Mulcair: stay or go?

1408 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Do you ever support the things you say with actual arguments or reasoning?

White Cat White Cat's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

White Cat wrote:
...Marx was the idiot who f*cked it all up. He was not only ignorant of our egalitarian past, but of everything it means to be human. Egalitarianism is about personal freedom, democracy and equality. The dystopian nightmare Marx created really did a number on the world. His ignorant prejudice against religion helped Reagan come to power in a social/economic conservative coalition and usher in the past 35-year Friedmanian era that culminated in global economic collapse...

I'm not sure how someone who professes the greatness of egalitarianism can at the same time seem to endorse religion. In fact religion is the perfect example of a non-democratic, non-equal, hierarchical system that expressly denies personal freedom. Perhaps I should differentiate between religion and 'organized religion'. I suppose it is possible to be a deist, as Thomas Paine was, and stay away from churches, but that's more the exception than the reality.

Notice all the odious ideas about religion and spirituality come from hierarchal societies: cannibalism, human sacrifice and gods.

The Egyptians sought to clean up this mess by creating a man-god mythology: the man-god Osiris was a human sacrifice unjustly killed and later resurrected to judge the dead; the people were spiritually empowered by symbolically eating his flesh and drinking his blood. They also introduced mummification to stop hierarchists — always eager to claw their way up the dominance hierarchy — from eating parts their dead relatives to gain their spiritual energy.

The Egyptians did this 3000 years before the self-appointed Apostle Paul took it upon himself to go around the Roman empire spreading the Christian mystery religion. He was obviously not very original. But successful enough for emperor Constantine to choose Christianity as the cement of the empire around 325 CE after the old pantheon had long fallen out of favor with the people. (All other religions were banned by 391; except Judaism which was brutally persecuted for 1600 years culminating in the Holocaust.)

In order for people to be equal and free, there can be no one telling them what they can and cannot do, unless it violates the rights of others. In fact the very act of enforcing arbitrary values violates people's rights. And it's definitely a hierarchist trait: "I think religion is stupid. Therefore all people should be banned from practicing religion."

As a truth-seeker I fell into the Christian black hole as a young adult. It's definitely something people should put up warning signs around in the free market place of ideas. But I learned a lot from my experience, especially how to think deeper and appreciate metaphors.

Attempting to ban any religion — or all religions — will only result in war. The only way to save humanity is to find a way out of the 10,000 year war. Not expand it. 

White Cat White Cat's picture

BTW, I think spirituality and philosophy have valuable ideas and experiences that need to be further developed, like math, science and technology. The real problem is that we have put too much focus on details and specialization: the left-brain construct of reality.

What happens with people who are right-brain oriented? The big-picture thinkers? They don't have any way to contribute to Western society. Even areas like music, art and literature require analyzing everything to death and cramming your head with arbitrary knowledge — most of which is forgotten in 6 months after passing an exam — to get a degree that shows you're good at cramming your head with arbitrary knowledge.

This tedious disciplinarian approach to learning is the wrong way for most people. Egalitarian societies learn through play. Think of a cat playing with a leaf. It's actually engaging in hunting training exercises. Here hard work and play are one in the same. It's how Nature designed all of us.

This makes me conclude there are no bad students, just bad teachers. And the Western world is lousy with them.

I consider myself a spiritual atheist: I don't believe in any god created in the image of man. But one thing I have learned along the way: no matter how left-brain oriented a person is, their right hemisphere will not summarily dismiss the Void as some interesting factoid. From the right-side the Void will grind away a person's psychology manifesting itself in terrible ways. The best you can hope for is depression.

In this way hierarchists are funny. They know a little about science, with a mere 500 years experience, and they think they know everything about the universe. They don't know jack shit. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

Acknowledging the way things are is not the same as agreeing with it not to mention that age is a strength for Sanders while being a drawback for Mulcair. Trudeau had to have his hair cut to appear older. Pretending that age isn't a factor in evaluating electoral chances is just being in denial. If Trudeau had been female it is unlikely he would have won the Liberal leadership and would certainly not have been elected PM. The only reason Trudeau was able to overcome his CV is because he is male but he still had to get his hair cut. Same goes for Harper. Any woman hoping to be PM would have to have a stellar resume far beyond what is required of a man. Acknowledging that sexism exists isn't sexism. Acknowledging that agism exists isn't agism. 

Factors of electability include appearance, sex, age, and race as well as name recognition, charisma and resume. There is no question that Trudeau's name opened doors for him. When choosing a leader electibility is a key factor. That's just the reality. 

Seriously Pondering, your post is nonsense.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Cody87 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Do you ever support the things you say with actual arguments or reasoning?

She doesn't have to when responding to a post that is pure nonsense Cody.

White Cat White Cat's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

One of the tenets of Marxism was the withering away of the state. As expressed by Engels:

Quote:
The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.

And again by Engels:

Quote:
The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

That sounds suspicioiusly like the egalitarianism you are endorsing.

I'm not sure how they define the state. What elements of it were they opposed to? Monarchy? The clique-network establishment aristocracy?

I'm definitely a big government type, as long as it's reining in the Wild West economy. If there's any correlation between economic and personal freedom, history would indicate it's inverse (highly negative.)

On the social side, adults don't need the government telling them what to do. They need to be better educated to make better informed decisions.

The free market place is woefully inadequate in both distribution of incomes and wealth, as well as rewarding innovators. It is a pretend meritocracy sustained by a pretend technocracy (the pretend social science of economics.)

IMO, the role of the democratic state should be centered on regulation.

1) Regulation of the flow of finance through progressive taxation to ensure it maximizes the value of human capital (i.e., investing in people to maximize innovation and wealth creation.) A free market garden — throwing some seeds on the ground and letting Nature take its course — produces big weeds that hog up all the resources and produce nothing. A properly managed economy ensures all the plants get enough sunlight, water and nutrients to maximize the produce to the benefit of all.

2) Establishing new rules in social contracts that create benefits through cooperation that cannot exist otherwise. In game theory, wealth can only be created through cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma situation. Paid by the banker. It's the only positive sum game in town. Nature is filled with examples. It's founded on it. (Not surprisingly, neoclassical economics is predicated on the idea people cannot cooperate and always choose to betray one another: i.e., the Nash Equilibrium. No wonder it always makes such a mess out of the economy.)

3) Identifying and eliminating externality. This is people stealing from other people or gambling with other people's money or future. (Only works in a pyramid scheme. Peter can't get rich stealing from Paul.) Enforced values could also be considered a form of externality. (Not surprisingly, neoclassical economics is founded on the idea that if a person makes money they are contributing to the economy. They don't differentiate between positive and negative ways of making money: innovation vs. looting. Largely because it's a looter philosophy: the people at the top are entitled to wealth in the primitive style of the "pecking order.")

In order for humanity to survive itself, it needs a lot more democratic state/government, especially on an international level. We need common regulations among nations to prevent the externality explosion under free trade globalization caused by: a) workers getting cheated out of their fair share of wages and benefits; b) people not getting their fair share of GDP growth to moderate levels of income and wealth inequality; c) Masters of the Universe finding innovative ways to loot free money, including running regular mass-market-manipulation pump-and-dump schemes that put various economies in the ICU; d) pollution elimination shell games that will destroy civilization by the end of the century if the global economy doesn't first implode into world war. 

Geoff

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

Sorry. Double post.

Geoff

Um, Tom Mulcair?Innocent

quizzical

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Do you ever support the things you say with actual arguments or reasoning?

She doesn't have to when responding to a post that is pure nonsense Cody.

 

Arthur i guess Cody didn't read the thread nor meg's comments before he stepped in to try trouble shoot. i think he figured his own wrong and unsupported commentary against me would do to try to deflect away from Liberal supporter ageist comments and their excuses for why it's ok. in their minds only though.

 

mark_alfred

The ageist posts here are really unbecoming.  Dressing it up as concern about saleability (IE, "I'm not ageist, but others are, so unless an older politician is super-fabulous, their age will be a liability and is something to consider in selecting a leader") is just wrong.  Bill Clinton made a similar argument about Barack Obama regarding race and saleability.  He was wrong and people here are wrong.  The fact that Elizabeth May or Tom Mulcair are older than Justin Trudeau is irrelevant.

White Cat White Cat's picture

I don't think Mulcair is a good fit for the NDP because he's not a social democrat. He's a Liberal, and a blue Liberal at that.

He's obviously not a gray hair, looking old and tired like Bob Rae did as interim leader of the Liberal party. So the ageist argument is bunk.

Fact is Liberal partisans would like the NDP to veer sharply left to pave the way for another majority in 2019. If Mulcair starts talking like Bernie Sanders, they know they're in trouble. (God forbid they get a minority government and have to work with the NDP! That's not the kind of power they believe they're entitled to. Much harder to amass them tasty cash-stuffed envelopes!) 

White Cat White Cat's picture

Junior is in the perfect position to collect big on retirement doing the Clinton two-step. For every free-trade deal he signs, for every pipeline he builds, for every regulation he cuts, his post-public-service motivational speaking fees jump dramatically.

Another on-the-take politician being paraded about as an example for the rest to cash in on the destruction of the human race. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Factors of electability include appearance, sex, age, and race as well as name recognition, charisma and resume.

It's definitely hard to argue with this.  And any party that doesn't consider each of these factors does so at their own peril.  Of the factors you mentioned, only "resume" has any commonsense validity, but such is the nature of a secret ballot that electors can ignore a candidate for any reason they wish, no matter how discriminatory (even to the point of petty).

But what's just sort of hinky about this obsession with Mulcair's age is that I find it hard to imagine that if a Native were proposed for the role of Party Leader, or an openly gay MP, or even a woman, that the same people who think Mulcair is tragically and unfairly just too old would similarly say "Canada will never elect a Native MP: PASS!!" or "don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a female PM, but we need to face the hard facts -- it's not time yet".

It's also interesting that "electability" should be such a signficant factor when choosing the Leader, but the party should ignore this when choosing who to support as candidates.

Debater

1.) McGuinty also finished 2nd in his first election, not 3rd.

2.) McGuinty was a provincial leader, not a federal one.

--

I don't really get the comparisons to McGuinty (or many of the other people that Mulcair has been compared to on this thread).

As the Eric Grenier historical analysis documents, it's rare for an Official Opposition leader who has been so soundly defeated at the Federal level to run again (or win).

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Do you ever support the things you say with actual arguments or reasoning?

She doesn't have to when responding to a post that is pure nonsense Cody.

 

Arthur i guess Cody didn't read the thread nor meg's comments before he stepped in to try trouble shoot. i think he figured his own wrong and unsupported commentary against me would do to try to deflect away from Liberal supporter ageist comments and their excuses for why it's ok. in their minds only though.

I have not read the thread. I searched the last 10 pages (back to page 20) which includes the entire month of February and can find no comment of Meg's (aside from the one I quoted) to which you're referring to. As for my comment "against" you, I just asked you a question. You and Arthur are the ones deflecting because you both like to spew hate and attack the source rather than discuss opinions and ideas. Neither of you have ever disagreed with anything said in support of the NDP or agreed with anything said against them or in support of another party. You're basically just like and dislike buttons. NDP good. LPC bad. I sometimes wonder if it's ever occurred to either of you that maybe both parties are bad.

As for ageist comments, as another poster said (and I'm sorry I didn't check to see which team they're on because I like to evaluate ideas on their merit rather than their source), saying that ageism exists is not the same as embracing ageism. Just like saying racism exists doesn't make one a racist.

That said, Mr. Mulcair won't be elected prime minister in 2019 or ever because he's an out of touch establishment politician, and not good at hiding it. It has nothing to do with his age.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around. 

Was Dalton McGuinty ever at 11% in the opinion polls?

Debater

JKR wrote:

Was Dalton McGuinty ever at 11% in the opinion polls?

A valid point, JKR.

Mulcair & the NDP have declined further since the election, so it's puzzling why Mulcair & his team want to hang on to the leadership.

Here's a new polling article today:

-

Liberals increase support since election, early polls suggest

Liberals have made gains throughout the country, largely at NDP's expense

By Éric Grenier

Mar 02, 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-mar2016-1.3469716

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Cody87 wrote:

Every young person who has any sort of story like that and posts it on social media will invariably be told someting along the lines of "I was married and had a house at 20. Try harder at life and maybe you'll succeed, but young people are so lazy these days and just like to complain about everything." I can't say who is right or wrong, but I can say that comments like that hurt. Like many young people, I would have loved the opportunity to walk out of high school and into GM, and be able to buy a house within a year or two. To be told I'm lazy because I didn't even have the sorts of opportunities the generation before me did is...distressing.

Thanks for an insightful analysis of the comparison between Sanders and Mulcair. I was particularly struck by this paragraph. I am 68 years old, and the person who had a house and family at 20 was my high school classmate, who dropped out after grade 11 and got a job on the cold roll line at Stelco. Back in those days, you actually could do it, and a lot of my contemporaries don't seem to realize that 40 years of neo-liberal domination have changed things. They are oblivious to the reality of 21st century life. Perhaps you can't say who is right or wrong, but I can. These old fools are wrong and you are right. I can only suggest trying to ignore them.

Pondering

It's definitely hard to argue with this.  And any party that doesn't consider each of these factors does so at their own peril.  Of the factors you mentioned, only "resume" has any commonsense validity, but such is the nature of a secret ballot that electors can ignore a candidate for any reason they wish, no matter how discriminatory (even to the point of petty).

Few if any candidates get high marks in all categories and sex doesn't mean men always have the better chance. Under some circumstances being a woman could be a boost rather than a hindrance. No one objected when posters said Niki Ashton is too young. That is agism too. 

Age hasn't hurt Bernie Sanders any. I would say it helped him because of his resume. Age would not be a drawback for Layton either. Mulcair's age also helped him because it gave him a hefty resume.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But what's just sort of hinky about this obsession with Mulcair's age is that I find it hard to imagine that if a Native were proposed for the role of Party Leader, or an openly gay MP, or even a woman, that the same people who think Mulcair is tragically and unfairly just too old would similarly say "Canada will never elect a Native MP: PASS!!" or "don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a female PM, but we need to face the hard facts -- it's not time yet". 

I disagree. I think Niki Ashton would be an excellent choice for leader and she is female. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 It's also interesting that "electability" should be such a signficant factor when choosing the Leader, but the party should ignore this when choosing who to support as candidates. 

What do you mean?

 

 

 

quizzical

Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:
Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Do you ever support the things you say with actual arguments or reasoning?

She doesn't have to when responding to a post that is pure nonsense Cody.

 

Arthur i guess Cody didn't read the thread nor meg's comments before he stepped in to try trouble shoot. i think he figured his own wrong and unsupported commentary against me would do to try to deflect away from Liberal supporter ageist comments and their excuses for why it's ok. in their minds only though.

I have not read the thread. I searched the last 10 pages (back to page 20) which includes the entire month of February and can find no comment of Meg's (aside from the one I quoted) to which you're referring to. As for my comment "against" you, I just asked you a question. You and Arthur are the ones deflecting because you both like to spew hate and attack the source rather than discuss opinions and ideas. Neither of you have ever disagreed with anything said in support of the NDP or agreed with anything said against them or in support of another party. You're basically just like and dislike buttons. NDP good. LPC bad. I sometimes wonder if it's ever occurred to either of you that maybe both parties are bad.

As for ageist comments, as another poster said (and I'm sorry I didn't check to see which team they're on because I like to evaluate ideas on their merit rather than their source), saying that ageism exists is not the same as embracing ageism. Just like saying racism exists doesn't make one a racist.

That said, Mr. Mulcair won't be elected prime minister in 2019 or ever because he's an out of touch establishment politician, and not good at hiding it. It has nothing to do with his age.

another thin unsourced attack designed to look like discussion.  give me an example of the hate i spewed or retract it. they are being ageist it's not commentary. but try and deflect and cover only makes it much more apparent.

i'm 36. i'm never going to own a house on my own i face all  the same tings as you cody. i'm not going to vote against my interests.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Age hasn't hurt Bernie Sanders any. I would say it helped him because of his resume. Age would not be a drawback for Layton either. Mulcair's age also helped him because it gave him a hefty resume.

Well, I think that we might be churning a couple of different things together.  Allow me to unpack:

Quote:
Age hasn't hurt Bernie Sanders any. I would say it helped him because of his resume.

Perhaps, but if he were 20 years younger with the same resume that also wouldn't hurt.  More years spent on this spinning rock often ==  more achievements, but if he'd done it all without seeing Halley's Comet twice, that wouldn't have hurt him any.

Quote:
Age would not be a drawback for Layton either.

Wait, what?  If he were alive, he'd be four years older than Mulcair.  Wouldn't reminiscences about gramophones and milkmen have proved that he's just too old for the electorate and we need someone who knows a latte from a cafe au lait?

Quote:
Mulcair's age also helped him because it gave him a hefty resume.

Again, the same resume in the hands of a younger man would not have hurt any.

Quote:
No one objected when posters said Niki Ashton is too young. That is agism too.

Was the concern solely about age, and NOT resume?  I'd toss the popular endorsement of REB as "Trudeau kryptonite" into that as well.  Is the problem "too young" or is the problem "just not enough resume"?

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

It is specious to say that Marxism never did what you never wanted it to do.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
Age would not be a drawback for Layton either.  

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Wait, what?  If he were alive, he'd be four years older than Mulcair.  Wouldn't reminiscences about gramophones and milkmen have proved that he's just too old for the electorate and we need someone who knows a latte from a cafe au lait? 

No, because Layton had a lifelong reputation of being on the left. Generally speaking each generation is more progressive than the last. Many people were saying it was time for generational change. When people say that what they really mean is someone more in tune with the times. Layton would never have said that pot was like oregano in the past. He would never have criticized Trudeau for rejecting the F 35s. Mulcair is a man of his generation and he does not have a long reputation as a reformer. "Age" in this context is shorthand for old-fashioned therefore more conservative.  If a person is old but percieved as modern then their age won't impact them negatively. 

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Was the concern solely about age, and NOT resume?  I'd toss the popular endorsement of REB as "Trudeau kryptonite" into that as well.  Is the problem "too young" or is the problem "just not enough resume"?

Age. Niki Ashton has a very impressive resume. She's 33. 

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

Ashton was born in Thompson and attended École Riverside School and R. D. Parker Collegiate. She later attended theLi Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong. She has a B.A in Global Political Economy from the University of Manitoba, an M.A in International Affairs from Carleton University and is currently in the process of completing her PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies at the Art Mauro Centre at the University of Manitoba.

Later, she was a coordinator and promoter of volunteering at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. At the event, she assisted the team from China.

She has studied human rights in Canada, and was awarded the Ahmed Ali Hashi Human Rights Scholarship for her work.

Ashton speaks Greek, French, English and Spanish fluently. In 2011 it was reported that she was also studying Mandarin Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish, and Cree.[2]

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Cody87 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
more excuses for ageism by Liberals lololololol it's the neverending story.....

Do you ever support the things you say with actual arguments or reasoning?

She doesn't have to when responding to a post that is pure nonsense Cody.

 

Arthur i guess Cody didn't read the thread nor meg's comments before he stepped in to try trouble shoot. i think he figured his own wrong and unsupported commentary against me would do to try to deflect away from Liberal supporter ageist comments and their excuses for why it's ok. in their minds only though.

I have not read the thread. I searched the last 10 pages (back to page 20) which includes the entire month of February and can find no comment of Meg's (aside from the one I quoted) to which you're referring to. As for my comment "against" you, I just asked you a question. You and Arthur are the ones deflecting because you both like to spew hate and attack the source rather than discuss opinions and ideas. Neither of you have ever disagreed with anything said in support of the NDP or agreed with anything said against them or in support of another party. You're basically just like and dislike buttons. NDP good. LPC bad. I sometimes wonder if it's ever occurred to either of you that maybe both parties are bad.

As for ageist comments, as another poster said (and I'm sorry I didn't check to see which team they're on because I like to evaluate ideas on their merit rather than their source), saying that ageism exists is not the same as embracing ageism. Just like saying racism exists doesn't make one a racist.

That said, Mr. Mulcair won't be elected prime minister in 2019 or ever because he's an out of touch establishment politician, and not good at hiding it. It has nothing to do with his age.

Nonsense, deglection, and projection Cody! How do you manage to do that? Its amazing! You're one in a million buddy! CoolWink

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

WHy do all the Libs so want to discuss Mulcair? What are you guys afraid of?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
He [Layton] would never have criticized Trudeau for rejecting the F 35s.

Ironic statement since the Liberals still plan to stay in program of F-35 jet buyers despite pledge to withdraw.  Layton, like Mulcair, never hesitated to call out Liberal lies and bullshit.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
He [Layton] would never have criticized Trudeau for rejecting the F 35s.

Ironic statement since the Liberals still plan to stay in program of F-35 jet buyers despite pledge to withdraw.  Layton, like Mulcair, never hesitated to call out Liberal lies and bullshit.

The Liberals haven't bought any F 35s yet. I didn't like the answer about likely paying to stay in the program but that hasn't happened yet either. 

That the Liberals do something wrong doesn't make it okay for the NDP to do the same. 

mark_alfred

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Has Mulcair critized him on that since the election? 

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Was the concern solely about age, and NOT resume?  I'd toss the popular endorsement of REB as "Trudeau kryptonite" into that as well.  Is the problem "too young" or is the problem "just not enough resume"?

Age. Niki Ashton has a very impressive resume. She's 33. 

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

Ashton was born in Thompson and attended École Riverside School and R. D. Parker Collegiate. She later attended theLi Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong. She has a B.A in Global Political Economy from the University of Manitoba, an M.A in International Affairs from Carleton University and is currently in the process of completing her PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies at the Art Mauro Centre at the University of Manitoba.

Later, she was a coordinator and promoter of volunteering at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. At the event, she assisted the team from China.

She has studied human rights in Canada, and was awarded the Ahmed Ali Hashi Human Rights Scholarship for her work.

Ashton speaks Greek, French, English and Spanish fluently. In 2011 it was reported that she was also studying Mandarin Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish, and Cree.[2]

 

AGAIN as Adam Giambrone says "Leadership is NOT an entry level position"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw1a56OsIFA

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Has Mulcair critized him on that since the election? 

This is more nonsense Pondering! Junior IS the PM! Focus Lib, focus!

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Has Mulcair critized him on that since the election? 

Not that I'm aware of.  The criticism from Mulcair on it, if I remember correctly, was simply that Trudeau was talking out of his hat again.  I suspect over the next few years we'll see plenty more evidence of Trudeau talking out of his hat again.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Has Mulcair critized him on that since the election? 

Not that I'm aware of.  The criticism from Mulcair on it, if I remember correctly, was simply that Trudeau was talking out of his hat again.  I suspect over the next few years we'll see plenty more evidence of Trudeau talking out of his hat again.

I agree that during the election period Trudeau talked out of his hat on mutiple topics. I think now that he is PM he will be much more cautious about that. I guess we will see. 

terrytowel

regarding the F-35 Mulcair reaction to Trudeau was that it was further proof that Trudeau is Just Not Ready to be PM.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Has Mulcair critized him on that since the election? 

Not that I'm aware of.  The criticism from Mulcair on it, if I remember correctly, was simply that Trudeau was talking out of his hat again.  I suspect over the next few years we'll see plenty more evidence of Trudeau talking out of his hat again.

Something Trudeau & Mulcair have in common.

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Was the concern solely about age, and NOT resume?  I'd toss the popular endorsement of REB as "Trudeau kryptonite" into that as well.  Is the problem "too young" or is the problem "just not enough resume"?

Age. Niki Ashton has a very impressive resume. She's 33. 

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

Ashton was born in Thompson and attended École Riverside School and R. D. Parker Collegiate. She later attended theLi Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong. She has a B.A in Global Political Economy from the University of Manitoba, an M.A in International Affairs from Carleton University and is currently in the process of completing her PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies at the Art Mauro Centre at the University of Manitoba.

Later, she was a coordinator and promoter of volunteering at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. At the event, she assisted the team from China.

She has studied human rights in Canada, and was awarded the Ahmed Ali Hashi Human Rights Scholarship for her work.

Ashton speaks Greek, French, English and Spanish fluently. In 2011 it was reported that she was also studying Mandarin Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish, and Cree.[2]

 

AGAIN as Adam Giambrone says "Leadership is NOT an entry level position"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw1a56OsIFA

Trudeau is PM, Ashton has a much better resume, so I guess Giambrone doesn't know what he is talking about. By 2019 she will have been an MP since 2008, longer than Trudeau has, and if it were not for a vote split she probably would have won in 2006. 

Defeating Trudeau in 2019 is a long shot. The NDP will have to grab the imagination of voters to win and the candidate will have to be very distinctly different from a typical politician. A much more likely win could be achieved in 2023 because although 3 terms isn't unheard of it is less frequent than 2 terms. 10 year mark is when Canadians typically sour on a leader. 2023 will only be 8 or 9 years but close enough. By then Niki Ashton will be 41 and if her past is any indication of her future she will be a formidable woman with enormous credibility. I assume there are other impressive young people within the NDP. They need to be nurtured to lead the NDP into the future.

if you have a group of people who are all from the same generation, same race, same sex, views will likely be less diverse than if a group includes different ages, sexes, and races. Isn't that the whole point of demanding diversity in government? Older white men have been in charge for some time now. Is it really just by chance the most qualified person to lead the NDP is always an old white man? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Older white men have been in charge for some time now. Is it really just by chance the most qualified person to lead the NDP is always an old white man?

Of the last six NDP Leaders, covering the last 4 decades, three have been women -- one interim, two elected.

The Cons have had three, one of them elected.

The Liberals haven't even so much as had an interim Leader who was female.

Anyhoo, nothing against Ashton at all, but if Tom is just "too old" to be electable, isn't she too "female" to be electable, and shouldn't we all just shake our head solemnly as we accept this unfair but nonetheless pragmatic reality?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Older white men have been in charge for some time now. Is it really just by chance the most qualified person to lead the NDP is always an old white man?

Of the last six NDP Leaders, covering the last 4 decades, three have been women -- one interim, two elected.

The Cons have had three, one of them elected.

The Liberals haven't even so much as had an interim Leader who was female.

Anyhoo, nothing against Ashton at all, but if Tom is just "too old" to be electable, isn't she too "female" to be electable, and shouldn't we all just shake our head solemnly as we accept this unfair but nonetheless pragmatic reality?

You keep pretending that the sole issue is Mulcair's age when I have made it clear it is a combination of his age coupled with his history as a right wing Liberal coupled with the times. Sanders is old and he has done much better than Mulcair. Age is one of many factors. No politician gets high marks in every category. Drawbacks can be overcome or no one would ever get elected. Under different circumstances Mulcair's age would be a bonus. 

Trudeau had a ton of weaknesses and in different times against different opponents he would have lost. It just so happened that in these particular circumstances his strengths outweighed his weaknesses. 

If you think Canadians are going to be disappointed in Trudeau and will blame his youth and inexperience then maybe Mulcair would have the best chance on winning. I think the swing to populism and increased youth participation in politics is going to continue so an anti-establishment type will be needed, and that isn't Mulcair. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You keep pretending that the sole issue is Mulcair's age when I have made it clear it is a combination of his age coupled with his history as a right wing Liberal coupled with the times.

You're not the only one suggesting he's too old.

Quote:
It just so happened that in these particular circumstances his strengths outweighed his weaknesses.

One of those "strengths" was "people were sick of Harper".

Quote:
If you think Canadians are going to be disappointed in Trudeau and will blame his youth and inexperience then maybe Mulcair would have the best chance on winning.

It's still far too early to predict whether Canadians will or won't be happy with Trudeau, and evenmoreso to predict that it will be because of his age.  Personally, I'm not even disappointed -- I might get pilloried for saying this, but for a guy I didn't support, I think he's done some good things already.  If he ends up disappointing me, or the electorate, I expect it will probably be for doing bad things, or not doing good things any more.

And for whatever it's worth, I'm not even some kind of committed Mulcair fanboy.  I just get the feeling that people are obsessing over his age (and subsequent "electability") because it's easier for them than saying what they really dislike about him.  If Tom had promised a GAI, the nationalization of banks and major resource industries, a withdrawal from NATO and complete support for Palestine we wouldn't be discussing his age, we'd be discussing his "wisdom".

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/40sn9.png[/IMG]

 

mark_alfred

I think Liberals hope the NDP vote against Mulcair in the leadership review simply because Mulcair is effective.  They hope the NDP shoots themselves in the foot and becomes irrelevant.  Sure, polling numbers aren't great now, but that can change on a fly.  And he and the party are getting some good press lately.  They're keeping on the radar.

Regarding the election campaign, Mulcair and the NDP polled low for a long time after Trudeau was chosen as leader, when the Libs polled in top spot for quite a while.  Then Trudeau made some gaffes and the position on C-51 occurred which got people thinking for the first time that the Con ads of "maybe this guy isn't ready," were correct.  Then the NDP, rather than the Conservatives, polled in number one spot (!) for a few months, but then went down again.  However brief it was that Mulcair polled highly, it did show that people were willing to consider him as PM. That's important.  Things can change on a dime.

Mulcair took the NDP from straggling newbies to an efficient force that made the once seemingly all powerful Harper look uneasy and unbalanced.  He brought the NDP to the cusp of power in the campaign (though yes, that dream did not materialize).  He continues to lead a party that effectively advances issues of poverty, feminism, labour rights, human rights, aboriginal justice, international affairs, health care, and other important issues.  Mulcair is the best bet for advancing the NDP's cause of federal social democracy in Canada today.

I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the fans of Trudeau's Liberals here who have so warmly offered their suggestions for how the NDP delegates should vote in the upcoming leadership review at convention.  The centrist Liberals of Trudeau did win and campaigned on some very progressive policies to boot.  They've achieved some very good things in a short time.  That said, their pro-corporate stance, and my feeling that they lack firm principles (sure, sometimes flexibility is good, but for me they're just a little too flexible in some areas) leaves me a bit cold.  The NDP aren't perfect, but come closer to my vision of a more social democratic Canada.  However, again, congratulations to those who prefer a more centrist vision of Canada.  Your party soundly won and some real and very good change from the previous government has been enacted.  Kudos.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair chose not to mislead people unlike Trudeau.  Trudeau misled people by saying he would pull out of the procurement process to save money.  Mulcair's criticism of Trudeau on that was deserved, IMO.

Has Mulcair critized him on that since the election? 

Not that I'm aware of.  The criticism from Mulcair on it, if I remember correctly, was simply that Trudeau was talking out of his hat again.  I suspect over the next few years we'll see plenty more evidence of Trudeau talking out of his hat again.

I agree that during the election period Trudeau talked out of his hat on mutiple topics. I think now that he is PM he will be much more cautious about that. I guess we will see. 

Trudeau didn't "talk out of his hat". He purposefully and with volition LIED! He said what he needed to say to get elected. Now, he's acting like. True LPC PM. Let's stop pretending Trudeau didn't say what he had to to get elected. As to "cautious", he's not being cautious, if you mean being responsibly careful. He's being cautious not to say anything that threatens Liberal POWER! For him and the rest of his gang of Merry deparadoes, it is ENTIRELY about power! That is the ONLY thing Liberals care about! Their slogan should be "all for me and NONE for thee!!!!!

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Trudeau didn't "talk out of his hat". He purposefully and with volition LIED! He said what he needed to say to get elected. Now, he's acting like. True LPC PM. Let's stop pretending Trudeau didn't say what he had to to get elected. As to "cautious", he's not being cautious, if you mean being responsibly careful. He's being cautious not to say anything that threatens Liberal POWER! For him and the rest of his gang of Merry deparadoes, it is ENTIRELY about power! That is the ONLY thing Liberals care about! Their slogan should be "all for me and NONE for thee!!!!!

Then why did the NDP fall into the same trap? After seeing Kathleen Wynne wipe the floor with Andrea Horwath  in the 2014 election, he should have said "I'm not falling in that trap". Instead the 2015 federal election was a repeat of the 2014 Ontario election. The NDP being too cautious and moving to the center. While the Liberals moved way left to poach NDP votes.

And don't say they were caught off guard. Dan Harris for one kept telling the Federal NDP this was going to happen in 2015

"What was upsetting to me, as someone who was running in the election, was [that] this was [Ontario Premier and Liberal leader] Kathleen Wynne's playbook in 2014. And this is what the entire Ontario caucus was telling the leadership was going to happen in 2015, especially when we saw how closely Justin and Kathleen Wynne were attached at the hip," he said. "That seemed to not penetrate the leadership bubble, and it doesn't look like strategies were adopted to … counteract that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/23/ndp-campaign-members-thomas-mulc...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

WHy do all the Libs so want to discuss Mulcair? What are you guys afraid of?

Do you really think either of the other two parties are afraid of Mulcair? LMOAROF

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

I think Liberals hope the NDP vote against Mulcair in the leadership review simply because Mulcair is effective.  They hope the NDP shoots themselves in the foot and becomes irrelevant.  Sure, polling numbers aren't great now, but that can change on a fly.  And he and the party are getting some good press lately.  They're keeping on the radar.

I think you are sounding like Cleopatra the Queen of Denial. Canadians were looking for a change agent and the NDP ran a politician who served in an austerity caucus and focused on balancing the budget and sounding like his daughter the RCMP officer when he talked about pot. He has rebranded the party as the Mulcair NDP and frankly it is nauseating to have the party that I have supported for decades rebranded as a vanity project for a liberal hack.

swallow swallow's picture

Ironically, the Quebec Liberal Party under Charest (the one Mulcair served in) presided over policies in some respects to the left of any NDP government in Canada. But that's another topic. 

I don't understand the branding thing - the NDP was a fine enough brand, and did well enough under its brand. Few had heard of Muclair. Why brand the federal NDP as "Mulcair's NDP" and make it all "about Tom" when he was not a well-known national figure? This is regardless of his merits or lack of them - it just struck me as weirdness, as if it was "Ambrose's Conservatives" with an effort to build a cult of personality "about Rona." I kept seeing the web pages and the ads and asking: "Tom Who?" Even though as I learned more about him, he reminded me of the decent-conservative streak of Joe Clark (Joe Who, back in the day). Leave the leftist/centrist stuff to one side - does anyone know why the NDP decided to focus on the man, and not the message? On Muclair, and not the team? Even the Liberals talked about Trudeau's team; I never saw the NDP talk about anything other than "Tom." It left a lot of people cold. 

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

I think Liberals hope the NDP vote against Mulcair in the leadership review simply because Mulcair is effective.  They hope the NDP shoots themselves in the foot and becomes irrelevant.  Sure, polling numbers aren't great now, but that can change on a fly.  And he and the party are getting some good press lately.  They're keeping on the radar.

Mark, sure it's possible that the NDP numbers may go back up at some point.

But I think you are letting your own strong devotion to Mulcair get in the way of an objective analysis.

The gap between the Liberals & the NDP has widened since the election.  And Trudeau's Leadership numbers have also grown over Mulcair, particularly in Québec.

As Eric Grénier pointed out in the polling analysis I posted, there has been a steep drop in NDP numbers in Québec since the election, and a sharp increase in Liberal numbers in Québec.

Chantal Hébert argues that there's no evidence that Mulcair is indispensable to the NDP in Québec.

josh

Rev Pesky wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
...frankly it is nauseating to have the party that I have supported for decades rebranded as a vanity project for a liberal hack.

What's funny about it is those NDPer's who profess to hate, hate, hate Liberals have no problem with a Liberal as leader of their party.

 

Good point.

mark_alfred

swallow wrote:

Ironically, the Quebec Liberal Party under Charest (the one Mulcair served in) presided over policies in some respects to the left of any NDP government in Canada. But that's another topic. 

I don't understand the branding thing - the NDP was a fine enough brand, and did well enough under its brand. Few had heard of Muclair. Why brand the federal NDP as "Mulcair's NDP" and make it all "about Tom" when he was not a well-known national figure?

All the party websites (Lib, Con, NDP, Green) are similar in design.  A few drop down items on the top with one featuring the leader.  The leader is a focus for all of them because, I think, most Canadians focus on the leader.  Party loyalty of Canadians is lower than historically it has been.

The Liberal website doesn't even have a party history link on it.  The NDP, by contrast, do, and this link features all the past leaders and accomplishments they had.  The themes of the previous NDP leaders are tied into and reflected in today's NDP (not identical, but certainly reflected).  The Liberal site by contrast is completely divorced from its past leaders and positions (likely because they're quite divergent in many areas).

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I think Liberals hope the NDP vote against Mulcair in the leadership review simply because Mulcair is effective.  They hope the NDP shoots themselves in the foot and becomes irrelevant.  Sure, polling numbers aren't great now, but that can change on a fly.  And he and the party are getting some good press lately.  They're keeping on the radar.

Mark, sure it's possible that the NDP numbers may go back up at some point.

But I think you are letting your own strong devotion to Mulcair get in the way of an objective analysis.

The gap between the Liberals & the NDP has widened since the election.  And Trudeau's Leadership numbers have also grown over Mulcair, particularly in Québec.

As Eric Grénier pointed out in the polling analysis I posted, there has been a steep drop in NDP numbers in Québec since the election, and a sharp increase in Liberal numbers in Québec.

Chantal Hébert argues that there's no evidence that Mulcair is indispensable to the NDP in Québec.

Oh brother, Debater! Silly New Dems on this site.wht aren't we just listening to you? You know everything!

Pages

Topic locked