Jagmeet Singh needs to get his ass into Parliament post haste

346 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

WWWTT wrote:
Yes and we all know this, or at least I do. I would never attack someones grammar because we all have many things on our minds and we are all human. Why fault someone for only being human?

A long time ago someone told me to use paragraphs and I took it to heart. In my opinion it greatly improved my writing to even think along the lines of paragraphs and when to break them. Someone also corrected my use of "of" instead of "have" (eg; "could have" rather than "could of".)

In both cases I said thank-you because in my view I benefited from the exchange whether or not the individual correcting me intended it.

You chose to interpret this as an attack.

" I think you meant "write" not "wright". Also, "American idle" is spelled Idol although idle would be mildly amusing word play if it wasn't just an error."

How you interpret that statement is on you.

The reason you are failing to rile me is because you don't understand my thinking or motivation. I never saw Trudeau as "my leader" or someone I particularly admire. I am entirely pragmatic in where I place my vote and it is up for grabs every election. I did think Trudeau would keep more of his promises but I never believed he would keep all of them. In particular I was very skeptical that the electoral reform he had in mind would lead to PR.

I have no illusions about the neoliberal Liberal Party or the neoliberal Trudeau but I also have no illusions about the NDP either. They are just another political party that wants power. It just so happens that their membership leans more left so they have to throw them bones.

In Jagmeet Singh I see possibility. I like how he explained where his views come from. I'm impressed by his cool head when under fire. I suspect that he is extremely intelligent. I definitely consider him the better man over Trudeau. To a certain extent my vote isn't fixed until I vote but for now I'm so impressed by Singh I believe he will surround himself with the right people and come up with a credible platform that I can get behind. I don't expect him to show his hand this early just like I didn't expect Trudeau to. So far he is saying the right things, like decriminalization of all drug use, support for self-determination, and saying them well.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

 

@Pondering

I don't see his family suffering at all. Not even a tiny bit. People deployed in the military, people who work on ships, truckers, are all separated from their families longer than Trudeau is and they don't have buckets of money to make sure that all the time they are at home they can be devoted parents rather than taking care of the mundane responsibilities of life.

It's clear we do not share the same values.

This comes across as mean.

You are suggesting to all of us that recognize that a family might want to do something in public life as not caring about our families. I could not disagree more.

I have two daughters. I want them to have a future. If I thought that I could participate to help make that a better one I would not be going in without caring about them. If I did that with a partner who felt as I did I woudl not be uncaring about the partner.

These lives are not all terrible and Trudeau, whatever else you or I may say about him, would know best about this as a child of a PM.

I am sorry but I am personally insulted that you would say that you have some kind of superior set of values when it comes to families than either Pondering or I do. That is what you are suggesting here.

There are MPs who have babies now and their perspective is valuable for the country. I don't think their kids will be angry with them when they grow up if they managed things well. You have no evidence that Trudeau is not managing this well.

JKR

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa I disagree. I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does. I would never want such a person to lead the country! I'm not ever going to appologize for such a person! And about the corporate media circus freek side show, Justin is in no way a victim of the corporate media, he plays it up and invites it with open arms! He takes every single opportunity to encourage it! There are many examples of him using his family in this regards. His wife as well has embrased the corporate media! Justin has also used charities to only promote himself, tons of examples!

Did you have a problem with Niki Ashton running to be leader while she was pregnant?

WWWTT

I really shouldn't go into this further because it's drifting way out there. I should point out here that being the PM (or party leader, minister mayor etc) has a greater demand on ones time as being just an MP, senator, provicial, or regional councilor. There's also the age of your children to take into consideration. I should of made this a little more clear in articulating my thoughts.

Now as far as Jagmeet is concerned, I'm not aware of his family (if he has a partner, children etc etc) I tried googling it but nothing comes up on my limited searches. It could be that he feels it would be unfair to ask of a partner to sacrifice for himself? Maybe he's not even interested in having a partner? So for me, Jagmeet is not sacrificing valuble family time to win political points.

In addition, I had two parents, who came to Canada worshiping the dollar and it's persuit! Sacrificing family! I know how it feels when your father isn't there growing up and sharing. And in the end, all the money they made was still not enough.

WWWTT

JKR wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa I disagree. I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does. I would never want such a person to lead the country! I'm not ever going to appologize for such a person! And about the corporate media circus freek side show, Justin is in no way a victim of the corporate media, he plays it up and invites it with open arms! He takes every single opportunity to encourage it! There are many examples of him using his family in this regards. His wife as well has embrased the corporate media! Justin has also used charities to only promote himself, tons of examples!

Did you have a problem with Niki Ashton running to be leader while she was pregnant?

No sorry I did not know?

When is she due? Do you know if it's a boy or a girl? I don't really care what the sex is, as long as her baby is healthy!!!! Also, when did she become pregnant? Did she plan her pregnancy and how many other children does she have?

Now some of these questions are absolutely none of my business!!!! 

But it may influence how I felt about someone who wanted power  while sacrificing their family.

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

But it may influence how I felt about someone who wanted power  while sacrificing their family.

What makes you think they are sacrificing their families?

Do you think wanting to be PM is all about wanting power? Do you think that maybe some people may feel that by taking a leadership position they will create a better world for their children. Both the Trudeau parents probably spend more time with their children than the average parent.

That your parents neglected you by spending all their time working doesn't mean that is what the Trudeau's are doing with their children. I sincerely believe you are mistaken about the family lives of politicians. I'm sure they are away a lot during the election campaign but for the most part Trudeau is at home in Ottawa with his children every night and every weekend and Sophie is with them even more. They have lenghtly vacations. These children are not starved for the attention of their parents.

WWWTT

Ya you could be right! 

Mighty Middle

WWWTT wrote:

Now as far as Jagmeet is concerned, I'm not aware of his family (if he has a partner, children etc etc) I tried googling it but nothing comes up on my limited searches. It could be that he feels it would be unfair to ask of a partner to sacrifice for himself? Maybe he's not even interested in having a partner? So for me, Jagmeet is not sacrificing valuble family time to win political points.

He was asked about his relationship status on The Fifth Estate. He said he would not confirm nor deny that he is in a relationship, and said he would leave it at that.

Rev Pesky

From Mighty Middle:

He said he would not confirm nor deny that he is in a relationship, and said he would leave it at that.

That is a bit strange. I think most people wouldn't keep their relationships a secret. I can understand them not wanting to subject significant others to undue scrutiny, but 'no comment'? 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Mighty Middle:

He said he would not confirm nor deny that he is in a relationship, and said he would leave it at that.

That is a bit strange. I think most people wouldn't keep their relationships a secret. I can understand them not wanting to subject significant others to undue scrutiny, but 'no comment'? 

If he says yes people will try to find out who it is and how serious it is etc. If he says "no" they will start calling him an eligible bachelor and start speculating on who he might hook up with. "No comment" was perfect. It's none of our business if he is dating or not.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Mighty Middle:

He said he would not confirm nor deny that he is in a relationship, and said he would leave it at that.

That is a bit strange. I think most people wouldn't keep their relationships a secret. I can understand them not wanting to subject significant others to undue scrutiny, but 'no comment'? 

Yes, I find this quite odd. I'm surprised it hasn't been commented on or speculated about before now.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT, what, exactly is the potential you see in the idea-at least it looks like this is your suggestion-that the NDP focus on attacking Justin for being famous?   The guy was famous in 2015.  He was a creature of the media in 2015.  The voters knew that and didn't care.  How would reminding people of what they already knew and didn't find important make a difference in how people voted this time?

​Shouldn't the focus, instead of that, be on putting together a program of change that would win widespread support?

WWWTT

At this point in time, I'm going to have to give Jagmeet points for not bringing family into his political life!

As time goes on, Jagmeet's looking like a better and better leader!!!!!!!

He seems to be someone I can relate to, a person filled with love, hard working,high morals, clear vision, modest and a sexy man to boot! 

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT, what, exactly is the potential you see in the idea-at least it looks like this is your suggestion-that the NDP focus on attacking Justin for being famous?   The guy was famous in 2015.  He was a creature of the media in 2015.  The voters knew that and didn't care.  How would reminding people of what they already knew and didn't find important make a difference in how people voted this time?

​Shouldn't the focus, instead of that, be on putting together a program of change that would win widespread support?

I'm sorry brother. I don't want to advise the NDP on what their focus should be. I'm just commenting on the corporate media and how Justin is using this to promote his image.

Some of my personal experience is spilling out into this. Some years ago I was encouraged to persue union/Canadian politics, and I did, I was exposed to this real ugly side that really turned me off! In particular, there was an event, a fundraiser my wife and I were late for at the OAG Toronto. We were walking outside, my wife was three months pregnant and was complaining it was too cold and all I cared about was being late. Everything turned out good and she went full term. But I was an fucking asshole! Never again brother!

brookmere

WWWTT wrote:
At this point in time, I'm going to have to give Jagmeet points for not bringing family into his political life!

In fact his parents and brother have featured quite prominently in his political life and his leadership campaign.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

If he says yes people will try to find out who it is and how serious it is etc. If he says "no" they will start calling him an eligible bachelor and start speculating on who he might hook up with. "No comment" was perfect. It's none of our business if he is dating or not.

Normally, personal relationships are not a secret. If someone wanted to find out who was in a personal relationship with Jagmeet Singh (or anyone else for that matter) they wouldn't have a difficult time doing so. It seems a bit silly to do a 'no comment' when the answer to the question is probably pretty easy to find.

After all, he's not a blushing teen, he's 38 years old. Presumably he's had some sort of relationship with someone before now. If he's not in a relationship currently, he could just say so. If he is in a relationship, it would be an easy thing to find out who it was. Either way, 'no comment' seems a bit strange.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
After all, he's not a blushing teen, he's 38 years old. Presumably he's had some sort of relationship with someone before now. If he's not in a relationship currently, he could just say so. If he is in a relationship, it would be an easy thing to find out who it was. Either way, 'no comment' seems a bit strange.  

What I think is amusing is that this would probably cost him everything in the U.S.  He'd totally need to have a lovely wife, preferably with "bun in the oven" or else how could voters trust that he's not some polygamous hedonist?

Personally, I like that he had no comment.  Trudeau has a wife, and she gets ripped to shreds about it.  Why is the spouse of a politician so fascinating??  Even Michelle Obama felt the need to participate in the First Lady Bake-off.

WWWTT

brookmere wrote:

WWWTT wrote:
At this point in time, I'm going to have to give Jagmeet points for not bringing family into his political life!

In fact his parents and brother have featured quite prominently in his political life and his leadership campaign.

im not aware of that. I also failed some as well. I really meant partner. I still give him points because from my perspective he’s not trying to milk them for it

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
After all, he's not a blushing teen, he's 38 years old. Presumably he's had some sort of relationship with someone before now. If he's not in a relationship currently, he could just say so. If he is in a relationship, it would be an easy thing to find out who it was. Either way, 'no comment' seems a bit strange.  

What I think is amusing is that this would probably cost him everything in the U.S.  He'd totally need to have a lovely wife, preferably with "bun in the oven" or else how could voters trust that he's not some polygamous hedonist?

Personally, I like that he had no comment.  Trudeau has a wife, and she gets ripped to shreds about it.  Why is the spouse of a politician so fascinating??  Even Michelle Obama felt the need to participate in the First Lady Bake-off.

ya I think the turban would kill his political career in the US way before that. And not being white with a long beard?  I would think if voters in the US could get around the turban and not being white, then the partner thing would be a breeze. This may be the case for some Canadian voters. 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

After all, he's not a blushing teen, he's 38 years old. Presumably he's had some sort of relationship with someone before now. If he's not in a relationship currently, he could just say so. If he is in a relationship, it would be an easy thing to find out who it was. Either way, 'no comment' seems a bit strange.  

Why should he start discussing his love life with a reporter? If he wanted to share he would have done so already. Why didn't the reporter ask him what his position is on CETA ? Isn't that more important?

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

Why should he start discussing his love life with a reporter? If he wanted to share he would have done so already. Why didn't the reporter ask him what his position is on CETA ? Isn't that more important?

In fairness this was a half-hour behind the scenes look at his leadership run in documentary style. He was asked everything under the sun from policy to his background.

Rev Pesky

Well, my only take is I think it's an odd question to get shy about (for an almost 40-year old adult).

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy. In these uncertain and difficult economic times the government giving a tax cut like this to anyone who is not really struggling is a mistake. A bump in the basic exemption would have been a better move. But this is politics and the Liberals do not have the same priorities I have, despite thier rhetoric.

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy.

Then maybe the NDP should have focused on governing in the best interests of Canadians rather than priorizing making political points. It's because of that kind of behavior I realized the NDP is the NDPs priority  just like the Liberals and Conservatives.

The NDPs other big issue is Morneau who is now putting his holdings in a trust and selling his shares in his company. There is no evidence that he did anything illegal or shady. He was told he didn't need to put his holdings in a blind trust. Maybe he should have done so anyway but this is not a smoking gun that will outrage Canadians. It's a waste of time. There are bigger fish to fry.

Apparently these are the most important 2 issues facing Canada right now. They must think so otherwise why would they waste precious time on these issues rather than on the important ones. I would have loved to see Mulcair go all prosecutor on Trudeau over the ISDS clause in CETA. I'd settle for Nathan Cullen. I'm fairly certain I'll get nothing but I wish to be wrong. The majority of Canadians are against corporations having the right to sue governments. Why won't the NDP stand against it? I know they objected to it in the TPP but only in passing. I understand why they won't take a stand against all pipelines because it would hurt them electorally for nothing in return. Focusing attention on CETA and all the European opposition to the ISDS clause would be popular with Canadians. Why isn't the NDP making a huge noise over P3s and asking if provinces and cities can still get funding if they refuse to go P3?

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

I still like Jagmeet Singh and if the election were today I would definitely vote for him because of the three men on offer he is is the obvious choice.   I'm just really really disillusioned by the NDP. Hopefully he can restore my faith.

 

 

Mighty Middle

JKR wrote:

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering wrote:

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

After the electoral reform betrayal the NDP has no interest in supporting the Liberal agenda. From here on out it will be all opposition all the time. To damage the Liberals as much as possible. The Liberals knows there won't be any consensus from the NDP anymore. Nothing unites the NDP and Conservatives together than their hatred towards the Liberals. One of the reasons (not the main reason) the Liberals were out of power for ten years is that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton (later Tom Mulcair) worked together behind the scenes to supress the Liberals as much as possible, so they would be kept out of power. Will Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh do the same thing? Only time will tell.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy. In these uncertain and difficult economic times the government giving a tax cut like this to anyone who is not really struggling is a mistake. A bump in the basic exemption would have been a better move. But this is politics and the Liberals do not have the same priorities I have, despite thier rhetoric.

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

I agree. I think that some people think you are stronger by opposing everything but I think your opposition is also more potent if it is not a matter of course.

Being able to say yes to some thigns and no to others enhances credibility.

WWWTT

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering wrote:

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

After the electoral reform betrayal the NDP has no interest in supporting the Liberal agenda. From here on out it will be all opposition all the time. To damage the Liberals as much as possible. The Liberals knows there won't be any consensus from the NDP anymore. Nothing unites the NDP and Conservatives together than their hatred towards the Liberals. One of the reasons (not the main reason) the Liberals were out of power for ten years is that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton (later Tom Mulcair) worked together behind the scenes to supress the Liberals as much as possible, so they would be kept out of power. Will Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh do the same thing? Only time will tell.

The NDP will do what's in the best interests of Canadians. Period.

Go after the corporations, make them pay their fare share! Until then, stop making everyone else in Canada pay for corporate greed!

Furthermore, if I was to do an actual search of all the bills either house is looking at at whatever stage, and researched who voted which way, I don't think I would find the NDP along with the other parties co operating somewhere.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy.

Then maybe the NDP should have focused on governing in the best interests of Canadians rather than priorizing making political points. It's because of that kind of behavior I realized the NDP is the NDPs priority  just like the Liberals and Conservatives.

The NDPs other big issue is Morneau who is now putting his holdings in a trust and selling his shares in his company. There is no evidence that he did anything illegal or shady. He was told he didn't need to put his holdings in a blind trust. Maybe he should have done so anyway but this is not a smoking gun that will outrage Canadians. It's a waste of time. There are bigger fish to fry.

Apparently these are the most important 2 issues facing Canada right now. They must think so otherwise why would they waste precious time on these issues rather than on the important ones. I would have loved to see Mulcair go all prosecutor on Trudeau over the ISDS clause in CETA. I'd settle for Nathan Cullen. I'm fairly certain I'll get nothing but I wish to be wrong. The majority of Canadians are against corporations having the right to sue governments. Why won't the NDP stand against it? I know they objected to it in the TPP but only in passing. I understand why they won't take a stand against all pipelines because it would hurt them electorally for nothing in return. Focusing attention on CETA and all the European opposition to the ISDS clause would be popular with Canadians. Why isn't the NDP making a huge noise over P3s and asking if provinces and cities can still get funding if they refuse to go P3?

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

I still like Jagmeet Singh and if the election were today I would definitely vote for him because of the three men on offer he is is the obvious choice.   I'm just really really disillusioned by the NDP. Hopefully he can restore my faith.

 

 

I do think the NDP's interest is being selective. Support for closing loopholes could have been a yes and reduction of small business tax a no. We agree generally there.

However, I disagree on the issue of Morneau although I have some understanding for him and see the possibility that this was not all done intentionally.

The problem with Morneau is that he made a public statement about his business interests and how he would handle them, and then he made policy changes that affected those interests resulting in profit without letting the public know the status of his position about his assets had changed. This may have been legal but it was very bad politics and misleading. If he found he did not have to do what he said he would, he could have stated publicly this decision. Instead, he said one thing and did another about an issue of an apparent conflict of interest. It does not matter if the thing he did was legal -- his not correcting his previous intentions remains a serious problem.

His statement, that was no longer true, led people to not look at his potential conflict when he made decisions. Then he has compounded the issue telling journalists that he does not report to them. This comes across as arrogant since journalists are considered the tool of public interest and he is accountable to the public -- or should be. Maybe he had a bad day but no politician should say such a stupid thing to a reporter.

The issue is not that he asked for and took the advice of the ethics czar. The problem is that he said he would do one thing and did another. The legality is a red herring -- people are claiming he was not upfront, forthcoming and honest and had misled people about what he was doing. He is hiding behind a technical legality here.

Still, I do not think this is a career ender for him, yet, but if he continues to show uncontrolled anger at why reporters, on behalf of the Canadian public, will ask questions about this it may be. He was on a better track when he was apologizing and saying that he ought to have done better.

Significantly, he has the political optics problem of the profit he made when he directed the public, perhaps inadvertently, away from an interest he had. This $2 million is a significant problem. I think this amount is worth less than his political career and if he wants to put this behind him he could have that profit audited to determine exactly what amount came as a result of his decision and consider making a donation of it somewhere. It is a lot of money but the profit he made while he left Canadians thinking he was not invested in the decision, will be a millstone around his neck otherwise.

If we assume that he did not do this intentionally, and we have no perfect evidence either way, he still has the result and benefit and the problem that he was very naïve. Ethics is not always about the letter of the law but also what you say and do and making a result right when you make a mistake. What he does now will decide if he will end up going back to the private sector or continue to have a viable public career. It is not worth it for him to hang on to this benefit.

It is true that if he had not misled the public about what he was doing (by correcting the information when it changed), and the public had not complained, he would not be in this position. Even if he had corrected the record and weathered the storm, he would not be in this position. Trying to hide behind the legality of his position does not change the apparent deception. He ought to have gone public at the time saying “Ms. Dawson has advised a better course and I am taking it.”

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering wrote:

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

After the electoral reform betrayal the NDP has no interest in supporting the Liberal agenda. From here on out it will be all opposition all the time. To damage the Liberals as much as possible. The Liberals knows there won't be any consensus from the NDP anymore. Nothing unites the NDP and Conservatives together than their hatred towards the Liberals. One of the reasons (not the main reason) the Liberals were out of power for ten years is that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton (later Tom Mulcair) worked together behind the scenes to supress the Liberals as much as possible, so they would be kept out of power. Will Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh do the same thing? Only time will tell.

There is a lot of BS and propaganda here. Mulcair was running against the Liberals and that was his job. This was not a conspiracy. Liberals need to learn to get over that.

The only thing that unites the NDP and the Conservatives is the illusion of Liberals. Each party is in it for themselves and each hates the other to some degree. The Liberals and the NDP are united in their hatred of the Conservatives, although Liberals find this politically not as useful as advancing conspiracies.

All parties will happily screw any of the others if they get a benefit. That is their job. They also work with the other parties at times if they see an advantage. The Liberals hate the Conservatives, but the will be quite happy getting together for a moment to screw the NDP if they can.

The problem with this Liberal presumption that the NDP is their toy for their benefit and they get really insulted when the NDP shows it is an independent party doing what is in its interest and does not see things according to the Liberal "masters."

The only reason I think the NDP should agree with Liberal policies once in a while is for their benefit. The NDP owes the Liberals nothing and they have been screwing each other over for years. Both parties recognize that increasingly they are competing for the same pool of anti-conservative voters. The stench of entitlement from Liberals and their posters here is why NDP supporters here often are angrier with the Liberals than the Conservatives.

I really dislike NDP supporters calling the Liberals and the Conservatives the same as they are not. But the NDP and the Liberals are just as far apart and the presumptions of common cause, and the need to get together, from Liberals stinks. It is legitimate for the NDP to recognize that it is different, that it has a legitimate desire for power and that the means to execute it would involve winning over Liberal support on the way to confronting the Conservatives. Neither the NDP or the Liberals are viable against the Conservatives unless they have won the first battle with each other. Liberals pretending otherwise is a perception of entitlement and delegitimizing the NDP of having the same ambition to advance policy that the Liberals show. and the Liberals are certainly aggressive to the NDP.

 

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a lot of BS and propaganda here. Mulcair was running against the Liberals and that was his job. This was not a conspiracy. Liberals need to learn to get over that.

How soon you forget Harper and Mulcair working together to kill the network televised debate in 2015. 

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Mighty Middle

This just in - Jagmeet Singh has just resigned his MPP seat in the Ontario Legislature,

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a lot of BS and propaganda here. Mulcair was running against the Liberals and that was his job. This was not a conspiracy. Liberals need to learn to get over that.

How soon you forget Harper and Mulcair working together to kill the network televised debate in 2015. 

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Are you being annoying on purpose?

I said the parties regularly work in their own self interest. They did not "work together" they did agree on a policy that I was against. Every time I agree with someone it does not make me part of a conspiracy with that person. Also when they do work together on a given objective this is also normal.

For your information I spend a lot of time working with Parliamentarians. Four parties work together on the thing I work on. It is not a conspiracy. It just means members from these parties agree and have this common objective.

Liberals need to stop assuming that they and only they have a legimiate right to agree with another party on something.

As I said on this Mulcair was wrong. -- I was quite upset with some of his positions starting then but the fact that he agreed with Harper is not itself a valid criticism -- and not a conspiracy. Perhaps the two each had their own reasons not to want losts of debates. At the time they took this position they were each other's greatest threat.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a lot of BS and propaganda here. Mulcair was running against the Liberals and that was his job. This was not a conspiracy. Liberals need to learn to get over that.

How soon you forget Harper and Mulcair working together to kill the network televised debate in 2015. 

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

If you hate it when people are rude to you consider the fact that this denial- nile comment is extremely rude. You are not  the person to decide what soemone's motivation is. You disagree fine but claiming the other person is in denial as you do often is arrogant and ignorant and it can only lead to a complete lack of respect for yourself. You might want to ask yourself what you think you gain by putting that at the end of any post.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

This just in - Jagmeet Singh has just resigned his MPP seat in the Ontario Legislature,

This was needed. He probably had an obligation to discuss the timing with his provincial leader and has done so.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you hate it when people are rude to you consider the fact that this denial- nile comment is extremely rude.

Says the person who said of Justin Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

And you don't think that is rude? Remember what they say about what you write online. If can't say it to someone's face, you shouldn't write it online.

So Sean in Ottawa would you say any of that above to Justin Trudeau face?

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you hate it when people are rude to you consider the fact that this denial- nile comment is extremely rude.

Says the person who said of Justin Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

And you don't think that is rude? Remember what they say about what you write online. If can't say it to someone's face, you shouldn't write it online.

So Sean in Ottawa would you say any of that above to Justin Trudeau face?

Opinions about wealthy political people are a little different here than how you talk to people directly in conversation. But ittle point answering much here as you are very obviously trolling rather than interested in engaging in any real conversations. Perhaps at some point you will get sick of this and engage in a different way.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy. In these uncertain and difficult economic times the government giving a tax cut like this to anyone who is not really struggling is a mistake. A bump in the basic exemption would have been a better move. But this is politics and the Liberals do not have the same priorities I have, despite thier rhetoric.

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

I agree. I think that some people think you are stronger by opposing everything but I think your opposition is also more potent if it is not a matter of course.

Being able to say yes to some thigns and no to others enhances credibility.

The NDP seems to have difficulty deciding what to support and what to oppose because it does not seem to have a firm self-identity. The Conservatives on the other hand have a strong self-identity which makes it easy for them to react to situations. Conservative supporters and the public at large also have a clear idea of where the Conservatives stand. The Liberals identity is to be the party of the mushy middle between the Conservatives and NDP so being confused does not seem to hurt the Liberals. The NDP is the party to the left of the Liberals but the NDP's target voter is similar to the Liberals which complicates things for the NDP when it comes to determining their identity and thus what to support and what to oppose. Our FPTP system is at the heart of this conundrum as it forces the NDP to appeal to the median voter along with the Liberals. The Conservatives on the other hand are able to win elections by just aiming their appeal to right of centre voters. This whole process leaves left of centre voters out in the cold. The solution to this problem would be electoral reform but unfortunately the Liberals benefit from the status quo while the NDP is in no position to implement electoral reform. The best case scenario for the NDP and the left, now that the NDP has fallen into their traditional 3rd place spot, seems to be holding the Liberals to a minority. The worst case scenario is the Conservatives becoming government again with little over 1/3rd of the vote made up mostly of their core right wing supporters. It will be interesting to see how electoral reform is handled by the parties and advocacy groups going into the 2019 election. 

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Opinions about wealthy political people are a little different here than how you talk to people directly in conversation. But ittle point answering much here as you are very obviously trolling rather than interested in engaging in any real conversations. Perhaps at some point you will get sick of this and engage in a different way.

Sean in Ottawa Translation  "Do as I say, not as I do"

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Opinions about wealthy political people are a little different here than how you talk to people directly in conversation. But ittle point answering much here as you are very obviously trolling rather than interested in engaging in any real conversations. Perhaps at some point you will get sick of this and engage in a different way.

Sean in Ottawa Translation  "Do as I say, not as I do"

You are behaving as a troll and that is what you should expect to be called. I have presented opinons and you know exactly nothing about me and what I do.

You are the only severly negative force here comign on here only to pick fights.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are behaving as a troll and that is what you should expect to be called. I have presented opinons and you know exactly nothing about me and what I do.

You are the only severly negative force here comign on here only to pick fights.

"The man doth protest too much, methinks"

Especially since it was you who started this fight by responding to something rather innocuous that I wrote about (Mulcair & Harper working together in 2015).

If you notice no one else has called me out on that except YOU. And you say I'm deliberately starting fights, when it was you and only you who decided to make it an issue?

But then again you are the same person who compared Justin Trudeau to a poodle, and you call others a troll?

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. If you don't, then you only have yourself to blame for reading something that is just going to get under your skin. Cause I'm not going away.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. 

That's what I do, except when I can't resist mocking him. I agree that we should all just ignore the former TerryTowel, now  known as Mighty Middle.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. 

That's what I do, except when I can't resist mocking him. I agree that we should all just ignore the former TerryTowel, now  known as Mighty Middle.

In a screenplay, that would be called "the reveal".  How did you figure out who he was?

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. 

That's what I do, except when I can't resist mocking him. I agree that we should all just ignore the former TerryTowel, now  known as Mighty Middle.

In a screenplay, that would be called "the reveal".  How did you figure out who he was?

If both of you say that you "skip" over my posts, why did you respond to my latest reply? Saying one thing and then doing something else,

I don't know who this "Terrytowel" is. If you are so convinced we are one in the same, then by all means please report me to the mods. If you are so convinced, please provide proof.

Here is Meg's email meg@rabble.ca . Drop her a line to report me to the mods (if you are so convinced I'm this "terrytowel") and post your letter to Meg here that you reported me for this "impersonation" (which is false)

Put up or shut up.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is true that if he had not misled the public about what he was doing (by correcting the information when it changed), and the public had not complained, he would not be in this position. Even if he had corrected the record and weathered the storm, he would not be in this position. Trying to hide behind the legality of his position does not change the apparent deception. He ought to have gone public at the time saying “Ms. Dawson has advised a better course and I am taking it.”

I don't care a hoot about Morneau. For the sake of argument, lets say the situation is even worse and it is proven that he actually did something illegal or at least bad enough that he has to be replaced. What difference would it make? He would just be replaced by someone who would promote the same policies.

We had a decade of Harper doing the most outrageous horrible things and in the end he got a majority. Even electoral fraud didn't touch him. Even after the Duffy bribery he still could have won in 2015. He was in first place at one point. Prove Trudeau is bad bad bad. He will still be re-elected unless another party convinces Canadians they can do a better job on the economy. It's not enough to prove the NDP could do just as good a job.

Get rid of Morneau, he will just be replaced with someone who will follow the same policies. It won't taint Trudeau. The NDP will be no farther ahead. Do you sincerely believe that in 2019 you will be able to point at Morneau as a means of swaying voters?

From Trudeau's perspective as long as the NDP is focused on that it is not focused on anything big that actually could cause problems for him in 2019. It's a long shot but if people actually understood P3s and the infrastructure bank do you think they would be happy? CETA? These are the kinds of issues that could sway voters if they understood them a little. All they need to understand is that they are being ripped off.

The NDP has very little air time and voters have a very short memory and even shorter attention span.

The divisions of left right and centre are meaningless. There is no large chunk of centre left voters being split between the Liberals and NDP. There is a big chunk of socially liberal voters that want economic stability and a path to success for themselves and their family and friends. They want a nice safe place to live and good health care, good schools, places to shop, etc. They don't care if Trudeau is a liar.

The Conservatives snap up all the social conservatives and economic libertarians. I think they are vulnerable on the social conservatives side. The Conservatives talk a good game but they don't really do anything for them. Many social conservatives are good people that also care about other issues, like the environment and poverty. They are not all like the idiots on message boards. There are the missionary types. There are the types that run soup kitchens and run charity drives or sew quilts etc. They genuinely do want to do the right thing.

Focus has to be on 99% issues. For example, as a platform item I would double the size of the auditor general and create a sister department charged with recommending systemic improvements. Privatizing has not saved the government any money.

I would pledge to try to remove the clauses in trade deals that allow corporations to sue the government in existing deals and to refuse them in new trade deals such as CETA and TPP explaining that there is lots of resistance in other countries too. I would pledge to include union representatives in trade negotiations. That would sew up every union vote in the country and have them campaigning full steam.

Start calling "medicare" "socialist medicare" and add socialist drug coverage.

I would suggest we change the name of Canada Post to Canada Communications and classify cell and internet as basic citizen services like roads and schools and anything else that everyone needs.

I could keep going but I think you get my drift.  I'm not saying adopt my specific ideas. I'm saying to mentally change your approach to addressing concrete high-impact changes you could make that most voters would understand and quickly support and that would be easy to defend. Nevermind left right and centre. Unless it's BIG ignore Trudeau. After decades under neoliberalism choose a few high impact yet feasible changes that would improve the lives of most Canadians.

Putting Sheer, Trudeau, and Singh next to one other leaves Singh the clear choice to me because he is the better man. It would be nice if other Canadians were like me and could just see it but I doubt that will happen. He's goingt to have to work to prove he can do a better job leading the economy. Even I will want to know that the NDP has the skill to run the economy not just good morals.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is true that if he had not misled the public about what he was doing (by correcting the information when it changed), and the public had not complained, he would not be in this position. Even if he had corrected the record and weathered the storm, he would not be in this position. Trying to hide behind the legality of his position does not change the apparent deception. He ought to have gone public at the time saying “Ms. Dawson has advised a better course and I am taking it.”

I don't care a hoot about Morneau. For the sake of argument, lets say the situation is even worse and it is proven that he actually did something illegal or at least bad enough that he has to be replaced. What difference would it make? He would just be replaced by someone who would promote the same policies.

We had a decade of Harper doing the most outrageous horrible things and in the end he got a majority. Even electoral fraud didn't touch him. Even after the Duffy bribery he still could have won in 2015. He was in first place at one point. Prove Trudeau is bad bad bad. He will still be re-elected unless another party convinces Canadians they can do a better job on the economy. It's not enough to prove the NDP could do just as good a job.

Get rid of Morneau, he will just be replaced with someone who will follow the same policies. It won't taint Trudeau. The NDP will be no farther ahead. Do you sincerely believe that in 2019 you will be able to point at Morneau as a means of swaying voters?

From Trudeau's perspective as long as the NDP is focused on that it is not focused on anything big that actually could cause problems for him in 2019. It's a long shot but if people actually understood P3s and the infrastructure bank do you think they would be happy? CETA? These are the kinds of issues that could sway voters if they understood them a little. All they need to understand is that they are being ripped off.

The NDP has very little air time and voters have a very short memory and even shorter attention span.

The divisions of left right and centre are meaningless. There is no large chunk of centre left voters being split between the Liberals and NDP. There is a big chunk of socially liberal voters that want economic stability and a path to success for themselves and their family and friends. They want a nice safe place to live and good health care, good schools, places to shop, etc. They don't care if Trudeau is a liar.

The Conservatives snap up all the social conservatives and economic libertarians. I think they are vulnerable on the social conservatives side. The Conservatives talk a good game but they don't really do anything for them. Many social conservatives are good people that also care about other issues, like the environment and poverty. They are not all like the idiots on message boards. There are the missionary types. There are the types that run soup kitchens and run charity drives or sew quilts etc. They genuinely do want to do the right thing.

Focus has to be on 99% issues. For example, as a platform item I would double the size of the auditor general and create a sister department charged with recommending systemic improvements. Privatizing has not saved the government any money.

I would pledge to try to remove the clauses in trade deals that allow corporations to sue the government in existing deals and to refuse them in new trade deals such as CETA and TPP explaining that there is lots of resistance in other countries too. I would pledge to include union representatives in trade negotiations. That would sew up every union vote in the country and have them campaigning full steam.

Start calling "medicare" "socialist medicare" and add socialist drug coverage.

I would suggest we change the name of Canada Post to Canada Communications and classify cell and internet as basic citizen services like roads and schools and anything else that everyone needs.

I could keep going but I think you get my drift.  I'm not saying adopt my specific ideas. I'm saying to mentally change your approach to addressing concrete high-impact changes you could make that most voters would understand and quickly support and that would be easy to defend. Nevermind left right and centre. Unless it's BIG ignore Trudeau. After decades under neoliberalism choose a few high impact yet feasible changes that would improve the lives of most Canadians.

Putting Sheer, Trudeau, and Singh next to one other leaves Singh the clear choice to me because he is the better man. It would be nice if other Canadians were like me and could just see it but I doubt that will happen. He's goingt to have to work to prove he can do a better job leading the economy. Even I will want to know that the NDP has the skill to run the economy not just good morals.

There are things here I agree very strongly with and things I do not.

The most important of all the things you raise is the idea of having Canada Post take on communication. This is a very good idea for a number of reasons and I think it would be good if you opened a thread to discuss it. It is too important to be left buried in a rebuttal.

The second proposal about the auditor is also something I agree with, although I think the problem is related to how we audit as much as how much. The audit parameters must be laid out in proposed legislation. Governments should declare who would get the benefits of a policy and who would pay the costs, what the specific measurable progress ought to be and what the risks are. If the auditor lays these out in advance you have an audit after the fact that is tracking the same issue as were declared before and the objectives are clearer. In the US they have non-partisan audit services capable to advise both parties of impacts prior to legislation being passed. This system is not perfect but we need something that is better than that. Presently we do not have much in this direction. It is left to the media and non-government sources to take an interest and they frequently lack the access to the information, budget or interest to do this well.

Your proposal to include unions in trade deals is solid.

I was speaking about Morneau's career as finance minister. I would always care about the position of the finance minister of the country. First there can be national economic implications if one is severely damaged. Secondly, I disagree with you -- I think here would be significant political fallout if he were to become more damaged. first it will lead to greater scrutiny of more specific policies. The Liberals on economics are always in a risky position and can be attacked from left and right and the policies of this particular government can be and are, even if it is unclear now who may benefit. Discrediting this finance minister is especially problematic because there is a third issue at play here. This government did not just win over current voters, it brought many idealistic voters to the polls for the first time. One issue alone would not be enough to have them not show up but this is one of several. In this context the government is more vulnerable than it otherwise would be. Studies of the last election have attempted to examine what the result of the last election would have been without that significant bump by new voters. More than a few have suggested that there would be a minority government today without it. They need to give a reason for those people to come out again.

As for the difference if Morneau were to be replaced—there are potential differences. The Liberals are not the Conservatives and they have a wide area they can be convinced to tread. If they lost this minister they could be liable to create policies to shore up one or the other side of their support.

The side they choose involves some calculations on their part. They may conclude that the Conservatives are only a threat if they lose significant support to the NDP and are falling in the polls. Otherwise they can be managed with a campaign that points to the social conservatism and extreme nature. Such a campaign is less likely to work if the Liberals are bleeding to the NDP. A forced change in finance ministers, might provide an opportunity to address issue relating to people falling out of the middle class to the bottom as we have seen from recent statistics. It is true the Conservatives would never do this but the Liberals when pushed hard enough could. A strong NDP and damaged Finance Minister could create that perfect storm.

You are making a mistake to assume all parties are equally vulnerable, or have equal opportunity, in certain situations. Each parties have a different complexion of available voters motivated for different reasons. Conservative voters get motivated by fear, what they see as economic prudence and self-interest. Their self-interest tends to turn to taxes, economic stability and forestalling change. This will trump petty scandals. Liberal and NDP voters have a different set of motivating factors and, yes, they share some of them. These include government making society better, (Conservatives do not see government as an engine for that and tend to view scandals as part of the problem of governance amid the lack of trust of government). This making society better is steeped in greater idealism and also practical when it comes to programs and employment etc. It may be unfair but I think the NDP and Liberal voters have a lower tolerance for scandals, particularly certain ones that speak to mistrust of government. You see, they benefit by mistrust of government whereas the ideology of Liberals and very much of the NDP requires greater trust in government. Not all of this is conscious.

So I disagree that proving Trudeau bad would be as electorally benign as proving Trudeau or any NDP as bad. The Conservatives are way better than the other parties on this, although the Liberals have been catching up. They understand that the rules for one party are not the same for another because each party needs a certain main voter to support them. The swing voter is important but in recent years the number of voters who may not vote at all will decide more than the small number who will actually switch parties. The Conservatives, in terms of actual voters probably track in a range no bigger than 10% between them and the Liberals or rarely the NDP. The NDP and Liberals in recent years may fight over a number greater than that, in part because they each view the other as a compromise if the first cannot get elected. I think with electoral reform the track could also drop to no more than 10%. The reason the number may look greater involves smaller parties but is more a function of getting people inspired to vote at all. What this means is if you have a swing for each party, of 10% leaning but unreliable voters and this group will be more significant given the previous numbers will always spilt, even if unevenly.

I also disagree that left centre and right are meaningless. People say this because they are not perfect splits but if you look at driving policies these are very strong indicators of where people will be. It is popular to question left right and centre but it is a division replicated around the world in politics because it does represent huge blocks of voters. I think where you are on the spectrum will decide largely your reaction to proposals such as yours. Some in the centre can go both ways but the ideology of the right would not even start to consider proposals. You need to understand what the Conservatives mean by the nanny state: they mean that the government should not and cannot make social and economic change and should merely provide an environment for others (mostly business) to do that.

I think you misunderstand Conservative voters. They may care about certain things but there are obstacles for them to support change in government, generally they tend to mistrust both change and government in general as agents of progress. This, to me is what makes them Conservative. This is why populism is quite extreme on the right when it appears and it does not look like mainstream conservatism. It is incorrect to call this as if it is a matter of degrees as it can be argued on the left.

I am not going to say one person is better than another between the leaders because this is not a friend competition. Singh is the best FOR ME because he is most likely to do the things I want to see done. Morals are principles and the public does not have a common set. We agree on some and not others.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. 

That's what I do, except when I can't resist mocking him. I agree that we should all just ignore the former TerryTowel, now  known as Mighty Middle.

In a screenplay, that would be called "the reveal".  How did you figure out who he was?

If both of you say that you "skip" over my posts, why did you respond to my latest reply? Saying one thing and then doing something else,

I don't know who this "Terrytowel" is. If you are so convinced we are one in the same, then by all means please report me to the mods. If you are so convinced, please provide proof.

Here is Meg's email meg@rabble.ca . Drop her a line to report me to the mods (if you are so convinced I'm this "terrytowel") and post your letter to Meg here that you reported me for this "impersonation" (which is false)

Put up or shut up.

Note the hypocrisy:

We have a person who engages with people and attacks them but encourages them to ignore his attacks which he keeps on doing. What he wants is a policy where he attacks and people either agree or say nothing. If he truly wants a policy of ignore then let him start that.  People only challenge him when he is going after someone. His prescription of ignoring is somethign he can do anytime and these comments would stop since they are all in response to recent atttacks made by him.

I do not care if he is Terry Towel or not. He has the same style and behaves in the same way. This is why he can be treated the same. He may be a new troll or the same old troll -- what is the difference?

I hate it when people call others trolls here but sometimes you have to label the behaviour. He has a habit of needling and if you look at his contribution here it is exclusively that. He posts to aggrivate and further his agenda, he does not consdier and respond or post ideas -- just partisan and personal attacks.

Others may engage in partisan or personal attacks at times-- especiall when pushed by someone doing this but the difference is that this is all he does and is his apparent purpose here. While most do not enjoy this kind of exchange he has nothing but this kind of exchange.

And if he is Terry Towel, then things are getting worse since Terry Towel once in a while put up a real idea and MM never ever does,

Mighty Middle

Once again Jagmeet Singh says he would BEAT Justin Trudeau in a one on one cage match

"I'd win hands down. I've been a lifelong student of martial arts, I've been training and competing, I've competing in full contact competitions since a young age… it would be an easy fight for me."

And would he actually go head-to-head with Trudeau if he had the chance?

"Oh yeah," said Singh. "But I don't think he'd take it up."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jagmeet-singh-trudeau-cage-fight-a...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"I'd win hands down. I've been a lifelong student of martial arts, I've been training and competing, I've competing in full contact competitions since a young age… it would be an easy fight for me."

That's what you posted.

Here's what CBC said:

Quote:
"I'd win hands down. I've been a lifelong student of martial arts, I've been training and competing, I've competed in full contact competitions since a young age… it would be an easy fight for me."

Does your clipboard not work right?  How could you copy and paste what Singh said with a typo?

I'm not accusing you of evil here.  But I don't understand how you could copy and paste a quote and it ends up wrong.

You don't just "re-type" things, do you?

 

cco

A more probable hypothesis is that the CBC article, when originally posted, contained that typo, and that in between MM's post and your loading of the article, a CBC editor corrected it.

Mighty Middle

cco wrote:

A more probable hypothesis is that the CBC article, when originally posted, contained that typo, and that in between MM's post and your loading of the article, a CBC editor corrected it.

Yeah that is probably what happened, thanks for solving the mystery cco

Pages