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

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sadly, yes (all stories are from the past year):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle11825136/

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2..._abortion.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03...m-on-abortion/

20 backbenchers, 1 backbencher and 2 backbenchers. Even taking the size of 20 MPs , that's like 6%.

Those articles seem to indicate they got zero support from their leadership on the issue.

It's dead if no party will support it. Always going to have a full range of people who get elected, from sane to crazy, regardless of which end of the crazy spectrum they land.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I do find it interesting though that Trudeau can admit to smoking marijuana, given to him from friends (drug dealers) at a party, and that's cool, but Rob Ford doing illegal drugs is a stain on Canada's squeaky clean reputation.

Imagine the horror if Harper admitted to rippin a fat one. And I'm not talking about Mike Duffy.

I haven't seen you post before, but if CaptainCrunch ever had a ####### child, you would be him.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I do find it interesting though that Trudeau can admit to smoking marijuana, given to him from friends (drug dealers) at a party, and that's cool, but Rob Ford doing illegal drugs is a stain on Canada's squeaky clean reputation.

If you really can't discern the difference between these two situations, then maybe it's time to graciously bow out and let the grown ups talk about politics.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I do find it interesting though that Trudeau can admit to smoking marijuana, given to him from friends (drug dealers) at a party, and that's cool, but Rob Ford doing illegal drugs is a stain on Canada's squeaky clean reputation.

Imagine the horror if Harper admitted to rippin a fat one. And I'm not talking about Mike Duffy.

You're comparing Ford, who smoked a "hard drug" at least once likely more in the company of know gang members, was photographed and lied about it to a guy who smoked pot a "soft drug" in his own home and admitted to it?

Ok......

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I haven't seen you post before, but if CaptainCrunch ever had a ####### child, you would be him.

[rubecube]

I'm really not sure what the Conservative supporters on here are up in arms over. He doesn't mention Harper or the Conservatives once in the article, and it appears to be strictly party business.

“My preference is that we not be engaging in the discussion of abortion,” Trudeau said. “For me, it’s a debate that has been settled for the vast majority of Canadians and we don’t need to reopen that issue.”

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you really can't discern the difference between these two situations, then maybe it's time to graciously bow out and let the grown ups talk about politics.

Honestly I'm just happy there is something else to talk about now. You know, like a actual platform starting to develop?

Trudeau is pretty good at talking and not saying a damn thing. At least he's now starting to take a actual stance on issues instead of flapping his gums about the middle class, not raising taxes (how BOLD) and legalizing pot. (hurrah for the demographic targeting!)

I'm not naive, I know the difference between railing blow and smoking a doob, but don't let your naivety be exposed by not seeing the lack of difference in a public figure running for the PM's office and admitting to doing what is still considered an illegal substance.

The difference between the two drugs isn't the issue.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm really not sure what the Conservative supporters on here are up in arms over. He doesn't mention Harper or the Conservatives once in the article, and it appears to be strictly party business.

Just seems like a silly thing to worry about at this point in time.

The issue is long since closed and The Harper Government (tm) won't touch the issue with a 10 foot pole if they ever want to be elected again.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Honestly I'm just happy there is something else to talk about now. You know, like a actual platform starting to develop?

Trudeau is pretty good at talking and not saying a damn thing. At least he's now starting to take a actual stance on issues instead of flapping his gums about the middle class, not raising taxes (how BOLD) and legalizing pot. (hurrah for the demographic targeting!)

I'm not naive, I know the difference between railing blow and smoking a doob, but don't let your naivety be exposed by not seeing the lack of difference in a public figure running for the PM's office and admitting to doing what is still considered an illegal substance.

The difference between the two drugs isn't the issue.

With Harper et al continuously digging themselves deeper into a hole, simply being an alternative may be enough to win an election on its own.

[Jacks]

Seems dumb for him to be dredging this issue up (again) considering plenty of people and MP's in his own party are pro-life. I'm sure he's just trying to get the whole "scary Harper" thing going again but he might do more damage to his own party.

Rosemary Barton @RosieBartonJohm McKay, is anti-abortion, says he wishes his party was more pluralistic. #hw cc @JohnMcKayLib

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

With Harper et al continuously digging themselves deeper into a hole, simply being an alternative may be enough to win an election on its own.

An alternative may very well be a deal breaker for the Cons. Absolutely.

I would think the Cons would be hoping for a split of votes between the Libs and NDP, without Layton I think the NDP may be dead in the water. Sorry, but Mulcair does not have the same swagger as Layton, and honestly that swagger is all it takes to get a vote cast.

Why do you think Trudeau would disrobe for a room full of middle aged women anyways?

The NDP bombing, and Trudeau being the flavor of the month may do more to hurt the Cons in the next federal election than Trudeau standing firm on the abortion issue; a issue that 70% of Canadians agree is dead. So I think your right, a liberal alternative may be a difference maker in the next election yet I fail to see why other than Trudeau being a shiny new toy everyone wants to play with.

Basically, what does the man stand for other than legalizing weed, standing up for the middle class which he cannot define, and standing firm on a non issue?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't see it as that as all. I think it's more drawing a proverbial line in the socio-politcal stand and clearly emphasizing where he thinks the Liberals should stand. I think this is likely a move aimed to draw voters away from the NDP more than it is from the Conservatives.

This is exactly right. This move has nothing to do with "scary Conservative boogeymen", but rather it's all about shoring up the Liberals' left flank against the NDP. When the Conservative backbenchers tried to re-open the abortion debate last year, four Liberal MPs supported the motion. Only the NDP was unanimous in their opposition (because they already have a policy to ensure that anti-abortion candidates cannot run under their banner), so this pre-emptively shuts down a potential line of attack in the next election and prevents the NDP from claiming that they -- and they alone -- are the only party that is staunchly pro-choice.

As for the mandate itself, every party does this (over a variety of issues) for a few reasons. First, it's a way of decreeing that all candidates from a particular party share a common set of core values. Secondly, the leadership wants to ensure that all candidates are "on message" during the campaign so a local MP doesn't contradict the party's platform or embarrass the leader. For a recent example of why this is necessary, you can be damn sure that when it comes time to select candidates for the next provincial election, the Wildrose Party will prevent anyone who thinks that gay people will burn in a lake of fire from seeking their party's nomination.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is exactly right. This move has nothing to do with "scary Conservative boogeymen", but rather it's all about shoring up the Liberals' left flank against the NDP. When the Conservative backbenchers tried to re-open the abortion debate last year, four Liberal MPs supported the motion. Only the NDP was unanimous in their opposition (because they already have a policy to ensure that anti-abortion candidates cannot run under their banner), so this pre-emptively shuts down a potential line of attack in the next election and prevents the NDP from claiming that they -- and they alone -- are the only party that is staunchly pro-choice.

Yeah, I think a lot of the stuff that Trudeau has done that has Cons whining about the hidden agenda thing is more targeted at the NDP than the Conservatives. I honestly think the Liberals are perfectly happy to sit back and watch Harper self-destruct between now and 2015, rather than add fuel to the flaming wreckage.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I'm not naive, I know the difference between railing blow and smoking a doob, but don't let your naivety be exposed by not seeing the lack of difference in a public figure running for the PM's office and admitting to doing what is still considered an illegal substance.

You called his friends drug dealers.

Do you consider the people you know who smoke pot to be "drug dealers"?

Trick Question! If you don't think you know people who smoke pot you are definitely naive. If you consider them to be drug dealers, I'm afraid it's even worse.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I think a lot of the stuff that Trudeau has done that has Cons whining about the hidden agenda thing is more targeted at the NDP than the Conservatives. I honestly think the Liberals are perfectly happy to sit back and watch Harper self-destruct between now and 2015, rather than add fuel to the flaming wreckage.

I think for the first time in years there is significant doubt about the conservative party and the liberal party going forward.

Things were relatively laid back with Dion and Ignatieff as the opposition.

Trudeau is obviously somewhat concerning, hence the reaction.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Trudeau is obviously somewhat concerning, hence the reaction.

A lot of people are concerned about JT.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You called his friends drug dealers.

Do you consider the people you know who smoke pot to be "drug dealers"?

No, I don't. But my opinion doesn't matter. The controlled drugs and substances act defines trafficking as...

" ... to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the (controlled) substance, (or) to sell an authorization to obtain the substance ... otherwise than under the authority of the regulations."

So in the eyes of the law, sure. Call em drug dealers. It's beside my point though, which was that I found it slightly amusing that Trudeau openly admits to consuming a controlled substance, and he's like, you know, so fresh and cool. Ford consumes a controlled substance and he's a raving redneck POS. For the record they are both asshats.

To me, Trudeau openly admitting to smoking weed coming into a election is incredible bad form. If you want to campaign on legalizing it, then fine, but he admitted criminality. To many people, people who view weed and coke to be drugs and drugs are bad mmkay, well they still vote. Sure, I know many people who smoke, and the worst thing that happens is a bag of nachos is consumed while watching a infomercial. I also as many who don't and disagree with it. Regardless of the potency/addictions of any drugs mentioned.

I just find the public court of opinion to be a fascinating thing when combined with media input.

Trick Question! If you don't think you know people who smoke pot you are definitely naive. If you consider them to be drug dealers, I'm afraid it's even worse.

Alright, you got me. Instead of drug dealers, lets call them the enlightened friends of J.T. I'm honestly sorry for bringing it up.

[Jacks]

For the record I don't care about abortion either way.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05...n-as-liberals/

Exceptions will be made, however, for incumbent opponents of abortion who became MPs before the party officially adopted a pro-choice stance, such as Toronto MPs John McKay and Judy Sgro. “McKay is deeply rooted in his – in his beliefs and I respect that,” Trudeau said.

So he respects McKay and Sgro's "deeply rooted" beliefs but nobody elses?

Trudeau revealed the party’s new hard line on abortion one day before the annual “March for Life,” in which thousands of abortion opponents are expected to descend on Parliament Hill.

I'm sure that is a coincidence. If he wants the abortion issue to die then why dredge it up and give it more national exposure?

Abortion is just one issue on which would-be candidates’ views are vetted during the party’s so-called green light process for nomination applicants. Their views on same-sex marriage and the Charter of Rights are among the other issues canvassed, Trudeau said. “We make sure that the people who are stepping forward are consistent with the Liberal party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we’re getting from Canadians across the country.”

Weird way to phrase that, almost sounds like his MP's won't be able to vote freely if it goes against current popular opinion. It wasn't long ago that popular opinion was against gay marriage and it's debatable whether or not the majority of Canadians support restrictions on abortion today.

For his part, Trudeau has said he won’t use his power to appoint candidates, promising to allow open, democratic nomination contests in every riding. But he’s using the vetting process for nomination applicants to weed out abortion opponents and others considered unsuitable.

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.

Trudeau was initially stumped Wednesday when asked whether he’d allow Liberal MPs such as McKay to vote freely should an abortion bill come before the House of Commons. “Well, it’s a tough one because one of the things that’s a strength of the Liberal party is that we draw in voices from right across the country and on a range of perspectives,” he said.
Eventually, he added: “We will see what happens … when that issue comes up.

Way to take a stand junior.

My preference is that we not be engaging in a discussion of abortion. For me, it’s a debate that has been settled for the vast majority of Canadians and we don’t need to reopen that issue.”

Who brought it up?


This guy is such a tool, I can't imagine him addressing the G8 or the UN. Hate Harper all you want but at least he is competent.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You have never been married, have you?

I tell yeah, remaining single seems smarter all the time!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

No, I don't. But my opinion doesn't matter. The controlled drugs and substances act defines trafficking as...

" ... to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the (controlled) substance, (or) to sell an authorization to obtain the substance ... otherwise than under the authority of the regulations."

So in the eyes of the law, sure. Call em drug dealers. It's beside my point though, which was that I found it slightly amusing that Trudeau openly admits to consuming a controlled substance, and he's like, you know, so fresh and cool. Ford consumes a controlled substance and he's a raving redneck POS. For the record they are both asshats.

To me, Trudeau openly admitting to smoking weed coming into a election is incredible bad form. If you want to campaign on legalizing it, then fine, but he admitted criminality. To many people, people who view weed and coke to be drugs and drugs are bad mmkay, well they still vote. Sure, I know many people who smoke, and the worst thing that happens is a bag of nachos is consumed while watching a infomercial. I also as many who don't and disagree with it. Regardless of the potency/addictions of any drugs mentioned.

I just find the public court of opinion to be a fascinating thing when combined with media input.



Alright, you got me. Instead of drug dealers, lets call them the enlightened friends of J.T. I'm honestly sorry for bringing it up.

Haha, you seriously have to be kidding us? I've seen lots of silly things said in attempt to discredit hated politicians/parties on CP, but this takes the cake.

Calling his friends that he smoked weed with, drugs dealers was goofy as a one off remark, but to actually come back to defend the remark complete with a definition of "trafficking"?

Oh man.