Get ready for Justin-mania!

428 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If there's a Liberal victory at all.  Remember, when John Turner took over from Trudeau, the first polls had the Liberals in the 45% range, 10 points or more up on the PC's, and the NDP were at 11% in that scenario.  Compare that to the actual results of the 1984 election.

Centrist

Ken Burch wrote:

If there's a Liberal victory at all.  Remember, when John Turner took over from Trudeau, the first polls had the Liberals in the 45% range, 10 points or more up on the PC's, and the NDP were at 11% in that scenario.  Compare that to the actual results of the 1984 election.

Same with Kim Campbell after Mulroney. Problem is that you are referring to longer-term incumbent governments that were tired and that the public had already turned on. The subsequent leader replacements received short-lived dead cat bounces (as a momentary sigh of relief from the electorate) but were ultimately turfed.

In this instance, the Libs are not an incumbent government. They are a 3rd party.

While Justin Trudeau comes across as a nice enough guy, he also comes across as someone with a speech impediment, a flake and a light-weight. I honestly just don't understand what's going on at the moment.

 

lagatta

Justin Trudeau might be a nice enough guy (certainly "personable", I can say as someone who has met him superficially several times at community events), however, he is the scion of wealthy families in Québec and BC, and a missile launched as what the ruling class sees as an aberration - the big increase in NDP votes and seats in the last Federal elections. One need not have any illusions in the NDP program or history to see that this would be a huge backward step.

Centrist, agree about lightweight (and upper-class twit, don't know about "flake" - he doesn't say much of substance, even supposedly "nutty" things, but attacking someone for a speech impediment is ablism, non?

The great trade unionist and Labour politician Aneurin Bevin overcame a dreadful stammer, without access to the paid speech therapists who helped a certain well-known King... http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bevan_aneurin.shtml

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
autoworker autoworker's picture

It may have escaped some that Jack Layton was not born into the working class, yet Mulroney most definitely was. One might say that they both betrayed their class.

6079_Smith_W

autoworker wrote:
It may have escaped some that Jack Layton was not born into the working class, yet Mulroney most definitely was. One might say that they both betrayed their class.

In Mulroney's case, perhaps. In Layton's, only if one accepts the caricature that everyone who is well-off is obsessed with protecting their wealth and grinding everyone else into the mud. I don't think it's true, myself. Some people in all circumstances have that attitude; again.... look at Mulroney.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

autoworker wrote:
It may have escaped some that Jack Layton was not born into the working class, yet Mulroney most definitely was. One might say that they both betrayed their class.

In Mulroney's case, perhaps. In Layton's, only if one accepts the caricature that everyone who is well-off is obsessed with protecting their wealth and grinding everyone else into the mud. I don't think it's true, myself. Some people in all circumstances have that attitude; again.... look at Mulroney.

 

I wouldn't suggest that Layton fit that caricature, but I don't believe it applies to either Justin or Pierre Trudeau.

R.E.Wood

I think this reference to Justin Trudeau having a "speech impediment" is not only incorrect, but completely inappropriate, and a derogatory implication to people who do have speech impediments. Centrist should apologize.

But now I'll just say a couple things about Justin Trudeau: He is young and represents a generational shift the other parties have not taken (very disappointingly so, I feel, in the NDP's case). He is charismatic and immediately likeable, which is an attribute the NDP ignores at its own peril - never underestimate charm (remember, most people are not as into deep policy discussions as those here at babble are!). He represents and radiates optimism and hope - you can't put a price on that when it comes to stirring up optimism and hope in voters.

What I'm going to say next is sure to incite calls of me being a "liberal", but that's not true. I have voted NDP in every election, provincial and federal, since I turned 18 in the late 80s. (And yes, that makes me almost the same age as Justin Trudeau.)

In our leadership campaign I was a firm supporter of Nathan Cullen, and the time since the leadership went to Tom Mulcair has only served to disappoint me. The more I see of him, the more I find Mulcair stiflingly dull, uninspiring, and generally just another boring old politician. I don't believe him. And I don't trust him. I may agree with some of the things he says, but it's how he says them that ultimately makes me just not care anymore. For the first time in my voting life, I just don't care what happens to the NDP. Even Alexa couldn't do that, and I never liked her as leader either! 

So, there's some honesty. Some of you will undoubtedly bash me now and call me names. But the more honest and thoughtful out there will get what I'm saying: If Justin Trudeau offers optimism, hope, energy, youth, (and yes, eventually, some policies), and promises it's a reborn party untied to the scandals of old... what do you really think people of our generation and younger (who aren't rabid conservatives) will vote for? It's not going to be blustery, boring old Mulcair (or his alternate personality: smooth, soft-spoken, boring old Mulcair). Policies and depth aren't going to do it, folks. Charisma, hope and optimism will go very far... See Obama's first election. 

Just sayin'.

 

Centrist wrote:

While Justin Trudeau comes across as a nice enough guy, he also comes across as someone with a speech impediment, a flake and a light-weight. I honestly just don't understand what's going on at the moment.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Stockholm wrote:

autoworker wrote:
I believe the NDP should be upfront with its platform, and be candid with it's positions on the Clarity Act, Bill 101 and it's proposed application to federal public service and regulated industries in Quebec, along with it's ME foreign policy (particularly Iran). Procurement and trade policies are also topics than need to be discussed more robustly (who gets the benefits, specifically).

The NDP has been 100% crystal clear on all of the following. They believe that the Clarity Act is irrelevant since it has been superseded by the reference to the Supreme Court which has already made a ruling accepted by everyone  on the rules around any province seceding. They believe that Quebecers who work in federally regulated workplaces should have a right to work in their own language - just like everyone working in provincially regulated workplaces. The policy on Iran is that sanctions and pressure should continue on Iran to discourage any attempt to develop nuclear weapons, but they are totally opposed to any foreign invasion of Iran. Take it or leave it!

I wish you the best of luck trying to figure out where Justin Trudeau stands on any of the issues.

It's not as simple as that, but it will be interesting to see where Justin stands on those issues.

R.E.Wood

And I just want to add that I didn't mean to be ageist in my last post, and apologize if it came across that way. I did want a generational shift in our leadership, but my second vote (after Cullen) went to Peggy Nash. I found her honest, trustworthy, and appealing on a personal level, and thus able to connect with voters as a human being (which I don't think Mulcair is doing). Age was not a factor I held against her.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP should prepare itself to fight against Obama's 2008 campaign. Justin will definitely try to brand himself as the person of Hope and Change. Hell even NDP'ers  fell for Obama's bullshit and some still think he is a progressive. Justin will be every bit as progressive as Obama has been. 

When the NDP moves to the centre, as it is and will continue to do so, and a fresh young face sings all the hymns from the Democratic playbook unsophisticated voters will not be able to tell the difference.  The Conservatives need to run against two centre left parties and better still if their opposition splits the seats in Quebec.  After Justin gets crowned the real battle will be for Quebec. from afar it seems that while the federal Liberal scandals are getting to be a bit old and forgotten the provincial brand is likely to hurt the changes of any federal Liberal revival. 

I will predict that Justin Trudeau will not change the result of a single seat in BC.  The Liberal name is toast here and the people seem to be tired of photo op leaders talking in sound bites.

Ippurigakko

Aboriginal ppl wont vote Justin because of his dad disagreed on Aboriginal land claims! And He not even put the word First Nation instead of Indian.

 

 

Centrist

R.E.Wood wrote:

I think this reference to Justin Trudeau having a "speech impediment" is not only incorrect, but completely inappropriate, and a derogatory implication to people who do have speech impediments. Centrist should apologize.

If I offended anyone, I certainly do apologize as that was not my intent. My point was that he "comes across" as having a speech impediiment when I see him on television and that seems to hamper his communication skills. C'est la vie.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I will predict that Justin Trudeau will not change the result of a single seat in BC. 

But when you look at last week's Forum poll results for BC with Trudeau at the Lib helm, it makes one wonder:

Con - 38% (-8% from 2011 election result)

Lib - 33% (+20%)

NDP - 25% (- 8%)

Green - 2% (-6%)

Other - 2% (+2%)

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sure I believe those polls just like Danielle Smith is the Premier of Alberta. He brings nothing to the table for BC except media driven charisma and unlike his father he is actually not charismatic.

A poll that says only 25% of BC voters will support the federal party at the same time as the provincial party is at least 20 points higher makes no sense except as the result of a push poll designed to drive support for the Liberals. 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ippurigakko wrote:

Aboriginal ppl wont vote Justin because of his dad disagreed on Aboriginal land claims! And He not even put the word First Nation instead of Indian.

 

 

I agree, that part of the Trudeau legacy was left wanting. One was left with the impression that he wasn't serious about negotiating anything of substance. The Liberals attempted to redress that with the Kelowna Accord, but political opportunism got in the way. Let's see what Justin has to offer First Nations, who are right to be skeptical.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

The NDP has been 100% crystal clear on all of the following.

In comradely spirit, I'll try to correct your unclarity.

Quote:
They believe that the Clarity Act is irrelevant since it has been superseded by the reference to the Supreme Court which has already made a ruling accepted by everyone  on the rules around any province seceding.

Strange - the Clarity Act was tabled in 1999 and proclaimed in 2000. But the Supreme Court reference was initiated in 1996 and the decision was handed down in 1998. I guess it's conceivable for something to be "superseded" by something that preceded it, but it's an awfully unusual use of the term.

Furthermore, no one in Québec supported the Supreme Court reference - that includes the Liberal Party. The National Assembly voted unanimously against the reference. And need I add that no one in Québec supports the Clarity Act.

That includes the Federal NDP. Jack Layton unilaterally altered party policy in the December 2005 election campaign when he announced that the party would now support the Clarity Act. Bad bad move. In 2006, the national convention of the party adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration, which goes directly counter to both the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference, on both key issues of the size of the necessary majority (50%+1 as per Sherbrooke) and the referendum question (which is the sole preserve of the National Assembly, as per Sherbrooke).

Quote:
They believe that Quebecers who work in federally regulated workplaces should have a right to work in their own language - just like everyone working in provincially regulated workplaces.

Uh, no. They believe that Quebecers in federally regulated workplaces should be able to work in English or French. Right now, provincially regulated workplaces with 50 or more employees must by law have French as the language of work.

Quote:
The policy on Iran is that sanctions and pressure should continue on Iran to discourage any attempt to develop nuclear weapons, but they are totally opposed to any foreign invasion of Iran.

As kropotkin pointed out, it's a shame that Mulcair's NDP is part of the international blackmail and war-drum-beating against Iran, a country which has never committed aggression against any other. As for being "totally opposed to any foreign invasion of Iran", I suppose you mean, as of today? When the time comes, Mulcair will be blessing the Iran war heroes just as Turmel did with our Libyan bomber pilots.

Quote:
Take it or leave it!

That's an easy choice. But I did think that it was important to correct some of your statements about NDP policy.

Quote:
I wish you the best of luck trying to figure out where Justin Trudeau stands on any of the issues.

Anyone who spent the last decade trying to figure out just where the NDP stood on Afghanistan - or the Middle East - or crime - or the gun registry - or just about anything - should have no problem with this exercise.

Centrist

Unionist wrote:
That includes the Federal NDP. Jack Layton unilaterally altered party policy in the December 2005 election campaign when he announced that the party would now support the Clarity Act. Bad bad move. In 2006, the national convention of the party adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration, which goes directly counter to both the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference, on both key issues of the size of the necessary majority (50%+1 as per Sherbrooke) and the referendum question (which is the sole preserve of the National Assembly, as per Sherbrooke).

Nevertheless, never discount public opinion, this time in Quebec itself. According to an Ipsos poll of September 4, 2012, the threshold for a “yes” vote in a referendum:

1. 70% of Quebecers believe that it should be greater than 60%;

2. 55% of Quebecers believe that it should be greater than a two-thirds majority of 66%;

http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5751

 

 

janfromthebruce

autoworker wrote:
Ippurigakko wrote:

Aboriginal ppl wont vote Justin because of his dad disagreed on Aboriginal land claims! And He not even put the word First Nation instead of Indian.

 

 

I agree, that part of the Trudeau legacy was left wanting. One was left with the impression that he wasn't serious about negotiating anything of substance. The Liberals attempted to redress that with the Kelowna Accord, but political opportunism got in the way. Let's see what Justin has to offer First Nations, who are right to be skeptical.

 

I will respond to the suggestion "political opportunism" as alluded to the NDP in this regard. Unless, you are rightly suggesting that it was Liberals creating opportunism, because in the dying days of this liberal minority govt, was when it found it's fake progressive roots. So Martin, the millionaire fakes left but no matter, he had promised an election in 6 weeks, and the pulling of the plug happen only weeks earlier, so in REALITY, the outcome would have been the same for the Kelona Accord and for the promised forever national childcare program.

Neither of those proposed programs were anywhere near coming to fruitation, but besides that Martin wasn't willing to bring anything to the table for the NDP to support and preferred running on this rather than "praying for a miracle" in passing through a minority vote, although with or without the NDP, the numbers were not there.

And this is the Liberal myth making which lives on: the total number of lib plus NDP MPs was less than the total number of Cons, Bloc, and independents. It's simple math.

So it was in the political interests of the NDP to be on the side of "pulling the plug early" (by a few weeks) rather than supporting a corrupt liberal party who wasn't willing to support other "progressive initiatives".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

autoworker wrote:
Ippurigakko wrote:

Aboriginal ppl wont vote Justin because of his dad disagreed on Aboriginal land claims! And He not even put the word First Nation instead of Indian.

 

 

I agree, that part of the Trudeau legacy was left wanting. One was left with the impression that he wasn't serious about negotiating anything of substance. The Liberals attempted to redress that with the Kelowna Accord, but political opportunism got in the way. Let's see what Justin has to offer First Nations, who are right to be skeptical.

Let's go over this ONE MORE TIME, shall we?

Even if the NDP had backed Martin on the no-confidence motion, the Liberals would STILL have fallen by a margin of 153-151.  It was mathematically impossible for the Liberals to survive once the Bloc committed to backing the motion. 

It was never the NDP's fault that Harper came to power...it was the Bloc who made that happen.  So give the "political opportunism" thing a rest.  The actual parliamentary math proves the NDP wasn' t to blame.

Unionist

Centrist wrote:

 

Nevertheless, never discount public opinion, this time in Quebec itself. According to an Ipsos poll of September 4, 2012, the threshold for a “yes” vote in a referendum:

1. 70% of Quebecers believe that it should be greater than 60%;

2. 55% of Quebecers believe that it should be greater than a two-thirds majority of 66%;

Excellent! I wonder why we bother electing representatives, when we can just ask you and Ipsos-Reid what we really think, in a Toronto press release! Thank you!

Now, hurry off and tell your NDP buddies that they've got it all wrong. The Sherbrooke Declaration is history. Tell them to promote 60% as the winning number. That'll give them the support of 70% OF QUEBECERS!! Booyah!

God. How stupid we can be when we can't look past our own noses. Just down the road... there's Toronto!!

 

Centrist

Unionist wrote:
... we can just ask you and Ipsos-Reid what we really think, in a Toronto press release! Thank you!

Well... if you look at the matter dispassionately, ONLY 30% of Quebeckers state that the threshold for a "yes" vote in a referendum should be 50% +1 in the Ipsos poll.

More tellingly, that figure has also been corroborated by Quebec's own CROP pollster confirming concurrently that ONLY 28% of Quebeckers would currently support a sovereignty referendum.

Makes logical sense.

Just sayin'.

Unionist

Centrist wrote:

Unionist wrote:
... we can just ask you and Ipsos-Reid what we really think, in a Toronto press release! Thank you!

Well... if you look at the matter dispassionately, ONLY 30% of Quebeckers state that the threshold for a "yes" vote in a referendum should be 50% +1 in the Ipsos poll.

Um... what exactly was the question and the context? Just askin'. Was it a "clear question" like this other one from your same link:

Ipsos-Reid, not trying to put words in anyone's mouth at all, wrote:
"If the Parti Québécois wins the election, it will be bad for the relationship between the federal government and Quebec because the Prime Minister is not from Quebec."

LaughingLaughing I did not make that up! I could never have done as well if I were trying to satirize it.

Quote:
More tellingly, that figure has also been corroborated by Quebec's own CROP pollster confirming concurrently that ONLY 28% of Quebeckers would currently support a sovereignty referendum.

How exactly does that "corroborate" a conclusion that Québec should not have the right to separate without 60 or 70% majority? You're saying that even if only 28% would vote "yes" if it were held today (though I haven't seen the exact question), the other 72% would not recognize 50%+1? Do you think my support and Tom Mulcair's support for 50%+1 is connected with how we would personally vote in a referendum?

Quote:
Makes logical sense.

How extremely sad - your use of the words "logical" and "sense".

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Ippurigakko wrote:

Aboriginal ppl wont vote Justin because of his dad disagreed on Aboriginal land claims! And He not even put the word First Nation instead of Indian.

 

 

I agree, that part of the Trudeau legacy was left wanting. One was left with the impression that he wasn't serious about negotiating anything of substance. The Liberals attempted to redress that with the Kelowna Accord, but political opportunism got in the way. Let's see what Justin has to offer First Nations, who are right to be skeptical.

Let's go over this ONE MORE TIME, shall we?

Even if the NDP had backed Martin on the no-confidence motion, the Liberals would STILL have fallen by a margin of 153-151.  It was mathematically impossible for the Liberals to survive once the Bloc committed to backing the motion. 

It was never the NDP's fault that Harper came to power...it was the Bloc who made that happen.  So give the "political opportunism" thing a rest.  The actual parliamentary math proves the NDP wasn' t to blame.

Thanks for posting this Ken, great job! Autoworker, give it a rest for once.

Oh, and by the way, I am under the impression you are a Lib, which is ok? But I have to ask, why would a Union man, assuming you really are an autoworker, support the Libs, a party that has been hostile to the interests of wokers, form wage and price controls to so called EI "reforms"? I mean serioulsy, if you are what your name implies and I am reading your political senstivities right, how about an explanation. I would love to know whay an worker would vote a party that has the interests of Corporatons, at the center of its very being. If am wrong about anything, I would truly welcome the correction. But frankly, I am getting a little tired of hearing why it is good for workers to vote for a LPC that has historically run left and governed right. Over to you.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh, and by the way, by the way, here is an example of what Liberal Prime Misters think of working Canadians who protest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBJp0yJvsY

Anyone want to share a "Shawinigan Handshake"?

Centrist

Unionist wrote:
Um... what exactly was the question and the context? Just askin'.

Oh come on. Don't be silly. With my previous link, you have access to the same full Ipsos questions/tables that both I and everyone else does.

In any event, since you have obviously read the question on Quebecers minimun threshold on the "yes" question, but apparently attempt to pervert same, here it is for other Babblers:

Quote:
If the Parti Quebecois wins power on September 4th, it is unclear when or if a referendum on Quebec separation will occur. However, the party says they are committed to holding another referendum. A federal law, the Clarity Act, says that if there is another referendum, the rest of Canada would be compelled to negotiate the terms of a break-up with Quebec if a 'clear majority' of Quebecers supports separation in the referendum. The meaning of that term, 'clear majority', is not defined. In your view, what percentage

Now you obviously have attempted to obfuscate same here on another Ipsos question:

Quote:
Unionist - If the Parti Québécois wins the election, it will be bad for the relationship between the federal government and Quebec because the Prime Minister is not from Quebec."

 LaughingLaughing I did not make that up! I could never have done as well if I were trying to satirize it.

Fer chrise sakes. You would have a bit more credibility if you would be honest with both yourself and us Babblers. Really. Here's the REAL question that you are referring to:

Quote:
If the Parti Quebecois wins the election, it will be bad for the relationship between the federal government and Quebec because...] If the Parti Quebecois wins the election, it will be the first time in nearly a decade that Quebec is run by a party that advocates separatism, which could strain the relationship between the Federal Government and Quebec. In the past, when the PQ was in power, the Canadian prime minister was from Quebec and led a party that had strong representation in Quebec. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from Calgary and only five Conservative MPs are from Quebec. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements.

BTW, 42% of Quebecers disagreed with that question, with only 36% "somewhat" agreeing.

Quote:
Unionist - the other 72% would not recognize 50%+1?

Ummmmmmmm... if 72% of Quebecers oppose a sovereignty referendum, the remaining 28% would support same. So how can you get 51% out of 28%??? Not even Einstein would be able to accomplish that mathematical feat!

Instead of trying to run around and around the bulls eye on a target, why don't ya just be honest with both yourself and Babblers and state that you are a separatist! And that you don't like current public opinion in Quebec. And that you are one of the 28% of Quebecers in the CROP poll that supports a sovereignty referendum in Quebec. As well as the 50% +1 majority. Simple as that.

C'mon. With your response, it's obvious that you are implying that I'm an idiot and other Babblers on here are as well. Again, just common sense. ;)

In that vein, why don't ya change your moniker from "unionist" to "separatist"? :P

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Well Arthur if you can find an answer to this puzzle more power to you.  The stats show that the Liberals usually get more votes from union households that the NDP does.  I can't cut and paste out of this book format but it says that even the Alliance out polled the NDP by a 2 to 1 ratio in union homes in 2000.  An upsurge in union homes voting for the NDP was a part of their breakthrough last time but historically the NDP has never won a plurality of union homes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=J3gyone9_kUC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=canadi...

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I would love to know whay an worker would vote a party that has the interests of Corporatons, at the center of its very being. If am wrong about anything, I would truly welcome the correction.

 

janfromthebruce

It would be good to have better updated information. I doubt very much that stats from 2000 are relevant in 2012 as much has changed. Since that time, Liberals showed that they aren't progressive when it comes to supporting worker's rights and collective bargaining. Dion got booed off the stage in 2008 at a rally by CAW members as Libs didn't support NDP anti scab legislation when they said they would. It was a minority situation and it would have passed. The Bloc did.

Canadian workers finally woke up to the fact that the Liberals, a party for the upper middle professional class just didn't represent them - fake left again just didn't cut it.

autoworker autoworker's picture

@Arthur Cramer: FYI: I have the same union jacket that Buzz Hargrove gave to Paul Martin (I wonder if he ever wore it).

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
@Arthur Cramer: FYI: I have the same union jacket that Buzz Hargrove gave to Paul Martin (I wonder if he ever wore it).

Well, I know from how you have reacted to my posts that you basically don't have any regard for me or what I write. Ok that's fair. I mean, I  KNOW that aside from having an opinion, and working my butt off as a volunteer for the NDP, I am really not anyone I get that. I have NEVER held any illusions otherwise.

But honestly, I have NO idea what your post means, and I see you still haven't answered anything I wrote you. Its one thing to post whatever the hell you want on these boards, but quite another to explain why you write what you do, which is something pretty much everyone else on this board does very regulalrly.

So how about? I am assuming you are a union man with decided LPC biases. Most everyone posting here has no idea why any working person in their right mind would vote LPC. And, I have already explained it.

So instead of posting some opaque, seemingly clever respone, how about educating me a little? I will never accept there is any other party to vote for then the NDP, but I'd sure like to at least understand why "Union guys/gals", throw the only party that truly has their interests at heart "under the bus", to use that stupid vernacular over and over. Back to you. Ingnore it if you want but I am giving you a chance to explain why my thinking is screwed up. And, I am not kidding. Let me have it. I'm a big boy, and I can take it.

David Young

Arthur!

I don't know about you, but 'autoworker' is sounding more and more like 'debater'.

Remember THAT Liberal Party shill?

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Justin claims that he's about 'authenticity'. If so, is the popular quest in search of artifact or gestalt?

jjuares

David Young wrote:

Arthur!

I don't know about you, but 'autoworker' is sounding more and more like 'debater'.

Remember THAT Liberal Party shill?

 

I noticed that too. Not only are there similarities in content but stylisticallly also.

 

Unionist

For the information of several people above, it is against babble policy to speculate about someone's identity or whether two handles are being used by the same person, etc.

For your further information, Liberal Party supporters, members, etc. are allowed to post here. Same with Conservative Party, Green Party, Bloc Québécois, etc. We judge people by their stands and views, not by how noisily they cheer for one party or another.

This is not an NDP-lovers' board. If it ever became that, I would set up my own board to make fun of it.

 

Brachina

http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/10/team-trudeau-lets-talk-about-how-we-ma...

Warren Kinsella appears to be fueding with the Trudeau camp and for once up doesn't appear to Warrens fault, but rather arrogance on the part the Trudeau camp, which bobes well for us. The metaphorical tea leaves I reading hint that Trudeau will alienate, toss aside many of the Liberals most experience and talented people, seeing them as the old guard, instead of a balanced approach of mixing idea approaches and people with respect for experience and age.

We see how that works out, but if he over values his popularity with youth and insults the boomers and in turn looks like a wannbe has been to young people when his numbers drop it'll be a disaster.

janfromthebruce

The problem with being one with the youth is that Trudeau was never from the middle class and thus trying so hard to wrap himself up in those quaint middle class values is funny. He's a rich kid whose hard early life of learning middle class values was having "to borrow money from his rich friends for dates". Yes that must have been a real hard life lesson that we all relate to - not.

He also has absolutely nothing in common with the occupy movement young people. In fact, the Liberals kept a wide path from those "youth" and occupers", just in case they get taunted by their rich corporate backers.

The remaking of Trudeau is laughable.

lagatta

That is true, much as I loathe the expression "middle-class", or rather the utterly meaningless concept it has become, encompassing everyone but the destitute and the 1%.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

For the information of several people above, it is against babble policy to speculate about someone's identity or whether two handles are being used by the same person, etc.

 

 

My Reply 

You are obviously referring to me. If is against policy then I obviously need to aplogize and I will do so willingly and gladly. But just one question before I do so. Could you please point out to me where it says this is against "babble policy". I have read the babble policy and could not find it but I am sure it is there because you said it was. And if you say it is against policy, it must be because posting inaccurate infomation is definitely against babble policy ( I found that part).  And if it wasn't there you would be breaking babble policy. I am sure you would never do that which you accuse others of doing.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
Justin claims that he's about 'authenticity'. If so, is the popular quest in search of artifact or gestalt?

Well autoworker, that sounds very sophisticated and intelligent. But to be honest, I don't know what the hell you are talking about! Care to elaborate? And I ask again, how about it. I honestly would like to know why a union man would vote Libearl, Buzz Hargrove notwithstanding.

As to Babble policy, I have no problem with Libs or even Tories posting here, but if you do, then expect to have people challenge you to justify your beliefs. This is a board for debate; expect debate.

Ippurigakko

babble policy, i thought it says "Layton-lovers (dippers)" not liberal or other? kinda confuse?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Did anyone listen to CCC today? Did anyone who did hear if anyone got through who was not a supporter? I got through, was told I would be next, waited 40 minutes, and then got cut off followed by 2 more pro JT calls? Does anyone honestly not think the CBC has decided to through its stake in with JT and the LPC?

ETA: Rex Murphy actually was saying once he became LPC leader, JT would have to show his worhtiness of leader of the Oppostion in the current Partliment. Did I miss something. Were there a whole bunch of unnannounced by-elections which the Libs won and the NDP lost?

ETA 2: Checkup topic headline today, "Does Justin Trudeau owe his appeal to celebrity or a new direction in Canadian politics? (with online chat)" - all I can say is, "for crying out loud". Are they going to show his Coronation on TV too? Absolutely, asstoundingly amazing!

There is simply no maturity at all involved in this discussion. Disgusting. Truly, totatlly disgusting.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ippurigakko wrote:

babble policy, i thought it says "Layton-lovers (dippers)" not liberal or other? kinda confuse?

"Or Harper harpers, talk about it here".

autoworker autoworker's picture

Artifact/gestalt: the cultural differentiation between the candidate and his hair, and which blow dries the whole mind/body experience.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

The problem with being one with the youth is that Trudeau was never from the middle class and thus trying so hard to wrap himself up in those quaint middle class values is funny. He's a rich kid whose hard early life of learning middle class values was having "to borrow money from his rich friends for dates". Yes that must have been a real hard life lesson that we all relate to - not.

 

Borrowing money because you never carry cash...isn't that what THIS family does?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
Artifact/gestalt: the cultural differentiation between the candidate and his hair, and which blow dries the whole mind/body experience.

I really don't understand what point it is you are trying to make.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's as if he's suddenly turned into a Zenbot or something.

janfromthebruce

Ken, now that was funny.

Brachina
adma

felixr wrote:

One of the most disgusting trends in Canadian politics these days is the stream of Liberal commentators fanning the fears of a national unity crisis.

Well, of course it's about "unity".  For you see, Cons and Dippers represent "polarities".  By claiming to straddle and encompass said polarities, Libs represent "unity".  Thus, maybe it can be argued: the crisis is theirs, not ours...

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
http://www.canada.com/opinion/columnists/Young%2Bpoliticians%2Balways%2B... Susan punches some holes in Trudeau mania.

Yes, and in Mulcair muzzle-mania:

Quote:

Just down the Commons aisle from Trudeau sit 18 neophyte New Democrat MPs, all 30 and under — indeed, a handful still in their early 20s. They arrived on a gust of enthusiasm after the last election, but, so far, haven’t made much discernible difference in how politics, or the House, works.

To be fair, many were stunned to be elected in the first place and they face a steep learning curve. Political life can be a minefield for the ill-prepared, so a little humility and caution are well-advised.

Still, it is discouraging to see these potentially interesting new recruits dutifully reciting the typically tendentious “questions” written for them, applauding on cue, and following their more experienced mentors around like toddlers on a rope line.

Just as jail is “crime school” for young offenders, the Commons is increasingly an academy dedicated to turning independent-minded idealists into predictable partisans.

No matter the party, the most compliant are promoted; the most aggressive get the media profile.

felixr

One of the most disgusting trends in Canadian politics these days is the stream of Liberal commentators fanning the fears of a national unity crisis. The thing that baffles me the most about this is the thought that it might somehow benefit the Liberals if not Canada. It wasn't just the Bloc that was wiped out in 2011. It was the Liberals too. The NDP decimated their votes and their rank to historic lows as well.

And yet, now that a federalist or post-sovereigntist (e.g. Claude Patry) party has conducted a broad sweep of Quebec, the histrionics begin. Frank Graves should be ashamed of himself and the basest of denominators that he panders to. If there is a national unity crisis, maybe it will be the last nail in the coffin of his beloved Liberal party as the federalist NDP comes to the rescue of Quebec's national interests AND a united Canada.

As for Trudeau, how does he explain his lets not pit West vs. East comments/vision in light of those Liberals avidly preaching another unity schism in Quebec. "United we stand" my big red Liberal ass!

Pages