I am not a Trudeau fan -- surely you ought to have been able to tell by now. But I recognize the position the PM is in, that any PM would be in. Trudeau is not the hostage here. I understand the problem and I know (as the article I posted stated) that silence is not going to work for long. As I said with the Chamberlain story -- I hope something is being put in place for the conflict when it comes.And, while I do not think Trudeau is a great PM, I fully recognize the dilemma and wrote about it. I would feel the same if a PM I liked were in office as well.
no i can't tell you're not a Trudeau fan. in fact i think the opposite.
just giving him credit when it's not due indicates otherwise.
so the mens in Canada - if the examples here translate outside - are what would be the words? willing to let Trump roll on even knowing it' not going to stop and something will have to be said... while the majority of women are out there saying no fucking way.
lolol says something doesn't it.
It is cool if you do not want to read a post entirely. But then why comment on it?
This post looked at both sides and did not get into the solution other than to say it cannot last long -- your interpretation is as near to a mirror opposite as you could possibly get of what I was saying.
I think the problem is that often you see things in black and white as a means to get to a powerful statement. You want clean one-sided statements. I think those types of statements lack any real force becuase there is no indication that they include the necessary considerations. I like to consider the relevant factors, and declare them, as a means to come to a more credible statement than it would otherwise be without those considerations.
I understand the real conflict facing the PM at the moment. Declaring this understanding means that any conclusions I draw about his manageemnt account for that. Comparing the responsibility of a PM with some guy (Kenney) or an opposition politician (Mulcair) who can say what he wants without impact is a false equivelency. To not credit the PM position with at least being required to consider the impact of any statement when dealing with an irrational bully is to fail to understand the question. I want to speak about the PM's performance and I take the time to layout the considerations so that I can do that with credibility.
You answer but skip over any parts of a post that contradicts your theory. Be careful becuase this tendency is the very thing we often criticize in the other side. The following speaks more to the issue you raised than the parts you quoted:
"But at what point does human decency require Canada to be more direct? And that is where we are now. As with any bully, avoiding confrontation is a plan but somebody eventually has to confront the bully."
Seems you like black and white. Most things are grey.
I want any PM to get to the right answer but I want that to go through the considerations.
As well I used the Chamberlain story to say I would hope that even without going into a battle with Trump now, Trudeau is preparing for it. He should be taking steps to plan for the conflict that I said was inevitable. So you come back and say I am suggesting we do not stand up to Trump. Yours is a very poor reading of my post and I want to ask you why that is. I don't come here for the humour, or the pithy sound-bite. I am on twitter and that takes care of that. I come here for rounded out thought.
I could handle 4 years of him after such an intervention (Gives new meaning to "put a cork in it")
