2019 an election year

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby hobbyguy » Jan 9th, 2019, 1:39 pm

Merry wrote:
Omnitheo wrote: do you have a specific policy based reasoning behind your dislike of Trudeau?

I could write a book on the subject Omnitheo, but for now I'll stick with just one of my many "beefs" about Trudeau.

His tendency to allow his desire for celebrity and personal popularity to override his duty to carefully consider what's best for our country as a whole. Included in that is his willingness to give ideology more priority than well thought out policy positions, and to often act impulsively as a result.

A good example would be the ill considered tweet he posted in an attempt to show the world he was a better man than Trump. Because all it did was prove Justin doesn't always think things through as well as a man in his position ought to, while at the same time creating a big headache at our border.

The following article describes the problem very well, and is worth the read:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is giving up Canada’s natural advantages when it comes to immigration, and he’s doing it to score cheap political points.

Instead of being smart and strategic about who we let into our country, the Trudeau government seems to prefer selecting failed asylum seekers from other Western democracies.

A Postmedia access-to-information request showed the chaos and confusion in the federal government after Trudeau sent out his infamous tweet inviting the world’s refugees to come to Canada.

On January 28, 2017, one day after U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning migrants from failed states and countries with hardline Islamists governments, Trudeau responded on Twitter: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.”

Trudeau’s message made international headlines and was widely seen as a response to Trump’s firm stance on migration from countries with terrorist ties.

In the months that followed, Canada saw a flood of migrants illegally crossing our southern border. More than 50,000 people entered illegally to make asylum claims in 2017, most of whom do not meet Canada’s definition of a refugee.

While border officials were scrambling, civil servants in the immigration department struggled to answer media questions about whether Canada was accepting migrants being turned away from the U.S.

The confusion didn’t end there. Canadian diplomats also saw a surge in questions surrounding Canada’s refugee policy following Trudeau’s tweet.

“Clients are asking if it is true that Canada will accept the refugees the U.S. are rejecting, and what is the process to do so… I would imagine that missions all around the world are seeing these enquiries increasing since the weekend,” wrote one official.

Canada’s immigration policy is not designed to accept migrants rejected from our neighbour and closest ally. Canada should never accept asylum seekers with deportation orders or those who were living illegally in the U.S. — a policy that could undermine all Canadians’ ability to cross the U.S. border with ease.

But thanks to our virtue-signaling prime minister, that’s what Canada got. Tens of thousands of migrants sneaking into Canada to avoid being deported from the U.S.

And this isn’t the only case of Canada taking rejected asylum seekers from one of our allies.

We learned this week that the Trudeau government is working on another deal to accept illegal migrants rejected by Israel. These migrants entered Israel illegally and come from fundamentalist Islamist societies, including Somalia and Sudan — terrorist hotbeds included in Trump’s travel ban.

Why would Canada volunteer to accept a group of migrants the Israeli government has labeled “illegal infiltrators”?

Perhaps for the same reason Canada volunteered to accept migrants the U.S. deemed too dangerous. Because our prime minister is a publicity hound who cares more about his voting base than the future of our country.

Millions of people around the world say they want to live in Canada. This allows us to select only the best and the brightest. We live in a naturally strategic location, away from failed states and terrorist hotspots. This helps shield us from unvetted terrorists posing as refugees.

To read the entire article, go here"
https://www.truenorthinitiative.com/tru ... n_strategy


The rise in refugee claimants was inevitable upon the racist T.Rump taking over the oval office. This would have happened regardless of stripe of government. The peculiarities of the US-Canada safe 3rd country treaty meant that those who feared T.Rump could NOT legally present themselves at the Canadian border as they already had active refugee claims in the US.

IF we had tried to negotiate changes to the safe 3rd country treaty, T.Rump would have just dumped it - as that would have encouraged refugee claimants from what T.Rump calls "s-hole" countries to flee to Canada freely, exactly what the racist T.Rump wanted.

In the context of difficult and pressing NAFTA 2.0 discussions (still not ratified) do you raise a "hot button" issue with the likes of T.Rump? Especially when there is zero opportunity for a positive outcome.

And NO, these claimants are NOT US "rejects" (or very, very few are) - they are folks who are caught up in a US system that has huge backlogs, and which T.Rump has deliberately underfunded and stifled to prevent the acceptance of refugees. T.Rump won't even let refugees legally present themselves at US borders (except for a minimal token number to skirt the law).

The premise that the refugee situation is of Canadian making is just nonsense. IF the safe 3rd country treaty was so bad, why didn't Harper change it? Because it has worked very well for a very long time, and in close to normal times was completely acceptable - but given T.Rump and his gang of alt-right racists like Miller (and until recently Sessions) the loophole becomes exposed.

Those that gin up this situation are simply playing with the politics of fear. I live in a multi-racial immigrant heavy neighborhood. Interestingly, it is one of the lowest crime neighborhoods in town.
Anyone but Scheer - career pols are know nothings.

Omnitheo likes this post.
hobbyguy
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10141
Likes: 2693 posts
Liked in: 10735 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 9:10 pm

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby hobbyguy » Jan 9th, 2019, 1:46 pm

The Green Barbarian wrote:
hobbyguy wrote:
Seriously though, JT has indeed done a very good job, ).


And even more seriously though, no, JT has not indeed done a very good job. He's spent like a drunken sailor, and done some incredibly stupid things. This carbon tax is just one of many incredibly stupid things he has done.


Quit with nonsense about drunken sailor spending. As a percentage of GDP, the Liberals are spending less on average than the Conservatives did during the bungle decade.

The carbon tax is not my favorite. It could do something positive (not enough), but is only reasonable in the context of revenue neutrality, and folks rightly don't believe that even if put in as revenue neutral that it will stay revenue neutral. The BC NDP took a chainsaw to the revenue neutrality argument, and destroyed the carbon tax discussion right in the middle of things.

But you know what? IF the carbon tax discussions spur real actions to act as alternatives to using a carbon tax - that will be really good for Canada. Long past time that CONservative politicians got off the fence and came up with a workable plan on air pollution.
Anyone but Scheer - career pols are know nothings.

2 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10141
Likes: 2693 posts
Liked in: 10735 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 9:10 pm

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Merry » Jan 9th, 2019, 1:57 pm

Another issue I have with the Trudeau Liberals revolves around their "cash for access" fundraising.

If you remember this was an issue back in 2016, soon after they were elected. Here's the background for those of you who need a reminder:
Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party have been under scrutiny regarding their multiple "cash-for-access" fundraisers. Cash for access can be described as providing money directly to a foundation or individual for meetings with high-ranking government officials, which could lead to a number of conflicts of interest.

The Liberals held a $1,500 cash-for-access fundraiser at a wealthy Chinese-Canadian business executive's mansion in May. In attendance was Chinese businessman Zhang Bin, who along with a partner donated $1 million to the Trudeau foundation and the University of Montreal Faculty of Law not long after the event. Bin is an adviser to the Chinese government and a state network which promotes Chinese interests around the world.

At this high-profile event were a number of Chinese billionaires, including insurance tycoon Shenglin Xian, who founded Wealth One Bank of Canada. This fundraiser had been at an opportune moment, as Xian had been waiting for approval from federal bank regulators for his Schedule 1 bank to start operations in Canada.

Since Schedule 1 banks are domestic, they may receive deposits within Canada. As of July, the Liberal government has approved this bank, which opened branches in multiple cities across Canada.

Such cash-for-access events go against the ethical guidelines and standards of conduct outlined by Trudeau when elected. A section of Trudeau's guidelines states that "There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties."

The Liberals voted down a motion from the Conservatives, supported by the NDP, to transfer the Liberals ethics rules on lobbying and fundraising to the ethics commissioner Mary Dawson. The intent of this motion was to prevent potential conflicts of interest in government and stop cash-for-access events in Canadian politics while upholding Trudeau's own promise for a transparency in government.

This scandal has shown a complete disregard for Canadian campaign finance laws, while the wealthy and lobbyists continue to erode democracy.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/luke-rebe ... 00284.html

Since then, the Libs have passed legislation that was supposed to fix this problem. But although the Legislation tinkered with some of the rules surrounding such fundraising, it does nothing to fix the fundamental problem. Here are some comments from Opposition Members of Parliament on the subject (my bold):
during the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister said, “There should be no preferential access to government or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.”

This is the rule the current Prime Minister set out for himself and for his cabinet. He said that there should be no preferential access to government, or even the appearance of preferential access, based on donations. However, this legislation would do nothing to effect that. Only the names of those who donate to political parties would be published, and the bill would change the timing of the publication of those names. Therefore, pay to play would continue, and cash for access would continue. This would just speed up when we tell people how the government was bought and sold. We would inform the public online more quickly how preferential access was given.

We are talking about this bill, the main goal of which is to restore the Liberals' reputation, which was tarnished by certain ministers and the Prime Minister. We are not talking about the Prime Minister's vacation to the Aga Khan's island. He was severely chastised by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner recently for that. We are talking about political party financing.

As we all know, politics and the exercise of democracy requires funding. Funding is needed to run an election campaign. In order to raise that money, some members of the Liberal government sold privileged access. At what price? It seems that the maximum amount that can be donated to a federal party is $1,500.

In May 2016, the Prime Minister went to the home of a wealthy businessman, where 32 guests paid $1,500 each for exclusive access to the leader of the government.

We also learned that the Prime Minister was present at receptions hosted by the wealthiest people and business people at $1,500 a plate, in order to meet people interested in the infrastructure bank. There were also Chinese nationals hoping to buy Canadian telecommunication companies in B.C. Other people had interests in cannabis, for example. All of these very influential people with a lot of money managed to land a private evening with the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister cannot deny it. This has been made public, so Canadians would know, which put him in an awkward position, much like the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice.

If that does not constitute selling access to ministers or the Prime Minister, I do not know what does.

In October 2016, as I said, it was the Minister of Finance who was hosting a cocktail party at $1,500 a plate with wealthy people from Bay Street. The Minister of Finance is supposed to be an arbiter and show fairness to all Canadians, since he regulates Canada's financial sector. However, he had no problem taking money from some of the world's wealthiest people.

The activities of the Minister of Justice have also been the subject of much discussion. What exactly is the problem? How is the Minister of Justice in conflict? Certain lawyers hoping for judgeships attended the Minister of Justice's fundraising events, which were held not in her riding, but in various places across the country. Since the minister is the one who approves judicial appointments, there is clearly a conflict of interest there.

Certainly political parties need to hold fundraisers to generate revenue and to have a platform for candidates' ideas during election campaigns. The problem is the lack of transparency with respect to who attends, what they talk about, and access to ministers.

“Open and Accountable Government” states the following:

There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions...

That is exactly what we are talking about today.

Let me be clear. Very few of our constituents, such as the people of Salaberry-Suroît, can afford to spend $1,500 to attend a private event. When someone is prepared to do so, they obviously expect something in return. In the case at hand, it is the possibility of becoming known to a minister or getting one's name into an address book, which could help get an idea or a project off the ground. It goes without saying that there is always the possibility of putting a word in or making a recommendation to the right person.

The only way to make these events less secretive is to make them more transparent. To that end, we have to allow the media to publicly report on the goings on at these events and to name who was present. One might think that that is the goal of Bill C-50 . However, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said, the Liberals invented the Laurier Club loophole.

In some cases, specifically during party conventions, people might donate the maximum amount of $1,500 to the Liberal Party, but the names and addresses of those donors do not have to be made public. Under Bill C-50, every donation of $200 or more will have to be recorded in a report sent within 30 days to Elections Canada, which could publish that report on the Internet. Again under Bill C-50, any fundraising activity that involves ministers, the Prime Minister, and party presidents has to be announced five days in advance, a measure we applaud. In fact, that is why we support this bill. However, that does not stop people from avoiding disclosure by buying a $1,500 ticket under the pretext of attending a Liberal Party convention, for example.

This is just another bill that allows the Liberals to have it both ways. They claim to want to improve transparency, but with a bit of game-playing and an open back door they can continue to provide Liberal Party donors with a bit of discretion to ensure that they do not have to disclose their names and addresses, except in a final report at the end of the year. They also get to keep organizing questionable events providing special access to the Prime Minister and ministers.

Is that loophole fair? Should it be removed? The NDP thinks so. We made this recommendation in committee and the Liberals rejected it outright. Every time we make a recommendation in committee, the Liberals take great delight in rejecting it. Why? If the recommendation improves a bill, if it improves transparency, if they are looking to be accountable to the public, and to be fairer, more equitable, and more ethical, why do they refuse to prohibit privileged access at conventions? No one knows. We suspect that the Liberals are not opposed to that revenue stream.

We are also asking that the Chief Electoral Officer be given investigative powers to ensure that political financing during elections is fair and equitable and that he has the public's trust. Once again, the Liberals rejected the NDP's recommendation out of hand. The NDP has made many recommendations in committee, but the Liberals have ignored them, even though that is part of the democratic process. What is the point of having committees if we cannot make sensible recommendations based on the advice of experts and common sense and if the Liberal majority, which refuses to listen to reason or to be open to other ideas, always prevails? What is the point of hearing from one witness after another, if in the end the government does not listen to any of their suggestions?

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-50/

If reading all that doesn't make you think twice about voting Liberal, I don't know what will.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8894
Likes: 8120 posts
Liked in: 7366 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Merry » Jan 9th, 2019, 2:10 pm

hobbyguy wrote:The rise in refugee claimants was inevitable upon the racist T.Rump taking over the oval office.

Trudeau has tried to blame the rise in the number of illegal border crossers following his irresponsible tweet on everything from Trump to Harper. Yet the fact remains that illegal border crossing surged following that idiotic and ill thought out tweet. And it's past time Trudeau acknowledged his mistake in posting it.

the illegal border crossing crisis only surged when Trudeau irresponsibly tweeted that everyone was welcome in Canada, which was taken as a signal that the country wouldn’t turn anybody away – even (and especially it seems) if they entered Canada illegally.

Even briefing notes from the Trudeau government itself confirmed that Justin’s tweet was a big cause of the crisis

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/05 ... ng-crisis/

Also, having caused much of the problem in the first place, the Libs have failed to do much to help resolve the issue. Always hiding behind the International agreement which the Libs claim tie their hands. Well, that's simply not true folks.
Article 31 [1951 Refugee Convention] states that “Contracting States cannot impose penalties” (i.e., fines or prison time) on asylum seekers who enter a country illegally, it does not prohibit a state from deporting them. Article 33 prohibits a state from deporting most refugees to a place where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” Nevertheless, the Convention does not obligate a state to accept refugees because no nation can accept an unlimited number of immigrants.

https://thenectarine.ca/crime/are-asylu ... e-jumpers/

Regardless of what we may, or may not, think of Trump, the United States can hardly be described as a country where someone's "life or freedom would be threatened" in the context intended in the agreement adopted at that 1951 Convention.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8894
Likes: 8120 posts
Liked in: 7366 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby The Green Barbarian » Jan 9th, 2019, 2:18 pm

hobbyguy wrote:
Quit with nonsense about drunken sailor spending. .


If this is directed at me, then I will respond with a resounding NO!!! as I will not be bullied by blinded partisan Liberal sheep. Their spending is off the freaking charts. Just ridiculous. The Liberals suck and they need to go.
Last edited by ferri on Jan 9th, 2019, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Making it personal
All evidence points to the snollygoster scown Justin Trudeau being unfit to run this country. The LIEberal platform is all foofrah. Don't be fooled by the LIEberal decepticons. October 2019 can't come fast enough.

5 people like this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 32793
Likes: 15571 posts
Liked in: 21901 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am
Location: Far away from any Leftists

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Omnitheo » Jan 9th, 2019, 3:20 pm

Merry, I'll get back to your posts on this page when I have a chance, but in regards to your comment about virtue signaling in proclaiming our willingness to take in refugees, I share a very different opinion.

One of the worst blemishes in canadian history, was our closing of our borders in the years leading up to WW2, and us turning away jewish refugees fleeing for their lives to our country.

There are currently people in the middle east facing similar persecution. Being forced from their homes either from war, or from religious zealots punishing them lest they join a terrorist cause.

Justin Trudeau standing up and saying that Canada will not shut them out when they need help the most, as we did during the 30's for the Jewish people is Canada learning from our past mistakes, and showing that we are strong enough as a nation to forge our own path independent from US pressure, as Cretien did vs George Bush.
"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable."
- Justin Trudeau

Ka-El likes this post.
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
 
Posts: 5785
Likes: 8855 posts
Liked in: 4726 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Omnitheo » Jan 9th, 2019, 3:22 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jan 9th, 2019, 4:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Making it personal
"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable."
- Justin Trudeau

kevingerry78 likes this post.
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
 
Posts: 5785
Likes: 8855 posts
Liked in: 4726 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Omnitheo » Jan 9th, 2019, 4:40 pm

Merry wrote:Another issue I have with the Trudeau Liberals revolves around their "cash for access" fundraising.


As long as there is transparency, is there really much of a problem with Cash for Access? provided it is not interfering with governance, it is simply just another fundraising opportunity. I agree with bill C50, and with having a requirement to publish the names. Interestingly, the conservative response to this in rejecting it seems mainly built around the conservatives wanting only the PM's meetings to be transparent but not for MPs, such as the leader of the opposition needing to disclose as much. I recommend reading Kevin Lamoureux's response in that link you provided, as it outlines some of the hypocrisy.

Unfortunately these restrictions around fundraising are always going to be modified and abused by any party which is in power in an attempt to boost their own fundraising, and restrict that of others. If you'll recall the Conservatives imposed limits when they were in power that would disenfranchise the other parties, but not the conservatives which relied more on other revenue streams. In Ontario, Conservative Doug Ford has recently made changes to not only allow Cash for Access, but also to increase the amount he is able to charge. (I know provincial and federal politics are different, but we've already made a number of accusations of the federal NDP in this thread based on the actions of provincial NDP parties).

In short, Cash for Access is ok for me, as long as
1)It does not interfere with the responsibilities of the minister (be it part in power, opposition, or prime minister)
2)Does not provide priviledged access to government
3) That attendees are disclosed, and revenue earned is reported for transparency purposes.

In this, I feel that the Prime Minister has done good in increasing transparency in government. The promise made during the election campaign regarding does not conflict with the changes made.

In her letter, Topp says it’s “important to note that political fundraising is explicitly permitted by the law and all official guidance” governing the conduct of public office holders. She goes on to describe measures the party takes to ensure it does not expose ministers or parliamentary secretaries to real or apparent conflicts of interest.

Among them, she says:

– No departmental stakeholders, lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms are “specifically targeted” for donations.

– Ministers and parliamentary secretaries featured at events are not asked for and never provide lists of suggested invitees and are not involved in planning the events.

– Guest lists for the events are vetted by the party to “determine if any individuals are registered lobbyists with active files associated with the relevant department and, if necessary, take steps so that the individual does not attend the event.”

– “Fundraising events are partisan functions where we do not discuss government business.” Hence, anyone who wishes to discuss policy at a fundraiser is “immediately redirected to instead make an appointment with the relevant office.”

– The party “takes great care” to ensure that all communications about fundraising events clearly identify them as partisan affairs, going so far as to drop the government titles of ministers or parliamentary secretaries who are featured at them. “We do not make any connection between fundraising and official government business.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/3048865/libe ... ndraisers/

Based on these restrictions, the events would, while being partisan, not be related to government business, and thus while people are paying access to see members of parliament, are not receiving privileged access to government.

Think of it as though I were a celebrity, I've stared in a movie. I can charge people money for my autograph, or just for them to listen to me ramble for a bit. And they're paying because they like me, they want to see and listen to me and say they did. I might be using this money to fund future projects I have, But I'm not giving away any details about my secret role in an upcoming movie. I'm not taking attendee suggestions or letting them buy my acting or talent. This entire meeting or expo or whatever I'm attending though has not interfered with my filming schedule or my standard duties as part of my actual job.

Does this analogy work, or do you feel even based on the guidelines set by the liberals that it constitutes a conflict of interest? Does that end once the person is no longer in government? (Harper has continued to charge for appearances for example).
"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable."
- Justin Trudeau
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
 
Posts: 5785
Likes: 8855 posts
Liked in: 4726 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Omnitheo » Jan 9th, 2019, 4:41 pm

The Green Barbarian wrote:
hobbyguy wrote:
Quit with nonsense about drunken sailor spending. .


If this is directed at me, then I will respond with a resounding NO!!! as I will not be bullied by blinded partisan Liberal sheep. Their spending is off the freaking charts. Just ridiculous. The Liberals suck and they need to go.


Pointing out that something someone says is wrong, when there is factual evidence proving so is not bullying. It is educating.
"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable."
- Justin Trudeau

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Omnitheo
Guru
 
Posts: 5785
Likes: 8855 posts
Liked in: 4726 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 10:10 am

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby The Green Barbarian » Jan 9th, 2019, 4:51 pm

Omnitheo wrote:
Pointing out that something someone says is wrong, when there is factual evidence proving so is not bullying. It is educating.


Except that this wasn't done. And trying to compare these bunch of drunken sailor Liberals to the Conservatives is ridiculous. The Liberals haven't had to fight a recession at all, and still are spending like drunken sailors. Just awful.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
All evidence points to the snollygoster scown Justin Trudeau being unfit to run this country. The LIEberal platform is all foofrah. Don't be fooled by the LIEberal decepticons. October 2019 can't come fast enough.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 32793
Likes: 15571 posts
Liked in: 21901 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am
Location: Far away from any Leftists

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby hobbyguy » Jan 9th, 2019, 5:40 pm

Ummm... GB, you just keep on cherry picking and deluding yourself. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

The entire "fiscal responsibility" big lie of the CONservatives is soooo obvious. No CONservatve government has ever, ever, done anything but drive up the national debt.

The bungle decade saw the Conservative nonsense take Canada from paying off the national debt under the Liberals to racking up more national debt in a big hurry, because the CONservatives are fundamentally imprudent.

That said, it is quite obvious to anyone who thinks, that the Harper chainsaw budgets at the end were a complete and utter fluff up based solely on trying to achieve a political talking point. The priority had to be to normalize interest rates (or at least try) as abnormally low rates were creating structural problems in our economy - but Harper and the CONservatives chose political talking points over the necessary good for the country. That just plain sucks!

At the moment we have a government that is correctly using a moderate and prudent amount of fiscal stimulus to offset the dampening effects of normalizing interest rates. Doesn't fit your CONservative imprudent talking points, but even Poloz agrees that the government budgets have been bang on for the context.

Reality is that the CONservative party has adopted the bogus "supply side" economics as part of their DNA and it simply fluffs everything up for the average Canadian. Perhaps it is because they don't even understand the Laffer curve as it relates to overall government spending.

So here's your challenge GB - what $25 billion in programs are you going to cut? And no, don't pick about for your favorite right wing stuff. Give us a list that adds up to $25 billion and no less. Then see if you can gt Scheer to run on that instead of smoke and mirrors nonsense. Good luck! Scheer would get about 7% of the vote if he did that. So we will get the total nonsense about "fiscal conservatism" and "summit fer nuttin" CONservative fluffery and rubbish.
Anyone but Scheer - career pols are know nothings.

2 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10141
Likes: 2693 posts
Liked in: 10735 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 9:10 pm

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby The Green Barbarian » Jan 9th, 2019, 6:13 pm

hobbyguy wrote:Ummm... GB, you just keep on cherry picking and deluding yourself. .


Hell no I don't. This is such a ridiculous argument, I can't believe you keep perpetuating it, as it just makes the stupid Liberals look worse and worse. What is the latest estimate of the deficit emanating from JT's crack team of drunken sailors? $37 billion?

Just ridiculous!!! What a bunch of boobs. 2019 - the year we kick out the Liberal drunken sailors.
All evidence points to the snollygoster scown Justin Trudeau being unfit to run this country. The LIEberal platform is all foofrah. Don't be fooled by the LIEberal decepticons. October 2019 can't come fast enough.

Carrs Landing Viking likes this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 32793
Likes: 15571 posts
Liked in: 21901 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am
Location: Far away from any Leftists

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Gone_Fishin » Jan 9th, 2019, 6:26 pm

The Trudeau carbon tax will be repealed by Andrew Scheer right after the 2019 election.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 "A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left."
Get a high school drama teacher to run a country, and what do you get? High school drama.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Guru
 
Posts: 5066
Likes: 7068 posts
Liked in: 5228 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 7:43 am

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Merry » Jan 9th, 2019, 7:29 pm

Omnitheo wrote:One of the worst blemishes in Canadian history, was our closing of our borders in the years leading up to WW2, and us turning away Jewish refugees fleeing for their lives to our country.

There are currently people in the middle east facing similar persecution. Being forced from their homes either from war, or from religious zealots punishing them lest they join a terrorist cause.


I agree with both those statements Omnitheo, and share your view that Canada should be willing to take in genuine refugees such as those you describe. But the majority of those crossing our border illegally are NOT from places like Syria; rather they are mainly economic migrants, coming from what are admittedly not very nice places, looking for a better life in Canada. And although I don't blame them for wanting to better their lot in life, they should not be allowed to jump the queue while other economic migrants who follow the correct legal process wait their turn in line.

In addition to jumping the queue, these folks are using up precious resources that were intended for genuine refugees. And it ought not to be allowed.

Justin Trudeau didn't write that tweet because he's worried about such folks, he wrote it to as a poke in the eye to Donald Trump. And Canada has been suffering the consequences ever since.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8894
Likes: 8120 posts
Liked in: 7366 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: 2019 an election year

Postby Merry » Jan 9th, 2019, 7:33 pm

Omnitheo: the problem with "cash for access" is that it means those with the financial ability to put themselves into a position where they can "bend" a minister (or Prime Minister's) ear" end up with far more influence on Government policy than ordinary citizens (who can't afford to attend such dinners) do.

That, in and of itself is a good reason not to allow this kind of fund raising. But that undue influence becomes even worse when the folks buying the access are from a foreign country.

Why should foreigners be able to be in a better position to influence Government policy than average Canadians are?
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 8894
Likes: 8120 posts
Liked in: 7366 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canada

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 4 guests