Liberal Party of Canada

I have been corresponding, so to speak with a Lib on the Huff Post for about 6 weeks. He/she wrote today:

"The LPC didn't vote for FIPA they just said they don't have enough information to vote against it. That is the same stance Mulcair has on the EU deal.

Harper still ranks high on his management of the economy. I think that will change as his cuts take their tole but I think Canadians will still consider the liberals the safer choice economically.

NDPers may see the Liberals as right wing because from your perspective they are farther left (he/she probably meant right) than the NDP. I think most people see the Liberal party as centrist because they are supportive of many social programs. They are concerned for the environment but not at the expense of the economy. They have a more balanced view on Israel etc. The liberals are a middle of the road party.”

Does anyone feel like taking a stab at explaining this to me? And especially the EU reference. I guess I would also like if someone could explain to me how the Libs bend themselves in more directions then a New York City pretzel with mustard, without snapping themselves in to a hundred little pieces.

I really hope that people reading this will engage a little on this with me. I don't understand how the Liberals are able to do this and still look at themselves in the mirror without either laughing, or crying.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have been corresponding, so to speak with a Lib on the Huff Post for about 6 weeks. He/she wrote today:

"The LPC didn't vote for FIPA they just said they don't have enough information to vote against it. That is the same stance Mulcair has on the EU deal.

Harper still ranks high on his management of the economy. I think that will change as his cuts take their tole but I think Canadians will still consider the liberals the safer choice economically.

NDPers may see the Liberals as right wing because from your perspective they are farther left (he/she probably meant right) than the NDP. I think most people see the Liberal party as centrist because they are supportive of many social programs. They are concerned for the environment but not at the expense of the economy. They have a more balanced view on Israel etc. The liberals are a middle of the road party.”

Does anyone feel like taking a stab at explaining this to me? And especially the EU reference. I guess I would also like if someone could explain to me how the Libs bend themselves in more directions then a New York City pretzel with mustard, without snapping themselves in to a hundred little pieces.

I really hope that people reading this will engage a little on this with me. I don't understand how the Liberals are able to do this and still look at themselves in the mirror without either laughing, or crying.

 She's full of shit, she's comparing apples and oragnes.

 FIPA has already been negoitated and we know what it entails. The EU treaty is still a work in progress and we won't the full contents until they're done. Done vs. Not done.

The Liberals can have all the landslides they want 2 and 1/2 half years away from the election. Knock yourself out.  

autoworker wrote:

It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

What's the Liberals position on the recent Foreign Worker's decision in the federal court? Why are Liberals not standing up for Canadian workers? Oh that's right I forgot, Liberal leaders put their companies offshore to avoid Canadian income taxes, Canadian labour laws and Canadian environmental laws. These Liberals are quite the role models for Canadians.  NOT!!! 

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I suppose the big losers this week are the Liberals, particularly over the Toronto Star's foaming at the mouth articles about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford - I mean where is that darn video anyways?   

The Star supported Justin Trudeau's candidate who lost against Ford in the Toronto election, and obviously they have never ever gotten over it. 

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/05/23/Rob_Ford/

 

The enemy of your enemy may be your friend but cheering for Rob Fort is a bit much.

After the internationally bizarre week Ford had, you'd have to be smoking crack to believe that the Liberals at 44% in the polls are the losers of the week.

I suppose Christy Clark and the winner of the $600 million lottery in the US were 2nd runners-up in the losers of the week race?

If you believe that the 44 percent is real, I got some swampland in Florida to sell you :p

The polls can't be trusted, they keep getting it wrong again and again.

Brachina wrote:

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I suppose the big losers this week are the Liberals, particularly over the Toronto Star's foaming at the mouth articles about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford - I mean where is that darn video anyways?   

The Star supported Justin Trudeau's candidate who lost against Ford in the Toronto election, and obviously they have never ever gotten over it. 

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/05/23/Rob_Ford/

 

The enemy of your enemy may be your friend but cheering for Rob Fort is a bit much.

After the internationally bizarre week Ford had, you'd have to be smoking crack to believe that the Liberals at 44% in the polls are the losers of the week.

I suppose Christy Clark and the winner of the $600 million lottery in the US were 2nd runners-up in the losers of the week race?

If you believe that the 44 percent is real, I got some swampland in Florida to sell you :p

The polls can't be trusted, they keep getting it wrong again and again.

It's important to understand why polls of political preference have failed to predict election results. First off, polls of the general population can not accurately predict who will actually vote especially when the overall turnout is low. Secondly, political polls cannot prevent a political party from running an ineffective election campaign that gives voters no reason to vote for them or against other parties. Thirdly, if a political party has a huge lead in the polls and thus it takes it for granted that they can coast to victory without running a persuasive campaign, they are setting themselves up for a huge turnaround in their fortunes if their political adversaries run a persuasive campaign.  

If the BC NDP had run a good campaign or even not a horrible one, they would be in power today. If the federal Liberals think they can coast on their current lead they will also be setting themselves up for a big disappointment too if the other parties can get their acts together.  

The NDP has to look at why the BC NDP could not seal the deal in BC. The inability to go negative and highlight the negative aspects of the BC Liberal regime was one majour reason. The other majour reason was the party's inability to provide BC'ers with a compelling and convincing alternative vision for jobs and the economy. If the NDP or any other party can do those two things right, they will be setting themselves up for success.  

The experience in BC taught us a very, very, very, important lesson.  The NDP has got to come up with a compelling and convincing alternative vision for jobs and the economy. The NDP's lack of success is based on its failure to provide Canadians with a good reason to vote for the party.This even helps explain the party's difficulty in government, in places like Nova Scotia and Manitoba, where the party is not that popular and faces a good chance of defeat.

Yeah I know, he'll be gone by the next munciple elections tho.

taggering, new word!

NorthReport wrote:

Here we go again! 

Trudeau’s Senate comments rankle West; says red chamber an ‘advantage’ for Quebec

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/27/trudeaus-senate-comments-rankle-...

Twenty bucks says Justin's response to this foot in mouth incident did not come from him at all and he just gave the response he was told too, from his team in the hopes if cleaning up the mess his big mouth created.

Justin is all over the place on the senate issue. I hope we keep on Justin on this and other issues.

Trudeau and Rob Ford - the two gifts that keep on giving!

Tories turn the tables on Trudeau over Senate reform in raucous question period

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/27/tories-turn-the-tables-on-trudea...

Hopefully there are more Trudeau blunders to come.

Not a very good start to the week and big problems ahead for Justin it seems.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Constitution+wars+sequels/843...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think we might all contemplate why the Meech lake accord failed.  It failed because the elites did not even think to talk to FN's.I notice that once again the NDP is proposing a fundamental change to our political system without any meaningful consultation with the FN's, let alone the provinces.

If the NDP thinks that reopening the constitutional debate is a road to power they are going to be sadly mistaken.

Nonsense. It's been amended 10 times since Meech

Geez, your now using TruD'oh's speaking points. But let's remember and said saliently:

@bradlavigne made a good point on tonight’s #PnP: The Senate was established to represent the rich against the rest of us. #abolishthesenate

So the NDP's stand on abolishing the senate is very progressive politics and who says they would not consult the provinces or FNs? In fact, FN consultation would probably provide an opportunity for them to provide options for a more encompassing democracy and representation. 

So glad someone said it clearly what the senate was all about - the rich

Its not that I like Harper more, its that I hate Justin Trudeau more.

Harper is a dirtbag, but he don't pretend to be a lefty, he's a proud right winger and not a phony. Justin's phony, he's just as corrupt and rightwing as Harper if not more so.

My hatred of Harper is just business, he's on the wrong side, my hatred of Justin is personal and thierfor stronger.

I hold no love for Harper.

Anyways I had no idea the Canadian Constitution has been amended 10 times, I didn't realize that it could be amended without referendum and 8 out of ten proviences supporting the amendment. Excuse I have some research to do.

Reading up on the various amending forumlas it may actually be simpler to amend the consitution and may not require as much as I thought.

S. 44 Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

A referundum and the support of the provinces is not required according S.44.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Geez, your now using TruD'oh's speaking points.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I don't use Harper talking points and I actually don't read anything to do with him. And I sick of being attacked for being partisan. I'm a proud NDP so quit attacking me. Thanks

I am tired of you claiming I use liberal talking points. Then you attack me for pointing out that you often use Conservative talking points. Your last post was a poor attempt at a passive aggressive attack. Please stop attacking me as you did when you claimed I am using your favourite whipping boys speaking points.

The NDP and the Conservatives seem to have the same enemy. You and Jan both use talking points that you get from reading the Nazi Post and their reporters push Conservative talking points as their own. You and others then come on babble and quote them because they say nasty things about Trudeau. I however have never been one to buy the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Personally I think that Harper is worse than Trudeau and they are both worse than Mulcair. Mulcair is nice liberal politician who seems relatively honest.  He has no appeal to me as a left wing politician because he is not one, however he is the lesser of evils.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP and the Conservatives seem to have the same enemy. You and Jan both use talking points that you get from reading the Nazi Post and their reporters push Conservative talking points as their own. You and others then come on babble and quote them because they say nasty things about Trudeau. I however have never been one to buy the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Personally I think that Harper is worse than Trudeau and they are both worse than Mulcair. Mulcair is nice liberal politician who seems relatively honest.  He has no appeal to me as a left wing politician because he is not one, however he is the lesser of evils.

First off you violated Goodwin's rule and as such lose the discussion. Next time use National Pest instead of Nazi.

Secondly a good point is a good point no matter the source, I've qouted Liberals before, still I mostly go with the NDP or my own talking points, but as I said a good point is a good point.

And honestly I'll use the weapons at my dispal to remove the obstacles in the NDP's way, Tory, Green, Liberal, Bloc ect... it doesn't matter they're in the way of the future, they're in the way of Canada.

As for a contest between Harper and Justin I don't care whose the worst, because they both have to go period.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You can read the Nazi Post all you like. You can hate all parties and their supporters except your own all you like. Of course only true orange NDP supporters are real Canadians. People who vote and support our other parties are obviously not. Do you think we should just strip them of their voting rights or should we deport them for voting against the interests of the NDP and getting in the way of Canada?

I don't think that suppoters of other parties are less Canadian then mine, at least in terms of their nationaity. But it seems to me that when asked Canadians always identify issues as important. For example, Canadians want increased Health Care, before balanced budgets. But Libs and Tories cut Health Care in the name of balaned budgets, and ironically,in the name of sustaining Heath Care. I guess for me it come down to whose cause I consder rigtheous; that is easy, mine, through my vote for the NDP. It seem pretty straight forward really. Its why I don't vote Liberal, or, Tory. Supporters of the other parties feel similar alligence. The problem is, they're wrong, and I'm not. I'm not going to apologize for it, nor should anyone else. It is, what is. They've had their chance to do right by Canadians and have blown it. Now its time for them to get the hell out of the way. Period!

Did Justin Trudeau change the seating plan of the Liberal party?  If what I've been seeing is correct, it appears that Lise St. Denis is on the front bench beside Trudeau.  Seems odd for such a low profile MP.  

toaster wrote:

Did Justin Trudeau change the seating plan of the Liberal party?  If what I've been seeing is correct, it appears that Lise St. Denis is on the front bench beside Trudeau.  Seems odd for such a low profile MP.  

Maybe, and I mean this seriously, he is trying to reach out to Quebec.

Again Goodwin's rule whenever you compare something to Nazi you lose the arguement.

Anyways that was pure hyperbole, I never said other voters weren't Canadian.

I was refering to the other parties as obstacles not thier voters.

k:

You wrote in part:

"By  the way this is what you said about Canadians who support other parties. They are obstacles in the way of Canada.  You insult the majority of Canadians.  The other parties voters make up over two thirds of the voters in this country and you dismiss them as enemies while trying to convince them that the NDP is now a safe centre of the road party.  That strategy has no logic and is sure to fail."

I doubt that anyone's postings here are influencing the NDP's national campaign or party-building strategies.  While I will admit that I mostly feel contempt for people who vote Lib or Tory, especially Lib or Tory partisans, I am very confident my nasty polemics are not going to either influence what the National NDP does, or frankly 99.99% of Canadian voters

Why don't you take your own advice, and dial down the polemics a bit?