I didn't think we had a thread for this. 

Is Trudeau this out of touch or does he just not care?

 

On 2018-06-20 at 3:33 PM, tacklewasher said:

It's been a given for a while.

Although I'm curious what people think about Manitoba wanting to restrict home plants. Seems kinda odd to me.

 

The first time somebody gets charged and challenges it, the restriction will be gone. I've read that it's unenforceable.

I don’t know if he did it or not but his careful use of that odd terminology is suspicious. 

 

He should resign. 

The Office of the Prime Minister of Canada, when asked about the “groping” allegation – and groping, in case you are wondering, is addressed in the Criminal Code as sexual touching without consent – had this to say:

“As the prime minister has said before, he has always been very careful to treat everyone with respect. His first experiences with activism were on the issue of sexual assault at McGill, and he knows the importance of being thoughtful and respectful. He remembers being in Creston for the Avalanche Foundation, but doesn’t think he had any negative interactions there.”

Wow.  See that? He “doesn’t think he had any negative interactions there.”  Not exactly a categorical denial.

So, that matters, and so does this: the young woman who was assaulted doesn’t want to say anything else about the incident.  She holds a senior position in a federally-regulated sector, and she is undoubtedly afraid about what could happen to her and her family.

The liberal media in this country who love Trudeau will protect him so he won't resign. 

5 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The liberal media in this country who love Trudeau will protect him so he won't resign. 

Probably but it could be an election issue.  It should be headline news at every newspaper and network.  

Hes obviously lying.   And the fact he’s lying lends credence to him being guilty.   

Worse, his “apology” didn’t apologize for the groping, it apologized for groping a national media member.  Implying that 1) he knew he was wrong. 2) he groped regularly. 3) he’s grope women as long as they aren’t national media members who could get him into trouble. 

By his own standards, he has to resign 

3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Probably but it could be an election issue.  It should be headline news at every newspaper and network.  

Hes obviously lying.   And the fact he’s lying lends credence to him being guilty.   

Worse, his “apology” didn’t apologize for the groping, it apologized for groping a national media member.  Implying that 1) he knew he was wrong. 2) he groped regularly. 3) he’s grope women as long as they aren’t national media members who could get him into trouble. 

By his own standards, he has to resign 

I absolutely agree but Trudeau's teflon. The media could break him if they wanted to. I don't think they want to as he restored funding to the CBC. Look what they did to Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown. The media destroyed him because he's Conservative. 

Yup you’re right. 

a sitting PM on record as apologizing for groping a woman. And CBC says nothing to see here. 

Innocent until proven guilty anyone? I mean Trudeau is an idiot but this story doesn't seem to have many legs outside of people looking for something to pin on Trudeau. 

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Innocent until proven guilty anyone? I mean Trudeau is an idiot but this story doesn't seem to have many legs outside of people looking for something to pin on Trudeau. 

When it comes to issues like this, its generally not the same as any other accusation of criminal wrong-doing.  When you take the position that women are to be believed, you will invariably have cases of false accusations.  Most of the time, you can tell the difference with some common sense.

This isn't that though.

This was a decade ago (long before the MeToo movement).  The victim was a national media member (which does add to her credibility).

Oh and he friggen apologized! Which is as close to an admission you'll get.  Now, you have his silence followed by very specific choice of words "negative interaction" which is used because he is guarding against more details coming out and he can say he didnt lie (I guess getting a handful of a reporter wasn't negative for JT).

Keep in mind, the victim didnt come forward.  Someone came across the newspaper article and sent it to media. 

The reason its relevant (besides the fact its the Prime Minister) is because the way you'd view this in the wake of MeToo is different and more serious and more damning of the men) and because JT's own position is, people accused of this conduct are not cabinet-worthy.  Thus, by his own standards, he must resign.

The idea that this never happened simply doesnt pass the sniff test.

The victim wants to remain anonymous.  I suspect JT's off statement is partially to avoid calling her a liar which could anger her enough to change her mind.  We know from the Wab story how this plays out and you can bet JT's people have been in contact with the victim to ensure she remains anonymous.

Look, guys get drunk at get handsy all the time (women do too, by the way).  There are worst crimes.  But this is the Prime Minister, he's a hypocrite and he set the standard by which he should be judged.  And by that standard, he's finished.

Oh something woulda happened, but considering the person it happened to isn't saying anything and it's all about other people banging the drum, that tells me that the assault probably wasn't assault and it's a witch hunt. 

Until we get some actual details I'm going to assume this is just people trying to play "gotcha!" with the prime minister. 

27 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Oh something woulda happened, but considering the person it happened to isn't saying anything and it's all about other people banging the drum, that tells me that the assault probably wasn't assault and it's a witch hunt. 

Until we get some actual details I'm going to assume this is just people trying to play "gotcha!" with the prime minister. 

How can it be a witch hunt or "gotcha" if it happened?  If you believe the Prime Minister groped a woman, the choice by the victim not to press charges or to speak publicly today does not erase the act. 

The reason it's news today is because JT set the standard in his government for what would happen when an accusation is made.  You could make the argument that its not a new allegation and the victim isnt talking, which makes it different from others.  But it sure stinks if JT's position is everyone else should be held to a standard that he shouldn't be held to.

Its not a gotcha when the PM was forced to apologized.  Its a "already gotten" and the fact Mr Morals' response was to plead faulty memory with some well parsed words is pretty slimy.

Trudeau apologizes so much it's got no meaning. 

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Trudeau apologizes so much it's got no meaning. 

Apologizing for groping someone has a whole lot of meaning.  Especially as it was specific to this person (ie. if I had known you were media, I'd have not groped you).  He didnt even try to cloud the issue with his apology.  He essentially admitted he did it.  If this was a Conservative, it would be lead story on CBC until the person was gone.

This seems to be the kind of team playing that has made America so ****** up. Until I see some guilt anywhere this is just people who don't like Trudeau trying to win one against him. 

12 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

This seems to be the kind of team playing that has made America so ****** up. Until I see some guilt anywhere this is just people who don't like Trudeau trying to win one against him. 

I always ask myself how I'd feel if it was "my" guy.  You should do the same.  He apologized for groping someone.  Where is the question here?  "Well, he might have admitted it but that doesnt mean he did it"?  lol  The issue isnt that he committed some horrendous crime, its that by HIS standards, he is not fit for cabinet.

 

9 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I always ask myself how I'd feel if it was "my" guy.  You should do the same.  He apologized for groping someone.  Where is the question here?  "Well, he might have admitted it but that doesnt mean he did it"?  lol  The issue isnt that he committed some horrendous crime, its that by HIS standards, he is not fit for cabinet.

Well, I hope she comes forward then and take him down. 

14 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Innocent until proven guilty anyone? I mean Trudeau is an idiot but this story doesn't seem to have many legs outside of people looking for something to pin on Trudeau. 

What about the Kent Hehr stories? He had to resign as a cabinet minister & then was suspended from caucus while there was an "investigation".  All Hehr did was make lewd comments but he didn't grope anyone. Using Trudeau's standards he should resign as Prime Minister. But he won't. 

Edited July 4, 20187 yr by SpeedFlex27

Unless Warren outs her its a dead issue.

 

6 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Unless Warren outs her its a dead issue.

 

If it’s a dead issue it’s because the media won’t cover it.  It should be very scary to Canadians that some media is afraid to cover a story about JT because they rely on funding from JT.  That stinks worse than any Fox News/ trump relationship does. 

The PM on record apologizing for groping a woman. This should be the biggest news in the country. It’s been lead news in other countries, even. 

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

What about the Kent Hehr stories? He had to resign as a cabinet minister & then was suspended from caucus while there was an "investigation".  All Hehr did was make lewd comments but he didn't grope anyone. Using Trudeau's standards he should resign as Prime Minister. But he won't. 

It's not the same standard. Hehr was already an elected gov't official when he got in trouble. Being in a position of power makes what he did worse.

41 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

The PM on record apologizing for groping a woman.

No, he's not. The quote in the paper was " "I'm sorry, If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I never would have been so forward." There's a difference between that and "I'm sorry I groped you". 

23 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

No, he's not. The quote in the paper was " "I'm sorry, If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I never would have been so forward." There's a difference between that and "I'm sorry I groped you". 

"You groped me"

"Sorry for being so forward"

Talk about blind partisanship. 

Edited July 4, 20187 yr by The Unknown Poster

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

"You groped me"

"Sorry for being so forward"

Talk about blind partisanship. 

I didn't realize you had a made up conversation to support your point. That changes everything.

 

 

14 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I didn't realize you had a made up conversation to support your point. That changes everything.

 

 

 

Victim reported the behavior, JT apologized for it.  Why on earth would anyone try to say it didnt happen?