Trudeau draws the line for the Liberals on "pro-choice"

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Convenient that they call the nomination process democratic but reserve the right to deny candidates that are "unsuitable". Just tell the truth and say that the leader has final word on candidates, it's not like that is something new to politics.

I think you are confused about the order of operations.

Candidates who want to run for nomination have to apply to the party. They need to collect a certain number of signatures from party members and submit their background information. At that point they are interviewed and the party looks into their past. If they are acceptable to the party then they can run in an open race for the right to run under the Liberal banner.

This is the same process that almost every party follows including the conservatives. To do anything else would be crazy for a political party.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Convenient that they call the nomination process democratic but reserve the right to deny candidates that are "unsuitable". Just tell the truth and say that the leader has final word on candidates, it's not like that is something new to politics.

This is pretty much the overall theme of Justin Trudeau. He tries to paint himself as something special and different, but he is really only politics as usual feeding off his father's legacy. Not that hypocrisy is an uncommon trait in politicians though. They all try to paint themselves as special and different. Trudeau might actually have deluded himself into believing it.

Speaking of, started hearing Liberal attack ads on Sportsnet 960. "Harper is evil and terrible and breaks his word. Justin Trudeau is flowers and ice cream and amazing!" Politics as usual!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Speaking of, started hearing Liberal attack ads on Sportsnet 960. "Harper is evil and terrible and breaks his word. Justin Trudeau is flowers and ice cream and amazing!" Politics as usual!

Crap, I think Rerun hacked Resolute's account.

[Daradon]

Yeah I don't even know what he's trying to say there. Attack ads exist? They're one sided to the point of untruth?

[Fire]

I guess with Trudeau you are free to speak your mind only if it aligns with what Trudeau believes in.

[Devils'Advocate]

You are free to speak your mind any way you want. You just can't be a federal candidate in his party if you don't have values that align with the party values. This seems like a no-brainer here. If someone believed that gays should be stoned to death, should he allow them to run as a candidate?

This seems really petty. It seems like some people are looking REALLY, REALLY hard to find new ways to hate Justin. And for the record, I have never and will never vote Liberal.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Rerun

A lot of people are concerned about JT.

What's to be concerned about? A style over substance GQ playboy that became leader of his party because of who he is not what he's done possibly running the country. What could go wrong?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Fire

I guess with Trudeau you are free to speak your mind only if it aligns with what Trudeau believes in.

It's not really as simple as all that. There are such things as party lines, platforms, party whips, etc. Parties have to be cohesive to a certain point, and there are expectations like this for lots of other issues. It's just that this is a very contentious one. It's a bit more honest to make expectations like this public and up front, than muzzling your MP's later.

For me, it's a bit of a non-issue. I'm more interested to see if it will be a smart political move or not. It has the possibility to be both, and partially because of that, I think it will end up being much ado about nothing.

The typical conservative backlash is amusing. There are a lot of other good reasons to dislike Justin and his policies, this is just him exercising a little control over his party, which is his job and something Harper does a lot of too.

[old-fart]

I don't care that JT is exercising control over his party, nor do I disagree that he has to. All party leaders need to.

Having said that, as another poster said earlier, what is somewhat amusing is JT's 'hey look at me, we are totally different and have a brand new way of doing things' attitude when really, he isn't and doesn't. Dude has never accomplished a damn thing in his life on his own, yet he somehow thinks he's fit to run the country.

I hate them all so very much.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I don't care that JT is exercising control over his party, nor do I disagree that he has to. All party leaders need to.

Having said that, as another poster said earlier, what is somewhat amusing is JT's 'hey look at me, we are totally different and have a brand new way of doing things' attitude when really, he isn't and doesn't. Dude has never accomplished a damn thing in his life on his own, yet he somehow thinks he's fit to run the country.

I hate them all so very much.

I'm curious what exactly has made Harper "fit to run the country," or any politician for that matter? Trudeau has won his riding twice and his party's leadership. By most criteria, that's "fit to run the country." What exactly had Harper accomplished prior to his candidacy, outside of being a far-right policy hack?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You are free to speak your mind any way you want. You just can't be a federal candidate in his party if you don't have values that align with the party values. This seems like a no-brainer here. If someone believed that gays should be stoned to death, should he allow them to run as a candidate?

This seems really petty. It seems like some people are looking REALLY, REALLY hard to find new ways to hate Justin. And for the record, I have never and will never vote Liberal.

So the Liberals are looking for mindless robots that will repeat all the necessary sound bites. Not saying that all parties are not guilty of this to some degree, but you would think the young Justin Trudeau would be more open minded. I think it will backfire on him and the Liberals.

[Devils'Advocate]

*rolls eyes*

"not agreeing with Liberal party main planks" = "being mindless robots".

It just makes perfect sense to me that a party would want candidates that agree with their platform. I don't think this will backfire at all.... I am an NDP guy and we're getting hammered today with social media ads saying "We're the only party that is 100% pro choice" (referring to the Liberals grandfathering existing members that are "pro-life"). The NDP are scared of losing people to the Liberals now that they Liberals are taking firmer stances on social issues and thus eating away at NDP support.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The NDP are scared of losing people to the Liberals now that they Liberals are taking firmer stances on social issues and thus eating away at NDP support.

I have a hard time believing that any voter would be worried that the Liberals are/were going to introduce abortion laws. If NDP voters are switching to the Liberals it's because they think the Liberals can win an election.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm curious what exactly has made Harper "fit to run the country," or any politician for that matter? Trudeau has won his riding twice and his party's leadership. By most criteria, that's "fit to run the country." What exactly had Harper accomplished prior to his candidacy, outside of being a far-right policy hack?

And I quote... I hate them all.

[neo45]

I think it's a political maneuver to make the liberals appear to be going the extra mile on the issue. It's not like he could criticize Harper's stance on abortion, because it is solid, but doing this will make him seem the MOST pro-choice candidate

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What's to be concerned about? A style over substance GQ playboy that became leader of his party because of who he is not what he's done possibly running the country. What could go wrong?

He could do nothing for four years and still be a better leader than Harper - as long as he doesn't actively bring us backwards.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

He could do nothing for four years and still be a better leader than Harper - as long as he doesn't actively bring us backwards.

Hey now, to Harper's credit he's brought the Conservatives forward. Their policies and social ideologies have clearly moved from the early 1970s to the late 1980s.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Hey now, to Harper's credit he's brought the Conservatives forward. Their policies and social ideologies have clearly moved from the early 1970s to the late 1980s.

I'm not a Conservative, so "us" = Canadians.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Anyways, my views on the pretty empty headed pony are well known here, so no point in me rehashing the subject.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What's to be concerned about? A style over substance GQ playboy that became leader of his party because of who he is not what he's done possibly running the country. What could go wrong?

Originally Posted by old-fart

Having said that, as another poster said earlier, what is somewhat amusing is JT's 'hey look at me, we are totally different and have a brand new way of doing things' attitude when really, he isn't and doesn't. Dude has never accomplished a damn thing in his life on his own, yet he somehow thinks he's fit to run the country.

Originally Posted by Jacks

Way to take a stand junior.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

But, but...

Trudeau is SO dreamy! Guys!?!

It's always a great way to tell how intellectual someone's critique is by how quickly they go to the "attractive/doesn't 'deserve' it" line. It's basically a calling card for people who have read a couple articles in the Sun, maybe.

Physical appearance aside (conservatives would scoff if one of the largest criticisms of Harper was that he was an awkward nerd), how old was Trudeau when he became the leader of the opposition? 41. How old was Harper? 43 (but guys! Trudeau is so young!).

How much had each accomplished before they were leader of the opposition?
Trudeau - Held office for 6 years, supposedly dependent on his name, 2 degrees
Harper - Held office for 9 years, supposedly dependent on the incompetency of others and his father's friends, 1 Master's degree

How different are these two? Really? Their politics are different, so perhaps people could show their intelligence by going to the well of their politics without relying on the embarrassing comments about physical appearance and experience. It's the calling card for a severe lack of enlightenment.

[Tinordi]

Conservative supporters, lets hear it, what are your substantive reasons for not voting for Trudeau. Which policies/positions do you disagree with? Why do you think Conservative policies would be better for you as a citizen.

Refrain from saying anything about JT's hair, looks, age, accomplishments.