Husband of the Chief of Staff to PM Justin Trudeau Gives Up His Career To Support Hers

Smile guys, the weekend is almost here. No need to fight.

Sean the CBC article  at the top annouces it is a work in progress. ya can't expect things to be there at any given time i guess. they're chaging it as they need i guess.

Quote:

« This page is a work in progress. Follow this link to return to the CBCNews.ca you know

quizzical wrote:

Sean the CBC article  at the top annouces it is a work in progress. ya can't expect things to be there at any given time i guess. they're chaging it as they need i guess.

Quote:

« This page is a work in progress. Follow this link to return to the CBCNews.ca you know

Perhaps -- but the point is not central to the rest of the thread. TT is just pretending. The guy is a rich guy with a six figure salary who is himself a Liberal strategist. 

But thanks. On the specific of the salary amount -- the minor point -- I could have been wrong. But TT himself said it was a six figure salary. He is on record all over the place as well-connected and a strategist. A move to Ottawa for a Liberal strategist -- well that's good strategy.

יְבָרֶכְךָ יהוה, וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ

יָאֵר יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וִיחֻנֶּךָּ

יִשָּׂא יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם

 

oldgoat wrote:

What the heck Pondering, I'm going to take Swallows advice.   Here, have a balloon. 

Thank you for the balloon. Enjoying the thread?  65 posts all about why we shouldn't discuss this.

Here is a thread headed down the same direction as this one.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/undecided-vote-takes-2nd-place...

I think the poll could prompt an interesting discussion about why the numbers are what they are, not to praise Trudeau, but to figure out what is driving voters which is the first step to changing their minds.

Here is a thread people expressed their disinterest in by not posting rather than by berating the thread starter.

http://rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/no-justice-tami...

Pondering and Terry Towel -- clearly neither of you even wants to try honesty here.

The complaint has never been about your right to be here. It is what you say.

I am sick of your endless whining after you provoke a response, get it and then complain that the feedback you get is an attempt to silence you.

I have never ever, ever,ever, ever suggested to you Terry Towel that you should not get to be here or not post. I have only given feedback -- sometimes angry -- at the content of your posts when they are offensive or crap. I have also defended attacks on you when they were not justified. But when you come here and provoke and sling BS -- everyone else has the right to be here. And they have the right to  call you on it.

Liberals here have the supreme arrogance that they argue not be challenged no mattter what they say and then claim to be martyrs when anyone holds them accountable for what they have said.

Pretending I was trying to stop you from posting TT -- that's what lying looks like.

 

terrytowel wrote:

Sure it has been done.

Sean do you want to rid this place of people that you feel are Liberal hacks? Again I'm an independent with no ties to the Liberals.

However if you want to get rid of all the people that don't share your idealogy, you can start with me. Just say the word and I'll delete my account and leave this place forever.

Once you say GO and I'll be gone. And you can be done with me once and for all.

It is all in your hands. You can get rid off me by letting me know. I'll be gone and you never have to read my posts ever again.

Then it would be one down and several dozen left to go. Then you can purge this entire place and only speak to the converted. And you can start with me.

Well?

Actually, you can't delete your account. I can ban a user for repeated violations of babble policy, etc. Of course you can choose not to post here anymore but that's the extent of it. At any rate, let's dial back on the bickering.

My personal non-mod opinion is that it is disgusting that a privileged male gets lauded for doing what women have been quietly doing for, like, forever.

I must have missed something. Who is lauding this guy? Certainly hasn't happened in this thread nor in the article cited.

It remains the norm for women to stay home with the kids when they are infants and pre-schoolers and to move where the husband's career takes him. I'm sure the reverse happens a lot more now than it did 30 years ago but it isn't 50/50. The more visible it is the more common it will be.

Two mounties got tons of attention for getting married, something lots of people do everyday. Scott Brison and his husband got attention for becoming fathers to twins. This guy is getting attention for giving up a high-powered job.

None of these people are being lauded for what they did. They are just human interest stories.

So really, please show me where Rob Silver has been lauded for this.

Pondering wrote:

I must have missed something. Who is lauding this guy? Certainly hasn't happened in this thread nor in the article cited.

[...]

So really, please show me where Rob Silver has been lauded for this.

Read the misleading, inaccurate thread title. It's in big letters at the top of the thread. If you don't understand why I'm calling it "misleading" and/or "inaccurate", or if you don't follow why I consider that title as laudatory - just ask, and I'll be pleased to respond.

ETA: By the way, the linked article in the OP does [b]NOT[/b] say what the thread title says. The thread title is obviously deliberately crafted not only to put a spin on what happened (he quit to avoid real or perceived conflict of interest - he did not "give up" any "career" at all, and certainly not to "support" hers) - but also to present it as a supreme act of heroic self-sacrifice. I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing what everyone else here sees, so I'm taking you at your word and explaining.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

MegB wrote:

My personal non-mod opinion is that it is disgusting that a privileged male gets lauded for doing what women have been quietly doing for, like, forever.

Very well said.

Yes. 

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I must have missed something. Who is lauding this guy? Certainly hasn't happened in this thread nor in the article cited.

[...]

So really, please show me where Rob Silver has been lauded for this.

Read the misleading, inaccurate thread title. It's in big letters at the top of the thread. If you don't understand why I'm calling it "misleading" and/or "inaccurate", or if you don't follow why I consider that title as laudatory - just ask, and I'll be pleased to respond.

ETA: By the way, the linked article in the OP does [b]NOT[/b] say what the thread title says. The thread title is obviously deliberately crafted not only to put a spin on what happened (he quit to avoid real or perceived conflict of interest - he did not "give up" any "career" at all, and certainly not to "support" hers) - but also to present it as a supreme act of heroic self-sacrifice. I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing what everyone else here sees, so I'm taking you at your word and explaining.

I can understand why you would interpret the title of the thread that way. Giving up a career carries a different implication than giving up a job, but the content illustrated that there was no attempt to mislead people in the choice of wording. For now it appears he doesn't have a job and is looking forward to spending more time with his son. When women do that it is often referred to as giving up one's career although I'll assume that Rob Silver is planning on looking for a position in Ottawa.

Terrytowel just as gleefully gave the Liberals the "IT'S OVER" treatment when the NDP was leading in the polls. He says he is an indepedent and I see no reason to disbelieve him. Even if I did, so what? He's harmless and he's courteous. What more do you want? Why should anyone here give him such a hard time over starting a thread. He doesn't start them daily. There are a ton of one post threads on babble. The sex worker forum is full of them. Maysie's thread didn't get any responses. Lets all go tell her that could have gone in an existing thread or wasn't important enough to post as if not getting any responses doesn't send that message already.

Unionist wrote:

I have no problem at all with terrytowel. I defend and encourage his presence here. I don't care what party he supports, and I don't even care if he lies about it. I oppose all the pile-ons against him and the horrendous namecalling and "othering" of someone just because of an assumption that he doesn't wear the right team jersey. By contrast, he is unfailingly civil, even when facing the most provocative baiting and character assassination. I agree with some of his views and disagree with others.

And I have exactly the same attitude to you. I agree or disagree with views you express, and I feel free to ridicule anyone that tries to "identify" your allegiance and judge you accordingly.

And, I hope I have the same attitude to everyone here. I hope I have never said, "Well, you're just a Liberal/Con/NDP/separatist/federalist/whatever, so we know what you're up to, and your views should be judged accordingly." If I've ever said that, or if I ever say it in the future, I sincerely hope to be slapped back to order.

All true although you are a tad sensitive on the union issue.

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have never ever, ever,ever, ever suggested to you Terry Towel that you should not get to be here or not post. I have only given feedback -- sometimes angry -- at the content of your posts when they are offensive or crap. I have also defended attacks on you when they were not justified.But when you come here and provoke and sling BS -- everyone else has the right to be here. And they have the right to  call you on it.

And I appreciate that. I hear what you are saying and will take it to heart. Can we start over? I've read what you have written and will try to follow the advice you have.

Cause despite everything I still respect you and your opinion.

So hoepfully we can wipe the slate clean and start over.

Sure -- I am okay with wiping the slate clean and resetting. I appreciate this post. Thank you. Let's do that.

Ahhhh, a thread with a number of kumbaya moments. The fact that the whole thread from the title on down reeks of hypocrisy and dishonesty is held to be irrelevant. And yeah, despite what the Liberal apologists now say, it was meant to be laudatory. You don't really need to go beyond the title to come to that realization. It is amazing how the concept of integrity carries so little meaning here.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Ahhhh, a thread with a number of kumbaya moments. The fact that the whole thread from the title on down reeks of hypocrisy and dishonesty is held to be irrelevant. And yeah, despite what the Liberal apologists now say, it was meant to be laudatory. You don't really need to go beyond the title to come to that realization. It is amazing how the concept of integrity carries so little meaning here.

I just think that if someone says I thought about what I said and want a rethink to start over -- it is right to welcome them to do so.

It does not mean you do not care about the issues you argued. If you argue a point important to you becuase you want to get someone to change their position, you have to be open to them doing so and welcome that. Otherwise why argue on anything?

Well, it is not about arguing as Ihave said it's about integrity and where you place that quality on your hierarchy of values. For me it is not just the most important quality but the one that activates and enables meaningful discussion. As Meg pointed out and what should be painfully obvious to anyone with any cognitive ability, this is a laudatory thread. Now both TT and Pondering deny this and that of course is their right. However, it is impossible for me to pretend that their bullshit is anything but that, bullshit. Pure undiluted bullshit. And the brazen nature of their bullshit is what I find especially objectionable. When someone tells you a falsehood it does matter just how easily discernible that falsehood is. A brazen falsehood carries with it a message of contempt. What the purveyors of the brazen falsehood is saying is " I am going to say something so outrageously false and I expect you to continue to dialog with me because I believe you to be either so stupid that you can't recognize the most obvious forms of bullshit or you are so timid that you will carry on as if I said something reasonable and worthy of debate". That's the message that TT and once again Pondering are delivering. To pretend otherwise is to play their game and operate at a level worthy of their contempt. And that is what they are showing anyone foolish enough to engage them: contempt.

quizzical wrote:

i think they use this place to learn if something flies as good propaganda or not. and if they wanna push it anyway they're learning how to reword their presentation.

Now this is funny.

quizzical wrote:

i think they use this place to learn if something flies as good propaganda or not. and if they wanna push it anyway they're learning how to reword their presentation.

ROFLOL

I confess, we got together in IM and planned the whole thing as a test for the 2019 election campaign because this is such a great place to test propaganda.

On the other hand we could just check the reaction to the story in the mainstream press.

I think it might be a bit difficult to work it into campaign literature in 2019 especially if Silver has a high level job in Ottawa by then.

You may not have noticed but this election hung on who voters thought had the best and most credible economic plan. Specifically the spending on infrastructure.

I can't believe you seriously think this story could impact the election in 2019.

 

quizzical wrote:

lmaoooooooooooooooooooo i'm not even thinking about an election in 2019, why in hell would anyone be unless they're politically affiliated somehow?

an  asteriod could strike the earth before then or a massive earthquake...i like to live in the now.

from all your comments and concerns about 2019 over the last couple months i guess you are already thinking ahead to the election in 2019 though.

Of course I am. What do you think all the discussions about Mulcair staying or going are about?

quizzical wrote:

imv the Liberals are breaking every fking election platform they presented and are now trying to build cases to get away from public backlsh and still get elected in 2019.

have you noticed Sophie has stopped playing princess and tagging along after Justin?

If you believe Trudeau  is breaking all his election platform commitments then defeating him should be a breeze in 2019 and nothing I can say will prevent a public backlash now or then.

I saw Catherine Mulcair holding hands with Tom a lot during the campaign but I haven't seen her tagging along at all since the election. If you think Sophie was "playing princess" I should think you would be praising her for not continuing, character growth and all that.

I'm not suprised that you are a Mulcair supporter. You take aim at everything indescriminately hoping something will stick.

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

lmaoooooooooooooooooooo i'm not even thinking about an election in 2019, why in hell would anyone be unless they're politically affiliated somehow?

an  asteriod could strike the earth before then or a massive earthquake...i like to live in the now.

from all your comments and concerns about 2019 over the last couple months i guess you are already thinking ahead to the election in 2019 though.

Of course I am. What do you think all the discussions about Mulcair staying or going are about?

The future direction and purpose of the NDP, I think. Not pure electoral politics. Is it really all about elections, not policy and effecting change, for you? That would be startling. 

Yay, I got post 100 in the thread!