[Public_Domain]

[Lemmy]

Okay, let's cut through the bullshit.

OTI: 3 questions: #1: Did you say you'd consider supporting a Liberal if they brought a platform you supported?
#2: Do you support Trudeau's position that the registry was a waste and a poor policy? That's been the conservative line all along, no?
#3: Why is it you're bashing Trudeau if you answered "yes" to #1 and #2?

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I know you'd avoid my question though. If Harpers' Masters in Economics makes him an economist and not a politician, then Lionel Ritchie is also an Economist and not a musician.

As I like to say, having a degree in English literature doesn't make one a novelist. Euphemistically speaking, Harper has a degree in English literature, he is not a novelist.

[uwish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

What we need is a shorter long gun registry and a longer short gun registry.

how about instead of trying to track every single firearm, lets track those convicts who shouldn't have them...why punish those who have proven not to be criminals.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Okay, let's cut through the bullshit.

OTI: 3 questions: #1: Did you say you'd consider supporting a Liberal if they brought a platform you supported?
#2: Do you support Trudeau's position that the registry was a waste and a poor policy? That's been the conservative line all along, no?
#3: Why is it you're bashing Trudeau if you answered "yes" to #1 and #2?

Perfect, let's cut through the bullshit.

Yes to #1 and #2.

Why is it considered "bashing" when I disagree with his recent flip-flop? I don't like any politican, blue, red or orange pandering to one group of the Country and then backtracking when it suits them. He's off to a poor start in his bid for leadership.

Was I "bashing" Peter McKay when I suggested he get fired? Was I bashing Bev Oda when I hoped that she got fired?

Why can't I say anything remotely negative about a guy that I've touted as our next PM and someone that I personally like? Do I have to continually kiss the guy's ass and agree with every step he takes along the way?

[Lemmy]

Isn't it more likely that Trudeau disagreed with the gun registry all along and his so-called flip-flop was really just him being able to speak his own opinion now, rather than towing the party line?

And if that's not the case and he really did switch his opinion, didn't he switch from a position you disagreed with to one you agree with? You should be applauding Trudeau for taking a stand against his party line and agreeing with your position. But no, you decide to trash him for flipping. Isn't that what you wanted him to do, to move to a position you agree with?

So, yes, you should be "kissing his ass" on this issue. But instead of saying "Hey, that Trudeau guy may be okay because he's right on the money in his stance on the gun registry", you decide to turn it into a Liberal-bashing opportunity.

How does that Sabbath tune "Sweet Leaf" begin? "HACK, HACK, HACK, HACK..."

[Unsound]

lemmy, i don't think most people have a problem with Trudeau voting the party line before, and now coming out with his own different opinion now that he's running for leader. That's pretty standard stuff in parliamentary democracy and most realistic political observes expect it.

The problem is that he had 2 different positions in 2 different parts of the country 2 days apart. That's pandering. If he's your guy feel free to rationalize it, or ignore it, or say it's no big deal, but one doesn't have to be a hack of any sort to think it's a bad way to satart a leadership campaign.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Isn't it more likely that Trudeau disagreed with the gun registry all along and his so-called flip-flop was really just him being able to speak his own opinion now, rather than towing the party line?

And if that's not the case and he really did switch his opinion, didn't he switch from a position you disagreed with to one you agree with? You should be applauding Trudeau for taking a stand against his party line and agreeing with your position. But no, you decide to trash him for flipping. Isn't that what you wanted him to do, to move to a position you agree with?

So, yes, you should be "kissing his ass" on this issue. But instead of saying "Hey, that Trudeau guy may be okay because he's right on the money in his stance on the gun registry", you decide to turn it into a Liberal-bashing opportunity.

How does that Sabbath tune "Sweet Leaf" begin? "HACK, HACK, HACK, HACK..."

Lemmy, you're only seeing one side of the equation here. You're only seeing the part where he said he thought the registry was a failure and ignoring his support of it just days later.

Justin didn't just say that he thought the registry was a failure, which it was and I agree with. Days later, he backtracked on those same comments saying that he'd do it all over again and supported Quebec going at it alone on their own registry.

That's what I have a problem with. Pick a side of the fence to stand on and stand there. Don't jump back and forth based on your audience.

unsound unsound:

The problem is that he had 2 different positions in 2 different parts of the country 2 days apart. That's pandering. If he's your guy feel free to rationalize it, or ignore it, or say it's no big deal, but one doesn't have to be a hack of any sort to think it's a bad way to satart a leadership campaign.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

lemmy, i don't think most people have a problem with Trudeau voting the party line before, and now coming out with his own different opinion now that he's running for leader. That's pretty standard stuff in parliamentary democracy and most realistic political observes expect it.

The problem is that he had 2 different positions in 2 different parts of the country 2 days apart. That's pandering. If he's your guy feel free to rationalize it, or ignore it, or say it's no big deal, but one doesn't have to be a hack of any sort to think it's a bad way to satart a leadership campaign.

Said in Ontario it was a failure. Said in Quebec that he supported the concept but would not try to resurrect it because it was divisive and a failure.

Ultimately he said the said thing but couched in different words. SHort of it is, the LGR is not coming back under his leadership.

That should be the take away.

[Lemmy]

Unsound Unsound:

lemmy, i don't think most people have a problem with Trudeau voting the party line before, and now coming out with his own different opinion now that he's running for leader. That's pretty standard stuff in parliamentary democracy and most realistic political observes expect it.

The problem is that he had 2 different positions in 2 different parts of the country 2 days apart. That's pandering. If he's your guy feel free to rationalize it, or ignore it, or say it's no big deal, but one doesn't have to be a hack of any sort to think it's a bad way to satart a leadership campaign.

He's not "my guy". I think I've probably been more critical of him, as a potential leader, than anyone else on CKA. Are you sure that Trudeau has actually given 2 different positions? I'm not convinced of that. Saying that the registry was a failure and also saying that there should be gun control isn't a flip-flop. Hacks are certainly trying to spin it that way, but that doesn't make it so. It's just an admission that the program we tried didn't work.

[OnTheIce]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Said in Ontario it was a failure. Said in Quebec that he supported the concept but would not try to resurrect it because it was divisive and a failure.

Ultimately he said the said thing but couched in different words. SHort of it is, the LGR is not coming back under his leadership.

That should be the take away.

Let's look at actual quotes, not just interpretations....

$1:

But I do see that the long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I am not going to resuscitate that.

We will continue to look at ways of keeping our cities safe and making sure that we do address the concerns around domestic violence right across the country in rural as well as urban areas in which, unfortunately, guns do play a role.

But there are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry.

followed by...

$1:

I voted to keep the firearms registry a few months ago and if we had a vote tomorrow I would vote once again to keep the long-gun registry

So why would he vote to maintain a system he called a failure and one that isn't as effective as other methods for keeping us safe?

Pandering.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Let's look at actual quotes, not just interpretations....

$1:

But I do see that the long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I am not going to resuscitate that.

We will continue to look at ways of keeping our cities safe and making sure that we do address the concerns around domestic violence right across the country in rural as well as urban areas in which, unfortunately, guns do play a role.

But there are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry.

followed by...

$1:

I voted to keep the firearms registry a few months ago and if we had a vote tomorrow I would vote once again to keep the long-gun registry

So why would he vote to maintain a system he called a failure and one that isn't as effective as other methods for keeping us safe?

Pandering.

NO! He's saying that the registry failed, but since it's already paid for, there's no reason not to keep it. That's not a flip-flop. It's not a contradiction. It's also a position I agree with. Even if the registry was a failure, it's a paid-for failure so there's nothing to be gained by scrapping it.

[Unsound]

The timeline, as i recall kinda goes like...

1) Voted against scrapping it. party line, understandable. No problem here
2) Said it was a "failure". Leadership race, staking out his own position on actual issues. Good for him.
3) Goes to Quebec. Loves the concept. Says he would vota against scrapping it again. Thinks it's great that Quebec is trying to keep it. Thinks that maybe all the provinces should decide for themselves. Huh? Is it or is it not a failure?
4) Realizes..."holy shit! it's the internet age, people can find out when I say different things to different audiences". Starts making excuses and explaining what he really meant by "failure".

this is pretty much off the top of my head, so please correct me if i'm wrong.

I'm not saying that an incident like this should kill his chances, but a pattern is starting to emerge here, and I'm not too sure I like what I'm seeing. And I say that as someone who's on the record here as saying that I kinda liked him and was paying attention to see if i could find a reason to vote liberal.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

NO! He's saying that the registry failed, but since it's already paid for, there's no reason not to keep it. That's not a flip-flop. It's not a contradiction. It's also a position I agree with. Even if the registry was a failure, it's a paid-for failure so there's nothing to be gained by scrapping it.

Ok, so take what you just said and tell me if it makes sense that he said he supports Quebec in getting their own registry off the ground?

$1:

I find it’s a very good idea. Because in Quebec it was not at all as divisive as it was elsewhere in the country,

So it's a good idea, despite being a failure because it's not divisive?

That's hilarious!

You're interpreting his comments in a way that suits your POV. He didn't say anything about costs and that the fact that it was already built so let's keep it...that's you putting words in his mouth to make your point.

[Lemmy]

Nope. You're the looking for a way to suit your POV. You're dreaming a contradiction because that's what you're out for. Hackery.