If Mulcair drops scripted talking points next time & is just his natural self, a win is assured

335 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2016-01-28 01:15

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Debater wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Mulcair didn't take the fkn low road monty1. he was the one and only leader who stood firm against the racism over the niqab.

why are you being a lying liar?

I realize you don't like monty1 (or Justin Trudeau), but surely you are not forgetting that Justin Trudeau spoke out against the niqab racism just as much (if not more so) than Mulcair?

Both Mulcair and Trudeau said basically the same things on this. The reason that this hurt the NDP and not the Liberals was that the Liberals were not competing with the BQ and the NDP were. The loss of suppport for the NDP gave the Liberals an extra boost so ironically the same position helped Trudeau that hurt the NDP.

On this issue the two parties and leaders were not substantially different.

That's how it works in politics Sean. The winner gets all the marbles. But for Trudeau he was speaking from the heart against racism. And for Mulcair, he was probably speaking from the heart against recism too, even though your word leave doubt on what he would do if he didn't have the Quebec vote to win. Do you really think that Mulcair would have turned turtle on the issue if it wasn't for Quebec?

Thu, 2016-01-28 01:31

#303

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Debater wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Mulcair didn't take the fkn low road monty1. he was the one and only leader who stood firm against the racism over the niqab.

why are you being a lying liar?

I realize you don't like monty1 (or Justin Trudeau), but surely you are not forgetting that Justin Trudeau spoke out against the niqab racism just as much (if not more so) than Mulcair?

Both Mulcair and Trudeau said basically the same things on this. The reason that this hurt the NDP and not the Liberals was that the Liberals were not competing with the BQ and the NDP were. The loss of suppport for the NDP gave the Liberals an extra boost so ironically the same position helped Trudeau that hurt the NDP.

On this issue the two parties and leaders were not substantially different.

That's how it works in politics Sean. The winner gets all the marbles. But for Trudeau he was speaking from the heart against racism. And for Mulcair, he was probably speaking from the heart against recism too, even though your word leave doubt on what he would do if he didn't have the Quebec vote to win. Do you really think that Mulcair would have turned turtle on the issue if it wasn't for Quebec?

More baiting.

Thu, 2016-01-28 01:42

#304

jjuares

monty1 wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Nawww, you don't think Justin is a swell guy and you say so later on in your post above. You hate him:

I said he comes off like a swell guy, not that he was one. And I liked him fine before he decided to become a tool for the wealthy elites to oppress us all. By leading the Liberal party he becomes complicit in all the things the party has done and is doing. People's actions have to mean something after all, though I appreciate if you understood that concept you wouldn't be a Liberal supporter.

Quote:

Quote:
, and then we'll see how well Justin has fooled the public into buying his bullshit. I predict the shine will have worn off this turd by then.

What an ignorant thing to say! I hope our SEan doesn't read it because he hates that kind of talk when it's about Mulcair, but less demeaning by far.

Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. Just pointing that out because you don't seem to understand the word you're using.

Quote:

And here's a lesson for you so you will have something to argue about. On foreign policy alone, if he does what the Canadian people in the majority want him to do on the 6 bombers issue and doesn't bring them home, then he will be even more popular. If he brings them home as he's promised by March, then people like you still won't like him, will you.

Also the word lesson means you're telling me something I don't already know. You're welcome.

Anyway, if Justin makes any honest attempt whatsoever to help the Canadian people by standing up to the wealthy elites that the Liberals have always been shameless toadies for, then I will admit I was 100% wrong and vote for him in the next election. Seriously, I have no feelings of loyalty for the NDP. They're just the clear best choice of a bad lot.

But anyone who pays attention to politics knows that's not going to happen. The real question for you is how many of Justin's promises will he have to break to lose your support? Care to tell us that? We already know that he could eat a baby live on television and Pondering would still shill for him, but how about you? What's your breaking point, monty? Hypothetically speaking, how bad will it have to get for you to admit you were lied to?

Frankly speaking Jacob, Trudeau could break all of his promises except one and I would still vote for him next time. The one promise that he can't break is his promise of bringing the 6 bombers home on the promised date of March at the latest. Because you see, that is so hugely important simply because it steals the legitimacy from the US. There is no other country they need for 'appearance' sake more than Canada, with the exception of the UK. Be assured that it is only for appearance and to lend them our country's credibility.

And isn't it ironic Jacob, that the one promise that he needs to break, and if he did, would bring him overwhelming support from the Canadian people, is the exact same promise. Do you get that jacob? If not then let's talk about it.

Look at the last line. Could you be more condescending?

Thu, 2016-01-28 12:20

#305

swallow

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

where the fuck are the moderators?

Have you flagged a post? If no one does, then they will not read this thread. (I wish I hadn't read it, actually.) If someone flags psots or e-mails them, then I'm sure one of them will take a look.

Thu, 2016-01-28 14:57

#306

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

where the fuck are the moderators?

Have you flagged a post? If no one does, then they will not read this thread. (I wish I hadn't read it, actually.) If someone flags psots or e-mails them, then I'm sure one of them will take a look.

I did. There is a thread in babble banter with a series of excerpts.

Meg has answered -- she is fine with Monty1.

I am not interested in this kind of exchange continuing now that Babble is a place where a poster can call another "young man" or tell them to do it like a man etc. we should see coming a new Babble policy expressly allowing this kind of sexist, and ageist language...

Many complaints were made. Monty opened up fights with almost every poster here -- including Liberals.

I don't think we should define this board as a progressive board anymore given the new definition of what is acceptable.

Each person has to decide if there is any point in remaining here. It is certainly a habit that after more than ten years is hard to break but perhaps it is time just to accept that this is no longer the place it once was.

We cannot pretend that the mods have not seen this. They have. Decide if you like it or not.

Thu, 2016-01-28 17:15

#307

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Debater wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Mulcair didn't take the fkn low road monty1. he was the one and only leader who stood firm against the racism over the niqab.

why are you being a lying liar?

I realize you don't like monty1 (or Justin Trudeau), but surely you are not forgetting that Justin Trudeau spoke out against the niqab racism just as much (if not more so) than Mulcair?

Both Mulcair and Trudeau said basically the same things on this. The reason that this hurt the NDP and not the Liberals was that the Liberals were not competing with the BQ and the NDP were. The loss of suppport for the NDP gave the Liberals an extra boost so ironically the same position helped Trudeau that hurt the NDP.

On this issue the two parties and leaders were not substantially different.

That's how it works in politics Sean. The winner gets all the marbles. But for Trudeau he was speaking from the heart against racism. And for Mulcair, he was probably speaking from the heart against recism too, even though your word leave doubt on what he would do if he didn't have the Quebec vote to win. Do you really think that Mulcair would have turned turtle on the issue if it wasn't for Quebec?

More baiting.

That's not baiting, it's political discussion.

Thu, 2016-01-28 17:16

#308

monty1

jjuares wrote:
monty1 wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Nawww, you don't think Justin is a swell guy and you say so later on in your post above. You hate him:

I said he comes off like a swell guy, not that he was one. And I liked him fine before he decided to become a tool for the wealthy elites to oppress us all. By leading the Liberal party he becomes complicit in all the things the party has done and is doing. People's actions have to mean something after all, though I appreciate if you understood that concept you wouldn't be a Liberal supporter.

Quote:

Quote:
, and then we'll see how well Justin has fooled the public into buying his bullshit. I predict the shine will have worn off this turd by then.

What an ignorant thing to say! I hope our SEan doesn't read it because he hates that kind of talk when it's about Mulcair, but less demeaning by far.

Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. Just pointing that out because you don't seem to understand the word you're using.

Quote:

And here's a lesson for you so you will have something to argue about. On foreign policy alone, if he does what the Canadian people in the majority want him to do on the 6 bombers issue and doesn't bring them home, then he will be even more popular. If he brings them home as he's promised by March, then people like you still won't like him, will you.

Also the word lesson means you're telling me something I don't already know. You're welcome.

Anyway, if Justin makes any honest attempt whatsoever to help the Canadian people by standing up to the wealthy elites that the Liberals have always been shameless toadies for, then I will admit I was 100% wrong and vote for him in the next election. Seriously, I have no feelings of loyalty for the NDP. They're just the clear best choice of a bad lot.

But anyone who pays attention to politics knows that's not going to happen. The real question for you is how many of Justin's promises will he have to break to lose your support? Care to tell us that? We already know that he could eat a baby live on television and Pondering would still shill for him, but how about you? What's your breaking point, monty? Hypothetically speaking, how bad will it have to get for you to admit you were lied to?

Frankly speaking Jacob, Trudeau could break all of his promises except one and I would still vote for him next time. The one promise that he can't break is his promise of bringing the 6 bombers home on the promised date of March at the latest. Because you see, that is so hugely important simply because it steals the legitimacy from the US. There is no other country they need for 'appearance' sake more than Canada, with the exception of the UK. Be assured that it is only for appearance and to lend them our country's credibility.

And isn't it ironic Jacob, that the one promise that he needs to break, and if he did, would bring him overwhelming support from the Canadian people, is the exact same promise. Do you get that jacob? If not then let's talk about it.

Look at the last line. Could you be more condescending?

The last line or two lines are not condescending in any way. They are an invitation to discuss.

Thu, 2016-01-28 17:48

#309

Michael Moriarity

monty1 wrote:

The last line or two lines are not condescending in any way. They are an invitation to discuss.

The sentence in question "Do you get that jacob? If not then let's talk about it." does not read to me as an invitation to discuss so much as an invitation to sit at the feet of Supreme Master of Politics Monty, and imbibe some of his world-famous wisdom. For myself, no thank you.

Thu, 2016-01-28 18:15

#310

quizzical

monty again i will repeat, Mulcair stood in the right position on the Niqab even though it would mean losing needed Bloc votes NOT getting them.

for someone who claims to know so much from your words it seems you don't.

Thu, 2016-01-28 18:40

#311

brookmere

But Mulcair let some Quebec candidates get away with siding with the Cons and Bloc on the issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/mulcair-niqab-policy-ndp-quebec_...

As I recall, he did not show such generosity to candidates who offended his sensibilities on other issues.

Thu, 2016-01-28 19:01

#312

quizzical

"let some"? "offended his sensibilities"?

i'd like to see proof orders either way came from Mulcair himself.

Thu, 2016-01-28 19:03

#313

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

monty again i will repeat, Mulcair stood in the right position on the Niqab even though it would mean losing needed Bloc votes NOT getting them.

for someone who claims to know so much from your words it seems you don't.

No point arguing -- moderators backed him up in the thread he started and closed it letting him know to let them know if he is offended. Becuase the rules do apply to some people -- just not him.

So, my mistake, sexist language, baiting, talking down to people, calling a person of years and experience "young man" telling people "to act like a man." That's all cool here now (at least for some). Directly calling out to other posters who have stopped interacting with you, making fun of people's names, questioning their assertions about themselves, demeaning them, dismissing a discussion about racism, and repeatedly reclassifying other people's positions as something they are objecting to over and over. All cool (for some).

So quizzical all the stuff he said to you -- it is fine by the mods. Just be careful yourself because while they ignored all the complaints about him they remind him how to make his own complaints.

Anyway, if you find posting here is not worth it might I reccomend the movie Interstellar? Really interesting and well done Sci Fi.

I am going to find some movies myself. It will be a lot more rewarding I am sure.

Thu, 2016-01-28 19:07

#314

monty1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

monty1 wrote:

The last line or two lines are not condescending in any way. They are an invitation to discuss.

The sentence in question "Do you get that jacob? If not then let's talk about it." does not read to me as an invitation to discuss so much as an invitation to sit at the feet of Supreme Master of Politics Monty, and imbibe some of his world-famous wisdom. For myself, no thank you.

The sentenc, Do you get that jacob?, in no way is demeaning or impolite or any other derogatory term you can dream up for it. It's simply asking jacob if what I expalined was understood. Drop it and get over it because I'm getting sick of this kind of paranoia over everything I say, simply because I'm a Trudeau supporter. You people's constant harassment of me is worthy of reporting to the moderators but I'm just not into that.

Thu, 2016-01-28 22:18

#315

mark_alfred

Debater wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Mulcair didn't take the fkn low road monty1. he was the one and only leader who stood firm against the racism over the niqab.

why are you being a lying liar?

I realize you don't like monty1 (or Justin Trudeau), but surely you are not forgetting that Justin Trudeau spoke out against the niqab racism just as much (if not more so) than Mulcair?

I suspect the NDP had more to lose though, since I feel that a lot of their supporters in Quebec were of the more secular left variety.

Thu, 2016-01-28 22:20

#316

mark_alfred

The NDP are putting out some very good issues. See the latest news releases here: http://www.ndp.ca/news

Fri, 2016-01-29 01:03

#317

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

Debater wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Mulcair didn't take the fkn low road monty1. he was the one and only leader who stood firm against the racism over the niqab.

why are you being a lying liar?

I realize you don't like monty1 (or Justin Trudeau), but surely you are not forgetting that Justin Trudeau spoke out against the niqab racism just as much (if not more so) than Mulcair?

I suspect the NDP had more to lose though, since I feel that a lot of their supporters in Quebec were of the more secular left variety.

I agree that in some ways the NDP had more to lose than the Liberals in Quebec, BUT the Liberals were also trying to make big breakthroughs in Quebec, and Trudeau was the subject of some nasty anti-niqab ads in Quebec, just like Mulcair.

Lagatta posted about an ad that she heard in a store while she was shopping last October. Lagatta said that the ad had a voiceover by a "Madame toute le monde" which attacked both Mulcair & Trudeau of nasty things about the niqab.

The Trudeau Liberals ended up winning Quebec, but it's possible that they might have won even more Quebec votes had Trudeau not also been the subject of the anti-niqab ads.

Fri, 2016-01-29 01:07

#318

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Anyway, if Justin makes any honest attempt whatsoever to help the Canadian people by standing up to the wealthy elites that the Liberals have always been shameless toadies for, then I will admit I was 100% wrong and vote for him in the next election. Seriously, I have no feelings of loyalty for the NDP. They're just the clear best choice of a bad lot.

Bullshit. The NDP wouldn't stand up to them either. To claim they would shows what a shill you are.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
But anyone who pays attention to politics knows that's not going to happen.

Why would anyone think it would? Again, the NDP would be no different.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
The real question for you is how many of Justin's promises will he have to break to lose your support?

Trudeau never promised to take down the elite. If he did please do find a quote.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
We already know that he could eat a baby live on television and Pondering would still shill for him, but how about you?

Obviously you have been visiting an alternate reality. Trudeau will meet my expectations because my expectations of him are not high. I don't and never did expect him to keep all his campaign commitments to the letter, or to solve income inequality, or to do anything heroic.

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure and a third for green projects, or at least close to that. I want to see investment in mass transit and bike lanes.

I expect marijuana legalization. I am willing to wait for the process to unfold I am hoping it will happen within 2 years but as long as he does it before the end of his mandate I will be satisfied.

He has already begun undoing the harm Harper did by unmuzzling scientists and I appreciate his dedication to gender equality and willingness to call himself a feminist. I want to see many more of Harper's changes reversed.

I wish he had pulled out the bombers the day he won but I understood before voting for him that was unlikely. Today the defence minister announced that there will be no gap in Canada's contribution to the fight against ISIS. When the plan is ready the switch will be made.

You say you voted for the best of a bad bunch but that is exactly what I did. Mulcair was not willing to commit to building that infrastructure nor to legalizing marijuana nor to running a deficit. I don't believe he could have delivered on all his promises with a 2% corporate tax increase, something he must have known himself unless he's an idiot which he obviously isn't.

In 2019/2020 I will vote for whichever party leader offers me the best credible plan that I believe they intend to fulfill barring unforeseen circumstances.

Your insistence that the NDP is the clear first choice and that Trudeau must stand up to the wealthy elite illustrates your bias.

There are some things that are up to the people. Stopping pipelines, bad trade deals and reversing income inequality are all battles that the public must support strongly in order to force our will on governments and by extension corporations.

Pipeline opponents have stopped the government and big oil from getting any of the major pipelines through so we can win against them. Don't blame the politicians; or maybe do, but recognize that we are not powerless. It is up to us to convince the public to join us in our demands.

Fri, 2016-01-29 01:18

#319

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Fri, 2016-01-29 01:19

#320

monty1

Pondering said:

Quote:
There are some things that are up to the people. Stopping pipelines, bad trade deals and reversing income inequality are all battles that the public must support strongly in order to force our will on governments and by extension corporations.

Please try to remember foreign policy. It's up to the people as much as any other issue. If you don't mention it then I'll think you don't care.

Quote:
Bullshit. The NDP wouldn't stand up to them either. To claim they would shows what a shill you are.

Thank you for making that comment to jacob. It opens up the parameters to which I have to adhere in future posting. Unless of course they decide to do both of us at the same time.

Fri, 2016-01-29 07:53

#321

brookmere

quizzical wrote:

"let some"? "offended his sensibilities"?

i'd like to see proof orders either way came from Mulcair himself.

Are you kidding? It is the leader, and the leader alone, who has the authority to force candidates to step down. It is a fact that some NDP candidates who had taken no position contrary to party policy were forced to step down and it is a fact that some candidates in Quebec who publicly opposed the NDP's position were not.

Fri, 2016-01-29 12:20

#322

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

Fri, 2016-01-29 12:38

#323

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

The plan was to have a combined deficit of $26 billion over three years, coupled with a $6.5 billion cut to government expenditures over their mandate. Some of your list above seems to fall into the category of long term expense (aka fixed cost) rather than short term investment. So, once the deficit spending ends, how are these fixed costs maintained? And how much do they plan to put in for child care? Affordable housing? Hospitals and/or clinics?

Fri, 2016-01-29 12:58

#324

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

The plan was to have a combined deficit of $26 billion over three years, coupled with a $6.5 billion cut to government expenditures over their mandate. Some of your list above seems to fall into the category of long term expense (aka fixed cost) rather than short term investment. So, once the deficit spending ends, how are these fixed costs maintained? And how much do they plan to put in for child care? Affordable housing? Hospitals and/or clinics?

So you are saying they shouldn't spent that money on social infrastructure? None of the infrastructure money is intended for short term investment.

Fri, 2016-01-29 13:21

#325

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

The plan was to have a combined deficit of $26 billion over three years, coupled with a $6.5 billion cut to government expenditures over their mandate. Some of your list above seems to fall into the category of long term expense (aka fixed cost) rather than short term investment. So, once the deficit spending ends, how are these fixed costs maintained? And how much do they plan to put in for child care? Affordable housing? Hospitals and/or clinics?

That's as good an explanation as any, why campaign promises can't be kept and shouldn't be expected to be. Nearly every promise has a price tag attached and may have to be modified when the new government discovers how much the previous one has been messing with the books. But again, I wouldn't accept Trudeau not bringing home the 6 bombers on any pretence. Although I would be in a very small minority on that one because if he doesn't then it's the wishes of a huge % of the Canadian people who are telling him not to.

Which brings up a question you people need to deal with too. Does a government listen to the wishes of it's constituents?

Every party leader, as well as every politician is forced to work within the system, and personally, I don't see how the system can every be changed. They have to make promises that equal the promises of their competitors. So the lies of politicians, after the fact of the election, will be pointed out for the winners to deal with, but only if the winner isn't their own liar.

Just simple facts that need telling because in the rush to concemn they never are.

Fri, 2016-01-29 13:31

#326

bswalks

So what was the price tag for ammending C-51 and not signing TPP?
Because they so far haven't been on the ledger books for any sort of cost?

Fri, 2016-01-29 13:33

#327

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

The plan was to have a combined deficit of $26 billion over three years, coupled with a $6.5 billion cut to government expenditures over their mandate. Some of your list above seems to fall into the category of long term expense (aka fixed cost) rather than short term investment. So, once the deficit spending ends, how are these fixed costs maintained? And how much do they plan to put in for child care? Affordable housing? Hospitals and/or clinics?

So you are saying they shouldn't spent that money on social infrastructure? None of the infrastructure money is intended for short term investment.

No, I'm not making any suggestion. I'm just confused about it and am asking you as a supporter of Trudeau's to explain more about his social infrastructure plan to me.

Sat, 2016-01-30 02:07

#328

Debater

brookmere wrote:

quizzical wrote:

"let some"? "offended his sensibilities"?

i'd like to see proof orders either way came from Mulcair himself.

Are you kidding? It is the leader, and the leader alone, who has the authority to force candidates to step down. It is a fact that some NDP candidates who had taken no position contrary to party policy were forced to step down and it is a fact that some candidates in Quebec who publicly opposed the NDP's position were not.

And there were NDP candidates forced out by Mulcair on non-Niqab issues.

Example 1: Morgan Wheeldon in Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia. Even though some Jewish NDPers came to his defense, he was forced to step down after being accused by the Cons of being an anti-Semite for making a comment about Palestine.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/thomas-mulcair-is-cracking-down-on-pro-pa...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/11/morgan-wheeldon-ndp-candidates-i...

Example 2: Stefan Jonasson, in Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley. Was forced out by Mulcair after he made a mild criticism about an Orthodox Jewish sect having a similar position on women's issues to the Taliban. Jonasson was very hurt by it and has said he will not run for politics again. Andrew Coyne even said Mulcair should be ashamed of himself.

http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/ndp-turfed-stefan-jonasson-critici...

Sat, 2016-01-30 02:58

#329

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

The plan was to have a combined deficit of $26 billion over three years, coupled with a $6.5 billion cut to government expenditures over their mandate. Some of your list above seems to fall into the category of long term expense (aka fixed cost) rather than short term investment. So, once the deficit spending ends, how are these fixed costs maintained? And how much do they plan to put in for child care? Affordable housing? Hospitals and/or clinics?

So you are saying they shouldn't spent that money on social infrastructure? None of the infrastructure money is intended for short term investment.

No, I'm not making any suggestion. I'm just confused about it and am asking you as a supporter of Trudeau's to explain more about his social infrastructure plan to me.

There won't be any ongoing costs for the federal government. Provinces and cities, have been asked to submit projects. Once a senior's home (for example) is built it is the province or city that runs it.

Thank you for calling me a Trudeau supporter rather than a Liberal. I really do appreciate it.

In my opinion until we transform public opinion to support the massive improvements that we know are possible the best that can be hoped for is some balance, not miracles. The Trudeau years are going to be a mixed bag but they are going to be way better that what would have occurred under Harper.

So for me it is time for attention to shift to making sure our cities are submitting projects while maintaining focus on preventing CETA, TPP and Energy East. All three can only be stopped by people power.

Sat, 2016-01-30 12:21

#330

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

In my opinion until we transform public opinion to support the massive improvements that we know are possible the best that can be hoped for is some balance, not miracles.

I believe Trudeau has transformed public opinion for massive improvements. He campaigned on the premise of "Real Change" (not "some balance"), so people expect this. As you mentioned, this includes large expenditures in "social infrastructure" -- so, an injection of government financing in areas of great need like child care. It's important to not let the Trudeau Liberals off the hook for their promises in the same way that the Chretien Liberals abandonned many of their Red Book promises. People voted for "Real Change", so people should get real change.

ETA: https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/is-trudeau-for-real/

Michael Hollett wrote:

I’d love to meet the new PM six months from now at a legalized pot joint for a celebratory toke after he fulfills his promises to legalize marijuana, revise Bill C-51, call an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, enact electoral reform and so much more.

“Lovin’ the Bubba Kush,” the prime minister might mutter. “Chocolate milk’s on me.”

Sat, 2016-01-30 12:55

#331

monty1

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I expect him to keep his infrastructure commitment including using a third for social infrastructure

Can you outline this for me?

Social infrastructure is daycares, seniors residences, social housing and probably affordable housing too, maybe clinics or hospitals.

The plan was to have a combined deficit of $26 billion over three years, coupled with a $6.5 billion cut to government expenditures over their mandate. Some of your list above seems to fall into the category of long term expense (aka fixed cost) rather than short term investment. So, once the deficit spending ends, how are these fixed costs maintained? And how much do they plan to put in for child care? Affordable housing? Hospitals and/or clinics?

So you are saying they shouldn't spent that money on social infrastructure? None of the infrastructure money is intended for short term investment.

No, I'm not making any suggestion. I'm just confused about it and am asking you as a supporter of Trudeau's to explain more about his social infrastructure plan to me.

There won't be any ongoing costs for the federal government. Provinces and cities, have been asked to submit projects. Once a senior's home (for example) is built it is the province or city that runs it.

Thank you for calling me a Trudeau supporter rather than a Liberal. I really do appreciate it.

In my opinion until we transform public opinion to support the massive improvements that we know are possible the best that can be hoped for is some balance, not miracles. The Trudeau years are going to be a mixed bag but they are going to be way better that what would have occurred under Harper.

So for me it is time for attention to shift to making sure our cities are submitting projects while maintaining focus on preventing CETA, TPP and Energy East. All three can only be stopped by people power.

There's no spirit of promoting change amonst these people. They're nearly all hoping for failure. Just keep in mind that they are a small and vanishing minority and the people of Canada are coming along with Trudeau slowly but surely. His ratings are good.

And by that, I don't mean the all NDP supporters, just some stubborn ones. I think that if those who pull the strings at NDP headquarters need to start thinking of uniting the left before it's too late for them and they aren't significant enough to unite with!

Sat, 2016-01-30 13:16

#332

mark_alfred

monty1 wrote:

There's no spirit of promoting change amonst these people. They're nearly all hoping for failure. Just keep in mind that they are a small and vanishing minority and the people of Canada are coming along with Trudeau slowly but surely. His ratings are good.

On the contrary, I hope for success. But success to me is not "his ratings are good". Rather, it's him keeping his promises. To elaborate: electoral reform recommendations presented to parliament in 18 months, meet with provinces and others to start working out a comprehensive child care plan in first 100 days, a “pan-Canadian” framework for combatting climate change within 90 days of the Paris climate change talks in December, revise Bill C-51 to protect our Charter Rights, legalize marijuana and remove simple possession from the criminal code, repeal the HarperCons’ anti-sex-worker law (Bill C-36), launch a public inquiry immediately into the disappearance and murder of more than 1,200 native women and girls, bring back the CF-18s and stop the bombing in Syria, make investments in public transit, and do the right thing and not enact the HarperCons' TPP.

Tue, 2016-03-22 21:25

#333

mark_alfred

Nik Nanos discusses how Canadians are feeling about Thomas Mulcair.

Thomas Mulcair: Polls show his personal brand is still going strong

Tue, 2016-03-22 23:27

#334

Brian Glennie

We went down the wrong road when we elected Tom. We need someone who is real NDP as Leader and I believe there is tremendous potential in Nathan Cullen as a person who will appeal to voters.

Wed, 2016-03-23 01:32

#335

mark_alfred

Peter Julian: We Need Tom Mulcair Leading This Fight

Peter Julian wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind that Stephen Harper would still be leading Canada without Tom's effective work in Parliament exposing the destructive agenda of the former Conservative Prime Minister. I don't forget that Liberal MPs were often Mr. Harper's strongest allies in Parliament during this same period.

Tom has been called the best opposition leader of the past half-century by some. I have seen first-hand how effective he has been in the House of Commons. I know he is effective, eloquent, and determined to hold a new Liberal government to account for what seems to be an almost pathological ability to break promises made during the recent election.

We need to learn from our mistakes and look at the road ahead. We need to build our momentum again and continue building on our proud legacy of our movement. We need to push back in Parliament on behalf of all Canadians against a government that has already thrown aside so many of its solemn commitments to those same Canadians. And we need Tom Mulcair leading that fight.

If Mulcair drops scripted talking points next time & is just his natural self, a win is assured

Pages