[RD] Public Art Ruined by Alleged Serial Decalogue Destroyer

[Traitorfish]

Fair. But, this against a background in which the United States, Canada's closest neighbour, has elected a hideous leather garbage-troll, whose physical shabbiness and decrepitude, is widely perceived as paralleling his political incompetence, his policy-illiteracy, and his overall lack of any coherent plan, program, or even alibi. Presenting Trudeau as composed, elegant and vital, through sheer juxtaposition, implicitly frames him as an effective and savvy leader- and perhaps more importantly, flatters Canadian audiences (and by extension, American liberals who sympathise with Trudeau) by suggesting that they know a good leader when they see one.

Also, the internet is full of giant children who have yet to encounter a subject they cannot triviliased absolutely while pretending to take seriously.

But mostly the Trump thing.

 

[warpus]

Yeah I guess in the context of Trump being an ugly moron it's a bit more understandable. Nevertheless, if that's the case, it is easy enough to point out the eloquence, intelligence, and social awareness of Trudeau as a counterpoint to that as well, and not just his looks.

 

[Lexicus]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/justin-trudeau-unions-environment-arms-saudi-arabia/

 

[Synobun]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/justin-trudeau-unions-environment-arms-saudi-arabia/

Simply posting a link in an RD thread aside, this is hilarious:

This of course is the insidious danger of Justin Trudeau. He is the embodiment of the “edgy white liberal,” a living Ted Talk, a cosmopolitan George W. Bush with Jeb Bartlett’s politics.

It's tough to take articles like this seriously when they're written with talk show language.

...and, indeed, under Trudeau’s leadership, the Canadian state has again started to gripe about American tariffs, in particular regarding negotiations over the softwood lumber trade.

This true-blue free-trade neoliberalism with a dash of socially progressive measures is, after all, the Liberal party’s bread and butter.

You mean the tariffs Trump randomly instated to "get a better deal" for America...? That's hardly what I'd consider Trudeau getting in bed with the Chinese.

It's also incredibly belittling to suggest that everybody in Canada is too busy swooning over Trudeau to resist his apparent corporatism commie-loving people-hating agenda. Also, we're international warlords!

God, just a horrible article in every way. It's sad if you believe a lick of any of it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, they didn't exactly use the words "sexy and hot" about Kim Campbell back in 1993, but the media seemed a lot more interested in her clothes and shoes than they would have been about Brian Mulroney's clothes and shoes during the federal election that year.

To be fair, the clothes and shoes options for a male politician are pretty much limited to "grey suit" and "brown or black leather sensible shoes", so that's never going to garner much interest.

 

[Lexicus]

It's tough to take articles like this seriously when they're written with talk show language.

To, er, paraphrase Jack Sparrow, welcome to 2017, love.

God, just a horrible article in every way. It's sad if you believe a lick of any of it.

I mean, the only objections you've raised have to do with tone, not substance. What in the article is actually untrue?

 

[Synobun]

What in the article is actually untrue?

I don't have to prove a dismissal. Since you linked the article and apparently believe it wholeheartedly, you can prove the claims offered within (while using language from before 2017 apparently, since anything except mouth-frothing rhetoric is so last year).

 

[Farm Boy]

The lumber spats, this exact spat, have a history of dating to at least George Washington. Just for perspective on it. I would describe it as "normal functioning" of the relationship, tbh.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't have to prove a dismissal. Since you linked the article and apparently believe it wholeheartedly, you can prove the claims offered within (while using language from before 2017 apparently, since anything except mouth-frothing rhetoric is so last year).

I don't "believe it wholeheartedly," but I sure do believe the general point that Trudeau is, like Obama, a polished Radical Centrist whose policies are really bad in a lot of ways.
The environment:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...p-swooning-justin-trudeau-man-disaster-planet

But when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange guy in Washington.

Not rhetorically: Trudeau says all the right things, over and over. He’s got no Scott Pruitts in his cabinet: everyone who works for him says the right things. Indeed, they specialize in getting others to say them too – it was Canadian diplomats, and the country’s environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who pushed at the Paris climate talks for a tougher-than-expected goal: holding the planet’s rise in temperature to 1.5C (2.7F).

But those words are meaningless if you keep digging up more carbon and selling it to people to burn, and that’s exactly what Trudeau is doing. He’s hard at work pushing for new pipelines through Canadaand the US to carry yet more oil out of Alberta’s tar sands, which is one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet.

Last month, speaking at a Houston petroleum industry gathering, he got a standing ovation from the oilmen for saying: “No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

Yes, 173bn barrels is indeed the estimate for recoverable oil in the tar sands. So let’s do some math. If Canada digs up that oil and sells it to people to burn, it will produce, according to the math whizzes at Oil Change International, 30% of the carbon necessary to take us past the 1.5C target that Canada helped set in Paris.

That is to say, Canada, which represents one half of 1% of the planet’s population, is claiming the right to sell the oil that will use up a third of the earth’s remaining carbon budget. Trump is a creep and a danger and unpleasant to look at, but at least he’s not a stunning hypocrite.

Labor:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/09/03/trudeaus-fading-relationship-canadian-labour

I'm not going to bother quoting bits from this, but it's a pretty good summary of Trudeau's labor policy thus far and it's pretty bad.

"Struggling people everywhere":
This $15 billion arms sale to the Saudis as the Saudis systematically destroy Yemen is, at best, in poor taste, at least in my opinion. Here is a fairly good article about it:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...ort-controls-opponents-argue/article29769283/

And that about covers what needs covering as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly not going to defend every characterization or inflammatory word choice used in that article.

 

[Synobun]

Thank you for the links. I'll look into it to inform myself.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You mean the tariffs Trump randomly instated to "get a better deal" for America...? That's hardly what I'd consider Trudeau getting in bed with the Chinese.

It's also incredibly belittling to suggest that everybody in Canada is too busy swooning over Trudeau to resist his apparent corporatism commie-loving people-hating agenda. Also, we're international warlords!

God, just a horrible article in every way. It's sad if you believe a lick of any of it.

The softwood lumber issue is one that I remember being debated and sniped about in Question Period back when Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister. That's late-'70s to early '80s. It's an issue that has never gone away.

They think everyone in Canada "swoons" over Trudeau? They should read the comment sections of CBC.ca. Some of the things said are vicious - and that's what does make it past the outsourced, unaccountable moderators.

 

[Lexicus]

They think everyone in Canada "swoons" over Trudeau?

They don't, the article accuses the Canadian labor movement (or at least, parts of it) of swooning over Trudeau.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They don't, the article accuses the Canadian labor movement (or at least, parts of it) of swooning over Trudeau.

Quote, please - I'm not re-reading all that. Excuse me while I go check the news site to see how much swooning has been going on lately.

 

[Lexicus]

Quote, please - I'm not re-reading all that. Excuse me while I go check the news site to see how much swooning has been going on lately.

"In the past, the Canadian labor bureaucracy has fought trade agreements that would hurt the working class. Today, they’re too busy swooning over Trudeau to protect workers’ interests."

"They" pretty clearly refers to "the Canadian labor bureaucracy" here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"In the past, the Canadian labor bureaucracy has fought trade agreements that would hurt the working class. Today, they’re too busy swooning over Trudeau to protect workers’ interests."

"They" pretty clearly refers to "the Canadian labor bureaucracy" here.

What specific actions have they done or expressed that constitutes "swooning"?


I also read some of the articles that were linked... one of which complained about women's access to reproductive health care in the Maritimes. I agree that they don't have enough. Women had to leave Prince Edward Island to go to Nova Scotia for abortions. But what the article didn't bother to mention is that health care is a provincial responsibility, not a federal one.