BS: Canucks... Trudeau?

Subject: BS: Canucks... Trudeau in 13?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:07 PM

Ya think?

LeBlanc won't run. Too smart. Unless they cook up a deal.

Ya see anyone else out there with a shot?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 08:03 PM

The Liberal Party is doomed -- at least at the federal level. It will hang on for a while in provincial politics but, like the Progressive Conservatives, it's a dead party walking.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 08:06 PM

So, where are we going?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:46 PM

so, where are we going you ask

we're going we're every other western nation's going.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:57 PM

Well that sucks. We didn't used to.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Beer
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 10:49 PM

I seldom give any opinion on politics. but in this case I want to say this. I am disappointed that Justin is running for the liberal leadership. I will not vote for him. I don't believe he is ready for the supreme position due to lack of experience.

However, if he had left the federal party and come to Quebec to run for the vacant spot with Charest's leaving, I would get out there and push for him 125%. After his 1st or 2nd. term as Provincial leader he would then be ready to take on the top post and I would truly support him. So, between now and the judjement day, someone will have to convince me that I should vote for him "if he gets that far".
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 12:23 AM

What about after 5-10 years as leader of an opposition party?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 12:32 AM

The Liberals figure he's saleable on the basis of his name, and they don't have anyone else who is. I'd rather see them and all the other political parties in the country disappear. Of course...that's not going to happen. He'll probably give them a bit of a lift for awhile, but I doubt that it'll be enough to return them to their former position as "Canada's natural governing party".

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:22 AM

It's a marketing facade .... trying to sell the populace that by having Trudeau in the 'in' it will be bring us all back to a time of glory and prosperity ... sorta like marketing Obama as the new Kennedy and it will be like the days of Camelot.

We are in desperate times, heading down a road of the unknown and uncertainty. People need to think we are heading back to a time that was somehow to our believe a warm and fuzzy time of security.

20th century politics will not work in a 21st century world ... and that's the bottom line.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:09 AM

Marc Garneau anyone? A grown-up who's actually done something ....

The Liberals are trying for another 'easy fix' - they didn't learn their lesson with Ignatief. They need to figure out what they collectively stand for, and sell that to the voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:45 AM

I think the only thing they actually stand for, other than a vague sense of their own party identity based on the past history OF their party, is getting elected! And staying in power once they are. And therein lies the problem.

That is the essential problem with most political parties these days. They're in the game mostly just to WIN the game, not to serve the public or to govern according to a coherent and workable philosophy.

The neocons of Harper's ilk, of course, have a philosophy. It's just not a workable or useful one. ;-)

The primary thing that unites the Liberals is the keen sense that they are NOT the Conservatives. That's true...but it's not enough.

The NDP did once have a coherent and workable philosophy. I keep wondering if they'll manage to find it again someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:52 AM

When a government is disdainful of its citizens, when a government deals well internationally but poorly nationally, when a people cowtow to their own government: folks, therein lies the rot and therein is the problem.

A worst thing that's happened to Canada in the past sixty years is the influence of television, and that's led to another worst thing. I'm gonna rant for a second or two and if you wish to ignore it, simply go to the next paragraph. Thank you. These fucking iPhones and iPads--I'm not sure exactly what they are--but gawd dammit they are a hell of a public nuisance.

What we are witnessing internationally is class warfare on an unprecedented scale. In the UK, about 70% of the cabinet are millionaires. In the US, about 50% of congress are millionaires. I can't find figures for Canada, but bucks to doughnuts, the House of Commons has got lots. The Hair is worth 5 million. They are no longer speaking for their citizens; they are speaking for the general economic interests of their ilk, and that ain't the majority of us. So once again we'll buy into the sideshow, entranced by the shenanigans, and millionaires will empty our national coffers, banks and finally our wallets/purses.

We are beginning to see the weaponization of the most fundamental need people have: food. We need much more than platitudes or slogans to bring that shit into line.

I do not want as a leader the guy or gal who plays at the dog and pony show. I want brains coupled with compassion for all our citizens. I want big money and its pernicious influence out of the political arena, both at home and elsewhere. I want a party and a leader who embrace a sense of social justice within the reality of freedom, not the chimera of freedom within the walls of a prison.

I do not think Trudeau has what it takes. It's beginning to look like such a party and leader just ain't. It would take 5% of the population to change that, but if we can't be arsed, it just ain't gonna happen. The ugly thing about class warfare is that it eats its young. I hope there are future generations that look back and see how foolish we were to sacrifice a Garden of Eden for the right to have scraps from the table of the rich while we subjugate the poor among us and abroad.

Say goodnight, Chet.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:20 AM

The liberal leadership race does seem low on the current radar of many.

Personally, I see the benefits of a multi party government, versus a two party one (for example, as in the USA).

It makes it more interesting, and provides an opportunity for new ideas to hatch and sometimes grow. There are good examples of third parties having an influence on governing party policies, for example, Tommy Douglas' influence on the earlier Trudeau.

I am not eager to see Canada's political scene evolve into a two party scenario (I admit there are also minor parties, but most have had minimal influence, beyond local issues - Block and Green- and with some media).

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 12:05 PM

I think Dominic LeBlanc would be a better choice but, as I said, I think he'll sit in the bushes for some of the same negatives above regarding Trudeau.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 12:17 PM

Excellent post, 999. Class warfare is what it is, allright.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:04 PM

As in team sports, in class warfare one class wins, another is defeated ... the cycle will just continue on and on and on, and social justice will always be the victim.

I believe what we are witnessing today is a result of political ignorance (within the voters), empathy, apathy and arrogance (within all classes/teams). Democracy is alive and well within Canada. We have the governments we vote for. The only problem is we don't take notice probably because we don't really give a rat's ass. We don't excercise our democratic rights and speak up or take action. The class/team who is in power recognizes this and takes complete control, and why not.

Will humans ever see the light of humanity, will humans ever change?

biLL (who doesn't belong to any class/team)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:36 PM

I am afraid I don't understand the class warfare point at all. Do you mean that wealthy people are, by virtue of being wealthy, to be excluded from the political process. As for intelligent leaders, it seems to me that when we put them forward they are usually accused of elitism. I think I am tired of the politics of resentment

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:51 PM

The warfare is that big money subverts the political process to do what it wants to whom it wants. I'll use a US example (more obvious than a Canuck example)... Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:52 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:54 PM

I am afraid I don't get your reference gnu. Are we talking about big money or wealthy people who happen to be politicians. I am confused by your comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:02 PM

Yes.

Re wealthy people... they are in on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:34 PM

You can't be serious. ;-) It's not an indictment of rich people for being rich that we're talking about here. It's the fact that the political process has been taken over by corporate lobbyists and big banks, and they are in control of the major political parties, Congress, the presidency, the whole shebang.

And it's been happening for a long time...but it's been getting a lot worse and more obvious since the Reagan years in the USA, when the banking and lending sector was de-regulated in such a way as to allow them to create unbelievable amounts of phony money through what amounted to a Ponzi scheme.

And it's still happening. The crooks who did it have been bailed out repeatedly. They didn't use the bailout money to create jobs for the ordinary public in North America, though. They used it to do more lending offshore, because they can earn big bucks on the interest they charge to countries like Brazil, for example.

It isn't class warfare on the basis that "all rich people are bad". It's class warfare on the basis that a few of the rich people, namely those who control the biggest banks and biggest corporations, are controlling the political process in order to benefit themselves, and themselves only.

The policies that result from this control do somewhat benefit all rich people in various ways, but they weren't put there by the will of all the rich people. These same policies have essentially turned the various national currencies into something a lot like Monopoly money. That's what happens when your run a pyramid scheme.

The politicians are so terrified by what might happen if the bubble finally burst that they keep bailing out the crooks who did it in order to keep it inflated just a little bit longer....

That's class warfare BY a very few rich people against the whole rest of society. That's what it amounts to. The rest of society just wants to be left alone...but this system is not leaving them alone, it's systemically robbing them and their children of their future security.

When something like this occurred in France in the late 1700s, it finally resulted in a bloody revolution...one in which ALL rich people got blamed and punished for the situation, although all of them were certainly not guilty of having had any wrongful intention...and some of them were undoubtedly quite innocent people.

(What happened in France that finally made the revolution inevitable was that the price of food (bread) doubled almost overnight. Poor people began starving because they could no longer afford to feed themselves. Mobs took to the streets in Paris, and the monarchy fell.) The kind of desperation that brought down the French government was, I think, somewhat comparable to the kind of desperation that is being seen in the Middle East at present. It's what happens when a huge and frustrated underclass simply cannot take an oppressive situation any longer.

What's different in the Middle East, though, is that foreign powers are deliberately helping to provoke social unrest there and are supplying arms and aid to various of the revolutionaries. That wasn't the case at all in the France of the 1700s. All of Europe feared and opposed the French Revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:39 PM

That was addressed to Hilo, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:47 PM

"It's the fact that the political process has been taken over by corporate lobbyists and big banks,..."

The industrial-military complex MIGHT be added?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:27 PM

Definitely. North America's number one business endeavour is producing military technology and waging war.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:30 PM

I still wouldn't call it class warfare ... I call this a totalitarian state ... controlled by the corporations .. using the military and police to keep the populace under control.

How did id the corporate machine take over ... we let them ... we were all 'asleep' ... and most people haven't woken up yet.

I somewhat cringe every time I hear people bemoaning and blaming the rich ... rich, or poor people are people and yes, some of the rich as the poor become victims in a totalitarian state.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:34 PM

BTW LH .... many of the rich were also victims (of injustice and violence) in the Russian Revolution and other revolutions that have happened in history ... and even the facsist takeovers in the 1930's.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:48 PM

oh ...and I'll add one thing more here ..

It's not the lust of $money$ that intices those to rule the world ... it's the lust for power ... what was that quote from Henry Kissinger, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" .... the corporate machine thirsts for power.

Hmmm ... good example, look at Henry ... wasn't really a wealthy man but did end up havig a lot of 'power'

Many of those dictators and corporate leaders who end up controlling vast empires come from very humble backgrounds ... they were not born into money, and many did not hold $wealthy positions.

there ... that's my 2 cents worth, unfortunately I have no more, as I am not from the wealthy class/team.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:51 PM

Yes, sIx, but we weren't asleep. People don't fight when their bellies are full. Now, it's far more complicated than that and my real fear is that their bellies are being kept "just full enough" to allow the rich to wage war employing the poorest to do so. The US has a standing army of well over 1M. Who the fuck signs up except misguided, poor and people who truly want to serve.

Yes, thank goodness they sign up but the rich send them where they should have to go. Yer a Canuck... what the fuck business have we in Afghanistan... ohhh... wow... thread drift EXTREME! My sincerest apologies... it's Saturday night and I am having brown pops. (Yes, it's still afternoon but I started early because today was a rough day.)

Sorry. This thread is about something else ALtogether.

Anyone wanna talk about the Liberal Party leadership race?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 05:02 PM

I agree with what you said, Number 6. Yeah, sure, many of the rich have also become victims of violence and injustice during revolutions. Matter of fact, I already said that in my post about the French Revolution. I've always felt a good deal of sympathy for the King and Queen of France at the time, as well as for many other aristocrats who were executed. They just had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I would also call what we have now a totalitarian state...one that is masquerading as a democracy...and it still has the procedural apparatus of one, but it's been taken over by Big Money.

I hardly care who the Liberals decide to make their next leader. If it's Justin Trudeau they choose, I think he may live to regret it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Beer
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 05:06 PM

I was thinking the same thing Gnu. But then again most threads go drifting off for awhile. It's up to the poster to bring it back in my opinion.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 05:25 PM

Agreed, LH. Trudeau is wealthy and, we hope, has a big heart because we hope that his old man's sense of fair play, commitment to what is right and sheer toughness was instilled in him by PET but he doesn't have the wealth it takes to tell big money to fuck off and be backed up by the current bunch of lackies in Parliament so it'sa crap shoot with him. Add the above posts and Pierre's yer uncle.

Maybe the social networking he may may be able to accomplish could make a dent in the armour but it seems unlikely. Same with LeBlanc but I would trust LeBlanc far moreso to that effect. He's got the network and, after all, if Dominic fucks up, he will have to answer to Beauséjour and he could end up as lobster bait... them Kent County boys don't fuck around... we are talkin Irish and French good ol boys. I dunno about yer big city types what might give Trudeau the finger er write a goddamn letter but these lads will burn yer shit down. He has the social network AND the comeuppance to do/have to do a good job.

Sigh... I really don't think he will run unless there is a deal cooked up.

As far as Marc? This ain't rocket science, this is politics. He could... if a deal is cooked up.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: ollaimh
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 05:42 PM

the liberals should hve stuck with dion, he actually had a platform and the attack ads only work for one election. iggu had no reason to be in politics.

however canadians c\annot say they never had a choice to elect an enviornmentally concerned government. they went for the destroy the earth tar sands tories when they had a clear option.

is justin ready? well you don't need to know much to be prime minister if you know how to delegate. chretien used to say his job was to win elections , his monisters jobs were to run departments and govern. delegation delegation.

of course that's why chretien was ousted by martin, he didn't keep a tight enough grip on power in the party and martin used that to control the riding associations and get himself into the pms job.

so if justin surrounded himself with a good group he could be a great prime minister. nobody could be worse than harper. he's made us pupets of the american military industrial complex without a peep.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 06:34 PM

Just wondering

Besides getting elected, and having a papa known in the Libral party (some may suggest a degree of nepotism), where does Trudeau, the relatively unknown LeBlanc (or even Gerald Regan, who indicates he is considering a run at it) stand on anything regarding the Liberal Party nation?

Should one believe that having a notable father means "a fella" also has "what it takes" to lead a country, as their fathers may have had? I know a lot of kids that in "no way" size up to their dads. And I have seen quite a few fine offsprings from bad genetic roots.

Where is the vision? I suspect some folks are now unsure what this party now represents, beacuse of changing leadership in past couple of elections?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:12 PM

"chretien was ousted by martin"?

I just can't see it.

"Should one believe that having a notable father means "a fella" also has "what it takes" to lead a country, as their fathers may have had?"

No. But they have contacts and they have clout and we respected (?) what their father's did for this country which means more than electing The Hair who doesn't give two shits from Tuesday about my father and my mother and all the others who built this fuckin country and and paved the way for his sorry ass to posper. Ask anyone over retirement age... yeah... retirement age. I assume you are "golden"? And don't care about the kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:22 PM

I am over retirement age gnu "fella" so I can ask me'self, thank you.

Like most, I care for Libral folks kids just as much as any other Canadian kid. But, I realize putting trust in anyone to run a nation means more than bowing to a previous politicians kid with merely a bit name recognition.

Being over retirement age doesn't make anyone "golden" or mean "fuck all" when it comes to being right wrong, or caring. And, I suspect a good number of "retired folks may see things differently than you, and possibly even voted and willvote differently? Get used to it. And that doesn't make 'en any less or more patriotic or "golden" than you-or me- they just see things differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:35 PM

I'm retired and I now collect my CPP (whoopee !) .... I'm certainly not golden or whatever, at least I don't think I am ... now, in keeping in toone with the subject of this thread (my apologies btw about getting offtrack earlier) I have to agree with ED in regards to the young (well, not so young) Trudeau ... sorry, but there is no way this guy can save the liberal party ... the liberal party as we have known it is long gone ... Justy Trudeau should stick to boxing, that is about as good as he gets ... he is not his father, and never will be.

Only the young who are thinking out of the old political box and that means out of the old political party system can make a worthwhile effort in change that we need ... but the electorate will have to wake up to help make that change possible.

biLL   hey,has anyone around here have 2 cents they can loan an old pensioner that I am... I'm in debt for posting this thread ... ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:53 PM

Not the retired folks I know... they are pissed with Harper screwing them and their children over. Maybe you didn't get my "golen" reference?

BTW... for ye ferriners, Harper has just told "young" Canadians they will have to work until they are two years older than 65 to collect the Old Age Pension. I wonder when he will announce changes to the Canada Pension Plan. Of course, that will only apply to people under 30. Can't piss of toooo many people at the same time. AFTER ALL, THERE'S ANOTHER ELECTION COMING. My guess is he will fuck over people on the CPP about three years after the next election if he's gonna win. If he feels he isn't gonna win, it will be in late spring.

*I* am "golden". I get my Old Age at 65 and, so far, I can get my CPP at 60.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: ragdall
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 02:55 AM

I think that Justin could become a good leader, but the party isn't ready for a comeback yet. It's lack of success will equate to his lack of success.

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM

""Not the retired folks I know... they are pissed with Harper screwing them and their children over"".

I am not sure that everyone across Canada, retired or not, has the same opinion as you say your circle of retired friends seem to?

With fewer people putting in and more taking out, I suspect some change is inevitable (as with private retirement plans), regardless who is in power. It seems logical that a party with a majority takes more agressive actions earlier than one in a minority.

Many may recall that Martin was popular for getting us out of some financial trouble by cutting programs - but did so by passing many problems on the provinces- and many provinces still live with some of the resulting financial issues to today. Problem is if you have to bring the books in shape (over the long term) there are fewer areas to focus on, that don't impact someone.

What governments and parents in many countries are telling kids is, unlike with the BB'ers, it is not wise to rely solely on government pensions (CPP and OAP) for your retirement - put some $ away early, so it can grow for you to enjoy as you age. Seems like good advice to me. It is exactly what I told my kids.Of course, some kids are hoping their BB parents will leave them a few of their $, if they have it, to help. BTW, recent reports indicate Canadian retired folks are much better off financially than any previous generation. (I suspect they may be among the best off in the world, for their age group).

As to Trudeau: I have not seen any vision yet. IMO, vision is what is needed to stimulate the party. All I see is a young guy that kinda looks like his father and alot of people wishing that he is like his father. I have not seen any indication of any of Pierre's abilities yet?

While it is good to have inside party contacts to help you, and I realize he is only running for the Leadership of a party- but if he wins he will have to face the elcorate. Remember, first impressions are only made once and I suspect there are already people poised to do to him what was done to folks like Dion - so any candidiate has to be quick on their feet, as it is harder to come back from first impressions made by you or others.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:05 AM

All you vision seekers, don't you think it's a bit early for that? After all the guy hasn't even declared his candidacy yet. Don't you think it would be a little presumptuous for a member of a third party in the House to be going about promoting his vision for the country? If he was you'd probably all be clucking about his arrogance. I, for one, will wait to hear what he has to offer as a potential future leader before I form my opinion on his ability.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: number 6
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:39 AM

I don't think there is one current party leader in Ottawa who is prepared to deal with the current economic crisis, let alone the possible collapse of the Euro and the possible oncoming war in the mideast (which will make the past conflicts over there look like a weekend militia training exercise) ... these 2 events will push Canada over a threshold into a situation which will require a new economic and political approach to governing. Looking back at the past for a remedy and hoping we can return is ridiculousness and pathetic.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:42 AM

Justin Trudeau will run for the leadership. Why else would he have been out in the sticks preaching to the faithful in a currently PC riding? He's getting the feel of support and reminding them that he's the one. I heard him speak last Thursday. He sounded a lot like Jack Layton in style and substance, not that I would trust him. Nonetheless he'll likely make a better PM than we've had in a long time.

(Disclamer: My fiddle/guitar duo was booked to play the wine and cheese party prior to JT's speech. Liberal money ia as good as anyone else's.)

I'm waiting for Olivia Chow to run.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:29 PM

Everyone can always use a bit more Chow, I say. ;-D Ook! Ook! With that in mind, I am goin' to the local hash house in a few minutes from now.

Regardin' this young Trudeau character...he done a pretty good job boxin' the other guy who was a blowhard anyway, but it's a damn good thing he is not runnin' for the top job in the USA or he would have to have boxed ME. It woulda been a short fight! I'd have massacred him. I figger just 2 hits. 1 - I nail him a good one right in the jaw. 2 - He hits the canvas for a 10-count. End of match.

I'm not sure I would want to run for office in Canada, though. They're too polite up there. I would hafta restrain myself too much to really enjoy the campaign. Down in the USA, fortunately, it ain't like that at all.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM

Ed T... "I am not sure that everyone across Canada, retired or not, has the same opinion as you say your circle of retired friends seem to?"

Not everyone. I know this one guy in Nova Scotia who seems to think it's okay for The Hair to tell all the people who built this country over the past hundred years or so to back the fuck up so he can spend MILLIONS AND MILLIONS on a civil and religious war 8000 fuckin miles away. And, BTW, I would tell you what else they say but that would be WAY too controversial.

Sooo... lets centralize this discussion about who is least quailfied to sort out this bullshit we have allowed to happen by not listening to our elders and allowing thieves to rob them (us?) of what they worked and sacrificed DEARLY for.

Or... we could go golfing. (Canuck joke... not so funny.)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:57 PM

""Don't you think it would be a little presumptuous for a member of a third party in the House to be going about promoting his vision for the country?""

A vision for the party, and what it stands for differs alot from vision for the country. And no, I do not feel it is anywhere too early for potential candidates to begin such a discussion before the party dissapears from the public memory, or is absorbed by "the Borg".

A few days ago:

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:03 PM

Few surprises that PM Trudeau was seen as less cooperative than PM Mulrooney down south.

Few surprises

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:20 PM

I post this in full, as it seems hard to link. While some of it may be unfair and biased, there is a point that previous Liberal leaders did not give Justin significant posts. Does that say anything about his inside standing? I dunno?

Is Justin Trudeau really taken seriously by his own party? Add to ...
Gerald Caplan

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Sep. 28 2012, 3:26 PM EDT

Last updated Friday, Sep. 28 2012, 3:30 PM EDT

388 comments Print AA   Justin Trudeau was first elected to Parliament in 2008. When his first leader, Stéphane Dion, chose his shadow cabinet, Justin's name was MIA. (It does seem unnatural to call him anything but "Justin," doesn't it?) If you search back, you can find the MPs he named to be critics of finance, environment, foreign affairs, defence, treasury board, fisheries – the entire kit and caboodle. But even the most complete list of critics that Google turns up finds no listing for Justin.

More Related to this Story
•Potential opponents to Trudeau leadership bid scarce

•John Ibbitson If Trudeau leads, will Liberals follow?

•Globe Editorial Judge Justin Trudeau on record and policy positions — not family lineage
   
Photos
The life of Justin Trudeau in pictures

When Justin's second leader, Michael Ignatieff, named his shadow cabinet, he first made Justin critic for youth and multiculturalism, later elevating him to Citizenship and Immigration. If Justin proved a formidable critic to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, I've had trouble finding any evidence of it.

Justin's final leader, Bob Rae, made him critic for post-secondary education, youth and amateur sport.

Is it unfair to conclude that this record indicates a fairly serious vote of non-confidence in Justin by his leaders over four years. Do they know something the rest of Canada needs to know?

Of course I am biased. I come to Justin with some pretty strong reservations, based first on his father. No doubt that's completely unfair but it's surely unavoidable. I've never forgiven Papa Pierre for the imposition of the draconian War Measures Act against a non-existent insurrectionary threat, one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in Canadian history.

And I can't seem to forget that while Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister for 15 years, virtually his entire legacy was forged in his final few years in office, which he came perilously close to not having. Let's not forget that the mighty Trudeau was defeated in 1979 by Joe Clark – Joe Who, for heaven's sake! If anyone in Mr. Clark's minority government knew Grade 3 arithmetic, they wouldn't have blown a non-confidence vote, Mr. Clark would have remained PM and Mr. Trudeau would have been gone forever. The patriation of the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came after his resurrection. What thin gruel would the legacy have been if his tenure had ended five years earlier?

Okay, none of this is his son's responsibility. But since much of his reputation depends on being Pierre's son, he must wear the burdens as well as the magic. And of course there will be passionate disagreements even about Justin's ostensible assets. I happen not to be among those who swooned at his eulogy for his father, really his big public debut, in a way comparable to Barack Obama's landmark speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. It made Mr. Obama a national figure to conjure with, just as Justin's eulogy made him the heir apparent to his father. Eulogies aren't easy, especially when they're deeply personal. But I was among many who found his to be maudlin and sappy, contrived, almost embarrassing, the opposite of those who felt it soared to the heavens.

And while I'm at it, let me add that I found last March's boxing match between Justin and a Conservative Senator to have been an embarrassing descent into adolescent machismo. There are no doubt worse ways to raise money for fighting cancer than having two apparently grown men beating the hell out of each other, but I'm not sure what they are.

Nothing riles Liberals more than the accusation that Justin's nothing more than an empty suit – or whatever you call his often curious attire. Then you wait for them to explain why the statement is grossly inaccurate. Sometimes you wait forever. Sometimes they point to something truly miraculous, like the fact that he won a tough seat in Montreal. Imagine that! But it's surely fair to say that, unlike his father even before Pierre entered politics, Justin has made no mark whatever for any policies or ideas or accomplishments that he's associated with. Is it possible to believe he'd be treated like the Second Coming if he had a different surname?

So the question to be determined is whether he's running because he couldn't resist the relentless pressure – and the awesome ego satisfaction it surely brought – or because he has something important to say to his fellow citizens.

Maybe he does. I can hardly keep track of the Liberal loyalists who have assured me that there's far more to Justin than meets the public eye, and who am I to begrudge this dying breed their faint hopes and fantasies? But I don't mean to be wholly snarky here. I actually hope his admirers are right. Canada needs all the thoughtful liberal politicians it can get and if Justin comes to the country with new, exciting progressive approaches for a more just society, that would be a major plus for Canadian democracy, a very fragile flower after six years of the Harper government. I suppose by the April convention – yes, only six-and-a-half electrifying months to go – we'll have some idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 09:12 PM

Wellll... "Is it unfair to conclude that this record indicates a fairly serious vote of non-confidence in Justin by his leaders over four years. Do they know something the rest of Canada needs to know?" ... no.

It means they want to keep his nose squeaky clean... is that not obvious?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 09:24 PM

If Justin Trudeau will challenge Harper to a boxing match and wail the shit out of him he'll get my vote. If he gets elected Prime and tells the Pentagon where to stick their F-35 fighters I'll even let him put a sign on my lawn! If he re-nationalizes Petro Canada and kicks the nuts of the big oil companie's crooked executives I will declare him a diety!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 09:34 PM

But, Pierre and Joe "lost" those fights long ago, no? Justin can't go back and fight those battles again, can he? Of course, he could kick Harper's ass... it would be as absurd as that freak show that went on but FAR more enjoyable. I can picture Harper on the mat... unconcious and bleeding without one hair out of place.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 09:51 PM

But Pierre didn't lose the oil battle. It was Alberta's influence on later governments like Mulroony's that sunk our national energy strategy. Every damn time I cough up at the pumps I wonder if there were more envelopes than what we know of? Not saying; just wondering {;-}

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 11:43 PM

Mulwhoooooney? Wash yer mouth out with soap!

Must be something about the hair, eh? And that wry smile that just says, "Fuck you." in such a demure manner. Innocent lambs them two.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:21 AM

Just to be clear, (for those falling outside the Canadian sphere of influence) I was talking about "Justin Trudeau", not the much more famous Canadian "Justin Bieber" - who is not considering coming to the rescue of a political party, will likely never be the Prime Minister, and was not (as far as I recall) "somewhat" overlooked by previous Liberal party leaders. Remember that.

And, I do not covet my neighbour's hair (nifty or not) - nor rate any life success, or lack of it, on hair - or, lack of hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 10:11 PM

Justin Trudeau's speech announcing his cadidacy and his vision:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/02/pol-justin-trudeau-liberal-party.html?cmp=rss

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:17 PM

Thanks, Bobad. As for a federal election, it's clear he is toast and as for the leadership race, this is just practice for the future. Or it could be the inuring process of leading an opposition as mentioned above, but I just can't see that. Anyway, I digress.

So... now that my initial question has been answered, who else will run besides Trudeau, Coyne (not a hope of election, sooo...? a carbon tax??? - what was she thinking??? doesn't she read newspapers?), and Mousley?

I think Garneau would mop the floor given what we know now but will he run?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:45 PM

Coughlin's Law: anything else is always something better.
quote: Coctail(Doug)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:20 PM

Deborah Coyne, being the mother of Justin's half sister, adds an interesting element to the leadership contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:32 PM

Coughlin's Law: anything else is always something better.
quote Doug: Coctail (the movie, not the drink)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM

OOps, twice is better than once ;(

OK another "drifty and nifty" one from the same movie:

Doug: You see, there are two kinds of people in this world: the workers and the hustlers. The hustlers never work and the workers never hustle...

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM

She is certainly well qualified to be PM but the carbon tax? Fine if she believes in it but sell it afterwards... we know what it did for Dionne (she would too if she read a newspaper, no???). I think she shot herself in the foot on day one on that alone. Of course, she could be another sacrifice choice in the opposition IF that is the case. Hey, somebody has to do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:04 PM

""Deborah Coyne, being the mother of Justin's half sister, adds an interesting element to the leadership contest.""

How so?

Are there any more relatives Liberals-of-the-past in the shadows?

With this in mind, what shot does Monica Lewinsky have is running in the next US 'lection? She can claim a close relationship with Bill;)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 06:21 PM

For one thing, she doesn't need the money. Apparently, the going rate for a blowjob in The States is a LOT more than in Canada. Of course, if it's leadership of the Liberal party for a lay?

Yes, yes, yes... that was an extremely crass joke but not beyond crass in my books. And, yessss... I do go beyond sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Beer
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 06:26 PM

Your buddy D.Leblanc is not running. The official announcement will be made when Justin visits New Brunswick next week.
Ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:19 PM

Okay, went to see young Trudeau make his speech today. Very impressive - an effective, engaging speaker, saying all the right things. Seems approachable, personable. Could be the guy to save the Liberals ....

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Beer
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 11:15 PM

meself, you mean yesterday right? The speach he gave in Montreal?
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 11:32 PM

Beer...told yas. >;-)

Just too smart... like all the LeBlanc. That's where I get my calm, calculated and reasoned demeanour from. It's my Irish I have a problem with at times. >;-)

Mark my words... if LeBlanc becomes PM some day, I'll be surpised( for many reasons) but I will also be pleased. On accounta he's the real deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 12:06 AM

No, today in Calgary. Wish I was in Montreal!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 03:31 AM

meself, based on what you heard, how's he look in terms of policy? He spoke against a zinc mine development on the Nahanni River in the NWT about a half dozen years back. But unless the Libs and NDP get it together, we may be stuck with The Hair once again, and I don't think our democracy can afford that.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 06:51 AM

OK, I'll bite on that one, why is LeBlanc "the real deal"?- outside of him "kinda" being from the Maritimes (mostly lived in Ottawa as a lad, studied in USA, vacationed, at the beach, in NB, now 'kinda " lives in Shediac -because he ran there- and in Ottawa), and had a famous father, and has, I suspect, very little, if any, Irish Blood ;).

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Beer
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 08:16 AM

Reason why I asked "meself", was if you had been in Montreal and hadn't got in touch with Bruce or meself, we wouldn't speak to you again.
Even if you are downtown Montreal on business, give us a call and will come and have a coffee with you.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 11:46 AM

Unfortunately, I rarely get to la Belle Province these days - thanks for the thought, though - and if I ever do get there, I'll hold you to it. (Business? Well, we'll see how this whole Mafia thing shakes out ... )

__________

Re: policy. Justin spoke pretty much in platitudes, no specific policy statements - but they were the kind of platitudes I for one wanted to hear (uniting the country, economic development in concert with environmental protection, politics of hope rather than fear, trust rather than suspicion, etc., etc.). I'm not ready to pronounce on how satisfactory a PM he would be, but I think he may have what it takes to rally some real opposition to the corporatist zealots, which is job #1 at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM

Thanks, meself. I am actually quite happy to hear that and I trust your opinion. (I'm kinda NDP and have been for years, but I change that in certain elections if the NDP candidate is in a close race.)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 06:48 PM

"real deal"? I know the family. I could say Trudeau can be trusted because his old man did the right things by standing uo for Canada against any and all opponents but I have added trust in LeBlanc. As much trust as anyone can have these days. Trust the system? No. Trust the wo/man? Yes. It's all we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 07:00 PM

Well, gnu, I knew Romeo also, maybe not as well as you??? I did not know him when he taught school or lived in Cormiers' Cove, near Taylor's villiage....but it was later when he matured and was Fisheries minister. I can say first hand that he was "the real deal".

But, I know too many case where the offsprings are nowhere near their parents scale (and sometimes on the opposite pole) to base a judgement on. Basing a persons character on the parents, or the family's overall character alone does not make it with me. In my books, they have to earn my respect and show it for themselves for me to take notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM

Ed... ya got me there. Point blank. I can't prove a word of it. My apologies to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: ollaimh
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 01:38 PM

gnu, martin and his followers got control of the riding associations step by step for a decade and that is how he forced chretien to retire two years before planned. chretien should have ridden out the scandals. martin had what ot took to govern but little political sense. ans he had no answer to harpsers dirty tricks.(like getting ther head of the rcmp zacherdelli to put out a letter in mid electio , that the liberals were ubder criminal investigation for budget leaks--then after the election zacherdelli says--opps no investigation after all)

chretien knew how to ride out scandals and dirty tricks.

remember the libertals brought us eleven surpluss budgets without cutting core social programs, and regulated out banks so we had no collapse. we will now have a debt crisis like under mulroney and the next government will have to clean it up.

if justin wins the pm office he will not abandon the liberal fiscal conservatives. he will go with mnore social programs but so did martin at the end.

however it may all be moot--mulcair may have quebec locked up and that would kill trudeaus hopes of governing.

granted justin does not have his fathers history of a phd in economic, studying at harvard, the sorbonne and the london school of economics. and especuially pierre's history of fighting for social justic in qhebec against duplessis, especially with cite libre. but who does? p trudeau was almost uniqie as a politician , having come from a totally inependant background with high education and a history of social activism. kinda like obama. these guys don't come along often. most politicians never have a job out side politics.at least justin taought school and made movies--with his brother.

and he could out box harper or mulcair!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

Gez gnu, no need to appoligize to anyone. You did nothing more than give your opinion, as we all do.

When someone makes a statement, I often ask questions for information - not to call them out, or challenge them beyond that. I do this to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and to see if I missed something.


Here is Dominics bio- not everyone can obtain a Masters of Law degree from the Harvard Law School>

Dominic LeBlanc

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:03 AM

Yes, I did need to apologize because I was absolutely wrong... point blank. I said something I feel but cannot PROVE. Even if he was a saint, it doesn't say what he would do in future.

ollaimh... I agree with your take on Martin and The Little Guy. If Martin had Chrétien's skills and stayed in power (still doubtful, I think) we would be in far better shape. Of course, I can't prove that either... maybe it's just that I loathe The Hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM

Trudeau's Turks

The people behind Justin Trudeau's bid to become Liberal leader

By Michael den Tandt, Postmedia News October 6, 2012 10:48 AM

"Without question, Trudeau's rebels embody a generational shift: generation X is finally at the head table. Whether what the campaign is already calling a "movement" also represents a philosophical and ideological shift remains to be seen.

Certainly, there are early signs Trudeau intends to try something unusual: His stump speech is explicitly anti-ideological. His senior people speak about crafting "post-partisan" policy. Behind the scenes they are quietly but deliberately reaching across party lines in a search for ideas.

"I'm not sure I would characterize us a left-leaning," says Telford. "If there's a good idea that's traditionally seen as right … we're all pretty open-minded people. (Solutions) need to be results-driven, and evidence-driven."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What we see is old-school rules," says Chin. "Regional divides, regional mistrust … I don't think Canadians are ideological. I don't think Canadians are polarized. I think Canadians want pragmatic solutions that work, and policy based on facts as opposed to making up the facts to justify the policy. That's what we need to get back to."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We want to have a relatively flat organization, says Telford. "There are certain accountabilities, but we want to stay as flat as possible and as merit-based as possible. It's about who's willing to put in the work, no matter their background, no matter what party they've been in before, or (whether they've) been involved in past battles."


Read more:

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:50 PM

A July column by Lawrence Martin.



Trudeau's inside players

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 02:57 PM

I've got three things to say to Canada about electing the son of a former leader.   George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:02 PM

Therefore it must follow that......

Can you say logical fallacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:16 PM

GWB was "elected" to do a job, ONE job, that being "leading" a team that would exact retribution with one big ass-kickin at ANY cost. Apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:29 PM

IMO, Bush was elected to be the front man for the biggest bank robbery in history. It worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 05:48 PM

So... that shit about killing Saddam and destabilizing the region and getting at the oil and gaining contol of the WMDs and... that was all secondary to robbing the western taxpayers of their life savings and they were just extra bonuses, 9?

Nice work if ya can get it, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:38 PM

Pretty much, Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:59 PM

So, does that mean that it don't matter squat who we elect or even who runs ta offer ta lead the True North Strong and gettin fucked up the ass?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 07:09 PM

Not at all. Who WE elect in Canada is important. The Hair has got to go. Although NDP is my party of choice, were it to look like a close contest between Libs and Cons, I would vote for the Libs in a trice. In the best of worlds, I'd like to see the NDP and Liberals merge, but I don't think that will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 07:17 PM

I'd like to see that merger as well - the Cons would be toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:33 PM

There are those wo believe that the majority of Canadians are not at the left or right, but in the middle.

Let's say the librals merged with the NDP. Would the NDP ever be able to capture those in the middle. Or, would the Conservatives be the party that would capture that position?

There was a time that the Liberals were the middle party, and benefitted by frequent support from the NDP. I seem to recall that PET's ass was saved by the NDP support quite often, with a benefit to the NDP by the adoption of some left-leaning programs.

In an era of where economic concerns are a priority, the NDP may show poorly. If the priority were environmental issuues, possibly they would do better? A major shift in the past few elections was the so called "new Canadian" vote. The libreals seemed to loose this vote to the Conservatives in the last election?

Another good question is where will the Quebec votes go in the next election? Could there be a resurged Bloc type vote? Can Justin Trudeau (or another candidate) "shake off" the federal poor showing for the liberals? Was the NDP vote just an anomoly? There are far too many confounding factors in Quebec to figure that one out now?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:45 PM

"There are far too many confounding factors in Quebec to figure that one out now?"... no need for a question mark at the end of that sentence!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 09:24 PM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 11:40 PM

What I am saying about W. is that he came to the job without a lot of experience. We gave him a lot of credit because of his father.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT JUSTIN!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:18 PM

i used to be ndp, but my wing kept getting kicked out of the party. in nova scotia in the seventies and bc and federally soon after. ya get the message eventually.   i've been voting green mostly recently. but i have voted liberal when i thought there was a tight race. when i lived in toronto i was in gerrard kennedy's riding so i voted for him. i even voted for him in an advance poll one year. then the next day i met him on the street campaigning. he asked me to vote for him, i said "i already did,you could punch me in the nose now and i couldn't change my vote if i wanted to"

luckily he refrained from rearranging my face.

but justin trudeau needs to win serious seats in qhebec to revive the liberals. it might happen but mulcair is a formidable oponent in quebec. however oif trudeau pulled it off, and captured the moderate vote in ontario, he's on his way to power. his father did it, and chretien did it in ontario in spades.

to compare him the george w bush is silly. george w never had a job except with family money. justin taught school. its a world of difference to actually be in the regular workplace compared with being bailed out repeatedly with family money in losing businesses.i wish justin had more of his fathers history of the fight for civil liberties and advanced education, but pierre was very old world. who has that kind of education and bacjground now?

however i will keep voting green as long qs there is a good candidate in my riding.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:31 PM

High school teacher for a couple of years and then a pro student. Wow!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:02 PM

On profession alone: Should one prefer a lawyer (many politicians are), a professional politician (quite a few are), or a lobbyist to a teacher?

Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:42 PM

ABSOLUTELY "alone"? Pro politician.

Yes, I caught that. I think... maybe... I don't know fer sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM

My last post should have read:


On profession alone: Should one prefer a lawyer (many politicians are), a professional politician (quite a few are), a lobbyist, or a teacher?

Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:02 PM

Dominic has officially supported Trudeau. Smart move.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:53 AM

An interesting perspective:

Trudeau underestimated?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:04 AM

Another perspective, bring national unity into the dilema:


Unity-Hill Times

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:17 AM

"An interesting perspective:

Trudeau underestimated?"


Indeed. Good one, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:07 PM

Good article, Ed. Very interesting. Perhaps the Liberals can recover again and sieze the middle ground which is their natural place of strength.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:35 PM

Alot can happen over a few months and years. But, a few months ago who would have thought Justin Trudeau would have had this poll headline in the news? Not me.


Who woulda thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:51 PM

It couldn't make things worse. However, I think there has to be a combination of NDP and Liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 07:57 PM

I am SO glad I clicked on the link, Ed, because I found
this link at that link.

Kinda resembles a politician, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 08:53 PM

Kinda looks like what a NDP_Liberal merger would look like:)

I prefer mine in the traditional colours, and would see one of these types as a partial turncoat (in more than just a colour).

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM

That's pretty strange.

I think it would be a very good idea for the NDP and the Liberals to merge into one party, but I doubt they'll do it. They'd both fear to lose their own identity in the process...but most of all, the NDP would fear it...and probably with some justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 04:39 PM

Indeed, LH. The hard core NDP philosophies are unacceptable to many Canucks. Now, their stance today on, say, the military, might be quite different from years ago, but Canucks of yore still remember why they didn't "sign up". Now... try to find all that kinda stuff. Go to their website. It ain't there. Easy to find it on the web and research it? Somewhat, but not really entertaining enough for young BUSY Canucks. Anybody under about 40 years old gonna do it? No.

BTW, I pick their stance on the military years ago because my forefathers lived through wars and thought that anyone who would severely downgrade the military was not acceptable as a party. Debatable? Of course. Acceptable to my parents? Not a hope.

Now, I ain't gonna get into any debate or provide detailed support or anything else... I am just sayin that's the way I remember things.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:21 PM

My historical recollection is the NDP began in 1961.
Curious gnu, the MDP did not sign up for what since then?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 07:50 AM

People didn't "sign up" with the NDP because of some of their policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 08:13 AM

Gnu is on to something important here. From the late 60s -- Vietnam, remember? -- right up to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the NDP were solidly opposed to Canada's continued membership in NATO and everything that went with it, but most particularly our military cooperation with the United States. When the US wanted to test its new Cruise missiles in northern Canada, we were treated to frantic demonstrations and much demagoguery frequently starring NDP activists. The NDP position on the Canadian Forces at that time was all for "peacekeeping" (whatever that meant) and complete withdrawal from anything resembling war-fighting.

The CF response to that was confused disdain. How could we be effective peacekeepers without war-fighting capacity?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:34 AM

I don't see, from historical logic, that the NDP should alone be singled out as being opposed" the military or USA realted items mentioned. It may have been more a reflection of the countries mood at that time in history, which leaned more towards peace efforts rather than USA led "military war preparation in the cold war atmosphere." It cant be forgotten that Pearson won the Noble prize for peace efforts and many Canadians in the 60's were very proud of the countries reputation in that area. Citizens mood toward the Vietnam War should also be considered.

Diefenbaker and Trudeau were hardly big supporters of USA military policies of the period, or putting Canada in the forefront of a USA nuclear missle defense system.

Dief (57-63) was against accepting Bomarc nuclear missiles from the United States. He cancelled the Avro Arrow project. He had very poor relations with the Kennedy administration. He also refused USA pressure to join the Organization of American States, which at that time, would comit Canada to military action in the event of aggression of any of the member states.

""Prime Minister Pearson (1963 1968 and leader of the Opposition 1958-1963) infuriated Johnson by criticizing US bombing policy in Vietnam in a speech in the USA. For a Canadian prime minister to criticize US actions on American soil violated every code of diplomacy, but Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize winner felt a moral obligation to state his views. The event effectively ended Canadian influence on American Vietnam policy. ""

Prime Minister Trudeau (1968, to 1979, and 1980 to 1984) did little to build up the military and maintained a good relationship with Russia and Cuba. He was not seen as a big supporter of many USA international military approaches.

Trudeau established Canadian diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, when the USA viewed them as a military threat. He had official visits to both countries. Trudeau questioned Canada's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and cut Canada's NATO force in Europe in half.During a visit to the Soviet Union in 1971, he said that "the overwhelming American presence posed "a danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view." (hardly a pro USA statement or move. When visiting Canada in 1972, President Nixon declared that ""the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead"".

""At a press conference in 1983, Trudeau denounced American policy in Central and South America. He indicated that Canada was appalled by human rights abuses in client states of the United States such as Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, and did not share the American antipathy for the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Canada openly condemned the United States at the United Nations for its attack on the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada, whose Marxist government had been friendly to Cuba"".

""With his own retirement looming, Trudeau sought to use his remaining time in office to work toward a lessening of international tension. In October 1983, he launched a peace initiative, proposing a comprehensive nuclear test ban and a ban on testing high-altitude weapons, a five-power conference on nuclear arms control and the implementation of a consultative process between NATO and the Soviet bloc. Trudeau personally brought his plan to Western capitals as well as to Moscow and Beijing. "" While this met with little success, and angeres the USA (as he did not consult with them first), many of the suggestions bore later fruit.

Historically,the NDP surely has had an influence on Canada's policies (far beyond its political support) because it often held a balance of powere between the liberals and PCs. The party MPs often asked pointed questions on Canada's military position on international conflicts and defense agencies and initiatives. But, does that make them anti military?

Before the Afghanistan mission, NDP leader Alexa McDonough(then NDP leader) indicated she was ""opposed the US-led assault on Afghanistan, saying that the fight against terrorism should be waged under the the United Nations...not under NATO"". She indicated that this should not be seen as the NDP being anti-military, that the party supported Canada's military and as such felt more international endorsement was needed before sending them into a major conflict overseas. It is interesting that opinion polls at the time showed opposition to military action against Afghanistan was greater in Quebec than any other province. A good question is could that have contributed in some way to the more recent NDP election wins in Quebec? Beats me?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 11:46 AM

I'm going to be very blunt here, and I hope I don't completely derail the conversation.

Lester Pearson won the Nobel Prize for coming up with a neat way for the super powers of 1956 to back away from the Suez crisis without losing face. The principle of his proposal was that the intervening forces would not come from Britain, the Soviet Union or the United states, but all had cultural and political ties to at least one of those powers. Consequently, everyone knew that if either the Egyptians or the Israels touched a hair of any head that wore the UN blue beret (the teeny weeny, baby blue don't-shoot-me beanie), the super powers would drop the gloves and start World War Three.

Every single successful peace mission was based on this principle, and when the end of the Cold War brought an end to Mutually Assured Destruction, "classic" peacekeeping died with it. I'm talking about Bosnia and Croatia here, of course.

Canadians are very fond of the touching belief that we had a central role in the success of UN peacekeeping. A closer look reveals that, Mr Pearson aside, for the most part we provided soldiers skilled enough and un-American enough to conduct each peace mission within its rules of engagement --for what that's worth.

Sixty years on from our first deployments to the UN Truce Supervision Organization, the Middle East is no closer to peace than it was in 1947, Cyprus has grown accustomed to a constant military force that is a relable source of foreign exchange, India and Pakistan still can't agree on who owns Kashmir, and the Congo region is hell on earth. These are the places with the longest UN engagement, incidentally, and Canada has participated in all these missions from their earliest days.

What Trudeau added to the mix was a core belief that Canada's highest priority should be home defence, which did not sit well with the large sector of the public for whom our expeditionary operations were the greatest source of pride. NATO was where it was at, not tramping over the tundra. We needed a big-ship, blue-water Navy, an air force fully kitted out with the latest in fighter jets, and an army trained and equipped for that mythical confrontation in central Germany --the one that required main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, mechanized infantry. The one that never happened.

What we got in expeditionary operations was insurgency, which regular armies are notoriously bad at -- but that's a topic for another day.

For the record, Pierre Trudeau was right; in the late 60s, the Canadian Forces were tightly tied into international alliances at the expense of domestic needs. Unfortunately, he was arrogant about it at a time when public perceptions of Canadian national identity had not quite caught up with him.

And even after 11 years of Afghanistan and tub-thumping for support to the troops, many Canadians remain woefully ignorant, not only of our real military history -- not the fantasy whipped up for the 1812 bi-centennial -- but also of our present-day capabilities and commitments.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 04:37 PM

Peacekeepers need to know how to fight. The only way to know how to fight--that is, know what's involved in a fight--is to have fought. Training sharpens the blade but experience hones it.

Generally, Canadians built a reputation in WW I and as much in WW II. Korea didn't hurt, either. The resolution of the Suez Crisis by our then Prime Minister indeed brought a certain prestige to our country, but with Trudeau we had a PM who wasn't about to kiss Washington's rear end. Canada was involved in the Gulf War, but wisely stayed away from the Iraq War, once again incurring the wrath of our neighbours to the south. Our read of the proxy battles in Central America kept us out of there, and we had the indecency to see that those 'wars' had CIA written all over them. The former Yugoslavia was a dog's breakfast, but MacKenzie's leadership was excellent. I think we caved in a bit to do with Afghanistan--sent a few thousand troops from the PPCLI so that the idiot Bush could get some troops into Iraq, pdq. That said, the soldiers acquitted themselves well and continue to do so. HOWEVER, it has come to pass that our military people--those we send to support/enforce national policy--have been betrayed by various governments that have in OUR names underfunded them, egregiously. Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire along with the earlier Major-General Lewis Wharton MacKenzie were stalwart examples of what is best in military leadership, and the men and women who served under them would without hesitation attest to that, imo.

Political parties themselves change. It is a changed NDP to which I referred many posts ago. I detest the Conservatives and really dislike the Liberals. No party will be accepted by all people. That's a given. But the way it stands, unless the NDP and Liberals do reach some sort of accommodation, as a country we will be ruined. The Conservatives HAVE to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 04:44 PM

That's exactly how I see it, 999.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:39 PM

I agree with both of you. Now what do we do?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:41 PM

Goot qvestion!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:52 PM

Now? We simply say that all of these posts are meritous and show great insight. If ony ALL Canucks had such a grasp of our history we wouldn't allow our government to sell such an amazing nation to the highest bidder but that is what is happening. Money. Greed. It's sickening.

One comment... "But, does that make them [NDP] anti military?" They were clearly so "back then" and that's a BIG reason why they were ignored by the voters "back in the day". My comment, thanks for the support, refers to "back in the day" as I said it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 09:40 PM

Charmion, you ask a fundamental and important question. I intend to respond with a few thoughts, but not until tomorrow. I'd like to formulate something thoughtful, because this is too important for off the cuff or glib.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:07 PM

This thread has taken a turn for the better.

Some fascinating posts!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

Better that than a term for the wurst.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 08:28 AM

NDP

Principles and policies

The NDP evolved from a merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF grew from populist, agrarian and socialist roots into a modern socialist party. Although the CCF was part of the Christian left and the Social Gospel movement,[12] the NDP is secular and pluralistic. It has broadened to include concerns of the New Left, and advocates issues such as gay rights, international peace, and environmental stewardship.

New Democrats today advocate, among other things:

        Gender equality and equal rights for LGBT citizens
        Improving environmental protection through government regulations
        National water safety standards
        Reducing poverty in Canada[13]
        Aggressive human rights protection
        Expanding funding for public transportation
        Expanding public health care, including dental and prescription drug coverage
        Social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assist their re-entry to the work force
        Abolishing the unelected Senate of Canada and ensuring more proportional representation[14]
        Workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to pace the cost of living
        Aboriginal peoples' treaty, land, and constitutional rights
        A foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action
        Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
        One wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs[15]
        Lowering taxes for small businesses[16]

#######################################

Liberal Party

Principles and policies

The principles of the party are based on Liberalism as defined by various liberal theorists and include individual freedom for present and future generations, responsibility, human dignity, a just society, political freedom, religious freedom, national unity, equality of opportunity, cultural diversity, bilingualism, and multilateralism.[9][10] In the present times, the Liberal party has favoured a variety of policies from both right and left of the political spectrum. When it formed the government from 1993 to 2006, it was a strong champion of balanced budgets, and eliminated the budget deficit completely from the federal budget in 1995 by reducing spending on social programs or delegating them to the provinces, and promised to replace the Goods and Services Tax in the party's famous Red Book.[11] It also legalized same-sex marriage and the use of cannabis for medical purposes, and had proposed complete decriminalization of possession of small amounts of it.

[edit]Current policies

During the 2011 election the Liberal party's policies included:[12]

        Introduction of a family care plan for Canadians supporting ill family members
        Pension plan reform
        Additional investment in higher education via direct financial aid (learning passport)
        Spending restraint (less on consultants and advertising)
        Reduce deficit to 2 per cent of GDP by 2013 (currently at 5 per cent)
        Cancel corporate tax deduction and return rates to 18 per cent (currently at 16.5 per cent)
        Restoration of the long-form census
        Quadruple renewable energy production, including wind, solar and biomass energy sources
        Introduce a national food policy to support Canadian farmers


Both the above are clipped from Wikipedia. It's easy to notice many similarities between the two parties--and easy to see that both are fundamentally distant in ethos and philosophy from the Conservatives.


In answer to Charmion's cogent question, 'What to do?', I suggest we have a starting place.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

Regardless of the NDP's clear support for international peace efforts, and internatioal military action through the United Nations (when needed), I don't see how anyone could tag a lack of investment in the Canadian military, since the 60's (when the NDP was formed) on that party. As to this position influencing many voters, I suspect it has at specific time periods, among some voter demographics, and in some locals. Let's not also forget that general public support for military spending (in regards to other government spending priorities) differs today from various points from the 60's to the 2000's.

Sorry gnu, your statement about "back in the day" is so vague to me that it is meaningless to the discussion. If you don't want to be more specific,, ok - your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 09:26 PM

Given their general platform and their general attitude, I like the NDP by far the best of the 3 parties. I like the Liberals next after them. I don't like the Conservatives at all, though there was a time (the pre-Mulroney era) when I liked them fine. They weren't a bunch of neocons then.

I think the Liberals and NDP should form a coalition of some kind and get the Conservatives out of office...ASAP. Then get us out of the USA's wars.

The NDP's suggestion that national medical insurance should include dental and prescription drug coverage is brilliant...and long overdue. Dental expenses can be very large indeed, and many people with low incomes simply can't afford them.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM

Ed... I think I'll stick to my first post.

I plead "the Lobster".

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 07:19 AM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 07:38 PM

The Hair flies 2 cars to India on the taxpayers tab. Surely a rickshaw would have sufficed!
Fools Folly

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 08:06 PM

"Harper's personal security appears to have been tightened recently."

Good idea. 'Specially if he comes down home. I know he wouldn't be welcomed in my neighbourhood so awful much. And I live in town. See him travel in seafarin and lumberin an minin country down home?... better bring in a fookin tank.

I wonder. Do them there Indian fellers know he don't trust em fer his security? A bit of a slap in the face of our commonwealth brothers innit?

Of course, I gotta admit, if his security is in doubt here in New Brunswick... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 06:01 AM

I think he wants to look Presidential, and what says "really, really important" louder than a bullet-proof car flown in for your motoring convenience?

The traditional next step is a see-thru dome on top of the car a la His Holiness John Paul II.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 02:50 PM

I just hope that someday he'll be known as Stephen Harper The Last.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:08 PM

Why not a pipeline east?

Wagons East?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:11 PM

'I think parliament's going to die': Ignatieff predicts end of Western democracies."




Is parliament becoming pointless?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:15 PM

Hating PC Party not criminal, judge rules 8

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:40 PM

Halifax? Well, Dartmouth, but I wouldn't expect The Big Smoke to know the difference.

Anyway, fuck Imperial. It only needs to go to Saint John... a CANUCK refinery.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 02:44 PM

"If a federal election were held in Canada today and Justin Trudeau were at the helm of the Liberal Party, they'd win a strong majority in the House of Commons, says a Forum Poll for the National Post."

National Post

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

I suspect the poll results are because he has not been subject to a major negative PR campaign - yet that is. I speculate that one will evolve shortly after the leadership is determined (they could be already prepared and "in waiting"). Time will tell how well he deals with that type of situation, and just how many skeltons from his past will emerge - it would likely include any unpopular aspects of his late fathers career.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 04:16 PM

"...because he has not been subject to a major negative PR campaign - yet that is..."

Ahhhh, but the Libs wrote the book on evading such when a new leader was chosen behind closed doors. Pierre was a man's man, true and honest. Jean was a politician and the "politics" of electing a Lib will shine. Will the electorate go along? We'll see. I just hope that if Justin does go all the way, he did inherit his old man's balls (likely) and he can wield the kind of backroom power his old man had (dubious perhaps but quite possible if Jean and others pull strings for him... we'll see).

Personally, I just have a gut feeling he actually could go all the way. I know that really does sound silly but it's possible. Perhaps more than most might think.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 05:08 PM

""Ahhhh, but the Libs wrote the book on evading such when a new leader was chosen behind closed doors""

Regardless of how they were selected- I recall the last two liberal leaders faced a significant negative PR campaign and did not deal with it well or evade it at all.I suspect it contributed to their downfall.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 06:03 PM

Neither of the last two leaders of the Libs were street fighters.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 06:35 PM

The question is, will the new one be a "street fighter"?

Here is a related PET interview, where he talks about negative political-personal attacks:PET

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 07:07 PM

And it can backfire, big time.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 07:11 PM

"last two liberal leaders" were sacrificial hams.

"street fighter" = "his old man's balls"

To me, if Justin can go all the way and IF he is a "street fighter" like his old man, we may gain back some ground. Tough fight that will involve every voter. I KNOW that sounds inane but wtf else can we hope for? MORE of toady Harper style government is frightening. It may be too late to put the FERA into foreign governments and investors but...

I think I'll stop there... it's obvious where I am going. To bed fairly soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 10:19 AM

Marc Garneau Quits: Sources

CP | Posted: 03/13/2013 9:42 am EDT | Updated: 03/13/2013 10:07 am EDT

OTTAWA — Marc Garneau is ending his bid to lead the federal Liberal party because he's come to the conclusion he can't catch front-runner Justin Trudeau, a source close to the campaign says.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about the campaign, said Garneau would make the formal announcement at a news conference this morning.

The source says Garneau — a former astronaut and the first Canadian in space — has decided Trudeau simply has too much momentum to be stopped before the voting begins early next month.

His decision leaves seven candidates in the running.

Sources tell The Huffington Post Canada the former astronaut will throw his support behind front-runner Justin Trudeau.

Garneau, an MP since 2008, kicked off his campaign last November, stressing the economy as his key issue.

The 64-year-old retired navy captain and former head of the Canadian Space Agency said the Liberals had to address economic issues if they hoped to remain relevant.

"At the core of my vision is a stronger economy — a vibrant, dynamic one where we are on the leading edge of discovery,'' he said in a policy statement.

Garneau shook up the staid leadership race in recent weeks with some pointed attacks on Trudeau.

He accused Trudeau of failing to offer solid policy proposals. He also warned that the party had gone for untested high-flyers in the past with disastrous results.

But his barbs had little measurable impact on Trudeau's campaign.

Voting for the Liberal leadership will be conducted online and by phone early next month, with the winner to be announced on April 14.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 08:46 PM

Holy crap! He said it's a foregone conclusion so it's best just to get behind it? I would have never seen that coming!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:06 PM

It must be pretty deflating for the other contenders when the purported second in the running quits and says that the result is a foregone conclusion. they must be like "what are we, chopped liver?"

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:24 PM

Their conclusion should be "Um, yes, we do look like chopped liver." Then they should cut their losses and start looking for something useful to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:09 PM

I had a feelin right from the start it was gonna happen. Maybe it was that sense of "Pierre"? Is it a good thing? I sure hope so IF it happens. I just hope that if it does happen, he has at least half the balls his old man had on accounta that will be enough.

I still have my doubts that this youngster can do a good job on the world stage as PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:52 PM

The thing that troubles me is the effect of the name 'Trudeau' here in the west - I'm not sure that people in central/eastern Canada grasp the depth of antipathy toward the memory of ol' Pierre here. And you can bet the Tories will be milking that ill-feeling for all it's worth. OTOH, Justin may have what it takes to rise above that and pull together the less right-wing elements across the country. It may be helpful if Marc Garneau is prominent at his right hand, to provide an image of the age, experience, achievement, and gravitas that Justin may be thought to lack.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:38 PM

24,000 out of 30,000 votes cast - yikes, if that's a gauge of his popularity across Canada Harper is toast (we can only hope)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:42 PM

I am on the edge but I figure it's gonna happen. We'll have the official word soon. Voting closed at 3PM EST today I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:45 PM

8 Minutes ago... 80%!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:47 PM

Watch the Conservative shit slinging begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:50 PM

It's official

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:54 PM

Now. let's see if he can live up to what we (? *I*???) want him to live up to. And don't tell me he doesn't have to... he must... I expect and will accept nothing less. But, with 80%, I can't see that as tooo much of a problem.

Harper toast? Nah... he's crumbs on the breakfast table (Jethro Tull song).

I am HAPPY! But, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:55 PM

Damning with faint praise:

"The Conservative Party of Canada was quick with its comment on the new Liberal leader.

In a statement, the Tories congratulated Trudeau on his win but immediately cast doubt on this ability to lead the country.

"Justin Trudeau may have a famous last name, but in a time of global economic uncertainty, he doesn't have the judgment or experience to be prime minister," the party said in a statement."

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:59 PM

""Though light on policy, Trudeau offers key glimpses of next Liberal platform""



Glimpse

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:00 PM

Your link she no work Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:02 PM

And, the other fellers:


NDP takes 'socialism' out of constitution

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

Hitting the right note?

"And, although saying he is focused on addressing the environment and the economic problems of middle-class Canadians, he avoided laying out specific policy prescriptions. He said drawing up a Liberal platform requires widespread input from Canadians."

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:51 PM

Though they are very different, of course Justin will be compared to his Prime Minister father. Who else would they compare him to? Outside the looks.

But, I suspect it is like comparing Ben Mulrooney to Brian Mulrooney .

Trudeau vs Trudeau

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:06 PM

Or Mulroney.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:14 PM

Or, Mulr$ney

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:23 PM

Mulr$ney would be in jail if we had an equitable justice system in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:51 PM

bobad,
What's your problem with Mulr$ney?
Do you have the audacity to feel that Prime Ministers should not accept financial consideration from shady German AirBus promoters passing money stuffed envelopes in foreign hotel rooms. After all it's not like he was taking a bribe because that would be illegal and would bring shame to the Conservatives. If the Conservatives don't feel shame surely that proves that accepting those money stuffed envelopes is acceptable to the government of the day and therefore not illegal!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:28 AM

An exquisite demonstration of logic Mr. Mc Lean.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:34 AM

Watch history at 11AM EDT.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:43 AM

poll analysis (for those who like 'em)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:06 AM

Guest was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:27 PM

First attack ad launched

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 03:22 PM

Yup - he's got'm running scared ....

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:26 PM

Thanks Charmion.