Scape wrote:
Mustang1 wrote:
No one is saying that they have no business being in a federalist party or federal politics, but to pull the wool over your eyes regarding their political judgement is rather naive.
Personally, i have a significant problem with anyone that has openly supported separatism in my country and if that person later, perhaps rather conveniently or opportunistically, decides to commit themselves to the federalist cause, then fine, but that doesn't erase their rather recent political commitments nor does gloss over a rather questionable tendacy to drift towards ugly political movements.
This isn't self-defeating, it's good citizenry.
I'm not quite soldon that. For a very long tome in Quebec there were only two parties of any real power and if you wanted to get anything done you had to go with the party in power. For so long it had been the separatists. There is more an issue of real politik then of treason here.
Really? Last time I checked the Liberals ran (and they've hardly been a blip in provincial politics) the province (and federally, Liberals and Conservatives were viable electorally even in the 2008 election), so she turns to the QS?!?!? Yeah, right.
Separatism is NOT pragmatic, not even in a Quebec political context. In fact, due to the fact that there are viable alternatives (Liberals - a sitting provincial party -, NDP, Conservatives, federally) its highly likely that by consistently, and recently, joining political parties with separatist agendas - especially the radical QS!! - she's in any way a political realist. Her very recent past caught up with her, and any responsible citizen should hold her political judgement accountable for it.
This wasn't some action of wayward youth, it was a consistent, recent and constant drift, not flirtation, with multiple separatist, even radical separatist groups. At the very least, she's a naive, opportunistic, flip-flopper, and at the worst, she's a separatist that saw the writing on the political wall and moved accordingly.
CKA Moderator 
