Big Guy Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) I thank the mods for moving this post to the proper section. It looks like there are still remnants of Trudeaumania of the Pierre variety. JT got a long spot on 60 Minutes and the reaction appears generally positive: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-house-state-dinner-justin-trudeau-barack-obama-1.3476971 A state dinner is planned in Washington hosted by Obama this weekend. It appears that some charisma of the father had rubbed off on the son. Well done JT. Harper tried his best with Obama I hope you do better. Edited March 7, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 The Canadian media is all giddy with what transpired during the 60 minute interview. The Interview can be viewed at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-prime-minister-trudeau/ We may have a new quote for posterity, "Politics is like boxing: boxing is not about how big a punch you can throw. It's about how big a punch you can take & keep going". Interesting that this coming "State Dinner" is the first since April 8, 1997 when Clinton hosted Chretien. In politics, everything is done for a reason. Why is the Obama giving a State Dinner for JT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 In politics, everything is done for a reason. Why is the Obama giving a State Dinner for JT? To see how well he can take a punch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Obama knew that Harper was a tough negotiator. He also knows what a pushover the giddy young Trudeau is going to be. He's licking his chops like a dog looking at a t-bone steak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Obama knew that Harper was a tough negotiator. He also knows what a pushover the giddy young Trudeau is going to be. He's licking his chops like a dog looking at a t-bone steak. What is it that Obama hopes to get from that pushover giddy Trudeau that he is not getting now? An American State Dinner is an honor not bestowed lightly by the USA. My understanding is that it is a public relations photo op for both leaders. In fact, I understand that there is no meeting planned. Edited March 7, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Okay....maybe the third time is a charm. I will post the exact same good luck to PM Trudeau with linked references (i.e. softwood lumber, KXL pipeline): ...Trudeau’s visit comes at a when United States-Canada relations are at a high point. They were strained for years, largely as previous conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was angered by Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, hugely popular in Canada and important to its oil industry. But he rejected that days into Trudeau’s tenure, and while Trudeau said he was “disappointed,” he added, “the Canada-U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project and I look forward to a fresh start with President Obama to strengthen our remarkable ties in a spirit of friendship and co-operation.” ....Trade will also likely be a top item. The United States has an agreement not to charge the tariffs on Canada’s softwood lumber industry that it says it can, something very important to Canada, but the agreement will expire soon. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/271887-obama-hosts-canadas-trudeau-next-week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Okay....maybe the third time is a charm. I will post the exact same good luck to PM Trudeau with linked references (i.e. softwood lumber, KXL pipeline): Maybe the problem is you should add some commentary to it? You know, discuss this stuff rather than quoting a link with no other comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Obama is hosting Justin because time's running out on this Presidency and Obama wants it on record that he feted a soul brother while he's still in office. Some business will be discussed. I can imagine who will have the upper hand at these talks and my guess is it will not be the newcomer to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Maybe the problem is you should add some commentary to it? You know, discuss this stuff rather than quoting a link with no other comment. My original posts presented very probable topics of discussion between the Canadian PM and the United States president, now confirmed by linked media content. I also wished Trudeau good luck (as in some positive outcome given past cross border negotiations and controversy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 It appears that some charisma of the father had rubbed off on the son. Well done JT. Harper tried his best with Obama I hope you do better. Or was it simply a case of timing? In the history of the State Dinners (or as far as I can see), no Conservative has ever gone to Democratic State Dinner and conversely, no Liberal has ever gone to a Republican Dinner. Here's the list from this article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/state-dinner-a-sign-of-warm-relations-between-trudeau-obama/article29040635/) 2016 - Trueau Jr and Obama 1997 - Cretien and Clinton 1986 - Mulroney and Regan 1977 Trudeau and Carter 1969 - Trudeau and Nixon 1960 - Diefenbaker and Eisenhower 1945 - Mackenzie King and Truman Lefties stick with lefties and righties stick with righties. Harper could have tried all he wanted but the odds were stacked against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Or was it simply a case of timing? In the history of the State Dinners (or as far as I can see), no Conservative has ever gone to Democratic State Dinner and conversely, no Liberal has ever gone to a Republican Dinner. Here's the list from this article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/state-dinner-a-sign-of-warm-relations-between-trudeau-obama/article29040635/) 2016 - Trueau Jr and Obama 1997 - Cretien and Clinton 1986 - Mulroney and Regan 1977 Trudeau and Carter 1969 - Trudeau and Nixon 1960 - Diefenbaker and Eisenhower 1945 - Mackenzie King and Truman Lefties stick with lefties and righties stick with righties. Harper could have tried all he wanted but the odds were stacked against him. An interesting analysis. I have never been a Harper fan but there were a number of times when he went on the world stage representing Canada. I am a proud Canadian and I was proud of how Harper was showing leadership and how he was treated on the world stage. I remember watching as Mulroney and Reagan sang "Irish Eyes" together on stage. I was proud to be a Canadian and proud of the way Mulroney represented my country. Now we have a situation where our PM is being feted and honored by the President of the USA. I also saw the interview with the 60 minutes program. I thought he represented Canada very well and was proud of the way he achieved it. Over the years I have supported the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Reform Party (I still have my Reform hat) in domestic politics. Through all of these years I have also been a supporting Canada, proud to be a Canadian and would defend my country on the international level. I am Canadian first and ---------- second. So far JT has represented Canada very well. I am proud of and revel in the accolades which he is receiving from around the globe because it reflects on me. I hope we can avoid the pandemonium and fiasco that is taking place in the USA. That is what happens when you are a Republican first and an American second. We should know better. Edited March 8, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Over the years I have supported the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Reform Party (I still have my Reform hat) in domestic politics. Through all of these years I have also been a supporting Canada, proud to be a Canadian and would defend my country on the international level I voted for Chretien and Martin in past elections. I voted for Harper in the more recent ones as I started to align myself with more Conservative beliefs however that wouldn't have stopped me for voting Liberal if they put someone in that I felt was vote worthy. My only issue with Trudeau is that he was elected into the highest seat in office without having done anything. If his name wasn't Trudeau, he wouldn't be there. I am Canadian first and ---------- second. 100% agreed So far JT has represented Canada very well. I am proud of and revel in the accolades which he is receiving from around the globe because it reflects on me. Objectively speaking, JT has provided a different approach to politics with his personality. I liked when he quieted his crowd to let the journalist ask him a question that he knew was scathing. I also liked how he went to the subway station to shake peoples hands after he was elected. He certainly is on the level with the average Canadian....and that's a good thing and a bad thing. I like that he's approachable but I'm scared of what he has to offer beyond that. So far its been a lot of beating around the bush and trying to please everyone. Ultimately a good leader is going to have people who don't like him or her simply because they are making decisions. Edited March 8, 2016 by Charles Anthony spelling "Chretien" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 In the history of the State Dinners (or as far as I can see), no Conservative has ever gone to Democratic State Dinner and conversely, no Liberal has ever gone to a Republican Dinner. 2016 - Trueau Jr and Obama 1997 - Cretien and Clinton 1986 - Mulroney and Regan 1977 Trudeau and Carter 1969 - Trudeau and Nixon 1960 - Diefenbaker and Eisenhower 1945 - Mackenzie King and Truman Lefties stick with lefties and righties stick with righties. Harper could have tried all he wanted but the odds were stacked against him. Did you even look at the list? Trudeau - Nixon Mackenzie King - Truman Your theory doesn't pan out at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Did you even look at the list? Trudeau - Nixon Mackenzie King - Truman Your theory doesn't pan out at all. Yes...Nixon was a Republican. That is correct. However, King was a Liberal and Truman was a Democrat. So out of 7, there is only one that doesn't match. So what were you saying about my theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Yes...Nixon was a Republican. That is correct. However, King was a Liberal and Truman was a Democrat. So out of 7, there is only one that doesn't match. So what were you saying about my theory? My mistake. However, Trudeau-Nixon wrecks your theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Also, this is the first state dinner with Canada in 19 years... they haven't been all that important to the last few Presidents. Edited March 8, 2016 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Also, this is the first state dinner with Canada in 19 years... they haven't been all that important to the last few Presidents. Some more than others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._State_Dinners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 My mistake. However, Trudeau-Nixon wrecks your theory. Reagan hosted Gorbachev... Sometimes there are more important factors in these state dinners than hanging out with your buddy next door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 However, Trudeau-Nixon wrecks your theory. 6 out of 7 still shows a large tenancy to a partisan relationship. That's all I was trying to show. I don't know the circumstances as to why Nixon invited Trudeau but as per the article, their relationship was 'frosty' at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 My mistake. However, Trudeau-Nixon wrecks your theory. Nixon despised Trudeau. If he threw him a state dinner it was to try and get him to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Obama knew that Harper was a tough negotiator. He also knows what a pushover the giddy young Trudeau is going to be. He's licking his chops like a dog looking at a t-bone steak. I don't think Harper would have appreciated a state dinner. He was an introvert, not an extrovert. He'd have thought it a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 6 out of 7 still shows a large tenancy to a partisan relationship. And yet no Harper dinner for Bush. There was an Official Dinner for Bush in the Canadian Museum of History (Civilization) put on by Martin though. That doesn't fit with your theory either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 Obama: You hang up first! Trudeau: No, you hang up first! Obama: No, YOU! Trudeau: No, YOU! Obama: No, YOU! etc., etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 And yet no Harper dinner for Bush. There was an Official Dinner for Bush in the Canadian Museum of History (Civilization) put on by Martin though. That doesn't fit with your theory either. Harper was running for office when Bush was throwing two of his three state dinners. The other dinner had the Queen of England and was the first state dinner in four years. Obviously Bush was still pissed at Canada for not joining in Iraq. Any other questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Harper was running for office when Bush was throwing two of his three state dinners. The other dinner had the Queen of England and was the first state dinner in four years. Obviously Bush was still pissed at Canada for not joining in Iraq. He was pissed at the guy who wanted to join him in that war? The reality is, he didn't care about Harper. Not many people outside of Canada did. Any other questions? Why did the Liberal Martin throw an official dinner for Bush? How does that fit into your theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.