Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

[Fishbone Jones]

Are you kidding me? :rofl:

I expected this kind of response around here, but let's get real. The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out. While I think its poor leadership to be blatantly breaking the laws as an MP, and certainly poor judgement to do so, trying to pretend he is unfit to breathe the same air as the rest of us, and corrupt to the point that he might be hanging around with drug dealers, is taking away from YOUR credibility and those who would vote against him.

Laws can be bad laws, but until they are changed, they are still the law.

 

[observor 69]

Are you kidding me? :rofl:

I expected this kind of response around here, but let's get real. The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out. While I think its poor leadership to be blatantly breaking the laws as an MP, and certainly poor judgement to do so, trying to pretend he is unfit to breathe the same air as the rest of us, and corrupt to the point that he might be hanging around with drug dealers, is taking away from YOUR credibility and those who would vote against him.

MilPoints on the way. 

 

[Rifleman62]

ballz:

Are you kidding me? :rofl:

The truth hurts? What do you call a person who has an apparent ready supply of a prohibited drug? He may not be dealing, but what he is doing is against the law. JT is in the position to safeguard the laws and he is associating and indulging with a person who is breaking the law.

He is a millionaire, and the son and grandson of millionaires. He is not the same as us. He is a minority as a millionaire in Canada.

ballz:

The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke

So you break the law? Do you in this case if that's how you feel.

Discipline by Example.

 

[ballz]

ballz:
The truth hurts?

Well no, it doesn't actually, because I don't plan to vote for Trudeau, nor are you speaking anything remotely close to "true."

What do you call a person who has an apparent ready supply of a prohibited drug?

A supply big enough to "pass it around?" That's anybody and everybody that brings ONE joint to the party. A "supply" that big, is not very big at all, and by trying to take that angle you are showing that you either have no clue what you are talking about or are just trying to play it up as a big deal because it suits your politics.

but what he is doing is against the law. JT is in the position to safeguard the laws and he is associating and indulging with a person who is breaking the law.

Laws can be bad laws, but until they are changed, they are still the law.

Thanks, both of you, for you insight. When you find where I said that breaking the law as an elected official was a good idea, come back and tell me about it.

He is a millionaire, and the son and grandson of millionaires. He is not the same as us. He is a minority as a millionaire in Canada.

No where did I say he was the same as "us" (whoever that is). I said this will Canadians *feel* like he is more on the same page with them, much more so that PM Harper who wants to throw people in jail for 6 months for growing 6 plants. PM Harper is out to lunch on this, whether your like Trudeau or not.

ballz:
So you break the law? Do you in this case if that's how you feel.

Discipline by Example.

No I don't, so you can stop wagging your finger at me. I am free to support whichever policies I choose to. You can scrutinize them all you want, but if you want to attack my character you're just showing how weak your position is. Much like when the Tories try to attack Trudeau's character because he smoked a joint. It will FAIL.


Trudeau's policy is much better than PM Harper's policy on this subject. He has taken a risk to stir up the debate, to get his would-be voters out and voting, and to connect with some on-the-fence voters. All in all, the risk is probably going to pay off, especially if the old farts of this country can't get over it and decide its a good hill to die on come election time.

 

[BorisK]

They aren't attacking him just because he smoked pot... They are attacking him because it's another example of him being an idiot.  He votes to increase charges for pot use, while enjoying it himself, and yet you think he is defending the use of marijuana because he admitted to using it while voting to make it more illegal?

Reminds me of when he voted to keep the gun registry over 15 times then once it was ended tried saying that he was glad it was gone. 

This hypocrite utopian dreamer millionaire has the worst attendance record of any mp and has repeatedly not shown up for critical votes because he was too busy collecting money from tax payer subsidized charities for blowhard speeches. 

Trudeau jr is an airhead that wants more fame, not good policies. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Are you kidding me? :rofl:

The prohibition on marijuana is archaic and a joke. Canadians are sick of it, and it's on its way out.

Thank you for YOUR insight, but it's only your opinion.

Unless you have some sort of inside track on this, I suggest you state it as your opinion, not fact.

Many Canadians are far from agreement with you on the subject. So please don't make personal statements like they are a done deal.

I also just made a simple statement of fact. So you can reel in your neck

Trudeau took an oath to uphold our laws. He has blatantly broke, at least, one.

Many promising careers have crashed and burned on much less.

 

[Old Sweat]

It may just be me, and heaven knows I'm not a political scientist, but the Liberals are once again proposing soft issues that almost always involve redistribution of income. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to have been successful in pushing economic issues that create wealth rather than just shift the exisiting pile around. What unique plan has Mr Trudeau proposed to create wealth in Canada? Given the state of the world's and our own economy, and our ability to fund further social programs without falling further into deficit and debt, which do you think is aprt to be more successful with a wary tax paying public?

This of course is a generalization, but does seem correct in large terms.

 

[OldSolduer]

The whole legalization of pot needs to be looked at. IMO we have relatively little info on the long term effects on the brain, lungs etc.
If we knew about the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco hundreds of years ago would we have ever legalized them?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Alcohol is also a "drug," of sorts, and our American neighbours tried prohibition, and we know how well that worked, don't we?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Alcohol is also a "drug," of sorts, and our American neighbours tried prohibition, and we know how well that worked, don't we?

Same with parts of Canada, to similar effect.

 

[ballz]

Many Canadians are far from agreement with you on the subject. So please don't make personal statements like they are a done deal.

Polls are obviously only so accurate, but they would suggest that those who are "far from agreement" with me are few and far between.

This poll http://bccla.org/news/2004/11/opinion-poll-confirms-canadians-want-legal-marijuana/ suggests that only 8% are "far from agreement" (believe it should be a criminal offense) with me on the subject while over 60% agree that it should be legalized.

Of course, you're right, it's not a "done deal" as of yet.




Anyway, I never meant for this article to turn this thread into a marijuana debate. I would be happy to have that debate in another thread of course, but I was hoping to get a warm and fuzzy on what everyone thought of the tactics being used by Justin Trudeau. As the article points out, is it wise to be "transparent to a fault?"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Polls are obviously only so accurate, but they would suggest that those who are "far from agreement" with me are few and far between.

This poll http://bccla.org/news/2004/11/opinion-poll-confirms-canadians-want-legal-marijuana/ suggests that only 8% are "far from agreement" (believe it should be a criminal offense) with me on the subject while over 60% agree that it should be legalized.

Of course, you're right, it's not a "done deal" as of yet.




Anyway, I never meant for this article to turn this thread into a marijuana debate. I would be happy to have that debate in another thread of course, but I was hoping to get a warm and fuzzy on what everyone thought of the tactics being used by Justin Trudeau. As the article points out, is it wise to be "transparent to a fault?"

Polls have recently been proven to show that, if anything, they have been mostly wrong.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's a puff piece ....

Dude, I see what you did there

 

[Edward Campbell]

Tim Harper opines that M. Trudeau may be "flying too close to the flame" in an opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/26/justin_trudeaus_life_of_calculated_risks_tim_harper.html

Justin Trudeau's life of calculated risks: Tim Harper
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s life as an open book is refreshing, but he makes himself an inviting target for his opponents.

By: Tim Harper National Affairs,

Published on Mon Aug 26 2013

Justin Trudeau is flying awfully close to the flame.

He may yet get scorched.

Since entering federal politics, the Liberal leader has taken a series of risks.

They’ve all been calculated risks, but risks nonetheless.

He has profited from many and appears to have survived them all, but by playing the political game in such an unconventional manner, there is no guarantee that this string of good fortune can be sustained.

He’s surviving, even flourishing, with a combination of charisma, favourable treatment from a national press pack desperate for a little colour in a drab political landscape, mastery of social media — and a little luck.

Trudeau took his first risk in choosing Papineau in which to run in 2008, eschewing safer turf for a Bloc Québécois-held riding, unseating a popular incumbent.

He has taken mock pratfalls down a flight of stairs for the television cameras, he did a faux striptease in front of the cameras at a charity fundraiser, he stepped into the boxing ring against a then-Conservative senator.

Had he been carried out of the ring in the battle with Patrick Brazeau, we would not be having this conversation. But he took a calculated risk and he won.

He took a risk in coming clean to an Ottawa reporter about his personal wealth and the money he earned on the speaking tour, then took an even larger risk by still accepting speaking fees after being elected an MP.

He risked overplaying his hand as the reluctant leadership candidate, but played it well.

He’s even taking a calculated risk with his image by moving his family into elite Rockcliffe Park in Ottawa while championing the middle class.

Which, of course, brings us to his most recent risk, his pot-smoking interview with The Huffington Post.

It is not news, of course, that a 41-year-old man has smoked a joint, and the marijuana question is a journalistic trick that is more than two decades old.

It doesn’t automatically make him cool, just as not smoking a joint doesn’t immediately make one uncool.

People have been smoking joints in this country for decades and they’re not all cool.

The risky part for Trudeau came with the details.

Trudeau could have acknowledged he had fired up a joint, five or six times, as he did, but he took the risk in volunteering that he has smoked a joint since becoming an MP, an MP who was clearly thinking of federal leadership, and an MP who voted in favour of tougher marijuana possession penalties.

More interesting, for me, in the interview, was the ease with which he brought his late brother into the mix, revealing Michel Trudeau, who died in an avalanche in 1998, was facing a charge of marijuana possession at the time of his death.

That led him to question the criminalization of marijuana, Trudeau said, but that didn’t really seem to be a reason to go there and we can’t go to Michel for context or an explanation.

More often than not, Trudeau seems determined to fill dead air and, in his quest for candour and openness, he sometimes fills in too many blanks.

Living his life as an open book has an appeal, but while some will be drawn to this openness, he is also raising the judgment question, one sure to be exploited by his political opponents in the coming election.

He has emerged unscathed, perhaps enhanced, and he can still dominate a news cycle like no other Canadian politician.

A case in point — last week NDP Leader Tom Mulcair was fulminating in both official languages about Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament.

Barely had the television lights dimmed on the Opposition leader when Trudeau tweeted that he and wife, Sophie Grégoire, were expecting another child. Mulcair’s message was immediately vaporized.

So, we can expect another Trudeau baby and we know he smoked a joint at a dinner party a few years ago.

But I’m not sure I have any idea where Trudeau stands on prorogation, the latest twist in the Senate spending fiasco, or the potential of a giant American player entering the Canadian wireless market.

The Trudeau risk-initiative, calculated as it is, is so far working. But everyone’s luck runs out at some point.

And he seems habitually drawn to that flame.

Tim Harper is a national affairs writer. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
tharper@thestar.ca Twitternutgraf1

I agree that M. Trudeau is taking risks but he's leading the third party, he's got to gain 136 seats, above the 34 he holds now, to get a bare majority government in 2015, Prime Minister Harper only has to gain seven.

Now I have no doubt that M. Trudeau is going to gain seats at the expense of both the Conservatives and the NDP; but will he, can he gain 136? No, not in my judgement. Can he gain, say, 65, enough to move from third party to official opposition status? Maybe, he might gain 15 of the 65 seats he needs from the Conservatives and 50 from the NDP. Prime Minister Harper, then, having lost 15 seats to the Liberals, needs to gain, overall, 22 seats to retain a majority ~ and there are 30 "new" seats, so let's say he gets 22 of those 30, he can "afford" seven losses and that assumes he will not make any other gains.

The task facing Justin Trudeau is formidable; risks are necessary.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I rather object to your assertion that the PM is to be compared to Kim Jong Il - a North Korean dictator. :facepalm:

Maybe I should refer to Justin Trudeau as "Uncle Joe".

That was obviously over the top hyperbole; although the PMO is rather effectively strangling the democratic process in parliament (even his own backbenchers are quitting/objecting publicly, plus robocalls, prorogations etc) and fermenting and 'us vs them' mentality against pretty much everyone that doesn't agree with them.  The binders to the new members of cabinet with an enemy list was a pretty good example (also pretty childish).

Don't follow the 'Uncle Joe' reference, but you can refer to him however you like.  While there are some MPs I do respect, I think the majority of them serve no useful purpose and are in it for themselves.  Nothing pisses me off quite as much as the MPs and senators 'retiring' before they are thrown out that qualify for their full pension after a few short years of service, particularily when in a few years they will earn more then someone that gets the full payout under the NVC, which as far as I can tell, generally means they are wheelchair bound at best.

I think a substantial cull on the number of MPs would be appropriate; they might be actually effective at half their current number, as there are far too many bums in the seats that just vote as per the piece of paper handed to them by the party whip.  I'm not sure who they are representing at that point, but it's definitely not their constituents.  Might be cynical, but I think our current system is fundamentally broken without cooperation between the parties.  Maybe a few years of minority governments would help.

Maybe it's just me, but if you can take three or four months off work and the country still runs, you may not be as important as you think.

 

[Rifleman62]

Navy_Pete

The binders to the new members of cabinet with an enemy list was a pretty good example (also pretty childish).

I see that you are a A/SLt with a few years of CF experience. Please don't take this the wrong way. I congratulate you on your career choice and your commissioning.

I think I know what you mean by that statement. I am going to explain how I look at this.

You will experience or you have experienced a hand over brief, whether it be a watch or a division. It may have been you receiving the hand over brief or you participated as a briefer. Depending on the level, i.e. a change of command there will be a binder or binders covering a multitude of subjects, most with mandatory headings. An "enemies" heading would not be included unless the unit was involved in action or a mission where there was enemy.

When you receive a hand over brief you will be informed somewhat on the strengths/weaknesses of your subordinates, who needs assistance, has problems and who is the go to person. You will also be informed of your superiors, several layers up, idiosyncrasies, and probably the creed of the Buffer so you can ensure your sailors don't experience their wrath, but rather get a BZ.

If you know and understand the modus operandi of your subordinates and your superiors you will know how to give orders and instructions in order that the mission/task is completed to standard and safely: the experience/training level of your sailors, how detailed the orders must be, how much supervision is needed, etc, etc.

If I was a government minister, I would want to know who I could trust with a job, who will climb all over the other civil servants in the office to get ahead (and lower office morale), who has an agenda, etc. This is "office" politics. I would also want to know which member of the media you must "spell it out to" so there is no room to twist the info. Just a couple of examples there.'


Facebook is full of binders of enemy lists.

 

[ModlrMike]

Maybe it's just me, but if you can take three or four months off work and the country still runs, you may not be as important as you think.

You presume that they're off. The reality is more likely that they're working in their home constituencies.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Navy_Pete

If I was a government minister, I would want to know who I could trust with a job, who will climb all over the other civil servants in the office to get ahead (and lower office morale), who has an agenda, etc. This is "office" politics. I would also want to know which member of the media you must "spell it out to" so there is no room to twist the info. Just a couple of examples there.'


Facebook is full of binders of enemy lists.

I would agree with you on that, but there are things you commit to paper, and other things that are conversations you have over a coffee.  Putting something like that, to paper, where it is pretty likely to be leaked (in this case 100%), was just stupid, and possibly had something to do with a large number of the PMO staff being under thirty.  (here's the original story btw; http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/16/pol-cabinet-shuffle-enemy-lists.html)

In this particular case, this had less to do with strengths and weaknesses; but rather a list of sycophants and another of people that disagreed with the govt.  I think anytime you define someone with a different opinion as an enemy, you are being close minded.  After spending the last few years in Ottawa, my general impression is that for a number of folks in politics it's a game, and that the people that are there to actually trying to make a difference are mostly stuck in the backbenches.  Not that the liberals were any better, but that doesn't mean what the current govt is doing is right, and for a party that was big on accountability, they've had a pretty poor track record lately.

I think one of the problems, which things like this illustrate, is that this particular PMO has centralized things a bit more then in the past, and seems to be a lot more in the shorts of all the various departments and their respective cabinet ministers.  So now the gaggle of idealistic inexperienced want to be Machiavellis are doing things better suited to experienced staffers from the individual ministers offices.  Our parliamentary system in a lot of ways gives the PM a lot more authority then POTUS to drive the show, and because the MPs are voting to a list rather then forming their own opinions, the votes in the house are mostly for show.

Incidentally, thanks for the heads up on the profile; I"d completely forgotten about that info in there.  Not that it matters, but that was about seven years, a few promotions and a half dozen postings plus an MOC number change out of date.  Either way, if I was given a list of 'enemies & friends' on a turnover, either in the military or when I spent some time in the private sector, I'd assume that the person that came up with that was most likely a poor leader and not terribly mature.
 

 

[ballz]

In this particular case, this had less to do with strengths and weaknesses; but rather a list of sycophants and another of people that disagreed with the govt.  I think anytime you define someone with a different opinion as an enemy, you are being close minded.  After spending the last few years in Ottawa, my general impression is that for a number of folks in politics it's a game, and that the people that are there to actually trying to make a difference are mostly stuck in the backbenches.  Not that the liberals were any better, but that doesn't mean what the current govt is doing is right, and for a party that was big on accountability, they've had a pretty poor track record lately.

Bureaucrats have a responsibility to execute the government's will / intent. Many of them cannot separate their opinion from their profession. These people, especially high-ranking bureaucrats, are a threat to the government's effectiveness.

In the CAF, we can be held accountable for openly criticizing the gov't in uniform. Consider a bureaucrats suit his uniform. When he is at work, he is obligated to support the gov't, that is what he is being paid to do. The difference is, unfortunately, bureaucrats cannot be held accountable quite as easily as we can.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Ballz, I get what you're saying, but having a responsibility to execute an order doesn't mean you can't disagree during discussions leading up to it.  Once my CO makes a decision, I'll do everything I can to support and execute it, but that doesn't mean that prior to I won't argue to take a different course if there are valid reasons to do so.

You also have to consider the senior bureaucrats SMEs in their respective areas; maybe if you are a new Minister and someone senior in that department with a lot of experience is telling you privately that something is not a good idea, it might legitimately be because it's simply not a good idea.  Not that some of them don't have their own agendas, but they might want to listen and consider that it's a possibilty their plan/policy or whatever just won't work, or is perhaps illegal.

Blindly dismissing opposing opinions is and labeling them as 'enemies', in my opinion, how bad decisions get made.  Maybe they are just talking out of their arse, but using the devil's advocate ensures that something is looked at from all angles before it's put into place.

Also good ideas come from strange places, so by ignoring whole swaths of people they are also losing the opportunity to cherry pick the good parts and claim them as their own.