Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Anyone hear that Trudeau told David Suzuki in a private phone call seeking Suzuki's support that when he wouldn't that Suzuki "was full of sanctimonious crap"?

jjuares

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Anyone hear that Trudeau told David Suzuki in a private phone call seeking Suzuki's support that when he wouldn't that Suzuki "was full of sanctimonious crap"?

Here
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/26/trudeau-dismisses-suzukis-cl...

Pondering

 

“I said ‘Justin, stop it,'” Suzuki told Solomon. “‘You’re just being political. I know that you want to make headway in Alberta so you’re for the continued development of the tar sands, you’re for the Keystone pipeline, but you’re against the Northern Gateway. You’re all over the damn map!'”

The environmentalist advised Trudeau about accepting the internationally agreed target for a two-degree rise in global temperature means that 80 per cent of the oil sands would have to stay in the ground.

Suzuki said Trudeau didn’t take the criticism lightly and the conversation turned sour.

“He said: ‘I don’t have to listen to this sanctimonious crap.’ I proceeded to call him a twerp. But I realized that he’s playing politics.”

Suzuki said only Elizabeth May’s Green Party is taking the environmental issues he discussed with Trudeau seriously. Suzuki said he’s spoken to May several times, but hasn’t talked with NDP leader Thomas Mulcair or Conservative leader Stephen Harper about their plans for the environment.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzuki-says-justin-trudea...

That a centrist party like the Liberals support oil sands development is to be expected. That the NDP also supports oil sands development is a betrayal because they were supposed to be a social justice party. They aren't anymore. The NDP is a supporter of neoliberalism with some minor progressive promises thrown in to keep the social justice types happy. It is no different than Harper with his Office of Religious Freedom sop he threw at social conservatives.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

“I said ‘Justin, stop it,'” Suzuki told Solomon. “‘You’re just being political. I know that you want to make headway in Alberta so you’re for the continued development of the tar sands, you’re for the Keystone pipeline, but you’re against the Northern Gateway. You’re all over the damn map!'”

The environmentalist advised Trudeau about accepting the internationally agreed target for a two-degree rise in global temperature means that 80 per cent of the oil sands would have to stay in the ground.

Suzuki said Trudeau didn’t take the criticism lightly and the conversation turned sour.

“He said: ‘I don’t have to listen to this sanctimonious crap.’ I proceeded to call him a twerp. But I realized that he’s playing politics.”

Suzuki said only Elizabeth May’s Green Party is taking the environmental issues he discussed with Trudeau seriously. Suzuki said he’s spoken to May several times, but hasn’t talked with NDP leader Thomas Mulcair or Conservative leader Stephen Harper about their plans for the environment.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzuki-says-justin-trudea...

That a centrist party like the Liberals support oil sands development is to be expected. That the NDP also supports oil sands development is a betrayal because they were supposed to be a social justice party. They aren't anymore. The NDP is a supporter of neoliberalism with some minor progressive promises thrown in to keep the social justice types happy. It is no different than Harper with his Office of Religious Freedom sop he threw at social conservatives.

Pondering this isn't about the NDP. It's about Justin Trudeau's arrogance. It's about Justin Trudeau's childishness when he doesn't get his way. It's about his lack if maturity. It's about justin Trudeau's ability to function as an adult when he doesn't get his way. This clearly opens up questioning how well he will do, or could do, when he needs to work with others. This is a very big deal! He did it to himself; the fact Suzuki went public shows just how offended he was. Given Suzuki has no record of doing this, Trudeau has definitely hurt himself in a major way. To quote Joe Biden "this is BFD"!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

This incident certainly does nothing to make Trudeau look like a statesman. He makes an unsolicited phone call to one of Canada's most respected scientist/ecologist/activists, a person who probably has even more name recognition than Trudeau, hoping to score some type of approval for his environmental platform.

When things don't go the way he had hoped they might, he doesn't politely end the conversation, and say "Thanks anyway". Oh no. Instead, he blusters to Suzuki that he doesn't have to listen to sanctimonious crap. Yeah, this is the guy I want representing Canada to the rest of the world. Not.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Who is Trudeau going to tell next is full of sanctimonious crap? Union Leaders, government workers, teachers, activists for poor, left wing clergy, babble posters? I'm just askin'.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So where is the thread entitled "Should Justin Trudeau have to step down for saying David Suzuki is full of sanctimonious crap"?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So where is the thread entitled "Should Justin Trudeau have to step down for saying David Suzuki is full of sanctimonious crap"?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Great, FACTUAL graphic from the NDP exposing LIberal lies, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CP3Ptf2UEAAekI7.jpg:large 

Copy and paste the URL in your browser, clicking on the link doesn't work.

mark_alfred

quizzical

omg. he's even got one those smarmy side smirks.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

omg. he's even got one those smarmy side smirks.

Now you have descended to criticizing someone's physical appearance. Way to go.

Aristotleded24

I have to say I'm baffled by the lack of consistency in Trudeau's approach. First he promises that he will balance the budget, then he says he's fine with deficits. Then he criticizes Mulcair for advocating more cuts, but he won't rule out cutting any Conservative program. Lastly, the timing of the cuts in the final year of his mandate is politically stupid. Most politicians planning cuts at least have the smarts to do it at the start of their mandate to get that out of the way and then hand out the goodies at re-election time.

Contrast to the other parties who have clear, consistent themes, whether it be Harper that it's important to go steady and avoid risks in order to keep the budget balanced, or Mulcair who says we have to look out for each other while living within our means.

nicky

Pondering, you Liberals have descended to promoting someone's physical appearance. Way to go.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Trudeau has a crooked smile. He was born with it.

Was he born with anything else crooked?

Pondering

If you have any quotes of Liberals promoting Trudeau's appearance I would like to see them. As far as I can tell Mulcair wins the contest of looking Prime Ministerial but that shouldn't matter for either a man or woman. Trudeau has a crooked smile. He was born with it. Mocking him based on a physical attribute is no more justified than the Conservatives mocking Chretien over the same.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-fiscal-plan...

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page called the Liberal plan "realistic" during an interview on CBC News Network. 

"They've updated the numbers from budget 2015 so it takes into account a weaker economy in 2015, weaker oil prices," he said.

The plan is based on the latest available figures from the parliamentary budget officer and the bank of Canada.....

The Liberals also say they would expand the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer to allow it to check the costing of any promises parties make during federal elections.

But for you Nicky:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-gerald-butts-plans-to-make-ju...

“This is the way he’s always been,” says National Post political columnist John Ivison, who has known Butts for 12 years and been a target of his online ire for nearly as long. “The definition of a political adviser is to have the tenacity of a water buffalo and a passion for anonymity. I’m not sure he’s adhering to that at all. That said, I like and admire him. He’s truly one of the three smartest people I’ve met in politics.”

Probably the only paragraph you won't like in this article.

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Trudeau has a crooked smile. He was born with it.

Was he born with anything else crooked?

he wasn't born with it. i went through 1000 at least web images and he is smirking in some and in others he' not.

it's definitely a pose

 

Rev Pesky

Arthur Cramer wrote:
So where is the thread entitled "Should Justin Trudeau have to step down for saying David Suzuki is full of sanctimonious crap"?

My understanding, from David Suzuki, is that Justin Trudeau said, "I don't have to listen to this sanctimonious crap." That is consideranly different than saying someone is full of sanctimonious crap. Normally the saying of 'is full of sanctimonious crap' would be said in a conversation with a third party, about the second party. But it wasn't Trudeau who went to the media saying Suzuki was blah, blah, etc. It was the other way around. It was Suzuki who went to the media with the story. It was Suzuki who made the personal comment of calling Trudeau a 'twerp'.

Now, you can argue that Suzuki was right or wrong in his characterization, but you have to admit it was un-professional. You can argue that Suzuki was provoked by Trudeau's comment, but you must admit Trudeau didn't run to the media with the story.

Neither of the other party leaders submitted their environmental proposals to Suzuki, so the original impulse to do so was probably a reasonably good one (imagine Harper calling Suzuki to discuss the Conservative environmental agenda). We don't know what led to Trudeau's characterization of Suzuki's comments. He may have been completely justified, but we don't have a transcript of the conversation, and I doubt there is one.

We do know Suzuki is a supporter of the Green Party (which I'm not suggesting influenced his comment), but we do know the Green Party environmental platform is, in reality, not a lot different than either the Liberal or NDP'S. A few more high-flown phrases (sounds better than 'sanctimonious crap') but strip away the chaff, and there's not much left behind.

 

quizzical

lmao no it's not.

 

and why would Trudeau tell the media he's an entitled idiot?

ctrl190

Conservatives have their October, errmm, "September surprise"

"The Liberal Party believes terrorists should get 2 keep their Cdn citizenship .. because I do"

https://soundcloud.com/cpc_pcc/trudeau-c24-july-4?utm_source=soundcloud&...

Out of context? Probably. But the Cons will run it ad nauseum.

Ciabatta2

Are people still influenced by gotcha clips?  I'm not sure.  At least, I'm not sure this will really move any votes.  It sure will appeal to people who have already decided to vote Conservative, and many of those voting Liberal probably won't ever hear it.

jjuares

People can be influenced by a gotcha clip. I am not a Liberal, in fact I detest this party more than ever. But I can't see how this clip could damage the Liberals. But hey I am surprised about how having a couple dozen women wearing something over their face during a ceremony can have an impact on this election. But apparently it has so maybe this nonsense will have an impact as well. It's just sad really.

KarlL

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Are people still influenced by gotcha clips?  I'm not sure.  At least, I'm not sure this will really move any votes.  It sure will appeal to people who have already decided to vote Conservative, and many of those voting Liberal probably won't ever hear it.

 

CTV, which ran it first, has dropped it way down the daily election news items.  CBC has not run with it at all, so far as I can see.  Global is running with an interview in which the subject arises but straight up and in context.  None of the Globe, Star or National Post have yet filed anything on it (who knows if they will run something later or tomorrow).  The CONS may well try some bought media on it but there doesn't seem to be a lot of earned-media interest.

Pondering

To become a citizen people have to swear alleigance to Canada as represented by the crown. If someone commits treason wouldn't that make their declaration fraudulent?

KarlL

KarlL wrote:

KarlL wrote:

Pondering wrote:

To become a citizen people have to swear alleigance to Canada as represented by the crown. If someone commits treason wouldn't that make their declaration fraudulent?

Perhaps but you will have a hard time proving that it was fraudulent at the time they received their citizenship.  

The only place that I can see for citizenship revocation is when the citizenship itself (or more precisely, the original landed immigrant status) can be proven to have been obtained by false pretences.  There have been examples of this from WWII (Helmut Oberlander being one such), where those involved with death squads or concentration camps were later deemed to have lied at their interviews and had they admitted the truth, would have been excluded from immigration to Canada at the outset. I expect that we may eventually see some of that flow from Rwandan or post-Yugosalvian atrocities.  But in principle, it could be something like failing to own up to a serious criminal record in another country, or faking a relationship under family reunification.

But if the citizenship was fairly obtained, there should not be two classes of citizens, treated differently for something they did after the fact.

KarlL

dp

KarlL

dp

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sorry Rev, that's just some wonderful spin. Careful, you're going fall flat on you ass if you keep spinning like that. Say it any way you want, everyone knows what Trudeau said, and you can't change it. As to Suzuki going ot the press, why shouldn't he? Oh, Justin said it in private to me, so I don't have any right to  tell anyoone about it eh? Trudeau is a public figure who made a statement that is notable and reflefcts on the kind of person he is. He should have kept his mouth shut' his ego go the better of him. Nope, sorry Rev, no one is buying your spin. And that is ALL It is Rev, spin.

Pondering

Suzuki was lecturing Trudeau, Trudeau said "I don't have to listen to this sanctimoneous crap" and Suzuki called him a twerp. It was during a private conversation and Suzuki recounted it in some interview none of us appear to have actually watched.

Damn, I forgot to put pearls on, I can't clutch them.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Nonsense Pondering. Trudeau called Suzuki. Suzuki got tired of Trudeau's crap and let him have it. You Liberals are such whiners. You don't need the pearls to clutch at them. Every post of yours has you doing it. By the way, that pearls comment of yours was neither witty, nor logical in any way. Nice try. Stick pointificating. As a comedian, you're a failure!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And that is ALL It is Rev, spin.

That surely is all it is.

"Whan the sunne shinth make hay." -- John Heywood.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Nonsense Pondering. Trudeau called Suzuki. Suzuki got tired of Trudeau's crap and let him have it. You Liberals are such whiners. You don't need the pearls to clutch at them. Every post of yours has you doing it. By the way, that pearls comment of yours was neither witty, nor logical in any way. Nice try. Stick pointificating. As a comedian, you're a failure!

Whatever. Suzuki probably was sanctimonious and he probably does think Trudeau is a twerp. Nobody here even saw the exchange. Shout it from the roof-tops if you like. Set it to music and turn it into  sing-a-long.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh Pondering, you're sulking! Cry

Pondering

LOL That's sulking!  What I am saying is it is no big deal. Nobody cares. Not a single vote will turn on it. You apparently think it was a terrible thing to do or something. I don't get why you think this would be damaging to Trudeau.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

And now you're mind reading! A sulky mind reader, amazing! Touchy, touchy!

ETA: Why do you respond to me about thinks about no one cares. It REALLY bothers you that ANYONE says ANYTHING that is critical of Le Dauphin, doesnèt it?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

And now you're mind reading! A sulky mind reader, amazing! Touchy, touchy!

ETA: Why do you respond to me about thinks about no one cares. It REALLY bothers you that ANYONE says ANYTHING that is critical of Le Dauphin, doesnèt it?

I'm asking you why you think this matters. If it bothered me I wouldn't tell you to shout it from the rooftops I'd argue with you.

Yes, you are right, Trudeau called Suzuki then said he didn't have to listen to his sanctimoneous crap and Suzuki called him a twerp.

I am saying go ahead and publicize it because if anything Trudeau will gain votes from it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, the ONLY reason you respond is you cant stand the fact I won't grovel at your feet. What he did didnt help with progressives. But yiou really don't care, you're NOT a progressive!

Pondering

You say the strangest things. You do realize that Suzuki is also against the NDP? The only party he approves is the Greens so does that mean you will be voting Green as the only "progressive" party?

mark_alfred

If Trudeau wins, I'd like to be a fly on the wall during some of the meetings he'd need to have with people like the premiers.

Trudeau wrote:
Thanks for coming to this meeting I called.  I have this fabulous plan I think you'll love!

premiers wrote:
Well, no, actually, because ....

Hey!  I'm the Prime Minister!  I don't want to hear your sanctimonious crap!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

You say the strangest things. You do realize that Suzuki is also against the NDP? The only party he approves is the Greens so does that mean you will be voting Green as the only "progressive" party?

This is about what Trudeau said. Stop trying to deflect, and pay attention. Were you like in this in school too?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You say the strangest things. You do realize that Suzuki is also against the NDP? The only party he approves is the Greens so does that mean you will be voting Green as the only "progressive" party?

This is about what Trudeau said. Stop trying to deflect, and pay attention. Were you like in this in school too?

How am I deflecting? I am agreeing that Trudeau did indeed say the sactimoneous crap thing. I don't have a problem with what he said and I don't think it will hurt him one bit. I think Trudeau was telling the truth and that Suzuki was being sanctimoneous.

Is there anything else you want to establish about Trudeau calling whatever Suzuki was saying sanctimoneous crap? (which resulted in Suzuki calling Trudeau a twerp)

I don't have a problem with it and so far it seems like few peole give a shit.

Apparently you do have a problem with it. That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Sean in Ottawa

The issue of course is that both insults are believable becuase they speak to impressions held by many more people than the one leveling them. Suzuki is not running in the election and is not as vulnerable to damage. What Trudeau called him does not matter except in terms of what that means about Trudeau.

It is not the fact that he called Suzuki sanctimonious that is the problem for Trudeau. It is the fact that Suzuki called him a twerp, and many smile at that becuase they think it is true -- and that is the problem for Trudeau. It's a problem becuase in the minds of many Trudeau's a twerp.

It is possible in this campaign that the twerp might win -- but let's not pretend that if we threw this word out by itself and asked for associations they would not bring us back to Trudeau. Insults hurt most when they resonate. Unfair or not they have a granule of truth or are located in a perception that already exists Consider:

May: insults dismissing her will hurt. They risk being received badly as she is a woman and this is a common dynamic women face from men to knock them out of the conversation.

Duceppe: irrelevant and passé: of course with nothing to lose he will get credited with any life the campaign shows so is less vulnerable.

Trudeau: insignificant, lightweight, lacking in depth, a poser, poor judgment, silver-spooned, a twerp.

Mulcair: lecturing, arrogant, angry, petty, in some manner unpleasant, all have had some traction.

Harper: Arrogant, cold, unfeeling, selfish, dictatorial, inhuman, cowardly, biased against the people, all resonate.

Negative messages hurt more when they carry at least some truth or follow an already existing frame.

Each leader has tried to do something to mitigate, erase, or make up for these negative impressions -- with different levels of success.

It is not what Trudeau called Suzuki that matters most but what Suzuki called Trudeau.

That is why the framing of the entire thread is so ridiculous. Of course -- it was ridiculous on purpose and that was the point of it.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Trudeau: insignificant, lightweight, lacking in depth, a poser, poor judgment, silver-spooned, a twerp.

......

Each leader has tried to do something to mitigate, erase, or make up for these negative impressions -- with different levels of success.

It is not what Trudeau called Suzuki that matters most but what Suzuki called Trudeau.

Nobody cares what Suzuki called Trudeau other than people who already hate Trudeau.

Trudeau has easily disspelled those ridiculous stereotypes opponents tried to pin on him and will continue to do so through his handling of the debates. The polls are already turning around for him and we are still three weeks out from the election.

Harper is in first place yet the NDP is focused on lame Trudeau attacks.

One is on C-51 claiming he voted for it because he didn't want the Conservatives to criticize him for it. That there is *some* truth to it doesn't matter. Trudeau's reasoning that he approved of parts of the bill and will put in parliamentary oversight will be enough because people's number one concern is the economy. Trudeau lost a lot of support on C 51 but it's old news. Harping on it makes the NDP look like they can't move on to bread and butter issues.

The second attack ad focuses on his accepting money for speeches claiming it was already part of his job but he charged school boards and charities 20K anyway. That just makes no sense and it's old news. Everyone knows he was hired through a speaker's bureau and if they question anything it is why school boards and charities are hiring speakers for 20K not why Trudeau accepted the jobs. Either way, the primary concern of voters is the economy not how much money Trudeau used to legally earn as a speaker.

So what are voters hearing about the NDP? Well, the daycare deal depends on provincial agreement and the provinces don't have money as it is, and the number the NDP was promoting is spread over 8 years so won't help most families who have young children now.

And the minimum wage increase? Won't affect 99% of minimum wage workers. It's just setting an example.

On to the elevator ad with Noah putting down Trudeau. During the second half of the ad he talks about what the NDP will do but I don't remember one thing about that. The memorable part is Noah hitting the stop button, looking down on Trudeau dismissively, and flinging the flyers in his face. I think most people will laugh including Liberal supporters but it will shift more support to Trudeau than to the NDP. People won't appreciate the jeering tone. It insults them as well as Trudeau through the inference that they would be swayed by it.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

For all you LPC clown shills who say NDP=Conservative and LPC the REAL progressive choice! https://twitter.com/PeterKelly74/status/649314171436163072/photo/1 

I don't think so Tim!

quizzical

there's nothing there

mark_alfred

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

jjuares

This has been an interesting thread. Please do not respond to the one who is here to derail.

Aristotleded24

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.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

For all you LPC clown shills who say NDP=Conservative and LPC the REAL progressive choice! https://twitter.com/PeterKelly74/status/649314171436163072/photo/1 

I don't think so Tim!

The LPC isn't a progressive party and never was one. They have some progressive policies which is an entirely different thing.

The NDP might have been a progressive party in the past, they are no longer. 

The LPC won't raise taxes on corporations, the NDP won't raise taxes on the wealthy.

15$ federal minimum wage, will not apply to 99% of workers, intended to "inspire" provincial governments.

15$ a day daycare, if the provinces agree, exempting Quebec and taking into account Ontario's all day kindergarden and taking 8 years to roll out which assumes the NDP will win a second mandate. 

Eliminating stock option tax breaks, how much will that generate?

Repeal C-51, good one, but the Liberals will amend it and put all party parliamentary oversight. 

Protect EI finds from gov't cash crabs. At this point if it can be used to improve life for FN people, or education, etc. I don't have a problem with it. 

Nothing in there that is all that impressively progressive and Kevin Page called the financial plan thin and based on obsolete numbers so not sure how Mulcair plans to provide even that much on a smaller budget than planned. 

jjuares

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.

Pages