John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS

 

“Trudeau snubs Munk, Maclean’s/Citytv debates but will attend commission debates

“Liberal leader willing to do TVA debate if parties can agree on date”

 

There is a reference here to Trudeau as a “formidable debater.”

I don’t know because I didn’t see the debates for the last election.

But if there is any truth in the claim, it would tend to show only how little that is useful may be revealed in debates.

In politics, it is a genuine and repeated phenomenon to have people who know how to run for office and then prove incapable of actually running the office.

We’ve seen that happen a number of times, both in Canada and the United States.

So, if it is accurate that Trudeau is a “formidable debater,” it only gives us another example of that phenomenon because he has absolutely proved himself to be anything but a formidable national leader. He has been weak and indecisive, even slightly ridiculous at times.

But I tend to doubt the debating claim. Trudeau has always been decidedly unimpressive in the House of Commons. Apart from a relatively poor speaking voice, his command of facts and figures has never been impressive. And he is given to flaccid and unimpressive generalizations.

The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair was ferociously effective in the House of Commons, attacking Harper in his later days, making him squirm the way a great criminal lawyer is able to do with witnesses or the accused at a trial. Trudeau’s voice was absolutely feeble by comparison. He was simply unimpressive.

If Mulcair did not win those election debates, it is likely only because he held back, thinking that attacking what was then a new boyish face in politics – and one bearing the almost sacred name, Trudeau – might look bad.

If so, it was a serious error.

Unfortunately, in the upcoming election Canadians have a very bleak choice. All three major parties are offering quite unappetizing, cold leftovers for a big social occasion.

There is no good alternative to the proven-inept and subservient Justin Trudeau. Such, not infrequently is the unhappy reality of Western “democracies.”

Just look at the last national election in the United States. What a choice. Two figures from Madame Tussaud’s Chamber of Horrors.

And just look at the bleak prospects the Democrats have lined up for the next one – now that they’ve effectively dropped their only interesting candidate, Tulsi Gabbard – to oppose America’s first certifiably lunatic President.

____________________

Response to a comment about Trudeau refusing to participate in events not influenced by biased media:

I’m not trying to defend Trudeau. I certainly do not support, or even like, him.

But as to your comment about his not being willing to appear in debates “not manipulated by a biased media,” what can I say?

Maclean’s magazine? You are kidding? I’ve read it many times in a waiting room. Its bias is palpable.

The Munk organization functions much like an American think tank. Its output and the events it hosts are quite biased and show little genuine independent thinking. Mostly, they are not even interesting.

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY KATIE FORSTER IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

But a scam is exactly what it is.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the initiative did not come from the blind ambition of Hillary? Jill Stein’s tiny percentage of votes could not possibly change enough to matter.

The Green Party’s Jill Stein is being used as a stalking horse here.

Yes, that’s the same Jill Stein who during the campaign said that Trump’s thinking on foreign policy was preferable to Hillary’s aggressiveness.

Who is responsible behind the scenes?

George Soros, Hillary’s great intimate – as we saw in the Wiki-Leaks material, he regularly felt entitled to intimate access and to advise her on positions to take – and big financier and a billionaire dedicated to throwing his weight around in America and abroad.

His fake NGOs abroad, such as the phony White Helmets in Syria, have been directly associated with CIA activity in its efforts to re-make the face of the world.

His American NGOs, such as MoveOn.org, are associated with the early efforts to disrupt, in the fashion of Nazi street thugs of the 1920s, Trump rallies with hired strong-arm tactics.

A study has been made of the pattern of the supposed thousands of individual contributions to this recount cause.

The donations, in fact, come in neat little dollops with regularity, following a nice curve, the pattern of a computer bot operation – not of thousands of individuals acting.

So, Mr. Soros is able to contribute several million dollars – nothing for him, he has given Hillary tens of millions in the past – for this destructive purpose without the public’s knowing it.

And Hillary of blind ambition gets a last, desperate try for what she has lusted after for decades, again without the public’s knowing anything.

I don’t know what is in it all for Jill Stein for taking the lead role in the play, but you can be certain something important has been promised.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RINF

 

“Vindication Of Sanders”

Sorry, but this is an extremely superficial view.

Bernie proved himself a poor prospect for President when he utterly capitulated to Hillary, abandoning the hopes and enthusiasm of millions of followers.

She embodied everything that he rightly said was wrong, and he still went ahead, campaigning for this murderous and utterly corrupt person.

It was Bernie’s moment on the world stage, and he blew it, completely.

Well, if he could not stand up in private to Hillary and her flacks, he certainly could never hope to stand up to generals and admirals and high-level security people and the representatives of massive special interests.

Bernie’s behavior added strong evidence in support of the idea that a person may prove an excellent campaigner and a failure at actually doing anything worthwhile after campaigning.

Of course, Barack Obama had already provided convincing evidence for the truth of the idea.

________________________________________

Response to another reader’s comment about Bernie moving from New York to safe white Vermont:

There is truth in what you say.

There was a huge movement of urban whites out of the cities in the 1960s.

It was called White Flight, and I witnessed it first-hand in Chicago of the mid-1960s.

It remains one of America’s most profound and unresolvable realities.

The very high violent crime rates among black males is the main driving force, not skin color.

The stats are unmistakable with young black men committing violent crimes at something on the order of 8 times that of others, and we find exactly the same thing in places as diverse as South Africa or the Caribbean.

In fact, in recent years, we have seen successful, middle-class American blacks doing exactly the same thing. Leaving urban areas, on a smaller scale, smaller because there are simply fewer of them.

There is much hypocrisy around this matter amongst genuine American liberals like Bernie.

And hypocrisy doesn’t solve problems.