Trudeau's Taj Mahal foppery

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
indigo 007 indigo 007's picture
Trudeau's Taj Mahal foppery

 Trudeau is a self-deposing leader with no credibility... https://canadianviews-ymo.ca/trudeaus-taj-mahal-foppery/

6079_Smith_W

You know, if people are going to take issue with the term "Zoolander" as a homophobic reference, "fop" is far moreso.

 

NDPP
6079_Smith_W

Yes, I know what the dictionary definition is NDPP. The connection is made more explicitly here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop

But really, it is an observation on the hullaballoo over Charlie Angus calling him Zoolander. I have already said what I thought about that. If that is enough to raise objections why is no one losing their mind over this?

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I certainly wouldn't say "Trudeau and family did exactly what I think they should have.

But as with so much "objective and realistic" political commentary today, I also doubt that the people most up on their hind legs about this were former supporters who -- now, and only because of this -- find themselves unable to continue to support Trudeau and his party.

It's probably a bit silly, though, so a good opportunity to dislike the guy if you already disliked the guy.

Unionist

Why are people posting in this spam thread? Please ask the moderators to stop indigo 007 (Billyard) from posting his clickbait here. It's disrespectful of our forum.

WWWTT

Hi Unionist what’s the matter? Someone started a thread and people are commenting. Isn’t that how these forums work? I thought spam threads are topics that out of context of the direction of the forum.  Now indigo 007 may not be contributing beyond starting a thread and posting a related link(from the same site all the time) but I’m not really sure what she’s done is really breaking rules?

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

Hi Unionist what’s the matter? Someone started a thread and people are commenting. Isn’t that how these forums work? I thought spam threads are topics that out of context of the direction of the forum.  Now indigo 007 may not be contributing beyond starting a thread and posting a related link(from the same site all the time) but I’m not really sure what she’s done is really breaking rules?

A few weeks back, I asked the mods for a ruling on these threads, and MegB, I believe, posted something to the effect of "Indigo, just to remind you, babble is not intended for individual self-promotion." I don't think it was any stronger than that, no cease-or-be-banned ultimatums etc.

My own view is that indigo's threads are problematic, if for no other reason than allowing them sets a bad precedent if other political bloggers want to come here and post click-bait without making any contribution to the discussion. BUT...

If the mods aren't willing to make it clear to him that continued spamming will be followed by a banning, well, then we can assume they're comfortable with what he's doing, and the rest of us shouldn't feel guilty about discussing the topics that indigo posts. Now with THAT being said...

Mods:

You can interpret my second paragraph above as indicating that I think indigo needs to be shown the door if he continues spamming the board. However, if he is allowed to stay, I will happily discuss any thread topics of his that may interest me.

 

voice of the damned

I've PMed this thread to the mods.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Delusion is the only word I can think of that accurately sums up a lot of people who have a problem with Trudeau simply from his Indian vacation. It's mostly the usual suspects (partisan NDP'ers and Cons) that have been raving and quite frankly dreaming that somehow something as trivial as what a for he appeared to be in traditional dress. 

For most,the majority,of would be voters,it's POLICY that matters. I don't vote over a trivial faux-pas. I vote based on policy.

The Liberals will be in power after the election in 2019. The 2 other leaders are weak sauce. But I'd say the only reason Singh is weak right now is that he only has a year or so to be acquainted with the electorate. He's got to sell his policies.  At the end of the day,voters will make their decisions based on that. It's also the economy. And our economy is not yet a complete disaster.

So this notion that Trudeau's misadventures in India have destroyed the Liberal party is wishful thinking and delusion.

WWWTT

@VOTD

thanks for your input on this.  But it sounds that even by your admission that indigo isn’t really or shouldn’t be banned or barred from continuing. I should also point out that there are still posters that want to engage in debate in this thread(see Alan Smithee comments above and even ours). There are better examples of actual spamming that’s going on right now in this forum that the mods will deal with when they get the chance. Sorry but I disagree with Our brother Unionist about this and feel that if other posters want to contribute into a thread that indigo started, then this is evidence that indigo made a significant contribution and should remain. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Sorry but I disagree with Our brother Unionist about this and feel that if other posters want to contribute into a thread that indigo started, then this is evidence that indigo made a significant contribution and should remain.

The bulk of those "contributions", in this and similar threads, seem to be asking why, when rabble could use more advertising revenues, it should continue to give some blogger some free blog-bait, pro bono.

Babble shouldn't ever be the "free soapbox of last resort" for those who have ZERO interest in babble otherwise.

Our resident habitual bloggers have been invited, many times, to participate in the community we call babble, but evidently we're not of interest.  If you think rabble.ca should just be a free host, say why.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I just think people are making a bigger deal about this than it is. I really don't see the Liberals,as a party, have been destroyed by it.

Trudeau got blasted over wearing traditional Indian clothing. Yes,he looked like an idiot but this has been blown out of proportion mostly be people who would never vote for that party in the first place.

Let's get back to policy. Calling Trudeau names like Angus did is not going to win elections. Policy will and the economy will.

Threads pointing out how much of a fucking idiot Trudeau looked like in India is a waste of time. At the end of the day,I don't see it destroying the Liberal party. It will take much more than that to do it.

So this thread (as much as I hear it is spam because the OP is promoting themselves) does not bother me. If people want to engage in conversation in any thread,let it be.

MegB

Thanks for alterting me to this VOTD. I've looked at the link posted by indigo 007 and while it is, in my opinion, crap, it's not spam. People are responding with some intelligent insight, so it'll stay (as will indigo 007).

As for terms like "Zoolander" and "foppery" being anti-gay slurs, I'd like to hear someone from the LGBTQ2+ communities weigh in. I'm not convinced they are.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I actually think that Sophie looked lovely in a sari.

it could be that Trudeau dressed like he did in order to get publicity in India. It was a way to get his  name and visit in the front headlines.

Remember he was not greeted by the Indian PM when he arrived which is normal protocol. His visit was not considered a high priority in India obviously,  so if he got publicity by doing this then his motives paid off because we are still talking about it and his trip is already over.

that makes what he did a success.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Who said that Justin Trudeau could not outdress Jagmeet Singh?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

MegB wrote:

Thanks for alterting me to this VOTD. I've looked at the link posted by indigo 007 and while it is, in my opinion, crap, it's not spam. People are responding with some intelligent insight, so it'll stay (as will indigo 007).

As for terms like "Zoolander" and "foppery" being anti-gay slurs, I'd like to hear someone from the LGBTQ2+ communities weigh in. I'm not convinced they are.

Ask and ye shall receive. When I saw the original comment (in the other thread) questioning whether Angus' Zoolander comment might have an "undertone" of homophobia I must admit I indulged in a certain amount of eye rolling and head shaking... although I would be quick to point out that even the original poster, by putting the word arguably in "scare quotes", recognized this might be stretching things a bit. Personally I found the use of the word "fop" to be much more accurate and cutting than "Zoolander" but in neither case were my homophobia senses tingling.

While Zoolander is hardly the most memorable of movies, and unlikely to ever make any top ten list other than the Razzies, any accusation of homophobia against it should be phrased in terms of it being so damn heteronormative and exclusionary. As I said it is hardly a memorable movie, but if I remember correctly the closest it comes to suggesting that anything other than being on the "straight and narrow" might be happening is a drug induced hallucination/dream scene between the protagonist and his nemisis.

If the movie is at any point "skating on thin ice" it does so by flipping conventional gender stereotypes - something it did for what I would hope were satirical purposes. Being quite comfortably ensconced in a relatively traditional gender role (well apart from the whole same-sex attraction thingy) I am not sure I could defend Angus' "Zoolander" comment on the basis that it was not somehow insulting to the gender fluid or non-binary communities and perhaps someone from those communities will weigh in on the matter. That being said, I would probably still indulge in a lot of eye rolling and head shaking were they to use the terminology "homophobic" or "anti-gay", my justification for that indulgence being that, in my reading, the terms relate to sexual orientation rather than gender identity.

It strikes me that what is being asserted by the use of either "Zoolander" or "fop" is that that there is a hell of a lot of narcissism on display by Mssr. Trudeau with his diving into the Tickle Trunk and coming back out in what is supposed to pass as "native" attire (somewhat forgiveable for someone strictly being a tourist, less so for someone on an official tour as head of government). Unless one is asserting that narcissism is somehow an essential characteristic of the alphabet soup communities, using either term to take a shot at Trudeau the lesser is more of a personal insult than an anti-gay slur.

From the broadcast footage I have seen of the Trudeau trip to India, I would reserve any condemnation I might make for Trudeau the lesser's attempt at "busting a move" to the bhangra music that was being played while he was up on a podium. I understand that the music is infectious, and I am also quite sure that north Indian culture is sufficiently robust to survive the attempt at cultural appropriation his movements might have constituted. I would condemn him for his failure to commit to the dance moves, for being so damn tentative in his moves and reinforcing the stereotype that "white guys can't dance". If you are going to "bust a move" at least commit to it... like Robin Dunne did in the second season of the series Sanctuary (see link below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2dA8HEKD14&t=19s

 

6079_Smith_W

Really, the proof in all this is the reaction by the Indian press. Yes Scheer exploited this, and yes there are pics of Harper and Theresa May and other leaders looking just as silly. But Trudeau had a costume change for every day on par with our purple frilly wedding tuxedos. So the fashion crime accusation does hold water.

Of course the far greater problem was having the convicted terrorist invited to the dinner. Not that Trudeau did that personally, but it is a perfect example of a government not having its shit together on a major issue.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, the import tariff on pulses, which seriously fucks up Saskatchewan, the producer of 70 percent of the world lentil market, is probably the biggest casualty, and barely a footnote in all this. 

 

blairz blairz's picture

I get the sensitivity around foppishness and homophobia, although there are many hetero fops. Trump is actually a fop, as is Boris Johnson, but no matter. The whole thing reminds me of the family vacation photos where Justin's father ran around France dressed as Marcel Marceau.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Maybe we should be fair about this spamming the board thing. Yes, it is annoying that he only posts and does not engage in, or contribute to, the conversation. He is the only one who does this.

It is annoying that he is nakedly doing this just to use the links from Rabble to boost his site in order to improve his search engine optimization (since nobody would need to go there when he posts the articles here).

But the real reason people are upset at this spam is that the articles are pathetically and universally bad. If the writing were not so awful and the insight not so non-existent, the annoying spammy crap might be forgiven.

So, really, I would not take this reception as a deterrent to writers. If any decent blogger with something worth reading wanted to post here, I am sure there would be no objection -- even if done in this way. With luck, this only discourages truly bad writers from taking advantage of rabble and spamming the board.

6079_Smith_W

Well, and the elephant, which is that not too long ago someone got booted for the same infraction. If it is a question of merit and propagandist motive, I agree that there should be a bit of discretion, and the ability for the site to make a judgment call over what is legitimate, and what is spam ..

(just putting it on the table because obviously someone is going to say hey wait a minute over this)

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well, and the elephant, which is that not too long ago someone got booted for the same infraction. If it is a question of merit and propagandist motive, I agree that there should be a bit of discretion, and the ability for the site to make a judgment call over what is legitimate, and what is spam ..

(just putting it on the table because obviously someone is going to say hey wait a minute over this)

I will have to reread later -- I really cannot figure out what you are trying to say.

 

 

That said I think this site is going lighter on bannings etc. That is a good thing. The tone here is better when the site itself is not as heavy handed. I resent the spamming and lack of contribution but I appreciate that the space is better served with more benefit of the doubt. I think the reaction from people is better than the board coming down hard. I want the ability to say this is crap and should not be here but I am not sure I want the board to act on such opinions because not everyone will feel the same way. Here, within reason, we put out what we think and have to be open to reactions. The board is letting that happen and that is a really good thing. Banning people for this infraction or that, taking sides in the stuff that was going on was never healthy.

Now those who post sports stuff -- yeah that can go right away. This should go becuase the writer sees it is poorly received not becuase a single person laid down the law.

But on reading another post tomorrow -- I could feel differently. It isn't my job to be consistent.

6079_Smith_W

Oh.

We had someone not too long ago who was told to stop running his articles as threads. I'm saying someone might bring that up, but in my opinion there is some leeway.

 

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Really, the proof in all this is the reaction by the Indian press. Yes Scheer exploited this, and yes there are pics of Harper and Theresa May and other leaders looking just as silly. But Trudeau had a costume change for every day on par with our purple frilly wedding tuxedos. So the fashion crime accusation does hold water.

Assuming you mean the NEGATIVE reaction by the Indian press, yes, that's what makes this a little different from the usual "Didn't Turd-o look silly taking shirtless selfies in Stanley Park?" memes that his opponents are normally reduced to.  

The fact is, one of the major themes of the Liberals' foreign-policy rhetoric has been that Harper had downgraded our status on the world stage, and Trudeau is going to make us active citizens of the world again(a status symbolized anecdotally by the pride with which Canadians can wear the maple-leaf on their backpacks under Liberal as opposed to Conservative governments). And then Trudeau goes to an influential country of a billion people and gets lambasted in their press and social media for wearing stuff that caricatures their culture, and for meeting with alleged terrorists who seek the violent dismemberment of that country.

So this is hitting the Liberals on some pretty vulnerable points, largely related to their own professed self-image. It still might not be enough to do permanent damage(Trudeau's supporters do seem rather oblivious to his own contradictions), but it will at the very least probably throw a monkey-wrench into the Trudeau image-machine.  

 

Doug Woodard

I don't think this is a big deal in itself, but it's one of the more striking examples of his poor judgement and insensitivity as to what is appropriate conduct. It doesn't come up to lying about electoral reform to win an election, but it's in the same bag even though much less serious. Enough of this sort of thing could lead to something like the end of Mulroney, although not as spectucular unless (unlikely) there is another party split. 

6079_Smith_W

VOTD

What I mean is the reaction in the Indian press to the way he dressed, and it was a gaffe, not something made up by the opposition. And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact Harper was worse.

Aside from giving assurances on terrorism (which they had to do so save face) nothing was really done at all. Certainly nothing on the issues of visas or agricultural imports.  So no, he isn't as bad as Harper, but that isn't really saying much.

mark_alfred

Perhaps Trudeau was hoping to garner negative press about his chosen attire, rather than press over his lack of concern about Modi's human rights record. 

voice of the damned

Smith wrote:

What I mean is the reaction in the Indian press to the way he dressed, and it was a gaffe, not something made up by the opposition. And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact Harper was worse.

Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at as well: this kerfuffle originated in India, not Ottawa. The tangent about the Liberals' anti-Harper rhetoric was just an observation that it's a little bit worse than the average gaffe, because it flies in the face of the party's own self-created image.

Though the way things are looking now, Trudeau's starry-eyed troopers are as likely to be put off by this gaffe as people who liked Trump's image as a can-do businessman were put off by his string of bankruptcies.

 

MegB

Bagkitty, thanks so much for your excellent input - much appreciated! As for folks who want to use babble to self-publish, I generally (though not always) direct them to our editorial team who can assess which writing would make great blogs or freelanced articles. 

voice of the damned

MegB wrote:

Bagkitty, thanks so much for your excellent input - much appreciated! As for folks who want to use babble to self-publish, I generally (though not always) direct them to our editorial team who can assess which writing would make great blogs or freelanced articles. 

Yes, good post, Kitty. Even though I was the although I was the target of the eye-rolling! And on that note...

I would be quick to point out that even the original poster, by putting the word arguably in "scare quotes", recognized this might be stretching things a bit

Just for clarification, those were meant as quotation marks, not scare quotes, as I was quoting myself as having just used the word in question. But yes, I said "arguably" to mean "It could be argued...", meaning I wasn't sure.  

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

In part what we are seeing is the product of an echo chamber that supports every dumb idea that comes from the top. Let's not pretend that bad judgment and an inability to say that the emperor is naked resides only in one party. Each party has doubled down on bad ideas and behaviour in part becuase they adored their leader or party to the point that nobody could say they were making a mistake.

And if that is not clear enough, I mean some of the biggest crap piles the NDP has stepped in could have been avoided as well.

Leaders, if they are smart, will look for and hire people willing to tell them when they are being stupid but I have not see anyone actually do that.

Trudeau is a particularly bad case becuase he comes from such privileged background and appears to not understand how the other people live -- tone deaf. He should get some good advice.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well, and the elephant, which is that not too long ago someone got booted for the same infraction.

To whom are you referring?

Not Richard Sanders, I hope.

 

WWWTT

Yes Scheer exploited this, and yes there are pics of Harper and Theresa May and other leaders looking just as silly.

Please clarify 6079 Smith W!

Looking just as silly?!?!?!? Are you suggesting someone wearing attire from other than western nations really "looks silly"

I await your explanation.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Looking just as silly?!?!?!? Are you suggesting someone wearing attire from other than western nations really "looks silly"

I'm not at all trying to answer on behalf of Smith, but when Harper dressed up like Woody from Toy Story, that was pretty silly.

Anyway, I hope you know that attire from another country is not, in and of itself, silly.  But wearing a stripey shirt and a red beret and riding your bike to a French restaurant with a baguette in the basket (if you're not from France) could look a little like trying too hard.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Yes Scheer exploited this, and yes there are pics of Harper and Theresa May and other leaders looking just as silly.

Please clarify 6079 Smith W!

Looking just as silly?!?!?!? Are you suggesting someone wearing attire from other than western nations really "looks silly"

I await your explanation.

Do we have pictures of them doing this OUTSIDE of the meetings where they all do this-- organized by the host?

I think people are making the point that it is over the top. And it was not only beyond what the hosts were doing (which is certainly a faux pas) but also to the point that it was ostentatious in spending. That is a weakness for Trudeau since he is wealthier than most Canadians.

I am happy to see anyone wear the clothing offered by a host but to dressup in the way he did without it being suggested, matched or provided by the host is not the same thing.

Again I remind people that these images of traditional national dress and foreign leaders often come from G7-G8-G10... meetings as it is a tradition they have all orgainzed by the host.

WWWTT

One of my signatures as the writer WWWTT here on babble is that I sometimes think out load and debate with myself. I myself wear traditional Chinese shirts worn by males (with those funny loop buttons and distinct collars, I forget what they’re called now)

I have several casual ones and a couple brightly coloured ones that I will dress formally substitute for suit and tie. And I wear them here in Canada. In the past when I go to China I won’t pack any and just buy new articles there to wear and bring back. 

So is what Justin did in India the same thing I do on a regular basis? Maybe? But for now, I’m going to say no. I still believe Justin did what he did only because there was a camera in front of him taking hundreds if not thousands of pictures.  

6079_Smith_W

Yes, he was criticised in India because his repeated gaudy costume changes were way over the top:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.454...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/02/22/trudeaus-india-outfits-an...

 

WWWTT

His visit was not considered a high priority in India obviously,  so if he got publicity by doing this then his motives paid off because we are still talking about it and his trip is already over.

that makes what he did a success.

What are you talking about Misfit??!?!

Justins job is to strengthen ties with countries like India! India is a very very important powerful country with many opportunities for Canadians. Justin shouldn’t be playing these stupid games jeopardizing our relationships!

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

His visit was not considered a high priority in India obviously,  so if he got publicity by doing this then his motives paid off because we are still talking about it and his trip is already over.

that makes what he did a success.

What are you talking about Misfit??!?!

Justins job is to strengthen ties with countries like India! India is a very very important powerful country with many opportunities for Canadians. Justin shouldn’t be playing these stupid games jeopardizing our relationships!

I don't think all publicity is good pulicity. It might be true of an author but not a PM

mark_alfred

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/27/trudeau-india-daniel-jean_a_2337...

Quote:

Justin Trudeau is standing by a senior government official who suggested factions within the Indian government were involved in sabotaging the prime minister's visit to India last week.

voice of the damned

a government official last week suggested that Atwal's presence was arranged by factions within the Indian government who want to prevent Prime Minister Narendra Modi from getting too cosy with a foreign government they believe is not committed to a united India.

Possible, I suppose, that someone in India would pull a Nixonian dirty trick like that. Though it would be a pretty convenient coincidence for those tricksters that Atwal already had a long history of meeting up with Canadian politicians in Canada.

voice of the damned

I also will say that if the Indian government is completely innocent in all this, for the Liberals to accuse them of playing a dirty trick is pretty undiplomatic, to put it midly.

voice of the damned

The Indian government is getting back into the act now. This is from CBC, not the National Post(whose interest in this story has seemed a little bit dubious)...

https://tinyurl.com/ycg925pz

Don't really see how the Liberals could have expected the Indians to respond in any other way. "Canada's accusing us of running false flags against their Prime Minister? Oh well, I guess we'll just let that slide, don't want too much tension at the next Commonwealth meeting."

And not that I think it had much credibility to begin with, but Daniel Jean's claim of an Indian government Gotcha Plot kind of contradicts the other argument put forth by Liberal apologists, ie. Atwal is now a respected figure in India who works closely with the government. If he's such a well-regarded guy in India, why would the conspirators think it harmful to put him on Trudeau's guest list?

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

The Indian government is getting back into the act now. This is from CBC, not the National Post(whose interest in this story has seemed a little bit dubious)...

https://tinyurl.com/ycg925pz

Don't really see how the Liberals could have expected the Indians to respond in any other way. "Canada's accusing us of running false flags against their Prime Minister? Oh well, I guess we'll just let that slide, don't want too much tension at the next Commonwealth meeting."

And not that I think it had much credibility to begin with, but Daniel Jean's claim of an Indian government Gotcha Plot kind of contradicts the other argument put forth by Liberal apologists, ie. Atwal is now a respected figure in India who works closely with the government. If he's such a well-regarded guy in India, why would the conspirators think it harmful to put him on Trudeau's guest list?

He isn't a respected figure in India. He shouldn't have been able to get into the country. That he was let in is probably where the conspiracy theory comes from. 

voice of the damned

Pondering: 

Okay, that makes sense. 

And from the Globe... 

Liberal MPs have thwarted a bid by Conservatives to force Justin Trudeau's national security adviser to explain his assertion that rogue elements in the Indian government sabotaged the prime minister's trip to India last week.

 

 

voice of the damned
voice of the damned

botched post

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

He isn't a respected figure in India. He shouldn't have been able to get into the country. That he was let in is probably where the conspiracy theory comes from. 

According to Neil MacDonald...

All of the ex-agents I spoke to had the same theory: Atwal, they assume, had elected to cooperate with Indian intelligence. That, and a decision by the current Indian government to pursue some sort of rapprochement with the Sikh diaspora – the Khalistani separatist movement in Canada is now all but moribund – would explain his ease in obtaining an Indian visa.

https://tinyurl.com/yags6a6b