal government in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mulcair appeared to push his party further away from his opponents, saying he has become less inclined since the campaign began Aug. 2 to be collegial.

"I've had a chance to know both of my adversaries, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau, in the House and I can tell you that I try always to have respect for my adversaries," Mulcair said.

"That respect, frankly, is under a great deal of strain these days," he added, accusing Trudeau of being too afraid to oppose the Conservatives on major policies and saying he was "appalled" at how Harper has run his campaign by "playing the politics of race."

Mulcair seems to be flailing all over the place now. Guess he's decided to ditch the centrist approach.

Pondering, that was a disgusting post! You should feel some shame for it. Remember one thing Pondering, what goes around, comes around. And one other thing it shows, it is going to be almost impossible for the NDP to work with the Liberals; they're the ones doing everything they can to make this so, and I include you in that group.

Mulcair will have no choice but to support a Liberal minority if that is the result of the election. Trying to force the Liberals into an agreement prior to the election was not taking the high ground.

There is nothing "disgusting" about the post. Mulcair has been very insulting and dismissive towards Trudeau. Now it looks like the NDP campaign plan imploded.

Pondering, you use such imperious language; how dare the peasants stand up to me. Off with their heads. Please, Mulcair insulting, who said the NDP wasn't Jack Layton's party, oh yeah your leader. You guys fired the first shot, laid it own, and now like a bully are whining because you're being out again. You are such a whiny, immature baby Pondering. Grow the hell up for Chirst sake!

Mulcair will have no choice? Really? We'll see, Queen Pondering. I live Winnipeg. I'll be waiting for the Imperial Gaurd, your Majesty!

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Mulcair will have no choice but to support a Liberal minority if that is the result of the election.

There's always a choice.  If what is put forward in a throne speech or budget or whatever is supportable from an NDP perspective, then of course support would be given.  If it's not supportable from the NDP's perspective, then support should not be given.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, you use such imperious language; how dare the peasants stand up to me. Off with their heads. Please, Mulcair insulting, who said the NDP wasn't Jack Layton's party, oh yeah your leader. You guys fired the first shot, laid it own, and now like a bully are whining because you're being out again. You are such a whiny, immature baby Pondering. Grow the hell up for Chirst sake!

Mulcair will have no choice? Really? We'll see, Queen Pondering. I live Winnipeg. I'll be waiting for the Imperial Gaurd, your Majesty!

LOL, I'm not complaining, I'm laughing. I've been watching Trudeau defy expectations since he ran for the Liberal leadership. I watched the NDP get all cocky when they went up in the polls. I want Trudeau to win so I am delighted by the NDP campaign. Lucky for Trudeau it's a crappy campaign.

I want the Conservatives to fall to 3rd because I believe the whole party will implode, pop like a balloon, because all that is left is the Reformers. They won, they got the name, but in doing so they have alienated the PCs. Having the NDP in opposition would hold Trudeau's feet to the fire and strengthen the NDP for 2019. On the other hand, if the NDP falls back to third they might realize the error of their ways and go left whereas if the Conservatives implode the NDP might decide to play it safe and solidify their new approach of being the New Liberals. If the Conservatives implode then more red tories will move to the Liberals drawing them farther right. The NDP could very well become the New Liberals.

As another poster noted, Trudeau's campaign promises are all modest enough to keep. I want marijuana legalization now to stop the injustice and so Canada can become a leader in medical research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/08/canadians-backing-pot-legalizati...

Guimont sent the note to provide context for newly released Statistics Canada figures on drug-related offences in Canada in 2013 and the "considerable police, court and criminal justice resources" they involved.

The note says that since 1991, the crime rate has dropped by 50 per cent while the rate for drug offences has increased by about the same amount — now accounting for about one in every 20 police incidents.

Canadian police reported about 73,000 cannabis offences in 2013 — 80 per cent of them for possession.

However, the note points out, cannabis possession cases tend to be suspended or withdrawn, with less than half of those in adult court resulting in a conviction.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has proposed changing the law to give officers discretion to simply issue a ticket for possession of a small amount of cannabis — but the government hasn't acted on that suggestion.

At the same time, police have concentrated resources on tackling marijuana grow operations, which often involve organized crime and generate funds for other illicit ventures.

Pondering

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/09/for-justin-trudeau-...

Toronto Star endorses Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for prime minister ‘The Liberal party under Justin Trudeau has crafted an alternative vision for the country that deserves the support of those who believe Canada can be more generous, more ambitious and more successful.’

You can't deny Trudeau is on a roll. That's two endorsements. La Presse and The Star.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/09/for-justin-trudeau-...

Toronto Star endorses Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for prime minister ‘The Liberal party under Justin Trudeau has crafted an alternative vision for the country that deserves the support of those who believe Canada can be more generous, more ambitious and more successful.’

You can't deny Trudeau is on a roll. That's two endorsements. La Presse and The Star.

[satire] Oh Pondering, don't you know it's just the anti-NDP MSM trying to make sure the feds stay in bed with corporate Canada? [/satire]

quizzical

it's not satire at all. it's truth.  and i guess you're part of the lying liars club.

la presse endorsed Harper last says a lot about Trudeau

Quote:
Conservatives and Liberals have campaigned on countless promises since their parties’ inceptions and henceforth failed to implement many of said promises once entrusted with power by voters at the polls. Despite this sobering reality, for whatever reason, we just keep going back for more and idiotically anticipating something different.

...though these two parties like to think of themselves as different as night and day, in many ways, they’re one in the same. Don’t believe me? Indulge me for a moment:

Both parties have been placed under criminal investigation on numerous occasions (as most of us are well aware, some of these cases are still before the courts) as a result of lying to the Canadian public, misappropriating public funds, breaking election laws, and so on.

...By the same token, Trudeau’s various interviews pertaining to women’s inequality including his one-on-one with Up for Debate last month (wherein Trudeau claimed that gender inequality stemmed from single parent families and rap music—I’m still face-palming over this one), he has repeatedly demonstrated a mere remedial grasp on the issues, offering little substance and no concrete solutions. Oh, and hey ladies: let’s not forget “Justin: Unplugged”—that patronizing cocktail fundraiser that infuriated women from across the political spectrum back in 2013; inviting us “ladies” to “get to really know the future prime minister.”

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2015/10/08/opinion-canadians-inca...

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

More non committement while accusing others of plaing politics from Trudeau, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/parties-make-their-final-pitch-to-voters-1.3260296/trudeau-won-t-commit-to-emissions-targets-canada-doesn-t-need-ambitious-political-numbers-1.3260300. He's going to neoogtiate away our soveringty in the name of "pragmistism" for Liberal policial gain. He's just more of the same; a Libswho when he talks, neither means what he says, nor is saying what it sounds like! 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

More non committement while accusing others of plaing politics from Trudeau, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/parties-make-their-final-pitch-to-voters-1.3260296/trudeau-won-t-commit-to-emissions-targets-canada-doesn-t-need-ambitious-political-numbers-1.3260300. He's going to neoogtiate away our soveringty in the name of "pragmistism" for Liberal policial gain. He's just more of the same; a Libswho when he talks, neither means what he says, nor is saying what it sounds like! 

Trudeau said national emissions targets would be set after consultation with the provinces.

"The provinces have stepped up," he said. "What we need is federal leadership that works with them to actually reduce emissions."

But for now, no clear number is being offered as a target by the Liberals. Trudeau said that is an intentional move away from previous political responses to combating climate change.

"One of the things we've seen from political parties of all stripes — including my party in the past — is talking about targets on a political level, but not necessarily implementing a plan to achieve those targets," he said.

"Our number is $20 billion in investments in green infrastructure over the next 10 years," he added when pressed for a specific target number. "We're talking about $2 billion in a trust to help provinces make the shift to lower emissions. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars invested in green energy initiatives, in clean technology initiatives."

It sounds to me like he is rejecting setting a specific target at this time which seems like the smart thing to do given that previous targets haven't been met and the climate change talks are coming up which Trudeau is inviting the premiers to participate in.

The most populous provinces have already established systems to reduce emissions and the provinces have different challenges depending on their primary industries and energy sources. Ample hydro-electric power in Quebec greatly enhances our ability to meet targets that would be unreasonable to ask of Alberta with their economic dependence on the oil sands. Those oil sands are bound to be a topic of discussion at the climate change talks. Realistically targets won't be met without provincial buy in.

If Alberta does manage to get Keystone accepted in the states, what's the NDP going to do to stop Alberta? Send in troops?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

More non committement while accusing others of plaing politics from Trudeau, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/parties-make-their-final-pitch-to-voters-1.3260296/trudeau-won-t-commit-to-emissions-targets-canada-doesn-t-need-ambitious-political-numbers-1.3260300. He's going to neoogtiate away our soveringty in the name of "pragmistism" for Liberal policial gain. He's just more of the same; a Libswho when he talks, neither means what he says, nor is saying what it sounds like! 

Trudeau said national emissions targets would be set after consultation with the provinces.

"The provinces have stepped up," he said. "What we need is federal leadership that works with them to actually reduce emissions."

But for now, no clear number is being offered as a target by the Liberals. Trudeau said that is an intentional move away from previous political responses to combating climate change.

"One of the things we've seen from political parties of all stripes — including my party in the past — is talking about targets on a political level, but not necessarily implementing a plan to achieve those targets," he said.

"Our number is $20 billion in investments in green infrastructure over the next 10 years," he added when pressed for a specific target number. "We're talking about $2 billion in a trust to help provinces make the shift to lower emissions. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars invested in green energy initiatives, in clean technology initiatives."

It sounds to me like he is rejecting setting a specific target at this time which seems like the smart thing to do given that previous targets haven't been met and the climate change talks are coming up which Trudeau is inviting the premiers to participate in.

The most populous provinces have already established systems to reduce emissions and the provinces have different challenges depending on their primary industries and energy sources. Ample hydro-electric power in Quebec greatly enhances our ability to meet targets that would be unreasonable to ask of Alberta with their economic dependence on the oil sands. Those oil sands are bound to be a topic of discussion at the climate change talks. Realistically targets won't be met without provincial buy in.

If Alberta does manage to get Keystone accepted in the states, what's the NDP going to do to stop Alberta? Send in troops?

You have a misleading, truth bending answer for everything don't you Pondering?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Some truy infomred opion from Qubec why Canadians should vote the NDP into power, and not be duped by the Liberals; http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/452253/pourquoi-nous-appuyons-l... to see. I suspect on election day this will reflect itself more fully then a majoirty of self declared Quebex experts on this board seem to think to be the case! 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Some truy infomred opion from Qubec why Canadians should vote the NDP into power, and not be duped by the Liberals; http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/452253/pourquoi-nous-appuyons-l... to see. I suspect on election day this will reflect itself more fully then a majoirty of self declared Quebex experts on this board seem to think to be the case! 

Your link isn't working.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
pookie

Interesting and thoughtful.  At first I read it as a newspaper endorsement then realized it was a private group.

Debater

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Sat Oct 10 2015

Trudeau likely only leader who’ll contest next election

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/10/trudeau-likely-o...

Pondering

Debater wrote:

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Sat Oct 10 2015

Trudeau likely only leader who’ll contest next election

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/10/trudeau-likely-o...

To make matters worse, if the NDP ends up back in third place, it will not be because it stood against the Conservative anti-terrorism act or opposed Canada’s military role in its mission against Islamic extremists in the Middle East, or even because it stood against a niqab ban.

From the New Democrat perspective, those would all be good hills to die on.

What has really ailed the Mulcair campaign has been an excess of prudence and a failure to cast the party as a compelling, convincing agent of change. On that score, the Liberals did not steal the ground from under the feet of the New Democrats. The latter left it vacant for Trudeau to occupy.

Ouch

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I don't care what Hebert says; Tom will stay, the NDP NEVER knifes its leader, EVER! Unless he leaves he'll be around. The NDP is the only party that campaigns on principle, not for power like the Libs.

bekayne

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 the NDP NEVER knifes its leader, EVER!

Carol James, Greg Selinger

Aristotleded24

Arthur Cramer wrote:
More non committement while accusing others of plaing politics from Trudeau, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/parties-make-their-final-pitch-to-voters-1.3260296/trudeau-won-t-commit-to-emissions-targets-canada-doesn-t-need-ambitious-political-numbers-1.3260300. He's going to neoogtiate away our soveringty in the name of "pragmistism" for Liberal policial gain. He's just more of the same; a Libswho when he talks, neither means what he says, nor is saying what it sounds like!

I have to give the Liberals credit for learning from history. They know that people are no longer falling for the Liberals ploys of promising one thing during a campaign and never delivering, so it appears they've just stopped promising. It's disapopinting that he's dismissing targeted reductions as "political," even though the ambitious targets put forward by the Greens and the NDP still fall short of what scientists have said is necessary. So what is Trudueau saying, vote for me I'm not really going to do anything?

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Something greater than themselves?!

Harper & his operatives are some of the most ruthless, unprincipled criminals to ever take power in Canada.

The only thing they believe in is winning power at all costs -- even breaking Canada's election laws & trying to steal elections to do it.

Perhaps you need to read the book on Harper by Michael Harris to be reminded of how dangerous this man is.

Come on, Aristotle.  You are better than this.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

Debater wrote:

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Sat Oct 10 2015

Trudeau likely only leader who’ll contest next election

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/10/trudeau-likely-o...

To make matters worse, if the NDP ends up back in third place, it will not be because it stood against the Conservative anti-terrorism act or opposed Canada’s military role in its mission against Islamic extremists in the Middle East, or even because it stood against a niqab ban.

From the New Democrat perspective, those would all be good hills to die on.

What has really ailed the Mulcair campaign has been an excess of prudence and a failure to cast the party as a compelling, convincing agent of change. On that score, the Liberals did not steal the ground from under the feet of the New Democrats. The latter left it vacant for Trudeau to occupy.

Ouch

Yeah, no. The only way that happens is if Trudeau wins a majority, and the math and the geography required for a Liberal majority is not there. The best thing he can hope for is a minority. In that kind of unstable situation, do you think either the Conservatives or the NDP would hand an advantage to the Liberals by distracting themselves with a leadership race.

By the way, since Mulcair won the by-election in Outrement, pundits were predicting that in the next election Jack would lose seats and that would create a perfect opening for Mulcair to become leader. How did those predictions turn out?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Something greater than themselves?!

Harper & his operatives are some of the most ruthless, unprincipled criminals to ever take power in Canada.

The only thing they believe in is winning power at all costs -- even breaking Canada's election laws & trying to steal elections to do it.

Perhaps you need to read the book on Harper by Michael Harris to be reminded of how dangerous this man is.

Come on, Aristotle.  You are better than this.

Debater, who are you speaking to, Ari, or, yourself?

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Something greater than themselves?!

Harper & his operatives are some of the most ruthless, unprincipled criminals to ever take power in Canada.

The only thing they believe in is winning power at all costs -- even breaking Canada's election laws & trying to steal elections to do it.

Perhaps you need to read the book on Harper by Michael Harris to be reminded of how dangerous this man is.

Come on, Aristotle.  You are better than this.

That is rich coming from the guy who allegedly quit his riding executive position on a "point of principle" on C-51 when the Liberals were polling badly, and is now back shilling for the red team when they are back on top.

Liberal hypocrisy is what disgusts me about Liberals, whereas the Tories are pretty transparent about their agenda. I think that is what Artistotle is talking about.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Something greater than themselves?!

Harper & his operatives are some of the most ruthless, unprincipled criminals to ever take power in Canada.

The only thing they believe in is winning power at all costs -- even breaking Canada's election laws & trying to steal elections to do it.

Perhaps you need to read the book on Harper by Michael Harris to be reminded of how dangerous this man is.

Come on, Aristotle.  You are better than this.

Yes, I am well aware of the crimes that the Conservatives are willing to commit. The thing is, they are, for the most part, up front about the fact that they want to gain and hold on to power at any cost. With the Conservatives, you know exactly what you are dealing with. With the Liberals, the positions constantly change depending on what is expedient or what they think people want to hear. Remember when Chretien took away the GST like he promised?

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Debater wrote:

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Sat Oct 10 2015

Trudeau likely only leader who’ll contest next election

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/10/trudeau-likely-o...

To make matters worse, if the NDP ends up back in third place, it will not be because it stood against the Conservative anti-terrorism act or opposed Canada’s military role in its mission against Islamic extremists in the Middle East, or even because it stood against a niqab ban.

From the New Democrat perspective, those would all be good hills to die on.

What has really ailed the Mulcair campaign has been an excess of prudence and a failure to cast the party as a compelling, convincing agent of change. On that score, the Liberals did not steal the ground from under the feet of the New Democrats. The latter left it vacant for Trudeau to occupy.

Ouch

Certain amount of truth to this, however, Hebert, and most of the rest of the media were more than kind to Trudeau, even when he opined such nonsense such as "humanitarian aid" and "peacekeeping" will "grow the economy and create jobs", during the Munk Foreign Policy debate.

The myth of Justin's audaciousness is entirely a media creation, when one considers that his neo-Keynsian deficit driven "infrastructure" vote buy only rings in at $5 bln a year, when Wynne was offering $3 bln a year in the last Ontario election. I mean if Ontario is going to find $3 bln, the feds can't come up with $10 bln.

But no, for some reason "deficit" spending has been pitched as something "new" and "progressive" even though nearly every single government since WWI has managed some kind of "deficit", or other an there is nothing particularly progressive about it. It's just business as usually.

The media has become so inured in their own right-wing propaganda that they truly believable that "big spending socialists run up big deficits", and therefore if Trudeau is promising a deficit he must be "left-wing".

Surely, a truly audacious stimulus budget would at least match the one put forward by Stephen Harper in 2009, when he ponied up a $55 bln "stimulus" budget. By that measure if Trudeau is a socialist as measured by the size of his deficit, then Stephen Harper is Karl Marx.

The NDP, as usual, are in the damned if you do, and damned if you don't position. If they declare that they will be fiscally "prudent" by "balancing the budget" they will be called "right-wing" even though they are "making the rich pay" by increasing corporate taxes, or get called "lunatic fringe" wild eyed socialists if they suggested they might use deficit financing.

Hope you all can sleep at night.

Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 the NDP NEVER knifes its leader, EVER!

Carol James, Greg Selinger

Niki Ashton is 33. She will be 37 at the time of the next election if this one fulfills a full mandate.

I gotta say-- I would be very interested in seeing what the party would look like run by her.

I am not sure Tom Mulcair will want to stay as leader if the party does not do well this time. I think he might remain an MP for a while though.

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Something greater than themselves?!

Harper & his operatives are some of the most ruthless, unprincipled criminals to ever take power in Canada.

The only thing they believe in is winning power at all costs -- even breaking Canada's election laws & trying to steal elections to do it.

Perhaps you need to read the book on Harper by Michael Harris to be reminded of how dangerous this man is.

Come on, Aristotle.  You are better than this.

Yes, I am well aware of the crimes that the Conservatives are willing to commit. The thing is, they are, for the most part, up front about the fact that they want to gain and hold on to power at any cost. With the Conservatives, you know exactly what you are dealing with. With the Liberals, the positions constantly change depending on what is expedient or what they think people want to hear. Remember when Chretien took away the GST like he promised?

There's no doubt that the Liberals have broken promises over the years.  I don't disagree with you on that in the slightest.

But what party or government doesn't?  It's an unfortunate reality of politics.  Take your own province of Manitoba as an example.  As you know, Selinger broke his promise on the PST.

Btw, I disagree with you that the Conservatives are honest & up front about who they are.

Let's not forget that Harper promised Canadians in 2006 that he would bring in a new Golden Age of ethics, transparency and morality.  And he has been doing the exact opposite ever since.  The Conservatives never admit when they lie or deceive, and they are still refusing to admit when they have been caught lying in these recent PMO scandals that Robert Fife exposed.

How you can claim that they are honest when they are anything but is a surprise to me.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am not sure Tom Mulcair will want to stay as leader if the party does not do well this time. I think he might remain an MP for a while though.

Changing NDP leaders during a minority Parliament would be electoral suicide for the NDP. After having drained its resources both to fight the campaign and put in a new leader, the NDP will be in the weakest position of all the parties. Plus, the leadership race means the NDP will not want to pull the plug on the government while sorting out its internal affairs, and if it's a Harper minority, you can bet that the Liberals will use that to their advantage. So after the NDP is finished beating itself up choosing a new leader who will face the exact same learning curve that Mulcair and Layton faced their first times out, the Liberals and Conservatives will team up to call an election to essentially finish off the NDP both as a political party and as a force for progressive change. Even if the NDP survives, there will be intense pressure once again for the NDP to embrace a Third Way, and this pressure will be particularly intense if Mulcair's immediate successor is from the left flank of the party.

Remember also that the Liberals changed leaders each time and had a new face for each election during Harper's minority reign. How did that work out for them?

As I said, if it's a minority Parliament (which is looking increasingly likely), none of the parties will want to risk changing leaders and handing the advantage to their opponents.

No, the NDP entered this campaign with the second highest seat count, the best ever going into a federal election, and we still have to fight to win this thing, polls be damned. We'll have a clearer sense of where we need to go after the election, and a great deal of time then to reflect. Right now, our priority should be entering the final stretch of this campaign and to do our absolute best.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
There's no doubt that the Liberals have broken promises over the years.  I don't disagree with you on that in the slightest.

But what party or government doesn't?  It's an unfortunate reality of politics.  Take your own province of Manitoba as an example.  As you know, Selinger broke his promise on the PST.

If you follow my comments, you will know that not only have I been critical of the direction of the Manitoba NDP throught my entire time as a member of this community, but that I actually voted against him in the last leadership race.

Yes, parties or governments do lie from time to time, and that is unfortunate. The difference is that the NDP and the Conservatives will sometimes lie to accomplish something they will argue is in the public interest. Liberal behaviour seems to be more about jockeying for personal power.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

As abhorrent as I find the Conservative ideology, I can at least respect that they believe in something greater than themselves and they have the courage to advocate for it regardless of how unpopular it is.

Something greater than themselves?!

Harper & his operatives are some of the most ruthless, unprincipled criminals to ever take power in Canada.

The only thing they believe in is winning power at all costs -- even breaking Canada's election laws & trying to steal elections to do it.

Perhaps you need to read the book on Harper by Michael Harris to be reminded of how dangerous this man is.

Come on, Aristotle.  You are better than this.

Yes, I am well aware of the crimes that the Conservatives are willing to commit. The thing is, they are, for the most part, up front about the fact that they want to gain and hold on to power at any cost. With the Conservatives, you know exactly what you are dealing with. With the Liberals, the positions constantly change depending on what is expedient or what they think people want to hear. Remember when Chretien took away the GST like he promised?

There's no doubt that the Liberals have broken promises over the years.  I don't disagree with you on that in the slightest.

But what party or government doesn't?  It's an unfortunate reality of politics.  Take your own province of Manitoba as an example.  As you know, Selinger broke his promise on the PST.

Btw, I disagree with you that the Conservatives are honest & up front about who they are.

Let's not forget that Harper promised Canadians in 2006 that he would bring in a new Golden Age of ethics, transparency and morality.  And he has been doing the exact opposite ever since.  The Conservatives never admit when they lie or deceive, and they are still refusing to admit when they have been caught lying in these recent PMO scandals that Robert Fife exposed.

How you can claim that they are honest when they are anything but is a surprise to me.

Your reading comprehension of that paragraph is off.

There was not suggestion that the Conservatives were honest and they lie about many specific issues.

However, nobody can really say we did not know what they were. They do promise a right wing reactionary government and that is essentially what they deliver. They lie about details but not who they are.

they lied about cleaning up and improving democracy but in terms of their right-left position people knew who they were -- and many of their lies are never believed.

Debater

As far as most Canadians could tell, the Harper Conservatives ran as moderate Conservatives when they came into power.

I don't think they ever campaigned on being a "right wing reactionary government".

They portrayed themselves as Red Tories in order to get into power and convince people that Harper was not the right-wing ideologue he always was.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
the Liberals and Conservatives will team up to call an election to essentially finish off the NDP both as a political party and as a force for progressive change.

What makes you think the Conservatives want to get rid of the NDP? It's well documented that Harper's grand plan has been to marginalize the Liberals. It's worked pretty well for him from 2006 to 2011.

Harper regards the Liberals and NDP as essentially the same and he regards a viable Liberal party as the bigger threat long term. I'm not asking you to believe that, but he does.

 

 

Cody87

One thing is certain. Short of Trudeau doing something really, really dumb (which is not likely at this stage), Mulcair is not going to personally like Trudeau more after October 19th. So I agree with Sean that Mulcair may choose to step down (rather than wok with Trudeau) as opposed to being forced out. If he does step down as leader, I don't think Mulcair will stay as an MP for very long, but this is just due to my own personal low opinion of Mulcair's motivations (which may be incorrect). He's been an MP long enough to get the pension, and if he's stepped down he'll never be PM. Why stay?

That all being said, I feel the best case scenario for the NDP (out of realistically possible outcomes, assuming the NDP does poorly this election) is: strong Trudeau minority. Harper and Mulcair step down immediately and resign as MP's within 6 months. The CPC picks a blue liberal/red tory leader, other than Michael Chong. The NDP picks a leader halfway to the left of Mulcair (still appealing to Liberal voters), with more personal magnetism and critically, a sunny disposition similar to Jack Layton and Justin Trudeau. Then the last part, and probably the single most important: Justin Trudeau needs to prove the NDP shills on this board right, break a bunch of promises including meaningful electoral reform, and govern from the right. The NDP and CPC can bring Trudeau down on broken promises in 2018 on the budget, and the NDP will do the best (read: make the most gains) in that election, followed by the CPC with the LPC losing seats.

Otherwise, if the CPC splits then this would be to the NDP's benefit as PC's would have a home again and take votes from LPC - but if Trudeau governs from the left then he won't lose much and the NDP probably won't gain at all.

My reasoning for why each of these factors is important is below:

If Trudeau keeps his promises, his vote share will almost certainly increase in the next election no matter what the other parties do (his number of seats may decline due to PR/IRV/etc. but his share will go up). If Mulcair stays, and Trudeau breaks promises/governs from the right, Trudeau will probably get away with it. If Harper stays, fear of Harper will keep Trudeau in power no matter what the NDP does - in fact, Trudeau may do even better in this scenario by breaking promises in some cases then being honest. If Chong wins the CPC leadership (unlikely), the CPC will rebound much faster then otherwise, and will gain more than the NDP (Chong being elected CPC leader is worst case for Trudeau, if Trudeau is a Fiberal). And naturally, should the NDP elect another leader that can't compete with Trudeau in personal magnetism/attitude, then Trudeau will still have a decent chance of succeeding by appealing to emotion rather than reason, even if the NDP puts out a better platform. (Please do not interpret this as me suggesting this is why Trudeau is winning this election. This election Trudeau has a more durable platform, as well his personal likability advantage)

jjuares

Cody87 wrote:

One thing is certain. Short of Trudeau doing something really, really dumb (which is not likely at this stage), Mulcair is not going to personally like Trudeau more after October 19th. So I agree with Sean that Mulcair may choose to step down (rather than wok with Trudeau) as opposed to being forced out. If he does step down as leader, I don't think Mulcair will stay as an MP for very long, but this is just due to my own personal low opinion of Mulcair's motivations (which may be incorrect). He's been an MP long enough to get the pension, and if he's stepped down he'll never be PM. Why stay?

That all being said, I feel the best case scenario for the NDP (out of realistically possible outcomes, assuming the NDP does poorly this election) is: strong Trudeau minority. Harper and Mulcair step down immediately and resign as MP's within 6 months. The CPC picks a blue liberal/red tory leader, other than Michael Chong. The NDP picks a leader halfway to the left of Mulcair (still appealing to Liberal voters), with more personal magnetism and critically, a sunny disposition similar to Jack Layton and Justin Trudeau. Then the last part, and probably the single most important: Justin Trudeau needs to prove the NDP shills on this board right, break a bunch of promises including meaningful electoral reform, and govern from the right. The NDP and CPC can bring Trudeau down on broken promises in 2018 on the budget, and the NDP will do the best (read: make the most gains) in that election, followed by the CPC with the LPC losing seats.

Otherwise, if the CPC splits then this would be to the NDP's benefit as PC's would have a home again and take votes from LPC - but if Trudeau governs from the left then he won't lose much and the NDP probably won't gain at all.

My reasoning for why each of these factors is important is below:

If Trudeau keeps his promises, his vote share will almost certainly increase in the next election no matter what the other parties do (his number of seats may decline due to PR/IRV/etc. but his share will go up). If Mulcair stays, and Trudeau breaks promises/governs from the right, Trudeau will probably get away with it. If Harper stays, fear of Harper will keep Trudeau in power no matter what the NDP does - in fact, Trudeau may do even better in this scenario by breaking promises in some cases then being honest. If Chong wins the CPC leadership (unlikely), the CPC will rebound much faster then otherwise, and will gain more than the NDP (Chong being elected CPC leader is worst case for Trudeau, if Trudeau is a Fiberal). And naturally, should the NDP elect another leader that can't compete with Trudeau in personal magnetism/attitude, then Trudeau will still have a decent chance of succeeding by appealing to emotion rather than reason, even if the NDP puts out a better platform. (Please do not interpret this as me suggesting this is why Trudeau is winning this election. This election Trudeau has a more durable platform, as well his personal likability advantage)


To summarize this long post, Liberals are going to win this election and the next.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
The NDP, as usual, are in the damned if you do, and damned if you don't position. If they declare that they will be fiscally "prudent" by "balancing the budget" they will be called "right-wing" even though they are "making the rich pay" by increasing corporate taxes, or get called "lunatic fringe" wild eyed socialists if they suggested they might use deficit financing.

Hope you all can sleep at night.

I hope the NDP movers and shakers that decided in 2005 to focus on beating the Liberals, and have been doing so ever since, are having trouble sleeping at night.

I have been saying for years that the Conservatives are the party the NDP needed to destroy to position itself as the automatic alternative to the Liberals.

I understand the NDP has to be reasonably moderate for electability, but I think it also has to be authentic, and it hasn't been, at least not as a progressive party.

The rise of the NDP has been meteoric but it was clear to me that like Harper's ten year reign it was due in part to the self-propelled descent of the Liberal Party. Infighting and terrible leadership candidates weakened the Liberal party beyond recognition but the brand remained solid.

It seems the NDP decided Trudeau really was a lightweight so they didn't have to worry about him. They were wrong.

Harper's brand is still shockingly strong, almost incomprehensibly strong given his pile of sins is so high.

I think if the NDP had focused on Harper more and Trudeau far less Harper could have been pushed into 3rd.

From the polling thread around 1575:

jjuares wrote:
KarlL wrote:

KarlL wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Rokossovsky wrote:

Yeah, exploiting your dads death for crass political purposes. That was low.

Given the state funeral and immediate hagiography that followed Jack's death and his deathbed letter, I am not sure that anyone is in a position to chide others about political captalization on a politician's death.

What a piece of nonsense this is. The state funeral was granted by the PM. And in this case it was the son capitalizing on his dad's death in a canned set piece. Nothing that happened with Jack exonerates your little hustler.

Justin Trudeau had nothing to do with the War Measures Act and yet Mulcair tried to tie it to him through his father. Mulcair opened the door to JT's defence of his father.

Mulcair and the NDP are responsible for the campaign they have run that depended on ridiculing JT instead of presenting and defending a genuinely progressive campaign from the start. Because the NDP failed to do so they are stuck with the hail Mary of 10 days to convince Canadians that TPP is bad enough to walk away from when they had years to educate the public on the dangers of these trade deals. Instead they decided to play it safe and bet on a combination of transforming themselves into Liberal Lite and the failings of JT. 

The NDP has no one to blame but themselves. They had four years to focus on important issues and chose the Senate as the number 1 problem to focus on.

 

 

 

 

 

terrytowel

Former Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion just sent out this robocall and video message to every single resident of Mississauga saying VOTE Liberal.

It's OVER! All those Mississauga seats will go Liberal. You cannot underestimate the power of Hazel McCallion in Mississauga.

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/652846356747304961

Pages