Justin Trudeau Becomes Liberal Leader & Possible PM

[TOMapleLaughs]

So your position is that Justin Trudeau's strength lies in appealing to the stupidity and gullibility of the Canadian voter? YIKES!

The point is that any Quebec hate for Harper does not really matter. The CPC has only 5 seats in Quebec and has a majority.

And Quebec will be even less important in future given the 30 seats added to the House of Commons. Ontario would get 15 more seats, British Columbia and Alberta six each and Quebec that has been over-represented in the past gets 3 seats.

So no, I do not see CPC party strategists being all that concerned about Quebec.

The principal battle for a majority governemnt will be fought elsewhere. They will leave the LPC to expend resources and duke it out in Quebec and if the LPC cuts into the NDP seat total so what? It may not even get them to Official Opposition status unless you expect the LPC under Justin Trudeau wiping out the NDP in Quebec and given the antipathy that the Trudeau name invokes in many voters in Quebec, that seems highly unlikely

[Wetcoaster]

No my position is that you should not weigh your made-up Canadian 'voting smarts' into the equation at all. What you think about Canadians and their intelligence is irrelevant when the polls already show their current voting intentions. As for what happens at election time, we'll see. But JT's strength at election time is that he can win it.

This attitude that 'Quebec doesn't matter' is exactly why Harper will lose. Of course it matters. But he's also losing in Ontario, so...

... Attack ads? And then what? Adios, Steve-O.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Uh oh, the posts are thinning out. Let's take a break until the next episode of 'OMG Look at what JT said!'

Ciao.

[ronthecivil]

So if the economy is in difficulty, the CPC points to outside forces and says that past performance shows they are best able to weather the storm.

The world economy could turn around and then there is no issue.

However it is all hypothetical at this point in time.

[ronthecivil]

How will the CPC spin the country's perceived depreciation of international standing under their watch against the the LPC?

[Wetcoaster]

You know what I would like to see for a change?

Recognition that really nobody knows us or see us as a couple acres of snow in the woods or America's hat or really just the fact that we're nowhere near as influential as China or the USA or Russia.

And then take that for real and stop caring what the rest of the world thinks of us and focus on what's best for Canadians.

[silverpig]

If this is the best the Cons can do, they best start packing now.

I don't know what's more humorous, that the Cons thought it was actually a worthwhile attack or that Wet did.

Someone might want to remind the Cons that this tactic, particularly when it lacks merit, can just as easily backfire as spectacularly as it has worked for them in the past.

It has a very good chance of not only causing people to completely tune them out but actually create a negative backlash for being hate and fear mongering douches.

[theminister]

You know what I would like to see for a change?

Recognition that really nobody knows us or see us as a couple acres of snow in the woods or America's hat or really just the fact that we're nowhere near as influential as China or the USA or Russia.

And then take that for real and stop caring what the rest of the world thinks of us and focus on what's best for Canadians.

[ronthecivil]

Given the global nature of the economy and that we are nation that exports, how does that work?

[ronthecivil]

I see that point and in general I agree.

However, when we continually reneg on promises to international organizations and treaties then I believe we are not doing what is best for Canadians. I can tell you that in my experience travelling other cultures are decidedly turning on us. That affects me and I'm concerned about it.

What is on the best interest of Canadians? IMHO it would involve keeping your oaths and being a leader in world politics rather than one afraid to upset certain relations. It would include putting the health and welfare of our citizens and environment forward as a model to the rest of the world. Canada again should strive to be a visionary.

It used to be so, not so long ago.

[Lockout Casualty]

Seems we all missed when Harper sharply criticized MacKay for making excuses for the Norwegian terrorist:

"It's also sobering for a country like Canada that shares values with Norwegians and a demonstration of ... the volatility that's still there, the vigilance that we have to demonstrate and persevere and work together to try to find the root causes but also try to pre-empt and interrupt these types of attacks."

[silverpig]

Seems we all missed when Harper sharply criticized MacKay for making excuses for the Norwegian terrorist:

Or maybe only in Harperland did JT say something that could be twisted enough to suggest he "made excuses". Harper the hypocrite strikes again.

[Lockout Casualty]

LOL nice one. Someone should ask him about that.

[aGENT]

Seems we all missed when Harper sharply criticized MacKay for making excuses for the Norwegian terrorist:

Or maybe only in Harperland did JT say something that could be twisted enough to suggest he "made excuses". Harper the hypocrite strikes again.

[Wetcoaster]

Here is an editorial from the LPC friendly Globe and Mail which is generally considered a pro LPC newspaper historically while the National Post has a CPC friendly editorial slant.

To me the editorial pretty much sums it up and highlights the problem with Justin Trudeau's lack of experience and lack of intellect, not to mention his lack of political savvy. Justin is simply lacking.

“We have to look at the root causes,” Mr. Trudeau said the day after the bombings. “Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue.

“But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?”

Contrary to what Mr. Trudeau claimed, there is, in fact, a great deal of question as to whether the bomber or bombers felt “excluded,” a word that implies the perpetrators were victims of society. Is Mr. Trudeau saying that, if the world made everyone feel included, there would be no such acts? Being “completely at war with innocents,” as he put it, is not the necessary outcome of marginalization. In the case of terrorism, the willingness of a non-state actor to murder innocent people can be the result of many other factors, including calculated political ambition.

The term “root causes” is also problematic. In one sense, Mr. Trudeau is correct. Societies should always try to understand the root causes of the problems they face. But terrorism is not an internal societal ill; it is a political ill, and often external, at that. The Boston bombers likely did not have a more complicated motive than the criminal desire to see people die and/or be maimed, but like all terrorists they could undoubtedly come up with a long list of grievances if asked.

Mr. Trudeau should have known that, in the absence of any information about who had carried out the bombings, his words would come across as an ill-timed scold. He did not display much sensitivity or diplomatic maturity. More problematically, his use of the term “root causes” raises the question of what he thinks those root causes are. Is he referring to American foreign policy? We need to hear more from Mr. Trudeau on this issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/justin-trudeau-and-the-problem-with-root-causes/article11402107/

[inane]

Here is an editorial from the LPC friendly Globe and Mail which is generally considered a pro LPC newspaper historically while the National Post has a CPC friendly editorial slant.

http://www.theglobea...rticle11402107/

[Wetcoaster]

So basically the author makes a lot of assumptions about what he thinks he meant and concludes his article by saying we need to hear more.

Hmm, perhaps he should have asked before publishing such a riveting piece.

[Special Ed]

Any assumptions being made were those by Justin Trudeau given his remarks were premature and without any rational foundation.

Mr. Trudeau should have known that, in the absence of any information about who had carried out the bombings, his words would come across as an ill-timed scold. He did not display much sensitivity or diplomatic maturity, More problematically, his use of the term “root causes” raises the question of what he thinks those root causes are. Is he referring to American foreign policy? We need to hear more from Mr. Trudeau on this issue.

Precisely the sort of problems I have noted with his ill-timed and not well thought out remarks.

[aGENT]

Here is an editorial from the LPC friendly Globe and Mail which is generally considered a pro LPC newspaper historically while the National Post has a CPC friendly editorial slant.

To me the editorial pretty much sums it up and highlights the problem with Justin Trudeau's lack of experience and lack of intellect, not to mention his lack of political savvy. Justin is simply lacking.

“We have to look at the root causes,” Mr. Trudeau said the day after the bombings. “Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue.

“But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?”

Contrary to what Mr. Trudeau claimed, there is, in fact, a great deal of question as to whether the bomber or bombers felt “excluded,” a word that implies the perpetrators were victims of society. Is Mr. Trudeau saying that, if the world made everyone feel included, there would be no such acts? Being “completely at war with innocents,” as he put it, is not the necessary outcome of marginalization. In the case of terrorism, the willingness of a non-state actor to murder innocent people can be the result of many other factors, including calculated political ambition.

The term “root causes” is also problematic. In one sense, Mr. Trudeau is correct. Societies should always try to understand the root causes of the problems they face. But terrorism is not an internal societal ill; it is a political ill, and often external, at that. The Boston bombers likely did not have a more complicated motive than the criminal desire to see people die and/or be maimed, but like all terrorists they could undoubtedly come up with a long list of grievances if asked.

Mr. Trudeau should have known that, in the absence of any information about who had carried out the bombings, his words would come across as an ill-timed scold. He did not display much sensitivity or diplomatic maturity. More problematically, his use of the term “root causes” raises the question of what he thinks those root causes are. Is he referring to American foreign policy? We need to hear more from Mr. Trudeau on this issue.

http://www.theglobea...rticle11402107/

[inane]

Still not any more interesting or controversial I'm afraid there Wet. Isn't there a new supposed Justin "gaffe" to try to put a negative spin on yet so you can quit beating this dead horse than nobody cared about in the first place?