At Issue - NDP Should Give Up Their Quest For Power & Go Back To Being The Conscience of Parliment

But the question remains, is Tom Mulcair the best person to achieve that?

debater, why do you care? lololololol

what else can you do but laugh heartily when you Liberals post????? lololol

Is Justin Trudeau better than Bob Rae or Martha Hall Findley or Joyce Murray or Deborah Coyne or Stephane Dion or Marc Garneau?  Perhaps not.

whatever

At least some of us can see that the Liberal party has no conscience of its own. The marquee policy, if you paid attention to the ads, was that Trudeau said he was giving a middle income tax break funded by the wealthiest. That was of course an electoral fraud and a lie designed to make the Liberals look progressive. The reality was that the tax on the wealthy was only the upper 1/2 of the 1% and most of the wealthy including the bottom half of the 1% got a tax cut -- in fact the maximum. The Middle income tax cut missed the median income and applied only to the top 25% of earners with the bulk going to the highest 10%.

I feel certain, good looks or not, if Canadians knew what a fraud that tax cut promise was, it would be the Liberals in third place not the NDP. However, the NDP did a bad job of responding to that tax cut and still, to this day, has not reponded appropriately. This is a key example of a policy the NDP could have been a conscience for. That said,  a conscience can be elected. There is no reason to assume that you have to be trying to gain power or the conscience of the House -- this is a Liberal media construction. Having integrity can be recognized and it is a selling feature. So is the ability to determine what is important and address it. The NDP in their pandering to the middle class lacked integrity, competence and a conscience. Due to this blunder they allowed the Liberals to advertise a middle income tax cut that went to the wealthy and with that fraud get into power from third place.

The issue is not the role the NDP should be seeking but the need to fire the most incompetent leader the NDP has ever had and replace that leader with someone who actually knows the priorities and can identify the people she/he should be speaking for. Sounding like a prosecutor on a TV show does not make Mulcair competent especially when he is more often than not going after insubstantial issues. Being able to identify the key issues, expose issues related to them, and present alternatives would have been a sign of competence.

Alternately, if the NDP wants to consider ignoring the wealthy tax cut sold as the middle income tax cut, then the current NDP membership must find or create a new party. And this is the existential issue facing the party. It is quite possible that the people who could possibly be the conscience of the NDP may walk out the door because the NDP looks to have no conscience of its own. And once those people are gone, what remains will be a party without purpose.

What has to happen now is either a leadership change -- and not just in the leaders office but across all the main positions or a rebuild from scratch of a new truly progressive option.

This could happen soon as people discover the fraud Trudeau has made and realize that the NDP, had it been worth anything, ought to have recognized it and talked about it. The Liberals did declare during the election enough infomration to have been called on this lie. And so, Canadians have a reason to be as angry with the incompetent NDP under its incompetenmt leader as they do the lying Liberals under their lying leader.

We need a new party if Mulcair survives the leadership vote we should begin to build one the very next day if Mulcair is still the leader. Let the NDP members who want the party to vie for power no matter what principles are ditched along the way, along with those who want the party to be a conscience without the guts to win stay with the carcass of the NDP and the people who actually want to build an alternative that could change the country build one. The NDP get one last vote on Mulcair's leadership to decide if they might be that party.

Those who believe that being a conscience and seeking power are not incompatible should build a new party if the NDP is not prepared to host and honour this idea.

Yes, it is that simple.

For winning he's better.  For taking a principled stand on issues like Bill C-51, not so much.

Trudeau actually has taken principled stands on a number of issues.

He has gotten attacked by the Conservatives for it, or sometimes the media, or even NDP.

Those positions include marijuana decriminalization, pro-choice rights, pulling the jets out of the bombing mission, etc.

Btw, Mulcair took quite a while to come to his decision on Bill C-51, and originally considered supporting it, so his decision wasn't quite so principled as it has been made out to be.

Regarding marijuana, the Libs should move right now to decriminalize.  It's something they could do immediately.  I support legalization, but that will take time.  But for now, they should decriminalize.  They do not plan to do that, however.  From Hansard - 7 (December 11, 2015):

[quote=Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP)]Mr. Speaker, during the election, the Liberals promised to finally end criminalizing Canadians for simple possession of marijuana. The current government could have taken immediate action, but has not. There are no details, no timeline for decriminalizing marijuana possession, no commitment to expunge the record of hundreds of thousands of Canadians convicted for simple possession, and thousands are still unfairly facing possible arrest, tying up the police and our justice system.    

Why has the government not taken any action to legalize simple possession of marijuana?

[quote=Mr. William Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)]Mr. Speaker, in order to protect our kids from the ravages of marijuana, to make our communities safer, and to reduce the social and health harm associated to its use, our government has committed to legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. In order to do so, we will be establishing a federal-provincial-territorial task force to design a strict sales and distribution system with appropriate health concerns.    

This will be done in partnership with our provincial and territorial partners, and with stakeholders right across the country.

quizzical, I was using the term 'decriminalization' interchangeably with 'legalization' above.

Mulcair is the one who wanted to do 'decriminalization' rather than 'legalization' before he suddenly decided to agree with Trudeau in the closing stages of the campaign.

The point is that the Liberals have a different approach than the Conservatives, as do the NDP.

Perhaps the Liberals & NDP should try to find a common approach and stop arguing just for the sake of it.

Re: post #120

People's lives are being affected by this Debater.  Should the NDP, as opposition and conscience of parliament, ignore them?  I agree with what Murray Rankin said on this.  While full legalization could take years (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/trudeau-marijuana-colorado-1.3287747), the Liberals could "end criminalizing Canadians for simple possession of marijuana" almost right away.  What do you feel?  Do you agree with Rankin on this or with Blair?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-convictions-justin-trudeau-leg...

CBC article, Canadians with marijuana convictions call on Trudeau to offer pardons, wrote:

Canadians with criminal records for marijuana crimes are eagerly waiting to see if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will offer pardons when pot is legalized. Tens of thousands are charged with possession every year, and if convicted face consequences that can be devastating.

oh no it doesn't derive from their platform. the platform comments are bland in compare. qualifiers like "protect" and ravages" are well over the top point of acceptable.

people's lives are affected by ignorant and lying comments like this. they indicate the lying liars Liberals are going to do sfa towards legalization.

and while you're here i ask why is a parliamentary secretary making fking comments and not the Minister responsible? did Judy get the job to make Justin look good?

I think it's fine if the premier of Manitoba or of Ontario wants the distribution of marijuana, once it's legalized, to be from the unionized and experienced crown corporation of the Liquor Mart or LCBO.  I also don't mind the "protect the children" rhetoric from the either the Liberals or the premiers.  As long as it gets done, and it's a bonus if it's the unionized crown corporations that get to be in charge.  What I do have an issue with though, as I mentioned, is the federal government's seeming unwillingness to decriminalize simple possession right now, and the government's unwillingness to commit to issuing pardons for those charged/convicted with simple possession.  The government should let people know.  Once again,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-convictions-justin-trudeau-leg...

Quote:

Canadians with criminal records for marijuana crimes are eagerly waiting to see if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will offer pardons when pot is legalized. Tens of thousands are charged with possession every year, and if convicted face consequences that can be devastating.

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

"Former federal leader Ed Broadbent campaigned in 1988 on the basis that the NDP was fighting to form a government, as did his successor Audrey McLaughlin -- whose war cry was "AM for PM" -- in the disastrous 1993 campaign."

Sean can you provide a source for this quote? I have sourced all my quotes. If you can do the same that would be great. Thanks!

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/039.html

Terry I did not need to becuase all you have to do is google it.

Only one thing comes up.

The source does not matter anyway.

The main thing was the slogan. And let me help you with that:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=McLaughlin+%22Am+for+PM%22

I get 506 hits. Go nuts read them all.

I lived through that cmapaign and I remember McLaughlin clearly stating she wanted to be PM and admitting, when pushed, that it was a steep road and simply increasing the seats would be a good step and provide value to Canadians. Did not mean she did not want to be PM, was not running to be or not aspiring to be.

 

When I clicked this links all I saw was a blank screen with no content.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/039.html

When I clicked this link all I got was an error message

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=McLaughlin+%22Am+for+PM%22

The second is "let me google that for you" this link is not responding right now although it did when I snet you there.

The first link still works for me as of this moment and it is the one you actually asked for.

The original reference is: NDP Poised to Alter Position on NAFTA By Peter O'Neil, Sun Ottawa Bureau, 10 April 1997.

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

"from the ravages of marijuana use"??? unfkn real.

stupid shit ass reply worthy of huge condemnation!!

I agree!

Unfortunately, I think the Liberals are picking up bad messages from some of the provinces out there, and using them to slow-track legalization.

Like the Premier of Manitoba:

Quote:

“These are all highly addictive drugs and we want to make sure Manitobans get the best opportunity to be properly protected from them,” said Selinger.

The premier said he believes a strong training program for employees already within Liquor and Lotteries will help them advise consumers on the risks of marijuana use.

 

Other most commonly used addictive things include alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. One out of three is controlled the two marketed to kids and the other pretty much everywhere. Oh well.

I do not disagree that, when smoked, the harmful effects of anything increases -- no matter what that is. Smoking is, of course, not the only way to ingest.

Personally I don't use but since I struggle with desires for sugary and fatty things I don't think I can say much to someone who wants to smoke pot. As I understand, sugar and fat do more harm and are no less addictive. Perhaps by recognizing pot as legal we can also consider that lots of other things that are legal are also dangerous and addictive. That admission might provide as much of a health benefit as any other part of the measure. I am not convinced that there are many who will smoke weed because it is legal who would not before but perhaps I am wrong. I mostly think it is one negative consequence taken off the table.

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re:  post #128

The first link works for me as well.

That article was from 1997.

Do you have any link/article dated 1993 when McLaughlin used the slogan "AM for PM" during that election campaign?

Why?

I remember the campaign clearly and wore one of the buttons. I you want to call me a liar go look for it yourself. 23 year old links are much harder to find EVEN than 19 year old links. I resent your insinuation and I don't have time to pander to this bullshit. The campaign existed -- a lot of people remember it -- what EXACTLY are you wanting to find and why should I spend an hour of my life trying to find ancient websites just to humour you on this?

And here is a link to some internet stats so you can see just how bloody stupid it is to ask for an internet link from 1993 as proof of anything as all.

Less than 1% used the internet in 1995 -- stats for 1993 are much lower.

http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/

ETA Canada was an early adopter of the internet so in fact we had in Canada 1.2% of people using the net back then.

Here is a general wiki of the history of the Internet. You will see that most poeple used it for email etc. for the first few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

The CBC set up a web page for the first time in 1996 and celbrated its tenth anniversary in July 2006.

http://www.cbc.ca/10th/

So no -- I doubt there is anything online dating back to 1993 that would still be there after this many years even if anybody at the time used the internet for such a discussion.

And for the record -- I don't have an internet link to the October Crisis dating back to the 1970s either but I assure you that it did happen. But I guess you will just have to take my word for it.

BTW Svend Robinson mentions the AM 4 PM campaign in his book but you would have to go buy it.

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I doubt there is anything online dating back to 1993 that would still be there after this many years even if anybody at the time used the internet for such a discussion.

I can find souces and links from 1993.

The "AM for PM" slogan was only used for her leadership run. Not during the 1993 Federal election campaign

From CPAC

On Dec. 2, McLaughlin makes history as the first woman to assume the leadership of a federal party. Her victory, complete with the slogan of “AM for PM,” comes after six hours of voting. She defeats Barrett by 244 votes.

http://live.cpac.ca/Event/LIVE_CPAC_at_the_NDP_Policy_Convention?Page=3

Above quote is written by Andrew Thomson.

I'm not saying you are lying. I think you are mistaken. Buttons might have been worn saying "AM for PM".  But wearing buttons from a past leadership race is different from a Federal election slogan.

So can you please provide a source where the "AM for PM" slogan was used in the 1993 Federal Election Campaign.  If you can't I CAN find the NDP slogan from 1993. And it wasn't "AM for PM". Again I think you are just mistaken.

Thanks.

Fuck this Terry Towel. This is bullshit and you know it. There are no internet sources FROM THE PERIOD of any significance. You are asking for a link THREE YEARS BEFORE CBC.CA was even launched. A period when 1.5% of Canadians had even used the internet. A time when websites were just starting and most were later taken down.

I gave you a reference from 1997 within 4 years of the campaign from a journalist who was active during that campaign. I also sent you to Svend Robinson's book where he references it.

The debate here is not if this was the only NDP campaign slogan or the biggest one but your BULLSHIT contention that the NDP did not go into that campaign wanting to win. I was close to that campaign at the time. I remember it well.

Your argument is bullshit and your attempt to use proof that there was no internet reference to support what I am saying is utter garbage. By the same argument we can all rest assured that Hitler did not lose the WWII -- we know this becuase there is no interenet reference from the time that this happened.

Also the NDP used multiple lines during that campaign as they could not find anything that worked. One was: "Ottawa hasn't got the message-Send it. Vote NDP." Later in the campaign when it was just about over the NDP came up with messaging saying stuff like this: "The Liberals let you down on Free Trade. Will they let you down on health care? Vote NDP."

By the end the NDP was desperate. This desperation and the realization that they could not win and were losing most of their seats is not the same as not wanting to win or not having the objective of winning. As the campaign wore on the NDP narrowed its focus to saving what it could -- but this was a short term panic. The NDP has never had the objective of being the conscience of the House. The have always wanted to win and at times when things have been really bleak have employed short term messages to try to stay in the game.

The very fact that McLaughlin went in with an AM for PM leadership campaign really shows you what the thinking was and how depressing it was for the NDP to go from that to trying to save enough MPs to be alive for the next election. The media had a series of death watch articles on the NDP through that election and the NDP had to answer with some rationale for existing -- even with a low level of support. But that was never about aspiring to be less than government or not campaigning to win -- even if that meant a longer term focus.

And I think you are out to lunch and are not capable of understanding what was going on then.  So you can think I am lying or mistaken -- it really does not matter. Your analysis is completely bogus and you are trying to rest it on one of the most illogical foundations ever concocted: oh and by the way Dinosaurs did not exist -- we know this becuase there is no reference FROM THE TIME to say so.

The reference I provided was fine and you are deflecting.

terrytowel wrote:

I didn't even read your post Sean because

1) total deflection to your assertion (throwing out nasty remarks instead of debating them)

2) I myself don't use profanity and chose not to read posts with laced profanity.

To me using profanity to make a political point or discussion is not condusive IMO to debating the facts.

If you can't keep the conversation civil, then there is no point.

So if you don't have sources to back up your assertion, no probs.

Just keep that in mind the next time when you offer up facts, you need to back them up with SOURCES. And not just throw them out there, And in this case it is crystal clear. You have NO source to back your claim. The fact is "AM for PM" was NOT a campaign slogan in the 1993 Federal Election. And I can prove it with sources.

But you using this profanity is not condusive to this discussion.

We are done here. You have completely blown any respect I ever had for you.

I gave you a source and it was fine. The "from the time" requirement for an internet source from 1993 deserves every swear word in the book and so do you.

You have no shame. I consider this attempt to require an internet source when the internet barely existed to be trolling.

I admit when I am wrong. When I thought you were not a troll, I was wrong. Clearly this stupid requirement for a source that predates ALL the major news sites including the national broadcaster by three years is  trolling. And therefore -- you are what you do. So yep, I was wrong and you convinced me.

terrytowel wrote:

Like I said I think you are mistaken. Because I have cold hard proof of your error.

You think you do becuase your analysis is crap. I was involved in that campaign, I knew the people that were running it and I know what the objective was.

You know some twisted screwed up out-of-context fantasy that you built in order to make an argument that is obviously nonsensical.

And I don't respect people who cryptically claim to have "cold hard proof" while advancing logically deficient theories.

We know that the NDP did not expect to win. We know they did not want to proclaim they could in light of the reality of the time. We know that they directed their resources to the ridings that they felt were the most likely to be saved. To say they did not desire a win and their objective was less than to win is garbage.

Pure garbage.

Like I said that is where any former respect I had for you now is.

I am consistant on one thing: I hate bullshit and I don't care where it is coming from.

terrytowel wrote:

Again deflecting, throwing insults and not engaging in a civil tone. And not even denying you might be wrong in your memory.

I think you are using me as scapegoat because your frustration over the election and the party.

Oh well, I can provide cold hard proof that you erred in your memory on the 1993 Campaign. Just let me know.

Otherwise, no probs.

Bullshit TT. Not interested in your game anymore.

Good Lord!  For two people who don't seem to be on speaking terms, you're sure cranking up your post counts.

1.  There is no policy here against swearing per se.  There is against personal attacks.  ie:  This is fucked up is ok.  You are fucked up is not.

2.  Yeah, about the swearing. Sean, if there were a smoke alarm over your head, it is probably about to go off. you might wanna take a deep breath.

3.  Terry, you're basically calling Sean a liar, whether you use words like "mistaken or not.  Personally I prefer swearing to passive aggressive any day.  I know zip about you, but I think it's pretty clear that Sean is a political insider, and has reasonably reliable information.  I'm inclined to take a person's word for it, especially if it isn't earthshakingly important.

4.  Am I correct here?  Are you really arguing, and putting yourselves at risk of blowing a rad hose, about whether Audry McLaughlin used AM for PM first?  Really??? 

Guys, dial it back!

terrytowel wrote:

Profanity again. I really think you are just taking out your frustrations out on me, cause of your frustrations with the party at the present time. That is what I really believe. Otherwise you would be more civil in your commentary and not use this type of profanity and personal attacks.

Anyways I'll let you cool off and hope a cooler head will pervail. Meanwhile I've no choice but to flag two of your posts for the personal attacks and oppresive language. Don't like doing it, but you cannot take out your frustrations with the current state of the party on other posters here. It is not fair to others who post here in a civil manner and respect others.

Again I think your deep frustrations with the party are causing you to lash out at others. I think you might need a time-out.,

I was rude and I attacked your argument with a lot of anger. I also said that I lost all respect for you -- that's a fact.

So now show me the personal attack becuase there is not one here.

And by the way -- trolling is a behaviour: repeatedly attacking someone's argument when they provided a reference, claiming you have something else that you will not show, and demanding an internet source from 1993 is the behaviour of trolling.  If this is what you call a personal attack then you might want to consider your actions in this thread. I will not take back calling this trolling when that is exactly what it is.

While you can be forgiven for forgetting when the net took off, repeated demands for at-the-time internet links as minimum proof when it has been pointed out that the internet had barely started then is not going to win you respect.

And this all AFTER I provided an article from 1997 written by a journalist and a published book as references. And I pointed to when cbc.ca even started. You wonder why I am impolite.

Tell me: has claiming to have a secret stash of proof that you won't present ever worked for you before?

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

It is nothing else No one is being fooled here. NO ONE!

No one can fool you Arthur

Oh, how clever, TT. You arern't fooling anyone. And just as I've said to others, you're not anywhere near as smart as you think you are. But I'll give this to you, you know how to be insutling.

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

It is nothing else No one is being fooled here. NO ONE!

No one can fool you Arthur

Oh, how clever, TT. You arern't fooling anyone. And just as I've said to others, you're not anywhere near as smart as you think you are. But I'll give this to you, you know how to be insutling.

Who's arguing with you?

Oh look, you're being clever.