Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Justin Trudeau Becomes Liberal Leader & Possible PM


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#91 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,003 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

Okay how about his own words.

Justin Trudeau has been stumping the country and particularly Western Canada telling us rubes in the West how he has vision of a unified Canada with the West as full partner. Asked at a campaign appearance in Edmonton what he thought of reported remarks by David McGuinty telling Alberta MPs to go back to Alberta and run for provincial or municipal office because they do not represent Canada, Trudeau would not comment directly but stressed his priority is national unity.

"My entire campaign has been about bringing people together, about not pitting region against region and about being a strong representative and a voice that says the same thing in Chicoutimi as we say in downtown Calgary as I'll say in Toronto as I'll say in B.C.," said Trudeau.

"That's the kind of politics that I am trying to do here."

But that does not square with his remarks he made in a recorded interview in November 2010 where he said he thought Albertans who were in charge were ruining Canada and it would be best to have Quebeckers running things.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.


"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).


Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"


Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."


Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

http://cnews.canoe.c...2/20377596.html

And the response when he came under fire for those comments? Trudeau and his strategists have apologized and tried to spin the comments.



Liberal leadership contender and Montreal-area MP Justin Trudeau says he is sorry for controversial remarks he made in an interview about Alberta politicians.

“I’m sorry I said what I said,” The Globe and Mail reported him as saying Friday. “I’m here to serve.”

In a six-minute scrum with reporters in Vancouver, he said he made a mistake in associating the Harper government with a specific region of Canada, according to media reports

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And he released this statement on Facebook and to the media he fell back on the time honoured excuse that his comments were taken out of context - sort of hard to maintain when the quotes are in fact considered in the context of the interview and follow-up questions. And then followed up by the misdirect...





"The Conservatives are using out-of-context statements made years ago in a long interview. They are clearly concerned that they are losing the byelection in Calgary Centre and are resorting to smear campaigns to stop their slide," the statement said.

"Justin knows that Calgary, Alberta and all of Western Canada are at the very heart of Canada's future. That's a message he has taken to every part of the country, from the beginning of the campaign. We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians."


Here again is the context for Justin... perhaps he is unfamiliar with the generally accepted definition of "context"???
:

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau told interviewer Patrick Lagacé.

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec.... This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rta-quebec.html

And it is not the first time Justin Trudeau has pushed his Quebec first view and tried to hang it on those who do not share his particular view of Canada that is not socially progressive like Quebec.

In February 2012 he talked about a Canada governed by Harper and the CPC as not his sort of Canada and that the best thing to do would be for him to leave with a separate Quebec. His father must have been turning over in his grave at that statement.



In a French-language interview in February, Trudeau took issue with the social conservative policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and indicated he would be in favour of Quebec separating if they continued.

“I always say that if, some time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and it was going against abortion, and it was going against same-sex marriage, and that it was moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think about making Quebec a country,” said the Montreal-area MP in the weekend interview with Radio-Canada.
...
“When Quebec is not involved in the governance of this country, this country moves too much toward the right,” he said in the radio interview. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers. It’s that there’s a way of seeing social responsibility, openness toward others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that’s necessary for Canada and it saddens me a great deal (to see what’s happening now).”

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And his defence at that time?



Trudeau later sought to defend himself in a bizarre press conference in which he spoke in the third-person.

“The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country because the question is ridiculous,” Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones in every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.”


The arrogance and entitlement just shines through, eh?

And it seems when he becomes frustrated he fails to engage his apparently limited brain power before putting his mouth in gear as occurred in December 2011 when he swore at Environment Minister Peter Kent in the House of Commons and had to issue another apology. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said he lost his temper in the House of Commons during question period when he swore at Environment Minister Peter Kent, which he later apologized for.

"I lost my temper and used language that was most decidedly unparliamentary and for that I unreservedly apologize and withdraw my remark," Trudeau said once question period had concluded Wednesday.


And why should the Conservatives not use his own words to hoist him from his own petard? And they will undoubtedly do so if he becomes the Liberal leader.

The fact Justin Trudeau is an intellectual lightweight without much experience nor much of a record just makes it much easier. And then when he utters such statements with,out thought he simply presents an inviting political target that have been the downfall of much more experienced and qualified past Liberal leaders.

Sounds like just more of the same old, same old from the Liberal party of Canada as Matt Gurney of the National Post writes in an article titled "Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out":

Mr. Trudeau’s interview was given to Patrick Lagace, host of Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters). And shoot Mr. Trudeau does … right at Alberta. He magnanimously lists Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, as a successful prime minister, but his other examples of good Quebec leaders — his father, Chrétien and Martin — aren’t just Quebecers, they’re Liberals.


And according to Mr. Trudeau, Canada belongs to them.


It doesn’t really matter if he was referring to Quebecers or Liberals. The comment reeks of arrogance either way.


This certainly won’t help the Liberals in Alberta, particularly in the upcoming Calgary Centre byelection. Harvey Locke, the Liberal candidate there, is probably wondering what he needs opposing candidates for, with Liberals like Messrs. Trudeau and McGuinty blowing up his campaign.


But the comments by both senior Liberals will resonate far beyond Alberta’s borders, and help to remind Canadians why it was they turfed our former natural governing party from office six years ago. It wasn’t any particular scandal or policy, but mostly because the entire party had come to embody a sense of entitlement, and the Liberals weren’t even trying to hide it anymore. They clearly felt they were owed not just cushy jobs and patronage posts, but the entire country and its collective identity.


It blew up in their face, of course. Millions of Canadians who might have gone for the Liberals’ policies found they didn’t much like being told that Liberal values were Canadian values, and that’s that. How could those who didn’t happen to support the Liberals conclude anything other than that their government didn’t consider them legitimate citizens? Such phenomenal arrogance cost the Grits at the ballot box. In case anyone is having difficulty remembering how that turned out, in a space of eight years, the Liberals went from expecting a 200-seat majority under Paul Martin to earnestly wondering if they can survive anything less than a drastic reinvention. Liberals have groused ever since that millions of Liberal voters have “stayed home” during the last few elections. Maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe their ego simply drove millions of people out of that big tent the Liberals are so eager to talk about.


The Trudeau camp responded quickly to the revelations. In a statement put out on Thursday afternoon, they said, “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview … We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”


Problem: It was Mr. Trudeau himself making the divisive comments, saying Canada didn’t work when Albertans have power, and that the country belongs either to one province, or just Liberals from that province. Mr. Trudeau may feel the quotes were taken out of context, but they still [ital]sound[endital] astonishingly divisive. You can’t accuse someone else of playing the politics of division when your own party, twice in two days, has treated Albertans as somehow unfit to hold office in their own federal government.


These comments just don’t sound divisive (though Lordy, they do). They also sound achingly familiar. This is exactly how many Canadians suspect the Liberals really feel, deep down inside: The only good Canadian is a Liberal. Everyone else is either an American or an Albertan (one suspects that, to many Liberals, this is a distinction without a difference). The Liberals can embrace the oil sands all they want. Until they stop treating the people who live in the general vicinity of the oil sands as enemy aliens out to rob the Grits of their rightful, if temporarily interrupted, rule over Canada, they’re not going to improve much on their third-party status.


Yes, the comments are from a couple of years ago, which may help partially offset the oh-so weak response put out by the Trudeau team (though we’re not talking unearthed university-era debate club stuff here — this was Trudeau speaking in his capacity as a Liberal MP only two years ago). And the Liberals have been doing okay lately. Polls show they have a shot to come back to second place. Maybe even compete for government.


It could happen. But they’ll need more than a new leader and some new policies before that can happen. They need a full-on attitude adjustment. Despite all their talk about renewal, it’s not clear that’s in the making.

http://fullcomment.n...were-voted-out/

Rember the federal by-election being in Calgary Centre and the Liberal Candidate polling strongly in what seemed to be a tight race before the McGuinty comments and revelation of Trudeau's earlier interview with a less than stellar Conservative candidate, this has got to hurt. The Liberal candidate must be wondering whether he should be fighting those within the LPC and not his electoral opponents. With friends like David McGuinty and Justin Trudeau, who needs enemies????

And if Trudeau and other members of the self-proclaimed Natural Governing Party do not get it, fellow Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay gets the the weakness exposed by such remarks.



Fellow leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay even launched her campaign in Calgary.


“Launching in Calgary was very much to make a point to Albertans, Canadians and members of the Liberal party,” she said in an interview Thursday.


“It’s not that the Liberal party has become irrelevant to a lot of western Canadians. But I would say that western Canada increasingly seemed irrelevant to the Liberal party.” ( :lol:)

Meanwhile, the party’s decision not to hold any debates in Alberta or Saskatchewan during its leadership campaign has also prompted anger and frustration.


Liberal spokeswoman Sarah Bain says the omission was not meant as an intentional slight to those provinces, but came down to date and venue availability.


That hasn’t sat well with some leadership candidates and their teams, a number of whom have said they’ve asked the party to reconsider.


Hall Findlay said it’s one thing for Liberals to show up in western Canada, it’s another to actually include western Canadians and look out for their interests.


“People are skeptical, and rightfully so,” she says. “The challenge for us as a party is to walk the talk.”

http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz2Czzu7Pbl

The problem it seems is that theJustin Trudeau Liberals are in fact talking the talk and walking the walk... and it is the same old entitled talk they have been peddling without much success in the West for decades.




Whatever.

Wasn't too long before they were merged into the conservative party that the reform party that Harper belongs to was talking about building fire wall around Alberta.

Heck, is there anything more Canadian than thinking the province you live in is the best in the country and looking down at the rest of them?

Edit: P.S. Update your cut and paste. He is the liberal leader now.

Edited by ronthecivil, 16 April 2013 - 11:07 AM.

  • 0

#92 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:13 AM

Frankly I'd love to do the same. Cut off Alberta and let him rule it in to a polluted, prisoned and archaic anti-freedom @#$%-hole like he's trying to force the rest of Canada in to.

Living in Harper's vision of Canada I can hardly blame Quebec for reconsidering their position on separation.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#93 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,311 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:17 AM

Not sure after the comments he left in Anne Frank's house and trying to smuggle his monkey into Germany that he is what is best for this country... isn't he a little young to be prime minister? I know the tween girls love him but does that really give him the right stuff to lead a nation with a variety of demographics?
  • 0
Posted Image

#94 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:37 AM

Not sure after the comments he left in Anne Frank's house and trying to smuggle his monkey into Germany that he is what is best for this country... isn't he a little young to be prime minister? I know the tween girls love him but does that really give him the right stuff to lead a nation with a variety of demographics?


No single person is fully qualified to run all aspects of the government and represent everyone. That's why we have a system of local representation, and allow the PM to pick a cabinet of experts.

He is getting younger people more interested and involved in politics, and that is definitely good for the country. He has a stated vision of a unified Canada, and wants to eliminate divisive politics.

His comments about joining Quebec to separate were a hypothetical situation where Harper turned Canada into a country that wasn't socially progressive and inclusive - he'd rather separate than be part of a country that was so backwards. That's not an issue though as Harper hasn't gone back on his promise to not re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debate (although as recent news shows, there are those in his party who don't want the same thing).

If he can get the right people in his cabinet and in the PMO, he'll do fine. He has the ability to attract that talent.
  • 0
Moo

#95 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:58 AM

Okay how about his own words.
*snip*


Harper has the exact same attitude about Alberta. He stopped short of separation with his firewall letter, but advocated restricting the integration of Alberta into the federal fabric of Canada. In fact, every single point of his "Alberta Agenda" suggested Alberta should be doing things just like Quebec.
  • 0
Moo

#96 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,311 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 16 April 2013 - 12:17 PM

No single person is fully qualified to run all aspects of the government and represent everyone. That's why we have a system of local representation, and allow the PM to pick a cabinet of experts.

He is getting younger people more interested and involved in politics, and that is definitely good for the country. He has a stated vision of a unified Canada, and wants to eliminate divisive politics.

His comments about joining Quebec to separate were a hypothetical situation where Harper turned Canada into a country that wasn't socially progressive and inclusive - he'd rather separate than be part of a country that was so backwards. That's not an issue though as Harper hasn't gone back on his promise to not re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debate (although as recent news shows, there are those in his party who don't want the same thing).

If he can get the right people in his cabinet and in the PMO, he'll do fine. He has the ability to attract that talent.

:picard: I was joking man... it was Justin Beiber that did those things.
  • 0
Posted Image

#97 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 16 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

Not sure after the comments he left in Anne Frank's house and trying to smuggle his monkey into Germany that he is what is best for this country... isn't he a little young to be prime minister? I know the tween girls love him but does that really give him the right stuff to lead a nation with a variety of demographics?

No single person is fully qualified to run all aspects of the government and represent everyone. That's why we have a system of local representation, and allow the PM to pick a cabinet of experts.

He is getting younger people more interested and involved in politics, and that is definitely good for the country. He has a stated vision of a unified Canada, and wants to eliminate divisive politics.

His comments about joining Quebec to separate were a hypothetical situation where Harper turned Canada into a country that wasn't socially progressive and inclusive - he'd rather separate than be part of a country that was so backwards. That's not an issue though as Harper hasn't gone back on his promise to not re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debate (although as recent news shows, there are those in his party who don't want the same thing).

If he can get the right people in his cabinet and in the PMO, he'll do fine. He has the ability to attract that talent.


Posted Image
  • 1

#98 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:41 PM

:picard: I was joking man... it was Justin Beiber that did those things.


Apparently :)

My post is still somewhat relevant as age is a criticism people level at him.
  • 0
Moo

#99 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:20 PM



Sounds like Harper's got "a big problem". What a hypocrite. :rolleyes:
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#100 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:14 PM

With their stance on Quebec and separation??? Nope I am a committed federalist and the NDP has been all over the map on Quebec separation.


Do you agree 100% with ALL of the policies, principals etc of any party? I sure don't.

And for the record I don't think they're "all over the map" I think they have a barely controversial view of the voting requirements.

Given that only roughly 1/3 of "Quebecois" want out of Canada even under the - in their (and my) opinion - highly damaging Conservative/Harper government, I think the 50+1 of actual vs eligible voters (translating to an estimated 47% of eligible) "issue" has been highly overblown.

They've also stated that if they were presented with data/argument showing an actual issue with this format that they'd be more than open to re-examining it.

Then there's also the knowledge that as the "Unity Bill" that brought any of this up was introduced under the Haper/Con majority and had absolutely zero chance of actually passing and is quite obviously a politicking move aimed squarely at it's large Quebec based support. You'd have praised the Cons for the exact same maneuver appealing to vast swaths of their base.
  • 1

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#101 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:39 PM

Do you agree 100% with ALL of the policies, principals etc of any party? I sure don't.

And for the record I don't think they're "all over the map" I think they have a barely controversial view of the voting requirements.

Given that only roughly 1/3 of "Quebecois" want out of Canada even under the - in their (and my) opinion - highly damaging Conservative/Harper government, I think the 50+1 of actual vs eligible voters (translating to an estimated 47% of eligible) "issue" has been highly overblown.

They've also stated that if they were presented with data/argument showing an actual issue with this format that they'd be more than open to re-examining it.

Then there's also the knowledge that as the "Unity Bill" that brought any of this up was introduced under the Haper/Con majority and had absolutely zero chance of actually passing and is quite obviously a politicking move aimed squarely at it's large Quebec based support. You'd have praised the Cons for the exact same maneuver appealing to vast swaths of their base.

There are some policies such as opposition to Quebec separation/sovereignty that would be so basic that I could not support a party that wavered on that position.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#102 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:55 PM

There are some policies such as opposition to Quebec separation/sovereignty that would be so basic that I could not support a party that wavered on that position.


You're welcome to support (or not) any views you like (asinine or counter-to-logic as they may be) but I do not see how they've wavered one iota on Quebec separation.

Edited by J.R., 17 April 2013 - 03:35 PM.

  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#103 PlayingBurke

PlayingBurke

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 12

Posted 17 April 2013 - 02:41 PM

I say let them go. Either they sink or swim; either way, it's not Canada's concern. As for the initial topic; Jr. is likeable, however, he will not go far as to putting the Liberals back into power. Until the Left work out their ideology lines they are their own worse enemy.
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit: -Vintage Canuck-

#104 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,003 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 17 April 2013 - 03:24 PM

I say let them go. Either they sink or swim; either way, it's not Canada's concern. As for the initial topic; Jr. is likeable, however, he will not go far as to putting the Liberals back into power. Until the Left work out their ideology lines they are their own worse enemy.


Instead of being the left with it's financial incompetence or the right with it's social ineptness why not adopt a competent financially liberal policy and a widely endorsed socially liberal middle ground.
  • 0

#105 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:42 PM

Justin is just barely on the job as Liberal leader and he is back at it again with his "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick." What a doofus.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper sharply criticized new Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for trying "to rationalize or make excuses" for whoever was responsible for the bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that killed three and injured over 100 people.


Harper, who was commenting from London where he attended the funeral of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher this morning, took issue with Trudeau suggesting during a media interview that "the root causes" of the motivation for the bombing should be examined.


The right way to respond Harper said is to “condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that's what this government would do if ever faced with such actions."



Harper had not been asked specifically about Trudeau's remarks. But he made it clear he wanted to comment on an interview that CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge did with Trudeau, which aired Tuesday night on The National. In the interview, Mansbridge asked Trudeau what he would do if he were prime minister on the day the bombings occurred.


Trudeau replied, after saying he would offer help and condolences, that "over the coming days" it would be necessary to "look at root causes." He continued, "We don't know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society."


Trudeau finished by saying that it was important not to "marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future."


Trudeau spoke to Mansbridge on Monday, only two hours after the news of the Boston bombing. His reply to Mansbridge's query about what he would do was made an hour before the Prime Minister's Office issued a statement. Trudeau's initial remarks about condolences and an offer to help were the same as Harper's reaction, although Trudeau went on to talk about possible causes.



Clarifies remarks


On Wednesday, after a meeting with his caucus, Trudeau clarified his remarks when asked by a reporter what he meant by "root causes."


"Obviously, we have to make sure that as we move forward we look at creating a safe community, a safe country, a safe world for all citizens and all individuals and that happens both with security and with, with a significant commitment to peace, as highlighted in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Trudeau said.


After question period Wednesday, Trudeau went quickly to the microphone in the foyer of the House of Commons to make a comment in English and one in French.


First, he said that he'd just been handed an account of what he called "the prime minister lashing out."


"I really hope Mr. Harper rethinks the extents and the lengths he is willing to go to personally attack people and to politicize tragedies like that," Trudeau said.


The controversy over Trudeau's remarks is reminiscent of the firestorm after comments former prime minister Jean Chretien made a year after the 9/11 attacks, although Chretien was much more explicit about what might have motivated those that hijacked planes with the intention of crashing them into buildings.


In a 2002 interview with Mansbridge, Chretien said, "And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."



On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

At this point we do not know who the person or persons are and Justin is talking about "root causes". :picard:
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#106 C750X

C750X

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 13

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:46 PM

:picard: I was joking man... it was Justin Beiber that did those things.


Justin Bieber for President!
  • 0

#107 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,676 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:56 AM

Looking forward to the daily 'Omg look what JT said!' updates.

The latest: He said, 'Root causes'...


Oooooh... Wow.... Gee.... Very high impact there. Lol.
  • 0
Posted Image

#108 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:04 AM

"On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said."


So did Justin "justify" the bombing or did he just say it is important to find the root cause? If it was to try to find the root cause is that not just a different way to say find the motive?

Big woop about nothing in terms of what was said.
  • 1

#109 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:10 AM

"On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said."


So did Justin "justify" the bombing or did he just say it is important to find the root cause? If it was to try to find the root cause is that not just a different way to say find the motive?

Big woop about nothing in terms of what was said.


Gordie forbid we look in to why crazies feel the need to blow up innocent people and see if there's anything we can do as a society to minimize/mitigate possible future occurrences :rolleyes:

THIS is what the Cons have decided to attack him on...? :blink: :lol:
  • 1

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#110 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,003 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

Gordie forbid we look in to why crazies feel the need to blow up innocent people and see if there's anything we can do as a society to minimize/mitigate possible future occurrences :rolleyes:

THIS is what the Cons have decided to attack him on...? :blink: :lol:


So easy to defeat them.

Come back with "Of course we want to know what makes people do these things. Not only does it help us try to stop it in the future, it makes it easier to find out who did this and punish them accordingly in the present".
  • 0

#111 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:36 AM

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.

Edited by J.R., 18 April 2013 - 09:47 AM.

  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#112 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:07 PM

Looking forward to the daily 'Omg look what JT said!' updates.

The latest: He said, 'Root causes'...


Oooooh... Wow.... Gee.... Very high impact there. Lol.

The point is Trudeau said something idiotic yet again, was criticized, ran back to his handlers and then clarified what that what he said was not what he meant. As soon as Justin gets off script it all blows up in his face. He has inherited his name from his father and his good looks and charm from his mother but unfortunately he also seems to have inherited his intellect from his mother as well.

In this case we do not yet know any details of the perpetrator(s) of the bombing. It was an incredibly dumb comment to make not only at this time but more to the point there is no excuse for the killing and maiming of innocents in the manner in which this bombing went down at any time.

Harper's view is the only approach when innocent people are killed and maimed in such a fashion. There is no room for understanding. It is quite unusual that I actually agree with Harper on a law and order or justice system issue but I am with him 100% on his approach:

“When you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes,” Harper said.


“You condemn it categorically and to the extent that you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible and that is what this government would do if it ever was faced with such actions.”


On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification
.
“There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

That sums it up IMHO.

We have seen this in the past and it has become a trend. Trudeau is continuing to prove he is not not the sharpest knife in the drawer and is wont to put his his mouth in gear before engaging his clearly limited intellect.

This is not an isolated incident and the LPC kept him insulated and protected during the leadership race before his coronation as leader. Now he is out in the real world of politics and politics is a blood sport like it or not.

It is Justin's go to strategy - say something stupid and then "Well I know what I said but that is not what I meant." He has fallen back on this several times in the past.

In November 2010 he said he thought Albertans who were in charge were ruining Canada and it would be best to have Quebeckers running things.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"

Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."

Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

http://cnews.canoe.c...2/20377596.html

And the response when he came under fire for those comments? Trudeau and his strategists have apologized and tried to spin the comments.

Liberal leadership contender and Montreal-area MP Justin Trudeau says he is sorry for controversial remarks he made in an interview about Alberta politicians.

“I’m sorry I said what I said,” The Globe and Mail reported him as saying Friday. “I’m here to serve.”

In a six-minute scrum with reporters in Vancouver, he said he made a mistake in associating the Harper government with a specific region of Canada, according to media reports

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

In February 2012 he talked about a Canada governed by Harper and the CPC as not his sort of Canada and that the best thing to do would be for him to leave with a separate Quebec. His father must have been turning over in his grave at that statement.

In a French-language interview in February, Trudeau took issue with the social conservative policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and indicated he would be in favour of Quebec separating if they continued.

“I always say that if, some time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and it was going against abortion, and it was going against same-sex marriage, and that it was moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think about making Quebec a country,” said the Montreal-area MP in the weekend interview with Radio-Canada.
...
“When Quebec is not involved in the governance of this country, this country moves too much toward the right,” he said in the radio interview. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers. It’s that there’s a way of seeing social responsibility, openness toward others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that’s necessary for Canada and it saddens me a great deal (to see what’s happening now).”

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And his defence at that time? Trudeau later sought to defend himself in a bizarre press conference in which he spoke in the third-person.

“The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country because the question is ridiculous,” Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones in every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.”


As Matt Gurney of the National Post wrote in an article titled "Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out":

The Trudeau camp responded quickly to the revelations. In a statement put out on Thursday afternoon, they said, “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview … We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”

Problem: It was Mr. Trudeau himself making the divisive comments, saying Canada didn’t work when Albertans have power, and that the country belongs either to one province, or just Liberals from that province. Mr. Trudeau may feel the quotes were taken out of context, but they still [ital]sound[endital] astonishingly divisive. You can’t accuse someone else of playing the politics of division when your own party, twice in two days, has treated Albertans as somehow unfit to hold office in their own federal government.


These comments just don’t sound divisive (though Lordy, they do). They also sound achingly familiar. This is exactly how many Canadians suspect the Liberals really feel, deep down inside: The only good Canadian is a Liberal. Everyone else is either an American or an Albertan (one suspects that, to many Liberals, this is a distinction without a difference). The Liberals can embrace the oil sands all they want. Until they stop treating the people who live in the general vicinity of the oil sands as enemy aliens out to rob the Grits of their rightful, if temporarily interrupted, rule over Canada, they’re not going to improve much on their third-party status.


Yes, the comments are from a couple of years ago, which may help partially offset the oh-so weak response put out by the Trudeau team (though we’re not talking unearthed university-era debate club stuff here — this was Trudeau speaking in his capacity as a Liberal MP only two years ago). And the Liberals have been doing okay lately. Polls show they have a shot to come back to second place. Maybe even compete for government.

It could happen. But they’ll need more than a new leader and some new policies before that can happen. They need a full-on attitude adjustment. Despite all their talk about renewal, it’s not clear that’s in the making.

http://fullcomment.n...were-voted-out/

The arrogance and entitlement just shines through, eh? Along with the lack of intellect and inability to think logically and string coherent thoughts together. Then he has to go check with his handlers and try to explain what he said was not what he meant.

Thus far the CPC have Justin Trudeau pegged quite accurately as they noted in their recent ad.

Justin Trudeau... in way over his head.

It seems the Liberal party has chosen to send a boy (and a not very bright nor experienced boy at that) to do a man's work. The CPC managed to carve up Martin, Dion and Ignatieff - all of whom were much superior to Justin Trudeau in all respects except maybe their surnames, boyish good looks and hair style.

For the CPC it seems Justin Trudeau will be the gift that keeps on giving unless the LPC can find some way to wrap him up in a protective cocoon and only let him out when he has a script in hand. Thinking on his feet is quite obviously not one of Justin Trudeau's strengths and add to that a lack of political savvy.

Mind you Justin is correct in one thing he has promised to do - he says he will do politics differently. Unfortunately his way looks to be an unmitigated disaster based on performance to date.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#113 hockeyfan87

hockeyfan87

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:16 PM

Just a general question. Can Quebec not signing the constitution be treated in a similar manner to how the Soviet Union didn't sign the Geneva Convention? JT said the best Prime Ministers of Canada come from Quebec seems like this should happened a long time ago.

I'd like to know how JT responds to the unequal representation of the west in the Senate. How can anyone in the west get behind a politician that defends BC having fewer seats than New Brunswick?
  • 0

#114 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:19 PM

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.

The theme of the attack ads seems to have resonated with voters and this latest is the CPC continuing that strategy.

We heard the same thing about the themed ads about Dion (Stephane Dion is not a leader) and Iganatieff ("He did not come back for you" and his "reckless coalition") - they were going to fail and backfire. They did not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEH_hprcs6g


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


The key is that a theme must have some basis and in this case Justin Trudeau is in way over his head according to all the evidence thus far. And he continues to supply further evidence.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#115 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

Justin is just barely on the job as Liberal leader and he is back at it again with his "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick." What a doofus.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper sharply criticized new Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for trying "to rationalize or make excuses" for whoever was responsible for the bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that killed three and injured over 100 people.


Harper, who was commenting from London where he attended the funeral of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher this morning, took issue with Trudeau suggesting during a media interview that "the root causes" of the motivation for the bombing should be examined.


The right way to respond Harper said is to “condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that's what this government would do if ever faced with such actions."



Harper had not been asked specifically about Trudeau's remarks. But he made it clear he wanted to comment on an interview that CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge did with Trudeau, which aired Tuesday night on The National. In the interview, Mansbridge asked Trudeau what he would do if he were prime minister on the day the bombings occurred.


Trudeau replied, after saying he would offer help and condolences, that "over the coming days" it would be necessary to "look at root causes." He continued, "We don't know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society."


Trudeau finished by saying that it was important not to "marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future."


Trudeau spoke to Mansbridge on Monday, only two hours after the news of the Boston bombing. His reply to Mansbridge's query about what he would do was made an hour before the Prime Minister's Office issued a statement. Trudeau's initial remarks about condolences and an offer to help were the same as Harper's reaction, although Trudeau went on to talk about possible causes.



Clarifies remarks


On Wednesday, after a meeting with his caucus, Trudeau clarified his remarks when asked by a reporter what he meant by "root causes."


"Obviously, we have to make sure that as we move forward we look at creating a safe community, a safe country, a safe world for all citizens and all individuals and that happens both with security and with, with a significant commitment to peace, as highlighted in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Trudeau said.


After question period Wednesday, Trudeau went quickly to the microphone in the foyer of the House of Commons to make a comment in English and one in French.


First, he said that he'd just been handed an account of what he called "the prime minister lashing out."


"I really hope Mr. Harper rethinks the extents and the lengths he is willing to go to personally attack people and to politicize tragedies like that," Trudeau said.


The controversy over Trudeau's remarks is reminiscent of the firestorm after comments former prime minister Jean Chretien made a year after the 9/11 attacks, although Chretien was much more explicit about what might have motivated those that hijacked planes with the intention of crashing them into buildings.


In a 2002 interview with Mansbridge, Chretien said, "And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."



On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

At this point we do not know who the person or persons are and Justin is talking about "root causes". :picard:


:lol:
Is that really the best they can do to attack him?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fixing the problem that leads to actions like that better than just punishing the perpetrators after the fact?
Sure we don't know the issues that lead to what happened yet, but once we do should it not be a priority to try and remedy them?

And I don't know what you're talking about with your whole "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick" statement. He clarified his statements, he didn't attempt to change what he was saying.

Posted Image

What actually stood out to me as the stupidest statement in that entire article was

“When you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes,” Harper said.
The right way to respond Harper said is to “condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that's what this government would do if ever faced with such actions."

Yeah, don't try to figure out the causes for why things happen, just deal with them after they do happen. We'll solve a lot of issues like that :rolleyes:


(For the record, I'm not even sold that I'm going to vote for Trudeau, but seeing stuff like this just annoys the crap out of me)

Edited by Jägermeister, 18 April 2013 - 12:32 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#116 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

The point is Trudeau said something idiotic yet again, was criticized, ran back to his handlers and then clarified what that what he said was not what he meant. As soon as Justin gets off script it all blows up in his face. He has inherited his name from his father and his good looks and charm from his mother but unfortunately he also seems to have inherited his intellect from his mother as well.

In this case we do not yet know any details of the perpetrator(s) of the bombing. It was an incredibly dumb comment to make not only at this time but more to the point there is no excuse for the killing and maiming of innocents in the manner in which this bombing went down at any time.

Harper's view is the only approach when innocent people are killed and maimed in such a fashion. There is no room for understanding. It is quite unusual that I actually agree with Harper on a law and order or justice system issue but I am with him 100% on his approach:

“When you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes,” Harper said.


“You condemn it categorically and to the extent that you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible and that is what this government would do if it ever was faced with such actions.”


On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification
.
“There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

That sums it up IMHO.

We have seen this in the past and it has become a trend. Trudeau is continuing to prove he is not not the sharpest knife in the drawer and is wont to put his his mouth in gear before engaging his clearly limited intellect.

This is not an isolated incident and the LPC kept him insulated and protected during the leadership race before his coronation as leader. Now he is out in the real world of politics and politics is a blood sport like it or not.

It is Justin's go to strategy - say something stupid and then "Well I know what I said but that is not what I meant." He has fallen back on this several times in the past.

In November 2010 he said he thought Albertans who were in charge were ruining Canada and it would be best to have Quebeckers running things.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"

Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."

Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

http://cnews.canoe.c...2/20377596.html

And the response when he came under fire for those comments? Trudeau and his strategists have apologized and tried to spin the comments.



Liberal leadership contender and Montreal-area MP Justin Trudeau says he is sorry for controversial remarks he made in an interview about Alberta politicians.

“I’m sorry I said what I said,” The Globe and Mail reported him as saying Friday. “I’m here to serve.”

In a six-minute scrum with reporters in Vancouver, he said he made a mistake in associating the Harper government with a specific region of Canada, according to media reports

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

In February 2012 he talked about a Canada governed by Harper and the CPC as not his sort of Canada and that the best thing to do would be for him to leave with a separate Quebec. His father must have been turning over in his grave at that statement.



In a French-language interview in February, Trudeau took issue with the social conservative policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and indicated he would be in favour of Quebec separating if they continued.

“I always say that if, some time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and it was going against abortion, and it was going against same-sex marriage, and that it was moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think about making Quebec a country,” said the Montreal-area MP in the weekend interview with Radio-Canada.
...
“When Quebec is not involved in the governance of this country, this country moves too much toward the right,” he said in the radio interview. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers. It’s that there’s a way of seeing social responsibility, openness toward others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that’s necessary for Canada and it saddens me a great deal (to see what’s happening now).”

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And his defence at that time? Trudeau later sought to defend himself in a bizarre press conference in which he spoke in the third-person.



“The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country because the question is ridiculous,” Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones in every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.”


As Matt Gurney of the National Post wrote in an article titled "Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out":

The Trudeau camp responded quickly to the revelations. In a statement put out on Thursday afternoon, they said, “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview … We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”

Problem: It was Mr. Trudeau himself making the divisive comments, saying Canada didn’t work when Albertans have power, and that the country belongs either to one province, or just Liberals from that province. Mr. Trudeau may feel the quotes were taken out of context, but they still [ital]sound[endital] astonishingly divisive. You can’t accuse someone else of playing the politics of division when your own party, twice in two days, has treated Albertans as somehow unfit to hold office in their own federal government.


These comments just don’t sound divisive (though Lordy, they do). They also sound achingly familiar. This is exactly how many Canadians suspect the Liberals really feel, deep down inside: The only good Canadian is a Liberal. Everyone else is either an American or an Albertan (one suspects that, to many Liberals, this is a distinction without a difference). The Liberals can embrace the oil sands all they want. Until they stop treating the people who live in the general vicinity of the oil sands as enemy aliens out to rob the Grits of their rightful, if temporarily interrupted, rule over Canada, they’re not going to improve much on their third-party status.


Yes, the comments are from a couple of years ago, which may help partially offset the oh-so weak response put out by the Trudeau team (though we’re not talking unearthed university-era debate club stuff here — this was Trudeau speaking in his capacity as a Liberal MP only two years ago). And the Liberals have been doing okay lately. Polls show they have a shot to come back to second place. Maybe even compete for government.

It could happen. But they’ll need more than a new leader and some new policies before that can happen. They need a full-on attitude adjustment. Despite all their talk about renewal, it’s not clear that’s in the making.

http://fullcomment.n...were-voted-out/

The arrogance and entitlement just shines through, eh? Along with the lack of intellect and inability to think logically and string coherent thoughts together. Then he has to go check with his handlers and try to explain what he said was not what he meant.

Thus far the CPC have Justin Trudeau pegged quite accurately as they noted in their recent ad.

Justin Trudeau... in way over his head.

It seems the Liberal party has chosen to send a boy (and a not very bright nor experienced boy at that) to do a man's work. The CPC managed to carve up Martin, Dion and Ignatieff - all of whom were much superior to Justin Trudeau in all respects except maybe their surnames, boyish good looks and hair style.

For the CPC it seems Justin Trudeau will be the gift that keeps on giving unless the LPC can find some way to wrap him up in a protective cocoon and only let him out when he has a script in hand. Thinking on his feet is quite obviously not one of Justin Trudeau's strengths and add to that a lack of political savvy.

Mind you Justin is correct in one thing he has promised to do - he says he will do politics differently. Unfortunately his way looks to be an unmitigated disaster based on performance to date.


"meh"

Posted Image

Edited by J.R., 18 April 2013 - 12:25 PM.

  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#117 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,984 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:27 PM

The theme of the attack ads seems to have resonated with voters and this latest is the CPC continuing that strategy.

We heard the same thing about the themed ads about Dion (Stephane Dion is not a leader) and Iganatieff ("He did not come back for you" and his "reckless coalition") - they were going to fail and backfire. They did not.

The key is that a theme must have some basis and in this case Justin Trudeau is in way over his head according to all the evidence thus far. And he continues to supply further evidence.


Contrary to what you believe Wet, selling it harder doesn't make me want to buy it any more than I did before.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#118 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:41 PM

Just a general question. Can Quebec not signing the constitution be treated in a similar manner to how the Soviet Union didn't sign the Geneva Convention? JT said the best Prime Ministers of Canada come from Quebec seems like this should happened a long time ago.

I'd like to know how JT responds to the unequal representation of the west in the Senate. How can anyone in the west get behind a politician that defends BC having fewer seats than New Brunswick?

No, Quebec is bound by the Constitution and the argument they did not sign on has no force.

As the SCOC said in the Patrieation Reference (Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753) by constitutional convention what was required to patriate the Constitution was a substantial measure of provincial consent for requests by the federal Parliament to the U.K. Parliament to amend Canada’s Constitution in matters affecting provincial powers. In this case 9 out of 10 meets that threshold.

And if there was any doubt (and IMHO there was not on this point) there is a legal principle known as "waiver and acquiescence" which states that when a party acts under a document that the party has foregone is right to claim that it is not bound by that document. In this case Quebec immediately availed itself of Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) and used it to exempt all Quebec laws. The Quebec government included a notwithstanding clause in every piece of legislation put before the National Assembly between 1982 and 1985.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#119 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,676 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:45 PM

The point is Trudeau said something idiotic yet again, was criticized, ran back to his handlers and then clarified what that what he said was not what he meant. As soon as Justin gets off script it all blows up in his face. He has inherited his name from his father and his good looks and charm from his mother but unfortunately he also seems to have inherited his intellect from his mother as well... Blah blah blah etc.

Yes, yes, and like i said, i'm looking forward to the epic daily updates on all these JT-related non-events, as well as the endless repeating of 'It worked on Dion and Ignatieff.'

Time to learn that JT is not Dion or Ignatieff. JT is far more of a legit threat. Esp. in Quebec, where the Cons cannot ever make any ground. If JT sweeps Quebec, then the Cons are done, no matter what JT says about Alberta, 'root causes' or blah, blah, blah.

The Cons are scared.

OTTAWA - Canada’s new Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, would lead his party to a crushing election victory if a vote were held now, according to a poll released on Tuesday that put Liberal support substantially higher than other recent surveys have shown.

The Forum Research poll, the first conducted since the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was elected party leader on Sunday, has the Liberals at 43% and the Conservatives at 30% That amount of support would give the Liberals a solid majority government.

The Conservatives, in power since 2006 and plainly concerned about the 41-year-old Justin Trudeau’s popularity, came out on Monday with attack ads questioning his judgment and experience.


Hence more attack ads. But they won't work this time, imho. Harper's continued failure in Quebec will be his ultimate undoing. But it's going to be hilarious to see how desperate the attack ads will look towards the 2015 election.
  • 0
Posted Image

#120 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:49 PM

:lol:
Is that really the best they can do to attack him?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fixing the problem that leads to actions like that better than just punishing the perpetrators after the fact?
Sure we don't know the issues that lead to what happened yet, but once we do should it not be a priority to try and remedy them?

And I don't know what you're talking about with your whole "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick" statement. He clarified his statements, he didn't attempt to change what he was saying.

Posted Image

What actually stood out to me as the stupidest statement in that entire article was

Yeah, don't try to figure out the causes for why things happen, just deal with them after they do happen. We'll solve a lot of issues like that :rolleyes:


(For the record, I'm not even sold that I'm going to vote for Trudeau, but seeing stuff like this just annoys the crap out of me)

Trudeau's subsequent actions to go back to his handlers after the criticisms and try to claim what he said was not what he meant indicate to me that he was yet again caught out for not thinking through what he said. As the CBC note he once again clarified his remarks:


Clarifies remarks


On Wednesday, after a meeting with his caucus, Trudeau clarified his remarks when asked by a reporter what he meant by "root causes."


"Obviously, we have to make sure that as we move forward we look at creating a safe community, a safe country, a safe world for all citizens and all individuals and that happens both with security and with, with a significant commitment to peace, as highlighted in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Trudeau said.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...es-remarks.html

If Trudeau was clear in the first place there would have been no need for the spin.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 18 April 2013 - 12:50 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.