Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile

1277 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

Eugene Lang: Trudeau a beat late on middle-class focus

snip

Trudeau’s middle-class narrative will inevitably run headlong into the fact that many Liberals think fiscal prudence — specifically Jean Chrétien’s and Paul Martin’s deficit-elimination crusade of the 1990s — is their party’s greatest legacy, and that Liberals must be as fiscally conservative as the Conservatives. There will also be a deep aversion in Liberal ranks to even hinting at raising taxes to pay for new programs that might help the middle class, for fear that this will be a political albatross.

Without mentioning that both Chretien and Martin campaigned on the left but ruled right to trick voters into supporting them - think of all those Liberal redbooks. So even Lang is being dishonest in his historical narrative.

snip

Trudeau’s fiscal agenda, therefore, will likely be Harper-lite on deficits and revenue-neutral on taxes.

 

socialdemocrati...

I think you cut out the most interesting parts of the article.

Lang is right about one thing: that the Liberals will be stuck in a box the moment they put out any kind of policy.

EVERY party claims to care about the middle class. The Conservatives claim that low taxes get us there. The NDP is offering an alternative (even if a lot of people think it doesn't go far enough), with a plan to repeal the Liberal+Conservative tax cuts for corporations and replace them with tax credits tied to job creation. Plus investments in infrastructure, and controls on price gouging.

Eventually the Liberals are going to have to explain what "standing up for the middle class" means. So far, it's been no different from Harper. More foreign takeovers. Pipe our oil to America. There's already been mumblings that Liberals can't raise ANY taxes. So at what point do the Liberals come out and admit that they want to replace Harper without replacing any of his policies?

wage zombie

janfromthebruce wrote:

So the present NDP policy is decriminationazation. Is that correct WZ?

Well, I think it's always a bit ambiguous as to what the term "present policy" means or what relationship that has to election promises or government priorities.

I think this is the official NDP Policy amended after the last convention - http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf

Here are the mentions of cannabis:

Page 12: 

Quote:

3.1 Health

New Democrats believe in:

...

h) Adopting a harm reduction approach to substance abuse and permitting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Page 15

Quote:

3.9 Enforcement, policing, and safer communities

New Democrats believe in:

...

i) Decriminalizing marijuana possession with the goal of removing its production and distribution from the control of organized crime.

I would love to see the NDP in 2015 running on decriminalization, with decriminalization being contextualized as putting it in the hands of the provinces.

wage zombie

Just to clarify--there was a cannabis reform policy change that did not make it to the floor of the convention.  I don't know what the wording was, and I doubt it had anything to do with the provinces.

janfromthebruce

thanks WZ re: pot.

I think I picked the "thoughts" I wanted to highlight but the other, that the libs have provided no policy or positions is true. I didn't mention it because it's the "same old, same old". Nothing new here so move on. And that my friend is what I think they will con't to provide hoping that nobody asks them what their rhetoric means in practice.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

-

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

-

Great insight!

Malcontent

I do not believe a word Ju$tin has to say.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Malcontent wrote:

I do not believe a word Ju$tin has to say.

No doubt, Justin is going to have a right-of-center platform. This will be needed to split the right-wing vote and keep Harper away from another majority government. (Right-leaning vote = 40%; fake majority = 39%)

The fault for this, however, lies in our primitive and corrupt voting system, First-Past-the-Post. 

In order for progressives to have a say, we need voting reform. PR would be ideal. But PV ranked ballot will accomplish a great deal as well.

Until we change our voting system, Canada will be ruled by right-leaning voters, like we have over the past 30 years.

janfromthebruce

again, the whole voting thing again. There is a topic about that.

MegB

nakedApe, you need to either stay on topic or comment in the appropriate thread. Thanks.

Unionist

Now we know why Justin Trudeau wears that smile:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/22/pol-michel-justin-trude... Trudeau smoked pot since becoming MP[/url]

He should be prosecuted, or at a minimum, forced to resign his seat. Along with Rob Ford. Imagine! What a fragrant abuse of office.

 

Geoff

Unionist wrote:

Now we know why Justin Trudeau wears that smile:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/22/pol-michel-justin-trude... Trudeau smoked pot since becoming MP[/url]

He should be prosecuted, or at a minimum, forced to resign his seat. Along with Rob Ford. Imagine! What a fragrant abuse of office.

 

Although I'm a New Democrat, I think we should forget decriminalization - just legalize the stuff.  We'll generate revenue and reduce spending on police enforcement.  It helps balance the books - that's a good message to send to those who may otherwise not be on side.

As for Trudeau's admission, what's a little "fragrant abuse" among potheads?  If I had to sit in the House with the likes of Stephen Harper, I'd probably light up, myself.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Does this mean that this performance was substance enhanced?

Break, my dreams; for innocence hath shattered.

mark_alfred

CBC article wrote:
Trudeau has come out in favour of the legalization and regulation of pot in recent months after earlier supporting an attempt by the Conservatives to toughen marijuana laws.

Found the following from the CBC article that Unionist linked.  I support legalizing pot, but the above quoted statement does give me doubt that the Liberals are the team to do it.  His alleged change of mind supposedly came about after his brother Michel was charged, which was long before he was "supporting an attempt by the Conservatives to toughen marijuana laws."  So, the rationale for his change of mind is suspect.  Thus, as I said, I just feel he is unreliable.

ETA:  When Layton was asked whether he had ever used pot, Layton replied, "Yes, but I never exhaled."

janfromthebruce

You mean he voted in support of manditory minimums? Now he's making it up as he is going along and using his "dead brother" as a decoy - now that's so cheap.

Oh and Mr. Millionaire drama queen was acting all offended today and going on about coffee to get more spot light - so very shallow but I guess when Layton's bronze statue was being show cased today its good to draw attention to "all about me", "poor me", "look at me", "woe is me", media are so mean to me, look at me, over here, look at me.

Ottawa Centre-Left

I found that very odd as well. The timeline of his statement is completely wrong with even a basic check of his voting record.

janfromthebruce wrote:

You mean he voted in support of manditory minimums? Now he's making it up as he is going along and using his "dead brother" as a decoy - now that's so cheap.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

You mean he voted in support of manditory minimums? Now he's making it up as he is going along and using his "dead brother" as a decoy - now that's so cheap.

Oh and Mr. Millionaire drama queen was acting all offended today and going on about coffee to get more spot light - so very shallow but I guess when Layton's bronze statue was being show cased today its good to draw attention to "all about me", "poor me", "look at me", "woe is me", media are so mean to me, look at me, over here, look at me.

Wow, someone's awfully bitter about Trudeau. What did he do to you? Run over your pet puppy?

In any case, polls show center-left voters have returned to backing the Liberal horse to defeat the neo-Cons. (Too bad we have a horse race instead of a democracy.) That means Trudeau will likely be our next PM. Perhaps you should consider emigrating... 

Last election when voters got behind the NDP to defeat Harper, this did what Harper couldn't do himself: unite the right behind a Con majority.

Center-left voters won't make that mistake again; at least not for a while. Maybe in another 75 years the NDP will again form the Official Opposition...

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Ottawa Centre-Left wrote:

I found that very odd as well. The timeline of his statement is completely wrong with even a basic check of his voting record.

janfromthebruce wrote:

You mean he voted in support of manditory minimums? Now he's making it up as he is going along and using his "dead brother" as a decoy - now that's so cheap.

Trudeau said nothing about his vote on the 2009 Conservative bill (C-15.) He said he has been against prohibition since 1998 when his brother got busted for possession. The newspaper article mentions the vote on the bill, claiming he reversed his position.

But the fact about C-15 is that Harper was making most of his bills confidence votes forcing the Liberals to support them or trigger an early election. C-15 was a whipped vote on the Liberal side. After the bill passed the Liberal senate gutted the legislation. That's why mandatory minimums weren't passed until after Harper's majority in bill C-10: an 11-bill-in-one omnibus war-on-drugs-and-crime package.

I, for one, am glad Trudeau is taking this bold position on cannabis. It's the right thing to do. In the end, voters are interested in policy, not petty partisan squabbling. 

 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Charlie Angus wrote:

So Mr. Trudeau smoked pot. The media are swooning. The question isn’t how often he tokes with his friends after dinner, the question is why he voted for mandatory prison sentences for less famous people who get caught doing same thing he and his well-heeled friends do. The media seem obsessed with personality-driven politics but Canada needs to have politics that is driven by policy and principle.

Unionist

Tiresome partisan sniping all round. I'd like to hear from Bill Siksay, who was disciplined and ultimately left because he voted against another Harper omnibus crime bill - one which Jack Layton backed and whipped. And that one included mandatory minimum sentences too.

Someone should abolish political parties. They turn enthusiastic and progressive minds and hearts to pure shit.

 

janfromthebruce

nakedApe42 wrote:

Ottawa Centre-Left wrote:

I found that very odd as well. The timeline of his statement is completely wrong with even a basic check of his voting record.

janfromthebruce wrote:

You mean he voted in support of manditory minimums? Now he's making it up as he is going along and using his "dead brother" as a decoy - now that's so cheap.

Trudeau said nothing about his vote on the 2009 Conservative bill (C-15.) He said he has been against prohibition since 1998 when his brother got busted for possession. The newspaper article mentions the vote on the bill, claiming he reversed his position.

But the fact about C-15 is that Harper was making most of his bills confidence votes forcing the Liberals to support them or trigger an early election. C-15 was a whipped vote on the Liberal side. After the bill passed the Liberal senate gutted the legislation. That's why mandatory minimums weren't passed until after Harper's majority in bill C-10: an 11-bill-in-one omnibus war-on-drugs-and-crime package.

I, for one, am glad Trudeau is taking this bold position on cannabis. It's the right thing to do. In the end, voters are interested in policy, not petty partisan squabbling. 

 

I don't care for Trudeau because I saw him be totally hypercritical about newly elected young MPs right after giving his Youth and Empowerment speech. He bashed Ruth Ellen Brosseau and was distainful of her and said so publicly - this from a guy who got elected because of his name, money and power and status behind that name.

So on the one hand, he said that young people should get involved politically right now and that they are leaders "right now" and "not later" but I guess he was only talking about some young people and only certain ones (that he feels have earned that right). Remember, he felt that he had a right to judge to make those statements. Only those in positions of power feel so entitled.

And people have principles and he needed to decide what ones he was going to support. Considering how often he didn't bother to show up in house to vote, one would think that perhaps he would make a point by not being there. And there were many votes in the house which weren't confident bills and which libs supported.

Have the time they just didn't show up and bills just sailed through. "You had a choice sir!"

 

janfromthebruce

And elections are 2 years away so I wouldn't count my chickens before they are hatched. And as for left of centre vote, haven't seen that Trudeau is left of centre.

nicky

The fact remains that as recently as March 2012 Justin and the Liberals voted in favour of the egregious minimum sentences for trafficking and growing marijuana. Harper had his majority and the Liberals would not have forced an election if they opposed it.

It is startling that Justin now proposes legalizing marijuana. There is a simpler explanation for Justin's inconsistency than the one Mr Ape unconvincingly advances - simple hypocricy. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"The left-of-centre vote is ready to replace the right-of-centre with another right-of-centre"

Yep, all you have to do is read the lemming comments over at Huff Post to see how true that is.

socialdemocrati...

The left-of-centre vote is ready to replace the right-of-centre with another right-of-centre. You gotta admit, Justin Trudeau is an excellent spokesperson for right-wing policies. More tax cuts, more oil, more foreign ownership -- and somehow this is an alternative to what we have now. But hey, maybe there will be a vague promise to relax marijuana laws that the Liberals will never get around to implementing.

janfromthebruce

Trudeau could have paired with a for MP and not voted or not showed up for the vote but remember back in 2010, in Maclean's mag he opposed decriminalization and thus was on the same page as Steven Harper. That is his record.

socialdemocrati...

I think politicians are allowed to evolve. And that's how the airhead will present it: an evolution. But voters will only know it's an evolution in hindsight, if the Liberals get elected, and actually keep that promise. So the real question people need to be asking is if a pander on marijuana will be enough of a distraction from the fact that Trudeau basically agrees with Harper's economic policy.

arielc

Boomers rock ! ... and roll ... in our rockin' chairs ... 'thritis ya know ... and we don't need no stinkin' permit!!! Come and get me ****er !!!! heh heh heh heh! :D [img]http://www.marijuanaseedbanks.com/images/marijuana_leaf_pics/thumbnails/... [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNC6uGCdW1wuxtw7pEPSOFQN-6HG7CA...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

Tiresome partisan sniping all round. I'd like to hear from Bill Siksay, who was disciplined and ultimately left because he voted against another Harper omnibus crime bill - one which Jack Layton backed and whipped. And that one included mandatory minimum sentences too.

Unionist don't you know that you must forget the past and move forward.  Pragmatism is the new socialism.  Criminalizing sex between gay teenagers was a pragmatic decision based on the greater good. The greater good was proving that the NDP is not soft on crime.  The current leadership will ensure that the same message is sent to voters.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

Tiresome partisan sniping all round. I'd like to hear from Bill Siksay, who was disciplined and ultimately left because he voted against another Harper omnibus crime bill - one which Jack Layton backed and whipped. And that one included mandatory minimum sentences too.

Your implication that Tackling Violent Crime Act (Bill C-2), which Bill Siksay voted against, had mandatory minimum sentences for possession of majuana, is false, I think.  Thus, the argument that the NDP are as hypocritical as Trudeau is also mistaken, I feel.  Unlike Trudeau, I believe that the NDP have never supported mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Your implication that Tackling Violent Crime Act (Bill C-2), which Bill Siksay voted against, had mandatory minimum sentences for possession of majuana, is false, I think. 

I never said that. You want to argue with my "implications", or with me? The mandatory minimums were for firearms-related crimes. Shame on Layton for supporting that and dictating that reactionary stand to his caucus.

Quote:
Thus, the argument that the NDP are as hypocritical as Trudeau is also mistaken, I feel. 

I don't give a damn if someone changes their mind (which is what you call "hypocritical", because it is done by one of your enemies). What I care about is what stand they take. The NDP has evolved far from the Regina Manifesto and increasingly takes positions in favour of punishing crime. Bill Siksay and Sharon Carstairs (a Senator, y'know) both spoke against that Bill C-2 and its regressive punitive stands on various issues - stands which are shared by the Manitoba NDP government, if not others. I don't care if Bill Siksay used to be an evangelical Christian hatemonger, then suddenly overnight decided to oppose homophobia as it manifested itself in C-2. His courage will never be forgotten.

Quote:
Unlike Trudeau, I believe that the NDP have never supported mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana.

Oh, so it's only mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana that are a problem? Harper's "punish the crooks, not the guns" philosophy is fine? Taking discretion away from judges and telling them to lock up the thugs is ok, as long as it's on the right issue (stemming the rising tide of gun violence in Canada - duh, not)?

Shameful performance all round.

Well, it's moot now. Justin has called for legalization, so Tom will have to - er - do something different. I dread to think what will happen if Justin calls for more prevention and rehabilitation and less punitive approaches to, say, political protesters. I do recall that Tom has successfully prevented his entire caucus from saying one single word about the Québec student uprising and the police repression - to this very day. He is nothing if not a professional and polished politician.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, regarding Tom's political cynicism, oppotrunism, inattentiveness,  or whatever the hell ese anyone wants to call it, if he tries to govern as simply LPC Lite, that will be it for me. Of course I have said this over and over but I am not sure that anyone on this board either allows this to register with hem, or for that matter, cares one way or the other.

The above comment is my response to all the harping about partisanship. Sure, stack up Tom and Le Dauphin and lets go through the list. The fact is that the Libs ALWAYS seem to be evolving one way or the other. Is that a good enough reason to let them govern again and let Le Dauphin become PM? I don't think so.

Parties and their partisans are imperfect; that IS a fact. But history is what it is. The Libs have had plenty of chances. How many more are they allowed? And on top of that, how perfect does the NDP have to be before they are fit to govern? I am not sure their is not a double standard at play here by some of the naysayers on this board Yeah, I'm partisan, so what? I have plenty of reasons to be. I DON'T WANT a Trudeau led, S7/FIPA loving government continuing the nonsense Mulroney/Harper started, and Chretine/Martiin, and  Le Dauphin seem happy to continue.

On a completely different note, does anyone remember the name of the LPC St John NB female Lib PC who ran on her reputation as head of some NGO in St. John and housing advocate for the poor who  said nothing as Martin slashed the National Housing program? I only mention that she was female in the hope someone will remember about whom I am asking.

Given this kind of regualr hypocracy by the Libs, why would anyone expect that people like myself would feel nothing but contempt for the Libs and their latest ideration of Jesus Christo?

I'm just askin'.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The left-of-centre vote is ready to replace the right-of-centre with another right-of-centre. You gotta admit, Justin Trudeau is an excellent spokesperson for right-wing policies. More tax cuts, more oil, more foreign ownership -- and somehow this is an alternative to what we have now. But hey, maybe there will be a vague promise to relax marijuana laws that the Liberals will never get around to implementing.

I never said "left-of-center". I said "center-left" as in centrist and left-leaning vote.

I haven't hear Trudeau say anything about tax cuts. Of course Mulcair came out and proclaimed the equivalent of, "read my lips: no new taxes."

Although Trudeau is going to work with Alberta's democratically-elected government and avoid the mistakes of his father with divisive policy, he also promises carbon pricing and proper monitoring of the tarsands. He also rejects the Northern Gateway pipeline. Is Mulcair going to shut down the tarsands or any pipelines? I don't see him as an environmental crusader. He prefers a West-East pipeline to keep refinery jobs in Canada.

In any case, neither the NDP or Liberals have put forward their platforms yet. So any serious discussion about policy will have to wait.

No doubt, Trudeau will have to appeal to moderate conservatives to split the right-wing vote to keep Harper away from a majority. The right-leaning vote is 40%. A fake majority is at 39%.

That's why the NDP is not an alternative to the Conservatives. Right-leaning voters in Canada think an NDP government is the equivalent of Armageddon. If the NDP is the alternative, they will ensure a Conservative majority to stop them.

That's why voting reform is the only issue. Under corrupt FPP, the NDP will remain a bit player for another 75 years, while a right-of-center Liberal party is regularly voted in as the lesser of two evils. Of course, what PR crusaders don't get is that they will need an NDP government to legislate PR, which will never happen under FPP.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"The left-of-centre vote is ready to replace the right-of-centre with another right-of-centre"

Yep, all you have to do is read the lemming comments over at Huff Post to see how true that is.

I think Jack Layton was the Pied Piper leading the lemmings to their deaths in 2011. Center-left voters backed him to beat Harper, not hand him a dictatorship. It will be a long time before they make that mistake again. The only way to change this dynamic is to change the corrupt voting system. Presently, conservative voters are more equal than others.

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think politicians are allowed to evolve. And that's how the airhead will present it: an evolution. But voters will only know it's an evolution in hindsight, if the Liberals get elected, and actually keep that promise. So the real question people need to be asking is if a pander on marijuana will be enough of a distraction from the fact that Trudeau basically agrees with Harper's economic policy.

I think that's nonsense. Harper plans on making Canada a "resource super-power" under which remote open-pit mining jobs will turn Canadians into migrant workers.

Trudeau's vision is raising post-secondary education and worker-training from 50% to 70% to produce a strong, 21st-century, value-added economy that creates good job and business opportunities across the country. His solution to the hollowing out of the middle class is to create skilled workers with middle-income paychecks.

The difference is night and day.

 

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

On a completely different note, does anyone remember the name of the LPC St John NB female Lib PC who ran on her reputation as head of some NGO in St. John and housing advocate for the poor who  said nothing as Martin slashed the National Housing program? I only mention that she was female in the hope someone will remember about whom I am asking.

You must be thinking of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Bradshaw]Claudette Bradshaw[/url], but she's from Moncton. Anyway, she was a decent labour minister - she proudly told one of our union conventions that there was no back-to-work legislation on her watch. That's something few others can boast, of any party.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"I think Jack Layton was the Pied Piper leading the lemmings to their deaths in 2011." I don't understand your point. Are you saying the NDP could never have won and Jack (blessed be his memory) should have campaigned badly so the Libs would win?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Thanks Unionist. But considering that she ran promising to do something about a national housing plan and did nothing as Martin tore it apart, is it not fair to question her sincerity. Party loyalty is a fine thing, but when it comes at the expense of your beliefts, shouldn't someone be called for that? For me, it is simply an example of the faint hearted moral failure that characterizes the performance of these "champians of socal justice" once elected to Parliment as LPC MPS. I simply don't see any reason to believe that "this time things will be different", under Le Dauphin, and that the Libs "deserve another chance".

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nakedApe42 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think politicians are allowed to evolve. And that's how the airhead will present it: an evolution. But voters will only know it's an evolution in hindsight, if the Liberals get elected, and actually keep that promise. So the real question people need to be asking is if a pander on marijuana will be enough of a distraction from the fact that Trudeau basically agrees with Harper's economic policy.

I think that's nonsense. Harper plans on making Canada a "resource super-power" under which remote open-pit mining jobs will turn Canadians into migrant workers.

Trudeau's vision is raising post-secondary education and worker-training from 50% to 70% to produce a strong, 21st-century, value-added economy that creates good job and business opportunities across the country. His solution to the hollowing out of the middle class is to create skilled workers with middle-income paychecks.

The difference is night and day.

 

I agree with SDM. You, Mr. Ape, are doing nothing but repeating Liberal talking points which bear no relationship to reality.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Quote:

Party loyalty is a fine thing, but when it comes at the expense of your beliefts, shouldn't someone be called for that? For me, it is simply an example of the faint hearted moral failure that characterizes the performance of these "champians of socal justice" once elected to Parliment as LPC MPS. I simply don't see any reason to believe that "this time things will be different", under Le Dauphin, and that the Libs "deserve another chance".

So tell me how Mulcair's stint in the service cutting Charest Cabinet is different? His actions were not faint hearted moral failure so why are her similar ones.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I simply don't see any reason to believe that "this time things will be different", under Le Dauphin, and that the Libs "deserve another chance".

I agree.

The problem remains, however, that we need to defeat Harper's Conservatives.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quote:

Party loyalty is a fine thing, but when it comes at the expense of your beliefts, shouldn't someone be called for that? For me, it is simply an example of the faint hearted moral failure that characterizes the performance of these "champians of socal justice" once elected to Parliment as LPC MPS. I simply don't see any reason to believe that "this time things will be different", under Le Dauphin, and that the Libs "deserve another chance".

So tell me how Mulcair's stint in the service cutting Charest Cabinet is different? His actions were not faint hearted moral failure so why are her similar ones.

Firs of all, that's deflection K, and you know it.

Secondly, she now has record FEDERALLY, as do THE LIBS!

Tom deserves his chance. If he fails, I've already said I won't vote again. But the NDP deserves a chance, and that means so does Tom.

Deflection K; just pure deflection.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I simply don't see any reason to believe that "this time things will be different", under Le Dauphin, and that the Libs "deserve another chance".

I agree.

The problem remains, however, that we need to defeat Harper's Conservatives.

Le Dauphin supported Harper on S7 and FIPA. That says it all as far as I am concerned. For my money, I don't see the difference. Liberal/Tory, same old story. Libs just smile wile driving the knife in your back. There's no difference; especially with Le Dauphin as leader. He's NOT his Father's son; not even close.

Unionist

So if 2015 produces a minority Con regime, you would rule out a 2008-style coalition? I wouldn't, Arthur. See my comments about "partisanship" in another thread.

I have no use for Justin, and increasingly little use for Tom Mulcair. But if we can convince them to work jointly (if that's what it takes) to engineer a defeat of the Conservatives, then we will have done a great service to Canada.

If you see no difference between the Harper government and the previous 50 or so years of PC and Liberal governments, then I wish you good luck in getting the NDP elected. Trouble is, you'll have to pretend that they're different from the other two, because real life will not bear that out. The only way they can serve us is by putting aside their individual ambitions and listening. To us.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist, I dont' see the difference. But honestly, it really doesn't matter what I think because NO ONE who runs things gives a flying G-d damn what I think. The Libs and Tories have spent 146 years sticking it one way or another to ordinary Canadians, and ONLY did the right thing when the CCF/NDP had an idea that threatened to kick them out of power. I don't see the Libs having any plan other then "vote for us". You know, I get a little tired at the lecturing. I don't think I'm wrong. I respect your right to your opinion; but from my perspective, I think I have a right to my own. As I have said before in this other threads, if it is truly possible that a fat, middle aged Jew from Winnipeg can say something that would make anyone vote one way then other, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn. That's how see it. No offense intended, but I stand by what I wrote. There is no SIGNIFICANT difference between either of those parties. They are the same.

janfromthebruce

I saw little difference in 1993 and through to 2003 as the Liberals with smiley faces cut programs, used employment insurance money as their piggy bank, and so on, including lovely cuts for their corporate buddies. They just said they were oh so sorry.

Libs cried the blues during the Harper minority govts but backed them repeatedly. We got into Afganistan because of Liberals and stayed there under Harper with the support of Liberals.

Under Liberals they allowed a innocent Canadian to be tortured in Syria and stoned walled when the truth came out.

Please spare me that Liberals are progressive. They are not.

As for Trudeaus position on pot, this was said on twitter and why I see the dripping of elitism and hypercrisy in combo.

 

Trudeau smoking pot is nothing. Trudeau smoking pot while also voting to lock up less privileged pot smokers is elitist and hypocritical.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

Please spare me that Liberals are progressive. They are not.

Whom are you talking to? Liberals under the bed?

I never supported the Liberals in my life. I never believed their bullshit feints to the left. Not for one second. And I don't believe bullshit no matter whom I hear it from. That's why I'm capable of calling the NDP on their actions when they betray their constituency.

Quote:
As for Trudeaus position on pot, this was said on twitter and why I see the dripping of elitism and hypercrisy in combo.

 

Trudeau smoking pot is nothing. Trudeau smoking pot while also voting to lock up less privileged pot smokers is elitist and hypocritical.

Yeah, Trudeau is an elitist bastard. Now - why would Mulcair allow this hypocritical twit to lead on this issue? Or do we now start a campaign about the dangers of marijuana? Pass the gravol, please, while we await the Dear Leader's next whimsical policy twist.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"Yeah, Trudeau is an elitist bastard. Now - why would Mulcair allow this hypocritical twit to lead on this issue? Or do we now start a campaign about the dangers of marijuana? Pass the gravol, please, while we await the Dear Leader's next whimsical policy twist.

Well, that's a fair question. What the hell does Mulcair think he's doing? Why is he letting Trudeau look like the answer on this? Now that is a question I wish someone had an answer to.

socialdemocrati...

nakedApe42 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think politicians are allowed to evolve. And that's how the airhead will present it: an evolution. But voters will only know it's an evolution in hindsight, if the Liberals get elected, and actually keep that promise. So the real question people need to be asking is if a pander on marijuana will be enough of a distraction from the fact that Trudeau basically agrees with Harper's economic policy.

I think that's nonsense. Harper plans on making Canada a "resource super-power" under which remote open-pit mining jobs will turn Canadians into migrant workers.

Trudeau's vision is raising post-secondary education and worker-training from 50% to 70% to produce a strong, 21st-century, value-added economy that creates good job and business opportunities across the country. His solution to the hollowing out of the middle class is to create skilled workers with middle-income paychecks.

The difference is night and day.

MOAR EDUCATION MOAR SKILLZ

Education is mainly a provincial responsibility.

Harper included big investments in job training and education in his stimulus package.

We have people with undergraduate degrees getting jobs at Starbucks.

When the problem is underemployment, education isn't fucking working.

Liberals like to present their policies as an alternative to some kind of American-style Republicanism. But the truth is Steven Harper has run the government like a Paul Martin Liberal, from the silence on social issues, right down to the kickbacks and cronyism.

Pages

Topic locked