Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Justin Trudeau


VanNuck

Recommended Posts

As do I, but a leader isn't someone who knows everything there is to know about finance, international trade, law, ethics, the environment, and the economy. That's what the cabinet, PMO, and civil servants are for.

A leader is someone who can get people excited and get people to do something they wouldn't normally otherwise do.

Justin Trudeau may be able to do that short term but he doesn't have the makings of a good Prime Minister. His education, experience and other tangible value pales into comparison of his father's and for that matter many other currently more qualified people for political office. I think a good comparison of this is the difference of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only secret to being a good PM is becoming PM and then staying PM.

Lol at any one of these guys being a 'leader'.

'The US wants to go into Afghanistan.'

'Why?'

'Something about wmd's, taliban, oil, meh'

'Okay, i am now leading us to follow them. Make it so. Now back to making my uncomfortable Christmas card to the country.'

'Good job, sir. Have a cookie.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justin Trudeau may be able to do that short term but he doesn't have the makings of a good Prime Minister. His education, experience and other tangible value pales into comparison of his father's and for that matter many other currently more qualified people for political office. I think a good comparison of this is the difference of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

What about Harper? How about comparing his career and education to say, Ignatieff? Ignatieff was certainly a more worldly fellow, with broader and more impressive experience and a better education.

It doesn't mean anything.

You could have an economist like Harper run the country, or you could have a teacher like Trudeau. I don't know which is better, but I don't think you can say one is definitely a better background to have than the other.

Remember, MPs sit in the House of Commons - the "elites" are appointed to the Senate :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Harper? How about comparing his career and education to say, Ignatieff? Ignatieff was certainly a more worldly fellow, with broader and more impressive experience and a better education.

It doesn't mean anything.

You could have an economist like Harper run the country, or you could have a teacher like Trudeau. I don't know which is better, but I don't think you can say one is definitely a better background to have than the other.

Remember, MPs sit in the House of Commons - the "elites" are appointed to the Senate :)

Well to be honest I wasn't thinking about Harper. I was thinking about Justin's Dad and the lengthy time he spent in politics before he became Prime Minister. He knew how the system operated and was able to maneuver the bureaucracy when he came to power. All I see from Justin is grand standing populist positions with little substance. Although I agree there is something to be said for creating a positive perception and attitude towards government and one's country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be honest I wasn't thinking about Harper. I was thinking about Justin's Dad and the lengthy time he spent in politics before he became Prime Minister. He knew how the system operated and was able to maneuver the bureaucracy when he came to power. All I see from Justin is grand standing populist positions with little substance. Although I agree there is something to be said for creating a positive perception and attitude towards government and one's country.

So it seems his Trudeau name will count against him to a certain extent and not just count for him.

I'd be more likely to vote for someone who wasn't a career politician, but the sort of applicable experience we have with Christy Clark shows that might not be the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be honest I wasn't thinking about Harper. I was thinking about Justin's Dad and the lengthy time he spent in politics before he became Prime Minister. He knew how the system operated and was able to maneuver the bureaucracy when he came to power. All I see from Justin is grand standing populist positions with little substance. Although I agree there is something to be said for creating a positive perception and attitude towards government and one's country.

Not a lot of time in Parliament before becoming PM but PET had a substantial resume going back to the late 1940's as an intellectual and was well-educated - law degree at the Université de Montréal in 1943, a master's degree in political economy at Harvard University's Graduate School of Public Administration, then studied in Paris, France in 1947 at the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris and enrolled for a doctorate at the London School of Economics, but failed to finish his thesis.

Throughout the 1950s, Trudeau was a leading figure in the opposition to the repressive rule of Premier of Quebec Maurice Duplessis as the founder and editor of Cité Libre, a dissident journal that helped provide the intellectual basis for the Quiet Revolution. From 1949 to 1951 Trudeau worked briefly in Ottawa, in the Privy Council Office of the Liberal Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent as an economic policy advisor.

...

An associate professor of law at the Université de Montréal from 1961 to 1965, Trudeau's views evolved towards a liberal position in favour of individual rights counter to the state and made him an opponent of Quebec nationalism. In economic theory he was influenced by professors Joseph Schumpeter and John Kenneth Galbraith while he was at Harvard. Trudeau criticized the Liberal Party of Lester Pearson when it supported arming Bomarc missiles in Canada with nuclear warheads.[22] Nevertheless, he was persuaded to join the party in 1965, together with his friends Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand. These "three wise men" ran successfully for the Liberals in the 1965 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

PET was elected as an MP on November 8, 1965, was appointed as Prime Minister Lester Pearson's parliamentary secretary. In 1967, he was appointed to Pearson's cabinet as Minister of Justice. he won the 1968 LPC leadership race and was sworn in a PM on April 20,1968 - so basically 21/2 years as an MP.

However his resume and reputation was substantial long before he entered politics unlike Justin and as Justice Minister he was responsible for a major revision of the Criminal Code of Canada ( the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults, the legalization of contraception, abortion and lotteries, new gun ownership restrictions as well as the authorization of breathalyzer tests on suspected drunk drivers) and liberalized divorce laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lot of time in Parliament before becoming PM but PET had a substantial resume going back to the late 1940's as an intellectual and was well-educated - law degree at the Université de Montréal in 1943, a master's degree in political economy at Harvard University's Graduate School of Public Administration, then studied in Paris, France in 1947 at the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris and enrolled for a doctorate at the London School of Economics, but failed to finish his thesis.

*snip*

That is all very impressive, but why hold Justin up to that and not compare him to other PMs? Why not compare Harper to that? Rae? Murray? Mulcair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is all very impressive, but why hold Justin up to that and not compare him to other PMs? Why not compare Harper to that? Rae? Murray? Mulcair?

Harper's resume is much superior to that of Justin as is Rae and Mulcair.

In fact there are probably very few MPs with a resume as light as Justin other than some of the instant Quebec NDP MPs from last election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper's resume is much superior to that of Justin as is Rae and Mulcair.

In fact there are probably very few MPs with a resume as light as Justin other than some of the instant Quebec NDP MPs from last election.

Well maybe, but people were comparing Justin to PET and using that as the justification for him being called inexperienced. If PET is the standard, then everyone in recent memory other than maybe Ignatieff is inexperienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe, but people were comparing Justin to PET and using that as the justification for him being called inexperienced. If PET is the standard, then everyone in recent memory other than maybe Ignatieff is inexperienced.

Ignatieff had a significant resume before entering politics. Justin had little other than a famous surname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good comparison of this is the difference of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Good night! I cannot believe you just compared the Trudeaus to the Bushes. Okay, I get your point, one family but two differing levels of intellect, but the Trudeaus cannot be any different from the Bushes - that American family lacked charisma and vision. As president (either one of them), George H. W. Bush was only effective as Reagan's "finisher." PET, by contrast redefined Canada by himself - even if he did a terrible job doing so, leaving a legacy of a bitter, polarized, and economically strapped nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe, but people were comparing Justin to PET and using that as the justification for him being called inexperienced. If PET is the standard, then everyone in recent memory other than maybe Ignatieff is inexperienced.

Ignatieff is a lot more like PET than JT is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good night! I cannot believe you just compared the Trudeaus to the Bushes. Okay, I get your point, one family but two differing levels of intellect, but the Trudeaus cannot be any different from the Bushes - that American family lacked charisma and vision. As president (either one of them), George H. W. Bush was only effective as Reagan's "finisher." PET, by contrast redefined Canada by himself - even if he did a terrible job doing so, leaving a legacy of a bitter, polarized, and economically strapped nation.

Yes, you understood my point. It was nothing beyond your first sentence. Not comparing them in any regard aside from the fact that in both cases I don't think the sons should obtain the highest political office of the land. Something they would not be doing or capable of without the name and achievements of their father either.

I don't think I'd vote Liberal even thought ideologically they are closest to my own views. Maybe that would change. I just can't see that Justin Trudeau as the right leader for Canada somewhere in the near future. I'll give him a chance but every time I've heard him speak I hear nothing of substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you understood my point. It was nothing beyond your first sentence. Not comparing them in any regard aside from the fact that in both cases I don't think the sons should obtain the highest political office of the land. Something they would not be doing or capable of without the name and achievements of their father either.

I don't think I'd vote Liberal even thought ideologically they are closest to my own views. Maybe that would change. I just can't see that Justin Trudeau as the right leader for Canada somewhere in the near future. I'll give him a chance but every time I've heard him speak I hear nothing of substance.

How is that different from all other politicians?

Let's be honest here, politics doe not always attract the sharpest tools in the shed. Plus Trudeau has great hair :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you understood my point. It was nothing beyond your first sentence. Not comparing them in any regard aside from the fact that in both cases I don't think the sons should obtain the highest political office of the land. Something they would not be doing or capable of without the name and achievements of their father either.

I don't think I'd vote Liberal even thought ideologically they are closest to my own views. Maybe that would change. I just can't see that Justin Trudeau as the right leader for Canada somewhere in the near future. I'll give him a chance but every time I've heard him speak I hear nothing of substance.

Wow, never thought I'd hear Liberal-leaning voters talk this way, but Liberal, Conservative (or NDP, Green, or Bloc), you're right. Justin has charisma, but has only dropped subtle hints about what he's going to do. More importantly, he's shown to be sorely lacking character to even lead a third party, let alone a government (swearing in the House, making careless off-cuff remarks, to name a few).

I do however admire his passion and love for the nation, something I'd like to see more of from Harper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do however admire his passion and love for the nation, something I'd like to see more of from Harper.

???

His passion to leave Canada for a Quebec nation?

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://o.canada.com/...ideo-interview/

His passion that that Quebeckers not Albertans are better as leaders of Canada?

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

You see passion I see a dolt who cannot avoid planting his foot in his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

His passion to leave Canada for a Quebec nation?

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://o.canada.com/...ideo-interview/

His passion that that Quebeckers not Albertans are better as leaders of Canada?

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

You see passion I see a dolt who cannot avoid planting his foot in his mouth.

???

His passion to leave Canada for a Quebec nation?

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://o.canada.com/...ideo-interview/

His passion that that Quebeckers not Albertans are better as leaders of Canada?

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

You see passion I see a dolt who cannot avoid planting his foot in his mouth.

If Harper outlawed abortion and same-sex marriage, I might move to Quebec too :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...