Justin Trudeau Campaign 2015

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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

better late to the party than never

Being gay I don't want some old guy making a decision on who I should marry.

We should not be taking away rights ever.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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

Though the NDP accepted ant-abortion candidates for a few more years.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19790410&id=PNAyAAAAIBAJ&...

 

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Since that is not what I said and you clearly do not read and comprehend what I write accurately, I wish you would not read my posts or at least not interpret them.

And I wish you would stop writing off topic posts but I doubt I will get my way so I suppose we are both in for a disappointment.

How did your comments pertain to Trudeau's Campaign 2015?

More absolute trash from you. My post was entirely on topic. In fact 7 of the last 10 posts covered the same topic -- which was actually introduced by you. How hypocritical can you get? You have no shame and are clearly not interested in earning any respect.

I was responding to comments that were in the thread-- I actually had to delete yours in my reply to make sure I was not quoting or responding to you as I promised I would not when you do not reference me.

You are targetting and harassing me. Stop this if only because you are making an ass of yourself as well as derailing threads.

The only engagement we have now is the fights you keep picking. I avoid what you say and you keep instigating.

Anyone who thinks Pondering gets a hard time around here only has to try having a conversation with her.

This proves that there are vast differences between Justin Trudeau & Stephen Harper, particularly on social issues such as women's & gay rights.

This week Trudeau has re-affirmed his strong pro-choice position and is being attacked for it from the right-wing, like Tom Wappel & Pat O'Brien in their protest letter.  So it's totally false to claim that Trudeau is on the right like Harper.  Whether you like Trudeau or not, he's had the guts to take some bold positions that no other recent Liberal leader has -- even if it costs him some right-wing votes.

NO it has more to do with social vs economic models. Unlike sean(see we disagree on the left) I do think the Libs and Tories are very much alike, at least on economics and the cons use backbenchers to introduce 'signal the base' legislation, then having a free vote to allow it to die, also showing how they don't whip the vote. But on fundamental economics 101, corporations more power and tax cuts/screw the little people.

I'm talking about the move to disallow anti-abortionists itself, not the tweet. It's just theatre. The Liberal party has never done a thing to help women on this issue and I doubt they ever will. They will use it as a political tool with empty gestures. They've done that before, but exploiting an issue is not the same as addressing it.

Pondering wrote:

clambake wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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

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

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

So now Trudeau is saying he won't engage with Sun news.

Seems to me that this may have been a mistake for SUN. They have handed Trudeau a very reasonable pretext to avoid wasting time talking to them. There is nothing to be gained by any non-conservative talking to SUN when you consider that it is the outfit where anything you say can and will be used against you if you are not a right wing extremist.

Who could argue with Trudeau saying he won't talk to them now? If I were him I wouldn't either. I don't think the SUN gained anything here at all. Even SUN readers might understand that if Rob Ford thinks he could justify ignoring the Star, Trudeau can tell the SUN to take a hike.

The NDP should tell the SUN the same thing. I don't think any political person should acknowledge so-called media that would go after any person's family in this way.

 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm talking about the move to disallow anti-abortionists itself, not the tweet. It's just theatre. The Liberal party has never done a thing to help women on this issue and I doubt they ever will. They will use it as a political tool with empty gestures. They've done that before, but exploiting an issue is not the same as addressing it.

Talk about re-writing history.

It was Justin Trudeau's own father Pierre that decriminalized abortion (& homosexuality) in the first place.

Now Justin Trudeau has banned anti-abortion candidates from the Liberal Party.  That takes balls.  It isn't just 'showboating' either.  You don't like him.  That's your right.  But at least be objective once in a while like Sean is.

Trudeau has been attacked for this by the right-wing, so he's had the courage to take a political risk.  John Ivison, Chris Selley, Jonathan Kay & others have written angry pieces in the Post about Trudeau's abortion position.

Btw, New Brunswick Premier-elect Brian Gallant, a friend of Justin Trudeau's, spoke out in favour of abortion access in New Brunswick in the recent election.

I admit that I am confused about the expression "that takes balls" in an argument about women's human rights.

That said -- I know the NDP was there first but this is still an achievement for the leader of the Liberal party, which had a considerable anti-choice caucus led by Tom Wappel until very recently. I don't mind putting it into context by saying it came long after the NDP but I don't think this decision and direction is of no value or a non achievement.

Sorry Arthur I think he is debating-- and I don't just say this out of appreciation for acknowledging that I can be objective from time-to-time.

It is find to lay out some context by explaining that the Liberals are a whole generation late to the party and it is fair to ask what they will do about access especially in places like PEI where women have to leave the province to get this essential service. But this sure would not be one of the places I would criticize Trudeau even if I do point out that I was younger than my daughter is now when the NDP took this position.

Sorry Debater. Usually when I talk about the Liberal party I'm talking about things that happened within my lifetime, not fifty years ago. I should have been clearer. The modern Liberal party, despite the many years it has been in power over the past, say, four decades, has done nothing in all that time to improve the access of women to safe, reliable abortion. Trudeau's legislation made abortion legal as long as a "committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother." Ironically, in 1968 the committee would have certainly been a bunch of old men.

Abortion wasn't really legal for women to access on their own until the courts settled the matter in 1988. The Liberals stayed out of it, and have done nothing since. Nor is Justin offering anything to improve existing legislation. He prefers theatre and showboating to making real changes that help people.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well, what do you know:

 

 

Well, I guess this settles who the REAL progressive party is! Unless of course, Dias is a NDP shill. Right?

who are Jerry Diaz and Tim Howlett?

Debater wrote:

The NDP is not quite so perfect on the issue itself.  It has allowed candidates to run in the past who have been anti-choice or anti-gay.

Des McGrath was an anti-choice candidate and he was allowed to run in Newfoundland under Layton's NDP in 2004.

And Monia Mazigh ran in Ottawa South for the NDP in 2004 and had pretty socially conservative views.  I remember her being against gay marriage.  And then there was the Bev Desjarlais situation...

And we could bring up Tommy Douglas's comments about homosexuality.

Each party has some warts in its background.  Why can't we just acknowledge that each party has had these things in its past rather than having to engage in these dirt-slinging matches?

Can Jacob and others here agree that the Liberals have done some positive things over the years?  If so, I can acknowledge some of the positive things about the NDP.

Your comment about Tommy was absurd. His stance on decriminalizing homosexuality and treating it may seem regressive but of course for the times he lived in was progressive. The other comments were fine but unfortunately you had to throw in that absurdity to undermine your whole argument.

Debater wrote:

Well at least you acknowledge my other comments were 'fine'.  That's something.

The point is that all political parties used to be much more socially conservative - including the NDP.   And so my point was that we can all play around with this subject by taking things out of the context or time in which they were made or highlighting contradictions.

My point was that the NDP is not 50 years ahead of the Liberals on this issue.  The Liberals actually did the most to get the ball rolling, and while the NDP has been involved, the latter cannot take credit for being the primary mover on this issue since the NDP has never been in power federally!

So when I read distortions here that claim the NDP is a perfect party with a perfect history whereas the Liberals are regressive and opportunistic, the record has to be corrected.

The other point is that both the Liberals and the NDP are very different from the Conservatives.  It is the Conservatives who are always the most regressive.

Justin Trudeau's position is not theatre & showboating.  It's a major change.  And the reforms that Pierre Trudeau made in 1968-1969 may have been small to Jacob, but Jacob doesn't realize how socially conservative the country was back then and that even those reforms were controversial.  Trudeau was called a 'homo lover' etc, by many Conservatives, and still is today.

It's also easy for the NDP and its supporters to claim how morally superior they are when they have never been in power and have never known what it is like to make these decisions.  The NDP has never enacted a single piece of federal legislation in its history, so it doesn't get to claim to be the leader in this area like the Liberals do.

You don't have to be in power to get the "ball rolling". Indeed much of the progressive legislation was passed because either the courts or social movements ploughed the ground. And yes, the NDP is not perfect but it certainly has been ahead of the Liberal Party on same sex marriage, gay and abortion rights. How much ahead? I don't know but certainly ahead of the Liberal Party and the truth of the matter this is a pretty low standard. The Liberal Party isn't necessarily always regressive but it is always opportunistic and totally lacking any sort of principles and that's its greatest electoral strength.

Pondering did I claim that they had? No.

I approached this from a constructive point of view not as a party person as to where to take the discussion as next steps in discussing Trudeaus's statement. You approached it from a purely partisan point of view which is why I absolutely hate any exchange with you.

Certainly there are things I would like that I have not seen from the NDP -- is that not obvious or are you looking to make some kind of a point? But in this case the NDP has fought for access to choice and the laws to make that possible for over a generation. When  the NDP do that now it simply is not news.

Debator I don't find that comment about McGrath accurate at all. He was not an anti-choice candidate. In fact the statement he made was in favour of legal choice and simply referred to a responsibility (as he saw it) to use the choice the way he wanted. McGrath was not a Tom Wappel.

"You people on the mainland seem to be more interested in that (abortion) than any other issue in Canada--and we got more serious issues right now," Father McGrath told the Globe and Mail newspaper (June 23). Ottawa should leave the abortion matter alone, he said, despite Conservative Party policy that would allow MPs to introduce legislation on it. "I don't believe in stirring up the pot and stirring up old ashes in this," he says, adding, it's up to women to make the right decision. "Responsibility goes with the rights that women have over their own bodies and hopefully the decision that they make would be for pro-life."

As a condition of her candidacy Monia Mazigh agreed not to vote against the party on a human rights issue and said if it were a religious conviction she would abstain.

I understand that Trudeau is requiring his candidates to agree not to vote to limit abortion as a condition of standing as candidates.

I don't find this very different than what was asked of these two people who ran for the NDP a decade ago.

Justin Trudeau & Tom Mulcair will be at a Planned Parenthood event called 'CHOICES GALA' on October 7, 2014:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByJe0B4IUAEj7wg.jpg:large

Justin responded to the issue for several reasons - he didn't just put it 'front and centre' for no reason.

1.  Liberal delegates at the previous Convention had strongly voted in favour of the pro-choice position.

2.  Nominations were beginning and there were some anti-abortion candidates who wanted to run in new ridings to influence Parliament in the next election.

3.  Justin was asked about the subject the week that the anti-abortion faction were gathering on the lawn on Parliament Hill and he wanted to send them a message.

Btw, I'm not sure what 'legislation' you expect an opposition party to get passed by a Conservative Majority Parliament right now.

And the Bride and Father of the Groom have spoken out against Ezra Levant's disgusting comments about their wedding photos with Justin.  They asked Justin to pose with them, and the Groom was there the whole time.  Levant's comments that Trudeau wanted to bed the bride show how sick the whole Sun 'News' Network is:

Bride And Father Of Groom Contradict Levant's Take On Trudeau Wedding Photo

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/24/ezra-levant-trudeau-wedding-phot...

I somehow got onto a Liberal Party of Canada mailing list. I promise I didn't do it intentionally. I suspect that some other organization I gave my email address to shared it with the Liberals. Anyway, starting on July 29, I've been getting fund raising emails from the Liberals about once a week. The latest one offers a chance to have dinner with Justin and discuss the issues that matter to me. It seems to be a sort of raffle, and you buy a ticket by making a donation. Interestingly, they start very low, asking for only $3, about the price of a lottery ticket. This latest message also includes a very professionally made video of a dinner Justin held with supporters who won the lottery in Nova Scotia sometime in the summer. I thought it was pretty effective, even if totally devoid of content.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I somehow got onto a Liberal Party of Canada mailing list. I promise I didn't do it intentionally. I suspect that some other organization I gave my email address to shared it with the Liberals. Anyway, starting on July 29, I've been getting fund raising emails from the Liberals about once a week. The latest one offers a chance to have dinner with Justin and discuss the issues that matter to me. It seems to be a sort of raffle, and you buy a ticket by making a donation. Interestingly, they start very low, asking for only $3, about the price of a lottery ticket. This latest message also includes a very professionally made video of a dinner Justin held with supporters who won the lottery in Nova Scotia sometime in the summer. I thought it was pretty effective, even if totally devoid of content.

Yes, videos produced under the Trudeau Liberals are professionally shot.  The days of grainy, amateur camerawork like we saw from Stéphane Dion in his 'Coalition Speech' are over.  The Liberals are raising a lot more money under Justin Trudeau and Chief Revenue Officer Stephen Bronfman.

And they are fundraising videos.  So they're not meant to have a lot of content.  It's about setting up the opportunity to meet the leader as a reward for donating.  The idea actually comes from the Obama Campaign.  They did this sort of thing in the 2008 Election, and when some of Obama's campaign managers met with Justin Trudeau's advisers, they shared some ideas they had found productive in the Obama elections.