NDP Furious @ Trudeau - NDP Did All The Work In HOC & Trudeau Is Getting The Reward

TT, why is it that almost every thread you start has the feel of a gossip column in one of the magazines you see at the supermarket checkout?

a classic case of the second mouse gets the cheese syndrome.

If this is what the NDP is claiming, they have learned nothing from this election.

What happens in the House of Commons doesn't matter very much to voters.

Harper knew that.

It's what happens on the campaign trail.

It's who has the ability to form a Government and beat Harper that matters.

That's why Harper always knew that Trudeau was a threat and not Mulcair, and structured his millions in attack ads accordingly.

The NDP were not capable of beating Harper in the heat of the campaign.  Harper knew that, and he was right.

(Btw, Terry Towel, you like picking inflamatory thread topics, don't you? )

Quote:

I wouldn't call Joy Taylor a gossip column or a supermarket checkout. Would you?

"World's Oldest Political Wonk Reveals Mulcair Cheated With Kim Kardashian"

Debater wrote:

If this is what the NDP is claiming, they have learned nothing from this election.

What happens in the House of Commons doesn't matter very much to voters.

Harper knew that.

It's what happens on the campaign trail.

It's who has the ability to form a Government and beat Harper that matters.

That's why Harper always knew that Trudeau was a threat and not Mulcair, and structured his millions in attack ads accordingly.

The NDP were not capable of beating Harper in the heat of the campaign.  Harper knew that, and he was right.

(Btw, Terry Towel, you like picking inflamatory thread topics, don't you? )

Bull! If I want to know what you think about the NDP Debater, I'll tell you.

terrytowel wrote:

Debater wrote:

If this is what the NDP is claiming, they have learned nothing from this election.

Even during the election the NDP kept sayingh Trudeau had the worst attendence record in the HOC.

Which is a total lie.

JT didn't have a great attendance record (although some of that was justified because he was 3rd-party leader & rebuilding the party) but he sure as heck didn't have the worst attendance record.

Some of the worst attendance records were held by members of the NDP!  (eg. a couple of the Quebec 2011 class).

Terryt...l tries to frame the discussion by opening a thread with the loaded and totally untruthful word "furious" in the title. Once again his sole purpose is to denigrate the NDP through lies.

There is a sense of wistful irony in the party, but a long way from fury, that Tom did the heavy lifting in Parliament when Justin was largely absent either literally or figuratively.

Hardly anything Justin did in Parliament damaged Harper or the government. harper's personal numbers tumbled to a large extent from the steady pounding he endured from Tom. As events played out Justin was the beneficiary of the damage wrecked on Harper's image by Tom..

Moderators, can we set a limit on the number of threads Terryt...l opens with idiotic titles?

Not furious at all, personally - I'm mostly happy at the chance for a govenrment that may for oncce be willing to listen to Canadians. But I do think it's worth giving credit to the NDP in parliament for changing some views in the general public. Polls showed strong support for C-51, until the NDP used the parliamentary soapbox to challenge it. Views shifted as the isues became better known. Opinion shifted on the war in the Middle East as the NDP raised fact-based aspects - even the Liebral party was foprced to change its view. The NDP was not good at capitalizing on its work in parliament, but it certainly acted as an efective opposition on that and a number of files. And then, the Liberals out-campaigned the hell out of them, framing issues better, talking better, offering "sunny ways" better. But the political climate for the Liberal win owes something to the NDP's work on issues during the last parliament, which helped shift support away from the Cons and towards those who wanted a change of government. It's the NDP's misfortune that there's little public memory of their work in parliament, just a msssive appetitye for change that the NDP did a lot to foster and of which the Liberals were the main beneficiaries. 

It's a typo, apologies. Check my posts, they are full of typos. 

KarlL wrote:

swallow wrote:

...even the Liebral party was foprced to change its view. 

So, I keep seeing the term "Liebral" used regularly on this site - not in relationship to some actual Liberal mendacity (which would be fair enough) but just as a general descriptor for Liberals/the Liberal Party.  

Sean had said at one point that it is only an oft-repeated typo but if so, there is quite a bit of muscle memory on here in hitting the keys in that order. And here it is again from Swallow.

I wonder how quickly a Mod would step in if I were to make half of my references to NDPers or the NDP as "lying New Democrats". I don't actually believe that of course, so wouldn't say it but it does strike me that it is an insult and one more in keeping with the comments section of the Sun newspapers.

 

Okay, I'll make you a deal. Post asking all the Libs go to stop callin New Democratics, "Dippers".  When you call some a "dip", it is derogatory. So stop calling us dippers. Secondly, stop telling us we deserve this or we deserve that. It isn't commentary, its just rubbing our faces in it. And I agre with outhers her, this thread titleis inflamatory. Stop dancing on our graves. I personally am very dissapointed. Trudeau is undeserving of this show of faith. He didn't earn it. He wouldn't have even emearged if he hadn't had his dad's name. This is just plain old fashioned Trudeaumania. NOthing else. It was a perfect storm. Jack (blessed be his memroy) died, Trudeau had his dad's name, and Harper was an assl. If Jack had lived, Trudeau would NEVER have run for the leadership. So let's stop telling others what to do Karl. You guys clean up your house FIRST. Then, we'll talk.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Okay, I'll make you a deal. Post asking all the Libs go to stop callin New Democratics, "Dippers".  When you call some a "dip", it is derogatory. So stop calling us dippers. 

I am not sure that I use the term "Dippers" but maybe I have at some point.  I am certainly prepared to refrain from doing so in future.  

I had thought it a non-pejorative term that is also sometimes used internally by NDPers, like "Grits" is among Liberals but I guess I am wrong on that.

But let's face it, "Liebral" (when not a typo) is a fusion of liar and Liberal, so I think you are stretching your point.  

Yes sorry for calling you out, Swallow, as you are not the main offender, especially when it was indavertent.

I will give you a sample of reasons as to why it irritates me.

KarlL, do me a personal favour... There's a forum called "rabble reactions" for discussions like the above. Try to stick to the thread topic.

_________________________

swallow wrote:

Not furious at all, personally - I'm mostly happy at the chance for a government that may for once be willing to listen to Canadians. But I do think it's worth giving credit to the NDP in parliament for changing some views in the general public. Polls showed strong support for C-51, until the NDP used the parliamentary soapbox to challenge it. Views shifted as the isues became better known. Opinion shifted on the war in the Middle East as the NDP raised fact-based aspects - even the Liberal party was forced to change its view. The NDP was not good at capitalizing on its work in parliament, but it certainly acted as an efective opposition on that and a number of files. And then, the Liberals out-campaigned the hell out of them, framing issues better, talking better, offering "sunny ways" better. But the political climate for the Liberal win owes something to the NDP's work on issues during the last parliament, which helped shift support away from the Cons and towards those who wanted a change of government. It's the NDP's misfortune that there's little public memory of their work in parliament, just a msssive appetitye for change that the NDP did a lot to foster and of which the Liberals were the main beneficiaries. 

I have long considered the House to be a waste of time and money - especially in a system where party leaders dictate how their MPs vote, and even more especially in majority government situations where votes are irrelevant.

But I must say you've made some persuasive points there, swallow. I'm not changing my mind just yet, but you've given me pause. The NDP did do some decent work on some files, and that may well have influenced public opinion, and even the Liberal party, in a positive direction.

KarlL wrote:

swallow wrote:

...even the Liebral party was foprced to change its view. 

So, I keep seeing the term "Liebral" used regularly on this site - not in relationship to some actual Liberal mendacity (which would be fair enough) but just as a general descriptor for Liberals/the Liberal Party.  

Sean had said at one point that it is only an oft-repeated typo but if so, there is quite a bit of muscle memory on here in hitting the keys in that order. And here it is again from Swallow.

I wonder how quickly a Mod would step in if I were to make half of my references to NDPers or the NDP as "lying New Democrats". I don't actually believe that of course, so wouldn't say it but it does strike me that it is an insult and one more in keeping with the comments section of the Sun newspapers.

 

I don't believe Liebral is one of the typos I have made (check with Unionist, he keeps a pretty close eye on my misdeeds...), but it doesn't offend me in the least because it is, to my mind, quite accurate. As I stated to everyone who asked me why I wasn't switching my vote to Liberal in order to see Joan Crockatt in Calgary Centre defeated (and the only real challenge was from the Liberals this time around) I replied along the lines of "The Liberal Party is made up of serial liars especially when it comes to election promises. I am old enough to remember the 'no wage and price controls' lie, the 'we will withdraw from NAFTA' lie, the 'we will repeal the GST' lie and, of course the collection of lies that constituted 'the Red Book' - I cannot see myself voting for a party that has, in every important election in my life, lied to the voters like the Liberals have."

I am not saying each and every federal Liberal lies, but the party as a whole has to bear responsibility for their history of lying to the electorate. Listening to a Liberal apologist whine about having this pointed out is, to me, similar to an apologist whining about me having referred to someone as a scab, complaining that the term is hateful and they want to be referred to as a replacement worker. If you don't want an odious label attached to you, stop doing odious things - and stop being an apologist for them.

That any party has changed leaders does not absolve them of their history. The Progressive Conservatives in Alberta deserve contempt for pretending that the party magically changed each time a new leader was selected over their generation in office, the federal Liberals deserve the same level of contempt, they have been lying just as long.

I am quite happy to pre-judge the current Liberal crop... I think the onus is on them to prove me wrong. Until then, I will continue to think of them as the party of serial liars.

bagkitty wrote:

I don't believe Liebral is one of the typos I have made (check with Unionist, he keeps a pretty close eye on my misdeeds...), but it doesn't offend me in the least because it is, to my mind, quite accurate. As I stated to everyone who asked me why I wasn't switching my vote to Liberal in order to see Joan Crockatt in Calgary Centre defeated (and the only real challenge was from the Liberals this time around) I replied along the lines of "The Liberal Party is made up of serial liars especially when it comes to election promises. I am old enough to remember the 'no wage and price controls' lie, the 'we will withdraw from NAFTA' lie, the 'we will repeal the GST' lie and, of course the collection of lies that constituted 'the Red Book' - I cannot see myself voting for a party that has, in every important election in my life, lied to the voters like the Liberals have."

I am not saying each and every federal Liberal lies, but the party as a whole has to bear responsibility for their history of lying to the electorate. Listening to a Liberal apologist whine about having this pointed out is, to me, similar to an apologist whining about me having referred to someone as a scab, complaining that the term is hateful and they want to be referred to as a replacement worker. If you don't want an odious label attached to you, stop doing odious things - and stop being an apologist for them.

That any party has changed leaders does not absolve them of their history. The Progressive Conservatives in Alberta deserve contempt for pretending that the party magically changed each time a new leader was selected over their generation in office, the federal Liberals deserve the same level of contempt, they have been lying just as long.

I am quite happy to pre-judge the current Liberal crop... I think the onus is on them to prove me wrong. Until then, I will continue to think of them as the party of serial liars.

+1

Before people call the Liberals liars,keep in mind that the Conservative Senate will be a huge obstacle in getting things done,including amending C-51. It's an obstacle that would handcuff the NDP as well.

Harper might be gone but his cronies in the senate remain with power.

alan smithee wrote:

Before people call the Liberals liars,keep in mind that the Conservative Senate will be a huge obstacle in getting things done,including amending C-51. It's an obstacle that would handcuff the NDP as well.

Harper might be gone but his cronies in the senate remain with power.

I think Trudeau will be able to take care of that problem lickety split.  "What if we have too many empty senate seats?" will be viewed as an opportunity as opposed to a problem.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Before people call the Liberals liars,keep in mind that the Conservative Senate will be a huge obstacle in getting things done,including amending C-51. It's an obstacle that would handcuff the NDP as well.

Harper might be gone but his cronies in the senate remain with power.

I think Trudeau will be able to take care of that problem lickety split.  "What if we have too many empty senate seats?" will be viewed as an opportunity as opposed to a problem.

Louise Arbor says C51 cannot be fixed. But what's she know? After all she was only a Supremer Court Judge, served at the International Court at the Hague, and is a very respected, recognized expert, International Jurist. Don't worry, Junior's got this! And besides, Irwin Cotler says its OK! 

Cody87 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Before people call the Liberals liars,keep in mind that the Conservative Senate will be a huge obstacle in getting things done,including amending C-51. It's an obstacle that would handcuff the NDP as well.

Harper might be gone but his cronies in the senate remain with power.

Actually, I am fairly sure I heard in the last few days of the election (without going to check) that there is 50%-1 conservative senators in the senate right now (to be fair - not sure if Duffy, Brazeau, and Wallin are included in that count), so if/when Trudeau fills it, he should be able to get his mandate through even if every CPC senator was to vote to obstruct it. Of course, if some of his own "independent" senators vote to block his legislation, that would be problematic, but I don't think a majority of senators, even if CPC, will vote to obstruct anything that was in his platform as he has a legitimate mandate and obstructing that would be the surest way for the senate to ensure it's own demise.

It is of course ridiculous that the Senate should be an obstacle. Its too bad Justin won't use his policial capital to reform the Senate. Why would he?

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Louise Arbor says C51 cannot be fixed. But what's she know? After all she was only a Supremer Court Judge, served at the International Court at the Hague, and is a very respected, recognized expert, International Jurist. Don't worry, Junior's got this! And besides, Irwin Cotler says its OK! 

One of the Libs fixes is a 3-year sunset clause.  I like that one cause I believe it would lead to C51's demise.  

Besides, Snowden's lesson was that the 'dark state' of the 'five eyes' has been doing this stuff covertly for a long time. The proposal for new over-site of the security apparatus beyond C51 could be much more significant.

.....................................................................................

Oh, and the title of this thread is ridiculous.  

The leader of the third party had a strategy to avoid a neutered HoC.

He was out in the boondocks, working hard, doing his job engaging the citizenry.  It paid off.